By William Beaumont Esq.
WARRINGTON: PERCIVAL PEARSE, SANKEY STREET. 1889
CHAPTER 1
This place, with the etymology of which name there may be some doubt whether it is derived from the words "Sand" and "quay" or "key", or whether the Sank, the brook which goes through the place with the "ey" or "eyot" at its mouth, gave its name to it, consists of two parts, Sankey Magna, or Great Sankey, which forms a separate township of itself; and Sankey Parva, or Little Sankey, which is but a hamlet of the township of Warrington, and was perhaps one of the three berewicks without names which were attached to that place at the time of the Domesday survey. Both the Sankeys were mesne manors held under the Lords of Bewsey, and in each of them there are one or more old halls which have been moated and had their mullioned windows and barred doors for defence. Of some of these houses and of some of their former inhabitants we propose to give a few notices; and we propose to take first the hall of Little Sankey, once the seat of the old family of the Sankeys, who were of sufficient consequence to have their arms emblazoned with quarterings in the windows of Warrington Church three hundred years ago. (See an account of the arms in Warrington published by Pearse, Warrington, 1878). No pedigree, however, of the family is known, but we select the following notices from their history.
The town has a body like a large insect, with limbs like a spider, reaching very far. With one of these, the eastern one, we have dealt, and we will now take the western limb, which was the great highway and turnpike road to Liverpool until the railway superseded it. The bridge over Sankey Brook, where we begin, and which has been rebuilt many times since, was first heard of in a charter on 5th July, 3 Ed. II, 1310, where Edward II granted his royal charter to William le Boteler and Robert le Norreys to levy tolls for five years for repairing and maintaining the bridges of Warrington and Sankey. Sankey Brook was famous for its eels, and one of the Boteler leases, besides a money rent, reserves six sticks of eels, each stick containing so many eels. The brook formed a creek to which vessels came up from Liverpool and elsewhere, and there a Custom-house officer was kept so late as 1722, as we learn from the Warrington parish register where is the entry. Passing on towards Warrington, we pass the house of Edward Bridgeman, a loyalist of Charles I's time, whose house was set on fire by the Parliamentarians in 1643; and a little nearer Warrington we come to Little Sankey Hall - whose arms, now obscured by whitewash, are over the front door. In its day, the Sankeys, its owners, were a family of gentry. One of them fell in the battle of Agincourt, and another of them died fighting by his master's side at Flodden. Still approaching Warrington, we come next to White Cross, a place which had that name in 1465, the date of the Lyme Manuscript. At his place a sort of wakes was, and perhaps still is, kept, which had the name of Calfgin fair; a few stalls of sweetmeats and a few peepshows were to be found there. We are now in Sankey Street, which, in coaching times, was alive at most hours of the day. One day in Sankey Street four Irishmen starting for Liverpool, to which it was the direct road, enquired how far it was, and being told it was 18 miles, cheerily replied, "That's only 4 and a half apiece".
Woburn, one of the principal stages half a century ago on the high road between London and the North, was then wide awake, and astir with the life and bustle which 60 coaches passing up and 60 coaches passing down day and night would inevitably bring. Its ancient hostelry was called the George Inn, and was the centre of life and animation, the merry notes of the guard's horn faintly heard in the distance along the London road, coming nearer and nearer, the echoing footfalls of the horses prancing down the street till they drew up in a rush, all together, at the door of the inn, where stood the hospitable landlord and his portly landlady ready with welcome and entertainment for all who came; the steaming horses led away to rest, the sleek shining ones brought out and put to in inimitable quick-as-lightning style; parcels handed up, parcels handed down, coming from the great metropolis, containing, perhaps, the last Waverley novel or the new poem by Rogers or Byron or Campbell, eagerly waited for and reverently treasured up for months after; or a box of millinery for the "head milliner and mantua maker", with the latest fashions for the elite of the next public ball; friends come to meet their friends, the parting of those who set forth on their unknown journey into the unknown land of the North, the expectant stir of the "coach coming", the pathetic lingering looks after the coach is gone, the dying echoes of the horses' footfalls and farewell blast of the guard's horn bourne back on the breeze as, passing out of the little town, the coach wound its way along the high road and entered the deep wooded ravine which has Apsley wood on the right, and the Brickhill woods on the left - all formed a picture which indelibly imprinted itself on the mind, and its grave reality of the stern duties and business of life contrasts strongly with the modern "playing at coaches", which exists now (Memoirs of Wiffen's Life, pp.1 to 3). The Warrington stage coach to London is mentioned in Farquhar's "Beau's Stratagem".
THE SANKEYS OF SANKEY
This family, whose place is variously spelt Sonkye, Sanchi, Sanki, or Sankey, is unique in the villare of England, were among the smaller landowners in the neighbourhood of Warrington. They bore arms and had their chief seat at Little Sankey Hall, a hamlet of Warrington, which still stands a picturesque monument of the past. It does not appear that they ever entered their pedigree at the Heralds' visitations; and in the seventeenth century Sankey Hall seems to have been absorbed into the larger property of their neighbours, the Irelands of Bewsey. (Some mention of the Sankeys will be found among the Hale deeds. Henry III. Robert Banastre, Baron, of Newton, about 1250, grants a piece of land in Lowton to William de Sonkye.) We are not able to give a pedigree of the various members of whom mention is made in old charters and records; but we propose to throw together such notices of the family as we have met with, and which may possibly enable some future genealogist to cast them into the pedigree shape. Their shield in the glass of Warrington Church was argent, a bend sable, charged with three fishs or, supposed to be sparlings; this occupied the first and fourth quarters, the second quarter gave the arms of Warburton in the first and fourth quarter, and in the second argent a camel passant sable, and in the fourth argent a chevron or between three garbs or.
Gerard de Sanchi, the first of the family of whom we have any notice, occurs in that ancient record the "Testa de Nevill", probably between 1189 and 1199, in the reign of Richard Coeur-de-Lion, where we read that Paganus de Vylers gave to Gerard de Sanki, the carpenter, one carucate of land in Sanki to hold of him by military service (Testa de Nevill, p.402). (Gerard's carpentry was probably employed in making boats upon the Mersey, which bounds one side of the township, and is used by Gerard's successors for much the same purpose now).
Radulf de Sanchi, who was probably Gerard's son, and succeeded to the inheritance given to his father, is mentioned in the following charter of confirmation:- "Mathew de Vylers (the son of Pagan) about 1154 had given to the Canons of St. Peter, at Fiskarton upon Trent, near Nottingham, in free alms for ever, certain of his lands, and Mathew, his brothers William, Alan, and Thomas, made to them this charter:- 'Be it known unto all persons, both present and to come, that we, Mathew de Vylars and his brothers William, Alan, and Thomas, have granted and by this charter have confirmed to God and the Church of St. Peter at Thurgarton, with Richard their brother, all their land in Lound (Lund in Lancashire), in wood and in plain, with the service of Radulf de Sanchi and the Church at Warrington, and the Church of Titheby, and the Chapel of Crophill; and Thomas his brother hath granted the Church of Owthorp and the Lord Mathew hath granted them the skins of the lambs of his house'."
Roger de Sankey, calling himself the son of Jordan the clerk, occurs as holding one-twentieth part of a knight's fee in Penketh (which probably included the land in Sankey also) under William fitz Almeric le Boteler (the descendant of Paganus de Vilars) in 1235 (19 Henry III). This Roger was also a landowner in Liverpool, as we learn from this notice dated in 8 Ed. II (1314). John de Kirkby grants to Adam de Chorlate and his heirs a piece of land, with the building thereon, with all liberties to such a tenement in the town of Liverpool pertaining, paying to the Lord fourpence halfpenny in silver to John, the son of William; ninepence in silver to Richard le Someneur (the summoner is a character in Chaucer), fourpence halfpenny in silver, and to the heirs of Roger de Sonkey. (Baines' Hist. of Liverpool, 144).
Jordan fitz Roger de Sankey, sometimes called "Robert", is mentioned in a charter of 3 Ed. I, 1275. He is called a clerk, and witnesses one of the family grants in the time of Henry III. (Charter Me Penes) Hen. III. (A Robert, not called a clerk, is witness to the Warrington Magna Charta in 1292). Robert Banastre grants to Jordan fitz Roger de Sankey 4s. issuing out of fishery in Penketh (Hale Deeds). Henry de Sankey is a witness. Robert de Sankey witnesses a deed about the same time with Henry.
Roger, son of Jordan the clerk - the celibacy of the clergy seems not to have been enforced then - granted to William fitz Henry de Sonkey for his homage and service all the lands which he had in Dallam and Penketh, and two burgages which he had in the town of Warrington, one of which he held of St. Giles of Kalch, and the other of which, lying between the burgages of Roger Doublerose and William le Tanner, he held of William le Boteler, rendering yearly a pair of spurs or two silver pennies (Charter Penens Me).
Henry de Sonky had the following charter about 1250 from Lord William le Boteler:- "I, William le Boteler, have granted to Henry de Sonky the land which Henry his father held between this bounds, namely, the ditch which goes to the way on the banks of the Mersey, ascends thence to the boundary between Bruche and Warrington, and so follows such boundary as far as the land of Saint Mary of Cockersand and thence to the aforesaid way and hedge. Witnesses, William Blundel, Alan de Rixton, Alan de Halsal, Hugh de Tyldeslea, William de Bedeford, Hugh de Pininton, Jordan the clerk, John de Lechantun, Henry de Wekelawe, Henry de Hasting, Robert Pincerns, Ronald the clerk".
William fitz Adam de Sonky. About the year 1275 this William and Hawys his wife granted to Roger de Sonky a burgage in Warrington, situate between the burgage of Thomas de Holland and that of Annabel Doublerose, rendering yearly twelve silver pennies. Witnesses, Richard Percina, Henry Pincerna; Thurstan de Holland, William de Sonky, Lord Radulph, the chaplain, Roger de Hopton, Robert de Witefield, clerk.
William fitz Henry de Sankey in November 1282, was a witness to one of the Bold deeds.
William fitz Henry de Sankey had a grant of land in Kenion from William de Lawton about Hen. III or Edward I. {Hale Deeds). William also had a grant of land croft from Gilb. de Southworth, to wit "Infra divisas quas Willielmus prius construxit" (Ib.) He had also a grant of land in Kinknall. He had a grant of land in Kenion temp. Ed. I. At the same time he witnesses another deed.
Roger de Sankey is mentioned about this time in Harland's Mamecestre (Chet. So.), and he is again mentioned in the Abbreviatio Rot. Orig. 29 Ed. I circa 1299; and a Henry called Roger's son in a Kinknall deed (Hale Deeds). He had a grant of land in Warrington from William Pincerna.
William fitz Roger de Sonkey, the above Roger's son, was the grantee in the following charter made to himself and Agnes his wife a few years before the above period:- "This present chirographed writing witnesses that Northeman le Boteler hath given, granted, and released to William fitz Roger de Sonkey and his heirs one messuage and seven acres of land with one Hortebriggkar (sic) in the territory of Warrington, namely in Little Sonky. To have and to hold according as the original charter testifies, and for the aforesaid gift, grant, and release, the aforesaid William and Agnes his wife will support William, the son of Northeman and Agnes, daughter of the said Northeman, in their lands at Cuerdley, for the term of the life of the said William and Agnes, and also the said William fitz Roger de Sonkey; and Agnes his wife will give yearly half a mark of rent to the aforesaid Northeman during the life of the said aforesaid William and Agnes. In witness whereof to this present writing the parties have mutually set their seals. These being witnesses:- Henry de Wytefield, Robert de Sonky, Richard de Penket, Jordan de Penket, Henry de Werynton the smith, and other". (Lyme Charters).
William de Sonkey, probably the above son of Roger, appears to have made a feoffment in 1328 of all his lands in Little Sankey, within Warrington, to Thomas de Hale and Mabel his wife. (From a copy of the original charter).
Robert de Sankey, the next of his family of whom we hear, was a man of spirit who stood up for his rights when thy were invaded or encroached upon. In 23 Edward I, 1294, he brought an action of ejectment before the King's justices of the Bench against William le Boteler, lord of the Manor of Warrington, to recover a small plot of land in Warrington which was no more than 24 feet long and eight feet broad, and having recovered in his action the Sheriff had a writ commanding him to give Robert seisin of the land. (Abbreviatio Rot. Origin. 23 Edward I, p.91). It was a bold thing in that age for a small man to sue a great one at law, and the smallness of the plot shows that Robert was tenacious of his interests.
Robert de Sankey, son of the foregoing, is named in one of the Boteler Charters in 1362, along with his father, who was still living. They are alluded to as Robert the father and Robert the son, and are both called in to witness the above charter. Robert the son occurs again as witness to a Bold deed in 1850[???].
Hugh de Sankey was a witness to one of the Boteler deeds in the time of Edward II.
Amongst the Boteler tenants, 1332, Alicia, who was the wife of Jordan de Sankey, is mentioned. (Tenants of the Lords of Warrington, p.166) Was she Jordan the clerk's wife?
Roger de Sonky, an early friend of the Hermit friars of the order of St. Augustine at Warrington, probably about 1340 (Warrington Friary, p.14) proved himself their benefactor by giving them an acre and a half of land in Warrington situated near their house. (Warrington Friary, Chet. So. p.14)
A Richard de Sonke was ordained deacon 22 September, 1402, and on 20 December following he was ordained priest from Warrington Friary (Warrington Friary, p.37).
Thomas le Sankey occurs as one of the bailiffs of Rhuddlan in 35 Ed. III, 1361. After the conquest of Wales a great migration took place from Lancashire to Rhuddlan in the train of some of the Lancashire knights and gentlemen who from time to time were in charge of the castle there. (Cheshire Records).
Thurston de Sankey. In 1398, when Richard II raised his body guard of Cheshire Archers de Corona, Thurston de Sankey was enrolled as one of them, and from the rate of his pay, which was sixpence a day, he must have held some rank. He was probably of the Rhuddlan branch of the family, as the force was recruited principally from Cheshire and Wales (Cheshire records).
In 21 Richard II, Robert del Sonke witnesses an assesser of dower to Margaret, wife of Henry Rysley.
John de Sonkey. In 1415, when the King was busy making preparations for the voyage to France, which led to the victory of Agincourt, Sir James Harrington indentured with the Sheriff of Lancashire to bring into the field fifty archers. One of the archers which he so retained was John de Sonkey, who when the account came to be made up, was returned as having been killed in the battle at Agincourt. (Hunter's Tract on Agincourt, pp.36,37).
John de Sankey. In 10 Henry VI, 1431, when Stephen Leet, prior of the Hermit friars of the Order of St. Augustine, made his grant to John Bold, that his wife should have liberty to found a chant at St. Augustine's altar, in the body of their church, to celebrate there from day to day for the souls of his ancestors and for Emma, John Bold's wife, John de Sankey was called among several high ecclesiastics and nobles to be one of the witnesses of the grant. (Warrington in 1465, p.xxxv, preface).
Randle Sankey. In 5 Henry VII, 1490, this Randle did homage to Sir Thomas Boteler, and paid xs. for his relief of a carucate of land, being one-tenth part of a knight's fee which he held under Sir Thomas in Little Sankey. The ceremony, which was witnessed by several great persons, was attended with the observance of much state. (Annals of the Lords of Warrington. Chet. So. p.349). Randle's father, a few years before, appears to have held lands in Pemberton. (Lyme MS).
Ralph, or Randle, Sankey was found heir to his father 21 Hen. VII 1505.
20th November 1507, "Randle Sankey, Esquire" witnessed a Boteler deed.
John Sankey, who, on the death of Randle, was found to be his son and heir, succeeded him in the family property at Sankey.
John Sankey, the son of the above Ralph or Randle, showed that in him the old family spirit was not extinct, for when the trumpet call to Flodden sounded in 1513, John Sankey, not slow to obey the call, enrolled himself under the banner of his liege lord, Sir Thomas le Boteler, of Bewsey, and in his contingent marched with him to Flodden, and in that field of fame, as his ancestor had done at Agincourt, he fell fighting on the 9th of September, 1513.
Thomas Sankey, of Sankey, son of the above hero, was under age, and was excused from appearing at Sir Thomas le Boteler's court held 5th October, 1523 (20th Jan. 16 Hen. VIII 1523. See an abstract of the grant of the wardship and marriage of this ward, Thomas Sankey, to Emmot Page, widow of Randulf Clayton); and in 1539 when Thomas Sankey, gentleman, made his will, he appointed Thomas Sankey, whom he calls an esquire, Sir Thomas le Boteler, knight, and others to be the supervisors of his will (Lan. and Ches. Wills, Chet. So. pt. 2 p.256). In 36 Henry VIII, 1544, when he is described as of Sankey, he appears as a defendant in an action of debt in the Duchy Calendar (pt. I, p.176). In 37 Hen. VIII, 1545, he granted a tenement in Comberbach to Thomas Gleyve, of High Leigh. In 1 Ed. VI, 1548, he took a lease of the Sankey Mills, from Sir Thomas le Boteler, for 21 years, rendering a money rent, and also a further singular render of three hundred "styke eles in season at gettynge tyme of the yeare to be delyvered yearely betweene the nativitye of the Virgin and all saints". The sticha anguillarum consisted of twenty five eels hung upon a stick. (Annals of the Lords of Warrington, Chet. So. 468). On the 8th October, 4 Ed. VI, 1550, Thomas Sankey, describing himself of Little Sankey, granted to his son John for life an annuity of 26s. 8d. to be issuing out of all his lands in Lancashire, and to commence after the death of Henry Bernes, clerk; and on 25th October, 1 Phil. and Mary, 1554, he gave a bond to Hamos Stockeler, of Huyton, to perform the covenants in a deed made by him to the said Stockeler. (Arley Charters). This Thomas took to wife Joanna, half sister of Roger Leigh, rector of Lymm, who by his will dated 18th June, 1551, left to Thomas Sonkey, his brother-in-law, and the testator's sister, Johan his wyffe, his sylver salt for the term of their lyffes,, and after theire deceasse to Thomas Sankye, theire son, to remayne at the house of Sonkye for an heyre loome, and it was his wylle that if the said Thomas Sankye the elder should in any waise trouble his executors they should have no part of his goodes. (Lan. and Ches. Will, Chet. So. pt. II, pp. 49,50). Joanna, or Jane Sankye, may be the same person whom Richard Starkey called his cousin, and by his will dated 29th May, 1526, left her a legacy of 13s. 4d. (Ib. pt. I, p.12).
Thomas Sankey died about 1557, and was succeeded by Thomas Sankey, his eldest son of the same name, who succeeded him [sic]. He took a legacy under Roger Leigh's will, who calls him his godson. In 9th Elizabeth, 1567, he held lands in Ditton (Duchy Calendar II, 353) and in 12 Eliz., 1570, he held lands in Sankey (Ib. 400). In 1584 he was suspected of harbouring a priest in his house at Sankey Hall, and in those days, when the Reformation was but young and weak in the knees, the Government were vigilant in seeking out Romish emissaries, and a report having reached them that Dr. Worthington, a priest, was concealed at Sankey Hall, the pursuivants visited the place in search of him, and though they failed to find the doctor, they apprehended four of Mr. Sankey's nephews, whom they found in his house (Gibson's Lydiate Hall, 225). In 1542 two priests of the Sankey name, Sir Hamnet and Sir Robert Sankey, are mentioned in the will of John Dutton, of Newall, as persons who were to take part in the treatal of masses to be said after the decease of the testator (Lan. and Ches. Wills, pt. I, 67). But the Sankeys were not all adherents to Rome, for on the 5th Oct. 1590, the corporation of Shrewsbury, after a sermon, bestowed on Mr. Sankey and his brethren, at the visitation, a quart of sack and another of claret in token of their approbation, which probably the hosts assisted to consume (Hist. Shrewsbury, p.394). Thomas Sankey died before the year 1592.
Edward Sankey, the son of the foregoing, who was of Sankey Hall, was one of the gentlemen on the homage jury at the court of survey of the noble Robert Dudley for his manor of Warrington, on 31st October, 1592. He is entered thus in the survey: "Edwardus Sonchie generosus tenet ut supra (per serv. mil.) unum capitale messuagim cum xv. aliis tenementes in Warrington and Sanchey. Parva p. decim pte unius feodi militaria et reddit per an. xii s. vi d.". Two water mills and one soof, called Sankey Mills, are mentioned, of which it is said Edward Sankey takes the "inccomes" and pays for the same yearly £6 13s. 4d. Thirty one persons subscribed the survey, of whom 12 are styled gentlemen, but only eight, of whom Edward Sankey was one, write their names, all the rest being marks only. He died at Sankey, and was buried at Warrington on 3rd December, 1602. Anne, his widow, who survived him, afterwards married Thomas Starkey, and died 18th May, 1627. He also left two sons, Thomas his eldest son, Richard, the younger, and three daughters, Margaret, Jane and Alice. His Inq. P.M. is in the Duchy Calendar (p.69). (Edward Sankey's Inq. P.M. was taken at Warrington, 20th June, 1603, and is printed in extenso in the Lanc. Inqs. Stuart Period, vol. III p.1).
Thomas Sankey of Sankey Hall, who succeeded Edward his father, married Bridget, and their daughter of the same name was baptised at Warrington on 9th November, 1607, and on 13th of the same month his wife Bridget was buried at Warrington. They left a son, of whom we shall hear more hereafter.
Thomas Sankey, the son of Edward Sankey, who survived his wife Bridget, must have married again; for when he died in 1615 at Warrington on 30th November, where his burial is registered, his son and heir, another Edward Sankey, apparently his only child, was only three years old. On the 1st December, 1610, he signed an acquittance to Thomas Ireland, afterwards Sir Thomas Ireland, Knight, for £1,000; but it does not appear how the money became due. Probably it might have been a charge left on the estate by his father, Edward Sankey, or it might be for the profits which Mr. Ireland had made out of the lands, as Thomas Sankey's guardian, during his minority; and on 13th March, 1612, the Sankey family had further dealings with Mr. Ireland, when Thomas Starkey and Ann his wife, described as late the wife of Edward Sankey (the father of Thomas Sankey), then released to Mr. Ireland all their right, title, and interest in the lands of the same Edward Sankey, or of Thomas Sankey, his son, and Mr. Ireland on his part became bound to pay them two sums on a given day and not to sell Sankey Hall and the other lands there for three years. Ann, though the widow of an Edward Sankey, a former owner of Sankey Hall, was an illiterate person, and instead of writing her name she made her mark to the deed. About the same time also Mrs. Ireland covenanted with Mr. Bold and Mr. Marbury as trustees of Margaret, Jane and Alice, the three daughters of Edward Sankey, to pay each of them twenty pounds. These dealings of Mr. Ireland with the Sankey family have a suspicious look, which gives countenance to the complaint of which we shall hear later on. In 1597, when Mr. Bold and Mr. Ireland, the joint purchasers of the Boteler property, divided their purchase on the 11th April, in the above year, it was agreed that the Lower Sankey mill and the piece of waste ground for the use of the same mill should belong not to Mr. Bold but to Mr. Ireland. In 1613 Hieronymus Zanchy, or Sankey, published his "Opera Theologica" at Geneva. He was an Italian monk who became a Protestant; but his books obtained some celebrity, and may have caused his Christian name to be adopted by one of the Lancashire Sankeys, of whom, indeed, we shall hear at a little later period. In 11 Jac. I, 1614, a Roger Sankey appears in the Inquisitions P.M. in the Duchy Calendar (p.83) as having held considerable lands in Burscough. From a deed of Sir Robert Dudley's it appears that a lease of Bewsey Hall had been made to Richard Bold, esquire, for a term of 21 years commencing in about 1594. This term expired in 1615, and then there was an account, drawn out and called "a paper note of goods remaining in the house of Bewsey the 2 day of January, 1615" which begins thus: "Charges belonging to husbandry at my Lord Orrell's going away". Lord Orrell was probably no other than William Orrell, esquire, of Turton, who had married Mary Ireland, of Hale, and had acquired his title of lord more easily and at less expense than other coronets cost; and in the very minute and curious list of articles in the house there occurs this entry referring to the Sankeys, which again connects these with Mr. Ireland: "A cheste in the ould closett with boundes for Mr. Sonkey's children with some other ragges". Two years later we have this entry in the Shuttleworth Accounts (Chet. So. part 2, p.402) which introduces a Sankey in a humbler rank of life; but we give it because there occurs in it a provincial word which needs explanation: "April 17, 1617. Pd. Widow Sonckey for a stand of ale for Good Friday". Now a stand is a local term for a small barrel set on end.
A valuable Inq. P.M. on Edward Sankey may be seen, Vol. 3, Record So. pp.1,2,3.
Edward Sankey, the son of Thomas Sankey, was born about the year 1612, and at his father's death he was an infant of tender years, and it would seem that the Sankey property was too near Bewsey not to excite in Mr. Ireland a desire to become its possessor. He had dealt with Edward Sankey's aunts, also with his grandmother, and in some way with his father, and lastly with Edward Sankey himself, as he tells his story when he was about 13 years of age. In 1625, when Mr. Ireland, who had then become Sir Thomas Ireland, made his will on the 4th July he stated, as if it was a burthen on his mind, that he owed something to Edward Sankey, and he bequeathed him an annuity of forty a [sic] shillings a year for his life. Edward Sankey, who was abroad both then and at the time of Sir Thomas Ireland's death, returned home a few years afterwards, and finding that Sankey Hall and the rest of his inheritance was claimed by the Ireland family, he filed a bill in Chancery on 22nd November, 1639, in which, after describing himself to be the son and heir of Thomas Sankey, who was the eldest son and heir of Edward Sankey, gentleman, deceased, he stated that his grandfather was theretofore and at the time of his decease lawfully seized in his demesne as of fee and in a capital messuage or tenement with the appurtenances called Sankey House, situate in Little Sankey, and of divers lands thereunto belonging, and also of and in several other messuages to the number of twenty or more, and divers lands and tenements, with the appurtenances thereto belonging, situate in Little Sankey and Warrington, and also of and in two water corn mills with the appurtenances in the said county, that Edward Sankey, the grandfather, died seized of the above about thirty years before. That Thomas Sankey, the father, to whom the lands there descended, being then within age, became a ward to the Crown, of whom the lands were holden by knight's service, and that the custody of his body and a lease of his lands were granted by the Crown to Sir Thomas Ireland. That the said Sir Thomas therefore took possession of all the lands. That the said Thomas Sankey married without his consent, and had issue the complainant, his only son and heir. That the said Thomas Sankey, being possessed of a good personal estate in horses, cattle, bedding, and other things to the value of two hundred pounds or thereabouts, and finding himself sick, was persuaded by the said Sir Thomas Ireland to make a will and appoint him, Sir Thomas, to be his executor. That the said Thomas Sankey died about twenty four years ago, leaving the complainant, an infant of three years old. That the said Sir Thomas Ireland entered and received the rents of the estate, but never proved the will. That on the complainant attaining the age of 13 years the said Sir Thomas caused him to take out letters of administration with the will annexed. That he was promised and expected to receive from the said Sir Thomas Ireland an account of his father's estate. That he went in early youth on his travels beyond the seas, where he remained for many years, leaving the said Sir Thomas Ireland in possession. That Sir Thomas died about ten years ago, while complainant was still beyond the seas. That complainant, being lately returned home from his travels, had demanded an account from Thomas Ireland, Sir Thomas's son and heir and executor, and he prayed therefore to have such an account and reassurance of the lands.
Edward Sankey's bill in Chancery probably dragged its slow length along for some time, for that court was as slow in its progress then as it continued to be in after times, and it was Cromwell's intention, when he came into power, to destroy both the court and its name. His "Little Parliament" had reported that there were then 23,000 causes of from five to thirty three years continuance lying undetermined in Chancery, and the Protector therefore determined on its entire extinction, but he found vested interests and the officials of the law too strong and too stubborn even for his iron hands, and he was obliged at last to come down to the House and confess that he had found the sons of Zeruiah too strong for him, and he must therefore give up his purpose. That tedious and slow course of proceeding no doubt met Edward Sankey in his suit, and though we do not know what was its exact end, we know meanwhile that its delays would chafe him, and that the Sankey inheritance, either by the decision of the suit or by some sale of his rights, ultimately remained with the Irelands, his powerful and near neighbours. In 1642, less than three years after the suit began, the great quarrel between the King and Parliament arose, and Edward Sankey, who had been so lately taken up with a legal warfare, now found himself engaged in a warfare of a different and far more serious kind, which was only to be settled by the sword. The whole country was in a state of commotion. Both the King and the Parliament wanted soldiers, and Edward Sankey enrolled himself in Sir William Brereton's regiment of horse. He had probably gained some military experience of warlike affairs while he was on foreign travel abroad; and as he was well born, had been well educated, and was now at large upon the world, he had a commission given him to command a troop of horse in Sir William Brereton's regiment, in which capacity, though his name does not occur in Mr. Peacock's army list either of the Cavaliers or the Roundheads, he was not long idle, as we learn from the journal kept by Mr. Peter Davenport, of Bromhall, who says "On New Year's Day, 1643, Sir William Brereton being about Stockport, Captain Sankey and Captain Francis Dukinfield, with two or three troops, came to Bromhall, and went into my stable and took out all my horses; then they drove all they could find out of the park, taking away with them above twenty in all. Afterwards they searched my house for arms again, took away my fowlinge piece, stocking piece, and drum. They took away divers other things, and although by the meanes my wife made to Sir William Brereton we had a warrant from him to have all my goods taken at that time to be restored, and had my young horse with some other horses again, yet we lost them which we never got after" (Hist. Ches. III, 400). This foraging excursion, in which Captain Sankey and his fellow commander were engaged, when, as a military trophy, they took away Mr. Davenport's drum, as another rival party on the same side had carried off Mr. Tatton's bell from Wythenshawe, was not a proceeding that reflected honour on the two captains, though another drum, the "drum ecclesiastic", we know was beaten with much effect and advantage in the cause of the Parliamentarians. We find Captain Sankey next engaged in an exploit much nearer Sankey, where he would be more at home. On Monday in Easter week, 1643, being the 3rd April, 1643, Sir William Brereton with most of his horse agreed to meet the Manchester men in order to assault and gain the town of Warrington, which was then held for the King by the Earl of Derby. The united forces of Brereton and the Manchester men faced the town, but designing by a surprise to attack the town on the west, which was unguarded, Sir William detached a part of his troops from Stockton Heath, their place of rendezvous, with directions to cross the low meadows between that place and the Mersey, and then crossing the river at Sankey Bridges to assault and take the house of Mr. Edward Bridgeman, a distinguished royalist there, which would give them command of the principal road from the town from the west. Captain Sankey, from his perfect acquaintance with the neighbourhood, proved no less a guide than a leader on the occasion, and the enterprise proved a great success. The house was assaulted and taken, and its possession would have proved of the greatest importance had not the main attack on the town itself proved a failure and made it necessary that the troops at Sankey should retire to Stockton Heath by the way by which they had come, in order to support the main body which Lord Derby had engaged there. A few weeks later, when Warrington was taken by the Parliament army, Sir William Brereton marched with his forces to Liverpool, and Captain Sankey was almost certainly with him, for on the 20th June, 1643, we read that "Captain Sankey, of Sir William Brereton's horse, was made prisoner by Lord Capel in a skirmish near Ormskirk" (Hist. of Ches. III, 224). In 1647 and 1648 an officer called Major Sanxay was entertained more than once at a civic banquet by the Mayor of Congleton, where his title of Major was probably only a piece of courtesy, as the spelling of his name was probably a mistake for our Captain Sankey. On October 13th, 1651, we hear of Captain Sankey in command of two troops of Colonel Jones's regiment being employed in the melancholy office of escorting James Earl of Derby to his place of execution at Bolton-le-Moors. After this occurrence we meet with no further mention of Captain Sankey, except in one of the royalist ballads, which was made on some of the Parliament officers, and ran thus:
Lancaster's mad,
And Eaton's as bad;
Mainwaring
looks like an ape,
Oxley is naught,
And Sankey was caught
When he
was in a Captain's shape.
(Ashmolean MS. 36,37 vol. 937,8.)
In Dr. Oliver's account of the English Jesuits we have mention of three of the Lancashire Sankeys who entered that order.
Lawrence Sankey (in the obituary incorrectly called Sanchey) was born in Lancashire (most probably at Sankey) in the year 1606. He was admitted into the society at the age of thirty, and after having served in the English mission for eleven years he was ordered to go to Maryland in 1649, and having passed from thence into Virginia, he died there on the 13th February, 1657, at the age of fifty-one.
Francis Sankey, believed to be the brother of the above Lawrence, was born in Lancashire, in 1604. He joined the society of Jesuits at the age of twenty-four, became professed on 29th September, 1641, and died in England in the year 1663.
William Sankey was also born in Lancashire, in the year 1608. He became professed at 37 years of age, and a religious at 52 years of age. He lived and served in Spain 26 years, and he died at Watton on 6th January, 1680. (Oliver's account of the English Jesuits, p.185).
16th October, 1646, a Richard Sankey was present when Ashmole was made a mason, and his son Edward, who was baptised 3rd February, 1622, is mentioned in Mr. H. Ryland's Freemasonry, p.3. In the same book are many other Sankey registers. There is a Captain Sankey mentioned in East Ches. I. 431, as being one of those who invaded the house at Bromhall.
Hieronymus, or Jerome Sankey, who probably was indebted fro his Christian name to the fame which the Protestant author of the "Opera Theologica" had obtained for it, was born in Lancashire, and very probably at Sankey, from whence, at the proper age, he was sent not to Brasenose, Oxford, where men born in any part of the parish of Prescot or the neighbourhood had then a preference, but to Cambridge, where we suppose that he graduated in due course, and afterwards he was thrust by the party he espoused into a fellowship at All Souls' Oxford, and was made proctor of the University. Of his career at Oxford, Antony A. Wood says: "Hierome Zanchy, one of the proctors, was a boisterous fellow at cudgelling and football playing, and indeed more fit in all respects to be a rude soldier than a scholar or a man of polite parts. In the beginning of the rebellion he threw off his gown and took up arms for the Parliament, and soon afterwards became a captain, a Presbyterian, an Independent, and I know not what." (Athenae Oxon.). Certain it is that before 1649 Sankey, indulging his natural taste, which was always armis quam libris peritior, Cromwell and Fairfax paid a visit of ceremony to Oxford on the 17th May, 1649, where they had quarters at All Souls', of which Jerome Sankey, though a Fellow of the College and proctor of the University, seems to have acted as their hospitable entertainer and host. Oldmixon (vol. I, 381) gives this account of the visit: "After the General and Lieutenant-General Cromwell and Fairfax had suppressed the mutineers in Oxfordshire they both went to Oxford, attended by several officers of the army, the University having sent a deputation inviting them to that city, Colonel Sankey, as Fellow of All Souls', being then one of the proctors. After having been nobly entertained they were created Doctors of Civil Law, while many of their officers were made masters of arts." Thomas Carlyle, who has also given an account of this reception, tells it more suo (Letters of Cromwell, II, 35) as follows: "On Thursday night, 17th May, the general, lieutenant-general and chief officers arrive at Oxford; lodge in All Souls' College; head quarters to be there for several days. Solemnly welcomed by the reformed University; bedinnered, bespeeched; made doctors, masters, bachelors, or what was suitable to their ranks, and to the faculties of this reformed University. Of which high doings, degrees, and convocation dinners and eloquence, by Proctor Sankey (Zanchy he calls him) we say nothing, being in haste for Ireland. This small benefit we have from the business. Anthony Wood in his crabbed but authentic way has given us biographical sketches of all these graduates; biographies very lean, very perverse, but far better than are commonly going then, and in the fatal scarcity not quite without value". Mr. Sankey must have shown his talents for the military profession to Cromwell, who had great discernment, for he had his colonelcy per saltum. Cromwell, hastening from Oxford to Ireland, took Colonel Sankey with him, and in his letter from Cork to the Speaker on the 19th December, 1649 (Carlyle's Notes, vol. II, 1087) he writes thus: "Being informed that the enemy intended to take in the Fort of Passage, and that Lieutenant-General Ferral with his Ulsters was to March out of Waterford with a considerable party of horse and foot for that service, I ordered Colonel Sankey, who lay on the north side of the Blackwater, to march with his regiment of horse and two pieces of troops of dragoons to the relief of our friends, which he accordingly did, his party consisting in all of about three hundred and twenty. When he came some few miles from the place, he took some of the enemy's stragglers in the villages as he went, all which he put to the sword; seven troopers of his killed thirty of them in one house. When he came near the place he found the enemy had close begirt it, with about five hundred Ulster foot under Major O'Neil; Colonel Wogan also, the governor of Duncannon, with a party of his with two great battering guns and a mortar piece, and Captain Browne, the governor of Ballihac, were there. Our men furiously charged them and beat them from the place. The enemy got into a place where they might draw up, and the Ulsters, who bragged much of their pikes, made indeed for the time a good resistance; but the horse, pressing sorely upon them, broke them; killed nearly a hundred upon the place; took three hundred and fifty prisoners; amongst whom Major O'Neil and the officers of five hundred Ulster foot, all but those which were killed, the Renegade Wogan with twenty four of Ormond's Kurisees, and the Governor of Ballihac, etc. Concerning some of these, I hope, I shall not trouble your justice". In his conduct of this his first military affair of which we hear, Colonel Sankey showed that the General had not misjudged the scholar, who, however, seems to have shown more skill and valour than mercy.
Cromwell, who recorded Colonel Jerome Sankey's exploits at Passage, makes no remark upon his putting so many stragglers to the sword, but rather commends him for it, must be credited with a share of the blame; and, as like results followed the war in other parts of Ireland, we need not wonder at the ill name which he acquired on the other side of the Channel, where the popular belief ascribes to him many of the strange deeds that in England are ascribed to the Prince of Evil.
We next hear of Colonel Sankey in the following letter from Cromwell to President Bradshaw, dated Cashel, 5th March, 1649: "Sir, It Pleaseth God still to enlarge your interests here. The Castle of Cahir, very considerable, built upon a rock, and seated in an island in the midst of the Suir, was lately rendered to me. It cost the Earl of Essex, as I am informed, about eight weeks' siege with his army and artillery. It is now yours without the loss of one man. So also is the Castle of Kitinan, a very large and strong castle of the Lord Dunboyne's. This latter I took in with my cannon without the loss of one man. We have taken the Castle of Golden Bridge, another pass on the Suir, as also the Castle of Dundrum, at which we lost six men, Colonel Zanchy (Sankey), who commanded the party, being shot through the hand. We have placed another strong garrison at Ballynakill, upon the edge of the King's and Queen's counties. We have divers garrisons in the county of Limerick, and by these we take away the enemy's subsistence, and diminish their contributions, by which in time I hope, they will sink. OLIVER CROMWELL". (Cromwelliana, p.77 and Carlyle's Cromwell's Correspondence, vol. II, 149).
How long Colonel Sankey's wounded hand kept him from serving in the field we do not know; but in 1651, while the war was still raging in Ireland, and violent things were being done on both sides, Colonel Sankey was appointed a commissioner for levying the extraordinary taxes of customs and excise which were wanted for carrying on the war at Clonmel. (Oldmixon's Hist. Eng. I. 394).
On the 28th October, 1651, he was probably able to be in the field again, for he then wrote to Colonel Petty from Cashel announcing to him that Limerick had surrendered. (MSS. Corpus Christi Coll. Oxford, 132).
He now became ambitious of Parliamentary honours, and in 1654 he was elected, the elections being conducted with freedom, member of Parliament for Tipperary and Waterford, and he sat in it throughout its Session of five months, at the end of which time it was dissolved, having earned for itself the name of the "Still Parliament", from its never having made while it lasted a single "Ay" or "No".
In 1656, after Cromwell had with much solemnity been inaugurated Protector of the Commonwealth, he called another Parliament on the 17th September, and to this Parliament Colonel Sankey was elected to sit in it for Marlborough. How the "Still Parliament" earned its name while he was there seems strange, for in this Parliament he was a continual speaker. On the 5th March, 1657, on the debate on James Naylor's case, the Quaker who was treated with so much severity, Colonel Sankey, leaning to the compassionate side, rose to support the motion that Naylor's wife should have free access to him on all occasions, and remain with him, if necessary, for his relief; and that he should be allowed another room, and the use of fire, candles, and air; and on the division he was one of the tellers on the affirmative side. (Burton's Diary, I, 380).
Colonel Sankey entertained a kindly feeling towards his brothers-in-arms, and on the 5th May, 1657, when a question was made to those who had served at Gloucester, he warmly espoused their cause, and, in acknowledging their services, expressed his hope that they would be fully and gratefully remembered and rewarded. (Ibid. II, 109).
On the 26th May, 1657, the same day on which the Master of the Rolls made a motion that all private business should be laid aside, the weather growing hot, and added a hope that the House would not sit all summer, a motion which would sound very strange now, Colonel Sankey, taking no heed of the heat, made and carried a motion that a petition presented by Colonel Louthean, which was of a private nature, should be read, which having been done, it was afterwards referred to the committee on officer's accounts sitting at Worcester House, to be dealt with as other cases of the like nature. (Ib. 124).
On the 30th May, 1657, there was a very long and earnest debate as to where the power to appoint certain officers and committees was vested. Some of the members were for entrusting the matter wholly to the Protector without limit or restraint, but Colonel Sankey, who spoke upon it, took a middle course in the matter, moving that as the Protector could not be restrained by a vote it should be recommended to his highness to observe certain rules in appointing officers, but that the old servants of the Parliament should by no means be overlooked or lost sight of. (Ib. 162).
Before the breaking out of the Civil War, an old man named Hele, who had accumulated a large fortune, clung to it with such earnestness that the Master of the Rolls said he had often seen him weep when the anthem was sung:
In getting goods and cannot tell
Who shall enjoy the
same.
By the persuasion of his second wife he had been induced to disinherit his heir-at-law, and leave most of his state to charitable uses; and when, as was to be expected, the heir grew dissatisfied, and questioning the will brought the case to Parliament, and a committee had reported in his favour on June 6th, 1657, Colonel Sankey differed from those who were against receiving the committee's report, and quoting a case in favour of the heir, moved and carried a resolution that the House should agree with the committee and give the heir what he claimed. (Ib. 1889).
On 9th June, 1657, it was moved by Mr. Highland, the member for Southwark, that a Bill for making better provision for prisoners and persons confined for debt should be brought in, and in moving it the member said, "I live amongst prisoners. In three prisons near me there are above one thousand prisoners". Colonel Sankey seconded the motion, and the Bill was ordered to be read.
On the 9th June, 1657, The House of Commons being at a stand, and having nothing to do until notice should arrive that his Highness the Protector was in the Painted Chamber, General Goffe moved that a short Bill for Mrs. Bastwich's relief should be read, and the motion having been seconded, Lord Cochrane objected that this being merely a private business to proceed in it now would be a breach in the rules of the House. To this it was replied that the House having no business before it, the rule should be dispensed with, and the Bill was read accordingly, and a motion was made by Colonel Sankey, and seconded by the Lord Deputy, that a rider should be annexed to it for settling £100 a year upon the widow of Mr. Moorcock, a poor minister in Ireland, but the rider was long, and as it was about to be read, the Serjeant of the House entered and informed the House that the Serjeant-at-Arms was at the door with a message from his Highness, whereupon the House followed the Speaker to the Painted Chamber, and addressing his Highness the Speaker observed that great bodies moved slowly, and that the fruits of the House were but as some grapes preceding the vintage, not all ripe at a time, but he hoped that the 39 bills which he then presented were a fair instalment of what Parliament was preparing for the autumn. That it was not with their productions as with Rebecca's births, where one had another by the heel, but that the generation of laws was like that of natural generation, and that his Highness, who was the sun in the firmament of the Commonwealth, must give the laws their life and breath. The Protector allowed all these bills except one, which he disallowed, and affecting the regal style the Clerk wrote upon it, "The Lord protector will advise of this bill", at which the House took umbrage.
Colonel Sankey, who had served as an extraordinary commissioner of taxes in Ireland, knew something of their weight and the difficulty there was in collecting them; and on the 10th June, when a bill was brought in for a three years' assessment of taxes in England and Ireland, Colonel Sankey, on its being said that the assessments in Ireland were excessive, said "It would really be for your advantage to abate them for three or seven years. I think £5,000, or £6,000 will be overcharge enough, and be a good refreshment to you. The highways are very chargeable to us there. The Tories cause taxes upon us, and wolves disperse and destroy our flocks". (Ibid. 210). What they were who at this time were thus coupled with wolves is thus explained by the historian Rapin: "On appelloit en ce temps la Torys certain brigands ou bandits d'Irlande, qui se tenoient sur les montagnes ou dans les isles qui forment les vastes marais de os puis-la".
On 13th June, 1657, Sir Thomas Strickland and Sir Thomas Wroth opened the parliamentary business of the day by saying that they were old men, and that it was time for them to be thinking of their graves and the settlement of their estates; they moved that a bill for the probate of wills might be read. That was in their thoughts as in King Richard's when he said "Let's make executors and talk of wills". The Speaker then stood up and acquainted the House that at some hands or others there had been a high breach of privilege by talking of what things have passed in the House, from which it is evident that the debates and proceedings were not then carried on in a whispering gallery, and that a knowledge of them was meant to be confined to members only. How would the public bear this now? A committee had been appointed on the subject of the public debts and the mode of paying them; and the report of the committee was now brought up. Upon this there arose a great debate, some proposing one thing and some another; some were for selling the Irish lands, and some actually talked of a composition on their debts; but Colonel Sankey said "The House will do no good by recommitting the Bill on which the committee has made their report. I think it is well", he said, "that you should sell the forest lands, reserving a rent so as to make up your revenue. I know no reason why you should not revive the motion made the other day, and pay such a sum out of the new buildings as may suffice to make up the £400,000 which is deficient". But his motion was opposed by a member who said he felt as much commiseration for their poor creditors as any member, but that he doubted whether what was proposed would do the business. As to the forests, he said, "I wonder men should forget there is a chief magistrate who must have a revenue. If we dispose of that which is to raise it, we shall entail a tax upon the people that posterity will not be able to cut off. As for the proposal which has been made to reserve the timber, that, indeed, is a strange proposal which would sell a wood and reserve the timber, and it would find but few chapmen. As to sending creditors amongst the wild beasts and birds in Ireland for satisfaction, it would be adding misery to affliction. Besides, you have debts in Ireland to which the Irish lands are more properly applicable".
Colonel Sankey, who was certainly knighted by Cromwell, and so became Sir Jerome Sankey, must have received his new honour about this time, or a little later. It was another step made by the Protector in imitation of monarchy. ("Notes and Queries", 5 Nov. 1859, p.383).
On the 15th June, 1657 when the house took into consideration the humble, additional, and explanatory petition and advice, and it was moved to take in Ulster and Munster, and it was said to be narrow not to let in the Protestants in Munster as elsewhere, Colonel Sankey observed that the House had as much reason to take in Connaught as Munster, who most of all had deserted their cause; and he told the House that unless they explained what was meant by signal testimonies (an expression meaning meritorious services) they might be excluding their best friends. (Burton's Memoirs, II. 248,9).
In June 1657, the Protector knighted Richard Stayner, captain of the Speaker's frigate, for his several good services at sea. The ceremony took place at Whitehall, in the accustomed manner. (Burton's Diary, II, 283). We must suppose that Sir Jerome Sankey received the accolade at the same place and in the same manner, but not at the same time. In this month the Commons were employed principally upon the petition and advice, which they had commenced in the preceding March, and were still proceeding with at no very rapid pace. It was a sort of constitution abrogating the old instrument of government regulating all the points of the new government in future, and it dealt with some matters which do not seem very important. In debating the subject in committee, it was moved by one of the members that the Speaker should show his Highness to the people and make acclamation, and moved that the sword to be delivered by way of investiture might not be left out; upon which another member remarked that his Highness had already a sword, and moved that he should be presented with such a robe, which some members understanding the mover to say a rope, the House gave way to laughter; but the mover, resenting this, said he did not use the word rope, but spoke the word robe as plainly as he could, adding, "You are making his Highness a great Prince, a King, indeed, as far as he is Protector. Ceremonies signify much of the substance in such cases, as a shell preserves the kernel or a casket a jewel. I would have the Protector endowed with a robe of honour". It was ultimately resolved that a purple robe lined with crimson, a Bible, a sceptre, and a sword be provided to invest the Protector. (Ib. 303). The debate on the report proceeded in a desultory manner: and Colonel Sankey found an opportunity of moving and carrying the motion which he had made long before, that £100 a year should be settled on Mrs. Moorcock, the widow of a minister, out of lands in Ireland. (Ib. 304). The Secretary having offered a clause to be inserted in the petition and advice that officers in Scotland, if his Highness's Council have employed them, and they were of good conversation, should be held to have given signal testimony, great opposition was offered to the clause; but Colonel Sankey, who was in favour of it, said, "I stand up to vindicate that party that are so much reflected on. Did not they first own your quarrel? True they were also for the King, but this was upon account of the covenant and conscience. I move that there be a discrimination, and that you reject the proposed proviso". (Ib. 308).
On 31st March, 1657, the Speaker, attended by the whole House, Colonel Sankey amongst them, had this day repaired to his Highness at Whitehall to present the petition and advice, a ceremony which was but the beginning of a number of long speeches from the Protector, in which he argued against taking the title of King; and finally, though with evident reluctance, declined to assume it. Quoting, in the course of one of these speeches, a speech of his at Hampden, he used terms so like Falstaff's in the First Part of Hen. IV (act 4. s. 2) that he must have been familiar with that part of Shakespeare. "Your troops, said I, are most of them old decayed serving men and tapsters, and such kind of fellows, and their troops are gentlemen's sons, younger sons, and persons of quality. Do you think that the spirit of such mean and base fellows will ever be able to encounter gentlemen that have honour and courage and resolution in them?" (Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, by Carlyle, vol. III, 307).
After the protector had made to a committee of 99 members of the House his third speech on the business of the petition and advice, the committee, according to Mr. Carlyle, exeunt with many bows, "doing their epic feat not in hexametric measure on that old Saturday forenoon, old London, old England sounding manifoldly round them"; and then the historian goes on to say that "the Protector would be shut up three or four hours together in private discourse with some of the members, and none were admitted to come in to him. He was sometimes very cheerful with them, and laying aside his greatness he would be exceedingly familiar, and by way of diversion would make verses with them, play at crambo with them, and every one of them must try his fancy". This account of the Protector shows that at times he laid aside the Ironsides. In June 1657, this Parliament, which then closed its first session, was adjourned till the 30th January, 1658, when it re-assembled with the addition of a House of Lords which had been selected by Cromwell; but this Parliament proved so refactory, that it was dissolved and came to a premature end on the 4th February following; and on the 3rd September, a day on which he had gained most of his great victories, Cromwell breathed his last in the 59th year of his age; and his son Richard, who, under a power in the petition and advice given to the Protector to name his successor, in a very few days after the 3rd September, 1658, was installed in his office, proceeded to call a Parliament on 27th January , 1659, to which Sir Jerome Sankey was returned as member for the borough of Woodstock. On the 7th March great questions were raised in the House as to the other House, the House of Lords as it was called, which had been created under the petition and advice. One of the speakers had said, "I cannot consent to transact with that other House. It is taken away by a law and not restored by a law. It can be no House of Lords. Never was House of Lords named and approved by that House and His Highness, so it is no House". Other speakers were bold enough to intimate force, and the debate growing warm, Sir Jerome Sankey said, "I am very sorry to hear arguments of force so much used. It is throwing dirt in your faces and those of your army".
When the Protector Cromwell was carried to his grave with more than regal ceremonial, of which a full account may be seen in Burton's Diary (II, pp. 518-30), a place was assigned for the knights bachelors; and though their names are not given we may be quite sure that Sir Jerome Sankey, who was knighted by Cromwell and owed so much to him, would follow his hearse among the rest.
In the election to the Parliament called by Richard Cromwell there were, as there are now, petitions to unseat some of those who had been returned. Such a petition was presented by Thomas Madryn to unseat Mr. Glyn, one of the two Welshmen who had been returned for Carnarvon. The petition was presented on 22nd March, 1659, and a debate arose whether the time to petition having expired it should be received or not. In the course of the debate it appeared that no one had signed the petition, which set forth that Mr. Glyn was an infant, and that his election had been brought about, as appeared by a letter from a great man, by a combination of the malignants, and that a poll had been demanded and denied, and that great disorder ensued. Sir Jerome Sankey, who had formerly been employed in reducing that part of Wales, was for receiving the petition, and said he knew that the malignants there were trumps, but the House were against it, and the petition was refused. (Burton's Diary, IV, 224). Two days later (on 24th March) Sir Jerome Sankey rose in his place and said, "I open against a member of this House the highest charge that can be made, such a one as has not been heard of for long time. It is a great person, and is a high breach of trust. It is against Dr. William Petty, and the charge consists of several articles: (1) Bribery, (2) ingrossing moneys and lands, (3) taking into his hands large sums of the public money and using many foul practices in his office. He has been both cook, caterer, and hunter. He is commissioner and surveyor, and has had the disposing of two million acres of land. He is a man of great parts, but he has highly abused them", Sir Jerome having brought the charge to the table, a member moved that it should not be received unless it was signed, thereupon Sir Jerome said he knew the danger of bringing up a charge of this nature without signing it; and he immediately subscribed his name to it. Several members spoke favourably of the accused, and remarked that the charge had already been made, before the Council in Ireland; but it was finally resolved that William Petty, doctor of physic, a member of the House, should attend the House to answer the charge on that day month; and that Sir Jerome Sankey should have leave to have recourse to the records and to take copies of them in order to make good his charge. (Ib. 244). On Thursday, 21st April, Dr. Petty made his defence, but the case was as tedious as some parliamentary committees now are, and it was again adjourned; and it would seem that the Parliament was afterwards too busy to take it up again. It is worthwhile, however, to give the account which Dr. Bates has left us of the ingenious contrivances which Dr. Petty used for measuring the lands in Ireland. "He engaged", he says, "to measure geometrically, in thirteen months, the whole of the forfeited estates in Ireland, and to assign his portion to each claimant, and this he effected by dividing the survey into five or six portions, assigning to each the proper instruments which he had procured from several skilled artisans. He then taught some ingenious persons how to proceed in their different departments; communicating to him their results; which he could examine and compare at home. Thus he measured five or more million of acres, and by the help of a chain and other instruments he ran over a hundred thousand miles, five times the circumference of the world. Thus was Ireland partitioned, and every one obtained his share according to lot". (Ib. 472 in notis). Sir Jerome Sankey is reflected upon by Wood as being influenced by party jealousy for the part he took against Dr. Petty.
On the 22nd April, 1659, Richard Cromwell dissolved the Parliament which he had called; and the great power of the Cromwells which his father had created vanished like a scroll. There now remained but the shadow of any governing power in the kingdom except that which was assumed by the military officers who sat at Wallingford House, and who for awhile thought of collecting taxes and ruling the kingdom by the power of the sword. Bit, soldiers as they were, they had not forgotten that discretion was the better part of valour, and they concluded, after consultation, to take a safer method, and to restore the members of the Long Parliament, which they did by publishing a declaration on the 6th May, 1659, inviting all the members of the Long Parliament who had continued to sit in it until the 20th April, 1653 (when Cromwell had so forcibly expelled them, taken away their mace and locked the doors of the Parliament House), to return to the exercise and discharge of their trust. After one or two meetings between the chief officers of the army and the chief members of the Long Parliament about satisfaction to the army, a deputation, headed by Major General Lambert and others, among whom was Colonel Sir Jerome Sankey, proceeded to wait upon Lenthal, the old Speaker, who was sitting at the Rolls, with the declaration which the officers had arrived at, and presented it to him and several of the members of the Long Parliament who were present, when the Speaker and members who were with him declared their readiness to meet again; and the next day, the 7th May, they met in the Painted Chamber, the Speaker leading the way, and then the Long Parliament resumed its sittings. (Oldmixon's Hist. II, 435). When Sir George Booth rose in arms to restore the King in August, 1659, General Ludlow despatched a body of troops from Ireland under Colonel Sir Jerome Sankey and Colonel Axtel, whose presence probably kept the insurrection in check and prevented its spreading beyond Cheshire and Lancashire. (Ib. 439).
In or about January, 1660, as Monk was advancing from Scotland, he was met and joined by Colonel Sir Jerome Sankey at York, at the head of his Irish brigade of 1,500 men. (Ib. 453). Soon after this came the King's restoration, and as Sir Jerome Sankey had not sat on the late King's trial and was not obnoxious to any party, he probably retired quietly to his Irish estates, and we hear of him no more.
In 1664 a Mr. Sankey was chaplain to the Lord Chief Justice Bridgman. (Worthington's Memoirs, p.155).
[Remainder of book omitted]
Back to Published References to Sankey