VINCENT, John (1625-76), of Warmsworth, Yorks.

The Vincents traced their ancestry to John Vincent of Braywell in Yorkshire, receiver of Richard, duke of York, who was killed alongside his master at the battle of Wakefield in 1460. During the sixteenth century, the family became established at Barnburgh, near Doncaster, and Thomas Vincent increased his local standing with a marriage to the widow of Gervase Bosevile, whose jointure included the estate of Warmsworth.14Dugdale’s Vis. Yorks. ii. 39-42. Thomas’s eldest son, John, was educated at Cambridge before entering the Inner Temple, where he studied until called to the bar in 1652.15Al. Cant.; I. Temple database. John Vincent was already practising as a professional lawyer, when in February 1650 he came to the notice of Bulstrode Whitelocke* as the ‘counsel’ of Major John Brett, and arbitrator in the proposed match between Whitelocke and the widow of Alderman Rowland Wilson*.16Whitelocke, Diary, 254-6. In August of the same year, Vincent married (at St Bride’s, Fleet Street) a daughter of John Griffith I*, a Caernarfonshire landowner and prominent Lincoln’s Inn lawyer.17London Mar. Lics. ed. Foster, 1390. Once he had been called to the bar, Vincent seems to have returned to Yorkshire, as his eldest children were baptised at Barnburgh Church in 1653, 1655 and 1657.18Doncaster Archives, Barnburgh par. regs. Vincent was also appointed as a justice of the peace and to commissions in the West Riding from the early 1650s.19A. and O.

Vincent’s election for the Scottish constituency of Peebles (or Haddington) Burghs in a by-election in 1657 was probably at the wish of the Scottish council, led by Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), and the initial recommendation may have come from Sir Edward Rodes*, whose estates at Great Houghton were only a few miles from Barnburgh. The original MP for the seat had been Broghill’s ally, George Downing*, but in October 1656 he had chosen to sit for Carlisle instead, and orders were issued for a new election to be held.20CJ vii. 432a. The second return did not take place until the new year, and on 12 January the Haddington burgh council recorded that, having received instructions for replacing Downing, ‘they had elected Mr John Vincent of Warmsworth’ to be their MP.21NRS, B30/13/5, f. 4. By this time, Vincent had already departed for Westminster, where he took part in the Scottish Union debates of 14 January, arguing that not only the Scots, but also the English and Irish should be taxed only ‘by consent in Parliament’.22Burton’s Diary, i. 347. This ‘three nations’ approach may indicate Broghill’s influence over Vincent, and this is also suggested by the fact that in nine of his 11 committee appointments, Vincent was named with Broghill.23CJ vii. 488a, 493b, 494b, 499b, 505b, 507b, 515b, 516a. A connection with Broghill may explain Vincent’s inclusion in committees on the Irish land cases of Viscount Loftus of Ely and Sir Hardress Waller* (21 Feb., 17 Mar.), and in committees to consider articles of the Remonstrance relating to the franchise in Scotland and Ireland (6 Mar.) and religious toleration (19 Mar.).24CJ vii. 494b, 499b, 505b, 507b. Vincent was not among the Scottish MPs who voted on 25 March to offer the crown to Oliver Cromwell*, but he certainly followed the line taken by Broghill and his colleagues later in the session.25Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 23 (E.935.5). For example, when on 10 June the reduction of the tax burden north of the border was debated, Vincent moved that the assessments should be no more than £5,000 a month, ‘for they never bore above a twentieth part with England’.26Burton’s Diary, ii. 213.

Although he seems to have supported Broghill on many issues, in religious affairs Vincent was guided by conscience, not politics. His earliest committee appointment – on 9 February 1657 – was to consider the bill for maintaining ministers at Exeter; on 18 February he was included in the committee for the better observation of the Lord’s Day; and, at the end of March, Vincent was appointed to a committee to allow trustees to maintain ministers and lecturers.27CJ vii. 488a, 493b, 515b. These were matters of the utmost importance to Vincent, as seen in two incidents in June 1657. On 9 June he joined William Briscoe in opposing attempts to ‘leave behind’ the catechising bill, the passing of which they saw as a ‘duty’.28Burton’s Diary, ii. 203. The fate of the bill for the better observance of the Lord’s Day, discussed on 20 June, caused Vincent equal concern. Many MPs (including Whitelocke and Lambarde Godfrey) wanted to limit the authorities to dealing with disorder in public places. Vincent was adamant that private property should also be policed, ‘for nowadays the greatest disorders were in private houses, by sending thither for drink: drinking in alehouses being both more penal and suspicious’. He also wanted strict controls on people sitting outside their houses on Sundays: ‘I cannot think such sitting at doors, as is usual, can be a sanctification of the Lord’s Day’.29Burton’s Diary, ii. 263, 365. Such strict, puritanical religious views, while not necessarily incompatible with Broghill’s political programme, were an obstacle to maintaining a broad coalition in favour of reform, and lessened the chance of the protector accepting it. They may also have dissuaded Vincent from voting to make Cromwell king. He therefore emerges not as a lackey of Broghill and the civilian interest, but as a member of the Presbyterian grouping within the Commons, intolerant of religious diversity and keen to use Parliament as a bulwark against abuse of power by the protector. Indeed, in a speech on 24 June, just before Parliament was adjourned, Vincent opposed the protector’s veto, saying that he would prefer to rely on the ‘negative voice’ of Parliament as the last word on legislation, adding ‘I know not what a Parliament signifies else’.30Burton’s Diary, ii. 286.

Vincent played no further part in national politics after June 1657, and seems to have returned to Yorkshire, where he sat on local commissions, and where his remaining children were baptised, at regular intervals, throughout the 1660s.31A. and O.; Doncaster Archives, Barnburgh par. regs.; CJ vii. 819b. In 1667 he was involved in a legal transaction with Godfrey Rodes* at Great Houghton, where lands were granted to Vincent and then re-granted, for the same notional value, a few days later.32Sheffield City Archives, CM/465, 457-8. In the same year Vincent fell foul of the archbishop of York over the advowson of High Melton (or Melton-on-the-Hill), and was excommunicated, although the dispute appears to have been financial rather than religious in nature.33Notts. Archives, DD/N/221/6, 12, 15-16 Vincent died at Barnburgh in July 1676, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Thomas. The estate remained in the family for another generation until, with the failure of the male line, it was sold by Vincent’s granddaughters and coheirs.34Dugdale’s Vis. Yorks. 41-2.