Wells

Wells, like Bath, the town to which it was linked by the title of their bishop, owed its name to the presence of springs. The crucial difference, however, was that those at Bath were hot. But if Wells had never been able to develop as a spa centre in the way that Bath had done, it had acquired other advantages in its centuries-old rivalry with its neighbour. Bishops of Bath and Wells may have taken their title from both towns and officially Bath was the senior partner, but since the thirteenth century those bishops had preferred to base themselves at Wells. As it remained one of the smaller English cathedral cities, the bishop tended to loom very large in its affairs. The three-way split so typical of such cities – of tensions between the bishop and the corporation, between the cathedral chapter and the corporation and between the bishop and the chapter – recurs often in its history. By 1640 the current bishop, the zealous Laudian William Piers, was on bad terms with the cathedral chapter, while the corporation remained wary of both. HMC Wells, ii. 424. Since 1589, when it had been incorporated by royal chapter, the city had managed to gain a measure of independence from its episcopal master. Under that charter, the corporation consisted of a mayor, seven senior aldermen known as ‘masters’ and 16 capital burgesses. Economically, the city was heavily dependant on the cloth trade and so its continued prosperity in the early seventeenth century was far from secure. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. i. 26-33. But in 1635 Sir William Brereton* gained a favourable impression. He thought it ‘a city dainty, neat, pleasant, uniform, dry-seated town as most in England’. W. Brereton, Travels in Holland, the United Provinces, England, Scotland and Ireland, ed. E. Hawkins (Chetham Soc. i), 175. Similarly, three decades later the Dutch artist, William Schellinks, noted that, ‘On account of the many inhabitants, fine buildings and streets, it is the principal town of this county.’ William Schellinks Jnl. 107.

The exact extent of its parliamentary franchise in this period was ambiguous. In the past, the burgesses had been allowed to participate in elections. By 1642 those burgesses numbered at least 130. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. i. 3. But in reality the choice of MPs seems to have been made by the 24 senior members of the corporation, the masters and the capital burgesses. If the burgesses were involved at all, it was probably only to endorse that selection. Previously bishops had often influenced the outcome of these elections. So it was hardly unprecedented that in December 1639 Bishop Piers asked the corporation that they ‘would have him in mind when the election of burgesses of Parliament should be.’ However, two strong candidates, Sir Edward Rodeney* and John Baber*, were by then already pressing their claims. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 774. Both started with the advantage that they had been the city’s MPs before. Rodeney, a local landowner with estates at Pilton, had been a prominent member of the corporation for over two decades, serving for a time as their recorder and as their MP in the 1621, 1624, 1625 and 1626 Parliaments. He would almost certainly have been their MP again in 1628 had he not been one of the knights of the shire. His place as the junior Wells MP in 1628 had been taken by Baber, who had been recorder since 1625. It is true that Baber’s fractious personality had since caused him to clash with several leading members of the corporation and with Bishop Piers. But this was not now held against him. On 19 March 1640 the corporation unanimously returned Rodeney and Baber as their MPs. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 781; C219/42, pt. 2, f. 6. The burgesses also probably travelled together as a party to Ilchester to vote in the poll for the county MPs. Rodeney then set out to Westminster with the intention of raising the issue of the dispute between the city’s companies of tradesmen. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 780, 782. Nothing came of this, doubtless because this Parliament was so soon dissolved.

On 1 October 1640 the new mayor, Thomas Jones, suggested to his colleagues that, in view of the forthcoming election, they should ‘reserve their voices for the election of the burgesses of Parliament when occasion serves.’ Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 793. This time they would have a choice of candidates. As well as Rodeney and Baber, who both stood again, Sir Ralph Hopton* came forward. He was another man who had previously represented the city, as he had been paired with Baber in the 1628 Parliament. In the Short Parliament election he had been returned as a knight of the shire, quite possibly assisted by the votes of the Wells burgesses. A far more substantial figure than Baber, he and Rodeney now edged out the recorder. The corporation’s vote on 17 October to elect Hopton and Rodeney was, at least on paper, unanimous. The serjeant-at-law Thomas Malet†, who owned land at Poynington, sealed the election indenture three days later. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 795-6. Baber then stopped attending corporation meetings and resigned as a capital burgess, although he did remain as recorder.

In late July 1642 Hopton and Rodeney both joined the royalist forces assembled at Wells by the 1st marquess of Hertford (Sir William Seymour†). In response, the Commons disabled Hopton from sitting as an MP on 5 August, while Rodeney suffered the same fate on 12 August. CJ ii.704a, 716b. Impeachment proceedings were subsequently instigated against both men. CJ ii. 745a-b. This may not have overly concerned the Wells corporation. When the 5th earl of Bedford (William Russell*) arrived to take control of the city for Parliament in the wake of Hertford’s withdrawal, the welcome from the civic leaders was decidedly lukewarm, most probably because they preferred to remain aloof and maintain a consensus among themselves. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 834. However, by the summer of 1643 the royalists among them were becoming more assertive as, thanks largely to Hopton, northern Somerset was once again under royalist control. In July they ordered that bells be rung to celebrated the king’s capture of Bristol. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 848. Then, at the prompting of Hertford and Hopton, they removed the two of their number who had most openly backed Parliament. D. Underdown, ‘A case concerning bishops’ lands: Cornelius Burges and the corporation of Wells’, EHR lxxviii. 22-3. Rodeney had meanwhile been held in custody as a prisoner in London by Parliament. His release later that summer provided the Wells corporation with a further opportunity to parade their loyalties. On 31 August, on hearing of Rodeney’s return, they agreed to send a delegation to welcome him. As far as they were concerned, he was still, in the words of the corporation minutes, ‘one of the burgesses of the Parliament for this city’. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 853.

In due course Parliament, convinced otherwise, took steps to replace Hopton and Rodeney. On 25 September 1645, the Commons ordered a new election at Wells, and the necessary writ was issued on 21 October. CJ iv. 286b; C231/6, p. 27. The county committee, dominated by John Pyne* and his more radical allies, saw the ‘recruiter’ elections as their chance to ensure that as many Somerset constituencies as possible would now be represented by men who shared their views. However, at Wells, given the previous stance of the corporation, the required result was not a foregone conclusion. As a warning to them, the county committee had the recorder, Christopher Doddington, who had been appointed the previous year on the recommendations of both Hopton and Rodeney, placed under arrest. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 877-8, 880, 881; CCC 936. No election had been held at Wells by 27 January 1646, when the Commons criticised the sheriff, Sir John Horner*, for his lack of urgency in making the Somerset returns. CJ iv. 420a. At some point during the next four weeks, the Wells burgesses defied the county committee and chose its most divergent member, Clement Walker*. Their other choice, Lislebone Long*, whose residence was at Stratton on the Fosse, about five miles from Wells, was only slightly less provocative. A rising barrister who had also made his mark on the pro-parliamentarian county committee, he was at least rather more measured in his opposition to Pyne’s faction. Long had taken his seat at Westminster by 25 February 1645, for on that day he took the Covenant. CJ iv. 454a. Walker, on the other hand, did not do likewise until the following June. CJ iv. 586a. Walker’s role over the next few years as one of the most vocal Presbyterians in the Commons ensured that, when the army purged the House on 6 December 1648, he was excluded. Long, in contrast, conformed to the Rump and remained active as an MP until the dissolution in 1653. A purge of the Wells corporation in 1649 removed a handful of masters and capital burgesses who were unwilling to take the Engagement, including William West, the ex-mayor who had been the king’s most enthusiastic supporter on the corporation. Wells Convocation Acts Bks. ii. 1021. These were in fact the years when the corporation were at its most cohesive. What united them was resistance to the prominent London Presbyterian clergyman Cornelius Burges, who had bought up all the former lands of the bishop and of the dean and chapter. The corporation spent the next decade relentlessly challenging those purchases in the law courts. Underdown, ‘A case concerning bishops’ lands’, 18-48.

Of the 18 seats allocated to Somerset constituencies by the Instrument of Government, only one was assigned to Wells. A. and O. This reduction in its representation was less of a problem for the Wells electors than it might have been. Walker had died in 1651, whereas Long was still available. So, when they met on 6 July 1654 to select their MP for the first protectoral Parliament, the ‘burgesses and inhabitants’ simply re-elected Long. C219/44, pt. 2, unfol.

When the sheriff of Somerset, Robert Hunt, wrote to the mayor of Wells, Stephen Haskett, in July 1656 to inform him that an election for the second protectoral Parliament would need to be held, he advised them to return ‘a pious, sober, prudent person’. Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 74. This time Long was not available, preferring to stand for the county seats. John Disbrowe*, the major-general for the south-western counties, spotted the opportunity and moved quickly to exploit it. There can be little doubt that Disbrowe was behind the choice by the Wells electors of one of the army officers from the local garrison as their new MP. John Jenkins* was a Welshman who had served as a captain in the New Model cavalry regiment commanded by Oliver Cromwell* and, more recently, by Disbrowe. His only connection with Somerset was that he had been stationed at Wells for the past six years. That he had been close to the lord protector doubtless added to his appeal. It may also have made a difference that Stephen Haskett, one of the two men purged from the corporation in 1643 and now one of its members most sympathetic to the protectorate, should have been mayor at this time. Jenkins was duly elected, quite possibly without opposition, on 7 August. Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 74-5; TSP v. 302-3. That return was made in the name of the ‘burgesses and inhabitants’. The indenture also included the standard requirement that Jenkins as the MP ‘shall not have power to alter the government as it is now settled in one single person and a Parliament.’ Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 74-5. The county poll (in which Long was successful) was held in the city on 20 August.

Naturally enough, rather different considerations applied for the elections to the 1659 Parliament. Jenkins would doubtless have seemed less useful by then, but his military duties had anyway taken him to the other end of the country. No longer able to look to one of the county seats, now reduced to two again, Long sought to be re-elected at Wells. He could now be considered an even greater catch, for, having been recorder of London since 1655, he could have been a credible candidate to represent the capital. But for this office, Long might well have been appointed as recorder of Wells when Doddington had died in 1656. The man appointed instead, Thomas White*, now became the other Wells MP. Although much younger and with far less professional experience as a barrister than Long, White had family connections with Wells and had recently inherited some property there. During this Parliament Long served briefly as acting Speaker when Chaloner Chute I* fell ill, only to fall ill himself and die on 16 March 1659. The writ for a by-election at Wells to replace Long was moved successfully in the Commons on 16 April. CJ vii. 641a. But this Parliament was dissolved six days later.

Long’s death also meant that there was no surviving qualified Member to represent Wells when the Rump was recalled in May and December 1659 or when the excluded Members were allowed to return in February 1660. White represented the city again in 1660 in the Convention, but grander figures, Lord Richard Butler† and Sir Maurice Berkeley†, were returned in 1661 and White was removed as recorder by the commissioners for corporations in 1662. By then William Piers, the great survivor from the zenith of Laudianism, was once again presiding over the city from the episcopal palace.