MANBY, Thomas (c.1614-79), of Downsell Hall, South Weald, Essex

Tracing Thomas Manby through the records of the period is complicated by the frequent misreading of his name, in both contemporary and modern sources, as ‘Manley’. Nevertheless, the election indenture for Great Bedwyn, dated 20 December 1658, records that Thomas ‘Manby’ was returned, and the MP can be identified with some confidence as the son of Robert Manby of Wragby, Lincolnshire who entered Lincoln’s Inn in 1633 and was called to the bar in 1640. 20C219/48. Nothing is known of Manby’s movements during the 1640s, but by 1652 he was a sufficiently prominent as lawyer to be appointed to the Rump’s non-parliamentary committee on law reform, headed by Matthew Hale.21CJ vii. 71a, 73b-74a. Manby was an active member of this commission, and participated in the drafting of several bills on matters including probate, small claims courts and procedure.22M. Cotterell, ‘Interregnum law reform: the Hale Commission of 1652’, EHR lxxxiii. 695. In the next few years, Manby was regularly called upon by the council of state to undertake legal work. In 1653 he became a probate judge at a salary of £300 a year, in which capacity he served until at least May 1658, the last date on which the payment of his salary is recorded.23CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 31. In 1653 he was appointed by the council of state to report on the profits of the probate court for the treasury inspectors.24CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 444, 260, 271. In April 1655 he was included in a commission of oyer and terminer for the northern counties to assist the solicitor-general, Robert Reynolds* in the prosecution of rebels in the wake of the royalist uprising associated with John Penruddock. On 21 November 1655 Manby was appointed, in his capacity as a Middlesex justice of the peace, with Hugh Peters and the local major-general, John Barkstead*, to a committee to consider a petition from the inhabitants of Covent Garden; and in May 1656 he was ordered to join Bulstrode Whitelocke* and Sir Thomas Widdrington* in giving advice to the protectoral council on legal matters.25CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 113, 117; 1655-6, pp. 30, 340.

The reasons for Manby’s election for Great Bedwyn in December 1658 are unclear. He had no personal connection with Wiltshire. His fellow-MP, Henry Hungerford*, had been his contemporary at Lincoln’s Inn, but did not share his political sympathies, and it is therefore unlikely that Manby was able to invoke the Hungerford interest in Wiltshire. It is more probable that he had government backing, as one of the many lawyers returned found seats in this Parliament as supporters of the protectorate. This is perhaps hinted at in a newsletter from Gilbert Mabbott to Henry Cromwell* of 4 January 1659, which listed Manby among a number of MPs returned, including John Thurloe* and others associated with the regime.26Henry Cromwell Corresp, 439. Manby’s activity in the Commons reveals his legal mind-set. He was appointed to the committee on elections and privileges on 28 January.27CJ vii. 594b-595a. On 1 February he urged the Commons to consider the dispute between Henry Neville* and the sheriff of Berkshire over the Reading election, which had been referred from the court of common bench, as ‘this is not an ordinary course of proceeding in a writ of error, but a special case wherein your directions are required’.28Burton’s Diary iii. 19. On 4 March the probity of a privilege case occasioned by a drunken assault on Major-G#general Packer was questioned by Manby, who argued that ‘it is not clear that this was a crime, or breach of your privilege’, as ‘it seems it was done in a time when he could not know what the person was, much less that he was a parliament man’.29Burton’s Diary iv. 2. On 31 March Manby was named to the committee to consider a bill to re-enfranchise the county and city of Durham, and argued that all MPs should have the right to attend, as ‘this business is of the greatest concernment’.30CJ vii. 622b; Burton’s Diary iv. 311. On 8 April he was included in the committee ordered to investigate the attempt by the earl of Arundel’s Catholic brother, Henry Howard, to influence the parliamentary election at Castle Rising in Norfolk.31CJ vii. 632a.

Inevitably, there was a political edge to such cases. When, on 1 February, Manby rose to contribute to a debate on a charge of breach of privilege against Lewis Audley*, he was interrupted by the leading commonwealthsman, Sir Arthur Hesilrige, who exclaimed ‘Another lawyer!’ Manby apparently ignored this remark, leaving a fellow lawyer, Nicholas Lechmere, to take offence on his behalf.32Burton’s Diary iii. 39. On 5 February, Manby joined the Presbyterian, Griffith Bodurda, in informing the House that another republican, Edmund Ludlowe II, had taken his seat without signing the oath of allegiance to the protector.33Burton’s Diary iii. 68, 76. On 12 February, when Edmund Jones, MP for Brecon, was accused of royalism and delinquency, Manby opposed discussion of the case in the House before formal charges had been produced, warning that ‘this will bring more libels than you are aware of’.34Burton’s Diary iii. 236. Later in the same debate, when Colonel William West called for Jones to be excluded from the House, Manby urged that he be given time to answer the charges before the House came to a decision – a response that moved Major William Burton to opine ‘My heart aches to hear gentlemen of the long robe plead for delinquents’.35Burton’s Diary iii. 240-1. Burton’s comment seems to have touched a raw nerve. When, on the same day, the fate of another suspected royalist, Robert Danvers alias Villiers* was discussed, Manby referred to the slight, explaining that he was not a friend of delinquents but merely concerned ‘it will be for the honour of this House to hear all that can be said’, and argued for the creation of a committee to consider the case in greater detail.36Burton’s Diary iii. 247-8. Manby’s concern for correct procedure could lead him to defend republicans as well as royalists. On 16 February, when charges of blasphemy were brought against the commonwealthsman, Henry Neville*, further action was put in question when it was realised that the evidence was not in writing. The veteran Presbyterian, Thomas Gewen, urged the House not to stand on such ‘punctilios of the law’, but Manby opposed him, arguing that as the accusation referred to words spoken by Neville some years previously, the charge would have to be quite specific as to when and where the alleged word had been spoken.37Burton’s Diary iii. 299.

Despite his readiness to defend of the likes of Jones, Danvers alias Villiers and Neville, Manby’s loyalty to the protectorate was never in doubt. In the debates on the bill to recognise Richard Cromwell* as protector on 1 February, Manby opposed the motion to postpone the second reading of the bill until the grand committees were named, adding disingenuously that as ‘I see such an unanimous consent, I have a bill in my pocket for enabling the Scotch and Irish members [to sit]’.38Burton’s Diary iii. 31. Manby again showed his impatience at delays on 7 February, when he spoke against the commitment of the recognition bill. Countering the republican argument that Parliament and the protector held power only through trust, Manby suggested that questioning the terms of the Humble Petition and Advice would undermine the authority of the House as well as that of the lord protector: ‘I would ask one question: by what authority you sit here, if you come upon new foundations? We are at stake as well as his highness. There is no better foundation for your proceeding than the Petition and Advice … the courts of Westminster Hall evidence it; the army; your meeting here acknowledgeth it’. He followed this with a provocative speculation: ‘I hope there is no competitor - it is said abroad you intend a commonwealth’.39Burton’s Diary iii. 117. On 10 February Manby was again eager to remove barriers to the recognition bill: ‘I hear nobody deny the single person to be fitted to be protector. Why need you then refer the question to a committee?’40Burton’s Diary iii. 198.

In the days following the agreement on Richard Cromwell’s title in the recognition bill on 14 February, Manby continued to speak against limiting the authority of the protector, particularly on the question of the status of the Other House. On 18 February he taunted opponents of the regime, telling them to put up or shut up: ‘If you intend really to go to a commonwealth, debate it. To say, we [the Commons] have the whole power, what is that but a commonwealth?’41Burton’s Diary iii. 339; Schilling thesis, 87. The next day he answered Slingisby Bethel’s assertion that they were ‘the people’s Parliament’, with a vigorous defence of the Other House, underpinned by the Humble Petition

It is a question of fact that there is a House [of Lords]... I think they are restored by the Petition and Advice. I conceive clearly they are restored. The protector has the same power that any king of England had. He had power to create barons by writ or patent. I wish the old lords, so many as are capable, had been called... Lords were ever since Parliaments were; only they sat together … Had there not been a House of Lords, then we had not been a House of Commons neither. They always fought battles for our liberties. How often engaged against the king for the Parliament? Two worthies of them were never to be forgotten; one by land and another by sea. Essex and Warwick. If you will have another House, they cannot be Commons. If anything they must be Lords. Commons against Commons cannot stand. Shall they dispose of your purse? One hand is enough in a purse. If you have not a House of Lords already, I wish we may have a House of Lords.42Burton’s Diary iii. 354-6; Schilling thesis, 93.

Despite this endorsement, it is evident that Manby was not satisfied that the Humble Petition had gone far enough. On 22 February he asked the Commons to ‘let us go on clear grounds, that every man’s judgement and conscience may be satisfied’, by establishing a House of Lords along traditional lines. ‘Unless you bring them to be a House of peers’, he continued, ‘I see no power you have given that is affirmative, but only negative. I would have you first assert their powers. I find them not in the Petition and Advice’.43Burton’s Diary iii. 417-8; Schilling thesis, 105.

Manby’s not uncritical support for the regime can also be seen in later debates. When the disposal of the fleet was discussed on 24 February, he cautioned the Commons that ‘your proper business is to advise’ rather than raise ‘questions of authority and power’, adding that ‘I would have it the advice of this House to his highness to proceed in such a way for the best maintenance of your interest by sea’.44Burton’s Diary iii. 454. When the Commons eventually debated the right of the Scottish MPs to sit at Westminster, Manby voiced his strong support – ‘It is the happiest day that ever we saw, to see them here’ – but admitted that the Humble Petition had not settled the matter unequivocally. His solution was, once again, to ‘have a clear debate, that neither party be entangled. Let your question be, whether they have a right to sit or no’.45Burton’s Diary iv. 126. Attempts to muddy the waters by demanding to see the exact wording of writs sent to Scotland received short shrift from Manby. On 17 March he retorted, sarcastically, ‘it may be next moved to read the indentures; and if the writ relate to the laws and statutes, the whole statute book may be desired to be read’.46Burton’s Diary iv. 171. The following day he tried to argue that the protector’s position, as quasi-king, would supply the deficiencies of the Humble Petition: ‘It is a fundamental law of this nation that the chief magistrate may call whom he pleases to this council, or to his other council’.47Burton’s Diary iv. 189; Schilling thesis, 244. Manby’s sympathies with the Scots may have been based on his religious views. On 2 April, in the debate on whether a fast day should be ‘required’ rather than merely ‘recommended’ north of the border, he reminded the Commons ‘what spirit we are of, and came to save not to destroy. I hope you will not bring the sword to [matters of] opinion’. The magistrate was bound ‘to maintain the purity of doctrine’, not ‘under the abuse of toleration to bring in corrupt opinions’, a policy that had left ‘many men not satisfied’.48Derbs. RO, D258/10/9/2, f. 16v. In religion as in the constitution, Richard Cromwell’s protectorate was not as conservative as Manby would have liked.

The military coup that brought Parliament to an end on 22 April 1659, and led to the collapse of the protectorate a month later, also marked the end of Manby’s career in national politics. He remained active in local affairs, however, attending the Essex quarter sessions in October 1659 and January 1660.49Essex RO, Q/SO 1/1, f. 1r; Q/SO1/674, f. 205. He was named to the Essex assessment and militia commissions in the early months of 1660, and, in a mark of his acceptability to the restored Rump, in March of that year was appointed justice of the Carmarthen circuit.50A. and O.; CJ vii. 876a. Manby had been made a bencher of Lincoln’s Inn in November 1659, and after the restoration of the monarchy he continued his legal career, becoming treasurer of the inn between November 1661 and February 1664, keeper of the Black Book in January 1669 and associate bencher in June 1673.51LI Black Bks. ii. 431; iii. 24, 37, 62, 90. Manby died on 2 February 1679.52LI Black Bks. iii. 121; Morant, Essex, i. 121. Curiously for one who served as a probate judge, no will survives. He was succeeded by his only surviving son, Thomas, also of Lincoln’s Inn, who was knighted by James II in 1686 and became high sheriff of Essex in 1686.53T. Wright, History of Essex (1835), 536.