Somerset

As a large, prosperous county, Somerset had no shortage of wealthy landowners each eager to serve as knights of the shire. Berkeleys, Hoptons, Horners, Phelippses, Pouletts and Rodeneys had all sat in recent Parliaments. The Pophams, Stawells and Portmans also could not be ignored. By the 1630s local politics had, to a great extent, revolved around the ongoing feud between the 1st Baron Poulett (John Poulett†), assisted by Sir John Stawell*, and the dominant county figure, Sir Robert Phelipps† of Montacute. Phelipps’s death in 1638 might have been the moment to move on. But for Poulett and his friends this was more a chance to press their advantage. These mutual hatreds were far from extinguished by the time a new Parliament was summoned for the spring of 1640.

One name which quickly figured in speculation about who might stand in those elections was that of Sir Ralph Hopton*. Hopton could claim to have defended the Protestant cause abroad – most notably at the battle of the White Mountain in Bohemia in 1620 – and more recently he had become a sceptical observer of the king’s attempts to suppress the Scottish rebellion. Just as importantly, he had largely avoided taking sides in the great Poulett-Phelipps feud. As early as mid-December 1639, Alexander Popham* assumed Hopton would stand and encouraged Poulett’s son-in-law, Thomas Smyth I*, to join forces with him. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 150. Although aged only about 30, Smyth had sat in the previous Parliament (as MP for Bridgwater). While not one of the king’s most obvious critics in Somerset, he had been uneasy about the collection of Ship Money, even to the extent of lobbying to avoid being named as sheriff in 1637. At some point over the following months, Smyth informed Lord Poulett’s son, Sir John Poulett*, of his ‘absolute resolution’ to stand for one of the county seats. Sir John replied by declaring that he would throw his weight behind ‘S and P’, that is, Smyth and Alexander Popham. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 154. Popham’s claim to the seat rested on his status as the heir to the elderly Sir Francis Popham*, the very wealthy magnate with estates in Wiltshire and Somerset. In early March Alexander Popham assured Smyth that Sir Francis Popham planned to ‘canvas all the west’ for him. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 154.

However, by late January a fourth candidate had emerged in the shape of John Coventry* of Pitminster, son of the recently deceased Lord Keeper Coventry (Sir Thomas Coventry†). But, as Edward Phelipps*, Sir Robert’s son and heir, discovered when he spoke to him in London, Coventry faced the more immediate task of arranging his father’s funeral. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 150-1. A month later Coventry had declared his candidacy and had already stirred up controversy. Writing to Anthony Ashley Cooper* on 29 February, he explained that some had objected when he had accused Alexander Popham of being a bankrupt. He also implied that Smyth and Popham were working together, whereas he and Hopton ‘as yet stand single’. Most significantly of all, Coventry identified the backers of Smyth and Popham as ‘the Robins’. PRO30/24/2/39. This evidently comprehended a cryptic allusion to Robin Hood, but the origins of that term remain obscure. Phelipps had previously referred to ‘the Robins of the west’ and it can be inferred that this was a nickname being used by their opponents for the anti-court faction in Somerset promoting Smyth and Popham. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 150, 166. Moreover, Coventry named their leaders as Edward Kirton*, William Strode II* and John Ashe* (‘Ash the clothier’). PRO30/24/2/39. The use of this nickname is confirmed by one of the poll lists from this election (discussed below) which calls some of those supporting Smyth and Popham, including Kirton, Strode and Ashe, the ‘Little Robins’, while those supporting Coventry and Hopton were the ‘Little Johns’. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 196.

Yet, if Smyth and Popham were as well-organised as Coventry believed, they were not at all complacent. On 16 March Smyth wrote to the mayor of Bath, William Chapman, asking that the Bath election be held after the county poll, because he and Popham were ‘so much retarded by the operation of a conjunction that our fortunes herein [the county election] are very doubtful’ and so they might yet wish to use the Bath seats as a fall-back option. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 155. That ‘conjunction’ was evidently Hopton and Coventry. Smyth had already warned Sir Francis Popham that Alexander’s deference toward Hopton was working against their own chances. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 156. But Smyth soon changed tack. On 24 March he reached an agreement with Coventry and Hopton they would all cease canvassing for votes and absent themselves from the election, because they wanted to ‘leave them [the Somerset freeholders] at liberty to choose such gentlemen of worth as they shall think fit.’ Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 197. They were not actually withdrawing from the contest, but merely calling off competition for votes that may have become increasingly unseemly. Popham was probably not a party to this agreement simply because his resolution was wavering to the extent that he was considering withdrawing entirely. Smyth wrote to him on 28 March, two days before the election, to encourage him to remain in the contest. He also pointed out that Sir John Stawell would throw his considerable influence behind whichever candidates he thought would work to his own advantage. Smyth and Popham may have met at Whitchurch the following day to plan their tactics for the election the day after that. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 156.

Two undated lists of names among Smyth’s papers can, with some certainly, be deduced to be lists of the supporters for the two pairs of candidates. The first list groups 25 supporters under Hopton and Coventry against 32 under Popham and Smyth. Most tellingly, those in the former group are headed by a non-voting cheerleader, the bishop of Bath and Wells, William Piers, thereby confirming that Hopton and Coventry represented those less critical of recent royal policies. Their other supporters included Sir Henry Berkeley*, Sir Charles Berkeley*, Sir Edward Rodeney*, Sir William Portman*, William Bassett*, Abraham Burrell* and John Harington I*. Not so obviously at home in this group was Edward Phelipps, but he presumably supported Coventry in recognition of the latter’s long-standing friendship with his family and indeed Phelipps had previously encouraged Coventry and Smyth to stand together at Ilchester. The opposing list was headed by Smyth’s father-in-law, Lord Poulett, and also numbered Sir Francis Popham, Stawell, Sir John Horner*, Thomas Luttrell†, John Preston* and Henry Henley*. The second list is that of ‘Little Johns’ and ‘Little Robins’. None of those names appear on the first, but what the distinction might be is not clear. It could be that these were the more active supporters. There are 12 ‘Little Johns’ supporting Coventry and Hopton, among whom were Charles Staynings* and possibly Thomas Hodges II*. They were outnumbered by the 22 ‘Little Robins’ backing Popham and Smyth, who, along with Kirton, Strode and Ashe, included William Prynne* and John Buckland*. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 150, 195-6. Neither of these lists were exhaustive and it can be assumed that many more electors would have been present on the day; one group of voters, those from Wells, probably travelled to Ilchester together. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 780. On the other hand, the lists could be interpreted as indicating that supporters of Popham and Smyth outnumbered those of Coventry and Hopton by about three to two, although this did not mean that the larger group was able to dictate the outcome. In the end the two blocs compromised: one candidate from each side was chosen, namely Hopton and Smyth. Sir John Poulett, Stawell and Bassett were among the Somerset gentlemen who, with the sheriff, Sir Thomas Wroth*, signed the indenture. C219/42, pt. 2, f. 2; Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 197. Smyth’s advance soundings paid off when Popham was able to take the consolation prize of one of the Bath seats three days later.

Hopton and Smyth must have known from the outset that there would be an expectation that they ought to allow others a chance to sit in Parliament as knights of the shire at the next election that autumn. Smyth even seems to have discouraged others putting his name forward. In response to the news that Sir John Poulett had gained one of these seats, an annoyed Edward Phelipps wrote to Smyth complaining

Your brother Poulett had no probability of receiving this honour had your name been only mentioned at the cross [at Ilchester], but, to concur with your desire though much against my will, I have absented myself from the election though I had much encouragement from my neighbours who, for your service, in this short time were grown to 150, which under your servants’ conduct would have kissed your hands and most of them double voices, so lamely hath your brother solicited them. Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 167.

For Phelipps, the bad news of Poulett’s election was compounded by the fact that he was paired with another Phelipps enemy, Sir John Stawell. Within two years both Poulett and Stawell would be in arms fors the king, but, then again, five months earlier Poulett’s father and Stawell had supported Smyth and Popham. Even once Smyth had withdrawn, their return cannot have been unopposed, as a petition against the result from some of Somerset voters was presented to the Commons on 9 November. CJ ii. 22b. Nothing more was heard of this challenge, so Poulett and Stawell were allowed to continue sitting until 8 August 1642, when, having taken a lead in organising royalist support in Somerset, both were expelled from Parliament. CJ ii. 708b. Poulett later wavered in his support for the king and, with more encouragement, might have been persuaded to change sides. But there was never any question of him being re-admitted to the Commons.

For two years from the summer of 1643 Somerset was in royalist hands. Although Sir Thomas Fairfax* commenced a re-conquest for Parliament in July 1645, its control could be considered secure only with the fall of Bristol on 10 September, and even then Francis Wyndham* still held Dunster Castle for the king. As early as 25 September Parliament ordered writs for by-elections at Bristol, Bath, Wells, Taunton, Bridgwater, Ilchester and Milborne Port, but delayed until 25 October 1645 to order the writ for a by-election to replace Poulett and Stawell in the county seats (as well as another for Minehead). CJ iv. 286b-287a, 322a-b. The presence of the army stationed in the county cowed many but also encouraged resentment and hostility. Meanwhile, the new county committee, created by Parliament to re-establish their hold on Somerset and dominated by John Pyne* and his friends, expected to control these elections to entrench themselves in power: it seemed as if an extensive electoral bounty had simply fallen into their laps. John Ashe even told the Speaker, William Lenthall*, that ‘they have more places than men to supply them’. Bodl. Nalson 5, f. 29. Their confidence was misplaced, however.

The most obvious threat came from William Strode II, who had come to distrust the army and who was emerging as one of the leading critics of the ascendant Pyne faction. Some of his views chimed with those of the clubmen, who, in response to the presence of Fairfax’s army, had become a significant force within the county. Their most active spokesman, Humphrey Willis, was among those endorsing Strode. According to his own account, Willis told voters at Ilchester that ‘Strode was an honest man, and a good commonwealth man, and that if he stood to be knight of the shire, he should not only have my voice, but 500 more of my procuring’. H. Wills, The power of the Cttee. of the Co. of Som. [1646], 7 (E.345.3). For this, Pyne then had Willis arrested. Wills, Power, 7. There were also allegations that the county sequestrators were threatening anyone else who voiced support for Strode. The Scotish Dove no. 119 (21-9 Jan. 1646), 942-3 (E.319.17). As a counterweight to him, Pyne and the county committee put up Henry Henley, who, like Strode, had served as a colonel in the army. They then paired Henley with John Harington I, a more obviously civilian figure intended to reassure those with misgivings about parliamentarian hardliners. However, Strode was assumed to have the support of most of the freeholders. The Scotish Dove no. 113 (10-17 Dec. 1645), 893 (E.313.1); no. 119, 942-3. But there was to be a further crucial factor. The previous year, when the county was still under royalist control, Parliament had appointed Sir John Horner as its sheriff. Only now was Horner able to perform those duties and the most important and most immediate of these would be to preside over these by-elections. It soon became clear that Horner had only one aim here – to see his son, George Horner*, elected as one of the new knights of the shire. It would even be suggested that he did not much care who won the other seat. Scotish Dove, no. 119, 943. That ambition now created an electoral mess.

The location and date of the election were initially fixed for Ilchester on 1 December 1645. HMC Portland, i. 318; CJ iv. 565b. The county committee then arranged to hold its next meeting there to coincide with it in the hope of overawing the voters. On 28 November Henley arrived in the town at the head of some of the cavalry from the Somerset militia. The next day he and Horner consulted with the county committee. That night it snowed and the weather remained foul over the next few days. The voters, numbering about 1,000, then assembled on 1 December in the expectation that the poll would take place as planned. But there was no sign of Sir John Horner and the county clerk then announced that the poll was being adjourned to Queen Camel, a village about four miles to the east of Ilchester. The excuse was rumours of the plague. No one, including the members of the county committee, was at all happy. Strode then arrived ‘with a great company’ and the crowd began repeatedly chanting his name, ‘A Strode’. Strode’s reaction to the adjournment was probably disingenuous. He may previously have encouraged the idea of moving the election from Ilchester, fearing that the efforts by the county committee to intimidate the locals would be successful. Now he announced that he disapproved of the move and that it was illegal, but that he could not challenge the sheriff’s orders. After a message was sent to Sir John Horner asking for clarification, the sheriff sent his two sons, including George, to confirm the adjournment. The meeting broke up at about 11am. Later that day, Horner announced that, as it was now too late to hold the poll at Queen Camel that same day, it would take place there at 8am the following morning. HMC Portland, i. 318-19; Scotish Dove no. 113, 893-4; no. 119, 943-4; CJ iv. 565b-566a. Only about 60 voters turned up then. The county committee boycotted it. Scotish Dove no. 113, 894. Undeterred, Horner proceeded with the election. One report claimed that only ‘some few’ voted for George Horner and that Harington received no more than eight votes. Scotish Dove no. 119, 945. Sir John still declared them to be the winners. CJ iv. 566a. It seems likely that no other names had been put to those present.

At once, angry voters began organising official protests. Almost everyone could agree that Horner had behaved badly. It was even said that 5,000 men were preparing to march to London to protest directly to Parliament. Scotish Dove no. 113, 894. Some members of the county committee and their allies, led by Edward Popham* (who around this time was elected as the new MP for Minehead), wrote to Speaker Lenthall on the same day as the Queen Camel poll, complaining that Horner, being biased against Henley and Harington, had abused his position. The only remedy would be for a new writ to be issued. HMC Portland, i. 318-19. This letter was read in the Commons on 9 December. CJ iv. 369. A petition – or just possibly the same letter – was presented to the Commons by Popham on 1 January 1646. However, according to the Journals, ‘nothing done upon it.’ CJ iv. 394a. A second petition was heard nine days later with the same result. CJ iv. 401a. But the Commons was not completely inactive. On 13 January Edmund Prideaux I* reported to it the conclusion of the Committee of the West that ‘a principal cause of the present distractions’ in Somerset was ‘the supposed undue proceedings in elections for knights of that county’. The task of investigating these elections was then given to the Northern Committee*, presumably on the basis that they would not be swayed by any local interests. CJ iv. 405a-b. In the meantime, Horner and Harington were permitted to take their seats. CJ iv. 420b; Harington’s Diary, 15. The Northern Committee announced on 23 April that it agreed that Horner as sheriff had acted improperly. The following day George Horner approached Harington to propose that, as a new election would probably be called, they should join forces. Harington rejected this overture, telling Horner that he ‘would join with no man’. He also indicated that, as ‘others had very much declared themselves for me’, he ‘meant to embrace men’s affections’ and so stand again. Harington’s Diary, 22. The findings of the Northern Committee were reported to the Commons in detail on 5 June by one of the Nelthorpes, either James* or John*. These tally closely with the other known accounts. There was no real doubt that Horner had lacked the authority to move the election. The Commons accepted this report and declared the election to be void. A new writ was then ordered. CJ iv. 565b-566a.

Harington, accompanied by John Ashe, had returned to Somerset two weeks before, quite possibly in the expectation that the election would soon be re-run. On reaching home, he then spent the next few weeks visiting as many of his potential supporters as possible. Meanwhile, a number of local gentlemen, led by Pyne and Henley, and also including Thomas Hippisley* and John Preston*, delayed taking their oaths as justices on the new commission of the peace in protest against Horner’s conduct as sheriff. Alexander Popham, in conversation with Harington, spoke highly of Henley while denouncing Sir John Horner’s ‘unkindness’. Harington’ Diary, 28. In the end, however, this made little difference to the result. The new election took place at Castle Cary on 13 July. C219/42, f. 135. That evening Harington received news that ‘most voices’ had been for himself and George Horner. Harington’s Diary, 28. Who, if anyone, stood against them is not known. It would be unsurprising if Henley did so, but the other former candidate, William Strode II, had since been elected as MP for Ilchester in a by-election which had been little more than a continuation of the dispute over the county poll by other means. Without Strode in the race, the county committee was probably less anxious to control the outcome. While they would have preferred Henley, they could live with the younger Horner. Sir John Horner delivered the return to Harington the next day and on 15 July Harington set out for London. Harington’s Diary, 28 Just one of the newsbooks, The Scotish Dove, mentioned this election, complaining that, whereas the previous election had been declared illegal, this one was ‘worse’; frustratingly, it gave no more details. The Scotish Dove no. 144 (22-31 July 1646), 714 (E.346.10). Harington and Horner sat as the Somerset MPs until both were removed in the purge of 6 December 1648.

Somerset was allocated four seats in the 1653 Nominated Parliament. The choice of Pyne to occupy one of them was perhaps inevitable as, despite his long-running feud with Ashe, he was now more than ever the dominant figure in Somerset local politics. Robert Blake* was, if anything, an even more obvious choice. The naval war against the Dutch, especially the defeat of Maarten Harpertszoon Tromp at the battle of Portland earlier that year, made him one of the most respected and least controversial men summoned to sit in this Parliament. More visibly one of the ‘saints’ was Denis Hollister*, a leading organiser among the Bristol separatists. The fourth MP, Henry Henley, may have been a late addition to the list. Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 139n. As a staunch Presbyterian, he was also a less predictable nomination. Perhaps he had been recommended by Pyne. If so, his old friend had at last got him a seat in Parliament.

For Somerset, the redistribution of seats under the 1653 Instrument of Government amounted to a simple shuffling within the county boundary, since the overall total of 16 seats (excluding Bristol) was unchanged. The difference was that Ilchester, Milborne Port and Minehead lost all their seats, while Bath, Wells and Bridgwater were reduced to one seat each. Taunton was the only borough constituency to retain both its seats. The nine abolished seats were then allocated to the county, which now had 11. A. and O.

The first Somerset election held under these new franchises took place at Wells on 12 July 1654. Those signing the indenture included George Luttrell*, John Gorges* and Lislebone Long*. C219/44, pt. 2, Som. indenture, 12 July 1654. A key source is a list of the number of votes cast for each of the winning candidates written on the front cover of a volume of agistment accounts for the parish of Cricket St Thomas which originally belonged to one of those candidates, John Preston*. Som. RO, DD/HI/B/442. The total number of votes cast was over 10,500, so it is clear that each voter must have had multiple votes. Indeed, it may well have been the case that each voter had 11 votes, one for each seat. The most notable feature of the result was who was not elected. Pyne had profound doubts about the concept of rule by one man embodied by the protectorate and so probably did not even stand. Ashe, in contrast, stood and was elected, his 1,064 votes putting him in fifth place. Of the others chosen, probably only Preston (1,059 votes) and Thomas Hippisley (701 votes) stood for the remaining vestiges of Pyne’s former ascendency. Others, like John Buckland* and Richard Jones II*, were more neutral figures. Their determination to stand aloof from the infighting between Pyne and Ashe had previously got them caught in the factional crossfire over control of the Somerset sequestration commission. Like his late father, whom he had only recently succeeded, John Harington II* was another moderate. Sir John Horner was no more the pawn of any faction than he had been in late 1645, although, despite his strongly Presbyterian views, he had proved a willing servant of the republic. Many of the Somerset voters seem to have had little interest in past factional struggles, with Horner, Harington and, most especially Buckland, who comfortably came top with 1,221 votes, all performing very well in the poll. Another confirmed Presbyterian was Robert Long II*. He was something of an outsider because, although he lived at Staunton Prior, he was more notable in Wiltshire, which was why he had only recently been added to the Somerset commission of the peace. John Disbrowe* was the most conspicuous representative of an army interest and, with 1,098 votes, his election was never in doubt. The same cannot be said for Samuel Perry*, who, having served under Blake and succeeded him as the governor of Taunton, can also be counted as a military man. His 587 votes were just enough to earn a place. The wildcard was Charles Staynings. Another strong Presbyterian, he had been dismissed from the commission of the peace in 1651 and was actually a crypto-royalist. Shortly after the election a local informant contacted the council of state to tell them that Staynings had been writing pro-royalist poetry. CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 281-3. Despite this tip-off, Staynings was still allowed to take his seat. As he was also elected for Cambridgeshire and Totnes, Disbrowe informed Parliament on 4 October that he wished to sit for Cambridgeshire. A new writ was therefore issued for Somerset. CJ vii. 372b. The resulting by-election, held at some unknown date thereafter, was won by John Barker*, an obscure figure from High Ham who had probably previously served in the army.

The election for the next Parliament took place at Wells on 20 August 1656. Before proceeding to the vote, the presiding sheriff, Robert Hunt*, called on those present to make their selection with care.

In all probability the issue of this Parliament will be the welfare or ruin of this poor church and state. If then you tender your own good, if the happiness and quiet of your wives and children or of your poor country, be wise and careful in your choice. Do not cry up any man that cries down government unless you are contended to have your peace and quiet cried down. Methinks I hear your liberties, your laws, your peace, your religion, all calling upon you and beseeching you to lay your hands upon your hearts and resolve to chose none but pious, sober, prudent and peaceable men. Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 76.

This speech was followed by the reading of the writ. Mindful that there were 11 seats to fill and there was ‘a very great number present’, Hunt then announced that voting by voices would be impractical. He therefore allowed the voters one hour in which to cast their votes. Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 76.

How this unfolded is even better well-documented than for the 1654 election as Hunt made a detailed record of the voting figures for most of the candidates. Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 76-7. The most obvious revelation is that significantly more votes must have been cast in 1656 than in 1654. Hunt’s figures total over 23,500, of which over 20,000 were cast for the 11 winning candidates. That implies that the total number of votes must have roughly doubled. (As before, each voter may well have had 11 votes, but not necessarily used them all.) That the turnout was twice as big is perfectly plausible, for example given some of the increases in the votes cast for individual candidates. Five men who had been elected in 1654 – Buckland, Robert Long, Disbrowe, Ashe and Harington – were re-elected. Buckland did particularly well, almost doubling his vote to 2,374, so that he topped the poll again. In proportional terms, Long’s increase (from 964 to 2,067) was even more impressive and he therefore rose to third place. In comparison, Disbrowe, Ashe and Harington each only increased their votes by about half. In Disbrowe’s case, the big difference now was that he was the local major-general. Also, this time, although he was elected for three other constituencies (Bridgwater, Gloucester and King’s Lynn), he would choose to sit for Somerset. CJ vii. 428a, 442b. Although not as impressive as it might have been, his tally of 1,737 votes was a comfortable enough result. Some of the Somerset voters were evidently willing to endorse what he stood for, which was clearly the continuing government of the localities by himself and the other major-generals.

But only a couple of the other successful candidates can be said to have been visible supporters of the protectorate. John Gorges was one of them. Had he not currently been completing his year in office as mayor of Taunton, which he had represented in the previous Parliament, he would doubtless have attempted to get re-elected there. Lislebone Long was an ambitious lawyer who, as one of the masters of requests, had shown himself willing to serve in close proximity to the lord protector. He had since become the recorder of London, a prestigious appointment which may have helped to impress the voters of his native county. But the other new candidates gained these seats were not so keen on the protector’s government. Three – Francis Luttrell*, William Wyndham* and Francis Rolle* – were young men of unknown quantity. Luttrell may have gained fifth place almost entirely on the basis of his family name. Similarly, Rolle’s election may have owed much to the memory of his late father, Henry Rolle†, the former lord chief justice of king’s bench who had died only the previous year. Shortly before his death, Henry Rolle had resigned as a judge after clashing with the government over the case of George Cony. Electing his son could have been a proxy endorsement of the late judge’s audacity. The final candidate taking a county seat for the first time was Alexander Popham. Since 1640 he had had a distinguished career in the parliamentarian army. But now he had become one of those army veterans uncomfortable with the moves away from a pure republic. Significantly, he came second in the poll with 2,362 votes. Popham was also elected for Wiltshire. Despite Disbrowe’s personal success, the result cannot be said to have been a strong endorsement of the protectorate. Many of the voters had clearly ignored Hunt’s advice.

Where the increased turnout made a crucial difference was further down the field. Richard Jones actually managed to increase his vote in proportional terms almost as much as his old friend, John Buckland. But he still slipped from tenth to twelfth place, which made all the difference between gaining and losing a seat. Thomas Hippisley’s vote remained almost unchanged, which also cost him his place. The big shock, however, was the defeat of John Pyne. He trailed in fourteenth place, behind Jones and Hippisley, with an embarrassing 457 votes. That Hunt disliked Pyne may have been a contributing factor. But also defeated were seven men who would once have been considered Pyne’s allies. Apart from Hippisley, they all did even worse than Pyne himself. William Carent*, Sir Thomas Wroth* and John Palmer* had all been elected as recruiter MPs a decade earlier with Pyne’s backing. Alexander Pym, John Pym’s* son, would have been had he not lost out in the bitter Ilchester by-election. Richard Bovett, a former mayor of Taunton, had been the lieutenant-colonel of Pyne’s militia regiment. A.L. Humphreys, The Materials for the Hist. of the Town of Wellington (London and Wellington, 1889), 75; Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 39; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 521. Edward Ceeley of Creech St Mary was another militia colonel and, like Bovett, an energetic justice of the peace. Vis. Som. 1672 (Harl. Soc. n.s. xi), 78; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 521; 1650, p. 175; 1651, pp. 474, 505; QS Recs. Som. Commonwealth, pp. xxi. 203-379. The obvious exception to this pattern was the defeat of William Strode II*, a staunch political Presbyterian who disliked Pyne and who was now no more reconciled to the protectorate than he had been to the preceding republic. The most obscure of the losing candidates was John Bowcher of East Harptree, who held no local offices and who seems to have had no prior involvement in county politics. Vis. Som. 1623 (Harl. Soc. xi), 12; Brown, Abstracts of Som. Wills, ii. 50; Vis. Som. 1672, 44. Finally, and in last place, the candidacy of John Okey* seems little more than quirky. Okey, who had been barred from the previous Parliament and who had been cashiered from the army for his opposition to the protectorate, had no obvious connections with the county. Recording the result, Hunt laconically noted that Pym, Carent, Wroth, Strode, Palmer, Bowcher and Okey ‘had a few voices but much short’ of the others. Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 77.

So the result was more complex than just a backlash against the protectorate. Pyne was after all no less sceptical of the current government than some of the successful candidates. With 11 seats to fill, the allocation was never going to favour just one group. Several rival viewpoints got to be represented. But the trend does seem to have been away from those figures associated with county government in the late 1640s and in the more immediate past towards a younger generation untainted by recent events. The protectoral council recognised that the result had not gone all its own way. When it came to decide which MPs to exclude from this Parliament, it blacklisted Buckland, Popham and Long, the three men who had come top of the poll. CJ vii. 425b. Later, in December 1657, Oliver Cromwell* tried to woo Popham by summoning him to the Other House. In theory, this prevented him taking his seat in the Commons when this Parliament was recalled the following month, but he ignored the summons and he may even have got elected at Minehead in 1659. Whether either Buckland or Long sat in January 1658 is not clear. Disbrowe, on the other hand, did accept his elevation to the Other House.

Buckland’s exclusion from Parliament in 1656 can hardly have harmed his popularity in Somerset and so he was re-elected as knight of the shire in 1659. The revival of the old constituencies meant that most of the previous candidates were forced to look elsewhere, with some, like John Gorges, John Ashe and possibly Robert Long II, winning seats outside Somerset. The man Buckland was now paired with had been unable to stand in 1656, the then-sheriff, Robert Hunt. However, Hunt then stood for Milborne Port as well, possibly in order to prevent Pyne gaining that seat. On 17 March, in his absence, the Commons declared that Hunt was to sit for the county and so ordered a new writ for Milborne Port. CJ vii. 615a.