GRATWYKE, Roger (1593-1655), of Tortington and Seaford, Suss.

Gratwykes had migrated south from Lancashire in the early sixteenth century and established several branches in Sussex. However, it was to his cousin William Gratwyke, a native of Ulverston but resident in Kent, and the latter’s first and third sons William and Roger, that in 1596 Roger Gratwyke of Tortington chose to leave – directly and by remainder – the bulk of the estate he had built up from profits made in the iron industry.20Berry, Suss. Pedigrees, 168; J. Comber, `The family of Gratwicke', Suss. Arch. Coll. lx. 35; PROB11/88/67 (Roger Gratwicke). William Gratwyke senior moved his large and growing family to Tortington in 1597 or early 1598, was knighted in 1604, and obtained a coat of arms three years later.21East Malling and Tortington par. regs. (IGI); Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 132; Berry, Suss. Pedigrees, 168. By the time of his death in 1613, he had also purchased the manor of Seaford and acquired property from various deceased male relatives. This enabled him to make generous provision for five sons and six daughters, whom he wished his wife to see ‘well educated in God’s fear [and] true religion’ and married to ‘Protestants which profess God’s holy name according to his sacred holy Word’.22Comber, ‘Gratwicke’, 36-8; C142/342/115; PROB11/121/614 (Sir William Grotewicke). Roger Gratwyke junior, the third son and future MP, inherited the manor of Balsdean in Rottingdean and the wardship of his kinswoman Elizabeth, only surviving child of Roger senior’s brother Philip; as Sir William envisaged, the couple soon married.23PROB11/121/614; Notes IPMs Suss. 108-9; Cal. Suss. Marr. Lics. (Suss. Rec. Soc. ix), 47. Roger was still described as of Tortington (‘gentleman’) when in November 1620, Elizabeth having died, he married Anne Selwyn.24Cal. Suss. Marr. Lics. (Suss. Rec. Soc. i), 122; Friston par. reg.

The Gratwykes were among the most disputatious gentry in Sussex. For most of the 1620s they were in conflict with Seaford corporation over their refusal to pay taxes. Their violent attacks upon the chamberlain and the serjeants who tried to arrest them, and their failure to pay fines imposed upon them, provoked legal proceedings in the chancery court of Dover. With their mother, Dame Margery, the Gratwyke brothers pleaded innocence, and blamed the malice of a rival faction within the corporation.25CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 188, 265; SP14/121, f. 212. The outcome of this dispute is unclear, but Roger's brothers were still being questioned by the privy council in April 1629.26APC 1628-9, pp. 397, 410.

The Gratwyke family itself was far from harmonious. Roger’s executorship of the estates of his second brother Edward, who died in 1626, gave rise to or exacerbated differences with his younger brother Thomas and his mother.27PROB11/151/116 (Edward Cratwicke); Notes IPMs Suss. 108; C2/JasI/G9/11-12; C3/351/5. On her deathbed in April 1638, Dame Margery gave Thomas a judgement of £144 recovered from Edward at law, and pleaded with her elder sons William and Roger to live ‘peaceably and lovingly with all their brethren and sisters and that they do not give or cause any suit to be made’.28PROB11/176/512 (Dame Margery Gratwick). This may have been heeded, but quarrels with other families continued: during the late 1630s and early 1640s the brothers were frequently accused of having seized property over which they were in dispute. In December 1641, for example, Roger was summoned to appear before the king's escheator at East Grinstead.29W. Suss. RO, Holmes and Campbell MSS 1017-9.

Through purchase and inheritance Roger Gratwyke – who thus rendered his name – extended his interest in Seaford.30E. Suss. RO, QR/E95. He was made a jurat in October 1640, and by 1642, when he was bailiff of the town, he had become lord of the manor.31PROB11/121/614; Comber, ‘Gratwicke’, 39-40; C54/3194/10; Suss. Manors, ii. 387; E. Suss. RO, Seaford MS 6, p. 262. Gratwyke was not returned to Parliament in 1640, but appears to have supported the cause of ‘godly’ reform. In March 1642 he travelled to London to present the grievances of Seaford corporation before Parliament.32E. Suss. RO, Seaford MS 6, p. 262.

On 30 March 1643 the House of Lords heard accusations that Thomas Gratwyke, by this time ‘captain of a troop of horse under Colonel [Harbert] Morley*’, had taken advantage of his military force to kidnap one Lyming Dickenson in a land dispute and that Roger had abetted this by protecting tenants who refused to pay rent to Dickenson.33LJ v. 680a, 681a; W. Suss. RO, Holmes and Campbell MS 1020. Plausibly, by this date Roger had also acquired the captaincy in parliamentarian cavalry which he held soon after. In June one of the army chaplains in the county reported that Gratwyke had been involved in battles with Prince Rupert's forces at Arundel, and that he had dismounted and injured Rupert himself.34Suss. Arch. Coll. ix. 49. Assiduous on behalf of Morley’s ‘war party’ in Sussex, in November Gratwyke was appointed a commissioner for the defence of the southern associated counties, and in January 1644 he followed Morley in signing a letter to Speaker William Lenthall proposing that the Solemn League and Covenant be tendered for subscription in every parish, in order to flush out delinquents.35Bodl. Tanner 62, f. 493. Diligent in raising assessments and troops for Sir Thomas Fairfax*, Gratwyke subsequently became a commissioner for the New Model army in Sussex.36SP28/181, unfol.

Morley was probably crucial in securing Gratwyke’s election for Parliament in 1645. The poll at Hastings, called to choose replacements for disabled royalists, appears to have been a battle-ground for the rival political factions in the county. Gratwyke, who had been a jurat of the borough since 1632, was returned with John Pelham*, eldest son of Sir Thomas Pelham*, leader of the ‘peace party’.37Hastings Museum, C/A(a)2, f. 63. But after taking the Covenant at Westminster on 29 October 1645, Gratwyke was little in evidence in the House.38CJ iv. 326a. He was named to only one committee, to consider regulation of the exchequer (21 Oct. 1646), before December 1648.39CJ iv. 710b. His fine for absence from Parliament at the call of the House on 9 October 1647 was returned to him later in the month, but it is unclear whether this stemmed from his appearance or the acceptance of his excuses.40CJ v. 330b, 332b.

In contrast, over the same period Gratwyke was active in county affairs.41  SP28/246, unfol.; A. and O. His nomination in February 1646 to the commission of the peace should probably be seen in the context of Morley’s assertion of influence over moderates and crypto-royalists.42E. Suss. RO, QR/E71; Suss. QSOB, 1642-1649, 93, 96, 119, 174, 177, 187. Thereafter, Morley almost certainly dominated Gratwyke's career in both Parliament and the county, where the latter proved an active magistrate.43SP23/169, p. 571.

Following Pride’s Purge on 6 December 1648, Gratwyke, with Morley, was named a commissioner for the high court of justice to try the king (6 Jan. 1649); like Morley, he did not attend.44Muddiman, Trial, 194. He was first visible in the House after Charles’s execution, taking the dissent to the vote of 5 December on 1 February (four days before Morley) and being named on 2 February to the committee preparing an ordinance for preventing the election of men ‘disaffected’ to Parliament.45PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, p. 625; [W. Prynne], A Full Declaration of the True State of the Secluded Members Case (1660), 23 (E.1013.22); CJ vi. 130a. He next appeared in the record on 9 November 1649, when he was included on a committee considering subscriptions to the Engagement, to which Morley was named first.46CJ vi. 321b. For the next two and a half years he was absent from the Journal, but not from Westminster. By 11 February 1651 he had been appointed to the Committee for Plundered Ministers*, which he attended regularly until September 1652.47SP22/2b, ff. 102, 170, 257, 259; SP22/3, ff. 98, 100, 123, 396; Sawyer, ‘Procs. CPM Suss.’, Suss. Arch. Coll. xxxvi. 144-5. As befitted a Member for a maritime borough, he signed warrants of the Committee of Navy and Customs, albeit occasionally.48Add. 9300, ff. 189, 237. He resurfaced in the Commons in May 1652, with two committee nominations, concerning the debts of John Pym* (13 May) and market towns (20 May), while two months later he was named to discuss the sale of estates forfeited for treason (15 July).49CJ vii. 131b, 134a, 154b. There was then another gap before his final appointment, to the committee to consider the petition of one of his colleagues from Sussex, the regicide James Temple* (27 Jan. 1653).50CJ vii. 251a.

After the dissolution of the Rump that April, Gratwyke devoted his energy to service as a justice of the peace, investigating suspected royalists with Morley, and fulfilling his duties as bailiff of Seaford.51E. Suss. RO, QR/EW84, EW88, E89, E103, E107, E108; QO/EW2, ff. 6v, 19v, 31v, 38, 43, 47v, 52v, 56, 60, 61, 70; QO/EW3, ff. 3, 4v; Seaford par. reg. transcript; Suss. QSOB, 1642-9, pp. 194, 199; TSP iii. 403-4. His last appearance at the quarter sessions was in July 1655.52E. Suss. RO, QR/E108. In August he was still listed as being eligible to attend the assizes, but he died some time before 11 September, when his will was proved.53ASSI35/96/10; ASSI35/97/7. His estate had already been settled in June 1653, and he requested to be buried in the grave of his first wife at Tortington, specifying that no more than £10 was to be spent on his funeral.54PROB11/246/146. Gratwyke left no children, and his widow married twice more – on 5 November 1655 to Henry Woodcock of Seaford and in 1666 to her kinsman Nicholas Selwyn of Friston.55Friston and Glynde par. regs.; E. Suss. RO, SAS/PN/428. The only other member of Gratwyke’s family who appears to have sat at Westminster was his nephew, Francis Gratwick†, who represented Seaford briefly in 1670.56HP Commons 1660-1690.