EARLE, Erasmus (1590-1667), of Heydon Hall, Heydon, Norf. and Lincoln’s Inn, Mdx.

The Earles were a yeoman family who had been connected with Sall in north Norfolk since the mid-fourteenth century, although a continuous line can only be traced with certainty to Earle’s grandfather.45Blomefield, Norf. vi. 245. Earle himself was the first of his family to receive a university education, entered the law, and steadily built up a successful legal practice. Early in his career he acted as steward of the manors of East Bradenham and Huntingfield Hall for Sir Julius Caesar† and as standing counsel for the Catholic Sir Henry Bedingfield†.46Blomefield, Norf. vi. 246n. In late 1629 he also acted as counsel for Walter Long*, one of the MPs recently arrested after the dissolution of Parliament, but Long complained that Earle had been ‘weak’ in persuading him to enter into a bond for good behaviour.47T. Birch, Court and Times of Charles the First (1849), ii. 30-1. In 1636 Earle’s success at the bar was recognised by his colleagues when he was appointed as a bencher of Lincoln’s Inn.48LI Black Bks. ii. 339. Three years later he served as their autumn reader.49LI Black Bks. ii. 349; Baker, Readers and Readings, 140, 344. He also began to accumulate local offices. By 1641 he was the recorder of Thetford, while from the following year he was retained counsel for the Norwich corporation.50C231/5, p. 431; Norf. RO, Norwich assembly bk. 1642-68, f. 5. His professional success enabled him to begin expanding his estates. One early purchase was Heydon Hall, which became his principal seat.51Cozens-Hardy, ‘Some Norf. halls’, 183; Blomefield, Norf. vi. 243. A further mark of his rising status was that he was granted armorial bearings in 1635.52Grantees of Arms, ed. J. Foster (Harl. Soc. lxvi.), 80.

During the earliest months of the civil war Earle seems to have given the impression of reluctance to support Parliament. He was among six Norfolk men whom the Commons ordered on 18 October 1642 were to be disarmed for having failed to pay money towards the parliamentarian cause. Earle and one of the others, Edward Heyward, were also summoned to appear before the Commons.53CJ ii. 813a-b. He was evidently able to satisfy someone, as no further proceedings were taken against him. In the case of the assessment on some of his lands, he argued in 1645 that those had previously been transferred to his eldest son, John. The Committee for Advance of Money did therefore proceed against the latter.54HMC 10th Rep. IV, 214. But by then Earle himself was being included on the commissions of oyer and terminer and for assessment for Norwich, a clear indication that Parliament now thought him reliable.55C181/5, pp. 481, 521; A. and O. (He was not, as has sometimes been supposed, the secretary to the Uxbridge peace negotiations – that was Daniel Earle, the secretary employed by Bulstrode Whitelocke*.)56TSP i. 59.

Earle’s links with the Norwich corporation had been strengthened in July 1644 when he had been appointed as their steward.57Norf. RO, Norwich assembly bk. 1642-68, ff. 21, 26; Index of Norwich City Officers, pp. xxviii, 55. This placed him in a strong position in early 1647, when the by-election to fill the vacancy created by the death of Richard Harman* was held at Norwich. The city recorder, Samuel Smith, who might have been an obvious choice, was thought suspect, so Earle as the steward was the next best thing.

Elected on 4 January 1647, Earle first appeared in the Commons on 25 January, when he was ordered with Nicholas Love* to take care of the committee to consider suitable ways of bringing delinquents exempted from pardon to a legal trial.58CJ v. 61b. That same day he was welcomed by the other Norwich MP, Thomas Atkin*, who promised the Norwich mayor, Henry Watts, that the two of them would work closely together.59Add. 22620, ff. 45, 48. Earle took the Covenant a week later.60CJ v. 69a. The day after that he wrote to Watts promising to do what he could to ‘hasten’ the bill for uniting parishes in the city which had made little progress in committee.61Add. 22620, f. 50. It was in defence of Watts that Earle made what was probably his first intervention in debate on 8 February. Reporting from the excise committee, its chairman criticised the mayor for obstructing the collection of the excise at Norwich. Atkin later told Watts that, ‘Mr Earle being in the House and having known all the proceedings at Norwich did clear your worship and brethren that you stand right in the opinion of the House’. Atkin was confident that this had seen off any threat of action against the Norwich corporation.62Add. 22620, f. 54.

During this period of Earle’s parliamentary career it is difficult to distinguish him from the Wareham MP, Thomas Erle*. On balance, however, it seems likely that most references in the Journals to ‘Mr Erle’ refer to the more experienced Wareham MP, especially when Thomas seems to have been working in conjunction with his father, Sir Walter Erle*. Perhaps appointed to the committee to consider fees taken by the register in chancery (13 Feb. 1647), Earle was given leave on 23 February to go into the country.63CJ v. 87a, 95b. He seems then to have taken no further recorded part in proceedings until late June. On 22 June he wrote to the mayor of Norwich enclosing orders for the return of the three pieces of ordnance which the Norwich corporation had lent to the garrison at King’s Lynn.64Add. 19399, f. 24. In the Commons three days later, he was added to the committee for the prosecution of the Welsh royalist judge, David Jenkins.65CJ v. 223a. On 19 July the Commons sent him back to his constituency with orders to compose the ‘late distractions and differences’ at Norwich over the excise.66CJ v. 249b. At the mayor’s request, this leave of absence was extended in early August, following the army’s entry into London, with Atkin consulting with Miles Corbett* and the Speaker, William Lenthall*, about this after they had returned to Westminster.67Add. 19936, f. 26. Earle had returned by 15 October, when he was added to the committee with other lawyers to prepare the impeachments against the seven peers.68CJ v. 334b. Already granted another period of leave on 1 December, he was one of the Norfolk MPs ordered to assist in the collection of the county’s assessments later that same month.69CJ v. 373b, 400b.

After the Norwich riot of April 1648, Earle, Atkin, and Samuel Smith the recorder were ordered to ensure that the orders of the House disenfranchising those who had had any part in the tumult were put into effect.70CJ v. 546b. Earle was later appointed to the committee to examine the circumstances behind the riot (16 May) and, when Parliament appointed new deputy lieutenants to ensure that peace was maintained there, Earle was among those named.71CJ v. 546b, 578b; LJ x. 296b. On 10 June ‘Mr Erle the lawyer’ and William Foxwist* were particularly asked to take care of the preparations for the trial of Sir John Owen, who had led the recent royalist uprising in north Wales.72CJ v. 593a. Earle was granted another period of leave on 25 July.73CJ v. 647b, vi. 34a. That October, on the recommendation of the commissioners of the great seal, Earle was appointed by Parliament as a serjeant-at-law. Lord Howard of Escrick (Edward Howard*) and Sir Horatio Townshend* then did him the honour of acting as the fictitious parties when he appeared in court for his first case in that capacity.74CJ vi. 50b; LJ x. 551a; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 214-17; Baker, Serjeants at Law, 188-9, 441. Meanwhile, on 25 November Earle and Atkin were ordered to write to Norwich to expedite the assessment collection.75CJ vi. 88a.

Earle was initially secluded from the Commons in the purge of 6 December 1648.76A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62). . However, one of the first decisions taken by the Rump, agreed the next day, was that Earle should be sent to Norfolk to oversee the trials of the Norwich rioters.77CJ vi. 94a-b. It has been said that he dissented from the vote of 5 December on 17 February 1649 and so was re-admitted to the Commons.78Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 197, 216n, 372. But he seems not to have resumed his seat throughout 1649, much to the annoyance of Atkin, who complained repeatedly to the mayor about the dilatoriness of his colleague.79Add. 22620, ff. 119, 121, 129, 137, 156, 162, 182; Add. 15903, f. 71. Yet Earle seems to have retained the respect of the Norwich corporation, as in April 1649 they paid him a gratuity of £5 for his efforts on their behalf.80Norf. RO, Norwich assembly bk. 1642-68, f. 77v. After being alerted by Atkin, he was present in the House on 5 February 1650 when the bill to establish a corporation in Norwich to regulate the worsted weavers was reported. The pair then headed the list of those named to the committee on this bill and it was to Earle that its care was particularly committed.81CJ vi. 358a. However, Atkin informed the mayor on 7 February that Earle would be busy until the end of the Hilary law term.82Add. 22620, f. 121. Earle probably then left London and in late April he attended the quarter sessions at Norwich.83Norf. QSOB, 19. In late May, by which time Earle was back at Westminster, Atkin grumbled that

I wish I had that help here that some places hath, my fellow burgess never yet came into the Parliament House since he came to London, but is taken up in Westminster Hall to his great advantage. I do admire at him, he having promised to do other wise when he was chosen.84Add. 22620, f. 162.

The Norwich corporation continued to ignore those complaints, recognising the advantages in having the services of such a prominent barrister. Indeed, the previous month they had promoted him to become their recorder, with Charles George Cock* beoming steward in his place.85Norf. RO, Norwich assembly bk. 1642-68, ff. 77v, 95v; Index of Norwich City Officers, pp. xxvii, 55.

Earle may have been one of the main proponents of the bill for the relief of creditors introduced in June 1650, as he asked to take care of this business when it was sent to committee on the 18th.86CJ vi. 420a, 425a. This confirms the impression that he was taking little interest in parliamentary proceedings, as that bill seems to have made no further progress. In April 1651 he was one of the lawyers permitted to consult with 6th Baron Chandos, who was then a prisoner in the Tower.87CSP Dom. 1651, p. 150.

Earle’s next recorded appearances in the Rump date from late 1651, when on five occasions between 6 and 14 November he chaired a grand committee of the whole House.88CJ vii. 35a, 36a-b. The business under the discussion was the bill to set a date for the dissolution and to put in place the arrangements to call a new Parliament. On 18 November the dissolution was announced as no later than 3 November 1654. Seven weeks later, on 1 January 1652, Earle was named to the committee to consider how a high court of justice to punish perjury and treason could be established.89CJ vii. 62a.

In November 1653 the Nominated Parliament, which replaced the Rump, appointed Earle as sheriff of Norfolk for the coming year.90CJ vii. 348a. However, he was among five sheriffs-elect who persuaded the House on 25 November that they should be excused. Earle’s eldest son, John, took his place.91CJ vii. 356b; List of Sheriffs (List and Index ix.), 89.

Earle’s career reached its zenith under the protectorate. By late 1655 the lord chief justice, John Glynne*, was suggesting to the secretary of state, John Thurloe*, that Earle should be promoted to join him as a judge in upper bench.92TSP iv. 171. That seems to have been a promotion too far, but from the summer of 1656 Earle was regularly appointed as an assize judge.93Cockburn, Eng. Assizes, 274; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 217-19, 221. Moreover, in June 1657 he was promoted to become serjeant to the protector, a position formerly held by Glynne.94Baker, Serjeants at Law, 59n, 509. (John Maynard* was appointed as the second serjeant the following year.) During this period the council of state occasionally sought legal advice from him, including on the contents of a proposed new charter for Norwich.95HMC 10th Rep. IV, 211-12; CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 121, 161, 347; 1658-9, p. 67. A more indirect indication of his high standing was that his first cousin and neighbour, John Fountaine of Sall, was also created a serjeant-at-law in 1656. As serjeants, Earle and Maynard walked together in Cromwell’s funeral procession on 23 November 1658.96Burton’s Diary, ii. 526. In early 1659 Earle concluded that the Norwich corporation wished him to step down as recorder because of his duties elsewhere, but the mayor and aldermen reassured him in mid-February that this was not the case.97HMC 10th Rep. IV, 221-2.

The resumption of the Rump in early May 1659 allowed Earle to take his seat in Parliament once again. His position as a serjeant was one reason why the Rump then appointed him as one of the new oyer and terminer commissioners for London.98CJ vii. 657b. He had certainly taken his seat by 23 May, when he was ordered to bring in a bill to confirm all land sales by the Long Parliament. The House reminded him twice, on 8 and 14 June, but nothing came of this.99CJ vii. 662a, 676b, 683b. Meanwhile, on 27 May, the Norwich corporation of worsted weavers, headed by Barnard Church*, had asked him to lobby for legislation confirming the 1653 Acts by which that corporation had been created.100HMC 10th Rep. IV, 222. This too got nowhere. In June Earle was among 12 lawyers recommended by the council of state to Parliament for appointment as the circuit judges. The Rump accepted this suggestion on 16 June.101CJ vii. 686b, 687b; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 375. By 1 July, however, Earle was the only MP thus appointed who had so far taken the required oaths, leaving him as the only qualified judge for the midland circuit.102Clarke Pprs. iv. 285.

If he attended after the Rump was again recalled in late December 1659, he was seemingly inactive, although his colleagues re-appointed him as a serjeant-at-law on 18 January.103CJ vii. 814b. On 22 February, the day after the secluded Members had been re-admitted, he was one of the five MPs appointed to draft a bill repealing the Act passed four days earlier to restrict who could be elected to the next Parliament.104CJ vii. 848b. That suggests that he now accepted that a newly-elected free Parliament had become inevitable. He was later named to the committee on the bill summoning that Parliament (9 Mar.).105CJ vii. 868b.

By the late 1650s Earle looks to have been poised to take the next obvious professional step – promotion to a permanent judicial position. The Restoration intervened, however. In June 1660 he was officially re-appointed as a serjeant-at-law, but, like Sir Thomas Bedingfield*, this appointment never took effect.106Whitelocke, Diary, 608; Baker, Serjeants at Law, 192, 404, 406, 443, 509. The following month he was compelled to resign as recorder of Norwich.107Norf. RO, Norwich assembly bk. 1642-68, f. 210v; J.T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich (Oxford, 1979), 228-9. He made the most of the necessity of resuming his legal practice, however, becoming the dominant figure on the eastern circuit. He was present, although probably only as an observer, at the witch trial before Matthew Hale* at the Bury St Edmunds assizes in 1665.108A Tryal of Witches, at the Assizes held at Bury St Edmonds (1682), 40. The young Francis North†, who rode the circuit with him, described him as ‘a very covetous man’; when asked what method he used for keeping his accounts, Earle is said to have replied, ‘I get as much as I can and spend as little as I can; and there is all the account I keep’.109Lives of the Norths, ed. A. Jessop (1890), i. 53. As one of his clients in 1666, Sir Robert Paston† complained that Earle ‘picks my pockets’.110Whirlpool of Misadventures, ed. J. Agnew (Norf. Rec. Soc. lxxvi.), 70. This philosophy certainly enabled Earle to advance substantially the family fortunes; his very lengthy will, drawn up on 31 August 1667, bequeathed seven Norfolk manors to his eldest son, John.111PROB11/325, ff. 256-266. Earle died a week later and was buried in Heydon church.112Blomefield, Norf. vi. 246-7n; Parsons, Salle, 223. His distinctive first name was given to a number of his descendants, including his great-great-grandson, Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802).