BERNERS, Josias (c. 1602-61), of Clerkenwell, Mdx.

Josias Berners was born in London, probably in the parish of St Dionis Backchurch, the son of a prosperous draper. His parents having died of plague in 1610, he came under the care of his uncle, Robert Berners, a barrister at Gray’s Inn, and his education was funded by £800 deposited by his father with the Draper’s Company for that purpose.24PROB11/116, f. 378v. Berners followed his uncle into the legal profession, entering Gray’s Inn in August 1620, although it is not clear if he was eventually called to the bar.25GI Admiss. By the end of 1634 he had been appointed clerk of the New River Company, although his position was later challenged, and he was ejected by the privy council in May 1637. He remained a shareholder in the venture until his death.26PC2/44/360; PC2/47/213; PC2/47/370; PROB11/312, f. 271. In January 1638 he and his first wife, Mary, sold land in Wiltshire.27Coventry Docquets, 715.

On 10 Jan. 1642, when the king left London, Berners wrote to his Norfolk ‘cousin’, John Hobart*, that ‘I fear I shall scarce ever write you good news again, the kingdom is in such a combustion since the impeachment of these bishops’.28Bodl. Tanner 66, f. 234. A week later he was more optimistic, saying that an olive branch would be extended to the king if he returned to London, but he also approved of the moves to defend London against plotters, and suspected some members of the House of Lords were in league with the court.29Bodl. Tanner 66, f. 242. Other letters, sent in April and May, mostly contained news of political events, but with further hints that he supported Parliament against the king.30Bodl. Tanner 63, ff. 10, 18, 35.

Berners remained in the London area during the first civil war. He was appointed to assessment commissions for Middlesex and Westminster from September 1643, the oyer and terminer commissions for Middlesex in January 1644 and January 1645, and the Westminster militia commission in September 1647 and December 1648.31A. and O.; C181/5, ff. 231v, 247. In the latter month his uncle died, leaving Berners as his main beneficiary.32St Dionis Backchurch, 226. On 6 January 1649 Berners was appointed a commissioner to try the King but did not act, apparently as a result of his wife's intercession.33Rushworth, Hist. Collections. vii. 1379; Noble, Regicides, i. 90. He continued to be appointed to local commissions in the months after the regicide, and it was during the commonwealth that he became better known among government circles, occasionally being instructed to assist the council of state in legal matters.34CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 130; 1651-2, p. 194; CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 414. He was made a member of the non-parliamentary commission for compounding and sequestration in April 1650, signing warrants in March, May and August 1651.35A. and O.; Add. 34326, f. 12; Eg. 2978, f. 275; Add. 40630, f. 280. He joined the Hale commission on law reform in January 1652 and the commission for removing obstructions from the sale of confiscated lands in April 1652, and he became a judge for the probate of wills at the beginning of April 1653.36CJ vii. 74a; A. and O.

Berners continued in his various functions after the dissolution of the Rump, and did not join the protest mounted by three of his colleagues on the compounding commission that would lose them their posts.37Aylmer, State’s Servants, 211-12. He signed an order of the commission for removing obstructions on 12 May 1653, and in the following November he was granted £500 for two years arrears of pay in the same commission.38Stowe 185, ff. 1-2; CJ vii. 302b; Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 509n. In October of the same year he was confirmed as commissioner for compounding and in November he was made a trustee for the sale of forest lands.39CJ vii. 342a, 349a. The foundation of the protectorate a month later was a troubling development for Berners. He continued to be appointed to commissions – seemingly a regular member of the oyer and terminer commissions for London and Middlesex from January 1654 – but his willingness to collaborate with the regime outside the legal sphere reduced markedly from the same period.40C181/6, ff. 2-267. He was elected to the first protectorate Parliament for Middlesex but received no committee appointments, and left no other trace on the records of the session. Indeed, it is possible that he refused to take the Recognition Oath and did not take his seat. His letters to Hobart – another critic of the regime - display a growing hostility to the protectorate in the months that followed. In July 1655, in the aftermath of the Penruddock rising, he complained that the rule of law had been subverted, and many opponents of the government arrested without due process, with Oliver Cromwell* as a tyrant who ‘sees his government is not loved and therefore he will endeavour to make it feared’.41Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 78. Later in the year he was highly critical of the decimation tax that supported the major generals, and the arbitrary nature of its imposition. In November, he wrote of Cromwell that ‘he is observed to be more afraid of paper pellets than leaden bullets, and none would wound so deep as one showing the unlawfulness and unnecessariness of taxes’. ‘The tyrant’s actions’, he added, ‘are so notorious and odious that everybody is not blinded with lucre both sees and notes them’.42Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 96. In June 1656 Berners focused his complaints on the foreign policy of the protectorate, and its affect on trade, and he commended Hobart for his principled, and public, opposition to the protectorate, hoping that the new Parliament would call the regime to account.43Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 154.

When the new Parliament was called in August 1656, Berners stood for his old seat of Middlesex, but was unsuccessful, despite William Kiffin’s* prediction that ‘Mr Berners should carry it’.44TSP v. 286. In November 1657 he was again in contact with Hobart, who had been elected for Norwich and then excluded from the first sitting, and on his instructions had ‘conferred with divers secluded and members, and others’. He had found them unwilling to return to oppose the government in the second sitting: ‘some apprehend danger in the £1,000 penalty, though not guilty; some think they shall be necessitated to build (if they go in) upon that unrighteous foundation already laid; others think that if they go in they must either countenance by their presence and silence or else inflame by opposition, that therefore the best way is to keep out and let them heighten him [Cromwell] as high as they will, and that it will make him fall the sooner’. Berners urged Hobart and his friends to provide an example: ‘if you all could agree to go in at first ... you might then outvote that party or faction which receive of the public more than they pay to it, and so perhaps make him to dissolve you, which is the best we can expect at present as things stand’.45Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 214. Whether or not influenced by Berners’ advice, Hobart and his fellow commonwealthsmen returned to Westminster in January 1658 in sufficient numbers to provoke an early dissolution. Immediately afterwards, Berners told his friend that he now considered the dissolution a cynical move by Cromwell, but one that was likely to backfire: ‘the truth is he did the best for himself, for things began to go strangely and turn against him in the army and town by reason of the Parliament sitting, which otherwise, I believe, would at last have served his turn in regard so many members kept out. There is now a general dissatisfaction, and some that were for him are now irreconcilably against him’. There had been protests from the army, and the members of ‘separated churches’ in London had organised a petition with 10,000 signatures demanding the cashiering of the army and move to maintain ‘the liberties of the people and the privileges of Parliament’. He concluded with on an upbeat note: ‘I think for all his packed Parliament settlement, he is now in more danger than ever’.46Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 229. In May 1658 Berners was less optimistic, telling Hobart that the City government and many others were busy currying favour with Cromwell, while those who conspired against the regime would merely strengthen it, for ‘Oliver keeps up Charles, and Charles keeps up Oliver by these foolish plots’ and kept the army in charge. He also passed on news of changes to the constituencies: ‘it is feared they are packing another Parliament by two knights burgesses, but I’ll warrant you not without 60 Irish writs, and so will try if they can establish their iniquity by a law of the major part’.47Bodl. Tanner 51, f. 5.

The death of Oliver and the succession of Richard Cromwell* in September 1658 delayed the new Parliament, which did not convene until the new year of 1659. Berners was again a candidate for Middlesex in the election but lost the contest for the second seat to Chaloner Chute I*.48Clarke Pprs iii. 174. In February he made his opposition to the protectorate public, when he joined Kiffin and Samuel Moyer* in reviving the pro-republican London petition which had so angered Oliver at the end of the last Parliament, this time with 40,000 signatures.49TSP vii. 617.

The fall of the protectorate was warmly welcomed by Berners, who now became a political figure of some consequence. He was elected to the new council of state on 19 May, and during the following five months he attended the majority of meetings.50A. and O.; Bodl. Rawl. C.179, passim; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. xxiv; 1659-60, pp. xxiii-iv. He signed numerous warrants for the payment of money, including those granting £20,000 to the treasurers at war (30 July) and £10,000 to the navy treasurer (7 Sept.).51Add. 4197, ff. 192, 193, 196, 202-3, 216, 224-5, 227-8. In August and early September he was involved in negotiations with the Dutch ambassador, and sat on various committees, including that for Irish and Scottish affairs.52CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 123, 157, 173. He found himself back in opposition in October when Parliament was dissolved by the army and the council of state replaced by the committee of safety. In the aftermath of this coup, Berners joined Thomas Scot I*, Sir Arthur Hesilrige* and others in opposing the new regime.53Clarke Pprs. v. 318. On 19 November Berners signed a letter to George Monck* from the ‘deposed council of state’.54Clarke Pprs. v. 343-4. On 25 November he attended a secret meeting of former councillors to treat with Monck’s envoys, and in an unsigned letter to Hobart written four days later, he expressed the hope that Monck would now intervene in English politics, noting the unpopularity of the new committee of safety and divisions within the army.55Whitelocke Diary, 546n; Bodl. Tanner 51, f. 161. He also reported that he and others had been removed from the militia committee for Westminster, ‘because they utterly disowned the committee for unsafety’s letter and order, and voted that they, being appointed by Parliament, according to their trust they ought not nor would obey any orders from or give account unto any but the Parliament or their council of state’.56Bodl. Tanner 51, f. 161. Berners remained in close contact with his former colleagues on the council of state and was involved on 15 December in an ill-fated attempt to secure the Tower of London in the name of Parliament, and with Anthony Ashley Cooper*, Thomas Scot I and John Weaver* signed a letter to Col. Charles Fleetwood* justifying their actions.57TSP vii. 797-8. On 24 December Berners was instrumental in securing the support of the City authorities for the restoration of the Rump, and also took custody of the Tower.58Clarke Pprs. iv. 220; Whitelocke Diary, 554. On 26 December, with Parliament safely re-established, Berners and his associates were rewarded for their actions and entrusted with the care of the Tower.59CJ vii. 797a. Berners was reappointed to the council of state on 2 January 1660, and was granted lodgings in London on 19 Jan.60CJ vii. 801a; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 314. He played only a minor role in politics thereafter, however, and the only sign of his involvement in the new council of state was his appointment, on 7 February, to a committee to consider papers delivered by the Dutch ambassador.61TSP vii. 809. The return of the secluded Members on 21 February marked the end of Berners’s political career.

At the Restoration, Berners was granted a pardon from the king, and when he died in early 1661 he was a relatively wealthy man.62Egerton 255, f. 41; cf. Noble, English Regicides i. 90. He was buried on 23 February at his childhood parish of St Dionis Backchurch.63St Dionis Backchurch, 226. In his will, written in January 1661, he made a charitable bequest to the poor of the parish of Welwyn in Hertfordshire, and left his shares in the New River Company to a cousin, John Berners of Hertfordshire. The remainder of his property was bequeathed to his wife for her jointure, and thereafter to his only surviving son, James.64PROB11/312, f. 271. His widow later became the third wife of Roger Hill II*.65Misc. Gen. et Her. (n.s. i), 85.