LAWSON, Sir Wilfrid (c.1610-88), of Isel, Cumb.

Lawson was descended from a venerable Yorkshire family that had settled in County Durham by Tudor times.41Nicolson, Burn, Westmld. and Cumb. ii. 95; Vis. Yorks. (Harl. Soc. xvi), 184; Vis. Cumb. and Westmld. ed. Foster, 77. Lawson’s branch of the family became established in Cumberland after his great uncle, Sir Wilfred Lawson†, had acquired Isel manor by marriage in the Elizabethan period.42Nicolson, Burn, Westmld. and Cumb. ii. 95. Sir Wilfred was a leading figure in Cumberland affairs, representing the county in the Parliaments of 1593, 1604 and 1614 and serving as ‘grand steward’ of the earl of Northumberland’s honor of Cockermouth, which adjoined Isel.43Cumb. RO (Whitehaven), DLEC/169/1591-1619; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 162; A Cursory Relation of All the Antiquities and Familyes in Cumberland ed. R. S. Ferguson (Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. tract ser. iv), 14; HP Commons 1558-1603. When Sir Wilfred died childless in 1632, his estate passed to his nephew William, the father of Wilfrid Lawson junior, the future MP.44C142/486/106; Cumb. RO (Carlisle), DLAW/3/5/10; Nicolson, Burn, Westmld. and Cumb. ii. 96. Lawson junior held no county office before the 1640s, although his father served as sheriff for Cumberland in the mid-1630s and was apparently diligent in collecting Ship Money.45M.D. Gordon, ‘The collection of ship-money in the reign of Charles I’, TRHS, ser. 3, iv. 156.

Lawson’s knighthood in February 1641 was probably a political bribe by the king, and it may have had the desired effect, for Lawson was apparently regarded as well-affected to the king’s cause by mid-1642. In May, he was added to the Cumberland bench, and the following month he was named as a commissioner of array for the county.46C231/5, p. 524; Northants. RO, FH133. Although by no means the most zealous of the king’s adherents in Cumberland, he did serve as a lieutenant-colonel under the lukewarm royalist Sir Patricius Curwen* and was apparently involved in raising money in the county to sustain the royalist war effort.47J. Musgrave, Yet Another Word to the Wise (1646), 18-20 (E.355.25); Musgrave, A Cry of Bloud of an Innocent Abel Against Two Bloudy Cains (1655), 16 (E.731.8); P.R. Newman, Royalist Officers in England and Wales (New York, 1981), 225.

Why Lawson threw in his lot with the king is not clear. His father was thought to have been sympathetic to Parliament, and evidence from Lawson’s later career suggests that he favoured the settling of a godly, learned ministry.48A. and O i. 111, 643, 962, 1079, 1142, 1233; CJ vii. 600b; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 415; Nightingale, Ejected of Cumb. and Westmld. 724-5; G.F.T. Jones, ‘The composition and leadership of the Presbyterian party in the Convention’, EHR lxxix. 316, 335, 353. Moreover, in the spring of 1643 he was implicated in an abortive rising to seize Carlisle for Parliament, for which he was promptly removed from the Cumberland bench.49Mercurius Aulicus no. 30 (23-9 July 1643), 405 (E.64.11); Docquets of Letters Patent ed. Black, 34; I. Tullie, Siege of Carlisle ed. S. Jefferson (Whitehaven, 1988), 1. However, his involvement in this insurrection may have been prompted less by parliamentarian zeal than by anger at an order from William Cavendish, 1st earl of Newcastle – the commander of the royalist army in the north – for sequestering the Cumberland estates of Lawson’s brother-in-law Richard Barwis* and the parliamentarian grandee Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland.50C. B. Phillips, ‘County cttees. and local government in Cumb. and Westmld. 1642-60’, NH v. 38. Lawson’s family had been tenants and estate servants of the Percys for several generations, while Lawson himself seems to have been on close terms with Barwis.51Alnwick, P.I.3(n): earl of Northumberland to ?John Melton*, 20 Apr. 1623; same to Robert Stapleton, 31 Dec. 1623, 15 May 1624; same to Sir W. Lawson, c.1629; same to W. Lawson, c.1632; O.VI.126: ‘W. Lawson’ to earl of Northumberland, 29 Aug. 1629; X.II.3, box 10, g (Cumb. estate pprs. 1640-9); h (Cumb. estate pprs. 1650-9); Phillips, ‘County cttees.’, 38. The radical Cumberland lawyer John Musgrave dismissed Lawson’s defection to Parliament as merely a royalist ploy, and it is certainly clear that Lawson was quickly received back into favour by the king’s party, being re-appointed to the Cumberland bench in October 1643 and re-admitted to the confidence of the county’s leading royalist, Sir Philip Musgrave*, by December.52C231/3, p. 42; Cumb. RO (Carlisle), DMUS/5/5/1/18; Docquets of Letters Patent ed. Black, 85; J. Musgrave, A True and Exact Relation (1650), 32 (E.619.10). Moreover, Lawson continued to sign warrants as a commissioner of array until at least the spring of 1644.53Musgrave, Yet another word to the Wise, 18-20.

The Scottish invasion of Cumberland and Westmorland in September 1644 persuaded Lawson to switch sides again, whereupon he was appointed commander-in-chief of the parliamentarian forces in the two counties and commissioned as a colonel of horse and foot in the northern army under the 2nd Baron Fairfax (Sir Ferdinando Fairfax*).54Cumb. RO (Carlisle), DLAW/4/1/8; DLAW/7/1/6. Lawson probably had Barwis to thank for these appointments. It was Barwis who was instrumental in bringing in the Scots and who then recommended Lawson and his father to Parliament as magistrates for Cumberland.55Supra, ‘Richard Barwis’; HMC Portland, i. 186.

Barwis’s patronage of Lawson became a major bone of contention in the Scots’ long-running quarrel with the two men (who were effectively the leaders of the Cumberland and Westmorland county committees) from the autumn of 1644 over who had overall military command in the region, particularly in relation to the siege of Carlisle.56SP16/507, f. 50; Bodl. Nalson IV, f. 35; CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 427-8, 431-2, 542-3, 552, 558-9, 596, 605, 614; Corresp. of the Scots Commrs. ed. H.W. Meikle (Edinburgh, 1917), 47, 100, 107. In June 1645, the Scots commissioners submitted a lengthy paper to Parliament, charging Lawson and Barwis with protecting and rewarding delinquents, colluding with the enemy and of starving the Scottish forces of supplies.57Bodl. Nalson XIX, ff. 265-7; LJ vii. 452a, 453b-455a, 465a. They were particularly scathing in their criticism of Lawson, describing him as a ‘known malignant’ and complaining that although he had been ‘actually in rebellion under the earl of Newcastle ... yet, notwithstanding, [he] is now entrusted with the command in chief of the Parliament’s forces’ in Cumberland and Westmorland. They also alleged that he was heavily implicated in a recent insurrection in the two counties against the Scottish forces and that he was working hand in glove with the Carlisle and Border royalists.58LJ vii. 453b-455a.

The Scots’ accusations against Lawson were embellished by John Musgrave, who, in a series of tracts, denounced Lawson, Barwis and their circle as traitors to Parliament, upholders of the Book of Common Prayer and persecutors of the region’s separatists.59J. Musgrave, A Word to the Wise (1646, E.318.5); Musgrave, Another Word to the Wise (1646, E.323.6); Musgrave, Yet Another Word to the Wise; Musgrave, A Fourth Word to the Wise (1647, E.391.9); Musgrave, A True and Exact Relation, 32-6. There is certainly evidence that the Barwis-Lawson faction was willing to collaborate with local royalists if it helped to rid the two counties of the ‘heavy burden’ of the Scottish forces. It is also clear that the parliamentary Independents were prepared to overlook the fact that Lawson and some of his colleagues had been in arms against Parliament and were Prayer-book Protestants at best, so long as they acted as a bulwark against Scottish encroachment in the region, particularly in the wake of the Scots’ occupation of Carlisle in mid-1645. In fact, Lawson, Barwis and their circle were protected at Westminster by a powerful group of Independents that included Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, Sir William Armyne and Sir Arthur Hesilrige.60Supra, ‘Sir William Armyne’; ‘Sir Arthur Hesilrige’; D. Scott, ‘The Barwis affair’, EHR cxv. 843-63. Edward Bowles, a godly minister closely connected to the Fairfaxes, conceded that Lawson

cannot be justified throughout; he lived in an ill air and was infected with it. But [he] never stirred out of the county to doe any prejudice to the Parliament but suffered imprisonment for his not ready compliance with the commissioners of array. When it was to any purpose for him to appear on the behalf of the Parliament, he raised a regiment of horse and another of foot for the service of the Parliament, which he applied himself to with all diligence and can produce testimonies of his care and fidelity ... and was of very good reputation with the Scots till the time of the surrender [of Carlisle] drew near, and then his appearing for an English garrison ... caused all this bitterness.61[E. Bowles], Manifest Truth (1646), 59-60 (E.343.1).

With the Independents in the ascendant at Westminster by late 1645, Parliament pointedly ignored the Scots’ accusations against Lawson and Barwis – indeed, it appointed them both deputy lieutenants for Cumberland.62CJ iv. 368a. By way of returning the favour, Lawson, as sheriff of Cumberland, was apparently instrumental in securing the return of Armyne’s son as a knight of the shire for the county in 1646.63Supra, ‘Sir William Armyne’; Musgrave, A Fourth Word to the Wise, 8. When the Scots quit Carlisle and marched home early in 1647, Lawson and his fellow Cumberland committeemen wrote to the Commons concerning the ‘deplorable’ state of the city and lamenting ‘our brethren’s [i.e. the Scots’] inexpressible, long and free abode’ in the region.64Bodl. Tanner 59, f. 752.

Lawson’s royalist past caught up with again by early 1648, when he was summoned to appear before the Committee for Indemnity* ‘to answer [for] his delinquency’. However, his ‘friends’ in the Commons secured an order in mid-March that the committee forbear proceeding ‘upon the information exhibited’ against him and some of his colleagues in Cumberland until further notice.65CJ v. 497b; Musgrave, A True and Exact Relation, 34. Writing to Hesilrige from York a month later, the commander of Parliament’s Northern Brigade, Major-general John Lambert*, reported that he had received a letter from some of the well-affected in Cumberland (evidently associates of Musgrave) that Lawson had garrisoned St Herbert’s Island in the county and that both he and his second in command were ‘suspected to affect the king’s party’. Lambert himself was in no doubt that both men were ‘enemies to the late proceedings of Parliament’ – probably a reference to the vote of no addresses – and advised that the garrison either be reduced or put under the command of a ‘faithful’ officer.66Leics. RO, DG21/275/c; Musgrave, A True and Exact Relation, 34. On 25 April, the Commons ordered the Committee for Indemnity to proceed in investigating ‘the informations given in against Sir Wilfrid Lawson’.67CJ v. 544b; SP24/2, p. 59. But with the threat of a new Scottish invasion looming, the House decided on 3 May to refer consideration of the case to the Derby House Committee*, with the advice that ‘as matters now stand’ it would be best if Lawson, Barwis and their colleagues be sent northwards to secure Cumberland for Parliament. The Derby House Committee agreed, whereupon House duly acquitted Lawson of ‘anything laid to his charge’ and declared him ‘a fit person to be employed in the service of the Parliament’.68CJ v. 550b, 560b; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 68; Fairfax Corresp. ed. Bell, ii. 28.

But although Lawson was ordered to repair into Cumberland in May 1648, he ‘lay a long time in London privately’ until after the battle of Preston in August – or so Musgrave later alleged.69Musgrave, A True and Exact Relation, 34. Moreover, one of the London newsbook implied in September that Lawson had raised troops – ‘a feeble company’ – against Parliament but would now be ‘glad of quarter upon mercy, if he could meet with a captain to give it him’.70Perfect Diurnall no. 268 (11-18 Sept. 1648), 2157 (E.526.6). Unabashed by this and similar allegations, Lawson claimed losses in Parliament’s service of £2,000 and petitioned the state on two occasions in the 1650s (apparently without success) for arrears of army pay in excess of £5,000.71Cumb. RO (Carlisle), DLAW/7/1/3-4. His finances were evidently in a healthy state, however, for in March 1652 he laid out £5,525 for the purchase of 126 fee farm rents formerly belonging to the crown.72SP28/288, f. 55.

Lawson continued to be named to local parliamentary commissions under the Rump, and in November 1653 the Nominated Parliament appointed him sheriff of Cumberland – an office he retained until 1657.73CJ vii. 348a. Using his authority as sheriff he became the county’s principal persecutor of the Quakers and of George Fox in particular.74G. Benson, The Cry of the Oppressed from under Their Oppressions (1656), 11-12, 31, 32-3 (E.893.4); Jnl. of George Fox, i. 116, 117, 119, 125. Had it not been for this second term as sheriff, Lawson might well have secured election for Cumberland in the first and second protectoral Parliaments, where he would probably have aligned with the court party. Certainly at regional level he worked closely during the mid-1650s with the Cromwellian grandee, Deputy Major-general Charles Howard*, with whom he also socialised.75SP28/249, unfol.; Naworth Estate and Household Accts. 1648-60 ed. C.R. Huddleston (Surt. Soc. clxviii), 100; Musgrave, A True and Exact Relation, 35-6.

In the elections to Richard Cromwell’s Parliament of 1659, Lawson was returned as a knight of the shire for Cumberland along with his civil-war ally William Brisco.76CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 247. Lawson was named to eight committees in this Parliament, including those for supplying Wales and the northern counties with a godly ministry and for the enfranchisement of County Durham.77CJ vii. 594b, 600b, 622b, 623a, 627b, 642a. His only recorded intervention on the floor of the House came on 14 February, when – according to the parliamentary diarist Thomas Burton – he was a minority teller for the court party in a series of votes on the bill to recognise Richard Cromwell as protector.78Burton’s Diary, iii. 284; CJ vii. 603b. This appointment, and his removal from the Cumberland militia commission by the restored Rump that July, re-inforce the impression that Lawson was a supporter of the protectorate.79CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 24. He was also, it seems, suspected of involvement in Sir George Boothe’s* royalist-Presbyterian rebellion in August, for the following month it was reported that he and Charles Howard had been imprisoned.80CCSP iv. 376.

As an enemy of the Rump and the sects, Lawson almost certainly welcomed the Restoration, and by April 1660, at the latest, he was in contact with members of the exiled royal court.81CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 415. Returned with Howard for Cumberland to the 1660 Convention, he was one of Lord Wharton’s principal collaborators in the Presbyterian interest at Westminster, although he seems to have done little to advance the cause of a godly church settlement.82HP Commons 1660-90; G. F. T. Jones, ‘The composition and leadership of the Presbyterian party in the Convention’, EHR lxxix. 316, 335. With the crown anxious to win the support of leading Presbyterians, he retained his place on the Cumberland bench and was commissioned a deputy lieutenant and militia captain by Howard after the latter’s appointment as lord lieutenant of Cumberland and Westmorland in October 1660.83Cumb. RO (Carlisle), DLAW/7/8; CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 313. The grant of a royal pardon to Lawson in December was little more than a formality.84Cumb. RO (Carlisle), DLAW/7/1/12.

In the elections to the Cavalier Parliament in 1661, Lawson was returned for Cockermouth, where his family enjoyed a strong proprietorial interest.85HP Common, 1660-90, ‘Cockermouth’. Although listed by Wharton as a possible ally, Lawson had gravitated towards the court party by the early 1670s and was involved in attempts to suppress Cockermouth’s Congregationalist church.86Browning, Danby, iii. 61, 81, 102; HP Commons 1660-90; The Cockermouth Congregational Church Bk. (1651-c.1765) ed. R.B. Wordsworth (Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. rec. ser. xxi), 27; Jones, ‘Presbyterian party in the Convention’, 353. Nevertheless, the whig leader the earl of Shaftesbury (Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper*) marked him as ‘worthy’ in 1677.87HP Commons 1660-90. In the north, Lawson seems to have been on good terms with ex-royalists – notably, Sir Patricius Curwen* – while marrying his heir to a daughter of the godly Yorkshire civil-war parliamentarian Sir William Strickland*.88Cumb. RO (Carlisle), DLAW/1/213/1; DLAW/3/1/19-20; DLAW/6/6/1; HMC Le Fleming, 36. The fact that Lawson remained a magistrate and deputy lieutenant after 1679 suggests that he did not favour Exclusion. Similarly, his answers to the king’s questions in 1688 and his subsequent award of a baronetcy indicate that he was broadly sympathetic to James II’s religious policy.89Penal Laws and Test Act ed. Duckett, i. 29, 43-4, 435; HMC Le Fleming, 212; CB.

Lawson died on 13 December 1688 and was buried at Isel four days later.90Isel par. reg.; Nicolson, Burn, Westmld. and Cumb. ii. 96. In his will, he made bequests totalling about £900; his household goods were valued at £1,334.91Borthwick, Wills in York Registry, Prerogative wills, May 1689. His second son, Wilfrid*, sat for Cockermouth in 1659 and his grandson, also Sir Wilfrid†, was returned for the same borough as a tory in 1690.92HP Commons 1690-1715.