|
they were well received, searched the houses of Lord
Roper and Mr. Pettit, papists, and took a quantity of plate. They went
to the houses of Sir Robert Philmer and others, but could not find them
nor anything of value.58 After examining the garrison at
Rochester, they came to Gravesend, and by 3 September were in London.
The terrified inhabitants seem to have been taken by surprise by this
swift and sudden onslaught. One report insists on the ‘love and
alacrity displayed at Rochester and Lydd, and on their being ‘well
received,’ not only at the above places but at New Romney and
Tenterden. Another says ‘that county of Kent have angry hearts,’ and
the event proved that this was right. This prompt action on the part of
the Parliament was mainly due to Sir Michael Livesey,59 who
organized Kent with such efficiency that he received the thanks of
Parliament and was ordered, 21 November 1642, to aid in putting Sussex
into a posture of defence. He seized and sent up to London the loyalist
high sheriff of Kent, Sir William Brockham, and thus frustrated his
design of raising an army for the king. The Weald was especially placed
under his control.
To give a complete history of Kent during the Civil War and under the
Commonwealth would require a volume in itself, and a whole literature
survives of contemporary tracts and pamphlets, narratives of exploits,
risings, ‘manifests,’ petitions and counter-petitions in the county.
It is impossible to do more than briefly summarize events. In April 1643
the Kentish Committee complained to William Lenthall from Rochester of
obstacles to be removed in connexion with the weekly tax, and that ‘they
all spring from one head, the malignant clergy’ ;60 again in June they
complained of the neglect of the Kentish members of the house, except
Sir E. Patheritch, to assist them in the weekly tax, sequestration and
assessment.61 In July a sudden insurrection had to be dealt
with in Kent, which ‘without any countenance from the king gave much
trouble.’62 Orders were sent to Sir Harry Vane and others
to suppress the rising,63 and a force of 2,000 despatched to
assist those of the county. In this year and the following it was
generally remarked that ‘the king’s party increases in Kent.’64
In
November 1643 the ordinance was passed associating the counties of
Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent, and giving them power
58 From the first, the expenses of the war in Kent seem to have fallen
upon the ‘papists and malignants.’ On 24 March 1642-3, John Platt,
cornet in Captain Baynard’s troop, received a warrant from the Earl of
Essex ‘to seize in Kent 40 horses of papists and malignants for
mounting his troop.’ Ibid. Rep. 73, App. 106. The Council of State
wrote to the Committee of Kent, 73 March 1640, when making a demand for
troops to serve in Ireland, ‘Although your county suffered much in the
last war, yet we conceive it has been in your power to put the charge of
it upon the authors.’ Cal. S.P. Dom. 1649-50, p. 38. Sir
Edward Hyde, writing to Prince Rupert, 1648, says’ Certain Kentish
gentlemen seem to be more melancholique and afflicted with
sequestrations than others who have lain longer under that curse.’
Ibid. App. ii, 440. They suffered heavily, on the showing of
Parliamentarians.
59 Of East Church, Isle of Sheppey, son of Gabriel Livesey, of
Hollingbourne. Cal. S.P. Dom. 1644, pp. 171-2, 376-7, 384.
60 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xiii, App. ii, 704.
61 Ibid. 713.
62 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebn. vii, 264.
63 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. v, App.
96, 97; Rep. vii, 555; App. xiii;
App. i, 125. Colonel Richard Browne, writing to the Earl of Manchester,
24 July 1643, to describe his encounter with the ‘rebels,’
at Tonbridge, without ‘assistance from the county,’ states that
about 200 prisoners were taken by the Parliamentarians, who released ‘that noble gentleman Sir Thomas Walsingham and divers others of our
friends, and for the present utterly routed the rebels.’ Ibid. Rep. v,
App. 97. Sir Edward Hales was sent to the Tower on suspicion of being
concerned in this insurrection. Ibid. 108.
64 Ibid. MSS. of Marquis of Bath, i, 16; Clarendon, History of Great
Rebellion, pt. viii, §9. Clarendon writes also of the impatience to
make a move against London of the loyal party in Kent, ‘as having
undergone great pressures and indignities from the parliament.’ |