BARNARDISTON, Sir Nathaniel (c.1588-1653), of Kedington, Suff.

Later in the seventeenth century, Sir Richard Gipps wrote of the Barnardistons that ‘this family is so ancient that some have thought it older than the Conqueror, tho’ others more probably conjecture, it came into England with him’.31F. Haslewood, ‘The ancient families of Suff.’, Procs. Suff. Inst. Arch. viii. 131. Moreover, Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston was said to have been the 23rd knight in the family.32Clark, Lives, pt. ii, 106. Even if these statements were not entirely accurate, the Barnardistons’ roots were indeed ancient. Sir Nathaniel’s cousin, 1st Baron Maynard (Sir William Maynard†), described them without exaggeration as one of ‘the best families in Suffolk’.33CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 110. They had been lords of the manor of Barnardiston in the south-west corner of the county since at least the reign of Richard I. Peter de Barnardiston†, was knight of the shire for Suffolk in seven Parliaments between 1298 and 1321, while Sir Thomas de Barnardiston†, who sat for Lincolnshire in 1357, acquired the estate at Kedington (the parish adjacent to Barnardiston) which became the family seat.34Copinger, Manors of Suff. v. 191, 256. The seventeenth-century MPs of this name were his direct descendants.35Vis. Essex, 545-7; Copinger, Manor of Suff. v. 256-9.

There was no shortage of people who would mourn the death of Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston in 1653. The funeral sermon and the memorial volume of verse compiled by the rector of Kedington, Samuel Fairclough, declared that Suffolk had lost its most distinguished model of Protestant piety.36S. Faireclough, , or the Saints Worthinesse (1653); Suffolks Tears (1653). It was within this tradition that several years later the Suffolk antiquary Matthias Candler commented that Barnardiston had been held ‘in high esteem by the most religious in his country by whose endeavours he was oftimes chosen knight for the shire’.37Soc. Antiq. MS 667, p. 192. Thirty years later the nonconformist biographer Samuel Clark adapted Fairclough’s sermon to create a short biography of Barnardiston for the edification of a later generation.38Clark, Lives, pt. ii, 105-16. The limitations of these works are obvious enough. Fairclough’s preface warning against the treatment of Barnardiston’s funerary effigy as the icon of a saint itself borders on the hagiographic.39Suffolks Tears, sig. [A1]. However, the works remain the major sources for Barnardiston’s life and their depiction of an ideal godly magistrate is not entirely misleading. He probably aspired to that ideal throughout his life and provided the Suffolk parliamentarians with the moral leadership they needed during the 1640s.

Godly roots

Barnardiston took pride in having been born in the year of the Armada and each year made a point each year of marking the accession of Queen Elizabeth and the Gunpowder Plot. Awareness of Protestant providence derived from his upbringing. As a refugee from the regime of Mary Tudor, his grandfather, Sir Thomas Barnardiston, had studied under John Calvin at Geneva. Nathaniel’s father, Sir Thomas junior, always, in his son’s eyes, ‘a very godly man’, was equally renowned for his piety.40Clark, Lives, pt. ii, 106, 109, 113. By his own conversion, which occurred while he was still at school, the young Nathaniel adhered to the faith in which he had been raised and on succeeding his grandfather in 1619, he aspired to maintain the family’s reputation for godliness.41Faireclough, Saints Worthinesse, 13-14.

The Barnardistons held the right of presentation to three Suffolk livings Kedington, Barnardiston and Great Wratling and took great care to select the best available clerics.42IND17002, ff. 227v, 228v; Al. Cant. Sir Nathaniel, who was later praised for not using these benefices for personal gain, appointed Samuel Fairclough as rector of Barnardiston in June 1623 and travelled there each Sunday to hear him preach, since Abraham Gibson, the distinguished incumbent of Kedington, fell short of his expectations.43Suffolks Tears, 14-15; IND17002, f. 227; Clark, Lives, pt. i, 153-92; ‘Samuel Fairclough’, Oxford DNB; Calamy Revised, 188. At the earliest opportunity (Feb. 1630), Barnardiston transferred Fairclough to the much more profitable living at Kedington, overcoming the latter’s sense of loyalty to his existing parishioners by assembling them and ordering them to accept his decision. Both in 1623 and 1630 Barnardiston enabled Fairclough to avoid taking the oath of canonical obedience or the three most awkward of the Thirty-Nine Articles which would usually have been required on induction.44IND17002, f. 227v; Clark, Lives, pt. i, 163. The pair then organised a regular programme of catechising at Kedington and sought to prevent the ‘visibly profane’ or the ‘openly wicked’ from receiving communion.45Clark, Lives, pt. i, 169, pt. ii, 113. Barnardiston himself spent at least a fortnight in spiritual preparation before receiving the sacrament.46Faireclough, Saints Worthinesse, 16. His encouragement helped Fairclough’s lectureship at Sudbury become renowned for the quality of its preaching, while when sheriff of Suffolk in 1623 he compelled all his men to attend weekly ministerial lectures.47Clark, Lives, pt. ii, 108. Barnardiston also had a close association, nurtured through their mutual friend Sir William Spring† , with the celebrated Richard Sibbes, a native of Suffolk who became preacher of Gray’s Inn and master of St Catherine’s College, Cambridge. Barnardiston sent his eldest son, Thomas, to St Catherine’s in 1633. Sibbes repaid the compliment in 1635 by appointing Barnardiston as an overseer of his will.48M. Devers, ‘Richard Sibbes’ (Univ. Camb. Ph.D. thesis, 1993), 59-60; PROB11/168/423; The Works of Richard Sibbes ed. A.B. Grosart (Edinburgh, 1862-4), i. p. cxxx.

Several times during the 1620s Barnardiston’s scruples led him into trouble. In late 1625 he was ‘not satisfied … in his conscience’ with the crown’s demand by privy seal for a ‘loan’ of £20 and so refused to co-operate.49CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 178. This matter was still unresolved in January 1626 when he stood for re-election at Sudbury. Here he had the backing of Sir Robert Crane*, who possessed the strongest electoral interest in the borough and who had been elected for a county seat through the efforts of Barnardiston and their mutual friend John Winthrop (the future governor of Massachusetts).50Winthrop Pprs. i. 325. Barnardiston was soon pardoned for his disobediance in 1625, but he then declined to contribute to the Forced Loan later in 1626. This time he was imprisoned in the Gatehouse at Whitehall and then sent him into internal exile on his estates in Lincolnshire for five months.51APC 1626, pp. 426-7; 1627, pp. 395-6, 430; 1627-8, p. 217; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 66; SP16/89, f. 2; Faireclough, Saints Worthinesse, 18. He was also removed from his place as a Suffolk deputy lieutenant. His release in January 1628 led Winthrop to predict that Barnardiston and Sir William Spring would be chosen as the knights of the shire for Suffolk in the forthcoming Parliament.52Winthrop Pprs. ii. 68-9. The following month Barnardiston was elected unopposed for the senior county seat and he was soon joined by Spring, after the other successful candidate, another leading critic of the Forced Loan, chose to sit elsewhere. Yet Barnardiston played no great part in any of the three Parliaments in which he sat during the latter half of the 1620s.53HP Commons 1604-1629.

Barnardiston’s and Spring’s experience of the breakdown and dissolution of the 1628 Parliament may well have influenced Winthrop’s emigration to Massachusetts in March 1630.54Winthrop Pprs. ii. 205. Barnardiston wished well of Winthrop’s efforts to found his ‘city on a hill’ and invested some of his own money in the stock of the Massachusetts Bay Company.55Winthrop Pprs. ii. 230, 306. The two kept in touch and in 1640 Barnardiston confessed to Winthrop that ‘I often conceive in my sleep that I am with you’.56Winthrop Pprs. iii. 245, 250, 296, 384-5; iv. 217-18. Barnardiston, more than most of the godly back in England, probably had an idealised image of life in the New World against which he then judged the Old World increasingly wanting. Only later would he somewhat modify this view. The religious policies pursued by the king and Archbishop William Laud during the 1630s encouraged Barnardiston to look westwards, but he resisted the temptation to follow Winthrop to America. Indeed, he avoided open confrontation with the ecclesiastical authorities, although the government’s suspicion was aroused by the charitable bequest left by his stepmother to Stephen Marshall, for it was used to support the sort of preachers of whom the king and Laud disapproved.57CSP Dom. 1635, p. 500; 1636-7, p. 545.

Short Parliament

The summoning of Parliament in spring 1640 allowed Barnardiston to resume his position as knight of the shire for Suffolk. The news that Barnardiston and his nephew Sir Philip Parker* were to stand for the county seats was welcomed by one Londoner, John Johnson, who told the sheriff of Suffolk, Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, that he had heard they were ‘two worthy and godly men’.58Harl. 384, f. 69. Barnardiston and Parker were returned unopposed at the county election on 9 March. Barnardiston told Winthrop that his election was a ‘trial’ sent by God to test his desire to serve Him in the wake of his recent recovery from serious illness and it is clear he was acutely aware of how important this Parliament would be.59Winthrop Pprs. iv. 217-18. He felt that

I have nothing to support me in this great business, being conscious to my self of my most unfitness every way, but the allsufficiency of Him that called me can enable me, who delighteth to manifest His power by contemptible and weak means. His covenant and call is the only supporter of my faith herein. Help, I beseech you, sir, with all the might and force you can make, this great work; which, if it succeed not well, is like to prove exceeding[ly] perilous and dangerous to this church and kingdom.60Winthrop Pprs. iv. 218.

He was more than usually mindful of Winthrop’s absence, for ‘now we see and feel how much we are weakened by the loss of those that are gone from us, who should have stood in the gap, and have wrought and wrestled mightily in this great business’.61Winthrop Pprs. iv. 218. Barnardiston lent his support to the calls for reform when he presented the petition detailing the grievances of his county to the Commons on 17 April.62Aston’s Diary, 11; Procs. 1640. 157; CJ ii. 5b. One immediate concern was that Catholics had managed to infiltrate the Commons, which was why Barnardiston and five of his colleagues were asked on 25 April to check if any MPs had failed to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance.63CJ ii. 12b.

Long Parliament and radical reform, 1640-2

In contrast to the spring, the autumn elections for the Suffolk county seats witnessed an especially nasty contest. This time Barnardiston and Parker faced an opponent in Henry North*, whose supporters, led by his father, Sir Roger*, used almost every trick to gain the advantage. D’Ewes as sheriff only just managed to prevent the poll degenerating into complete chaos. In the end, the votes polled by Parker (2,293) and Barnardiston (2,186) were far ahead of those mustered by North (1,422).64T. Carlyle, ‘An election to the Long Parliament’, Critical and Misc. Essays (1888), vii. 55-78; Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v. Barnardiston then helped D’Ewes get elected at Sudbury and offered advice to this novice MP on whether his absence would be noticed during the opening weeks of the session; Barnardiston suggested that it would not.65Harl. 384, ff. 65, 66.

Barnardiston saw this Parliament as an opportunity for radical reform. He told D’Ewes he hoped ‘we shall not now lop the branches, but stub up the roots of all our mischiefs’.66Harl. 384, f. 66. Unsurprisingly, Sir Nathaniel supported much of the legislation on religious grievances passed during the first two years of the Parliament: the few committees to which he was named almost all concerned this.67CJ ii. 44a, 45b, 60b, 75a, 126b, 128b, 136b, 156a, 276a. He also took the Protestation in May 1641.68CJ ii. 133b. Probably echoing Barnardiston’s own views, in the sermon he arranged for Fairclough to preach before the Commons on 4 April 1641, the latter attributed the nation’s troubles to those who adopted practices which had been condemned by God – a clear encouragement to those wishing to undo the Laudian innovations.69S. Fairecloth, The Troublers Troubled (1641, E.167.11). By the beginning of 1642 the Barnardistons were again using petitions to impress the Commons. Sir Nathaniel got the delegation from Suffolk, headed by his son, Sir Thomas*, admitted to the House on 31 January to present their demands for religious reform, and he no doubt agreed with Sir Thomas’s call for the removal of the bishops and the Catholic peers from the House of Lords.70PJ i. 227-8, 230-1. Another Suffolk petition, collected at about the same time, from the clothiers of the county asking for assistance through the slump in trade may also have had his support. While on 3 February he arranged for some fellow Suffolk MPs to write to various towns discouraging them from travelling to London in large numbers, the following week he arranged for them to present the petition to the Commons. The appeal against travelling to London evidently failed, as, according D’Ewes, 1,000 men on horses had come with it.71PJ i. 266, 331. The plight of the Protestants in Ireland moved Barnardiston in April and June 1642 to subscribe a total of £700 towards the Adventurers’ scheme for the suppression of the Irish rebellion, and in 1643-4 he put in several appearances at the Committee for Irish Affairs.72HMC 6th Rep. 59; PROB11/232/242; SP16/539/127, f. 29v; Add. 4771, ff. 24, 26v, 53, 54v; CSP Ire. 1642-59, p. 227.

The Suffolk war effort, 1642-5

As civil war loomed, Barnardiston had little hesitation in siding with Parliament against the king. He began by lending Parliament £500 and later promised its forces the use of two of his horses.73PJ iii. 468. In July 1642 he saw to it that the Commons heard complaints that the rector of Hartest and Boxted (parishes only a few miles from Kedington) had read out the king’s declaration, with the result that the offending minister was summoned to answer the allegations.74PJ iii. 245-6, 248; CJ ii. 684a. Before long Barnardiston was at the vanguard of moves to secure his county for Parliament. On 1 September he wrote to the sheriff of Suffolk, Sir William Castleton, advising that he ignore the king’s commission of array.75Bodl. Tanner 63, f. 146. It is likely that the following day Barnardiston was instrumental in getting the Commons to appoint 18 deputy lieutenants of its own as a pre-emptive move to stop the king raising troops within Suffolk, since he then carried the list up to the House of Lords for the peers’ approval.76CJ ii. 749b; LJ v. 337b-338a. The decision to appoint commissioners to receive loans, in accordance with the order which Barnardiston reported to the Commons on 7 September, was a major step towards full-scale war with the king.77CJ ii. 756b. News of unrest in Suffolk then persuaded Barnardiston that he should return home. The Commons approved his absence, as his presence in Suffolk gave him the chance to put Parliament’s case to the local gentry when they met at Stowmarket on 14 September.78CJ ii. 760b; PJ iii. 345-6.

Barnardiston was the most important supporter of Parliament in a predominantly parliamentarian county. Although only a very infrequent attender at the standing committee which governed Suffolk during these years, he could spend long periods at Westminster in the knowledge that he could rely on others (including his eldest son) to administer the local war effort in an enthusiastic manner, while he fulfilled the role of pre-eminent link between Westminster and Suffolk. 79SP28/243; Suff. ed. Everitt, 27. Thus, while in Suffolk in October 1642, he got the newly-formed county standing committee to seek Parliament’s permission to retain £4,000 from their tax collection for use within the county. Although there was no immediate threat to Suffolk, this request was granted.80CJ ii. 825a. Whenever there was a need to send MPs on Suffolk business, Barnardiston was usually included. It was on his motion that a new preacher was appointed to the living at Whepstead on 31 January 1643.81CJ ii. 949a; Harl. 164, f. 286. He was one of the five MPs with Suffolk connections sent home in February 1643 to help organise the Eastern Association.82CJ ii. 934a, 956b; Harl. 164, f. 278. He was on the delegation sent by the Commons to inform the Eastern Association’s commander, William Grey†, 1st Baron Grey of Warke, of a petition from the leading Suffolk royalist and former comptroller of the royal household, Sir Thomas Jermyn* (30 Mar. 1643).83CJ iii. 25a. Two months later, in late June, he may also have assisted William Cage* in delivering to Lord Grey some intercepted letters about the queen’s landing in Yorkshire.84CJ iii. 138b; Harl. 165, f. 114v. While in London, Barnardiston attended the Committee for Sequestrations (although he was not formally added to this body until August 1644) and would become one of its most active members.85SP20/1, ff. 3, 256, 269, 302v, 345v, 356, 500, 507, 520; SP20/2, ff. 1, 12, 46, 48; SP20/3, f. 38; LJ vi. 663a. His younger brother Thomas (whose politics were probably far more radical than his), was this committee’s joint treasurer.86CJ iii. 112a.

That summer the first full campaigning season Barnardiston and Parker were sent back to Suffolk, which is why most of the evidence of Barnardiston’s direct involvement in county administration during the war years dates from July 1643.87CJ iii. 158a; Harl. 165, f. 119; HMC 7th Rep. 554, 556; Suff. RO (Ipswich), HA54/1/1: warrant to Brampton Gurdon, July 1643. He was back in the House by 13 September when the Great Yarmouth MP, Miles Corbett*, accused local officials in Norfolk and Suffolk of being too slow in implementing the assessment and sequestration ordinances. According to D’Ewes, Barnardiston had warned Corbett, probably by whispering to him as he was speaking, that this was simply not true for Suffolk.88Harl. 165, f. 190. Even so, the following week the Commons asked Barnardiston and Sir Henry Mildmay* to draft letters to the shires which comprised the Eastern Association ‘to stir them up to send in, with all speed, the supply of men assigned upon the several and respective counties’.89CJ iii. 250b. The following month Barnardiston and Cambridge MP John Lowry* were sent to Cambridge to mediate in a dispute between the town and the local garrison. Probably at that time Barnardiston bought a consignment of pistols worth £50 for the use of the army of the Eastern Association.90SP28/243: Suff. co. cttee. to Samuel Moody, 18 Apr. 1644. He can hardly have been back at Westminster for very long before he was sent off again in the first of two delegations to Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, about the garrison at Newport Pagnall.91CJ iii. 295a, 311b. It was also Barnardiston, together with William Heveningham*, who drafted the letters sent by the Commons to Suffolk in February 1645 to accelerate the collection of assessment arrears.92CJ iv. 41b. In between these various tasks he had also sat on a large number of committees handling assorted military details.93CJ ii. 907b, 937a, 992a, iii. 65b, 124b, 203b, 333a, 366b, 457a, 523b, 681b, iv. 115b.

Meanwhile he continued to support the parliamentarian cause financially. Barnardiston was one of seven MPs who in April 1645 each promised to raise £1,000 towards the defence of the Isle of Ely, which guarded the approaches to Suffolk.94CJ iv. 120a. His share may well have come from sums he had formerly lent which were now being repaid to him. In early May he petitioned the Commons, explaining that the collector of the subsidy in Suffolk had given him £479 as part of the repayments due to him and requesting the remainder. Both Houses rewarded this committed supporter by immediately agreeing.95HMC 6th Rep. 59; CJ iv. 133a-b; LJ vii. 364a, 365b-366a.

Presbyterian Independent, 1645-7?

The summer of 1645 saw Barnardiston working closely with his neighbour John Gurdon*, one of the leading Independents in the Commons at that time. During May and June 1645 they were particularly employed by the Committee of Both Kingdoms* to investigate the suspected loyalties of the garrison at Landguard Fort, perhaps partly as an Independent ploy to undermine the fort’s governor, the 2nd earl of Warwick (Robert Rich†).96CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 513, 527, 538, 624; Suff. ed. Everitt, 71. Barnardiston was also peripherally involved in Gurdon’s intrigues during the ‘Savile affair’. In early June Gurdon and William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, attempted to exploit the embarrassing interception of the letter from the king’s secretary of state, Lord Digby (George Digby*), to 2nd Baron Savile (Thomas Savile†) to damage the authority of Presbyterian leader Denzil Holles*, alleged by Savile to be passing information to the court at Oxford. Gurdon later admitted that Barnardiston and Sir Henry Vane II* had agreed to recall the Speaker to the chair while the House was in committee, so that Gurdon could make his big announcement, although in the event, it was the Lords who first heard the news.97Whitelocke, Diary, 172.

Yet there are strong grounds for believing that in matters of religion Barnardiston still favoured a Presbyterian settlement. In November 1644 he had presented to the Commons the petition from Suffolk calling for that.98CJ iii. 691b. The following year he was probably the person who delivered the Commons’ request to John Durie, the minister and champion of ecumenism recently returned from Rotterdam, to deliver a sermon before them (29 Oct. 1645).99CJ iv. 326a. Barnardiston soon after this became an elder of his local Presbyterian classis in Suffolk.100Shaw, Hist. Eng. Church, ii. 429. His only Commons’ appointment during 1646 was as one of the commissioners for scandalous offences.101CJ iv. 563a; A. and O. Like Gurdon, it may well be that he can best be described at this stage as a religious Presbyterian and a political Independent. It seems likely that, once the war had ended, Barnardiston took the opportunity to spend more time back home in Suffolk.102CJ iv. 571b.

Barnardiston’s appointment in February 1647 as one of the Commissioners for Compounding was a development of his existing interests.103CJ v. 78a; A. and O. In November 1643 he had been among those MPs added to the Committee for Scottish Affairs, which was tasked with raising money for the Scots’ forces in Ulster and those soon to enter England.104Supra, ‘Committee for Compounding’; CJ iii. 305a; CCC 2. Moreover, as has been mentioned, he was already a member of the Committee for Sequestrations.105CJ iii. 581b; LJ vi. 663a. In 1644 the Committee for Scottish Affairs would evolve into the Committee for Compounding, which was now re-invented as a group of commissioners tasked with overseeing the return of the lands which the Committee for Sequestrations had previously confiscated.

In March 1647 Barnardiston wrote to John Winthrop discussing at length his attitude towards the collapse of religious discipline in a letter which forms the most important statement of his religious and political views.106Winthrop Pprs. v. 144-5. He began by admitting that he had failed to foresee that the removal of ‘that great impediment of godliness’ (by which he probably meant episcopacy) would lead to such acrimony in the ranks of the godly. This dissension he believed had been imported from the American colonies, but thought that, once it had crossed the Atlantic, ‘the change of soil’ and the civil war had made it more pernicious. Barnardiston then attempted to define his own position.

Sir I acknowledge myself a Presbyterian (yet such a one as can and do heartily love a humble and pious Independent, such as I mean as are with you, for ours differ much generally from them) only in this regard, in that I conceive it consisteth best with the constitution of our government and, in that regard, if I were with you, I should join with you, for truly I cannot yet see any certain and general set form of discipline set down in the word of God universally.107Winthrop Pprs. v. 145.

Yet Barnardiston was not prepared to abandon discipline altogether. He was horrified by the idea that

no opinions and blasphemy is so bad but that our Independents here generally will shelter and countenance, for all heresies and sects will be Independents under this notion that none should be troubled for their conscience though hurtful to others. If they would keep their opinions to themselves, it would be the less prejudicial and this is the great calamity of our place and times, so that our differences, even amongst those that would be esteemed godly and have been so accounted formerly, is like to prove more dangerous to us than our civil wars.108Winthrop Pprs. v. 145.

Like many others who had supported the war against the king, Barnardiston now found that victory was threatening the very ideals of church government which he had hoped to defend. The events of 1647 further tested those hopes.

Retreat from radicalism, 1647-8

Barnardiston’s whereabouts during the summer and autumn of 1647 are not known. The leave of absence from London granted on 6 May, and his absence also when the House was called on 9 October may indicate that he had remained away from Westminster in the meantime.109CJ v. 162b, 330a. Thus he may have conveniently avoided any involvement in the confused events of that summer. However, his appointments to both the committees set up in November 1647 to investigate the mutiny at Ware on 15 November suggest that he was unsympathetic not only towards the attempted mutiny but also the efforts by Thomas Rainborowe* and Thomas Scot II* to win acceptance of the Agreement of the People, with its programme of parliamentary reform.110CJ v. 360a, 363a-b. The bills in which he took an interest over subsequent months probably included those to provide for wounded soldiers (6 Jan. 1648) and for the strict observance of the sabbath (23 Feb.).111CJ v. 364b, 421a, 471a.

Sir Nathaniel was in London when serious pro-royalist rioting broke out at Bury St Edmunds on 12 May 1648 and it was thus left to Sir Thomas to deal with this crisis on the ground. Of more immediate concern to the Commons and to Sir Nathaniel was the pro-royalist riot by Surrey petitioners which broke out in Westminster Hall four days later. Barnardiston was among MPs then appointed to discover who was to blame.112CJ v. 562b. These two incidents were worrying omens of what was to follow. That nerves in Suffolk were already on edge after the trouble at Bury only made the subsequent rebellions in Kent, the fleet and Essex all the more alarming. Once the rebels had been cornered at Colchester, it was clearly important to the Suffolk parliamentarians that the crisis be contained there. The county militia poured all the units it could spare into neighbouring Essex to prevent the rebels breaking out from their redoubt. The Barnardistons had a particular interest in the outcome of the siege at Colchester, because Sir Nathaniel’s brother Arthur was one of the hostages held by the royalist occupants. On 23 June Sir Nathaniel was one of the four MPs ordered by the Commons to go to Suffolk to oversee the military preparations, so he and Lady Barnardiston travelled to Kedington several days later.113CJ v. 611b; Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 42v-43. He rode with Sir Thomas to Colchester on 28 June to see how the siege was progressing, but stayed there for just two days before leaving to visit his daughter, Jane Brooke, probably at the Brooke seat at Yoxford in north-east Suffolk. Barnardiston did not entirely neglect his public duties, however. He was present at the meeting of the Suffolk county committee held at Bury on 10 July, as well as the two meetings of the Eastern Association committee at Bury and Cambridge the following month. In mid-July he and his son distributed charity in some of the villages around Kedington to alleviate the hardship caused by the high price of corn and the disruption to the cloth trade during the continuing siege at Colchester.114Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 43, 44v, 45v, 47, 48v, 49, 50v-51.

The royalist forces at Colchester finally surrendered in late August 1648. The following month Fairclough preached the sermon at the service of thanksgiving for the safe release of Arthur Barnardiston and the other hostages.115S. Fairclough, The Prisoners Praises for their Deliverance (1650, E.589.4). With the successful conclusion to the siege achieved, Barnardiston returned to London, where he remained from mid-September to early December 1648.116Essex RO, D/DQs.18, f. 53v. As increasing fear of army interference encouraged efforts by Parliament to pay their arrears, in late September 1648 Barnardiston and Maurice Barrowe* were asked by the Commons to expedite the assessment collection in Suffolk.117CJ vi. 30b. Barnardiston was probably at Westminster during the dramatic events of early December 1648 and, although not himself secluded from the Commons by Thomas Pride* on 6 December, he showed his displeasure by leaving immediately for Suffolk, arriving back at Kedington on 9 December.118Essex RO, D/DQs.18, f. 63v; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 367.

Last years

As his former colleagues in the Rump proceeded towards the execution of the king, Barnardiston busied himself with social visits. Christmas was spent with Sir William Spring* at Pakenham and for much of January 1649 he was staying with his daughter Lady Rolt at Milton in Bedfordshire.119Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 65, 68v. In late February he travelled to London, where it became known that he and his son were not prepared to dissent from the vote of 5 December declaring that the king’s reply concerning the Newport talks could provide the basis for further negotiations.120Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 72v-73. This signalled that Barnardiston would not resume his seat in the Commons in the foreseeable future, but his appointment in May as a commissioner to oversee the reclamation of the East Anglian fens may have been a vain attempt by Parliament to woo him back.121A. and O. Barnardiston did not completely ignore such efforts. Perhaps fearful that the Commons’ order of 19 June that the committee for absent Members should sit daily until 30 June had created a deadline for readmission, he returned to London in late June to explain the reasons for his absence.122CJ vi. 237b; Essex RO, D/DQs.18, f. 83v. This may have raised hopes that he could be persuaded after all to take the dissent from the December vote, for on 23 July the Commons gave him and Sir Thomas an extra 14 days in which to qualify for readmission.123CJ vi. 268a. But Sir Nathaniel steadfastly refused to be tempted and stayed away from Westminster.124Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 87v-89. He had effectively ceased to be an MP. One of those who paid tribute to him in 1653 referred bluntly to Parliament as the place ‘whence once he was ejected’.125Suffolks Tears, 15.

Unwillingness to serve in a reduced House of Commons did not result in Barnardiston’s removal from his local offices. He continued to sit on the commission of the peace, county standing committee and assessment commissions, although his attendance at their meetings was probably not much greater than it had been when he had been away at Westminster.126A. and O. The new regime’s need for his support in Suffolk was probably greater than his willingness to assist them. Instead Barnardiston maintained his regular round of social visits to relatives, more often than not staying with the Rolts in Bedfordshire or with the Brookes rather than at Kedington.127Essex RO, D/DQs.18, ff. 85v, 93, 122, 123v, 124, 125v, 127, 141.

Meanwhile, Barnardiston composed himself piously for death. His will, drawn up in September 1651, was confident that ‘my soul and body is the Lord’s, who hath redeemed it with his own blood and will raise them up together at the last day’ and it concluded with a paraphrase of the Nunc Dimittis – ‘Now let thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Amen. Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly’.128PROB11/232/242. Barnardiston confided to Fairclough that he would die happy if God had no more use for him in this world.129Faireclough, Saints Worthinesse, 21. Regular reading of Richard Baxter’s The Saints Everlasting Rest (1650) was a source of particular comfort to him as the end approached.130Faireclough, Saints Worthinesse, 15; Cal. of the Corresp. of Richard Baxter ed. N.H. Keeble and G.F. Nuttall (Oxford, 1991), i. 129. The climax to these preparations came on 25 July 1653, when the family gathered at his bedside in London to witness his final moments. His conduct in extremis could not have been bettered. To his eldest son, Sir Thomas, he gave assurances that ‘the Lord would be pleased to give him a happy deliverance out of this world, and a glorious meeting with his Saviour’, and his dying words were said to be ‘I have peace within, I have peace within’.131Faireclough, Saints Worthinesse, 22-3.

About 200 people, ‘most of them of quality’, accompanied the cortege on the final 20 miles of its journey to Kedington and the funeral, held there on 26 August, was attended by ‘many thousands’.132Clark, Lives, pt. ii, 116. Barnardiston had specifically asked to be buried there with his father and had left money for the construction of a new burial vault.133PROB11/232/242. In the funeral sermon Fairclough explained to the assembled crowds that this world was not worthy of men such as Barnardiston.134Faireclough, Saints Worthinesse. He made much of Barnardiston’s periods in Parliament, for Sir Nathaniel had served as an MP

not out of any popular ambition, to advance his own greatness; nor out of any self-end, to raise his own estate by exhausting the public treasury, or to enrich himself by other men’s ruin; nor out of lofty arrogancy, that he might domineer and trample upon his neighbours in the country, under pretence of the privilege of a Parliament man; much less to abuse that place with impunity, and sheltering of himself in riot, excess, pride, and lasciviousness; but out of a mind and conscience devoted to the service of the church and commonwealth therein; beyond which neither fear, favour, or flattery, could draw him to act, or vote at all, absolutely refusing to be defiled with the king’s portion, Absalom’s sacrifices, or Achitophel’s policies or treacheries.135Faireclough, Saints Worthinesse, 19.

Barnardiston had been ‘a father of his country’.136Faireclough, Saints Worthinesse, 18. Samuel Rayner, contributing to Fairclough’s volume in Barnardiston’s memory, struck a similar note.

Nor was his saintship of that new edition,
Which sequestrations make, or a commission:
Gain brought him not to piety. To rise
From sin to grace, he ne’er learn’d by th’ excise.
Nor did he (Proteus like) to all men’s view,
Change his religious face, still for a new,
As th’old grew out of credit; he ne’er made
Religious change to be his gainful trade.137Suffolks Tears, 28.

That was not entirely true – Barnardiston had after all served on the Committee for Sequestrations – but Fairclough and Reyner were otherwise reasonably just. Barnardiston had not gained materially from his position as an MP. It was entirely in character that his will should have been as much a statement of his faith as a settlement of his temporal affairs. (Control of the family estates had, in any case, probably passed to Sir Thomas sometime before his death.) His main advice to his six sons was that he would rather ‘they should be good men than great men’.138PROB11/232/242. He thus succinctly summed up the principle by which he himself had tried to live his life.