Bridgwater

The principal historical association of Bridgwater in the mid-seventeenth century is as the birthplace and hometown of Robert Blake*, the illustrious admiral who represented it in three Parliaments. Positioned on the River Parret just five miles from the Bristol Channel, it was the county’s principal port, although its potential had long been hampered by its far more successful rival, Bristol. It was governed by a mayor, two aldermen and 24 principal burgesses. One local gentry family, the Wroths, exercised strong electoral influence in the town throughout this period. From the late 1620s Sir Thomas Wroth* had been the designated heir to his uncle John Wroth, the owner of manor of Newton-Regis at North Petherton to the south of the town and, on inheriting those lands in 1633, Sir Thomas had further extended his holdings in the vicinity. VCH Som. vi. 286; E115/410/116; E115/421/1; E115/426/23; Coventry Docquets, 666, 667; Collinson, Som. iii. 68-9. Furthermore, Sir Thomas had helped obtain a new charter for the town in 1628 and had been rewarded with the office of recorder. Som. RO, Bridgwater bor. arch. D/B/bw 2409, f. 38.

But Wroth did not become the new Bridgwater MP in 1640. Although easily the most obvious choice under other circumstances, he was serving as sheriff of Somerset and was thus barred by law from standing for any constituency within the county. The burgesses therefore turned to Blake. C219/42, pt. 2, f. 3. The future naval hero came from the third generation of a merchant family to have lived in the town. While Blake himself was perhaps now making the transition towards minor local gentleman, his younger brothers continued to be commercially active. One, Humphrey, may have been the man who later that year became the town’s mayor. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 200. Given their mutual dislike, Blake is unlikely to have been merely Wroth’s substitute. But he counted as another local gentleman who knew the town well. The other candidate, Edmund Wyndham*, had fewer links with the immediate area and was a much more controversial figure. The natural constituency for which Wyndham could have stood was Minehead, which was only six miles from his estates at St Decumans and which he had represented in the 1625 and 1628 Parliaments. But he stepped aside to allow his younger brother, Francis*, to stand there. What Edmund was able to offer to Bridgwater were extensive court connections. His wife, Christabella, had been the nurse to the prince of Wales and over the past decade he had been able to accumulate an impressive number of offices and economic concessions from the king, including the infamous soap monopoly.

Wyndham was re-elected that autumn. Blake, on the other hand, was not. This time Wroth, who was still the sheriff, made sure that Wyndham was paired with someone he could trust: his younger brother, Sir Peter Wroth*. Although Sir Peter lived in Kent, he had helped Sir Thomas in the purchases of some of his Somerset estates and thus had some nominal links with the area, but his selection was clearly no more than a favour to Sir Thomas. There was also a third candidate, Thomas Smyth I*, who had been MP for Bridgwater with Sir Thomas Wroth in 1628. Having considered standing for Ilchester, Smyth decided to concentrate his efforts on Bridgwater. He was unsuccessful. The Bridgwater poll on 17 October resulted in the return of Wyndham and Sir Peter Wroth. C219/43, f. 137. Smyth’s friends, Edward Phelipps* and Viscount Andover (Charles Howard*), wrote to commiserate with him. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 160-1.

But almost at once a second chance appeared for Smyth and Sir Thomas Wroth. Wyndham’s position as an MP was threatened when the new House of Commons targeted the monopolists within its ranks. On 21 January 1641 Wroth was among four singled out for punishment. All were expelled from the Commons and new elections called to replace them. The writ for the Bridgwater by-election was issued the following day. CJ ii. 70b-71a; Procs. LP ii. 236-7; Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 200. Smyth seems to have made the next move. He evidently wrote to John Pyne* and Alexander Popham* seeking their support. Pyne and Popham then consulted Blake. On 2 February Pyne told Smyth that Blake was willing to back him and that, if Smyth did not stand, Blake would do so himself because he felt strongly that ‘a serviceable good Member should be placed there, and not such a one as Sir Th[omas] Wroth who would prove but disserviceable unto the public.’ Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 168. Knowing this, Smyth allowed his name to go forward and so was elected by the burgesses on 8 February. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 200. Yet Smyth’s period as the MP was to be almost as ill-fated as Wyndham’s. During the summer of 1642 he and Sir Ralph Hopton* took the lead in organising support for the king throughout Somerset. On 5 August the Commons accordingly expelled both of them from Parliament. CJ ii. 703b-704a; PJ iii. 282. Impeachment proceedings were subsequently started against them. Smyth then died the following October.

Like the rest of the county Bridgwater was controlled by the royalists between the summer of 1643 and the summer of 1645. When the town fell to Hopton on 6 June 1643, Wyndham took over as the royalist governor. Bellum Civile, 48; Clarendon, Hist. iii. 78-9. After a week-long siege starting on 16 July 1645, it surrendered to Sir Thomas Fairfax*. HMC Portland, i. 235; Mr. Peters Report from the Army (1645), 2-5 (E.261.7); III Great Victories (1645), 4-5 (E.293.32). Soon almost all of Somerset was under Fairfax’s authority. This made it possible to hold elections to fill the vacant Somerset seats. On 25 September 1645 the Commons ordered that a recruiter by-election be held at Bridgwater. This was to be for two places, for not only had the late Thomas Smyth been expelled but Sir Peter Wroth had also since died. CJ iv. 286b. Sir Thomas Wroth at last got his chance to become the Bridgwater MP. He was now joined by Blake, who quite possibly still distrusted him but who now, with his distinguished war record in the region, was the more considerable figure. As there was also a recruiter election scheduled for Taunton, where he was governor, Blake had other options. But Bridgwater was still his home town. However, the election there had yet to be held by 27 January 1646, when the Commons criticised the sheriff, Sir John Horner*, for his lack of urgency in making the Somerset returns. CJ iv. 420a. The election for Bridgwater had evidently taken place by 17 February, for by then Wroth had taken his seat at Westminster. CJ iv. 445b. Both Blake and Wroth sat in the Rump after 1648.

Bridgwater lost one of its parliamentary seats under the 1653 Instrument of Government. A. and O. There was probably never any doubt that at the next election the Bridgwater electors would give their one remaining seat to Blake. The recent war against the Dutch had made this son of the town a national hero. The one doubt would have been whether he would find the time to serve. Blake was elected at Bridgwater on 14 July 1654. C219/44, pt. 2, unfol. A month later, before the first protectoral Parliament had even met, he set out with his fleet to the Mediterranean. By the time he returned 14 months later that Parliament had long ceased to sit.

Perhaps mindful of that long absence and of the fact that Blake was again out of the country, Bridgwater allowed Taunton the honour of choosing Blake at the next election. In 1656 the Bridgwater burgesses instead offered their seat to another national figure, John Disbrowe*, the major-general for the south-western counties. That election must have been held before 12 August, when Disbrowe wrote to Oliver Cromwell* and John Thurloe* informing them of this news. TSP v. 302, 303. But Disbrowe’s prominence had its disadvantages. Two other boroughs (Gloucester and King’s Lynn) and a county (Somerset) also elected him. Disbrowe informed Parliament on 25 September that he wished to sit for Somerset. A new writ for Bridgwater was then ordered. CJ vii. 428a. Sir Thomas Wroth was ready in the wings. Some members of the corporation attempted to persuade Robert Hunt* to stand, but he was serving as sheriff of Somerset and so, like Wroth in 1640, felt unable to stand. Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 74, 79. Wroth was elected, quite possibly unopposed, at the poll on 20 October. C219/45, unfol.

Wroth’s personal influence was even more evident in 1659. With two seats now available and Blake no longer living, Wroth captured both. While he took the senior seat, his nephew, John Wroth, Sir Peter’s son, was given the other. This amounted to a public acknowledgment by the childless Sir Thomas that John was being groomed as his heir. Moreover, the dissolution of this last protectoral Parliament on 22 April 1659 barely interrupted Sir Thomas’s time at Westminster, for almost immediately he was able to resume his place in the restored Rump. However, the Wroth interest was about to be eclipsed. The Restoration forced Sir Thomas out of active politics and, as he died in 1664, John Wroth never did succeed him. Other families, such as the Rolles, the Tyntes and the Stawells, would fill the vacuum.