Maldon

Maldon was a small, rather unimportant borough positioned at the point where the River Chelmer met the Blackwater estuary. It had always been overshadowed by Chelmsford, the county town, which had the advantage of standing on both the Chelmer and the main London-Colchester road. It was Chelmsford, not Maldon, which benefited from most of the sea-borne trade in and out of the estuary. Maldon was literally being passed by. The town had returned two MPs since the fourteenth century and its town council had been incorporated by two royal charters of 1554 and 1555. The corporation comprised two bailiffs, six other aldermen and 18 capital burgesses. Throughout this period the right of election was assumed to rest with the freemen.

They did not look far for their MPs for the Short Parliament, choosing their steward, Sir Henry Mildmay*, and their recorder, John Porter*. Essex RO, D/B 3/1/20, f. 100; C219/42, pt. 1, f. 104. Mildmay had been brought up at Danbury Place, just five miles to the west of the town, but most of his estates lay elsewhere and it was no doubt his position at court, as master of the jewel house, which had secured for him the stewardship of the town in 1635. Essex RO, D/B 3/1/20, f. 57. By then he had already served three times as its MP (in the 1621, 1625 and 1628 Parliaments). Porter had succeeded his father-in-law, Sir John Bramston (a native of the town), as its recorder in 1635 on Sir John’s promotion to become lord chief justice of the court of king’s bench. Essex RO, D/B 3/1/20, f. 48. The elections in March 1640 are unlikely to have been contested. C219/42, pt. 1, f. 104. That evening Mildmay returned to Danbury, with his brother Sir Humphrey, noting in his diary that he ‘came in triumph with his rabble’. Harl. 454, f. 30.

The outcome of the elections later that year was more of a surprise. Once again Mildmay claimed the senior place for himself. He brought with him a large number of supporters from Wanstead just to make sure. Harl. 454, f. 36. It was the other seat which produced the apparent upset. C219/43, pt. 1, fo. 151. Sir John Clotworthy*, the prominent Irish landowner of west country descent, had no connections of any sort with the town or the surrounding area. In the previous Parliament he had been double returned for the Cornish seat of Bossiney. His election was self-evidently the result of patronage connections stretching far beyond the county, although the identity of his nominator is unknown. The 2nd earl of Warwick (Sir Robert Rich†), who, as well as being the leading local peer, would have known Clotworthy through the networks of the London godly, is the most obvious possible patron. The Rich family had exercised significant electoral influence within the borough earlier in the century and Warwick himself had sat as its MP in 1610. The corporation’s session book makes no mention of the election and so sheds no further light on the puzzle. Essex RO, D/B 3/1/20, ff. 103-104.

Clotworthy’s controversial career in the Long Parliament culminated in January 1648 with his expulsion from the Commons amid charges of treachery and corruption. A new writ to fill the vacancy was ordered by the Commons on 1 March. CJ v. 475a. The person elected six weeks later on the basis of that writ was Henry Mildmay*, a cousin of his namesake, the existing MP. Essex RO, D/B 3/1/20, f. 163. Mildmay combined the advantages of being an ex-colonel in the parliamentarian army and the major landowner in the immediate vicinity of the town, but was not home and dry. On 8 June the Commons voted to reverse Clotworthy’s exclusion, only to realise that Mildmay had already been elected to replace him. An immediate order barred both from taking their seats for the time being and subsequently the committee of privileges was asked to rule on the matter. Their recommendation, approved by the Commons on 26 June, was that Mildmay’s return was invalid because the writ had been implemented in the interval after the death of the late sheriff of Essex. The order of 8 June reversing the exclusion was therefore confirmed, with the effect that Clotworthy was reinstated as MP. CJ v. 589b, 600a, 601b, 605b, 612b; The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer no. 266 (20-27 June 1648), 991 (E.449.45); The Moderate no. 171 (22-29 June 1648), sig. kkkkkkkkv (E.450.8). Six months later, unlike Sir Henry Mildmay, he was excluded by the army in their purge of the House of Commons.

The town was probably lucky to retain one of its MPs in the redistribution of seats imposed by the Instrument of Government. A. and O. Despite this restriction, its choice of MP for the 1654 and 1656 Parliaments was not difficult. The Mildmays were not interested. Sir Henry had withdrawn from public life after the dissolution of the Rump, while Henry seems to have been equally reluctant to seek a seat in either Parliament. The town settled on the unimaginative choice of their recorder, Joachim Matthews*. Neither of the writs survive and the sessions book makes no mention of either election, but Matthews’ presence in both Parliaments indicates that he was the person returned on both occasions. The selection of a local lawyer who had been active as a committee man in support of Parliament was probably uncontroversial.

The restoration of the second seat to the town for the elections to the 1659 Parliament allowed both Matthews and Henry Mildmay to be chosen. Essex RO, D/B 3/1/20, f. 239v; C219/46: Maldon return, 4 Jan. 1659; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 439. Mildmay had never fully reconciled himself to the protectorate and later that year he was implicated in Sir George Boothe’s* rebellion. Matthews’ time in this Parliament was to be his final service for the borough as he died shortly after it was dissolved. Tristran Conyers†, who had been one of Matthews’ friends, succeeded him as recorder. Essex RO, D/B 3/1/20, f. 241; PROB11/292/127.

The events of the 1640s and 1650s evidently left the Maldon corporation badly divided. Following the Restoration one group within the corporation petitioned Charles II to complain that they were unable to enjoy the full benefits of his rule because some of their colleagues were diehard opponents of monarchy and members of nonconformist congregations. According to the petitioners, this group

for many years last past have impoverished the corporation by exhausting our rents and revenues, and still do continue the same designs by granting freedoms to, and advancing to offices, persons of the same principles with themselves. Essex RO, D/B 3/12/2: petition, [1660].

The commissioners to regulate the corporations in 1662 shared these concerns and the purge they ordered was a particularly thorough one. Five of the eight aldermen and 13 of the 18 capital burgesses were removed. The Mildmay interest never recovered. Thereafter the leading electoral patrons within the town were Porter’s brother-in-law, John Bramston†, and, later, the 2nd duke of Albemarle (Christopher Monck†).