Great Grimsby

Seventeenth-century Grimsby was a town in decline. Lying on the south bank of the Humber estuary, it had at one time been a ‘commodious roadstead for the anchorage of ships’, but by reason of the silting up of the harbour its trade had been swallowed up by Hull, on the north bank, and it had ‘fallen into great decay and poverty’. ‘Grimsby Haven, 1641’, Lincs. N and Q, i. 137-8; G. Holles, Lincs. Church Notes (Lincoln Rec. Soc. i.), 2; S. H. Rigby, Medieval Grimsby (Hull, 1993), 144; E. Gillett, Hist. of Grimsby (1970), 120, 123. With the decline of its mercantile sector, the town had come to rely for its prosperity on the custom generated by its market. The small volume of overseas trade that Grimsby retained, which was mostly in wool, salt and Scandinavian timber, had to be brought ashore in barges from ships lying at anchor in the Humber. Grimsby’s declining economy was reflected in its population. In the early seventeenth century, the town possessed only about 500 communicants, or 1,000 inhabitants at most, and by the end of the century this figure may have slumped to as few as 600. Gillett, Grimsby, 66-7, 93-4, 104, 121, 123, 158.

Although Grimsby was not incorporated until 1686, its borough court enjoyed most of the powers and jurisdictional authority of the average municipal corporation. Rigby, Medieval Grimsby, 79, 83, 104, 106. The court’s principal officers were a mayor and two bailiffs, who were elected annually and served as justices of the peace for the borough. N. E. Lincs. RO, 1/20/10; 1/22/1. They were assisted by 12 aldermen, a 24-man common council, a recorder and a host of lesser officials. Add. 70087, unfol. (12 Aug. 1646); N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, ff. 21v, 35v-36v, 227v; 1/102/9, f. 42; Rigby, Medieval Grimsby, 92-100. The town had first sent Members to Parliament in 1295, and the right of election was vested in the freemen. The returning officer was the mayor. T.B.H. Oldfield, Hist. of the Original Constitution of Parliaments (1797), 227, 228; L. Greenfield, Grimsby’s Freemen (Grimsby, 1950), 9, 39, 41-2.

Grimsby’s economic decline left a power vacuum, and by the early Stuart period the ‘mean and mechanic’ townsmen lacked either the means or the will to prevent local gentry not only from monopolising the borough’s parliamentary representation but also from serving as mayor and aldermen. Holmes, Lincs. 35; HP Commons 1558-1604. The dominant electoral interest by 1640 was that of Gervase Holles – a minor gentleman whose family had settled in the town in the Elizabethan period. Infra, ‘Gervase Holles’. Holles had served as mayor on several occasions and for most of 1640 held the office of coroner in the borough court. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, ff. 1, 21v, 34, 64v.

The Short Parliament elections at Grimsby were contested by four gentlemen – Holles, Sir Christopher Wray of nearby Ashby cum Fenby, Sir Gervase Scrope of South Cockerington, and the London-based carpetbagger Sir John Jacob. Wray was the area’s leading local landowner and had represented Grimsby on four occasions during the 1620s. Scrope’s estates were more removed, lying about 15 miles to the south of Grimsby, and he was never in serious contention. Jacob’s interest was probably based upon the influence he enjoyed at court as a customs farmer, a crown financier and as a creditor to the king. Indeed, it is likely that the lord high admiral (Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland) or some other prominent courtier interceded directly on his behalf, although if so it has left no trace in the municipal records. Infra, ‘Sir John Jacob’. Whatever the nature of his interest, Jacob certainly held a strong appeal for the Grimsby freemen, for on 24 March 1640 he received 34 votes on a poll, only six fewer than Holles (each freeman having two votes). Wray came a distant third with 23 votes and Scrope last with 13. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, ff. 71-2. The collapse of Wray’s interest at Grimsby is as puzzling as Jacob’s success. Within two days of this poll, however, Jacob had resigned his place, having been elected for the Essex port of Harwich, and on 26 March the mayor and freemen drew up an indenture returning Holles and Wray. Infra, ‘Sir John Jacob’; C219/42/1/136. Wray’s electoral interest had recovered by the autumn and the elections to the Long Parliament in which the town, on 13 October, returned Wray and Holles, in that order and apparently without a contest. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, f. 85v. The indenture was dated 14 October. C219/43/2/30.

The civil war divided the town’s MPs, with Wray emerging as one of Lincolnshire’s leading parliamentarians and Holles being disabled by the Commons as a royalist. The sympathies of the town’s leading inhabitants are difficult to gauge, although there is circumstantial evidence that they lay with the king. In September 1641, for example, the borough court appointed the future royalist Sir Charles Bolles as its high steward. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, f. 105. And whereas one of the aldermen was disenfranchised in 1645 for denouncing the mayor ‘and all his followers’ as cavaliers, the town’s notoriously royalist recorder, Francis Halton, was allowed to retain his office until 1646, when he was removed by parliamentary ordinance. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, ff. 160v, 174. Nevertheless, the disabling of Holles (and his subsequent removal overseas) and Parliament’s triumph in the civil war served to strengthen Sir Christopher Wray’s electoral interest at Grimsby. It was Wray who sent down the writ that had been issued on 20 September 1645 by order of the Commons for electing a new MP for the borough in place of Holles. Add. 70087; Add. 28716, f. 30; CJ iv. 272b. However, a rival to the Wray interest quickly emerged in the person of the Lincolnshire’s leading localist agitator, Colonel Edward King. Like Wray, King was a Presbyterian, but the crusade he had been waging since late 1644 against what he regarded as the corruption of leading Lincolnshire committeemen had earned him many enemies in the county, including Wray himself. C. Holmes, ‘Col. King and Lincs. politics, 1642-6’, HJ xvi. 467-72. In anticipation of standing for the vacant seat, King obtained his freedom of the borough on 14 October and distributed £20 among the freemen to spend as they saw fit (which was evidently on drink in a local tavern). Add. 70087 (29 June, 12 Aug. 1646); N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, f. 163v. Wray, however, was determined to secure the place for his son William, despite the fact that the latter was abroad at the time and still a minor. Infra, ‘William Wray’.

In August 1645, Sir Edward Ayscoghe* had presented a paper to the Commons alleging that King had slandered Wray (Ayscoghe’s friend and colleague) and himself. CJ iv. 233b. The matter lay dormant until the autumn, when it was suddenly revived, very probably through Wray’s influence. On 1 October, the Commons ordered that the paper be referred to the consideration of the Northern Association Committee*. CJ iv. 296a. However, it was not until 14 October – that is, after Wray had sent the electoral writ to Grimsby – that the chairman of the committee, Sir Thomas Widdrington, issued a warrant summoning King to Westminster. Add. 70087 (29 June 1646); E. King, To the Honourable the House of Commons, the Humble Petition of Colonell Edward King (1646, 669 f.10.56); Holmes, ‘Col. King’, 473. This warrant was served upon King on 17 October. King, House of Commons. Understanding from the mayor that the election would not be held until 28 October, and perhaps aware also of complications surrounding the writ (which the mayor had inadvertently opened before sending to the sheriff of Lincolnshire, Thomas Lister*), King duly went to Westminster, only to find that no one had appeared to press the charges against him. Add. 70087 (29 June 1646); King, House of Commons; A Discovery of the Arbitrary, Tyrannical and Illegal Actions of Some of the Committee of the County of Lincoln (1647), 18-19 (E.373.3). In his absence, Lister, who was one of King’s leading opponents on the Lincolnshire county committee, had overcome his scruples regarding the opened writ and had sent his precept to the mayor for holding an election. Infra, ‘Thomas Lister’; King, Discovery, 19-20. Perhaps taking his cue from Lister, Wray appeared at Grimsby on 21 October, the day after the court had received Lister’s precept, and tried to persuade the mayor to proceed directly to election. The mayor, a King supporter, remonstrated with Wray that they had appointed 28 October for the election and that they ‘wanted some gentlemen that he understood did intend to stand to be burgess’, naming not only William Wray but also Sir Christopher’s nephew, John Wray*, and Colonel King. Wray then announced that King had been summoned by warrant to Westminster and that if, by any chance, he did appear at the court then he had another warrant in his pocket ready to serve against him. He also argued that the royalists at Newark had got wind of the appointed election day and might well launch a raiding party and take himself and other parliamentarian gentlemen prisoners. In that eventuality, Wray warned the mayor, any ransom that had to be paid for his release (and he estimated that it would cost more than £1,000) would be sequestered from the mayor’s estate. Add. 70087 (26, 29 June 1646). Wray’s demand for haste was supported by his nephew John Wray, who also turned up on 21 October and was sworn a freeman. Add. 70087 (7 Aug. 1646); N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, f. 163v. John Wray was another opponent of King’s, and it is likely that his candidacy was simply a blind to enable him to assist his uncle. Infra, ‘John Wray’. Most of the freemen – if not, it seems, the mayor – were convinced by the Wrays’ arguments, and it was ordered ‘by the major part of the house’ that the election be held the next day. Add. 70087 (26 June 1646); N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, f. 163v. It was later alleged by King and some of his supporters among the freemen that Sir Christopher had employed a mixture of threats and bribery to persuade the freemen to hold the election on 22 October and to return his son. Add. 70087 (26, 29 June 1646); King, House of Commons. One allegation has a ring of truth to it – which is that a ‘friend’ of Wray’s had told the freemen that whoever gave their voice for King would share his fate (i.e. be summoned to Westminster) if William Wray was not elected. Add. 70087 (29 June 1646). Sir Christopher attended the court again the next day (22 Oct.), when ‘all but two of the burgesses that had voices were present’. Add. 70087 (26 June 1646). But if he had indeed used ‘menaces’ to secure his son’s election, they was not sufficient either to prevent a poll or 17 of the freemen (including the mayor) giving their voices for the absent Colonel King. However, 22 of the freemen – including Sir Christopher himself, who was one of six non-resident alderman – gave their voices for William Wray, and two days later the mayor sealed an indenture for his return and sent it to Sir Christopher. Add. 70087 (26, 29 June, 12 Aug. 1646); N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, f. 36v. In this election, it seems, with only two candidates in contention, the freemen had cast a single vote each – from which it would appear that the electorate had contracted from about 55 in 1640 to 41 (22 plus 17 and the two absent freemen). When King returned to Grimsby on 27 October and learnt how he had been duped, his only option was to petition the committee of privileges against Wray’s return. King, House of Commons.

The committee for privileges did not debate the Grimsby election until 20 May 1646, by which time King had been in constant attendance upon it, with his counsel and witnesses, for over three months. King, House of Commons. He had also commissioned his friend and fellow Presbyterian controversialist, William Prynne*, to write a pamphlet denouncing the election of minors. Holmes, ‘Col. King’, 473. Although Prynne mentioned no borough by name, he may well have had Grimsby foremost in mind when he expressed the view that

no city or borough did ever freely, of their own accords, make choice of any ward or infant to serve in Parliament for them as the ablest or fittest of any other ... but merely through the over-earnest solicitations, threats, or over-ruling power of the infant’s friends, to whom they stood engaged for favours, or durst not offend, lest they should turn their foes. W. Prynne, Minors no Senators (1646), 13 (E.506.33).

Prynne’s reference to ‘any ward’ was also apposite, for Sir Christopher Wray had died in February 1646, making William Wray, technically at least, a ward of the crown. King was evidently confident that his and Prynne’s arguments against William Wray’s return would prevail, for he opted to continue his attendance on the committee of privileges rather than return to Grimsby to contest the election of Sir Christopher Wray’s replacement. This took place on 3 March 1646 and saw the return of Lincolnshire’s leading parliamentarian officer Colonel Edward Rosseter, who was elected ‘by the consent of the whole house’ – although according to a report from Lincoln a few days later, three of the freemen had voted for King. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, ff. 167-8; A Great Fight at Newarke (1646), 4 (E.327.19). Rosseter’s residence lay at Somerby, about 12 miles west of Grimsby, and he may have enjoyed some degree of local influence. Infra, ‘Edward Rosseter’. However, his military reputation and the likely support he received from the Wrays, who were no doubt anxious to keep out King, were probably more decisive.

In making his case to the committee of privileges, King wisely avoided focusing on the fact of William Wray’s age and absence overseas, since these were grey areas in what was anyway a rather vague canon of proscriptions against serving in the Commons. Instead, he concentrated on irregularities in the election itself – principally Sir Christopher’s alleged resort to coercion and bribery. Add. 28716, ff. 30-1; Add. 70087 (26, 29 June, 7, 12, 19 Aug. 1646). King did his cause no favours, however, by distributing a petition around Westminster on 20 May – the very day that the committee began debating the Grimsby election – imputing sinister motives to the committee’s failure to give him a speedier hearing. Add. 28716, f. 31; King, House of Commons. In response, the committee declared King’s petition ‘scandalous’ to its proceedings and ordered that it be presented to the Commons. Add. 28716, f. 31. The committee debated the Grimsby election at irregular intervals over the summer and probably satisfied itself, from the evidence supplied by King’s witnesses, that Sir Christopher Wray had overstepped the mark in his determination to secure his son’s election (one of the witnesses for William Wray was Thomas Lister, who denied that he had been in league with Sir Christopher Wray against King, although there is strong circumstantial evidence to the contrary). Add. 70087 (29 June 1646). Under cross-examination, however, several of King’s witnesses were forced to concede that the colonel himself had indulged in some sharp electoral practice. They admitted, for example, that King’s ‘agents’ had presented a petition to the court urging the colonel’s election, that King had treated the freemen and that there had been considerable ‘labouring of voices’ on his behalf. The freemen of both camps, it emerged, had included at least five individuals who had been in arms against the Parliament. Add. 70087 (26, 29 June, 7, 12, 19 Aug. 1646). The case ended on 28 August, when the committee resolved that William Wray’s return for Grimsby was a ‘good election’. Add. 70087 (28 Aug. 1646). King’s only consolation was his appointment by the borough court on 4 August 1646 as the town’s recorder. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, f. 174.

Both Wray and Rosseter were secluded at Pride’s Purge, leaving the town without representation in the Rump. Under the Instrument of Government of 1653, Grimsby lost one of its parliamentary seats, and in the elections to the first protectoral Parliament on 11 July 1654 the ‘whole corporation’ returned William Wray. Although it is not apparent that anyone stood against Wray, there was evidently a taking of voices to confirm his return, and from this it emerges that the number of freemen eligible or willing to exercise their franchise had dropped to just 28. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, f. 266. In the elections to the second protectoral Parliament in the summer of 1656, Wray again received the support of the ‘whole court’ when he was returned for Grimsby on 29 July. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/8, f. 286.

The town regained its second seat in the elections to Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament of 1659, which saw the return of Wray and Edward Ayscoghe, the heir and namesake of Sir Christopher Wray’s old friend. As lord of the manor of nearby Stallingborough and a friend of the Wrays, Ayscoghe would have enjoyed a strong interest at Grimsby. Infra, ‘Edward Ayscoghe’. In the elections to the 1660 Convention, Wray was returned again along with his old rival Colonel King; but although both men supported the Restoration they were replaced the following year by Gervase Holles and another local royalist. N. E. Lincs. RO, Great Grimsby Mayor’s Ct. Bks. 1/102/9, f. 33v. The town’s municipal officers were apparently regarded as well-affected to the crown, for there no evidence that the court was remodelled by the corporation commissioners in 1662.