Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 22.djvu/21

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page needs to be proofread.
Glynne
Glynne
15


Carlyon's Early Years, ii. 1-49; Jeaffreson's Doctors, i. 197, ii. 179; Maclean's Trigg Minor, ii. 32, 66-7, 74; Wordsworth's Scholæ Acad. pp. 173-7; Autobiog. of Sir E. Brydges, i. 64; Chatham Corresp. iv. 309; Harwood's Alumni Eton. p. 326; European Mag. 1800, pp. 355-7.]

W. P. C.

GLYNNE, Sir JOHN (1603–1666), judge, eldest son of Sir William Glynne, by Jane, daughter of John Griffith of Carnarvon, was born in 1603 at Glynllifon, Carnarvonshire, where his ancestors had been settled from very ancient times, and was educated at Westminster School and Hart Hall, Oxford, since merged in New College, which he entered at Michaelmas 1621, and where he resided three years. He seems to have been early designed for the legal profession, if, as is most probable, he is to be identified with the John Glynne for whom Sir Julius Caesar solicited from the Lord Mayor the reversion of an attorney or clerk sitter's place in the sheriff's court in 1615 (Remembrancia, 302). He was admitted a member of Lincoln's Inn as early as 27 Jan. 1620, but he was not called to the bar until 24 June 1628. He argued his first reported case in Hilary term 1633 (Croke, Rep. Car. I, p. 297). It was probably soon after this, certainly before 1639, that he was appointed steward of Westminster (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1638-9, p. 351). On 7 Aug. 1638 he obtained the reversion of the office of keeper of the writs and rolls in the common pleas (Rymer, Fœdera, Sanderson, xx. 305). He was returned to parliament both for Westminster and for the borough of Carnarvon in March 1639-40, and it is not clear for which constituency he sat. He was re-elected for Westminster in Oct. 1640.

Glynne's abilities were early recognised by the presbyterian party, with which he uniformly acted during the Long parliament. In November 1640 he was placed on a committee of inquiry into the conduct of Sir Henry Spiller, a justice of the peace, suspected of showing undue leniency towards popish priests, and from that date forward he is frequently mentioned in Nalson and Rushworth as sitting on, or reading reports from, committees charged with business of more or less importance, such as ship money; the course of procedure in the exchequer; the administration of the laws against recusants; misdemeanors of lieutenants, deputy-lieutenants, and other county officials; the practice of issuing and executing warrants of commitment signed only by officers of state; the 'new canons' recently framed by convocation, and which the commons had voted to be contrary to the fundamental laws of the realm, and the part played by Archbishop Laud in connection with them; the proceedings taken against Sir John Eliot and other members who had been subjected to fine and imprisonment for resisting the adjournment of the house by the speaker on 25 Feb. 1628-9. On 23 Jan. 1640-1 he was appointed to manage a conference with the lords on the case of Thomas Goodman, a Jesuit, who had been found guilty of high treason, but had been reprieved by the king. He was also one of the managers of the impeachment of Strafford, but took little part in the proceedings until the third article was concluded. He then had the conduct of the case as far as the ninth article, and also spoke on most of the subsequent articles. On 13 April he replied to Strafford's defence in a long and closely reasoned speech, the gist of which was that, though none of the acts alleged might amount to treason per se, yet taken together they were evidence of a treasonable intent, and that the essence of treason was intention not perpetration. He signed the protestation of 3 May in defence of the protestant religion, the power and privileges of parliament, and the rights and liberties of the subject. On 22 July he was added to the committee which was investigating the conspiracy commonly known as 'the army plot,' and he was one of a committee appointed in September to act during the recess with large executive powers. He took part in the debate on the remonstrance (22 Nov.), was a member of the committee on Irish affairs (29 Dec.), and on the commons resolving to impeach the bishops he was chosen to denounce their lordships at the bar of the House of Lords (30 Dec.) He was also one of the committee which sat at Guildhall and Grocers' Hall in January 1641-2 to consider the attempt to arrest the five members, and spoke at length and with much energy in vindication of the privileges of the house. On the 29th he opened the case against the Duke of Richmond in a conference with the House of Lords (Nalson, Impartial Collection, i. 330, 569, 571; Rushworth, Hist. Coll. iv. 54, 63, 68, 98, 142, 153, 229, 244, 387, 466-7, viii. 10, 21, 40, 45, 47, 76, 706-33; Comm. Journ. ii. 41, 52, iv. 497; Verney, Notes of Long Parliament, Camd. Soc. 60, 84, 110, 125; Cobbett, State Trials, iii. 1421, 1428, 1431, 1468, iv. 112; Parl. Hist. ii. 1023, 1062). After the militia ordinance in May 1642, he accepted the office of deputy-lieutenant of one of the counties, probably Carnarvonshire, and in the following June he engaged to contribute 100l. and maintain a horse for the defence of the parliament (Notes and Queries, 1st ser. xii. 358). In May 1643 he was appointed recorder of the city of London, and