BOROUGH OF NORTHAMPTON 



each of which returned three councillors, who with 

 nine aldermen, made up a council of 36 members. 

 In 191 1 the Northampton Corporation Act'* was 

 passed, under which the borough was divided into 

 twelve wards, and from 1912 on the council has 

 consisted of the time-honoured number of 48. 



The first recorded representation of the borough 

 in a parliament is in 11 Edward I,** and, except under 

 the Commonwealth, there were two members up to 

 1918. The carhest writs are directed to the mayor 

 and good men,** whilst the returns for Edward II's 

 reign state that the members were elected by the 

 bailiffs, by the mayor and bailiffs, or per considera- 

 tiomm vilU.^'- From 1 381 at least, the elections 

 appear to have been made in the assembly at St. 

 Giles'.** A comparison of the list of m.iyors and bailiffs 

 with that of the members shows that the same group 

 of burgesses performed both services." In 1 381 the 

 assembly resolved that the borough should always be 

 represented in Parliament by the ex-mayor, unless he 

 had discharged the office of burgess before his 

 mayoralty.** From 1489 onwards it appears that, 

 as the parliamentary elections were still made in the 

 assembly,** voting was restricted to members of the 

 corporation. The act of 1489 did not mention elec- 

 tions to parliament, but the King's letter to Leicester 

 in the same year definitely laid it down that only 

 members of the common council should have votes 

 for parliamentary elections,** and it is possible that 

 the two acts, so nearly identical in form, were inter- 

 preted similarly. The members were chosen from 

 among the corporation until the reign of Elizabeth, 

 when the practice begins of choosing county gentle- 

 men to represent the town. From 1553, the recorder 

 was generally chosen as one member, and the Yelver- 

 tons of Easton Maudit established a strong family 

 interest, whilst the Knightleys of Fawsley were 

 another county family with influence in the borough. 

 The notorious Peter Wentworth of Lillingston had sat 

 for a Cornish borough before he represented North- 

 ampton in 1586, 1589 and 1592.*' In 1601 the assembly 

 books record that Mr. Henry Hickman, LL.D., 

 and Francis Tate, Esq., made request to be chosen 

 burgesses for the town and were accepted as being the 

 first a resident and the second the son of a freeman, 

 provided they paid their own expenses.** They 

 were both made honorary freemen. Aldermen are 

 still chosen as members after this date, but economy 

 on the side of the corporation and solicitation from 

 outside soon established the parliamentary representa- 

 tion of the borough as a prize to be competed for 

 among the county gentry." Henry Lee finds it 

 noteworthy that in 1640 Zouch Tate of Delapre was 

 elected burgess ' without his making any interest and 

 without his knowledge till after the election.''" 



Under the Commonwealth the representation of 

 the borough was reduced to one. At the Restoration 

 Northampton, like several other boroughs,'^ under- 



went a peaceful revolution ; the parliamentary vote 

 ceased to be the monopoly of the corporation. There 

 must have been warning signs, for both at Leicester 

 and Northampton the corporations prepared to 

 resist an attack. The assembly at Northampton 

 ordered on 19 June 1660 ' That this town do unite 

 with any other corporation of the neighbourhood for 

 the maintenance and continuance of their constancy 

 in the choice of Burgesses to serve in Parhament by 

 the mayor, Baihffs and Burgesses. ''^ In the elections 

 for the convention two returns were made ; the one 

 of Francis Harvey and Richard Rainsford, the other 

 of Sir John Norwich and Richard Rainsford. The 

 Committee for Privileges reported that ' the common- 

 alty as well as the bailiffs, aldermen and 48 common 

 councilmen have the right to elect,' and that therefore 

 Rainsford and Norwich were elected.'^ Harvey, the 

 deputy-recorder, was the corporation candidate. In 

 the elections of 1661 there was again a double return 

 for Northampton : the sheriff brought an indenture 

 with the names of Sir John Norwich and Sir James 

 Langham ; the mayor returned Langham and Harvey. 

 The return of the mayor, the lawful returning officer, 

 was filed, and Langham and Harvey were temporarily 

 allowed to sit,'* but after investigation the Committee 

 tor Privileges reported that the mayor had used 

 menaces to such as would not give their votes to Mr. 

 Harvey, had made infants free on the morning of the 

 election that they might vote as he pleased, had caused 

 persons to be put by who would not vote as he desired, 

 had released Quakers from prison and put halberts in 

 their hands to keep back such as would have voted 

 contrary to his intentions, had adjourned the taking 

 of the poll into the Church of All Saints and there 

 behaved himself in a profane and indecent manner, 

 and had declared beforehand that Mr. Rainsford 

 should not be elected because he had given a charge for 

 the Book of Common Prayer. On account of these ir- 

 regularities the election was declared void by the 

 Commons, by a vote of 185 to 127." The mayor was 

 brought into the House in the custody of the Serjeant 

 at Arms, and making a humble submission on his knees, 

 received a grave reprehension. Henry Lee, who appears 

 to have confounded the elections of 1660 and 1661,'* 

 says that there were five candidates, and that the poll 

 was held in the chancel of All Saints, by reason of the 

 great rain that fell that day so that it could not be taken 

 at the Market Cross. ' The election of burgesses,' he 

 adds, ' was then ordered to be made in the town by 

 the freemen and inhabitants of the town, and has 

 continued a popular election ever since.'" Never- 

 theless more disputed returns followed, leading 

 to a more precise definition of the franchise. The 

 bye-election ordered on 13 June 1661 led to the return 

 of Sir Charles Compton and Rainsford ; but Compton 

 died soon after and a fresh writ was issued on 5 Dec. 

 1661.™ This time Sir J. Langham was elected, and 

 the rival candidate, Sir W. Dudley, protested. The 



•• 1 and ; Gtorge V, cUiv (Local Act). 

 »• Patl. WrtU (Rec. Com.), i, 16. 

 "Itid. 



" Ibid. I, Ixxiii ; II, i, ccxzxiv. 

 " Bno. Rec. i, 248. 

 •> Pari. Writs, II, I, cczzxii, fl ; Boro. 

 Rtc. ii, 549 S. 



" Boro. Rec. i, 249. 



•* Ibid, ii, 494-6. 



'• Batcion, Rec. Boro. of Leics. ii, 325. 



" See £»{. Uist. Rev. zxxii, 38, 46; 



and Acls of Privy Council, 1578-80, p. 218, 

 for Wentworth's conventicles at LUlingi- 

 ton, attended by Northampton townsmen. 



•' Boro. Rec. ii, 495. 



•• Note Richard Spencer's account of 

 his inteniew with the mayor and cor- 

 poration in 1625. Hill. MSS. Com. Rep. 

 vol. 82 (Buccleugh MSS.) i, 258-9. 



" Lee, Coll. p. 93. 



" Merewether and Stephens, fjisl. of 

 Bore. pp. 1763 ff. 



17 



" Boro. Rec. ii, 498. 



" Commons Journals, viii, 70-71 (21 

 June 1660). 



" Ibid, viii, 257 (22 May 1661). 



" Ibid, viii, 269-70 (13 June 1661). 



" He seems to have misled all later 

 writers ; the account given by Dr. Cox 

 in the Boro. Rec. of the elections 1660- 

 1664 is quite incorrect. 



" Lee, Coll. p. 11 1-2. 



'• Commons Journals, viii, 326. 



