MATTHEWS, Joachim (c.1609-59), of Gt. Gobions, Havering-atte-Bower, Essex.

Matthews may have thought himself to be particularly blessed. When he was born in about 1609, his face was covered in a caul, a traditional sign of good fortune. He kept the caul throughout his life, bequeathing it at his death to his eldest son in a silver box.32PROB11/292/127. Matthews was a second-generation Londoner with origins in the Low Countries. His father, the son of a burgomaster at Helven in the duchy of Brabant, had settled in London by the mid-1590s and by 1618 he was operating a business as a public notary from Broad Street.33CB; Returns of Aliens dwelling in the City and Suburbs of London, ed. R.E.G. Kirk and E.F. Kirk (Huguenot Soc. x), ii. 474; iii. 216. By 1633 both Joachim Matthews senior and his wife were dead, leaving their only son with what may have been an inheritance of modest size. In 1636 he enrolled himself at Lincoln’s Inn to train as a lawyer.34LI Admiss. i. 230.

In the late 1650s Richard Symonds would record gossip which claimed that Matthews had been ‘a forward lad’ who had first sought employment at court. A spell as an underclerk in the office of one of the clerks of the privy council, Thomas Meautys*, had followed, until he married ‘an heir to a citizen worth 4000£ and that set him up’.35Harl. 991, f. 32. This gossip may well have been accurate. In August 1637 Matthews married Philippa Crew with almost indecent haste after the death of her father, a wealthy member of the Painter-Stainers’ Company.36Regs. of St Bene’t, ii. 22; London Mar. Lics., 903. She and her two sisters ultimately stood to gain one-third each of their father’s wealth.37PROB11/174/649. Her share included some lands at Bermondsey.38PROB11/292/127. There is also evidence that Matthews knew Meautys. When Meautys died in 1649, Matthews was found to be one of his largest creditors and, for that reason, was granted the administration of his estate.39PROB6/24, f. 147. The marriage to Philippa Crew probably made it unnecessary for him to continue his studies for the bar. However, even if he never practised as a lawyer, his later political outlook was deeply informed by his legal studies and he spoke with some authority on the subject in the House. In 1642 he purchased the manor of Gobions at Havering-at-Bower from Sir Richard Minshall, thereby gaining a toehold within Essex society.40Essex RO, D/DHt/T140/19-23; SP28/153: acc. of John Fenning, 1642, p. 3. He was also able to invest in properties between Charing Cross and Spring Gardens on a site which now forms part of Trafalgar Square.41Survey of London, xvi. 111.

It took the civil war to make Matthews a prominent figure within his adopted county and he was certainly not at first an obvious choice for the major local offices, despite his support for Parliament. The sub-committee of the county standing committee at Romford seems not to have appointed him until the late summer of 1644. Once appointed, he became one of its most assiduous members, especially in relation to the management of the various sequestration cases in that part of Essex.42Add. 37491, ff. 18-238. His first appointment to the local assessment committee followed in February 1645.43A. and O. He also became an elder of the Braintree classis.44Shaw, Hist. Eng. Church, ii. 375.

Having been added to the Essex bench in 1644, Matthews continued to attend the Chelmsford quarter sessions after the regicide.45C231/6, p. 6; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 280, 331, 371; Essex QSOB ed. Allen, pp. xxxvii, 1-137. Clearly confident of his loyalty, the commonwealth regime commissioned him as colonel of the militia infantry regiment covering the western division of Essex.46CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 499; 1650, pp. 504, 509; Add. 37491, f. 221v. This was one of the Essex regiments which participated in the Worcester campaign in the autumn of 1651, which was why Matthews received an honorary doctorate in civil law from Oxford University when they passed through that city on their way back to Essex.47Essex QSOB ed. Allen, 4; Al. Ox.

The summoning of Matthews to sit in the Nominated Parliament of 1653 was not, as with some of the nominations, a sure sign of religious radicalism. A Fifth Monarchist pamphlet published in 1659 specifically named Matthews among the group of moderates whom Oliver Cromwell*, John Lambert* and others were supposed to have nominated to dilute the more extreme elements present in this Parliament.48A Faithfull Searching Home Word (1659), 14; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 121. Unreliable though that particular source may be, Matthews’ membership of the committees for the advancement of learning and on the bill for the ejection of scandalous ministers, and his probable support for the public maintenance of a preaching ministry, indicate he was not among the assembly’s radicals.49CJ vii. 287b, 370a; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 422. More particularly, there was his attempt to win Parliament’s support for his scheme to build a new meeting house at Barking. This probably took up most of his time during the second half of the session. A petition which he reported to the Commons on 9 September prompted the appointment of Matthews and John Brewster* to draft a bill which would provide the meeting house with a site of one acre of land from the former royal lands in Waltham Forest. This private plan was then subsumed into the bill for the sale of royal forests. Audaciously, Matthews and Brewster increased the size of the proposed grant from one acre to 100 acres, but at the last minute they withdrew that amendment and substituted one which embodied the original, more modest, scheme. The one acre was thereby granted to them as joint trustees for the meeting house, which allowed them to appoint the Presbyterian preacher Edward Kighley as the first incumbent.50CJ vii. 316b, 354a-b; A. and O.; H.E. Brooks, ‘The Kighley fam. of Grays Thurrock’, Essex Review, xxxviii. 137-8.

Legal questions were Matthews’s other preoccupation in this Parliament. In its early days he was first-named to the committee which considered the status of the Engagement and so may have influenced its recommendation that it should be abolished.51CJ vii. 283b. Other committee appointments included those which considered the results of the Irish elections and the bill to reform chancery jurisdiction. On 6 October he was a teller for those who wished to block the creation of the committee set up to investigate the plight of prisoners.52CJ vii. 373b, 374a, 330b. His legal expertise was soon recognised, for, within a fortnight of this Parliament’s dissolution, Matthews had been appointed as one of the judges who were to register all wills. There is no evidence here of any unwillingness to serve under the protectorate and he was confirmed in this office the following April.53A. and O.

Matthews had enhanced his power base in Essex by becoming recorder of Maldon. His connections with the town dated back to June 1652, when he had received its freedom, possibly with a view to succeeding the corporation’s recorder, Eusebius Wright, who did not have long to live. Within six months that vacancy had occurred. However, when the corporation met in December 1652 to approve his appointment, only 15 of the 23 aldermen and capital burgesses present voted for him.54Essex RO, D/B 3/1/20, ff. 189, 191v. For Matthews, the main benefit of the recordership was that it secured him his seat in all three Parliaments between 1654 and 1659.

Almost all his activity during the 1654 Parliament was in some way connected with the attempt to alter the military constitution established in the Instrument of Government, and in this threw in his lot with the Presbyterian interest. His role as teller in the division on 9 December on the subject of ‘damnable heresies’ suggests that he opposed too wide a definition of the ‘tender consciences’ which were to be protected by the new Government Bill. He was then included on the committee appointed to define exactly what was meant by the phrase ‘damnable heresies’ and added to the committee to investigate the heretical works published by the Socinian, John Biddle.55CJ vii. 399a-400a. It seems likely that he chaired the committee appointed on 1 January to draft the oath to be taken by the council of state, although the text they proposed was recommitted when he reported it to the Commons the next day.56CJ vii. 411a-b. A second stint as a committee chairman probably followed when he served on the committee which drafted the clause providing for new elections even if the chancery officials failed to issue the writs of summons.57CJ vii. 413a. The final days of the Parliament saw him act as a teller in four separate divisions on this measure. From this it would appear that he opposed the attempt to restrain the lord protector from suspending legislation, that he disagreed with the inclusion of the provision for repeal in the clause granting supply for the navy, but that he nevertheless approved of the proposed wording for the clause granting supply for the army. His partners as tellers in these votes were the Presbyterians, Sir Ralph Hare*, Alexander Thistlethwayte* and Sir John Wittewronge*.58CJ vii. 415a, 417a, 417b. In a less obvious pairing, Matthews and Jeremy Baynes* successfully blocked the clause which would have granted the lord protector powers to control the militia.59CJ vii. 418b. The final division of the session in which he acted as teller (with leading Presbyterian, John Bulkeley*) was that on 18 January 1655 on whether to make preparations to present bills to Cromwell – he and his allies were probably hoping to forestall preparations which would be seen as conceding that the Parliament was about to end.60CJ vii. 420a. Matthews may have opposed some of the clauses because he thought they were badly worded rather than wrong in principle, but there is no doubt that he was a supporter of those who wished to restrain the powers of Cromwell as lord protector.

Despite his opposition to military rule, Matthews had few problems with Cromwell’s use of the major-generals to govern the provinces, and would later claim that there had been ‘no great complaint against them’ in Essex.61Burton’s Diary, iv. 16. But Matthews’s suspicions about the role of the lord protector presumably explain why he was one of those initially barred from taking their seats in 1656.62CJ vii. 425b. In Matthews’s case, this exclusion from the House was very brief. He had been allowed to sit by 7 October at the latest, just three weeks after the Parliament had first assembled.63CJ vii. 435b. This allowed him to have his say on the Naylor case. His views were harsh. In various contributions to the debates on this subject, he made clear that he thought James Naylor was guilty of blasphemy, that Parliament ought to proceed against him by an act of attainder and that Naylor should be publicly branded.64Burton’s Diary, i. 77, 90, 115, 146, 155, 156, 219. He was equally keen to enforce religious discipline in other ways. His support for a bill for maintenance of ministers sustained the stance he is believed to have taken in 1653.65CJ vii. 469a; Burton’s Diary, i. 160. His appointment to the Naylor committee on 18 December probably indicates that he was sympathetic towards the anti-Quaker petitions which had been referred to it.66CJ vii. 470a. On Christmas Day 1656 he complained about the thin attendance in the House, expressing his disapproval of the festive season which he then sought to ban by introducing a bill ‘to prevent the superstition for the future’.67Burton’s Diary, i. 229-30. This bill was quickly forgotten once the absent MPs had returned. The following week he seconded Thomas Bampfylde’s* bill to encourage the observance of the sabbath.68Burton’s Diary, i. 295.

Other bills also benefitted from his support. His appointment to the committee which had been created to consider the bill to abolish purveyance on 3 December 1656 seems to have galvanised that committee back into action and six days later he reported to the Commons on the amendments they had agreed.69CJ vii. 463b, 465b. He is known to have taken the chair at one of the committee meetings on the bill for the repair of highways.70CJ vii. 478a; Burton’s Diary, i. 344. Other measures he opposed. He was unhappy with the proposed text of the recusancy bill and he argued that the suggested amendments to the bill for the Forest of Dean amounted to a revival of the old forest laws.71Burton’s Diary, i. 148, 229. Both his view that discussion on the assessment rating of the Hanse merchants was an unnecessary distraction and his support for the Merchant Adventurers against the clothworkers may have been influenced by his own family background.72Burton’s Diary, i. 181, 221. His activities in the Commons were also distinguished by the frequency with which he was named to committees on private cases. Evidently, his legal expertise was recognised.73CJ vii. 445b, 466b, 468a, 472a, 482b, 484a, 485b, 488a, 490a, 494b, 496b.

Throughout March 1657 Matthews joined other Presbyterians in taking a close interest in the drafting of what became the Humble Petition and Advice. His most important intervention came on 9 March when he presented an amendment to the fourth clause on the disqualifications to be applied in future parliamentary elections. Although not certain, it is likely that what Matthews was proposing were the provisions which were intended to bar MPs from the Commons on moral grounds. The detailed list of those who were to be banned included those who had violated the 1650 act against atheism and blasphemy, those who had married or fathered a Catholic, those who denied the authority of scripture, and those who frequented alehouses. The Commons agreed to consider Matthews’ amendment by the narrowest of margins – it was read only on the Speaker’s casting vote – but the proposal was approved and incorporated into the final text.74CJ vii. 500b, 501a; A. and O. ii. 1050. This provided far more specific restrictions than the equivalent provision in the Instrument of Government. Other clauses in the Petition which seem to have attracted his particular attention were those which dealt with Scotland and Ireland, defined the powers of the Other House and specified safeguards against former royalists.75CJ vii. 499b, 502a, 508b. It would appear that he viewed the Scottish and Irish unions with some suspicion. He argued against the moves to reduce the level of the assessments in Scotland and Ireland and he opposed the land grant to Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*).76Burton’s Diary, ii. 175-6, 178, 179, 212; CJ vii. 546a. To those wary of the powers of the lord protector, the influx of Scottish and Irish MPs, headed by Broghill, seemed a real threat. However, Matthews seems to have had no objection in principle to a single ruler and he was probably willing to accept Cromwell as lord protector.77Burton’s Diary, ii. 91. What did concern him were the terms under which the powers of the protectorate were to be exercised.

Some of these concerns resurfaced in the Additional Humble Petition which the Commons passed in June 1657. In the debate on 24 June Matthews maintained that the writs of summons to the Other House ought to be issued only with the approval of the Commons and that they ought to have a veto over those being summoned. He then acted as teller for those who succeeded in restricting the terms under which the final clause of the Additional Humble Petition confirmed the powers of the Other House.78Burton’s Diary, i. 298, 300, 301; CJ vii. 573a.

By now Matthews had acquired a working knowledge of parliamentary procedure which he used to some effect during the second, brief session of this Parliament in early 1658. He was among MPs who queried the Speaker’s attempt to impose his own nominee, Henry Scobell, the former clerk of the Parliaments, as clerk of the Commons. Matthews argued that whichever clerk was appointed should be sworn to secrecy.79Burton’s Diary, ii. 317, 318; CJ vii. 579a. He was also among those sent to complain to Scobell that the inventory of the Commons’ records which he had been asked to compile was incomplete.80CJ vii. 588a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 404. Otherwise, his main concern during this session was his continuing doubts about the status of the Other House. On 22 January he warned to the Commons against becoming bogged down in debating whether to recognise the second chamber. His basic position was that the Other House could not be regarded as the equivalent of the House of Lords, as the Lords had been abolished by act of Parliament in 1649.81Burton’s Diary, ii. 340, 341, 343, 399. His reasons were set out in detail in a lengthy speech during the debate on 4 February.82Burton’s Diary, ii. 450-6. He was prepared to recognise the Other House if this second chamber merely shared the existing powers of the Commons; its role ought to be no more than advisory. Any suggestion of its exercising a negative voice was to be rejected in principle. He opposed the use of any title which might imply that the Other House were the successors of the Lords, but stressed that this was a constitutional objection.

I am no Leveller; I profess it, I am for distinction. The word ‘gentleman’ is a title of no small honour. In Spain, it is of high esteem, and a saying there is ‘As good a gentleman as the king’.83Burton’s Diary, ii. 455-6.

Matthews’s own position as someone who was a first-generation member of the landed gentry no doubt made him particularly sensitive to such distinctions.

Matthews was elected for the last time in 1659. As the new lord protector, Richard Cromwell arrived to open Parliament on 27 January, protectoral officials tried to clear the crowd of strangers, which had gathered at the bar of the old Lords’ chamber. Matthews, who was among them with other MPs, seems to have refused to move.84Burton’s Diary, iii. iii. 2. Whether this was some constitutional protest or mere annoyance at the courtiers’ officiousness is uncertain. Like many other Presbyterian critics of the regime, he was willing to accept some elements of the existing constitutional settlement. On 8 February he spoke in support of recognising Richard Cromwell as lord protector, on the basis that he did not believe that he did not believe that Richard intended ‘to grasp power to the swallowing up the people’s liberties’.85Burton’s Diary, iii. 146. Ten days later he was in favour of allowing the protector to have a veto over legislation.86Burton’s Diary, iii. 342. He also had no problem with the Scottish MPs sitting at Westminster.87Burton’s Diary, iv. 128. Yet he seems to have been opposed to the Other House.88Burton’s Diary, iii. 346, 359, 365. In particular, as he explained in a speech on 4 March, he thought that those sitting in it ought first to have their appointments confirmed by the Commons.89Burton’s Diary, iv. 15-16. But once the Commons had agreed to recognise the Other House, he was probably willing to accord it some of the same privileges as the old House of Lords. That can be inferred from his decision to dispute the vote on 8 April over whether messages to the Other House should be carried by MPs. When the Speaker, Thomas Bampfylde, declared for the noes, Matthews, who presumably favoured the motion, challenged him, thus forcing a division. That upheld Matthews’ position.90Burton’s Diary, iv. 378; CJ vii. 632b Four weeks earlier it had been Matthews who had broken the news to the Commons that Bampfylde’s predecessor, the acting Speaker, (Sir) Lislebone Long*, was dead.91Burton’s Diary, iv. 160. The only committee to which Matthews was appointed was to prepare a declaration concerning the excise (13 Apr.).92CJ vii. 639a.

Within days of the dissolution Matthews was dead. As his children were all still minors, he had appointed several of his friends, including Edward Sedgewick* and Tristran Conyers†, as trustees to administer his estates.93PROB11/292/127. His eldest son, Philip, was granted a baronetcy in 1662 and lived until 1685. Sir Philip’s son, Sir John, 2nd bt., was killed in action at Oudenarde in 1708, whereupon the male line of the family became extinct.94CB.