BARNARDISTON, Sir Thomas (c.1618-69), of Kedington, Suff.

Sir Thomas Barnardiston was only in his early twenties when the civil war broke out. Almost as soon as Thomas came of age, his father was making inquiries about getting him elected for the Long Parliament at either Ipswich or Sudbury.33Harl. 384, ff. 64, 65. Before long, Thomas had emerged as one of the leading players in the local politics of Suffolk. As heir to the head of perhaps the leading gentry family in the county, it could hardly be otherwise and it helped that, having been raised in an atmosphere of piety, he shared the same godly outlook as his father. While away at Westminster, Sir Nathaniel was able to leave Sir Thomas to manage the family’s extensive interests in south-west Suffolk. The indications are that Sir Thomas did so very effectively. The petition with 14,000 names from Suffolk, presented by him to the Commons on 31 January 1642, showed these skills to particularly good effect. The petition’s call for the Catholic peers and the bishops to be removed from the House of Lords was based on the same sort of interpretation of recent events as had been laid out in the Grand Remonstrance, which the Barnardistons no doubt supported.34PJ i. 227-8, 230-1; The Foure Petitions of Huntington Shire, Norf., Suff. and Essex (1642), sig. [A2v], E.132.20.

That autumn Sir Thomas was one of the main beneficiaries of his father’s moves to use the Militia Ordinance to have new, trustworthy deputy lieutenants appointed. In Suffolk it was especially important that new men were appointed to take control of the militia out of the hands of Sir Thomas Jermyn*. By securing the appointment of his son as one of the new deputy lieutenants, Sir Nathaniel made sure that the family had control of the militia forces raised in the vicinity of their seat at Kedington.35CJ ii. 749b; LJ v. 337b-338a. This position was arguably less glamorous than the commission in the Parliamentarian army which Sir Thomas might otherwise have been expect to obtain, but it had the far greater advantage of consolidating Sir Thomas’s local position. He appears to have been closely involved in the creation of the county standing committee, for he was one of the local gentlemen who wrote to London in January 1643 to ask that some of their MPs be sent to approve the appointments.36Harl. 164, ff. 277v-278; CJ ii. 934a. Barnardiston then spent the next three years devoting himself to securing a military victory for Parliament over the king.37A. and O.; Suff. ed. Everitt, 52, 60, 72, 79, 131; HMC 7th Rep. 554, 556; Suff. RO (Ipswich), HA54/1/1: warrant to Brampton Gurdon, July 1643; SP28/176: acct. of Samuel Moody, Nov. 1643-Jan. 1644, f. 13; P. Fisher, For the…Cttees. for the Co. of Suffolke (1648), 31 (E.448.13); HMC Portland, i. 183, 244; Add. 40630, f. 144; SP28/243: Suff. co. cttee. warrant, 21 Feb. 1645; CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 527. As yet however he remained important only at a local level and this did influence some of his attitudes. Although he did not attend the Eastern Association meeting at Bury in January 1645, at which it was agreed to oppose any attempt to integrate their forces into what would become the New Model army, Barnardiston probably sympathised with this opposition, for he was part of the delegation then appointed to present their complaints to the House of Lords.38Suff. ed. Everitt, 88.

Barnardiston was one of the first beneficiaries of the decision by the Commons in August 1645 to begin holding by-elections to fill the gaps in its ranks. An election was held at Bury St Edmunds at some date between early September and late October to recruit replacements for Sir Thomas Jermyn, who by now was dead, and his son, Thomas*, who was at Oxford in the service of the prince of Wales.39Supra, ‘Bury St Edmunds’. Barnardiston probably allowed his name to be considered at Bury only after deciding not to stand in the by-election at Sudbury, the constituency which was closest to Kedington and which his father had represented in the 1625 and 1626 Parliaments. It is quite possible that Barnardiston, being confident that he and his old friend, Sir William Spring, would be elected unopposed at Bury, came to an arrangement with his neighbours, the Gurdons, to allow Brampton Gurdon* to stand at Sudbury.

Barnardiston had taken his seat in the Commons by 29 October, when he took the Solemn League and Covenant. The following month he was included on the committee to settle the garrison at Abingdon, perhaps because his father-in-law, Sir William Armyne, had been first-named to it (22 Nov.).40CJ iv. 326a, 351a. Thereafter, what little evidence there is for Barnardiston’s activities in Parliament only confirms that he had a reputation as one of the godly. In April 1646 he was sent to ask John Ward to preach before the Commons, in June 1646 he was appointed one of the commissioners to judge scandalous offences, and in November 1646 he sat on the committee which considered what maintenance should be provided to the imprisoned bishops.41CJ iv. 526b, 556a, 563a, 712a; A. and O. He was added to the committee of privileges in December 1646, but thereafter played no obvious part in the events of the Long Parliament.42CJ v. 14b. He was listed as one of the many MPs absent from the Commons without permission on 9 October 1647, raising the real possibility that he was among the Presbyterians who had withdrawn in August 1647 after the Independents regained the initiative and reversed the votes passed during the absence of the Speakers.43CJ v. 330a. Barnardiston’s presence in Suffolk may have been part of the reason why he was appointed in December 1647 as one of the commissioners to collect the assessment revenues there, but even in Suffolk he may in this period have been comparatively inactive.44CJ v. 400b.

The major royalist riots at Bury St Edmunds in May 1648 suddenly brought Barnardiston back into local prominence. Sir Thomas heard the news on 13 May from Thomas Chaplin* that trouble had broken out in the town two days earlier.45Essex RO, D/DQs.18, f. 36. That same day the Derby House Committee issued orders giving Barnardiston and Sir William Players* the power to negotiate with the rebels.46CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 65-7; LJ x. 268a-b. The following day Barnardiston assembled his militia company and, after joining forces with the professional units commanded by John Disbrowe*, exchanged fire with the rebels. Negotiations then took place between the two sides, with the result that terms were agreed for the surrender of the rebels. By 15 May Disbrowe and Barnardiston were in control of the town.47LJ x. 268b-269b; Essex RO, D/DQs.18, f. 36. Barnardiston then had the lengthy task of securing the large number of prisoners who had surrendered themselves to him.48Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 36-38. Further action was required when the firmly pro-Parliamentarian alderman of Bury, John Clarke*, informed him of rumours that a secret royalist cabal had arranged to meet at the Jermyn seat at Rushbrooke just outside the town.49Bodl. Tanner 57, f. 123. Barnardiston immediately sent Clarke’s letter to the Derby House Committee in London, accompanied with a covering note declaring

’Tis our wonder, that they should have liberty to ramble now all over our country. I profess, were not my own hands tied up by the agreement (as a soldier), I would secure them myself, and trust the Parliament for my indemnity; but now I am disabled, without orders from the House. Gentlemen, I beseech you, in the behalf of this poor country, to acquaint the House with our fears, and obtain some order for their own and our safety.50LJ x. 302a-b; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 91; CJ v. 583a.

The lack of powers of which he complained however did not hamper him in any obvious way. He was still able to send troops to Newmarket on 1 June to round up some rebels there.51Essex RO, D/DQs.18, f. 38. The capture at Bury several days later of one of the leaders of the Royalist uprising in Kent, Sir Thomas Peyton*, prompted both the Commons and the Derby House Committee to send Barnardiston letters of congratulation.52CJ v. 592b; HMC Portland, i. 458; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 120.

These local difficulties were soon overshadowed by the progress of the Kentish uprising. The advance of the Parliamentarian forces commanded by Sir Thomas Fairfax* forced the rebels to cross over into Essex on 4 June and so began to threaten Suffolk. Barnardiston had once again to put his militia troop on to the alert. On 11 June he wrote to warn his family at Kedington that they might be overrun by the approaching armies. While his wife and some of the local women fled to safety, a group of Barnardiston tenants armed themselves to head off the royalist army.53Essex RO, D/DQs.18, f. 40v. In the event, the royalists chose to proceed to Colchester. While with the Suffolk militia, waiting in readiness just inside the Essex border at Mount Bures, Barnardiston fell ill. Within days however he was well enough to travel to London for the marriage on 24 June of his brother, Nathaniel, to a sister of Thomas Bacon*.54Essex RO, D/DQs.18, f. 42. On returning from London, Barnardiston made his way to Colchester, where his troops had joined those besieging the town.55Essex RO, D/DQs.18, f. 43; A Diary of the Siege of Colchester (1648), 669.f.13.6; HMC 12th Rep. ix. 26; HMC Portland, i. 472-3. Further bouts of ill health (on one occasion caused by colic) only briefly interrupted his presence at the siege. He also managed to fit in work as a justice of the peace and to attend committee meetings at Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge.56Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 43-51v. The Colchester siege finally ended on 28 August with the surrender of the royalist occupiers. At that point his militia regiment was disbanded.57Ive, ‘Local dimensions of defence’, 230-1.

Over the following months Barnardiston spent most of his time away from Westminster. He made one short visit to London in late October, when the Commons took the opportunity of his brief appearance among them to ask him to inform the rector of Lavenham, William Gurnall, that they wanted him to preach to them on the next fast day.58Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 58, 59v-60; CJ vi. 61b. Barnardiston continued, whenever his health allowed, to attend to business as a justice of the peace and as a member of the county committee.59Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 52-57; SP28/243; Suff. ed. Everitt, 77; CCAM 961. Barnardiston seems to have been on his way back to Kedington from Lincolnshire, where he had been visiting Sir William Armyne, when Thomas Pride* acted to purge the Commons.60Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 61, 63. Like his father, Barnardiston was not actually removed from the Commons. The Rump even chose to restore him to the Suffolk assessment commission on 28 December, for he had been omitted from the commissions approved the day after the purge.61CJ vi. 339a. However, once the Rump had executed the king, the Barnardistons wanted as little as possible to do with Parliament. Barnardiston joined his father in London at the end of February 1649 so that they could make clear to the Commons that they would not disown the vote passed on 5 December 1648 which had supported further negotiations with the late king.62Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 72v-73. The Commons nevertheless retained hopes that they could be persuaded to resume their seats by disowning the vote. Even after the deadline for readmission had passed, the Commons were prepared to give the Barnardistons extra time to make up their minds.63CJ vi. 268a. Sir Thomas and Sir Nathaniel were equally unmoved at this special treatment. Their failure to respond by 6 August 1649 finally convinced the Rump that the Barnardistons did not wish to re-join them. At a local level they had already indicated the extent of their disenchantment by failing to observe any of the fasts or thanksgiving days instituted by the Rump.64Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 77v, 80, 84v.

However much he may have become disillusioned with Parliament, Barnardiston did not completely withdraw from public life. Parliament had no wish to push men like Sir Thomas into opposition and so he continued to be named to the Suffolk assessment commissions and to the commission of the peace. The hope that he would remain active in the administration of Suffolk was partly fulfilled. Barnardiston continued to attend meetings of the county committee and soon after resumed his occasional attendance at the Bury quarter sessions.65SP28/243; Suff. RO (Ipswich), B105/2/1, ff. 138v, 142; B105/2/2, f. 11. Sir Thomas was probably already in control of the family estates and, after the death of his father in July 1653 (Sir Thomas being with him when he died), he held sway over the family’s local interests.66S. Faireclough, , or the Saints Worthinesse (1653), 22-3; PROB11/232/242.

The result of the 1654 elections in Suffolk demonstrated that Sir Nathaniel’s authority within the county had passed on undiminished to his heir. Even under the old franchise, Sir Thomas would have had a good chance of claiming the county seat formerly occupied by his father. As it was, the election was conducted under the terms of the Instrument of Government and, with ten county seats available in Suffolk, Barnardiston could not risk the indignity of relying once more on the Bury corporation for his seat. This time at least, he need not have worried. He easily came top of the poll, securing 1,150 votes at the election meeting on 12 July and his backing may also have helped Sir William Spring into second place.67Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v. Once elected, Barnardiston was largely inactive. Apart from his routine appointment to the committee of privileges (5 Sept.), he was named to no committees in this Parliament.68CJ vii. 366b. At county level, however, he was evidently regarded as a trusted servant of the protectorate, securing appointment to the Suffolk militia commission in March 1655 and, later that year, as one of the county’s commissioners to assist Major-general Hezekiah Haynes*.69SP25/76A, f. 15v; TSP iv. 225, 427.

The unpopularity of the protectorate by 1656 created a backlash in that year’s parliamentary elections so great that even Barnardiston came close to humiliation. His evident willingness to work with Haynes seems to have undermined his popularity in Suffolk, and his old rivals, the North family, were quick to take advantage. A certain amount of tactical voting may have taken place among those who would not normally have voted for Henry North* and his allies but who wanted to make certain that the regime’s supporters (most notably, Haynes) were not returned. The result was that North topped the poll while Barnardiston scraped home in tenth, and last, place. Haynes was heavily defeated.70Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v. That Barnardiston had been overtaken by the county’s leading opponents of the protectorate is confirmed by the fact that six of those who had polled significantly more votes were immediately prevented from taking their seats by the protectoral council.71CJ vii. 425b. Barnardiston, by contrast, was among those MPs deemed conformable to the regime.

Barnardiston’s near-humiliation in the 1656 Suffolk election appears to have tempered his support for the government in the House. His colleagues seem to have assumed (almost certainly correctly) that he did not yet hanker after a Stuart restoration, otherwise he would not have been named to the committee on the bill denouncing the exiled king’s claims to the throne (19 Sept.). However, he was evidently unhappy with the way in which the excluded MPs had been disqualified, as became clear when he acted as teller in one of the two divisions held when the subject was raised in the Commons three days later. Those whom Barnardiston counted were the minority who opposed the motion that those excluded should be referred to the council of state so that they could move on to other business.72CJ vii. 425a, 426b; Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 166. The success of this motion ended discussion of the subject in the Commons. Perhaps dissatisfied at the council’s arrogance, Barnardiston seems to have played no further part in this Parliament.

The elections to the 1659 Parliament (held under the old franchise) allowed Barnardiston to regain his former advantage. Henry North and William Gibbs had both outperformed him in the previous election and had gone on to gain additional kudos by being included on the list of excluded MPs. However, they were now no match for the Barnardiston interest and so failed to gain either county seat. Barnardiston was denied the senior seat by the strong support received by Sir Henry Felton*, whom many of those voting may have known was a leading royalist conspirator.73Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v.

Barnardiston played a greater part in this Parliament than he had in any of the previous three, for, although he remained a reluctant speaker, he now had the confidence to begin making procedural interventions. He was the person who, when Parliament assembled on 27 January 1659, moved that the officers of the Commons should all be re-appointed and the following day he was named to the privileges committee.74Burton’s Diary, iii. 5; CJ vii. 594b. On 12 February he and Henry Cromwell alias Williams* forced a division on whether they should proceed to vote on whether Robert Danvers alias Villiers*, who had just been expelled as MP for Westbury, should be imprisoned in the Tower. All that the resulting division demonstrated was that the Speaker, Sir Thomas Widdrington*, had been correct in judging that the House had not wanted an immediate vote.75Burton’s Diary, iii. 253; CJ vii. 603a. Barnardiston took a similar line four days later, when, seemingly frustrated at the way it was delaying other business, he suggested they should at least decide whether they were going to vote on the blasphemy allegations against Henry Neville*.76Burton’s Diary, iii. 304. He and Miles Fleetwood* acted as tellers on 5 April for the yeas (the majority) in the division on whether 18 May should be set aside as a fast day.77CJ vii. 626a; Burton’s Diary, iv. 345.

Barnardiston took the opportunity offered by the re-admission of the secluded MPs on 21 February 1660, resuming his seat in the Long Parliament by 1 March.78CJ vii. 857b. Twelve days later Parliament included him not just on the militia commission for Suffolk (a foregone conclusion), but also on those for Essex and Lincolnshire.79A. and O. By now (like most people), Barnardiston probably believed that the best course would be a restoration of the monarchy. He was thus able to remain on as a justice of the peace after the king’s return and two years later he was made a baronet on the recommendation of Viscount Andover (Charles Howard*), the firm royalist who had shared the king’s exile.80CSP Dom. 1663-4, pp. 79, 92, 96. He also obtained a royal pardon for any of his past actions.81PSO5/8, unfol. There were however others in Suffolk who had not been associated with Parliament in the 1640s who benefited far more from the Restoration and the Barnardistons never quite regained the dominance in county affairs they had once enjoyed. The clearest indication of this was that Sir Thomas’s last attempt to gain election to Parliament failed. Standing with Sir Robert Cordell at Sudbury in the 1661 elections, he did receive the support of the majority of the freemen, who were challenging the rights of the corporation to elect the town’s MPs. The corporation was less swayed by Barnardiston’s influence and instead elected Thomas Waldegrave and Isaac Appleton (stepfather to one of Barnardiston’s sisters-in-law). The ruling by the Commons in favour of Waldegrave and Appleton ended Barnardiston’s hopes of sitting in that Parliament.82HP Commons 1660-1690.

The revival of episcopacy after the Restoration was probably another disappointment for Barnardiston. It is likely that he sympathised with the dilemma of Samuel Fairclough, the long-serving rector of Kedington, who resigned in 1663 rather than accept the new Act of Uniformity. In appointing a replacement, Barnardiston kept up the family tradition of finding top quality preachers for the benefices within their gift, for his nominee to that living was the equally renowned preacher, John Tillotson. Tillotson, a protégé of John Wilkins and Edmund Calamy, did not remain at Kedington for long, for the following year he moved on to the next in the line of jobs which would culminate in his appointment as archbishop of Canterbury 27 years later.

It was in the church at Kedington that Sir Thomas was buried following his death in October 1669.83Hatchments in Britain 2, ed. Summers, 109. The eldest of his six surviving sons, Thomas, succeeded him as the second baronet and later sat for Grimsby in 1685 and 1689 and for his grandfather’s old seat of Sudbury in 1695. The baronetcy died out in 1745.