FOOT, Thomas (1598-1687), of St Bennet Gracechurch, London and Beenham, Waltham St Lawrence, Berks.

Thomas Foot’s father, who originated from Hertfordshire, settled in London in the late sixteenth century. Initially, Foot followed his father’s trade and was apprenticed to a grocer but, after obtaining his freedom in 1619, he soon diversified his business interests. He used bequests from his parents wisely: by 1637 was wealthy enough to purchase a manor in the parish of Waltham St Lawrence, Berkshire, and two years later he was considered the eighth wealthiest inhabitant in the London ward of Bridge Within.24VCH Berks. iii. 181; Principal Inhabitants of London ed. Harvey, 4. In the later 1630s Foot had already been identified as an opponent of the crown, as in September 1638 the privy council ordered his arrest for defaulting at the Berkshire musters.25CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 16, 35. With the approach of civil war, Foot was active in raising money for the parliamentary cause. He invested £600 in the original Irish adventure in March 1642 and another £100 in the ‘sea adventure’ in July.26Bottigheimer, English Money and Irish Land, 181. In November of that year he was made a member of the City committee to collect money outstanding under the assessment ordinance.27CCAM 1-2.

Foot was elected alderman for Broad Street ward in May 1643 and sheriff of London in the autumn of 1645, and between these dates he became an important link between the City and Parliament in financial affairs.28Beaven, Aldermen of London ii. 67; LMA, Rep. 56, ff. 173, 174. In July 1643 he was appointed treasurer for the Irish Adventure scheme, and in the same month he became governor of the excise office, with the latter office confirmed in the following September.29A. and O. In January 1644 Foot was appointed a commissioner for the excise, and when the commission was renewed in subsequent years, he was continued in office.30A. and O.; LJ vi. 507a; vii. 89b; CJ iii. 372b. This was an expensive honour, as Foot and his fellow commissioners were expected to advance considerable sums for the main field army under the 3rd earl of Essex, as well as payments to local regiments and garrisons, and the costs of prisoners and maimed soldiers.31CJ iii. 716b; A. and O.; LJ vii. 89b, 406b, 415a, 425b, 525b, 535a-b, 633a, 644b, 648b, 661a; viii. 42b, 67b, 106a. The repayment of these, and similar, sums could be a lengthy process. In July 1644, for example, Foot joined Samuel Avery* and other aldermen as the ‘administrators’ of £3,000 ordered for the relief of Ireland by the Committee of Both Kingdoms, and this money had still not been repaid a year later, when a new arrangement had to take the debt into account.32CSP Dom. 1625-49, pp. 681, 683. Foot’s financial duties continued to expand in the mid-1640s, and in October 1644 he was also made treasurer of the general assessment which was the principal source of funding for the main field armies.33A. and O. It was perhaps in connection with the financing of the New Model Army that the Committee of Both Kingdoms ordered Foot to attend Sir Thomas Fairfax*, until further order, in March 1646.34CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 367.

Foot seems to have remained aloof from the factionalism that dogged the common council in the mid-1640s. On 29 April 1646 the Independent Thomas Juxon* noted with approval the scepticism of Foot, William Gibbs*, John Fowke* and Sir John Wollaston about the City’s remonstrance, noting that they were ‘against the body of it’, and adding that he thought them ‘all considerate and considerable men’.35Juxon Jnl., 119. Nevertheless, on 26 May 1646 Foot led a deputation of pro-Presbyterian aldermen and common councillors to the House of Lords to present a copy of the king’s letter to the City, together with a remonstrance calling on Parliament to unite with the Scots and to reach an agreement with the king.36LJ viii. 331b-332a. On 4 July he led a second delegation, which asked for the Lords’ approbation of the City’s reply to the king, concerning his compliance with the peace propositions.37LJ viii. 411b. Foot seems to have played no other role in City politics during this period, continuing instead his duties on the excise commission (to which he was reappointed in July 1647), and in May 1647 receiving the protection of the Lords against a lawsuit pertaining to his activities as sheriff.38A. and O.; HMC 6th Rep., 175; LJ ix. 183a, 185a-b, 199a. On 28 May, Foot and the other excise commissioners were ordered to pay £150,000 to the treasurers-at-war to pay arrears due to the New Model.39LJ ix. 218a. He took no part in the ‘forcing of the Houses’ in July, and his acceptability in the eyes of the Independents continued in September, when he was made a member of the new militia committee for London.40A. and O. His term as excise commissioner was renewed in the same period, and he was also appointed treasurer for the fourth part of Adventurers’ lands in November and as a member of the sub-committee for Adventurers under the Derby House Committee of Irish affairs in December.41LJ ix. 533b, 553b; A. and O.; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 768. In May 1648 he was re-appointed to the militia commission, and came under attack from the royalist press which satirised him as ‘a gripping, envious, sunburnt usurer, that feeds on subtle shrimps and smaller beer’, in allusion to his role as excise commissioner.42Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 118; Mercurius Elencticus 26 (17-24 May 1648), 203 (E443.45). In May and September, Parliament ordered the discharge of the accounts of the excise commissioners from 1645 and 1646, and in the latter month their commission was continued until March 1649.43LJ x. 274a-b, 507b, 514b.

Foot was willing to accommodate himself to the political changes that followed Pride’s Purge and the trial of the king. He was appointed to the new militia commission in January 1649, became an assessment commissioner in April, and in May was one of the 15 aldermen who attended the proclamation for the abolition of monarchy.44A. and O.; Walker, Anarchia Anglicana ([Aug.] 1649), 185 (E570.4). In the same period he was made president of St Bartholomew’s hospital.45Moore, St Bartholomew’s Hosp. ii. 801. In September he was elected lord mayor, with the backing of Sir John Wollaston. Despite a petition organized by several citizens who wanted to see the outgoing incumbent re-elected, Foot retained his place and in October was presented to the Commons ‘with a large testimonial of [his] fidelity, integrity and ability’.46LMA, Jor. 41x, f. 7v; CJ vi. 302b-302a. Foot remained an active excise commissioner during the Rump Parliament, and was re-appointed in September 1650.47CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 577, 578; A. and O. In January 1653 he was appointed to a council committee to regulate the excise and revise the duties imposed on different commodities.48CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 90. In the City, Foot’s influence grew still further during the commonwealth, and in 1652-3 he was a leading figure in the common council. In December 1653 he used his influence to divert an attack on Lord Mayor John Fowke*, in a dispute over privileges. Soon afterwards, however, he crossed swords with Fowke over who had precedence in the court of aldermen, with Foot eventually having his seniority confirmed.49J.E. Farnell, ‘The Politics of the City of London 1649-57’ (Univ. of Chicago PhD thesis, 1963), 231, 308, 401.

Foot also continued to be an important figure in the excise commission during the early years of the protectorate, and his closeness to the government is suggested by a council order of June 1654 instructing him to examine royalist suspects arrested in London, and his appointment, later in the summer, to a committee to determine differences among those claiming Irish Adventure lands.50CSP Dom. 1654, p. 204; A. and O. Foot may have already sold his own investments in the scheme. Although he is listed in a consortium drawing lands in Co. Tipperary at this time, there is no evidence that he was in possession of Irish lands later in his career.51CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 416, 547. In July 1654 Foot’s prominence in the City was highlighted by the elections for the first protectorate Parliament in which he topped the poll.52Harl. 6810, ff. 164-5. In the early weeks of the Parliament he was named to the committee for privileges (5 Sept.) and the committee on an ordinance to regulate the court of chancery (5 Oct.), and he was added to a committee to consider the validity of ordinances passed during the Nominated Assembly (10 Oct.).53CJ vii. 366b, 374a, 375a. His links with Berkshire probably explain his inclusion on the committee on the petition of Lord Craven on 3 November.54CJ vii. 381a. Unsurprisingly, Foot’s main concern was with commerce and finance. On 6 October he was named to the committee to consider how to encourage the transport of corn, butter and cheese; on 22 November he was appointed to the committee for customs and trade when it considered the public accounts; and on 7 December he was added to the committee on the merchants of the intercourse.55CJ vii. 374b, 387b, 397b. He was named to the committee on a bill to take away purveyance compositions on 22 December and to a second committee on public accounts on 18 January 1655.56CJ vii. 407b, 419b.

In August 1656 Foot was re-elected as MP for London.57TSP v. 337; Clarke Pprs. iii. 70. During the ensuing session he emerged as a strong supporter of the protectorate, working closely with Sir Christopher Packe*, the only other London MP to escape exclusion: the Journals record that the two men were named to 44 committees in common and acted together as tellers on three occasions. Foot’s concern for the continuation of the status quo can be seen at the very beginning of the session. On 26 September he was appointed to the committee to consider the bill for the security of the lord protector and when it passed in November he was appointed a commissioner for its implementation.58CJ vii. 429a; A. and O. Yet during the autumn and winter most of his energies were taken up with commercial and financial affairs, especially when they affected London. He was appointed to committees for regulating the wages of labourers (7 Oct.), reducing the price of wine (9 Oct.) and collecting the arrears due in the excise and prize offices (17 Oct.).59CJ vii.435a, 436b, 440a, 440b. He was made a member of the committee for trade on 20 October.60CJ vii. 442a. Foot was also appointed to committees for increasing the revenue derived from the estates of recusants (22 Oct.), the former royal forests (23 Oct.) and the duties on imported beer (25 Oct.).61CJ vii. 444a, 444b, 445b. On 25 October he was added to the committee for Irish affairs, and subsequently he was named to a number of committees concerning land claims in Ireland.62CJ vii. 445b, 463b, 477a, 491b, 494b, 505b, 529a, 537b, 545a. Foot’s links with the City remained strong and on receipt of a petition from the lord mayor and aldermen on 20 November he was asked to draft a bill changing the rules governing the poultry market at Leadenhall Street.63CJ vii. 456a. Foot was added to the committee on a bill against vagrants on 4 November, and when the measure was debated on 5 December, he joined Packe in expressing the City’s opinion that such persons should be confined to their own parishes ‘else the City will have no benefit’. He also requested an exemption for the City waits, ‘which are a great preservation of men’s houses in the night’.64CJ vii. 450a; Burton’s Diary i. 21-3. Foot looked favourably on merchants’ grievances. On 18 December he urged the committee for trade to deal with their petitions as quickly as possible, and also intervened in the dispute between the clothworkers and Merchant Adventurers, giving his support to the latter.65Burton’s Diary i. 169, 175, 221. On 19 December he argued in favour of committing the City petition concerning freemen, and later on the same day, during the assessment debate, he repeatedly argued that the burden of taxation should not be laid on the merchants of the intercourse.66Burton’s Diary i. 176-7, 179, 181. He was so vociferous in arguing for an abatement of the London assessment arrears on 23 December that Bulstrode Whitelocke* ‘called him down for he had spoken before’.67Burton’s Diary i. 210, 212-3. The next day Foot and Packe called for a City petition against the receiving of stolen goods to be referred to the committee of trade.68Burton’s Diary i. 224-6. On 8 January 1657 Foot supported another petition, this time from the vintners, and argued against imposing additional taxes on them.69Burton’s Diary i. 322, 325-6. His constant efforts on behalf of the City caused ill-feeling among other MPs. On 12 January the committee appointed to consider the City petition about freemen ‘waited a long time for Alderman Foot’, that Denis Bond objected ‘that a committee of Parliament should be so cheap as to wait for any one man in England’.70Burton’s Diary, i. 343.

On his election, Foot had been described as one of the ‘very good religious men’ returned to the House, and in the early months of the Parliament he lived up to this expectation, becoming involved in various moves to improve the lot of the ministry.71TSP v. 337; Clarke Pprs. iii. 70. He was named to committees on to secure incumbents of sequestered parsonages (4 Oct. and 3 Nov.), to consider the maintenance of ministers generally (31 Oct.), and to provide for those in Northamptonshire in particular (17 Dec.).72CJ vii. 434a, 448b, 449b, 469a. In the debate on the latter case he opposed some of the clauses in a bill because it ‘put as great a charge upon the landlords that live 100 miles off as you do upon the inhabitants that have the benefit of it’.73Burton’s Diary i. 159. Foot was evidently a conservative in his religious views, but it was only during the debates on a suitable punishment for the notorious Quaker, James Naylor, that his deep-seated hostility to sectaries was revealed. On 12 December he supported calls by Denis Bond and Thomas Bampfylde that the death penalty should be voted on before a ‘smaller punishment’ was considered.74Burton’s Diary i. 118. On 16 December he opposed moves merely to imprison Naylor, arguing that ‘if you send him to Newgate you will make him worse’, and he acted as teller with Packe in favour of the House considering a death sentence – a division they lost by 14 votes.75Burton’s Diary i. 150, 152; CJ vii. 468b. Later on the same day Foot recommended that Naylor should be punished in London and ‘that his head may be in the pillory, and that he be whipped from Westminster to the Old Exchange’.76Burton’s Diary i. 154-5. His continuing interest in the Naylor case can be seen in his appointment to the committee to consider Quaker petitions on his behalf on 18 December, and his support for a City petition against leniency submitted on 24 December.77CJ vii. 470a; Burton’s Diary i. 223. On 28 February 1657 he was named to the committee to receive a report from Bridewell on the condition of Naylor.78CJ vii. 497b. During this period Foot was named to further religious committees, on bills for maintaining ministers and propagating the gospel in Exeter (9 Feb.), and for the better observation of the Lord’s Day (18 Feb.).79CJ vii. 488a, 493b.

In the new year of 1657 political considerations began to eclipse both religion and commerce. On 19 January, when the Commons ordered a day of thanksgiving for the protector's escape from Sindercombe’s plot, Foot recommended Edward Reynolds, a moderate Presbyterian, as the preacher, and when others complained that Reynolds’s ‘low voice’ was difficult to hear, he proposed Mr Jenkins instead, saying: ‘why need we fetch them out of the country having enough about us to do the duty?’80Burton’s Diary i. 359. On 31 January Foot was added to the committee for drafting the thanksgiving declaration.81CJ vii. 484b. The need for money for the controversial Spanish war provided Foot with another opportunity to demonstrate his support for the protectorate. On 13 February he was appointed to a committee to draft a bill for raising £400,000 for continuing the Spanish war by imposing a tax on buildings erected in London since 1640.82CJ vii. 491a. There is no evidence that Foot was a party to the Remonstrance, presented to the Commons by Packe on 23 February, but there is no doubt that he approved of it. Foot was appointed to three committees to consider the detail of the new constitution, including articles on qualifications for voting and office-holding (10 Mar.), the judicial role of the Other House (12 Mar.), and the limiting of freedom of religion to those ministers professing ‘the true Protestant religion’ as defined by a formal Confession of Faith (19 Mar.).83CJ vii. 501a, 502b, 507b. When the House divided on the revised constitution, re-titled the Humble Petition and Advice, on 25 March, Foot voted in favour, and he was later listed among the ‘kinglings’.84Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 22 (E.935.5). On 27 March Foot was named to the committee to ask Cromwell to attend the House so that the Humble Petition could be presented to him.85CJ vii. 514a. After Cromwell’s refusal of the title of king, Foot was appointed to two further committees: one to arrange a time for presenting the Humble Petition and Advice a second time (7 Apr.) and the other to receive the lord protector’s reasons for not accepting it in its original form (9 Apr.).86CJ vii. 521a, 521b. On 15 April Foot, Whitelocke and the leading Presbyterian, Joachim Matthews, reported from the latter committee that, owing to Cromwell’s illness, they were unable to give the House an account of their proceedings.87Burton’s Diary ii. 3. On 24 April, when Cromwell listed his objections to the 16th article of the Humble Petition, concerning the continuance of legislation not contrary to the new arrangements, Foot was named to the committee to consider the House’s answer.88CJ vii. 524a. When the additional Petition and Advice was discussed in the following June, Foot was teller in favour of giving a second reading to a proviso extending the ‘qualifications’ of the original 4th article to all those employed by the Scottish council. It is revealing that his partner in this was George Lord Eure and the opposing tellers were two stalwarts of the army interest, John Lambert and Walter Strickland.89CJ vii. 575a; Burton’s Diary ii. 308.

From the beginning of April, as the fortunes of the ‘kinglings’ declined, Foot increasingly devoted himself to advancing the City’s interests in the House. On 1 April he was appointed to a committee to consider a petition from the lord mayor and aldermen.90CJ vii. 516b. He upheld their right to recover debts by proceedings at law on 30 April; on 9 May he was appointed to a committee to draft a bill to prevent the multiplicity of buildings in London; and on 19 June he was twice teller with Packe in divisions for provisos for this bill.91Burton’s Diary ii. 81-3; CJ vii. 531b, 563b, 564b. Foot was involved in other business that concerned London at this time. On 22 May he was appointed to a committee for settling Irish estates; on 12 June he made a speech supporting a City petition which called for the bill for Irish Adventurers to pass before the House adjourned; and on 15 June he moved that the same bill might be read.92CJ vii. 537b; Burton’s Diary ii. 223, 251. London would also be affected by changes in the financial system. On 30 May he was named to a committee to inspect the treasuries of the three nations, and this was followed by appointments to committees on a bill to state the debts owed on the ‘public faith’ (19 June) and to consider the best way to improve the revenue (25 June).93CJ vii. 543a, 563a, 575a. Foot spoke frequently in debates on a bill for a three-year assessment and supported Samuel Hyland’s motion that England, Scotland and Wales should be proportioned first and the counties later. He also claimed that the rate under consideration was ‘altogether impracticable, especially in the City’.94Burton’s Diary ii. 208, 236.

Foot’s commercial interests continued to flourish after the adjournment of Parliament. He was appointed to a committee for improving customs and excise appointed on 26 June 1657; he became involved in the East India Company during the autumn; and in December was elected to its committee.95A. and O.; Cal. Ct. Mins. E.I. Co. 1655-9, pp. 176, 197. In the same month Foot was knighted by the lord protector.96Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 224. At the beginning of the next parliamentary session, in January 1658, Foot was one of those authorised by the protector to administer to MPs the new oath of loyalty.97CJ vii. 578a. On 21 January he was added to the committee of privileges, the next day he was appointed to a committee to consider the registration of marriages and burials, and on 28 January he was named to the committee to request the protector to publish his recent speech to Parliament.98CJ vii. 580b, 581a, 589a. When the House was called on 1 February, Foot informed the Commons that the excluded London Members were willing to serve ‘if you would declare that the penalty extends only to future parliaments’.99Burton’s Diary ii. 405.

After the dissolution of second protectorate Parliament in February 1658, Foot seems to have played little part in political affairs, although he still seems to have been a supporter of the regime. In March 1658 he was added to the militia commission for London, and in the same month the council referred a petition to Foot, Packe and others.100CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 330, 350. In May he sat in the high court of justice when it presided over the trial of Dr John Hewitt and other royalist plotters.101HMC 7th Rep., 102-3. In the same month he was listed as having lent £2,500 to maintain the fleet, and in July he was again elected to the committee for the East India Company.102CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 17; 1659-60, p. 290; Cal. Ct. Mins. E.I. Co. 1655-9, p. 268. Foot was not re-elected for the third protectorate Parliament in January 1659. Amid rumours of a royalist plot in the City in the following March, the council recommended his appointment to the militia commission to prepare the trained bands to meet any future threat.103Rugg Diurnal, ed. Sachse (Camden 3rd ser. xci), 44. Yet Foot was not so closely associated with the protectorate at this stage for his position to be threatened by its demise in May, or by the restoration of the Rump in the same month. He was appointed to the London militia commission in July 1659 when there was disagreement between the Parliament and the City about where the militia should be deployed.104A. and O. In December he was appointed to a City committee to assuage the committee of safety’s fears about petitions in favour of a free Parliament circulated by apprentices, and also to reach an agreement with the army about the City’s security.105Clarke Pprs. iv. 168. He was appointed to the Council of State by the Rump, restored a second time, on 2 January 1660.106CJ vii. 801a. In the next few weeks he was appointed to the assessment commission and was recommended by the council of state as a militia commissioner.107A. and O.; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 166.

After the Restoration, Foot was excepted from the pardon offered by the Act of Indemnity because he had been present at the high court of justice in 1658. Evidence that Foot had ‘declared his dislike and unwillingness to sit in that court’ and had only been prevailed upon to attend by the wife of John Mordaunt, 1st Viscount Mordaunt (whom he helped to acquit) was rejected by the House of Lords.108HMC 7th Rep., 102-3. Under the terms of the Act, Foot was declared incapable of holding public office, and he lost his place on the aldermanic bench in early August, although he remained president of St Bartholomew’s hospital until the following year.109Beaven, Aldermen of London ii. p. lvi. He was also attacked in print as one of those who had profited from the war years, and investigated for the money received as excise commissioner.110Mystery of the Good Old Cause, 45; CTB i. 224, 432-3, 501. Foot remained influential figure in the City, however, and as a wealthy man he became an important source for government borrowing during the early 1660s. As a result, in November 1660 he was created a baronet by Charles II without paying the usual fees.111CB; CTB i.. 97.

Thereafter, Foot virtually retired from public life, spending most of his time at his manor at West Ham or with his daughter and son-in-law Arthur Onslow* in Surrey. In 1666, with no surviving male heir, he petitioned the king for the reversion of his baronetcy to Onslow on his death; and after lengthy inquiries to ensure there was a precedent, Foot was granted the necessary warrant in 1674.112CSP Dom. 1666-7, p. 381; 1673-5, pp. 179, 224; SP29/183/59. Foot died on 12 October 1687 and was buried on 2 November in the church of All Saints, West Ham. In his will, drawn up seven years earlier, he left his estates in Essex, Berkshire and Norfolk to his daughter Mary, Onslow’s wife; and by a codicil he bequeathed £3,000 to his son-in-law. He also made several charitable bequests to London hospitals, including St Bartholomew’s, and the poor of London, Essex, Hertfordshire and Berkshire.113PROB11/389/159. Money provided by his estate was used to erect a monument in All Saints portraying Foot in his lord mayor’s gown.114Le Neve, Monumenta Anglicana, 1680-99 (1719), 101; Lyson, Environs, 257; VCH Essex, vi. 118.