TYRRELL (TIRRELL), Thomas (?1596-1672), of Castlethorpe, Bucks.

The Buckinghamshire Tyrrells, a cadet branch of the Tyrrells of Essex, claimed descent from Sir Walter Tyrrell who had been accused of killing William II.53Vis. Bucks. 1634 (Harl. Soc. lviii), 117-19; Lipscomb, Buckingham, ii. 119. Their connections with Buckinghamshire dated from the sixteenth century when they had acquired lands at Thornton by marriage.54VCH Bucks. iv. 245. This MP was only a younger son of the head of the family, Sir Edward Tyrrell†, from a second marriage. When Sir Edward died in 1606, these lands passed to the eldest son, Edward junior, who was later created a baronet.55VCH Bucks. iv. 245; CB. Thomas would therefore have to earn his own living.

On being called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1621, Thomas Tyrrell became a professional barrister. About 1634 he was fined £20 for failing to deliver the readings at Lyon’s Inn, but otherwise he seems to have had a conventional career, holding the usual junior offices of his inn and slowly building up a practice.56CITR ii. 217, 264; Baker, Readers and Readings, 209. One measure of his increasing prosperity was his acquisition of land in Buckinghamshire. As early as 1626 he bought a reversion of a lease on some land at held from the royal manor of Hanslope in the north-east corner of the county.57VCH Bucks. iv. 351-2. He subsequently bought further reversions to that manor from Captain John Penington, whose second cousin, Isaac Penington*, was the existing tenant.58VCH Bucks. iv. 351. This became Tyrrell’s principal residence in the county. It was there that he would pay his share of the Irish contributions (£10) In the spring of 1642.59Bucks. Contributions for Ireland, 24. A legal challenge by Sir Miles Fleetwood* in 1638 to his possession of those lands went all the way to the privy council, but was successfully resisted by Tyrrell.60CSP Dom. 1637, p. 63; 1637-8, pp. 374, 402. The following year his step-son Richard Grenville* appointed him as joint trustee, along with Edmund West*, of his estates at Wotton Underwood.61PROB11/320/115. He also acted as the executor to his friend, Sir Fleetwood Dormer, father of John Dormer*.62PROB11/179/267. By about this time he had also gained a number of indirect links with the court. His elder brother Sir Timothy Tyrrell of Okely had become Charles I’s master of the buckhounds.63Vis. Bucks 1634, 119; Lipscomb, Buckingham, i. 362. Moreover, in December 1638, his nephew Toby, son of Sir Edward Tyrrell, married Edith, daughter of the secretary of state, Sir Francis Windebanke*.

Even so, it took the events of the 1640s to propel Tyrrell into local prominence. As a younger son with a modest estate and as a lawyer whose professional interests were focused on the capital, he had hitherto played little part in county affairs. It is thus all the more striking that the war should have transformed him into a soldier. The first step was his appointment by the lord lieutenant, William, 6th Baron Paget, as a Buckinghamshire deputy lieutenant to implement the militia ordinance on behalf of Parliament.64Whitelocke, Diary, 131n. Once Parliament began to create its own army, Tyrrell rallied to the cause by raising his own troop of horse. This then formed part of the regiment commanded by another Buckinghamshire man, Colonel Arthur Goodwin*.65SP28/1a, f. 143; SP28/2a, f. 144; SP28/2b, ff. 322, 408, 452, 476; SP28/3a, f. 261; SP28/3b, f. 384; SP28/4, ff. 188, 305; SP28/7, ff. 67, 301, 414; SP28/8, f. 153; SP28/9, f. 57. Tyrrell’s troop seems to have been based at Aylesbury, from where it was probably used to help defend the county from royalist attack at a time when it was emerging as one of the crucial front lines.66The Insolency and Cruelty of the Cavaliers (1643), 4 (E.102.16); Nugent, Hampden, ii. 318-19. Tyrrell certainly took part in the defence of the town when Aylesbury was attacked on 21 March 1643.67Two Lttrs. of great Consequence (1643), 6-8 (E.94.2). His first-hand experience of the war in Buckinghamshire explains why he and Sir John Witteronge* were able two months later to supply Parliament with news of atrocities allegedly committed by the royalist forces in that area. Their letter, which was read in Parliament on 18 May, claimed that royalist soldiers were carrying out widespread looting and that they had killed a pregnant woman.68CJ iii. 91a; LJ vi. 52b-53a; The Copy of a Lttr. from Alisbury (1643), sig. A2-A3 (E.102.15). During the early months of the war Tyrrell was briefly also treasurer of the garrison at Aylesbury. However, by May 1643 he had been replaced by Thomas Barnes.69Bucks. Contributions for Ireland, 114, 118, 126. He also helped collect the Proposition money.70Bucks. Contributions for Ireland, 113.

The death of John Hampden* on 24 June 1643 robbed Buckinghamshire of its most famous parliamentarian supporter. Appointed to take over command of his infantry regiment, Tyrrell was accordingly promoted to the rank of colonel.71SP28/8, f. 239; SP28/10, ff. 191-192, 270; SP28/127, ff. 65-79. Officers who would serve under him included Richard Ingoldsby* and John Biscoe*. During the summer of 1643 Tyrrell raised a second regiment, this time of cavalry, recruiting his men in and around Aylesbury.72SP28/9, f. 118: SP28/12, f. 70. However, the following May his foot regiment, which had seen action at the first battle of Newbury (20 Sept. 1643), was reduced.73C.L. Scott, The Battles of Newbury (Barnsley, 2008), 117; Bucks. RO, D/X 1007/48/1.

During 1644 Tyrrell and his cavalry regiment served with Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, on campaign in the west.74Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 709. As a result, Tyrrell found himself drawn into the controversy surrounding the conduct of Lieutenant-colonel John Botteler. Although serving in Essex’s own regiment, Botteler was close enough to some of those serving under Tyrrell that they trusted him to receive their wages on their behalf.75SP28/17, ff. 127-128. In August 1644 Botteler was captured by the royalists at Boconnoc, but after being included in a prisoner exchange, he returned to Essex’s army bringing with him propositions from the king.76BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database, ‘John Botteler’. These he then handed over to Tyrrell, who passed them on to Philip Skippon* and Sir Philip Stapilton*. The subsequent accusation was that, as a result, those propositions had circulated among the army without Parliament’s knowledge. On their return to London following the disaster at Lostwithiel, these officers found themselves under investigation by the Commons.77CJ iii. 641a; Harl. 166, f. 125v; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 710; CSP Dom. 1644, p. 538; Juxon Jnl. 58-9, 60. Tyrrell seems then to have resigned his commission or been removed. By October 1644 Ingoldsby had succeeded him as regimental colonel.78SP28/19, f. 76.

Tyrrell’s departure from the army did not mean that he withdrew from public life. When Tyrrell travelled up to London in October 1644, the governor of Newport Pagnell, Sir Samuel Luke* told his father, Sir Oliver Luke*, that he would be able to brief him on the state of the Aylesbury garrison. Sir Oliver then tried unsuccessfully to get him appointed to the associated committee for Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Oxfordshire.79Luke Letter Bks. 46, 47, 57. But this disguised tensions between Tyrrell and the Lukes. Sir Samuel was soon accusing Tyrrell of encouraging his tenants at Hanslope to refuse to pay the tax being levied for dragoon horses. Tyrrell countered with the claim that he and his tenants had been overrated and that they were paid everything required of them under the ordinance. That his estates had not yet recovered from raids by royalist forces was a further reason why he thought the accusations to be unfair. He believed that Sir Samuel was criticising him behind his back, which Sir Samuel was indeed doing. This dispute rumbled on into the spring of 1645.80Luke Letter Bks. 92, 98, 108, 177, 383, 401-2, 404, 444, 470-1. The bad feeling was exacerbated when the two submitted separate and conflicting advice to Essex concerning military appointments.81Luke Letter Bks. 200-1. It may well have been in connection with this that Sir William Andrewes attempted to challenge Tyrrrell to a duel in Westminster Hall. Andrewes was arrested by the serjeant-at-arms, while Tyrrell was called before the Commons to be thanked by the Speaker for his ‘moderation and temper’.82CJ iv. 125a-b. The rivalry between Tyrrell and Luke came to a head in May 1645 with suggestions that Tyrrell should be appointed as governor of Aylesbury to replace Henry Marten*. Luke was not alone in opposing this proposal, and rival petitions for and against Tyrrell were submitted to Parliament.83Luke Letter Bks. 276, 279, 281, 282, 283. Thomas Bulstrode was eventually appointed instead.84CJ iv. 338b. He had better luck in September 1645 the following month when, on the recommendation of Bulstrode Whitelocke*, he was finally added to the committee for the associated counties.85CJ iv. 294a; Whitelocke, Diary, 180. There had meanwhile been talk of Tyrrell standing for Parliament for one of the Buckinghamshire constituencies and he did so unsuccessfully when the by-elections for the county seats were held on 5 November.86Whitelocke, Diary, 178; Add. 18780, f. 162.

He probably took his local duties seriously. During the summer of 1646 he was busy collecting money, horses and plate for Parliament, assisted by Sir Peter Temple*.87SP28/151: acct. of Col. Tyrrell, 16 July 1646. This was also the one period when he is known for certain to have been active on the county standing committee.88SP28/126: bk. of acquittances, Mar. 1646-Jan. 1647, ff. 176-192v. This makes it all the more striking that he seems to have largely avoided local office during the commonwealth and the protectorate. His appointments as one of the Buckingham justices of the peace in March 1654 and as an assessment commissioner in June 1657 were rare exceptions.89C181/6, p. 22; A. and O. It is quite possible that he had moral qualms about the execution of the king, although what he said in the 1659 Parliament suggests that he was theoretically willing to accept the concept of the protectorate.

Tyrrell’s activities as a landlord briefly featured in debate during the 1656 Parliament. His tenants at Hanslope submitted a petition complaining that Tyrrell had cut down timber to which they were entitled. This was presented to Parliament by Sir Gilbert Pykeringe* on 22 December 1656. Most of those who then spoke, including the master of the rolls, William Lenthall*, and the lord chief justice of upper bench, John Glynne*, felt that this was a matter for the ordinary law courts. When one MP, either John Disbrowe* or William Boteler*, accused Tyrrell of being a delinquent, John Carter* corrected him. The petition was then laid aside.90Burton’s Diary, i. 197-8; CJ vii. 472a.

In December 1658 Tyrrell joined forces with Bulstrode Whitelocke’s son, James Whitelocke*, in a successful attempt to get elected as MPs for Aylesbury.91Whitelocke, Diary, 503. Once elected, Tyrrell proved to be one of the most voluble speakers in this Parliament on constitutional subjects. His interventions were rarely helpful to the new lord protector and his government. In his first recorded speech, on 5 February 1659 on whether Edmund Ludlowe II* could take his seat without swearing the oaths, Tyrrell outlined his view that the Humble Petition and Advice was no longer valid.92Burton’s Diary, iii. 73. Thereafter he consistently maintained that Richard Cromwell* could not claim to be lord protector on the basis of the Humble Petition, but that Parliament did have the power to appoint him to that position and that they should do so.93Burton’s Diary, iii. 137, 193, 223-6, 271-2, 351; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, pp. 105, 118-20, 128. A speech by him on 11 February set out his reasons at length. His main argument was that, unlike a king, the protector was not a sole corporation and thus the office existed only for life. The protectorship had died with Richard’s father and so would need to be created anew for him by Parliament. Moreover, this Parliament had been called not because the Humble Petition gave the protector the power to do so – that too had lapsed with Oliver Cromwell’s death – but because Richard Cromwell was the de facto ruler and therefore had the right to summon a Parliament under older English laws.94Burton’s Diary, iii. 223-6; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, pp. 118-20.

Tyrrell was fully aware that this line of argument cast doubt on the continued legitimacy of the Other House and he had already touched on this in passing.95Burton’s Diary, iii. 137, 223, 225; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, pp. 105, 118-20. He was therefore only too willing to expand on the subject now that the Commons turned its attention specifically to that question. He did not hesitate to push the logic of his position to its furthest extreme. His basic position was that this Parliament had been summoned in the same way as Parliaments in the days of the monarchy. This fitted neatly with the fact that the old franchises had been restored for the recent elections. But it was far less obvious that this could justify the existence of the Other House. Tyrrell did not attempt to do so. His view was that the old House of Lords should be reconstituted on exactly the same basis as that on which the Commons had already been summoned.

Tyrrell’s most important speech on the subject, which he gave in the debate on 28 February, was a full-blown legal and historical defence of a second chamber comprising a nobility, and a critique of the decision by the Rump to abolish the House of Lords.96Burton’s Diary, iii. 513-25; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, pp. 152-3. The attorney-general, Edmund Prideaux I*, objected that recalling the peers from the old House of Lords would simply be the first step on the road to restoring the monarchy. Tyrrell replied by saying that he only wanted to summon those peers who could be trusted.97Burton’s Diary, iii. 525-6; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, pp. 153-4. This was less inconsistent than it may seem as he had previously argued that, despite appearances, the House of Lords had not been hereditary and that each peer had required a new summons each time a Parliament had been called.98Burton’s Diary, iii. 417; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, p. 142. It was not that he denied that the members of the Other House had a right to sit. Rather it was that the protector had the right to summon whomever he wished, just as the king had. But that simply meant that the members of the Other House were exactly the same as the old peers. He repeated variations on these arguments in the subsequent debates on the subject.99Burton’s Diary, iii. 562, 566, 580-3, iv. 37; Wilts. RO, 9/34/3, pp. 158, 160; Derbys. RO, D258/10/9/1, unfol. As few yet shared his view that the Other House should exist but only as a restored House of Lords, there must be some doubt as to how much influence his speeches actually had. He may have become a bit of a bore on the subject. When, faced with the question of how to transact business with the Other House, the Commons returned to the issue in early April, Tyrrell served on the relevant committee. Moreover, on 8 April he acted as a teller for the majority in the division in which the Commons agreed to accept that committee’s recommendation that any messages from the Other House would only be received if delivered by members of that House.100CJ vii. 627a, 632b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 371.

The third related issue was whether the Scottish and Irish MPs should be allowed to sit. This was, as Tyrrell put it, ‘a big-bellied question, perplexed and complicated’.101Burton’s Diary, iv. 213. Tyrrell was equally sceptical about the legitimacy of their summons and for the same reasons. He continued to insist that the argument that they had been summoned because the Humble Petition said they should was irrelevant, because the Humble Petition itself was now irrelevant. Their summons could therefore rest only on the older royal prerogative by which the monarch had been able to enfranchise new constituencies. But he was equally adamant that the Scottish and Irish MPs should not be allowed to sit while the Commons was still debating the matter.102Burton’s Diary, iv. 101-2, 126-7, 171, 186, 213, 281. He seems nevertheless to have accepted that Parliament could legislate to enfranchise constituencies, for he probably supported the bill to grant representation to Durham.103CJ vii. 622b.

The other notable aspect of Tyrrell’s activity in this Parliament was that he served as chairman of the grand committee for grievances and the courts of justice. This was the committee that handled a wide range of legal cases about which petitions had been received. Tyrrell is first known to have chaired this committee on 16 February when it considered the case between Sarah Rodney and John Cole.104Burton’s Diary, iii. 306; iv. 1; CJ vii. 610a. Ten days later, reporting from the same committee, Tyrrell persuaded the Commons that the imprisonment of John Portman in the Tower had been illegal.105Burton’s Diary, iii. 448, 494; CJ vii. 607a. He was in the chair when John Barkstead* was called to the bar to answer those allegations.106Mems. of the Verney Fam. iii. 445. The case of Sir Thomas Armstrong provided a pretext for the committee to carry out an investigation into similar complains about illegal imprisonment on Jersey, which was beyond the reach of habeas corpus.107Burton’s Diary, iv. 154, 162; CJ vii. 614b. These were just a few of the cases the committee is known to have considered and it is clear that Tyrrell became its regular chairman.108Burton’s Diary, iii. 595; iv. 119, 244, 249, 253, 255, 268, 309, 317, 360, 421, 424-6, 429, 469; CJ vii. 611b, 620a-b, 634b, 636a-b, 638b, 639a. It may well have been in this role that he made the biggest contribution to this Parliament. He is unlikely to have viewed the ending of the Parliament with much pleasure. Only four days earlier on 18 April he had warned the Commons that criticising the general council of army officers might turn out to be counterproductive. He went on to argue that no one really controlled the army.109Burton’s Diary, iv. 455. The dissolution proved his point.

The return of the Rump and the appointment of a new council of state in May 1659 had important consequences for Tyrrell. On 3 June Sir Arthur Hesilrige* informed the Commons that the council wished to appoint new commissioners for the great seal. The names the council recommended were John Bradshawe*, Tyrrell, Josias Berners* and John Fountaine. The Commons duly appointed Bradshawe, Tyrrell and Fountaine.110CJ vii. 671a; Whitelocke, Diary, 518; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 93. In taking the oath the following day Tyrrell swore to be ‘true and faithful to this commonwealth, as it is declared by Parliament, without a single person, kingship, or house of peers’.111CJ vii. 672a. This was perhaps a surprising concession for him to make, although he had never actually argued that there had to be a king or a second chamber. That he would have been seen as a relatively conservative figure may indeed have been the reason he had been chosen. In accepting the position, he gave added legitimacy to the new council. He was then appointed as a serjeant-at-law and as a bencher of the Inner Temple in recognition of his new position.112CJ vii. 687b; Whitelocke, Diary, 520; Baker, Serjeants at Law, 191-2; CITR ii. 331. Bradshawe’s doubts about serving were reinforced that October when the Rump was dismissed; in any case he would die soon afterwards. Tyrrell and Fountaine, on the other hand, were willing to continue as commissioners, thus providing the most tenuous appearance of legal continuity to the rule of the army.113CCSP iv. 417.

When the Rump regained power in December 1659, the two of them again remained in place. Tyrrell was then appointed to the new council of state, although how far he acted as a councillor is unclear.114CJ vii. 801a. On 18 January 1660 the Rump formally confirmed Tyrrell and Fountaine in office as the commissioners, with Sir Thomas Widdrington* being appointed to join them.115CJ vii. 814a-b, 816a. This trio retained control of the great seal throughout the upheavals of the next few months. On 5 May 1660, having decided to recall the king, the Convention considered whether to reappoint them. According to Ludlowe, Tyrrell was the one commissioner whose continuation in this position was uncontroversial.116Ludlow, Mems. ii. 266. The Commons then decided to add the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†) as the fourth commissioner. They finally stepped down the day before the king entered London, whereupon the great seal of the commonwealth was defaced. For almost exactly a year, through some particularly turbulent events, Tyrrell had been one of the most senior and most powerful lawyers in the land. One personal consequence of that experience may have been his third marriage two years later to Fountaine’s sister-in-law, Lady Gore.

Tyrrell’s role as the voice of legal conservatism in the 1659 Parliament made it all the easier for him to adapt at the Restoration. His reward came in the summer of 1660 when Charles II appointed him as one of the new judges of the court of common pleas.117Sainty, Judges, 77; Verney MSS, T. Stafford to Sir R. Verney, 7 July 1660 (M636/17). He received the customary knighthood on accepting the position. George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, and William Craven, 1st Baron Craven, acted as his patrons when, with his previous admission being considered void, he was then re-appointed as a serjeant-at-law.118Baker, Serjeants at Law, 443. Further royal gifts came in 1663 when the king also granted him the manor of Hanslope and in 1665 his second son, Peter, who had married a daughter of Carew Ralegh*, was created baronet.119CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 188; Lipscomb, Buckingham, iv. 89, 174; CB. Justice Tyrrell died on 8 March 1672. Eight days later he was buried in the parish church at Castlethorpe, where his grave was later marked by a substantial monument erected by his widow.120Bucks. Dissent and Parish Life 1669-1712 ed. J. Broad (Bucks. Rec. Soc. xxviii), 166; Lipscomb, Buckingham, iv. 91-2; Pevsner, Bucks. 214, plate 51. His eldest son, Thomas, who had married his first cousin, Hester Tyrrell of Thornton, had been disinherited, so it was Sir Peter who inherited the estates at Castlethorpe and Hanslope.121Vis. Bucks. 1634, 119; Burke Dorm. and Extinct Baronetcies, 538; VCH Bucks. iv. 351. The male line of this branch of the family died out in 1714 on the death of Sir Peter’s only son, Sir Thomas Tyrrell, 2nd bt.122CB; Burke Dorm. and Extinct Baronetcies, 538. The lands at Castlethorpe were subsequently sold to Sarah Churchill, duchess of Marlborough.123Lipscomb, Buckingham, iv. 90. Of Sir Peter’s surviving daughters, Christabella married Richard Fiennes, 6th Viscount Saye and Sele.