STARKEY, George (1616-76), of New Windsor, Berks.

A professional barrister, George Starkey combined his legal practice in London with a long career in the civic politics of Windsor, his home town. His father, George senior, had long been a Windsor resident and in 1636 served as its mayor.20Bodl. Ashmole 1126, f. 107; Tighe and Davis, Annals of Windsor, ii. 224, 229. His properties in the town included several leased from the dean and chapter of St George’s Chapel, among them the Swan Inn on the High Street.21MSS of St George’s Chapel, 212, 215, 338, 457. The family’s house was said to be close to the castle.22State Trials, v. 1122. George senior may also have acted as steward for the Berkshire manors of John Packer† (father of Robert*).23Berks. RO, D/EHy O1, f. 365. Starkey’s eldest son, the future MP, was called to the bar at Gray’s Inn in 1641.24G. Inn Admiss. 200; PBG Inn, i. 342. Later that year he was reprimanded by the authorities of the inn after he insulted one of his colleagues, Francis Thorpe*.25PBG Inn, i. 345. By 1643 he was serving as the understeward of the Windsor corporation, the equivalent of town recorder, and the following year he was retained by them in a case involving one of their number who refused to serve as mayor.26Bodl. Ashmole 1126, ff. 58, 112v; Tighe and Davis, Annals of Windsor, ii. 244. It was also at about this time that he became friendly with another Gray’s Inn barrister, John Cook. Many years later, under very different circumstances, Starkey would state that, ‘I owe all my knowledge in the laws to that gentleman’.27State Trials, v. 1089.

That knowledge would soon be put to use in the service of the parliamentarian cause in Berkshire. By the spring of 1643 Starkey seems to have been acting as the solicitor to the county’s committee for sequestrations, for it was at that point that he made his first, precocious contribution to the Commons’ proceedings. On 20 May 1643 he gave evidence to the Commons about what he saw as flaws in the way in which sequestrations were being imposed within the county. His complaint was that army officers were interfering in the process, making confiscations indiscriminately and without due attention to the terms of the relevant ordinance. In this he was not acting alone, for he was backed up by the MPs for Great Marlow, Peregrine Hoby* and Bulstrode Whitelocke*.28CJ iii. 93a; Add. 31116, p. 102. Which officers they had in mind became clearer the following week when Lionel Copley* and Charles Fleetwood* appeared before the House to refute the allegations. What made the matter especially serious was that Copley and Fleetwood had been acting with the authority of the lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, who considered these allegations a personal affront. The Commons sided with the soldiers.29CJ iii. 104b; Add. 31116, p. 106; Harl. 164, ff. 393v-394.

Starkey continued to prove himself useful as a keen and hardworking supporter of Parliament in Berkshire, however. He carried on assisting with sequestrations in the area and by late 1645 he had been added to the county standing committee.30CCC 935. He was also acting as the local receiver for the advance of money, although there were complaints that, in this capacity, he interfered in the collection of the rents from the sequestered estates of 1st Lord Cottington (Sir Francis Cottington†).31CAM 578. The reward for his work on behalf of Parliament was his appointment to the local commission of the peace in early 1647.32C231/6, p. 73. That same year he was one of six men appointed by the Committee of Plundered Ministers to nominate preachers for the lecture in Windsor parish church.33Bodl. Ashmole 1126, f. 114v; Tighe and Davis, Annals of Windsor, ii. 248-9. It was George junior, rather than his father, who stood against Daniel Blagrave* in the Reading by-election in June 1648.34Reading Recs. iv. 298-9; CJ v. 631b; Perfect Occurrences no. 86 (18-25 Aug. 1648), sig. Qqqq4 (E.525.20).

In December 1648 and January 1649 Henry Ireton* lodged with Starkey’s father while staying in Windsor and, for that reason, the house was used for the meetings of the council of army officers. Starkey would later claim that his father had refused to keep quiet about his sympathies for the king even in front of Ireton and the other officers.35State Trials, v. 1122-4. By the end of January 1649 Starkey was back in London and he apparently spoke to Cook, now the counsel prosecuting the king, on one evening during the king’s trial. In his subsequent version of this encounter, Starkey stated that he had asked him, ‘how can you rationally do this, when you have pulled out the Parliament to make way to his trial?’36State Trials, v. 1089-90. It was a good question, although we have only Starkey’s word that he ever posed it to Cook. Although he had supported Parliament during the civil war and would support the protectorate, that does not mean Starkey could not have been deeply shocked at this point by the idea that the king might be executed.

George Starkey senior died several months later, leaving his son his properties in Windsor.37New Windsor par. reg.; Ashmole, Antiquities, iii. 74; MSS of St George’s Chapel, 231, 237. At this stage, the son had probably already become one of the brethren of New Windsor, the lowest rank in the corporation hierarchy.38Tighe and Davis, Annals of Windsor, ii. 273. As understeward, he also acted as the corporation’s regular legal adviser. This was why he was appointed as justice of the peace for the borough in 1657 and why he was asked to nominate the collectors of the corporation rents in 1658.39First Hall Bk. 4, 5. However, his relations with some senior members of the corporation were sometimes difficult. In the mid-1640s a dispute had arisen over who to appoint to a vacancy as one of the attorneys of the borough court. Bulstrode Whitelocke*, supported by the then high steward, the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich†), had wanted to nominate one of Starkey’s relatives, John Woodeson, to the position, but it was argued that Starkey’s brother already held the reversion. Starkey himself supported a third candidate, Robert Harris. Matters eventually came to a head in September 1651, when, in contravention to a direct order by the mayor, Starkey, as understeward, swore in Harris.40Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. XI, f. 56.

Moreover, his role as understeward was not without potential conflict with another of his local offices, that of steward of the castle court. The latter, which was part of the administration of Windsor Castle, had extensive jurisdiction throughout most of Windsor Great Forest.41VCH Berks. iii. 25. Although the borough was theoretically outside its jurisdiction, the castle court and the corporation only ever enjoyed an uneasy relationship. Each was wary of encroachments by the other. Starkey owed this appointment to the patronage of Bulstrode Whitelocke* as constable of the castle. When the corporation wanted to present two sugar loaves to Whitelocke as a present in 1657, Starkey was the obvious person to act as intermediary.42Tighe and Davis, Annals of Windsor, ii. 269. As it turned out, the stewardship was another of his roles that now got Starkey into trouble. In March 1658 the lord protector informed the protectoral council that one of the officers of the Berkshire militia had been brought before Starkey as the local justice of the peace after he had tried to disarm what the officer claimed was ‘a disaffected person’. The council was unimpressed by this interference in the work of the militia and issued orders for Starkey to be taken into custody.43CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 315. Starkey had, in the meantime, continued to work as a barrister. In 1653 Elias Ashmole had considered retaining him as his counsel for a court case and in 1658 he was promoted to become one of the ancients of Gray’s Inn.44Elias Ashmole, ed. C.H. Josten (Oxford, 1966), ii. 641; PBG Inn, i. 422. He acted as the retained counsel for the Reading corporation from 1658, although by the autumn of the following year it wanted to dismiss him.45Berks. RO, R/AC 1/1/8, ff. 109v, 110v, 111; R/AC 1/1/9, f. 16; R/AC 1/1/10, f. 20.

It was doubtless Starkey’s role as the Windsor corporation understeward that prompted his election as a local MP for the 1659 Parliament. He and the other candidate elected, Christopher Whichcote*, had the backing of the corporation; both were probably selected without opposition.46First Hall Bk. 8. It may well be significant that only weeks before Starkey had been on hand to offer his professional opinion when the corporation had been contemplating taking legal action against its two bailiffs.47First Hall Bk. 7. Moreover, this was not the only election in which he was involved. He twice wrote to Whitelocke to report on the prospects for Whitelocke’s eldest son, William, at Reading.48Whitelocke, Diary, 503, 505. He was on sufficiently friendly terms with William Whitelocke that the following year he would resign to him the stewardship of the castle court.49Whitelocke, Diary, 521.

The Reading election rather overshadowed Starkey’s role in the earlier stages of the 1659 Parliament. Almost immediately he was appointed to the committee for elections.50CJ iv. 594b. Then, on 1 February 1659, he was among the first to speak in the debate about the case arising from the unsuccessful attempt by Henry Neville* to stand for the previous Parliament. Starkey agreed with many of his new colleagues that this was one case in which an election dispute was not a matter for the Commons. Starkey wanted it referred to the Other House.51Burton’s Diary, iii. 18-19. But Starkey had a personal interest in the case and not just because it centred on the 1656 Berkshire contest. In the more recent elections, it had been Neville who had stood against William Whitelocke at Reading. Did Starkey have an ulterior motive? Having considered the 1656 case, the Commons then moved on to endorse the election of Neville and Daniel Blagrave* as the Reading MPs in this Parliament.52Burton’s Diary, iii. 21-3. The next day Neville, now that he was able to take his seat, took the opportunity to question the lord protector’s right to veto legislation and his control of the militia. Starkey was on his feet immediately to ridicule Neville’s case. He pointed out that these issues had been settled by the Humble Petition and Advice.53Burton’s Diary, iii. 34. When the question of the 1656 Berkshire election again came before the Commons several weeks later, he tried to defer discussion.54Burton’s Diary, iii. 346. His speech on 26 February in the debate about the imprisonment of John Portman may in fact have been another delaying tactic, as he was probably fully aware that the Berkshire election would be the next item of business.55Burton’s Diary, iii. 498.

Starkey was proving himself very ready to express his views. When the Commons discussed what to do about Lewis Audley*, who had been accused of insulting the MPs for Gatton, Starkey suggested that he should be imprisoned by the serjeant-at-arms, although he also asked for more evidence to confirm that Audley had actually done what he was said to have.56Burton’s Diary, iii. 41-2, 44. Speaking in the debate on the election at Castle Rising, he supported the rights over the burgesses over those of the corporation.57Burton’s Diary, iii. 50. On 3 February he supported the motion by Sir Arthur Hesilrige* that the treasury commissioners be ordered to report on the state of the government’s finances, although he was sceptical that any investigations would recover much money.58Burton’s Diary, iii. 59; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 119.

It was a measure of how quickly he had established himself in the House that also on 3 February, just one week after the Parliament had assembled, he was chosen to chair the committee for privileges. However, this proved to be a rough initiation. Even before he had been chosen, he and Griffith Bodurda* had failed to persuade the Commons that, in view of the declining heath of the Speaker, Chaloner Chute I*, they should adjourn for two days.59Burton’s Diary, iii. 64-5. Then the committee spent the rest of the day debating the dispute concerning the Colchester election. The crucial issue was whether they should only consider the actual return or broaden the discussion to all the circumstances surrounding it. As the roots of the dispute lay in the purge of the corporation three years earlier, there would be much to discuss if it was to be decided to widen the debate. The committee then voted by 28 to 27 to do so. But Starkey baulked at recognising the result. It is possible that he feared this would reopen the Reading dispute. The MPs found his predicament highly amusing and, according to Thomas Burton*, he was ‘laughed at sufficiently for a quarter of an hour’. He finally gave way, compounding his embarrassment.60Burton’s Diary, iii. 65. He and John Goodwyn* would later try without success to resolve the dispute over the Oxfordshire election by moving for a new writ.61Burton’s Diary, iii. 84.

As on 2 February, Starkey defended his belief in the validity of the Humble Petition and Advice when Bodurda questioned whether Edmund Ludlowe II* should be allowed to take his seat without taking the oaths. Starkey thought this a matter that needed to resolved without delay.62Burton’s Diary, iii. 71-2, 82. His belief in the continuing validity of the Humble Petition was again evident when he argued that they should acknowledge Richard Cromwell* as lord protector, recognise that he had had the right to summon Parliament and accept the existence of the Other House.63Burton’s Diary, iii. 115, 153, 195, 273. This was also the reason why he was prepared to accept that Edmund Jones* should be allowed to sit as the MP for Brecon. He thought that the Humble Petition was the only law on the subject that mattered.64Burton’s Diary, iii. 236, 243. (On the other hand, he does seem to have thought that the Commons was right to exclude Robert Danvers alias Villiers*.65Burton’s Diary, iii. 250.) The London petition organised by Samuel Moyer* against the protectoral veto and control of the militia did not impress him, any more than Neville’s views on those same issues had done.66Burton’s Diary, iii. 289. By extension, he accepted that the Other House should also have a right of veto over legislation.67Burton’s Diary, iii. 321; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 123. Defending the existence of the Other House in the debate on 28 February, he called the Humble Petition ‘the ark that has preserved us in the deluge of anarchy and confusion’.68Burton’s Diary, iii. 510; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 152. On that basis, he wanted the Commons to transact business with the Other House.69Burton’s Diary, iv. 329, 353, 435.

His attitude towards the Scottish and Irish MPs was less straightforward. He believed that they should be allowed to sit, although he had already indicated that he would support further legislation to clarify their status.70Burton’s Diary, iii. 31. He objected when it was suggested that the Scottish and Irish MPs should withdraw until the question was resolved.71Burton’s Diary, iv. 107. His view on 17 March was that they should be allowed to sit more on the grounds of ‘prudence’ than strict constitutional right.72Burton’s Diary, iv. 167; Derbys. RO, D258/10/9/1, unfol.

But Starkey’s attitude towards the protectoral government was not completely uncritical. He agreed that the imprisonment of Sir Thomas Armstrong on Jersey had been illegal.73Burton’s Diary, iv. 153. In contrast, he was unsympathetic to those former rebels who had been deported as slaves to Barbados. As he explained

I am an Englishman and an inheritor of the laws, but I came hither with a resolution not to retrospect. The breaking of laws has preserved your being. If extraordinary methods had not sometimes been taken we had not been here to this day.74Burton’s Diary, iv. 272-3.

Whatever else could be said about him, he remained committed to the principles of the Humble Petition to the very end of this Parliament. On 21 April, the last day on which it sat, he was arguing against the declaration for the security of the protector on the grounds that it would reopen all the old arguments that had only divided them.75Burton’s Diary, iv. 479. He can have taken little pleasure in Richard Cromwell’s subsequent resignation. Later that year he represented the ex-sheriff, William Strowde, in the exchequer case with Henry Neville* over the 1656 Berkshire election result.76T. Siderfin, Les Reports des divers special Cases (1683), 171.

In 1660 Starkey would demonstrate his apparent loyalty to the restored monarchy in one of the most dramatic ways possible. The trials of the regicides were an important propaganda event for the new regime and Starkey came forward to assist in them. His role was to be that of betrayer of an old friend. On 13 October 1660 he appeared as a witness testifying against John Cook. Later that same day he also testified against Hugh Peters. His evidence against Cook consisted of his recollections of that chance meeting in late January 1649. This helped establish that Cook had personally shared the view that the king deserved to die and that he had done so before the court had passed its sentence.77State Trials, v. 1089-90. Starkey’s contribution to Peters’s fate was to recount comments allegedly made by the accused when visiting the house of Starkey’s father when Ireton had been lodging there. Starkey’s claim was that Ireton, Peters, Oliver Cromwell* and Nathaniel Rich* had met there regularly in the weeks before the trial to plot and to talk treason.78State Trials, v. 1122-4.

From this point onwards Starkey’s relations with the Windsor corporation seem to have been rather ambiguous. In September 1661 he accepted appointment once more as the town’s justice of the peace, but simultaneously resigned as one of the brethren.79First Hall Bk. 11. He may have feared that he would be removed anyway under the terms of the Corporation Act. In September 1662, just over two months after that purge of the corporation had been implemented, he was confirmed in office as the justice of the peace and was re-appointed as the understeward. Six weeks later, however, he resigned from both positions.80First Hall Bk. 12, 13. Despite his role in the conviction of Cook and Peters, he does seem to have remained under suspicion. In early 1666 he was arrested for being ‘a person of dangerous principles’ and imprisoned in the gaol at Reading. He was then transferred to Windsor Castle after he was ‘observed to hold correspondence with many of like principles who have recourse to him’.81CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 237. Yet by the following year he was being retained by the corporation as their lawyer in a jurisdictional dispute with the castle officials.82First Hall Bk. 17. This confirms that he was still practising as a barrister, although Gray’s Inn did fine him twice at about this time for refusing to serve as their reader.83PBG Inn, i. 459, ii. 20. His role as the corporation’s legal adviser was then formalised in July 1667 when the position of town counsel was created for him with an annual fee of 40s.84First Hall Bk. 18. This suggests that he was now as much in favour with them as he had been a decade earlier.

In November 1673 Starkey transferred some of the leases he held from the dean and chapter of St George’s to Mary, his unmarried daughter.85MSS of St George’s Chapel, 62, 231, 237. This is unlikely to have been because he knew that he had only a few more years to live, as he was still only in his late fifties. He died in 1676, being buried at Windsor on 16 May.86New Windsor par. reg. His only surviving son, Samuel†, who succeeded him as the town counsel, served as the MP for New Windsor in the three Exclusion Parliaments several years later.87HP Commons 1660-1690.