PARKER, John I (1610-86), of Shorne and Gravesend, Kent.

Parker’s life and career are difficult to distinguish from those of another prominent parliamentarian lawyer from the 1640s and 1650s, John Parker of Weylond Underwood in Buckinghamshire, the father of Samuel Parker, Restoration bishop of Oxford.25Oxford DNB. It was the latter, the elder of the two namesakes, who was a barrister and bencher of Gray’s Inn and was made a serjeant at law in 1648. It was also the latter who became a Welsh judge in 1647, a commissioner of the high court of justice in 1650, and a judge of the northern circuit in 1651, promotions which appear to have been facilitated by friendship with Bulstrode Whitelocke*.26Oxford DNB; Spalding, Contemporaries, 242; Baker, Serjeants at Law, 529; A. and O. ii. 365, 517, 1305; Whitelocke, Diary, 234; Whitelocke, Mems. ii. 312, 431, 545; HMC 5th Rep. 183; Add. 63788B, f. 97; Bodl. Rawl. A.328, f. 161. It is likely that it was this man, rather than our MP, who served as steward to the deanery of Peterborough, and who became a master in chancery in the spring of 1655.27Shaw, Hist. Eng. Church, ii. 519; C216/3.

Parker’s family, on the other hand, traced its origins to Cheshire, although it had settled in Northfleet, Kent by at least the 1580s, when John’s father was born. Richard Parker became a Middle Temple lawyer, and was promoted to the bench in 1632. Although his religious and political inclinations are unknown, and he was too old to play a meaningful role in the first civil war, Richard nevertheless retained his position as recorder of Gravesend until his death, payments for which are recorded until June 1645.28Cent. Kent. Stud. Gr/AC2, unfol.; Gr/FAc1, ff. 132v, 139v, 145v, and unfol. His will of May 1643 expressed thanks that he had never been a ‘reprobate sinner’, and left 20s for ‘some orthodox and honest man’ to preach a funeral sermon.29Vis. Kent, 173-4; PROB11/199/425. Nevertheless, when his heir secured admission to the Middle Temple in 1631, through the influence of his father, he was bound with Thomas Bayles*, a crypto-Catholic lawyer from Essex, who would be a prominent victim of the Colchester plunderers in 1642.30M. Temple Admiss. i. 124; MTR, ii. 775.

Whatever the beliefs of his father, John Parker supported the cause of, and found favour with, the parliamentarians in Kent. Although his activity before the death of his father is unclear, by the spring of 1646 he had secured membership of Kent’s sub-committee of the Committee for Taking the Accounts of the Kingdom, a position which he retained until at least October 1651.31SP28/253a (Letter Bk. 1646-9), f. 1; SP28/253a (Order Bk. 1651-8), ff. 5v, 10v. In September 1646, Parker succeeded his father as recorder, or under-steward, of Gravesend, by defeating a rival, Lancelot Johnson of the Inner Temple, and he retained the position, with a fee of £2 a year, until at least October 1655.32Cent. Kent. Stud. Gr/AC2, unfol.; CKS, Gr/FAc1, unfol.; Gr/FAc2, unfol. In March 1647, Parker was also nominated to the commission of the peace, an appointment which appears to have reflected the strength of the local Independents, since Parker immediately became involved in the efforts of justices like Lambard Godfrey*, Anthony Weldon, Thomas Seyliard, and Richard Beale*, to complain of the ‘counteractings and illegal proceedings’ of moderates like Sir John Sedley.33C231/6, p. 76; Cent. Kent. Stud. Q/SO/W1, f. 169. In 1648 Parker was also named as a commissioner for sequestrations, and his willingness to support the republican regime after January 1649 is evident from his nomination to local commissions for both assessments and the militia.34CJ v. 652a; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 145, 173; 1651, p. 53. Indeed, he proved particularly receptive to orders from the council of state. He was thanked for his care in apprehending and examining suspected delinquents, and was delegated to investigate the acrimonious dispute between the navy commissioner, Peter Pett*, and the chaplain to the navy at Chatham, William Adderley.35CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 92; 1651, pp. 208, 211, 393, 476; 1651-2, p. 70; Bodl. Rawl. A.226, f. 60v. He was also deputed to investigate allegations of false coining at Gravesend.36CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 144. It is not known whether he was the John Parker to whom authorship of a 1650 tract entitled Government of the People of England has been attributed. Although in many ways a standard exposition of parliamentarian thought, the tract nevertheless offered vigorous support for the Engagement, and a defence not merely of the accountability of kings, and the legitimacy of their removal by the people if they sought unlimited power, but also of the abolition of monarchy and the House of Lords.37The Government of the People of England (1650), 1, 4-5, 6-10, 16-18 (E.594.19).

Parker’s reward for loyalty to the commonwealth took the form of appointment, in April 1652, as a commissioner for removing obstructions, in which post he was active until at least November 1654, with a salary of £200 a year.38A. and O.; CJ vii. 302b; SP46/109, ff. 18, 23, 41, 49, 55; CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 414; Add. 38091, ff. 124-30; Bodl. Rawl. A.328, f. 150. In November 1653 he was also named as one of the trustees in the act for the sale and improvement of forests.39CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 264, 350; CJ vii. 349a. It may have been Parker’s growing influence at Whitehall, together with a personal connection to Oliver Cromwell* (who had become steward of Gravesend in October 1653), which ensured that Parker secured election as MP for Rochester in the first protectorate Parliament of 1654.40Cent. Kent. Stud. Gr/FAc1, unfol. In the chamber, Parker largely confined himself to legal issues. In addition to being nominated to the committee regarding the recognition of the new government (25 Sept.), and to the body appointed to consider the issues surrounding Irish elections (5 Oct.), he was named to a range of early committees on subjects such as the jurisdiction of the court of chancery (5 Oct.), the laws passed by the Nominated Assembly (10 Oct.), the abolition of the court of wards (31 Oct.), and the abuses of writs of certiorari and habeas corpus (3 Nov.).41CJ vii. 370a, 373b, 374a-b, 375b, 380a, 381b, 415b. He was also involved in drafting new legislation for the relief of creditors and poor prisoners (25 Oct.), as well as in important private business with legal ramifications, such as the case of William, 1st Baron Craven (3 Nov.), and the issues surrounding the drainage of the fens (31 Oct.).42CJ vii. 378b, 380a, 381a.

Parker’s association with the protectoral regime is further evidenced by his elevation to the post of serjeant-at-law in June 1655, on the nomination of two prominent supporters of Cromwell, Henry Lawrence I* and Sir William Roberts*, and in the following February he was also made a baron of the exchequer.43Baker, Serjeants at Law, 442. Moreover, Parker subsequently became involved in the affairs of the county palatine of Lancaster, where he became a justice of the assize in July 1656.44CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 19; Add. 4184, f. 200. It was almost certainly on the protectoral ticket, therefore, that Parker retained his parliamentary seat in 1656. Once again, his legal eminence, which frequently diverted him from the Commons into Westminster Hall, ensured his involvement in the consideration of legislative matters in a number of areas. These included the registration of births, marriages and death (25 Sept.), the maintenance of ministers (14 Nov.), and the granting of indemnity to those who had performed public service (31 Mar.).45CJ vii. 428a, 449a, 450a, 453b, 478a, 516a. He was also nominated to consider a number of issues with legal significance, including such notorious cases as those of the would-be divorcee, Edward Scott of Scottshall in Kent (22 Dec.), the tax refuser George Cony (16 Mar.), and the royalist Warwick, 2nd Baron Mohun (31 Mar.).46CJ vii. 441b, 473a, 505a-b, 515b. An infrequent speaker in the Commons, he may have contributed to a debate on assessments only in order to express his opposition to plans to levy taxes upon the inns of court (23 Dec.).47Burton’s Diary, i. 213, 295 Nevertheless, Parker was sufficiently well-respected in the House to be considered as chairman of the grand committee on the excise on 8 January 1657, even if he managed to avoid such an onerous task, with the assistance of Mr Ashe (John* or James*).48Burton’s Diary, i. 324; CJ vii. 480a.

Parker’s reticence about contributing to debates means that, although he was named to the committee to consider James Naylor (31 Oct.), his attitude towards the fate of the notorious Quaker is not recorded.49CJ vii. 448a. Somewhat more evidence survives to indicate his support for the Remonstrance introduced into the Commons on 23 February, which eventually became the new monarchical constitution known as the Humble Petition and Advice. Parker was named to committees on specific articles of the Remonstrance: the question of ‘qualifications’ for voting under article 4 (10 Mar.); the judicial powers of the new upper chamber or ‘Other House’ provided for in articles 2 and 5 (12 Mar.); and the nature of the oath included in article 12 (20 Mar.).50CJ vii. 501a, 502a, 508b. As a senior legal officer, it was fitting that Parker was also involved in the final stages of the drafting of the Humble Petition, and he appears to have chaired the committee which drafted the preamble and conclusion on 26 March.51CJ vii. 511b, 513a. Although Parker was not listed among the ‘kinglings’ who voted to include the offer of the crown within the Humble Petition and Advice on 25 March, his support for kingship is not in doubt, and he was a member of the delegation, appointed on 9 April, which sought to reply to Cromwell’s initial rejection of it and to persuade him to change his mind.52Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 22-3 (E.935.5); CJ vii. 521b.

After Cromwell’s final rejection of the crown in May 1657, Parker seems to have withdrawn from politics. There is no evidence that he sat in the last weeks of the first sitting, and he does not seem to have attended the brief second sitting in the new year of 1658. Indeed, the only evidence of his continued engagement with the protectoral regime comes in the following May, when he offered testimony to the council in support of Kenelm Manwaring, a sequestered minister, about the absence of ‘evil’ in his behaviour as preacher at Gravesend.53CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 29. Thereafter, Parker confined himself to legal business. In May 1659, after the Rump had reconvened, he was confirmed as a circuit judge, baron of the exchequer, and serjeant at law, and appointed to the commission of oyer and terminer in London.54CJ vii. 654b, 657b, 686b, 687b, 718a, 754b; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 346; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 375 He was once again confirmed as baron of the exchequer in January 1660, although he lost this position at the Restoration.55CJ vii. 814b; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 389. He was reappointed as a serjeant at law upon the king’s return from exile, and retained the position until his death in the winter of 1685-6.56Baker, Serjeants at Law, 444; E. Chamberlayne, Angliae Notitia (1684), i. 195; Gravesend St George par. reg. No other member of his immediate family is known to have sat in Parliament.