Huntingdon

Borough

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1660-1690, ed. B.D. Henning, 1983
Available from Boydell and Brewer

Background Information

Right of Election:

?in the inhabitant householders 1660-1, 1689; in the corporation 1663-85

Number of voters:

25 in 1663; 130 in 1702

Elections

DateCandidate
c. 27 Mar. 1660JOHN BERNARD
 NICHOLAS PEDLEY
 Robert Montagu, Visct. Mandeville
 Hon. George Montagu
12 Apr. 1661JOHN COTTON
 LIONEL WALDEN I
25 Feb. 1679HON. SIDNEY WORTLEY MONTAGU
 (SIR) NICHOLAS PEDLEY
 Sir Lionel Walden I
19 Aug. 1679HON. SIDNEY WORTLEY MONTAGU
 LIONEL WALDEN II
7 Feb. 1681HON. SIDNEY WORTLEY MONTAGU
 LIONEL WALDEN II
10 Mar. 1685HON. OLIVER MONTAGU
 LIONEL WALDEN II
9 Jan. 1689HON. SIDNEY WORTLEY MONTAGU
 JOHN BIGG

Main Article

Very little is known of Huntingdon elections at this time, but Griffith was probably right in calling attention to the significant variations in the wording of the indentures, although his pioneer study (published in 1827) has found few successors. Although the 1660 return has not survived, it is known from Samuel Pepys that this was a straight fight between the Montagu and Bernard interests. Edward Montagu I, who was absent on naval duty, secured the removal of the garrison to Oundle ‘to do a courtesy to the town that he might have the greater interest in them in the choice of the next Parliament’. But Lord Manchester’s own tenants refused to elect his son. When on 28 Mar. news reached the fleet that John Bernard and his brother-in-law Nicholas Pedley had been elected, Montagu ‘was much troubled for his friends missing of it’. In 1661, with Lord Mandeville (Robert Montagu) assured of the county seat, Edward Montagu (now Earl of Sandwich) hoped more modestly for one of the borough seats for Hon. George Montagu, but again he failed. The Bernard interest, with its Presbyterian associations, was in eclipse, but the mayor, aldermen, ‘burgesses of the borough and body incorporate and many other free burgesses’ returned Lionel Walden, a townsman, and John Cotton, a country gentleman, both conspicuous for their high prerogative views. Nevertheless the town was notoriously disaffected; Walden informed the joint committee on traitorous designs that ‘many there met under the name of Quakers, that were not so, and rid in multitudes by night to the terror of his Majesty’s good subjects; that there was a dangerous inn and a seditious preacher’. Under the Corporations Act, Bernard’s father was replaced as recorder by Sandwich, who was ‘well contented ... saying that it may be for his convenience to have the chief officer of the town dependent on him’. But in spite of the remodelling of the corporation, Huntingdon, notorious as the birthplace of the great Protector, remained under suspicion. After a royal visit in 1664 it was reported that ‘the spirit of Oliver ... hovers among them, for out of 400 families there are only 20 communicants’. Even if this was not literally true, it seems that the majority of Anglican ‘burgesses’ must have been on the corporation, which may have induced them to usurp the franchise. Walden’s denunciation of disaffection in Huntingdon recoiled on his own head during the third Dutch war, when he was insulted by some soldiers ‘saying there was a rebellious rogue born there, and none but roundheadly rebellious rogues lived in it’.1

The returns for the Exclusion Parliaments were made by the mayor, aldermen and ‘burgesses’, all of whom were named, and on this limited franchise the Montagu interest was able to reassert itself. In February 1679 Sandwich’s second son, a moderate country candidate, was returned with Pedley, now the recorder and an equally moderate supporter of the Court. Walden petitioned against Wortley Montagu, but the elections committee failed to report. Pedley voted against exclusion, and at the next two elections Wortley Montagu and Walden’s son divided the borough. Lord Ailesbury (Robert Bruce) presented an address approving the dissolution in 1681, and further addresses followed, with the common seal of the borough affixed, abhorring the ‘Association’ and the Rye House Plot, and congratulating James II on his accession. For the general election of 1685 the corporation accepted Ailesbury’s recommendations and replaced Wortley Montagu by his brother Oliver, perhaps the most fervent loyalist of the whole family. Nevertheless the charter had to be surrendered. Its successor named Ailesbury’s heir (Thomas Bruce) as high steward, Oliver Montagu as recorder, and (Sir) Lionel Walden I as mayor, with the usual provision for displacement by order-in-council. Although the new charter was issued as late as 9 July 1686, it was soon overtaken by the reversal of the King’s ecclesiastical policy. The mayor and four aldermen were removed in February 1688, and three more aldermen in June. In September Sunderland recommended the sitting Members for reelection; but they were swept out of political life by the Revolution, and Wortley Montagu regained his seat. His new colleague John Bigg, an opponent of the Walden interest, had appeared in arms under the 4th Earl of Manchester for the Protestant cause. Their return was made ‘with one assent and consent’ by the mayor, aldermen and burgesses; but the electors are not named, which suggests a return to the wider franchise.2

Author: E. R. Edwards

Notes

  • 1. E. Griffith, Recs. Relating to Huntingdon, 110, 121, 127, 132; Pepys Diary, 14, 28 Mar. 1660, 2 Jan. 1661, 1, 28 Feb. 1663; Clarendon SP, iii. 705; CSP Dom. 1663-4, pp. 167, 488; 1672, pp. 414-16.
  • 2. Griffith, 124-7; CJ, ix. 573; London Gazette, 20 Aug. 1681, 13 Apr. 1682, 30 Aug. 1683, 2 Mar. 1685; Ailesbury Mems. 100; VCH Hunts. ii. 132; CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 46; 1687-9, p. 273; PC2/72/613, 673.