Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:57:48.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proceedings, Principally in the County of Kent, in Connection with the two Parliaments Called in 1640.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2010

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Proceedings, principally in the County of Kent, in connection with the Two Parliaments called in 1640
Information
Camden Old Series , Volume 80: Proceedings, principally in the County of Kent, in connection with the Parliaments called in 1640, and especially with the Committee of Religion appointed in that year. , April 1862 , pp. 1 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1862

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 2 note * These expressions seem to imply that Sir Roger Twysden was deemed to be tied hand and foot to his cousin-german Sir Henry Vane, whose mother was sister to Sir William Twysden, Sir Roger's father:—

page 2 note † i.e. Sir Henry Vane of Fairlawn, Treasurer of the Household.

page 2 note ‡ Sir Thomas Walsingham, of Scadbury, in Chislehurst.

page 2 note § Sir George Sondes, of Throwley.

page 2 note ‖ Sir Roger sat for Winchelsea in the parliament of 1625.

page 3 note * They were second cousins:—

page 3 note † Sir Edward had originally written “20 Decr.,” which was subsequently altered to “26th Decr.” The date at the foot of the letter is “20th Decr.,” which, by the context, it palpably must have been.

page 3 note ‡ Vide note, No. III. p. 5, infra.

page 4 note * Thomas Twisden, for so he spelt his name, Sir Roger's brother. He was not returned to this Parliament. On the Restoration, being then a serjeant-at-law, he was made a judge, and was appointed one of the commissioners for the trial of the Regicides. He was created a baronet in 1666. His seat was Bradbourne in East Malling.

page 4 note † Sir Roger makes a mistake here. Parliament was summoned for the 3d April, 1640.

page 4 note ‡ “Cosen,” vide note, p. 3.

page 4 note § Thorne, a monk of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, in the 14th century. His history here alluded to was published by Sir Roger Twysden in his Decem Scriptores.

page 5 note * Now in my possession. This Note of Sir Roger Twysden's is so strictly illustrative of the preceding letters, and so interesting in itself, that I venture to insert it here, although it has already been printed in the charming biography which my valued and accomplished friend Mr. Kemble inserted in his learned preface to Sir Roger's Treatise on the Government of England.

page 6 note * In Wrotham.

page 7 note * Dean Bargrave married a first cousin of Sir Edward Dering's father, Sir Anthony:—

page 7 note † Both were cousins of Sir Henry Vane, but by different lines:—Sir Roger Twysden was first cousin to Sir Henry Vane, and Sir Edward Dering and Sir Henry were second cousins, i. e. children of first cousins:—

* Though not so specified, it is evident that this promise is with reference to his election as knight of the shire to the Parliament summoned for the 3rd Nov.

* George Strode, Esq. of Squerries, in Westerham, afterwards knighted; he was a fellow-sufferer with Sir Roger Twysden, Mr. Richard Spencer, and Sir Edward Dering, from the wrath of the Parliament against the promoters of the Kent Petition, and was imprisoned for it, with them, in March, 1642. Sir George Strode is in the list of the unfortunate victims who had to compound for their estates, for which he had to pay 2,814l. Mr. Spencer had to compound at 300l.; Sir Roger Twysden, at 1,700l.

* This was Sir Peter Heyman, Knt. of Somerfeild, in Sellindge. He had been member for Dover in the Short Parliament just dissolved.

† Sir John Colepeper, of Leeds Castle, the Royalist faithful unto death ; afterwards created by Charles I. Lord Colepeper. He was returned, with Sir Edward Dering, as knight of the shire to this Parliament.

* Sir Edward Boys, of Betshanger, member for Dover in this Parliament.

* George Haule, Esq. of Digons, in Maidstone, and Knight-Rider Street.

† Sir John Colepeper, vide note p. 10.

‡ The Hon. Richard Spencer, second son of Robert Lord Spencer of Wormleighton ; he had a seat in Orpington, vide note p. 9.

§ Sir John Sedley, of St. Clere, in Ightham, Bart.; vide p. 12.

† He was cousin of Sir Edward Dering :—

page 13 note * Sir Francis Barnham, of Holingbourne, to whom his brother-in-law Belknap Rudston (who had married his sister Anne) left the seat and estate of Boughton Monchensie, where Sir Francis Barnham's son Robert afterwards resided, having been created a Baronet by Charles II. Sir Francis him self resided at Holingbourne.

page 13 note † The members who sat in this Parliament were, Sir Francis Barnham, Knt. and Sir Humphry Tufton, Knt.; so Sir Francis was probably manœuvring for himself.

page 14 note * With all his eagerness Sir John Sedley could find no place to have him. Not being returned to Parliament, he lorded it over the county at sessions and magistrates' meetings.

page 14 note †

* In all probability this was the John Player who was Vicar of Kennington, the small parish next to Ashford, in 1643.

page 15 note † This “Western Knight” was Sir Robert Mansell, vide p. 16.

page 15 note ‡ This, of course, is Sir John Colepeper, who was returned.

page 15 note § The writer's acknowledged “infelicity” in writing is exemplified in this incomprehensible sentence. The only sense I can pick out of it is that—“inasmuch as hopes give (i. e. allow us) to conceive, not only that he will fail in being at the head of the poll, for which such strong efforts are made, but that he may think himself lucky if he comes in second.”

page 16 note * Chelmington in Great Chart was the seat of the Twysdens before their acquisition of Roydon Hall by marriage with a coheiress of the Roydons.

page 16 note † (sic) Well-willers.

page 16 note ‡ Probably Mr. Richard Browne, of Great Chart, who sat for Romney in this Parliament.

page 17 note * Mr. Spencer, of Orpington, son of Lord Spencer of Wormleighton : vide p. 11, note.

page 17 note † The Lord Keeper was Sir John Finch, Lord Finch of Fordwich ; he was son of Sir Henry Finch (the brother of Sir Moyle Finch), and therefore first-cousin of Lady Anne Twysden : his seat was the Moat, near Canterbury, now the property of Earl Cowper, but neither mansion nor park remains. Flight saved him from the fate of Stafford and Laud.

page 17 note ‡ He escaped the shrievalty. James Hugessen, Esq. of Sewards, in Linsted, was sheriff the next year, and Strode never served the office.

* James Hugessen, Esq. of Sewards, in Linton. He was sheriff the following year.

page 18 note † Sir Edward Hales, Bart. formerly of Hales Place, in Tenterden. He had removed his residence to Henden, in Woodchurch, of which he became possessed in right of his first wife, heiress of Harlackenden. He married for his second wife Martha, daughter of Sir Mathew Carew the elder, and widow of Sir John Cromer of Tunstall, where he seems to have been now living—“my respected neighbour.” He died and was buried at Tunstall in 1654. His son John, who died “vita patris,” married Christian the daughter and co-heiress of the same Sir John Cromer, by the said Martha—the father thus marrying the widow, and the son her daughter.

page 19 note * The coat of Hugessen, of Linsted, was Argent, on a mount vert an oak tree proper between two boars combatant azure. Crest: An oak tree between two wings erect.

† His third wife, Unton, daughter of Sir Ralph Gibbes, Kt.

‡ George Haule, Esq. of Maidstone—note p. 12.

§ This was Thomas Wilson, Rector of Otham, a great Puritan. He had been presented to that rectory by Mr. George Swinnock, who had purchased the next presentation. He was suspended by the High Commission Court, 1635, and restored 1639. Mr. George Swinnock published his life. When Robert Barrell was ejected from the perpetual curacy of Maidstone by the Parliament, Thomas Wilson was appointed in his stead. See more of him pp. 38, 39, infra.

* Sir Edward Dering had a sister Margaret, married to Sir Peter Wroth, of Blendon Hall, in Bexley, 28 Feb. 1624–5.

* The Book of Sports, first published by James I. 24 May, 1618; and republished by Charles I. 18 October, 1633.

* In the Visitation of Kent, Philipot 1619, is this pedigree and coat, by letters patent under hand and seal of William Segar, Garter:—Gules, a fess between three garbs in a bordure engrailed or ; and for Crest, a demy gryffon or, winged gules, siezing on a garb or.This letter was doubtless written by Edward Kempe, son of the Mayor.

page 23 note † “Sir Ed. Bo.” i.e. Sir Edward Boys, the Member for Dovor and Lieutenant of the Castle.

page 24 note * Originally written “know not what,” but “not” afterwards erased.

page 24 note † Do these initials stand for Edward Boys, present Member for Dovor and Lieutenant of the Castle, and Sir Peter Heyman late member ?

* This I state by conjecture; I did not find it actually tied up with Mr. Robson's communication from Cranbrook, p. 25, supra—but it is evidently the petition which accompanied his letter, and is that which Sir Edward presented to the House after a little condensation. For advantage of collation, I subjoin the condensed Petition as actually presented to the House by Sir Edward:—“The Petition,” he says, “it selfe speaks thus:—

“To the Honourable the Commons House of Parliament.

“The humble Petition of many the Inhabitants within His Majesties county of Kent.

“Most humbly shewing, that by sad experience we doe daily finde the government in the Church of England, by Archbishops, Lord bishops, Deanes, and Archdeacons, with their courts, jurisdictions, and administrations, by them and their inferiour Officers, to be very dangerous, both in Church and Common-wealth, and to be the occasion of manifold grievances unto his Majesties Subjects, in their consciences, liberties, and estates, and likely to be fatall unto us in the continuance thereof. The dangerous effects of which Lordly power in them have appeared in these particulars following.

“They doe with a hard hand overrule all other Ministers, subjecting them to their cruell authority.

“They do suspend, punish, and deprive many godly, religious, and painfull Ministers, upon slight and upon no grounds: whilst, in the mean time, few of them doe preach the Word of God themselves, and that but seldome ; but they doe restraine the painfull preaching of others, both for Lectures and for afternoon Sermons on the Sabbath day.

“They do countenance and have of late encouraged Papists, Priests, and Arminian both bookes and persons.

“They hinder good and godly books to be printed: yet they do licence to be published many Popish, Arminian, and other dangerous tenents.

“They have deformed our Churches with Popish pictures, and suited them with Romish altars.

“They have of late extolled and commended much the Church of Rome, denying the Pope to be Antichrist; affirming the Church of Rome to be a true Church in fundamentals.

“They have practiced and inforced antiquated and obsolete ceremonies, as standing at the Hymnes, at Gloria patri, and turning to the East at severall parts of the Divine Service, bowing to the altar, which they tearm the place of God's residence upon earth; the reading of a second service at the altar; and denying the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to such as have not come up to a new set Rayle before the altar.

“They have made and contrived illegall Canons and Constitutions, and framed a most pernitious and desperate Oath; an Oath of covenant and confederacy for their owne Hierarchicall greatnesse, beside many other dangerous and pernicious passages in the said Canons.

“They doe dispence with plurality of Benefices; they do both prohibite and grant marriages, neither of them by the rule of Law or conscience; but do prohibite that they may grant, and grant that they may have money.

“They have procured a licencious liberty for the Lord's day, but have pressed the strict observation of Saints holidaies; and do punish, suspend, degrade, deprive godly Ministers for not publishing a book for liberty of sports on the Sabbath day.

“They doe generally abuse the great ordinance of Excommunication, making some times a gaine of it, to the great discomfort of many poore soules, who, for want of money, can get no absolution.

“They claime their Office and jurisdiction to be jure divino, and do exercise the same (contrary to law) in their own names, and under their own Seales.

“They receive and take upon them temporall honours, dignities, places, and offices in the Commonwealth, as if it were lawfull for them to use both Swords.

“They take cognisance in their Courts, and elsewhere, of matters determinable at the Common Law.

“They put Ministers upon Parishes, without the patron, and without the people's consent.

“They do yerely impose oaths upon Churchwardens, to the most apparent danger of filling the land with perjury.

“They do exercise oathes ex officio, in the nature of an Inquisition, even into the thoughts of men.

“They have apprehended men by Pursivants, without citation or missives first sent: they break up men's houses and studies, taking away what they please.

“They do awe the Judges of the Land with their greatnesse, to the inhibiting of prohibitions, and hindring of habeas corpus when it is due.

“They are strongly suspected to be confederate with the Roman party in this land, and, with them, to be authors, contrivers, or consenters to the present commotions in the North; and the rather, because of contribution by the Clergy, and by the Papists, in the last yeer, 1639, and, because of an ill-named benevolence of six Subsidies, granted, or intended to be granted, this present yeare, 1640, thereby, and with these moneys, to engage (as much in them lay) the two Nations into blood.

“It is therefore humbly and earnestly prayed, that this Hierarchicall power may be totally abrogated, if the wisdome of this Honourable House shall find that it cannot be maintained by God's Word, and to his glory.

“And we your Peticioners shall ever pray, &c.”

* See page 19, supra. Sir Edward Dering there writes to his wife, that he had taken Mr. Wilson (for whom a pursuivant had been dispatched, whose clutches he had contrived to escape,) with him to London, and was pleased with his conversation. I have stated in a note thereto that this Mr. Wilson was the Puritan Rector of Otham. By Sir Edward Dering's Speeches, p. 9, it appears that on 10 November, 1640, (that is, just ten days after Mr. Wilson had accompanied him to London,) Sir Edward presented a petition to the House from Mr. Wilson, speaking as follows:—

“Now, Mr. Speaker, in pursuit of my own motion [i.e. on the settling of Religion,] 10 Nov. 1640. and to make a little entrance into this great affaire, I will present unto you the petition of a poore oppressed minister in the county of Kent. A man orthodox in his doctrine, conformable in his life, laborious in the ministery as any we have or I doe know. He is now a sufferer (as all good men are) under the generall obloquy of a Puritan ; (as with other things was excellently delivered by that silver trumpet at the barre.) The pursivant watches his doore, and divides him and his cure asunder, to both their griefes: for it is not with him as (perhaps) with some that set the pursivant at worke, gladded of an excuse to be out of their pulpit. It his delight to preach.

“About a week since, I went over to Lambeth, to move that great bishop (too great indeed) to take this danger off from this minister, and to recall the pursivant. And withall I did undertake for Master Wilson (for so your petitioner is called) that he should answer his accusers in any of the King's Courts at Westminster. The bishop made me answer (as neere as I can remember) in hæc verba, ‘I am sure that he wil not be absent from his cure a twelvemoneth together, and then (I doubt not) but once in a yeer we shall have him.’

“This was all I could obtaine; but I hope (by the help of this house) before this yeere of threats runs round His Grace will either have more grace, or no grace at all. For our manifold griefes doe fill a mighty and a vast circumference, yet so that from every part our lines of sorrow doe lead unto him, and point at him the center, from whence our miseries in this church, and many of them in the Commonwealth, do flow.—

“Let the Petition be read, and let us enter upon the worke.”

After quoting his speech, Sir Edward, in his vindication, continues thus;—

“What is here for ‘Root and Branch?’ I cannot find a line that I can wish unsaid; nor do I read a letter that I would go lesse in. It is replied, that the petitioner, Mr. Wilson is a man for ‘Root and Branch.’ If he be, that was no part of his petition; nor indeed any part of my knowledge then: I am no more obliged to answer herein, then I am bound to own and defend Mr. Wilson, if he should hereafter cast aside the Common Prayer. What were that to me, or to what I then did say ?—sure I am, that I was well assured, that he did not allow of separation then, and that he had been a powerfull perswader of others not to withdraw from our publike service; and I thinke so well of his goodnesse, temper, and conscience, that he will not easily be led away to these mistaking excesses.”

page 42 note * A term of affection which Sir Edward almost always used to this his third wife, to whom he seems to have been passionately attached to the last.

page 42 note † This would be March 22, on which day Strafford first appeared at the bar. Instead of three days, the trial lasted seven weeks. The Court sat March 22d, 23d, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th ; Monday 29th, 30th, 31st; April 1st, 3d ; Monday 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th ; Tuesday 13th, on which day the Earl finished his defence. The 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 29th, and 30th were occupied in discussions as to the law. May 1st, the King came down to the House of Lords at 10 A.m., and, in his speech, declared, that, in conscience, he never could be persuaded to deem it a case of statutable treason, May 8th, the Bill passed the Lords. May 12th, he was executed.

page 43 note * Sir William Brookman, of Beechborough in Newington, near Hythe. He was the gallant defender of Maidstone, and a stanch royaliat.

page 43 note † I suppose this was the son of George Dering, who was a younger son of Anthony Dering of Charing, a younger brother of Richard Dering :—

* By his mention of “cousin Monings” it would seem as if Dr. Vane were a brother of the Treasurer of the Household, Sir Henry Vane; he evidently held some office about the household. The connexion between the Vanes and the Moninses was as follows:

page 45 note * The 4th of April was on Sunday in 1641.

page 45 note † i. e. “The Committee on Religion”of which Sir Edward Dering was Chairman. He says, in his vindication p. 42, “Upon my motion Nov. 23, 1640, it pleased the Grand Committee for Religion to appoint a sub-committee to receive complaints from oppressed ministers, which sub-committee was shortly after made a committee by order of the House. It pleased the gentlemen of this committee to put the honour and the burden of the chaire upon me.”

page 45 note ‡ The marriage between the Princess Mary (who was born 1631), and the Prince of Orange, took place on the 2d May this year, less than a month after the date of this letter. She could have been barely ten years old, and was a widow at nineteen in 1650.

* Vide note, p. 45 supra.

† These are the arms of his three wives, Tufton, Ashburnham, and Gibbes.

page 47 note * There had been interminable quarrels between Mr. Copley, the Vicar of Pluckley, and Sir Edward Dering, and his father Sir Anthony, in which there was the most envenomed rancour called forth on both sides.

page 48 note * Probably Bettenham, of Shurland, in Pluckley, close to Surrenden.

† This was Sir Anthony Weldon of Swanscombe, a strong parliamentarian, and a persecutor of all who opposed his opinions, in Kent.

* Robert Codrington, a miscellaneous writer and translator, was born in 1602, of an ancient family in Gloucestershire. He was admitted a demy of Magdalen college, Oxford, in 1619, and M.A. in 1626. He lived afterwards in Norfolk as a private gentleman Wood says that he was always accounted a Puritan. He died in London of the plague in 1665.

† There is no superscription, but I conjecture it to have been addressed to Sir Edward Dering, from its being found among his muniments.

* This was the celebrated Dr. Holdsworth, who was educated at, and was afterwards Fellow of, St. John's college, Cambridge, where he was tutor to Sir Symonds d'Ewes. In 1625 he was a Professor of Gresham College, in 1631 Prebendary of Lincoln, and in 1633 Archdeacon of Huntingdon. In 1638 he was a candidate for the Mastership of St. John's; but neither he, nor his competitor, was acceptable at court, and the King, by mandate, ordered Dr. Beale to be appointed. In 1637 he was elected Master of Emanuel College, and created D.D. In 1639 he was elected President of Sion College. In 1641 he resigned the Professorship of Gresham College. While Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, he supplied the King with money contributed by the University, a crime not easily forgiven by the Parliament. When the Assembly of Divines was called, he was appointed one of them; but never took his seat. Soon after, in obedience to the King's mandate, he had such parts of His Majesty's declaration as were formerly printed at York, printed at Cambridge; for which, and for a sermon then preached by him, he was forced to leave the University before the expiration of his office of Vice-Chancellor. He was concealed awhile, but was ultimately apprehended near London, and was imprisoned;—first, at Ely House, and afterwards at the Tower. So highly regarded was he at Cambridge, that, while a prisoner, he was elected Margaret Professor of Divinity, although neither able to attend to its duties nor receive its profits. He held the office till his death; but the rectory of St. Peter-le-Poor, in the City of London, and the mastership of Emanuel College were taken from him. It is uncertain when he was released from prison. He attended the King at Hampton Court in 1647; and, in January following, when Parliament voted that no more addresses should be made to the King, he preached a bold sermon against the resolution, for which he was again imprisoned ; but, being released, he assisted, on the King's part, at the treaty of the Isle of Wight. He did not long survive his master, dying August 29, 1649, his death probably hastened by that melancholy catastrophe. He was buried at St. Peter-le-Poor church- He was a staunch royalist and episcopalian; devout, charitable, and an excellent scholar. His sermons, “Prelectiones” &c. have been published.

* This was not the original Bill which he himself had introduced 21 May, 1641; but a new one; v. his Speeches, p. 90. He spoke upon it, urging the omission of the words “and that it is inconsistent with their function,” as likely to lead to a debate on doctrine. “I have formerly,” said he, “and againe I pray you, that we may not engage ourselves into the determination of doctrinall points in Divinity,—perhaps it is not proper for us, and for my part, I doe think we are not herein ‘idonei et competentes Judices.’ Was . it ever heard or seen, that a set of laymen, gentlemen, souldiers, lawyers, merchants, all professions admitted but the profession of professions for this worke, divines alone excluded, that we should determine upon doctrinall points in Divinity? Theology is not so low, so facile a trade. Let us maintaine the doctrines that are established; to declare new is not fit for our assembly, and, for my part, I do think I have found daily cause to wish these resolutions recommended unto other resolvers.”

* This is only a fragment of the Petition, and, being without date, I can only supply the date conjecturally. I conclude this to be about the proper place for its insertion, owing to the following passage in a speech of Sir Edward Dering (p. 93), 23 October, 1641: “Many mournfull sad complaints I have of late received from ministers the ablest and every way the worthiest that I know. I could willingly name you two, one at Dovor, the other at Cranebroke in Kent. Men, upon whose merit let my credit stand or fall in this house. He that hath preached least of these hath preached severall thousands of excellent sermons to his people.” In the margin, Sir Edward supplies the names—” Mr. Reading,” “Mr. Abbot.”

Before the Reformation, there was a rector, curate, &c. to this parish; but how they were paid is uncertain. Afterwards, the parishioners seem to have hired the services of their minister by contract. Sometimes it was 20 marks and the Easter-book, some times 10l. and the book and fees, sometimes 5 marks. Walter Richards 1601–1608 had 30l. This John Reading was brought to Dover in 1616, by Lord Zouch, the Lord Warden, as his Chaplain. The parish was then without a minister, and he took the duty, for several weeks, to oblige the parishioners, whereupon they asked him to accept the cure at 100l. per annum. He was chaplain to Charles I., and was, for a time, very popular with his new flock; but when Republicanism prevailed among them his popularity fled. Probably his salary of 100l. was not then maintained, and thence this petition. We are thus aided in our conjectures as to the date. His house was plundered in 1642, and in the next year, while employed on his Paraphrase of St. John's Gospel, Sir Edward Boys had him seized and imprisoned. The King, hearing of this, obtained for him from Archbishop Laud the Rectory of Chartham, and he was appointed Prebendary of Canterbury. In 1644 Sir William Brockman gave him the living of Cheriton, and he was appointed by the Assembly of Divines one of the nine persons to write annotations on the New Testament. He was seized by Major Boys, at Cheriton, and carried prisoner to Leeds Castle. During this confinement, he wrote his “Guide to the Holy City.” On May 10, 1650, he disputed publicly in Folkestone church with Samuel Fisher, a Baptist. He was a rigid Calvinist, as supposed by many. He was the first minister of the parish who had 100l. per annum. Probably, after the Restoration, he returned to this parish, for we find him the spokesman of the Corporation, in addressing Charles the Second, on his landing on the beach at Dover, and in presenting his Majesty a Bible with gold clasps. He published several sermons and controversial tracts, chiefly against the Anabaptists. He died at Chartham 1667.

The Inhabitants of St. Mary's Dover had always been backward in raising money to pay their minister. The church was often, for long periods together, without one.

* The annexed three Petitions are almost verbatim the same. The difference between them is only such as would easily occur in transmitting copies of any one petition to different districts for signature. The variations, as they respectively occur, are noted infra.

As there is no date to these petitions, we can only obtain it by approximation. The first signature to the Dover petition is that of Thomas Cullen, Mayor. By the Corporation Records, it appears that he was elected to the Mayoralty 8 September, 1641, and on November 20, 1641, we find Sir Edward Dering speaks boldly and powerfully in defence of the much assailed Liturgy (Speeches 96–107). We shall not befar wrong, therefore, in inserting these petitions at this place, as dating between September and November 1641.

page 61 note * In No. 3, instead of “there be,” it is “there might be.”

page 61 note † In No. 2, these words are added after Liturgy—(“if upon just and lawfull disquisition by learned men, anie errrors shall be found in either.”)

page 61 note ‡ In No. 3, “command” is erased, and “use meanes that” substituted, and the word “to” after “synod” erased; the whole sentence running thus, “will either use meanes that a free nationall synod be forthwith called,” &c.

page 63 note * The same Petition as No. 1, only differing in a single sentence, as noted p. 60. Therefore it is not necessary to insert it again. I merely give the signatures. It is evidently the portion signed by the Frittenden people.

page 64 note * The same petition as No. 1, differing only in two instances, which I have noted, p. 61. This is evidently the portion signed by the East Langdon people. The Marsh family was a very ancient one in the hamlet of Martin in this parish. Thomas Marsh devised the family estate to his son John, who in 1646 conveyed it to John Burvill of Sutton, clerk ; and William Osborne was Rector of East Langdon, 1616, and died 1641 ; his son, William Osborne, succeeded him as Rector, being instituted Oct. 6, 1641.

page 64 note † Sir William Brockman, of Beechborough, see p. 43. n.

page 65 note * Sir Henry Heyman, Bart., of Somerfield, in Sellindge. He was, at this time, member for Hythe.

page 65 note † The exact date of this paper does not appear. It may possibly hare been prepared before the time at which it is placed.

page 66 note * Of Calehill in Little Chart.

page 67 note * i.e. January 10th.

page 67 note † The King went to Hampton Court on 10th January, and on the next day the five accused members came from their lodgings in the city to Westminster, guarded by the sheriffs and trained bands of London and Westminster (under the command of Sergeant-Major-General Skippon), and attended by a conflux of many thousands of people, crying out, as they passed Whitehall, “What has become of the King and his cavaliers,” and”where is be gone?” This was the “preparation of armes to attend us next day,” the prospect of which drove the King from London.

page 67 note ‡ sic.

page 68 note * This was Captain Skippon, of whom Clarendon says, “That the Trained Bands of London might be under the command of a man fit to lead them, they granted a commission to Captain Skippon, who was Captain of the Artillery Garden, to he Major-General of the Militia of the City of London, an office never before heard of, nor imagined that they had authority to constitute. The man had served very long in Holland, and, from a common soldier, had raised himself to the degree of a captain, and to the reputation of a good officer; he was a man of order and sobriety, and untainted with any of those vices which the officers of the army were exercised in, and had newly given over that service upon some exceptions he had to it, and, coming to London, was, by some friends, preferred to that command in the Artillery Garden, which was to teach the citizens the exercise of their arms. He was altogether illiterate, and, having been bred always abroad, brought disaffection enough with him, from thence, against the Church of England, and so was much caressed and trusted by that party. This man marched that day at the head of their tumultuary army to the Parliament House.”

page 68 note † Sir John Byron.

page 68 note ‡ Vide as to dates, p. 67, supra. After the five members had been brought by the Trained Bands from the City to Parliament, Clarendon states that, after thanking them, the parliament appointed “Serjeant Major General Skippon every day to attend at Westminster, with such a guard as he thought sufficient for the two houses.”

page 69 note * Sir Thomas Shirley of St. Botulph's-bridge, co. Huntingdon, knighted 22nd May, 1622. This was the antiquary and genealogist, whose principal collections are preserved in the British Museum and in the library of Queen's College, Oxford. (See Shirley's Stemmata Shirleiana, p. 93–103.)

page 70 note * Sir Edward's “last” speech was 22 November, 1641, upon “the Remonstrance,” in which he defends the bishops against the charge of idolatry, &c, and gives an emphatic “no” to the proposal (p. 111–119). This defence of the bishops seems to have offended T. R., who had expected more “root and branch” work from Sir Edward. He takes exception also to a passage in Sir Edward's speech, in defence of the liturgie, November 20, in which he says “Impudence, or ignorance, is now grown so frontlesse, that it is loudly expected by many that you should utterly abrogate all formes of publique worship ; and, at least, if you have a shorte forme, yet not to impose the use of it. Extirpation of Episcopacie, that hope is already swallowed, and now the same men are as greedy for abolition of the liturgie: that 80 the Church of England, in her publique prayers, may hereafter turne a babler at all adventure—a brainlesse, stupid, and an ignorant conceit of some.” (p. 102.) A passage totally misrepresented in T. R.'s remonstrance. This passage was not in Sir Edward's “last”speech, but the last but one, perhaps it was the “last” that had eome to T. R's. hands.

page 71 note * The passage here alluded to in Sir Edward's Speech is : “If I would deale with a Papist, to reduce him, he answers (I have been answered so already), To what religion would you persuade me? What is the Religion you professe? Your nine-and-thirty articles, they are contested against. Your publique solemne Liturgy, that is detested : and, which is more then both these, the three essentiall, proper, and onely markes of a true Church, they are protested against: what Religion would you perswade me to? Where may I find, and know, and see, and read the Religion you professe? I beseech you, Sir, helpe me an answer to the Papist” (p. 100) ; and then Sir Edward appends a note—‘Protestation protested denies the Church of England to have the three marks of the true Church.’ T. R. however, in taking the three points as Purity of Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline, begs the question, and argues sophistically.

page 72 note * In Sir Edward's authorised version of his speeches, he gives the passage “in her public prayers may hereafter turne a babbler ;” and appends a note in the margin, sic.— “In the false copy abroad, instead of ‘may hereafter,’ the silly transcriber put in ‘nay her offerture,’ which hath been some displeasure to me.” (p. 102.) This note is a sufficient reply to T. B. Again, in introducing his Speech, Sir Edward says, “A coppy whereof, being stolen from me, issued lately forth, both unknown to me, and misprinted also, which hath beene entertained abroad both with applause and exception.” (p. 86)

page 72 note † In the margin “Lord Say.” This alludes to the well-known Speech which was answered by Archbishop Laud.

page 72 note ‡ In his so-often quoted speech of November 20, Sir Edward had said, “I must again propound my doubtfull ‘quœre,’ to be resolved by the wisdome of this house; whether we be ‘idonei et competentes judices’ in doctrinall resolutions. In my opinion we are not. … The short close of all with a motion is but this: we are poisoned in many points of doctrine ; and I know no antidote, no recipe for cure but one—a well chosen and well tempered nationall synod, and God's blessing thereon : this may cure us ; without this (in my poor opinion) England is like to turne itselfe into a great Amsterdam. And, unlesse this councell be very speedy, the disease will be above the cure. Therefore, that we may have a full fruition of what is here but promised, I doe humbly move that you will command forth the Bill for a national synod, to be read the next morning. I saw the Bill, above five moneths since, in the hand of a worthy Member of this House. If that Bill be not to be had, then my humble motion is (as formerly) that you would name a Committee to draw up another. This being once resolved, I would then desire that all motions of religion (this about the Liturgy especially) may be transferred thither, and you will find it to be the way of peace and unity among us here.” (p. 104–105.)

* I print these notes as I find them jotted down on a loose sheet. Sir Edward was expelled the House 2nd Feb. 1641–2, and his book burned, according to a vote of the House. Probably these notes were drawn up soon after that time. It would seem as if there had been three parties to the conversation, viz. Sir Edward Dering, perhaps one of his brothers-in-law (Sir Peter Wroth, or Gibbes), and a Member of Parliament. I have conjecturally assigned to each of these respectively the share he may be supposed to have taken in the conversation, by prefixing the letters D., W., M.P.

page 74 note † They were charged with a plot to bring the army up to London, to overawe the Parliament.

page 75 note * Vide Sir Edward Dering's Speeches, pp. 78, 82, and 83, wherein, speaking against the order, he says, “Master Speaker—I shall he afraid to arraigne your orders: I have already been controlled (not for doing so, hut as if I had done so), yet, Sir, I have often heard it in this House, that we ‘are masters of our owne orders;’ and then (I thinke) we may in this place, arraigne them,—that is, question them, try them, approve, alter, reject, or condemn them ………. Surely, Sir, I shall speake reverently of all your orders when I am abroad : I have done so of this. I am resolved that my obedience shall therein be found good, although my particular reason be rebellant to your conclusions. This is my duty abroad ; but here, in this House, within these walles, freedome is my inheritance: and give me leave, I pray, at this time, to use a part of my birthright.”

Then follows a splendid burst of eloquence against the order of the House “That all corporall bowing at the name of Jesus be henceforth forborne.” This is the order, for speaking against which, Sir Edward is censured in the text ; and which he, in reply, calls a “wicked, injurious, irreligious order, and unparliamentary.”

* According to family papers, he was born December 1625, therefore at this time was a few weeks over 18 years of age.

page 79 note * Sir Peter Wroth was his uncle, having married a sister of Sir Edward Dering.