THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION AT CHESTER,

2y ago
13 Views
2 Downloads
3.00 MB
10 Pages
Last View : 15d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Rosemary Rios
Transcription

THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION AT CHESTER,1621BY JOHN K. GRUENFELDER, B.A., M.A., PH.D.HERE can be no doubt that during the late sixteenth andTearly seventeenth centuries, parliament was gradually, albeithaltingly, developing into an increasingly significant politicalinstitution. Although it was still a far cry from its eighteenthcentury heir, it was certainly more important, more active, thanits early Tudor ancestor. Parliamentary elections, too, began toreflect this slow but meaningful development. Often marked inthe past by the clash of local rivalries, of struggles between contending borough or county families for local eminence, theelections were gradually attracting the attention of variousaristocratic factions and, as in Chester's case in 1621, of thecourt itself. But it was still a time of transition. Local issuescould still dominate specific election contests and further confuse the election story of James 1's reign.James T's Parliaments of 1604-10 and 1614 had failed to solvethe problems inherited from Elizabeth: monopolies, the questionof royal finance, religion, wardship and purveyance, continued tofrustrate the relationship between the crown and its increasinglyindependent and vociferous House of Commons. Indeed, underJames, the division widened. His vigorous defence of the royalprerogative only served to aggravate further an already tensesituation. As antagonism and division grew between king andcommons, factionalism grew apace. The crown, determined todefend its own position, tried more and more to influenceparliamentary elections in its own favour. This only strengthened the developing animosity between crown and commons aswas clearly shown in the almost violent and certainly clamorousreaction in the lower house to the 'undertakers' in 1614. Thecrown, it was alleged, had attempted to 'pack' the commons bymeans of undue election influence, thereby endangering parliamentary liberty. Lines were being drawn, between court andcountry, between the crown and parliament.Parliamentary elections frequently reflected this emergingdivision. But other issues of a local nature often intervened and35

36CHESTER ELECTIONcaused further friction and contention. Chester's election typified this complex picture. The crown, after two disastrousparliaments, was resolved to do all in its power to secure asatisfactory session. For Chester, this meant the nomination oftwo candidates who were royal officials and who had no connection with Chester whatsoever. Chester's election independence was threatened. It would appear that the election storymight well be a straightforward one: a contest between courtand country, between the 'outside' or 'foreign' nominees andthe local favourites. Chester's election was just that but it wasmuch more as well. The city election turned on a local issue, agrievance felt by its Recorder which had originated in corporation politics some two years earlier, in 1619. The city's electionindependence in 1621 was preserved by its Recorder, determined to enjoy his revenge. This mixture, of attempted courtelection patronage and a local issue, not only made the Chesterelection of 1621 a memorable one for the citizens but was also amicrocosm of early Stuart election politics.On 2 October 1620, after over two months of vacillationand debate, James I 'propounded a parliament unto his council'. 1 Although James had long remained unwilling to acknowedge the necessity of a parliament, events in Europe anddomestic requirements forced the royal hand. Two monthsearlier, in August 1620, crack Spanish infantry had invaded thePalatinate; James's son-in-law, Frederick, King of Bohemia,and, indeed, the whole Protestant cause, were dangerouslythreatened. At home, too, pressures were mounting to summonanother parliament. None had met since 1614. For ten yearsneither legislation nor subsidy had been passed by a parliament.Although the actual decision to summon parliament was nottaken until 31 October, 2 preparations for its meeting, underthe able direction of James's Lord Chancellor, Sir FrancisBacon, were already under way. On 17 October, Bacon reported substantial progress in the work to the Marquis ofBuckingham. Bacon, assisted by two Chief Justices, Hobart andMontagu, Sir Edward Coke and Sir Randall Crew, Speaker inthe Parliament of 1614, had outlined the most important stepsnecessary to secure a satisfactory session. Their proposalsincluded 'the consideration what persons were fit to be of theHouse . and the means to place such persons without noveltyor much observation'. They had already 'made some lists of1 Sir Benjamin Rudyerd to Sir Francis Nethersole, 2 Oct. 1620, Public RecordOffice State Papers German, 81/19: 17.* Nicholas Burton to Wm. Carnsew, 4 Nov. 1620, PRO State Papers Domestic,14/117: 55.

CHESTER ELECTION37names of privy councillors and principal statesmen or courtiers;of the gravest and wisest lawyers; of the most respected and besttempered knights and gentlemen of the country' suitable forelection. Despite the difficulties which alleged 'undertaking' hadcaused in the Parliament of 1614, the plans for the 1621 Parliament called for another election campaign designed to securethe return of as many 'fit' members to parliament as possible. 3Chester's parliamentary election testified both to the zeal ofthe court's electioneering and to the truth of the assertion,'There is great labouring . to be of the Parliament.' 4 The citycorporation found itself pressed by the Prince's Council to electtwo court candidates. Sir Thomas Edmondes and Sir HenryGary. 5 This, in itself, was a major innovation since, in the twoprevious parliaments, Chester had returned local men. NeitherEdmondes nor Gary had any tie whatsoever with the city. Gary,whose roots were in Hertfordshire, had been a Gentleman of theBedchamber to James I, was his Controller of the Householdand would be, from 1622, Lord Deputy of Ireland. He wascreated Viscount Falkland in the Scottish peerage in 1621.Edmondes, too, was a career courtier and royal official. He hadbeen appointed to James's Privy Council in 1616 after a longcareer in Elizabeth's fledgling diplomatic service. Appointed asTreasurer of the Royal Household in 1618, he also served Jamesas Clerk of the Crown in the Court of King's Bench. Both menwere plainly court nominees. 6 Sir John Walter, the Prince'sSolicitor, sometime in November or early December 1620, had,in letters to Chester's former Mayor, Sir Randle Mainwaring,and its Recorder, Edward Whitby, nominated Edmondes andGary. Further pressure was brought to bear on the city when theEarl of Northampton, William Compton, Lord President ofWales, also urged Gary's election. The 'earnest entreaty of thePrince his council recommends unto me in his highnesses's3 Sir Francis Bacon to the Marquis of Buckingham, Bacon to the King, 2 Oct.1620, Bacon to Buckingham, 7 Oct. 1620, J. Spedding, The Life and Letters ofSir Francis Bacon, 1 vols., (1868-1874), vii, 113-14, 115-16; David H. Willson,The Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, 1604-1629 (Minneapolis, 1940),60-61.4 Locketo Carleton, 16Dec. 1620, PRO SPD 14/118: 30; PRO, Calendar StatePapers Venetian, 1619-1621, 563.6 The Earl of Northampton to the Mayor and Aldermen of Chester, 17 Dec.1620, The Mayor and Jurats of Chester to the Earl of Northampton, 21 Dec.1620, The Mayor's Copy of a letter to satisfy the reasons Sir Tho. Edmondeswas not elected burgess . . .', British Museum, Harleian Manuscripts 2105,ff271, 275, 277-8 (hereafter cited as BM Harl. MSS); Northampton's letter of17 December is printed in Robert H. Clive (ed.), Documents Connected with theHistory of Ludlow (1841), 180-81.8 'Sir Henry Carey', 'Sir Thomas Edmondes', The Concise Dictionary ofNational Biography, part i (1953), 212, 384 (hereafter cited as CDNB).

38CHESTER ELECTIONname (as by the copy of their letter here inclosed you may be thebetter informed) . to recommend unto you . Sir HenryCarew [Gary], knight, Comptroller of His Majesty's Household' as a burgess for Chester. Northampton admitted it was notin his power to make such a request but, 'being honored by hisHighnesses's command, the which I must ever joyfully obey,' hewas confident of 'your favorable acceptance of my letter'. 7Other candidates were also coming forward, candidates whohad a far more substantial claim to the loyalty of the city. Latein November, Thomas Viscount Savage, a near neighbour to thecity and scion of an influential Chester family, informedChester's Mayor, William Gamull, that he would 'be glad thatmy brother, John Savage, might be' one of the city's burgesses.He, too, had a second candidate, 'Sir John Bingley [who]desired my assent [to his candidature] which I willingly gavehim.' 8 Bingley and Savage had far greater claims on Chesterthan either Edmondes or Gary. Savage's family, of Rock Savage,Cheshire, had long been active in city affairs. Sir John Savage,father of Thomas and John, had, before his death in 1615,served as Mayor of Chester and Sheriff of Cheshire in 1607. Theirgrandfather, also a Sir John Savage, had seven times servedCheshire as Sheriff and was thrice Mayor of the city in Elizabeth's reign. The family was related by marriage to the Mainwarings of Over Peover and the Wilbrahams of Woodhey inCheshire. Thomas, Viscount Savage, not only enjoyed obviousinfluence locally but was also rising rapidly in royal favour. In1618 he was mentioned as a candidate for the vacant Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster and, by 1622, was in PrinceCharles's service, advancing to the Earldom of Rivers in February 1640. Active in Chester affairs, he was frequently employedby the city as its spokesman at court. 9 His recommendationswarranted respect and careful consideration. Sir John Bingley,his second nominee, also enjoyed both local connections and acertain status at court. In addition, he had already twice servedChester in parliament, in 1610 and 1614. A native and freeman7 The Earl of Northampton to the Mayor and Aldermen of Chester, 17 Dec.1620, The Mayor and Jurats of Chester to the Earl of Northampton, 20 Dec.1620, BM Harl. MSS 2105 ff271, 275; Clive, op. cit. 180-81.8 Thomas, Viscount Savage, to William Gamull, Mayor of Chester, 22 Nov.1620, BM Harl. MSS 2105 f285.9 George Ormerod History of the Countv Palatine and City of Chester, revisedand enlarged by Thomas Helbsy, 3 vols., (1875-1882), ii, 716; Margaret J.Groombridge (ed.), Calendar of Chester City Council Minutes, 1603-1642 (1956),98, 104, 108, 161, 166; John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton, 31 Jan. 1618,16 Feb. 1622, Norman E. McClure (ed.), The Letters of John Chamberlain, 2vols., (Philadelphia, 1939). ii, 133, 424.

CHESTER ELECTION39of Chester, Bingley had made his fortune in the royal serviceand now lived in London. When elected to the Parliament of1610, to replace the deceased Hugh Glaseour, he was already awriter of tallies in the Exchequer. It is possible that he was, in1614, a crown nominee for one of Chester's seats. 10City custom dictated the choice of Chester's fifth candidatefor parliament, its Recorder, Edward Whitby. Whitby, likeformer Recorders Thomas Gamull, Thomas Eawton, andRichard Birkenhead, had served Chester in parliament. ChosenRecorder in August 1613, Whitby had been returned to his firstparliament in 1614. His family was one of stature and influencein city affairs. His father Robert had been Mayor and ThomasWhitby, possibly an uncle, had served as Sheriff. Whitby wasalso related to the Gamull family, having married the widow ofThomas Gamull, burgess for Chester in the Parliament of 1601and its former Recorder. 11 In addition, and unknown to the citycorporation (of which, of course, he was an official), Whitbyplanned a nomination of his own.Election day, Christmas day 1620, was fast approaching andthe corporation found itself in something of a quandary. It hadnever accepted two foreign nominees; at least one of its burgesses had always been its own Recorder, a local man. Now,thanks to the zeal of the Prince's Solicitor and the court'sdetermination, the corporation faced a vexing problem. If bothcourt nominees were accepted, a dangerous precedent would beestablished. Chester's election independence would be seriouslyendangered. However, it would take considerable courage toreject either of the court's candidates; they had powerful supporters and were, themselves, men of consequence. Edmondeswas a Privy Councillor; perhaps that swayed the Mayor and theAldermen for they determined to reject the least prestigious ofthe courtiers, Sir Henry Gary. But the perplexed corporation didface a problem: how could Gary be rejected without causingoffence? The Mayor and Aldermen sought refuge, in theirexplanation to the Prince's Council, in a legal technicality (atechnicality which, as events would show, they were willing toignore in Edmondes's case) by pointing out that, after duedeliberation, they had decided Gary could not be nominated111 Cheshire Sheaf (March 1881), 255; Thomas L. Moir, The Addled Parliamentof 1614, (1959), Appendix iv, 188; Groombridge, op. cit. 50-51; G. E. Aylmer,The King's Sen-ants, The Civil Service of Charles /(1961), 311; other references toBingley's career and work in PRO, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic of theReigns of Elizabeth and James I, 12 vols., (1856-72), vol. viii, 1603-1610, 140, 449,555.11 George L. Fenwick, A History of Chester (1896), 181. 498, 545-6; Cheshire5/;«//(March 1881), 255; Ormerod, op. cit. i, 219, 221; Groombridge, op. cit. 73.

40CHESTER ELECTIONsince he was 'incapable thereof [of serving for Chester] both inregard of the laws & statutes of the kingdom, the tenor of thewrit of election & the usage of this city, for that he is no citizenof our city, nor free & enfranchised therein'. 12 The corporationwas on fairly safe ground with the Prince's Council since, evenwith Gary's rejection, Edmcndes still remained as a potentiallysuccessful royal candidate. Northampton, on the other hand,had only supported Cary. so the possibility of giving offence tothe Earl was considerably higher. But, by 21 December, anythreat of trouble over Gary's exclusion vanished: Cary waselected as a knight of the shire for Hertfordshire. This enabledthe corporation to take a different tone with the Earl. The Mayorand his brethren informed Northampton that they had 'beenintentive to give all humble submission and furtherance' toGary's nomination despite their fear of 'much opposition in thecommonalty by reason he was not enfranchised' but, just as theywere about to 'return answer thereof to the Earl, they received'certain intelligence' from Whitby and Sir Randle Mainwaring,just returned from London, that Cary had already been electedelsewhere. 13 Feeling perhaps a bit smug at the ease with whichthey had freed themselves from Cary, an embarrassing secondroyal nominee, the corporation then prepared for what it musthave thought would be a routine election. It reckoned withoutthe Recorder.Court pressure had placed Edmondes in what appeared to bean unbeatable position. The corporation, 'formerly . . . resolvedto make election of such as in the like employment had heretofore done the city good service', had reversed itself. A meeting'of all the aldermen' had been held to discuss Edmondes'snomination 'where our recorder was also present and seemed toapprove of his highnesses's commendations'. If the commonaltywould approve, and there was no reason to suspect they wouldnot, Edmondes's election seemed assured. His candidacy wasillegal; he was neither a resident nor freeman of Chester and, onthose grounds, Cary had already been refused. But Whitby madeno objections to Edmondes; indeed, at the meeting, he hadapproved of his candidacy. The stage for the election play, onChristmas day 1620, was set; the four principle players wereEdmondes, John Savage, Edward Whitby and Sir John Bing12 "The City's Letter to Prince's Council about Sir Henry Carew [Cary], tobe burgess, 1620', BM Harl. MSS 2105 f281.15 The Mayor and Jurats of Chester to the Earl of Northampton, 21 Dec.1620, BM Harl. MSS 2105 f271.

CHESTER ELECTION41ley. 14 At least, that was what the corporation believed. It wasstill unaware of Whitby's more significant, if underhanded, rolein the election pageant.Whitby acted out his second role offstage, outside the corporation's chambers. His 'friends & allies made labour (covertly)amongst the commonalty & meaner sort of the city for theelection of himself and one Mr Ratcliffe, his adherent'. MayorGamull, reflecting on the election debacle later, claimed thatRatcliffe was a man 'ever noted' for his factious behaviour, aman of no worth in Chester. 15 The second allegation was false;John Ratcliffe was elected an Alderman of the city in February1606, had actively participated in corporation affairs and hadserved, in 1611-1612 as Chester's Mayor. 16 Perhaps Gamull wasventing his private spite; perhaps he was attempting to secure amore sympathetic audience for his explanation of what had gonewrong in the election.Election day found a large and enthusiastic crowd gatheredto give their voices, a crowd, Gamull claimed, 'furnished withpeople who were no free citizens but inhabitants and (for themost part) those of the suburbs, of the basest sort and not withthese only' but also 'apprentices, & foreigners such as were notcapable of voices.' A feeble effort was made to punish those ineligible to vote and then Gamull opened the election by publishing'his obedience to his highness & his election of Sir Tho: [mas]Edmunds [Edmondes] for our prime burgess & so did themost of the aldermen.' Whitby 'also gave his voice' but thensprung his legal trap. He 'nominated Mr Ratcliffe for the other[burgessship] and (notwithstanding) presses the statute of1. H. 5. for the election of citizens resident inhabitants andenfranchised whereby he disabled that honorable knight [SirThomas Edmondes]'. Edmondes was undone and Whitby,confident of his own place in the parliament since he wasChester's Recorder, could replace the discredited Edmondeswith his own man, enfranchised and free of Chester, Ratcliffe.Whitby's 'labour . . . amongst the commonalty' now reaped forWhitby at least, its just reward for, as Gamull dejectedly complained, 'when the election descended to the commonalty . . . thesaid inhabitants and base multitude (amongst whom the14 'The Mayor's Copy of a letter to satisfy the reason Sir Tho. Edmondes wasnot elected burgess . . .', BM Harl. MSS 2105 (T277-8; Bingley's candidacy, byelection day, is unclear. Sir Randle Mainwaring's letter to William Gamull, of23 Jan. 1621, BM Harl. MSS 2105 f283, does not mention Bingley, listing thecandidates as Edmondes, Savage, Whitby and Ratcliffe.15 'The Mayor's Copy of a letter to satisfy the reasons Sir Tho. Edmondes wasnot elected burgess . .', BM Harl. MSS 2105 fT277-8.18 Groombridge, op. cit. passim.

42CHESTER ELECTIONrecorder's tenants & servants . . . giving their voices for Mr.Recorder & Mr. Ratcliffe) and swayed our good desire &carried the election for Mr. Recorder & Mr. Ratcliffe'. It musthave been quite a broil. Gamull's faction made a desperateattempt to save Edmondes (or so the Mayor claimed) but, 'byreason of the unappeasable and unruly carriage of this disordered multitude', they could do nothing. Indeed, Gamullsanctimoniously declared that they were 'forced to give way forthe public good'. The frustrated Gamull blamed everything onWhitby who was 'incompetent for deed & factious' and hadaroused the commonalty to assure Edmondes's defeat andhis own and Ratcliffe's return. To lend further veracity tohis account, Gamull declared that 'the sheriff of the city will beready to certify as the cause shall require'. 17But Gamull's efforts paled before the shrewd and secretlabours of the resourceful Whitby. His agents had quietlyaroused local enthusiasm for Ratcliffe, an attractive localcandidate, while his apparent consent for Edmondes forestalledany labour in Edmondes's behalf by Mayor Gamull and his

corporation found itself pressed by the Prince's Council to elect two court candidates. Sir Thomas Edmondes and Sir Henry Gary. 5 This, in itself, was a major innovation since, in the two previous parliaments, Chester had returned local men. Neither Edmondes nor Gary had any tie whatsoever with the city. Gary,

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

parliamentary work, known as “parliamentary informatics,” is a rapidly growing trend in parliamentary monitoring. These tools can automatically aggregate and organize information from parliamentary websites and other information sources, generate

NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. 1274 SOUThEASTERN, PA chANGE SERvIcE REqUESTEd West chester University West chester, PA 19383-7401 The West Chester University Magazine is published three times a year for the alumni, friends and family of West Chester University of Pennsylvania by the Office of Public Relations, West Chester