Commons 1660-1690

The corporation of Hedon, which controlled the freeman roll, consisted of the mayor, who acted as returning officer, nine aldermen, and two bailiffs. The borough had been controlled by the Constables in Tudor times and the Hildyards before the Civil War; but both were driven out of politics by recusancy. Hugh Bethell of Rise controlled one seat until his death in 1679; but the most remarkable feature was the interest gained by a courtier, Henry Guy from Hertfordshire, as farmer of the Yorkshire excise.G. Poulson, Holderness, ii. 140-2; G. R.

Towards the end of the period it was asserted that ‘the queen dowager always recommends one to be chosen’ at Boroughbridge, the bailiwick forming part of her jointure. But the return in 1661 of Robert Long, surveyor to Queen Henrietta Maria, is the only one that can be certainly ascribed to this interest, and it is clear that the local magnate families were more important. The Stapletons of Myton may already have owned burgages in the borough, but after the Restoration they were eclipsed by the Mauleverers, who leased the mills, and Sir Henry Goodricke of Ribston.

The corporation of Beverley consisted of the mayor and 12 ‘life governors’ to whom were added 13 ‘freemen’ elected annually by the companies from a list of 26 submitted by the ‘governors’. For most of the period Michael Warton, as lord of the manor, was content to divide the borough with Sir John Hotham of Scorborough, a prominent local landowner.

The right of election at Aldborough originally lay in the holders of nine burgages, which at the outset of the period were each owned separately. John Wentworth of Woolley had bought the manor in 1653, and the bailiff, who acted as returning officer, was chosen in his court leet; but he did not own any of the burgages, and much of the history of the borough in this period is concerned with his attempt to establish electoral control by widening the franchise. Sir John Reresby’s Memoirs, written after the events described, give a detailed account of this struggle.

Yorkshire was the largest constituency in England, and this made election contests so expensive that there was a marked reluctance on the part of candidates to go to the poll. Seven of the nine Members who sat as knight of the shire in this period were drawn from the West Riding, which predominated both in population and wealth. On 26 Mar.

Under its charter of 1621 the corporation of Worcester, which controlled the roll of freemen, consisted of the mayor and sheriff, six aldermen, 18 common councilmen, and 48 assistants. There was no territorial interest, but the corporation showed a strong preference for local lawyers. The city was famous for its loyalty in the Civil War, and even in 1660 chose two Royalists whose eligibility under the Long Parliament ordinance was doubtful. Thomas Street came from a family long prominent in municipal affairs, and was accompanied by the town clerk, Thomas Hall.

Under the charter of 1605 the corporation of Evesham, which controlled the freeman roll, consisted of the mayor, six aldermen, 12 ‘capital burgesses’, the recorder and the chamberlain. The 24 ‘assistant burgesses’ had no definite function or political weight. In 1660 John Egioke and Sir Thomas Rous, two country gentlemen of parliamentarian background, defeated the recorder Theophilus Andrews, who had represented the borough in Richard Cromwell’s Parliament.

The corporation of Droitwich, consisting of two bailiffs elected annually and an unspecified number of ‘burgesses’ or freemen, enjoyed an enviable freedom from financial constraint owing to its control of the most important salt-works in England. Only owners of at least a quarter-share in one of the recognized salt-houses could claim the franchise, and except for the eldest sons of freemen this required the unanimous vote of the corporation.

A charter of 1605 conferred on the corporation of Bewdley, consisting of the bailiff, 12 ‘capital burgesses’ or aldermen, and 25 common councilmen, the right to elect a single Member. By custom, however, retired members of the corporation continued to exercise the franchise, even if no longer resident, and during this period the electorate was further increased by making the local gentry ‘free burgesses’.

Much of the political history of Worcestershire in this period can be told in terms of the rivalry between the royalist Sandys and Pakington families, on the one hand, and on the other the Presbyterian Foleys, who had recently acquired a fortune in the iron industry, and even more recently invested it in land. But as prominent Cavaliers neither Samuel Sandys nor his brother-in-law Sir John Pakington could contest the general election of 1660 under the Long Parliament ordinance.