Beverley

Lying some eight miles north of Hull and the Humber estuary, Beverley was the principal market town of the East Riding. A thriving inland port and centre for the wool trade in the medieval period, it was ‘much decayed’ by 1640, and its economy rested mainly on the processing of agricultural products and the trade generated by its fairs and markets.1 VCH E. Riding, vi. 1, 80, 105-6. Although the town was of little strategic importance, being an ‘open place, by no means tenable’, it was inevitably caught up in the fighting around Hull during 1642-3, which ended, according to report, with the inhabitants being repeatedly plundered by the king’s troops.2 Exceeding Welcome Newes from Beverley (1642), 1 (E.109.2); A True Relation from Hull (1643), 2 (E.69.13); G. Poulson, Beverlac, i. 357, 363, 364-5; G. Oliver, Hist. and Antiquities of Beverley, 165; HMC 7th Rep. 567; HMC Portland, i. 104, 129; VCH E. Riding, vi. 93. Large numbers of soldiers were also billeted in Beverley on several occasions during the 1640s and 1650s, which caused further impoverishment.3 E. Riding Archives, BC/II/7/4, ff. 71v, 78v, 84, 91v; Terrible and True Newes from Beverley and the City of Yorke (1642), 4, 5 (E.154.34); Poulson, Beverlac, i. 369, 376; HMC 7th Rep. 567; VCH E. Riding, vi. 92, 93. In spite of these misfortunes, the town continued to show a modest profit from its corporate revenues, with receipts averaging about £500 a year and rising to over £700 in 1650 and 1656.4 E. Riding Archives, BC/II/6/56-69. In addition, the London merchants resumed their attendance at Beverley’s annual Cross Fair in 1649 – which the war had interrupted – and the following year the corporation was able to procure a £2,000 loan for the purchase of the borough fee-farm rent.5 E. Riding Archives, BC/II/7/4, f. 93v; Poulson, Beverlac, i. 331-2, 373-4. The town’s population by the 1660s stood at approximately 2,800, or roughly half what it had been a century earlier.6 VCH E. Riding, vi. 83, 108.

By a royal charter, granted in 1573, Beverley was governed by a corporation consisting of a mayor, 12 aldermen or ‘governors’, and 13 ‘select burgesses’. The governors, who held office for life, and the burgesses annually elected one of the governors to serve as mayor; and the mayor and governors elected new governors, named the candidates from whom the freemen elected the select burgesses and appointed the town recorder and other municipal officers.7 VCH E. Riding, vi. 65, 67; Beverley Borough Recs. ed. J. Dennett (Yorks. Arch. Soc. rec. ser. lxxxiv), p. vi. Beverley had returned MPs during the reign of Edward I, but its representation had lapsed after 1328. The town was re-enfranchised in 1563, and the franchise, as defined by the 1573 charter, rested with the mayor, aldermen and freemen; although by the early seventeenth century it appears that the corporation enjoyed a greater say in the choice of MPs than did the freeman body as a whole.8 Beverley Borough Recs. ed. Dennet, p. vii; VCH E. Riding, vi. 75; HP Commons 1604-1629, ‘Beverley’. The charter was confirmed in 1628 and a clause was added, authorising the mayor, aldermen and recorder to act as magistrates for the borough.9 VCH E. Riding, vi. 100.

Following the summoning late in 1639 of a new Parliament, Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland – lord high admiral of England and a court ally of Thomas Wentworth, 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†) – wrote to Beverley corporation to the effect ‘that his ancestors formerly used to nominate one of their burgesses, and he expects the like courtesy’.10 Alnwick, Y.V.1d, bundle 1: Thorpe to Melton, 3 Jan. 1640. The Percys had been lords of the manor of Beverley in the Tudor period and may well have nominated at least one of the town’s MPs during the late sixteenth century. Moreover, the family had long owned an estate at nearby Leconfield.11 VCH E. Riding, vi. 28, 63, 73, 75. The identity of Northumberland’s nominee on this occasion is not entirely clear, but it appears to have been Sir Henry Vane II*, whose candidacy he certainly backed at Hull.12 Infra, ‘Hull’; Alnwick, Y.V.1d, bundle 1: Thorpe to Melton, 3 Jan. 1640; X.II.6, box 12, bundle k: Melton to Hugh Potter*, 17 Jan. 1640. The earl’s letter was not well received at Beverley, however, where it was seen as a declaration of his electoral interest ‘as of right and not ... as of courtesy’ and was ‘generally decried as being against law and common freedom’.13 Alnwick, Y.V.1d, bundle 1: Thorpe to Melton, 3 Jan. 1640. The earl’s election managers for Beverley were Sir John Melton*, based in York, and the town’s recorder Francis Thorpe* of Leconfield, who was one of Northumberland’s retained counsellors-at-law (and probably his tenant also). Writing to Melton late in December 1639, Thorpe was not optimistic as to the chances of the earl’s nominee.

The competitors in both places [Beverley and Hull] are divers. And the two contrary passions of love and fear are like to meet, in opposition. Our old and long continued burgesses [Sir John Hotham* and Sir William Alford†]... under whose tuition many of our people are in respect of country government, on the one side, and a potent landlord [Sir Michael Warton] in respect of private and particular interest on the other, prevail much for fear. What friends the other [?Vane] will find I know not, but will make the most and best I can.14 Alnwick, Y.V.1d, bundle 1: Thorpe to Melton, 24 Dec. 1639.

Beverley corporation would offer little support, however – as Thorpe informed Melton early in January 1640.

This mayor [of Beverley] hath in observance thereto [to Melton’s letters to the corporation] called a Chamber, but no satisfaction can be obtained therein either to encouragement or discouragement in the business. They say they will be very ready to observe his lordship in all due respects, but must reserve themselves in this till the election, and then they must do their duties.15 Alnwick, MS Y.V.1d, bundle 1: Thorpe to Melton, 3 Jan. 1640.

Thorpe was also dismayed at what he termed ‘the unexpected opposition of Sir Michael Warton for his son’ Michael Warton*. Sir Michael, he explained,

is lord of the town, an universal landlord to our burgesses, and I find his party strong among the inferior sort, whose voices yet are equal with the best. Sir William Alford, a former burgess and near neighbour [of the town] and powerful among the better sort; Sir John Hotham, a former burgess, a near neighbour and very well meriting from the town and cried up by all – and in truth, not be denied ... Touching Sir Michael Warton: I looked not for his opposition. Touching Sir William Alford: my hope was turned into assurance I should take him off by persuasion if Sir Michael Warton had not comed [sic] in, and so my lord’s desire might have been satisfied without difficulty. But as the case now stands ... I am more then doubtful and therein much afflicted that I cannot perform that service to my lord ... I intended and much desired.16 Alnwick, MS Y.V.1d, bundle 1: Thorpe to Melton, 3 Jan. 1640.

Thorpe’s analysis of the town’s electoral affairs suggests that the feelings of the freemen and ‘inferior sort’ exerted considerable influence upon the borough’s choice of MPs.

In the event, the town returned Hotham, who had represented Beverley since 1625, and Michael Warton, the leaseholder of the manor of Beverley ‘with the park, borough and water towns thereto belonging’.17 Infra, ‘Michael Warton’; HP Commons 1604-1629, ‘Beverley’. Although the meeting of the corporation at which the two men were elected was held on 13 March 1640 – and was attended by the mayor, 11 governors and 12 select burgesses – the return was dated 27 March.18 C219/42/3/89; Beverley Borough Recs. ed. Dennett, 102. As was customary, both men agreed to serve at their own charge. They were returned for Beverley again that autumn, and on this occasion they had to fend off a challenge from one of Hotham’s principal gentry rivals, Sir Thomas Metham of North Cave – a Catholic sympathiser and adherent of the court who had probably been recommended to the corporation by the earl of Strafford.19 C219/43/3/94; E. Riding Archives, BC/II/7/4, f. 71; Cliffe, Yorks. 290, 292-3, 295, 324-5. The election was held on 20 October, which may have been the very day that the king visited the town from York.20 Oliver, Beverley, 200.

To what extent the leading inhabitants supported Hotham’s defiance of Strafford and the king is not known, although most of them appear to have looked to him for political guidance during the early 1640s. On 19 May 1641, the mayor, 11 governors and eight burgesses took the Protestation ‘according to order and direction from Sir John Hotham’, and they also lent him money and plate ‘for the use of the public’.21 E. Riding Archives, BC/II/7/4, ff. 73, 94v. A year later, in May 1642, the mayor, James Nelthorpe*, wrote to Hotham, warning him that several Beverley men were plotting to betray Hull to the king.22 PJ ii. 379. It was reported in September 1642 that some of Beverley’s inhabitants had tried to elicit Hotham’s help against royalist troops who had been sent ‘to keep the town in awe and to imprison all those that stood ill-affected to the king’.23 Exceeding Happy Newes from Oxford (1642), sig. A3v (E.118.1). The unlawful re-election of the royalist sympathizer Robert Manby as mayor in 1643 may indicate some measure of support for the king’s cause among the governors, although pressure from the commander of Charles’s army in the north, the earl of Newcastle, is perhaps a more likely explanation for this breach of the town charter.24 VCH E. Riding, vi. 94. In August 1644, seven of the governors and ‘divers’ of the burgesses certified to the parliamentary committee at York against Manby, who had fled to the royalists with the town mace in 1643, severely disrupting municipal government. At the committee’s prompting, a majority of the senior officeholders agreed to displace and replace Manby and three of the town’s governors for ‘divers misdemeanours’ and ‘malignancy and delinquency’.25 E. Riding Archives, BC/II/5/1, f. 6; VCH E. Riding, vi. 94.

Having sided with Parliament at the outbreak of civil war, Hotham and Warton subsequently defected to the king and were disabled from sitting by the Commons in September 1643 and January 1644 respectively.26 Infra, ‘Sir John Hotham’; ‘Michael Warton’. Both men were dead by the time the House issued a warrant for fresh elections at Beverley, on 1 September 1645.27 CJ iv. 259b. At a meeting of the corporation on 27 September, 11 governors and nine burgesses returned John Nelthorpe and James Nelthorpe, in that order.28 C219/43/3/95; E. Riding Archives, BC/II/7/4, f. 83v. James Nelthorpe enjoyed a strong interest among the townsmen as an alderman and one of Beverley’s wealthiest inhabitants. He may also have had the support of Hotham’s replacement as governor of Hull, Ferdinando Fairfax*, 2nd Baron Fairfax, and possibly of one of Fairfax’s officers, Colonel Matthew Alured*, who had married the widow of Edward Nelthorpe of Walkington (probably Nelthorpe’s elder brother).29 Infra, ‘James Nelthorpe’.

The identity of John Nelthorpe, on the other hand, is more difficult to establish. The MP may have been James’s other elder brother, who had been admitted at Gray’s Inn in 1634. But there is very little in the parliamentary careers of James and John Nelthorpe to suggest that they were fraternally connected. The two men do not seem to have worked together at Westminster, and whereas James survived Pride’s Purge and was active in the Rump, John was secluded in 1648. The Lords’ nomination in 1647 of John Nelthorpe MP as steward of the manors of Barton and Barrow in Lincolnshire in place of the recently deceased John Broxolme* is strong – albeit not conclusive – evidence that he was in fact James’s cousin, who was a scion of the senior branch of the family, the Nelthorpes of Glanford Brigg, Lincolnshire. This family not only retained considerable property in Beverley, giving them a strong proprietorial interest in the town, but also lands in Barton and Barrow, some of which they leased from Broxolme. John Nelthorpe of the Glanford Brigg branch of the family was also admitted to Gray’s Inn in 1634 and may well have been the man of that named who became a barrister there in 1641 – a legal and metropolitan connection that would probably have increased his appeal to Beverley corporation.30 Infra, ‘John Nelthorpe’.

In the event, the town seems to have made relatively few demands on its MPs. The corporation looked to the Nelthorpes to secure an ordinance for uniting the town’s two parishes in order to provide additional maintenance for Beverley minister, but the required legislation was never passed.31 E. Riding Archives, BC/II/7/4, ff. 85v, 90. With John Nelthorpe secluded from the Rump, the corporation ordered that the renewing of the town’s charter and the purchase of its fee farm rents be ‘wholly referred’ to James Nelthorpe.32 E. Riding Archives, BC/II/7/4, ff. 93, 94v, 96v; BC/II/6/60. Nevertheless, the corporation also solicited help on parliamentary matters from the town’s recorder Francis Thorpe, who was one of the Rump’s senior legal figures.33 Infra, ‘Francis Thorpe’; E. Riding Archives, BC/II/7/4, f. 94; BC/II/6/62, 65.

Under the Instrument of Government, Beverley was reduced to a single parliamentary seat, and in the elections to the first protectoral Parliament in the summer of 1654 the corporation returned Thorpe – James Nelthorpe having moved to Windsor and resigned as one of the town’s governors. The indenture returning Thorpe was signed and sealed by the mayor and at least 50 of the townsmen.34 C219/44, pt. 3, unfol. Thorpe was returned for both Beverley and the West Riding in the elections to the second protectorate in the summer of 1656, but was excluded by the protectoral council from sitting during the first session.

The town regained its two seats in the elections to Richard Cromwell’s Parliament of 1659, which saw the beginnings of a revival of local gentry influence with the return of John Anlaby and Thomas Strickland. Anlaby, a former Rumper, was one the area’s foremost parliamentarian gentlemen; and Strickland was returned on the interest of his father, the East Riding grandee Sir William Strickland*.35 Infra, ‘John Anlaby’; ‘Thomas Strickland’; E. Riding Archives, BC/II/6/68. In March 1659, the corporation presented a loyal address to Protector Richard in which it referred to Oliver Cromwell* as ‘that great light, that great warrior, that great statesman’.36 Mercurius Politicus no. 558 (10-17 Mar. 1659), 299 (E.761.23).

Beverley was represented in the restored Rump by James Nelthorpe and – following the admission of the secluded Members on 21 February 1660 – by both James and his cousin John Nelthorpe in the last few weeks of the Long Parliament. In the elections to the 1660 Convention, the ‘major part’ of the governors and select burgesses returned Hotham’s grandson Sir John Hotham, 2nd bt. and the parliamentarian officer Colonel Hugh Bethell.37 E. Riding Archives, BC/II/7/4, f. 101; HP Commons 1660-1690. Seven of Beverley’s 12 governors were removed by the corporation commissioners in 1662.38 Oliver, Beverley, 232-3.