LISTER, William (1618-74), of the Inner Temple, London, St Martin, Coney Street, York, and South Frodingham, Owthorne, Yorks.

After Francis Thorpe*, Lister was the most prominent and politically active of the lawyers to serve Hull and its interests during the middle decades of the seventeenth century. His career in the law was nurtured by his father Sir John Lister* – Hull’s wealthiest inhabitant during the early Stuart period – who bequeathed him a share of a chamber in the Inner Temple on the understanding that ‘he should continue at the inns of court and study law’.32Borthwick, Wills in York Registry, Holderness Deanery, Feb. 1641. The trust and confidence which Hull corporation reposed in William Lister was apparent at an early stage in his career, for in September 1640, when Lister was just 22 years of age and had yet to be called to the bar, the corporation employed him to provide intelligence from York regarding ‘all the passages and proceedings of the Scottish army and this country’s expedition’.33Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/3, f. 532; C BRL/307. Similarly, in February 1647, when the corporation was looking to appoint a ‘constant intelligencer’ of its affairs in London and Westminster, it requested Lister to take up the post, adjudging him ‘a very able and fit man for that business’.34Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/3, f. 752.

Lister appears to have remained in London throughout the 1640s, pursuing his legal studies (which culminated in his being called to the bar in 1647).35E115/241/142. Given his later career, his allegiance almost certainly lay with Parliament during the civil war. And with his marriage in October 1648 to a daughter of Arthur Squibb, Clarenceux king of arms, he became a brother-in-law of the Presbyterian grandee John Glynne* and his fellow north Walian parliamentarian Griffith Bodurda*.36Supra, ‘Griffith Bodurda’; ‘John Glynne’; St Margaret Pattens, London par. reg. In contrast to Glynne, however, Lister either supported, or acquiesced in, the establishment of the commonwealth, for in September 1649 he was appointed recorder of Hull by the town corporation. He was preferred to this office on the advice of his predecessor, Francis Thorpe – a loyal servant of the Rump – who had been obliged to relinquish the recordership by reason of his ‘weighty employments’ as a baron of the exchequer.37Infra, ‘Francis Thorpe’; Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/3, f. 820. Moreover, in appointing Lister, the corporation was to some extent responding to pressure from the Rump, which had stipulated that only a man ‘that hath expressed a constant and public affection to the Parliament’ should be installed in Thorpe’s place.38Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/3, f. 822. In April 1650, Lister took the Engagement, abjuring monarchy and the House of Lords.39Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/3, f. 832.

During the early 1650s, Lister seems to have divided his time between the Inner Temple – where he had probably established himself in private legal practice – Hull and York, which was the venue for the county assizes. His family was based at St Martin, Coney Street, York by 1654, and he was almost certainly the ‘William Lister of York esq.’ whom his fellow Yorkshire lawyer John Hewley* (whose family also resided in St Martin’s during the 1650s) made one of his trustees in 1662.40Supra, ‘John Hewley’; Hull Hist. Cent. C BRL/537; U DDBH/12/153; St Martin, Coney Street, York Par. Reg. ed. Cook, 33, 37. In 1663, it was noted that ‘William Lister esq.’ had been living in York for ‘divers years’.41E115/255/134. Despite not residing permanently at Hull, he was not neglectful of his duties as recorder. He regularly advised and assisted the corporation in its ‘courts and counsels’, solicited its business in London and represented the town in several of its lawsuits and local quarrels during the 1650s.42Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/4 (Hull Bench Bk. 1650-67), ff. 63, 118, 128, 208, 219.

Lister apparently had little difficulty in negotiating the transition from commonwealth to protectorate, and in the elections to the first protectoral Parliament in the summer of 1654 he was returned for Hull on the corporation interest.43Supra, ‘Kingston-upon-Hull’. He appears to have attended the House on a fairly regular basis, and during a three month period between early October and late December he received somewhere between two and eleven committee appointments.44CJ vii. 371b, 374a, 375b, 378b, 380a, 380b, 381a, 381b, 401a, 409b, 410a; Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/4, f. 156. The clerk of the House’s failure to distinguish between the four Listers in this Parliament (Christopher, Martin, Thomas and William), referring repeatedly simply to ‘Mr Lister’, makes it impossible to obtain a precise tally of the Hull MP’s appointments. ‘Mr William Lister’ was named to only two committees – those for limiting the jurisdiction of the court of chancery and for regulating the whaling industry.45CJ vii. 374a, 375b. As the only lawyer among the four Listers in the House, he was probably the man appointed to committees in October and November for abolishing the court of wards and to examine abuses of writs of certiorari and habeas corpus.46CJ vii. 380b, 381b. It is also likely that he was the ‘Mr Lister’ who was included with his fellow Yorkshire MP Martin Lister on the 14 December committee to consider petitions from York and the West Riding for erecting a court of justice at York for the northern counties.47CJ vii. 401a.

Lister was returned for Hull again in the elections to the second Cromwellian Parliament in the summer of 1656 and was allowed to take his seat by the protectoral council (100 or so MPs were excluded as opponents of the government). Three Listers were returned to the House on this occasion – Christopher, Thomas and William. However, it seems that Christopher Lister was generally referred to as ‘Captain Lister’, while Thomas Lister was excluded from the first session and did not take his seat until January 1658.48Supra, ‘Christopher Lister’; ‘Thomas Lister’. Assuming, therefore, that the majority of references in the Journal and the parliamentary diary of Thomas Burton to ‘Mr Lister’ relate to the Hull MP, he was appointed to approximately 30 committees in this Parliament and contributed occasionally to debate.49Burton’s Diary, i. 11, 45, 335; ii. 79, 174, 215, 303, 304. A number of his appointments in the House can be attributed in large part to his legal expertise. Thus on 22 September 1656, he and the Westminster lawyer Edward Carey were ordered to prepare a bill for the probate of wills in the northern counties; and on 27 October, he was named to a committee on the bill for the probate of wills and granting of administrations.50CJ vii. 427b, 446a. Lister reported several times from this second committee and was probably involved in steering both pieces of probate legislation through the House.51CJ vii. 462a, 474b; Burton’s Diary, i. 226, 295. On 20 November, he was named to a committee on a bill for establishing a court of law and a court of equity at York for the northern counties.52CJ vii. 456a. As a lawyer, he was probably the ‘Mr Lister’ named to committees on the bills for compelling solvent debtors to pay their creditors (25 Sept.), for abolishing the court of wards (29 Oct.) and for holding the county courts of Wiltshire at Devizes (25 Dec.).53CJ vii. 428a, 447a, 475a, 499a. On 3 December, the deliberations of the committee to examine the Quaker leader James Naylor on charges of blasphemy were interrupted by the arrival of Lister and Edward Carey (Lister’s partner on the northern probate legislation), who requested that Naylor ‘might be asked something as to the substance of the whole charge against him’.54Burton’s Diary, i. 11. That Lister was in any degree sympathetic towards Naylor seems unlikely. Nevertheless, he was apparently anxious that Naylor be given a fair hearing, expressing his dissatisfaction with the committee’s report and desiring that the accused might be examined again to ensure that his views had not been misrepresented.55Burton’s Diary, i. 45.

Several of Lister’s appointments in the second protectoral Parliament suggest that he was a man of godly conviction and favoured a publicly maintained, national ministry. On 29 September and 4 October, for example, he was nominated to committees for addressing the abuses associated with ale and gaming-houses and on a bill for confirming godly incumbents in sequestered church livings.56CJ vii. 430a, 434a. He may also have been the Lister included on a committee set up on 31 October for settling a godly ministry in Wales and the northern counties.57CJ vii. 448a. On 17 June 1657, one of the Listers – probably William – was a minority teller in a division on amendments to the bill for confirming incumbents in their livings.58CJ vii. 560a. A week later (24 June), his proposed amendment to a bill for settling lands in Ireland on Lord Broghill* – that is, for paying one of Broghill’s officers from impropriate church lands – was denounced by the godly Yorkshire MP Sir William Strickland and others as sacrilegious.59Burton’s Diary, ii. 304. But given that Lister spoke directly after a motion from the York MP John Geldart for the reading of a bill to improve navigation on the River Ouse, it seems likely that he proposed this amendment simply as a spoiling tactic to prevent discussion of Geldart’s bill, which threatened to ruin Hull’s business as a port.

Lister seems to have been broadly in favour of the new Cromwellian constitution the Humble Petition and Advice, although he may have had reservations about offering the crown to Cromwell. On 22 May 1657, he was a majority teller with Lislebone Long in favour of the recommendation of a committee for defining the protector’s title that Cromwell should exercise the office of chief magistrate and the kingly powers that went with it – a recognition, in effect, that the Humble Petition could be revised to accommodate Cromwell’s scruples about the title of king while leaving its monarchical elements otherwise intact.60CJ vii. 537b. That the minority tellers – the Presbyterians Nicholas Lechmere and Thomas Grove – were men of conservative stamp suggests that some of those who voted against Lister and Long did so in the lingering hope that Cromwell could still be persuaded to accept the crown. If Lister did have reservations about Cromwell becoming king, he certainly did not object to him adopting the trappings of monarchy, for on 24 June, he moved that the protector be presented with a robe of office. ‘You are making his highness a great prince’, he declared, ‘a king indeed, in so far as he is protector. Ceremonies signify much of the substance in such cases, as a shell preserves the kernel, or a casket a jewel. I would have him endowed with a robe of honour’.61Burton’s Diary, ii. 303. Judging by this proposal, Lister was well satisfied with the more conservative direction taken by the protectorate under the Humble Petition. The ‘Mr Lister’ who sided with the protectorate’s republican opponents in January 1658 in refusing to transact with the Cromwellian Other House was almost certainly the Lincolnshire MP, and former Rumper, Thomas Lister, rather than William.62Burton’s Diary, ii. 341.

Lister did not stand for Hull in the elections to Richard Cromwell’s Parliament of 1659 – probably because the corporation interest was bestowed on Andrew Marvell* in consideration of the ‘good service’ he had performed for the town at Whitehall in his capacity as assistant to Secretary John Thurloe*.63Supra, ‘Kingston-upon-Hull’; ‘Andrew Marvell’; Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/4, ff. 274, 277. But in the elections to the 1660 Convention, Lister emerged as one of at least six candidates vying for a seat at Hull – the other five being Marvell, John Ramsden* (a former Hull alderman and probable Presbyterian), Edward Barnard (a local lawyer), Francis Thorpe and Colonel Matthew Alured* of Beverley, a staunch republican. On the basis of his subsequent ‘affection’ to the royal interest, Lister (like Ramsden, Marvell and probably Barnard) stood on a pro-Restoration ticket. On election day, 2 April, the contest went to a poll, with Lister coming fourth, with 80 votes, behind Ramsden (227), Marvell (141) and Barnard (113). Thorpe and Alured received a mere 90 votes between them.64Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/4, f. 303. Lister’s low polling may indicate that he did not enjoy the support of the senior office-holders, which was probably given, once again, to Marvell. Not surprisingly perhaps, Lister did not stand for Hull in the elections to the Cavalier Parliament a year later.65Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/4, f. 355.

Yet despite his somewhat humiliating defeat in April 1660, Lister remained on friendly terms with the Hull aldermen and played a leading role in securing the renewal of the town’s charter late in 1661.66Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/4, ff. 347, 361, 363, 367, 373, 386, 409; C BRL/649, 652-3, 658. His position as recorder was confirmed by the new charter and also by the corporation commissioners in September 1662 – Lister having taken the oath renouncing the Covenant.67Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/4, ff. 410, 457-8; Charters and Letters Patent granted to Hull ed. J. R. Boyle (Hull, 1905), 166. Evidently regarded as well-affected to the new regime, he was re-appointed to the East Riding bench in 1660 and again in 1662.68C220/9/4; C193/12/3. For much of the 1660s, he was probably the corporation’s most active and diligent factotum in London, and by 1667 he was handling nine separate items of town business. His numerous letters to the corporation reveal that he worked closely with Hull’s two MPs Andrew Marvell and Colonel Anthony Gilby and was apparently on good terms with the town’s governor John Lord Belasyse*.69Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/4, f. 574; C BRB/5 (Hull Bench Bk. 1664-82), f. 100; C BRL/675, 681, 743, 758, 779-80, 783, 786, 793, 801. His correspondence during the 1660s also makes clear that he was – as he had probably long been – on close terms with John Glynne.70Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRL/712, 786.

Failing health and commitments in the south – he was an active member of the Inner Temple during the 1660s – gradually reduced the amount of time Lister was able to spend at Hull, and in July 1665 the aldermen asked him to appoint a deputy to assist them in their legal affairs.71Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRL/712, 755, 802; C BRB/5, f. 29; CITR iii. 13, 42, 71, 75, 99. They repeated this request in December 1668, and a year later Lister resigned his recordership.72Hull. Hist. Cent. C BRB/5, ff. 161, 184, 203.

At the time of his death, in the autumn of 1674, Lister was living in Hampstead and was buried at St John, Hampstead on 26 November.73PROB11/348, f. 388v; St John, Hampstead, Mdx. par. reg. In his will, he left his country residence at South Frodingham to his wife in life tenure and the remainder of his estate to his sons William and Hugh. Lister does not seem to have died a particularly wealthy man, at least for an Inner Temple barrister and bencher. His only substantial legacy was to his daughter, whom he left £1,000, presumably for her marriage portion.74PROB11/348, f. 389. None of Lister’s immediate descendants sat in Parliament.