|
|
Politics in Shrewsbury
One of the more interesting tasks that can be undertaken in an examination
of the pre-Civil War period is the quest for signs of the growth of an
organised opposition to the Crown before the recall of Parliament in 1640.
In some areas this has been successfully carried out, notably in London
and the Home Counties. A study of the activities of men such as the Earl
of Warwick, John Hampden, and Richard Knightly, reveals a series of connections,
both family and business, that includes a large number of the original
leaders of the opposition to the Crown in the Short and Long Parliaments.
The elaborate work produced by J.R.Hexter in this field does not include
anyone with close links to Shrewsbury. 1
The nearest to a link between Shrewsbury and this 'party' that can be produced
is based on a document from the Hunt Collection dated 1665. 2 This is an
agreement concerning the marriage of Rowland Hunt, son of Thomas Hunt,
colonel in the Roundhead army, and the daughter of Lord Paget. In addition
to Hunt, the signatories include Richard Hampden, of Hampden, presumably
the son of John Hampden. It would be convenient to conclude from this that
the families had long-standing connections and that they kept in touch
during the growth of opposition in the 1630s, but there is no more evidence
to support this theory. Consequently it must remain as but an interesting
possibility. It must also be remembered that connections of this sort can
mean very little, especially in a society as parochial as that of the English
gentry in the seventeenth century. The chances of two families becoming
linked by marriage were large and links between families that were later
to take opposing sides were as common as those between families of similar
political outlook. The inter-connection of the leading families in Shrewsbury
will be considered in due course.
Even if Shrewsbury was out of the main stream of national political opposition,
it is possible to trace the growth of opposition purely within the town
itself. The attitude of the local population to the King's arbitrary actions,
especially the levying of 'illegal' taxes, reveals something of the nature
of the opposition within the town. One of the defendants in the 'Five Knights
Case' of 1627 was Sir John Corbet. There is some doubt as to whether this
was the Corbet who was to become M.P. for the county in 1640, or the knight
of the same name from Norfolk. Both men were to emerge as strong opponents
of the Crown, with the Shropshire Corbet being imprisoned on several occasions.
It would seem, however, that it was the knight from Norfolk who was destined
to achieve national fame. 3 The state papers include several contradictory
references to the collection of the forced loan in the county. In February
it was recorded that all the commissioners subscribed and paid. 4 Entries
for June and October, however, suggest that there had been some refusal
to pay. 5
The main opportunity for open opposition came with the King's decision
to levy ship-money on the inland counties. The details of the opposition
in Shrewsbury have already been studied, so that it will not be necessary
to give a narrative description. 6 It will suffice to examine a few of
the more interesting facts that emerge from this opposition. Chief amongst
these is that there does not seem to have been any opposition on theoretical
grounds. The town authorities complained at great length about the amount
that they had to pay but did not dispute the King's right to levy the tax.
This suggests the absence of any important links with the main political
opposition in the country, as symbolised by John Hampden.
The actual method of collection shows some of the weaknesses in the Crown's
financial system. The tax had to be collected by the local officials under
the direction of the sheriffs, often men of doubtful character. The involvement
of the office with the collection of taxes made it unpopular and the powers
available to the sheriffs were often insufficient to enable them to perform
their tasks properly. The sheriff responsible for the collection of the
first levy of ship-money, John Newton, was accused by the county of under-assessing
the value of his own property. His successor, Sir Paul Harris, wrote in
complaint to Secretary Nicholas that
“Newton kept no man in livery in his house, nor any horse in his stable,
**** and has £700 per annum in possession, and £4000 at use. He was assessed
at £15, and reduced to £9.” 7
In his turn, Harris complained that his powers were inadequate and that
he was unable to speed up the collection of the tax. 8 Thus, even if there
had been no doubts about the legality of ship-money, its collection would
have posed many problems for the Crown.
Even when the sheriff had managed to collect the money he faced the great
problem of how to deliver it to London. In Shrewsbury this problem was
solved by using the financial machinery of the Drapers' Company. The sheriff
of Montgomery also used the drapers, sending his money via John Prowde
and Adam Webb, 9 both of whom were to become supporters of the parliamentarians
and members of the first Shropshire classis. 10 That these men were prepared
to assist in the collection of ship-money must surely indicate that they
were not opposed to the tax on any matter of principle. If they were strongly
opposed to the Crown at this stage, their opposition must have been based
on religious grievances rather than on political ones.
Communications with London were not good. Newton, in 1635, complained that
he could only send his letters once a fortnight and then, only by the common
carrier. 11 His attempts to overcome the problems of collection by allowing
his agents 6d in the Pound of the taxes brought in was vetoed by the government,
on the grounds that previous taxes had been successfully collected without
resort to this extra expense. 12 The main fact that can be learned from
the attempt to levy ship-money in Shrewsbury would, therefore, seem to
be that the Crown did not have the ability to raise money efficiently,
regardless of the opposition. When this was present, as it was throughout
the 1630s, failure was almost inevitable.
The raising of troops for the Scottish wars in 1639 seems to have caused
little stir in the county as a whole, and there are no references to this
levy in connection with Shrewsbury.
In addition to the above financial issues, and the religious ones discussed
in previous chapters, there were two main sources of contention in the
town and its surrounding area. The first of these was occasioned by the
award of a baronetcy to Sir Thomas Harris of Boreatton in 1623. Harris
was the grandson of William Harris, a yeoman from the village of Condover
and the son of Roger Harris, who had been elected a draper in 1575. 13
The gentlemen of the county objected to Harris' elevation to their ranks
and complained that they had been disgraced by this act. 14 After an investigation,
the Earl Marshal declared that Harris was not, in fact, a gentleman but
that he could not revoke a patent that was under the Great Seal. 15 There
is no doubt that this case aroused much hostility within the county but
it does not seem to have had the effect of turning the complainants away
from the King. The local gentry were to be amongst the King's strongest
supporters, as was the Harris family, with Sir Paul Harris being a royalist
Commissioner of Array. 16
The years from 1637 until the outbreak of the war witnessed a considerable
number of disputes within the corporation itself. The interesting feature
of these disputes is the inference on several occasions that there were
two bitterly opposed parties in existence within the town. Even if the
cause of these disputes cannot be determined from the evidence, it is possible
to learn much from them. To begin with the two leading figures, Thomas
Nicholls and Thomas Owen, took different sides in the Civil War. The basic
divisions were outlined by Thomas Nicholls in a petition to the King.
“Petitioner is one of the two Bailiffs of the town, which is governed by
two bailiffs as one head, and all Burgesses are admitted to give their
voices in all elections, and other matters concerning the government of
the town. The said two bailiffs seldom agreeing together in one vote, but
being divided and adhering to the several parties, petitioner finds the
town to be very much embroiled with contentions, and he, out of his experience,
is persuaded that until the members thereof be better reconciled no uniformity
of government can be observed." 17
In addition, Nicholls asked the government to withdraw the quo warranto
which had been brought out against the corporation for not fulfilling its
duties and hoped that the Council would grant the town a new charter which
would end the present misgovernment whilst preserving the ancient privileges.
The result of this petition was the granting of a new charter in 1638,
which replaced the old system of government by bailiffs and burgesses with
one of government by a mayor and twenty-four aldermen. This, however, did
not end the controversy. The new charter had to be paid for and neither
side was willing to do this. It was decided to raise the money by selling
some land but this project collapsed before it had been completed. 18 A
solution was not found until the summer of 1640, when the Council stepped
in.
“Order of Council. The Lords having considered the differences between
Thomas Nicholls, late head bailiff of Shrewsbury, and his party, and Thomas
Owen, Town Clerk, and his party, touching the charges expended in obtaining
their new charter, and having heard the certificate made by Sir Thomas
Milward, Knt, Chief Justice of Chester, concerning that business, whereby
it appears that Mr Owen and his party had opposed the new charter, and
Mr Owen alleging that Mr Nicholls and his side did likewise oppose the
charter, which did much delay the passing thereof and increase the expences
touching the same. It was, therefore, now by the lords held fit that the
charges of either side expended about procuring that charter be equally
paid, and to that purpose it is ordered that Messers Nicholls and Owen
be hereby required to make their several and respective accompts before
Sir Thomas Milward, of all the particulars of the charges disbursed by
either party in obtaining and passing the said charter, which sums are
ordered to be equally assessed and levied upon the inhabitants of the town,
and the accompts of both parties duely paid.” 19
The actual cause of the dispute between the two parties is not known. In
1642, however, the two leaders were to choose different sides. Owen represented
the town in the Short Parliament and followed the royalist side, in spite
of the fact that he acted as a witness against Archbishop Laud. He remained
as town clerk until 1645, when he was dismissed by the parliamentarians
as a delinquent. 20 Nicholls became one of the leading parliamentarians
in the town. His arrest was ordered by the King in 1642, he was appointed
mayor under the parliamentarian regime in 1645 and he was one of those
considered fit to sit on the first presbyterian classis in 1647. Whatever
the reasons, it cannot be doubted that the town was deeply divided, and
that when the time came for a polarization of forces, in 1641 or 1642,
two factions were already in existence.
|