HOLCROFTE, John (d. 1656), of Holcroft, Newchurch in Culcheth, Lancs.

The Holcrofts had settled at Holcroft in the parish of Newchurch, about ten miles west of Manchester, by the early fourteenth century.19Rylands, Fam. of Holcroft, 5-6. Several members of the family had represented Lancashire in the Parliaments of the 1550s, but the Holcrofts’ standing in the county may well have been adversely affected by the succession of Hamlet Holcroft – a younger son and Catholic recusant – in Elizabeth’s reign.20HP Commons 1509-1558, ‘Sir John Holcroft’; ‘Sir Thomas Holcroft’; Rylands, Fam. of Holcroft, 14-15.

The exact lineage of the future MP is a matter of some uncertainty – as was recognised by the north-west’s two leading historians of the Victorian era, John Earwaker and John Rylands.21Local Gleanings rel. to Lancs. and Cheshire, ii. 149, 195, 201-2; Manchester Ct. Leet Recs. ed. J.P. Earwaker (Manchester, 1886), iii. p. 76. The various pedigrees of the Holcrofts of Holcroft agree in identifying Holcrofte’s father as John Holcroft, son of the above Hamlet.22Harl. 1987, f. 106; Bodl. Dodsworth 108, f. 121v; Dodsworth 142, ff. 119v-120. This John Holcroft, although apparently a Protestant, seems to have done little to revive the family’s fortunes – indeed, in 1605, he sold a large part of the family’s estate in Newchurch.23VCH Lancs. iv. 160. The family pedigrees also concur in stating that John Holcrofte junior – the future MP – married Margaret, daughter of Peter Hunt of Manchester. However, there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Margaret Hunt’s husband was the son and heir of Thomas Holcroft of Ashton-under-Lyne, to the east of Manchester. This John Holcroft was baptised in Ashton-under-Lyne in November 1601 and had his first child baptised there in August 1622 – approximately a year after the marriage of John Holcrofte and Margaret Hunt.24Ashton-under-Lyne ed. H. Brierley (Lancs. Par. Reg. Soc. lxv), 17, 72; Local Gleanings rel. to Lancs. and Cheshire, ii. 149, 195. More significantly, the man who had married Margaret Hunt was described in the 1620s as of Limehurst and then Nuthurst – the former within the parish of Ashton-under-Lyne and the latter two miles to the north-west.25JRL, CLD/569, 935-6, 939-45; Lancs. RO, QDD/30/12; QDD/36/9; Local Gleanings rel. to Lancs. and Cheshire, ii. 149; Manchester Ct. Leet Recs. ed. Earwaker, iii. 76. And it was this same man who moved his family to Marton, in the parish of Ormskirk (to the west of Wigan), where the pedigrees referred to above (stating that he was the son of John Holcroft), the parish registers and various property transactions record him residing by the early 1630s.26Harl. 1987, f. 106; Bodl. Dodsworth 108, f. 121v; Dodsworth 142, ff. 119v-120, 161; Lancs. RO, QDD/41/18; JRL, RYCH/694; Local Gleanings rel. to Lancs. and Cheshire, ii. 149; Ormskirk ed. Williams, 16, 19, 22, 26, 139. By 1637, he had moved again, to Newchurch – where he purchased part or all of the family’s former estate – styled himself ‘of Holcroft’ and sold or mortgaged his property in Ormskirk.27Lancs. RO, QDD/47/9; Blackwood, Lancs. 59.

One way of resolving this conundrum would be to suppose that John, son of Thomas Holcroft, had the family pedigree falsified in order to make it appear that he belonged to a more distinguished branch of the Holcrofts than was in fact the case. However, John Holcrofte of Holcroft would put his descent from John and Hamlet Holcroft on legal record in 1652 as part of an exchequer court-case;28E134/1652/Mich2. the John who moved from Ashton-under-Lyne to Marton to Newchurch cannot have been the son of Thomas. The only explanation we are left with is that John Holcrofte, son of John, moved in the 1620s to the very parish (Ashton-under-Lyne) where his contemporary and namesake (and likely kinsman) John, son of Thomas, resided. Whichever branch of the family he came from, the future MP was apparently more enterprising and prosperous than is suggested by his later depiction in the royalist press as a man of ‘decayed’ fortune and ‘much indebted’.29Lancs. Civil War Tracts, 33.

Holcrofte joined the ranks of Lancashire’s governing elite in the 1630s with his appointment as a captain in the county militia and promotion to the bench.30Lancs. RO, DDN/1/64, f. 112; QSC/30; SP16/337/81i, f. 168. In the elections to the Short Parliament in the spring of 1640, he was returned for Liverpool, taking the junior place.31Supra, ‘Liverpool’. He had no proprietorial interest in the town and almost certainly owed his election to the backing of his kinsman Thomas Stanley of Bickerstaffe – the mayor of Liverpool for 1639-40 – and possibly also that of the county’s lord lieutenant, and one of Liverpool’s leading electoral patrons, James Stanley†, Lord Strange, the future 7th earl of Derby.32Chandler, Liverpool, 266; CB, ii. 27. Holcrofte’s family had long-standing links with the earls of Derby, and having resided at Marton, which lay just a few miles from their ancestral residence of Lathom House, it is certainly likely that Holcrofte himself was personally acquainted with Lord Strange.33Long, ‘Lancs.’, 165. He also seems to have been on friendly terms with another of the town’s leading local gentleman – and the man who would replace him in the elections to the Long Parliament – John Moore.34Lancs. RO, QDD/41/18. Holcrofte made no recorded impression upon the proceedings of the Short Parliament.

In February 1642, Holcrofte and Thomas (now 2nd baronet) Stanley elicited the support of Parliament for a crackdown against recusants in their area in what may have been part of a larger campaign to undermine the position of Lord Strange, against whom they had conceived an intense grudge, although why is not clear. One of Holcrofte’s kinsmen (possibly his grandfather), Peter Heywood, presented a paper to Parliament in February, accusing Lord Strange of promoting Catholics and acting in an arbitrary manner as lord lieutenant.35PA, Main Pprs. 26 Feb. 1642, f. 97b; CJ ii. 446b; LJ iv. 606a; PJ i. 431, 441; B. Coward, ‘The social and political position of the earls of Derby in later seventeenth-century Lancs.’ in Seventeenth-Century Lancs. ed. J.I. Kermode, C.B. Phillips, Trans. Historic Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxxxii. 130-1. That same month, Holcrofte was recommended by the future Lancashire parliamentarian Richard Holland* for the vacant seat at Newton – which, in the event, was taken by William Ashhurst.36Supra, ‘Newton’; JRL, Legh of Lyme corresp., Lttrs. to Francis Legh, folder 12: Holland to Legh, 18 Feb. 1642.

Holcrofte and Sir Thomas Stanley combined again in June 1642, when they corresponded on the activities of Lord Strange, who by then was the leader of Lancashire’s nascent royalist party.37HMC 5th Rep. 27. It was almost certainly with their connivance that this correspondence was presented to the Lords on 9 June by Philip 4th Baron Wharton – Parliament’s own lord lieutenant of Lancashire.38LJ v. 121a. Not surprisingly, both Holcrofte and Stanley were omitted from the 11 July commission of peace for Lancashire, which was probably issued on instructions from the court.39Lancs. RO, QSC/36. A few days later, the two men played a leading role in defying Lord Strange’s attempt to take control of Manchester and its magazine – which culminated in an armed stand-off between Lord Strange’s forces and troops mustered by Holcrofte and Thomas Birche*.40PA, Main Pprs. 14 Sept. 1642 (depositions of Sir Thomas Stanley, John Holcrofte, Thomas Birche); HEHL, EL 7762; Lancs. Civil War Tracts, 30-4; HMC 5th Rep. 48. One royalist pamphleteer claimed that Stanley and Holcrofte were ‘both his lordship’s known enemies’ and had been intent on murdering him, ‘thinking by this devilish plot to master the country [i.e. county]’.41Lancs. Civil War Tracts, 33-4. The Lancashire royalists did not take this affront to their leader lightly, for in August the Commons had to order that any prosecution of Stanley, Holcrofte and Birch be stopped, ‘and that the hearing that concerns Mr. Holcrofte at Chester be likewise stayed’.42CJ ii. 714b. On 24 October, Parliament ordered the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster to add Holcrofte and other parliamentarian gentry to the Lancashire commission of peace, but the next commission, issued on 17 November, did not recognise this order, and Holcrofte was not formally re-appointed to the bench until October 1647.43CJ ii. 821a; LJ v. 421a; Lancs. RO, QSC/38, 48. Holcrofte’s motives for siding with Parliament, beyond his hostility to Lord Strange, are not known. There is certainly little in his public career that would identify him as a zealous promoter of godly religion, while his close friend Sir Thomas Stanley was an ‘outright critic of puritanism’.44HMC 10th Rep. iv, 102; Gratton, Lancs. 206-7.

Holcrofte figured prominently in the parliamentarian war-effort in Lancashire and had attained the rank of colonel by January 1644.45Add. 18777, f. 3v; SP28/12, f. 40; SP28/299, f. 1106; Mercurius Aulicus no. 48 (26 Nov.-2 Dec. 1643), 684 (E.78.16); Lancs. Civil War Tracts, 85; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 258. In November, the corporation of Liverpool appointed him mayor of the town after it had had been re-captured by the parliamentarians.46Chandler, Liverpool, 329. Again, Holcrofte almost certainly owed this honour to Sir Thomas Stanley, whose officers and troops were stationed in the town.47M. Gratton, ‘Liverpool under Parliament’, Trans. Historic Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, clvi. 59. John Moore, on the other hand, who was appointed governor of Liverpool in 1643, may well have been ambivalent, at best, towards Holcrofte by late 1644, for the two men belonged by now to opposite ends of the parliamentarian interest in Lancashire. Whereas Moore was a puritan and future regicide, Holcrofte emerged during the civil war as a leading figure in what seems to have been localist resistance to the excise and other parliamentary taxes – which may help explain why he was generally omitted from Lancashire parliamentary commissions. Moreover, in the summer of 1645 he was involved with Stanley and several other Lancashire deputy lieutenants in arresting and imprisoning one of the county’s most militant parliamentarians – Holcrofte’s ally from the summer of 1642, Thomas Birche. That autumn, Birche hit back against his enemies, and in particular Holcrofte and Stanley. He accused Holcrofte, among other things, of colluding with royalists, protecting Catholics and delinquents, communicating with the royalist headquarters at Oxford, and likening ‘this parliamentary government to the tyrants of Athens; and that whoever perused Sir Walter Ralegh’s† book on that subject would find that tyranny run [sic] parallel with these times of ours’.48SP24/77 (case of Stanley v. Birche); Cal. of Deeds and Pprs. of the Moore Fam. ed. J. Brownbill (Lancs. and Cheshire Rec. Soc. lxvii), 167, 207; Whitaker, Whalley, ii. 153-4; Gratton, Lancs. 18, 35, 43, 93-5. Birche was supported in his feud against Holcrofte and Stanley by Moore and another Lancashire hardliner, Peter Brooke*.49Belvoir, PZ.2, f. 14; QZ.25, f. 42.

Birche’s charges against Holcrofte, and additional allegations against him by one of Moore’s officers, were referred to the Committee for Examinations* in the autumn of 1645.50CJ iv. 281b; Moore Fam. Pprs. ed. Brownbill, 167-8, 207; Gratton, Lancs. 94-5; BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database, ‘Richard Heapy’. Holcrofte denied any wrongdoing or disaffection, insisting that he had ‘never vilified the Parliament in any discourse or company ... but hath to the uttermost of his power in all companies and upon all occasions laboured to vindicate the reputation of the Parliament and demonstrate the justice of their proceedings and cause’.51Moore Fam. Pprs. ed. Brownbill, 207. It is likely that his case was still under investigation by the Committee for Examinations when he was elected a ‘recruiter’ for Wigan in the spring of 1646.52Belvoir, Mss.1600-1700, vol. 2, unfol.

Holcrofte’s decision to seek election at Wigan seems to have grown out of his quarrel with Birche, as, in all likelihood, did Stanley’s decision to seek appointment as mayor of the borough in the autumn of 1645.53Belvoir, QZ.25, f. 42. Holcrofte owned little or no property in the immediate vicinity of Wigan, but, as in the case of his election at Liverpool in 1640, with Stanley as mayor he did not need a strong proprietorial interest in the borough. On election day, 30 March 1646, Holcrofte was duly returned – Stanley’s name heading the list of signatories to the indenture.54Supra, ‘Wigan’; C219/43/2/20. Election as an MP probably insulated Holcrofte against Birche’s charges – the investigation against him apparently came to nothing – which may have been his principal reason for seeking a parliamentary seat in the first place. He was certainly not the most active of Members, receiving appointment to only three committees between May 1646 and Pride’s Purge.55CJ iv. 553b; v. 407a, 608a. One of these appointments was to the Committee for Plundered Ministers* (on 27 December 1647), which suggests – if nothing else – that he was somewhat better disposed towards the advancement of godly religion than his friend Stanley.56CJ v. 407a.

Granted leave of absence on 26 October 1646, 30 April and 17 July 1647 and declared absent at the call of the House on 9 October 1647 and 26 September 1648, Holcrofte does not seem to have attended his seat on a regular basis.57CJ iv. 704a; v. 157a, 248a, 330a; vi. 34a. He remained loyal to Parliament during the second civil war and worked with Stanley and other Lancashire parliamentarians to strengthen the county’s defences during the summer of 1648.58Life of Humphrey Chetham ed. F.R. Raines, C.W. Sutton (Chetham Soc. n.s. xlix), 152. At Westminster, he was appointed to draft a letter from the Commons to Richard Holland*, thanking him and other Lancashire gentlemen for their assistance to Parliament’s forces in Yorkshire.59CJ v. 595a.

Holcrofte was among those MPs secluded from the Commons at Pride’s Purge in December 1648, although it is not clear precisely how he had offended the army and its supporters – unless it was his hounding of Birche in the mid-1640s.60Greater Manchester County RO, Allen deeds, parcel A no. 28; [W. Prynne*], A Vindication of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1649), 29 (E.539.5); Life of Chetham ed. Raines, Sutton, 166, 168. Both he and Stanley continued to attend the Lancashire quarter sessions after the regicide and were included in the commission of peace issued in September 1649; and it has been conjectured that (in contrast to committed Presbyterians) they had been willing to take the Engagement.61Lancs. RO, QSC/51; Blackwood, Lancs. 73; Craven, ‘Lancs.’, 35. However, Holcrofte (though not Stanley) was omitted from the April 1650 commission.62Lancs. RO, QSC/52. In September of that year, he was arrested on the orders of the council of state, but allowed his liberty on bail of £2,000 (though his sureties gave bond for only half that sum).63CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 333, 521. Presumably, he was suspected by the council of fomenting unrest in Lancashire in support of the Scots.

Holcrofte did not return to public life before his death in the spring of 1656. He was buried at Newchurch on 22 April. No will is recorded, although the parish records for Newchurch state that he left £80 to the parish towards the maintenance of its curate.64Newchurch ed. Kaye, Kaye, 150, 232. None of Holcrofte’s immediate descendants sat in Parliament.