Richmond

Richmond was the northernmost of the Yorkshire constituencies, lying on the River Swale about 50 miles north-west of York and ten miles south of the border with County Durham.1 VCH N. Riding, i. 17. Situated on the dividing line between the Pennines and the Vale of York, the town was an important centre for the exchange of produce between the arable zone to the east and the pastoral uplands to the west.2 R. Fieldhouse, B. Jennings, Hist. of Richmond and Swaledale (Chichester, 1978), 170-1. Richmond was thus the venue for ‘very considerable’ markets for wool, livestock, corn and foodstuffs.3 R. Blome, Britannia (1673), 253; Fieldhouse, Jennings, Richmond and Swaledale, 169-71. However, its economy rested principally upon the manufacture of leather and leather goods and, above all, the local production of woollen caps and stockings. Thousands of knitters in the surrounding countryside bought wool in Richmond’s market from the town’s hosiers, who then purchased the finished products, which they traded in London or (increasingly by the mid-seventeenth century) exported to the Low Countries.4 Fieldhouse, Jennings, Richmond and Swaledale, 177-82, 184. The borough contained somewhere between 250 and 300 householders by the Restoration period, suggesting a population of about 1,200 (although one authority has argued for a higher figure of 1,600).5 E179/215/451; E179/216/461, mm. 93-5; Fieldhouse, Jennings, Richmond and Swaledale, 102-3, 106. From its incorporation in 1576, the town was governed by an annually-elected ‘alderman’ (or mayor), a recorder, 12 ‘capital burgesses’ – who normally held office for life and filled vacancies in their ranks by co-option – and a 24-man common council elected by the inhabitants. The alderman, recorder and capital burgesses held regular courts and served as justices of the peace for the borough.6 Clarkson, Richmond, 76-7, 97; Fieldhouse, Jennings, Richmond and Swaledale, 432.

Richmond had been enfranchised in 1576 and had returned Members to Parliament on a regular basis from 1584. Under the 1576 charter, the franchise was vested in the ‘burgesses’ – a term which was not defined until 1679, although it appears to have consisted of the municipal officeholders and the inhabitants of the borough paying scot and lot.7 Fieldhouse, Jennings, Richmond and Swaledale, 411; R.T. Fieldhouse, ‘Parliamentary representation in the borough of Richmond’, YAJ xliv. 207. The indenture returning John Wastell to the first protectoral Parliament in 1654, for example, was signed by the alderman and about 40 of the ‘burgesses and inhabitants’.8 C219/44/3, unfol. Whether this represents the entire electorate, or merely a convenient proportion of it, is unclear. Certainly, by the mid-1670s there were at least 293 voters in the borough.9 Fieldhouse, Jennings, Richmond and Swaledale, 411; Fieldhouse, ‘Parliamentary representation’, 207. The returning officer was the alderman.10 Richmond Burgage Houses, 1679-1820 ed. L.P. Wenham (N. Yorks. RO Publications xvi), 1.

By 1640, the borough’s principal electoral patron was Christopher Wandesford†, an intimate associate of the president of the council of the north and lord deputy of Ireland, the earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†).11 Carroll, ‘Yorks.’, 274-5; ‘Yorks. parliamentary boroughs in the seventeenth century’, NH iii. 85. Wandesford, who was also Strafford’s deputy in the office of bailiff and steward of the liberty of Richmond, had represented the borough himself in the 1625 and 1626 Parliaments. In the elections to the Short Parliament in the spring of 1640, the borough returned Sir William Pennyman, whose seat at Marske-by-the-Sea lay about 30 miles east of Richmond, and Wandesford’s brother-in-law Major Norton of St Nicholas, which lay just north of the borough. Both men were allies of Strafford and almost certainly owed their return to Wandesford’s influence.12 Infra, ‘Major Norton’; ‘Sir William Pennyman’. The election indenture, dated 3 March 1640, was signed by the alderman and 11 of the ‘burgesses’.13 C219/42/2/96. In the elections to the Long Parliament that autumn, Pennyman retained his seat, but Norton appears to have stood down in favour of his friend, and Wandesford’s son-in-law and Strafford’s cousin, Sir Thomas Danbie, whose estate at Masham lay about 12 miles south of Richmond.14 Infra, ‘Sir Thomas Danbie’; ‘Major Norton’. The indenture, dated 20 October 1640, is devoid of signatures.15 C219/43/3/117.

Both Pennyman and Danbie sided with the king during the civil war and were disabled from sitting by the Commons on 11 August and 6 September 1642 respectively.16 CJ ii. 715a, 754b. On 25 September 1645, the House ordered that writs be issued for new elections at Richmond, and on 20 October, the borough returned Thomas Chaloner of Guisborough, in Cleveland, and Francis Thorpe of Beverley in the East Riding.17 CJ iv. 287a; C219/43/3/119. Chaloner’s estate at Guisborough lay almost 30 miles east of the borough, and he is unlikely to have possessed a strong interest of his own in the Richmond area. There is a possibility that he was returned on the interest of the Fairfaxes, to whom he was related by marriage. At the about the time that Chaloner was elected at Richmond, the 2nd Baron Fairfax (Sir Ferdinando Fairfax*) attempted to obtain a seat at Scarborough for Thomas’s brother James Chaloner*, although without success.18 Infra, ‘Scarborough’. And soon after Chaloner was elected at Richmond, Sir Thomas Fairfax* attempted to use his influence as commander of the New Model army to secure James Chaloner’s election for one of the West Country boroughs, but again without success.19 Infra, ‘James Chaloner’. However, a more plausible electoral patron for Thomas Chaloner than the Fairfaxes was Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton. Wharton owned the lordship of Aske, which lay near Richmond, and appears to have enjoyed considerable influence in the borough.20 N. Yorks. RO, DC/RMB II/1/1 (mic. 620), unfol. (entry 30 Sept. 1656); Clarkson, Richmond, 235; E179/215/418, m. 1 (Wharton assessed at £18 for lands in Aske). Thorpe, who was even more of a carpet-bagger at Richmond than Chaloner, was certainly on friendly terms with Lord Wharton. In addition, he was retained legal counsel to another leading northern magnate (and Wharton’s close political ally in the Lords), Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland.21 Infra, ‘Francis Thorpe’. Another possible patron for either Chaloner or Thorpe, or both, was Sir Henry Vane I* – a friend and ally of Northumberland and Wharton – who had succeeded Strafford’s successor, Henry earl of Cumberland, as bailiff and steward of the liberty of Richmond.22 Infra, ‘Sir Henry Vane I’; SO3/12, f. 159v; Bodl. Nalson XIV/I, f. 223v.

Both Thorpe and Chaloner, in common with Northumberland and Wharton, were opposed to continuing Scottish intervention in England affairs – a fact that may have played well with the townspeople. Like many parts of the North Riding, the Richmond area was forced to play host to the ill-maintained Scottish army during the mid-1640s, and anti-Scots feeling was probably rife in the town by late 1645. The townspeople may also have blamed the Scots for an outbreak of the plague that struck Richmond in the summer of 1645 (soldiers, particularly those from other regions, were often held responsible for spreading the plague and other contagious diseases).23 SP23/187, pp. 182, 183. The indenture returning Chaloner and Thorpe to the Long Parliament was signed by the alderman, nine of the ‘head burgesses’ and ‘divers other burgesses and inhabitants ... being the greater part of the burgesses present at the election’.24 C219/43/3/119. There was a strong element of continuity in this election, eight of the nine burgesses who signed the 1645 indenture having also signed the Short Parliament indenture. Chaloner and Thorpe continued to represent the borough until the dissolution of the Rump, although their stalwart support for the regime following the regicide probably alienated many of Richmond’s voters. Indeed, several of the borough’s office-holders refused to take the Engagement and were removed from office.25 Clarkson, Richmond, 83.

As one of the largest Yorkshire boroughs, Richmond retained one of its seats under the Instrument of Government of 1653, and on 12 July 1654 the voters returned John Wastell to the first protectoral Parliament. Wastell, besides being the borough’s recorder, was very much a local man, his seat at Scorton lying about five miles west of the town. Given that it had been almost ten years since the last election, it is not surprising to find that only 6 of the 40 or so signatories to the indenture had signed previous indentures, although a further seven had the same surnames as previous signatories.26 C219/44/3.

In the elections to the second protectoral Parliament in the summer of 1656, the borough returned the town’s former schoolmaster John Bathurst MD of London, who was one of the protector’s physicians. Although a Kentishman by birth, Bathurst had married into a Richmondshire family and owned extensive property in the area.27 Infra, ‘John Bathurst’. Ultimately, however, it was probably his influential post as Cromwell’s physician that recommended him to the Richmond voters. The indenture returning Bathurst, dated 20 August 1656, was signed by the alderman and at least 26 of the ‘burgesses and inhabitants’.28 C219/45/1, unfol. Twenty-four of these signatories had signed the 1654 indenture.

Richmond regained its second seat in the elections to Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament of 1659, which saw the return of Bathurst and Sir Christopher Wyvill. Wyvill may have enjoyed some local influence by reason that his seat, at Constable Burton, lay about five miles south of Richmond. However, he probably owed his return largely to his brother-in-law, James Darcy†, who belonged to the most influential local family by the late 1650s, the Darcys of Sedbury Park.29 HP Commons 1660-1690, ‘Richmond’; Carroll, ‘Yorks. parliamentary boroughs’, 85-6. The borough was represented in the restored Rump by Thorpe and Chaloner and in the 1660 Convention by Darcy and Wyvill.30 HP Commons 1660-1690. The leading inhabitants were generally men of conservative political sympathies, it seems, for in 1662 the corporation commissioners confirmed all the municipal officeholders in their places and restored the two capital burgesses and two common councillors who had been removed in the 1650s.31 Clarkson, Richmond, 83.