Early life
Much about Thomas Sprat’s early life and family background is obscure. In his will he referred to his mother and siblings as poor relations in need of occasional relief and assistance. He also marvelled that God had brought him from ‘an obscure birth and education in a far distant country where I was the son of a private minister … to stand before princes and raised me to so eminent a station in the Church’.
The choice of Wadham, then under the mastership of John Wilkins, the future bishop of Chester, also suggests parliamentarian sympathies, especially as one of Sprat’s earliest publications was a panegyric on Oliver Cromwell‡. Wadham provided Sprat with the opportunity of forging acquaintanceship if not friendship with men who would later play significant roles in Church and state. The bursar at the college was his Dorset neighbour and friend Gilbert Ironside, later bishop of Hereford, while Samuel Parker, the future bishop of Oxford, and several future Members of the Commons were students during the period of Sprat’s fellowship. It was probably also at Oxford that Sprat got to know the poet Abraham Cowley, for whom he later acted as literary executor. It seems to have been Cowley, a former parliamentarian turned royalist, who introduced Sprat to George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham.
By the time of the Restoration Sprat had embarked on something of a literary career, publishing his first poem in 1657. Even at this early stage his conscience was sufficiently flexible to permit him to pursue seemingly contradictory political goals for in 1659, the same year that he published his tribute to Cromwell, he also produced a translation of The Plague of Athens, which some interpreted as an allegory for the English revolution and its concomitants: disobedience and irreligion. Sprat was ordained deacon in 1659 by the indefatigable Thomas Fulwar or Fuller, then bishop of Ardfert, and ordained priest in March 1661. He acted as chaplain to Buckingham in the early 1660s. Sprat’s association with Wilkins resulted in his election as a fellow of the Royal Society; this was then followed by a commission to write the history of the society, in which he attempted to justify scientific experimentation as a form of religious exercise and thus a natural ally of rational religion.
Although his writings provoked much criticism, including the suggestion that the Royal Society’s emphasis on materialist philosophy encouraged the growth of atheism, Sprat’s relationship with Buckingham (and, through Buckingham, with the king) secured his position. Royal patronage ensured his nomination to a prebend in Westminster Abbey in 1669 and doubts over Buckingham’s right to present Sprat to the rectory of Uffington were resolved by securing the king’s presentation instead. Sprat was so close to Buckingham that in 1675, together with Sir Robert Clayton‡ and John Wildman‡, he was appointed as a trustee for Buckingham’s debt trust. Since the size of Buckingham’s debts vastly exceeded his means, this meant that Sprat subsequently became involved in a large number of suits brought in chancery by Buckingham’s despairing creditors. Sprat’s relationship with the Buckingham circle was probably cemented by his marriage to Helen Wolseley, who was almost certainly a cousin of Sir Charles Wolseley‡, a close friend of Buckingham’s acolyte, Sir Robert Howard‡.
By January 1677 Sir Ralph Verney‡ was able to refer to Sprat as ‘a famous man’.
Sprat’s value as a loyal propagandist was further demonstrated with the publication of his vituperative narrative of the Rye House Plot, A True Account and Declaration of the Horrid Conspiracy, in the spring of 1685. Originally commissioned by Charles II, the order for printing was actually given by James II, who personally ‘corrected’ the manuscript, as had Charles II before him; more corrections were made by Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, and Francis North, Baron Guilford. It is perhaps an interesting commentary on Sprat’s need for approval from his colleagues in the Church that he also sent copies for comment to William Lloyd, then bishop of St Asaph (later bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and of Worcester), and to William Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury.
Bishop of Rochester, 1684–1713
As bishop of Rochester Sprat seems to have had very little direct electoral influence; nevertheless he clearly played a role, however minor, in assisting James II to pack Parliament. For the most part his influence resulted from his moral authority as a leading clergyman and was conveyed through his sermons, but it also took other forms. As dean of Westminster he had considerable power over the nomination of local government officers, including magistrates. In November 1685, for example, Sprat forwarded the names of two loyal Westminster residents for inclusion in the local commission of the peace; it is unlikely that this was a unique occurrence.
Sprat took his seat at the opening of the 1685 Parliament and was present on over 80 per cent of sitting days. He was named to all three sessional committees as well as to two select committees, for preventing the clandestine marriages of minors and for a naturalization bill, but otherwise there is very little information about his activities. In December 1685, after the prorogation of Parliament, he asked Sancroft to support the candidature of his friend Gilbert Ironside for the deanery of Bristol, and in the same month he profited from the king’s dislike of the militant Anglicanism of Henry Compton, bishop of London, when he replaced Compton as clerk of the closet. The extent to which Sprat had exerted himself on Ironside’s behalf may have been questionable for, according to William Lloyd of St Asaph, preferment of this kind was a matter of royal rather than archiepiscopal favour and he, in his turn, urged Sancroft to seek Sprat’s support for Ironside on the grounds that ‘He has the ear of them that can best speak to his Majesty, and I believe would engage one of them in this cause, if your Grace would be pleased to encourage him in it’.
In the course of 1686 Sprat’s continuing good standing with both the crown and the Church hierarchy was demonstrated by his appointment as one of the visitors to Salisbury cathedral and to the new commission for ecclesiastical affairs. It was even rumoured that he would be translated to York.
If the king was displeased with Sprat over the Compton affair, his displeasure was short-lived, for in November 1686 Sprat was appointed one of the three commissioners to administer the diocese of London during Compton’s suspension and he assisted at the degradation of Samuel Johnson. Sprat was later to declare that his part in the administration of Compton’s diocese was undertaken carefully and with ‘the greatest respect’ to Compton’s interest.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Sprat’s increasing equivocation seems to have gone largely unnoticed. In June 1688 Thomas Smith, bishop of Carlisle, who opposed the Declaration, was still convinced that Sprat was a man to ‘despair of’, but in August Sprat, clearly under enormous pressure from his fellow bishops, resigned from the ecclesiastical commission, declaring that he could not punish those whose consciences did not permit them to read the Declaration, while at the same time proclaiming his own loyalty and his readiness ‘to sacrifice whatsoever I have … but my conscience and my religion’ to the service of the king. The survival of multiple copies of his letter suggests that he took considerable care to circulate it as widely as possible. Early in November he was studiously avoiding contact with James II’s devoted acolytes Thomas Cartwright, bishop of Chester, and Thomas Watson, bishop of St Davids, and a few days later, alongside Sancroft, Compton, and Thomas White, bishop of Peterborough, he refused to issue an abhorrence of the invasion of the Prince of Orange.
During the crisis month of December 1688, when ‘Most of the persons that sat in the ecclesiastical commission are gone aside or skulk’, Sprat sat with the peers at Guildhall and helped draw up a draft statement aimed at bringing ‘the king home again with honour and safety’. He sat regularly with the provisional government, and was one of four bishops who headed what Morrice called ‘a powerful faction that labours to narrow and enervate the Prince’s designs’ and who attempted to negotiate with James on his return to London. However, he was also prepared to join a delegation of bishops who waited on William of Orange at St James’s to thank him for his intervention and to help write the prayer of thanksgiving for the deliverance of the church from popish superstition.
Sprat was present on the first day of the first session of the Convention Parliament and attended for nearly 47 per cent of sitting days. He was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. As might be expected, his attendance was highest during the early months of the session when constitutional issues were under discussion, although even then there were a number of unexplained week-long absences and he was away for almost the whole of March. During the crucial votes of late January and early February Sprat adopted a consistently loyalist approach, voting for a regency, against declaring William and Mary to be king and queen, and against agreeing with the Commons that James had abdicated. He was named as one of the managers of the four conferences to discuss the use of the word ‘abdication’ and to draw up reasons for the Lords’ continued refusal to agree with the Commons thereon. Yet he was also responsible, together with Thomas Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells, for drawing up the form of a service of thanksgiving which was held in St Margaret’s, Westminster.
Sprat attended the House on 19 Feb. and then absented himself. His absence may have been devoted to wrestling with his conscience over whether to accept the Revolution. If so, the bout did not last long. He returned to the House on 4 Mar., presumably for the explicit purpose of taking the oaths because he then absented himself again until 19 March. It was perhaps during these absences that he composed his two letters to Charles Sackville, 6th earl of Dorset, in which he attempted to vindicate his membership of the ecclesiastical commission and his account of the Rye House Plot. Despite any residual loyalty he may have felt for James II, he was prepared to assist at the coronation of William and Mary.
In September 1689 Sprat was appointed to the new ecclesiastical commission.
During the elections of 1690, Sprat as dean of Westminster did his best to advance the Tory cause in Westminster.
During the 1691–2 session Sprat was again appointed to all three sessional committees, to 22 select committees, and to a committee to manage the conference on regulating the East India Company. He was once again entrusted with Trelawny’s proxy, which he held from 27 Oct. until his own proxy was registered on 21 Jan. 1692 in favour of Compton. He registered a dissent on 12 Jan. 1692 at the resolution to receive the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk. His attendance was high until 20 Jan.; he was absent the following day, when he was given leave to go into the country. He returned to the House on 16 Feb. and was again present on 17 Feb. but then absented himself for the remainder of the session. These absences meant that overall his attendance dipped to just below 45 per cent.
In May 1692 Sprat was implicated in a Jacobite plot and was questioned by the Privy Council. A report that he was actually imprisoned in the Tower of London appears to be incorrect since his name is not listed among either the commitments or the warrants for commitment.
Sprat was present when Parliament reconvened on 7 Nov. 1693. He was again appointed to the committees for privileges and for the Journal and was present on just over 50 per cent of the sitting days. Although present for at least part of the morning when the triennial bill was debated on 4 Dec. 1693, he was one of a small group of members who left the House early.
Sprat appears to have been actively involved in attempts to improve relationships between the earl of Rochester and Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, in August 1694.
Despite the decline in his parliamentary attendance, Sprat was actively involved in the elections of 1695. In October, together with Compton, he canvassed at Oxford on behalf of Sir William Trumbull‡ and may have played a role in identifying a seat for him.
Despite his poor attendance over the session, Sprat attended the three prorogation days between the adjournment of 27 Apr. 1696 and the opening of the second session. He was absent on the first day of the session and so was not named to the sessional committees. Once again his attendance was patchy, averaging just over 50 per cent of sitting days. However, it was particular high in late November and December 1696 when the impeachment of Sir John Fenwick was under consideration. He entered two dissents during the impeachment proceedings, defied both king and archbishop by voting in Fenwick’s favour, and protested at Fenwick’s conviction. On 23 Jan. 1697 he protested against the failure to read the bill to regulate parliamentary elections. He held Trelawny’s proxy from 17 Mar. 1697 but since Sprat himself was absent for all but four of the remaining days of the session he had little opportunity to exercise it. In November 1697, during the prorogation, he underlined his loyalty to the new regime by composing an address congratulating the king on his safe return.
Sprat was absent when the new session opened on 3 Dec. 1697 and did not arrive at the House until 23 Feb. 1698, when the divorce of Charles Gerard, 2nd earl of Macclesfield, was under discussion. It does not seem to have been the question of the divorce that attracted him that day for he missed some of the hearings before his next attendance on 28 February. He returned on 4 Mar., clearly determined to play his part in defending Charles Duncombe‡. On that day he entered a protest against the second reading of the bill against Duncombe and on 15 Mar. he voted for its rejection. On 1 July he entered a dissent to the second reading of the bill to settle the East India trade on the grounds that it was harmful to the East India Company. During his limited attendance (he was present on only 15 per cent of sitting days) he was named to eight committees, three of which consisted of everyone present that day, and he held the proxy of Gilbert Ironside, by now bishop of Hereford, from 4 June until the end of the session.
Sprat attended on the third day of the 1698 Parliament, 13 Dec., but his total attendance for the session was a mere 12 days. Under the circumstances it is perhaps surprising that he was named to as many as two committees. On 8 Feb. he voted against permitting the king to keep the Dutch guards and when the resolution passed he entered his protest against it. Throughout the summer of 1699 he was involved, as one of the assessors sitting with Thomas Tenison, now archbishop of Canterbury, in hearing evidence in the controversial and politically motivated case against Thomas Watson. When the verdict was announced in August, Sprat was conspicuously absent.
Watson’s attempt to renew his claim to privilege may have influenced Sprat to attend the opening of the new session on 16 Nov. 1699, when he was appointed to the committees for privileges and for the Journal. His next appearances in the House (on 29 Nov. and 4 and 6 Dec. 1699) were on days when business was dominated by discussions of Watson’s case and he was named to the committee to consider whether the attorney general could be heard by the House. Whether Sprat actually voted in Watson’s favour is unclear.
The revival of Tory fortunes kept Sprat’s renewed interest in party politics alive. In January 1701 he followed the lead set by Francis Atterbury, the future bishop of Rochester, and Compton by summoning the lower clergy under the praemunientes clause.
With the failure of the first 1701 Parliament, Sprat once again lost interest in attending. The second 1701 Parliament sat for 100 days; Sprat was present on just 10 of them. On 24 Feb. 1702 he protested against the passage of the bill for the better securing of his majesty’s person on the grounds that the new oaths infringed the right of peers to sit in the House, were so ambiguous as to be ‘a snare to men’s consciences’, and devalued the solemnity of oath-taking. He was named to two committees although in both cases this seems to have been a formality, as the committee nominations match the presence list. Some of his attendances can be matched to issues in which he might have taken a personal interest, such as bills promoted by fellow bishops, but for the most part it seems to have been the contentious issues that attracted his attention. He was in the House to hear debates on the bill for better securing the king’s person, for the censure of the publishers William Fuller and John Nutt, for the announcement of William III’s death and the succession of Anne, and for discussions on a union with Scotland.
During the first session of the 1702 Parliament Sprat’s attendance improved somewhat, averaging some 40 per cent. His attendance in December and early January was closely linked to his support for the occasional conformity bill. In January 1703 he voted against the Whigs in the procedural discussions over the bill for Prince George, of Denmark and duke of Cumberland and on 22 Jan. he protested against the dismission of the petition of Robert Squire‡ and John Thompson.
Sprat was present on just 17 days during the 1703–4 session of Parliament and was appointed to the committees for privileges and for the Journal. Not surprisingly Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland expected him to vote for the occasional conformity bill and on 14 Dec. 1703 he not only did so but also entered two protests against its failure. Further attendances in December and January may have been connected with the place bill, and the need to defend the right of the House to examine conspirators; they were also prompted by the case of Ashby v White, in which Sprat entered a dissent to the resolution to reverse the judgment.
During the 1704–5 session Sprat attended on 33 sitting days. He was present on the first day of the session, when he was named to the committees for privileges and for the Journal and to the committee to draw up an address to the crown. Thereafter the issues that appear to have attracted his attendance seem to have been Thomas Watson’s attempt to have his case reheard by writ of error, the case of Falkland v Cheney, and the question of union with Scotland. He held the proxy of Peter Mews, bishop of Winchester, from 27 Nov. 1704 until the end of the session. Although he attended on only three days in February, on 27 Feb. he was named to the committee to draw up heads of a conference with the Commons over Ashby v White.
During the first session of the 1705 Parliament Sprat attended 27 times. He was excused attendance on 12 Nov. 1705 but appeared in the House three days later when the topic of the day was the invitation to Princess Sophia and the Protestant succession. Continuing debates on the Protestant succession meant that he continued to attend the House throughout November. His only attendance the following month was on 6 Dec., when the House debated the resolution that the Church of England was in no danger. He was also in the House for debates on the Protestant succession in January and February and for the debates on the prevention of popery on 4 and 5 Mar. 1706.
Sprat’s 20 attendances in the 1706–7 session were all concentrated in the period between 7 Jan. and 1 Mar. 1707, when the major issues of the day were the security of the Church and union with Scotland. On 3 Feb. he voted in favour of including the Test Act as part of the union and entered a protest when the resolution failed. On 15 Feb. he voted in favour of postponing consideration of the first article of union.
During the first Parliament of Great Britain Sprat attended just 14 times. He was present at the opening of Parliament on 23 Oct. and again on 19 Nov. when he was named to two committees. Thereafter he attended on a number of days in December 1707 and in January and February 1708 when the main issues for discussion were the state of the fleet and war with Spain. His attendance in February was also linked to the passage of the Church statutes or cathedrals bill. Atterbury had rallied Sprat and the other Tory bishops to oppose the bill but it received the royal assent on 20 Mar. 1708.
Sprat’s attendance followed a similar pattern during the first session of the 1708 Parliament, when he was present on just 16 occasions. His attendance on 16 Dec. may have been prompted by the disputes over the election of Scots representative peers. His attendances in January 1709 also coincided with debates over those elections and on 21 Jan. he voted in favour of the right of a Scots peer with a British title to vote in the election of Scottish representative peers. Some (but not all) of his attendances in March and April 1709 can be linked to the debates over the bill to improve the union with Scotland, which aimed to bring Scots treason law into alignment with that of England. On 25 Mar. Sprat voted against resuming the House during discussions of the bill in a committee of the whole and on 14 Apr. he voted in favour of the proposal by Charles Montagu, Baron Halifax that the Commons’ amendments to the bill be postponed. He was also interested in the general naturalization bill and voted in favour of replacing the words ‘some Protestant reformed congregation’ with ‘parochial church’ during a division in a committee of the whole.
Sprat missed the beginning of the 1709–10 session of Parliament, attending for the first time on 25 Feb. 1710 when the main business of the day was the trial of Dr Sacheverell. He then attended virtually every day until the trial was over (20 days in all), during which time he made at least one speech (on 16 Mar. arguing that Sacheverell in speaking nonsense should not be convicted on high crimes and misdemeanours) and entered seven protests and/or dissents against various aspects of the conduct of the trial, culminating in a vote of not guilty on 20 Mar. and a further dissent on 21 Mar. 1710 condemning the decision of the House to censure Sacheverell.
Harley’s analysis of members of the Lords in October 1710 listed Sprat as likely to support the ministry during the 1710 Parliament but Sprat’s poor attendance record meant that his support was of little practical value: he was in Parliament on just 17 occasions during the 1710–11 session. Most of his attendances were concentrated in January and February, when the state of the war in Spain and the defeat at Almanza were the major topics for debate. Not surprisingly he was listed as one of the ‘Tory’ patriots during the session. He was sufficiently disappointed by the failure of an attempt to repeal the General Naturalization Act on 5 Feb. to enter a formal protest. Other subjects that appear to have attracted his attention included Jermyn’s divorce bill, Greenshields’ case, and an appeal by the inhabitants of London against a decree in favour of Compton as bishop of London. His last attendance of the session was on 1 Mar. but that did not stop him from approaching Harley the following month to seek his assistance in a project to petition Parliament for money to repair Westminster Abbey.
The 1711–12 session proved to be Sprat’s final Parliament. For once his reputation attracted favourable (if barbed) comment. In September 1711, in what appears to be a reference to his support for the new ministry, it was remarked that ‘It is a sure indication that his lordship thinks it is set in for fair weather.’
Further attendances in January and February 1712 may have been associated with the question of the peace treaty but probably also with the Scots peers and more specific issues such as the continuing litigation between Compton and the inhabitants of Hammersmith, attempts to repeal the General Naturalization Act, and the question of granting toleration for Episcopalians in Scotland: the episcopal communion (Scotland) bill. Sprat voted in favour of the episcopal communion bill as amended by the Commons on 26 February.
In February 1713, Oxford listed Sprat as one of the members of the House to be canvassed before the forthcoming session but the bishop was probably already in his final illness; that same month Atterbury described him as ‘much decayed’ in his understanding and having ‘lost all spirit and firmness of mind’.