GRIMSTON, Sir Harbottle (1578-1648), of Bradfield Hall, Essex.

The prominence of the Grimstons in the affairs of the county of Essex was a relatively recent phenomenon. Originally from Yorkshire (their surname derived from the village of Grimston), they had existed as a gentry family of no great note at Rishangles in Suffolk since the early fifteenth century.43Cussans, Herts. 246-7. This MP’s grandfather, Edward Grimston† (d.1600), had sat variously for Ipswich, Eye and Orford in five of the Parliaments of Elizabeth I.44HP Commons 1558-1603. It was only in the following generation that the relocation to Essex had taken place. The career of Edward Grimston junior as a master in chancery, together with a valuable inheritance gained through his marriage, had made possible the purchase of Bradfield Hall, an estate in north-east Essex halfway between Manningtree and Harwich which would serve as the family seat until the 1650s.45Morant, Essex, i. 464. The year before Edward’s eldest son was born, his wife’s grandfather, John Harbottle of Crowfield, Suffolk, died, leaving her a substantial share of his estates. It was in his memory that the new Grimston heir was christened Harbottle.

Grimston’s purchase of a baronetcy in 1611, a year after his father’s death, was commensurate with the rank he could now expect to attain within their adopted county. His inheritance was considerable, and 11 years earlier he had made a good marriage for himself.46Vis. Essex, i. 207; Cussans, Herts. 247; S. Lewis, The Hist. and Topography of the Par. of St Mary, Islington (Islington, 1842), 204. Local office, first on the commission of the peace and as sheriff, and later in the militia, brought him into full involvement with county affairs.47C231/4, f. 71; Coventry Docquets, 61; Maynard Lieut. Bk. 15-16; List of Sheriffs (L. and I. Soc. ix), 46. The family’s long association with the port of Harwich was initiated with his election as the town’s MP in 1614. During the 1620s he relished a role as an occasional thorn in the side of the king’s ministers. He initially failed to contribute to the Palatinate benevolence in 1622, he was removed as a deputy lieutenant in 1626 because he had supported the lord lieutenant, the 2nd earl of Warwick (Sir Robert Rich†), in his opposition to the 1st duke of Buckingham, and he was one of those imprisoned in 1627 for refusing to pay the Forced Loan.48SP14/127/82; SP14/156/15; CSP Dom. Add. 1625-49, p. 90; 1627-8, pp. 61, 204; Maynard Lieut. Bk. 141; Herts. RO, IX.A.250. Although never very active in the Commons, his record in the 1626 and 1628 Parliaments confirmed his clear opposition to the influence of Buckingham.49HP Commons 1604-1629. His support for William Innis, one of the ministers of Harwich, brought him into trouble with the court of high commission in 1631.50CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 145, 256; PC2/41, pp. 357, 370, 404. His comments in the Short Parliament would suggest that he was also deeply unhappy with the imposition of Ship Money. As someone whose own religious beliefs were those of a traditional Calvinist, he had no sympathy with the Laudian policies of the 1630s and it can be assumed that he was equally opposed to the other aspects of Charles I’s personal rule. He thus easily fitted into the circle of discontented clients around his old friend, the earl of Warwick.

Grimston’s election to the Short Parliament was never in doubt, although the backing of Warwick as lord lieutenant may have proved crucial in gaining for him one of the two county seats.51CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 609; Nalson, Impartial Colln. i. 279-80. His success in becoming a knight of a shire did not encourage him to place himself in the parliamentary limelight. There was a reason for this. It was now his son, Harbottle, MP for Colchester and a lawyer of ambition, who was emerging as a leading figure in the Commons. Sir Harbottle was therefore increasingly happy to watch benevolently from the side-lines and to assume the role of veteran MP making occasional but always important contributions to proceedings. In the Short Parliament he spoke with authority in voicing the concerns of the majority of his colleagues. In this he was doing no more than articulating the views of his constituents and it was on their behalf on 18 April that he presented the Commons with their petition against the innovations in religion, the impositions on trade and the collection of Ship Money.52CJ ii. 6a; Aston’s Diary, 11; Procs. Short Parl. 275-6. The opinions of his constituents were very much on his mind five days later when he argued strongly for the view that the Commons must consider grievances before voting supply, because, as he pointed out, they would receive a hostile reception if they returned to the country without securing adequate concessions from the king. He particularly mentioned the need for speedy action against Ship Money.53Aston’s Diary, 39; Procs. Short Parl. 171. He can have taken no pleasure in the peremptory dissolution on 5 May. Three weeks after this, the privy council considered a complaint from him, alleging that one of the officers in the army raised to fight the Scots had discharged a number of his men from their service in return for cash payments. What is not clear is whether Grimston was offended because he supported the need for a war against the Scottish rebels or merely because he thought this blatant corruption. The privy council seems to have found no evidence to support the allegation.54PC2/52, p. 510; CSP Dom. 1640, p. 224.

Grimston’s failure to stand again for one of the county seats that October was of little significance – he and Sir Thomas Barrington* refrained in order to give others their turn in representing the county and in the sure knowledge that they would find seats elsewhere. Harwich would no doubt have elected their recorder, Harbottle junior, had he not been assured of a seat at Colchester, making his father the ideal alternative. Over the next six years, until ill health began to interfere with his public duties, Grimston was to serve as a conscientious MP for the town. The Journal entries perhaps do not do him full justice, for, although he was not named to a large of committees during that period, he does seem to have been a regular presence in the House. His frequent absences from Westminster were usually for serious reasons. During the Long Parliament’s early years he quietly supported the Commons in its opposition to the king. Most of the committees to which he was named, including those on forests, Ship Money collection in Hertfordshire and usury, were, so far as the Commons was concerned, comparatively uncontroversial.55CJ ii. 43a, 45a, 45b, 108a, 226b; Procs. LP i. 464. His speech in the debate on 26 July 1641 on the role of Henry Percy* in the first army plot may have seemed to favour Percy, but, in truth, it seems to have been no more than a technical intervention on a small, if important, detail.56Procs. LP vi. 96. Grimston’s opposition to popery was certainly never in doubt – he had been a member of the committee which had considered the bill against Catholic recusants (26 Mar. 1641), he had taken the Protestation as soon as news of the army plot had become public (3 May), and he was later one of the commissioners appointed to disarm recusants in Essex (30 Aug.).57CJ ii. 113b, 132b, 385a. In January 1642 he supported his son in defending Sir Thomas Bendish when he was accused in Parliament of distributing the king’s latest proclamations in Essex.58Harl. 164, f. 282v. Grimston soon had other worries to distract him. In February Barrington obtained permission for Grimston and his son to return to Essex, apparently because the plague was believed to have broken out in the lodgings they were occupying in London.59PJ i. 361.

Despite his age, Grimston was able to carve out for himself a vital role between 1642 and 1645 helping to organise the Essex war effort on behalf of Parliament. There was never really any doubt that he would side with Parliament. On 13 June 1642 he arranged for the sheriff of Essex to appear before the Commons to hand over the various proclamations and orders which had been sent to him by the king.60PJ iii. 67, 69; CJ ii. 622a. Preventing the publication of the king’s commands was, short of armed resistance, as unambiguous a show of opposition as could be imagined. Later that year Grimston persuaded the Commons to order that Sir Benjamin Ayloffe should not accept office as sheriff of Essex on the basis of a commission from the king.61HMC 7th Rep. 551; CJ ii. 870b, 875b. When questions were raised about the appointment of Sir Thomas Malet† as the assize judge for Hertfordshire, Grimston tried to widen the debate to include his appointment as the assize judge for Essex as well.62PJ iii. 214. He was an obvious choice for the committee appointed on 29 August to prepare the declaration in response to Barrington’s report that throughout Essex the locals were forming armed groups in the mistaken belief that Parliament had asked them to do so.63CJ ii. 741b.

What was needed was a more controlled use of this enthusiasm. At several key moments during the civil war Grimston would be used to liaise with the local militia in Essex. That November the Essex militia was among those which were brought to London to defend the capital against the advancing royalist army. The Commons made sure it was briefed on the situation by sending Grimston to consult with them.64Add. 18777, f. 58. He may also have then helped raise troops in the north east of the county.65A True Relation of the Army set out by the County of Essex (1642), 4 (E.126.16). The order made by the Commons on 12 November instructing the authorities at Colchester to search the house of a local Catholic, Mrs Payne, was prompted by his intervention.66CJ ii. 312b; D’Ewes (C), 125. That same month he sent news to his wife warning that there were rumours of a planned landing by the queen at Harwich and this was passed on to the mayor of the town.67Essex RO, D/Y 2/5, p. 99. On a more personal note, Grimston took the oath promising to defend the Protestant religion on 27 August 1642, offered a horse and £20 as his contribution in June 1642 and promised a further £60 the following December.68CJ ii. 740a; PJ iii. 469; Add. 18777, ff. 102v, 109v. However, he defended Sir Simonds D’Ewes* from criticism by the ‘fiery spirits’ in September 1642 over accusations that D’Ewes had offered to donate too little.69Harl. 163, f. 382v. Grimston’s support for Elias Coleman, an inhabitant of Ipswich who had been arrested for criticising Parliament, was all the more effective because his own views were not in doubt. The Commons preferred Grimston’s call for leniency to the harshness demanded by John Gurdon*.70PJ iii. 360; CJ ii. 770b.

Surviving evidence from 1643, 1644 and 1645 seems to show Grimston at his most active during the spring and summer months. This may be a somewhat distorted impression, but it is easily explained, as his tireless involvement in his county’s wartime preparations was so closely tied to the timing of the season for military campaigns. It is telling that so often the references to him in the Journal relates to his activities away from Westminster. Three times during 1643 Grimston was sent to Essex on parliamentary business. In March he was singled out to be Parliament’s intermediary to ensure that the weekly assessments were being collected in the proper manner, in April he headed the delegation sent to inspect the defences at Harwich and Landguard Point, which together commanded the entrance to the Stour estuary and the approaches to Ipswich, and in July he was sent to check that the improvements to those defences which had been ordered had been completed.71CJ ii. 1001a, iii. 35b, 41b, 155a; Add. 31116, pp. 82-3; Eg. 2647, f. 133. In August he ordered that the Colchester trained bands be sent to protect the port.72Essex RO, D/Y 2/8, p. 55. The fear was that, without adequate defences, the River Stour might become the route for a seaborne attack into the parliamentarian strongholds of East Anglia. Grimston was the obvious appointment for this task as he was the local MP, he lived close by and he had served as treasurer during the construction of Landguard Fort in the mid-1620s. The Harwich corporation was able to tell Speaker William Lenthall that Grimston’s presence had ‘much quieted and settled the minds of the distracted people’.73Eg. 2646, f. 315. He may also have used this time to carry out some of the duties from his recent appointment as one of the commissioners for the sequestration of delinquents.74A. and O. His third period back home seems to have lasted several months, as he was present at meetings of the Essex county standing committee at Colchester on 16 August and 6 September.75SP28/227: warrants, Aug.-Sept. 1643; Eg. 2647, f. 146. On 6 June, while in London between these absences, he took the Covenant.76CJ iii. 118a.

Grimston may have been back at Westminster by November 1643, when either he or, more probably, his son was named to the committee which considered the bill which would have settled the revenue from the court of wards.77CJ iii. 317a. Occasional committee appointments throughout the first half of 1644 confirm his presence in Parliament.78CJ iii. 403b, 490b, 502b. A further grant of leave in June 1644, which covered both Grimston and his son, suggests that he again spent that summer in Essex, and in fact his next confirmed appearance in the Commons was not until March 1645, when the two men were given a similar grant.79CJ iii. 527a-b, iv. 77b. He spent much of his time in Essex between late March and early May working with Sir Thomas Bowes* to collect formal statements to be used against those who had been accused of witchcraft by the notorious witch hunter, Matthew Hopkins.80A true and exact Relation of the severall Informations, Examinations, and Confessions of the late Witches (1645), pp. 1-35 (E.296.35). He was evidently back at Westminster by late May 1645, for he was included on the committees for the bills which gave the former lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, £10,000 from the estates of various delinquents, and which sought to regulate the excise of flesh.81CJ iv. 148b, 158b, 178b. His fifth period of absence in three years was approved on 20 June 1645.82CJ iv. 180b. As yet, it is reasonable to assume that these absences were caused by his support for the parliamentarian cause rather than any reluctance or inability in that direction. His colleagues presumably thought him able to serve when only days later they included him on the committee which was to regulate the ordnance office.83LJ vii. 468a. His various committee appointments during the first half of 1646 – the committee to consider the powers of the Committee for Advance of Money (17 Feb.), his addition to the Committee for Plundered Ministers (15 May) and the committee on the bill to levy the arrears due to the court of wards (20 May) – were also all substantial.84CJ iv. 445b, 545b, 552a.

It was only from this point onwards that Grimston’s absences were more obviously the result of ill health. The leave of absence granted to him on 28 May 1646 may have been prolonged, for he was named to only one committee – the joint committee on delinquents’ fines (10 Dec. 1646) – between then and 20 March 1647, when he was granted further leave.85CJ iv. 556b; v. 8b, 118b. Four months after that he was given permission to visit Spa within the territories of the Spanish Netherlands, a sure sign that his health was deteriorating.86CJ v. 234a. One implication of this is that he was almost certainly out of the country throughout the political crisis which unfolded that summer. He was still absent when the House was called on 9 October.87CJ v. 329b. However he was presumably back in the country, reasonably fit and attending Parliament by 23 December 1647, when he was one of the four Essex MPs sent home to speed up the assessment collection in that county.88CJ v. 400b. This may have been his last duty as an MP. Within nine weeks he was dead.

His will, which dated back to 1641, specified that he should be buried next to his father, whose grave was at Rishangles, but this instruction was ignored and he was instead buried in the chancel of the church at Bradfield.89Essex RO, microfiche D/P 173/1/1; PROB11/203/554; King, Grimston, 10. A new writ for the Harwich seat was moved on 16 March.90CJ v. 500b. The estates and the baronetcy passed to Harbottle, who was his only surviving son.91PROB11/203/554. The residents of Bradfield long remembered Sir Harbottle and they even claimed that his ghost was to be occasionally seen riding round the local churchyard on his white horse.92King, Grimston, 10.