Commons 1660-1690

The corporation of Helston nominated the stannators of Penwith and Kerrier. Returns were made by the mayor in the name of the ‘commonalty’, consisting of four aldermen and an unlimited number of freemen chosen by the corporation. Signatures on undisputed returns vary from 57 to 98. The dominant interest was held by the Godolphin family, whose principal residence was five miles away and who owned property in the town. Separate representation had been suspended from 1653 to 1659, and it was not until 1689 that a single return was made in proper form.

The most persistent interests at Grampound in this period were exercised by two minor gentry families, the Herles of Prideaux and the Tanners of Courte, behind whom stood the local Presbyterian magnate, Hugh Boscawen. Nevertheless this powerful junto had to cede one seat in 1661, and totally lost control in February 1679 and 1685 to a rival borough-monger, (Sir) Joseph Tredenham. The returns were in the name of the mayor, the ‘burgesses’ (presumably the eight aldermen) and the ‘inhabitants’ or freemen.

No contests are known to have occurred at Fowey in this period. Before the charter of 1685 the returns were made by the portreeve in the name of the ‘burgesses’ and ‘inhabitants’. The two groups seem to have had roughly equal numbers. The latter usually favoured the Rashleighs, as the greatest merchants and shipowners in the town. The former, sometimes called the ‘prince’s tenants’, held their property on lease from the duchy of Cornwall. Of the 28 burgages listed in 1650 the Rashleighs held 15. Their only conceivable rivals were the Treffrys of Place House, who held three.

Until the close of the period Camelford was an open borough, usually returning local candidates, though William Harbord used the duchy interest against the Court in the exclusion elections to find a seat for his kinsman, Robert Russell. At the general election of 1660 all the candidates were Cornish by birth, and four indentures were returned. The mayor signed the returns of Peter Killigrew, whose father was closely associated with George Monck, and Samuel Trelawny, the son of a royalist Plymouth merchant.

Callington had never been formally incorporated. The manor was owned by the Rolles of Heanton Satchville. At the court leet held by their steward, new freemen were admitted to exercise the franchise, and a mayor, who acted as returning officer, was elected annually. The Rolles were not resident in the neighbourhood at this period, and their interest was often successfully challenged by a local family, the Corytons of Newton Ferrers.Gilbert, Paroch. Hist. Cornw. i. 168.

The full name of this constituency was Bossiney, Trevenna and Tintagel; rather confusingly, the charter under which the franchise was claimed had been granted to the last of these communities, and for municipal purposes the borough continued to be known as Tintagel, though decay was so far advanced that the corporation had few functions except at elections. The dominant interest had been inherited from the Henders by the Robartes family of Lanhydrock, apart from Botreaux Castle, which went to an Exeter family, the Cottons.

One seat at Bodmin was controlled throughout the period by the Robartes family, who resided at Lanhydrock, two-and-a-half miles away, and owned considerable property in the town; the other was usually at the disposal of the corporation, consisting of 12 aldermen and 24 common councilmen. Patron and electorate were moderate Presbyterians in 1660 and 1661; but the choice of Nicholas Glyn of Cardinham at every subsequent election suggests that the evolution of the younger generation of the Robartes family towards the Tory and Anglican position was followed in the corporation.J.

The family of Robartes (ennobled in 1625) represented Cornwall in five of the seven Parliaments of the period. The traditional venue of county elections at Lostwithiel, within two miles of their principal residence, no doubt assisted their interest. They were originally Presbyterian in outlook, but Francis Robartes, the most active of the younger generation, became a churchman and a Tory.

Chester, on the outbreak of the Civil War, had declared for the King, and much royalist sentiment persisted during the Interregnum. The franchise was technically vested in the freemen, but in the disputed election of 1673 it was stated, on behalf of the successful candidate, that

The rising of Sir George Booth was, in all probability, a decisive influence on the Cheshire election in 1660. Booth himself and Thomas Mainwaring, one of his close friends and associates, were returned, apparently without a contest. In 1661 Booth had been raised to the peerage and Mainwaring did not stand. Two Cavaliers, Lord Brereton and Peter Venables were returned. But the election of Sir Fulk Lucy after Brereton’s death in 1664 probably represented a gain for the Opposition. When Venables died in 1670 his seat was contested by Thomas Cholmondeley and Sir Philip Egerton.