Custody of the Great Seal during the Commonwealth.

Chapter XXV.

Custody Of The Great Seal During The Commonwealth.

IN July, 1654, Oliver Cromwell had reached very nearly the summit of his ambition. He was King in all but the name. He was Protector of Great Britain and Ireland, styled ‘His Highness,’ and surrounded by the insignia of sovereign power. When opening Parliament, on September 3, 1654, be proceeded to Westminster in a state coach, with an escort of Life Guards, attended by the high officers of State, in their carriages, with the three Commissioners of the Great Seal of the Commonwealth of England, Whitelock, Lisle, and Widdrington. This Seal had, on one side, the map of England, Ireland, Jersey, and Guernsey, with the Arms of England and Ireland, amid the inscription, ‘The Great Seal of England, 1648.’ On the other side, the interior of the House of Commons, the Speaker in the chair, with the inscription, ‘In the first year of Freedom, by God’s blessing restored, 1648.’ Having thus changed the Great Seal, and the title of the Keeper in England, the Lord Protector turned his attention to Ireland, and appointed three Commissioners of the Great Seal of Ireland, Richard Pepys, Chief Justice of the Upper Bench; [1 During the Commonwealth, to suit the Republican notions, the title of the King’s Bench was the Upper Bench.] Sir Gerard Lowther, Chief Justice of the Common Bench; and Miles Corbet, Chief Baron of the Exchequer; but they held the Seals only one year. The letter, under the Privy Seal, directed to Fleetwood, then Lord Deputy, notifying their appointment, is dated from Whitehall, June 14, 1655. It informs the Deputy ‘that three Commissioners of the Great Seal of Ireland. shall have power to rule and manage the business of the Chancery within that dominion, as the Chanceller or Keeper of the Great Seal there in times past, and shall so continue until otherwise ordered. That the Deputy, on receipt of the Great Seal, sent him by Sir John Temple, Knight, Master of the Rolls of Ireland, should deliver it to the said Commissioners.’

Although not of the high rank of Chancellors, these Commissioners of the Great Seal properly come within the scope of this work, so as to have their lives recorded in its pages.

The Chief Commissioner, Richard Pepys, was an excellent Judge. The family of Pepys in England, like that of Plunkett in Ireland, has given distinguished members to every branch of the legal profession. As Mr. Foss well observes, ‘In the family of Pepys is illustrated every gradation of legal rank, from Reader of an Inn of Court to Lord High Chancellor of England.’ [Foss’s Judges of England, vol. vi. p. 467.] Richard was son of John Pepys, of Cottenham, in Cambridgeshire, whence the learned occupant of the English woolsack in our day took his title of Lord Cottenham. Richard’s mother was Elizabeth Bendish, daughter of John Bendish, of Steeple Bumpstead, in Essex. An uncle, named Talbot Pepys, was Reader at the Middle Temple in 1623; and it is very likely that from him young Richard acquired his taste for law and desire to become a barrister. Whatever influenced him, he entered his name at the Middle Temple as law-student; and, in process of time, succeeded his uncle in the post of Reader in the autumn of 1640. A few years later he was elected Treasurer of the’ Society. He is named in Styles’ Reports as Counsel in cases therein reported, and reached the degree of the Coif in 1654. Shortly after, Sergeant Pepys was appointed a Judge of Assize through the Midland Counties, and in the following May became a Baron of the Exchequer in England. His seat on the English Bench was of short duration. In less than twelve months he was called to preside as Chief Justice of the Upper Bench in Ireland; and for some period was the sole Judge of his Court. He lived in times of great party and political dissension, and it is much to his credit that no taint of calumny sullies his name. His appointment as Chief Commissioner of the Great Seal of Ireland is thus noticed in Mr. Smyth’s Legal History of Ireland [Smyth’s Law Officers of Ireland. Legal History, p. 291.]:-

‘We do not hear of Pepys as a judicial bloodhound, soliciting the properties of convicted criminals; let us therefore presume him reasonably innocent, and transfer some respect to the father of Samuel Pepys, Secretary to the Admiralty.’ [Chief Justice Pepys died in 1658. His death occasioned some difficulty, for he was the sole Judge of his Court, and if no Judge was appointed before the Term, then close at hand, great public inconvenience must ensue. Many causes, civil and criminal, were depending; there could be no prosecutions in the Upper Bench, and no Judge could be appointed without a patent or warrant from Oliver Cromwell, then Protector: in this dilemma the matter was referred to the Lord Chancellor Steele. He consulted Chief Justice Lowther; Chief Baron Corbet; Sir John Temple, Master of the Rolls; Sir Robert Meredith, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Justice Donellan, the Attorney and Solicitor-General; and Mr. Loftus; who were unanimously of opinion, that, upon the grounds of unavoidable necessity, such as then existed, and to prevent failure of justice, the Lord Lieutenant might sign a warrant for passing a patent to some one person during pleasure, and until his Highness’s pleasure be further known to supply the place of puisne Judge of that Court. This was acted on, and William Basil, Attorney-General, was appointed. His patent for Westminster is dated July 24th, 1658.] This was the writer of the egotistical yet valuable diary.

Sir Gerard Lowther, second Commissioner of the Great Seal, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, is stated to have been a very unprincipled man. He was a native of England, and acquired the rank of Serjeant-at-Law. Having been appointed Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland by Charles I., he was sworn of the Privy Council, and the King thought so highly of his judgment he addressed him by letter as follows, in 1643:- ‘Whereas we have special reason to use your advice in matters which very much import our kingdom of Ireland; our will and command is, that upon receipt of these, our letters, you prepare your self to repair to attend our further pleasure, here, at such time as you shall receive directions from our Justices there to that purpose; and thereof you shall not fail as you tender the good of our service, and the restoring that poor kingdomn to some degree of happiness. Given at our Court at Oxford, October 17, 1643.’

Lowther continued in his office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas during Cromwell’s Protectorate, and, as we have seen, was included by the Irish House of Commons in their impeachment with Lord Chancellor Bolton and others. ‘He acquired,’ says Smyth, ‘a large landed property by steering with unprincipled craft through the boisterous ocean of contemporary troubles, and, dying without issue, left it to relatives or friends.’ [Smyth’s Law Officers of Ireland, p. 292.]

Miles Corbet, the Third Commissioner of the Great Seal, was a man after Cromwell’s own heart. Resolute, bold, and of iron will, he united those qualities which had made the brewer of Huntingdon Protector of three kingdoms. Corbet was of a respectable family of Norfolk, and having studied law at Lincoln’s Inn, was regularly admitted to the profession; but, from some cause or other, abandoned its practice, and taking up arms against the King reversed the old motto, ‘Cedant arma togae.’ Here his courage and skill obtained him distinction which the Courts of Westminster failed to confer. Cromwell’s keen insight into character made him conscious that Corbet was a man whose services and talents it would be well to secure, and whose entire freedom from any scruples of respect for Royalty, made him a fitting colleague for those republicans who were resolved to bring Charles I. to the scaffold. He was accordingly appointed one of the Judges on the King’s trial, and on the day sentence of death was pronounced, he signed the warrant for the King’s execution. Ireland was a wide field for the labours of Corbet. It has been, unfortunately, too often the experimental ground for politicians of all kinds. Hither Corbet came, and found repose from military duties in the more profitable position of Commissioner for Civil Affairs. When the ruthless work of confiscation and distributing of the estates of Irish Catholics, which the Cromwellian settlenment caused, had been arranged, Corbet claimed as the reward for his service’s to be made Chief Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer, which was complied with.

A project was then started by Fleetwood, Deputy for Ireland in 1655, when the Four Courts were about being re-established, that two courts - the Chancery and Upper Bench - -would be sufficient for the country, and that all causes hitherto tried in the Common Pleas could be heard in the latter. The necessity for the Exchequer did not enter into his mind. ‘The lock of the Common Law and the key of the Treasury (to use Lord Coke’s phrase) were to be buried by his fiat,’ and for supplying the courts that were to do the Irish legal work, he offered to provide Judges. Luckily for the patronage of the profession, and for the furtherance of justice, his advice was not taken, and his design was neglected.

Corbet became Chief Baron. He held this important office for some years, and acquired a large fortune. The stately Castle of Cloghleagh, the seat of Condon, a powerful Munster chief, with a large tract of fine land, between the rivers Funcheon and Ariglin, situate in a beautiful district of the county of Cork, including the present town of Kilworth, was divided between the Lord-Deputy Fleetwood and Chief Baron Corbet. [Cloghleagh Castle forms a striking feature in Moor Park demesne, seat of the Earl of Mount Cashel.] Dissensions existed between these two. Constantly warring on political grounds, they could not agree in civil matters, and had a dispute about the name of this newly-acquired property. The Deputy wished to change the Irish name, Cloghleagh, into Kilworth, [Kilworth, County Cork, is the birth place of another Chief Baron, who essentially differs from Chief Baron Corbet, Right Hon. David R. Pigot, appointed Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland, a.d. 1846.] a place near Leicester, where Fleetwood was born. Corbet preferred the old appellation to the new, but was obliged to yield, and thus the Munster town has a Leicestershire name. The King’s Restoration, a.d. 1660, made any portion of the dominions of Charles II. dangerous ground for the regicides. Corbet, along with Colonels Okey and Barkstead, took shipping for Holland, where the three were seized at Delft, by Sir George Downing, the King’s resident, under a warrant from the States General.

Having undergone most cruel treatment, being shut up in a damp dungeon, heavily ironed, they were taken on board a British frigate, and on their arrival in London, were committed to the Tower, On April 1, 1662, they were conveyed by water to the King’s Bench Bar, at Westminster, to receive sentence of death, having been already attainted by Act of Parliament for compassing the death of King Charles I. After evidence given of their identity, and their own confession, they were sentenced to be executed. [State. Trials, vol. v. p. 131. Vide also 1 Levin’s Rep. p. 66. Keling’s Rep. P. 13.

The last interview between Corbet and his family was very affecting. When the messengers of death were come for him, he was hastening away without taking leave of his wife, which induced some one to say, ‘Will you not speak to your wife before you go?’ ‘Oh, yes;’ said he, and then turning back saluted her, committing and commending her to the Lord, he bid her farewell. But she clinging to him cried out, ‘Oh, my dear husband! my precious husband! What a husband I shall now lose! Whom I have not prized as I ought, and might have done! Oh, what will become of me!’ At which, although tears were ready to start from his eyes, yet he conquered himself, and taking his wife by the hand, said, ‘Oh, my dear wife, shall we part in a shower? Be contented, God will be a husband and a father to thee and thine;’ and so, kissing her, turned to his son Miles, whom he took by the hand, and blessed also, and then hastened away, desiring a friend to stay with his wife and son to comfort them.

He sustained his sad end with courage. A friend told him endeavours were used to get his body for burial. ‘What care I,’ be replied, ‘what becomes of my body, when I am dead? Let them do what they will with it; I bless God my soul is safe!’ [Ibid. p. 1318.] So died Miles Corbet.

The Great Seal did not long remain in the custody of the Lords Commissioners. In 1656, the Lord Protector nominated William Steele, Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in England, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and this left the three Chiefs of the Irish Courts of Upper Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, free to attend to the duties of their respective Courts. From the paucity of Judges this was, indeed, quite necessary.

William Steele, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was descended from a respectable race. The Steeles were a Cheshire family, long seated at a Moated Grange, named Giddy Hall, near Sandback. It must not be presumed that the name of the family-seat had any reference to the character of its occupants, or if so, the career of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland forms a very strong refutation, for the term ‘giddy’ had no application to him. Richard Steele, father of the future Chancellor of Ireland, resided for some time in the vicinity of London, for the books of Gray’s Inn record that William Steele, eldest son of Richard Steele, of Finchley, in Middlesex, was admitted a member of that society, June 1, 1631, and was called to the Bar, June 2, 1637. He was fortunate in quickly getting into good general practice, for, within six years from commencing his legal career, he was a candidate for the office of Judge of the Sheriff’s Court in London; an appointment of considerable importance. He had, however, a formidable rival in John Bradshaw, afterwards President of the High Court of Justice for the trial of King Charles I.

Bradshaw was the favourite candidate of the Corporation in whose gift the appointment lay. The Aldermen and Common Council supported him in preference to Steele, and the latter was defeated. Though not successful in this instance, his friends in the city resolved not to abandon him, and, in 1647, when the prosecution was entered upon against Captain Bailey for his abortive effort to rescue Charles I. from the Isle of Wight, its conduct was intrusted to him. In this case, as in most others at this period, there was little chance for the accused, conviction quickly followed after indictment. Steele displayed so much ability, zeal, and skill, in this prosecution, that it attracted the notice of Parliament, and if, as was expected, Mr. Glynne, Recorder of London, had resigned that office, then Steele was to have been his successor. Again he was disappointed, for Mr. Glynne did not vacate the Recordership, and a new employment was found for the expectant Recorder; the Commons appointed him Attorney-General of the Commonwealth to conduct the case then pending against the King.

This was an office no one would like to discharge who could avoid it, and we find that, when the Court sat on January 18, 1649, to make arrangements for the King’s trial, the Attorney-General was said ‘to be so unwell, as not to be able to attend, nor likely to be able.’

Fearing his illness might be attributed to his unwillingness to conduct a case touching the life of his Sovereign, he sent a message that he no way declined the service, out of any disaffection to it; but professed himself to be so clear in the business, that, if it should please God to restore him, he should manifest his good affection to the cause. [Foss’s Judges of England, vol. vi. p. 490.] He thus cast upon the Solicitor-General (Cook) the conduct of this momentous case. Whitelock also took good care to avoid sharing in the trial. He and Sir Thomas Widdrington were sent for by the Committee for preparing the charges against the King, and both having opposed it, resolved to keep out of the way, Whitelock’s coach was at the door in which they went to his country-seat, and remained there until the sad tragedy was finished.

Notwithstanding Steele’s inability to appear in the trial of King Charles I., a few days after the execution of that ill-fated monarch, Mr. Steele was able to appear in the High Court of Justice, on the prosecution of the Duke of Hamilton. [State Trials, vol. iv. pp. 1155, 1167.] The trial took place before the High Court of Justice on February 9, 1649, and both Mr. Steele and Mr. Cook, the Counsel for the people of England, conducted the prosecution for high treason, in making war and fighting against the forces of the Parliament. The Duke pleaded: 1. That he was employed by command of the Parliament and supreme authority of the Kingdom of Scotland, for such ends as were good and justifiable. 2. That he was born in Scotland, before the naturalisation of his father in England. 3. That he rendered himself prisoner upon capitulation, and articles, with those who had Major-General Lambert’s commission, and by them he was a prisoner of war, amid his life and personal safety was secured by the articles. The argument of Mr. Steele is given at great length in the State Trials, and the prisoner, being found guilty, was executed on March 9, 1649.

On August 25, 1649, Serjeant Glynne resigned the Recordership of London, and Mr. Steele was elected this time. He had served the Commons well, and, in order to mark their sense of his conduct, they caused him to be the successor of Serjeant Glynne, with the privilege of pleading within the Bar, and freed him from his reading at his Inn of Court. [Whitelocke, pp. 394, 420. Ibid. pp. 520, 590.] His knowledge of legal procedure was considerable, and he was one of the committee named in January 1652, to consider ‘of the delays, the charges, and the irregularities in the proceedings of the law.’ In May 1654, a commission issued for the trial of the brother of the Portuguese Ambassador for murder. He was then Serjeant Steele, having obtained the Coif and was appointed Commissioner. This case, which is very interesting, arose out of a discussion at the New Exchange, Strand, London, where three of the Portuguese Ambassador’s family, his brother being one, talking in French, were overheard by Colonel Gerhard, who told them very civilly, they did not represent the stories quite correctly. One of them gave him the lie, a conflict ensued in which Colonel Gerhard was stabbed to death. This led to further tumult, and a question of international law arose out of it, which made the trial a very important one. Cromwell ordered the brother of the Ambassador, Don Pontaleon Sa, with two other Portuguese, to be tried for murder before Commissions of Oyer and Terminer in the Upper Bench. The prisoner was a very distinguished diplomatist, and pleaded ‘he was not only the Ambassador’s brother, but had a commission to be Ambassador in his brother’s absence,’ he also pleaded ignorance in the laws of England, being of a foreign country, and desired to have counsel assigned. The Court told him ‘they were of counsel equal to him as to the Commonwealth.’ On bearing the witnesses the prisoner was found guilty, and, after a reprieve, beheaded on Tower Hill. [State Trials, vol. v. p. 475.]

The appointment of Serjeant Wilde as Chief Baron of the English Court of Exchequer, which had been made by the Parliament, October 12, 1648, was not confirmed by Oliver Cromwell when he became Lord Protector in December 1653. From one of those strange caprices which actuated this remarkable man, he took an inveterate dislike to Chief Baron Wilde, and, without assigning any cause, but the sic volo sic jubeo, dismissed him summarily from the Exchequer Bench, and placed William Steele as Chief Baron in his place. Wilde poured his complaints into the ears of his friends, who, however, were powerless to turn aside the iron will of England’s stern Protector. The Ex-Chief Baron recalled his services, how, in his speeches, while one of the managers for the impeachment of Archbishop Laud, he endeavoured to bring him in guilty of treason. [It was Wilde, whose violent haranguing on this trial unsupported by evidence, called forth the rebuke from Mr. Herne, counsel for the Archbishop, ‘that none of the charges preferred amounted to treason.’ Serjeant Wilde: ‘That may be so, taken singly, but we do maintain, that all the bishop’s misdemeanors, taken together, do by accumulation, make many great treasons.’ To this Mr. Herne wittily replied, ‘I crave your mercy, good Mr. Serjeant, I never understood before this time that two hundred black rabbits would make a black horse.’ - Foss’s ‘Judges of England, vol. vi. p. 520.] Now he procured the conviction of Captain John Bailey, at Winchester, for his devotion to the King, and other like services to the Commonwealth. In a letter dated July 12, 1654, he wrote to Whitelocke complaining ‘how ungratefully he had been treated, after his services;’ who, in reply, said, ‘it was a usual reward at that time, and that he had tried to move the Protector in his behalf, but to no effect.’

Steele did not long continue Chief Baron of the English Court of Exchequer. His appointment was dated on May 28, 1655, and on August 2, 1656, he was promoted to the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland. The writ of Privy Seal, dated at Westminster, runs thus: ‘Oliver, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland and the Dominion thereunto belonging. To all to whom these presents shall come, and especially to the people of and belonging to this Commonwealth within our Dominion of Ireland, greeting, know ye, that we, looking upon it as our duty to provide for the due administration of justice unto the people of this Commonwealth, and for well maintaining public affairs under us by appointing persons of learning, wealth, and efficiency, and of approved integrity, unto places of public trust and judicature, and we having had very much experience of the great wisdom, judgment, and discretion, of our right trusty and well-beloved William Steele, Chief Baron of our Exchequer in England, have assigned, constituted and appointed him and do appoint him to be Chancellor and Keeper of our Great Seal in Ireland.’ [Lib. Mun. Pub. Hib. vol. i. pt. ii. p. 16.]

It may be remarked that the wording of this appointment is truly regal, and goes to prove in my mind that Oliver was bent on taking his place among the sovereigns of England, if be was allowed to wear the Crown. The Chancellor was nominated one of Cromwell’s House of Lords on December 10, 1657; and, on the accession of Richard Cromwell, continued in his office as Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

Fleetwood named Steele in October 1659 one of the Committee of Safety, but he refused to co-operate with that body, assigning as his reason that Parliament was the only judge as to the future establishment.

In 1655, Henry Cromwell, son of Oliver, received a commission from his father as Deputy of Ireland. His naturally mild and amiable disposition, the reverse of his stern father’s, led him to desire just and lenient measures in the discharge of his official duties. Yet the intolerant spirit of the age obliged him to execute the laws then in force. Oliver Cromwell died on September, 1658, and his son Richard’s feeble hands could not retain the reins of Government, which Oliver held easily. A party of Royalists met in Dublin, and acting in concert with friends of the exiled Charles, resolved on his Restoration. They seized upon the Castle of Dublin, and Limerick, Clonmel, Drogheda, Carlow, and other chief towns proclaimed King Charles II. He landed in England amidst the enthusiastic joy of the nation, and Ireland echoed shouts of gladness. The Catholic Royalists expected to be restored to their ancestral estates of which the Cromwellian settlement had deprived them. They little foresaw that the first session of the Irish Parliament would take steps to make the settlement binding, and the Act of Explanation would strengthen the arrangement.

At the time of the Restoration of Charles II. the policy of all the political members of the Commonwealth seems to have been to make the best terms for themselves as they could, at the expense of their late colleagues. Steele is related to have secured his personal safety, and made his peace with the Government, by betraying .the secrets of Henry Cromwell to Clarendon and Ormond; and, what is worse, by giving up his former colleague in the prosecution of the King, the Solicitor-General, Cook, [Foss’s Judges of England, vol. vi. p. 492. In fact, he threw the Solicitor General into his place, by absenting himself under the plea of illness.] Cook had been rewarded for zeal in the service of the Commonwealth (by the patronage of Ireton, when Lord President of Munster) with the appointment of Judge of that province and grants of lands in the county of Cork. [A castle, called Castle Cook, still frowns over the river Ariglen.] On the accession of Charles II., the wisdom of Steele, on having absented himself at the time of the trial, was manifested by Cook’s apprehension, trial, and execution.

The character of the Ex-Chancellor, who died about the year 1670, has been variously estimated. He is described as haughty and insolent by those who disliked him; prudent and cautious, learned and able, by those who esteemed him. He had married the widow of Michael Harvey, younger brother of the celebrated Dr. William Harvey, whom the curator of an anatomical museum once sagaciously described as ‘the inventor of the circulation of the blood.’

On examining the enrolled Decrees of Chancery during the Commonwealth, I find a very fair share of business transacted. Both the Commissioners and Chancellor Steele had plenty to do, and the number of decrees pronounced amounts to three hundred and ninety-four. The suits were of an ordinary character, bills for account - to compel trustees to execute trusts - to perpetuate testimony, and such causes.

Index Chapter 26. Home.