MANATON

Ambrose and Henry were returned to Parliament from 1678 until 1715. By the time that Ambrose first stood for elections to Parliament there were not yet parties in Parliament organized along contemporary lines. But, the impetus was taking shape. There emerged from the Exclusion Crisis of 1679 two political factions contesting for power over the government, the Whigs and the Tories. The Manaton sympathies were Tory. 
Ambrose began his representation at Newport between 1678 and 1681, followed by Camelford, where he was joined by Henry in 1689 and 1690, then Ambrose again in 1685 and 1696. The attention of both brothers was then turned to Tavistock, where Ambrose was returned in 1696, before his death. Henry then divided his attentions between Camelford and Tavistock until his death in 1715, also returned once for Callington in 1712.

Newport appears to have been a Tory borough, but control may have been divided between the Edgcumbe family and its extended network of kinship. Edgcumbe’s influence was also felt in Camelford, an open borough, where sympathies were also Tory. This may have had a part in the Manaton elections. Callington, nearby to the manor and barton of Manaton may also have been Tory. But, in Tavistock, the Russells represented strong Whig opposition.

The manor and borough of Tavistock was granted to the Russell family in 1539 who used their position to actively influence the returns to the Commons. During the Civil War Tavistock went over to the Parliamentarians under the influence of William Russell, 1st Duke of Bedford KG PC, although he switched allegiances during the course of the war. At the Restoration of 1660, Bedford bore the sceptre at Charles II's coronation in 1661, but he was never close to the king despite the king’s efforts to court him at one point between 1671-1673. Bedford’s son William Russell, Lord Russell (1639 – 1683) was a leading member of the Country Party who laid the groundwork for opposition in the House of Commons to the accession of an openly Catholic king in Charles's brother James. Bedford supported Shaftesbury and the Whigs during the Exclusion Crisis. The king consequently turned against Bedford, and, in 1682, the family borough of Tavistock lost its charter. Russell opposition to Charles II may ultimately have led to the execution of William Russell, Lord Russell for treason for his part in the Rye House Plot in 1683. Following his son's execution in 1683, Bedford withdrew from politics, but Bedford returned to public life at the time of the Glorious Revolution. He again carried the sceptre at the coronation of William and Mary, and was made a member of the Privy Council. 

In Tavistock, the Russells enjoyed the support of fellow Whigs such as Sir Francis Drake, 3rd Bt., who owned nearby Buckland Abbey and property in the borough itself. On the Tory side the leading interest was that of the Manatons of Kilworthy (just over a mile from Tavistock), who were trustees of the parish lands. In 1690 Hon. Robert Russell, brother of the Earl of Bedford (William Russell), shared the representation with Drake, defeating Ambrose Manaton, who petitioned on 24 Mar. 1690, alleging partiality by the portreeve. The case was finally reported on 8 Dec. 1691, when the House resolved in favour of Drake, despite accusations that his majority included 19 unqualified voters. Drake stood down in 1695, informing Sir George Treby on 31 Aug. that ‘the High Tories and Jacobites of this town are mostly at Manaton’s devotion. But I am told his party is not so considerable as it was.’ Drake nevertheless believed it would be difficult to defeat Manaton ‘unless some pretty considerable person is brought forward’, adding that ‘my lord of Bedford’s interest will be needful’. At the election Lords Robert and James Russell were returned.

On 29 Nov. Manaton petitioned against Lord James, who declined to offer any defence (presumably because he had also been returned for Whitchurch) and was therefore unseated on 12 Mar. 1696. Manaton died shortly afterwards and Drake was returned at the ensuing by-election, defeating Manaton’s brother, Henry, who petitioned on 25 Nov. The poll by which Manaton claimed to have won the election included numerous freeholders who had not been formally presented at the court leet. His counsel attempted to validate this franchise by citing the previous decision of the House in favour of Ambrose Manaton. It was argued for Drake, however, that the former ruling was not binding (not least because in 1695 the unseated candidate had offered no defence), and the House voted by 196 to 86 in favour of the narrower franchise and Drake’s election. Lord Robert Russell and Drake were unopposed in 1698.