BERNARD, Robert (1600-66), of Huntingdon, Hunts.

The Bernard family were originally from Wanford in Yorkshire and later from Isleham in Cambridgeshire. The senior line of the branch which settled in Northamptonshire in the fifteenth century owned Abington Abbey on the outskirts of Northampton from 1496 to 1669.46Vis. Northants. ed. Metcalfe, 3; Bridges, Northants. i. 401-2; Baker, Northants. i. 10; VCH Northants. iv. 66-7; J. Heward and R. Taylor, The Country Houses of Northants. (1996), 47-8. Bernard’s father, Francis Bernard junior, a younger son of Francis Bernard (d.1602) of Abington Abbey, lived at Kingsthorpe, the neighbouring parish, and it was there that this MP was born in 1600.47Baker, Northants. i. 40; Bridges, Northants. i. 404. As his father had a surviving son from his first marriage, Robert grew up as the second son of a younger son, and, because he could therefore expect no great inheritance, he probably trained as a lawyer with a view to gaining a livelihood at the bar. In the event, his elder brother, Francis, predeceased him in 1630, but by then the Kingsthorpe estate may well have been encumbered with debt.48PROB6/13, f. 159. On being called to the bar of the Middle Temple in 1621, Bernard’s legal career seems to have flourished. 49M. Temple Admiss. i. 104.

His talents as a lawyer were soon noticed by the Montagu family, possibly in the first instance by the 1st Baron Montagu (Edward Montagu†).50PROB11/320/365. In time Bernard appears to have acting for the family mainly as steward of some of the manors owned by Montagu’s brother, the 1st earl of Manchester (Henry Montagu†), himself a distinguished lawyer and member of the Middle Temple. Just when Bernard entered his service is unclear. As early as 1628 he seems to have been advising Manchester in connection with his purchase of the manor of St Ives and Holywell with Needingworth.51Edmund Pettis’s Survey of St Ives, 1728, ed. M. Carter (Cambs. Rec. Soc. xvi), facsimile p. 48. By 1635 he was certainly acting as steward of Manchester’s manor at Kimbolton.52Beds. RO, SJ 81; Hunts. RO, M15A/2: deed, 20 Feb. 1639; M28/1/32-3. On being summoned before the Huntingdonshire commissioners for knighthood fines in 1630, Bernard asked to be allowed to consult first with Manchester, while by 1633 he seems to have been acting as one of the earl’s trustees to manage Weybridge Forest.53Bodl. Carte 74, f. 193; VCH Hunts. iii. 7. However, the firmest evidence for an early link with the Montagus is probably his decision to move to Huntingdon.

Bernard seems to have settled in Huntingdon by the time of his first marriage in 1625. That is consistent with the claim made after his death that he had lived in Huntingdon for 40 years.54Lansd. 921, f. 11; Bridges, Northants. i. 404. The move was almost certainly linked to his appointment as the town’s recorder, a position which he already held by February 1627 when he represented the town in their negotiations with the Mercers’ Company concerning the charitable bequests left by Richard Fishborne.55Hunts. RO, Huntingdon borough recs. box 12, bdle. 4, ff. 9-10, 12, 50-1. It was in this same capacity that Bernard signed the 1628 indenture returning James Montagu† and Oliver Cromwell* as MPs for the borough.56A Coll. of Ancient Recs. relating to the borough of Huntingdon, ed. E. Griffith (1827), 106. It seems likely that Bernard had been offered the recordership by the corporation after prompting by Manchester. As recorder, Bernard was responsible for obtaining the town’s new charter in July 1630.57Coll. of Ancient Recs, 109-15. This sparked off what may well have been one of the formative experiences of Cromwell’s early life.58J. Morrill, ‘The making of Oliver Cromwell’, Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, ed. J. Morrill (1990), 32-3. The charter failed to include Cromwell among the 12 aldermen appointed to form the new corporation and he was quick to protest. On 1 December 1630 the privy council heard how Cromwell and the local postmaster had made ‘disgraceful and unseemly speeches’ about Bernard and the mayor, Lionel Walden. Manchester was appointed to investigate.59APC 1630-1, pp. 128, 140. The conclusion he came to was that the legal advice Bernard had given during the application for the new charter had been ‘fair and orderly done’, and he had found Bernard willing to forgive Cromwell.60W.D. Montagu, 7th duke of Manchester, Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne (1864) i. 339-41. Of course, Manchester was hardly likely to have ruled otherwise and it does seem probable that Cromwell’s omission from the corporation had been a deliberate snub. It was soon after this that Cromwell moved away from the town. All of Bernard’s subsequent dealings with Cromwell were probably coloured by the memory of this incident.

Bernard’s legal practice in London, his prominence in the affairs of Huntingdon and his work for Manchester combined easily with each other during the 1630s. Moreover, even within Huntingdonshire, he was not exclusively tied to the Montagus. By 1637 he was acting as steward of the Throckmorton manors at Ellington and he later performed the same function for the Newman family at Hemingford Grey.61Hunts. RO, M16/2: procs. of Ellington manorial ct., 31 Mar. 1637; M16/23: procs. of Hemingford Grey manorial ct., 13 Oct. 1643. Over the years he regularly acted as both legal adviser and friend to Sir Thomas Cotton*.62D. Masson, The Life of John Milton (rev. edn. 1881), i. 630; Norf. RO, KIM 4/2/5; Hunts. RO, CON.2/4/2/10-11; CON.3/2/5/2-3; CON.2/4/2/15; CON.2/4/3/4-6; CON.2/4/3/8; CON.2/4/4/1; M44A/9: indenture, 10 Apr. 1641; M16/23: draft deed, 4 Dec. 1661; Mins. of Parl. of MT, ii. 868. He may also have acted for the Cromwells of Ramsey.63Add. 33461, f. 151; Add. 33462, f. 131. His surviving papers show him working for a wide range of other local families.64Hunts. RO, M16/23. One contentious local issue was the scheme by Arnold Spencer to improve navigation on the Ouse between St Ives and Bedford; Bernard seems to have supported Spencer’s scheme and provided him with legal advice.65The Navigation of the Gt. Ouse between St Ives and Bedford, ed. T.S. Willan (Publications of the Beds. Hist. Rec. Soc. xxiv), 38. From the mid-1630s onwards he was also acting regularly for Trinity College, Cambridge.66Trinity College, Camb. senior bursar’s audit bk. 1637-59, ff. 12, 26, 44v, 74v, 128v, 148v, 164v, 168, 184v, 205, 225v, 240v, 261v, 275, 297, 313, 315v, 328, 332, 345.

Bernard’s income from the law probably meant that he was one of the wealthiest men in Huntingdon.67Add. 34401, f. 64; Bodl. Carte 74, f. 206. There is evidence that he acquired a substantial amount of property in and around the town and, at one point, he may even have owned what remained of Huntingdon Castle.68Hunts. RO, Acc. 15/98-9, 101-5; M3/5/4; M44A/9: indenture, 10 Apr. 1641; VCH Hunts. ii. 130-1. In 1641 he was able to spend over £2,500 buying some lands at Godmanchester (a town of which he was now recorder) from the recusant peer, Lord Morley and Monteagle.69Hunts. RO, M44A/9: indenture, 16 Feb. 1641. He also held the lease of the rectory of Old Hurst from the bishop of Ely.70LPL, Comm. XIIa/7, f. 87. Appointment as a justice of the peace confirmed his standing within his adopted county and during this period he was one of the more active members of the Huntingdonshire bench.71CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 28; 1636-7, pp. 557-8; APC 1630-1, p. 352; Add. 34400, ff. 8v, 149, 153, 161, 173, 190, 251; Add. 33462, f. 125v.

The Montagu interest had the borough of Huntingdon totally sewn up in both the 1640 elections. In the election for the Short Parliament on 18 March, Bernard was elected there along with another Montagu nominee, William Montagu, the younger son of Lord Montagu (Sir Edward Montague†).72Griffith, Coll. of Ancient Recs, 121. It was almost certainly Bernard who then kept the diary which survives among the Manchester papers and which details the events in the Commons between 20 April and 5 May 1640 – the surviving manuscript is unquestionably written in his hand.73Hunts. RO, M36/1; Procs. Short Parl. 28-9, 199-210. The only personal details which this diarist lets slip about his own activity are that he accompanied Sir Francis Windebanke* on 21 April and Sir Henry Vane I* on 1 May when they were sent to the House of Lords to request joint conferences.74Hunts. RO, M36/1, ff. 10v-11; Procs. Short Parl. 205. There is no great significance in this – Bernard was probably just an interested spectator. The obvious explanation for why Bernard might have kept this account is that he did so to assist Manchester and it may have been intended to complement the similar diary of proceedings in the Lords kept by Lord Montagu.75Procs. Short Parl. 95-105; E.S. Cope, ‘Ld. Montagu and his jnl. of the Short Parl.’, BIHR xlvi. 209-15. The manuscript of Bernard’s diary later passed to Oliver St John*, whose daughter would marry Bernard’s eldest son. Manchester seems not to have felt that Bernard’s presence in the Commons was essential. Later that year he preferred to nominate one of his sons, George Montagu*, at Huntingdon, with William Montagu also stepping down to make way for his elder brother, Edward I*. As George Montagu had probably only just turned eighteen, there may have been a sense in which Bernard had been doing no more than keeping the Huntingdon seat warm for him.

The death of the 1st earl of Manchester in November 1642 did not terminate Bernard’s links with the Montagus and he seems to have acted for the 2nd earl (Edward Montagu†) in much the same capacity as he had his father.76Lansd. 921, f. 39v. On the face of it, this ought to have encouraged Bernard to side with Parliament, which the 2nd earl served as one of its leading military commanders, yet in fact he played almost no discernible role in the civil war. Parliament’s appointment of him in December 1642 as one of the Huntingdonshire commissioners for the Midland association did not spur him into action. Within a matter of weeks suspicions were being expressed that he instead supported the king. By January 1643 Cromwell saw his chance and troops were sent to search Bernard’s house. Then, on 23 January, Cromwell wrote to Bernard warning him that caution would not be enough; as he put it, ‘subtlety may deceive you, integrity never will’. The implication was that Bernard had refused to lend money to Parliament, with Cromwell hinting that he would make things difficult for him if he did not cooperate.77Belvoir Castle, lttrs. of Long Parliament MPs, ii. f. 1; Writings and Speeches, i. 210. By April Bernard and Manchester seem to have written letters of complaint to Cromwell. In his reply to Bernard, Cromwell explained

we know you are disaffected to the Parliament; and truly if the Lords, or any friends, may take you off from a reasonable contribution, for my part I should be glad to be commanded to any other employment. Sir, you may, if you will, come freely into the country about your occasions. For my part, I have protected you in your absence; and shall do so to you.78Writings and Speeches, i. 225-6.

Bernard seems to have paid the money demanded by the Huntingdonshire commissioners, only to find in November 1643 that the Committee for Advance of Money was proceeding against him for having failed to pay his contribution in London. On being ordered to pay £1,000, Bernard got Manchester to explain to the Committee that this meant he was not liable. This tactic worked.79CAM 292. Two years later the Committee made a second attempt to fine him; he was able to produce the paperwork to convince them to confirm their previous ruling in his favour.80CAM 292. At some stage, Bernard is known to have handed over most of his estates to trustees in order to hamper any attempt to sequester them.81PROB11/320/365. Parliament may have been right to be suspicious, however. Bernard would later claim that he had waited on the king when he got the chance when Charles briefly occupied Huntingdon in late August 1645.82CCSP v. 27-8.

The reality was probably that Bernard was spending much of his time handling the Montagu estate affairs during Manchester’s extended absences. The two of his three surviving letters to the earl at about this time are dominated by that subject, while the third, in mentioning wider concerns, only reinforces that impression.83Hunts. RO, M28/1/32-4. In late September 1645 Bernard reported to him on developments in the forthcoming by-elections for the Huntingdonshire and Huntingdon seats. Far from giving the impression that he was himself much involved in these manoeuvrings, he mused on how fortunate he was to be living a tranquil life.

I humbly thank your lordship for your care of my quiet, that what it is I must acknowledge it from your lordship, next under God’s goodness; truly it is little, in regard of the divisions in every place, especially here, and the unhappiness in general to this consuming nation. It is clamorous to meddle, and scandalous to sit still. Our senses are infatuated, we value Bristol stones [fake gems] beyond diamonds.84Hunts. RO, M28/1/33.

This may not have been the whole truth. Seven months earlier, when these by-elections were first mooted, Bernard had consulted with Manchester’s cousin, Edward Montagu II*, as to which candidates they should promote, later reporting to him that their plans would be ‘most difficult’ to achieve. He had also asked Montagu for a position in the army for his son, John*, if he was confirmed as a colonel in the New Model army (he was not).85Bodl. Carte 74, f. 197. It may therefore be that Bernard supported Edward Montagu’s election as the new MP for the county, although, as Montagu had been one of the earl’s critics within the army, he may have had good reason not to tell this to Manchester.

In any case, the extent to which Bernard was excluded from local affairs should not be overstated. He remained a Huntingdonshire justice of the peace and in 1647 and 1648 was still performing some of the duties of that post – he had one woman arrested for witchcraft.86Add. 34401, ff. 115, 118. (This was not a new interest: he had taken many of the statements in the Huntingdonshire cases in 1646 inspired by the witch hunt of Matthew Hopkins.87J. Davenport, The Witches of Huntingdon (1646), 1-4, 6-10.) Nevertheless, with the exception of his initial appointment to the county standing committee, he had been excluded from most of the important local commissions which had been created to fight the war. The letter to Manchester suggests that this did not particularly bother him. His comment to the parliamentarian peer Lord Montagu (Edward Montagu I*), in June 1648, occasioned by the fight between royalist and parliamentarian forces at St Neots on 10 July, that he was ‘sorry that Huntingdon should become a fountain of news arising from a spring of blood’, was understandable enough, although his description of this encounter does not give any indication as to which side, if any, he favoured.88HMC Montagu, 161.

Bernard’s appointment as a serjeant-at-law in October 1648 marked him out as a member of the elite of his profession.89CJ vi. 64b, 66a It is known to have been Bulstrode Whitelocke* who put forward his name.90Whitelocke, Diary, 223. It probably also helped that his wife’s nephew, Oliver St John, had just been appointed lord chief justice of the court of common pleas. At Bernard’s ceremonial admission as a serjeant before the court of common pleas, Manchester and George Montagu acted as his supporters; his son-in-law, Nicholas Pedley*, presented the judges with the traditional rings.91Baker, Serjeants at Law, 189, 397-400, 441. This appointment marked something of a rehabilitation. At a local level, the change of favour was indicated by his inclusion on the Huntingdonshire militia commission appointed on 2 December 1648.

It was probably the connections with St John and Whitelocke which enabled Bernard to prosper under the republic, especially as Manchester withdrew from public life after the regicide. The nomination of Bernard’s son, Francis, as a pupil at the Charterhouse in March 1649 was the last major favour Manchester would be able to do for him for the time being.92Alumni Carthusiani, ed. B. Marsh and F.A. Crisp (1913), 19. Bernard’s own position as a serjeant was unaffected by the events of January 1649 and he seems to have shown no reluctance to continue practising. He was sufficiently acceptable to the new regime that in July 1649 Parliament felt able to appoint him as steward of the court of pleas of the Isle of Ely, a key job within the independent liberty hitherto ruled by the bishops of Ely.93CJ vi. 239b. A plan to marry Bernard’s eldest son, John, to Whitelocke’s daughter in late 1654 came to nothing after the prospective bride died, but the eventual match was just as impressive, for in 1656 John Bernard was able to marry Oliver St John’s daughter, Elizabeth. The purchase by Bernard of Brampton Park on the outskirts of Huntingdon in June 1653 was probably intended to provide for John after his marriage and it certainly seems to have been the son who settled there.94Hunts. RO, M44A/9: deed, 20 June 1653; Lansd. 921, f. 10v; VCH Hunts. iii. 16. It comes as no surprise that one of his neighbours should have reacted to the news in 1655 that Bernard was allowing his daughter to marry one of his servants with the remark that, ‘I thought the serjeant would have looked higher’.95Bodl. Carte 74, f. 35. In contrast to his exclusion in the 1640s, Bernard was now being appointed to some of the local commissions in Huntingdonshire, as well as those for the Isle of Ely.96A. and O.; C181/6, pp. 16-304. In July 1659 Parliament ordered that he conduct an oyer and terminer within the Isle of Ely, as well as appointing him as one of the commissioners with authority over the Ely militia.97CJ vii. 709a, 718b; A. and O.; C181/6, p. 385.

Bernard adjusted easily to the Restoration. He wrote to (Sir) Edward Hyde* in early May 1660 assuring him of his loyalty to Charles II.98CCSP v. 27-8. His position as one of the serjeants-at-law was confirmed and this time around he received the customary knighthood.99Whitelocke, Diary, 608; Baker, Serjeants at Law, 192, 404-7, 443; Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 228. The baronetcy granted to him in 1662 was more of a surprise.100CB iii. 249-50. His holdings of land continued to expand, particularly with the purchase of the manor of Grafham in 1660.101Hunts. RO, M44A/9: acquitance, 12 July 1660. The one major difficulty he faced was the antipathy which had developed existed between himself and Edward Montagu II, now 1st earl of Sandwich. In December 1662 Sandwich warned Samuel Pepys†, who had sought legal advice from Bernard, that he should ‘not trust to him upon his direction, for he [Sandwich] did not think him a man to be trusted at all’.102Pepys’s Diary, iii. 281-2. Within two months Bernard had been removed as recorder of Huntingdon by the commissioners for the Corporation Act. Whether or not it was the case, as Pepys suspected he would think, that Bernard had been ejected through Sandwich’s influence, Sandwich certainly welcomed this result.103Pepys’s Diary, iv. 30, 62. Despite this, Pepys retained Bernard’s services to help sort out the difficulties arising from the will of his uncle, Robert Pepys.104Pepys’s Diary, ii. 137, 194-5, 205; iii. 220-1, 222-3; iv. 28, 308-9; v. 36, 44, 149, 157-8; Hunts. RO, M44A/9: conveyance, 18 Jan. 1654.

Bernard died on 18 April 1666 at his chambers at Serjeants’ Inn.105Bridges, Northants. i. 404. He used his own will, which he had prepared the previous December, to call on God

to bless our gracious king and his kingdoms to keep them in peace and righteousness, and that he long continue a happy reign over his subjects. I fear the sins of this nation will pluck down judgments upon us unless he accept of an atonement by our hearty repentance which God grant us.

His bequests included £50 to Manchester ‘in humble acknowledgement of his many favours’.106PROB11/320/365. In accordance with his instructions, his body was buried neither at Huntingdon or Kingsthorpe, as might have been expected, but at Abington among the tombs of the senior line of the family.107Bridges, Northants. i. 404; VCH Northants. iv. 68-9. There may have been a sense in which he felt that, as baronets, the junior line had now surpassed their cousins.