A HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 



Committee for Privileges reported on 26 April 1662 

 that lawful voters had been prevented from voting, but 

 the matter was too intricate for them to determine ; 

 the House accepted their report and declared the 

 election void.'^ The new bye-election was postponed 

 for nearly a year by the rising of ParUament, but in 

 February 1663 a fresh writ was issued*" and the 

 election took place on 7 March.*^ The mayor 

 attempted to hold it in the assembly, but two of the 

 members of the corporation protested and left the 

 guildhall with many others, joining the ' popularity ''^ 

 in the market square which was shouting ' A Hatton ! 

 a Hatton ! ' The rest of the corporation elected Sir W. 

 Dudley ; Mr. Hatton's party polled at the Market 

 Cross, and the sheriff received two indentures. As in 

 duty bound he returned the one sealed by the town 

 clerk (Henry Lee himself), but Hatton appealed to the 

 House of Commons, and the Committee for Privileges, 

 after hearing much evidence, reaffirmed that ' the 

 voices in election do not belong to the Mayor, Alder- 

 men and Forty-Eight only, and that . . . Mr. Hatton 

 was duly elected.' The name of Dudley was erased 

 from the indenture by the Clerk of the House and that 

 of Hatton inserted.'^ In 1664 there was a fresh bye- 

 election, necessitated by Rainsford's becoming a 

 Baron of the Exchequer.** Again the return was 

 disputed. On 26 April** the Committee of Elections 

 reported that counsel on both sides agreed that 

 whoever had the majority of voices of inhabitants 

 being householders and not receiving alms ought to 

 be elected ; and that the Committee upheld this 

 and were of opinion that the sharing of the charitable 

 gift at Christmas was a taking of alms. On this 

 interpretation. Sir Henry Yelverton was declared duly 

 elected, and Sir John Bernard unseated. It would 

 appear that the process of corrupting the popular 

 electors had already begun. 



From this time Northampton enjoyed what Tennant 

 in 1782*' calls the cruel privilege of a very popular 

 franchise. It is not unHkcly that the townsmen owed 

 their enfranchisement to the fact that their pohtical 

 sympathies were more royalist than those of the 

 corporation, even after the purging of 1662,*' for in 

 1665 the mayor-elect was arrested by royal command.** 

 Very soon, however, the corporation became more 

 Tory than the town. In 1678 the Montagu interest, 

 strong in the borough since the reign of James I,*' 

 was exerted on the Exclusionist side. ' There are 

 four that stand,' young Perceval reports ; ' Mr. 

 Montagu is the only man who trcateth . . . the 

 townsmen themselves say, both he and his father spend 

 jf 100 per week, but to no purpose, for whomsoever the 

 King will recommend they arc resolved to choose, and 

 there coming a letter in favour of Sir W. Temple, he, 

 it is thought, will be the man.'"* Owing to the Tory 

 leanings of the returning officers, Temple was re- 

 turned, but unseated by a vote of the House ' with 



so united a cry as made it very legible what incUnation 

 they bear to the patron of the first.' *i From this 

 time on the Montagu interest dominates the borough 

 representation, and as the recordership had become a 

 hereditary perquisite of the earls of Northampton, 

 the Compton interest was equally strong and for a long 

 series of parliaments the borough was represented by 

 a Compton and a Montagu. In 1733 the assembly 

 declared ' We think we have in some measure a right 

 to be represented by a brother of the earl of North- 

 ampton.''"' But on this occasion the corporation 

 overreached itself. The parliamentary franchise was 

 held to belong ' to every freeman, whether resident 

 or not, and every householder, whether free or not,' *' 

 and the mayor, for the purposes of the election, 

 admitted 396 gentlemen of the county to be freemen 

 of the town, on payment of 3 guineas a man :'■' but 

 the defeated candidate successfully petitioned against 

 the return of Colonel Montagu, elected by these new 

 votes. In 1740 legal opinion taken by the corporation 

 upheld the ruling that only resident freemen had the 

 parliamentary vote.'* In 1768 a third great county 

 interest entered the field. Earl Spencer put forward 

 the Hon. Thomas Howe against the Montagu candi- 

 date. Sir G. Osborn, and the Compton candidate. Sir 

 G. B. Rodney. It was popularly beheved that 

 ^^400,000 was spent on this election by the three 

 patrons.'^ The campaign began at Michaelmas 1 767 

 and lasted till April 1768, after fourteen days' polling. 

 The mayor and corporation used all their influence 

 against the Spencer candidate," and by common 

 agreement the oath as to bribery was not administered 

 to any voter. A supporter of Hahfax, rebutting the 

 charge of bribery, wrote : ' I have never heard of any 

 other expense on his part but that of eating and 

 drinking.'* . . . How can it be avoided when an old 

 family interest is to be defended against a sudden and 

 unexpected invasion ? In such a case one cannot 

 blame what is done for self-defence.' *' Another con- 

 temporary says : ' Each voter that would had twelve, 

 fourteen or fifty guineas, some j^ioo to ^£500. The 

 single article of ribbands cost j^6,ooo.'^ Osborn and 

 Rodney were returned ; but a scrutiny in tlie House 

 of Commons in 1769 resulted in Howe's being declared 

 elected, and Osborn and Rodney tossed for the other 

 seat, which was retained by Rodney.^ The expenses 

 of the scrutiny, which took six weeks, during which 

 Lord Spencer kept open house for members of 

 Parliament, led to the Earl of Northampton's leaving 

 the kingdom after cutting down the tiees and selling 

 the furniture at Compton VVinyates, whilst Halifax 

 and Spencer were also seriously crippled. The 

 Compton and Spencer interests held the field after 

 tliis for some years. From 1 796-1 812 Spencer 

 Perceval, deputy iccorder since 1787, represented the 

 borough (at first as ' Lord Northampton's Man ') * and 

 there were a series of uncontested elections. In 1818 



'• Commotit Journals^ viii, 414, 

 •• Ibid, viii, 436. 



•' Bcro. Rcc. ii, 498-9 (Hall'i MS.). 

 •"L«, Coll. p. 113. 

 •• Commons Jourtiah^ viii, 469. 

 •* Ibid, viii, 535 (11 March 1663/4). 

 " Ibid, viii, 550. 



" Journey from Cbeiur to London, 

 310. 



" S« above, p. 12. 

 " BoTo. Rec. ii, 35. 

 •• Jbid. ii, log. 



" llisl. MSS. Com. Rep. (Egmont MS.), 

 ii, 76. 



•' Ibid. Ormonde MSS. iv, 471. 



•" Boro. Rec. ii, 500. 



•• liridgo, op. cit. i, 434. 



•* Boro. Rec. ii, 500. 



•• Ibid, ii, 501. 



•• Quarterly /JiriVtc, Jan. 1857, p. 32 

 (article by Rev. T. James). 



•' Among (he corporation records is a 

 list in the town clerk's handwriting of 

 members of the Corporation tn the interest 



of Osborn and Rodney, which includes the 

 mayor, 9 .ildcrmon, 18 bailiffs and 26 

 common council men. Bore Rec. ii, 506, 



** The voters having drunk up all 

 llalila.x's port at Ilurton, refused his 

 claret, and went over in a body to Castle 

 Ashby to sample Northampton's cellar. 



•• Hilt. MSS. Com. Rrp. 10, app. i, 

 p. 409. 



' Boro. Rec. ii, 506 (Hall's MS.). 



' llist. MSS. Com. Rep. 10, app. i, p. 412. 



' Boro. Ric. ii, 508. 



