Westminster

The borough of Westminster was more than merely a suburb to the west of the City of London. James Howell, writing in 1657, celebrated the wealth and social status of Westminster, noting that ‘she hath the chiefest courts of justice, the chiefest court of the prince and the chiefest court of the king of Heaven’ within its confines.1 J. Howell, Londonopolis (1657), 346. As well as Westminster Hall, Whitehall Palace and Westminster Abbey, Howell might have included in his list the Houses of Parliament, the mansions of many of the greater nobility, the fashionable residences of Covent Garden and the luxury shopping centre of the New Exchange which catered for them.2 J.F. Merritt, Westminster 1640-60: a royal city in a time of Revolution (Manchester, 2013), 5-7. Despite this vibrancy, the borough lacked a strong corporate structure, and was dominated by outside influences.

First among these were the dean and chapter of Westminster Abbey, which owned much of the property in the borough and traditionally claimed the right to nominate one of its two MPs. This dominance was the legacy of the dissolution of the monasteries, when the government of Westminster had been settled in the interest of the dean and chapter, with the assistance of a high steward nominated by the dean. Although statutory provision was made in 1585 for the appointment of a burgess court of 12 members and 12 assistants as well as other officers, including a deputy steward to attend to the day to day business of the court and a bailiff who acted as returning officer in parliamentary elections, the powers of the burgess court were limited, and it had no scope for passing local laws or raising money.3 W.H. Manchee, Westminster City Fathers, 1585-1901 (1924), 4, 6, 9, 18; HP Commons 1604-29 i. 265-8; Merritt, Westminster, 9-10. There were periodic attempts to improve on this, culminating in a 1633 scheme for incorporation, but even this proposal, which was never implemented, retained the dominance of the dean and chapter, who remained part of the corporate structure.4 J.F. Merritt, The Social World of Early Modern Westminster (Manchester, 2005), 96-8.

As well as the dean and chapter, the borough was also liable to interference from two other sources. The first was the county of Middlesex, the justices the peace of which had enjoyed authority over Westminster until 1619, and thereafter it was common for local cases to be heard before either set of justices.5 Merritt, Westminster, 10. The second, and much greater, risk came from the royal court at Whitehall Palace. In the early seventeenth century the crown sought to impose its own nominees as high steward, despite the right of appointment clearly resting with the dean. This led to bad feeling in 1628, when the dean, John Williams (bishop of Lincoln), made a nomination only for it to be overridden by Charles I. Relations between the king and Bishop Williams deteriorated further during the 1630s, and in 1637 the bishop was imprisoned and the running of the abbey was taken over by a royal commission. During the same period, Archbishop William Laud imposed his own style of worship at the principal churches of Westminster – notably St Martin-in-the-Fields and St Margaret’s – and New Palace Yard became the setting for the punishment of his puritan opponents such as William Prynne*.6 Merritt, Social World, 73, 100, 343, 346-8.

Tensions with the royal court provide the context of the borough’s electoral position before the civil war. Westminster’s collegiate foundation provided for a broad franchise, which, together with continued urban development, produced a wide and growing electorate that by 1628 had already proved itself hostile to court candidates as MPs. There was every expectation in the spring of 1640 of a similar reaction, so that there was little hope of success for courtiers such as Sir Robert Pye I or Endymion Porter. The favoured candidates, ‘having least relation to the court’, were the King Street apothecary, William Bell*, and the radical lawyer and opponent of the crown, Robert Holborne.7 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 235; Add. 11045, f. 97. Without the guiding hand of the dean, who remained in prison, the election did not run smoothly.8 Merritt, Westminster, 18. A poll begun at Westminster Hall on 26 February was abandoned the following day by the bailiff on the grounds that it would take four or five days to complete. Instead, the candidates were required to assemble with their supporters at Tothill Fields, where the contest was ‘pronounced by view’, and the election declared in favour of the recorder and steward, John Glynne*, with Bell in second place.9 HEHL, EL 7825; CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 511, 522. Holborne immediately issued a ‘public protestation … against the undue election of Bell, protesting that he intended to question both the bailiff and the manner of proceedings at the sitting down of the Parliament’. His supporters claimed ‘that his number exceeded either of the others which were chosen by 500 persons at least’.10 HEHL, EL 7825. Holborne’s threatened petition Parliament seems to have been abandoned on his subsequent election for Southwark.

Glynne and Bell were re-elected in November 1640, and Glynne soon became one of the Commons’ most active committee men and a key opponent of the crown. He was perhaps encouraged in this by the recently released dean, Bishop Williams, and the high steward, the 4th earl of Pembroke (Philip Herbert*), both of whom were critical of the king’s policies at that time.11 Merritt, Westminster, 22-3. The inhabitants of Westminster were not united behind their leaders, however. In the winter of 1641-2 there were accusations that the borough was a hotbed of royalism, but in the same period Westminster also became the scene for riots against the king.12 Merritt, Westminster, 28- 30, 35-7. In January 1642 a petition, signed by members of the trained bands and other residents, and organised by local officials, asserted Westminster’s loyalty to Parliament, and a few months later a printed letter from ‘many thousand citizens’ was sent to the king, protesting at his departure from London and begging him to agree to the Militia Ordinance.13 CJ ii. 370a; Merritt, Westminster, 135-41; To the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, the Humble Petition of many thousand Citizens of great rank and quality in the City of Westminster (25 May 1642, 669.f.6.23). Yet at the end of the year there was considerable local support for peace with the king. A petition calling for an end to the conflict, and the protection of lives, property and liberty, was delivered to the House of Lords on 20 December, and in January 1643 a further petition was sent to the king, deploring the king's absence from the capital and complaining that the war had ruined the borough’s economy, reliant as it was on the court and its attendant nobles.14 LJ v. 503b, 507b; Petition of the Inhabitants of Westminster (1642, E.83.16); A Petition of the Citie of Westminster (18 Jan. 1643), 3-5 (E.85.16). Similarly, in April 1643 there was opposition within the borough to the levying of soldiers for the parliamentarian army and there are some indications of local involvement in Edmund Waller’s* royalist plot in the summer.15 Merritt, Westminster, 144-8. The allegiance of the ordinary inhabitants is difficult to pin down, and one historian has suggested that throughout the 1640s there was ‘a healthy degree of royalist sentiment in Westminster, but little taste for direct action’.16 Merritt, Westminster, 148. This can also be seen in the religious changes in the Westminster parishes, where such notable puritans such as Richard Vines, Daniel Cawdrey and Obadiah Sedgwick were appointed as ministers in the early 1640s, but the lack of enthusiasm for their ideas led to the failure to establish a Presbyterian classis in the borough, and in later years there was resistance to such measures as the abolition of Christmas.17 Merritt, Westminster, 222.3, 225, 228-9.

With the departure of the king and his court and the dispersal of the dean and chapter during 1642, there was something of a power vacuum at Westminster. The burgess court did not disappear – there is evidence of its activities throughout the 1640s and beyond – but it was effectively side-lined by Parliament, which took on much of the administration of the borough itself, even making decisions on such minor issues as poor rates and plague prevention.18 Merritt, Westminster, 154, 167-9. Parliament appointed new magistrates and established assessment commissions and committees for sequestration and the militia, which were dominated by Glynne and Bell and other MPs resident in the borough or with strong local connections, such as Sir Robert Pye I, Sir William Wheler*, Sir Gilbert Gerard*, John Trenchard* and Sir John Clotworthy*. In November 1645 a joint committee of the Houses, which included the 4th earl of Pembroke, Glynne, Gerard and Pye I, were made responsible for Westminster College and, with it, the running of the abbey.19 A. and O. By such measures, Parliament had effectively usurped the power of the dean and chapter. Another threat to the independence of the borough came with the building of the ‘lines of communication’, a circuit of fortifications around the City of London and its suburbs, established in the spring of 1643. The new cordon encouraged administrators to think in terms of a larger metropolitan area, in particular when it came to defence, and there were soon concerted efforts to combine its militia forces of the City and its suburbs.20 C.L. Nagel, ‘The Militia of London, 1641-9’ (London Univ. PhD thesis, 1982), 90; Merritt, Westminster, 55. London’s support for such a plan, and the hostility with which it was met in Westminster, may also reflect other issues, especially the reluctance of some in Westminster to kowtow to the Presbyterian-influenced London government. Plans for London’s militia committee to nominate and control the suburban militias without parliamentary veto were put forward during the treaty negotiations at Uxbridge in 1644, and other reforms were debated in Parliament in February 1646 and July 1648.21 LJ viii. 170a-b; Nagel, ‘Militia of London’, 243-4. The last attempt, backed by petitions from the City and opposed by the inhabitants of Westminster and the other suburbs, brought a resolution by the Commons that the militias should be united as one, with the formation of a committee to consider how it was to be arranged, and orders for the preparation of a draft ordinance in August.22 CJ v. 624a, 630a, 638b; LJ x. 362b, 364b, 366b, 421a; HMC 7th Rep. 37; A Petition… to the Lords and Commons… by the Inhabitants of Westminster (1648, E.453.31). A joint petition to the Commons from all the suburban committees, published in September, opposed any such ‘union’ with the London committee, which was seen as ‘so great an encroachment that they could not go higher, unless they should name our knights, burgesses, justices etc’. It was pointed out that the necessity for such a move was no longer there, as ‘we are not a garrison as formerly’, and that the suburbs differed in many respects from the City, which was dominated by Presbyterians who ‘call the Scots their brethren’ and of whose leading citizens ‘not one in twenty … are well-affected to the Parliament and the army’.23 Designes Un-masqued: or the Several Reasons of the three Militias… against the Pretended Union (1648), 1, 3, 9-10 (E.462.12).

Westminster managed to repulse this latest attempt at encroachment, but its survival as a separate entity was dealt a body blow by events during the following year. Both Glynne and Bell were excluded at Pride’s Purge in December 1648, leaving the borough without representation in Parliament. Many of their colleagues in the local committees and commissions, including Pye, Wheler, Gerard and Clotworthy, were also excluded from Parliament, and this weakened the committee for Westminster College. Far-reaching reforms were soon under way. Under the terms of the act abolishing deans and chapters, passed in April 1649, collegiate foundations were placed under the control of trustees, but a separate act was passed in September of the same year, transferring authority for Westminster to a parliamentary committee to be known as the governors of Westminster School.24 A. and O. Their stated aim was to administer the school and its finances but the records show that they also took control of the appointment of the burgess court and its officers, in effect reinforcing the ultimate dependence of the local government of Westminster on the Houses of Parliament. Discontent at these new arrangements boiled over after the death of the earl of Pembroke in January 1650, which was followed by an attempt by Parliament to seize the burgesses’ court house and effectively evict the local officials. A few days later a petition of the inhabitants was presented to the Commons, begging for a return to good governance, which forced the House to take the matter seriously and issue orders for the deputy steward, Thomas Latham*, and the bailiff, to continue in office until the question of incorporation was solved.25 Merritt, Westminster, 174. There was a variety of attempts to settle the government of the borough between then and June 1652, when the matter was allowed to drop.26 CJ vi. 352a, 358a; vii. 51a, 112a, 140a; Merritt, Westminster, 175-6. Continuing tensions between the burgess court and the governors were in evidence in 1653, when Latham (who was now de facto manager of the court) came into conflict with them over the appointment of a clerk; in retaliation, the governors tried to eject Latham and appoint their own man as deputy steward.27 Merritt, Westminster, 178-80. The popularity of the commonwealth regime was further eroded by the heavy military presence in the borough. In the late 1640s new fortifications had been built, guarding the western approaches to London and securing the palace of Whitehall, and in the early 1650s troops were stationed in large numbers at St James’s Palace, Whitehall and the Mews at Charing Cross.28 Merritt, Westminster, 65, 73-4.

At what must have been seen as the low point in its fortunes, Westminster was subsumed into Middlesex when it came to selecting Members of the Nominated Assembly of 1653, although those returned included two moderates with strong Westminster connections: Sir William Roberts* and Augustine Wingfield*. Matters improved slightly under the protectorate. In March 1654 the protectoral council re-opened the question of the relationship between London and its suburbs, and this encouraged the Westminster officials to submit a new plan for incorporation, although the matter does not seem to have gone any further.29 Merritt, Westminster, 176-7. Under the Instrument of Government the borough did regain the right to return two representatives, however. The elections in 1654 attracted a wide field of candidates including Cromwell’s cousin, Edmund Whalley (although it was claimed he ‘did much endeavour to have been waived’); Edward Carey, an exchequer official and member of the Westminster militia committee; and Thomas Fauconberg*, another exchequer man who had been receiver of rents for Westminster School in the 1640s.30 The Faithfull Scout no. 187 (7-15 July 1654), 1481 (E.230.12); WAM 33422. The fourth candidate was Thomas Latham, who was backed by the burgess court but was something of a hate figure for the governors. A Mr [John?] Hooker and a Mr Wildman – probably the radical army officer John Wildman* – also stood.31 HMC Egmont, i. 546. Confusion abounded on the day as the contest was adjourned first to Tothill Fields, due to pressure of numbers, and back again to Westminster Hall, owing to inclement weather. Opposition to the protectorate, and in particular its military supporters, ran high and an attack on Whalley by a mastiff was interpreted by one commentator as part of a general plan to assassinate army officers.32 The Faithfull Scout no. 187 (7-15 July 1654), 1481. The impression on the close of the poll that Latham was well ahead of the field was confirmed the following day when he and Thomas Fauconberg were declared duly elected. On the publication of the list of approved Members, however, only Fauconberg’s name remained, and Latham was excluded, probably at the behest of the governors.33 Several Procs. of State Affairs no. 250 (6-13 July 1654), 3968 (E.230.10); Perfect Diurnall, (10-17 July 1654), 88 (E.230.15); Certain Passages of Every Dayes Intelligence, (7-14 July 1654), 206 (E.230.11); Merritt, Westminster, 180-1.

The hegemony of the abbey governors would not last long, however. In 1655 the office of high steward, vacant since Pembroke’s death, was filled by the protectoral councillor and lord chamberlain of Cromwell’s household, Sir Gilbert Pykeringe*. In the following months Pykeringe asserted his authority over Westminster, beginning what would become a long-running struggle with the governors over the appointment of the bailiff, and on 12 August 1656 attending the burgess court to present to them, as their new deputy steward, Edward Carey, in the place of Thomas Latham.34 Merritt, Westminster, 181-2. On 21 August both Carey and Latham stood as candidates in the Westminster elections.35 Merritt, Westminster, 181. The only other known candidate was Quarter-master-general Edward Gravener*, at that time stationed at the Mews in Charing Cross. Carey’s status as local official, and his connection with Pykeringe, no doubt secured his election, but there was serious conflict between the other two candidates. Latham headed an anti-army campaign, and when soldiers came in to vote his supporters questioned their right to do so, crying ‘no swordsmen, no mercenary men’, and two people were reported killed in the ensuing riot.36 TSP v. 337; P. Gaunt, ‘Cromwell’s Purge? Exclusions and the first protectorate Parliament’, PH vi. 14-15. The disturbance later became notorious as an example of military interference in the electoral process, and was used to criticise the protectorate as an enemy of the people.37 Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 11 (E.535.5). Latham’s supporters were ultimately powerless to resist such intimidation, and the election was declared in favour of Carey and Gravener, ‘who had above 4,000 hands apiece for their elections’.38 Clarke Pprs. iii. 70; Merc. Politicus no. 323 (14-21 Aug. 1656), 7190 (E.497.10).

The result of the 1656 election reinforced Pykeringe’s authority in Westminster, and he was able to engineer the removal or resignation of seven of the twelve members of the burgess court shortly afterwards. On the death of Carey, Pykeringe chose his own men as deputy stewards in 1658 and 1659.39 Merritt, Westminster, 182. His dominance can perhaps also be seen in the election for Richard Cromwell’s Parliament in 1659. This was an altogether tamer affair, with no disturbances recorded in the newsbooks. Gravener was re-elected and the other place went to another government place-man, Richard Sherwyn*, who was an exchequer official and protégé of Sir Robert Pye I. Sherwyn was also returned for a Wiltshire borough but there is no record of his choice of seat, and no new writs were issued for either constituency.