GRIMSTON, Harbottle (1603-85), of Bradfield Hall, Essex, and later of Gorhambury, Herts.

As his father’s second son, Grimston did not become his heir until the death of his elder brother Edward† in 1624. It had therefore always been assumed that Harbottle would train as a lawyer. Gilbert Burnet, who, as preacher of the Rolls Chapel, came to know him well in the late 1670s, would claim that Harbottle had abandoned his legal studies after Edward’s death and that it was only because he wished to impress his future father-in-law, Sir George Croke†, one of the justices of king’s bench, that he resumed them.62G. Burnet, Hist. of His Own Time (Oxford, 1833), ii. 68. This was to have a profound effect on the development of Grimston’s public career. Throughout his time in Parliament he would always be listened to as someone learned in the law and it was this professional expertise which made possible his judicial promotion after the Restoration. As a law student his friends included Bulstrode Whitelocke*, Geoffrey Palmer*, Edward Hyde* and James Chaloner*; according to Whitelocke, they ‘detested all scurrility and debauchery’.63Whitelocke, Diary, 50, 56, 58, 86n. His service as Harwich’s MP in the 1628 Parliament led to his appointment as the town’s recorder six years later, and his growing professional reputation, together with the family’s high standing in the county, made possible his appointment to the equivalent role at Colchester. The recordership of Colchester was an important position, especially for a young lawyer, and Grimston seems to have taken the duties seriously. His surviving notes for his annual speech to the freemen before the election of its mayor indicate that he regarded public office as an honour of the highest calling.64Herts. RO, IX.A.9. As recorder, his election as the MP for Colchester in 1640 was almost automatic.

A Parliamentary star makes his debut, 1640

Grimston achieved prominence in the proceedings of the Short Parliament almost as soon as it had assembled. On 16 April, three days after the start of the session, Secretary of state Sir Francis Windebanke* informed the Commons that the king wished them to consider the question of the Scottish rebellion as a matter of urgency. It fell to Grimston to speak first in reply.65Master Grimston his worthy and learned Speech (1641, E.199.25); Mr Grimston his learned speech in the High Court of Parliament (1642, E.128.12); Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iii. 1128-9; Procs. Short Parl. 135-8, 212, 213, 233, 245, 296; Aston’s Diary, 3; Clarendon, Hist. i. 175; A.D.T. Cromartie, ‘The printing of parliamentary speeches Nov. 1640-July 1642’, HJ xxxi. 41. Grimston objected that they were being instructed on what to debate when there were other, equally important, matters to be discussed. The dangers within England were, in his view, of greater immediacy than those from outside. In what followed he was able to indulge in full rhetorical flourishes, as he could assume that his listeners would be fully aware of the specifics to which he was alluding.

Mr Speaker, the commonwealth hath been miserably torn and macerated, and all the proprieties, and liberties shaken: the Church distracted, the gospel and professors of it persecuted, and the whole kingdom overrun with multitudes, and swarms of projecting cater worms, and caterpillars, the worst of all the Egyptian plagues.66Master Grimston his worthy and learned Speech, sig. A3.

He concluded by declaring that the king had given them the opportunity to set out their grievances and that they ought therefore make the most of it. That he was the first Member-added to the committee for privileges the following day could be interpreted as a demonstration of their approval by his colleagues.67CJ ii. 4b. It certainly earned him the role of chairman when the Commons resolved itself into a grand committee to discuss those grievances on 18 April.68CJ ii. 6a-b; Procs. Short Parl. 159; Aston’s Diary, 12. Grimston may already have been seen by some as a potential future Speaker.

Over the next three weeks Grimston remained true to the agenda he had implicitly set out in his speech on 16 April. Throughout he continued to argue that supply must not be voted before MPs had obtained redress for their many grievances. One of those grievances was the manner in which the previous Parliament had been dissolved. Grimston joined other former Members of that Parliament on 18 and 20 April in recalling those events.69Aston’s Diary, 15, 21. He also supported the complaints about the summoning of Convocation and helped prepare the heads for the joint conference with the Lords about the recent innovations in religion.70CJ ii. 8a, 9b; Aston’s Diary, 33. The tactic whereby these concerns were combined with the question of supply met with the Commons’ approval on 23 April, after he had spoken in its favour.71Aston’s Diary, 41; CJ ii. 10a. He played a leading part in the resulting conference on grievances.72CJ ii. 12a, 12b. In the debate on 27 April he maintained that he was less concerned with whether the Lords had violated the Commons’ privileges by interfering in the question of supply than with the question of supply itself.73Aston’s Diary, 67-8. This did not prevent him then being named to the committee which prepared the Commons’ reply asserting those privileges.74CJ ii. 12b. The key sticking point was now what compensation should be offered in return for the abolition of Ship Money. Grimston’s position seems to have been that the levy had been illegal anyway and on 30 April he questioned how far the verdict in John Hampden’s* case could be taken as decisive. He was most suspicious of the announcement by Sir Henry Vane I* on 4 May to the effect that the king was willing to concede Ship Money in return for an immediate grant of twelve subsidies.75Aston’s Diary, 101, 128, 142. Grimston’s fear must have been that this might just be enough to allow the court to broker a deal with some of his less resolute colleagues. He need not have worried. The king’s brinkmanship failed and the dissolution followed the next day.

That autumn Grimston and Sir John Barrington*, as the sons of the Essex knights of the shire in the preceding Parliament, carried that county’s petition calling for a new Parliament to the king at York. While he was there the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†) warned him that the king would need their support. On his return to Essex Grimston told John Bramston† that the actions of James Hamilton, 3rd marquess of Hamilton, as royal commissioner dealing with the Scottish Covenanters could be excused but that those of Archbishop William Laud deserved to be punished.76Bramston, Autobiog. 76. Grimston’s re-election as MP for Colchester that October was trouble-free, and he supported the 2nd earl of Warwick (Sir Robert Rich†) in getting Sir John’s father, Sir Thomas Barrington*, elected alongside him so that Sir William Masham* could stand unopposed for one of the county seats.77Essex RO, D/Y 2/4, pp. 51, 89; D/Y 2/9, p. 53; D/Y 2/8, p. 73.

The attack on the king’s policies resumed, 1640-1

As before, it fell to Grimston to set out a general indictment of royal policies in a set piece speech in the opening days of the Parliament. His speech on 7 November 1640 explicitly linked their concerns to the failure of the Short Parliament.78Mr Grimstons Speech, in the High Court of Parliament (1641, E.198.5); Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iii. 1349-50, 1353, 1355, 1356-7, iv. 34-7; Procs. LP i. 33, 38, 42, 46. It was more urgent than ever that MPs’ priority should be an affirmation to the king of their grievances.

For Mr Speaker, it then was, and still is, most manifest and apparent, that by some judgments lately obtained in court[s] of justice, and by some new ways of government lately started up amongst us; the law of property is so much shaken, that no man can say he is master of anything: but all that we have, we hold as tenants by courtesy, and at will, and may be stripped of it at pleasure.79Mr. Grimstons Speech, 3-4.

He then went on to condemn the harassment of certain former MPs following the dissolution of the Short Parliament, Convocation’s decisions to approve the ‘etcetera’ oath and a benevolence, and the levying of Ship Money and of coat and conduct money. The bishops were another of his targets, as he also argued that the offices of archbishop, bishop, dean and archdeacon existed without biblical sanction. He was able to end on an optimistic note, however, because he had no doubt that, when the king heard their grievances, he would take swift action against those around him who had misled him. Sir Thomas Peyton* thought that Grimston had spoken ‘long and well’.80Procs. LP i. 42. His theme of the priority which should be given to their grievances was one to which he returned in a second speech six days later.81Procs. LP i. 135, 139, 141. The Commons were only too happy to follow this advice and rewarded Grimston with a prominent part in what followed. It was a clear indication of the impact he had made that he was included on the committee which drafted the Commons’ declaration on the state of the kingdom (10 Nov.) and that he served as one of the reporters for the conference with the Lords to discuss relations with the Scots (12 Nov.).82CJ ii. 25a, 27a; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 42; Procs. LP i. 118.

Foremost among the disastrous advisers Grimston had in mind was Strafford. The day before his speech of 7 November he had spoken in support of the view of John Pym* that, as the English Parliament, they had the right to interfere in Irish policy.83Procs. LP i. 20. This was the first step in moves which would eventually bring Strafford to the block. Grimston was prominent in his involvement in those proceedings. On 12 November he became the replacement for Denzil Holles* on the committee of six, which then met with a delegation of peers to discuss the charges which could be brought against the earl. He also served on the committee which considered whether Sir George Radcliffe and Sir Robert King* could, as Irish MPs, be summoned before them, he took the lead in the proceedings against controversial former MP Sir Henry Spiller†, and he probably helped search the records of the court of king’s bench for precedents to be used against Strafford.84CJ ii. 27b, 31b, 33b; Procs. LP i. 119, 121, 146, 147, 149, 150, 196.

As could have been expected from his comments to Bramston, Archbishop Laud was equally in Grimston’s sights. Having already questioned the ‘etcetera’ oath in his speech on 7 November, in the debate on 14 December on the legality of the new Canons, he joined in the attack on the judges for assisting Laud. He also called for charges to be brought against Laud himself.85Northcote Note Bk. 73. He was then among those appointed to investigate who exactly had promoted the Canons.86CJ ii. 52a. On 18 December 1640 he seconded the motion that Parliament proceed against the archbishop, denouncing him as ‘the sty of all pestilent filth, that hath infected the state and government of the church and commonwealth’. Laud, he argued, had been behind every policy pursued by the king over the previous decade and had been solely responsible for promoting the careers of Strafford, Windebanke, Bishop Matthew Wren of Ely and Bishop Roger Maynwaring of St David’s. This was enough to justify a charge of high treason.87Mr. Grymstons Speech in Parliament (1641); Procs. LP i. 658, 662; Northcote Note Bk. 81; Clarendon, Hist. i. 231n; CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 322. The ferocity of this attack easily explains why Grimston was added to the committees investigating Wren and Bishop William Piers of Bath and Wells within the course of the following fortnight.88CJ ii. 56b, 59b; Procs. LP ii. 63. Yet Grimston was clear in his own mind as to what all this was intended to achieve. Speaking in the debate on 8 February 1641 on the root and branch petition, he insisted that the institution of episcopacy must be abolished, but that the impulse for change should not be allowed to go any further.89Procs. LP ii. 390. Throughout, this remained his essential position – he wanted to get rid of the bishops but nothing else. It is in that context that his supposed exchange with John Selden* as to whether archbishops were jure divino, which may have occurred at about this time, ought to be interpreted.90CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 450-1; Master Grimstons Argument Concerning Bishops (1641, E.165.9); Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 165; D’Ewes (N), 309n.

The other issue which Grimston had highlighted on 7 November 1640 was the illegal levies imposed by the crown. He was just as active on this issue when the Commons turned their attention to it. A start was made on 27 November, when a committee was established to investigate the exchequer rulings on the subjects, and, as with the committee on the abuses in the collection of coat and conduct money set up on 14 December, Grimston was one of those who sat on it.91CJ ii. 38a, 50b. What really concerned him, however, was the status of the Ship Money verdicts. In this, it was not without significance that he was Sir George Croke’s son-in-law. Three times between 1635 and 1638 Croke had been asked to rule on cases arising from its extension. On each occasion Croke had distanced himself from the crown’s position and, in his ruling in Hampden’s case, he had insisted that only Parliament had the power to impose such a levy. One of Grimston’s priorities was therefore to dissociate Croke from any censure placed on the judges’ conduct. Speaking in the debate on 8 December, he condemned the actions of the other judges by praising his father-in-law.92Procs. LP i. 513, 517; Northcote Note Bk. 43. Yet, for all the personal motives behind it, Grimston’s attack on the other Ship Money judges can be seen as a wider attack on the state of the legal system. Reporting on the forest courts on 4 December, he told the Commons that the judges had advised the king that he could take over any man’s land for use as a royal forest, a claim which echoed his earlier assertion that they were all now mere tenants dependant on a royal whim.93Northcote Note Bk. 29; Procs. LP i. 459. He also sat on the committee into the courts of star chamber and high commission, taking an interest in the complaints brought by William Prynne*, John Bastwick and John Lilburne.94CJ ii. 44b, 49a, 52b, 134a; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 92; Procs. LP i. 565. On 16 February 1641 he was the first person named to the committee appointed to scrutinise the court of wards.95CJ ii. 87a. These were issues to which the Commons would return at a much later date. Grimston would then support the legislation which would sweep away the court of wards.96CJ iii. 317a, iv. 377a, 538b, 551b. A similar proposal to regulate the crown’s rights to the property of suicides, which the Colchester corporation was promoting in the spring of 1641 in consultation with Grimston, appears to have come to nothing.97Essex RO, D/B/3/3/422/24: William Cockerell to town clerk of Maldon, 1 May 1641.

It is possible that the decision to proceed against Strafford by the crude means of a bill of attainder caused Grimston to have his first serious doubts about Parliament’s behaviour. The disappearance of one of the documents which formed the case against Strafford created the suspicion that a member of the committee for the case had destroyed it in order hamper any further proceedings. Grimston was one of those who was considered a possible suspect and he had to appear before the Commons on 23 April 1641 to swear that he was not the culprit.98CJ ii. 127a; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 229; Procs. LP iv. 76. According to Sir Edward Nicholas†, Grimston

afterwards showed a disaffection to these men’s proceedings, whether out of conscience of the crime contracted by their counsels, or fear of their miscarriage; but [that] his heat was abated to their projects was generally observed.99D’Ewes (C), 150n.

Whatever his wider doubts, it cannot have been a difficult decision for him to take the Protestation on 4 May following the army plot revelations.100CJ ii. 134b. He did take a risk two days later, however, when he addressed the Commons on behalf of his friend Thomas Jermyn*, telling them that Thomas knew nothing of the decision by his brother, the leading plotter Henry Jermyn*, to flee the country.101Procs. LP iv. 231. Associating with the Jermyns at this time was unlikely to win Grimston many friends elsewhere in the House. But he probably supported the subsequent proceedings against the plotters.102Procs. LP vi. 386. Otherwise, he continued to sit on a wide range of committees, some of which, such as those on Bishop Piers (4 June), the bill to abolish Ship Money (19 June) and the jurisdictions of the provincial prerogative courts (29 June and 13 Aug.), belie his supposed loss of interest in a reforming agenda.103CJ ii. 166b, 181b, 191b, 253b.

A number of the set piece speeches Grimston delivered in Parliament were subsequently printed, possibly in unauthorised editions. This supplies part of the explanation for his recurrent interest in attempts to regulate the press. In early February 1641 he called for the creation of a sub-committee on religion to investigate the ban on unlicensed bibles and prayer books.104Procs. LP ii. 373; CJ ii. 79a. This was a rare instance on which Grimston favoured a relaxation of controls – the very next day he was named to the committee charged with suppressing the publication of one of Oliver St John’s speeches.105CJ ii. 80a. A speech he made on 13 February was probably intended to encourage the Coke family in their plans to publish further parts of the Institutes of Sir Edward Coke†.106Procs. LP ii. 444. Four months later Grimston made sure that the printers who had published a work in defence of Strafford were summoned to the Commons to be reprimanded.107Procs. LP iv. 736, 739, 740, 742, 744; CJ ii. 168b. This interest came to fruition in July 1641 when he introduced his bill to regulate printing.108Procs. LP v. 661, vi. 38, 42; CJ ii. 218a. As a result of this, he was specially added to the combined committee on printing and the examination of books (3 Aug.), sat on the committee considering his bill when it took evidence from various witnesses (21 Aug.), and reported to the Commons on the illicit publication of a letter from the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich†) and of some scandalous verses (24 Aug.).109CJ ii. 234a, 267a, 268b; Procs. LP vi. 532. He returned to the question of the publication of MPs’ speeches, when he complained in February 1642 that a speech by John Browne I* had been printed.110PJ i. 311; CJ ii. 420a. With these views, he was an obvious appointment to the committee which was named on 15 June 1642 to consider the bill to prevent the printing of seditious pamphlets.111CJ ii. 624b.

There was one other legislative initiative with which he was particularly associated. This was the attempt to introduce a bill to limit the construction of new buildings in and around London, for he and Isaac Penington* (the mastermind behind the Root and Branch petition) were asked to prepare such a bill on 7 May 1641. The reason for Grimston’s interest in this matter becomes clear three months later when he presented a petition from Lincoln’s Inn. His colleagues at the inn were anxious to prevent further development around Lincoln’s Inn Fields and were presumably hoping to use Grimston’s influence in Parliament to achieve that aim. The Commons ordered a halt to any building work in Lincoln’s Inn Fields until it had considered the bill being prepared by Grimston and Penington. Grimston was still taking an interest in this subject when the Commons consider it again the following year.112CJ ii. 138b, 257b, 554b, 648b; Harl. 479, f. 156v. Just how well Grimston knew Penington is not certain – it may be significant that Grimston was the only person added to the committee on the petition from Sir John Brooke* when a petition from Penington and Lewis Younge was referred to it on 25 May 1641.113CJ ii. 156a.

Penington received support from Grimston on 8 August 1641 when he proposed that a declaration be produced condemning innovations in religion. There was more to this than their existing acquaintance. A condemnation of innovations matched precisely Grimston’s essentially conservative ideas regarding religious practice. Thus, in speaking in support of Penington’s motion, he cited the example of the separatists at Colchester who had accused one of the local ministers of preaching false doctrines. For Grimston, any condemnation ought to be applied as much to separatism as to popery.114Procs. LP vi. 292, 297, 300. The resulting declaration presented to the Commons on 1 September was, in that sense, a disappointment, for it ordered the reversal only of the innovations introduced by Laud. It can be assumed that Grimston was one of those who wanted the declaration to include a reassertion of the authority of the Book of Common Prayer.115CJ ii. 279a-b. Grimston must have felt that the version of the declaration approved on 8 September did not go far enough and that the order passed later that day which gave parishes without ministers the right to appoint their own lecturers was a sign of danger ahead.116CJ ii. 283a-b. Hitherto Grimston had been associated with the plans for a recess, to the extent of serving as one of the reporters for the joint conference on 27 August which had fixed the date on which Parliament was to reassemble.117CJ ii. 274a. His behaviour over the declaration may have cost him his nomination to the committee appointed the following day to remain in session for the duration of that recess.

Grimston seems to have kept, by his standards, a low profile in the first weeks following the end of the recess. His only two committee appointments in late 1641 concerned the plea of the twelve bishops (13 Nov.) and the reliability of the royal guards protecting the palace of Westminster (29 Nov.).118CJ ii. 314b, 326b. Moreover, his only known intervention in debate at this time proved to be an unpleasant experience. On 16 November he attempted to block the debate on the document which would become the Grand Remonstrance by trying to revive the debate surrounding the declaration against innovations in religion. The outcome of the acrimonious scenes which followed was that Grimston was overruled.119D’Ewes (C), 149-50. His authority in the House was visibly ebbing away.

Resolve rediscovered, 1642

It was the king’s attempted arrest of the Five Members on 4 January 1642 which brought Grimston back to sudden prominence. He spoke in the debate the next day and was then named to the committees to consider how Parliament’s privileges ought to be reasserted and to meet at the Guildhall the following morning to plan their next move.120PJ i. 14; CJ ii. 368b, 369a. A speech was later printed purporting to be one delivered by Grimston at the Guildhall meeting, but Sir Simonds D’Ewes* in his detailed account of that event makes no mention of it (he does mention that Grimston was present) and the speech may well be a fabrication. Even if genuine, all Grimston did was to list the privileges claimed by Parliament in a dry scholarly manner.121Mr Grimston his Speech (1642, E.200.5); PJ i. 18-22; D’Ewes (C), 384-5n; Cromartie, ‘Parliamentary speeches’, 43. During the fortnight which followed a series of committees were created in reaction to the king’s incursion and Grimston was named to most of them.122CJ ii. 372a, 374b, 376b, 384a, 385a. It seems likely that the king’s actions on 4 January had convinced Grimston that he had no option other than to give Parliament his total support.

The arrival of petitions from Essex and Colchester on 20 January 1642 presented him with his chance to restate that support. In delivering these petitions to the Commons, he agreed unreservedly with their calls for action to reverse the decline in the cloth trade, for a sense of urgency in putting the county into a posture of defence, and for the immediate removal of the bishops and popish lords from the House of Lords. With regard to the bishops, he added that he wanted to see them all brought to trial.123Mr Grimstone, his Speech in Parliament (1642, E.200.14); PJ i. 123. The growing sense of crisis was one which Grimston was happy to encourage. On 27 January he informed the Commons of a rumour he had heard from the mayor of Colchester about the suspicious movements of horses through the town, and he was added that same day to the Committee for Examinations.124PJ i. 191, 198-9; CJ ii. 398b. Two days later he demanded action against a preacher in Kent who had equated support for Parliament with disloyalty to the king.125PJ i. 220, 222-3. At a time when the Commons was especially sensitive in the defence of its own privileges, he backed the actions taken against those who had breached those privileges by leaking parliamentary gossip, printing MPs’ speeches or intercepting letters.126CJ ii. 421a, 542b; PJ i. 311, ii. 226.

Parliament’s claim to control the militia was now the issue on which everything turned. Grimston supported that claim. On 8 February he was one of the managers of the joint conference which attempted to smooth the passage of the all-important militia bill.127CJ ii. 421b. He was later involved in some of the issues created by that ordinance, including the decision to call out the trained bands.128CJ ii. 548b, 551a. He seems, for the time being, to have taken a pragmatic approach to the constitutional questions raised by these actions. He dismissed the argument by Edmund Waller* that the king could not be bound by his coronation oath (although D’Ewes thought that Grimston’s reply, based on the Ship Money ruling by Sir Richard Hutton†, was ineffectual) and he seems to have told D’Ewes that it would be too time-consuming for them to search out the relevant precedents to determine the legal status of the royal assent.129PJ ii. 340, 355.

By late May 1642 civil war was becoming a real possibility. For Grimston this meant that he became increasingly preoccupied with mobilising Essex to face the crisis. He secured permission for Warwick as the lord lieutenant to come ashore from the fleet to organise the Essex militia.130PJ ii. 395; CJ ii. 597a. The proposal passed on 4 June by which all deputy lieutenants were ordered to attend the militia musters was his idea, and he was one of the six Essex MPs sent to ensure that the militia ordinance was fully implemented.131CJ ii. 605b, 606b; LJ v. 106a; PJ iii. 16, 23. When the Commons held a conference with the Lords to discuss Landguard Fort (located at the south-east tip of Suffolk, opposite Harwich), he acted as one of the reporters.132CJ ii. 625b. On 17 June he secured a grant of £100 towards the relief of the Irish refugees at Colchester and on the following day got Parliament to order that the sheriff of Essex must not publish the declaration concerning the militia which had been received from the king.133PJ iii. 92, 98; CJ ii. 629a, 631b; LJ v. 146a. A similar order was subsequently obtained by him and Sir Thomas Barrington to excuse the mayor of Colchester from that obligation.134PJ iii. 183. On 19 July Barrington, Grimston and Robert Reynolds* were given the job of drafting the order by which the Essex deputy lieutenants were instructed to begin levying horses, money and plate. This served as the blueprint for the orders sent out to all other counties.135CJ ii. 681a; PJ iii. 235. Amidst all this activity, Grimston sat on a number of committees, including those which drafted a key amendment to the assessment bill and the indemnity order for the forces raised at Shrewsbury. He probably chaired the committee on the latest militia bill, given that he reported the proposed amendments to the Commons.136CJ ii. 663b, 667a, 671a, 675a; PJ iii. 201, 204.

The riots in Essex, which started with the pro-parliamentarian attacks on Sir John Lucas’s house at Colchester, made necessary the presence of Grimston and Barrington on the ground. The Commons acted swiftly, despatching the two of them to Colchester on 23 August, the day after the trouble started.137CJ ii. 732b, 734b; LJ v. 318b, 319a; PJ iii. 313. The aim was not so much for them to punish those who had attacked Lucas’s house as to prevent Lucas inciting any more trouble.138J. Walter, Understanding Popular Violence in the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1999), 152-5. The following day they were able to write to the Commons from Colchester with the latest information on the disorders.139CJ ii. 736a, 737a; PJ iii. 316. While Barrington took control within the town, Grimston made his way to Lady Rivers’ house at Long Melford, which had been the other major target for the rioters. Once there, he was able to put a stop to the looting.140PJ iii. 325-6; HMC Verulam, 35-51. The stockpile of arms found at Long Melford was transferred to Grimston’s house.141CJ ii. 792a; LJ v. 387a, 388a. Grimston seems to have got on well, given the circumstances, with Lady Rivers (who was a Roman Catholic), as she would subsequently seek legal advice from him regarding the details of her sequestration.142Herts. RO, IX.A.251. Barrington and Grimston were both back at Westminster by 29 August and helped with the various items of business arising from these events.143CJ ii. 741b, 743a; LJ v. 337b. On 8 September Grimston reported to the Commons on the state of the county, explaining ‘in what distemper he found it, and he left it in a calm’. He was also able to tell them that the hundreds of Lexden and Tendring had raised over £6,000 on the Propositions. The Commons thanked him for ‘the very good service he has done’ and asked him to convey their thanks to the inhabitants of Colchester and its hinterland for the money they had contributed.144CJ ii. 758a. In further recognition of these services, Barrington and Grimston were added to the committee for the defence of the kingdom.145CJ ii. 758b. That October he and the other Essex deputy lieutenants were told by Parliament to continue enforcing the Militia Ordinance.146LJ v. 382b-384b; Instructions agreed upon by the Lords and Commons (1642, E.121.1). The following February he and Barrington would apologise to the mayor of Colchester for having failed to seek permission from Parliament for the release of the rioters. The two of them explained that, with all their other duties, they had simply been too busy.147Essex RO, D/Y 2/7, p. 69. At some point Grimston evidently told D’Ewes that looted goods which they had persuaded the rioters to return had since been looted again.148Harl. 164, ff. 272-272v.

War against the king, 1642-4

Over the coming months Grimston played a full part at Westminster helping to raise money and men.149CJ ii. 795b, 841a, 875b, 878b, 879b, 889b; Add. 18777, ff. 6v, 80v. That November he wrote to Colchester stressing ‘the great straights we are in’ by reason of the king’s advance towards London, and soon after he was warning them of the rumours that Henrietta Maria was planning an armed landing in north-east Essex.150Essex RO, D/Y 2/8, pp. 39, 43-5. On 15 December he chaired the Commons when it sat as a grand committee to debate the bill on the Eastern Association.151Harl. 164, f. 263v. Although it was somewhat surprising that he himself seems to have made no offer of financial assistance on the basis of the Propositions, he was able to inform the Commons that the suspected royalist Sir Thomas Jermyn* was willing to contribute 100 marks, thereby securing Sir Thomas’s release from custody.152Add. 18777, f. 110; CJ ii. 902b.

Grimston was nevertheless keen that the negotiations should be pursued with the king. Between January and April 1643 he did what he could to support the mission by the parliamentary commissioners to Oxford with their proposals for a cessation.153CJ ii. 915b, 935a, 979b. He told the Commons on 8 February that disbandment would only become practical if a treaty with the king was reached first.154Add. 18777, f. 147v. On 3 April he opposed the motion by Henry Marten* calling for the commissioners to be recalled and then drafted the letter to be sent to them.155Harl. 164, ff. 352, 353; CJ iii. 28b. He seems not to have had a problem with Sir Thomas Bendish delivering to Oxford a petition which had been collected in Essex to put pressure on the king to negotiate; when Bendish was accused of then distributing proclamations on behalf of the king, Grimston defended him to the Commons.156Harl. 164, f. 282. The following August Grimston was one of those popularly believed to want peace.157Harl. 165, f. 145v.

His preference for peace did not weaken his support for war. So long as the armed conflict continued, Grimston recognised the need to continue improving the parliamentarian war machine.158CJ iii. 9b, 93b, 342a, 418b, 507b, 701a. He was one of the MPs sent to Essex in June 1643 to help raise further troops there and this kept him fully occupied for several months.159CJ iii. 129b; HMC 7th Rep. 561-2, 564; Eg. 2651, f. 146v. Some in the Colchester area were so impressed that on 27 July they petitioned the Commons suggesting that Grimston be appointed as the town’s governor. Replying to them, the Speaker, William Lenthall*, acknowledged that he was ‘a man of merit’. But a rival petition favoured Henry Barrington* and no decision was taken.160Add. 31116, p. 131; CJ iii. 184a. Meanwhile, in early July Grimston had been particularly concerned by the news that forces under William Cavendish, 1st earl of Newcastle, were advancing southwards toward East Anglia. He warned the Commons that it was essential that the Isle of Ely be secured at once, as it would be difficult to regain this strategic stronghold if it was lost.161Harl. 165, ff. 118v-119. That autumn he was among those who pressed for improvements to the defences at Harwich.162Eg. 2647, ff. 160v, 199. In February 1644 he probably took the lead in drafting the bill to settle the pay of the garrison at Aylesbury.163Harl. 166, f. 18; CJ iii. 408b. He occasionally acted as the chairman of the committee for the Eastern Association at Westminster. As such, he wrote to the commissioners for taking of accounts in Norfolk in December 1644 to warn them that they would be required to submit accounts to the Committee of Accounts.164Add. 19398, f. 170. He may well have also chaired the committee which met in January 1645 to consider the bill to settle the pay of the army as a whole.165CJ iv. 24b. Throughout he seems to have retained some confidence in the conduct of Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex. In August 1643 he, along with Sir Benjamin Rudyerd* and Sir Henry Mildmay*, was given the job of writing to the earl to reassure him following the appointment of the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†) as major-general of the armies of the Eastern Association.166CJ iii. 200a. More strikingly, he was also one of those MPs appointed on 29 August 1644, when the ill-fated campaign in the west was at its height, to prepare a letter of thanks to be sent to the earl of Essex.167CJ iii. 611a.

As early as the subsidy debates in December 1640, Grimston had stressed the navy as being ‘of great importance’.168Northcote Note Bk. 106-7. He was added to the new committee for naval affairs in January 1642 when the bills for levying sailors were referred to it and later that year sat on the committee which considered the bill to provide for additional naval forces. The first of these committees would evolve in August into the Committee of Navy and Customs.169Supra, ‘Committee of Navy and Customs’; CJ ii. 402b, 600b. His attempts in the spring of 1642 to promote legislation for the suppression of piracy could be seen as part of a wider concern for the problems of English shipping.170CJ ii. 538b, 545a; PJ ii. 213. The explanation for that concern almost certainly lies in his links with Warwick. This was most obvious in 1644 when Grimston took the lead in preparing the list of officers who were to serve with the navy during that summer. In doing so, he defended the conduct of the surveyor of the navy William Batten (Sir William Batten†) against his critics. Once the compilation of the list had been completed, Grimston met with Warwick to obtain his approval.171CJ iii. 431b, 438b, 445a, 447b; Harl. 166, ff. 39, 42v, 43, 43v; Add. 31116, p. 258. It may well have been as a favour to Warwick that the Lords proposed Grimston as one possible nominee when they made their unsuccessful attempt in early May 1644 to persuade the Commons to agree to an expansion in the size of the Committee of Both Kingdoms.172LJ vi. 542b.

One issue which took up much of Grimston’s time during the summer of 1644 was the state of the East Anglian clothing industry, a matter of immediate concern to his constituents. A petition from the Essex clothiers complaining that the 1643 ordinance upholding the government of the Merchant Adventurers gave that company a monopoly over the export of the new draperies was presented to the Commons by Grimston on 9 May 1644. This was referred to a committee, which, following a motion to that effect from Grimston, was given the power to receive all similar petitions. A month later he reported from that committee a recommendation that the new draperies export trade ought to be liberalised. This met with little success as those sympathetic towards the Merchant Adventurers got this recommitted.173Harl. 166, ff. 58, 69; CJ iii. 509a, 518a.

Presbyterian stalwart, 1644-7

Grimston cannot have been happy at the failure of the Uxbridge negotiations in early 1645. The proposals to reorganise the army nevertheless offered their own opportunities. He was probably delighted when, on 4 January 1645, the Lords agreed to pass the New Model ordinance with the proviso that all soldiers should take the Covenant and agree to submit to the forms of church government which Parliament had already approved.174CJ iv. 42b, 46a. His precise attitude to the New Model is unclear, but over the next few months he worked hard to ensure that the army was well funded and that the Essex defences were improved.175CJ iv. 65a, 66b-67a, 71a, 89a, 101a, 102a-b, 106a, 132a, 135b, 202a, 204b; LJ vii. 259a, 309a, 492b. On 17 March he aired the complaints of some in the Eastern Association that they were now expected to pay for the defence of Newport Pagnell, which had been re-taken the previous September.176Luke Letter Bks. 478-9; CJ iv. 80a-b.

Having supported the abolition of episcopacy, Grimston had always been keen that Parliament should take the lead in imposing strong discipline on the church. In January 1643 he had again expressed concern that action should be taken against both papists and anabaptists.177Add. 18777, f. 114. The following November he introduced the bill which gave the earl of Manchester power to remove undesirable clergymen, schoolmasters and academics from their positions within the boundaries of the Eastern Association.178Harl. 165, f. 210v; CJ iii. 313b. It was this which paved the way for Manchester’s purge of Cambridge University five months later.179J.D. Twigg, ‘The parliamentary visitation of the University of Cambridge, 1644-1645’, EHR xcviii. 513-28. This helps explain why Grimston was later included on a number of other committees concerned with the affairs of the universities.180CJ iv. 174a, 229b, 312a, 641a; v. 121a, 134b. As a member of the vestry of St Bartholomew Exchange, London, he was instrumental in removing John Grant from that living and in persuading the prominent Presbyterian preacher, Thomas Cawton, to take his place.181Freshfield, Vestry Min. Bks. pp. xxii-xxiv, pt. ii. 10-11. Grimston’s name also regularly appeared on Commons committees concerned with the enforcement of proper godly behaviour, whether this involved the discouragement of sexual incontinence, the better observation of the sabbath, or the keeping of fasts.182CJ iv. 35b, 411b, 556b, v. 66a. He seems moreover to have been a strong supporter of the legislation against scandalous offences.183CJ iv. 549a, 553b, 562b. His continued backing for the suppression of seditious pamphlets could be seen as another side of these disciplinarian instincts.184CJ iv. 644b, v. 11a, 153a. He was acting entirely in character when he told the freemen of Colchester in 1646 that

the looseness of men’s lives everywhere, and the unhappy divisions here at home amongst ourselves, will I doubt not, sufficiently convince any rational man of the necessity of government and governors.185Herts. RO, IX.A.9, unf.

Bills to enforce the payment of church duties also received his backing and he was probably as concerned to crack down on lay preachers as he was on malignant ones.186CJ iv. 714b, v. 35a, 119b. His desire for a strong, well-disciplined state church found another outlet when he was added in May 1646 to the Committee for Plundered Ministers, which he is known to have chaired on occasion.187CJ iv. 545b, v. 152a; W. Lilly, Hist. of the Life and Times (1715), 41-2. He was only too happy to sweep away the remaining vestiges of episcopacy. The legislation which confiscated the lands of bishops and cathedral chapters may, in part, have been drafted by him.188CJ ii. 852b, iv. 275b.

All this places Grimston firmly in the camp of the religious Presbyterians. In structural terms, the main problems of the Church of England had been solved to his satisfaction as soon as episcopacy had been abolished. He even seems to have had some sympathies with ‘the beauty of holiness’. In 1643 he found time to pen a short Latin work, Strena Christiana, which he presented as a gift to his son George on 1 January 1644. This work, which was quickly published in Latin and English, set out his fatherly advice on how to live a godly life. This included the injunction

Be careful that divine service be performed alright, and delight thy self in the beauty of God’s house.

If God hath given thee riches, adorn churches therewith, buy books, chalices, vestments, and other ornaments for them at thine own cost; especially in such places where divine service is not altogether so devoutly and purely administered.189H. Grimston, Strena Christiana (1644), 33 (E.1209); A Christian New-Years Gift (Cambridge, 1644), 41-2 (E.1210.1).

It was perhaps not that surprising that Grimston was able to believe that the sort of religious settlement he wanted was one which the king might in time come round to accept.

Also influencing Grimston’s stance was the more realistic assumption that his religious views were not that different from those of the Scots. It was on that basis that he was in favour of maintaining the terms of the Solemn League and Covenant. He had taken the Covenant himself on 13 January 1644.190CJ iii. 365a; Harl. 165, f. 273. On a number of subsequent occasions he sat on committees which were intended to arrange payments of the money due to the Scots or to deal with the Scottish commissioners.191CJ iv. 148b, 570b, 587a. In late 1645 he was most sympathetic to the Scots’ suggestion that new proposals for peace be offered to the king and can be assumed to have taken part in the attempts to draft such proposals – on 4 December 1645 he was first-named to the committee charged with that task.192CJ iv. 354b, 364b, 365a. Once it became clear in August 1646 that the Scots would be willing to withdraw from England, he probably hoped that this could be arranged in as amicable a manner as possible.193CJ iv. 644b, 675a, v. 23b, 44a; LJ viii. 648a-b. In the short term he no doubt welcomed the possibility, however slim, that the Newcastle Propositions would serve as the basis for a deal with the king.194CJ iv. 673b. It can only have been with very mixed emotions that Grimston informed the Commons on 25 January 1647 of the papers which had been received from the Scottish Parliament discussing the final arrangement for the handover of the king. It was a small consolation that he was able to report that the Scots had reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of the Solemn League and Covenant.195CJ v. 63b, 64b-65b; LJ viii. 687a-688a.

Attention now turned to the question of the disbandment of the English army. Grimston was clearly one of those most keen to press ahead with this. In December 1646 the proposal that disbanded officers be paid off using the revenues from delinquents’ estate had been particularly referred to him and in January 1647 he introduced the bill concerning reduced officers.196CJ v. 10b, 39b, 45b, 47b, 54b, 82a. (Grimston seems never to have had qualms about confiscating estates from delinquents, although in February 1646 he had accused the Committee for Advance of Money of behaving with ‘much partiality and cruelty’.197CJ ii. 784b, 785b, iii. 21a, 473b, 603b; iv. 176a, 201a; v. 8b, 43a, 74a; Add. 31116, p. 510.) His interest in the bill to grant immunity to the soldiers was related to the fate of the reduced officers.198CJ v. 174a. It was an indication of how much he was associated with this issue that he was teller in three of the crucial divisions on the subject in May and June 1647. On 18 May he and Sir William Lewis* were the tellers for those who succeeded in getting this matter referred to the committee for Irish affairs and the two of them performed the same role on 25 May in the division which finalised the arrangements for the first stage of the disbandments. The third of the divisions was that on 3 June concerning the payment of arrears, with Grimston acting as teller for those who wanted the ordinary soldiers paid off as quickly as possible. He was also included on the joint committee appointed to oversee the disbandment.199CJ v. 176b, 183a, 197a; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 496. In the meantime, he had been sent to Chelmsford along with Warwick, 4th Baron De La Warr, Richard Knightley* and (Sir) John Potts* to disband the foot regiment of Sir Thomas Fairfax*.200CJ v. 192b; Add. 31116, p. 621; Bodl. Tanner 58, f. 116; Clarke Pprs. i. 105.

This set the scene for that summer’s crisis. Grimston shared the growing fear among the Presbyterian leaders at the threat posed by the army. He supported the moves to defend the city of London by the recruitment of reformadoes. On 19 June he and Zouche Tate* were the tellers for those who blocked the attempt to reverse that policy.201CJ v. 203b, 217a; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 547. Moreover, he and Sir Henry Cholmley* prepared the letter of 22 June by which Parliament sought to prevent the regiment commanded by Sydenham Poyntz joining forces with the rest of the army.202CJ v. 219b. Unsurprisingly, Grimston remained at Westminster following the withdrawal of the Independents on 30 July. In the brief interval before the army entered London, he was added to the ‘committee of safety’ – which had been set up in June to join with the City militia for mobilising London against the army – he helped prepare the instructions for a committee which would have been sent to negotiate with the army, and he was named to the joint committee to investigate the violence on 26 July.203CJ v. 266a, 269a; LJ ix. 370b.

Seeking a deal with the king, 1647-8

Grimston inevitably found himself eclipsed following 6 August. For several months he almost dropped out of sight. The attempt by him and others to prevent the impeachment of the prominent City Presbyterian John Jones following the Independent takeover of London on 25 September, was a rare and futile rear-guard action.204CJ v. 316b. This changed with the king’s escape from Hampton Court. On 12 November 1647 the Common turned to Grimston to lead the investigation into this affair and he later sat on the committee which prepared the instructions sent to Robert Hammond* detailing how the king ought to be maintained at Carisbrooke.205CJ v. 357a, 359a. He then welcomed Cromwell’s suppression of the army mutiny at Ware.206CJ v. 359b, 360a, 363a. From about Christmas 1647 he may well have spent an extended period in Essex, perhaps, in part, because his father died in late February.207CJ v. 390a, 400b. Grimston now inherited the baronetcy.

By the spring of 1648 the first signs of royalist discontent became apparent in Essex. Grimston was among the local MPs given powers to prevent the public meeting at Stratford Langhorne on 4 May which, following their failure to do so, produced the Essex petition calling for the king to be satisfied and the army disbanded. Once this petition had been published, Grimston and three other Essex MPs were sent to notify Warwick.208CJ v. 546b, 563a. Another precaution was the orders, probably drafted by Grimston, which were sent to Colchester warning of possible trouble.209CJ v. 550b. Grimston seems also to have been concerned to secure the London militia in anticipation of trouble throughout the south east.210CJ v. 551a, 555a. His addition to the Derby House Committee on 1 June was a very visible indication of his importance at this time.211CJ v. 578b; LJ ix. 295b.

By then the rebellion had already broken out in Kent. The capture of the Essex county committee at Chelmsford on 4 June marked the spread of the trouble to Grimston’s own county. One immediate response was the bill offering immunity to those Essex inhabitants who had assisted in their capture in return for the committee’s release and it seems to have been Grimston who was responsible for piloting this through the Commons.212CJ v. 583b, 585b-586a; HMC 12th Rep. IX, 21. Together with Charles Rich* and Sir Martin Lumley*, he then travelled to Chelmsford to offer those terms to the rebels. They returned disappointed.213A. Wilson, The Inconstant Lady (Oxford, 1814), 145. On 21 June the Essex MPs were asked to decide amongst themselves which of them were to go and restore order within the county.214CJ v. 608b. If Grimston did travel back to Essex, it can only have been for a brief visit, but he would have had an immediate reason for doing so. At about this time some of the royalist troops made a swift foray northwards from Colchester. Their target was Grimston’s house at Bradfield, which they proceeded to plunder, causing Lady Grimston to flee for her life.215Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 1163, 1164, 1168; The Earl of Norwich, Lord Capel, & Sir Charls Lucas, their Peremptory Answer (1648), 14 (E.449.30); A Perfect Diary of Passages of the Kings Army (1648), 4 (E.449.31); The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer no. 266 (20-27 June 1648), 991 (E.449.45); The Moderate no. 171 (22-29 June 1648), 1409 (E.450.8); The Parliament-kite no. 7 (23-29 June 1648), 36 (E.450.15); Winthrop Pprs. v. 266. When parliamentarian forces retook it several days later, they were reported to have ‘found it a miserable place; all the goods in and about the house taken away, the beds torn in pieces; the enemy hath done above a £1,000 damage there’.216Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 1170; The Votes and Proceedings in Parliament (1648), 1 (E.450.26); Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 14 (27 June-4 July 1648), sig. [O3] (E.450.27). If anything, this made Grimston even more determined to crush the rebellion. Over the course of the next month he worked tirelessly to raise money and organise troops. On behalf of the Derby House Committee, he kept the Commons informed of events as far afield as Surrey, the Isle of Ely, Anglesey, Landguard Fort, Dorchester, Weymouth, Wells, Plymouth, Great Yarmouth and Bath.217CJ v. 613b, 614a, 616b, 625b, 631b, 653b, 655b, 656a-b, 671b, 678a. Grimston can have felt nothing but satisfaction when Colchester finally surrendered on 27 August. His house in the town had been very badly damaged.218HMC 14th Rep. IX, 286; Mercurius Bellicus no. 24 (4-11 July 1648), 4 (E.451.46); The Lord Goring, the Lord Capel, and Sir Charles Lucas Their Letter (1648, E.448.6).

Despite this determination to suppress the rebellion, Grimston had nevertheless been closely involved in the attempts to reopen negotiations with the king. He may have been conscious that some of the rebels’ demands were not that different from his own views. Indeed, for Edmund Ludlowe II*, this was the main reason why order had been restored at Colchester with such ease.219Ludlow, Mems. i. 188. Certainly Grimston’s desire for a treaty with the king was now well known.220Mercurius Pragmaticus (27 June-4 July 1648), sig. [O3]. On 6 May he had carried the Commons’ vote declaring that they would not alter the fundamental government of the kingdom up to the Lords for their approval. That vote included the undertaking to maintain the Covenant and to revive the Presbyterian propositions which had been offered to the king at Hampton Court.221CJ v. 552a; LJ ix. 245b. Later that month he had been second-named to the committee which had drafted the three propositions to be offered to Charles as the preconditions for talks and he served as joint reporter for the conference with the Lords on 10 July to discuss them.222CJ v. 577b, 631a. The substance of those propositions – the recall of the declarations against Parliament, the establishment of a Presbyterian church settlement for three years and parliamentary control of the militia for ten years – are likely to have echoed the sort of deal which Grimston hoped would emerge from any negotiations. He was again one of the joint reporters when the Lords and Commons held a conference on 16 August to discuss the latest letter received from the king.223CJ v. 673a. He can therefore be assumed to have supported the repeal of the Vote of No Addresses eight days later.

Grimston was one of those MPs most associated with the resulting efforts to reach a final settlement with the king. On 1 September 1648 he was among those appointed to negotiate directly with Charles.224CJ v. 697a; LJ ix. 486a, 488a-b; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 1248. Of almost equal importance, he headed the committee which persuaded the common council of London to provide the £10,000 loan which would be needed to underwrite any treaty.225CJ v. 697b, vi. 9a-b, 12b. He and the other commissioners set out from London for the Isle of Wight on 13 September and he was present when the negotiations opened at Newport five days later.226Herts. RO, XIII.50, pp. 3-4; E. Walker, Historical Discourses (1705), pt. ii. 11-77. The only surviving copy of the commissioners’ proceedings compiled by Edmund Warcupp is the one which Grimston retained among his own papers.227Herts. RO, XIII.50; J. Bruce, ‘Observations on a manuscript account of the Treaty of Newport’, Archaeologia, xxxix. 112-16; J. Bruce, ‘An identification of the compiler of a manuscript in the possession of the earl of Verulam’, Archaeologia, xlii. 258-62. Grimston and Holles were perhaps the commissioners most anxious to reach an agreement with the king. The two of them later claimed to have pleaded with Charles on their knees, telling him that if he would only

send them back next day with the concessions that were absolutely necessary, they did not doubt but he should in a very few days be brought up with honour, freedom and safety to the Parliament.228Burnet, Hist. i. 74.

Grimston was among the commissioners who left to return to London on 6 November.229Herts. RO, XIII.50, unf. Many believed that he deserved every praise for his efforts. He was thanked by the Commons on 13 November for ‘his faithful endeavours and services’ during the negotiations and was rewarded by Lincoln’s Inn with promotion to its bench.230CJ vi. 75a; LI Black Bks. ii. 379. Even so, he must have realised that the chances of success were diminishing fast. Undeterred, he continued to work for a settlement. To that end, he sat on the committee which considered their response to the king’s request that he be settled in a condition of honour and safety, and he was the manager of the joint conference on 21 November to discuss which delinquents ought to be exempted from any pardon.231CJ vi. 75b, 82b. He must have been still in London on 25 November, because he was included on the committee appointed to decide which castles were to be slighted, so he may not have been present at Newport when the negotiations finally broke down two days later.232CJ vi. 87a. It can be assumed that, despite this, he refused to close off the option of negotiating with the king and that he was among the majority who thought that the king’s reply gave sufficient grounds for continuing the search for a settlement. That view was soon to cost him his seat in Parliament. He was one of the more obvious targets to be singled out during the army’s purge of the Commons and so was among the 41 MPs placed under arrest on 6 December.233Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 1355. He had been released from custody by 15 December.234Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 159; J.H. Round, ‘Some Essex fam. corresp.’, Trans. Essex Arch. Soc. n.s. vi. 210.

Political outcast, 1649-59

Grimston was excluded not only from Parliament but also from local office. At Harwich he probably refused to continue as recorder and was replaced by John Sicklemor*. The death of his first wife in May 1649 provided him with a pretext to resign as recorder of Colchester. He contemplated a grand tour of the continent in the company of his eldest son.235Essex RO, D/B5 Gb4, f. 31. Without these local offices he played no active political role for the next seven years. This may have encouraged him to resume his career as a barrister and he certainly became more involved in the affairs of Lincoln’s Inn at this time.236LI Black Bks. ii. 390,391, 397, 406-8, 418, 420; iii. 438, 439; Harington’s Diary, 65, 66, 68, 76, 78, 85. In the early 1650s his marriage to Lady Meautys, widow of Sir Thomas Meautys*, prompted his purchase of the Gorhambury estate outside St Albans and transformed this Essex family into a Hertfordshire one. In April 1652, one year after his marriage, Grimston obtained possession of the estate in return for a payment of £10,000 to Meautys’s surviving brother and the creditors of the original owner, Viscount St Albans (Sir Francis Bacon†).237Herts. RO, I.A.42-44; IX.A.26. In order to raise such a large sum, he had to borrow part of the purchase price from a London alderman, Thomas Cullum.238Herts. RO, IX.A.22. From now on Sir Harbottle seems to have used Gorhambury rather than Bradfield Hall as his principal country seat. In 1658 he made a further substantial extension to his land holdings in Hertfordshire when he bought the manor of Kingsbury from Thomas Wendy†.239Herts. RO, III.B.11-11a; III.B.13-14a; III.B.16-17a.

His ties with Essex were never completely severed, however, and in 1656 he was elected as one of the 13 MPs for that county. His decision to stand may have been an act of defiance against the protectorate. If so, it seems to have been popular, for there is a strong possibility that he came top of the Essex poll held on 20 August 1656.240Josselin, Diary, 378. The council of state was unimpressed and placed him on its list of MPs who were prevented from taking their seats.241CJ vii. 425a. However, this ban did not stop him obtaining a parliamentary order for his personal benefit in June 1657. During his absence from national politics he had prepared an English edition of the law reports which had been compiled by his late father-in-law, Sir George Croke.242LI Black Bks. ii. 418. Following the publication of its first volume, Grimston took the precaution of obtaining a order from Parliament banning pirated editions of this work in either French or English.243CJ vii. 551a. This proved to be of little use: an unauthorised abridged edition appeared the following year. In January 1658 Grimston’s friend and neighbour Alban Coxe* attempted to present Parliament with a petition, probably from Grimston, which complained that it had been printed ‘in bad paper, with many faults’, but he failed to persuade Parliament to act.244Burton’s Diary, ii. 318-19.

During the elections for the 1659 Parliament the sheriff of Hertfordshire, Sir John Wittewronge*, encouraged Grimston to stand for one of the county seats. He declined, on the grounds that he was still too much of a newcomer in Hertfordshire. But, as he told Wittewronge, the new Parliament promised to be an important one

…as the juncture of our affairs as now stand, there being some appearance of a necessity on the protector’s fair compliance with the Parliament, there is a probability of doing more good than I thought I should ever have lived to have seen again. The fundamental laws that concern our lives, liberties and property and that which is nearest and dearest of all, our religion, is at stake. The Lord make up all our sad breaches, compose our unhappy differences and bless them that shall be called to the work with the spirit only of peace and concord…245Herts. RO, DE/Lw/Z21/56.

His preferred candidates were Wittewronge (whom he realised was ineligible) and Rowland Lytton*, who stood and was elected.246Herts. RO, DE/Lw/Z21/56.

Restoration, 1660-85

Grimston seems to have been quick to take up the opportunity to resume his place in the Long Parliament when the secluded MPs were readmitted to the Rump on 21 February 1660. Two days later he was appointed to the council of state.247CJ vii. 849b; A. and O.; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 239. He may by then already have been in contact with the exiled court, as Lady Mordaunt, wife of the king’s leading agent in England, may have stayed with Lady Grimston shortly before this.248Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 176. Over the course of the next three weeks, as the Long Parliament moved towards its end, he served on most of the major Commons committees, including the one which considered the bill which fixed the date for the new Convention.249CJ vii. 855b, 858a, 868b, 872b, 877b. It was that Convention which was to provide Grimston with the high point of his public career. When it assembled on 25 April, the new Commons elected Grimston as their Speaker and he thus presided over the events which resulted in the recall of the king. It fell to Manchester and Grimston, as Speakers of the two Houses, to greet Charles II on his triumphal arrival at Whitehall on 29 May. His reward, perhaps reflecting the influence of the lord chancellor, his old student friend, Sir Edward Hyde, was his appointment later that year as master of the rolls. As this position was not incompatible with a place in Parliament, he was able to remain as an MP and sat in all Charles II’s Parliaments. From the mid-1670s he gave tentative support to the opposition and later backed the principle of Exclusion. In 1680 he encouraged the former clerk-assistant of the Commons, John Rushworth, to publish the second part of his Historical Collections, which gave a pro-whig account of the 1630s and 1640s.250HMC Verulam, 82-3.

Grimston almost outlived the reign of Charles II, dying on 2 January 1685 after a short illness.251Witteronge, “Observations of Weather”, 14; N. Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs (Oxford, 1857), i. 324; HMC 1st Rep. 56. This was an event which, as a good Protestant, he had long been preparing for. In 1644 he had advised his son

Think oft and oft upon thy death, judgement and hell; let these be always written in the tables of thy mind. Especially when thou goest to bed, think that thy bed is thy voluntary grave, and sleep but the image of thy death.252Grimston, Strena Christiana, 55-6; A Christian’s New-Years Gift, 41-2.

Similarly, in 1656 he had comforted Alban Coxe on the death of his son.

It is the portion of the saints to suffer much here because they must enjoy so much hereafter. Let that be your quietus est, to know where he is, and that thither you are travelling, though, with Elijah, it be in a fiery chariot.253VCH Verulam, 54.

He was buried in St Michael’s at St Albans following a large-scale funeral befitting a former Speaker and a master of the rolls.254VCH Verulam, 87; Witteronge, “Observations of Weather”, 14. It was said that the coffin of Viscount St Albans had to be moved to accommodate him.255J. Aubrey, Brief Lives, i. 66. Grimston’s estates passed to his only surviving son, Samuel†, and then, following Samuel’s death in 1700, to William Luckyn, grandson of Sir Capel Luckyn* and great-grandson of Sir Harbottle. William Luckyn then changed his name to Grimston and it was as Viscount Grimston that he was raised to the Irish peerage in 1719. The earls of Verulam are descended from him.