Introduction

Throughout this period the mechanics of the electoral process, including during the civil war and interregnum, remained very much the same as they had been before 1629. The lack of any major development should come as no surprise. As in other aspects of the parliamentarian and commonwealth regimes, great emphasis was put on continuity, even when (or perhaps especially when) the traditional system was being twisted out of shape by activities that were technically illegal because made without the authority of a king. Writs followed a traditional form even when being issued by republican authorities, the conduct of elections by sheriffs remained the same, the right to elect – although hotly contested in some boroughs – was more or less stable. The election indentures, drawn up on parchment with signatures and seals of those participating, were only slightly modified to account for changed circumstances, and in 1659 as in 1640 the ultimate arbiter of elections was the committee of privileges of the House of Commons. There were changes to the franchise and the distribution of seats during the protectorate, but these lasted for only two elections, in 1654 and 1656, and the conduct of elections was not altered significantly. In general, the electoral system in 1660 was identical to that of 1640.

Electoral historiography for the early 1640s is patchy and unsatisfactory, and the two attempts to take an overview are showing their age. This is, in part, because historical attention has been focused elsewhere. Recent political historians have seen the elections of 1640 as an entrée rather than one of the main dishes of parliamentary politics. Conrad Russell’s magisterial account of events leading up to the outbreak of civil war lumps together the elections for the Short and Long Parliaments, and devotes only three pages to their analysis. For Russell, even the attempt is somewhat superfluous, as elections ‘were not primarily about policy: they were about status’, and most left ‘no mark on the records, and are easily forgotten’. In his monumental book on the period, John Adamson accepts the importance of the Long Parliament elections, but confines his account of them to a single paragraph.