MYDDELTON, Hugh (c.1560-1631), of Bassishaw (Basinghall) Street, London and Bush Hill, Edmonton, Mdx.; later of The Lodge, Talybont, Card.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629, ed. Andrew Thrush and John P. Ferris, 2010
Available from Cambridge University Press

Family and Education

b. c.1560, 6th s. of Richard Myddelton† (d.1577/8) of Galch Hill, nr. Denbigh, Denb. and Jane, da. of Hugh Dryhurst, alderman of Denbigh;1 bro. of Robert* and Sir Thomas I*. educ. appr. Goldsmith, London 1576-85; factor, Antwerp, 1585.2 m. (1) shortly bef. 5 Nov. 1585, Anne (bur. 11 Jan. 1597), da. of one Collins of Lichfield, Staffs., wid. of Richard Edwards of London, s.p.;3 (2) 1598, Elizabeth (d. 19 July 1643), da. and h. of John Olmstead of Ingatestone, Essex, 7s. (4 d.v.p.) 6da.4 cr. bt. 22 Oct. 1622.5 d. 7 Dec. 1631.6 sig. Hugh Myddelton.

Offices Held

Freeman, Goldsmiths’ Co., London 1585, liveryman 1592, asst. by 1604-d., warden 1604-6, master 1610-11, 1624-5;7 farmer, Mines Royal, Card. 1617-d.; gov., New River Co. 1619-d.8

Alderman, Denbigh 1597-d.;9 churchwarden, St. Matthew Friday St. London, 1598-1600;10 recorder, Ruthin lordship Feb. 1604, by 1611-d., Denbigh lordship 1619-d.;11 trustee, Latymer sch. Edmonton, Mdx. c.1612;12 commr. new buildings, London 1630.13

Commr. exacted fees 1630-d.14


Myddelton was apprenticed to the London Goldsmith Thomas Hartopp in 1576, but after his master’s death in 1582 it was his elder brother, (Sir) Thomas Myddelton I*, who supported him, providing both professional commissions and the money to buy his freedom of the Goldsmiths’ Company in 1585. Myddelton’s second marriage was presumably also arranged by his brother, the bride’s stepfather. He reciprocated these favours by winding up (Sir) Thomas’s sugar business in Antwerp in 1585, and by arranging the latter’s investment of £150 in a privateering voyage organized by the Goldsmiths’ Company in 1589-90.15

Myddelton established himself at a shop in Goldsmith’s Row on Cheapside, where he and Sir Walter Ralegh† allegedly popularized the use of tobacco by smoking together in his doorway.16 Although often preoccupied with the supervision of other projects, Myddelton remained an active member of the Goldsmiths’ Company throughout his life, serving as a warden in 1604-6, and master in 1610-11 and 1624-5.17 Like many members of his trade, he assumed the functions of a banker by extending substantial sums in credit to his customers. The scale of this business is illustrated by the lawsuits he brought against the spendthrift 2nd earl of Lincoln (Sir Henry Clinton†) for a debt of £600, and Arthur Hall†, who was imprisoned in the Fleet at his behest in 1601 for debts of £800. The terms he offered were sometimes a useful disguise for risky loans at usurious rates, as seems to have been the case with Sir Robert Dudley, who owed him £1,250 by the time he absconded to Italy in 1605.18 Alongside this trade, Myddelton followed his brother’s example in building up a substantial portfolio of loans to the gentry of North Wales, which were guaranteed by mortgages upon lands. The forfeiture of some of these assisted him in the acquisition of estates in Denbighshire worth £420 a year at his death.19

For all his far-flung business interests, Myddelton maintained links with his native county. In 1597 he helped to secure a new charter for Denbigh, which named him as senior alderman, while a few years later he improved the town’s fuel supply by sinking coal mines nearby. Thus it was no accident that he looked to Denbigh Boroughs for a seat in Parliament from 1604. His quest was complicated by the fact that the franchise was shared between four boroughs. However, as one of these - Chirk - was dominated by his brother Sir Thomas, and he himself was appointed recorder of another - Ruthin - in February 1604, his return at the parliamentary election held in the following month was, perhaps, a foregone conclusion.20 He relinquished his post at Ruthin as soon as the election was past, but assiduously cultivated his interests within the contributory boroughs for the rest of his life. He later advised the Denbigh corporation over the purchase of lands to provide an income for the town’s poor, and helped them to secure a lease of the castle park, while in 1614 he forwarded a bequest of £10 from one of his servants, a native of Denbigh. As the summons of a fresh Parliament was then imminent, he seized the opportunity to assure the aldermen that ‘I take it ve[ry] kindly that you will employ me in any business that may tend to [the] public or private good of that town’, a hint they were happy to act upon at the election.21 He also acquired a personal interest in another of the boroughs by purchasing Ruthin Park in 1614, and leasing the town’s castle in 1617. As one of the terms of this lease he undertook to spend £200 developing the site, a promise he apparently took seriously, as he made plans to build two fulling mills there in 1620.22

There is some difficulty in identifying Myddelton’s activities during the parliamentary sessions of 1604-14, as the surviving records do not always distinguish between him, his brother Robert*, and (in 1614) John Middleton. However, the relatively low profile Myddelton maintained in the House during the 1620s suggests that he was unlikely to have been particularly active during his first two parliaments. Either he or his brother moved for parliamentary privilege to stay a Chancery injunction in 1610, but most of the ten speeches made by ‘Mr. Middleton’ during the Addled Parliament, especially those concerning impositions and proposals to revoke the Merchant Adventurers’ monopoly of cloth exports, can be attributed to Robert, one of the City’s largest cloth merchants, with reasonable confidence.23 If this assumption is correct, the Denbigh MP made only one speech of political significance, in the highly charged atmosphere immediately before the king’s second answer to the Petition of Right on 7 June 1628, when he called for the detention of a ship bound for Amsterdam with 32 guns, warning that ‘if our ordnance be carried away we cannot fight’. However, with moves afoot to resolve the political crisis, the House was not as interested in the motion as it might have been a day or two earlier, especially when it emerged that the cargo was covered by an export licence.24

While he represented a Welsh constituency, Myddelton took little known interest in the affairs of the principality, although he did sign the petition which was circulated at Westminster during the 1624 session opposing a lease of the Welsh greenwax fines to (Sir) Richard Wynn*.25 Most parliamentary business to which Myddelton can be linked related to London interests: bill committees for recovery of small debts in London (28 Jan. 1606, ?11 May 1614); reform of the Marshalsea Court (10 Dec. 1606); debts in shopkeepers’ account books (20 Feb. 1610); restrictions upon the use of gilding and silvering (5 May 1614); weights and measures (21 May 1614); and settlement of monies owed by those dying under arrest for debt (17 Apr. 1624). Moreover, he was probably the ‘Mr. Middleton’ who served as teller for the yeas at the third reading of the bill for ‘gold-end men’ on 14 July 1610.26 Other committees to which he was nominated related to the wider interests of the London livery companies, such as that for the bill to confirm title to lands granted for charitable uses (19 Mar. 1606, 4 May 1607), and bills relating to the Pinners’ (1 Apr. 1606), Horners’ (23 Feb. 1610) and Apothecaries’ Companies (22 Apr. 1624). On 13 June 1628, he was included on a committee investigating a petition from his own Company about a recent patent granting the earl of Holland (Henry Rich*) the office of royal exchanger. Ten days later, amid a chorus of complaints from London interests, he reminded the House that a similar patent of 1583 had never been implemented, while another had been surrendered following complaints in the 1621 Parliament. Moreover, he protested, that he himself ‘cannot exchange any plate but it must come to the exchanger, and there stay till it be coined’; Holland’s patent was duly included in the petition of grievances.27

It was probably in Parliament that Myddelton first encountered the New River scheme. On 31 Jan. 1606, he was named to the committee for a bill to supply water to London from Uxbridge or the River Lea. This project, sponsored by the Common Council, was radically altered in committee to give statutory authority to an existing patent allowing Edmund Colthurst to bring water from springs at Amwell in north-eastern Hertfordshire, in which form the bill duly passed into law. During the following session another statute was passed to endorse a rival plan to enclose the watercourse in a brick vault; Myddelton was also a member of the committee appointed to scrutinize this bill (1 May 1607). Colthurst ran out of funds at the end of 1608, whereupon the City offered the project to Myddelton, whose finances presumably inspired greater confidence, although he had private qualms about the magnitude of the project: ‘I have undertaken a matter ... that will cost me all my poor means’.28 Work progressed apace during the summer of 1609, but halted in the face of opposition from landowners who refused to compound for the river’s right of way. Others were concerned that the new works would render the Lea impassable for barges, and the two interests combined to promote a parliamentary bill in May 1610, which was said to have occasioned ‘much ado’ in the Commons. On 16 July a sub-committee of 10 Members was ordered to survey the works, but nothing more was heard of them, and on 29 Nov., just before the end of the autumn session, the City aldermen petitioned the Commons to view Myddelton’s efforts, urging that ‘a work of so public use ... may be no longer hindered by causeless opposition’. As an interested party, Myddelton was not included on the committee for this bill, but he was named to that for Chelsea College (22 June), which proposed to fund a divinity college from the proceeds of a conduit bringing water from the Lea at Hackney Marshes; this measure was enacted, but was never put into effect.29

With the political future of the New River resolved, the Exchequer commission compounding for rights of way reconvened in January 1611, and construction resumed in the spring. Nine months later Myddelton reached the limits of his personal credit, having spent £1,100 upon a project which was experiencing technical problems and nowhere near finished. He appealed to Lord Treasurer Salisbury (Robert Cecil†) for assistance, and under a contract of 2 May 1612 the Crown took on half the costs and eventual profits of the scheme. The other half was divided into 36 shares, which were sold for £100 each to private investors.30 By these means, and a loan of £3,000 from the City at 6 per cent interest, Myddelton raised the £18,525 necessary to bring to completion the watercourse at the New River Head in Islington, which was inaugurated at Michaelmas 1613 by his brother Sir Thomas Myddelton I, then lord mayor-elect of London.31 Distribution pipes began to be laid throughout the City in 1613, but initial sales proved disappointing, and revenues of just under £1,000 during the first year were barely sufficient to cover the operating costs. The Crown, understandably anxious to secure a return on its sizeable investment, pestered the London corporation to drum up business, to prevent costly damage to the Company’s pipes, and to close down rival schemes for pumping water from the Thames. However, up to 1630 the Exchequer recouped only £4,500, an annual return of about 3 per cent, while private shareholders had to wait until 1633 before they received regular dividends.32 Long before this, in 1618, (Sir) Giles Mompesson* and others were deputed to discuss the twin possibilities of a Crown buy-out of the private shareholders, or a lease of the Crown interest to Myddelton. In the event, letters patent of 21 June 1619 incorporating the New River Company left the existing division of interests unaltered, and installed Myddelton as the first governor.33

One of the new Company’s first acts was to seek statutory confirmation of its charter, which contained a potentially controversial clause granting a veto over all other schemes to bring water to the capital. A bill was tabled in the Commons on 7 May 1621, not by Myddelton, who was then preoccupied with the Brading Haven drainage project and left no trace upon the records of the session, but by solicitor general Sir Robert Heath*. Despite this official support, the bill received only a single reading. It enjoyed a warmer reception in the 1624 session, when no less a figure than Sir Edward Coke* backed the committal of what he termed ‘a very good bill’, apparently because of Myddelton’s decision to open the river’s sluices to extinguish a fire in the City some months earlier. However, the committee never reported its findings, while a subsequent attempt to introduce the bill into the Lords got no further than a first reading (11 Feb. 1626).34 Although he played no identifiable role in the furtherance of this measure, Myddelton’s expertise in hydraulic engineering was acknowledged by the Commons when he was nominated to committees for two bills to improve river navigation, on the Thames (20 Mar. 1624) and the Medway (17 May 1628); the former was of potential utility to the New River Company, as the elm trees it used for water pipes were floated down the Thames from Berkshire.35 Outside Parliament, the Company slowly moved into profit, yielding a net return of £1,800 (£28 per share) in 1622. The Crown once again considered taking the concern into its own hands, but the shareholders refused to sell up for less than their original investment of £100 a share, a price which valued the project at a mere four years’ purchase.36 In the short term this pessimism was justified, as income slumped during the plague epidemic of 1625. However, by then Myddelton had procured an increase in the annual management fee of £120 (fixed in 1612) to £800 (later £1,000) a year. An account of 1630 showed him to have received a total of almost £13,500 in fees since 1612, while after his death the London corporation was to allow his widow a further lump sum of £1,000 in compensation for damage done to pipes.37

Despite its heavy demands upon his time and capital, the New River Company was only the beginning of Myddelton’s entrepreneurial exploits. While the project was undoubtedly a major drain on his personal resources during its construction phase, most of his original outlay was recouped from Crown, shareholders and the City’s loan in 1614-17. Thus flush with cash, it was hardly surprising that he should be found casting around for other investment opportunities over the next few years. The first was a lease of the Crown’s mineral rights in northern Cardiganshire, which had fallen into ruin after the previous tenant, Sir Lewis Lewknor*, became entangled in title disputes.38 Myddelton’s original lease of February 1617 stated his intention to prospect for copper, but three months later a fresh 21-year grant freed him to prospect for any minerals. He sank five mines, introducing the latest German technology including watermill-powered pumps and the use of adits, or drainage channels, to carry water away from flooded works. All of this meant that he was able to sink mineshafts much deeper than his predecessors, while refining techniques allowed him to extract about 30oz. of pure silver from each ton of lead ore.39 His success inevitably attracted competitors. In 1623 the Privy Council was approached by a Dutchman who claimed to be able to increase the yield of lead per ton of ore and to refine the silver more quickly, using coal rather than charcoal. The king, alerted to this threat to Myddelton’s interests by Bevis Thelwall, clerk of the Great Wardrobe and a shareholder in the mines, offered assurances that the existing lease would not be revoked without due compensation. A trial was swiftly arranged, at which Myddelton efficiently supervised the smelting and refining of three tons of lead ore over three days, while his opponent feebly claimed that his equipment had broken.40 Thus vindicated, Myddelton’s mines were excluded from a Proclamation of July 1624 inviting fresh tenders for leases of Crown mining rights, and in the following year his lease was renewed for 31 years. Thereafter Myddelton spent much of his time in Cardiganshire, which may explain why he left no trace upon the records of the Parliaments of 1625 and 1626. It was later claimed that the mines yielded £2,000 a month, which was probably an exaggeration, but the fact that he was able to support a Crown rent of £400 a year provides some indication of the scale of the enterprise, which was conservatively valued at £10,000 a year after his death.41

The final project in which Myddelton became involved was the drainage of Brading Haven at the eastern end of the Isle of Wight. The right to reclaim this land had been assigned to a Scottish courtier in 1616, but Bevis Thelwall brought the patent to Myddelton’s attention, and in 1620 the pair joined with Sir Eubule Thelwall* in a partnership to exploit this grant. The Thelwalls put up most of the £2,000 required to buy out the patent and the Crown’s right to recovered grounds, while Myddelton, who held a controlling four-sevenths share in the enterprise, provided another £3,700 to perform the drainage work.42 Myddelton claimed to have spent a further £1,000 in stocking the land thus recovered, but agricultural yields proved disappointing, and in September 1623 he sold his interest to (Sir) Bevis for £3,700, which effectively reimbursed him for his original outlay. Myddelton doubtless intended to invest this sum in his Welsh mines, having just worsted his Dutch rival at the smelting trials, but Thelwall, claiming discrepancies in Myddelton’s accounts of the drainage scheme, held back all but £1,000 of the payment. If this was a calculated ploy to secure a discount, it succeeded, as in May 1625, Myddelton, then on the point of signing the Crown’s new lease of mining rights, accepted an arbitration of this dispute by Sir Eubule, who reduced his brother’s purchase price by £1,200. Disappointment at the hard bargain driven by the Thelwalls may help to explain why Myddelton offered such a gloomy assessment of the risks involved in coastal drainage when consulted by Sir John Wynn† about plans to drain Traeth Mawr, near Harlech, Merioneth, a few months later.43

Myddelton continued sparring with the Thelwalls in the courts for the remainder of his life, although his chances of overturning Sir Eubule’s arbitration were slim, as the latter was a master in Chancery. It eventually emerged that Thelwall had discounted the price his brother paid for Brading first to allow for Myddelton’s repurchase of the Thelwalls’ four shares in the Cardiganshire mines, and secondly to account for the 1,000 marks Myddelton was said to have promised Sir Bevis for procuring his baronetcy in October 1622. The former point was a mere actuarial calculation, but the latter was a calculated slur upon Myddelton’s reputation, as it had always been said that he obtained his baronetcy free of charge, ‘for his good service in bringing the water to London, and finding out the silver mine in Wales’. Sir Bevis never claimed that the Crown had levied its normal charge of £1,095 for the honour, but he did insist that Myddelton had secretly given him £50 to distribute to Household officials who would normally receive fees for such a grant. Furthermore, once the patent was passed, it was arranged that Thelwall should bring it unannounced to a dinner at Myddelton’s London house, where, to the host’s feigned astonishment, this signal mark of royal favour was revealed to the assembled company. Myddelton grudgingly agreed that the tale about the dinner was true, but was ultimately to have the last laugh on his tormentor, as the Brading embankment was destroyed by a storm in 1630, and Thelwall’s lands reverted to the sea.44

During the last year of his life Myddelton rearranged his business interests. In March 1631 he mortgaged his Denbighshire estates to his brother Sir Thomas for £6,000. This sum was presumably used to purchase the Crown’s 50 per cent interest in the New River Company, which was granted to him on 18 Nov. 1631, albeit charged with a perpetual annuity of £500.45 In person or by proxy, Myddelton also owned 13 of the 36 Company shares in private hands: under the terms of his will of 21 Nov. 1631, he gave one of these to the Goldsmiths’ Company for charitable uses, and one each to his three surviving sons and two unmarried daughters. His wife, as executrix, was allowed to sell up to four of the remaining shares if the dispersal of his Welsh lands and mining interests did not suffice to pay off his debts. Myddelton died on 7 Dec. 1631, and was buried at his parish church of St. Matthew, Friday Street three days later.46

Myddelton’s estate settlement gradually unravelled in the decade after his death. His widow quickly sold his Welsh lands to Sir Thomas Myddelton II* for £2,000, but held on to the Cardiganshire mines, which were apparently dilapidated by the time she leased them to the entrepreneur Thomas Bushell for £400 a year in 1636.47 Myddelton’s eldest son, Sir William, who succeeded as governor of the New River Company and holder of the king’s share, held a reversionary interest to any of his father’s private shares which remained unsold. Thus the sale of four shares to (Sir) John Backhouse* had to be confirmed by a Chancery decree in 1637, while in 1643 Sir William persuaded the Goldsmiths to pay his mother’s funeral expenses in return for a confirmation of their title to the share Myddelton had left them. Myddelton’s youngest son acquired control of the Company in 1658, but was soon sacked for incompetence. The family’s fortunes declined thereafter, and none of Myddelton’s descendants sat in Parliament. His widow presented the Goldsmiths with a portrait of her late husband in 1634, which remains in the Company’s possession.48

Ref Volumes: 1604-1629

Author: Simon Healy


  • 1. J.E. Griffith, Peds. Anglesey and Caern. Fams, 285; J.W. Gough, Sir Hugh Myddelton, 4.
  • 2. Gough, 4-5; NLW, Chirk F12540, p. 25.
  • 3. Gough, 4-5; St. Matthew, Friday St. (Harl. Soc. reg. lxiii), 117.
  • 4. Griffith, 285; W.S. Prideaux, Memorials of Goldsmiths’ Co. i. 214; Gough, 2, 5, 8-9, 16 n. 3, 132, 134.
  • 5. C66/2271/32.
  • 6. Smyth’s Obit. ed. H. Ellis (Cam. Soc. xliv), 6.
  • 7. Gough, 4-5; NLW, Chirk F12540, p. 17; Prideaux, i. 86, 119; APC, 1623-5, p. 283.
  • 8. Select Charters of Trading Cos. ed. C.T. Carr (Selden Soc. xxviii), 111; Gough, 70-1, 109; C66/2350/3.
  • 9. Gough, 9.
  • 10. Ibid. 23.
  • 11. J. Williams, Recs. Denbigh Lordship, 65-7, 76; E315/310, ff. 22, 24v; SC6/Jas.I/1555-6.
  • 12. Gough, 14.
  • 13. T. Rymer, Foedera, viii. pt. 3, p. 114.
  • 14. CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 179; G.E. Aylmer, ‘Charles I’s Commission on Fees, 1627-40’, BIHR, xxxi. 61.
  • 15. Gough, 4-5, 8-9; NLW, Chirk F12540, pp. 24-7, 58, 63b, 70.
  • 16. CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 427; Gough, 19.
  • 17. Gough, 5, 8; C2/Jas.I/S13/36; Prideaux, i. 139; APC, 1623-5, p. 283.
  • 18. SP46/22, f. 103; HMC Hatfield, xi. 512; C3/281/15, 3/282/8, 10; E112/129/191.
  • 19. NLW, 465E/315, 9052E/273, 9058E/1039; Gough, 11-12; NLW, Ruthin 921, 1373, 1385; C2/Chas.I/M2/1, 2/Chas.I/M10/23, 2/Chas.I/P89/6, 2/Chas.I/P92/132.
  • 20. Gough, 9; NLW, 9060E/1367; E315/310, ff. 22, 24v.
  • 21. Gough, 12-13; Denb. RO, BD/A/22, 28.
  • 22. C66/1997/2; NLW, Ruthin 1115, 1385.
  • 23. CJ, i. 440b; Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, ii. 380; ROBERT MYDDELTON.
  • 24. CD 1628, iv. 179, 183, 186, 191; C. Russell, PEP, 382-3.
  • 25. NLW, 9059E/1217, 1228.
  • 26. CJ, i. 260b, 329a, 397b, 450b, 769b; Procs. 1614 (Commons), 145, 206, 308.
  • 27. CJ, i. 287a, 291b, 368b, 399a, 772b; CD 1628, iii. 446; iv. 289, 327-30.
  • 28. CJ, i. 262b, 1039a; SR, iv. 1092-3, 1151; Gough, 11-12, 27-34; B. Rudden, New River, 8-10.
  • 29. CJ, i. 442a, 442b, 450a; Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, iii. 160; SR, iv. 1165-7; Gough, 39-46; Rudden, 14-15.
  • 30. LR2/27 (18 Aug. 1610, 14-31 Jan. 1611, 1 Sept. 1611); Gough, 46-8; Rudden, 18-19, 268-78.
  • 31. E101/633/21; Gough, 46-58, 64-5; Rudden, 22.
  • 32. LR2/28; Gough, 61-3, 66-8; Rudden, 23-6, 191; APC, 1615-16, pp. 212-13; 1616-17, pp. 99-100; Remembrancia ed. W.H. and H.C. Overall, 556-8.
  • 33. Gough, 69-71; APC, 1618-19, pp. 157-8; Rudden, 279-90.
  • 34. CJ, i. 611a, 727a, 745a; CD 1621, iv. 305; Procs. 1626, i. 43; Gough, 74-5, 78-9; Rudden, 31.
  • 35. CJ, i. 744a, 899a; LR2/27 (18 Apr. 1612); LR2/28 (28 Aug., 13 Nov. 1613).
  • 36. Gough, 76; Rudden, 37-40, 42-9.
  • 37. Gough, 75, 83; Rudden, 41.
  • 38. W. Rees, Industry before the Industrial Rev. 440-3; W.J. Lewis, Lead Mining in Wales, 42; Exchequer Procs. in Wales, temp. Jas. I ed. T.I. Jeffreys Jones (Univ. Wales, Bd. of Celtic. Studs. Hist. and Law ser. xv), 101, 106-7.
  • 39. Gough, 109, 114-15; Lewis, 6, 42-3; NLW, Add. 6684E, pp. 46-7; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 289-90.
  • 40. Gough, 118-22; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 544, 593-4; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 653; APC, 1621-3, p. 514; C2/Chas.I/M63/60.
  • 41. CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 88, 99, 290, 476, 480; Stuart Royal Procs. ed. J.F. Larkin and P.L. Hughes, i. 595-7; BL, Loan 16/2, f. 14v; C66/2350/3; NLW, 9060E/1366-7; C2/Chas.I/M2/1, 2/Chas.I/M10/23.
  • 42. Gough, 89-92; C2/Chas.I/M63/60, 2/Chas.I/T23/56, 2/Chas.I/T63/84; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 172; C66/2250/6, 11.
  • 43. Gough, 92-5; C2/Chas.I/M63/60, 2/Chas.I/M81/165; NLW, 9060E/1366-7.
  • 44. C2/Chas.I/M63/60, 2/Chas.I/M81/165; C66/2271/32; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 460; Gough, 94-5.
  • 45. C2/Chas.I/P89/6, 2/Chas.I/P92/132; C66/2579/9; Rudden, 292-301; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 160, 166, 178, 182.
  • 46. PROB 11/160, ff. 536-7; Smyth’s Obit. 6; St. Matthew, Friday Street, 123.
  • 47. C2/Chas.I/B26/39, 2/Chas.I/P89/6, 2/Chas.I/P92/132; Gough, 128; Rees, 453-7; Lewis, 47-50.
  • 48. C8/52/57; C2/Chas.I/B81/20; Prideaux, i. 159, 214, 217-18; Gough, 135-40; Rudden, 68-71.