BAMPFYLDE, Thomas (c.1623-93), of the Middle Temple, London, and Exeter, Devon.

The Bampfyldes of Poltimore first experienced service in Parliament in 1429, and Thomas Bampfylde’s grandfather represented Devon in 1597. His father sat for Tiverton in 1621 and the county in 1628. Nor was his mother’s family unfamiliar with parliamentary service. Bampfylde’s grandfather, Thomas Drake of Buckland, was the heir of his brother, the celebrated Sir Francis Drake, among whose less celebrated achievements was his sitting in three Parliaments.17HP Commons 1558-1603. As a younger son, Bampfylde was put to the law to make his living, not merely to acquire polish as a country gentleman.18Sig.: Som. RO, DD WO57/8/5. After a period at Exeter College, Oxford, he was admitted to the Middle Temple in October 1642, just as the English civil war was erupting, but there is no evidence that Bampfylde broke off from his legal studies to involve himself in either politics or military activism. The loyalties of his family were in any case rather fickle. Bampfylde’s father was a keen supporter of the reform programme of the Long Parliament in 1641, enthusing over the ‘great achievements’ of a Parliament that he hoped would inaugurate a ‘golden age’.19HMC 15th Rep. vii. 64. John Bampfylde was therefore probably content to be named to the commission for disarming popish recusants of March 1642.20Northants RO, FH 133, unfol. But in January 1643 he was added to the royalist commission of the peace, only to be dropped again five months later.21Docquets of Letters Patent ed. Black, 11, 42. In March 1644, when Exeter and most of Devon were in royalist hands, John Bampfylde and his son, John, were pardoned by the king.22Docquets of Letters Patent ed. Black, 149-50. With the advantage of many years’ hindsight - and with every motive in seeking to stress the loyalty of nonconformists to the king – Richard Baxter later even implied that Thomas Bampfylde disapproved of the parliamentarian military cause.23R. Baxter, An Apology for the Nonconformists (1681), 144. In the light of this wavering, it was prudent of Thomas to remain in London developing his legal accomplishments sufficiently to be called to the bar in June 1649.24MTR ii. 979.

Thomas Bampfylde should not be confused with another of his name from Somerset, who sat on various local committees of Parliament in that county between 1645 and 1652.25A. and O.; C181/5 ff. 263, 268. The first entry of the Devon lawyer into public life came with his appointment as deputy recorder of Exeter in 1652. The recorder was Edmund Prideaux I*, but the initiative to appoint Bampfylde evidently came from within the corporation, as the common council recommended him to his superior law officer.26Devon RO, Exeter City Archives, Act Bk. x. f. 12. It is a strong possibility that John Maynard*, Bampfylde’s senior at the Middle Temple, a retained counsel of Exeter since 1638 and a figure that the city turned to for help on various occasions, may have been behind his promotion. In April 1653 he was admitted by the city to the group of retained lawyers led by Maynard, and nearly a year later succeeded Prideaux in the recordership. During the Cromwellian protectorate, the city developed the custom of electing lawyers to its two seats, which can be seen as an extension of the pattern of appointing them as agents to do its bidding in Parliament. Bampfylde was the most socially distinguished of these, providing continuity in three Parliaments.

Bampfylde played little part in the first Protectorate Parliament of 1654-5. He was named to no committees, and he may have harboured resentments shared by the Presbyterian Cornish MP, Thomas Gewen, about the legitimacy of the regime. On 10 October 1654, Gewen reported to William Morice* how soon after the opening of the Parliament, Bampfylde and he went to negotiate with Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell. This was a robust exchange – ‘we lost no ground; we did the cause no wrong’ – but the protector ‘entertained us very civilly’ for two hours, and the pair were impressed enough for Gewen to assure Morice of the ‘dissinfulness of subscribing the engagement in order to your return to the House’.27Archaeologia xxiv. 139-40. Despite Gewen’s confidence that other Presbyterians would follow suit, it is probable that Bampfylde did not attend the session, or did not attend for long. Although on 10 August the Exeter chamber appointed a deputy recorder because Bampfylde had gone to London, on 2 October and on 8 January 1655, when the Parliament was in session, he was presiding at meetings of the Exeter quarter sessions court, and he claimed no expenses or ‘salary’ as an MP.28Devon RO, Exeter City Archives, Act Bk. x. f. 51; Bk. 64, ff. 264v, 273. From the summer of 1654, he became a regular attender at Devon quarter sessions, also held in Exeter.29Devon RO, Devon quarter sessions order bk. 1/9, 1652-61.

Bampfylde attended the second protectorate Parliament in quite a different frame of mind, any lingering doubts about the government evidently dispelled. Between the opening of the Parliament on 17 September 1656 and the end of the year Bampfylde was named to 40 committees, and to at least 56 in 1657 until the end of the session in June. In the opening months, a number of these were concerned with the revision of earlier legislation, and thus drew on Bampfylde’s legal expertise. There were committees on regularizing the laws on sexual offences (4 Oct.), reforming the law on grain distribution (7 Oct.) and on vagrancy (16 Oct).30CJ vii. 433b, 435b, 439b. Among the familiar social and economic topics now subject to fresh law-making were workmen’s wages (7 Oct.), abuses in wine retailing (9 Oct.) debtors in prison (29 Oct.) and abolishing the old royal exaction of purveyance (3 Nov.).31CJ vii. 435a, 436b, 447a, 449b. Religion, and in particular, the maintenance of godly ministers, occupied a significant amount of his time, and Bampfylde can best be described as an Erastian Presbyterian. From the start of the session, he was prominent enough in the grand committee on religion to speak in favour of the additional time wrung from the parliamentary calendar for its deliberations.32CJ vii. 426a, 451b. On 4 October, he was named to a bill on freeing up sequestered rectories, and from the end of that month to a string of committees on the maintenance of ministers. That on Wales and the northern counties was an investigative body, examining the wreckage of the Rump’s schemes for ‘propagation’, but others were more constructive.33CJ vii. 434a, 448a, b. Permissive legislation to empower local schemes was set in train on 4 November, followed by various local initiatives: for Great Yarmouth (14 Nov.), Northampton (17 Dec.), Newport, Isle of Wight (26 Dec.) and, into the New Year, Exeter. Bampfylde was the principal architect of these last two schemes, assisted by Thomas Westlake* in the bill for Exeter, which passed the House on 7 March 1657.34CJ vii. 450a, 453b, 469a, 475b, 488a, 499b; Burton’s Diary, i. 223, 224. During the progress of these bills, Bampfylde wondered what had happened to the sums raised from confiscated lands already bestowed on the church, which should have obviated the need for special measures.35Burton’s Diary, i. 160.

In November and early December 1656, Bampfylde chaired five sessions of the grand committee on the union between England and Scotland, the purpose of which was to bring in a bill to update and replace the union ordinance passed by the council in April 1654.36CJ vii. 452a, 453a, 455a, 457a. Although a new act of union was never achieved, the prominence this chairing brought Bampfylde stood him in good stead for further high-level appointments. On 27 November, he was named to a small committee of eight on the sensitive topic of how far the lord protector’s fiat could terminate a Parliament, and half the group were leading law officers.37CJ vii. 459b. He was in the spotlight for longer during the case of the notorious Quaker, James Naylor. On 31 October he was named to the committee to investigate Naylor’s presumed blasphemies at Bristol, and made a long report from it on 4 December.38CJ vii. 448a, 464b. It was Bampfylde’s report that provided the narrative of what Naylor had done and asserted that he had assumed the attributes of Christ. Bampfylde’s gloss on the report was to urge Members to deal speedily with Naylor and resist referring the case back or bringing him to the bar. He demanded a vote on whether he was guilty of ‘horrid blasphemy’. Bampfylde spoke strongly against the proposal by Bulstrode Whitelocke that the case should revert to committee. It emerged that Bampfylde’s committee depended entirely on evidence furnished by the city council of Bristol and had sworn no witnesses of its own, but Bampfylde sought to ratchet up the pressure on the House.

The eyes of God, of all the nation, and all the world, are upon you; and if you lay this aside, and do nothing in it, I shall say it is no more Naylor’s sin, but set it upon your doors.39Burton’s Diary, i. 24, 29-30, 33.

In response to scepticism from some quarters of the House, notably from Luke Robinson, with whom Bampfylde had previously clashed over procedure, Bampfylde became defensive, urging that Members should not question the integrity of the committee and justifying the way it conducted its business. On 9 December he replied at length to the ‘merciful men’ and, arguing that Naylor’s crime deserved the death penalty, sought over the next few days to secure a bill of attainder for the purpose.40Burton’s Diary, i. 12, 40, 41, 79, 91-2, 118. Bampfylde made it plain that he saw the treatment of Naylor as exemplary, hoping that no such ‘cattle’ would ever come from the north again and producing an anti-Quaker petition (which it was noted lacked signatures) from the west country.41Burton’s Diary, i. 156, 157, 167, 168.

Thereafter, Bampfylde missed no opportunities to resist appeals for clemency towards Naylor, even when they emanated from the lord protector himself.42Burton’s Diary, i. 157, 163, 164-5, 173, 218, 263, 273-4. He had shown an interest in the problem of vagrancy before the Naylor affair blew up, but his concern had always been conditioned by the lenity shown towards the Friends. In October 1656, John Disbrowe* had been required by the lord protector’s council to release Quakers from Exeter gaol.43CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 122. After the Naylor case, on 5 May 1657, Bampfylde used the Quaker threat to prompt the House to pass its bill on vagrants. He reported that in Devon ‘the Quakers grow numerous and dangerous, especially towards the sea coast’.44Burton’s Diary, ii. 112-3. Despite these ad hominem arguments, the text of the act as passed contained references to sturdy beggars and minstrels, but not to Quakers.45A. and O. ii. 1098-99. Back in Devon later that year, Bampfylde issued at least one warrant to arrest a leading Quaker, Humphry Smith, as a vagrant.46First Publishers of Truth ed. N. Penney (1907), 86.

During the Naylor affair, as well as standing up for the interests of urban corporations Bampfylde also championed the cause of those who had been excluded from the Parliament by the government. The issue had concerned him since the very beginning of the session, and he was listed among the MPs who voted for the return of the excluded Members on 23 September.47Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 166. On 20 December he expressed the hope that the lord protector’s council was now satisfied that those previously excluded were now worthy of a seat, citing a case he knew of a godly man who had been kept out.48Burton’s Diary, i. 194. He claimed to want the excluded Members rehabilitated in the interests of passing a tax bill, and interested himself in various petitions from individuals. When these came from royalists like Sir John Stawell* he was sympathetic, clashing again with Robinson, whose republican principles would have been offended by Bampfylde’s catholicity.49CJ vii. 442b, 452a, 457b, 472a, 472b; Burton’s Diary, i. 202. When a further ‘decimation’ tax was proposed for cavaliers, Bampfylde resisted it, arguing that it would endanger the principles enshrined in the Rump’s act of oblivion, which was still current.50Burton’s Diary, i. 237-8. The issue of decimation ‘bred some heat in the House’, and Bampfylde ‘called Sir Gilbert Pykeringe to the bar’ while in return another Presbyterian, Lambarde Godfrey, was called by Walter Strickland*.51Bodl. Carte 228, f. 81. The same desire to challenge the government was evident in his views on the excise bill brought before the House in January 1657, which contained clauses on a duty of 12d on every consumer. Bampfylde opposed ‘poll-money’ as an attack on the people’s liberties and prophesied that it would make Parliament ‘stink in the nostrils of the nation’.52Burton’s Diary, i. 292-3. He told against a clause specifying the cost of the government and the armed forces in what became the Humble Petition and Advice (13 Mar.).53CJ vii. 502b. This was one of five divisions in which Bampfylde acted as teller.54CJ vii. 504b, 516a, 541b, 550b. Two of the others were concerned with rewards for powerful military men, and on both occasions Bampfylde led the voting against lands in Ireland for Sir Hardress Waller* (1 Apr.) and Charles Fleetwood*, lord deputy in Ireland (8 June). Bampfylde voted against Fleetwood’s settlement (despite having dined with him earlier in the year), expressing his distaste at the sums involved: ‘I move that for your honour you would not give such large rewards to one another: it was the blame [fault] of the Long Parliament’.55CJ vii. 516a, 550b; Burton’s Diary, i. 352, ii. 197, 200. The vote to bring in a bill to reward Fleetwood passed by one vote, but Anthony Morgan*, who had moved the bill, was pessimistic about its chances and in a report to Henry Cromwell* blamed its defeat on a well-organised Presbyterian interest, which he characterised as ‘Bampfylde, Godfrey, [Thomas] Grove and their gang’.56Henry Cromwell Corresp. 281.

Bampfylde played a significant part in the grand committee on religion, and moved the bill for the better observation of the sabbath on 2 January 1657. He reported from that committee, battling with the managers of the Parliament’s business on its behalf and claiming to have waited for over a month to further its agenda.57Burton’s Diary, i. 295. This was a bill which catalogued in detail the various business and leisure activities prohibited on Sundays and made compulsory attendance at a religious service held in accordance with the defined if tolerant provisions of the Instrument of Government. It reversed the permissiveness of the Rump Parliament’s act of September 1650 which had prescribed only ‘some religious duty’.58A. and O. ii. 425, 1162-70. In the same spirit of strengthening public religious provision, Bampfylde supported a bill to introduce the catechizing of children and servants and was named to a committee drafting clauses for the Humble Petition and Advice on defining the essentials of reformed Protestantism that ministers would be expected to agree upon.59CJ vii. 504b, 507b; Burton’s Diary, i. 305. While he was as opposed to Roman Catholicism as any in the House, he disliked the clauses in the bill against popish recusancy which contained a long oath abjuring transubstantiation and other Catholic doctrines, comparing the administration of the oath to the Spanish Inquisition. He preferred the old laws on popish recusancy, based on observation of individuals by officers of the law. He shared the orthodox puritan’s dislike of oaths per se and was noted as never having taken an oath in his life until he took the oath of supremacy in 1660.60Burton’s Diary, ii. 149; Baxter Corresp. i. 428.

The act Bampfylde secured for Exeter, which invested the city’s livings in the corporation, exemplified his belief in a strongly Erastian but devolved state church, and he served on a committee to enable impropriations to be bought to provide for ministers (31 Mar.). Before this session of the Parliament ended in June he steered through another bill for city ministers’ maintenance, this time for Bristol, and reported on problems in developing the approved liturgy: a new print-run of the Bible had proved defective and the search was on for a new metrical version of the Psalms.61CJ vii. 515b, 543a, 554b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 107, 165. He was in favour of confirming the ordinance for approbation of public preachers (28 Apr.), but reminded the House that no form of words could prevent a future Parliament from revisiting it. This speech in favour of the primacy of Parliament provided a starting-point for lengthy reflections on limiting the powers of the chief magistrate.62Burton’s Diary, ii. 53-4, 56. He was sceptical about the new act for marriages, preferring the form in the Presbyterian-inspired Directory, ‘of equal if not better authority’.63Burton’s Diary, ii. 68, 73. He was content that laws passed by the Long Parliament should be confirmed but repudiated some of the contentious and notorious executive actions of the Rump, such as the trials and executions of peers and the minister, Christopher Love, during the emergency of Charles Stuart’s attempt at invasion in 1651.64Burton’s Diary, ii. 88-9. He refrained from commenting on the trial and execution of Charles I.

Like many Presbyterians, Bampfylde was consistently lukewarm at best towards the Humble Petition and Advice. On 23 April, one ‘no’ was recorded on a vote to approve the proceedings of a committee to wait on the lord protector. Speaker Sir Thomas Widdrington assumed a mistake, but Bampfylde moved that no reflection should be made on anyone voting no: in this case it was his own solitary negative. A few weeks later he was critical of the tax-raising proposals in the Humble Petition, contrarily lauding Parliaments and counselling against ‘the lusts of the supreme magistrate’.65Burton’s Diary, ii. 27 He tried unsuccessfully to subject the appointments of army officers to the protector’s council during the intervals between Parliaments, a move which he probably calculated would have extended parliamentary powers over the military by stealth; and when the Speaker drew attention to clauses in the Humble Petition in support of a ‘reformation of manners’, Bampfylde retorted that a bill on that topic had been ready months previously but had been pushed aside by other business.66Burton’s Diary, ii. 33-4, 35. On 25 May, when the lord protector was to meet the House to receive the Humble Petition, Bampfylde argued that all bills that were ready should be given to him, opposed by government managers who wanted the protector’s full attention for the new constitution. On 9 June, 38 bills were presented to Cromwell but Bampfylde sought a special word on the bill for the catechism. Thwarted, he opined that the protector ‘never did himself such an injury’.67Burton’s Diary, ii. 205-6. In the end, he was reconciled to the Humble Petition, and offered at least six proposals on what was for the Bampfylde the thorny matter of the oaths to be taken by lord protector and officials by its terms.68Burton’s Diary, ii. 281, 284-5, 287, 288.

On at least 16 of the committees to which Bampfylde was appointed, he was accompanied by Thomas Westlake, his fellow-burgess from Exeter, and in other respects he kept close to his Devonian colleagues. Edmund Fowell and Robert Shapcote served with him on the committee to reform the vagrancy laws (16 Oct. 1656), and he was able to activate Shapcote’s support in the divisions against Fleetwood’s financial settlement. Fowell sat with him on a small committee concerning the restriction of building in London.69CJ vii. 439b, 550b, 565a. The trio of Bampfylde, Fowell and Shapcote acted in concert to try to prevent the knights of Windsor from benefiting from revenues raised in Devon (28 Apr.).70Burton’s Diary, ii. 62. Bampfylde became a mouthpiece for John Maynard when the House heard the claims of Edmund Lister and his wife on an estate which Maynard considered devoted to charitable purposes in Exeter. The committee hearing the Listers’ arguments, formed on 22 December 1656 to include Bampfylde and Westlake, found against Maynard. On 6 June 1657, Bampfylde, supported by Fowell, spoke strongly against the committee, asserted that Maynard would never consent to an alteration in the terms of the disputed trust and hoped that the House would reject the committee report. This was in stark contrast to his stance during the Naylor affair when he had affected indignation at perceived challenges to a parliamentary committee. In a division, the committee report was accepted by a majority of 24 votes.71CJ vii. 472a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 182, 185, 187, 189.

Throughout this Parliament, Bampfylde freely offered advice to the Speaker, whether Widdrington welcomed it or not. There were the exchanges over how the Speaker should treat a prisoner brought to the bar (3 Dec.), the chairing of grand committees (4 Dec.), the punishment of Naylor (12 Dec) and the right of Members to vote against any motion (23 Apr. 1657). On 29 May, Bampfylde embarrassed the Speaker by commenting on his sub rosa discussion with the clerk, and announced on 8 June, after a fruitless wait for a minister to appear, that it was the first time ever that business began without prayers.72Burton’s Diary, i. 9, 12, 118; ii. 9-10, 149, 192. When the Speaker left the chair on 16 June, Bampfylde was one of three Members to be considered as a replacement, an indication of his standing in the House.73Burton’s Diary, ii. 254. It is surprising that one who had been so vocal and prominent in Parliament did not make any impact at all in the short session between 20 January and 4 February 1658. He may have stayed in Exeter to help oversee the implementation of the Exeter churches act. He donated £100 towards building the wall in the cathedral to separate the Presbyterian and Independent congregations, and at some point in 1658, ex officio as recorder, he supported the mayor of Exeter in bringing an indictment for riot against protesting churchwardens.74Devon RO, Exeter City Archives, Act Bk. x. f. 96; Bodl. Walker c.4, f. 276.

Bampfylde was returned again to Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament in 1659, and was named to two committees only, the first (5 Feb.) on the state of the church in the northern counties, a resumption of the critical approach to earlier republican legislation.75CJ vii. 600b. On 17 February he was appointed to an important committee on public finance, following a report from the treasury commissioners.76CJ vii. 605a. When taking his seat, Bampfylde had refused the oath, and in this he was joined not only by Presbyterians like Lambarde Godfrey, Edward Cooke and Sir George Boothe, but also by commonwealthsmen including Sir Henry Vane II and Edmund Ludlowe II. The refusal of MPs from different factions caused this grave breach of procedure to be delayed and then finally ‘winked at’ in early February.77Henry Cromwell Corresp. 451, 460. Thereafter, Bampfylde became active in Commons’ debates. On 18 and 19 February he criticised the veto of the lord protector on legislation and cavilled at the nature of the Other House and its relationship with the Commons, warning that ‘you cannot go one step till that be determined’.78Burton’s Diary, iii. 341-2, 368; Schilling thesis, 88-9.

Bampfylde also spoke robustly on 21 February against the war with Spain, which had damaged trading interests in the west country, but urged caution in engaging in any war with a Protestant country, in the Baltic or against the Dutch, citing the good of the Protestant interest: ‘Where is there one foot of Protestant ground that will be at peace? ... where shall then a Protestant find one foot of ground in the whole world to set his foot in quiet?’.79Burton’s Diary, iii. 402-3. Three days later he wanted the declaration of war to be a shared responsibility of single person and Parliament, but warned of the necessity of resolving constitutional difficulties: ‘Till you are come to your constitution, I see you are gravelled in every debate.’80Burton’s Diary, iii. 452. Bampfylde returned to the issue on 8 March, when the status of the Other House was debated, urging for ‘reconciliation’ on these problems, against the intransigence of the diehard republicans.81Burton’s Diary, iv. 76. Despite this, Bampfylde was not considered a neutral figure by contemporaries. Indeed, one MP listed him with John Bulkeley, Thomas Groves, John Swynfen and Lambarde Godfrey as the leaders of ‘such Presbyterians as … thought themselves they were bound not to prejudice the peers upon the account of the Covenant’.82Henry Cromwell Corresp. 473. Bampfylde’s scepticism about the Humble Petition was also informed by his legal background. On 10 March he intervened in the debate on whether the Scottish MPs should withdraw, and used the issue to question the status of the Humble Petition: ‘If the Petition and Advice be a law de facto and legare and have the effects of a law, whether one House can alter it?’83Schilling thesis, 201-2.

On 16 March, it was reported that Speaker Lislebone Long, brought to the chair to replace the sick Speaker Chaloner Chute, was himself ill. A number of candidates were proposed as the third Speaker of the session. Thomas Reynell* excused himself and proposed his fellow-Devonian, Bampfylde. Bampfylde was brought to the chair as temporary Speaker, making the usual show of resistance, by Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, suggesting that he retained a degree of respect among the commonwealthsmen.84CJ vii. 613b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 149. Bampfylde imposed his authority on a fractious and uncooperative House as best he could. On 18 March he called for speakers to avoid inflammatory language and the following day supported those offended by casual or gratuitous citation of scripture. The honeymoon period of his Speakership was soon over. On 21 March Bampfylde tried to improve on the wording of a question framed by the House, but Hesilrige protested that they had listened to him long enough and that the House had the right to challenge his pronouncements. No less eminent a Cromwellian government figure than Secretary John Thurloe joined Hesilrige in questioning Bampfylde’s sense of the House. Nothing abashed, however, Bampfylde ‘took down’ (silenced) three speakers and stuck to his guns. A few days later, the severity of his demeanour was noted as he commented on virtually every intervention.85Burton’s Diary, iv. 174, 193, 201, 204-5, 208, 212-3, 216, 233, 234. Some thought he was like a notably severe schoolmaster, and was getting above himself, taking ‘a little too much on him, grandly’.86Burton’s Diary, iv. 243. By 25 March, some hoped that Speaker Chute would soon be back.87Burton’s Diary, iv. 254. Only an out-of touch royalist could have concluded that Bampfylde was ‘a well-wisher to the commonwealth’s men or Independents, they are both one and the same’.88Bodl. Clarendon 60, f. 226.

Hesilrige, who had brought Bampfylde to the chair, proved the greatest trial to the Speaker. Even as unexceptionable a ruling as that on 1 April, that every speaker should stick to the question, was challenged by him, and on 5 April Hesilrige explicitly called for Chute to be brought back. He went further, accusing Bampfylde of having attended the lord protector’s ‘court’; he should not thus have compromised his office, continued Hesilrige, because the Speaker was ‘the greatest man in England’.89Burton’s Diary, iv. 319, 346-8. His use of this phrase provoked further controversy among those who asserted all to be equal in the House. These exchanges were strongly parti pris, commonwealthmen like Hesilrige, Sir Henry Vane II and Henry Neville lining up against leading Presbyterians like Lambarde Godfrey, Sir Walter Erle and Robert Beake. In the end, collective common sense prevailed and Bampfylde did not have to justify himself further. It was Erle who brought Bampfylde to the chair when the news came on 15 April that Chute had died. Bampfylde, as a man learned ‘especially in the preservation of the ancient orders’ of the House, was now confirmed as Speaker but a week later the Parliament was dissolved.90CJ vii. 640a.

Bampfylde returned to Devon and attended every meeting of the county quarter sessions for the remainder of the year and into 1660.91Devon RO, quarter sessions order bk. 1/9, 1652-61. It is clear that he continued to enjoy the confidence of Exeter city council.92Devon RO, Exeter City Archives, Act Bk. x f. 128. As recorder, he was able to exercise a great deal of authority in the city, which towards the end of 1659 with the second revival of the Rump Parliament began to descend into disorder. On 14 January 1660 he set off for London to present the Speaker with The Declaration of the Gentry of the County of Devon, which complained of the ‘general defect of trade’ in Exeter, spreading to the county. The petitioners saw the continuation of the commonwealth as offering no full redress of grievances, which could only be cleared up by the recall of Members secluded in December 1648 and the filling up of vacant seats.93A Declaration of the Gentry of the County of Devon (1660); A Letter from Exeter (1660, 669.f.22.) Bampfylde sat again for Exeter in the Convention, having been chosen both for the city and for Tiverton. Characteristically active in committee, he championed the Presbyterian interest in seeking to confirm all ministers in livings, even if sequestered ones, and urged clemency for Sir Henry Vane II* and John Lambert*. He continued to pursue the interests dear to his heart in the 1656 Parliament: sabbath observance, a bill against drunkenness and another against profanity.94HP Commons 1660-90.

Bampfylde lost his recordership in October 1660, during the recess of Parliament, and bestowed the profits of his office on the poor, on the grounds that his title to the office had now been made void.95Baxter Corresp. i. 428. In March 1660, he had written to Richard Baxter, at that time a stranger to him, canvassing his opinion on whether he would support the idea of a declaration that ‘all laws contrary to the scriptures be void’. The pair subsequently became friends in adversity.96Baxter Corresp. i. 428. Bampfylde’s idea was that the supremacy of scripture was a principle that would enable a delineation of the bounds between church and state; Baxter sent back a draft of what might be incorporated into legislation.97Baxter Corresp. i. 431. Bampfylde’s reply of 14 April was encouraging; even if nothing was enacted immediately, ‘good motions in Parliament never totally die, the next meeting usually taking up what was left undone in the former’.98Baxter Corresp. i. 433. Bampfylde did not stand for Parliament in the 1661 election, and was removed from the commission of the peace in 1665. He began to depart from religious orthodoxy, it being thought by the Quakers, of all people, that this ‘trusty and well-beloved counsellor at law to the Presbyterian party’ had become one of their sect.99Extracts from State Pprs. rel. to Friends ed. N. Penney (1913), 192-3. In fact, Bampfylde by 1670 had become a believer in the Saturday sabbath, clashed with Baxter on the topic, and in his last years became a controversialist, arguing his case in print.100Baxter Corresp. ii. 101, 104-50; T. Bampfylde, An Enquiry (London 1692); idem, A Reply to Doctor Wallis (1693); J. Wallis, A Defense of the Christian Sabbath (Oxford, 1692). Bampfylde never married, died on 8 October 1693 and was buried at St Stephen’s, Exeter.101Vivian, Vis. Devon, 40.