HUTCHINSON, Richard (1598-1670), of St Mary Magdalen, Milk Street, London, and Mile End, Mdx.

Hutchinson was descended from a family of Lincolnshire wool merchants and drapers. His grandfather served as mayor of Lincoln, but following the death of his father in 1631 most of the family emigrated to New England with the puritan minister John Cotton, and settled in Boston in 1633-4. These emigrants included Hutchinson’s mother, Susannah, and his siblings, William (d. 1642), Samuel, John, Hester, and Mary. Once there, Hutchinson’s family became involved in the religious controversy which rocked the colonies. They joined protests over the expulsion of Hutchinson’s brother-in-law, the minister John Wheelwright, for heterodoxy, while Hutchinson’s sister-in-law, Anne Hutchinson (wife of his brother William), was a notorious Antinomian prosecuted by Cotton. After the defeat of the Hutchinson-Wheelwright party, and that of the colony’s governor, Sir Henry Vane II*, the family moved to the more liberal settlement at Rhode Island, where Hutchinson’s brother became governor.30Recs. of the First Church in Boston, 1630-1868 ed. R.D. Pierce (3 vols, Collns. Col. Soc. Mass, 1961), i. 16, 19; Diary and Letters ed. Hutchinson, ii. 460-1.

It has generally been assumed that Hutchinson himself emigrated to New England in the early 1630s, but this rests on confusion between our MP and either Richard Hutchinson of Arnold (d. 1682), who emigrated to Salem in 1634, or Hutchinson’s own nephew, who probably returned to London from Massachusetts in the mid-1630s in the company of the Independent divine Thomas Goodwin.31Aylmer, State’s Servants, 247; Pierce, First Church in Boston, i. 16, 19, 44. In fact, while the MP owned property in Boston, he remained in England in order to pursue a career as a London Ironmonger. Having completed his apprenticeship in 1623, Hutchinson became a liveryman in 1627, and was an active member of the company’s governing body throughout the late 1620s and 1630s.32Trans. Col. Soc. Mass. iii (1900), 89; Suffolk Deeds, iii. 124; GL, MS 16967/3, ff. 377-416v; MS 16967/4, pp. 1-331. He trained apprentices of his own, and between 1628 and 1642 was living in the parish of St Mary Magdalen, Milk Street, where a number of his children were baptised.33GL, MS 16977/1, unfol.; London Mar. Lics. ed. Chester, ii. 229; Regs. St Mary Magdalen Milk Street, 28-32, 49-50.

The theory that Hutchinson emigrated to New England was based in part on his family’s association there with Sir Henry Vane II, and on Hutchinson’s own later connection with Vane, and with naval administration.34Aylmer, State’s Servants, 247. However, Hutchinson’s emergence as a public figure clearly owed much to his own status within the City and parliamentarian views. He had resisted Ship Money in the 1630s, and between the opening of the Long Parliament and the outbreak of civil war, he not only remained active in the Ironmongers’ Company, but also contributed £5 towards the City’s loan to Parliament in July 1641.35CLRO, Rep. 53, f. 65; Rep. 55, f. 63; GL, MS 16967/4, pp. 336-82, esp. p. 349. Moreover, Hutchinson and a kinsman and namesake, a London draper, also contributed £150 towards the Irish adventure.36CSP Ire. Adv. 97. The first indication of a personal link with Vane only comes in November 1642, when the latter, as navy treasurer, ordered ‘Dick Hutchinson’ to make a payment on his behalf.37Add. 63788B, f. 9.

Hutchinson’s precise role during the civil wars is unclear, although the 1644 reference to him as Vane’s ‘menial servant’ is clearly inappropriate.38CCAM 34. Hutchinson was an increasingly powerful member of London’s mercantile community, and although unsuccessful in his bid to become one of the wardens of the Ironmongers in 1644, he was chosen in 1645.39GL, MS 16977/1, unfol.; MS 16967/4, pp. 414, 440, 444, 454. Nevertheless, Hutchinson was clearly a ‘servant’ or ‘assign’ of sorts, rather than being deputy-treasurer, since the latter post was occupied by John Holland.40Bodl. Rawl. A.221, pp. 249, 262, 335; A.222, f. 15v. During 1643, Hutchinson was responsible for receiving bonds in relation to customs revenue and liaised between the Committee of Navy and Customs and the customs commissioners.41Bodl. Rawl. A.221, pp. 1, 16, 24, 88, 162, 267; A.222, f. 30v. He may, therefore, have been one of the junior administrators or paymasters under Vane.42Bodl. Rawl. A.221, pp. 260, 317, 335. By March 1645, however, Hutchinson had succeeded Holland as deputy treasurer of the navy – effectively paymaster under Vane – and he retained the post until 1650, despite an apparent attempt in 1648 to institute Vane’s son Charles.43CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 632; 1648-9, p. 355; 1650, p. 94; E351/2286; E351/2287; E351/2288; ADM7/673, f. 510; Bodl. Rawl. A.224, f. 20v. Hutchinson received orders from the Navy Committee regarding the payments to be made in relation to the fleet, and may frequently have attended them in order to apprise MPs of the state of the finances.44Bodl. Rawl. A.224, ff. 27v, 31v, 32v; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 355; 1650, p. 129. He also oversaw the collection of money for Chatham Chest, the organisation responsible for the care of maimed and elderly seamen.45Add. 46931B, f. 66.

In June 1643, Hutchinson became involved in the care of sick and maimed soldiers, alongside other prominent citizens of London, William Greenhill, John Pocock, and John Randall, and by the following November was serving as treasurer for the funds raised for this purpose.46CJ iii. 137b, 322a. Hutchinson retained this post throughout the 1640s and early 1650s, although not without difficulties, as resources were severely limited. In May 1650 he and Greenhill complained about the physical threats from those whom they were unable to pay, and who ‘will try whether we be pistol proof or no’, and they asked William Lenthall* to procure £10,000 in order to fulfil their obligations. Such financial difficulties remained a pressing problem.47HMC Portland, i. 524; CJ vi. 413; vii. 172b.

Hutchinson’s commitments during the 1640s were sufficiently pressing for him largely to be exempted from other duties, as he himself affirmed in complaining about being summoned to sit on a jury in early 1652.48SP24/10, ff. 69, 126. Nevertheless, he was appointed to the Rump’s special commission for regulating the navy and customs in January 1649, although he was not particularly active in this role.49SP46/117, f. 94; CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 515; 1653-4, p. 177. Although it is not known whether he served as a common councillor in London, he was appointed alderman’s deputy, probably for Bread Street Ward, sometime before October 1650.50A. and O. More importantly, Hutchinson continued to play a leading role in the Ironmongers’ Company. He was one of its two delegates to the committee of London livery companies regarding the Irish adventure in January 1650, and subscribed their remonstrance to the Rump Parliament; the following July he became company warden for the second time.51GL, MS 16967/5, pp. 72, 78, 79, 81, 88. 138. It was while in this office that Hutchinson succeeded Vane as treasurer of the navy, following the latter’s resignation. When the Commons considered the issue of Vane’s successor, on 10 October 1650, Vane himself was a teller against putting the question whether Hutchinson should be chosen, although there is no reason to suspect that he opposed Hutchinson on political grounds, or that there was a personal rift between the two men. Hutchinson was duly nominated, and assumed the post on 30 December following.52HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 485; CJ vi. 482a; Aylmer, State’s Servants, 248.

Hutchinson’s work changed little thereafter, since he was probably doing most of the work already.53E351/2288. He continued to receive orders from the admiralty and navy commissioners regarding specific payments.54CSP Dom. 1651, p. 512; 1652-3, p. 510; Bodl. Rawl. A.227, ff. 6, 8, 9v; SP46/119, f. 157; ADM2/1729, f. 54v. Such orders also related to the relief of maimed mariners, the payment of funds into Chatham Chest, and the provisioning of the garrison of Mardyke in Flanders.55CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 38; Add. 4197, f. 224; ADM3/273, ff. 77, 113v, 227: ADM82/1, f. 4; ADM82/2, unfol.; NMM, SOC 16, unfol.; Add. 63788B, f. 130. However, Hutchinson may have found himself lobbied more frequently by those seeking funds, including provincial officials charged with the care of Dutch prisoners.56CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 252; SP46/119, f. 128. He was also sued regularly by those who asserted a claim on the funds in his hands, and on one occasion he was even arrested by a litigant. As a result, Hutchinson more than once sought protection from the Committee for Indemnity and the House of Commons.57CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 292; SP18/126, f. 248; SP24/10, ff. 5v, 8, 43; SP24/13, ff. 77, 77v, 110v, 136v, 149v-50; CJ vi. 547b, 614a-b. The treasurership also brought greater managerial responsibilities, not least in logistical matters such as the provision of offices and the recruitment of staff.58SP46/122b, f. 113. Such duties included being seconded to council committees, particularly those relating to the management of public money.59CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 319, 328. Hutchinson also acted as collector of the fines imposed on individuals connected with naval affairs, including those found guilty of embezzlement.60Add. 18986, f. 235.

The frequency with which orders were passed for the transfer of funds into his hands indicates that Hutchinson was responsible for vast sums of public money.61CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 85; 1652-3, pp. 217, 282, 298, 337; 1653-4, pp. 12, 72, 169, 198, 228, 289, 302, 310, 358, 452, 454, 455; 1654, pp. 30, 45, 117, 218, 227, 241, 253, 309, 375, 381; SP18/16, f. 199; SP46/97, f. 119; C212/25/2 m. 2; C66/2915/29, 56; E351/439; E403/2523, pp. 2, 7, 13, 18, 62; Add. 4184, ff. 54, 86; Add. 4196, ff. 31, 163; Add. 4197, ff. 25, 112, 133, 135, 139, 145, 189, 190, 199, 209, 224, 227, 247, 248, 251, 276, 279; CJ vii. 831. Such evidence probably underestimates the amount of money passing through his office, however, and a more reliable guide is provided by summary accounts, especially those submitted by Hutchinson himself. In 1651 he received £460,000 and in 1652 £600,000, but in 1653 the amount had leapt up to £1,400,000, and between August 1653 and August 1655 he received a total of £2,195,534.62CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 341; SP18/42, f. 309; Bodl. Rawl. A.208, ff. 218v-220v. The modest amount accounted for in August 1656 (£70,207) may be anomalous or incomplete, as in the year from March 1657 to February 1658 he was again receiving the substantial sum of £580,994.63CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 423; 1657-8, p. 267. Hutchinson submitted such accounts in pursuit of improved pay, his grievance centring on the fact that he was paid a fixed salary, rather than a percentage of the money handled, which ensured that he was seriously disadvantaged during the Dutch war.64Aylmer, State’s Servants, 248. When Hutchinson was appointed in 1650, the government calculated that the average annual expense of the navy during the previous seven years had been £200,000, and his salary was fixed at £1,000, apparently on the understanding that if he processed more than £200,000 his salary would be increased.65CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 318; 1657-8, pp. 138-9; SP18/42, f. 151; SP18/157, f. 84-v; E 351/2289; AO1/1707/94.

Although no order survives, Hutchinson’s salary was raised to £1,500 in 1651, but by the spring of 1653 he was evidently dissatisfied.66SP18/103, f. 131. He even threatened that if this situation did not improve, ‘in such confusion I cannot continue my employment’, and suggested that the authorities should appoint ‘a successor whose spirit may be better fitted for such employment than mine. I leave it to you and Parliament to compensate me for what I have done’. Hutchinson added that ‘this is not sudden discontent. I have long intended it’.67CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 265; SP18/35, f. 106. Although a planned petition to Parliament was thwarted by Cromwell’s dissolution of the Rump in April 1653, the council of state subsequently awarded Hutchinson an extra £1,000 for the calendar year.68CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 454; 1657-8, pp. 138-9; SP18/157, f. 84. In December 1653, however, he explained that if he had been paid on the old basis during 1651-3 – a fee of £220 plus 3d. in the pound – he would have received over £30,000. He also pointed out that, since 1651, he had been given the added responsibility of overseeing payments relating to the Tower of London, worth a further £5,000.69CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 318, 341; 1657-8, pp. 138-9; SP18/42, ff. 151, 309; SP18/157, f. 84. As a result, the protectoral council ordered that he should receive £2,500 during 1654, as well as £100 for every £100,000 disbursed over £700,000, and this arrangement was retained for 1655.70CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 318; 1657-8, pp. 138-9; SP18/157, f. 84; AO1/1708/97. Hutchinson subsequently lobbied successfully for a package which combined a salary of £1,500, together with £200 for every £100,000 processed over £700,000. This pertained for the remainder of the decade, but the changing military climate exposed his misjudgement, since he scarcely received more than his basic salary.71CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 292; 1657-8, p. 138; SP18/126, f. 249; ADM3/273, f. 259; E351/2296. Moreover, Hutchinson was probably less successful in securing retrospective implementation of this package.72CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 292; SP18/126, f. 249. The allegation made in 1660 that the treasurership had been worth at least £6,000 a year to Sir Henry Vane may thus have been particularly galling.73The Mystery of the Good of Cause (1660), 34 (E.1923.2).

Amid the wealth of administrative material relating to Hutchinson’s work as treasurer of the navy, relatively little emerges regarding his own political and religious beliefs. He shared the religious Independency which was so prevalent in his extended family, and is known to have been a member of the gathered church at Stepney led by William Greenhill, at least from 1648 to 1654.74RG4/4414, ff. 4, 5v, 70; B. Capp, Cromwell’s Navy (Oxford, 1991), 303. Throughout the 1650s, he was an active and regularly attending assistant of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in New England.75GL, MS 8011. That he was an enthusiastic support for the protectorate is evident not just from his willingness to remain part of the civil service, but also from his appointment by the Ironmongers’ Company to arrange the entertainment for Oliver Cromwell* in February 1654.76ADM2/1730, ff. 65, 90v, 95, 166, 180, 189; GL, MS 16967/5, p. 177. It was therefore almost certainly as a government-approved candidate that Hutchinson secured election to Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament in 1659, both for Minehead and for Rochester, where he was probably able to rely on the strength of his own interest, and that of colleagues like the local navy commissioner Peter Pett*. Hutchinson eventually opted to sit for Rochester (10 Mar.), but played no recorded part in the proceedings after being nominated to the committee for elections on 28 January.77CJ vii. 595a, 612a. This probably reflected the pressure of combining his duties as treasurer with his responsibilities as master of the Ironmongers’ Company.78GL, MS 16967/5, pp. 254, 258-77.

Hutchinson remained active in both his Company and the management of the navy after the collapse of the protectorate, but his employment as treasurer ceased almost immediately after the Restoration, and his final account was dated 5 July 1660.79GL, MS 16976/5, pp. 283-91; SP46/136, f. 39. Thereafter, he remained a member of the Ironmongers’ Company until October 1664, despite apparently refusing to subscribe the oaths of supremacy and allegiance.80GL, MS 16976/5, pp. 292, 298, 302-81. Otherwise, Hutchinson retired from public life, although investigations into his financial affairs led to a demand for almost £4,000 of public money remaining in the hands of the commissioners for maimed soldiers.81CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 460; 1661-2, p. 200; 1663-4, p. 139; SP29/83, ff. 112-15v; SP29/210, f. 149. Nevertheless, he was regarded subsequently as one of the commonwealth’s more capable administrators. Samuel Pepys concluded that ‘never was that office better managed, or with more credit or satisfaction to the service’, although the modern historian of the state’s servants during the revolutionary decades concluded that ‘he emerges as the type of able businessman who will render honest and efficient service to government if – and only if – he is adequately rewarded in his own lights’.82Aylmer, State’s Servants, 250.

Although Hutchinson may have lost property worth as much as £60,000 in the fire of London, he left what was probably a sizeable estate, including the manor of Aldeburgh in Norfolk, as well as ancestral lands in Boston and Skirbeck, Lincolnshire, and his estate in Ireland. He left six sons and four daughters, the unmarried Anne receiving a portion of 1,000 marks.83PROB11/332/487. His youngest son, Eliakim (1641-1718) became a notable benefactor of Harvard University, while his descendants included the Hely-Hutchinsons, earls of Donoughmore in Ireland, and the loyalist governor of Massachusetts in the eighteenth century, Thomas Hutchinson.