BLOUNT, Thomas (c.1606-78), of Wricklemarsh, Charlton, Kent.

Blount, who was described as ‘a great stickler for the two Houses of Parliament’ by Sir Roger Twysden*, could trace his ancestors to sixteenth-century Shropshire, although his grandfather had been a collector of customs in London.24‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 202; Vis. Kent 1619, 179; Vis. Kent 1663, 16. Blount’s father, who married the daughter of Sir William Garway, one of London’s leading merchants, became a Middle Temple lawyer, and acquired an estate in Charlton, Kent, where he died in 1618.25PROB8/17, f. 101v; Vis. Kent 1619, 179; Vis. Kent 1663, 16. Although born a younger son, Thomas Blount succeeded to the family estate when still a minor, and received the education of a gentleman, at Brasenose College, Oxford, and Gray’s Inn, although he was not called to the bar.26Al. Cant.; G. Inn Admiss. i. 175.

During the 1630s, Blount emerged as an active justice of the peace in Kent, and there is little indication that he was dissatisfied with the Caroline regime, beyond his refusal to compound for knighthood on the grounds that he had been a minor, with no personal lands, at the coronation.27E178/5368; CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 569; 1636-7, p. 130; SP16/395, f. 3; Cent. Kent. Stud. U1107/O7/5. In May 1640, however, he proved zealous in searching for and seizing the arms of Kentish Catholics, and reporting to the privy council evidence regarding local priests.28CSP Dom. 1640, pp. 217, 228, 262. In January 1642, indeed, he informed the Commons about the activities of Catholics in the service of Thomas Howard, 21st earl of Arundel, whom he suspected of trafficking arms, and he was ordered to redouble his searches.29PJ i. 48. As political tension mounted in the county in the months which followed, Blount assumed an increasingly important position within the region. As the spring assizes approached, he sought and secured a position on the grand jury, ‘because I conceived something was on foot, and I desired to see the play’.30CJ ii. 502b; Add. 28000, f. 149. Blount had evidently learnt from Sir Roger Twysden* of unease within the county regarding Parliament’s proceedings, and of plans for a petition.31‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 202. When the idea was moved at the meeting of the grand jury, Blount expressed his opposition, ‘because we should not contradict the petition already delivered by the county to the Parliament’. When Sir Edward Dering* presented heads of the petition – calling for a synod of divines and the preservation of the Book of Common Prayer, and expressing opposition to Parliament’s claim to control over the militia – Blount was one of a minority who expressed their opposition, and who were forced to withdraw.32‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 204; CJ ii. 502b-503a.

Thus thwarted, Blount set off for Westminster, and reported the matter to the Commons on 29 March, and related plans for the petition to be delivered accompanied by 40,000 people on 23 April. Having read the text of the petition, Blount was thanked for his service.33CJ ii. 502b-503a; PJ i. 102, 106-7. Thereafter, Blount was responsible for attempts to organise a counter-petition in the county. The meeting of those loyal to Parliament at the quarter sessions on 19 April was disrupted by their opponents, but the counter-petition was completed two days later, whereupon attempts were made to gather signatures of those who supported Parliament’s claim to control of the militia. After making another journey to Westminster to inform the Commons of the activity of their opponents (30 Apr.), Blount helped to deliver the counter-petition, which had been signed by some 6,000 people, on 5 May, and sought the permission of the House to deliver it to the Lords.34T.P.S. Woods, Prelude to Civil War, 1642: Mr Justice Malet and the Kentish Petitions (Salisbury, 1980, 80; CSP Ven. 1642-3, p. 55; PJ ii. 249, 278, 280; CJ ii. 558a; LJ v. 44b; HMC 5th Rep. 21. The document was subsequently printed on Parliament’s orders.35The Humble Petition… of Kent (1642, 669.f.5.13).

Upon the outbreak of war in the late summer of 1642, Blount emerged as one of the leading parliamentarian figures in the county, and as a newly-appointed deputy lieutenant he played an active role in investigating suspected royalists.36‘Papers relating to proceedings in Kent’, 1, 3; Bodl. Nalson II, f. 171. This ensured that when royal pardons were issued in November 1642, Blount was one of the few from Kent who were excluded.37Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 54. Undaunted, Blount remained active in attending the committee in order to assist in raising troops and in arresting delinquents, and the proximity of his personal estate to London ensured that he was deputed to report to the Commons in person.38Add. 33512, f. 81; ‘Papers relating to proceedings in Kent’, 7; Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 154, 156; HMC Portland, i. 702; CJ iii. 57a-b. By April 1643, he was among those in the county who complained about the lack of zeal on the part of some of their fellow parliamentarians, and expressed concern at the encouragement which this offered to royalist malignants, not least to those who were undermining efforts to collect the assessments.39Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 155, 161-2, 179, 192-3; HMC Portland, i. 702, 708. He was one of those who complained in June 1643 that ‘there are such alterations as in truth makes us weary of our employment, for we get the odium while doing, as we conceive, faithful service, not varying one little from the ordinance … so that we labour to no purpose, get hatred, for no benefit to the public’.40Bodl. Nalson XI, f. 195; HMC Portland, i. 708. He was also among those who proposed imposing harsh penalties on those like Sir Norton Knatchbull* who had been sequestered, and upon those MPs who failed to assist them, like Sir Thomas Peyton* and Sir Francis Barnham*.41Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 197-8 Tanner 62, f. 96; HMC Portland, i. 708.

By the outbreak of the Kent insurrection of 1643, Blount had been appointed a captain of a company of foot. Having pleaded with the Commons for military supplies, on the grounds that ‘the people there are so malignant that they will rise, so soon as he is gone’, he received the encouragement of the House, and with Sir Michael Livesay* was involved in seizing the magazine at Dartford, and in searching the houses of those suspected of arming the rebels.42CJ iii. 176a, 195a, 199a; Bodl. Tanner 62, ff. 173, 186. Such service seems to have resulted in his elevation to the rank of colonel before the end of the year.43SP28/234, unfol. After the collapse of the insurrection he maintained his zealous participation in the work of the local committees, and as an assessment commissioner.44CJ iii. 279a, 323b; SP28/15, f. 162; SP28/210b, unfol.; SP28/235, unfol.; Bodl. Tanner 62, ff. 468, 534, 561-v; Stowe 184, ff. 92, 96, 105; Stowe 194, f. 96; E. Kent RO, H1257. He was active in securing timber for the navy, and helped to orchestrate a campaign of iconoclasm in churches and chapels.45CJ iii. 430b; SP28/235, unfol. By early 1645, Blount’s religious zeal involved support for notorious Independents, and on one occasion he protected the preacher John Saltmarsh from an armed band of locals who sought to prevent him from preaching.46L.F. Solt, Saints in Arms (New York, 1971), 113. On 1 May 1645, moreover, it was reported that Blount, ‘to please the Kentish people, who were fond of old customs, particularly May games, drew out two regiments of foot, and exercised them on Blackheath’, representing a mock fight between the cavaliers and the roundheads. It was claimed that ‘the people were as much pleased as if they had gone a-Maying’.47Lysons, Environs of London, iv. 492.

Amid ‘great contestation’, Blount sought election to Parliament in the autumn of 1645 as a knight of the shire, although he only did so ‘underhand’, and unsuccessfully.48CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 138. He probably represented the interests of the political and religious radicals on the county committee, with whom he continued to work closely for the remainder of the 1640s, particularly in relation to the cases of notorious delinquents, like John Tufton, 2nd earl of Thanet, and issues of perennial concern to the godly, such as the regulation of alehouses.49SP28/235, unfol.; SP 28/210b, unfol.; SP28/234, unfol.; Add. 33512, f. 96; Cent. Kent. Stud. U455/O4. Blount’s position among the county’s radicals is further evidenced by his having complained to the Commons regarding the behaviour of the forces of Sir Robert Pye II* in June 1647, as well as by his participation in an attempt to undermine the influence of moderate parliamentarians in the county such as Sir John Sedley later in the year.50Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 575; vii. 772; SP28/130, f. 17. Blount’s political Independency did not extend to republicanism, and he later claimed not merely to have prosecuted those who spoke against the royal family, but also to have resigned his commissions in 1647 (actually Mar. 1648?), in response to Parliament’s decision no longer to promise to protect the king’s person.51CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 486; SP29/29, f. 57. Despite his lack of revolutionary zeal, he remained determined to counter the influence of crypto-royalists in the county, whether rioters at Canterbury in the winter of 1647-8, or petitioners to Parliament in the months before the second civil war.52Bodl. Tanner 58, ff. 645, 653; SP28/130, f. 13; SP28/234, unfol.; Bodl. Nalson VII, ff. 201r-v; HMC Portland, i. 491. Indeed, by the end of 1648 he was one of only a handful of parliamentarians in the county who remained active in local administration.53Add. 5494, f. 281.

Blount refused to participate in the trial of Charles I, despite being named as a commissioner for the high court of justice in January 1649.54A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 486; SP29/29, f. 57. He later claimed, somewhat disingenuously, to have played no further part in public life, aside from acting as a justice of the peace and militia commissioner, ‘though often solicited thereunto’.55E113, unfol. Nevertheless, by the middle of April 1649 he was certainly willing to defend the commonwealth regime, not least in the wake of the threat from royalists and foreign regimes.56CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 84, 157, 159. In the months that followed he was one of a very small group within the county upon whom the council of state relied, and to whom they were prepared to delegate particular tasks.57CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 264, 272, 281, 342, 381, 405, 410, 483, 503; 1650, pp. 143, 163, 483; 1651, p. 174. In August 1651 he was commissioned as a colonel of a troop of horse and regiment of foot, not least in order to undertake the disarming of delinquents, and he was recognised by contemporaries as being one of the most powerful men in the county, to whom men like John Evelyn turned when they required help.58CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 384, 387, 391, 532; Evelyn Diary ed. De Beer, iii. 70.

That Blount’s godliness extended to support for religious Independency is evident from his selection for the Nominated Assembly of 1653 by the congregational churches in Kent, whereupon he was granted lodgings in Whitehall.59Original Letters ed. Nickolls, 95-6; CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 402. The precise nature of his beliefs is unclear, although he later denied accusations of being a Baptist.60SP29/29, f. 57v. Blount proved to be an extremely active Member of the Assembly, and became deeply involved in matters related to the public revenue, including the excise.61CJ vii. 283b, 293b, 300a, 309b. He also emerged as a powerful supporter of religious Independents and of legal reform, as well as godly measures such as the advancement of learning, and he frequently acted as teller in divisions, almost invariably alongside radicals like Thomas Harrison I*, Praisegod Barbon*, Thomas St Nicholas*, and William West*, and in opposition to more conservative figures like Sir William Roberts*, Sir Gilbert Pykeringe*, Robert Tichborne*, and Anthony Ashley Cooper*.62CJ vii. 285b, 286a, 287b, 288b, 289a, 292a, 292b, 298b, 300b, 329b, 300b, 334a, 351a, 352a, 359a. As a former member of the Hale commission, Blount played an active part in considering the committee for the law, delivering three reports to the Commons on specific proposals, including the bill for civil registration of births, marriages and deaths, the grand committee regarding which he also chaired.63CJ vii. 286b, 290a, 297a, 297b, 298a. He was also appointed to the subsequent (and more radical) committee regarding a new body of the law (19 Aug.), and in addition to being nominated to consider the erection of a high court of justice, Blount supported a motion for an inquiry into prisoners for criminal causes, and was responsible for drafting legislation against highwaymen.64CJ vii. 304b, 330b, 334a, 334b, 336a, 336b. His reforming zeal was most evident, however, from his having reported to the House the bill for abolition of chancery (19 Oct.).65CJ vii. 336a.

Blount’s interest in legal reform, as well as his radical inclinations, underpinned a concern regarding prominent legal appointments. He joined other radicals in supporting the employment of civil lawyers and in opposing for promotion prominent common lawyers favoured by the council of state, preferring those with greater radical credentials.66CJ vii. 288b, 289a, 292a, 292b, 298b, 329b. Similarly, political and religious motivations underpinned his tellerships alongside radicals like John Ireton* and Thomas St Nicholas*, in divisions over other appointments, such as the motion to install John Yates as master of St John’s College, Cambridge.67CJ vii. 351a, 359a. Blount’s overriding concern, however, appears to have been the church. His religious independency may have led to his involvement with the Engagement oath, but it was certainly reflected in his having acted as a teller against in inclusion of the word ‘churches’ in a declaration calling for the people to seek the Lord for a blessing on the House’s proceedings (12 July).68CJ vii. 283b, 284a. More importantly, Blount aligned himself with those who opposed the maintenance of ministers by tithes, and twice acted as a teller in divisions on the issue, as well as being named to the committee to consider the matter.69CJ vi. 285b, 286a. Moreover, he opposed plans for reparations for parish churches damaged by fire, and acted as a teller in favour of a motion to remove patrons’ power to present ministers to benefices (17 Nov.).70CJ vii. 300b, 352a. Like other radicals, Blount may rapidly have grown disillusioned with proceedings, and in addition to being granted a period of leave in early September, appears to have been increasingly absent from the House from late October. He made only three recorded appearances in the Commons after being nominated to the committee to attend the Swedish ambassador on 26 October.71CJ vii. 312a, 340a, 351a, 352a, 359a.

Blount almost certainly opposed the protectorate, and effectively withdrew from public affairs in December 1653. Although he occasionally re-entered the public sphere, as in 1655, when he presented charges against the minister of Crayford, Edward May, who was accused of royalist sympathies, and in 1657, when he claimed to have assisted in defeating Thomas Venner’s Fifth Monarchist rising by sending arms to Deptford, he devoted most of his time to his scientific interests.72CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 269, 299, 363; 1656-7, p. 300; 1660-1, p. 486; SP29/29, f. 57v. By late 1655 the agricultural experiments on his estate, including vineyards and ‘new invented ploughs’, had drawn the attention of Samuel Hartlib and Robert Boyle, and became something of a visitor attraction for local intellectuals.73Evelyn Diary, iii. 161, 170, 233; Corresp. of Robert Boyle (6 vols, 2001), i. 202-3. He also developed a ‘waywiser’ for measuring the distance travelled by coaches, which John Evelyn found ‘very pretty and very useful’.74Evelyn Diary, iii. 196. Upon the collapse of the protectorate in 1659, however, Blount emerged from his study, and in response to concern regarding royalist activity in Kent, he undertook to arrest suspects and seize arms.75CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 56, 64; CCSP iv. 349; Bodl. Clarendon 64, f. 118.

Although he was not a regicide, Blount’s zeal for the parliamentarian cause resulted in his arrest in January 1661. A statement in his defence sought to clear him of having undermined Charles I or his family, and to play down his radicalism during the 1640s. It also professed that Blount had opposed the sale of crown lands, even though he had evidently purchased small portions of the royal estate in Kent, including some ‘trivial things of small value’ from Eltham Palace. It was also suggested that he had defended the king’s friends during the 1650s (including Francis Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby of Parham, and Sir John Stawell*), and that he had not merely welcomed the return of the Stuarts in 1660, but had also ‘caused the bells to be hung up, to ring when the king passed by’, and to have financed celebratory bonfires. Having offered to take the oath of allegiance, and to avail himself of the Declaration of Breda, Blount quickly secured release.76CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 486; SP29/29, ff. 57-8; E113, unfol.; E121/2/11/58; E320/H1. However, having returned to his estate at Greenwich by July 1661, when he was visited by Bulstrode Whitelocke*, Blount soon found himself in trouble with the authorities once again, for having demonstrated his support for seditious preachers at Lee in Kent.77Whitelocke, Diary, 630. Evidence emerged in September 1661 that he had attended a sermon containing ‘dangerous matter’ by Caleb Trenchfield, schoolmaster at Eltham, and in the following month it was alleged that he and his son were among the ‘chief agents’ supporting other preachers there, including William Hickocks.78CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 97, 122; Calamy Revised, 261, 492. With an eye to the effect of such activity, a warrant was issued for Blount’s arrest at the end of October 1661.79CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 125, 130. Once again, Blount’s arrest provoked a petition, and one of his friends claimed that he sought to ‘expiate the past by some signal services to the king’, and where it was claimed that he had shown great kindness to the duke of Richmond and others of the king’s servants at Greenwich.80CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 133; SP29/44, f. 10.

The date of Blount’s release is unclear, but it took place before February 1665, when he was made a Fellow of the Royal Society, at the instigation of John Wilkins. Thereafter, Blount devoted his energies to his scientific pursuits once again. He proved to be a regular attender of Royal Society meetings, and his estate and house were once again visited by a number of its prominent figures, in order to observe his horticultural designs, and his attempts to introduce suspension systems to carriages.81Hunter, Royal Society, 194; Birch, Royal Society, ii. 12, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 41, 45, 47, 53, 56, 59, 89, 95, 106, 123, 124, 139, 140, 142, 189, 192; Pepys’ Diary, vi. 94, 213; vii. 20; The Garden Book of Sir Thomas Hanmer ed. E.S. Rohde (1933), 163-5; Corresp. of Robert Boyle, iii. 45, 272. Blount resigned from the society in 1668, and thereafter he largely disappears from the historical record, although he probably remained friends with Whitelocke until his death late in 1678.82Birch, Royal Society, ii. 239; Whitelocke, Diary, 810. He was buried at Charlton on 2 December 1678.83Charlton par. reg. None of his immediate family followed him into Parliament.