The protest of the ‘poor townspeople’ of 1570 against their ‘papist captains’ used national politics for local ends. A year later, in circumstances that are unclear, Cirencester became a parliamentary borough, with the right to elect two members of parliament. This event triggered old, unresolved questions concerning Cirencester's constitution and franchise. Who, as H.R. French puts it, had a right to participate in the town's ‘deliberations’, in this case concerning the nomination and election of parliamentary representatives? In an institutionalized borough like Bristol or Gloucester, such decisions were handled by the mayor, aldermen and the ‘commonalty’ of formally qualified burgesses. Cirencester was ‘a parliamentary borough, but not a corporation’. The first instinct of the manorial cabal was to ensure that, at best, ‘only the freeholders were electors’ – owners, not tenants, and certainly not ‘sojourners’, ‘inmates’, ‘passingers’ and anyone in receipt of alms. This, it was hoped, would keep national politics out of the market-place and ensure only men favoured by the manor were elected. In effect the lord of the manor governed the ‘borough’, and therefore enjoyed the right to nominate candidates and manage elections.