Parliamentary Representation and Politics after 1660
After the Restoration the widespread fears of a republican rising, political
tensions, and watchfulness against a threat of invasion in wartime produced only
occasional alarms in Beverley. In 1662 the watch was set as a safeguard against
plotters and the militia was alerted; in 1666-7 the trained bands were again
embodied locally before being moved to Hull in case of a Dutch attack there, alarm
was expressed about horsemen riding by night, and a man was pilloried for
spreading false rumours; and during the third Anglo-Dutch war soldiers were billeted on householders, provoking the usual resistance and complaint. (fn. 72) The
Popish Plot revived the sense of insecurity in the town: Beckside, Norwood, and
the three bars were watched at night in 1678, fears were again expressed about
mysterious horsemen, and in 1679 precautions were taken against a threat to release
men from gaol. (fn. 73)
Those episodes were not enough to provoke government interest in either the
security of Beverley or its parliamentary representation. The town remained a
gentry borough, its seats monopolized until after 1689 by the Hothams and
Wartons. Their position was apparently unchallenged by strangers or ambitious
townsmen and was not weakened by the government's manipulation of the
membership of the corporation. (fn. 74) Sir John Hotham, Bt. (d. 1689), and Michael
Warton (d. 1688), the town's M.P.s in the convention parliament, were again
elected without a contest in 1661; on that occasion Warton was evidently regarded
as the senior member, but the order was reversed when they were re-elected to
the three parliaments of 1679-81. (fn. 75) Both members were by then identified with
the parliamentary opposition. Hotham, who became an active M.P. during the
1670s, was a vigorous opponent of Danby's ministry; a sympathizer with the dissenters, he was one of Shaftesbury's 'worthy men' and a Whig Exclusionist. Warton
seems originally to have been more moderate and was friendly with Sir Joseph
Williamson, secretary of state, but he moved into opposition during the later
1670s, was marked 'worthy' by Shaftesbury, and voted for the first Exclusion Bill. (fn. 76)
During the 1680s political excitement in the town evidently grew. In 1683
two members of the corporation allegedly refused to subscribe to an address
congratulating the king and his brother on their escape from the Rye House Plot,
in which Sir John Hotham had been implicated; the king's ministers were informed
by anonymous letter of a store of arms and saddles at Hotham's house. It was also
alleged that in collusion with Hotham Edward Grey, a governor, had entertained
burgesses and the 'fanatic party' and organized secret meetings with nonconformist
clergy, in order to provoke feelings against popery and promote the candidature
of Sir John for the next election. Another governor, John Dymoke, perhaps the
anonymous informer, reported that he and others had been abused over the loyal
address and that he disapproved of Grey's activities. (fn. 77)
Political divisions among the governors may also be reflected in a dispute with
Hotham about parliamentary wages. At their first election in 1660 both Warton
and Sir John agreed to serve at their own expense, but in 1681 they were asked to
release the corporation from any obligation to meet their past expenses. (fn. 78) They
probably refused, for in 1683 the corporation sought from them an aquittance of
wages; Warton showed no resentment at the request, but Hotham replied testily,
alluding to his 20 years' service and putting the blame on trouble makers. Ill
feeling continued: early in 1684 the corporation refused a gift of bucks from
Hotham and Warton, and more than a year later it agreed to indemnify any member
sued by Hotham for monies due to him as M.P. (fn. 79) Besides that quarrel there were three other influences on the election of 1685. One was the intervention of Jeffreys,
the Lord Chief Justice, who had visited Beverley in 1684 and wrote to the
corporation on the eve of the election, probably to advise against the return of
Hotham. The second was the action of Sir Ralph Warton, a deputy lieutenant, who
rendered various services to the corporation; he was offered his freedom gratis and
used his interest against Hotham. (fn. 80) The third was the removal from the corporation
of known Whigs and nonconformist sympathizers, whose loyal address to James II
on his accession did not save them from displacement under the newly issued
charter. (fn. 81) Hotham was defeated and Michael Warton was returned with his brother
Sir Ralph, whose political sympathies were Tory but who, like his experienced
colleague, opposed James II's regime. Hotham unsuccessfully petitioned against
the result; he was already suspected by the authorities and fled abroad in 1687. (fn. 82)
The Revolution of 1688 was politically uneventful in Beverley, although soldiers
were on guard in the town in February. (fn. 83) James II's agents reported that in a
parliamentary election Beverley would choose the two Wartons and that no other
names had been mentioned. Michael Warton, who had not answered the notorious
Three Questions, died during the summer, however, and his interest passed to his
son Sir Michael Warton, who had already sat elsewhere. Sir John Hotham returned
to England in the entourage of William of Orange, who appointed him governor
of Hull. He was reconciled with the corporation and was returned as M.P. with
Sir Michael Warton at the abortive election of 1688. Both men were again elected
in January 1689 to the convention parliament, as Prince William's nominees.
Hotham died in March, however, and was succeeded as M.P. by his son Sir John
Hotham, Bt. (d. 1691); parliamentary wages were no longer in dispute. (fn. 84)
Another question affecting local parliamentary representation was also settled
by 1689. The imprecise terms of the charter of 1573 had allowed the franchise to
become confined to the corporation. During the 1660s the matter was raised
publicly. Following the election of 1661 the corporation and the commonalty
ordered that in future M.P.s should be chosen by the burgesses at large, who were
also to assume the role in the government of the town of the 13 selected burgesses.
The changes were evidently disputed; they were referred to the M.P.s and two
East Riding gentlemen, whose recommendation is unknown, and the following
year the order was annulled. The wording of the new charter of 1663 seems to
have left the franchise with the corporation, by then purged of those whose views
were deemed hostile to the restored monarchy and who may well have favoured a
larger electorate less susceptible to government influence. (fn. 85) No further discussion
of the franchise was recorded but the involvement of the burgesses as a whole may
be indicated by references to a general assembly during the elections of 1679-81.
The unusually large number of 37 new burgesses sworn on the eve of the election
in 1685 suggests an expectation of voting rights for freemen. It seems clear,
moreover, from the more explicit reference to a general assembly for the election
of 1688 that by then Beverley had ceased to be a corporation borough. (fn. 86) Possession
of the vote became more attractive after the passing of the Triennial Act in 1694,
and from then to 1700 no fewer than 143 new freemen were admitted. (fn. 87) The character of the representation did not change, however: Sir Michael Warton sat
in all six parliaments elected from 1689 to 1701, his brother Sir Ralph in three, and
Sir John Hotham (d. 1689) and his son Sir John (d. 1691) in one each. A kinsman
of the Hothams, William Gee of Bishop Burton, was also returned twice. Those
elections set the seal on two dominating family interests. In all 12 parliaments
between 1660 and 1701 Beverley was represented by a Warton and in four both
of the town seats were held by the family; during the same period a Hotham sat
in six parliaments. The patronage which they exercised undoubtedly reduced the
opportunities for electoral contests and, although the keener partisanship and
perhaps the wider electorate of the 1690s ushered in a period when contests would
be more frequent, the interests of the two families lasted into Hanoverian times. (fn. 88)