TREVOR, John (1624-72), of Plas Têg, Flint.

For all that he was the eldest son of the wealthy and well connected Sir John Trevor* and Anne Hampden, little is known of the early career of John Trevor the younger. Entry in November 1643 to the University of Leiden perhaps kept him abroad for a prolonged period and protected him from involvement in the civil wars.26English-Speaking Students at Leyden, 99. He emerged into public life only in December 1646, when he was elected as a recruiter MP for Flintshire, following the family’s re-assertion of its considerable interest in an area which had seen stubborn royalist dominance.

Long Parliament 1646-1648

Trevor left Chester for the capital in mid-December in company with one Colonel Carter (almost certainly John Carter*, governor of Conway and the son of a Buckinghamshire clergyman).27HMC 8th Rep. pt.1, 384b. He was one of the nine Members who took the Covenant on 30 December.28CJ v. 33b. Initially, like his father at this date, he had a low profile in the House, which might reflect his youth (he was 22) but may also have concealed some rather more significant behind-the-scenes activity. His next appearance in the Journal was on 1 November 1647, when with his father, he was added to the committee investigating the pamphleteering of Col. John Lilburne.29CJ v. 347b. Shortly before 20 December, according to his Buckinghamshire kinswoman Dame Mary Verney, Trevor proved ‘hugely much’ her husband’s ‘friend’ when, with Richard Knightley*, he promoted the passage through the Commons of (Sir) Ralph Verney’s* petition regarding sequestration.30Mems. of the Verney Fam. ii. 305. Evidently able to convince Lady Verney that he was well versed in the ways of the House, Trevor reassured her a few days later that a favourable decision would not be reversed.31Mems. of the Verney Fam. ii. 306.

Following the Vote of No Addresses to the king, on 4 January 1648 Trevor was named to the committee for public grievances.32CJ v. 417a. He then vanished again from the Journal, but remained sufficiently engaged in public life to be included in the commission of the peace for Flintshire on 27 March and 2 October, albeit not (for whatever reason) at the height of insurrection on 11 June.33Justices of the Peace ed. Phillips, 111. Over the autumn ties with fellow MPs were cemented or strengthened in the settlements made on Trevor’s sister Mary’s marriage to Sussex activist Harbert Morley* and in anticipation of his own marriage to his cousin Ruth Hampden; trustees included Knightley (husband of one of Ruth’s sisters), Sir William Masham*, and William Masham* (husband of Trevor’s sister Elizabeth).34Glynde Place Archives, 32-3, 67. On 9 October Trevor was nominated with Knightley and Sir William to a largely Presbyterian committee working on the ordinance to maintain horse guards for Parliament’s protection (in effect, against the New Model army) out of sequestration funds.35CJ vi. 47a. In an indication that he was indeed no political cypher, he partnered Presbyterian leader Sir John Clotworthy* as a teller for the small majority who on 9 November overturned the proposed banishment of certain delinquents living abroad.36CJ vi. 72b.

Unlike his father, Trevor did not sit after Pride’s Purge, at which he seems to have been among those secluded.37A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62). The listing of a ‘Mr Treavor’ as minority teller on 17 December 1650 against the engrossing of the earl of Downe’s estate sale bill looks like a scribal error, especially as Sir John Trevor appears as teller for the majority.38CJ vi. 510b; Worden, Rump Parl. 387. On 9 January 1651 Trevor reported to his friend John Swynfen* the Rump’s methods of replacing absentee Members, but his insider information could easily have been obtained from his father.39Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 289.

First protectorate Parliament

For Trevor, as for his father, the advent of the protectorate appears to have represented a return to a more acceptable political order, especially given family ties through the Hampdens to the Cromwells. Trevor resumed his seat for Flintshire in the Parliament of 1654. Between 15 September and 22 December he was named to six committees, including some which concerned the Parliament’s most important business. His first appointment involved the review of proceedings of the judges at Salters’ Hall, which produced significant recommendations on the treatment of those imprisoned for debt.40CJ vii. 368a. He was then nominated to work on the ordinance for ejecting scandalous ministers (25 Sept.), to consider the future establishment of the army and the navy (26 Sept.), and to join the privileges committee (5 Oct.).41CJ vii. 370a, 370b, 373b. That day he gave evidence on behalf of Sir Robert Pye II*, who had been arrested contrary to his status as a Member, and then charged £400 bail money.42CJ vii. 373b. Two further committee nominations concerned petitions, the latter regarding the preservation of the study of civil law (21 Nov., 22 Dec.).43CJ vii. 387a, 407b. His tellership on 23 December with John Lambert*, then at the height of his influence, for the majority which committed the bill settling the government to a grand committee of the House, suggests that Trevor had returned to a high level of political involvement.44CJ vii. 408a. Yet his precise stance in this Parliament is unclear, as he was absent from the Journal for the remaining month of the session.

In the interval between Parliaments, Trevor kept up his connection with the government. On 1 November 1655 he was added to the committee of trade – an appointment that would form a backdrop to his advocacy in the next Parliament of leaving the dispute between Sir Sackville Crowe and the Turkey Company to experts.45CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 1; Burton’s Diary, ii. 100; CJ vii. 536a. As is evident from his 1657 appointment as a member of the committee of appeals on surveys of forests, he shared his family’s long-standing interest in royal lands.46A. and O. In December 1658 he formed a syndicate with protectorate insiders Sir Charles Wolseley* and Philip Jones* and others, apparently designed to take over his father’s stake in the coal farm, although it does not seem that this actually came to pass.47Glynde Place Archives, 49.

Second protectorate Parliament

Once again returned for Flintshire to Parliament in 1656, Trevor achieved a much higher profile than heretofore, sometimes as a supporter of the government, but also as a political moderate prepared to challenge it on particular issues, usually siding with the Presbyterian or ‘country’ interest, determined to reduce military influence over the protectorate and staunch against civilian republicans like Sir Arthur Hesilrige. Although he was named - before his father - to the committee appointed on 22 September to attend the protector, his rise to prominence got off to a slow start.48CJ vii. 426a. Nominated in October to committees discussing customary oaths and (more familiar ground) maintenance for ministers, he did not appear in the Journal in November and, like his father, seems to have taken little part in the passionate exchanges on the fate of Quaker James Naylor which preoccupied the House until mid-December.49CJ vii. 435b, 448b.

Around the turn of the year, however, Trevor established himself as a notable debater. On 25 December he apparently attempted to strangle at birth a bill to extend the decimation tax against royalist delinquents judged to have contravened the Act of Oblivion.50Burton’s Diary, i. 237. He failed, but a fortnight later tried to prevent the second reading of what became known as the Militia Bill. His objections to it were moral, legal, historical and pragmatic. It was ‘against common justice, nay all justice, to punish all men for the offence of one’; ‘God’s justice ... was otherwise’ in that he promised Abraham that if ‘ten righteous persons’ were found in Sodom, he would not destroy that city (Genesis 18 v. 32). Trevor was ‘not ashamed to plead for my enemies, where justice and the faith of the nation plead for them’. Depriving delinquents of the pardon conveyed under the Act undermined the whole edifice, serving to ‘oblige them to a perpetual enmity’ and to ‘necessitate new arms and charges, and raise new dangers’; ‘to forgive our enemies is God’s rule, and it is the only way to make them our friends’. Furthermore, the ‘new militia’ to be funded by this tax would create a monster; it would ‘divide’ and ‘cantonize the nation, and prostitute our laws and civil peace to a power that never was set up in any nation without dangerous consequences’. Thus had begun the ‘slaveries’ which had plagued the French since the fifteenth century: they had ‘expelled their enemies [the English], but since that time, no old laws, no Parliaments have been, which they had as free as any people before’.51Burton’s Diary i. 314-15. The next day, with his father, he obtained leave of absence from the House, but he was back for a committee nomination on the 27th, and two days later was teller with Henry Cromwell alias Williams* – another kinsman of Oliver Cromwell* – for the sizeable majority which finally denied the bill its second reading.52CJ vii. 480a, 483a, 483b.

Meanwhile, in other ways Trevor had shown himself, like his co-teller, both a friend and a critic of the protector, with a keen eye to the authority of Parliament and a preference for traditional forms. On 30 December, with regard to Parliament’s response to a letter from Oliver concerning James Naylor, he advocated an answer in which ‘we may both assert our own jurisdiction and give his Highness satisfaction too, and preserve a good understanding amongst us’.53Burton’s Diary i. 277. When on 25 February opponents of the ‘Remonstrance’ offering the throne to Cromwell tried to block it by subjecting it to debate in grand committee, Trevor joined Charles Fleetwood* in marshalling a majority to ensure it did not sink into this morass.54CJ vii. 496b.

Listed among the ‘kinglings’ who duly issued the invitation to the protector on 25 March, Trevor was appointed on 27 March and 9 April to attend him for his response.55A Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 17, 22 (E.935.5); CJ vii. 514a, 521b. Through the spring, as the ‘Remonstrance’ became the ‘Humble Petition and Advice’, Trevor was regularly involved and spoke frequently to the subject. He was nominated to committees to consider the judicial proceedings of the Other House (12 Mar.) and work on the clause in the settlement relating to toleration within the ministry of differing strains of orthodox Protestantism (19 Mar.).56CJ vii. 502a, 507b. When Cromwell expressed his reservations about kingship, Trevor moved that the power of the committee dealing with him might be increased (21 Apr.) and was named to the committee reviewing how to accommodate his objections (24 Apr.).57Burton’s Diary, ii. 7; CJ vii. 524a. With an apparent dislike of ambiguity, he endorsed Cromwell’s desire for clarification regarding the regulation of the ministry, and sought precision on setting the public revenue and on the fines to be imposed on unqualified persons sitting in the Commons (‘not to limit Parliament ... but in terrorem’, that is, to prevent controversy) (23, 24 Apr.).58Burton’s Diary, ii. 16, 17, 27–8. Despite his regard for its sovereignty, he was uneasy about things standing ‘probationary’ until they had Parliament’s approval, and perhaps also supported Bulstrode Whitelocke* in his concern to preserve ecclesiastical patrons’ rights from the activities of commissioners appointed under the ordinance for triers and ejectors (28 Apr.).59Burton’s Diary, ii. 52. He opposed the inclusion in the settlement of a clause that laws made in the Long Parliament were ‘confirmed’, on the ground that ‘that argues a weakness in them’, preferring ‘a declaration that laws are good and of force’; when that suggestion was rejected, he still advocated a statement that the Petition and Advice – as Thomas Bampfylde* had formulated before him – ‘repeals all that is contrary to it’ (30 Apr.).60Burton’s Diary, ii. 86, 91.

Once a revised Petition and Advice had been submitted to the protector, Trevor was one of the tellers who on 5 May, on a third attempt, marshalled a majority for adjourning the House, probably in expectation of having obtained a response before they next convened.61CJ vii. 530b. Following Cromwell’s refusal of the crown, Trevor was on committees to consider how the role of lord protector might be defined in a further version of the Petition and Advice (19 May) and to prepare bills related to other aspects of the political settlement (27 May).62CJ vii. 535a, 540b. His stance, as before, was likely to have favoured circumspection and transparency. When on 24 June MPs debated whether they should be required to take an oath, he argued that, ‘in all civil powers and governments, oaths are very useful and necessary’; since Parliament had already resolved to impose one on the council and the protector, and since the trust reposed in Members obliged them to put that above other ties, he ‘would have Parliament to take the oath, and to keep it too’.63Burton’s Diary, ii. 292.

Yet Trevor was not as free of self-interest as this pronouncement might indicate. It had been alleged a few weeks earlier that, ‘Jack Trevor’ and ‘little Hampden’ (his brother-in-law Richard Hampden*) had entertained ‘strong dreams of being lords’, probably on account of their family connection to the Cromwells.64Henry Cromwell Corresp. 273. Meanwhile, Trevor had certainly been active in an area where personal ties counted for much. It is not clear what lay behind the support he and Hampden managed for committing the bill to allow John Neville, 10th or 3rd Baron Abergavenny, to settle his estates (10 Mar.), nor other private petitions related to land for which he received committee nominations that month.65CJ vii. 501a, 505a, 505b, 515b. But it is unsurprising to find both Trevor and his father placed on a committee to review a petition from old associate Colonel John Carter, now a Denbighshire MP (2 June).66CJ vii. 543b. Nor is it difficult to see why, having been on the committee for the bill discouraging excessive suburban building (9 May), Trevor should seek to exempt William Russell*, 5th earl of Bedford, from the penalties of the ensuing act (5 June); having failed (in partnership with Sir Richard Onslow*, another protectorate traditionalist) to marshal sufficient votes to attain his primary object, he moved instead for a £5,000 abatement in recognition of the contribution made to the local community by the family which had once been friends and patrons of John Hampden.67CJ vii. 548a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 181. Trevor suffered another uncharacteristic defeat on 6 June when he tried to oppose a committee recommendation on the estate of Elizabeth Hele.68CJ vii. 549a.

Concern over rights to land surfaced also in relation to Ireland. On 3 December 1656 Trevor had been appointed to a committee making settlements on two adventurers.69CJ vii. 463b. When on 29 April 1657 a report on Irish claims was read which bore on a dispute between the adventurers and Edward Dendy*, who had received a grant there in recognition of his services as serjeant-at-arms, Trevor moved to head off discussion in the Commons of business already ‘depending before the council’ which appeared to prejudge the issue in favour of the adventurers; an attempt by Hampden to secure another opportunity for his brother-in-law to speak was unsuccessful.70Burton’s Diary, ii. 66–7. On 5 June -expressing the dubious conviction that Irish land was undervalued – he cited the danger that ‘one act fights with another’ as a reason to subject a bill settling lands on Roger Boyle*, Lord Broghill, to the scrutiny of a committee (to which he was then nominated).71Burton’s Diary, ii. 178; CJ vii. 546a. Perhaps an over-estimation of the wealth of Ireland contributed to his lack of sympathy for the petition presented on 12 June by the kingdom’s current lord deputy, Charles Fleetwood, seeking a reduction in taxation. Pronouncing that he ‘never saw such a precedent’ and that ‘this petition looks like a remonstrance’, he declared that he would not have fellow MPs ‘entertain any debate at all upon it’.72Burton’s Diary, ii. 226.

Trevor’s appointment to the committee of appeal arising from the survey of forests and chases came shortly before the end of the parliamentary session. He returned promptly when MPs resumed sitting on 20 January 1658, being named two days later to the committee on the bill to penalise non-resident heads of the university colleges.73CJ vii. 581b. Within a few days, in a chamber deprived of a swathe of government supporters called to the new ‘Other House’, Trevor emerged at the head of the protector’s partisans, advocating the giving of ‘serious consideration’ to the protector’s opening speech at the Banqueting House, and being named first to the delegation sent to assure Cromwell that this would be done (28 Jan.).74Burton’s Diary, ii. 374; CJ vii. 589a.

That day he declared his willingness to alter the title of the other chamber.75Burton’s Diary, ii. 378. On the subject of its re-constitution he soon crossed swords with civilian republican grandee Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, who had just been re-admitted to the House. While the latter chose to assert the exclusive right of the Commons to receive communications relating to money, to challenge the protector’s action in doing otherwise, and to propose that there be a grand committee to decide whether MPs should consult the Other House over the holding of a fast, Trevor argued the contrary (29 Jan.).76Burton’s Diary, ii. 380–1, 393. When Hesilrige grudgingly accepted an ‘Other House’ to be held at arm’s length, Trevor pressed the point of debating what its title should be (30 Jan.).77Burton’s Diary, ii. 399, 402–3. He preferred to call a spade a spade: ‘your messengers called them Lords; his Highness called them so ... they are intended and made a House of Lords’. The advantage in accepting such an appellation was that an ‘old constitution’ was ‘much safer’: ‘we know what the House of Lords could do’ whereas ‘we do not know what this Other House may do’; it might claim the Commons’ prerogative and ‘open people’s purses at both ends’. It was true that the Lords had been ‘shut out in 1648 by God’s providence’, but so later had Hesilrige himself, only for that decision to be reversed. It might be said (as Hesilrige had) that the issue should be left alone, but that would be a recipe for instability; without co-operation with the other chamber ‘we must, of necessity, be lost’ (2 Feb.).78Burton’s Diary, ii. 411–13. Rejecting again the idea of debating the matter in grand committee -where it would doubtless stall -he advocated instead ‘a prudent submission to the authority established’ and managed to get the committee voted down (3 Feb.). He faced down the claim of Hesilrige that sending the message for a fast would give in to a ploy to ‘invade the liberties of the free-born people of England’, but he could not, however, prevent the use of ‘Other House’ in the despatching of it.79Burton’s Diary, ii. 430, 437, 439, 441. The sudden dissolution of Parliament the next day abruptly ended the confrontation.

Third protectorate Parliament

Trevor was elected for the fourth time for Flintshire to the third protectorate Parliament. On its opening day (27 Jan. 1659) he was among those named commissioners to administer the oath to Members, and the next day to the elections committee.80CJ vii. 593a, 594b. Now a seasoned Member, he resumed combat with Hesilrige.

When on 1 February Hesilrige tried to deflect debate on a bill for the recognition of Richard Cromwell* as lord protector, Trevor ‘urged’ its immediate reading.81Burton’s Diary, iii. 28; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 450. He was in good company, but appeared to be in the vanguard, being described as ‘a leading man of the court party’.82Ludlow, Mems. ii. 52-3. In his anxiety to press on with business, arriving late the following day, he crossed Hesilrige unnecessarily, mistakenly supposing that the latter had prevented the nomination of standing committees.83Burton’s Diary, iii. 36-7.

On succeeding days he continued to argue for unity under the Petition and Advice, and against delay in affirming Richard Cromwell. While Hesilrige probed the details of who would command the militia and how it would be funded, Trevor – who shared a suspicion of the army (1 Feb.) – focused on overcoming quibbles and seeking settlement. Since ‘the peace of this nation is more concerned in looking forward than backward’, he hoped ‘it is not intended, you should alter your constitution’ (5 Feb.).84Burton’s Diary, iii. 31, 60, 73. Apparently thwarted in propounding his views on 7 February, he was among those who expatiated at length on the 8th.85Burton’s Diary, iii. 117. He appreciated that the bill for recognition should be committed in order to determine subsidiary issues, but there was ‘much fit to be resolved beforehand’: ‘first, to declare his Highness to be the lawful chief magistrate ... will not admit of delay’. If that were left in doubt, then so was the legitimacy of this Parliament. As ‘the worst of princes never wanted recognition’ and as ‘there was never more need of a prudent and patient Parliament, to fix our peace upon a civil interest’, then it followed that MPs should rest ‘content’ to make the declaration. ‘To defer this, is at once to leave the people loose from all authority’.86Burton’s Diary, iii. 124-5.

As debate on the bill continued, Trevor contributed frequently.87Burton’s Diary, iii. 169, 170, 194, 198, 232. In a long speech on 14 February he rejected Hesilrige’s charge – intended to damn the protectorate – that the previous five years had seen ‘greater maladministration than in 500 years before’, leading to up to £3 million of public debt: ‘former times’, said Trevor, ‘have been as bad’.88Burton’s Diary, iii. 256, 261. Equally, he dismissed the appeal of some to natural right as a basis for political settlement (a stance which also by implication questioned the status quo), preferring ‘that law which is made by those that have power’; law not buttressed by authority was weak and threatened the fabric of the commonwealth. ‘When we go to natural right, all other laws are gone ... there is no law in being’. This Parliament had been called ‘by writ according to ancient laws and customs’ and had been chosen to uphold them: ‘the foundation to stand upon is a law, which cannot be repealed but by a power that made it’.89Burton’s Diary, iii. 261-2. Trevor’s viewpoint prevailed, and the Commons resolved to include recognition of the protector in the bill. However, according to the diarist Thomas Burton*, whose attitude to him was not always so approving, he ‘offered, of his own accord, to the end that the other party might not go away displeased’, a further resolution that the House declare

such additional clauses ... as may bound the power of the chief magistrate, and fully secure the rights and privileges of Parliament, and the liberties and rights of the people

would be included in the bill, and that neither this nor any other element of the bill would be enforced until the whole bill passed.90Burton’s Diary, iii. 287; CJ vii. 603b. The House then rose, ‘all parties well appeased’.91Burton’s Diary, iii. 287.

In the days that followed, Trevor was at first conciliatory and inclined to a middle path. Registering his gladness that ‘those votes please the gentlemen so well, that were not pleased with them before’, in response to the petition presented to the House on 15 February by London citizens hostile to the protectorate, he advocated ‘such an answer as may neither flatter nor discourage’, communicating that ‘those things that concern the liberties of the people’ had been heard, and would be considered.92Burton’s Diary, iii. 293; CJ vii. 604a. He welcomed (17 Feb.) ‘care taken to bound the chief magistrate’, advocating clarity and precision because he appreciated that there was a fine line between preventing abuse of power and emasculating it: ‘I wish we may do it so as he shall not be able to do any harm, but then it will be questionable whether he shall be able to do you any good’.93Burton’s Diary, iii. 322. It was pointless, he also argued (18 Feb.), to debate the ‘negative voice’ that Parliament might wield in relation to the protector’s actions, until it had been clarified ‘what the negative shall be upon’; ‘you must first dispose of your constitution, before you dispose of your power’.94Burton’s Diary, iii. 333, 346.

However, discussion of the detail of that constitution, and the relative place of institutions within it, served to open up further divisions between parties, as Trevor’s successive motions on 19 February reveal.95Burton’s Diary, iii. 359, 368, 369. On the contentious question of the Other House, raised that day and subsequently, he expressed himself with his usual combination of traditionalism and pragmatism. Declaring that ‘the rule of this debate’ should be ‘the safety and good of the people’, and that ‘when our powers are agreed on, we shall best know what persons to fit them’, he proposed addressing first the judicial power of the other chamber, a motion seconded by his friend Knightley as avoiding aimless discussion (22 Feb.).96Burton’s Diary, iii. 409-10; CJ vii. 606a. Declining to be deflected onto the question of ‘whether ancient peers that have not forfeited [through their delinquency], have right to sit in the Other House’, he explained that ‘when in my conscience I am satisfied about the right, but not satisfied about the practice, the consequence will go very far against [accepting its] safety’. To go down that road ‘will not be practicable’.97Burton’s Diary, iii. 421. As the debate unfolded, however, it was apparent that, alongside his determination to focus on what was workable, Trevor did indeed favour not only transacting with that Other House, but including ancient peers within it, a position which led him again to clash with Hesilrige (28 Feb.; 1, 4, 8 Mar.).98Burton’s Diary, iii. 545, 577; iv. 14, 19, 40, 86; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 473. His willingness to give delinquent nobility the benefit of the doubt on adequate security was revealed in his acceptance of a petition proffered on behalf of George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham (21 Feb.).99Burton’s Diary, iii. 372.

One constitutional issue which obtruded in the midst of this was control of foreign affairs, placed on the agenda by the need for a decision on whether to despatch a fleet to the Baltic for the protection of trade.100CJ vii. 606a. Here again Trevor favoured realism. ‘Considerations of war and peace’ were, he argued, ‘fit considerations for this House’, but ‘if you shall desire his Highness to take care of the interest of the nation in this affair, in this great juncture, it will be but what it is fit for you to do’ (21 Feb.).101Burton’s Diary, iii. 385. That the protector sought the authority of the House to act demonstrated an appreciation of where ultimate authority lay, but ‘the present juncture of affairs’ would ‘not admit of a delay’. ‘Opportunities may be lost in a few days’ and the fleet was ready; to refer it to committee would ‘retard it’, and for these reasons Trevor was prepared to ‘have it referred to his Highness barely, without the council’ (23 Feb.).102Burton’s Diary, iii. 442, 447. Of those who insisted that everything must be conducted ‘by advice of Parliament’, he enquired ‘whether it is intended that all instructions that shall go along with this expedition must be first allowed and confirmed here’? The enterprise was ‘not designedly to pick a quarrel, or to make a war’ but to safeguard against a situation where trade was possible only at the ‘discretion’ of the Dutch, and to take them on if necessary. To be ‘ready to serve occasions’, ‘the business of war or peace must be trusted to persons upon the place’. Trevor knew of no alternative. ‘It would make us laughing-stocks, to declare beforehand what we will do. The Long Parliament never did it, but left it to the council.’ This Parliament might, if it wished, ‘add such prudent instructions as to be careful of making unnecessary war’, but beyond that executive power should be referred to the protector (24 Feb.).103Burton’s Diary, iii. 477-8.

Bound up with this, as Trevor acknowledged, was the issue of control of the militia and the army. He had proposed Knightley as a member of the Army Committee, presumably with a view to ensuring a congenial voice in its proceedings (17 Feb.).104Burton’s Diary, iii. 311. He appreciated ‘that the militias should not be disposed of without [parliamentary] consent, is a right that you will never part with’ (23 Feb.).105Burton’s Diary, iii. 442. But in pressing for delegation of the direction of the Baltic expedition to the protector, he insisted that, in the light of the latter’s initial consultation of the legislature, ‘instead of denying your power in the militia, it asserts it’ (24 Feb.).106Burton’s Diary, iii. 478. When on 7 March Alexander Rigby II* attempted to reopen the subject of the militia (and Parliament’s negative voice), citing it as a one-time bone of contention between king and Parliament, Trevor was among those moving to deny him the opportunity, unless he had something new to say.107Burton’s Diary, iv. 46.

Another contentious aspect of the political settlement was the inclusion in the Commons of Members from Scotland and Ireland. Trevor’s motion on 8 March against debating a move to exclude them, and his attempts the next day to postpone it, were to no avail.108Burton’s Diary, iv. 88, 90, 95–6, 103, 106. Once this became clear, and it was evident that Scottish and Irish Members themselves wished the matter resolved, Trevor – his temper aroused – joined battle with Hesilrige and appeared as tenacious as any in pursuing it.109Burton’s Diary, iv. 107, 111, 117, 170, 184; CJ vii. 616a. Having ‘no new matter’ to offer, he did not speak to it at length until 21 March, but his comments then were in characteristic mode. He refused to discuss the past – ‘the breach of the Covenant’ or the legitimacy of the war with the Scots of 1650–1651 – and instead urged MPs to ‘strengthen’ the union that had followed the English victory, ‘rather than dispute it’. ‘To exclude [the Scots] from a legislature, is to reduce them to a perfect slavery’. Besides, not only did the allocation of 30 seats to them rest on ‘a law which we have known these ten years, and must own ... for a law until you repeal it’, but the union itself ‘was concluded by an authority which then carried all the face of authority in this nation’. Were Parliament ‘to dissolve this contract, we open a door for dissolving all contracts’. If there were deficiencies in the arrangement, then Parliament had the responsibility to redress them. For reasons of ‘legality ... equity, prudence or conveniency’, the right course was to vote that Scottish Members should continue to sit.110Burton’s Diary, iv. 210. The next day – unimpeded by Hesilrige, who was absent – Trevor was to the fore in a parallel debate on Irish Members, justifying their inclusion on the ground that ‘Ireland is not now a province, as it was when it was conquered: they are all Englishmen there’. The right of Scots to sit required an equal right for the Irish: ‘will you have Scotland impose laws upon Ireland, and they have no power in legislature in themselves’? In the midst of this an exasperated Thomas Burton objected to Trevor’s persistence -‘we did not sit to hear one man speak six times’ – but apparently to little effect.111Burton’s Diary, iv. 225, 230, 232, 233.

Inside and outside the privileges committee, Trevor also made judgements on the rights of other Members to sit. On 3 February, in debate on a double return at Castle Rising in Norfolk, he defended the election of his brother-in-law John Fielder* in the face of objections from Hesilrige.112Burton’s Diary, iii. 50–1. Counsel were still being heard in the case before the committee for privileges on 31 March. Burton, who considered Fielder’s election to have been ‘very foully carried by the mayor, as influenced from [the protectorate] court’, recorded that since the court was ‘so afraid of the consequence’ of malpractice being revealed ‘that they durst not venture it upon a report to the House’, Trevor ‘very discreetly’ secured a resolution that the whole poll be declared void.113Burton’s Diary, iv. 318. On 7 March he had been among those who defended -in his case supposedly as ‘the honestest vote that ever passed’ -the committee’s decision against the election at Malton of radicals Luke Robinson* and Robert Lilburne*.114Burton’s Diary, iv. 45. On the other hand, when Hesilrige raised the issue of those sitting in the House who should have been ruled ineligible, both Fielder and Trevor attempted to muzzle him (9 Mar.).115Burton’s Diary, iv. 95-6. Trevor and Hesilrige took opposing sides on the bill for restoring the franchise to Durham, the former being for it and the latter against it, although when it was referred to committee, both thought that a general distribution of seats should be considered (31 Mar.).116Burton’s Diary, iv. 310. Trevor also spoke to a petition about a disputed election in Caernarvon (22 Mar.) and objected (with Knightley) to the bribery charges laid by radicals and army officers against Dr William Petty*, Member for West Looe and protégé in Ireland of Henry Cromwell*, using a characteristic argument that the allegations were too imprecise to be effectively defended (24 Mar.).117Burton’s Diary, iv. 224,

Meanwhile, Trevor and Hesilrige had also faced each other over the question of who should be Speaker. When on 9 March Chaloner Chute I* was patently too ill to continue in the chair, Trevor moved for a temporary replacement while he recovered and proposed (Sir) Lislebone Long*, who had been a supporter of the recognition of Richard Cromwell. Hesilrige countered that the Speaker should be someone ‘no way influenced by the court’, but Trevor’s candidate prevailed.118Burton’s Diary, iv. 90-1. It was, however, a hollow victory. Assailed by Hesilrige and himself unwell, Long proffered his resignation on the 14th, was replaced on the 16th and died on the 17th.119Burton’s Diary, iv. 92, 138-9; CJ vii. 612a, 613b-614a.

Among Trevor’s rare committee appointments in the first two months of the Parliament – an unsurprising nomination to that for the ministry in Wales being the only one in February – was one to the committee investigating the alleged assault by Henry Wroth on Major-general William Packer* (4 Mar.).120CJ vii. 600b, 610a. Apparently as disinclined as ever to oblige the army, and seizing upon the mitigating circumstances offered by Packer himself, Trevor was to the fore in arguing for Wroth to be given a respectful hearing, and then to be discharged on parole.121Burton’s Diary, iv. 3, 4, 6. When a fortnight later commonwealthsmen promoted the cause of Major-general Robert Overton, imprisoned on a warrant from Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell for his opposition to the government, Trevor repeatedly tried to deflect attention from his grievances by arguing for consideration of all supposed cases of illegal imprisonment, a course which he must have known would be impracticable.122Burton’s Diary, iv. 152, 154, 158. He was equally unsympathetic to a petition from those imprisoned following the Salisbury rising of 1655 and then transported to Barbados, where they were ‘now in slavery’. Consideration of it ‘discourages your friends, heightens your enemies, and will set such a flame in the nation as will hardly be quenched’ (25 Mar.).123Burton’s Diary, iv. 273. He gave short shrift to another five days later. Taking up Secretary John Thurloe’s* concern that ‘tenderness’ might have ‘dangerous consequence’, he argued that the petitioner had been accused of ‘high treason’ and should be ‘secured, in order to his trial’.124Burton’s Diary, iv. 306.

Periodically, Trevor got up to express his views on the excise. On 12 March he was among MPs who urged ‘no delay’ in the sequestration of tax farmers who were in arrears with payments into the exchequer.125Burton’s Diary, iv. 141. As he revealed on 1 April, he was keen to regularise public finance in a manner which restored earlier accountability to Parliament or the nation. It had ‘been the fortune of our civil wars, to leave things, both revenue and laws, upon such a footing as nothing but necessity can justify’; the excise bill aimed ‘to bring back our purse where it ought to be, as our natural right’.126Burton’s Diary, iv. 320. He was prepared to hear out government critic Andrew Boughton* against the bill, but perhaps only in the expectation that he would demonstrate the weakness of his case.127Burton’s Diary, iv. 325-6. Eschewing discussion of how public debt had arisen, he spoke for seeking remedies through retrenchment (7 Apr.).128Burton’s Diary, iv. 364. Whatever transpired politically, the future of the excise should be clarified by statute, ‘else it will remain as a moot point’ (15 Apr.).129Burton’s Diary, iv. 435. Towards the end of the Parliament he was placed on several committees considering individual claims on state finances, including those of Samuel Vassall* (1 Apr.) and Major-general Richard Browne II* (26 Mar.).130CJ vii. 621a, 622b, 623a, 637b. After a period of imprisonment, the latter was being courted both by the protectorate government and by the royalists, whose intelligence noted that in addition to £9,000 and restoration to his office of aldermen, there was a proposal that Browne should be appointed lieutenant of the Tower, but Trevor had asked that he wait to receive that from the protector rather than the House.131CCSP iv. 168.

On 23 March, the day the Commons voted to accept the Irish MPs, Trevor was among those who pressed to prioritise resumption of debate about transacting with the Other House.132Burton’s Diary, iv. 243. Five days later, frustrated that ‘we have been two months wind-bound’, he tried to clear the way for a positive decision which would remove what he clearly felt had been a major obstacle to political resolution.133Burton’s Diary, iv. 285, 288. He was rewarded when the House later voted for the transaction, but the battle was not yet won. Placed on the committee which prepared a declaration of a public fast (30 Mar.), he then faced a division on whether it should be published by ‘Both Houses’ (5 Apr.).134CJ vii. 622a, 625b. As a teller with John Swynfen, he obtained clear majority for this, but through the day still struggled to secure its referral to the Other House for concurrence, against those who wished to discuss that House’s powers or other topics altogether, against an interjection from Hesilrige in the gallery, and against those who argued that no decision could be taken owing to the absence of ‘the republicans [who] flocked out, either to dine, or not to be present at the question’.135Burton’s Diary, iv. 340-2, 344-5, 347. Refusing to be drawn into argument about whether the declaration should be ‘sent up’ or ‘sent down’, he moved successfully for the formulation ‘to desire the concurrence of the Other House’; here too he wished all to be ‘upon one footing’.136Burton’s Diary, iv. 348-9.

Appointed on 6 March to the committee to consider the manner of transacting with the Other House, he duly repeated this principle with regard to ceremony.137CJ vii. 627a; Burton’s Diary, iv. 351. In the past, doffing of caps had ‘had my most reluctancy’, he said two days later. ‘As I would not have us imposed upon, so I would not impose on them as to make them ridiculous’.138Burton’s Diary, iv. 378.

Having been appointed on 1 April to the Committee for the Affairs of Ireland and to the committee for Scotland, Trevor now collected a clutch of other committee nominations, including to consider claims on the confiscated estates of John Paulet, 5th marquess of Winchester (to which he was named first, 11 Apr.).139CJ vii. 623a, 623b, 632a, 634b, 637b, 639a. On the 18th, as it became apparent that Parliament was once more at risk of forcible dissolution by the army, he was named to the committee to consider how to safeguard the protector, Parliament and the nation.140CJ vii. 641b. Once the House had resolved to forbid any meeting of the general council of the army without the sanction of the protector or Parliament, Trevor was among those who refused to be panicked into conducting a purge of those in the House deemed to be ‘cavaliers’.141Burton’s Diary, iv. 457, 458. But his acceptance of the resolution that none should hold military command who refused to undertake not to interfere with Parliament -seen in his motion that Richard should apprise the officers of this -was accompanied by another, prudent motion to ‘do justice to the army, by taking speedy course for the arrears of the army, and providing something for their present subsistence’.142Burton’s Diary, iv. 461-2. Three days later, as the House began to debate the re-organisation of the army, Trevor stood up to speak, but was apparently forestalled by a motion from John Lambert*.143Burton’s Diary, iv. 474. In the next few hours, Richard submitted to the army and Parliament was dissolved.

Returned Long Parliament

Trevor’s father resumed his seat in Parliament after the Rump returned in May 1659, and by the summer was seen by royalists as a potential friend in the House, like his son-in-law Harbert Morley.144CCSP iv. 401. Trevor’s own position in over these months of instability is unknown. On 21 January 1660, through Morley’s offices, he was appointed by the Rump to the place of custos brevium in the court of common bench, to which he had been aspiring (in competition with John Herbert*) since at least March 1659.145CJ vii. 817b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 112. A pamphlet addressed to General George Monck* arguing for the re-admittance of the excluded Members, published just before 4 February, has been attributed to Trevor on the basis of the ‘J. Trev.’ signature. While its stance against the army (‘Wallingfordian’) and for religious toleration stance would fit with Trevor (and, for that matter, his father), the designation of the author as ‘a gentleman of Devon’ presents an obstacle to a definitive identification.146‘Sir John Trevor’, Oxford DNB; The Fair Dealer [1660] (E.1015.11).

Returning with the Long Parliament on 21 February, Trevor was named to the committee for constituting a new council of state.147CJ vii. 847b. Two days later, like Morley, he was chosen one of 30 councillors, coming 23rd in the poll.148CJ vii. 849b. His attendance proved slightly above average and lasted until the council’s penultimate day, on 25 May.149CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. xxvi–xxvii. In contrast to his prominence in the spring of 1659, however, in the absence of diary evidence his visible activity was otherwise modest. His second committee appointment, on 23 February to settle the county militias, was also his last.150CJ vii. 849a. Chosen by the council on 3 March to confer with the officers and the army and Admiralty committees on the question of financial supply, on 5 March he reported from the council on the state of funds for the relief of the Piedmontese Protestants, of which his father had been made a commissioner five years earlier.151HMC Popham, 169; CJ vii. 863a. Thanks to Richard Knightley, he was confirmed in the office of custos, although half of the proceeds were to go to the state (6 Mar.).152CJ vii. 863b. On 10 March he was teller for the large majority which opposed the addition of Sir Henry Mildmay* to the Essex militia commission.153CJ vii. 869b.

Convention and Restoration

Failing to secure his re-election to the Convention for Flintshire, Trevor gained a seat instead at Arundel (which his father represented in 1656) at a by-election on 7 May. On 21 committees and in 17 recorded speeches, he assisted in preparations for the return of the king, but argued for leniency under the act of indemnity (including for Hesilrige) and for the recusants in his constituency. Although he did not manage to retain his seat in 1661, good connections ensured that he returned to the Commons in 1663 as a Member for Great Bedwyn. 154HP Commons 1660-1690. He had lost his place as custos brevium, but soon gained other public office, both locally and as a diplomatic envoy, eventually becoming secretary of state.155SR; CSP Dom. 1667-8, pp. 223, 228, 297, 329, 331, 335, 354, 525; SP44/25, f. 75; SP30/C, f. 11.

Trevor, who was knighted by early 1668, predeceased his father, dying on 28 February 1672.156CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 223; SP29/319A, f. 50. While his elder son, another John Trevor, succeeded in 1673 to the Trefalun estates, his younger son Thomas Trevor†, subsequently created Baron Trevor of Bromham, was elected to Parliament in 1692.157E. S. Jones, Trevors of Trevalyn, 77-8; HP Commons 1690-1715. The Sir John Trevor† who sat from 1673 and was elected Speaker in 1685, was from a different branch of the family, seated at Brynkinallt, Denbighshire.158HP Commons 1660-1690.

Still a youth when first elected to the Commons, Trevor took some time to make his mark, although his connections may have helped to ensure that he was more active behind the scenes than meets the eye. Apparently identifying with the Presbyterians, he did not sit in the Rump. The advent of the protectorate, and his kinship ties with the Cromwell family, encouraged him to re-engage with public life. Successively elected to Parliament for Flintshire, he developed into a leading ‘court figure’, taking on the regime’s republican critics and arguing vigorously for a workable political settlement, based less on theories of natural rights or reaction to past events, than on realism and statute law. A pragmatist, he negotiated the Restoration with relative ease.