Bedfordshire

This article has not been researched and written yet

This article has not been researched and written yet

The ‘large, populous and thriving’ town of Bedford was encompassed by numerous landed interests, though not entirely dominated by them. ‘There is pretty many gentry about the country near neighbours’, reported Celia Fiennes, ‘and many live in the town.’ The bowling green by the River Ouse was ‘well kept with seats and summer-houses in it for the use of the town and country gentlemen, of which many resort to it’.

‘The Duke of Bedford and the corporation’, wrote Philip Yorke to his father, Lord Hardwicke, 5 Aug. 1753, ‘have settled their affairs for the next election. The Duke brings in Mr. Ongley, and the corporation Mr. Herne.’ But unrest among the Duke’s friends was reported from Bedford in March 1754. ‘Many here ...

The influence of the Russell family at Bedford, overpowered by Sir Robert Bernard and the corporation in 1769, had only been strong enough, since the death of John, 4th Duke of Bedford in 1771, when Bernard became recorder, to supply reinforcement to the interest established by Samuel Whitbread I, the wealthy brewer, who became a staunch supporter of Pitt.

As in the county the Whig and Tory strengths in Bedford were about equal. The recorder was Lord Bruce, a Tory, appointed in 1711, who sold his Ampthill property, a few miles from the borough, to the Duke of Bedford in 1730.VCH Beds. iii. 271. The Dukes of Bedford at Woburn exerted a strong influence from 1726, mainly in support of anti-government candidates. Elections seem to have been managed by the local landowners, from whose ranks most of the ten Members were drawn, two only being strangers. With a wide franchise, corruption was rife.

Bedford was a borough by prescription, in which the mayor and the two bailiffs acted as returning officers. The corporation had the right to create freemen. Several aristocratic families enjoyed an interest, notably the Wentworths, until the death of the Earl of Cleveland in 1667, the St. Johns of Bletso, and towards the end of the period the Bruces. In the contest between the latter families the recordership was the principal prize at stake. There is no sign of Russell influence during the period.

The charter of 1559 confirmed that the government of Bedford was in the hands of a mayor, recorder, two bailiffs, two chamberlains and a steward. Choice of MPs was made by the ‘one consent’ of all the burgesses at a meeting in the council chamber. It is probable that some dissension arose at the election of 1588, for on 18 Dec. of that year it was suggested that canvassing prior to the meeting should be forbidden.

The burgesses of Bedford held the town of the crown at a fee-farm said to be £46 in 1447, when it was reduced by £22 for 60 years. In 1504 the remission (then stated to be £26) was made permanent, the burgesses arguing that if they had to pay in full ‘they would necessarily be obliged to retire from thence and leave the town totally destitute’. Bedford was included in the Act of 1540 for re-edifying of towns (32 Hen. VIII, c. 18). A borough by prescription, it had charters dating back at least to the 12th century and these were confirmed in 1509, 1515, 1547 and 1557.