LISLE, John (c.1609-64), of Wootton, I.o.W.

John Lisle emerged from relative obscurity before 1640 to become a leading figure among the political Independents at Westminster during the civil wars, an enthusiastic republican, and one of the country’s most senior lawyers, and he was perceived by factional rivals and royalists alike as being a ruthless political operator. He was anything but a parvenu, however, and his family was one of the most well-established among the gentry of the Isle of Wight, where they had lived since the reign of Henry I. One ancestor, Sir John Lisle, had been sheriff of Hampshire in 1506.81I.o.W. RO, OG/AA/11; Berry, Pedigrees Hants, 173-5; Royalist’s Notebook ed. Bamford, 159; Oglander Memoirs, 77-9.

Before 1640 Lisle appears to have concentrated on his legal career. Educated at the Middle Temple, where his friends included Bulstrode Whitelocke*, Lisle was called to the bar in 1633, and became recorder of Winchester in 1637.82Whitelocke, Diary, 49; I.o.W. RO, OG/CC/24. He secured a substantial estate with his first marriage in 1632 to a daughter of Lord Chief Justice Sir Henry Hobart†, which brought ‘the greatest portion than ever came into our island’.83Royalist’s Notebook, ed. Bamford, 72. Sir John Oglander† claimed that Lisle’s wife was ‘none of the handsomest’, and he recorded verses at the time of the marriage alleging that, although she was ‘neither well proportioned, fair, nor wise’, ‘all these defects £4,000 supplies’.84Royalist’s Notebook, ed. Bamford, 87. That Lisle was reputed to be a miser is suggested by the story that, once he had secured control of the family estate in 1636, his father was reduced to living ‘in a nasty chamber, being all his son would allow him for his men, horses, dogs, provisions and for the cooking of them’, with only £150 a year until his death in 1648.85Royalist’s Notebook, ed. Bamford, 124-5; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 288.

A ‘coming lawyer’ 1640-2

Lisle was elected to the Short Parliament as one of the Members for Winchester, but made no recorded impression on the proceedings.86Hants RO, W/B1/4, f. 134; W/F2/4, f. 159. Indeed, having secured re-election to the Long Parliament, Lisle made little impact before January 1641, when his legal expertise, enthusiasm for reform, and hostility towards recusants first became apparent.87Hants RO, W/B1/4, f. 136v. He was involved in preparing the charges against the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†), and in considering measures against English Catholics, as well as in wider issues of religious and church reform.88CJ ii. 64a, 85a, 101a, 113b, 191b. Evidently recognised by this time as being an active public lawyer, he began to secure nominations to committees regarding legal issues and the drafting of legislation.89CJ ii. 146b, 156a, 160a, 164a; Harl. 477, ff. 55, 69v; Harl. 163, f. 177. Indeed, he served as chairman of the committee of the whole House regarding tonnage and poundage, and reported from the same on more than one occasion.90CJ ii. 160b, 164b, 165a, 172b, 173a, 326a; Harl. 477, ff. 111v, 119v; Harl. 163, ff. 243, 251, 254, 305v; Bodl. Rawl. D.1099, ff. 29v, 31. The most obvious indication of his growing status within the Commons, however, was his nomination to the ‘secret’ committee regarding security in the wake of the army plot.91CJ ii. 147b; Harl. 477, f. 71v; Harl. 163, f. 183.

Lisle was granted leave of absence from the Commons in mid-July 1641, although it was in order to attend the army in the North.92CJ ii. 217a, 263b; Harl. 479, f. 76. Upon his return to the House in late October, Lisle immediately resumed his prominent position as a member of numerous committees, including serving as chairman of the committee to consider the wool trade.93CJ ii. 296a, 331b, 338b, 394a, 456a; PJ i. 449, 456, 468. He was determined to pursue a reformist agenda, and to assert parliamentary privileges, even to the extent of confronting the upper House.94CJ ii. 298b, 314a, 346b. This was evident from his involvement in attempts by the Commons to press ahead with the impeachment of the bishops (Jan. 1642), and to investigate electoral malpractice and the undue influence of aristocratic patrons.95CJ ii. 333a. Lisle played a particularly prominent part in attacks upon James Stuart, 4th duke of Lennox, the lord warden of the cinque ports, whom he accused of being in receipt of a pension from the king of Spain, and of persuading Charles I to dissolve the Short Parliament.96CJ ii. 402a; PJ i. 190. Lisle’s status as one of the ‘fiery spirits’ is evident from the frequency with which he was delegated to manage conferences with the Lords.97CJ ii. 298b, 338b, 385b, 394a, 402a. As political tension rose after the passage of the ‘Grand Remonstrance’, Lisle also became preoccupied with the safety of Parliament and the kingdom, being on the high-powered bicameral delegation sent to the king in mid-December to assert Parliament’s privileges.98CJ ii. 338b, 340a, 372a, 376b, 394a, 396a, 449b Such concerns naturally grew after the attempted arrest of the Five Members in January 1642. Lisle was named to a committee to prepare a declaration to advise the people ‘to be in a readiness and good posture of defence… to defend their several counties from invasion by papists’, and was once again involved in persuading the Lords to agree to the dramatic stance that the Commons was beginning to adopt in relation to national security.99CJ ii. 372a, 394a. Lisle was almost certainly one of those who were determined to secure support from the Covenanters in order to put pressure on the king.100CJ ii. 405b.

In the spring of 1642 Lisle continued to display an interest in issues such as recusants, legislation, and the impeachment of delinquents, but more important was his involvement, both in committees and conferences, in raising money and forces for the defeat of the Irish rebels (he personally invested £1,800 in the Irish ‘adventure’), securing parliamentary control of the militia and garrisons, and undermining the king’s attempts to raise an army.101CJ ii. 457a, 465a, 470b, 475a, 481a, 483b, 485b, 553b, 558b, 562a, 563a, 565b, 580b, 582a, 583a, 585a, 591a, 595a, 663b, 681a-b; CSP Ire. Adv. 399; J.R. MacCormack, ‘The Irish adventurers and the English civil war’, Irish Hist. Studies x. 51; PJ ii. 5-6, 345, 362. Indeed, Lisle was involved in preparing Parliament’s declaration in defence of the Militia Ordinance, and with confronting wider constitutional issues, including question of the king’s coronation oath and the compatibility of Parliament’s demands with the oath of allegiance.102CJ ii. 478b, 572b, 583b; Whitelocke, Mems. i. 165. During a debate on the raising of a force for Ireland, Lisle defended Parliament’s right to interpret law, and at the end of May he managed a conference regarding Parliament’s demands.103LJ v. 89b; CJ ii. 594a. Sir Simonds D’Ewes* rightly regarded Lisle as ‘a coming lawyer’.104PJ ii. 383.

‘War party’ activist 1642-4

Amid attempts by both king and Parliament to raise forces in June and July 1642, local affairs naturally loomed larger on Lisle’s horizon.105CJ ii. 602a, 672a; LJ v. 210b; PJ iii. 223. He signed a letter from Hampshire deputy lieutenants on 21 June giving an optimistic account of numbers at musters.106LJ v. 156b. In late July he helped ensure parliamentarian control of Portsmouth, and endeavoured to enlist troops.107CJ ii. 684b, 685a, 721a; PJ iii. 247; I.o.W. RO, OG/BB/463, 478a; NBC 45/16a, pp. 427, 437-8; HMC Portland, i. 50-1; Add. 24860, f. 9. In mid-August one royalist claimed that Lisle ‘hath poisoned this county’, while a few months later Sir John Oglander suggested that ‘as long as Mr Lisle is there the county cannot be without troubles’.108I.o.W. RO, NBC 45/16a, pp. 433-4; OG/CC/53. For the duration of the first civil war – motivated, according to a justification found two decades later among his papers, by a conviction that this was ‘a defensive war, to defend the rights and liberties of the nation’ – he was indeed Hampshire’s most powerful figure.109Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, p. 1083.

Local service kept Lisle away from Westminster until the end of January 1643, and thereafter his parliamentary activity was partly shaped by it. He was the principal conduit through which information reached the House from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and following the creation of the Committee of Both Kingdoms he was frequently summoned to attend in relation to Hampshire business.110Add. 18777, ff. 149a, 151a, 155b; Add. 18778, f. 86v; CJ iii. 1a, 58a, 123a, 159b, 228b, 245a, 247b, 276b, 289a, 293a, 294a, 299a, 302a, 308a, 379a, 393b, 452a, 465b, 486a, 511a, 536b, 537a, 538a, 564b, 579b, 635b, 655a, 694a, 720b; iv. 14a, 33b, 61b, 98b, 153b, 217a, 295a, 702b; Add. 24860, f. 42; Bodl. Tanner 62, f. 303; Harl. 163, ff. 355v, 357; Harl. 165, ff. 108v, 167v, 199, 251v; Harl. 166, f. 50a; I.o.W. RO, OG/BB/484-5; CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 38, 72, 302, 483, 488; 1644-5, p. 241. Although Lisle’s busy schedule at Westminster ensured that he rarely attended the Hampshire county committee, he influenced its decisions, and one of his successes was to secure the nomination in June 1643 of John Hildesley* as solicitor for sequestrations.111Add. 24860, f. 145; Bodl. Nalson V, ff. 73, 87, 105; SP20/1, f. 5v; I.o.W. RO, SW/Hall 2. It was Lisle who wrote from the Isle of Wight to the House – apparently at length – relaying allegations that Sir Edward Bayntun* (who had moved there) had accused William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, and John Pym* of betraying the parliamentarian cause in the west and then had himself apparently expressed subversive intentions with regard to the Island (Sept. 1643).112Add. 18778, f. 36. Oglander not only considered Lisle to be ‘my greatest enemy’, but also complained that he ‘incenseth’ the lord lieutenant, Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, against alleged malignants.113I.o.W. RO, OG/CC/52. Lisle was certainly ready to entertain complaints against Pembroke’s deputy there, Colonel Thomas Carne, and to chivvy Pembroke to make sure his servants ‘take care of the Island and Carisbrooke Castle’ (12 Mar. 1644), although he reported from the committee investigating another deputy, Colonel Kerle, an exoneration – he had not ‘countenanced the ill-affected’ (20 Apr.).114Add. 18779, f. 74v; Add. 31116, p. 264. It seems that, even in the face of the Herbert interest, Lisle exerted an influence which extended across the south and the Channel Islands. Early in 1644 he was instrumental in preparing legislation for associating the four southern counties.115CJ iii. 134b, 156a, 271b, 378a, 383b, 396b, 405b, 412a, 423a, 424b, 426a, 467b, 472b, 504b, 513a, 625a, 637b, 660b; iv. 38a, 271b; v. 486a; Harl. 166, ff. 11, 16v.

Furthermore, Lisle emerged as a figure of national importance, and his political profile, not least in terms of support for an Anglo-Scottish alliance, indicates that he was a leading member of the ‘war party’.116CJ ii. 949b. His eminence at Westminster is apparent not merely from nomination to hundreds of committees, but also from the frequency with which he was involved in chairing and reporting from committees, preparing legislation and acting as a teller in divisions, as well as in carrying legislation between the two Houses, and managing conferences with the Lords.117CJ iii. 329b, 335a, 359b, 452b, 499a, 551b, 566b, 631a, 633a; iv. 167a, 201a, 209b, 211a, 385a, 441a, 498a, 510b, 511b; v. 468b, 614a; Harl. 166, ff. 43v, 62v, 64v, 67v, 99v, 177v.

Alongside this Lisle retained an active interest in the Irish adventure, and sat on a number of committees relating to their propositions.118CJ iii. 286a, 640b. Appointment to a committee for Irish affairs that was set up in May 1643 was followed by nominations to consider the ‘cessation’, Irish petitions, and the condition of British regiments in Ulster.119CJ iii. 109b, 132a, 276b, 282b, 368b, 574a, 647b; iv. 191a, 276a, 521a, 544b. In July 1645, Lisle was included on Parliament’s new executive for Ireland, the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs, and in August 1645 he was given particular responsibility for preparing an ordinance relating to the committee which parliament intended to send to Ireland.120CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 408; CJ iv. 257a. He remained an active member of the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs into 1647.121Add. 4769A, ff. 12, 12v, 18v, 19, 20, 22, 22v, 29, 37, 38, 39, 41v, 42, 43, 44, 44v; CSP Dom. 1625-49, p. 700.

The House also continued to exploit Lisle’s legal expertise, on issues such as the management of civilian and military justice during the war, and the impeachment of royalists and courtiers.122CJ ii. 964a, 979b; iii. 73a, 113b, 398a, 510a, 565a, 567b, 676b; iv. 313b, 491a, 662b; v. 60a, 451a. In May 1643 he was appointed to the committee to manage the evidence against Archbishop William Laud and Bishop Matthew Wren, and in September 1644 he was involved in preparations for the trial of leaders of the Irish rebellion.123CJ iii. 68a, 628a, 633b. More important still was his involvement in plans for the creation of a new great seal in late 1643, another issue on which he managed conferences with the Lords, and in which he retained an interest for a number of years.124CJ iii. 308a, 315a, 327b; iv. 304b, 699, 703b; v. 117b, 220b. From an early stage it was probably clear that Lisle supported more thorough law reform.125CJ iv. 701a.

From early 1643, however, Lisle also acquired new areas of expertise. An active member of the Committee for Sequestrations, he dealt with the treatment of delinquents and the disposal of their estates, notably, as a Hampshire man, those of the 5th marquess of Winchester (John Paulet†).126CJ ii. 953b, 957b; iii. 21b, 74b, 94a, 112a, 292b, 305b, 366a, 473b, 526b, 560b, 654b, 660b; iv. 61b, 140b, 161b, 176a, 225a-b, 246a, 261b, 266b, 313b, 416a, 426a, 484b, 571b, 637b, 651b, 687b, 710b; v. 44b, 61b, 162b, 536a; LJ x. 207a; SP20/1, ff. 43, 47, 60, 65, 67, 102v, 128, 130v, 180v, 256, 345v, 356, 362, 477, 487, 498, 500; Add. 40630, f. 134; HMC 7th Rep. 15; Harl. 166, f. 209. Lisle took measures against MPs who had absented themselves from Parliament, and considered the cases of those who returned to Parliament, chairing committees in some important instances.127CJ iii. 250a, 265b, 269a, 277b, 290b, 304a, 390b, 447b, 532a, 546a, 733a; iv. 304b, 307b, 403a, 494a, 520a; v. 498a.

Meanwhile he played a leading role in the establishment of a range of financial instruments. As well as preparing legislation regarding assessments, from May 1644 he was a member of the excise committee, and drafted new excise ordinances into the spring of 1646.128CJ iii. 2a, 65b, 90a, 100a, 264, 310a, 489a, 665a; iv. 157a, 496b. More significant were Lisle’s appointments in October 1643 to the Committee for Advance of Money (where he would remain active until at least 1648) and to a series of committees relating to the management of crown revenues.129CJ iii. 269a, 409b, 422b; iv. 144b, 148b, 445b, 710a; vi. 48a; LJ vii. 647a. He was also involved in drafting legislation for enlarging the powers of the Committee for the Revenue.130Supra, ‘Committee for the Revenue’; CJ iv. 276a, 653a. The need for scrutiny of the handling of public money (especially by political rivals) led to involvement in the creation of the Committee for Taking the Accounts of the Kingdom in November 1643, and in legislation regarding the accounts of the Committee for Advance of Money (Jan. 1644), while he both chaired and reported from the committee which in June 1644 condemned the corrupt practices of Lionel Copley*.131CJ ii. 978b; iii. 302a, 363b, 490b, 518b; Harl. 166, ff. 69, 77v; Add. 31116, p. 285. As factional divisions hardened in the spring of 1645, Lisle was more than once engaged in probing the politically-inspired decisions of the Presbyterian-dominated accounts committee.132CJ iv. 116a, 133a, 265a, 689b; Harl. 166, f. 207. It was probably as a critic of that committee that he considered a new ordinance regarding accounts (Apr. 1645) and that it was proposed he bring in another to place the passing of grants of revenue ‘under the hand’ of the solicitor-general (19 Aug.); later he was named to an Independent-inspired committee to oversee the work of William Prynne’s* committee (Jan. 1647).133CJ iv. 123b; v. 62b; Add. 18780, f. 101. His chairmanship of the grand committee regarding MPs’ office-holding (Dec. 1645), and membership of the committee debating an ordinance for the relief of subjects against the privileges of Members (Oct. 1646) might also be seen in this partisan light.134CJ iv. 385a, 708b.

Lisle’s status as a leading member of the ‘war party’ was evident in negotiations with the king. In February 1643 he insisted that any plans for a cessation of hostilities ought to be referred to the lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex.135Add. 18777, f. 158v. In the months which followed he attended conferences regarding the Oxford Treaty, and following its collapse, reported on the negotiations and was a draftsman of the ensuing parliamentary declaration.136CJ ii. 997b; iii. 39a, 50b, 58a. Nominated in connection with the mission of the French envoy the prince d’Harcourt in late 1643 and the reception of the Dutch ambassadors in the spring of 1644, Lisle remained prominent in preparing peace proposals in the months before the Uxbridge Treaty in early 1645.137CJ iii. 317b, 432a, 535a, 538b, 594a, 618b, 629a, 647b; iv. 50b. It was also as a political Independent that he became involved in issues relating to the care of the king’s children, under Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland, as well as in Parliament’s dealings with the prince elector in 1645.138CJ iv. 182b, 500b; v. 27a; LJ vii. 629b.

Lisle’s factional alignment is also manifest in his conspicuous role in managing military aspects of the national war effort. From the moment that he returned to the Commons in the opening weeks of 1643, Lisle was frequently named to committees on the affairs of both the army and the navy, in relation to arrangements in particular counties, and regarding specific officers and their petitions.139CJ ii. 958b, 962b; iii. 8a, 93b, 118a, 244b, 257b, 323a, 329a, 347a, 351a, 356a, 385a, 457a, 507b, 521b, 526a, 531b, 532b; LJ vi. 581a; Add. 18780, f. 20. He took particular pains to prevent the passage of malignants through England’s ports, to punish those who harboured delinquents, and to prevent trade with enemy towns.140CJ iii. 93a, 100a, 103a-b, 111a, 308a. A number of Lisle’s appointments related to disputes between local towns, committees and commanders, or to disagreements of factional importance, such as that between the 1st earl of Stamford (Henry Grey*) and Anthony Nicoll*, on which he reported from committee in December 1643 and July 1644.141CJ iii. 320a, 328a, 352a, 372b, 544a, 552a, 569a; Add. 31116, p. 195; Bodl. Nalson III, f. 201. However, where Members were concerned, he professed a disinclination for intrusive investigations: ‘to examine private discourses between party and party is against the privilege’ (7 Dec. 1643).142Add. 18779, f. 23v.

Lisle became a leading figure on committees dealing with more substantial and strategic issues regarding military finance and logistics, particularly the politically sensitive question of supplying Essex’s army in October 1643.143CJ iii. 274a, 376a, 520b. Named to several delegations to attend the lord general during the last months of 1643, in November, for example, Lisle was deputed to apprise Essex of the dangerous situation facing Sir William Waller*, a particularly important appointment given the strained relations between the two military leaders, and Lisle’s subsequent activity indicates alignment with those in the ‘war party’ who sought to sideline Essex and other commanders whose zeal and ability was suspected.144CJ iii. 151b, 278b, 281b, 294a, 299a, 299b, 654b; Harl. 165, ff. 106, 201. In February 1644 Lisle wrote to the Kent committee requesting their obedience to Waller’s orders; subsequently he helped secure for ‘William the Conqueror’ command of the southern army, and defended Waller’s independence at a conference with the Lords.145CJ iii. 403a, 429b. Nominated to the committee for reforming Essex’s army, he occasionally took over the chairmanship from Zouche Tate*.146CJ iii. 408b.

In April 1644 Lisle was among those who presented to the Lords MPs’ perspective on a dispute over the forces under the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†), and in June he was involved in preparing the military commission for Richard Browne*.147CJ iii. 472b, 475a, 521a-b. That month he also chaired the committee regarding the dispute between Francis Willoughy, 5th Baron Willoughby and Colonel Edward King, and he was appointed to manage a conference with the Lords, not least in order to express concern at the infringement of the privileges of the House by peers.148CJ iii. 521b, 534a-b, 551b, 555a; Harl. 166, f. 75. Around the same time, Lisle was ordered to draft a letter of thanks to Waller for his good service and named to a committee to prepare a letter to Essex, asserting the authority of the Committee of Both Kingdoms to issue military commands in the expectation of obedience; he then managed a conference on the same matter.149CJ iii. 541b, 542b, 553a. In December Lisle was among those who adjudicated on the dispute between Manchester and Oliver Cromwell*, according to Oliver St John* (early in 1645), as one of Cromwell’s ‘real friends’.150CJ iii. 714a; iv. 25b; LJ viii. 430b; CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 263; TSP i. 75. In his report to the House in January he presented a damning summary of the case against Manchester: he had ‘a constant backwardness at all times to engage himself and his forces in the service of Parliament’; he had not only ‘declared that this war was not to be brought to an end by the sword by but accommodation’ but also that ‘he never intended to prosecute it to an end’ by military means; he had compounded this by frequent expressions of ‘scorn and contempt of the commanders of the Parliament and of the Committee of Both Kingdoms, and that he intended not to obey their commands’.151Add. 31116, p. 374.

Independent leader 1644-6

Further evidence of Lisle’s political Independency emerges from his involvement in key institutional reforms. Early in 1644 he had supported the creation of the Committee of Both Kingdoms in the face of objections from the Lords; subsequently he had a part in changing its composition, not least by managing two conferences with the Upper House.152CJ iii. 395b, 411b, 490b, 497b, 503a More important, however, was his role on the committee which devised the Self-Denying Ordinance, to which he was named in early December 1644; in January he sought to persuade the Lords to approve its passage.153CJ iii. 718b; iv. 13b. He then chaired the grand committee regarding the New Model ordinance, and defended it from the amendments proposed by the Lords.154CJ iv. 17b, 27a, 28b, 31a-b, 32b, 33b, 39a, 42b, 43b, 44b, 46a, 48a, 48b, 50a; LJ vii. 159a Once the creation of the new army had been approved, Lisle chaired the committee for the selection of officers, and again pressured the Lords to complete the work and resisted their attempts to make significant changes.155CJ iv. 60a, 69b, 70a, 77a; LJ vii. 264a; CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 264-5, 318. He was also charged with preparing the ordinance to give the Committee of Both Kingdoms authority to grant military commissions.156CJ iv. 112b.

Lisle’s engagement with managing the war effort persisted, not least in raising money for the army from the City, overseeing the changes required by the Self-Denying Ordinance, and considering how to reward the service of outgoing commanders.157CJ iv. 52b, 71a, 96b, 102a, 112a, 114b, 148b, 155b, 163a, 166a, 173a, 182b, 256a, 262a, 263b, 275a. In May 1645 he was added to the Army Committee (specifically for a single item of business only) and chaired the Independent-dominated Northern Association committee; in June he was named to the committee for regulating the ordnance office.158CJ iv. 135b, 138b, 172b, 178b, 194b; LJ vii. 468a. Meanwhile, in mid-April he was named to the Committee for the Admiralty and Cinque Ports, which exercised the powers of the lord admiral and lord warden, and in the weeks which followed he took part in a number of conferences with the peers on such matters.159CJ iv. 57a, 111b, 142a, 135b, 143a; LJ vii. 327a; Add. 35332, f. 44v; ADM 7/673, pp. 1-531; Add. 70100, ff. 10, 15, 19; Add. 9305, ff. 4, 15, 17, 19v, 41, 60v. After the parliamentarian victory at Naseby, Lisle was involved not merely in dealing with prisoners and in rewarding the New Model’s commander Sir Thomas Fairfax*, but also in considering the captured royal correspondence and in presenting edited highlights to the City (3 July).160CJ iv. 175b, 177b, 191b. In his speech on that occasion, Lisle claimed that ‘they are passages of that nature, though it be most happy for this kingdom and Parliament to know them, yet my very heart doth bleed to repeat them’, and he drew particular attention to the king’s attempts to enlist foreign forces and to ‘overthrow the law of the land’, particularly laws against Catholics. He pointed out that such evidence contradicted the king’s public statements, and concluded that Charles’ ‘resolutions are still to keep the sword in his own hands’ and to resist the removal of episcopacy.161Three Speeches Spoken at a Common Hall (1645), 3-6 (E.292.29). According to one diarist, Lisle, Richard Browne and Zouche Tate ‘manage[d] that business ... with great acclamation of those which were present’.162Add. 18780, f. 61v.

In the summer of 1645 Lisle was a pivotal figure in a number of key political developments. When the ‘Savile affair’ broke in July he was a teller for the minority who sought to accuse Presbyterian leader Denzil Holles* of corresponding with the enemy.163CJ iii. 333a; iv. 195a, 213, 275b. He may also have targetted Whitelocke for the same reason: the latter ‘suspected Lisle to be of the combination of his accusers’ and pronounced him ‘very unfriendly’.164Whitelocke, Mems. i. 458; Whitelocke, Diary, 168-9, 171. Lisle also played a leading role – as a manager of legal proceedings and a go-between to the Lords – in the impeachment of the Presbyterian Henry Grey, 1st earl of Stamford for his assault on an Independent ally, Sir Arthur Hesilrige*.165LJ vii. 462a, 529a, 614a, 639ab; CJ iv. 150b, 215a, 219a, 233a-b. In June and July he chaired committees investigating the equally divisive ‘Barwis affair’, which centred on Scottish allegations regarding the behaviour of Richard Barwis* in Cumberland, and which offered a clear example of the tension between Independents and the Covenanters. Lisle’s Independent bias led him to protect Barwis and to interrogate his chief accuser, John Musgrave.166CJ iv. 180a, 226a, 322; Harl. 166, ff. 241, 268; Add. 18780, f. 162; J. Musgrave, A Word to the Wise (1646), 10, 12-14, 17 (E.318.5); J. Musgrave, Another Word to the Wise (1646), 4 (E.323.6); J. Musgrave, A Fourth Word to the Wise (1646), 15-16 (E.391.9).

This dispute reflected wider issues regarding the Scots’ presence in the north of England, on which Lisle and other Independents had a view.167CJ iv. 161b, 174a, 179b; HMC Portland, i. 229. Indeed, during the final phase of the first civil war Lisle emerged as a key player in Anglo-Scottish relations and like other Independents he was increasingly hostile to the Covenanters. In April 1645 he became chairman of the committee to consider the propositions of the Scots, and regularly reported from it in the months which followed, often under pressure from the commissioners.168CJ iv. 121b, 140b, 157a, 175a, 178b, 180a, 180b, 203a, 227a, 306a; LJ vii. 634a; CCC 20; CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 597-8; HMC Portland, i. 228; Harl. 166, f. 208. Like his political allies, he was probably frustrated by the Scots’ military performance and hostile to their religious demands, not to mention determined to account for money they had been paid.169CJ iv. 212a. Lisle’s seniority was evident in his participation in conferences with the Lords over planning the dispatch of English commissioners to Scotland and dealing with the Scots commissioners in London.170CJ iv. 220a-221a, 273a. He remained central to Anglo-Scottish affairs as relations deteriorated further in late 1645 and early 1646, not least over issues such as the publication of the Scots’ papers.171CJ iv. 399b, 422a, 442a, 455b, 456b, 457a, 462a, 479b, 481b, 486a, 491a, 508a; LJ viii. 272b, 570b. In April 1646 Lisle was responsible for drafting Parliament’s response to the Scots about the conduct of peace negotiations and for orchestrating its response to Scottish propaganda.172CJ iv. 503b, 507a, 508a.

After Naseby Lisle’s enthusiasm for a vigorous pursuit of the war effort had barely diminished, although a report on Donnington Castle in January 1646 revealed that he was capable of recognising when the burden of troops on a local community (in this case Newbury) made it unwise to persist in an engagement.173Add. 31116, p. 506. The summer of 1645 saw him involved in renewed attempts to raise money and reform the army, particularly the Eastern Association, and he was once again relied upon to overcome opposition within the Lords.174CJ iv. 232a, 233a, 271b, 274a, 292a, 299a, 301a, 402a, 406a, 435a, 446a, 456a, 478b, 490b, 505a. Lisle also chaired the Independent-inspired committee to consider the ordinance regarding martial law, and managed its passage through both Houses.175CJ iv. 394b, 395b-96b, 398a, 410a, 412a, 417a, 441b, 498b; LJ viii. 83a. As one of a group of Independents intimately involved in the development of what became the Newcastle Propositions, he was determined to negotiate from a position of great military strength.176CJ iv. 324a, 396b, 423a, 428a, 444a, 457b; Harl. 166, f. 272. Lisle remained a leading figure in Parliament’s discussions regarding negotiations with the king until the fall of Oxford, and by this stage it was clear to astute observers like the French ambassador that Lisle was ‘un des chefs des Independents’.177CJ iv. 475b, 485b; Montereul Correspondence, i. 121.

It was as a leading Independent that Lisle took an active interest in replenishing the ranks of MPs. As early as 1644 he introduced a motion for new elections – according to D’Ewes, ‘by a prearrangement’ with some of the ‘violent’ members, ‘fearing that if the king should come up and make a peace, elections might be made to overthrow all that was done’.178Harl. 166, f. 149. When the motion eventually bore fruit, Lisle exerted influence in Hampshire. At Christchurch, where he delivered the writ in November 1645, he was the ‘professed enemy’ of one candidate, John Kemp*, who accused him of ‘persuasions and threats’ in support of a rival candidate.179Christchurch Borough Archive, Old Letters, no. 46. However, Lisle’s concerns went beyond his native county: he was named to committees related to other recruiter election; he may have supported the enfranchisement of Durham; he discussed the polls with Sir William Brereton*, not least in an attempt to secure a place for a kinsman, Colonel Edward Leigh*.180CJ iv. 666b; v. 21b, 134a; Add. 11332, f. 46.

Lisle’s Independency may also have extended to religious issues, but inasmuch as these figured less prominently in his parliamentary workload, his confessional identity in the 1640s is less obvious than his political attitudes. According to his later justification, he regarded the oath he had taken under the Solemn League and Covenant as binding him ‘to endeavour to the uttermost the extirpation of popery and prelacy’, and, as before the war, a notable degree of anti-Catholicism may be inferred.181Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, p. 1083. He was not only named to committees investigating condemned priests (3 Oct. 1643) and reviewing the implementation of statutes against recusants (13 Dec.), but also appointed a manager with William Wheler* and Edmund Prideaux* of the committee which looked into ‘the popish hierarchy’ (11 Oct.).182CJ iii. 262a, 273a, 282b, 340b. He was among the lawyers charged with the pious, but also mercenary, task of ensuring that their inns stripped chapel altars, removed Laudian accretions and surrendered church plate (27 May 1643).183CJ iii. 106b. In November 1644 he was added to the Committee for Plundered Ministers and named to a committee to consider exclusion from the sacrament.184CJ iii. 699b, 705b.

Yet somewhat surprisingly, it seems to have been he who the same month recruited Westminster Assembly member John Langley, master of St Paul’s School and vicar of West Tuderley, Hampshire, as a fast day preacher at Westminster: Langley had suffered at the hands of Archbishop Laud, at whose trial he had testified, but his parliamentary sermon was a powerful plea for peace.185CJ iii. 707a; iv. 1a; Al. Ox.; J. Langley, Gemitus columbae (1644, E.23.7). Lisle’s religious stance at this juncture was probably more nuanced than his politics. On the one hand, he was apparently a keen opponent of Antinomianism (10 Oct. 1643) and in November 1645 he was appointed an elder in the first Presbyterian classis for Hampshire.186CJ iii. 271b; King, Bor. and Par. Lymington, 263. In his involvement in successive moves to promote godly preaching, he demonstrated support for a publicly-maintained ministry.187CJ iii. 124a; iv. 174a, 312a, 502a. On the other hand, he resisted attempts to enforce the Solemn League and Covenant upon army officers in early 1645, and was named to committees to investigate Presbyterian agitation in London (20 Sept. 1645), and the alleged breach of parliamentary privilege by the Assembly of Divines (16 Apr. 1646).188CJ iv. 48a, 280a, 511a, 555b. He was a teller with the notably pious Francis Rous* in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a vote on whether the ordinance for church government needed the consent of both Houses (10 Oct. 1645), probably as a protest at Presbyterian proposals, and was responsible for drafting religious sections of what became the Newcastle Propositions, which Sir Simonds D’Ewes* noted were ‘much opposed by some’ in the House (28 Oct.).189CJ iv. 303b; Harl. 166, f. 272.

Securing ‘religion and liberty’, 1646-8

The king’s flight to Newcastle and the fall of Oxford raised new political problems, in terms of relations with both Charles I and the Scots. In May 1646 Lisle represented the interests of the Independents in tense debates and key divisions over the ‘disposal’ of the king. In this context he was prepared to defend not merely the English Parliament’s power over such matters, but also the preeminence of the Commons.190CJ iv. 531b, 541b, 542a, 543a, 548a, 587a, 644b, 650b, 695b; LJ viii. 314b; Harington’s Diary, 26. He was also involved in talks with the king during the summer, and in September was ordered to turn the Newcastle propositions into ordinances.191CJ iv. 584b, 643b, 673b. His opposition to both the Lords and the Scots on such issues continued to be apparent into early 1647.192CJ v. 30a, 33a, 50a, 65b.

The end of the first civil war also raised issues regarding the army, in terms of disputes arising from the conflict, the fate of garrisons and troops, and the costs involved, as well as future plans for the defence of the country, and the danger posed by demobilised forces, and Lisle’s expertise in military affairs ensured his participation in many such matters, not least in order to undermine the Presbyterian agenda for wholesale demilitarisation.193CJ iv. 576a, 589a, 658b, 659b, 660a, 673b, 690a, 703a, 738a; v. 4a, 17b, 85a, 89a, 98a, 103a, 122b, 132b, 167a.

The fall of Oxford also offered the opportunity for the reformation of the university. Lisle, who was named a commissioner for exclusion from the sacrament on 3 June 1646 (as he was to be again in 1648), was appointed on 10 August (and again on 13 January 1647) to the committee for the regulation of Oxford, on which his onetime fellow teller Francis Rous was a leading light.194CJ iv. 562b, 641a; v. 51b; A. and O. An early nominee to be one of the visitors under the resulting ordinance (23 Mar.), he was mentioned first to the committee entrusted with suggesting additional members of the commission.195CJ v. 121a, 143a; A. and O. His precise role in the ensuing purge at Oxford does not appear, but elsewhere there are signs that his approach to remoulding the religious life of the nation was constructive as well as destructive. Named several times in this period to committees preparing for the sale of ecclesiastical lands and a reporter of a conference with the Lords on the subject (12 Nov. 1646), he was also included on committees looking into employing some of the funds so raised for the maintenance of certain approved bishops (2 Nov.), as well as those for the Septuagint bible (16 Oct. 1646), the repair of churches (10 Jan. 1648), the compensation of the surviving Feoffees for Impropriations (28 Mar.) and the maintenance of preachers in Winchester (4 Apr.).196CJ iv. 695a, 712b, 720a; v. 99b, 344b, 425a, 519a, 525b. When formulating proposals for negotiations with the king in October 1647, Lisle apparently endeavoured to protect those with ‘tender consciences’.197CJ v. 327b. The same month he was instructed to thank the popular Independent preacher Peter Sterry for his fast sermon at Westminster.198CJ v. 344a; P. Sterry, The Clouds in which Christ Comes (1648); ‘Peter Sterry’, Oxford DNB.

Amid mounting political tension in the spring of 1647, Lisle had continued to play a leading role in preparing for renewed negotiations with the king at Holmby, and in negotiating with the City.199CJ v. 142b, 149a-b, 153b, 157b, 168b, 169a, 206b; LJ ix. 189a. He may have become alarmed by the agitation within the army, however, and whatever his attitude towards men such as John Lilburne was in the summer of 1645, he was probably opposed to the petitions and pamphlets emanating from, and circulating within, the regiments in the spring of 1647; Lilburne in his turn had noted the accusations levelled against Lisle in the Barwis case.200CJ iv. 254a; v. 127b, 153a, 232a; J. Lilburne, Regall Tyrannie Discovered (1647), 101 (E.370.12). More disturbing, however, might have been the strength of the Presbyterians in June 1647, both in the Commons and on the streets of London. Having been involved in parliamentary business concerning the impeached Eleven Members, and in an Independent minority in divisions regarding negotiations with the king, Lisle played only a limited role in proceedings after the middle of June, and secured leave of absence from the Commons little more than a week before the ‘forcing of the Houses’ by the Presbyterian mob.201CJ v. 217b, 218b, 219a, 250a.

Lisle may only have returned to Westminster in mid-August 1647, almost two weeks after the army’s march on London, although he immediately played a prominent role in the investigation into the events of July, and in the punishment of those involved, as well as in preparing Parliament’s declaration on the subject.202CJ v. 277a, 279b, 282a, 283a, 322a. He was also given the task of explaining to the Lords the planned impeachment of the seven Presbyterian peers.203CJ v. 332b, 333a; LJ ix. 482a; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 574. Thereafter, Lisle resumed his activities in relation to Ireland and Scotland, the management of the army and navy, and the security of London.204Add. 19399, f. 36; CJ v. 286a, 325a, 328b, 360b, 367a, 378b. In part this may have reflected concern at the radicalism within the army’s ranks, the activities of the Levellers, and the need to placate the soldiers on the issue of pay.205CJ v. 334a, 340a, 360a-b, 363a. Lisle may also have been instrumental in the appointment of Robert Hammond* as governor of the Isle of Wight, and he was certainly delegated (alongside John Bulkeley*) to accompany Hammond in order to assist in settling the island’s new government.206CJ v. 291a, 298b.

Critically, Lisle helped prepare new religious and political propositions for negotiations with the king during September and October, and he assumed his usual prominent position in discussions with the Lords on this subject.207CJ v. 321b, 327b, 339a, 343b; Propositions agreed upon by Both Houses (1647), 2 (E.404.36); Propositions delivered by the Lords (1647), 6 (E.417.8). His importance inevitably grew following the king’s escape to the Isle of Wight, and he not only chaired a committee to consider instructions for Hammond, but also secured nomination as one of the commissioners to attend the king at Carisbrooke with the ‘four bills’ (14 Dec.).208CJ v. 357a, 359a, 360a, 383b, 393b, 394a; LJ ix. 575b; Whitelocke, Mems. ii. 248. Having reported the king’s response to the propositions, Lisle was among the Independent grandees responsible for the Commons’ response: reform of the Committee of Both Kingdoms; the votes for ‘no further addresses’; and the declaration on the latter, which he helped to render highly critical of the king.209CJ v. 415a-b, 416a, 417a, 453a, 462a; LJ ix. 621a, 635a; x. 16b-17b; HMC 7th Rep. 66. In the latter part of January 1648 he collaborated in the successful trial and execution of Captain John Burley, who had sought to effect the king’s escape from captivity.210CJ v. 429a, 442a.

The justification Lisle later offered for this sequence of actions cast them as a realisation by Parliament not only that ‘the nation [was] almost ruined with a long war’ but also that ‘the true reason that enabled the king to gain strength and power to continue the war’ was

that the nation was abused and led into a belief that the Parliament would not make a settlement without him, and that in the conclusion they would receive him as their king and chief governor upon his own terms.211Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, p. 1083.

Naturally, political opponents took an opposite stance. One commentator placed Lisle first among those he singled out for criticism for prolonging hostilities – those who were ‘covetous and cunning; such as desired to keep the waters troubled still, that they might fish the better, for another Mastership of St Cross’s’.212G. Bate, The Regall Apology (1648), 11. This had been provisionally granted to Lisle in November 1644 (as he worked on the Self-Denying Ordinance), but it was finally approved only in March 1648.213Add. 31116, p. 347; E404/517, unfol.; CJ iii. 539a, 695b; iv. 161a; v. 494a, 507b; LJ vii. 66b, 68a, 624a, 625a; x. 127a; HMC 7th Rep. 16. Clement Walker* alleged that the position was worth £800 a year, while Marchamont Nedham claimed that it was granted to Lisle ‘for the better maintenance of his zeal and state’; both authors saw it as evidence of the financial corruption of the Independents.214C. Walker, Hist. of Independency (1648), 142, 167; Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 27 (26 Sept.-3 Oct. 1648), sig. Nn4v (E.465.19).

Following the irrevocable breach with the Scots after their Engagement with the king, in the spring of 1648 Lisle was involved in matters relating to Parliament’s commissioners at Edinburgh, and the renewed threat to peace also prompted his involvement in business regarding Ireland.215CJ v. 523b, 525a, 531a, 538b, 555b. Growing evidence of royalist sympathies in the country also explains Lisle’s participation in measures to reform local government in both London and provincial towns, including Winchester.216CJ v. 450a, 534a, 535a. As fighting erupted once more in the summer, he became preoccupied by military and naval matters, and with issues of security, and he left Westminster for Hampshire.217CJ v. 514a, 533b, 538b, 556a, 557a, 566b, 585b, 586a-b, 591b, 599b, 608a, 610b, 617a, 664a, 667a, 672a, 676a, 678a, 680b; vi. 21a, 30b, 31b, 41b, 69b, 87a; LJ x. 306a, 529a; Add. 35332, f. 68. There is clear evidence that the second civil war hardened Lisle’s attitude towards royalist delinquents. As early as June he sought to persuade the Lords to agree that anyone taking up arms against Parliament would face death without mercy, and after the fall of Colchester he helped prepare the attainder of the 1st Baron Capell (Arthur Capell*), and endeavoured to press through a hardline policy regarding the punishment of other delinquents.218CJ v. 600a; vi. 32a, 45b, 52a, 71, 78a.

A radicalised Lisle probably approached renewed negotiations with the king that autumn in no mood for compromise: God’s will had been decisively demonstrated in the victories of Cromwell and Fairfax over the insurrectionists.219CJ vi. 18b, 19b, 26b, 29b, 75b, 77b, 79a; LJ x. 592b; Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, p. 1084. He was becoming the focus of attention and criticism in the royalist press, marked out as one who had defended Edmund Rolph at his trial for a supposed plot to kill the king.220Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 24 (5-12 Sept. 1648), sig. Hv (E462.34); no. 25 (12-19 Sept. 1648), sig. Ii4v (E.464.12). According to Marchamont Nedham, he was one of those who ‘know their kingdom is at an end, if once the king come to his’, and who would thus oppose a negotiated settlement which restored Charles to the throne.221Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 14 (27 June-4 July 1648), sig. O3v (E.450.27). On at least one occasion – said Nedham – the Independent grandees met at Lisle’s house in order to plan tactics before a crucial debate on negotiations with the king; Lisle was ‘one of their fellow Members and feelers’, and ‘one of the new princes of Derby House’.222Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 27, sig. Nn4v. When the Independents found themselves outmanoeuvred in the Commons, Lisle rose as their ‘grand spokesman’ and as ‘a grandee of the faction’, to claim that

this personal treaty on foot had not its rise with our consent, but contrary to the wishes and desires of all the truly godly and well affected in the kingdom, who conceive no use of it was and is intended, but to the destruction of them and us. It is the king’s last refuge, so that we had need to be wary how we give consent to any of his desires, whereby he may easily entrap us.223Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 27, sig. Oo.

Those who advocated the treaty made ‘no sufficient provisions ... either to secure religion, or liberty, or to bring delinquents to condign punishment’, and would ‘put the whole power in the king’s hands’.224Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, p. 1084.

The Rump

Lisle was a teller for the minority who on 5 December rejected further negotiations and thereby helped provoke the protests in the House which led to Pride’s Purge.225CJ vi. 93b. Subsequently he seems to have supported the removal of ‘malignants’ from local government, and he may even have supported the impeachment of the secluded Members. Placed on the Army Committee (14 Dec.), Committee for Revenue (15 Dec.), and Committee of Both Kingdoms (21 Dec.), he was among the first to take the dissent to the 5 December vote (18, 20 Dec.) and was involved in plans for reform of the militia.226CJ vi. 96a, 96b, 97b, 98a, 98b, 99a, 101b; LJ x. 631b; PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, pp. 462, 473-4; Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 39 (19-26 Dec. 1648), sig. Eee3 (E.477.30); C. Walker, Anarchia Anglicana (1649), 49; SP28/269, ff. 266v, 342; Add. 63788B, f. 111. Convinced, as he later emphasised, of the ‘necessity’ of bringing Charles I ‘to a trial for such offences as both nations had before declared him to be guilty of’, that is, ‘being guilty of the innocent blood shed by his command in England and Ireland, and for levying of war against the Parliament and people of England’, he took a leading part in it, chairing the committee which prepared the ordinance for the trial in late December and early January, and being a draftsman of the statement defending the supremacy of the Commons.227Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, p. 1084; CJ vi. 103a, 106a, 107b, 110a, 111a. An active member of the high court of justice, he attended 14 of the 19 meetings in the Painted Chamber, and all four days of the trial.228Muddiman, Trial, 76, 88, 96, 105, 203-30. On 15 January he was involved in preparing the charge against the king, and on 20 January he was named with William Say as ‘assistant’ to John Bradshawe*, president of the court of justice.229Muddiman, Trial, 202, 208; Ludlow, Mems. i. 214. Although Lisle did not sign the death warrant, he later declared his biblically-based conviction ‘that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a murderer, but that he should surely be put to death’; in this situation, ‘the magistrate must not bear the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God to execute wrath upon him that doth evil’; ‘what a villainy and shame would it then have been’ not to proceed.230Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, pp. 1084-6. He attended further meetings of the commissioners after the king’s sentencing, and on 2 February he was instructed to prepare the official narrative of the trial.231Muddiman, Trial, 226-30; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 353.

Lisle’s enthusiasm for a republic was yet more evident during the early months of 1649. He chaired the committees regarding absent Members and the readmission of MPs who had either withdrawn or been excluded.232CJ vi. 181; vii. 29b, 44a. As one of the most active lawyers in the House, he was also involved in making changes to the personnel and the management of the legal system, both centrally and locally, not least by reporting the act for renaming king’s bench as upper bench.233CJ vi. 112b, 115b, 121b, 123a, 123b, 134a, 138a, 148b, 154b, 171b, 222a, 251b, 263b, 272a, 327a. On 8 February he was named a commissioner of the great seal, apparently ‘after a short and no eager excuse and a large owning of the authority of the House’.234CJ vi. 135a-b; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 584; Whitelocke, Mems. ii. 527; Whitelocke, Diary, 230. Almost immediately he was also made a bencher at the Middle Temple.235Whitelocke, Diary, 232.

While Lisle quickly emerged as one of the most powerful legal figures in the republic, he was perhaps also among its most controversial. By this time, his fellow commissioner, Whitelocke, neither liked nor trusted him, and doubted his legal knowledge; the two men almost certainly had conflicting views on the desirability of radical law reform.236Whitelocke, Diary, 276, 405; Worden, Rump, 111. Whitelocke claimed that his colleague was ‘very opinionative, though at first complimental’; that he was forced to instruct Lisle about the workings of chancery; and that this help was ‘ill-requited afterwards’.237Whitelocke, Diary, 232, 236, 245. According to Whitelocke, Lisle was particularly active in securing a lease of the 2nd duke of Buckingham’s house in Chelsea, where he ‘took up the best rooms’ for his family.238Whitelocke, Diary, 242, 244-5, 267; Whitelocke, Mems. iii. 70; CCAM 529-30; CJ vi. 266a. Whitelocke later claimed that, while he was ‘much caressed by Lisle’, the latter acted ‘imperiously and unjustly’ in relation to their accommodation, and sought to interfere in his own marriage plans.239Whitelocke, Diary, 252-3. In June 1651 Whitelocke, ‘much troubled in business by the envy and height, and crossness’ displayed by Lisle, concluded that the latter was ‘envious’ of his own success as a lawyer.240Whitelocke, Diary, 268, 272. In 1652 Whitelocke noted in his diary that Lisle ‘studied to oppose him’, by seeking to ‘send him out of the way and to remove him from his place of commissioner’.241Whitelocke, Diary, 275-6.

The tension between Whitelocke and Lisle almost certainly reflected the latter’s enthusiasm for the republic and his contribution to the legislative aspects of the constitutional revolution. Among those who prepared a declaration defending the regicide, Lisle also worked on ordinances and acts repealing the treason laws and the statutory obligation upon MPs to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and forbidding the proclamation of a new king.242CJ vi. 117b, 124a, 126a, 132a, 143b, 146b, 157a. Significantly, he chaired the committees which prepared acts for abolishing both kingship and the House of Lords.243CJ vi. 132b, 133a, 146b, 158a, 163a, 166a, 166b.

Lisle was thus an obvious candidate for nomination to the first council of state, an appointment which appears to have prompted him to resign his position at St Cross Hospital, ‘which he held incompatible with his present employment’.244CJ vi. 141a, 145a, 246a; 1649-50, 6; Whitelocke, Diary, 241; Whitelocke, Mems. iii. 61. Thereafter he was plausibly too busy: he attended over one-third of council meetings and was named to nearly 40 Commons committees, despite rumours that in October 1649 he was dangerously ill.245CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. lxxiv-v; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 461. He was frequently employed to take messages and orders between the two bodies, on a range of issues.246CJ vi. 209b, 303a, 337b, 357a, 360a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 63, 138, 146, 448, 471. He continued to be concerned with the treatment of delinquents and their estates, and the sale of crown and church lands, as well as their distribution to loyal Independent and republican grandees.247CJ vi. 116a, 126b, 160b, 161b, 167b, 174b, 178b, 237a, 241b, 248a, 296b, 330b, 336a-b, 343a, 344a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 49, 390, 377, 478. His determination to ensure the security of the new regime was evident from committees relating to military matters and the threats posed by royalist spies and foreign armies (not least via Scotland and Ireland), attempts to reform local corporations and to undermine the Levellers, and in his role as chairman of the committee to prepare legislation forbidding the clergy from meddling in politics.248CJ vi. 120b, 131b, 149a, 153a, 175b, 178b-179a, 189b, 209b, 256a, 257b, 267a, 273b, 286a, 290a, 303a, 357a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 17, 36, 37, 43, 58, 86, 127, 154, 291, 302, 321, 357, 365, 413, 422, 430, 441, 449, 470, 474, 510. Still engaged with the state’s finances and with maintaining relations with the City of London, Lisle developed existing interests in trade and commerce, and began to be involved in measures for social reform.249CJ iii. 16b, 266b, 283a, 357a; v. 170b, 289a, 352a, 366b, 500b; vi. 116a, 118a, 127a, 127b, 204b, 250a, 286a, 327a, 335a, 360a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 18, 22, 63, 173, 343, 430, 460, 471. A sign of his political stature was his involvement in diplomatic business.250CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 300, 491. Perhaps Lisle’s most significant work during this period, however, related to the Engagement, and he appears to have been responsible for organising an official declaration in its defence, written by John Dury.251CJ vi. 337b; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 448.

Actively involved in organising the election for the second Council of State, in February 1650 Lisle was again returned.252CJ vi. 360b, 363a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 512; Whitelocke, Mems. iii. 150. However, while he attended over a third of the council’s meetings, he was named to far fewer committees than the previous year (15), and was correspondingly less active in the Commons.253CSP Dom. 1650, pp. xl-xli. As before, he was involved in the republic’s finances, by trade, and by the sale and distribution of delinquents’ lands, as well as by foreign affairs, and negotiations with visiting diplomats.254CJ vi. 368a, 379b, 383b, 393b, 403b, 417b, 448b, 450b, 452a, 469a, 512b, 516a, 516b, 522b, 523b; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 68, 118, 183, 215, 325, 344, 461, 484, 489, 526; 1651, pp. 2, 11, 14, 19; Whitelocke, Diary, 265. However, his preeminent concern, which probably explains his lower profile, was with the law. In addition to serving on the council’s law committee, Lisle was named to important parliamentary committees regarding the rationalisation of statutes and the erection of a high court of justice, and helped select the regime’s lawyers.255CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 18, 425; CJ vi. 374b, 382b, 419a, 420b, 427b, 467a; CCC 1599. Lisle also began a long involvement in managing the most important trials of the decade, those of prominent royalist delinquents, and in October 1650 he was explicitly required to give constant attendance on the committee for law proceedings.256CJ vi. 434a, 488a.

This pattern of activity was largely replicated during the remainder of the Rump. Returned to the third council of state in February 1651, Lisle attended a little less than half of its meetings, while only being named to 17 committees.257CJ vi. 532a; CSP Dom. 1651, pp. xxxv, 44. Familiar issues, notably law, delinquents, government finance and diplomacy, continued to take up much of his time, and he served as president of the court for the trial of the Presbyterian plotter, Christopher Love.258CJ vi. 542a, 542b, 558a, 565b, 581a, 595b, 605a, 611b, 616b, 618b; vii. 49a, 52a, 56a, 63b, 67a, 101a, 123a, 127a, 139a, 141a, 155a, 159a; CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 53, 66, 67, 209, 235, 267, 381, 456, 477, 498; 1651-2, pp. 18, 383, 496; The Whole Triall of Mr Love (1652, E.790.6). However, he also had to confront more pressing matters. The renewed military threat posed by royalists from Scotland ensured that Lisle devoted much more time to defence and domestic security, including attempts to counter Charles II’s propaganda.259CJ vi. 534a, 576b, 621b; vii. 11a; CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 46, 66, 81, 162, 315, 358, 408, 455; Bodl. Rawl. A.225, ff. 114v, 115v. In the aftermath of English victory at Worcester, Lisle was on the official delegation despatched to congratulate Cromwell, while he had a major hand in preparing legislation to ensure annual commemoration of the battle and, more importantly, to assert England’s claim to power over Scotland and effect the formal incorporation of the northern kingdom into the English commonwealth.260CJ vii. 11b, 13a-15b, 20a, 21b, 22a, 56a, 118b, 189a, 189b; CSP Dom. 1651, p. 438; 1651-2, pp. 16, 185; HMC Portland, i. 616; Add. 35864, f. 1.

Meanwhile, Lisle’s office as commissioner of the great seal had given him an opportunity for influence over religious affairs. He again demonstrated his concern for the gospel in Hampshire in a division (where he was a teller with Nicholas Love*) over a provision in the bill for the sale of dean and chapter lands for preaching in Winchester (4 Apr. 1649).261CJ vi. 179b. That July he was placed on the committee for the bill on presentations to benefices, which affirmed the role of the seal.262CJ vi. 263b. His presentation on 30 December to the vicarage of Fawley, Hampshire, of the arch-Calvinist John Crandon – who was to take Richard Baxter to task for back-sliding – may be a telling indication of his theological preferences, but his ecclesiological stance at this stage was probably broader and more subtle.263Add. 36792, f. 3; ‘John Crandon’, Oxford DNB. Other ministers whom he helped place in these years are more difficult to characterise – perhaps precisely because they were sufficiently mainstream puritans to survive the Restoration – but Humphrey Ellis, presented by Lisle to St Thomas, Southampton, in February 1653, was vehemently opposed to the more extreme forms of religious radicalism.264Add. 36792, ff. 9v, 13, 19v, 50, 62; H. Ellis, Pseudochristus (1650, E.602.12); H. Ellis, Two Sermons (1647); Calamy Revised, 182. Lisle seems to have been particularly concerned to secure a livelihood for the ecumenist John Dury, whom he presented the same month to a living in Denbighshire, and who was to be a key link in the network which secured his and others’ life in exile after the Restoration.265Add. 36792, f. 63; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 436; 1652-3, pp. 155, 175, 202, 220. In contrast, the action of the Seeker John Brayne, minister of St John’s in the Soke, Southampton, in presenting to Lisle a work of 1647 and in dedicating to him a publication of 1649, looks merely the product of an optimistic search for patronage.266J. Brayne, Babel’s Fall (1649), A2 (E.554.19); ‘John Brayne’, Oxford DNB. Lisle’s views on the toleration of such visionaries may have been complicated as he approached committees considering measures to accommodate tender consciences (9 Aug. 1649) and to suppress blasphemy (24 June 1650).267CJ vi. 275b, 430b. For reasons that do not appear he obtained leave to go out of the House as the Commons discussed the act suppressing Ranters (9 Aug. 1650).268CJ vi. 453b. However, his involvement in considering proposals from ministers led by John Owen* probably suggests his support for proposals for propagation of the gospel and for a national religious settlement (Feb. 1652), although he may have been less favourably inclined to religious elements in the army petition in the following August.269CJ vii. 86b, 164b, 171b.

Lisle was perhaps more sympathetic to their call for legal reform. In his capacity as commissioner of the great seal, he chaired the committee to select members of the Hale commission.270CJ vii. 58b, 62a, 67b, 187b. Ever more important, however, was Lisle’s work in relation to foreign affairs, particularly as a member of the fourth council of state, where initially much reduced attendance belied his power.271CJ vii. 42a, 90a, 111b; CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. xlvii. During the early stages of the Dutch war, when he was president of the council, he played a much more central role in diplomatic relations than in military affairs.272CJ vii. 99a, 100b; CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 43, 52, 67, 102, 106, 178, 278, 284, 290, 312, 417, 430, 436; Add. 29319, f. 101; HMC 8th Rep. pt.1, 248a; Bodl. Rawl. A.226, ff. 105v; Add. 29319, f. 103; Add. 22919, f. 5; TSP i. 205. Indeed, in the final months of the Rump he attended about 40 per cent of council meetings and devoted almost all of his energies to foreign policy.273CJ vii. 220a; CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 505; 1652-3, pp. xxxiii, 2, 9, 18, 62, 116, 124, 155, 175, 202, 218, 220, 241, 263. This reveals how far his interests diverged from those of the army, for whom the war was less important than domestic issues and reform. It is probably significant that Lisle played almost no part in consideration of the ‘new representative’, and that he was almost entirely absent from the Commons from early October 1652 until the dissolution.274CJ vii. 20b, 227b, 245a.

Protectorate office-holder

As a zealous republican, Lisle probably disapproved of the Rump’s dissolution, and in the months after April 1653 he withdrew from public life, although he was named as a commissioner of the high court of justice towards the end of the year.275CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 44, 263; CJ vii. 354a. He evidently had little problem accommodating the protectorate, however, taking Cromwell’s oath of office in December 1653.276Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 55. Perhaps he rationalised it, as he was to do later, on the grounds of obedience to the ‘higher powers’ which had emerged through the providence of God.277Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, pp. 1085-7. Reappointed as a commissioner of the great seal, with a salary of £1,000 a year, Lisle presided over the trials of the royalists who orchestrated ‘Gerard’s plot’ in the following June.278Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 93, 115; CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 73, 233-40, 253-4; Whitelocke, Diary, 391; TSP iii. 581. Although not one of Cromwell’s councillors, Lisle was nevertheless named as a treasury commissioner in August 1654, and was consulted by the council on more than one occasion, not least during preparations for the first protectoral Parliament.279Stowe 497, f. 4; CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 284, 337, 411; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 128; Whitelocke, Diary, 393; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 173; CCC 695.

Lisle was himself returned to the Commons both at Southampton and the Isle of Wight, although he eventually opted to represent the former, where he was recorder.280CJ vii. 373a. Having received parliamentary approval as commissioner of the great seal, however, Lisle may have been preoccupied by legal business, and his activity in the House was limited.281CJ vii. 378a. He was named to just ten committees, four of which involved his legal expertise.282CJ vii. 366b, 368a, 373a, 374a, 381b, 394b, 399b. Nevertheless, it is probable that he was a firm supporter of Cromwell, as an advocate of both the recognition of his title, and of moves to secure a favourable settlement of the government.283CJ vii. 367b, 368b, 403a.

Rumours that Lisle had been appointed master of the rolls in May 1655 proved false, but he was a zealous participant in the judicial proceedings against those involved in Penruddock’s rising.284TSP iii. 371, 372, 375, 376. His proximity to Cromwell’s court is also evident from his confirmation as commissioner of the great seal in mid-1655, and his nomination to the committee for trade.285HMC 5th Rep. 172; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 207; 1655-6, pp. 1, 105; Whitelocke, Diary, 409; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 281; TSP iii. 478. It was as a courtier, therefore, that Lisle secured election to the 1656 Parliament, in the face of concerted radical opposition in Southampton.286TSP v. 287. Moreover, committee appointments and tellerships during the autumn and winter indicate both his elevated status and his support for Cromwell, as well as his interest in law reform.287TSP v. 299; CJ vii. 423a, 424a, 425a, 427a, 428a, 429a, 431b, 437a, 437b, 441b, 442b, 462b, 475a; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 119. Nevertheless, Lisle’s own behaviour as lord commissioner came under scrutiny during the first session, when a petition to Parliament relating to the chancery case of Cole versus Rodney provoked prolonged debate and seemed to expose corrupt, self-interested decision-making on Lisle’s part. Not only did it bring to a head the simmering tension between him and Whitelocke – on more than one occasion there was reported to have been ‘great clashing’ and ‘high language’ between the two men in a Commons committee – but there also emerged trenchant criticism from representatives of various groups in the chamber, both radical and conservative.288Burton’s Diary, i. 19, 105-6, 135-6, 302; C. Holmes, ‘John Lisle’, EHR cxxii. 934-5.

In December 1656 Lisle supported the retention of the Cromwellian major-generals, and probably legal rather than political or religious motives prompted him to question Parliament’s power to punish James Naylor.289Burton’s Diary, i. 241, 243, 271. Lisle’s attitude towards the constitution became yet clearer in the spring of 1657, when he was a firm supporter of the Humble Petition and Advice. His activity in March indicates that he was particularly concerned about clauses regarding law, the Other House, and religion, and he appears to have supported moves to protect tender consciences, and to have opposed rigid enforcement of church discipline.290CJ vii. 501a, 502a, 507b, 508b, 510b, 515b; Burton’s Diary, i. 393. However, Lisle’s nomination to the committee to present the document to Cromwell, and his involvement in attempts to persuade him to accept it, indicate that he also supported the offer of the crown; indeed, he was listed as having voted for that on 25 March.291CJ vii. 514a, 514b, 520b, 521a, 521b; Burton’s Diary, i. 396; Lansd. 822, f. 3; The Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 22 (E.935.5). Lisle was subsequently involved in reformulating the Humble Petition and in reconsidering how to delimit the protector’s powers; once the revised version had been accepted, he also became involved in plans for Cromwell’s re-investiture.292CJ vii. 535a, 538a, 538b, 540b, 575a.

Lisle was elevated to the peerage by Cromwell in December 1657, and sat in the ‘Other House’ as Lord Commissioner Lisle in the second session of the 1656 Parliament.293CJ vii. 578a; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 314; TSP vi. 668. He administered the oath to the peers, attended the House every day, and served on committees regarding enforcement of the sabbath and measures against Catholics.294HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 505-23. As one of the regime’s leading lawyers, moreover, in June 1658 he presided over the trials of three notorious royalist conspirators.295HMC 5th Rep. 180; The Tryals of Sir Henry Slingsby (1658), 16-18 (E.753.5); State Trials, v. 875, 886, 908.

Some weeks later, as Oliver lay ‘dangerously sick’ – perhaps, as Edmund Ludlowe II* indicated, on the day of his death – Lisle and the other current commissioner of the great seal, Nathaniel Fiennes I*, attended him with a document into which they hoped the protector would insert the name of his approved successor, but they came away disappointed.296Ludlow, Mems. ii. 44; Holmes, ‘John Lisle’, 930. Following Cromwell’s funeral, Lisle signed the proclamation announcing Richard Cromwell’s* accession.297Burton’s Diary, ii. 528; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 336. On the other hand, in early November 1658 he was reported to have declared his support for the republican interest – perhaps in an attempt to defend himself against further uncomfortable probing of his conduct in office and to rebuild bridges with former associates.298TSP vii. 496; Holmes, ‘John Lisle’, 935-6. One bargaining card he may have offered to republicans was intelligence of conciliar (and possibly more private) discussions surrounding the issuing of writs for the next Parliament, of which he took notes.299Holmes, ‘John Lisle’, 921-9.5 He was retained as commissioner of the great seal in January 1659, although Whitelocke protested that he was found to be ‘not so capable of executing that place as was expected’.300CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 263; Whitelocke, Diary, 506; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 339. Once Parliament met, Lisle attended the ‘Other House’ regularly until the dissolution, and once again sat on most of the important committees, and chaired the body charged with ensuring the security of the nation against Catholic enemies.301HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 524-67, esp. 529, 544, 545, 548, 551, 552, 554, 559, 562, 565. His attitude towards the bill for recognising Richard’s title is less clear than his support for moves to annul the claims of Charles Stuart, but he was trusted sufficiently by Cromwell to be given the responsibility of enforcing the dissolution of Parliament on 22 April.302HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 530, 536, 567.

Returned Rump and Restoration

Under the restored Rump Lisle finally lost his position as commissioner of the great seal, perhaps as a punishment for his loyalty to the protectorate.303Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 346; Whitelocke, Diary, 514. Nevertheless, he was an active and enthusiastic Member of the Commons from the moment of its meeting, on committees relating to matters close to his heart, such as the law, delinquents’ lands, Ireland, state finances and diplomacy.304CJ vii. 645a, 646a, 648b, 676b, 706a, 722a, 725a, 742a, 751b, 769a, 772a, 774b. However, since he was generally referred to as ‘Lord Lisle’, he is sometimes difficult to distinguish from Viscount Lisle (Philip Sidney*).305CJ vii. 705b, 710b, 726a, 752b, 755a. What is clear is that Lisle grew disillusioned by the mounting tension between civilian and military republicans by early September, and having secured a fortnight’s leave of absence on the 7th, he failed to return before the army’s interruption of proceedings in mid-October.306CJ vii. 774b, 789b.

Lisle’s zeal for the Rump had not diminished, however, and he appeared again in the Commons in January 1660, in order that the House might benefit from his expertise on financial, military and legal matters.307CJ vii. 805b, 806a, 808b, 813a, 818a, 821a, 822b. As preparations were made for new elections Lisle probably sought to impose strict qualifications upon both electors and elected, and his opposition to Presbyterians and royalists was apparently as strong as his distrust of the army.308CJ vii. 806b, 807a, 838b, 842a. Indeed, the readmission of the secluded Members prompted his withdrawal from the Commons, although he continued to serve as a commissioner for the admiralty and navy until early March.309CJ vii. 825b, 843b; ADM2/1731, ff. 126, 130.

Lisle fled from England sometime before mid-May 1660, although only at the cost of a ‘round sum of money’.310HMC 5th Rep. 184; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 273. He evidently recognised that, even though he had not signed the death warrant, he would be excluded from pardon as a ‘regicide’.311CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 41; HMC 5th Rep. 204; LJ xi. 32b, 33a, 52b, 101b; Eg. 2542, f. 465. Almost immediately, the new regime received a number of petitions regarding, and claims to, Lisle’s estate, including from those who sought to secure the financial future of Lisle’s wife and younger brother, the latter of whom been disowned by Lisle for his allegiance to the royalist cause, and from those who considered themselves the victims of Cromwellian justice at his hands.312HMC 7th Rep. 122a, 146a; CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 341-2, 523; 1661-2, pp. 625-6.

Lisle, meanwhile, went to Switzerland. Having been granted on 22 April 1662 permission to reside in the Bernese-ruled Pays de Vaud, he settled with other regicides in Vevey, where he sometimes went under the name of ‘Field’.313Briefe Englischer Flüchtlinge in der Schweiz ed. A. Stern (Göttingen, 1874), 23-4; HMC 5th Rep. 200; CSP Dom. 1663-4, pp. 144, 149, 380. Apparently more timorous than some of his friends, he did not accompany them when in 1663 they visited Bern to thank their protectors. Instead he wrote to their chief advocate, Johann Heinrich Hummel, an anglophile and friend of John Dury, expressing his gratitude for the ‘great freedom and liberty’ they enjoyed and acknowledging God’s mercy therein.314Staatsarchiv Bern, B III 63.17, f. 1. A few months later, out of fear for his safety and (according to Edmund Ludlowe) for the withdrawal by the English government of property concessions to his wife if he were to be associated with the others, Lisle left Vevey for Lausanne, only to be assassinated. On 11 August 1664 N.S. he was shot by an exiled Irishman with a rifle as he made his way to the Thursday fast sermon at the Eglise St François. ‘Monsieur Fildt’ was buried in the church ‘en consideration de ses qualités [on account of his status]’, but the authorities refused his friends’ request for a headstone (said Ludlowe, somewhat implausibly) because they feared incurring the displeasure of Louis XIV.315Lausanne, Archives de la Ville, Chavannes, D95, f. 200v; Briefe Englischer Flüchtlinge, 26; Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, pp. 1020, 1028-35, 1074; Ludlow, Voyce, 303-5; CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 419.

The authorities did, however, release Lisle’s possessions. Looking through his papers, Ludlowe found a ‘testament’ entitled ‘The Justice and Necessity of the Parliament’s War’ and what ‘seemed to be a breviate of what he intended to have spoken at the place of execution, if the Lord had thought fit ... he should have fallen into his enemies’ hands’. He copied both into his own memoirs – whether verbatim or not cannot be determined.316Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, pp. 1083-7. Somewhat unconvincingly, Lisle’s speech for the scaffold claimed that he was ‘keen to die for obeying the higher powers’. He ‘affirmed’ that their commands

were just, and in the strength that God hath given me, and by his grace I do justify it at my death; and what I have done at any time through sinful fear to weaken this testimony, I do ask pardon of the Lord for it.

It was ‘well-known’, he asserted, ‘that the late king was never an higher power to levy war against the Parliament of England’. It was ‘as well-known’ that the Houses of Parliament ‘have been in all times an higher power to defend themselves and the people of England, against the oppressions of their kings’. Even before military hostilities began, the Lords and Commons had declared that ‘the king’s levying of war ... would tend to the dissolution of government’, for since Parliament was ‘the people’s representative, to make war against the Parliament is to make war against the people, whose consent is the original of all just government’. Furthermore, what had been and was now being done to punish those who had put Charles I to death, was

not only done against the Parliament, but against the command and providences of God, the fundamentals of government, the liberty of the people, and against the whole series of the word of God.317Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, pp. 1086-7.

Lisle’s widow, who returned to England, was executed in 1685 following a trial before Judge Jeffreys at the ‘bloody assizes’, for her part in sheltering men who had been involved in the Monmouth rebellion. The shock generated by the treatment meted out to someone of her age and social standing helped ensure that she was quickly honoured as a Protestant martyr, and her attainder was reversed in 1689.318‘Lady Alice Lisle’, Oxford DNB; State Trials, xi. 297; HMC 7th Rep. 499b; HMC 5th Rep. 300; SR.