By the seventeenth century the castle that gave this borough its name was a ruin and what remained of the settlement around it had been cut off from the sea. Enfranchised in 1558, the borough was dominated by the Howards whose dependents and nominees held most of the burgage tenements which carried the franchise, but during this period, probably owing to the family’s financial embarrassment, some of the burgages were sold to neighbouring gentry and villagers. A borough by prescription, the mayor, who acted as returning officer, was chosen at the court leet. Elections were held in the parish church and surviving indentures describe the electorate as the burgesses of the borough. CJ vii. 626b.
There can be no doubt that the head of the Howard family, Thomas Howard, 21st earl of Arundel, as lord of the manor, had a substantial say in the choice of MPs in 1640. Blomefield, Norf. ix. 48-9; W. Taylor, Hist. and Antiquities of Castle Rising (Lynn, n.d.), 56. Two of the five men elected that year were undoubtedly his close associates. Links between Arundel and the other three are elusive, yet the earl’s patronage remains the most likely reason for their success. In the case of the spring election, his secretary, Nicholas Herman*, must have been an Arundel nominee, while Thomas Talbott I* was a Lincoln’s Inn barrister from Wymondham, so it is not impossible that he had worked for the earl in a professional capacity. Talbott possibly thought of Castle Rising as his second choice, with Thetford, where he was recorder, as his first.
Neither man seems to have stood again that autumn. That October the senior seat was taken by Sir John Holland* of Quidenham, whose family had long acted as agents for the earl’s Norfolk estates. Holland had sat for the county in the spring, but that had been a bitter contest and, with Arundel’s support, he could expect a smoother path to a seat at Castle Rising. The other place was taken by Sir Christopher Hatton*. Although the surviving election indenture is now illegible, the next indenture confirms that Holland and Hatton had previously been elected. C219/43, pt. 2, ff. 55, 57. Hatton was a complete outsider, whose estates and political interests were instead centred on Northamptonshire. He stood at Castle Rising only because he was not certain of success at Higham Ferrers, where he was steward of the queen’s jointure lands and which he represented in the previous Parliament. On being elected for both constituencies, Hatton informed the Commons on 9 November that he would sit for Higham Ferrers. CJ ii. 22b. But whatever had been his interest at Castle Rising was not wasted: at the by-election held on 20 November, he was replaced by his uncle, Sir Robert Hatton*, who was no less an outsider than his nephew. C219/43, pt. 2, f. 57.
Both Hattons were expelled from the Commons on 7 September 1642 for trying to implement the king’s commission of array in Northamptonshire. CJ ii. 755b. The warrant for the writ for a by-election to replace Sir Robert at Castle Rising was moved on 30 October 1645. CJ iv. 326b. There was now no question of Arundel exercising electoral patronage: heavily in debt, he had been in exile on the continent since 1642 and he would never return to England. The success of John Spelman* in this by-election was partly the result of local influence. Spelman’s estates at Narborough were just ten miles to the south east of the borough and he had been very active as a supporter of Parliament in this part of Norfolk since 1642. But an additional factor for voters disinclined to see local troops employed elsewhere may have been his opposition to the creation of the New Model army, expressed at a meeting of the Eastern Association earlier that year. Suff. ed. Everitt, 85. He had been challenged for the seat by the Yorkshire Presbyterian and former army officer Lionel Copley*, who had reportedly spent a considerable amount of money attempting to bribe the voters, but without success. Supra, ‘Lionel Copley’; Add. 31116, p. 485; Perfect Occurrences no. 48 (14-21 Nov. 1645), sig. Bbv (E.266.20). Spelman had evidently taken his seat at Westminster by 20 December 1645, although he was never very active in the Commons and spent long periods in the country. Add. 19398, f. 224. By late 1647 Holland was disenchanted with the direction of English politics and so went into voluntary exile abroad. Castle Rising lost its other MP a year later when Spelman was excluded from the Commons by the purge of December 1648.
The borough ceased to be a constituency under the redistribution of seats implemented by the Instrument of Government of 1653. However, that was reversed when the old franchises were restored for the elections to the 1659 Parliament. Since the death of the 22nd earl (Henry Frederick Howard*) in 1652, the Arundel title had been held by his son, the 23rd earl (the future 5th duke of Norfolk). The latter was mentally incapable, however, and by 1659 was being held in an asylum in Padua. His estates were therefore being administered on his behalf by his brother, Henry Howard (later the 6th duke). Howard was a Roman Catholic and the contest at Castle Rising would be the main focus for the controversy over his role as an electoral patron.
Later, when faced with the allegations about this, Howard wrote to the secretary of state, John Thurloe*, defending in detail what he had done. TSP vii. 642-4. Although self-exculpatory, that letter revealed something of the manoeuvrings by all the parties before and during the election. Howard claimed that he had originally agreed with Sir John Hobart*, 3rd bt. and Sir William Doyly* that he would seek to get ‘Mr Baldock’ and ‘Mr Brag’ chosen. The former was possibly Robert Baldock, a London barrister whose wife had inherited lands at Hockham. He was already a Norfolk justice of the peace and an assessment commissioner. Oxford DNB, ‘Sir Robert Baldock’; Blomefield, Norf. i. 463; C231/6, pp. 258, 377; A. and O. Late in the day, however, other candidates came forward. John Fielder*, an army veteran and a prominent figure in the Rump, decided against standing ‘at a place where he had certainly been chosen’ (probably in his native county of Hampshire) and Howard agreed to get him elected at Castle Rising, according to some, then or later, because he had been lent on by Thurloe. The burgesses, however, almost unanimously indicated they would return only one Howard nominee, and that would be Guybon Goddard*, the recorder of King’s Lynn, to the second seat. Having secured ‘promises and assurances’ for Fielder, Howard wrote to Goddard, ‘being informed also by [his] friends that he did not seek it’, in an effort to get him to stand down in favour of Baldock. But Howard was further thwarted by the late challenge from Robert Jermy*, who had represented the county in the 1653 Nominated Parliament and who was happy to take second place after Goddard. TSP vii. 642-4.
The poll took place in the parish church at 9 am on 19 January. CJ vii. 626b. Goddard was not present. Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 85. A subsequent Commons investigation discovered that no-one behaved well. The supporters of Goddard and Jermy arrived ‘with a drum, and other loud instruments’, accompanied by ‘about 400 persons, some of which were soldiers, armed with swords and pistols’, who forced their way into the church. The mayor, William Swift, then appointed one of his officials, Owen Barnes, to take the names of those voting for Fielder. As Swift did not appoint someone to do likewise for Goddard and Jermy, their supporters supplied their own men to take their names. It was alleged that they also prevented some of Fielder’s supporters from voting for him and that five of these were instead forced to vote for Goddard and Jermy. The mayor then announced that Goddard and Fielder had been elected. The Commons were told that the whole event had been accompanied by ‘great disorder and confusion’. CJ vii. 626b.
The claim that Jermy had tried to use force to get elected was repeated in a poetic libel against him published after the Restoration. This alleged that he had ‘corrupted’ 20 of the Castle Rising voters and brought an armed force of 100 men to intimidate Howard’s candidates.
So dear was his [Jermy’s] love that he purchased a throng,
Of seamen in lice and lungs very strong,
Sure he will be that somebody ere it be long,
If he be not laid in the mire.
How the sailors did hollow and throw up their hats,
And the men with wide mouths that use to cry sprats,
But the brave spark of Arundel made them look like drowned rats,
When he humbled Tom Toll for his sin.
That high born hero had cudgel’d their swords,
Had they not almost expir’d at his words,
But the whole design was not worth two half turds,
Though you throw the three justices in. A Display of the Headpiece and Codpiece Valour of the most renowned Col. Robert Jermy [1660].
The reference to ‘Tom Toll’ was explained in a marginal annotation as an allusion to the fact that during the mayhem Howard had hit Jermy’s son-in-law, Thomas Toll II*, causing him to fall over.
According to his own notes, Goddard was returned
by a free and unanimous voice of almost all the free burgesses, without any seeking or soliciting of mine, as against the endeavours of Mr Howard who represented the lord of the manor and [who] was powerfully engaged to recommend other persons. Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 85.
Goddard also recorded that he had received 29 votes and Jermy 24 votes, whereas Fielder had received ‘not above 8 or 9 voices’. However, by a ‘warrant under the town seal’, witnessed by five members of the corporation, the mayor returned Goddard with Fielder. C219/47, Castle Rising indenture, 19 Jan. 1659. A separate return without the town seal which named Goddard and Jermy was then made by some of Jermy’s supporters. Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 85. Goddard later recorded that this second document, ‘rather a certificate than a return’, had been produced by ‘the parson and several other free burgesses’. Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 92; Burton’s Diary, iii. 51n. The ‘parson’ in question was presumably the local rector, William Calvert. TSP iii. 155-6.
On arriving in London on 27 January, Goddard was told by John Smythe, the clerk of the Commons, that he would not be permitted to sit until the double return had been resolved, but the following day the commissioners to tender oaths to MPs took a different view and allowed him to take his seat. Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 85; Burton’s Diary, iii. 6-7n, 11n, 15n; CJ vii. 594b. As he had been named in both returns, Goddard’s position seemed safe. On 3 February Richard Knightley* informed the Commons that the privileges committee had concluded that the mayor’s return with Goddard and Jermy was the valid one. CJ vii. 598a. In the subsequent debate Sir Arthur Hesilrige* questioned this, while George Starkey* argued that the other indenture carried greater weight, and Sir Walter Erle* and Edward Turnor* (Jermy’s nephew) wanted further investigations. On the other hand, John Hobart*, Griffith Bodurda* and John Trevor* (Fielder’s brother-in-law) defended the committee’s recommendation. Burton’s Diary, iii. 50-1. The most interesting contribution to the debate however came from Toll, who had been elected at King’s Lynn. In urging the House to reject the committee’s opinion, he made the revealing claim that the return from the burgesses in favour of Jermy had been signed by 25 individuals, whereas the one favouring Fielder had only nine signatures. Burton’s Diary, iii. 50. Those figures almost exactly match those recorded by Goddard. But this proved to be insufficient to sway the House. The Commons ruled that the mayor’s indenture returning Fielder should stand and so allowed Fielder to take his seat. CJ vii. 598a; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 92; Burton’s Diary, iii. 51n.
Jermy refused to accept this and petitioned the committee for privileges. Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 92; Burton’s Diary, iii. 51n. He apparently made much of the letter that Howard had written to Goddard, claiming it would prove that Howard had openly supported Fielder as the candidate backed by the court. TSP vii. 643. But one John Armiger of Wells next the Sea, who had been sued unsuccessfully by Jermy in 1656 after accusing him of misconduct as a justice of the peace, now reiterated those claims. Summoned to answer before the commissioners of the great seal on 11 February, Jermy refused to submit an answer in writing. Armiger therefore published his allegations in a printed broadsheet. An Hypocrite Unmasked [1659]. The obvious motive for this was to damage Jermy’s chances of overturning the Castle Rising result. Unusually, on 31 March the committee for privileges reopened its investigation, perhaps increasingly aware of just how many seats Howard had been able to control. But the suggestion that the government, as represented by Thurloe, had colluded with Howard made the Castle Rising case particularly embarrassing. The diarist Thomas Burton* concluded that
the court party were so afraid of the consequence that they durst not venture it upon a report to the House, so chose rather than lay things at court open to the House to move to have the election void as to both, and it was so resolved accordingly. Burton’s Diary, iv. 318.
Burton assumed that Trevor, Fielder’s kinsman, was the prime mover behind this attempted cover-up. Burton’s Diary, iv. 318.
Howard reacted vehemently to this new development and on 4 April wrote an angry letter of self-justification to Thurloe. He firmly denied the claim that he had publicly declared that he was engaged by Thurloe to get Fielder chosen and stressed that he had been engaged to Hobart and Doyly. TSP vii. 642-4. In conclusion, he wrote
I know no reason why I, that have a voice and as good a right to choose at Rising as any one of the burgesses should be debarred or thought ill on, for endeavouring both by my presence and friends to get such persons fairly chose, as I verily believe will do their nation and the county good service, and till I can believe it a crime, I shall not desist from it. TSP vii. 644.
On 6 April, after hearing the committee’s report, the Commons resolved that the poll had not been legally taken and that the election ‘for and in default of a due poll’ was void. CJ vii. 626b.
Two days later the Commons set up a committee to investigate Howard, with powers to discover the circumstances of the earl of Arundel’s detention in Italy and to scrutinise his role in any recent election. That this was prompted by the overturning of the Castle Rising election was explicitly stated. CJ vii. 632a. Preparations therefore began for a new election for the Castle Rising seats but Parliament was dissolved before this could be held. Sir William Doyly* had in the meantime told John Buxton* that he wanted Goddard to be re-elected. CUL, Buxton pprs. 34/12.
Holland resumed his seat as MP for Castle Rising when the secluded Members were readmitted to the Long Parliament in February 1660. Spelman may also have done so, although, unlike Holland, he left no trace on the proceedings of this Parliament during those final weeks.
