Charles Thomas-Stanford.

Sussex in the great Civil War and the interregnum, 1642-1660 online

. (page 12 of 30)
Online LibraryCharles Thomas-StanfordSussex in the great Civil War and the interregnum, 1642-1660 → online text (page 12 of 30)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Colonel George Counter or his brother Thomas William
Coldham, and one Rayman. There was an attempt to
rescue the prisoners, " in which John Farrington was very
forward, and gained over Captain Sydney an officer of this
garrison ; it was threatened that if the delinquents were not
discharged by fair means, they should be by foul ; the Cap-
tain sent for a file of musketeers to rescue them, but the
mayor, at request of one of our committee, offered to assist
and command the City trained bands." 2 The Committee
for compounding ordered that Counter and Rayman, who
had petitioned, should be released on security, or they
could not perfect their compositions.

William Coldham, junior, of Stedham, petitioned the
local committee for his release; he was incapable of com-
pounding, his stock having been taken away, and he being
much in debt, with only an estate for life. But he was fined
at one-sixth,;826 17^. 6d. His father was also fined 289 5-r.
on his own petition in i649. 3

The desire of applicants to put their case as favourably
as possible sometimes led to strange expressions. In

1 Cal. Com. for Compounding, 1131.

* Ibid., 55. County Committee of Sussex to the Committee at
Goldsmiths' Hall.

* Ibid., 1637.


October 1645 Thomas Sackvile of Sedlescomb applied to
compound, having been in arms for the King. Being a
younger brother and a soldier of fortune, he had thrice
listed at the Guildhall for service in Ireland, but was left
out on the settling of the regiment. He went to York till
his elder brother died, " which made him consider, that
which he doth believe are your thoughts, that he had an
interest in this Kingdom, which he would not have to be
within an arbitrary power, or the disposal of any man's
will." He left the King's employ when it was in its best
condition. Went into France, and continued at Rouen,
never seeing the Queen nor the Court; had done nothing
against the State since his estate fell to him. Fine .400. *

The case of John Lewknor of West Dean seems a
rather hard one. In April 1646 he begged to compound,
and stated that in 1643, when quietly residing at home in
perfect obedience to the Parliament, being then the King's
ward, aged but nineteen, he was by a party of the Parlia-
ment's soldiers causelessly pillaged of his goods, stripped
of his clothes, violated in his person, and so threatened with
wounds and torments that he was forced to fly to the
Royalist quarters, six miles distant. The soldiers had no
other pretext against him save that he had some of his
name on the adverse party, arguing that he was therefore
a malignant His narrative was notoriously known to all
the country, and the County Committee had expressed
much sorrow for the accident. But for this violence, he
would never have taken up arms against the Parliament.
He had been sequestered, lost many of his goods, and
his woods had been felled at a loss of ,2,000. He begged
the benefit of Barnstaple Articles, but apparently failing
to produce proof of his surrender there (the General
stated that " he was only informed of petitioner's being at
Barnstaple ") he was fined at one-sixth, .1,440; " but if he

1 Cal. Com. for Compounding, 940.


settle 150 a year on the ministers of East Dean, Charlton,
and Chilgrove, co. Sussex, the Committee will request the
House to remit the fine." 1 His mother, Mary Lewknor,
having been sequestered " for adhering to the King " was
fined at one-tenth, 522* Another Lewknor Thomas
Lewknor of Amberley described as " Sir Edward Ford's
menial servant," who had gone with his master into Arundel
Castle, and " divers other garrisons of the late King," was
fined at one-sixth, 84 in May i649. 3

This Thomas Lewknor was the son of Frey Lewknor,
who held a lease of Amberley Castle from the Bishop of
Chichester. With other episcopal property the Castle was
seized by the Parliament. In September 1648 it was sold
to James Butler of London, merchant, with all its appur-
tenances for ^"3,341 14$. 2.\d? Mr. John Goring, a connec-
tion of the Lewknors, was in trouble in 1651. William
Short of Amberley, victualler, deposed before the County
Committee for sequestrations that when the Sussex insur-
rection took place in 1648, Mr. John Goring of Amberley
desired him to ride a horse with arms to the Lord Goring,
and promised him great rewards if the King's forces should
prevail against the Parliament's, telling him that he should
then be made a colonel in the King's army. And further,
that about half a year since Goring took a glass of beer
and kneeling down drank a health to Prince Charles and
to the confusion of the Parliament, telling the deponent
that there were none in the parliament house but rogues,
knaves and upstarts, and that he was a better man than
any man sitting there. Another witness deposed that at
the beginning of the troubles John Goring would have had
the inhabitants of the parish of Amberley bring their
goods into Amberley Castle, and that he would have se-
cured it, and had said that if the parish would but join him

1 Cal. Com. for Compounding, 1215 (see alsoflost, p. 294).

2 Ibid., 1216. 3 Ibid., 2044.
4 S. A. C., xvii, 217.



there was never a round-headed rogue should have his
castle. According to Dallaway l Amberley Castle was
plundered and dismantled by Waller's soldiery, but there
seems to be no authority for this statement.

Among other cases which, on the petitioner's showing,
appear hard, was that of Robert Exton, of Chichester. 2
He petitioned in 1645 to compound for delinquency in
absenting himself from his dwelling under threats from
the enemy. He never acted against Parliament by person
or purse, but lent Parliament 50 on the Public Faith, and
on the reducing of Chichester by Sir William Waller, he
paid 90 to his soldiers, and had a house worth 9 a year
pulled down for the better security of the town. He was
indebted 500, and had five children. Fine i5O. 3 Sarah
Cox, widow, also of Chichester, begged to compound for
delinquency in leaving her house, which she was forced
to do, it being plundered by the Parliament's forces. She
went to Sherborne, where her daughter lived; she had
never assisted the King. Fine 120*

Of well-known Sussex Cavaliers, Sir Thomas Lunsford
of Lunsford was admitted to compound in 1649 at one-sixth,
300. He had no personal estate, and was much indebted. 3
Colonel John Apsley of Pulborough was returned as a
delinquent in 1644, but no proceedings were taken. In 1653
he petitioned to compound, and was fined at one-third, ^100,
subsequently reduced on allowance fora mortgage to^o. 6
Sir Edward Alford of Offington, M.P. for Arundel, but
"disabled" by Parliament, 22nd January 1643, admitted
delinquency in leaving London for York in June 1642,
living in the King's quarters, lending the King 200, and
sitting in the first assembly at Oxford. His estate was
much impoverished, had lain under sequestration for two

1 Rape of Arundel, p. 230.

2 Mayor of Chichester, 1641-2; see ante, p. 36.

3 Cal. Com. for Compounding, 952. 4 Ibid., 1084.
5 Ibid., 1263. 6 Ibid., 868.


years, and was heavily charged. His fine was set at 2,908
reduced in 1649 to 1,284 I 5- f - on Exeter Articles, 1,000
to be taken off if he settle 100 a year from Cheltenham
Rectory on the ministers. The case dragged on until

I653- 1

Sir Henry Compton of Brambletye was fined at one-tenth,
5,289 los. 6d., but 3,675 to be abated if he agreed to
settle various sums derived from rectories on the ministers
thereof. 2 Sir Henry's daughter married John Lumley, son
and heir of Richard, Viscount Lumley, the owner of Stan-
stead, both of whom compounded as delinquents. In
September 1646 Lord Lumley was fined 1,980, and
John Lumley i, 800, for his estate in reversion; the former
on Bristol, and the latter on Winchester Articles. In
October Lord Lumley complained that although the order
of suspension, pending the payment of his fine, had been
served on the County Commissioners of Sussex, they were
carrying away his woods formerly felled, " and by proclama-
tion in church and market, give all who have contracted for
any woods, liberty to do the like." :

The estate of Lord Montague, the owner of Cowdray, a
papist, was sequestered as to two-thirds by order of the
House of Commons in 1643. William Yalden of Black-
down, " forty years servant to Lord Montague and his
father," seems to have leased the two-thirds sequestered.
He complained in 1655 that his rent was with difficulty
raised, " by reason of the low price of corn and cattle." 4
Mr. William Gage of Framfield 5 and Sir Thomas Gage of
Firle 6 also suffered as recusants. Sir Garrett Kemp of
Slindon, had some difficulty in rebutting the charge of
recusancy, his father having married a daughter of Sir
Edward Gage, and himself a daughter of Sir John Caryll,
both Catholics. The County Committee alleged on 3ist

1 Cal. Com. for Compounding, 1009 (see also post, p. 294).

2 Ibid., 1602. s Ibid., 920. * Ibid., 2543-4.
5 Ibid., 2211. e Ibid., 3011.


October 1644, that in the time of the rebellion he sent two
horses to Chichester, with two of his servants, armed with
pistols and swords, who continued there about three
weeks, and rode backwards and forwards from Slindon to
Chichester ; and further that he was " a reputed Church
Papist, and bred up all his children Papists," and that he
absented himself from his usual place of abode in the
county by the space of two years. It was proved on his
behalf, that he was not a Papist ; and that his children had
not been in his tuition for many years, the youngest being at
least forty years old. He was fined at one-sixth, 2,931 icxr. 1
On nth June 1649, Dr. Wright and three other physicians
certified that " being very infirm and aged, it would be
efficacious for his ailments that he do repair to the Spa, for
the benefit of the Spa waters." Three days afterwards a
pass was signed by Fairfax for Sir Garrett Kemp and his
servants to go beyond seas, for the above purpose, with a
proviso that he should carry with him nothing prohibited
by the State. His son Thomas, who " went into Arundel
Castle when held against the Parliament, but never bore
arms, nor assisted the king's party," was fined at one-tenth,

Sir John Shelley, of Michelgrove, a "recusant Papist,"
died in 1641, and was succeeded by his grandson Charles,
then three years old, who was taken abroad by his grand-
mother. In 1645 the Committee for the Advance of Money
received information that much treasure, plate, money, etc.,
belonging to the late Sir John Shelley, a recusant, was
walled up and concealed in his home at Michelgrove, and
made an order that it be sought for and brought away and
used for the service of the state, with leave to break down
walls, and break open or dig in any place suspected. 2 The
same Committee was informed in 1649 that Sir Charles
was born and bred up in the Romish religion and was now

1 Cal. Com. for Compounding, 1960.

2 Cal. Com. for Advance of Money, 2nd April 1645.


beyond the seas. His estate in Sussex, Kent, and Warwick-
shire was worth 3,000 a year, and Col. James Temple,
M.P., held it as bailiff or guardian, but had rendered no
account of it to the state. 1 As the estate was not sequestered,
there does not appear to be any reason why he should have
done so. In the matter of a certain farm sequestered as
having belonged to Colonel Henry Shelley, " who was in
the wars," Colonel Temple represented in 1650 that Sir
Charles Shelley, being only thirteen years could not be
called a Papist, as none were Papists under sixteen, that he
was not Popishly, educated, and frequented church. 2 In
1651, Sir Charles, by his guardian, petitioned to enjoy the
goods formerly sequestered ; it appeared that they were
valued at 200, and consisted of linen, bed-furniture >
Turkey work, carpets and hangings, and at the beginning
of the troubles had been hidden in a chimney near the
kitchen. 3 There is no further mention of any plate.

The Committee for Advance of Money which sat at
Haberdashers' Hall seems occasionally to have overstepped
its proper function of levying a tax of one-twentieth on real,
and one-fifth on personal property without distinction of
party, and assumed the powers of the Committee for Com-
pounding. In April 1645, an information was laid before it by
Sir Robert Harlow, concerning John Butt, Thomas Pierce,
and Edward Tremblett, all of " Bozom," near Chichester.
It was alleged that in December 1642, the King's garrison
being at Chichester, Tremblett and Pierce took John Mills,
sent by the militia of London to Sir William Waller, as
prisoner; railed at him as a Roundhead carrying letters for
Parliament against the King ; and sent for some Cavaliers to
secure him and have him hanged at Chichester; but a friend
of his sent to Waller for a party to redeem him, and that
party arriving first he escaped. It was further alleged that
all three were still in arms against the Parliament; and an

1 Cal. Com. for Advance of Money, 2nd November 1649.
* Cal. Com. for Compounding, 2370. 3 Ibid.) 2371.


order was made for seizing and securing their estates. 1 In
December 1645, Thomas Peirce of Bosham, yeoman, applied
to the Committee for Compounding to compound for delin-
quency, having been in arms against the Parliament with
Sir E. Ford at Chichester. He had long since taken the
Covenant. Fine 20* Edward Tremlett, of Bosham, was
fined 40 at the same time. 3

Time sometimes works strange coincidences. In 1650,
Peter Courthope of Isfield, Sussex, high-sheriff of the
county, petitioned the Committee to recognize his claim to
the Manor of Lamborn Hall, in Essex, which Sir William
Campion of Combwell, in Kent, had sold to him for
1,700, whereof 1,400 or 1,500 went in payment of his
fine. The claim was recognized in 1652 on payment of
8 1 .* I n 1 65 2 Peter Courthope bought the estate of Danny,
Sussex, from the assignees of George Goring, Earl of Norwich.
Henry Campion, grandson of Sir William, married Barbara,
daughter and heiress of Peter Courthope, of Danny (grand-
son of the aforesaid Peter Courthope), by his wife Phila-
delphia, daughter of Sir John Stapley, Bart, of Patcham. 6

Sir William Campion was fined 1,354 on gth October
1646, being one-tenth of his estate, on Borstall Articles. 6
The receipt for the payment of half this fine, here repro-
duced, is in the possession of his descendant, Colonel
Campion, C.B., of Combwell and Danny.

1 Cal. Com. for Advance of Money, 544.

2 Cal. Com. for Compounding, 1063. 3 Ibid., 1065.
* Ibid., 1450. s Pedigree of Campion. S. A. C., x, 34.
6 Cal. Com. for Compounding, 1450.

REfeit'tdfy <, Richard VVanng*WMr
c ! > a t- 1 1 1 e r r i n g, Trcafnrcrs / /Ar M0zr/c '

. * T* * -^

' "' - *- ' *'


Ni in tit Count) c

y4 ^v^i l

<t > r - . - \*X+\+* fX,

,rv ,..'^, ^y 0/y<s4^ f^. JkP*X'

'*J~imp9fcJpo*l -;i
mmern 44 4 Pint fir hit Delia- \

-i'.wfl. Wet fay Ttecttvttl. [


U* ^i





BAD as was the plight of the Royalist gentry, the Royalist
clergy suffered still more severely. Thegentleman might
sell or mortgage part of his estate, or cut his timber to pay
his fine ; but the clergyman, deprived of his cure, not only
lost his livelihood, but frequently was unable to earn it in
any other way. The Cathedral Chapters and some other of
the more important clergy very soon fell into the clutch of
the sequestrating committees, who, not content with strip-
ping them of their preferments, laid hands on their private
estates. At Chichester, the estate of the Bishop, Henry
King, was sequestered, and it does not appear that it was
ever admitted to composition. The Dean, Dr. Bruno Ryves,
had joined the King at Oxford after the fall of Chicheste^
and on 5th December 1646 begged to compound on Oxford
Articles for delinquency in being there when it was sur-
rendered. He was fined at one-tenth, 20. Being required
to take the Covenant and the Negative Oath, he prayed
exemption on the ground that a dispensation from both
was granted to all included in Oxford Articles. 1 Dr. William
Cox, the precentor, was at Exeter when it fell, and was fined
on Exeter Articles one-tenth, ,169? Dr. Joseph Henshaw,
a prebendary, also compounded on Exeter Articles, and
was fined 177? Dr. William Oughtred, another prebend-
ary, a Fellow of Eton, and an eminent mathematician, is

' Cal. Com. for Compounding, 1593. 2 Ibid., 1299.

3 Ibid., 1366.



said to have died of excess of joy at the age of eighty-six,
when he heard of the restoration of the monarchy. 1 Thomas
Hooke, Clerk, of Chichester, compounded in 1649 for de-
linquency in going into Oxford, then a garrison for the
King, and was fined at one-third, 14.0* John Edsawe,
Clerk, of Chayley, compounded on Oxford Articles and
was fined at one-tenth, 4.0?

Soon after the outbreak of War, on 7th December 1642,
the Parliament appointed a Committee to provide benefices
for such of the Puritan clergy as had been driven from their
livings by the King's forces. This Committee in its first
resolution defined its duties as follows: "To consider of
the fittest way for the relief of such godly and well affected
ministers as have been plundered and likewise to consider
what malignant persons have benefices whose livings being
sequestered there may others supply their cures and receive
the profits." Six months later it assumed the further power
to consider informations against scandalous ministers, though
no malignancy was proved against them, and on proof of
scandal to put out such as were of scandalous life. This
Committee, " the Committee of Plundered Ministers " as it
was called, gradually acquired a practical supervision of the
financial side of ecclesiastical affairs, and if a tithe of the
allegations against it are true, it did a good deal of plunder-
ing on its own account. 4 At first Parliament did not dele-
gate all control of such matters to the Committee. In
December 1642 the inhabitants of Horsham sent up a
petition asserting that one Mr. Conyers, who had been pre-
sented to that parish by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
was a " disserving " man and unfit for the place, and the

1 S. A. C., v, 52. - Cal. Com. for Compounding, 1972.

3 Ibid., 1568.

4 The Proceedings of this Committee are contained in three MS.
books, B.M. Add. MSS. 15669, 15670, 15671. The entries relating to
Sussex were collected by Mr. F. G. Sawyer and printed in S. A. C.,
xxx and xxxi.


House of Lords ordered that the Archbishop should have
notice that the House did not approve of the presentation. 1
Before the Civil War broke out it had been a common
practice for parishes which were dissatisfied with the minis-
trations of their incumbents to maintain lecturers of their
own, and it seems that these lecturers frequently obtained
the livings of the dispossessed " malignant " clergy. The
inhabitants of Horsham now sent a further petition that
Mr. Chatfield, " a godly and painful preacher," their own
lecturer, who had spent his time and taken great pains
among them, should be appointed in Mr. Conyer's place.
Parliament thereupon appointed Mr. Chatfield, and named
a Committee of the inhabitants, including Thomas Middle-
ton, Hall Ravenscroft, James Gratwick, Thomas White
and others, to sequestrate the vicarage and pay the tithes
to him.

The Committee of Plundered Ministers was, in a sense,
a complementary body to the Westminster Assembly of
Divines, established by Act of Parliament in October 1642
with the object of reforming the Church of England on the
lines of Presbyterianism. The Sussex members of this
Assembly were Dr. Francis Cheynell of Oxford, after-
wards Rector of Petworth, Mr. Benjamin Pickering 2 of
East Hoathley, and Mr. Henry Nye of Clapham. The last-
named did not appear, and John Maynard, Vicar of May-
field, was added by Parliament. The two bodies seem to
have worked together in- the task of filling the country
vicarages with Puritan incumbents, and in Sussex Dr. Chey-
nell was particularly active.

1 House of Lords MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com., v), 61. See Hunt's
History of Horsham, p. 12.

2 Mr. Pickering was a preacher of some eminence. He received the
thanks of the House of Commons for a sermon preached at St.
Margaret's, Westminster, on 27th November 1644 ; and it was ordered
to be printed. " A Firebrand pluckt out of the burning. By Benjamin
Pikering, Minister of Gods Word at Buckstead in Sussex; and a
Member of the Assembly of Divines. London 1645."


The Central Committee appointed local committees in
various counties to assist it in its work. The original Sussex
Committee appears to have consisted of twenty members,
all laymen, and chiefly Members of Parliament for the
county and its boroughs. It was empowered to inquire " by
the oaths of twelve lawful men" of the following offences:
" Not preaching the word of God six times at least in the
space of one whole year by any ecclesiastical person or
persons under the age of sixty years, having cure of souls,
and not being thereunto letted by sickness or imprison-
ment; or of blasphemy, wilful and corrupt perjury, and
subordination of perjury, fornication, adultery, common
alehouse or tavern haunting, common drunkenness, common
profane swearing and cursing."

The county committees seem to have been subdivided,
and we find committees sitting at Lewes, Chichester,
Battle, and Brambletye. According to Walker (Sufferings
of the Clergy, p. 118) the local committees consisted of
not more than ten or less than five persons, who each
received five shillings a day for attendance. They were
" directed to take depositions of witnesses without the
accused being present, but if he desired it they were to let
him have a copy of the accusation at his own charge."

It was inevitable that in the bitterness of the struggle,
most bitter of course on the religious side, much hardship
should be caused, and injustice suffered by ministers of
both parties. Dr. Cheynell himself asserts l that he was
driven from his own house by force of arms, only (as the
Cavaliers confessed) because he was nominated to be a
member of the Westminster Assembly not a very in-
sufficient reason, one would suppose, from the Cavalier
point of view. He speaks of "the visitation of Merton
College, the denial of my grace, the plundering of my house
and little library," and he boasts " I have not yet learnt

1 Chillingworthi Novissima.


how to plunder others of goods or living, and make myself
amends by force of arms. I will not take a living which
belonged to any civil, studious, learned Delinquent, unless
it be the much neglected Commendam of some Lordly
Prelate condemned by the known laws of the land, and the
highest court of the kingdom for some offence of the first
magnitude." In the rich living of Petworth, which had been
previously attached to the bishopric of Chichester, he was
fortunate enough to find an agreeable ministry which did
not violate his principles.

It was some slight mitigation of the lot of the clergyman
who was ejected from his living as a Royalist, or as attached
to Episcopacy or the Book of Common Prayer, and was
thus deprived at one sweep of his livelihood, that a fifth of
his late income was payable to his wife and children for
their support by the incumbent who had succeeded him.
This fifth was often grudgingly paid, and the payment
could only be enforced by an appeal to the Committee of
Plundered Ministers, or its local deputy, and although the
Committee seems often to have insisted on the payment, it
sometimes decided otherwise on a view of what appear
irrelevant circumstances. Thus on 24th May 1645, the
Committee took into consideration the case of the wife of
Mr. Peckham, whose vicarage of Horsted Parva had been
sequestered; and it having appeared that she had shown
contempt of the sequestration by keeping possession of the
house till she was expelled from it, and had " committed
much wilful spoil upon the said house"; and further that
the living was but small, and that Mr. Peckham practised
physic and farmed land worth 18 a year, the Committee
thought fit to relieve the living of the charge of one-fifth,
and discharged Mr. Bigge, who had succeeded Mr. Peck-

Online LibraryCharles Thomas-StanfordSussex in the great Civil War and the interregnum, 1642-1660 → online text (page 12 of 30)