Terry Foreman on 20 May 2012  •  Link

Northampton is a large market town and local government district in the East Midlands region of England. Situated about 67 miles (108 km) north-west of London and around 50 miles (80 km) south-east of Birmingham, Northampton lies on the River Nene and is the county town of Northamptonshire.

Northampton supported the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War. For this reason the town walls and castle were later torn down on the orders of King Charles II as punishment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nort…

San Diego Sarah on 9 Dec 2022  •  Link

In May 1669 Cosmo, the future Grand Duke of Turin, travelled through Northants. on his way from Cambridge to Oxford.
I've standardized the spelling of names I know, corrected scanning errors I could figure out, and increased the number of paragraphs. I apologize if I guessed incorrectly:
@@@

From Wellingborough, the remainder of the country was either clothed with trees, or devoted to tillage or pasture, all the way to Northampton, the chief town of the county, called by the English Northamptonshire.

245

His highness alighted at the Inn of St. George, situated near the belfry of the principal church. On the arrival of his highness, the bells were immediately rung as a mark of joy, and, being well tuned, the sound of them was very agreeable; but the ringing being continued a great part of the night, they proved a great interruption to sleep. The mayor and aldermen, with whom the civil government rests, came to pay their respects to his highness, who made use of the same formalities towards them as had been adopted in other places.

His highness walked though Northampton, which, both in the structure and elegance of its buildings, is not inferior to the other towns of the kingdom.

He went to see the church close to his lodgings, which was formerly dedicated to St. Andrew, but now profaned by the exercise of the Anglican religion; it was intended by Simon St. Liz, 1st Earl of Northampton, for the place of his burial, having been built by him, along with the castle, which stands on the Western side of the city; his highness then returned, and supped alone.

Northampton, as before described, is the chief town of the county, and is situated almost in the centre of England. It stands on an eminence, which rising gradually, renders the site, in some degree, hilly.

246

Its circumference, which is 2,120 paces, is surrounded by walls, not far from which runs the river Nen. The streets and the buildings are good, and in a respectable style of architecture; the greater part of them are built of earth, and of stone, a good deal ornamented. The inhabitants are estimated at about 16,000; and all the places of the county are well peopled, in consequence both of the salubrity of the air and the fertility of the soil.

Of these, the most considerable after Northampton, is the city of Peterborough where, united to the monastery built (according to tradition) by King Wolfer, is the cathedral formerly consecrated to St. Peter the Apostle, but now profaned, and it is more celebrated than anything else in the place for the nobleness and antiquity of its structure.

San Diego Sarah on 9 Dec 2022  •  Link

PART 2

In it are buried Queen Catherine, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, Sovereigns of Spain, and wife of Henry VIII; also Queen Mary Stuart, daughter of James, Viceroy of Scotland and Madam Mary of Guise, who was first wife of Francis II, King of France, and afterwards of Henry Stuart, son of the Earl of Lenox, a Scotsman, son of Margaret, eldest sister of Henry VIII — both unfortunate women; the one, owing to her divorce, being compelled to die in the village of Kimbolton; and the other, in consequence of suspicions entertained against her by Queen Elizabeth, deprived of life at Fotheringhay.

247

There are in this county, amongst other things worthy of notice, the castles of Towcester, Kettering, Oundle, and Collyweston, celebrated for the stone quarries, from which they dig not only the stone for ornamenting the buildings, but likewise the slate for covering them; and, therefore, Margaret of Richmond, mother of Henry VII, availing herself of the convenience of these materials, built there a very noble mansion.

The title of Earl of Northampton (which was given to the Earl of Essex by Edward VI) is now enjoyed by my Lord James Compton, one of the most illustrious families in the county of Warwick, from which was descended Henry Compton, who received the title of baron from Queen Elizabeth.

His highness left Northampton for Oxford, in variable weather; the road, almost the whole of the way, was uneven; and the country, for the most part uncultivated, abounding in weeds, which surround on every side the royal villa of Holdenby, a square palace, situated on the highest part of an eminence, of which you have a view on the right, as you go along the road.

In this villa of Holdenby, King Charles I was shut up by order of the Parliament, on suspicion that he had attempted, with the assistance of Lord Murray, to fly from Newcastle in the county of Northumberland, where he was kept in strict confinement by the Scots.
Lord Murray = Sir Robert Moray FRS = https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

248

It was almost destroyed by the Parliamentarians in the time of Cromwell, but was restored by Charles II, and given to my Lord Arlington, and afterwards sold by him to the Duke of York.
Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington = https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

After taking a view of Holdenby, we entered into a park, separated by palisades from the adjacent territory, belonging to the villa of Althorp, a seat of my Lord Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, who had given his highness repeated and pressing invitations to visit him there.

For Cosmo’s visit to Althorp, see https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

San Diego Sarah on 13 Jun 2024  •  Link

Northampton's elections were notoriously "contested" in the 1660's and 1670's:

Elections Date and Candidates
29 Mar. 1660
RICHARD RAINSFORD I
FRANCIS HARVEY
Sir John Norwich, Bt.
NORWICH vice Harvey, on petition, 21 June 1660
29 Apr. 1661
SIR JAMES LANGHAM
FRANCIS HARVEY
SIR JOHN NORWICH, Bt.
Double return of Harvey and Norwich. HARVEY seated, 22 May 1661
Election declared void, 13 June 1661
4 Nov. 1661
SIR CHARLES COMPTON
RICHARD RAINSFORD I
21 Feb. 1662
SIR JAMES LANGHAM vice Compton, deceased
Sir William Dudley, Bt.
Election declared void, 26 Apr. 1662
9 Mar. 1663
SIR WILLIAM DUDLEY, Bt.
Hon. Christopher Hatton
HATTON vice Dudley, on petition, 9 Apr. 1663
31 Mar. 1664
SIR JOHN BERNARD vice Rainsford, appointed to office
Sir Henry Yelverton, Bt.
YELVERTON vice Bernard, on petition, 26 Apr. 1664
31 Oct. 1670
SIR WILLIAM FERMOR, Bt. vice Hatton, called to the Upper House
HENRY O'BRIEN, Lord Ibrackan vice Yelverton, deceased

Few constituencies had a more turbulent history than Northampton.
This was partly due to the existence of an ‘obstinate and numerous’ body of sectaries in the town, partly to the efforts of the corporation to retain the exclusive franchise which they had arrogated to themselves early in the 16th century.
This body fluctuated somewhat in number, but in 1674 consisted of 13 aldermen, 26 bailiffs and 48 ‘burgesses’.
None of the candidates resided in the borough, but all were landowners in the county, except Sir William Temple and Sir Hugh Cholmley, who were nominees of the Earl of Northampton.

The two Members returned in 1660, although of gentry families, were both lawyers professionally connected with the affairs of the corporation.
Richard Rainsford was an Anglican and a cautious Royalist, but Francis Harvey, the deputy recorder, may have opposed the Restoration.
Sir John Norwich, a Presbyterian Royalist, petitioned against Harvey, claiming a majority of the freemen.
Harvey, seeing no hope of success, tried to have the whole election declared void on the grounds that the precept had not been read, which would have deprived the House of the indispensable services of Rainsford as chairman of the land purchases committee.

On 9 June, 1660, the elections committee rejected Harvey’s contention, and agreed on a freeman franchise.
The corporation, alarmed at this news, resolved to join ‘with any other corporation of the neighborhood’ in defence of the narrow franchise.
This move may have been partially effective, for when the elections committee reported 2 days later, no reference was made to the freemen, although Harvey was duly unseated.

Harvey seems to have been replaced by Rainsford as deputy recorder soon after.

San Diego Sarah on 13 Jun 2024  •  Link

PART 2

At the 1661 general election Rainsford and Norwich stood as court candidates against Sir James Langham and Harvey, ‘persons that have the love and affection of the generality of the sober and discreet party’. Furthermore Langham’s father had been a considerable benefactor to the poor of the borough, and the mayor was a warm partisan who had been outraged by Rainsford’s injunctions for the restoration of the Prayer Book.
The elections committee found that he “used menaces to such as would not give their votes to Mr. Harvey, and had fraudulently, in the morning when the election was, made infants free, to the end they might vote as he pleased; and had caused several persons to be put by that would not vote as he desired; and had released Quakers out of prison, and put halberds in their hands, to keep back and discourage such as would have voted contrary to his intention; and adjourned the taking of the poll into the church; and got upon the communion table, and there behaved himself in a very profane and indecent manner.”

Rainsford withdrew before the poll, and the mayor declared Harvey and Langham elected. But the sheriff (Sir William Dudley) suppressed the return, on the grounds that it was not accompanied by his precept, and forwarded another in favor of Langham and Norwich, not authenticated by the seal of the corporation.

Both mayor and sheriff rushed into print to justify themselves; but Dudley had second thoughts and sent in the other return before Parliament met.
He escaped censure, but the mayor was not so fortunate, although 50 of Harvey’s supporters attended to give evidence that ‘there was no miscarriage of the mayor’s worth speaking of’.
After a week in custody, which cost him over £40 a day, he ‘received a grave reprehension from Mr. Speaker’ upon his knees.
The House agreed by 185 votes to 127 to declare the election void; from the tellers’ names, the division does not seem to have followed political lines.

The lesson was apparently effective, for Rainsford and the Cavalier Sir Charles Compton were returned to fill the vacancies unopposed.
Unfortunately Compton died in a riding accident before the month was out, and the next by-election was contested by Langham and Dudley.
The conflict of two such experienced politicians, with a large and newly-enfranchised electorate virtually guaranteed chaos.
‘Contrary to all expectation’, Langham was elected; but on Dudley’s petition ‘the matter was so intricate that the [elections] committee could not determine what the number was of those who had the right to give voices and were denied the poll’, and accordingly the election was declared void.

San Diego Sarah on 13 Jun 2024  •  Link

PART 3:

It was almost a year before the next by-election was held, during which the defences of Northampton were slighted, and the corporation purged, losing 46 of its members.
The dissenting interest was so far disheartened by these measures that Langham did not stand again, but determined to ‘baffle’ Dudley by setting up a moderate Royalist against him.
His third choice, Christopher Hatton, accepted, and the ‘secluded members of the corporation’ promised their support. He was ‘recommended by the Duke of York and several other noble persons’, while Lord Montagu of Boughton gave him cautious encouragement: ‘If Sir James can put over most of his voices to you, I suppose you may carry it, if the mayor deal fairly with you, who some think will do anything that Sir William will have him’.

Harvey was active on Hatton’s behalf, although the candidate feared that this might prejudice his chances, but Rainsford declared himself pre-engaged for Dudley.

On 9 Feb. 1663 Salathiel Lovell, Hatton’s election agent, wrote to him:
“Sir William Dudley, coming to the town on Wednesday night last, made it his work Thursday and Friday with six or seven of his new advanced creatures to go from inn to inn and from one alehouse to another, and send for men, and court some with flattering promises and pints of wine, and some with pipes and pots of ale, and others with ranting and threatening language.”
Hatton’s supporters withdrew from the town hall when it became clear that the mayor intended to return Dudley on the corporation franchise, and polled over 400 for their man at the market cross.
The mayor ‘armed 38 desperate persons with halberds, who, he said, would fight to the last man’, and ordered them to ‘strike down Hatton men’.
Dudley was duly returned, but the House ruled against the corporation franchise and unseated him in favor of Hatton.

In July 1663 a new charter was issued, reducing the quorum ‘because refractory aldermen do not attend’ and requiring royal approval for the recorder and town clerk.

But Rainsford was promoted to the bench in Nov. 1663, so followed another disputed election.

San Diego Sarah on 13 Jun 2024  •  Link

CONCLUSION:

But Rainsford was promoted to the bench in Nov. 1663, so followed another disputed election.
Sir John Bernard, one of Hatton’s supporters, stood against the Anglican controversialist, Sir Henry Yelverton.
The new mayor was in Bernard’s interest, and the Christmas alms were distributed accordingly.
Both spent lavishly, but Bernard had a majority of 30 on the poll.

On Yelverton’s petition, the House awarded the franchise to the inhabitant householders not in receipt of alms.
An attempt by the mayor to avenge his defeat by expelling Yelverton’s supporters from the corporation was frustrated by Rainsford, who procured a direct letter from Charles II.

In 1665 Dudley’s henchman, Alderman Friend of the Black Boy coffee-house, overreached himself; information was laid that he had encouraged the fanatics and publicly scorned Charles II’s letter of recommendation for a new steward of the town.
He was bound over to good behavior; and in the same year his patron was removed from the commission of the peace, probably through Lord Montagu’s influence.

A period of calm followed, not broken even by the 1670 by-election.
When Hatton succeeded to the peerage, the Duke of Ormonde wrote to Rainsford in favor of ‘Mr. George Digby’ (probably a mistake for Francis, the younger brother of John Digby), ‘who is of extraordinary parts, and those always rightly applied’.
But this commendation could not outweigh the predilection of the constituency for local men.
The Langham interest was probably at the disposal of the moderate Lord Ibrackan, and there was the prospect of another contest with Sir William Fermor, a Cavalier’s son. ...

FROM
https://www.historyofparliamenton…