Northallerton

Lying on the Great North Road some 30 miles north-west of York, Northallerton had become the administrative centre of the North Riding by the late seventeenth century.1 Anon. Hist. of North-Allerton (1791), 16, 17; VCH N. Riding, i. 418. Nevertheless, it was, and remained, essentially a small market town, with only about 180 householders – and an additional 40 or so inhabitants in receipt of ‘constant alms’ – in the early 1660s, suggesting an overall population of about 900.2 E179/216/461, m. 109. The town’s economy was based largely on the processing of agricultural products and the trade derived from its markets and fairs. It was described in the 1670s as having ‘a great market ... for horses, cattle, corn and provisions and is a good town of trade’.3 R. Blome, Britannia (1673), 252; J.L. Saywell, Hist. and Annals of Northallerton, app. xix-xx. Northallerton was never incorporated, being governed mainly through its manorial court. The lords of the manor were the bishops of Durham, and the town’s chief officer was the bishop’s bailiff, who was elected in the manorial court. The franchise rested with the owners of about 200 burgage tenements, and the returning officer was the manorial bailiff.4 VCH N. Riding, i. 422.

Northallerton had sent Members to the Parliament of 1298, but its franchise had then lapsed until it was restored by order of the Long Parliament in December 1640.5 Anon. Hist. of North-Allerton, 23. Those responsible for securing the town’s re-enfranchisement in 1640 were probably its soon-to-be MP, the godly Yorkshire squire Henry Darley, and his friends at Westminster, who included Robert Greville†, 2nd Baron Brooke, John Pym and other members of the parliamentary ‘junto’.6 Infra, ‘Henry Darley’. Their objective in restoring the town’s franchise was almost certainly – as with Cockermouth and Dartmouth – to secure the return of Members who were friendly to the reform process such as Darley. A motion to restore the franchise of Northallerton and another Yorkshire town, Malton, was made on 5 December 1640 (by whom it is not known) and referred to the committee of privileges.7 CJ ii. 45b. Six days later (11 Dec.), the House ordered that the franchise of both towns be restored.8 CJ ii. 49b. Malton returned Henry Cholmley and Thomas Heblethwayte, both men with close links to the ‘Northern gentlemen’ – a contemporary term for the more reform-minded of the northern MPs. Northallerton, on 15 January 1641, returned Darley and John Wastell, the election indenture being signed by the borough bailiff and at least 60 of the burgage-holders.9 C219/43/3/111. Although Wastell may well have been a friend of Darley’s and apparently shared his reformist convictions, he was returned on his own interest as Northallerton’s manorial steward and one of the area’s principal landowners.10 Infra, ‘John Wastell’.

Darley and Wastell retained their seats at Pride’s Purge, although they appear to have had little sympathy for the army’s proceedings during the winter of 1648-9. During the late 1640s and early 1650s, the two men consolidated their interest at Northallerton by purchasing several parcels of land in and around the town from the trustees for the sale of bishops’ lands. In 1648, Wastell and his kinsman James Danby* acquired lands in the Northallerton worth £102; in 1650, Darley purchased further lands in the manor worth £1,215; and in May 1651, Wastell and Darley purchased the demesne rights of the borough of Northallerton for £237.11 Coll. Top. et Gen. i. 8, 291; Saywell, Hist. of Northallerton, 92. The town was disenfranchised under the Instrument of Government in 1653, but regained its seats in the elections to Richard Cromwell’s Parliament of 1659, which saw the return of George Smithson and James Danby. Both Smithson and Danby owned property in the Northallerton area. However, it is likely that they owed their election primarily to the considerable local influence of their kinsman, Wastell.12 Infra, ‘James Danby’; ‘George Smithson’. There is no evidence of a contest – although if the elections to the Cavalier Parliament are any indication, the ‘boroughmen’ may have required at least a modicum of treating.13 Durham Univ. Lib. Mickleton and Spearman ms 46, f. 139. Darley represented the town in the restored Rump in 1659-60.

In the elections to the Convention in the spring of 1660, the borough returned two of the area’s leading landowners Francis Lascelles* and his younger brother Thomas. Francis Lascelles was disabled from sitting for his part in Charles I’s trial, and in the resulting by-election the borough made a double return of George Marwood* and Sir Francis Holles*, the son of Denzil Holles*.14 HP Commons 1660-90, ‘Northallerton’. With the restoration of episcopal estates after 1660, the bishops of Durham, as lords of the manor, were able to exert considerable influence over the town’s choice of parliamentary representatives, although the Lascelles would probably have monopolised at least one seat at Northallerton had not their radical puritan leanings effectively disqualified them from sitting.15 Durham Univ. Lib. Mickleton and Spearman ms 46, ff. 135, 139, 151, 165.