Colchester

Setting the scene for the mayoral election in 1640, the town’s recorder, Harbottle Grimston*, assured the inhabitants of Colchester that ‘there are few towns in England that can more truly glory in an honourable and ancient pedigree and descent than this town of Colchester’. Herts. RO, IX.A.9, unfol. This speech and others which Grimston delivered in 1639, 1642 and 1646 were intended to enthuse the free burgesses with a sense of civic responsibility before they made their nominations for the office of mayor. This was an occasion to praise the outgoing mayor and to dwell on the benefits of good government. The usual themes were the antiquity of the town’s liberties, the need to protect them and the wisdom of the king in confirming them. In addressing the inhabitants Grimston drew on their undoubted pride in the town’s antiquity. The castle, which was believed to be of Roman construction, was a very visible reminder of that long history and Grimston was among many contemporaries who repeated the claim that the town was named after Coel, the king of Trinovants who was supposedly the grandfather of Constantine the Great. Herts. RO, IX.A.9, unfol.

In reality the town took its name from the Colne, the river on whose highest navigable point it stood, with the crossing for the main London-Ipswich road. Ipswich, with its superior access to the sea, was its main and more successful rival. Heavily dependant on the cloth trade, Colchester had benefited from the arrival of large numbers of Dutch weavers in the late sixteenth century. The expertise of these immigrants in the production of the ‘new draperies’ gave the town a commercial edge over the weaving industry elsewhere in Essex and East Anglia. By the early seventeenth century the Dutch community within its walls numbered about one-seventh of the total population. VCH Essex, ix. 67; N.R. Goose, ‘Economic and social aspects of provincial towns: a comparative study of Cambridge, Colchester and Reading, c. 1500-1700’ (Camb. Univ. PhD thesis, 1984), 158-86. Their presence only added to the town’s reputation for godliness. A new charter granted in 1635 had reformed the structure of the corporation. The Charters and Letters Patent granted to the Borough ed. W.G. Benham (Colchester, 1904), 81-103. The two bailiffs, eight other aldermen, 16 members of the first council and 16 members of the second council had been replaced with a mayor, nine aldermen, 16 assistants and 16 common councilmen. The mayor was elected by the aldermen from a short list of two names selected by representatives of the free burgesses. Since 1625 the right to elect MPs had also been possessed by the free burgesses. As the recorder, Grimston, a rising lawyer who had a house in the town, played a full part in the work of the corporation. Very different was Sir John Lucas, the major local landowner whose house, St John’s Abbey, lay on the southern outskirts of the town. A courtier and a supporter of the Laudian innovations, Lucas was an unpopular figure and was unable to exercise much direct influence within the corporation. The 2nd earl of Warwick (Sir Robert Rich†) had intervened with some success in the elections of the 1620s.

In each of the six elections between 1604 and 1626 Colchester had returned its town clerk as one of its MPs. HP Commons 1604-1629. The decision to return Grimston to both the 1640 Parliaments fulfilled the same purpose. Grimston was well informed about the town affairs, was a prominent county figure and quickly established himself as one of the major speakers in the Commons. Moreover, his father, Sir Harbottle*, had been elected for the town in 1626 (although he had chosen to sit for the county). Sir William Masham* was probably also an uncontroversial nomination in March 1640 as he had sat for this constituency in the previous Parliament. He may have enjoyed Warwick’s backing in this election as well as the next. C219/42, pt. 1, f. 102. The Short Parliament election cannot have been entirely without some dispute. Warwick’s brother, the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich†), who had previously served as the town’s recorder, later admitted that he had tried unsuccessfully to intrude his own favoured candidate. Essex RO, D/Y 2/4, p. 35. However, the corporation records make no mention of a rival candidate to either Masham or Grimston. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb3, f. 201.

Negotiations between the leading figures of the county later that year ensured that the result of the Long Parliament election was settled in advance of the meeting of the free burgesses on 21 October. As early as 26 September Holland indicated to the mayor that he hoped the town would choose Sir Thomas Ingram*. Essex RO, D/Y 2/4, p. 35. As Ingram was a Yorkshireman, Holland must have known that this choice lacked credibility. His brother had more success. On 6 October Warwick made it clear to the corporation that he would be supporting Masham for one of the county seats. Essex RO, D/Y 2/4, p. 89. The following week Warwick’s son, Lord Rich (Robert Rich*), acted on the advice of one of the aldermen, Henry Barrington*, and wrote to Grimston asking that he arrange for Sir Thomas Barrington* (no relation) to be elected for the town. As the other candidate for the county seats, Rich was concerned was that Sir Thomas would wish to be re-elected along with him as knight of the shire and thus create an unseemly contest with Masham. The proposal that Barrington and Masham swap the places they had occupied in the previous Parliament offered an honourable alternative. Essex RO, D/Y 2/9, p. 53. Grimston wrote to the mayor the day before the election advising him to support this compromise. Essex RO, D/Y 2/8, p. 73. This last-minute deal probably encountered no opposition, although on the election day itself Masham felt it necessary to write to Grimston to back it. Essex RO, D/Y 2/4, p. 51. The free burgesses approved the election of Barrington and Grimston, leaving Rich and Masham with a clear run in the county poll. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb3, f. 208; C219/43, pt. 1, f. 149. The mayor then informed Holland that they had failed to consider Ingram because they had preferred to elect two local men who would understand the town’s affairs. Essex RO, D/Y 2/4, p. 39. Barrington’s expenses for the election came to £42 2s 3d. F.W. Galpin, ‘The household expenses of Sir Thomas Barrington’, Trans. Essex. Arch. Soc. n.s. xii. 211.

The 1640s were perhaps the most dramatic decade in Colchester’s history. Two events – the attack on Sir John Lucas’s house in 1642 and the siege of 1648 – did much to influence contemporary attitudes towards the civil war far beyond the town itself. Both left Colchester badly divided. The attack on Lucas’s house by a crowd of townspeople on 23 August 1642 did more than any other single event during the opening months of the war to enflame fears of mob violence. Mercurius Rusticus no. 1 (20 May 1643), 1-5 (E.103.3); J. Walter, Understanding Popular Violence in the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1999). Lucas had been singled out because he was believed to be organising military support for the king. If nothing else, the attack indicated passionate support for Parliament among some of the locals. Even so, Parliament was appalled. Barrington and Grimston, as the local MPs, were immediately sent to restore order. This intervention may have created its own reaction. Grimston subsequently complained to the mayor about a ‘false and scandalous report’ which was being circulated about him. Essex RO, D/Y 2/8, p. 31. The town’s enthusiasm for the parliamentarian cause was never in doubt, but it took constant effort by the local deputy lieutenants, in particular Sir Thomas Honywood* and John Sayer*, to harness that into regular supplies of troops for a war which was mostly being fought in far-off parts of the country.

Barrington’s death in September 1644 created a vacancy. The new writ was moved 12 months later on 25 September 1645 as part of the general move to fill the outstanding vacancies. CJ iv. 284a, 287b. The free burgesses met on 14 October and elected Sayer. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb3, ff. 260v-261. For more radical men, notably Henry Barrington, coming to dominate the corporation, this was probably a straightforward choice. Sayer lived close by at Aldham and he had over the past three years shown himself to be an active supporter of Parliament. He may have been seen as potentially a more hard-line figure than Grimston. It may also have helped that he owned some property in the town. Essex RO, D/Y 2/9, p. 125. The minister and diarist Ralph Josselin’s gnomic comment on the result was that it was ‘an unworthy act but suitable to the man’. Josselin, Diary, 47.

The divisions within the corporation already identifiable by the late 1640s coloured the town’s electoral politics throughout the 1650s. J.H. Round, ‘Colchester during the Commonwealth’, EHR xv. 641-64. The process of purge and counter-purge started in the aftermath of the siege. The occupation of the town by the anti-parliamentarian forces under the 1st earl of Norwich (Sir George Goring†), Lord Capell (Arthur Capell*), Lord Loughborough, Sir Charles Lucas and Sir George Lisle in the summer of 1648 formed the climax to the uprisings in the south east. At the suggestion of Lucas (who was Sir John’s brother), these forces entered Colchester on 12 June 1648 as a convenient overnight stop on their intended march northwards into Suffolk. The arrival of the forces under Sir Thomas Fairfax* the following day trapped them in the town. The corporation had initially tried to refuse entry to Norwich’s army and relations between occupiers and occupied over the following two months were strained. Royalists claimed that the town had seen the error of their previous opposition to the king. The Colchester Spie (1648), sig. A2. The reality was probably more complicated, with the leading citizens now having more immediate concerns. By 7 August the corporation had appealed to Norwich for the inhabitants to be allowed to leave the town. Five days later the townspeople began public demonstrations for a surrender. HMC 14th Rep. ix. 289; The Moderate no. 6 (15-22 Aug. 1648), sig. F3v (E.460.18). This was agreed on 27 August.

These 11 weeks left the town devastated. One contemporary report summed up the scale of the suffering.

The town hath suffered as well as the men, being ruined in its buildings, provisions, people, and trade; what fair streets are here of stately houses now laid in ashes? How eminent are their granaries of corn, (which before the enemies came, exceeded all parts of England) and their cellars and storehouses of wine and fruit, where there was plenty before, are empty now; they who had houses to live in now live desolate for want of habitation, and those who had formerly their tables furnished with variety of dishes (beside their usual dainties of oysters and ringo roots) have for a long time fed upon horses, dogs, and cats, starch, bran and grains, and with much greediness, and many starved to death by hunger. A True and Exact Relation of the taking of Colchester (1648), 4 (E.461.24).

It was said that 600 horses had been eaten while the siege lasted. The Moderate Intelligencer no. 181 (31 Aug.-7 Sept. 1648), 1520 (E.462.18). On visiting Colchester in 1656 John Evelyn thought it was ‘a fair town but now wretchedly demolished by the late siege’. Evelyn Diary, ed. de Beer, iii. 176. The cloth trade did not recover until after the Restoration. Goose, ‘Economic and social aspects’, 176, table 3.13. The physical and mental damage would take decades longer to heal. The fine of £12,000 imposed on the town as a punishment for its assistance to the rebels was an added burden. In the weeks following the surrender the corporation was thoroughly purged of all those who failed to remain loyal to Parliament and Henry Barrington was installed as mayor. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, ff. 19-22. Barrington and his friends retained a firm hold on the government of the town until at least 1652.

The army’s purge of the Commons in December 1648 left Colchester without any representation because both Grimston and Sayer were among those excluded. Grimston then distanced himself from the new corporation by resigning his recordership in May 1649. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, f. 31. Colchester’s size alone justified its retention of both its parliamentary seats under the redistribution implemented by the 1653 Instrument of Government. By the time the new elections were held in July 1654 the strength of the pro-Barrington faction was weakening. The aldermen were now evenly divided between Barrington’s supporters and moderates headed by Thomas Reynolds. The mayoralty was held by Thomas Peeke, a Reynolds ally. Round, ‘Colchester’, 648. The election result showed that those divisions extended throughout the whole body of the free burgesses. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, ff. 112v-114v. John Barkstead*, the prominent army officer who had served at the siege of the town and who was now the lieutenant of the Tower of London, seems to have been allowed to stand uncontested for the senior seat. The real battle was for the junior place. The free burgesses who were present split almost exactly half-and-half between the two candidates offered to them. The list of their names in the corporation’s assembly book is a rare example of a full poll list from this period. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, ff. 113v-114v. Ninety-eight of them, headed by Peeke, voted for William Goffe*. This fell just four votes short of the 102 gained by John Maidstone*, who thus secured the seat. That Maidstone was a local man, being a native of Boxted, presumably gave him the edge. He was also close to Henry Barrington and had been able to use his influence as Cromwell’s steward to get Barrington’s son, Abraham, the position of auditor within the protectoral household. The names of their various supporters confirm that Maidstone was Barrington’s preferred candidate and that Goffe was backed by his opponents, for reasons that are baffling since, as a regicide, Goffe was probably as radical as Maidstone and, like him, he was a strong supporter of the protectorate. Perhaps for some Maidstone was too much Barrington’s man. Two days later Goffe was elected at Great Yarmouth.

Barrington’s success in engineering Maidstone’s election was short-lived. His opponents soon gained the upper hand. That autumn Reynolds was elected as mayor, whereupon he used the support of the free burgesses to purge Barrington and his son, Abraham, from the corporation. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, ff. 124-128v. John Shaw*, son of one of the aldermen purged in 1648, succeeded Arthur Barnardiston as recorder. Both sides spent most of 1655 trying to use the law courts and the council of state to outmanoeuvre the other, but by the following autumn both the Barringtons and Barnardiston had been reinstated. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, f. 137; Lansd. 1109, ff. 35v-36; W. Style, Narrationes Modernae (1658), 446-7, 452-3; CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 202-3; Round, ‘Colchester’, 649-52. When the elections for new officeholders in early September were won by allies of Reynolds, Barrington again appealed to the council of state to get these results overturned. New elections were ordered for that December. CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 309, 310, 354, 378; Round, ‘Colchester’, 652-4. This time the council took no chances, sending the local deputy major-general, Hezekiah Haynes*, to oversee events. By the simple step of preventing many of the free burgesses from voting, Haynes ensured that the officeholders who were elected were to Barrington’s liking. TSP iv. 330. Effective though this method had proved to be, a more permanent solution was required. In March 1656 the corporation agreed to petition for a new charter with the specific aim of reducing the role of the free burgesses. The new charter was ready just in time for the new parliamentary elections. This amounted to another purge. Three of the ten aldermen, including Reynolds and Peeke, were not reappointed, while the 16 assistants and 16 common councilmen were replaced with just 24 common councilmen. The franchise for parliamentary elections was confined to the corporation. CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 253, 370-1; 1656-7, p. 79; Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, ff. 144-146; Round, ‘Colchester’, 656-8. Evelyn probably had men such as Barrington in mind when he complained that the town was ‘swarming in sectaries’. Evelyn Diary, ed. de Beer, iii. 177.

The new corporation met for the first time on 12 September 1656 for the reading of the charter and for the election of the MPs and its members immediately showed their gratitude to the council of state by choosing two men, Henry Lawrence I* and John Maidstone, who were close associates of the lord protector. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, ff. 145v-146. Lawrence was the council’s president, while Maidstone was by now the cofferer of Cromwell’s household. But that same day the free burgesses met to protest at their exclusion from the franchise by submitting a return to the sheriff which instead nominated the former recorder, John Shaw, and a serving army officer, John Biscoe*. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, f. 146. The only reason for nominating Biscoe seems to have been that he was colonel of the troops stationed close by at Landguard Fort, although it may also have been relevant that he had previously served under Barkstead. The attempt by Shaw and Biscoe to petition against the presence of Lawrence and Maidstone in the Commons became bogged down in the committee for privileges and was never resolved. CJ vii. 532a, 618a. However, in the meantime Lawrence and Maidstone were allowed to continue sitting. Lawrence was elevated to the Other House in December 1657.

At the next election in 1659 the corporation anticipated a similar protest. The day before the aldermen and common councilmen unanimously agreed ‘after serious consideration’ to limit the franchise to themselves. It was also agreed that the town would pay for the legal costs arising from any challenge brought by the free burgesses and a special sub-committee was appointed to seek appropriate legal advice. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, f. 185v. In advance of the poll, the town lecturer, Owen Stockton, may have preached a sermon advising that they should choose candidates who were well-qualified and of good character. DWL, MS 28.31(5). On 18 January, with Henry Barrington as mayor presiding, the corporation elected Maidstone and Abraham Barrington, whose job at court had now been upgraded to that of clerk of the board of greencloth. Six of the eight aldermen (excluding Abraham Barrington) and 20 of the 23 common councillors present signed the order approving their nomination. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, ff. 186v-187v. Once again the free burgesses made a separate selection, choosing Shaw and Abraham Johnson*, a London Fishmonger who had been born in the town and who still owned some land there. C219/46, unfol.: Colchester return, 18 Jan. 1659. This time Shaw and his supporters were more confident, for the matter was pursued to a conclusion and the outcome of the double return had to be decided on the floor of the Commons. Maidstone had taken his seat when the Parliament had assembled but agreed to withdraw until a ruling had been established. Thomas Waller* reported from the committee for privileges on 22 March that they had found the right of the free burgesses to be the ‘ancient custom’ of the town and therefore recommended that Shaw and Johnson be seated. The Commons agreed. Burton’s Diary, ii. 405-6, iii. 65, iv. 223-4; CJ vii. 617b-618a.

The recall of the Rump in May 1659 reopened the dispute. Ten days after the Rump had reassembled the Colchester corporation authorised Henry Barrington, who was still serving as mayor, to travel to London on the business of the town. The corporation’s obvious expectation of a further challenge was well informed. A petition was subsequently presented to the Commons by some of the inhabitants. The committee appointed on 26 May to consider it summoned the entire corporation to appear before them, bringing the 1635 and 1656 charters with them. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, ff. 190v, 192v-193; CJ vii. 666a. On 18 July the Commons ordered that John Radhams, the preferred candidate of the free burgesses, replace Barrington as mayor. Radhams was sworn in the next day. CJ vii. 722b; Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, f. 194v. Although the Commons’ order had not said as much, Radhams’ supporters took this to mean that the 1635 charter had been reinstated. When the corporation next met on 21 July, it was as the body which had existed before the 1656 purge. One of those most affected by this change was Abraham Barrington, who now found himself demoted back to the rank of an assistant. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, f. 195. That September Peeke regained the mayoralty. One final act of revenge remained to be implemented. On 19 January 1660 Barrington’s enemies purged the corporation using exactly the same process as had been exploited in 1654. Four aldermen, four assistants and one common councilman were removed. The victims once more included both the Barringtons. Essex RO, D/B 5/Gb4, f. 208v; Round, ‘Colchester’, 660. Later that year and again in 1661 the free burgesses elected Grimston and Shaw as the town’s MPs.