INGRAM, Arthur (c.1565-1642), of Fenchurch Street, London; later of Dean's Yard, Westminster, Temple Newsam and York, Yorks.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629, ed. Andrew Thrush and John P. Ferris, 2010
Available from Cambridge University Press



1 Nov. 1609
1640 (Apr.)
1640 (Nov.) - 24 Aug. 1642

Family and Education

b. c.1565, 2nd s. of Hugh Ingram (d.1614), Tallowchandler of London and Anne, da. of Richard Goldthorpe†, haberdasher of York.1 educ. factor (Italy, Turkey).2 m. (1) Susan, da. of Richard Browne, Fishmonger of Bread Street, London, 2s. (1 d.v.p.) 1da.;3 (2) Sept. 1613 (with £3,000), Alice (d. 3 Oct. 1614), da. of William Ferrers, Mercer of London and Bromley, Mdx., wid. of John Halliday, merchant, of London, 1s.;4 (3) 1615, Mary, da. and coh. of Sir Edward Greville* of Milcote, Warws., 1s. d.v.p.5 kntd. 9 July 1613.6 d. 24 Aug. 1642.7 sig. Ar[thur] Ingram.

Offices Held

Waiter, port of London by 1601;8 sec. and kpr. of signet, Council in the North 1613-33, member 1613-25, 1626-41;9 kpr., Sheriff Hutton park, Yorks. 1615-27;10 commr. new bldgs., London 1615;11 j.p. Yorks. 1617-d., Warws. 1618-22;12 commr. oyer and terminer, Northern circ. 1617-d.;13 sheriff, Yorks. 1619-20;14 freeman, York 1624;15 commr. recusants, Northern counties 1627-41, sewers, Derwent valley, Yorks. 1629, R. Trent, Lincs., Notts. and Yorks. 1634, repair of St. Paul’s cathedral, Yorks. (E. Riding) 1633, array Yorks. 1642-d.16

Comptroller of customs 1603-13;17 manager, wine licences 1605-14;18 collector of dyewood and starch duties 1607-8;19 contractor for Crown lands 1607-15;20 manager of alum works, Yorks. and Dorset 1612-15, farmer 1615-25;21 farmer of customs [I] 1613-15.22

Merchant Adventurer; cttee. Virg. Co. 1610.23

Cofferer, king’s Household Feb.-July 1615;24 commr. trade 1621-2, dyewoods 1635, exacted fees 1635-40;25 treas., payment of Scots army 1641.26


Ingram’s father, a Yorkshireman by birth, married the daughter of one of York’s 1559 MPs. A London Tallowchandler, he shipped Suffolk butter and cheese from Walberswick, prospering sufficiently to have his eldest son trained as a civil lawyer at Cambridge. Little is known of Ingram’s early years: he spoke of Turkish cruelty as from personal experience; while a late account states that he ‘had wit in Italy, where he was a factor, and wealth in London, where he was a merchant’. In 1602 he began his long association with (Sir) Lionel Cranfield*, initially over the valuation and disposal of the prize goods taken from the Portuguese carrack St. Valentine by Sir Richard Leveson*, while as a customs official he became a key contact between Court and City. He made dummy bids for the great farm of the customs and the silk farm in 1603-4, increasing profits for the Crown and the 1st earl of Salisbury (Robert Cecil†) respectively, but his closest connections were with the Howard family. In 1604 he organized a syndicate to farm the currant imposition on behalf of the 1st earl of Suffolk, and in the following year he took over the management the wine licence patent for lord admiral Nottingham, who gratefully recalled that ‘the whole and many pains and scandals of the business did ever since the beginning thereof lie upon Mr. Arthur Ingram only, with an incessant trouble to him and his house’. His own capital resources cannot have been large at this stage, and he was apt to panic when faced with cash-flow problems; but he raised substantial loans for Suffolk and Nottingham, who became increasingly dependent on him, and bought the Crown manor of Bishop’s Castle, Shropshire for Suffolk in 1609 on easy terms. On his own behalf, he exported ordnance far in excess of the recorded permits, took a share in the tobacco farm, and for a time collected the duties on dyewoods and starch, which he surrendered in 1608 in return for a pension. His next major step forward, in 1607, was a partnership with Salisbury’s henchman Sir Walter Cope* for the sale of Crown lands, which enabled him to purchase a number of the best estates for himself. He was also used to investigate various revenue departments, including the Irish customs and the Yorkshire alum industry, in both of which he was later to invest his own money.27

Ingram’s election for Stafford in 1609 was probably arranged by Salisbury, who needed informed and numerate support for the Great Contract in the forthcoming parliamentary session. Soon after Parliament convened, he was appointed to attend the conference at which the outline of the Contract was revealed (15 Feb. 1610). He made no recorded speeches, but was named to committees for several bills which affected his and his patrons’ interests. These concerned the export of ordnance (17 Mar.); abuses in dyeing with logwood (29 Mar.); the import of wine (22 Mar.); the regulation of the butter and cheese trade (20 Apr.); and confirmation of title for the purchasers of Crown lands sold by the contractors (5 July). He had the sense to remain silent on the one contentious issue about which he knew a great deal, that of impositions, but it is possible that he lobbied on Salisbury’s behalf behind the scenes. While his role in the 1610 sessions was inconspicuous, he took pains to procure a seat in every Parliament for the rest of his life. His biographer comments:

It may seem surprising in the first place that he should have bothered with it [Parliament] at all, for there was no money in it. At first Ingram may have seen his membership as an extension of his normal activities. His patrons found him a seat, and he made himself useful on their behalf.

In his later days he also became aware of the prestige membership conferred upon a provincial notable, and by hard work and the active promotion of Protestant interests, he built up a position for himself among his Yorkshire neighbours.28

Outside the House, Ingram’s solvency hung in the balance, perhaps because he over-extended himself with his land purchases. In October 1611 he was brought within ‘measurable distance of complete ruin’, but his credit was restored by means of a public testimonial subscribed by Salisbury, lord chancellor Ellesmere (Sir Thomas Egerton†), and Suffolk’s uncle, the earl of Northampton. In 1613 he defeated ‘an army of suitors’ to capture a wealthy City widow. In the following summer the London corporation chose him as one of their sheriffs, whereupon he secured a royal letter excusing him from municipal office. Northampton, then lord warden of the Cinque Ports, found him a seat at New Romney in 1614, but Ingram left little trace on the records of the Addled Parliament. On 9 Apr. his motion to refer the misconduct of the sheriff of Northumberland at the county election to local magistrates was ‘refuted absolutely’. During the course of the Parliament he was named to only one committee. This, aptly enough, was to consider the customs extortion bill (25 May).29

Ingram’s third marriage in 1615 brought him gentry connections and a Warwickshire estate in lieu of a dowry; but he was sufficiently fastidious to insist on the precondition of ‘mutual liking’, which proved sincere and lasting. Already a great purchaser in Yorkshire, he was notorious for evading full payment by drawing the vendors into Chancery over alleged encumbrances: at one time he had no less than 21 lawsuits in progress. His social status was by now rapidly rising: Suffolk, by then lord treasurer, stood as godfather to his third son, and assured him that ‘there is nothing that I shall think too much for Sir Arthur Ingram, that I may safely do’. His next ambition was a position at Court, and with the assistance of Sir John Brooke* and Christopher Brooke* he purchased the cofferer’s place for £2,000 cash, a life annuity of £500 to the incumbent and £200 to the latter’s wife. This post gave him access to an annual budget of over £50,000, but his intrusion as head of the board of Greencloth incensed his juniors, who had reached an understanding that promotions would be by seniority, not purchase. Forced to resign after only four months in office, Ingram was hounded by the officers of the Greencloth for compensation for several years.30

After this humiliation, Ingram diversified his interests, a fortunate decision which diminished his reliance upon the Howards. As a result, while some of his more dubious business deals came to light at Suffolk’s trial in 1619, he was able to survive the latter’s disgrace. From this point Ingram’s public career, outside Parliament and the law courts, lay chiefly in Yorkshire, where he had bought the post of secretary to the Council in the North from Sir Robert Carey* for £5,100, acquired hunting rights in the Forest of Galtres, and built himself a splendid mansion in York on the site of the archbishop’s palace. In 1615 he secured a lease of the Crown’s interests in the Yorkshire alum industry in partnership with George Lowe* (who handled the production side) and Sir Thomas Bludder* (who dealt with sales promotion). A harsh and mistrustful employer, it is doubtful whether he made any great profit for himself, but under his management productivity doubled, an export trade developed, and the industry never looked back.31 Politically, Ingram attached himself to the West Riding magnate Sir Thomas Wentworth* at the hard-fought county election of December 1620, canvassing among the citizens of York and the clothiers of Halifax, where he owned one of the manors. His services were rewarded with a seat at Appleby on the interest of Wentworth’s brother-in-law, Lord Henry Clifford*. After considerable dispute, Wentworth’s return was upheld by the Commons, but three high constables from the West Riding were summoned to answer charges of improper interference on his behalf: when they arrived at Westminster on 10 Mar. 1621, it was Ingram who moved to give them a hearing.32

Ingram was kept busy in the Commons in 1621 nurturing his diverse interests. On 30 May, during the commotion over the king’s sudden decision to end the sitting, he warned Cranfield to attend the House, but to be careful not to cause offence.33 He also organized petitions to the grievances committee against John Lepton’s monopoly of drafting writs for the Council in the North, which affected his own profits from the secretary’s office. As a result of this parliamentary agitation, Lepton’s patent was condemned. Lord president Scrope supported Ingram in this cause, who returned the favour on 1 June by making light of a bribery charge laid against Scrope and his secretary George Wetherid*. During the autumn sitting it was reported that a vengeful Lepton planned to prosecute the chairman of the grievances committee, Sir Edward Coke*, in Star Chamber on corruption charges. The Commons was affronted by this action, and chose Ingram to deliver a summons to Lepton. However, Ingram asked to be excused, because of his personal differences with Lepton.34 For much of the session, the Commons mounted an extensive investigation into the recent trade slump, but Ingram, who was implicated in some shady deals over the customs farms, kept out of the limelight, merely observing that clothiers should switch to producing lighter cloths for the oriental market. A cynic might have said he was well placed to comment upon the bill to prevent extortions by customs farmers (7 May), while his earlier role as an arms dealer led to his nomination to the committee for the bill to prevent the export of iron ordnance (26 Mar., 14 May). While in the Commons, Ingram looked out for some of the interests of his Yorkshire neighbours: he was named to the committee for the Ouse navigation bill, so dear to the citizens of York (3 May); and he moved for and was included on a select committee to examine a petition against the Yorkshire judge Sir Richard Hutton (1 December).35

As well as his Yorkshire house, Ingram kept a residence in the metropolis, which helps to explain his support for the election of William Man*, who replaced Edmund Doubleday as MP for Westminster when the latter died before the bailiff had made his return. On 22 Mar. Ingram moved that Man be allowed counsel to present his case, but this proved unnecessary, as the return was approved by a vote. Ingram’s charitable work in London prisons, to which he contributed a generous weekly benevolence, moved him to bring the appalling conditions in the Fleet to the attention of the Commons on 17 Feb. 1621. He headed the inspection committee, which was ‘like to have been poisoned with the smell’, and his report of 28 Apr. described warden Harris’s extortions and cruelties as worse than the conditions he had experienced when in Turkey many years earlier. His investigations unexpectedly disclosed another scandal: the indecent delight the Catholic barrister Edward Floyd had taken in the Protestant disaster in Bohemia, and his insulting remarks about the king’s daughter. On 1 May Ingram reported that beads and friars’ girdles had been discovered in Floyd’s lodgings, but he remained silent during the debate on Floyd’s punishment. When the king demanded to know the grounds on which the Commons claimed jurisdiction in this matter, he was one of those ordered to draft a message disclaiming any such intention (2 May). On 16 May, at Ingram’s motion, warden Harris was finally censured for his cruelty and extortions. It is perhaps no coincidence that his successor was a certain James Ingram, though no relationship between this man and Ingram himself has been traced.36

During the next few years Ingram became one of the greatest landowners in Yorkshire, buying Temple Newsam, near Leeds, from the duke of Lennox for £12,000 and acquiring various properties from Cranfield in part exchange for the Greville estates. The York corporation, ‘knowing that you have always been a well-wisher to the prosperity and welfare of this city’, sought his assistance in disputes with Hull over lead and corn, which were brought to a successful conclusion in 1623 with the assistance of Cranfield, now lord treasurer Middlesex. Ingram was rewarded by being made a freeman of York, with exemption from municipal office, and returned as MP for the city in the next four parliaments, although he had sufficient doubts about his prospects in 1624 to secure election at Appleby, on Clifford’s interest, and at Old Sarum, upon the nomination of Clifford’s brother-in-law William Cecil*, 2nd earl of Salisbury.37

On 23 Feb. 1624 Ingram opted to sit for York, but while a writ was issued for a fresh election at Old Sarum, none was forthcoming for Appleby. Nevertheless, the Crown Office list of MPs was amended to read `Arthur Ingram junior miles’, signifying this Member’s eldest son, who had been knighted in 1621.38 In fact, there is no evidence that Arthur junior had actually been returned at Appleby, nor that he ever entered Parliament. While an error by the Clerk of the Crown cannot be ruled out, it is more likely that Ingram sought to exploit the Appleby indenture’s ambiguity to introduce his heir to the Commons without the formality of a new election. If so, he must have abandoned this scheme, perhaps after similar tampering with the Chippenham return was exposed in the House on 12 Mar., and the word `junior’ was eventually deleted from the Crown Office list. In October, when a further session of this Parliament was expected, Ingram apparently tried to arrange for his son to take over the still vacant Appleby seat officially. Wentworth, who was acting as intermediary with Clifford, urged Ingram: `quietly send me down a new writ and I will be answerable unto you for it’. However, no further Appleby election was held before Parliament was automatically dissolved upon James’s death.39

Ingram’s presumed machinations over the Appleby seat will have represented an ill-timed distraction during the 1624 session, when his links with Middlesex, an opponent of the war with Spain which many Members supported, thrust him into the political limelight. In the supply debate of 19 Mar. Ingram echoed Sir John Savile’s wrecking motion, which was designed to postpone a vote for as long as possible:

No man hath spoken but declared willing to give: the point the proportion. To lay a good ground: all engaged, king and subject. Cannot go a safer way than to consider what to be done; then, what will do it; and lastly the means. This to a committee of the whole House.

However, on the following morning Ingram indicated his support for a war, on the condition that the three subsidies and three fifteenths which the Commons had already agreed to pay within a year should not fall due until the king issued a declaration breaking off negotiations with Spain. Four days later James made a speech which Ingram interpreted as providing just such evidence of belligerent intentions. His subsequent report of this development delighted his constituents at York.40

The hawks in the Commons quickly capitalized upon this success by investigating Middlesex’s conduct. Ingram, who could hardly avoid being implicated in his friend’s affairs, testified about the drafting of a new book of rates, which had been delayed because of disagreements about the composition for grocery wares. He was also cited in connection with the great farm of the customs: having been used as a stalking-horse to drive the bid up, the farmers had paid Middlesex a gratuity in order to avoid ceding a one-eighth share in their farm to Ingram and his associates. Moreover, Ingram was a key witness in the investigation of Sir Roger Dallison*, who had paid off his debts as master of the Ordnance by passing land to Cranfield under what turned out to be unfavourable terms; much of this property had later been acquired by Ingram himself. Finally, Ingram was included on the committee for the bill to make Middlesex’s estate liable for payment of his enormous fine (19 May).41

Ingram’s difficulties over Cranfield’s impeachment and the war with Spain may have owed something to the fact that his personal loyalties were at odds with his anti-Catholic inclinations. When Sir Edward Seymour* demanded some course to prevent export of bullion by popish priests, Ingram declared that Middlesex, who had command of all the ports, should deal with this matter himself, whereupon Ingram was one of those sent to ask the Lords to take immediate action (12 March). On the following day Sir Thomas Hoby revealed that Sir Thomas Gerrard, 2nd bt.*, though a notorious papist, had hitherto escaped conviction for recusancy. Ingram called for a bill of praemunire to be drafted, and was among those appointed to draw up such a measure and to examine Gerrard’s servant (13 March). He was one of a delegation later dispatched to a conference at which the Lords rejected Hoby’s proposal for an investigation of recusant officeholders (3 April). Despite the Lords’ response, the Commons proceeded regardless, and Ingram was one of those named to examine the presentments (27 April).42

The York corporation belatedly sent its MPs a list of instructions after Easter 1624, by which time it was too late to do anything about the Ouse navigation bill. However, Ingram, the erstwhile customs farmer, failed to promote its quest for a discount on the pretermitted custom, remaining silent during the debates on this subject. The corporation would have been more pleased to learn that he advocated opening membership of the Merchant Adventurers’ Company to all, provided the monopoly was restricted to broadcloths. At the second reading of the bill to make the export of raw wool and fuller’s earth a felony, Ingram objected that the offence might be committed ‘by a servant without his master’s privity’, and was named to the committee (6 March). In the debate on the cloth bill, he criticized foreign buyers for discrediting English cloth by over-tentering it, but admitted ‘this is hard to be remedied by a law here’; he was nevertheless appointed to the committee (8 March).43 He objected to the claim in the preamble of the usury bill that lending was contrary to the law of God: ‘in the course of trade three parts of four are by credit. If we make a law to diminish credit, we shall diminish trade’; this was not the effect of the bill, which was to reduce interest rates. Curiously, when the bill to naturalize the financier Philip Burlamachi was reported on 2 Mar., Ingram held forth

against the frequent and ordinary passage of such bills, not against these in particular, but ... it had wont to be a matter of great favour, and is a thing of great consequence; for the commonwealth may receive much prejudice by it, many that have been here being but factors for foreign merchants ... It is probable, though not always discovered, that they export our coin, and seldom do they vent our home-bred commodities forth.

His views found little support, and the bill was engrossed.44

Middlesex deeply resented Ingram’s betrayal, but he was not wholly abandoned by his former friend in his hour of greatest need. For nearly two years Ingram lobbied for the earl at Court, and he astonished Middlesex by sending him all his available cash and jewels ‘to serve me [Middlesex] at a pinch, without asking so much as a note of my hand’. Retribution quickly followed, for Scrope had already made it clear that he regarded as ‘mere exactions’ the fees taken by Ingram’s clerks from suitors to the Council in the North. Ingram’s office as secretary was safe, but in the new reign he lost his seat at the Council table. More serious was the loss of the alum farm. Prosecuted in the Exchequer for breach of contract on the initiative of Sir John Bourchier*, he agreed to surrender his lease in February 1625.45

Re-elected at York in 1625, Ingram was appointed to the committee of privileges (21 June), but left little trace otherwise on the records of the session. He was sent to notify the preachers selected for the general fast on 21 June, and on the same day, when the House received a petition about undue influence at the Warwick election, he called for a law to prevent such harassment. He was prompt in his attendance at Oxford, being named to the committee on the bill against depopulation on 1 Aug., but did not speak in the fractious debates which ensued.46

In November 1625 Ingram sent news of Wentworth’s appointment as sheriff: ‘God give you joy, you are now the great officer of Yorkshire, but you had the endeavours of your poor friend to have prevented it’. Ingram consoled Wentworth, who had been chosen in order to render him incapable of serving in the Commons in the forthcoming Parliament, with the thought that the public would now regard him as a martyr, and asked his advice about the forthcoming election. Returned for York once again, his only speech, on the second day of business, was entirely innocuous, calling for the titles of former bills to be read. He was named to attend two conferences with the Lords: to ask Buckingham about his detention of a French ship which had caused a diplomatic incident (4 Mar. 1626); and to hear Archbishop Abbot and the 3rd earl of Pembroke urge the Commons to make a swift grant of supply (7 March). Like many others, the looming threat of the duke’s impeachment kept him from speaking at all, although he was among a delegation sent to the king with a carefully phrased refutation of Charles’s accusations of their unhelpfulness (4 April).47 As usual, he was named to various bill committees which reflected his diverse interests. The ordnance export bill (14 Feb.) once again enjoyed the dubious benefit of his counsel, while other committees to which he was named concerned bills to remove scandalous and unworthy ministers (15 Feb.), to ensuring the true and real conformity of recusants (8 May), to regulate seamen’s wages and impressments (14 Apr.), and to prevent the spread of the plague (29 April). He helped to draft an address calling for reform of Crown revenues (4 May) and a Remonstrance about the continued collection of Tunnage and Poundage without statutory approval (8 June). While much of this was not helpful to the Crown’s urgent search for revenue, Ingram could hardly be accused of obstruction, and consequently he was restored as a member of the Council in the North during the session. Moreover, when Lepton sold his patent, Ingram quickly reached a composition with the purchaser, Sir Thomas Monson*.48

Ingram paid the Forced Loan, but corresponded with Wentworth after the latter’s incarceration for refusal, and arranged for his temporary release from exile in Kent to attend to personal affairs in London. By September 1627 Ingram, frustrated at the domination of the north by Sir John Savile*, vowed that he would stand for the county seat at the next election if Wentworth or his ally Christopher Wandesford* did not. In the event, Wentworth came to an agreement with Henry Belasyse*, and Ingram stood once again at York, where the election of Sir Thomas Savile was challenged by alderman Thomas Hoyle. Ingram’s return was thus under question during the opening weeks of the session, although the privilege committee eventually ruled that he had been elected unopposed. With Wentworth making strenuous efforts to bring king and Commons to an agreement over the Forced Loan, Ingram’s low profile during the session suggests that he was not particularly eager to assist this process of reconciliation. In the subsidy debate of 4 Apr. he agreed to a relatively generous grant of five subsidies, equal to the sum the Loan had demanded, but at the end of the session he moved to have Sir Ranulphe Crewe* cited in the Commons’ Remonstrance as an example of a judge removed from office for refusing to endorse the Loan. However, this gratuitous piece of provocation was rejected. For Ingram, the most significant achievement of the session was the investigation into Monson’s monopoly of drafting writs for the Council in the North. He facetiously suggested that ‘if Sir Thomas will undertake to make the letters without a fee, which was never paid, the country will be thankful to him for it’; the patent was duly condemned as a grievance.49

At the start of the 1629 session, Ingram was one of the committee appointed to consider the claim for privilege made by John Rolle*, whose goods had been detained for non-payment of customs duty (22 Jan.), an issue which proved to be one of the most explosive of the session. However, he otherwise avoided controversy, making no recorded speeches and being named to a handful of committees, among them one for a bill to improve the implementation of the 1606 Recusancy Act (28 Jan.), and another to prevent simony in church livings (23 February).50

During the Personal Rule Ingram enclosed Galtres Forest, in Yorkshire, by which time his Yorkshire estates may have been worth £9,000 per annum. He renewed his interest in the Irish customs in his son’s name, and helped Wentworth to secure the farm of the northern recusancy fines; but he and Wentworth later fell out over Ingram’s attempt to satisfy his own claims on the Crown out of the proceeds. He attached himself to the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich*), who secured his return to Parliament in 1640, and married his heir to Ingram’s daughter in the following year. In the Long Parliament Ingram managed to distance himself from Wentworth, and while he was offered a peerage in 1641, he was already raising funds for Parliament. He was not to be required to choose sides, as he died at York on 24 Aug. 1642. In his will of 15 Aug. 1640, he endowed a hospital at Bootham, just outside York, and took pains to explain that three brass candlesticks he had given to the Minster were to enable prayers to be read after dark. His younger son, Sir Thomas, then sitting for Thirsk, was disabled as a royalist, but later sat in the Cavalier Parliament.51

Ref Volumes: 1604-1629

Authors: John. P. Ferris / Simon Healy


  • 1. Clay, Dugdale’s Vis. Yorks. ii. 262; PROB 11/123, f. 173.
  • 2. CJ, i. 596a.
  • 3. G.E. Cokayne, Dormant and Extinct Peerages, 296; PROB 11/74, f. 274.
  • 4. G.E. Cokayne, Ld. Mayors and Sheriffs of London, 27; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 476.
  • 5. A.F. Upton, Sir Arthur Ingram, 71-2; Vis. Warws. (Harl. Soc. xii), 29.
  • 6. Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 153.
  • 7. Upton, 258.
  • 8. HMC Hatfield, xi. 210.
  • 9. R. Reid, Council in the North, 489, 497.
  • 10. Upton, 151.
  • 11. Ibid. 67.
  • 12. C231/4, ff. 31, 68.
  • 13. C181/2 f. 67.
  • 14. List of Sheriffs comp. A. Hughes (PRO, L. and I. ix), 163.
  • 15. York City Archives, House Bk. 34, f. 270.
  • 16. APC, 1627, p. 313; T. Rymer, Foedera, viii. pt. 3, p. 47; C181/4, ff. 1, 174; HUL, DDHA/18/35; Northants. RO, FH133.
  • 17. E351/614; Upton, 2; AO15/2, p. 151.
  • 18. W. Yorks. AS (Leeds), WYL100/PO6/III/1.
  • 19. CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 370, 421; E214/157.
  • 20. Upton, 23-7.
  • 21. R.B. Turton, Alum Farm, 83-153.
  • 22. CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 195; E122/235/11.
  • 23. T.K. Rabb, Enterprise and Empire, 321.
  • 24. Chamberlain Letters, i. 584-5; Upton, 70-6.
  • 25. APC, 1621-3, p. 208; Rymer, ix. pt. 1, p. 125; G.E. Aylmer, ‘Charles I’s comm. on Fees’, BIHR, xxxi. 61.
  • 26. SR, v. 123.
  • 27. APC, 1595-6, p. 56; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 530; L. Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 274; M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 64; Upton, 1-30.
  • 28. CJ, i. 393b, 412b, 414a, 419b, 446a, 446a; Upton, 30-1, 251-2.
  • 29. Upton, 35-8; Chamberlain Letters, i. 316, 319, 476; Procs. 1614 (Commons), 40, 339.
  • 30. C2/Jas.I/D12/77; Chamberlain Letters, i. 584-8; Upton, 70-6.
  • 31. Upton, 79-85, 115-35; J.T. Cliffe, Yorks. Gentry, 91, 95, 279; Turton, 118-38.
  • 32. Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 11; CJ, i. 548b.
  • 33. Upton, 91.
  • 34. CD 1621, ii. 146; iii. 439; C. Russell, PEP, 127-9.
  • 35. CD 1621, ii. 288; CJ, i. 572b, 605b, 611b, 621b, 655a.
  • 36. CJ, i. 526b, 529a, 568-9, 596a, 600b, 605a, 622b; CD 1621, ii. 105; v. 510; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. 80; CSP Dom, 1623-5, p. 263; 1628-9, p. 489; Upton, 262.
  • 37. Upton, 155-60; York City Archives, House Bk. 34, ff. 266, 270; Hull RO, L.190-1, 200, 202A; L. Stone, ‘Electoral Influence of the 2nd Earl of Salisbury’, EHR, lxii. 394-6.
  • 38. CJ, i. 716a; SP14/159/54; Shaw, ii. 177; Dugdale’s Vis. Yorks. ii. 69. The Appleby return merely notes the election of ‘Arthurum Ingrame milit.’: C219/38/254.
  • 39. C193/32/14, f. 10; Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. ser. 4, xii), 213. R.E. Ruigh, Parl. of 1624, pp. 56, 413 misidentifies the Appleby Member as Sir Arthur Ingram junior.
  • 40. CJ, i. 742a; ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 104; T. Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 203-26; C. Russell, ‘Sir Thomas Wentworth and anti-Spanish sentiment’, Pol. World of Thomas Wentworth ed. J.F. Merritt, 47-62; York City Archives, House Bk. 34, f. 290v.
  • 41. CJ, i. 705b, 759b; ‘Spring 1624’, p. 195; Russell, PEP, 198-202; Upton, 98-102; Prestwich, 441-60.
  • 42. CJ, i. 684a, 692a, 734b, 754a; ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 74v; ‘Earle 1624’, f. 81v.
  • 43. York City Archives, House Bk. 34, ff. 291-2; CJ, i. 678-9, 730b; ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 128.
  • 44. CJ, i. 724a; ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 58; ‘Spring 1624’, f. 64; ‘Pym 1624’, i. f. 22v.
  • 45. Upton, 103-6, 168-71; Prestwich, 494; Turton, 139-53.
  • 46. Procs. 1625, pp. 205-6, 208, 375.
  • 47. Wentworth Pprs. 240-1; Procs. 1626, ii. 12, 17, 195, 216, 430.
  • 48. Procs. 1626, ii. 33, 44, 446; iii. 97, 156, 190; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 300; Upton, 164-71.
  • 49. Wentworth Pprs. 259-60, 265, 272-3, 287; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 194-7; CD 1628, ii. 296; iv. 24, 29, 315, 322, 326.
  • 50. CJ, i. 921a, 923b, 932b.
  • 51. Cliffe, 30; Upton, 214-58; PROB 11/190, ff. 173-4; M. Keeler, Long Parl. 229-30.