Nottinghamshire

‘This county hath for its eastern bounds, Lincolnshire, from which for a good distance it is severed by the River Trent; for its southern, Leicestershire; for its western, the counties of Derby and York; and for its northern also Yorkshire’. R. Blome, Britannia (1673), 183. The county comprised two main regions – the fertile arable lands of the southern and eastern parts, watered by the Trent and its tributaries; and the western part, dominated by Sherwood Forest with its largely pastoral economy. Blome, Britannia, 183; Wood, Notts. 1-3; HP Commons 1604-1629. The population of Nottinghamshire in the mid-seventeenth century has been estimated at about 70,000-80,000, of which probably no more than 2,000 voted in shire elections. Wood, Notts. 1; HP Commons 1660-1690.

The dominant electoral interest in the county by 1640 was that of Sir Gervase Clifton*, who had been returned for Nottinghamshire or Nottingham to every Parliament between 1614 and 1628. Clifton was one of the county’s wealthiest and most well-connected gentlemen and was noted for his liberality and matrimonial record (he married seven times). Many of the complications that attended the Short Parliament elections for Nottinghamshire arose from his decision to surrender his place as senior knight of the shire and sit instead for East Retford, where he was town steward. Infra, ‘Sir Gervase Clifton’. With both shire seats up for grabs, three leading Nottinghamshire gentry threw their hats in the ring. Soon after the summoning of a new Parliament late in 1639, Sir John Byron† – who had represented the county in 1628 – approached Clifton for his support, and he was shortly followed by Robert Sutton*. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 429/1, 491/2, 715; P.R. Seddon, ‘The Notts. elections for the Short Parliament’, Trans. Thoroton Soc. lxxx. 66. Clifton agreed to back Byron, but was apparently reserving his second nomination for Henry Pierrepont, the eldest son of Robert, 1st earl of Kingston (father of William* and Francis Pierrepont*) – probably in the hope that Kingston would abandon efforts to have one of his sons returned for East Retford, where Clifton aimed to secure the junior place for a nominee of his close friend William Cavendish†, 1st earl of Newcastle. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 294-5, 684. By the time Sutton learnt that Clifton would not engage his interest for him, it was too late for him to withdraw his candidacy without loss of face. He therefore asked Clifton ‘not to press your power against me, but leave the country to their free election’. Having failed to gain Clifton’s backing, Sutton switched his attentions to the earl of Kingston – his uncle by his first marriage. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 429/2.

Kingston had persuaded Byron’s uncle Sir Thomas Hutchinson* – who had sat for Nottinghamshire in 1626 – to enter the lists and had given thought to the suggestions of Newcastle and Clifton that he put forward his own son Henry, only to reject the idea on the grounds that Henry was unfit for high office. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 294-5, 684. The signs are that Kingston encouraged Sutton’s candidacy without formally endorsing it, and certainly Sutton remained in contention. On 20 December, Kingston wrote to Clifton expressing doubts whether Byron would succeed

for I conceive Sir Thomas Hutchinson is sure to be one (if the freeholders will not force Sir Gervase Clifton, maugre [in spite of] himself) to be the prime (as I know some will endeavour it), yet will another [Sutton] in probability get the place from that generous knight of the Bath [Byron], as being a constant country man, highly respected for his great abilities and continual country services, especially considering you will not, I verily think, be against Sir Thomas Hutchinson, and that I am his usque ad mortem [right unto death]. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 294.

Evidently Kingston was trying to persuade Clifton to abandon Byron, whom he hoped would stand as a burgess for Nottingham. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 295, 715. As a way out of this impasse, Clifton offered to throw his weight behind Kingston’s third son Francis for the junior county place. Kingston, however, was doubtful whether Francis was ready for such an honour and offered instead to support Byron for junior place if Clifton would back Francis at East Retford and persuade Newcastle to withdraw his nominee for the borough. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 295. Unaware of this offer, Byron wrote to Clifton on 27 December, angry that Kingston had persuaded Hutchinson to stand and had engaged for a second candidate whose name he had refused to disclose (Francis Pierrepont, or possibly Sutton): ‘by this it appears that my Lord of Kingston (to show his power in this county) intends both knights of the shire shall be of his nominating’. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 715. Having thoroughly muddied the waters, Kingston suggested to Clifton that the county’s justices of the peace and ‘chief gentlemen’ hold a meeting ‘to confer about an amicable and fit election of Parliament knights, thereby to avoid, if it may be, contrarities in our opinions and votes about that business, with the fruits which such contrarities may produce’. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 295. Kingston was perhaps hinting that if this gentlemanly disagreement over precedence and honour was not resolved it might assume more overtly political overtones. If such a meeting ever took place, however, it failed to resolve matters, for by early February 1640 it seemed that the election would pit Byron against Sutton for the senior place, with Hutchinson standing for the second place, possibly as Byron’s running-mate. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 621.

By this time, Kingston was backing Byron, suggesting that a deal had been concluded to accommodate Francis Pierrepont at East Retford. This ‘dispute’, as Byron termed it, was effectively resolved later that month, when he dropped out of the race, having been appointed by the king to command a troop of horse against the Scots. Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 620. Hutchinson now solicited Clifton for his interest in securing the senior seat, and on election day, 23 March 1640, the voters returned Hutchinson and Sutton in that order and apparently without a contest. C219/42/1/167; Nottingham Univ. Lib. CL C 237. The indenture was signed by, among others, Clifton, Francis Pierrepont, John Mason*, John Odingsells* and William Stanhope*. C219/42/1/167.

In the Nottinghamshire elections to the Long Parliament on 2 November 1640, Hutchinson and Sutton were returned a second time and again apparently unopposed. On this occasion, the signatories to the indenture included Francis Pierrepont, Clifton, Odingsells, Gervase Pigot* and Henry Ireton*. C219/43/2/76. At the outbreak of civil war, Hutchinson remained at Westminster, where he died in August 1643, while Sutton became one of Nottinghamshire’s leading royalists and was disabled from sitting in December 1643. Infra, ‘Sir Thomas Hutchinson’; ‘Robert Sutton’. As for the county they represented, it was more or less under royalist control for most of the war, although Nottingham was garrisoned for Parliament under Sir Thomas Hutchinson’s son Colonel John Hutchinson*.

The bitter infighting among leading Nottinghamshire parliamentarians between the supporters and opponents of Colonel Hutchinson had subsided by 10 February 1646, when the Commons ordered a writ to be issued for holding new county elections. Infra, ‘John Hutchinson’; CJ iv. 435a. Hutchinson had intended to stand as a recruiter for Nottingham, but Francis Pierrepont had written to him, promising to support his return for Nottinghamshire if Hutchinson would do the same for him at Nottingham. Supra, ‘Nottingham’; Hutchinson Mems. ed. Sutherland, 164. In the event, Pierrepont was returned for the town at some point in late December 1645 or early 1646 and Hutchinson and Gervase Pigot for the county on 16 March 1646. C219/43/2/78. According to Hutchinson’s wife Lucy, the two men were returned ‘without any competition’. Hutchinson Mems. ed. Sutherland, 164. Pigot was by no means one of the county’s greater landed gentry, and therefore his election probably owed much to his close friendship with Hutchinson and the backing of the powerful Pierrepont family. Infra, ‘Gervase Pigot’. Among the 70 or more signatories to the indenture were William Pierrepont, Mason, Colonel Francis Thornhagh* and Peniston Whalley*. C219/43/2/78. Both Hutchinson and Pigot survived Pride’s Purge, although Pigot seems to have played very little part in the Rump’s proceedings.

Nottinghamshire was assigned two seats in the Nominated Parliament, where it was represented by Edward Cludd and John Odingsells. Cludd was selected after Gervase Pigot had refused to serve. Infra, ‘Gervase Pigot’. Although a native of the county, Cludd had made his reputation as muster-master general of the London militia during the civil war, and he was probably chosen more for his proven worth as a godly administrator than for his standing at local level, which was relatively insignificant before his nomination. However, his local connections included his fellow MP for the county, John Odingsells, and also one of Nottinghamshire’s political heavyweights, Cludd’s ‘intimate friend’ Gilbert Millington*, whose eldest son had married Cludd’s niece. Infra, ‘Edward Cludd’. Odingsells belonged to a minor but well-connected Nottinghamshire family and was apparently a man of godly convictions. One of his daughters had married a brother of Edward Cludd. Infra, ‘John Odingsells’.

Nottinghamshire was awarded four parliamentary seats under the Instrument of Government, and in the elections to the first protectoral Parliament on or about 12 July 1654, the voters returned William Pierrepont, Colonel Edward Whalley, Edward Neville and Charles White. C219/44, unfol. There is no evidence of a contest. Pierrepont was Nottinghamshire’s most eminent parliamentarian and a close friend of Oliver Cromwell*. However, he had reservations about the legitimacy of the protectorate and had reportedly wished to avoid being elected in 1654. Unmoved by the honour of representing his home county at Westminster, he received no committee appointments in this Parliament and played no recorded part in debate, and it seems very likely that he never took his seat. Infra, ‘William Pierrepont’. Whalley, a native of Nottinghamshire, was the county’s most senior military officer and a friend and kinsman of Cromwell. Infra, ‘Edward Whalley’. Neville belonged to one of the county’s most venerable families and had been elected a ‘recruiter’ for East Retford in 1648. Nevertheless, he was neither a major landowner in the county nor a civil-war military hero, and the basis of his evident popularity with the county’s voters is not clear. Infra, ‘Edward Neville’. White came of more humble origins, but was probably well known in the county for his distinguished service as a parliamentarian soldier and committeeman. Infra, ‘Charles White’. Both he and Neville were supporters of the protectorate and would emerge as allies of the region’s Cromwellian major-general, Edward Whalley.

The Nottinghamshire elections to the second protectoral Parliament in the summer of 1656 were dominated by Major-general Whalley, whose authority extended across the east midlands. A few days before the election on or about 20 August, he informed Cromwell that he had great influence in Nottingham, where he was sure the townsmen would not return anyone without his advice. As for the county, the ‘honest party’ there had lately nominated Hutchinson to him, ‘as not knowing [who] better to pitch [upon]’ for the fourth and last place, ‘he having satisfied some of them concerning his judgement of the present government’. TSP v. 299. Whalley ‘much wondered’ at this choice, given Hutchinson’s hostility to the protectorate, and he evidently headed off this proposal, for in the event Hutchinson was not elected. On election day, the county returned Whalley, Cludd, Neville and Peniston Whalley, apparently without a contest. A Perfect List of…Persons Returned to Serve in this Parliament 1656 (1656), 5 (E.498.5). The election indenture has not survived. Cludd and Neville would have met with the major-general’s approval, having served diligently under him as commissioners for securing the peace of the commonwealth. The return of Peniston Whalley is less easy to explain. Whalley, it is true, was a nephew of the major general, but he had reportedly been in arms against Parliament during the civil war and was no friend to the protectorate. Infra, ‘Peniston Whalley’. However, with the honest party apparently unable to find the right man for the fourth place, it seems likely that Whalley had selected his nephew for want of any better candidate. If Whalley did indeed secure the election of his nephew it was to prove an embarrassment to him at Whitehall, where Peniston was regarded as an enemy of the government and, along with a hundred or so other MPs, was excluded from the House by the protectoral council. C.S. Egloff, ‘The search for a Cromwellian settlement: exclusions from the second protectorate Parliament. Part 2’, PH xvii. 312. He was probably excluded under article XIV of the Instrument of Government, which disabled from sitting all those who had sided against Parliament since 1642.

In the elections to Richard Cromwell’s Parliament of 1659, Nottinghamshire reverted to its customary two seats and the traditional 40 shillings franchise. In anticipation of calling a new Parliament, Protector Richard had pricked Hutchinson for sheriff of Nottinghamshire in order to prevent him standing for one of the county places. Hutchinson Mems. ed. Sutherland, 212-13. The Nottinghamshire elections, which probably took place sometime in January 1659, saw the return of Neville and Thomas Bristowe. Bristowe was one of the most obscure figures ever to represent the county at Westminster. His estates were evidently not extensive, and he was not even a member of the Nottinghamshire bench Like Neville, however, he had served as a commissioner under Whalley, and it can only be assumed that he was returned on the basis of his connection with Whalley and, through him, the protectoral court. Infra, ‘Thomas Bristowe’. The restoration of the Rump in May 1659 brought Hutchinson and Pigot back to Westminster, but Pigot, having been granted leave of absence in September, apparently did not return to the Commons before the Long Parliament was finally dissolved in the spring of 1660. Infra, ‘Gervase Pigot’. Similarly, William Pierrepont declined to resume his seat with the re-admission of the secluded Members in February 1660, although he was willing to serve the county as one of its representatives in the 1660 Convention. Infra, ‘William Pierrepont’.