BARRINGTON, Sir Thomas, 2nd bt. (c.1585-1644), of Barrington Hall and Priory House, Hatfield Broad Oak, Essex.

The Barringtons claimed a pedigree so ancient that it was even said that one of their ancestors had been converted and baptised by St Augustine of Canterbury.43G.A. Lowndes, ‘The hist. of the Barrington fam.’, Trans. Essex Arch. Soc. n.s. i. 251. Their claim to have held land at Hatfield in Essex since the twelfth century was more securely documented.44Vis. Essex ed. Metcalfe, 22-3, 87, 146-8; Lowndes, ‘Barrington fam.’, 252-4. By the early seventeenth century they were one of the county’s leading families, with a formidable reputation for Protestant piety. They employed godly chaplains and stewards, supported godly lecturers and presented godly ministers to church livings in their gift.

Promoting protestantism at home and abroad

Sir Thomas Barrington was heavily influenced by the religious principles and practices of his parents. In 1624 the minister of the English congregation at Flushing, John Wing, declared that God had enriched Barrington and his father ‘with that glorious advantage and prerogative to be called his saints’.45J. Wing, The Saints Advantage (1624), sig. A3v. As an MP in the 1620s he followed the example of his father by espousing such causes as the punishment of swearing, the suppression of unlicensed alehouse keepers and the furtherance of godly preaching.46CJ i. 548b, 841a, 921b. At Hatfield Broad Oak he diligently took notes when listening to the Calvinistic sermons of James Harrison, who was both lecturer and chaplain.47Essex RO, D/DBa/F5/2. Among the books which he purchased in the years 1635 to 1639 were works by John Preston, Richard Sibbes and other puritan authors and John Napier’s apocalyptic work on the Revelation of St John, first published in 1593, in which he prophesied that 1639 would witness a crucial development in the decline and fall of the Roman Antichrist.48M.E. Bohannon, ‘A London bookseller’s bill, 1635-1639’, The Library, 4th ser. xviii. 433-5, 437, 442, 444; J. Napier, A Plaine Discovery of the whole Revelation of Saint John (Edinburgh, 1593), 15. Barrington’s religious views were fully shared by his second wife, Judith Lytton, sister of Sir William Lytton*.49DWL, Morrice MS G, ff. 549, 789; Essex RO, D/DBa/A2, f. 2; D/DBa/E3, f. 14; T. Goodwin, A Fair Prospect (1658). In 1640 Benjamin King, who had served for a time as their chaplain, dedicated a publication to the couple, ‘married together in the Lord and to the Lord Jesus’.50B. King, The Marriage of the Lambe (1640), sig. A4. Through a complex network of marriage alliances Barrington had numerous relatives with similar sympathies, among them his brothers-in-law, Sir Gilbert Gerard* and Sir William Masham*, and his cousins, John Hampden*, Oliver Cromwell* and Sir John Bourchier*.

Whether because of his strict religious upbringing or because of his weak constitution Barrington was subject to periodic bouts of melancholy or depression. Ezekiel Rogers, family chaplain from 1610 to 1621, subsequently wrote that on taking up his appointment he found the young man ‘in a most sad and deep distemper of melancholy’ and ‘not only in the day but in the night watchings, and midnight raisings, I did much impair my health in accompanying of him’.51Eg. 2648, f. 84. After his father’s death in 1628 there were expectations that Barrington would provide the same kind of leadership in both political and religious affairs of concern to the county, but at that stage he appears to have lacked the requisite self-confidence. His reluctance to commit himself too far probably accounts for the fact that in the autumn of 1631 he was so harassed by godly divines at Hatfield Broad Oak that he decided to visit the Isle of Wight, where he had property, and then to spend some time in London.52Barrington Lttrs. 207-9, 214. Writing to his mother from London, he expressed the wish that God would ‘keep me from those unnecessary sadnesses of mind and disquiets of heart which make me for my part unfit for all duties to God, man and my self’ and added that ‘had I not taken my journey when I did, he would have been ‘in a fair (or foul) way to a dangerous fever’.53Barrington Lttrs. 217. Lady Barrington had a more forceful personality than her husband whom she clearly regarded as too easy-going for his own good. From 1629 onwards she played a major part in the management of his estates, issuing detailed instructions to their steward, John Kendall, regularly scrutinising his accounts and eventually accusing him of corruption. A shrewd businesswoman, she later recalled that during these years she had been ‘the manager of all things’.54Barrington Lttrs. 251-2; Eg. 2646, ff. 44-7, 124; Eg. 2650, ff.170, 172-4, 176-8; Essex RO, D/DBa/A1; D/DBa/L35. She used her own money to support the cause of godly preaching throughout Essex. One clergymen who benefited from her generosity was Stephen Marshall, the vicar of Finchingfield.55Barrington Lttrs. 14; CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 545.

In contrast with his father, who had been imprisoned for opposing the Forced Loan of 1626, Sir Thomas remained outwardly loyal to the crown during the 1630s when he served both as a deputy lieutenant and justice of the peace for Essex. In his capacity as a magistrate he expressed his concern about the plight of the ‘meaner sort’ in periods of dearth and put forward proposals for providing them with adequate supplies of corn at reasonable prices.56Eg. 2646, f. 64; HMC 10th Rep. iv. 502-7; CSP Dom. 1629-31, pp. 415, 476, 532. He was happy to enforce the forest laws when it suited his own interests.57CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 610; 1639, p. 257. In November 1631, shortly before the annual pricking of sheriffs, he was dismayed to hear that his name appeared at the top of the short list for Essex, perhaps as much for the attendant expense and burdensome duties as any political motive. In the event he avoided selection, mainly through the intercession of powerful friends such as his kinsman, the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich†), who was a member of the privy council, and the secretary of state, 1st Viscount Dorchester (Dudley Carleton†), who had been approached by his cousin, Lady Barrington, on her husband’s behalf.58Barrington Lttrs. 214-8; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 229.

In February 1631 Barrington was formally admitted into the recently established Providence Island Company after declaring his ‘good affection’ to what was essentially a colonisation enterprise by the godly. As one member, Sir Edmund Moundeford*, later put it, the company consisted of ‘men fearing God, desirous to enjoy and advance true religion’; it also contained men alienated to a greater or lesser extent from the government of Charles I.59Harl. 386, f. 156. Among the stockholders, either at the outset or a few years, were the governor, the earl of Holland, his elder brother, the 2nd earl of Warwick (Sir Robert Rich†), 1st Viscount Saye and Sele (William Fiennes), 2nd Lord Brooke (Robert Greville†), his brother-in-law, Sir Gilbert Gerard*, Sir Nathaniel Rich†, Sir Benjamin Rudyerd*, Richard Knightley*, John Pym* and Henry Darley*.60CO124/1, ff. 1, 2; CO124/2, ff. 4, 12.

By November 1633 Barrington had paid in a total of £1,025 for one share in the company. He had probably mortgaged much of his estates to Sir Nathaniel Rich and John Pym in order to raise the money. In January 1632 he secured formal undertakings from a number of Braintree men that they would ‘go under his name and as of his family into the Island of Providence’ when the company sent its next ship there, but it is unlikely that he ever seriously thought of taking such a journey himself. Between 1632 and 1634 he served as deputy governor of the company, an office which entailed regular attendance at executive meetings. He was among those who subscribed £500 towards the new stock which was issued in 1636 in order to prevent the company going bankrupt, most of it lost when difficulties continued. Thereafter his attendance record was generally poor: three meetings in 1637, none in 1638 and one in 1639.61Essex RO, D/DBa/02/5-6; D/DBa/02/16-17; D/DBa/02/23; D/DBa/02/25; Coventry Docquets, 638, 690; CO124/2, ff. 31, 66, 153, 154, 179; K.O. Kupperman, Providence Island 1630-1641 (Cambridge, 1993), 47-8, 186, 302, 357, 362. Possibly he was reluctant to become too deeply involved in the political intrigue which resulted in secret correspondence with the Scottish rebels. At all events Barrington appears to have paid his Ship Money assessments on time, though some men in his parish of Hatfield Broad Oak were less compliant.62W. Hunt, The Puritan Moment (Cambridge, Mass. 1983), 270, 272; CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 214. That he paid the entire sum of £5 5s due from the parish in 1637 could mean that he thought it unfair that this burden had been placed on them.63Galpin, ‘Household expenses’, 209. Local defaulters may have thought him sympathetic to their cases.64CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 231.

MP in the Short Parliament, 1640

At the election held on 17 March 1640 for the county seats in the new Parliament, Sir Thomas stood as an opposition candidate with Sir Harbottle Grimston*. As the other candidate, Henry Neville, indignantly pointed out, the earl of Warwick used his authority as joint lord lieutenant of the county to support them.65CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 608-9; J. Gruenfelder, ‘The election for knights of the shire for Essex in the spring, 1640’, Trans. Essex Arch. Soc. 3rd ser. ii. 143-6. Besides the political and religious considerations which must have been primarily responsible for the earl’s intervention, Barrington was a close friend and kinsman of Warwick as well as a fellow member of the Providence Island Company. Further backing was provided by Marshall and other godly ministers who, according to Neville, embarked on a preaching campaign which extended beyond their own parishes.66CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 608-9; Nalson, Impartial Colln. i. 279. Barrington and Grimston were duly elected.

Barrington was one of the more experienced Members of the Short Parliament. The following year his old friend, Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, described Barrington as being ‘as ancient a Parliament man’ as the Ipswich MP, William Cage*, although, as D’Ewes realised, Cage was actually older and had sat in more Parliaments.67Procs. LP iv. 511. The Short Parliament assembled on 13 April and five days later Barrington and Grimston presented a petition from their constituents listing a number of grievances, including the Laudian innovations in religion, the harassment of godly ministers, monopolies and Ship Money, and ending with the request for annual Parliaments.68CJ ii. 6a; Procs. Short Parl. 275-6. Barrington seems not to have taken part in any of the debates, but he did serve as a member of various Commons committees. On 22 April he was appointed to the committees considering the petitions submitted from the counties; for examining the powers contained in a commission which had been issued to Convocation by royal command; and for preparing an agenda for a conference with the Lords about the redress of grievances. The following day it was decreed that a fast should be held on 2 May, that Richard Holdsworth and Stephen Marshall should be invited to preach and that Barrington and Masham should act as churchwardens. Barrington was later named to the committee on the bill to reform the ecclesiastical courts (1 May).69Procs. Short Parl. 237; CJ ii. 8a, 9a-b, 10a, 12a, 17b, 18b.

Confronting the king, 1640-2

That autumn Barrington sent his eldest son, Sir John*, with Grimston’s son, Harbottle*, to York with the county’s petition asking for a new Parliament.70The Autobiog. of Sir John Bramston (Camden Soc. xxxii), 76 By September the king had conceded this point. When the new writs were issued it was decided that Warwick’s son, Robert Rich*, should partner Sir Harbottle in the Essex county election. Barrington stood instead for Colchester and was duly elected along with Grimston’s son and namesake, who as recorder of the borough was able to exert considerable influence there.71Essex RO, D/Y 2/9, p. 53. His steward took the precaution of buying a cushion for Sir Thomas’s use during the long debates in the forthcoming Parliament.72Galpin, ‘Household expenses’, 211. By late 1642 he had lodgings at Westminster on Queen Street on the edge of St James’s Park.73SP28/3b, f. 31.

No longer in his father’s shadow, in the early years of the Long Parliament Barrington finally emerged as a political figure of some stature. One of the most active members of the Commons, he sat on a substantial number of committees and often acted as a teller. Only a handful of MPs were used more frequently as a manager of conferences with the Lords.74P. Crawford, Denzil Holles (1979), 54n. His appointment to the committee on the state of the kingdom, which was created only one week into the new session, was an early indication of his standing in the House.75CJ ii. 25a. From the outset he sided with the king’s critics. The moves to abolish or restrain the various prerogative courts, including star chamber and high commission (3 Dec.), the court of chivalry (23 Nov.) and the court of the marches of Wales (13 Aug. 1641), all had his backing.76CJ ii. 34b, 44b, 52b, 75a, 253b; Procs. LP i. 445, vi. 404. On 4 December 1640 he supported moves against the overzealous enforcement of the forest laws by informing the Commons that the lord keeper, 1st Baron Finch (John Finch†), had told him that only three counties did not include royal forests.77Procs. LP i. 459, 462, 464; Northcote Note Bk. 30. In April 1641 he secured a motion from the Commons cancelling the exchequer fines due from John Bastwick, the Colchester physician convicted of seditious libel in star chamber in 1637.78Procs. LP iv. 59, 65; CJ ii. 125b.

Perhaps because of the experience he had gained in the Providence Island Company, Barrington was clearly regarded as a man with a good business head: from an early stage he was heavily involved in financial matters of crucial importance. Rather than have the money paid to royal officials in the exchequer, Parliament decreed that the revenues raised by the 1641 Subsidy Act should be paid to five MPs and the chamberlain of the corporation of London, to ensure that the money was used as intended. Barrington was one of the five MPs named in the Act.79SR. When the bill had been under consideration by the committee of the whole House on 4 and 5 January, he had spoken in favour of it, specifying how the money should be spent.80Procs. LP ii. 103, 112. When the Commons wanted to borrow against these subsidies to make the payments to the Scottish army due under the terms of the treaty of Ripon, Barrington proposed that a declaration be prepared explaining why this was necessary.81Procs. LP ii. 577. On 25 March he was included in a delegation of peers and MPs seeking a loan of £120,000 from London on the security of the subsidies, while on 29 April he headed the list of MPs appointed to the committee on the new subsidy bill.82CJ ii. 113a, 130b.

Barrington was not slow to contribute his own money: £1,000 in November 1640, a loan of £500 in March 1641 and a payment of the same amount in July 1641.83Procs. LP i. 228, 231, 235, ii. 620, vi. 70; CJ ii. 222a; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 565; SP28/1c, ff. 57-59. Such a degree of commitment may explain why he found it necessary to borrow £1,000 from another Essex landowner, Richard Harlakenden of Earls Colne Priory.84Eg. 2646, f. 171. He supported the tonnage and poundage bill, which was intended to help fund the navy, and on 18 June, after it had passed the Commons, he carried it to the Lords.85CJ ii. 107a, 178b; LJ iv. 279a; Procs. LP v. 206, 210. That was consistent with his regular interest in naval affairs, which doubtless reflected his links with Warwick.86CJ ii. 139b, 140b, 257a, 378b, 393a, 394a, 675b, 803b; iii. 430b, 431b; PJ iii. 222; LJ v. 214b, 394a. On 21 August he reported back to the Commons from the committee on alleged abuses in the collection of poll money in Bedfordshire.87CJ ii. 267a; Procs. LP vi. 502, 513.

Predictably, he also took a close interest in all the important religious matters which arose in the Commons. Among other things, he sat on committees which instigated proceedings against the two archbishops, William Laud and John Williams, and the bishop of Ely, Matthew Wren; for investigating the reasons for the great scarcity of preaching ministers (19 Dec.) and considering ways of replacing scandalous clergymen; for processing a bill against superstition and idolatry (13 Feb. 1641); and for preparing articles of impeachment against the bishops who had approved the controversial Canons of 1640 (30 July).88CJ ii. 52a, 54b, 56a, 84b, 194b, 230b, 448b. On 8 February 1641 he probably backed the motion that a Commons committee should be appointed to consider further the London petition against episcopacy (the ‘Root and Branch’ petition).89Procs. LP ii. 391. Two months later he was included in a committee handling a bill for preventing the bishops and others in holy orders from ‘intermeddling with secular affairs’ (1 Apr.), and on 3 June he was among MPs who were assigned to address the objections to it raised by the Lords. The draft reply was debated the following day and when it was put to the vote Barrington and Arthur Goodwin* acted as tellers for the yeas. The motion was defeated by 148 votes to 139, however, and after the final rejection of the bill in the Lords there were calls for a more radical approach.90CJ ii. 115a, 165b, 167b. Wen on 11 June Sir Robert Harley* suggested that since this modest reform measure had proved abortive through the ‘insolency’ of the bishops, the House should go into committee to discuss the Root and Branch bill which had been introduced on 27 May, Barrington seconded the proposal and, in D’Ewes’s view, spoke ‘exceeding well’.91Procs. LP v. 98. He had made it clear that he wanted nothing less than the complete abolition of episcopacy. ‘When I look upon the episcopal hierarchy of the Church of England’, he told the House, ‘I consider it semblable to some disproportionable exorbitantly grown tree whose top and master boughs have much over swelled and over swayed the strength of the root that supports it’. In view of the failure of the bishops’ exclusion bill he felt that the only course now left was to apply the axe ‘to the root of this tree’ and’ cut it down’. That would, he believed, ‘produce happiness and comfort to this disordered languishing church, prosperity to the state and honour and glory to God’.92Eg. 2651, f. 104. On 1 September he expressed disapproval of parts of the Book of Common Prayer.93Procs. LP vi. 635. The bill against pluralities clearly had his full support.94CJ ii. 438a; PJ i. 402, 405, 450, 452. But there were limits to his desire for ecclesiastical reform. When in June 1641 two Londoners, George Brome and Nicholas Hawes, called the Church of England ‘antichristian’, Barrington moved that they be summoned to appear before the House.95Procs. LP v. 224, 227; CJ ii. 179b.

More usually, however, he was to be found calling for action against those suspected of popish leanings, especially when the offenders were clergymen. He clearly supported the moves against the vicar of Chigwell, Emmanuel Uty.96Procs. LP iv. 272. When similar accusations were made against the dean of Ely, William Fuller, by his parishioners in St Giles-without-Cripplegate, Barrington thought that his actions had been too ‘heinous’ for him to be bailed.97D’Ewes (C), 112. He also backed action against John Browning, whose parish at Great Easton was only a few miles from Hatfield Broad Oak, when he criticised the Protestation.98PJ i. 241, 304. In March 1643 Barrington was among seven MPs appointed to confiscate the income of the rector of St Giles-in-the-Fields, William Heywood, so that it could be paid instead to Henry Cornish.99LJ v. 665a.

Barrington’s connections with leading godly preachers proved useful when arranging the sermons to be preached to MPs. As early as 1 December 1640 he was sent to thank Warwick’s chaplain, John Gauden, for having preached.100CJ ii. 40b, 48b. Later, in December 1641 and again in February 1642 he invited his old friend Stephen Marshall (who had emerged as one of the leading advocates of the Root and Branch approach) to deliver the fast sermon at St Margaret’s.101CJ ii. 40b, 48b, 287b, 348a, 353b, 422a; D’Ewes (C), 334; PJ i. 329. Fast days were one form of religious observance he was keen to encourage, so on 28 April 1641 he was sent as a messenger to the Lords to seek a conference on the subject.102CJ ii. 129b-130a; Procs. LP iv. 123, 127. When in November 1641 it was reported that the cleaner of St Margaret’s had a tenant who had died of the plague, Barrington proposed that the sermon on 5 November be moved to the chapel of Lincoln’s Inn, although his fellow MPs decided that this was unnecessary.103D’Ewes (C), 81. Alongside his enthusiasm for ecclesiastical reform, Barrington had a continuing interest in the cause of moral reform. On 17 December 1641 he was one of the three MPs deputed to prepare a declaration urging justices of the peace throughout the kingdom to execute the laws against swearers, drunkards and sabbath breakers. This became the bill presented to the Commons a week later.104CJ ii. 348a, 356a.

Barrington was a close associate of John Pym, whom he had come to know well as a fellow member of the Providence Island Company and who addressed him in correspondence as ‘brother’ in accordance with puritan practice.105Eg. 2643, ff. 5, 14. From the opening of the Long Parliament until his death he remained consistently loyal to the parliamentary cause as it was perceived by men like Pym and Hampden. It was Pym who formally proposed that he should appear as a witness at the trial of the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†) which began on 22 March 1641. Barrington had already been closely involved in the preparations for the trial.106CJ ii. 79b, 98a, 107b, 112b, 113b, 115b; LJ iv. 109a, 201a, 207a; Procs. LP iii. 136, 212, 214. When he gave evidence on 5 April he testified that during a chance encounter after the dissolution of the Short Parliament Strafford’s brother, Sir George Wentworth I*, had observed that, ‘This commonwealth is sick of peace, and will not be well till it be conquered again’. At the same time he confessed unhelpfully that the precise meaning of this cryptic comment had eluded him and added that it was not his practice to reveal the content of a private discourse, ‘especially in the case of a gentleman’.107Rushworth, Hist. Collns. viii. 538-9; Harl. 6865, f. 218; Two Diaries of Long Parl. 35. The failure of the impeachment proceedings led to the introduction of a bill of attainder which was approved by the Commons on 21 April. When the House divided Barrington and his brother-in-law Sir Gilbert Gerard acted as tellers for the yeas (though in the Journal they are shown through a clerical error as tellers for the noes).108CJ ii. 125a; Procs. LP iv. 410.

When Pym gave details of the alleged army plot on 3 May 1641, Barrington, like Pym, spoke in favour of entering into some kind of engagement as a demonstration of solidarity. The matter was referred to a committee whose members included Pym, Hampden and Barrington and later that day they submitted the draft of a declaration which was duly approved. Sir Thomas took this Protestation immediately.109CJ ii. 132b, 133a; Procs. LP iv. 181. He also did what he could to assist the investigations against the plotters, such as Henry Percy* and Henry Jermyn*.110CJ ii. 147a, 224b; LJ iv. 250a; Procs. LP iv. 233, 393, 395, 400, 401, vi. 386. In a Commons speech delivered on 21 June, Barrington expressed his concern about further allegations implicating the 1st earl of Bristol (Sir John Digby†), telling the House

it appears plainly that we have a brood of vipers hatched within our own bowels, who because we cannot be sufficiently destroyed by the force of a foreign power would gnaw through the very womb of this distressed commonwealth to make a way for our destruction by these unnatural and devilish plots.111Procs. LP v. 262.

Later that year he opposed the decision to bail another of the alleged conspirators, Sir John Berkeley*.112CJ ii. 347a; D’Ewes (C), 304-5. He was also always keen to support the persecution of suspected Catholics.113CJ ii. 24b, 72a, 73a, 74b, 258a, 267b, 321b, 335a, 337b, 339b; D’Ewes (C), 274.

A recurring theme in Barrington’s activities throughout 1641 and 1642 was the goal of securing a settlement with the Scots. He was involved at every stage in the parliamentary proceedings which paved the way for the new treaty concluded with them in August 1641.114CJ ii. 78b, 80b, 108a, 118b, 170a, 181a; LJ iv. 151a. He was also among MPs appointed in June 1641 to oversee the payments due to the Scots.115CJ ii. 182b, 239a; Procs. LP v. 274, 283. When on 16 August the Commons wanted a conference with the Lords about who should go as commissioners to Scotland, Barrington delivered the request.116CJ ii. 259a; Procs. LP vi. 435, 439; LJ iv. 366a. He gave full support to that policy as the first step towards a general disbandment of the two armies.117CJ ii. 152a, 153a, 172b, 187a, 232a, 235b, 237b, 258a, 240a, 240b; Procs. LP vi. 200, 218. He also backed the bill to overhaul the militia in preparation for the disbandment.118CJ ii. 212b, 223a. These issues dominated the proceedings in Parliament in the months leading up to the recess between 9 September and 20 October, in preparation for which Barrington also played a leading role in the conferences with the Lords in late August.119CJ ii. 273a, 274a, 276b; LJ iv. 377b, 383a. Unsurprisingly, Barrington was rewarded with a place on the Recess Committee.120CJ ii. 288b. When Parliament reassembled, he was a teller for those who disapproved of the king’s attempts to fill the five vacant bishoprics in the vote on the subject on 29 October.121CJ ii. 298b; D’Ewes (C), 54. That day he was also a teller for those who wanted to summon before them the former secretary of state, Sir John Coke†.122CJ ii. 298a; D’Ewes (C), 51.

Barrington was as appalled as most of his colleagues by news of the rebellion in Ireland, which reached Parliament on 1 November. One of its first responses, agreed the next day, was to send a delegation headed by Barrington to seek an emergency loan of £50,000 from London.123CJ ii. 302a; D’Ewes (C), 110, 129. He reported back on 12 November that they had found ‘a great deal of readiness and willingness’ among Londoners to provide this money, but also a number of concerns. Those included the view that leading Catholics in England should be arrested as a precaution against the rebellion spreading and that the bishops should be stripped of their right to vote in the Lords as they were blocking much of the necessary legislation already passed by the Commons.124CJ ii. 314b; D’Ewes (C), 133. Meanwhile, on 8 November, Barrington and Sir Anthony Irby were tellers for the majority who agreed with Pym’s proposal that the instructions to be sent to Parliament’s commissioners in Scotland be amended to indicate that they were willing to act against the rebels, with or without the king’s approval.125CJ ii. 307b; D’Ewes (C), 105. Barrington then helped organise the emergency assistance which Parliament agreed to send to the Irish Protestants.126CJ ii. 305b, 350a, 353a, 357b, 364b, 365a; D’Ewes (C), 332; LJ iv. 485b. To fund this, he and Sir Henry Mildmay* were asked to prepare legislation to underwrite an immediate payment of £30,000 from the £50,000 loan.127CJ ii. 357a, 363b. Barrington remained committed to the policy of regaining control of Ireland. In the spring of 1642 he contributed £1,200 towards the Irish Adventure, one of the larger investments by a private individual.128CSP Ire. Adventurers 1642-60, 23; Bottigheimer, Eng. Money and Irish Land, 176.

Events in Ireland made MPs nervous about security nearer to Westminster. On 20 November 1641, after one of the queen’s Catholic chaplains, Robert Phillips, had been arrested, Barrington was sent to persuade the Lords not to release him before the Commons had had a chance to question him.129CJ ii. 321b; D’Ewes (C), 178, 180-1; LJ iv. 449a. Over the following weeks he was among those MPs who wanted the guards protecting the Palace of Westminster to be continued.130CJ ii. 325a, 326a, 340a. On 24 December Barrington and Henry Marten* were sent to ask the constable, the 1st earl of Newport (Mountjoy Blount), to take up residence in the Tower.131CJ ii. 357a, 357b; D’Ewes (C), 348, 350. But more security could also be seen as a threat. When the undersheriff of Middlesex sent additional guards to protect Parliament, Barrington warned that, in his experience, this had never before been done.132D’Ewes (C), 264.

Barrington championed supported one of the most significant documents produced by the Long Parliament, the Grand Remonstrance. When the draft version was debated on 16 November 1641 some MPs objected to the inclusion of a clause insinuating that the bishops had introduced idolatry into the church. In the division which followed Barrington and his fellow Essex MP, Sir Martin Lumley*, were tellers for those in favour of the clause and carried the day by 124 votes to 99.133CJ ii. 317b; D’Ewes (C), 152. During the three divisions on 24 and 25 November Barrington acted as teller for those who wished to punish Geoffrey Palmer* for attempting to enter a protest against the Remonstrance.134CJ ii. 324b; D’Ewes (C), 195, 198-9. On Barrington’s motion, Palmer was then summoned to the bar of the House on 27 November to face its censure.135D’Ewes (C), 200.

On the day after the king’s abortive attempt to arrest the Five Members on 4 January 1642, Barrington was among those appointed to the committee which was to meet with the corporation of London at the Guildhall to consider their response to an act which, in their minds, seemed linked to the Irish rebellion. On 12 January he was included on the committee which drafted the declaration defending Parliament’s position.136CJ ii. 369a, 372a. Further key committee appointments followed on 17 January when he was named to the committee to defend the privileges of Parliament.137CJ ii. 385a. He also took the lead in the effort to persuade the Merchant Adventurers to supply the remainder of the £50,000 loan.138PJ i. 63, 68-9, 92; CJ ii. 384b. Subsequently, he would again use his influence to obtain further loans from London and get the Merchant Adventurers to agree to a delay in the repayments due on the earlier loans.139CJ ii. 540b, 542b, 558b, 565b, 580b, 598b, 629b, 632b; PJ ii. 215, 225, 284, 301. The Commons seem to have regarded him henceforth as their main intermediary with the Merchant Adventurers. Action to help the Irish Protestants remained a priority.140CJ ii. 391a, 394b, 447b. On 22 January he was one of the four MPs who attended on the common council of London seeking a further loan to fund military action against the Irish rebels.141PJ i. 135-7; LMA, COL/CC/01/01/041, f. 17. He later passed on the request from the 16th earl of Kildare, one of the most prominent Protestant Old English peers in Ireland, for a military command.142PJ i. 294; CJ ii. 415b. When in early February 1642 printed Catholic catechisms in Irish were discovered, the Commons sent Barrington and Sir Henry Vane II* to collect a copy from the archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher.143CJ ii. 425a, 427a; PJ i. 343, 348, 352. After reports had been received of ships preparing to sail from Dunkirk to assist the rebels, Barrington obtained agreement from the Lords to the proposal that the Spanish ambassador be asked to stop them.144CJ ii. 438b; LJ iv. 592a, 596a; PJ i. 403, 406, 407. The latest reports from the lord justices in Dublin were read to the House on 2 May on Barrington’s motion.145PJ ii. 263; CJ ii. 554a. The deepening crisis also made Barrington all the more concerned to promote close relations between Parliament and the Scots.146CJ ii. 400a, 403b, 450a, 555b, 585a. He then served on the committee which redrafted the proposed Anglo-Scottish treaty (2 June).147CJ ii. 601a. When in July the Scottish commissioners wanted to ask the Commons for the latest instalment of the money due as ‘Brotherly Assistance’, they got Barrington to do this for them.148PJ iii. 221; CJ ii. 675a. That autumn his name was on the shortlist to become one of the commissioners for the conservation of peace.149Add. 18777, f. 37v; CJ ii. 818a.

The mobilisation of Essex, 1642

Parliament’s assertion of control over the county militias was a major step towards a civil war. Barrington believed this move was essential. It is true that when on 7 December 1641 Sir Arthur Hesilrige* had brought in a draft bill proposing that the trained bands be placed under the control of a lord general, Barrington supported the general principle but thought that a more restricted bill would have a greater chance of being passed.150D’Ewes (C), 245, 246. He need not have worried, because this bill did pass and three months later became the Militia Ordinance. Meanwhile, on 17 January, following the attempted arrest of the Five Members, he was included on the committee on how the kingdom might be put into a posture of defence.151CJ ii. 383b.

As he was fully aware, all this had local implications. When on 20 January, on his motion, a large petition was presented from the Essex inhabitants, Barrington took the opportunity to raise the issue of Landguard Fort, which controlled the approaches by sea to Ipswich and Colchester.152PJ i. 122-3. Perhaps inevitably, Warwick was named as lord lieutenant of Essex and not long after, on 17 March, the Commons approved a list of his deputy lieutenants which included most of the Essex MPs: Barrington, Sir William Masham, Sir Thomas Cheke*, Sir Martin Lumley, Sir Henry Mildmay* and Harbottle Grimston.153CJ ii. 483b. After the Commons began receiving petitions against the Militia Ordinance, Barrington was sent to obtain the Lords’ agreement on 21 April that they should issue a declaration defending it. At the same time he sought their backing for the decision to send gunpowder and ammunition from Hull to Ireland.154CJ ii. 536a-b, 537a; LJ v. 8b; PJ ii. 198, 199. At the conference with the Lords on 9 May, Barrington set out the case for giving the lord lieutenants and deputy lieutenants control of county gunpowder stocks.155LJ v. 58a; PJ ii. 296. On 12 May Barrington probably helped prepare the motion indemnifying anyone who assisted in the ordinance’s implementation.156CJ ii. 568b, 570b.

Essex was the first county to implement the Militia Ordinance. Barrington took the lead, obtaining an order from Parliament on 26 May authorising the Essex deputy lieutenants to seize the weapons in store at Harwich.157CJ ii. 587b; PJ ii. 371, 372; LJ v. 85a-b. This was extended the following day into a general order permitting the deputy lieutenants to seize military magazines if their lord lieutenant was absent. At the same time Barrington got the Commons to agree that the Essex and Norfolk deputy lieutenants could appoint their own militia officers.158CJ ii. 588b; PJ ii. 376; LJ v. 86a. Acting on the suggestion of Oliver Cromwell*, the Commons then appointed Sir Walter Erle* and Barrington to receive regular reports from the Saddlers’, Armorers’ and Gunmakers’ Companies on what saddles and guns were being manufactured in London (28 May).159CJ ii. 590b; PJ ii. 383. On 1 June Barrington was sent to ask the Lords to agree that Warwick could be temporarily released from his duties as the parliamentarian admiral of the fleet in order to superintend the execution of the ordinance in Essex. He took with him the request from the Commons for a joint conference to discuss the latest proposals which were to be offered to the king and the bill to summon an assembly of clergymen.160CJ ii. 586b, 588a, 589b, 597a-b; LJ v. 96a-b; PJ ii. 398, 399. Three days later Barrington told MPs that the king’s declaration against the Militia Ordinance was discouraging its implementation in Essex. He and the other Essex deputy lieutenants were therefore ordered to return to Essex to counteract this.161PJ iii. 17-18; CJ ii. 605b. Five companies of Essex trained bands, together with a body of volunteers, were duly mustered at Brentwood on 7 June and Barrington and his fellow deputy lieutenants sent back a message that it had been a highly successful undertaking.162CJ ii. 612a, 613a; PJ iii. 47, 51, 53-4; LJ v. 117b-118a, 119a-b; The Lord Willoughby of Parham, his letter (1642), sig. B2-[B4] (E.150.4). When Barrington provided the Commons with a more detailed account of the proceedings on 17 June he also presented a petition from the militia officers expressing their willingness to fight for Parliament if the king decided to wage war. The same day he was among MPs appointed to draft an order to prevent the sheriff of Essex publishing royal proclamations contrary to the Militia Ordinance.163CJ ii. 626a, 629a, 630a, 630b; PJ iii. 92, 95, 96-7; LJ v. 143a-b. The next day he was first-named to the committee to attend on the corporation of London to inform it of their order the order forbidding the lord mayor of London publishing the king’s latest letter against the Ordinance.164CJ ii. 632b; PJ iii. 101; LJ v. 150a; A worthy Speech spoken at the Guild-Hall by the Earle of Holland (1642), 7-8. Later that month he may well have chaired the Common’s committee which prepared their reply to the king (24 June).165CJ ii. 638b. Moreover, on 7 July he told the House that the mayor of his own constituency, Colchester, had not published the king’s letter.166PJ iii. 183; CJ ii. 656b. Elsewhere, in Yorkshire, Barrington’s cousin, Sir John Bourchier, had been trying to organise a pro-parliamentarian petition. When 2nd Baron Savile (Sir Thomas Savile†) stopped him, Bourchier wrote to Barrington, who then raised the matter in Parliament.167CJ ii. 608a; LJ v. 107b, 109b, 111a-b; PJ iii. 28, 30, 33; The Copy of a Letter sent from Sir John Bourchier (1642).

On 17 June Barrington undertook to provide Parliament with four horses and a loan of £500.168PJ iii. 93, 476. On 19 July, it was decided that the Essex MPs who were deputy lieutenants should return to their county in order to advance the propositions and that Barrington, Grimston and Robert Reynolds* should prepare an order for this purpose which might serve as a useful model.169CJ ii. 681a; PJ iii. 235. Some of Barrington’s own plate, amounting in value to £700, had to be sold.170Galpin, ‘Household expenses’, 212. On 22 August, in response to a petition from the inhabitants, Parliament granted £4,000 to Barrington to improve the fortifications at Colchester.171CJ ii. 730b, 732b; LJ v. 313b, 315b. In these and other ways Barrington worked tirelessly to ensure that Parliament was prepared to defend its cause in the impending armed conflict with the king.172CJ ii. 574a, 583b, 586a, 590b, 592a, 647a, 650b, 651a, 660b, 663b, 667a, 676a, 681a, 706b, 745b; LJ v. 177a. Since Warwick was heavily engaged in naval affairs Sir Thomas came to be regarded as the leader of the parliamentarian party in Essex. His emergence as primus inter pares among the Essex deputy lieutenants may be attributed to various factors: he was one of the wealthiest squires in the county, a friend and henchman of Pym, a kinsman of the earl and a man who had acquired considerable military experience as a deputy lieutenant in the 1630s.

As it happened, the earliest large-scale disorder in Essex which required a response from Barrington came from the overreaction of parliamentarian supporters in Colchester. On 22 August a crowd attacked St John’s Abbey, the house of Sir John Lucas, who was believed to have been organising military support for the king. The following day the Commons dispatched Barrington and Harbottle Grimston to Colchester to prevent Lucas giving cause for further trouble.173CJ ii. 732b, 734b, 736a; LJ v. 318b, 319a; PJ iii. 313, 316; The Parliaments Resolution concerning the sending of Sir Thomas Barrington (1642); J. Walter, Understanding Popular Violence in the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1999), 152-5. On his return Barrington informed the House on 29 August that everywhere he had been in Essex he had found great multitudes of people who had gathered together on the strength of false reports about a parliamentary declaration. Once apprised of the truth, however, they had not only dispersed but had returned the goods which they had taken. In his diary D’Ewes inserted the acid comment that Barrington had indulged in ‘vain boasting of the good service he had done by giving God thanks for it and saying how much he had spoken and laboured’.174PJ iii. 325-6. The Commons as a whole took a more charitable view and formally thanked both Barrington and Grimston.175CJ ii. 741b. On 2 September Sir Thomas went up to the Lords with a draft declaration about the restraining of riots and tumults in Essex.176CJ ii. 743a, 751a, 753b; LJ v. 335b, 337a-b. He and Masham were tellers in the division on 30 September for those who opposed the grant of bail to Lucas.177CJ ii. 788b. Early the following year the mayor of Colchester would ask Barrington and Grimston to get Parliament to release those rioters who had been arrested. Their excuse for not having done so earlier was that they had been distracted by all their other work.178Essex RO, D/Y 2/7, p. 69.

Fighting the king, 1642-3

Barrington spent most of the remainder of 1642 at Westminster. He was among MPs appointed on 3 September to the Committee for Irish Affairs and on 6 September to obtain further loans from the City. A month later he was asked to prepare an order to provide security for the money which had already been lent by the Merchant Adventurers.179CJ ii. 742a, 750b, 754b, 798a. Since money remained one of the main problems in relations between Parliament and the Scots, Barrington worked hard to obtain the arrears to which the latter were entitled.180CJ ii. 803b, 905b, 909a-b, 949b; LJ v. 519a-b. On 2 December he was included on the committee charged with preparing a manifesto ‘to set forth unto the world the reasons and grounds of all the proceedings of the Parliament in the present war’.181CJ ii. 873a. He was always keen to support any orders for the raising of men or horses.182CJ ii. 751b, 763b, 806b, 890b, 943a, 943b; Add. 18777, ff. 94v, 133v.

The appointment of Barrington and Harbottle Grimston (with Sir Henry Vane II) to the Committee of Safety on 8 September may well have been a move to reassure Warwick, himself added to it several weeks later.183CJ ii. 758b. Barrington was soon signing some of the Committee’s warrants.184SP28/3a, f. 53; SP28/3b, ff. 331, 489; SP28/4, f. 359; SP28/7, ff. 80, 82, 292, 294. This involved him in some embarrassment, however, when the Commons debated one of its decisions on 23 November. Shortly before this a ship had been detained in the Thames with a cargo of wine, beer, spices and other commodities being conveyed to Newcastle-upon-Tyne on behalf of the queen. Although it was readily apparent that these goods were intended for the earl of Newcastle’s northern army, the master had been authorised to proceed by means of a licence signed by Barrington and other members of the Committee of Safety. D’Ewes thought that during the course of the debate on this episode Barrington ‘made a very slender and silly excuse for himself, saying that he did set his hand to the said warrant because he was informed that they were but matters of small value which in civility could not be denied to the queen for her use’.185Harl. 164, f. 123. The House was clearly unimpressed with this explanation and it was decided that the beer, wine and spices should be returned to the suppliers and that the rest of the cargo should be confiscated.186CJ ii. 860b-861a.

For Barrington and his fellow deputy lieutenants the security of Essex was the paramount objective of the military preparations which they had set in hand, though from an early stage they were required on occasion to deploy some of their troops outside the county. In August 1642 they warmly commended the inhabitants of Colchester for the zeal which they had shown for the protection and defence of the county through their willing response to the Propositions.187Stowe 189, f. 5. On 3 October Parliament approved new instructions for Barrington and the other Essex deputy lieutenants.188LJ v. 382b-384b; Instructions agreed upon by the Lords and Commons (1642, E.121.1). The next day the Commons agreed that Barrington could have £4,000 (including £500 which he had already received) out of the money raised in Essex on the basis that it was to be employed by the deputy lieutenants ‘for the defence and safety of that county’. In the meantime he had entered into a contract for the supply of arms and powder at a cost of some £1,200.189CJ ii. 792b, 793b-794a, 843b-844a; LJ v. 387a-388a; Eg. 2648, f. 26. The advance of the king towards London required the deployment of the Essex forces to protect its northern approaches. Barrington and Grimston were told to assist in raising forces in the Colchester area.190A True Relation of the Army set out by the County of Essex (1642), 4 (E.126.16). On 13 November, Barrington and his fellow deputy lieutenants were ordered to assist Warwick in assembling replacements for deserters.191CJ ii. 848a-b, 849b; Add. 18777, f. 58v. Barrington may even have taken on the command of some of these men, although firm evidence of him serving as a regimental colonel dates only from the following year.192BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database. East Anglia was thought to be most vulnerable from a seaborne attack to the Stour estuary and Barrington was therefore used to encourage Warwick to ensure that the fortifications at Landguard Point and Harwich were properly repaired.193CJ ii. 898b, 949b; iii. 35b; HMC 7th Rep. 549. At the end of the year he agreed to lend Parliament £300 for six months.194Add. 18777, f. 109v. At some point, he lent £400 to Purbeck Temple, captain in the regiment of Sir John Norwich*.195Luke Letter Bks. 90.

Towards the end of 1642 the formulation of proposals for bringing together the eastern counties in an association for mutual defence presented a direct challenge to the localism which was so much in evidence in this region. A draft ordinance for this purpose was given a reading in the Commons on 28 November, but a decision was deferred until Warwick had been consulted. Barrington may well have had initial misgivings in view of the potential impact on the powers of the deputy lieutenants and the likelihood that Essex would be called upon to assist the other counties rather than the reverse. Nevertheless he was prepared to go along with the plan in the dangerous circumstances which then prevailed and it is significant that when the ordinance was approved on 10 December he took on responsibility for carrying it up to the Lords.196CJ ii. 871a, 883b, 884b; Harl. 164, f. 244; LJ v. 485b-487a; Holmes, Eastern Assoc. 64-5, 68-9, 227-8. Five days later the House went into committee, with Harbottle Grimston in the chair, to discuss such matters as the geographical extent of the Eastern Association.197CJ ii. 889a, 894b, 895a; LJ v. 499a; A. and O. No decision was reached, perhaps because, according to D’Ewes, Barrington was ‘very officious and spake often’.198Harl. 164, f. 263. On 31 December, following promulgation of the ordinance, it was decided that Barrington and three of his colleagues should go down to Essex with the object of promoting the new arrangements, but it was not until 9 February 1643 that the representatives of the five eastern counties included in the association finally agreed to implement the ordinance.199CJ ii. 910a; Holmes, Eastern Assoc. 65-7.

On 26 January 1643 Barrington warned the House that all was not well in Essex. D’Ewes noted that he spoke ‘somewhat long and impertinently touching the danger of malignants in Essex’, citing a petition in favour of an accommodation with the king which some inhabitants of the county had submitted to the Commons. Barrington then proposed that a certain person of quality whom he forbore to name should be questioned about some ‘dangerous words’ he had uttered which were highly critical of Parliament. Harbottle Grimston explained that the individual concerned was Sir Francis Coke and at his prompting Barrington made ‘another long frivolous speech’ in which he alleged that Coke had said that ‘this was a bloody Parliament and that they had ambitious ends of their own which made them go on with that violence’. Following these revelations it was decided that Coke should be sent for as a delinquent.200Harl. 164, f. 282; CJ ii. 944a.

The need to pursue the war did not exclude a desire for peace. Throughout late February and early March 1643 Barrington acted as messenger between the Commons and the Lords in their negotiations to prepare a possible peace treaty with the king.201CJ ii. 975a, 979a, 980a, 982a, 1001a; LJ v. 615b, 621b, 623b, 646b; Harl. 164, f. 308v. On 7 April, after talks with the king had begun at Oxford, Barrington sought a conference with the Lords to discuss new instructions to be sent to their negotiators.202CJ iii. 34a; LJ v. 698a. In the meantime pressure continued to be applied to the king’s supporters. On 6 February 1643 Barrington was added to a committee which was considering the arrangements for sequestering the estates of royalists and papists. In the ordinance which finally emerged on 27 March he and his son, Sir John, were named as members of the Essex sequestration committee and shortly afterwards the new body began to exercise its powers.203CJ ii. 957b, iii. 21b; A. and O.; Stowe 189, f. 8. In addition, Barrington was included on the bicameral Committee for Sequestrations based at Westminster.204CJ iii. 21b.

During 1643 Barrington – when in Essex, based at Chelmsford, where the parliamentary committee had its main headquarters – recruited more troops within the county and raised money for their support. By April, when they took part in the siege of Reading, some of those men had been formed into an Eastern Association regiment under Barrington as their colonel and Lord Grey of Warke (Sir William Grey†) as their commander-in-chief.205BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database; SP28/7, ff. 448, 513; SP28/8, f. 213; SP28/9, f. 37. But there is no evidence that Barrington served with them in the field. Writing from Sonning, near Reading, on 13 May Grey told Barrington that his men were in a mutinous state because of grievances about their pay and suggested that his presence ‘one day’ could help to restore discipline.206HMC 7th Rep. 550.

On 6 April Barrington had informed the Commons that companies were marching from Essex towards Cambridge. His proposal that some allowance should be made for their pay out of the money already raised in Essex and Cambridgeshire was agreed by the House.207Harl. 164, f. 357v; CJ iii. 32b. The following week he sought a conference with the Lords to discuss the troops to be raised in the capital.208CJ iii. 41a; Harl. 164, ff. 364v-365; LJ v. 714b. After the Essex deputy lieutenants wrote to him querying the order from the lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, that they send troops, Barrington, Sir Martin Lumley and Sir William Masham were sent to speak with him.209CJ iii. 41b. On 29 April Barrington was dispatched to Essex to superintend the raising of another month’s pay for those units sent to reinforce the lord general’s army.210CJ iii. 45a, 63b, 64a, 65a. He successfully accomplished this mission but by this stage he was becoming increasingly concerned about the heavy financial burden on the county. In a letter from Hatfield Priory on 19 May he told his fellow deputy lieutenants that it was too early to embark on their proposed further levy: ‘I beseech you expect not that I should so suddenly importune the country [county] for that which I have so lately prevailed in so much beyond my expectation’.211Eg. 2646, f. 236. As an organisation for collective defence, the Eastern Association had serious failings. In early June Barrington, Grimston and three others had to borrow over £1,000 on their own credit to pay the troops in Essex.212HMC 7th Rep. 577. Later that month Lady Barrington remonstrated with her husband over the failure of the Essex committee at Chelmsford to respond promptly to an urgent request from the Cambridgeshire committee for military assistance.213HMC 7th Rep. 550; Eg. 2646, ff. 212, 219. There was a danger that Cambridge could be lost irrevocably and in these circumstances it would have been more excusable ‘to have sent assistance without need rather than too late’. If Cambridge were to fall, ‘I doubt too much censure will lie on your committee .... that are reported to be merry and incredulous; and all the blame will fall on the committee’.214Eg. 2646, f. 273. This was somewhat unfair. The military demands placed on Essex were enormous and no one was working harder than Barrington to mobilise troops.215HMC 7th Rep. 550-9. The royalist uprising in Kent that July added to their problems, with Barrington being ordered to send forces to Tunbridge Wells to restore order.216HMC 7th Rep. 554; CJ iii. 181a; Eg. 2651, f. 172. On 3 August he seems to have persuaded the standing committee at Romford to agree to measures which would allow more horses to be requisitioned.217Eg. 2647, f. 114. John Hampden’s remark to Barrington when he passed on the earl of Essex’s request for more troops that ‘your power in the county is great’ was intended to flatter but was also the truth.218Eg. 2643, f. 7.

Sustaining the war, 1643-4

In June 1643 Barrington was named as one of the lay members of the Westminster Assembly of divines, which was to provide advice on reform of the church, but he seems to have been only marginally involved in its work.219The Mins. and Pprs. of the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652 ed. C. van Dixhoorn (Oxford, 2012), i. 108. John Gauden later claimed that Barrington had supported his nomination as a delegate to the Assembly from Cambridgeshire before it was vetoed by others at Westminster.220[J. Gauden], Anti Baal-Berith (1661), 89 (E.1083.5). On 10 August Barrington was included in a committee of MPs who were allocated the task of considering the books and authors mentioned in a petition from the Assembly and the doctrines preached by its clerical members.221CJ iii. 119b, 201a; A. and O. Had he lived long enough to see the introduction of a moderate form of Presbyterian church government in Essex, he would almost certainly have agreed to serve as a lay elder but in the event it was his son John who took on this role.222Shaw, Hist. Eng. Church, ii, 382.

Barrington took the vow and covenant promising to defend the Protestant religion in the aftermath of Edmund Waller’s* plot as soon as it was tendered to the Commons on 6 June. Three days later he headed the list of those appointed to prepare the legislation for this oath to be offered to the rest of the population.223CJ iii. 118a, 122b. On 7 August there was a vote in the Commons on whether consideration should be given to a set of peace proposals formulated by the Lords. At first it appeared that there was a majority in favour but this was only because Barrington and Sir Robert Harley, who were described rather patronisingly by D’Ewes as men of advanced years, had miscounted as tellers for the noes. When the result was queried the House divided again and this time the noes emerged victorious by 88 votes to 81. This, observed D’Ewes, ended ‘all our hopes of peace and tranquillity for the present’.224CJ iii. 197b; Harl. 165, f. 148.

The day following this narrow reverse for the peace party the House agreed that Barrington should be formally thanked for the great care he had taken in the raising of 1,000 dragoons and 500 cavalry in Essex.225CJ iii. 198b. A more tangible reward came a day later when the Commons agreed that he should be repaid his former loan of £350.226CJ iii. 200b; Harl. 165, f. 151. On 12 August he went to the Lords with an ordinance authorising the levying of £13,500 in Essex for military purposes and subsequently reported that he had obtained their consent.227CJ iii. 203a; LJ vi. 178b-179a; A. and O. Three days later the Commons ordered those MPs who were deputy lieutenants in Essex to go there to meet the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†) who had recently taken over as major-general of the Eastern Association; to apply themselves to the task of recruiting further troops; and to convey the thanks of the House for the zeal which the county had shown for the preservation of religion and liberty. They also appointed Barrington treasurer for the collection of assessments within Essex as a means of speeding up collection of that revenue.228CJ iii. 206a. Barrington was soon back in Essex and it is a measure of the gravity of the situation that he remained there for four months.229HMC 7th Rep. 559-70; SP28/227: Essex standing cttee. warrants, Aug.-Nov. 1643. Letters he received during this summer of 1643 made gloomy reading: the Cambridgeshire committee feared that all the associated counties ‘will be exposed to the fury and cruelty of the popish army’; there was news that some Norfolk gentry had joined the royalists; and his cousin Sir John Bourchier informed him that in Yorkshire the parliamentarians were in desperate straits.230Eg. 2647, ff. 93, 138, 142. Writing from Hatfield Priory on 23 August Barrington told Speaker Lenthall that a further 500 horsemen had been enlisted and that foot soldiers were being recruited. He was concerned, however, about the indiscriminate seizure of horses by parliamentarian officers and hoped that immediate steps would be taken to restore them to their owners.231Harl. 165, f. 156. Other pressures remained. Cromwell wrote to him from Lincolnshire in early October asking his cousin for his prayers and, more importantly, more money for his troops.232Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 264-5. On 30 November the Commons accepted an offer from Barrington and his fellow deputy lieutenants to raise another 800 cavalrymen and provide them with arms, giving a solemn undertaking, no doubt in response to their entreaties, that these additional troops would not be compelled to serve outside the county. Sir Henry Mildmay was ordered to thank Barrington and the other Essex deputy lieutenants ‘for expressing so great care of the safety of the Parliament, city, and so well-affected a county’.233CJ iii. 326a; Harl. 165, f. 220v. Not everyone was so appreciative. Two weeks later the Commons summoned Walter Higden of Flamsted, Hertfordshire, to answer complaints that he had criticised Barrington.234CJ iii. 341a, 355a.

Sir Thomas was fully occupied in Essex when the Long Parliament entered into its alliance with the Scots and it was not until 31 January 1644 that he subscribed to the Solemn League and Covenant.235CJ iii. 383b; Harl. 165, f. 288. Barrington did not share the reservations of some MPs who had little liking for the Scots or feared the adoption of a new form of church government based on the Scottish Presbyterian model.236J.T. Cliffe, Puritans in Conflict (1988), 97-9. He had been included in the committee which was to consider the arrangements for disseminating the text of the Covenant throughout the kingdom (30 Jan. 1644) and he continued to do all he could to smooth relations with the Scots.237CJ iii. 382b, 396a, 419b-420a, 466a; LJ vi. 455a; Harl. 166, ff. 27, 28 In a related move, he took his seat in the Assembly of Divines for the first time on 21 February.238Mins. and Pprs. of the Westminster Assembly, ed. van Dixhoorn, ii. 533.

During the first half of 1644, when the tide of war was beginning to turn in favour of Parliament, Barrington regularly took his seat in the Commons and was appointed to various committees, including a number concerned with the financing of the war effort.239CJ iii. 409b, 437a, 457a, 473b, 534a. Preparations for that summer’s campaigns detained much of his time.240CJ iii. 385a, 400a, 418b, 434a, 435a, 436b, 437b, 452a, 457a, 460b, 463b, 470b, 474b, 475b, 476a, 486a, 491b, 472b, 475a, 510b, 520b, 527b, 536b; LJ vi. 480a; Harl. 166, f. 52v. On 17 April he was yet again sent to raise a massive loan (£200,000) from the City of London.241CJ iii. 462b. As might be expected, he was a major participant in the affairs of the Eastern Association and from time to time acted as spokesman in the House for a standing committee consisting of representatives of the associated counties which exercised a co-ordinating function. On 26 March he presented a report from the committee which drew attention to considerable discontent over the exactions of the earl of Manchester’s agents, many of whom were strangers to the counties where they were raising money for his army. Men who had made contributions based on assessments of their annual income from land or the value of their personal estates (under the provisions of an ordinance of 7 May 1643) were being charged again on the grounds that they had originally been let off too lightly by the county committees or their officials. In response the House directed Barrington and others to draft a letter to the earl expressing its concern.242CJ iii. 437a, 438b; Add. 31116, p. 253; Harl. 166, f. 39. However, D’Ewes thought that Barrington and the other Essex MPs had failed their county in allowing the bill for felling timber for the navy to pass: this threatened much damage to local woodlands.243Harl. 166, f. 33v. Barrington was named a commissioner in the ordinance to implement it.244A. and O.

One of Barrington’s last significant acts as an MP was to pilot through Parliament the bill for the continuing financial support of the Eastern Association’s forces (25 Apr.). On 29 April he justified its necessity to the Lords.245CJ iii. 469a, 472a, 472b; LJ vi. 531b; Harl. 166, f. 53v. Subsequently he was a manager of a conference with the Lords and reported its outcome (11 May), although it was not until 13 May that he informed the Commons that the ordinance had finally been approved.246CJ iii. 479a, 489b-490a, 491a; LJ vi. 536a, 551a-b. The preamble to the ordinance pointed out that the eastern counties had raised 14,000 horse, foot and dragoons and intended to raise more; and that as a result of all the military expenditure incurred the association was now heavily in debt. Accordingly, each of the associated counties was required to make a weekly contribution (£1,687 10s in the case of Essex) for a period of four months from 1 May.247A. and O. Of more general importance were the bills to improve the sequestration process and to extend the life of the Committee of Both Kingdoms*. Barrington carried both to the Lords during the third week of May 1644.248CJ iii. 497b, 498b, 500a, 500b, 504b; Harl. 483, f. 70v; LJ vi. 559a, 560b, 564a. He also took part in the negotiations with the corporation of London over the terms of the latest peace proposals.249CJ iii. 478a.

On 18 June a letter of complaint from the Huntingdonshire committee occasioned further debate in the Commons about the oppressive way in which Manchester’s officials were raising money. According to D’Ewes, only John Gurdon*, Sir William Masham, Sir Henry Mildmay and Barrington sought to defend these persons of mean rank and strangers. For Barrington consciousness of local feeling doubtless balanced with awareness of the financial position of the Eastern Association. Its committee was told to raise the matter with Manchester, with Barrington and Denzil Holles* instructed to take charge of drafting the letter to him.250CJ iii. 533b; Harl. 166, f. 74.

Death and legacy

Barrington’s last known appearance in the Commons was on 20 June.251CJ iii. 536b. He had returned home by 1 July. That day the Essex standing committee, in session at Hatfield Priory, dispatched to the Speaker a letter full of expressions of loyalty and commitment to the cause of Parliament. When it was considered by the Commons on 3 July, Sir Henry Mildmay was instructed to prepare a reply conveying the thanks of the House for the great service which the leaders of the Essex parliamentarians had performed and inviting their proposals for receiving satisfaction for their ‘extraordinary charge’.252CJ iii. 549a-b. Some may have realised that Barrington, who deserved thanks more than anyone, did not have long to live. He was present at one more meeting of the Essex standing committee on 17 July.253CJ iii. 568b.

Barrington died at Hatfield Broad Oak on 18 September 1644.254C142/777/100. It is possible that his exertions on behalf of Parliament finally proved too much for a constitution which had never been particularly robust. He had done much to ensure that Essex remained firmly under parliamentary control and made a significant contribution to the war effort, though he was fortunate that there was such strong support within the county for the cause of ‘liberty and religion’. In the Commons he had been an extremely hard-working Member who as one of Pym’s most faithful lieutenants had taken on many important tasks, both financial and otherwise, during the initial period of reform and the subsequent conflict. Yet the Journal merely records that on 28 September it was agreed that Sir William Masham should replace him as a lay member of the Westminster Assembly.255CJ iii. 642a, 717a; LJ vii. 89b.

In May 1645 the Barrington steward, John Kendall, wrote to Ezekiel Rogers, who had emigrated to New England, that his late master had been ‘so worthy an instrument’ both for the church and the state. As a consequence, however, the estate was heavily encumbered, because ‘by his forwardness to the public and his kindness to some of our best nobles for whom he was engaged he hath left an engagement of above £10,000 upon his son’. The income from the family’s Yorkshire property had virtually dried up because of the war and Lady Barrington had a substantial jointure out of the Essex estate. A full third of the heir’s present revenue was owed elsewhere.256Eg. 2648, f. 85. Shortly afterwards the heir, Sir John*, was forced to seek a protection to ward off the attentions of creditors of the Providence Island Company. In a petition to Parliament in July 1645 he explained that his father had decided to join the company for the good of the kingdom and the propagation of the gospel and that he had not only spent his own money but had become bound with his fellow Adventurers in the raising of loans.257HMC 6th Rep. 71; HMC 7th Rep. 589; Eg. 2648, f. 149; LJ vii. 506a. With the return of more settled conditions the Barringtons managed to overcome their financial problems and in the reign of Charles II they enjoyed an income of £4,000 a year from their estates in Essex, Yorkshire and the Isle of Wight.258Essex RO, D/DBa/A76/29; D/DBa/A77/8; D/DBa/E30/1. Sir John and another son, Gobert*, later became MPs.