Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:28:00.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charles II, the Commons and the Newark Charter Dispute: The Crown's Last Attempt to Enfranchise a Borough

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Carolyn A. Edie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On October 30, 1673 Sir Paul Neile took his seat in the House of Commons. In early August he and Henry Savile had been elected the first members from Newark-on-Trent, newly enfranchised by a royal charter granted the preceding March. But the seating of the two new members proved to be no simple thing. Determined parliamentary opposition not only to the king's grant itself but also to the terms of that grant were to delay the admission of Newark's burgesses for four years and to require a second election before that admission was finally accomplished. The Commons saw in this, Charles II's only attempt to enfranchise a borough by charter, a royal design to dilute and weaken their newly and hard-won power. In the charter's offending clauses, which limited the parliamentary franchise to the Mayor and Aldermen, or Corporation of Newark, they saw a scheme to grant privilege only to those whom the crown could readily control and through whom it might strengthen the court faction in the lower House. The debate was protracted, but intermittent. The Commons knew the force of legal precedent to support the king, but they also recognized what the consequence would be if the Newark attempt were to succeed. For though the argument was legal, the debate was political.

The question itself seems slight, but its implications were not. In the end the king was forced to acknowledge defeat. The increasing momentum of the opposition, and the emergence of more important issues finally indicated that to insist would be impolitic, and the king's faction settled for compromise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , November 1970 , pp. 49 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cobbett, William (ed.), Parliamentary History of England from the Norman Conquest to the Year 1803 (London, 1806–1820), IV, 198, 1158, 1301Google Scholar; Cooper, William D. (ed.), Letters to and from Henry Savile, Esq. Envoy at Paris, and Vice Chamberlain to Charles II and James II including Letters from his Brother George, Marquess of Halifax (London, 1858), p. 44Google Scholar; Dickinson, William, The History and Antiquities of the Town of Newark, in the County of Nottingham, (The Sidnacester of the Romans,) Interspersed with Biographical Sketches, and Embellished with Engravings (London, 1819), p. 129Google Scholar. Brown, Cornelius, in The Annals of Newark-Upon-Trent Comprising the History, Curiosities, and Antiquities of the Borough (London, 1879), p. 329Google Scholar, states that Newark sent representatives to a Great Council of Edward III in September 1337 “to consider interests of trade,” and that in 1340 on Robert Stuff yn de Newark, a wool merchant, answered a royal summons, but neither instance can really be read as a precedent for 1673. Members of Parliament, Ordered by the House of Commons, 1 March 1878, Part I, 130-32, 427-31, list neither a Robert Stuffyn nor a Newark representative present at the 1340 Great Council, and neither a Markham, Holies nor any Newark member in the 1592 Commons.

2. Historical Manuscripts Commission Twelfth Report, (London, 1888), Appendix, Part IV, I, 117Google Scholar, Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland G.C.B. Preserved at Belvoir Castle; Neale, J. E., The Elizabethan House of Commons (London, 1963), pp. 134–35Google Scholar. The degree to which Newark was the Earl of Rutland's is unclear. The castle was apparently royal, and there are later references to Newark as a “royal manor”, though this may only mean that it possessed a royal charter.

3. Green, M.A.E. (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of James I. Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office (London, 1857–1859), VIII, 134Google Scholar, and X, 476; Bruce, John, Hamilton, W. D. and Lomas, Sophie C. (eds.), Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series of the Reign of Charles I. Preserved in the Public Record Office (London, 1858–1897), I, 337, 338, 568Google Scholar. Dickinson, , History of Newark, 129Google Scholar, implies that the charter of 1626 empowered the burgesses of Newark to elect their own members of parliament as well as local officials, but a close reading of the charter itself, pages 355-74, reveals no such clause.

4. Copies of letters of Sir George Digby concerning the king's intent can be found in Bruce, Hamilton and Grey, Lomas, C.S.P.D. Charles I, XX, 313Google Scholar, dated Febr. 19, 1644-45; Public Record Office, SP 29/39/98 I, dated Mar. 24, 1645; and Dickinson, , History of Newark, p. 375, dated Mar. 26, 1644Google Scholar. See also Anchitell, , Debates in the House of Commons, From the Year 1667 to the Year 1699. Collected by the Hon. Anchitell Grey, Esq. (London, 1763), III, 192Google Scholar.

5. PRO, SP 29/1/38, SP 29/39/98, SP 29/39/98 II, SP 29/446/47.

6. PRO, SP 29/103, 132 and SP 44/18/97. Just what the interest of Henry Cavendish, Lord Mansfield, later Earl of Ogle (both courtesy titles) and then Duke of Newcastle, was in the question is not clear; as M.P. for Northumberland he repeatedly spoke for the Newark franchise in parliament; possibly he had property in the area. The 1677 charter named Newcastle the Newark Custos Rotulorum.

7. PRO SP 44/33/87 and 88, and SP 44/32/8, 37 and 48. Judging from the amount of correspondence they evoked, these “minor” issues were neither uncomplicated nor unimportant. See PRO, SP 29/318/37, SP 29/318/77, SP 29/248/87, SP 29/318/50 and SP 44/30/f. 57.

8. PRO, SP 44/34/f. 221. Also Members of Parliament, Part I, 526.

9. Grey, , Debates, II, 188–89Google Scholar; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 591Google Scholar; The Journals of the House of Commons, IX, 283Google Scholar; Henning, Basil D. (ed.), The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Dering 1670-1673 (New Haven, 1940), pp. 156–57Google Scholar. There are no references to Savile's presence in the House on this day. To speak before the Bar would have been to admit his election in question which, of course, Neile (sometimes spelled Neale) was unwilling to do.

10. Haley, K. H. D., The First Earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford, 1968), pp. 228–29Google Scholar.

11. The Case of the Charter of Newark, And the Election thereupon of Mr. Savile and Sir Paul Neile to Serve as Burgesses in Parliament for That Town; “That the Election is good without the Speakers warrt to issue out a wntt for Election as was done in ye case of Tewkesbury,” PRO, SP 29/392/73 ff. 1 r - 1 v. It seems unlikely that Shaftesbury knowingly issued an invalid writ. In February 1673, writs which he as Chancellor had issued during a parliamentary recess calling for elections to places vacated by death or resignation had been declared invalid by the House of Commons, which maintained that until notified by the House of vacancies, the Chancellor could not be aware of them and thus could not issue writs. Shaftesbury would hardly have reopened the issue so soon; he must have considered the Newark vacancies to have been created by the king, and so to have required no House action or notification. Grey, , Debates, II, 1–8Google Scholar; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 507–12Google Scholar.

12. Grey, , Debates, II, 311, 368Google Scholar; Commons Journals, IX, 301Google Scholar. A copy of the clauses in question is appended to “That the Election is good,” PRO, SP 29/392/73.

13. Grey, , Debates, II, 369–70Google Scholar; Some Observations Concerning the Regulating of Elections for Parliament, found among the Earl of Shaftesburfs Papers after his Death, and now recommended to this present Parliament (London, 1689), p. 8Google Scholar. In debating the Newark charter the Commons members were not unaware of the threat implicit in the fact that the next king to exercise such power might be Roman Catholic. See Grey, , Debates, IV, 298Google Scholar.

14. Grey, , Debates, II, 369–71Google Scholar. Lee sat for Aylesbury, Birkenhead for Wilton.

15. Ibid., 368–70. Sir William Coventry, M.P. for Great Yarmouth, who made these points, was an opposition leader but also a cousin of Henry Savile. In this case he supported the charter and Savile.

16. Ibid., 370.

17. It was generally accepted that Newark was granted the honor “in recompence for former loyalty.” See Historical Manuscripts Commission, Seventh Report (London, 1879), Appendix, Part I, 468Google Scholar, Manuscripts of Sir Henry Verney, Bart., letter of John Verney td Sir Ralph Verney, March 26, 1677. See also Echard, Laurence, The History of England from the First Entrance of Julius Caesar and the Romans to the Conclusion of the Reign of James the Second, and the Establishment of King William and Queen Mary upon the Throne, in the Year 1688 (London, 1720), 1018Google Scholar, and Carew, Thomas, An Historical Account of the Rights of Elections of the Several Counties, Cities, and Boroughs, of Great Britain: Collected from Public Records, and the Journals of Parliament, to the Year One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty-four (London, 1755), Part II, 1Google Scholar.

18. Statutes of the Realm (London, 1810–1828), V, 795Google Scholar: 25 Car. II, c. IX.

19. Hatsell, John, Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons; under Separate Titles with Observations (London, 1818), IIGoogle Scholar, appendix, 410-11.

20. Porritt, Edward and , Annie G., The Unreformed House of Commons. Parliamentary Representation Before 1832 (Cambridge, 1903), I, 44–49Google Scholar: Sacret, J. H., “The Restoration Government and Municipal Corporations,” The English Historical Review, XLV, (1930) 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Plumb, J. H., The Growth of Political Stability in England 1675-1725 (London, 1967), pp. 40–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Feiling, Keith, A History of the Tory Party 1640-1714 (Oxford, 1924), p. 155Google Scholar.

22. The lapse does not indicate undue delay. Parliament was prorogued in early June 1675, met for only a month in the fall of that year and reconvened on February 15, 1677. Action on the Newark petitions in this last session was begun on February 22.

23. Commons Journals, IX, 318, 334, 336, 337Google Scholar.

24. Grey, , Debates, III, 191Google Scholar. The point on wage charges was not strictly applicable. Few members of the Commons received payments from their constituents; the 1673 and 1677 Newark charters, as well as that recently granted Durham specifically stated that constituents were not responsible for the payment of wages to their elected representatives. However, at the time of this debate there was afoot a movement among certain members to claim as due, the wages prescribed by law and charter but by custom unpaid. The point may be said to strengthen their argument. See Latham, R. C., “Payment of Parliamentary Wages — The Last Phase,” The English Historical Review, LXVI, (1951), 29, 44–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Porritt, and Porritt, , The Unreformed Commons, I, 153Google Scholar. The debate was in the Committee on Grievances.

25. Grey, , Debates, III, 188Google Scholar.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid., p. 189. At this time Scroggs sat on the Court of Common Pleas.

28. Ibid., p. 190. The speaker quoted is Robert Walpole of Castle Rising.

29. Ibid., pp. 192-93. Meres sat for Lincoln.

30. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Ninth Report (1884), Part II, Appendix, 459Google Scholar, Manuscripts of Alfred Morrison, Esq.; Historical Manuscripts Commission (1930), Manuscripts of the late Reginald Rawdon Hastings, Esq. of the Manor House, Ashby-de-la-Zouche, II, 239: Green, M. A. E. and Daniell, F. H. Blackburne (eds.), Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles II Preserved in the Public Record Office (London, 1860–1938), II, 36Google Scholar.

31. Cokayne, G. E., The Complete Peerage or a History of the House of Lords and All its Members from the Earliest Times, revised by Doubleday, H. A., Lordde Walden, Howard and White, J. H. (London, 1910–1959), XI, 517–18Google Scholar. Sir Francis Leeke (or Leake) took an active part in Newark affairs. See, for example, PRO, SP 29/318/50, in which he intercedes with Secretary Joseph Williamson concerning the nomination of the Newark town clerk.

32. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Twelfth Report (1891), Appendix, Part IX, 100Google Scholar, Manuscripts of the Duke of Beaufort; Cooper, , Savile Correspondence, 45, 47Google Scholar; Browning, Andrew, Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds 1632-1712 (Glasgow, 1951), III, 120, 146, 148Google Scholar; Dickinson, , History of Newark, p. 159Google Scholar; Brown, , Annals of Newark, pp. 40–41Google Scholar.

33. Cooper, , Savile Correspondence, pp. 44–46Google Scholar. For reports of the bill “concerning Drinking, Bribery and Expences at Elections,” see Commons Journals, VIII, 374, 382, 383, 385, 411Google Scholar; and Grey, , Debates, IV, 1-4, 95, 96Google Scholar. Savile's references are to the 1677 election.

34. Cooper, , Savile Correspondence, p. 118Google Scholar.

35. The social emphasis was not entirely frivolous. The “treating” was not only considered an important mark of status, but also enhanced the voter's sense of participation in the electoral process and thus his identification with his representatives at Westminster, not insignificant in a day when the central government had neither a standing army nor a large bureaucracy, and relied upon the good will and efforts of many of these very voters to carry out the local functions of government. For reports on another election, with emphasis upon court influences, see George, M. Dorothy, “Elections and Electioneering, 1679-81,” The English Historical Review, XLV, (1930), 552–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Commons Journals, IX, 386, 388, 389Google Scholar.

37. The Case of the Charter presents the objections to the charter and then answers these objections; The Case of the Burrough is simply a short statement on behalf of Mr. Penistone Whalley, an unsuccessful candidate in the 1673 Newark election.

38. Grey, , Debates, IV, 298, 299, 302Google Scholar.

39. Ibid., pp. 297, 298, 301, 302. A Richard Croke sat for Oxford city in the Cavalier parliament; he may be the speaker here. Maynard sat for Beeralston.

40. Ibid., pp. 298, 300-303. Williamson sitting for Thetford, had been familiar with the particulars of the Newark charter since his days as Secretary to Lord Arlington, He was now Secretary of State and an active court spokesman. His statement here, that the crown would not insist upon including the three villages in the Newark charter is evidence that the king had determined to concede the point. The Case of the Charter of Newark, a printed version of the official or court position also concedes this. Williamson kept himself informed on the Newark question even while he served abroad at the Congress of Cologne. See Christie, W. D. (ed.), Letters Addressed from London to Sir Joseph Williamson While Plenipotentiary at the Congress of Cologne in the Years 1673 and 1674 (London), II, 38, 71Google Scholar.

41. Commons Journals, IX, 403, 415Google Scholar; Grey, , Debates, IV, 304Google Scholar; Margoliouth, H. M. (ed.), The Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell (Oxford, 1927), II, 184Google Scholar.

42. Members of Parliament, Part I, 526.

43. PRO, SP 44/40A/f. 195. A copy of the Newark charter is in the British Museum, Harleian Manuscripts, 7017, 35; it is also reprinted in Dickinson, , History of Newark, pp. 376–86Google Scholar. See also Mereweather, Henry A. and Stephens, Archibald J., The History of the Boroughs and Municipal Corporations of the United Kingdom, from the Earliest to the Present Time: With an Examination of Records, Charters, and Other Documents (London, 1835), III, 1769Google Scholar for a rather confused account of the charter proceedings.

44. Some Observations Concerning the Regulating of Elections, p. 7.