Abingdon

Abingdon was one of a number of English towns which had never been enfranchised during the middle ages because they had been dominated by a major monastic foundation. The Benedictine abbey at Abingdon had been one of the great monasteries of England and its mitred abbot had sat in the House of Lords. Its dissolution by Henry VIII had left the town without its principal source of wealth at a time when the main alternative, cloth manufacturing, was facing decline. The town was still struggling economically in the seventeenth century and the fighting during the civil war would compound those problems. Easier to solve had been the local administrative vacuum created by the monks’ departure. In 1556 a royal charter had incorporated the town. Under the terms of that grant, its new corporation consisted of 12 principal burgesses and 16 secondary burgesses, with three of the burgesses serving as the mayor, and two bailiffs. Selections from the Municipal Chronicles of the Bor. of Abingdon ed. B. Challenor (Abingdon, 1898), 5. The charter also enfranchised the town, giving the ‘mayor, bailiffs and burgesses’ the right to elect one MP. Municipal Chronicles, 7-8. Unfortunately, this wording proved to be ambiguous, for it was unclear whether those ‘burgesses’ were to be interpreted only as the principal and secondary burgesses or as all the freemen.

By the early seventeenth century the Abingdon corporation had gained a reputation for bitter in-fighting and there were some indications that the extent of the parliamentary franchise was already in dispute. Between 1640 and 1660 such arguments became a regular feature of the elections. By the mid-1630s tensions within the corporation were partly based on a split between supporters and opponents of Charles I’s religious policies. Whitelocke, Mems. i. 66-7; Whitelocke, Diary, 90-1, 92. This prompted the recorder, Bulstrode Whitelocke*, to complain that the town was ‘overwhelmed with different and fierce factions’. Whitelocke, Diary, 116. Several gentry families from the surrounding area had previously vied with each other for influence in the parliamentary elections. Sir Robert Knollys† had been the MP in three of the four Parliaments between 1614 and 1626, but in 1628 the seat had been gained instead by John Stonhouse† of Radley. The town’s high steward in 1640 was the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich†). Berks. RO, TF41 (microfilm), f. 152.

Whitelocke had been the recorder since 1632. Berks. RO, TF41, f. 155; Whitelocke, Diary, 67-8, 70, 71, 72, 73, 90-1, 98, 106, 109, 111, 116, 118. Edward Hyde* seems to have assumed that a seat here would be Whitelocke’s most obvious option for the Short Parliament. Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. VII, f. 353. According to his own account, Whitelocke, encouraged by some of the inhabitants, wrote to the mayor indicating his intention of standing. Whitelocke, Diary, 119. However, he was thwarted by Sir George Stonhouse*, younger brother of the MP of 1628. Whitelocke’s description of Stonhouse’s electioneering fully conveys, with more than a hint of irony, just how shameless he thought his opponent to be.

But Sir George Stonhouse, a justice of peace and near neighbour to the town, wrought by more effectual means upon the vulgar people; he employed his butcher, brewer, vintner, tailor, shoemaker and other like instruments to labour for him and for themselves, and above all other arguments, he prevailed by his beef, bacon and bag pudding, and by permitting as many of them [as would] be drunk at his charge, at the town alehouses, and by these laudable and honourable means he convinced their judgments that therefore he was the ablest person to serve as their burgess in this Parliament. Whitelocke, Diary, 119.

Although he was not present in person at the election on 19 March, Whitelocke claimed that the crowd ‘hoisted Sir George upon their shoulders, and crying in zeal and strong drink, a Stonhouse, a Stonhouse’. Whitelocke, Diary, 120. In advance of the election, Whitelocke was admitted as a secondary burgess, but, as he was absent, this did not give him a vote and, in any case, the votes of the corporation did not decide the result. Berks. RO, TF41, f. 164. On this occasion, it was the freemen who elected the MP and Stonhouse’s liberality among them paid off. C219/42, pt. 1, f. 60. Rightly or wrongly, Whitelocke believed that had the vote been confined only to the corporation, he would have been elected instead. Whitelocke, Diary, 120. The corporation swore Stonhouse in as the new MP on 2 April. Berks. RO, TF41, f. 164.

Stonhouse was re-elected later that year. There was probably no other candidate and what little evidence there is about the election on 16 October 1640 is not enough to indicate which franchise was used. Berks. RO, TF41, f. 165. Although Stonhouse continued to sit intermittently at Westminster once armed conflict broke out between the king and Parliament, doubts about his loyalties grew among his parliamentary colleagues during the course of 1643. While Stonhouse had probably not offered any real support to Charles I, his estates, like his constituency, were now controlled by the king and the Commons finally concluded that he could not be trusted. On 22 January 1644 he was expelled from the House. CJ iii. 374a. That left Abingdon without any representation in Parliament.

The royalist hold on Abingdon was lost in late May 1644 when those forces fell back on Oxford, allowing Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, to occupy the town on 25 May. This was an important moment in the war as it meant that the parliamentarian army was now able to besiege Oxford directly. Abingdon served as a useful base from which those operations could be conducted. Once lost, the town was never regained by the king. With the parliamentary seat still vacant and a strong military presence to help influence the result, a writ for a new election was ordered on 26 September 1645. CJ iv. 288a. On 25 October the borough returned the former county Member, Henry Marten, who had been expelled from the House in August 1643. Berks. RO, TF41, f. 169. Securing election at Abingdon served to remind his former colleagues of his personal popularity and put pressure on them to reconsider the case for his readmission. This tactic worked. The Commons met to consider the matter on 6 January 1646. Rather than allowing him back in as the MP for Abingdon on the basis of his recent election, the Commons decided instead to reverse his expulsion, now re-admitting him for his original seat as a knight of the shire for Berkshire. This amounted to a vindication for Marten. As a logical consequence of that decision, the Abingdon seat had to be considered still vacant, so the Commons immediately ordered that a second writ be issued. Infra, ‘Henry Marten’; CJ iv. 397b; Add. 31116, p. 504.

One reason why Marten had been elected was that he had strong connections with northern Berkshire. He now used these to influence the result of the next by-election. The candidate elected on 31 January 1646 on the basis of the new writ was one of his close friends, William Ball*. Berks. RO, TF41, f. 169v. A London lawyer with family links to Berkshire, Ball had already shown himself to be one of Parliament’s indispensable supporters in the county and, with Marten’s backing, he had twice stood unsuccessfully as a candidate in the by-elections at Reading the previous year. As MP for Abingdon, Ball would be an active and consistent Independent.

Ball’s parliamentary career was cut short by his death in late 1647 – he was buried in London on 21 November – which left the seat vacant for the third time in this Parliament. St Dunstan-in-the-West, London par. reg. The issuing of the writ was moved on 8 May 1648, but for reasons that remain unclear, a by-election never took place. CJ v. 552b. The Commons again ordered a new writ on 18 June 1649, explicitly in order to fill the continuing vacancy created by Ball’s death. CJ vi. 235b.

Establishing exactly what happened next is difficult. On 4 September 1649 the mayor, bailiffs and burgesses concluded an election indenture with the sheriff, William Wollascott. The man so returned was Henry Neville*, a local gentlemen of pronounced republican views who was probably already associated with Marten. Berks. RO, A/AEp 1/3. But this return was not unopposed. Eight days later, another local gentleman, Sir Francis Bernard, wrote to Sir Henry Vane II* about the election. CJ vi. 305b. The exact contents of his letter are not known, but it can be inferred that Bernard queried the manner in which Neville had been elected. The perennial uncertainties about the franchise would have offered plenty of scope for a challenge. Then, on 4 October, the corporation recorded in its minutes that they had elected Neville as the new MP. Berks. RO, TF41, f. 175. It is not clear whether this was just a belated record of the election which had taken place a month earlier or a new election endorsing the previous result, possibly to head off any challenge being promoted by Bernard. On 11 October, the contents of Bernard’s letter were reported to the Commons, presumably by Vane. A proposal that a committee be set up to examine the matter was then lost in a division by 19 votes to 22. It was therefore referred instead to the committee for elections, with Vane, Edmund Ludlowe II* and Luke Robinson* instructed to take care of it. CJ vi. 305b. But later that day it was decided that Neville should still be allowed to take his seat. CJ vi. 306a. Vane and his friends had probably calculated that a committee specifically on this matter would be more likely to block Neville’s election than the committee for elections, and indeed the latter does seem to have favoured Neville: either it found for him, or, more likely, it let the issue languish without a final decision. Either way, Neville retained this seat for the remainder of the Parliament.

After the redistribution of seats under the 1653 Instrument of Government, Abingdon’s status as a one-Member constituency seemed less of an anomaly. But the issue of the franchise remained uncertain. When the next election was held in July 1654, for the first protectoral Parliament, there is no doubt that it was the inhabitants, not the corporation, who made the return. The surviving indenture, sealed on 8 July, named 69 of the townsmen as having elected the new MP. Berks. RO, A/AEp 1/4. Just as significantly, no record of the result was entered into the corporation minute book. Berks. RO, TF41, ff. 179v-180. The inhabitants had elected Thomas Holt*, a London barrister who was himself a resident of the town.

That ‘the rabble’ had elected Holt in 1654 was at the time of the next election viewed with concern by the local major-general, William Goffe*, who was attempting to get candidates sympathetic to the government elected for the Berkshire seats. Goffe assured the secretary of state John Thurloe* in mid-July 1656 that there were many in Abingdon who were keen that Goffe stand. He saw Holt as his main obstacle. However, Goffe realised that someone else might have a better chance of resisting the threat from Holt. Indeed, a more promising candidate was already available in the form of Gabriel Becke*, the solicitor to the protectoral council. Becke’s advantage was that he was a son-in-law of Samuel Dunch* and Dunch was confident, according to Goffe, that he could ‘make a good party among the ordinary sort’ for Becke. Goffe was willing to go along with this idea, as he thought the priority should be ‘to keep out the bad man’. TSP v. 215. In the event, Dunch’s confidence was misplaced. It was Holt who was elected on 26 July. Berks. RO, TF41, f. 182. It is not known if, in the end, Becke had actually stood against him. Two months later Holt became the town’s recorder.

On 28 December 1658, two days before the election to the 1659 Parliament, Sir John Lenthall* was admitted by the corporation as a freeman of Abingdon. Berks. RO, TF41, f. 185. This probably indicates that they had already decided to choose him for the seat. The eldest son of the Long Parliament Speaker, Lenthall owned land at Besselsleigh, only about three miles outside the town. He could also claim remote kinship with the Stonhouses, for his second wife, Mary Blewett, had previously been married to one of Sir George Stonhouse’s cousins. On 30 December the mayor, bailiffs and burgesses confirmed him as their choice for MP. Berks. RO, A/AEp 1/5; TF41, f. 185. Lenthall commemorated the occasion by presenting a silver tankard to the corporation. A.E. Preston, The Abingdon Corporation Plate (Oxford, 1958), 26-8. In subsequent elections the continuing arguments over the extent of the franchise meant that results were often disputed, but the Stonhouses became skilled at winning those battles, giving them a near monopoly over the seat. HP Commons 1660-1690.