SAY, William (1604-?1666), of the Middle Temple, London.

The younger son of a minor Sussex gentleman, William Say was sent to Oxford in 1619, at the age of 15, and in 1622 was admitted to the Middle Temple on the same day as his elder brother, Edward.30Al. Ox.; MTR ii. 675. The brothers were granted a chamber in 1623, and studied law together until 1631, when they were called to the bar.31MTR ii. 675, 682, 684, 698, 732, 781. The following Christmas, William Say was one of a group of ‘the young gentlemen’ of the Middle Temple who met ‘to drink healths in Hall with loud music … in the name of a Parliament or parliamentary meeting’. Shocked by this political protest, the masters fined the ringleaders, singling out Say for especially harsh treatment, as the one ‘who had drunk the first health’.32MTR ii. 791. Although he had submitted, Say appears to have been unrepentant, and he and his brother were fined for their absence from the formal ‘reading’ at the Temple in October 1632, October 1633 and May 1634.33MTR ii. 800, 811, 821. Little is known of Say’s activities during this period, but there are hints that he was involved in various money-making schemes alongside his legal practice. In 1635 he managed the grant of letters patent for the ennoblement of George Calvert as 1st Baron Baltimore, and in 1637 he joined John Hunt in purchasing 10 messuages and 500 acres in the Surrey manors of Clapham, Battersea, Stockwell and Lambeth.34Coventry Docquets, 399, 702. In 1639 and 1640 he worked with William Sandys* to raise money for the project to make the River Avon navigable; and he was also involved in the draining of the Hatfield Fens in Yorkshire, being responsible for bringing his Middle Temple colleague, Bulstrode Whitelocke* in as a reluctant partner, through ‘the high magnifying of the business’.35CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 628; Whitelocke, Diary, 118-19. In May 1640 Say was again resident in the Middle Temple, when he was bound with John Maynard* as surety for a new student from Devon.36MTR ii. 891. He improved his position still further in 1642, when he married a daughter of the Kentish satirist, Sir Anthony Weldon.37Oxford DNB.

Say remained at the Middle Temple during the first civil war, and was doubtless a supporter of Parliament, although nothing is known of his public support for the cause. In the mid-1640s he came to the notice of the Committee for Advance of Money because he had lent money to royalists in Worcestershire and Middlesex before the civil war, but their concern was financial rather than political. In one case – that of a debtor of Hugh Hare, 1st Baron Coleraine – the committee indemnified Say as surety for a bond, on condition that if any money was eventually recovered, it would be paid into the parliamentary coffers.38CCAM 243-5.

Say was elected as recruiter MP for the Cornish seat of Camelford in April 1647, although he had no obvious connection with the county.39C219/43/18. He may even have been returned on the Presbyterian interest, as a well-connected lawyer. Certainly, his initial involvement in parliamentary affairs did not hint at the radicalism that was to come. He took the Covenant on 9 June 1647, and was named to the committee to regulate the privileges of MPs a day later.40CJ v. 203b, 205a. On 19 June he was added to the committee to prepare a declaration against assemblies of soldiers and to consider disorder generally, and on 1 July he was added to the committee on an ordinance to remove all soldiers from London.41CJ v. 217a, 229a. The latter committee appointments suggest that Say was uncomfortable with the army’s increasing involvement in politics, although his main concern was to avoid unrest, and he proved to be no friend of the Presbyterian interest. In the summer of 1647 Say was back on good terms with the Independent MP, Bulstrode Whitelocke, who noted on 16 July that he had received ‘an handsome roan gelding’ as a gift from him, and in later months Whitelocke and his family stayed in Say’s rooms in Temple Chambers.42Whitelocke, Diary, 196, 200. On 4 August, Say signed the declaration of the Members who had taken refuge with the army following the Presbyterian ‘riots’ at Westminster of late July, and on 18 August he was named to the committee on an ordinance for annulling all the orders passed during the period of Presbyterian ascendancy.43LJ ix. 385b; CJ v. 278a.

Say’s flight to the army in the summer of 1647 and his appointment to the 18 August committee suggest that he was now aligning himself more firmly with the Independent faction, but as yet he was far from being a zealot. At the beginning of September he was added to the committees for maimed soldiers and for the army, but his attendance was patchy until January 1648, when he was made chairman of the committee for the Irish assessment and was named to the committee to indemnify tenants of delinquent landowners – a matter of which he had had first-hand experience.44CJ v. 287b, 298b, 397b, 439b, 447b. In February, Say reported the Irish assessment ordinance, and then took it to the Lords for approval, and in March he was named to the committee on the ordinance for the restoring the trustees for impropriated church livings.45CJ v. 452a, 459a, 519a. During the spring and summer, Say was involved in the two related issues of the suppression of royalist insurrection and the confiscation of estates. On 11 May he was named to the committee on the ordinance for the sale of Rowland Laugharne’s† estates in Wales to benefit the officers and soldiers of Colonel Thomas Horton’s brigade that had defeated Laugharne’s troops at St Fagans.46CJ v. 557a. On 6 June Say was named to the committee on an ordinance to sequester other royalists in south Wales.47CJ v. 587a. On 14 June he was given care of the committee to consider the uprising in Kent (his wife’s native county), and two days later he was appointed to the committee on the ordinance for the sale of the dean and chapter lands.48CJ v. 599b, 600a, 602a. At the end of July he was added to the Kent sequestrations committee.49CJ v. 652a. Another issue of growing important to Say was the attempt to make peace with the king. On 10 June he was appointed to a committee to prepare a declaration concerning a further treaty and settlement, and he was absent from the Commons for much of the autumn, acting as steward to Parliament’s commissioners negotiating with the king on the Isle of Wight.50CJ v. 593a; vi. 376b; CCC 223; Oxford DNB. On his return to Westminster, on 15 November Say was added to the committee on the king’s propositions.51CJ vi. 77a. With his suspicions of the army, and his willingness to treat with the king, Say may have been in broad agreement with the ‘royal Independents’, who favoured a last-ditch settlement in opposition to the army. He was not secluded at Pride’s Purge on 6 December, and he was again active in the Commons by the end of December, when he was named to the committee on the ordinance for the trial of the king.52CJ vi. 106a.

The new year of 1649 was the turning-point in Say’s political career. From being a fairly lukewarm Independent, in a matter of days Say was thrust into the centre of the Rump’s interim administration. On 6 January he was added to the Committee for Advance of Money, the Committee for Sequestrations and to the Committee of Navy and Customs.53CJ vi. 110a, 112b, 113b. Central to this sudden promotion was Say’s willingness to be involved in the legal process against the king. On 6 January 1649 he was appointed as a commissioner and judge for the trial of Charles I.54A. and O.; CJ vi. 112b. During the trial proceedings from mid-January, he was an enthusiastic commissioner, attending 15 sessions.55Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 728n. He was one of the commissioners chosen to draft the sentence of execution on 25 January, on the 27th he was named to the committee on a bill to prevent a new king being proclaimed, and two days later he signed the death warrant.56Muddiman, Trial of Charles I, 102, 197-228; CJ vi. 124a. As if any further sign of his allegiance were necessary, on 1 February he subscribed the dissent from the 5 December vote in support of the Treaty of Newport.57PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, pp. 625; [W. Prynne], A Full Declaration of the True State of the Secluded Members Case (1660), 23 (E.1013.22). Immediately afterwards Say was among those ordered to present a narrative of the court’s proceedings to Parliament, and over the next few months he continued to be involved in managing the effects of the regicide: he was named to committees for a declaration to justify Parliament’s role in the proceedings (16 Feb.), to survey royal properties (24 Feb.) and to consider the bill ‘for taking away kingship’ (7 Mar.).58CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 353; CJ vi. 143b, 150b, 158a. Such measures were vital in what has been termed ‘the pursuit of respectability’ during the early weeks of 1649.59Worden, Rump Parl. 187.

After the regicide, Say became a very active member of the Rump, working with other lawyers like Lislebone Long, Augustine Garland and Edmund Prideaux I.60Worden, Rump Parl. 30. There was much to do to legitimise the legal system under the new republican government. On 7 February 1649 Say was appointed to the committee to meet the judges and formulate a suitable oath of office for them, and the next day he was one of the MPs chosen to review the lists of JPs for the shires, and he was also named to the committee to prepare a declaration on the judge’s response to the new commissions.61CJ vi. 133b, 134a-b. On 10 February he was appointed to the committee to consider new oaths for the freemen of London, and on 22nd he was also named to a committee to consider the settlement of the courts of justice and the assize circuits.62CJ vi. 137a-b, 148b. On 19 March he was named to the committee on the bill to ensure the safe keeping of the records of the House of Lords, including its legal archive.63CJ vi. 168b. It seems there was scarcely a branch of the law that escaped Say’s scrutiny during this period.

Alongside his legal duties, Say also developed his former interest in the disposal of royalist lands, in various forms. On 1 February 1649 he was named to the committee stage of the bill for delinquents, and he reported from the same committee on 5 April.64CJ vi. 127b, 180a. On 9 March he was named to the committee to consider the sale of fee farm rents, and he was included in the committee on the bill for the same on 3 April.65CJ vi. 160b, 178b. On 5 May Say was added to the committee to prepare instructions for the trustees for the sale of dean and chapter lands, and on 20 June he was appointed to the committee on the sale of bishops’ lands.66CJ vi. 202a; A. and O. Retribution was not compatible with settlement, however, and Say’s concern for a return to normality can perhaps be detected in his appointment to take care of the bill for pardon and oblivion on 5 July.67CJ vi. 250b. Say was also involved in the thorny problem of the relief of debtors and the fair treatment of creditors, although in this case he probably joined his fellow lawyers in seeking to water down any reform that might affect their profits.68Worden, Rump Parl. 203-4. He was named to the committee on the bill for the relief of debtors on 20 April 1649, and he was involved in the same business over the summer; he was ordered to report on the bill for creditors on 18 October, and reported the same to the Commons on 2 November, and again on 21 December.69CJ vi. 190b, 219a, 262a, 309b, 318a, 337a.

Aside from the law and the land, Say’s activity during 1649 also provides a glimpse of his religious views. He was named to the committee for the maintenance of ministers on 2 May; in August he was appointed to the committee to consider the role that the Presbyterian system might have within a church settlement; and on 20 December he was included in the committee for preaching the gospel throughout the nation.70CJ vi. 336a. These appointments suggest that he was a conservative in religion as in other areas.

The new year of 1650 saw Say’s parliamentary career take another new turn, as on 16 January he was elected to the chair of the grand committee to consider the question of representation and to provide for new elections, following the introduction of new proposals by Sir Henry Vane II a week before.71CJ vi. 347b; Worden, Rump Parl. 142, 146-7. The grand committee was adjourned and reconvened on 23 January, and the process was repeated 34 times by the end of the year.72CJ vi. 348b, 349a, 352a-514b. The proceedings of this grand committee were not recorded, and their deliberations are known only in outline, but Say remained as chairman, and its business was a considerable call on his time. His other interests continued in between these meetings. Despite his generally conservative attitude to religion, on 29 January he was named to the committee on the propagation of the gospel in Wales, chaired by the radical Thomas Harrison I, and he reported amendments to the bill on 15 February.73CJ vi. 352a, 365b. On 18 February and 11 March he again reported from the committee on the bill for relief of creditors, and he reported amendments to the bill on 14 May, and, acting as teller, narrowly failed to get the recommendations accepted.74CJ vi. 367b, 380b, 412a. He was involved in drafting a new bill for the same purpose on 23 May, and was appointed to the committee on it on 18 June.75CJ vi. 416a, 424b. On 6 April he was named to the committee stage of the bill for the sale of the estates of delinquents; on 8 May acted as teller on a vote allowing the commissioners at Haberdashers’ Hall to compound with delinquents and reward discoverers of ‘concealed’ lands; and on 28 November he and Augustine Garland were ordered to take care of the business of the sale of delinquent estates.76CJ vi. 393b; 410b, 502b, 503a.

During 1650 Say’s involvement in legal business in the House was somewhat curtailed, although he was named to the bill on erecting courts martial in London and Westminster on 14 March, on 28 June he was named to the committee to consider the powers of the high court of justice, and on 25 October he was named to the committee to receive reports on the reform of the law.77CJ vi. 382b, 434a, 488a. Outside the chamber, however, Say’s legal career flourished. In May 1649 he was appointed as one of the counsel for the commonwealth, as assistants to the attorney-general, in the case against John Lilburne, William Walwyn and other Levellers, and he was again employed in that role in September.78CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 121, 314. In January 1650 Say informed the Committee for Advance of Money that the knight marshal of Southwark, the overseer of the Marshalsea court and prison, was a notorious delinquent, and managed to secure a grant of the same post, with its profits, for himself.79CCAM 1181-2. It was in the same period that Say began to be assigned tasks by the Committee for Compounding, although there is no evidence that he was formally appointed to this body.80CCC 169, 193, 612, 1031. On 4 April he reported from Goldsmiths’ Hall the petition of the son of Francis Leke, 1st Baron Deincourt, and he was later named to committees relating to the case.81CJ vi. 392b, 403b, 476a. Likewise, on 10 December he was a reporter from the Compounding Committee on various matters relating to the treatment of delinquents.82CJ vi. 506b.

On 13 February 1651 Say was appointed to the new council of state.83A. and O.; CJ vi. 532b, 533a. His role on the council was principally as a lawyer, and he was appointed to its committee on law, and the admiralty committee, on 1 March.84CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 66-7. He attended 131 of the 249 sittings of the council, and his activities appear to have been closely related to his parliamentary interests.85CSP Dom. 1651, p. xxxv. Sometimes they coincided, as on 8 April 1651, when he was a messenger to the Commons with the council’s request for a bill for the sale of delinquent estates to fund the Irish campaign.86CSP Dom. 1651, p. 135. Other matters in the council of state came nearer the bone. In May 1651 Say was appointed to the council committee to consider the drainage of Hatfield Chase, and he examined witnesses on the case in July.87CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 219, 276. In January 1652 he and Henry Darley* were ordered to draw up a report on the fen drainage dispute at Axholme in Lincolnshire, a document afterwards roundly condemned as ‘a most partial, wicked and erroneous report’. Say was far from being a disinterested party in such schemes: as well as the interest he had held in the Hatfield Level since the late 1630s, he also held reclaimed land around Peterborough.88Lindley, Fenland Riots, 191; CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 341; 1652-3, p. 373. This was not the only question mark over Say’s probity. When the Marshalsea was dissolved in August 1651, Say was allowed to retain the profits that he owed to the state, by way of compensation, only after the direct intervention of Parliament.89CCAM 93, 1182; CJ vi. 599b.

Say’s parliamentary career during the first half of 1651 was again dominated by the endless deliberations of the grand committee on representation and elections, which reconvened on 1 January and sat a further ten times until August, when it fizzled out.90CJ vi. 517b, 524a-617a. During this period Say was again involved in the disposal of delinquents’ estates, being named to the committee to draft amendments to the bill on 23 January, and the committee to consider claims against the bill the next day.91CJ vi. 527a, 528a. On 22 April he reported from the council of state the urgency of passing the legislation, as the money was assigned to Ireland; on 22 May he was reporter to the Commons on amendments to the bill; and on 16 July he was teller against including a further proviso.92CJ vi. 564b, 577b, 605a. Little progress was made in the next few weeks, and Say again reported from the committee on 26 September.93CJ vii. 21b. Another preoccupation was the settlement of the militia. On 28 January Say was named to the committee to consider the faults of the current system; on 25 February he was one of those chosen to draft a bill to reform the militia; and the Commons resolved on 18 March that he should bring in the bill.94 CJ vi. 528b, 540a, 550a. On 12 August he was named to the committee on the Westminster and Southwark militias, and reported the bill recommending new commissioners.95CJ vi. 619a-b. Say was also involved in individual cases, being appointed to committees on the petition of Algernon Sydney* and the land grants to Oliver Cromwell and Carew Ralegh*, and he was teller against the release of Edward Howard*, 1st Baron Howard of Escrick.96CJ vi. 523b, 576b, 595a, 618a.

During the invasion of England by Charles Stuart and his Scottish army in the summer of 1651, Say worked diligently in Parliament and the council of state. On 12 August he was named to the committee to raise militia regiments against the Scots, and the following day he reported from the council of state letters received from Cromwell, Harrison and Sir Arthur Hesilrige*.97CJ vi. 620a, 621b. On 21 August he was appointed to a council committee (alongside Whitelocke) to draft a proclamation denouncing Charles as a traitor, and two days later he offered the finished proclamation to Parliament.98CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 349, 358. After the defeat of the Scots at Worcester, Say was appointed to the council committee to offer a draft bill against popery to Parliament, and in October he was on committees to examine prisoners held in the Tower and to prepare a bill forcing the Scottish prisoners to work on the fen drainage project on pain of death.99CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 456, 462, 471. Any hope that the decisive victory would break the log-jam of parliamentary business proved unfounded. Under pressure from Cromwell, the grand committee on the new representative reconvened in mid-September and the Commons instructed Say to report its conclusions, which he did on 24 September, and another committee was appointed to prepare a bill.100CJ vii. 19b, 20b. Say had no involvement in the ‘bill for the new representative’, introduced with Cromwell’s backing on 26 September and rushed through the first two readings in October, and he may have joined those who successfully delayed its completion.101Worden, Rump Parl. 266-7. The issue of new elections resurfaced at intervals thereafter, as in May 1652, when Say was again in the chair, but nothing concrete was achieved.102CJ vii. 131a, 136a. Say continued to pursue his other interests in Parliament, but again little was decided. On 3 December 1651 he was named to the committee on the additional bill for the sale of forfeited estates – and reported from the same on 2 January; on 31 December he reported from the committee on the sale of dean and chapter lands; and in January he reported from the committee on the estate of Henry Somerset*, Lord Herbert of Raglan (that affected Cromwell personally) and was named to the committee for executing judgement on John Lilburne.103CJ vii. 46b, 59b, 63a, 67a, 75b.

As well as struggling with this mass of loose ends, from the winter of 1651-2 Say was drawn into various new areas of parliamentary business. On 26 December he had been named to the committee on the bill for establishing a new Army Committee, and on 31 December he was added to the Army Committee itself.104CJ vii. 58a, 61a. This new role was to involve him in the problem of raising money for the army, satisfying the soldiers’ claims to Irish land, and other army and navy business throughout 1652.105CJ vii. 128a, 157b, 162a, 172a. On 22 January Say was named to the committee on the bill for pardon and oblivion, and five days later he reported the amendments to the Commons.106CJ vii. 76b, 77b. On 13 April he was named to the committee on the bill for incorporating Scotland into one commonwealth with England, and in October he was named to the committee for Scottish affairs.107CJ vii. 115a, 190a. In the same month Say was ordered by the council of state to draw up a bill on the settlement of Scotland, to offer to Parliament in conjunction with further bills to continue Scottish judicatories until 1 November, and to continue the assessment system north of the border.108CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 439, 448, 452. Such new ventures did not seem to distract Say from his main focus, the settlement of confiscated estates. In March and April he was active in managing bills for transferring the sale of the king’s lands to a body independent of Parliament, and in negotiating with the contractors who were already employed in the sale of bishops’ lands.109CJ vii. 101a, 112a, 115a. On 15 July Say was named to the committee to hasten the bill for the sale of forfeited estates, on 24 September he was added to the committee to choose trustees for the same, and he was added to the committee on 6 October, and to the committee for claims against the same, on 12 October.110CJ vii. 154b, 185b, 189a, 190b. On 19 November the Commons ordered that Say and Fielder bring in a doubling bill for the sale of forfeited estates.111CJ vii. 221a.

On 25 November 1652 Say was re-elected to the council of state.112CJ vii. 221a. Once again, he was a conscientious member of the council, attending 65 of the 121 sittings until the closure of the Rump in April 1653.113CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. xxxiii. His main concern over these months was the sale of the properties formerly belonging to the crown, and he was ordered by the Commons to bring in a proviso for the bill on 29 December, and to report an additional clause on 31 December.114CJ vii. 238b, 239a. On 25 January 1653 he was also named to a committee to survey the proceedings of the trustees for the sale of the king’s goods.115CJ vii. 250b. In the council, Say was added to the council committee for foreign affairs on 17 December, and he was active in settling disputes over Dutch prizes, reporting a bill for the same to Parliament on 8 March 1653.116CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 38, 102, 151, 197, 230; CJ vii. 264a. He was named to a parliamentary committee on the bill to proceed against Catholics on 6 January, and he was also involved, as a councillor, in drafting a bill against Catholics, in January and February.117CJ vii. 244a; CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 87, 171.

Cromwell’s intervention to force the dissolution of the Rump Parliament in April 1653 was presumably an unwelcome blow to Say, even if he shared some of the lord general’s frustration with lack of progress in parliamentary business, and he did not sit in the Nominated Assembly. During the protectorate, Say played no part in national politics, instead resuming his legal career. In May 1654 – after a long dispute about fees – Say was admitted as a bencher by the Middle Temple.118MTR iii. 1038, 1040, 1053, 1058-9. His friends at this time included Sir Henry Vane I*, who mentioned Say in his will in 1654, and John Lisle*, who worked with Say against the indebted, adulterous divorcee, Lady Katherine Scott, in 1655.119V. Rowe, Sir Henry Vane the Younger (1970), 13; Whitelocke, Diary, 407. During the protectorate Say was also involved in legal disputes of his own, including those involving properties in Kent and Cambridgeshire and the family’s principal estate at Slinford in Sussex.120C5/419/90; C5/431/60; C6/137/41; C7/409/98; C7/433/49; C8/132/78.

With the collapse of the protectorate and the re-establishment of the Rump Parliament in May 1659, Say returned to the Commons. During the next six months, he became one of the most active MPs, working with old colleagues like Augustine Garland. The legitimacy of the commonwealth regime was as important in 1659 as it had been in 1649, and on 10 May Say was named to the committee on a bill to authorise justices of the peace and sheriffs to continue their offices under the new government.121CJ vii. 648a. He was also involved in setting up the new council of state, and was teller, alongside Harbert Morley*, against allowing non-MPs to be members, on 13 May.122CJ vii. 652b. On 21 May he was named to the committee to consider the validity of all legislation passed since April 1653, and on 23 May he was named to a committee to consider allegations of corruption against the former protectoral councillor, Philip Jones*.123CJ vii. 661b, 663a. This was but the beginning of a process of righting the perceived wrongs of the protectorate, and Say was later involved in the survey of lands lately possessed by Richard Cromwell* (16 July) and the rehabilitation of Major-general Robert Overton (29 July), as well as further investigations of Jones (14 June).124CJ vii. 684b, 720b, 738b. One of Say’s main duties during this time was overseeing the passage of the bill of pardon and indemnity. He was named to the committee on this bill on 14 May, and added to it on 21 May.125CJ vii. 654b, 661b. This became a grand committee, to consider the army’s petition on the bill, set up with Say as chairman on 28 May.126CJ vii. 669a. This grand committee met a further five times until July, when Say reported its finding to the Commons.127CJ vii. 669b, 671a, 685b, 688a, 705a, 707b. In the summer, Say was also involved in the committees for a new assessment bill (14 June, 18 Aug.), excise and customs (22 June, 26 Sept.), for Plundered Ministers (25 June) and the settlement of Irish lands (6 and 20 July).128CJ vii. 684b, 691b, 693b, 706b, 726a, 762a, 786b.

Alongside the routine business of parliamentary committee, Say was also involved in the executive functions of the new Parliament. After a resolution by the Commons, on 31 May 1659 he was appointed commissioner for the navy and admiralty, serving alongside senior commonwealthsmen, including Sir Henry Vane II.129CJ vii. 666b; A. and O. He was an active navy commissioner, for example signing, on 6 September 1659, an order for the payment of the crew of the Constant Warwick.130Add. 22546, ff. 219-20. Say also played an important role in scrutinising the appointment of Charles Fleetwood* as commander-in-chief, joining the committee to consider the bill on 4 June, and two days later reporting amendments to it.131CJ vii. 672b, 673a. On 4 August Say took the chair of the grand committee on the government, but its deliberations were immediately interrupted by the outbreak of Sir George Boothe’s* rebellion.132CJ vii. 747a. Say played an important part in the measures taken against the defeated rebels from late August onwards. He was named to the committee for sequestering their estates on 24 August, reported the subsequent bill the next day, was appointed to the committee to amend the bill on 26th, and reported the alterations on 27th.133CJ vii. 767b, 768a, 769a, 770a. On 4 October Say was named to the committee on an additional bill for sequestrations.134CJ vii. 791b. As October continued, relations between the civilian commonwealthsmen and their army allies became increasingly strained. Say’s part in this factionalism is uncertain, but it is perhaps telling that on 12 October he was appointed to the committee to answer the proposals of the army officers.135CJ vii. 796b. It was the anger generated by the attempt to annul the commissions of the senior officers on the same day that led to the army’s coup, and the suspension of the Rump once again.

Nothing is known of Say’s activities during the army’s period of dominance, but with the implosion of the high command, and the re-emergence of the Rump Parliament in the last days of December, he again became a significant figure at Westminster. On 27 December he was named to the committee for continuing the customs and excise, on 28 December he was added to the committee for inspections and named to the committee for indemnifying ‘loyal’ soldiers, and on 29 December he was one of those who received the thanks of the Commons for their own loyalty during the late ‘interruption’.136CJ vii. 797b, 798b, 799a-b. On 31 December Say was appointed as a councillor of state, and in early January he was involved in measures for the sale of the estates of the rebels associated with Boothe and to disable suspected people from sitting for Parliament, and he was named to the committee for the Tower of London.137CJ vii. 805b, 806a, 807a. As a sign of his new standing, on 13 January Say was briefly called upon to be Speaker of the Commons, pro tempore, to replace William Lenthall, who was ‘sick and absent 10 days’.138CJ vii. 811a; Whitelocke, Diary, 561; CCSP iv. 520. In the second half of January, Say also began to sign orders, apparently as a treasury commissioner, to pay regiments, provide funds for the treasurer of contingencies, and to provide for maimed soldiers.139Add. 4197, ff. 119, 121, 123, 124. On 21 January he was named to the committee to bring in a declaration about the settlement of the government – a matter dear to Say’s heart.140CJ vii. 818a.

The arrival of George Monck’s* army at the beginning of February was initially welcomed by men like Say. Say continued his political activities in the weeks that followed. On 7 February 1660, the council of state appointed Say to the committee to consider propositions from the Dutch ambassador.141TSP vii. 809. On 8 February he was named to committee to summon John Lambert* to answer for his opposition to the Rump, and he reported from it the next day.142CJ vii. 837a-b. On 15 February, Say was named to a committee to draft a clause in the bill for qualifications for new MPs, and he reported this to the House on the 16th.143CJ vii. 843b, 845a-b. Say’s optimism was not to last for long. The readmittance of the secluded members on 21 February 1660 made the position of regicides very insecure. Edmund Ludlowe II* recorded a private meeting with Say and other commonwealthsmen, in which he tried to steel them for armed resistance to any attempt to restore the Stuarts, saying ‘I supposed they might yet put fair to recover all, for that without doubt the lawful authority was on our side, and so were ten to one of the soldiers’.144Ludlow, Voyce, 90. Say continued to sit in the Commons until at least 15 March, but by April it was becoming increasingly clear that the monarchy would indeed be restored.145CJ vii. 877a.

From the spring of 1660, Say becomes a shadowy figure. According to one hostile witness, he reacted to the Restoration by ‘taking to his heels, for fear he should have had a habeas corpus to have removed his body from Newgate to Tyburn’.146W. Winstanley, The Loyall Martyrology (1665), 128. On 30 May 1660 he was excepted from the act of indemnity by the Commons, but according to Edmund Ludlowe, he lingered until October before fleeing to the continent.147Diaries and Pprs. of Sir Edward Dering ed. M.F. Bond (1976), 45; Ludlow, Voyce, 158; Bodl. Eng. hist. c. 487, p. 964. While Say was in exile, the royalist vultures circled his estate. For the two years following the Restoration there was a series of petitions to the government by those claiming compensation against Say, or alleging mistreatment at his hands during the previous two decades.148CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 344, 428, 492; 1661-2, p. 628. On 1 February 1664 William Gray was given leave to search for Say, and to bring him back for trial.149CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 464. Such bounty hunters were notably unsuccessful. By 1662 Say had travelled with Colonel Biscoe and Edward Dendy* to Bern in Switzerland, where they had been well received and accorded the protection of the city and canton. In September or October of the same year they went on to Lausanne, where they met Ludlowe and other fugitives, including John Lisle. In April 1663 the exiles moved eastwards along the north shore of Lake Geneva to Vevey, which was considered safer, but following the assassination of Lisle, Say moved to the United Provinces, on the encouragement of Algernon Sydney. Ludlowe next heard from Say in 1665, when he received a letter from Amsterdam, in which Say professed his confidence in the Dutch, not only as enemies of the Stuart regime, but also as friends of ‘the commonwealth interest’. He urged Ludlowe to join him in the Netherlands, to negotiate with the Dutch authorities, but to no avail. Say’s last letter was dated May 1666, and he died soon afterwards, with his hopes of ‘the ruin of this present government in England’ dashed.150Bodl. Eng. hist.c. 487, pp. 965, 1033, 1056, 1065, 1070, 1080, 1112-3, 1115, 1118, 1378; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 377-9, 391, 394.