Available from Boydell and Brewer
|8 Jan. 1559||THOMAS RANDOLPH|
|WILLIAM MORE I|
|1562/3||ROGER MANNERS I|
|WILLIAM COOKE I|
|1572||JOHN VAUGHAN I 1|
|12 Nov. 1584||ARTHUR HALL|
|24 Oct. 1586||SIR HENRY BAGNALL|
|1586||WILLIAM ASHBY vice Bagnall, chose to sit for Anglesey|
|1588/9||RICHARD MORE I|
|5 Oct. 1597||THOMAS HORSMAN|
|3 Oct. 1601||OLIVER MANNERS|
In this period Grantham was governed by an alderman and 12 comburgesses. There was also a recordership held for much of the Elizabethan period by the Thorold family, who lived nearby. In a letter dated 1581 Anthony Thorold implied that he had held the position for many years and his father before him. The successive earls of Rutland, whose seat at Belvoir was only a few miles distant, were stewards of the manor of Grantham, and Lord Clinton (Earl of Lincoln from 1572) must have been steward of the borough, for in 1587 the 2nd Earl sought Burghley’s help in his efforts to succeed his late father in the office.
Grantham first sent Members to Parliament in 1467. No municipal records survive from the sixteenth century, but it seems likely that parliamentary and other elections were conducted in an assembly of all the burgesses in the alderman’s court. The election return for 1559 records that the Members were chosen by the alderman, comburgesses and ‘communitas’, while that of 1597 reads ‘with the authority of us and of all other burgesses and of the "communitas" of Grantham’. When the Earl of Rutland sought a nomination in 1584 the alderman told him that his request had been ‘moved at our last court’, but that ‘the greater number of our commons’ had already ‘given their voices’ to Arthur Hall and William Thorold. That the corporation could effectively control these meetings is suggested by the last sentence in the letter to the Earl: ‘hereafter you may commend us all, if we hear from you before our voices be passed to others’.
An incident in Arthur Hall’s turbulent career provides a clue to Grantham’s attitude to the payment of parliamentary wages. When he sued the borough for nonpayment the matter came before the House of Commons. There, one of Grantham’s representatives claimed that Hall had promised to serve without fee, and in any case was not entitled to payment since he was not a freeman. On this basis few, if any, of the borough’s Members could have received a fee for their services.
Most of the MPs for Grantham were strangers to the borough, and there can be little dou