INGRAM, Sir Arthur (?1571-1642), of Dean’s Yard, Westminster, Temple Newsam and York, Yorks.

Sir Arthur Ingram’s membership of the Short and Long Parliaments was a mere coda to a long and controversial career. He was a marvel of his age. His activities as a money lender and farmer of the customs revenues had been the basis of a vast fortune. Conforming to the age-old pattern of the newly wealthy, he had then invested his money in land, accumulating substantial estates in Yorkshire centred around Temple Newsam. His annual income by the early 1640s was probably in excess of £10,000.47Upton, Ingram, 209-10. He had combined this with a bureaucratic career as secretary of the council of the north and even, very briefly in 1615, as cofferer of the household. He had also sat in every Parliament since being elected for Stafford at a by-election in 1609. By the late 1620s his Yorkshire connections had brought him into the circle of Lord Wentworth (Sir Thomas Wentworth†), the future 1st earl of Strafford, but the two men soon quarrelled over their rival financial interests and so during the 1630s Ingram increasingly distanced himself from the king and his policies. By 1640 his main patron at court was the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich†).

It was through Holland’s efforts that Ingram was elected to the Short Parliament, as the earl used his position as high steward of the corporation of New Windsor to nominate him as one of the town’s two MPs.48HMC Var. viii. 53. But Ingram had not been elected to this, his eighth Parliament, to become a mere court lackey in the Commons. That he now intended to line up with the king’s critics was made clear from the outset. To counter any infiltration of their ranks by crypto-Catholics, all MPs were ordered to take communion in St Margaret’s Westminster on 3 May. Ingram headed the list of those MPs appointed on 23 April to consider how this order could be enforced, while he also first-named to the committee appointed two days later to carry out the invigilation on the day itself.49CJ ii. 9b, 12a. He was also first-named to the committee to receive petitions concerning trade (30 Apr.).50CJ ii. 17a. His other committee appointments concerned the petition from the treasurers of two of the taxes granted by the 1624 Parliament (21 Apr.) and the bill relating to needlemakers and steel wiredrawers (1 May).51CJ ii. 8a, 17b.

For reasons that remain unclear, Ingram did not seek re-election at Windsor that autumn, but instead obtained a seat at Callington, a small Cornish constituency with a history of electing outsiders, often with strong court connections. Ingram’s first committee appointment, three days after the new Parliament had assembled, was the committee for privileges, appropriately for someone who by now was among the longest serving and most experienced men in the House (6 Nov. 1640). He was also appointed to the committee on the Bossiney election dispute (14 Nov.).52CJ ii. 21a, 29b. His colleagues seem to have assumed that he would be as keen as he had been six months earlier to ensure that all MPs conformed to the Church of England, as he was again among those tasked with checking if any Members failed to take communion. That same day, 9 November, he was also included on the committee to disarm all Catholics in and around London.53CJ ii. 24a, 24b, 32b. Yet Ingram asked to be excused from the duty of checking on his fellow MPs.54CJ ii. 39a. This can hardly have been because his fears about popery had lessened. Indeed, he was as keen as anyone to exploit the latest sensation to stoke anti-Catholic paranoia. A Catholic, John James, stabbed a Westminster justice of the peace, Peter Heywood†, in Westminster Hall on 21 November. On the 23rd Ingram was appointed to the committee to investigate this attack and four days later he reported back from it to the Commons.55CJ ii. 34b, 37b; Procs. LP i. 335, 338, 340, 343. At worst, this was a cynical ploy to build religious tensions just at the time when the new Parliament was settling down into a regular routine. Ingram later promoted the bill to punish James, although, in the end, the breakdown in relations with the king in early 1642 prevented that bill from receiving the royal assent.56CJ ii. 128b; Procs. LP ii. 373; iv. 360, 366. Ingram’s godly credentials had been further underlined during this Parliament’s early weeks when, with Sir Gilbert Gerard*, he was sent to thank the two star preachers, Cornelius Burgess and Stephen Marshall, for the sermons they had given before the House on 17 November.57CJ ii. 30b; Procs. LP i. 169, 170.

Ingram was only too happy to assist in the prosecution of Strafford, a priority for the new Parliament. The case of Henry Darley*, who had been imprisoned on the earl’s orders, conveniently served to stir up the anti-Strafford mood as a foretaste for the main event. On 30 November Ingram and William Purefoy* were sent to seek bail for Darley from the lord chief justice of king’s bench.58Procs. LP i. 372, 379, 382. That same day a committee, including Ingram, was appointed to meet with a Lords committee to discuss the possible case against the earl.59CJ ii. 39b. Two months later Ingram was also added to the committee preparing that case after a petition with complaints against Sir Thomas Danbie* was referred to it (5 Feb. 1641).60CJ ii. 79b. As the impeachment trial neared, on 20 March Ingram was among MPs whom Strafford sought to call as witnesses.61Two Diaries of Long Parl. 25, 110; Procs. LP ii. 829. This was to be less of a gamble on Strafford’s part than it might seem. Although Ingram had good reason to see Strafford ruined, he could not deny in his own role in assisting the earl and so had to guard his reputation. His appearance at the trial on 31 March focussed on the accusation that Strafford had profited unduly from the Irish customs. This was doubly sensitive for Ingram because in 1631 he had hoped to take over the customs farm himself and because his son, Sir Arthur junior, had then served on the consortium created as a front to disguise Strafford’s involvement.62Upton, Ingram, 218-221. Ingram had to confirm most of this, although he landed an effective blow against the earl by asserting that the profits made by Strafford vastly exceeded what he had earlier been able to make as the customs farmer.63Procs. LP iii. 248, 255, 260, 266. There could be few more damaging accusations than that even Ingram found Strafford’s profiteering excessive.

Another priority for Parliament was disbanding the two armies in the north of England. Simply keeping them in place was difficult. One immediate stop-gap measure was for MPs to volunteer individual loans to bridge the gap until new tax revenues became available. Ingram was among MPs who on 21 November 1640 each offered £1,000 as an advance on the proposed grant of £100,000.64Procs. LP i. 228, 231, 235. But he knew that this would not be enough. On 23 February he raised the matter in the Commons, reminding the House that complaints were coming in from the north that, unless paid soon, the soldiers would become a threat to public order.65Procs. LP ii. 519. The Commons heeded this warning and immediately created a committee, of which Ingram was naturally a member, to seek to raise loans from willing merchants.66CJ ii. 91b. Eight days later he was one of 13 MPs who offered money to help fund the proposed withdrawal of the Scottish army.67Procs. LP ii. 620. Then, on 6 March, he was among 25 MPs who agreed to join with the corporation of London to provide security for a loan of £100,000.68Procs. LP ii. 655. Ingram was still owed repayments of £400 by the treasurer at war, Sir William Uvedale*, in late June.69CSP Dom. 1641-3, pp. 14, 22.

Two events in April 1641 reinforced Ingram’s interest in this matter. The first was that the earl of Holland was appointed lord general and thus had direct responsibility for the disbandment. The second was that Ingram and his patron became bound by even closer ties when, on 8 April, Holland’s eldest son, Robert, married Ingram’s daughter Elizabeth.70Upton, Ingram, 255. Indeed, Holland may have agreed to the match in part because he hoped to use Ingram’s credit to borrow money to pay the northern army.71CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 554. His new status as the earl’s kinsman was why on 10 May Ingram was sent, with Sir Henry Vane I*, to thank Holland for his swift despatch of the Commons’ letter to the northern army following the discovery of the second army plot.72Procs. LP iv. 296, 297, 303, 304. News of that plot only underlined the urgency of swift disbandment. The next day Ingram was among MPs appointed as a committee to seek out potential lenders, while later that month (20 May) he was placed on the committee sent to discuss the disbandment with a committee from the Lords.73CJ ii. 143a, 152a. That June he was unsurprisingly included in the Act for the latest payments to the Scots among MPs from whom the Scots were to seek redress if the payments were not completed on time.74CJ ii. 182b; Procs. LP v. 283; SR. He was also on the committee to prepare an order to ensure that the revenues raised for that purpose would be audited (16 July).75CJ ii. 214a. One of those special revenues was the new poll tax. Ingram had sat on the original committee on that bill (18 June) and he probably then helped supervise the payments made by MPs themselves.76CJ ii. 180a, 198b; Procs. LP v. 493, 555. On 30 July he was sent to the north to oversee the delivery of the poll taxes by the individual sheriffs to York.77CJ ii. 230b; Procs. LP vi. 151. All this made Ingram a figure of some political importance. At about this time Edward Nicholas†, one of the clerks of the privy council, picked up rumours at court that the king was considering offering a peerage to Ingram.78CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 41.

Ingram’s anti-Catholic prejudices continued to surface. On 26 May 1641 he was appointed to the committee to ask several prominent Catholics, including Sir Kenelm Digby and the queen’s secretary, Sir John Wintour, to take the oath of allegiance. He was also among MPs whom the lord keeper, Sir Edward Littleton*, was then instructed to name as commissioners to offer the oath of supremacy to all suspected Catholics.79CJ ii. 158a. He was named to the committee on recusants’ arrears (2 July) and helped investigate the case of William Watson, a Catholic priest who had been living in secret in London in the house of a Frenchman.80CJ ii. 197a, 204a; Procs. LP v. 587, 589. When in November 1641 it was alleged that prosecutions against recusants were not being pursued, Ingram claimed that the courts were reluctant to act without the bribery of the relevant officials.81D’Ewes (C), 171n. In March 1642 he asked questions in the Commons about the escape of some Catholic priests from the Gatehouse prison.82PJ ii. 70. Moreover, some clergymen of the established church may, in his eyes, have been no better than their Catholic counterparts. On 16 March 1641 the Commons sent Ingram to the Lords to ask for a conference to discuss allegations against John Cosin, the strongly Laudian master of Peterhouse and dean of Peterborough Cathedral.83CJ ii. 103b, 105b. Later that year he was named to the committee to prepare the impeachments against the twelve bishops (30 July).84CJ ii. 230b.

One recurring interest for Ingram was private bills to settle the estates of individual families, often through the sale of entailed lands. Regularly Ingram was named, often first or second, to the various committees on such bills, including those relating to the estates of 2nd earl of Winchelsea (Sir Thomas Finch†), the 5th marquess of Winchester (John Paulet†), the 5th earl of Bedford (William Russell*) and Sir Francis Popham*.85CJ ii. 91b, 93b, 94a, 103b, 151b, 215a, 220a, 223a, 228a, 441b; Procs. LP iii. 53, 81; iv. 487. He also sat on the committee on the dispute between Sir James Thynne* and his half-brother, Henry Frederick Thynne (20 July 1641).86CJ ii. 217a. When the inhabitants of Hatfield, Yorkshire, needed permission from the Commons to allow the court of exchequer to proceed with a case they had brought there, Ingram raised the matter in the House on their behalf.87Procs. LP iv. 609. Some of Ingram’s activities at Westminster were tied to his own commercial experience, as when he was included on the committee concerning the Virginia plantation (6 Jan. 1641) or when the Commons considered matters relating to the customs farm.88CJ ii. 55a, 64a, 70b, 92a, 154b; Procs. LP v. 139. He may also have been largely responsible for persuading the Commons to approve the bill to restrict the export of wool. Ingram was first-named to the committee on that bill in February 1641 and, when it finally passed in the Commons over a year later, he carried it to the Lords.89CJ ii. 77b, 462b, 466b. That it never got any further may well have been because Ingram’s death then removed its strongest supporter.

Ingram spent most of August and September 1641 in York overseeing the collection of the poll tax. On 7 August, when the Commons commanded all MPs to attend the House as soon as possible, he was explicitly exempted.90CJ ii. 245a. But Parliament was in recess for most of September and October anyway. In October, on his way back from Scotland, the king stayed with the Ingrams when passing through York, although Sir Arthur himself had by then already returned to London.91HMC Var. viii. 56; Upton, Ingram, 256-7. Perhaps conscious that his own efforts to ensure speedy collection of the poll tax had been only partly successful, on 9 November he told the Commons that £10,000 of the money raised was still being kept back by the lord mayor of York and that many of the poorer inhabitants of Yorkshire were still owed for billeting troops.92D’Ewes (C), 109. Such concerns could have been what prompted the Commons to add Ingram and 2nd Baron Fairfax (Sir Ferdinando Fairfax*) to the relevant committee on 18 November.93CJ ii. 319a.

News of the uprising in Ireland only heightened tensions between Charles I and Parliament. The Commons made plain the extent of its distrust by passing the Grand Remonstrance, its sweeping indictment of the king’s misrule since 1625. There can be no doubt that Ingram strongly supported the Remonstrance, as he was among 12 MPs appointed on 30 November to present it to the king at Hampton Court.94CJ ii. 327a; D’Ewes (C), 220n. His sympathy for the plight of Irish Protestants was evident from the fact that he was added on 20 December to the committee on the bill against recusants after it was also given responsibility for the bill to assist those sufferers. That same day he was named to the committee on the bill to disarm recusants, a measure intended as a precaution against the spread of any Catholic conspiracy to England.95CJ ii. 349b, 350a. Contributing to the general atmosphere of Protestant panic were the sermons preached by Edmund Calamy and Stephen Marshall two days later; the Commons subsequently asked Ingram and Sir Thomas Barrington* to arrange for the two preachers to be rewarded with gifts of plate.96CJ ii. 353b, 422b; D’Ewes (C), 334; PJ i. 329. But the news from Ireland got worse and it soon became clear that a full-scale military expedition would be required. The following February Ingram therefore sat on the committee to underwrite the money raised for the suppression of the Irish rebels.97CJ ii. 425b. Those making those loans including Ingram himself, as he invested £1,000 in the Irish Adventure, although several months later he transferred his share to Isaac Penington*.98CSP Ire. Adv. 1642-59, pp. 160, 200.

The next major crisis followed the king’s attempt to arrest the Five Members on 4 January 1642. Now that the king and Parliament seemed irreconcilable, the loyalty of the army took on renewed significance. On 13 January Ingram, Sir Robert Pye I* and Sir Henry Vane I were sent to ask the treasury commissioners and the new chancellor of the exchequer, Sir John Culpeper*, to pay the troops stationed at Portsmouth.99CJ ii. 376b; PJ i. 58. Two days later Ingram reported back on the treasury commissioners’ less-than-enthusiastic response.100PJ ii. 76. On 17 January he was added to the committee to put the kingdom into a posture of defence.101CJ ii. 383b. A week later the Commons decided to dismiss Endymion Porter*, the prominent crypto-Catholic courtier, from his position as a captain in the Middlesex trained bands in favour of Robert Cecil*. As Holland was the joint lord lieutenant of Middlesex, Ingram was then sent with Sir Gilbert Gerard to inform the earl of this decision.102CJ ii. 390b, 409a-b; PJ i. 252, 256. In the meantime he was also named to the committee created to consider how those trained bands, together with their London counterparts, could be supplied with ammunition (28 Jan.).103CJ ii. 400a.

Ingram’s final months at Westminster were spent helping Parliament prepare for the looming civil war against the king. On 24 March he and Sir Henry Mildmay* were asked to investigate the report that the queen was trying to raise money and supplies for her husband by pawning her jewels in the Netherlands.104CJ ii. 495a; PJ ii. 78. The next day he sat on the committee on the safety of Hull.105CJ ii. 497a. On 11 April he was included on the committee to prepare a letter to the sheriff of Yorkshire.106CJ ii. 522a. The last references to him in the Journal date from 13 and 20 May, when he was among MPs seeking loans from the London livery companies and from the Merchant Adventurers.107CJ ii. 570b, 580b. But he barely lived to see any actual fighting. He soon returned to York and within weeks he had taken to his bed. This proved to be his final illness and he died on 24 August, just two days after the king had raised his standard at Nottingham. He was buried in York Minster on 26 August.108Upton, Ingram, 258. Apart from the dower provided for his widow, Mary, his vast wealth passed mostly to his eldest son, Sir Arthur junior.109PROB11/190/244. The latter’s eldest son, Henry, was raised to the Scottish peerage as Viscount Irvine by Charles II in 1661.