A.D. 1616 - 1750

Anthony Danvers

Buys Land at Horley

In the year 1616 John, eldest son of Daniel Danvers, died at March Baldon, leaving no son, and the following year, Daniel Danvers and his eldest living son, Anthony, together bought the manor of Horley and its appurtenances,13.1 attracted no doubt to the village by its proximity to Wroxton, and not improbably also by the congenial neighbourhood of the Puritan divines of Banbury.  In the year 1629 Anthony Danvers added to his Horley property land and houses in Horley and Chipping-Norton, which he bought of Henry Goodwyn and others.  In the year 1619 Daniel and Anthony Danvers sell land in Garsington and Wardington.13.2  It is a curious and not uninteresting reflection that Daniel Danvers, when he bought the manor of Horley, the last manor which his family held in Oxfordshire, may have entered upon one of the possessions which, five and a half centuries previously, belonged to his ancestor, Sir Ralph de Alvers.  We are told that the earliest members of the Danvers family in England held many manors in Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Berkshire of Earl Moreton and Milo Crispin; and we have identified the Ralph who held the manor of Dorney of Milo Crispin with Ralph de Alvers, eldest son of the Roland who came into England with the Conqueror.  Now we find, and this in the Domesday Record, that a Ralph held Hornelie (Horley), Oxon, of Earl Moreton, and some support is given to the view that this was Ralph de Alvers by the circumstance mentioned by Vincent, that Ralph’s brother Almar held lands in Bourton, a parish which borders on Horley.

Horley

Manor-House

The manor-house which Daniel Danvers bought, and in which he died, was no doubt built upon, or close to, the site of the mansion of the Ralph of the Domesday period, near to the church, upon the high ground which overlooks the village street.

The present manor-house covers a considerable space of ground, and is distinctly of two architectural periods.  The main block, which forms the front of the house, is square, built of stone with slated roof, and is such a house as would have been built in Queen Anne’s time, or in that of the early Georgian period (1700’s).  But joining this block, and extending backwards from it, are the considerable remains of an older house of the Tudor period (1500’s), the front of which was demolished to make way for the more modern mansion.  The south side of the house overhangs a lane which leads to the church and vicarage, and on the other side of this lane are the grounds of another house, which is of the same style of architecture as the older part of the manor-house.  Local tradition asserts that this house forms but a small portion of a large mansion which formerly occupied the site.  Each of these houses has a large garden, and an orchard, and there can be little doubt that they are the two houses, with dovecots or pigeon houses, which Anthony Danvers and his father bought.

Church

North of the manor-house is the village church, dedicated to St Etheldreda, standing on the highest point of the village, at an elevation of 510 feet above sea level.  From the roof of the tower a fine view may be obtained over the surrounding country, including the villages of Wroxton, Drayton, Hornton, Shotswell, Hanwell, and the town of Banbury.  But as the latter lies in a hollow, only a few of the houses and the upper part of the church steeple are discernible.  The summit of the castle keep would also have been visible from Horley Church tower, and during the siege the flash of the guns must have been clearly visible from the tower.  And very possibly a careful watch was kept there to warn the villagers of raiders from one or the other armies which were so constantly in the neighbourhood.

The church is a fine one, principally of the Decorated and Early English periods, but including vestiges of Norman work, and a plain circular font of that period.  The peculiar feature of the church is the Decorated tower, interposed between the nave and the chancel.  The chancel is also of the Decorated period, but has a very beautiful little Early English piscina, with a border of dog-tooth ornaments.  The seats for the priests are cut in the sill of one of the south windows.  On the floor, against the north wall, are two slightly raised coffin- shaped tombs, and upon a white freestone slab in the chancel an inscription as follows:

‘Here lyeth the body of Mr. Thomas Clarson, vicar of this parish sixteen years and upwards, very peaceable and loving to his neighbours.  He departed this life 22 Decr., 1668.’

On another stone, the following inscription is scarcely visible, but they are recorded in Bodleian MS., Rawlinson, B. 400, B:

‘Here lyeth the body of Master John Clarson, who was Vicar of Horley forty-one years, and deceased May 3, 1652.

Within the north and south walls of the tower are two low arched recesses: that on the south now contains fragments of the stone coffin to receive which it was made.  The north, south, and west doorways of the church are good examples of Early English work.  In a niche above the doorway of the south porch there remains the mutilated statue of a woman, doubtless that of St Etheldreda.

The nave is fine and unusually lofty, clerestoried, and divided from the north and south aisles by four lofty arches.  The walls of the church seem to have been freely decorated with frescoes (murals), some of which, thanks to the reverent care of the late rector, have been cleared of whitewash.  The principal and best preserved one is on the wall of the north aisle, and illustrates the legend of St Christopher.  The saint’s staff breaking beneath his weight and that of the Holy Child, he turns he head to the Christ and says:

‘What art Thou, and art so yonge?

Bar I never so heavy a thynge.’

Christ replies:

‘Yey, I be hevy, no wunther ys,

For I am the kynge of blys.’

But all these memorials—rude, yet reverend—of the piety of former ages, had been thickly whitewashed over long before the time when Anthony Danvers and his father settled in the village, and well that they were so, or between village iconoclasts and the Parliament soldiers, who must frequently have visited Horley, the frescoes would have been utterly effaced.

The windows of this aisle are of the Perpendicular period, and still contain some of their painted glass.  In the upper light of one is a bishop holding a cross; a virgin crowned and surrounded with rays of glory, holding in her right hand a sword; over them is a man kneeling in prayer.  In another window is the figure of a man in monkish dress.

The village street runs in a southerly direction from the churchyard, and at its southern end, which is crossed by the stream which drives the village mill, is 399 feet above sea level.

Parish Registers

The Horley registers begin in 1538, and the first of them, a parchment volume, contains the entries of baptisms, marriages, and burials till the year 1703.

The entries up till and including the year 1598, appear to belong to the original record, rudely written, and in parts dilapidated and decayed.  The portion of the register which follows, up to and including the year 1651, is evidently a transcript, clearly and regularly written in a clerkly hand.  There are no entries of baptisms for the years 1646 to 1651, both inclusive, excepting two of the year 1650, which are interlined between the last entry of 1645 and the first of 1652.  The entries of the later years of this portion of the register of baptisms are squeezed together as if the transcriber had not left himself room for the completion of his work.

There are no entries of marriages for the years 1643-51, and no entries of burials for the years 1639-51.

At the beginning of the entries of 1652, a double line, with cross lines between, is drawn, as if to mark a new beginning, and from thence onwards the registers were probably kept up, as the canon ordered, by the parson, though the handwriting is in places scarcely clerical.

We may here note that in the year 1652 Master John Clarson, vicar of the parish for forty-one years, died, and it is probable that in his time, and that of one or two of his predecessors, occasional entries were made in the register, while the bulk of them were made in some sort of rough register by the parish clerk.  Then in later days came a scribe, employed for the purpose, who removed, so far as he could, any old writing, which may still be here and there traced, from the parchment, and from a copy of such of it as he could read, and from the clerk’s notes, completed a transcript, which he entered in the space available for it.  It is curious that in a not very distant parish, that of Great Tew, work of restoration has been done about the same period, in a similar handwriting, but here the old handwriting is everywhere clearly visible beneath the restorations.

Horley is, of course, by no means peculiar in regard to the state of its church registers.  The registers of a large proportion of the parishes throughout the country have been at one time or another, for a shorter or longer period, carelessly and negligently kept, a scandal which in Queen Anne’s time had become so grievous that it engaged the attention of the Lower House of Convocation, and steps were taken to remedy the evil.  The practice seems to have prevailed in many parishes of omitting to make entries at the time, leaving it to the clerk to keep rough notes, which were at uncertain intervals transcribed into the register books.  The notes were often lost or mislaid, and it constantly happened that the parish register was neither a full nor an accurate transcript of the original record.13.3

The Bishop of Nottingham, commenting on the imperfections of the old parish registers, remarks that the evil arose from failure of the clergy in making entries correctly, deputing the duty to incompetent parish clerks, to their rough entry in provisional books, and erroneous after entry in the register. 13.4

No complete list of the vicars of Horley exists, but on the first page of one volume of the register is a note that Hugh Pritchard, vicar, was buried in the year 1599; John Payne was vicar from 1605 to 1611, died June 29 of the latter year, and John Clarson, vicar for forty-one years, died 1652; Thomas Clarson, vicar, died in 1668; Stephen Goodwin, vicar, died 1722.

To Horley in the year 1617 came Daniel and Susanna Danvers, with their son Anthony.  William, the other living son, had left home to settle in London.  We do not know if Frances and Ann, Daniel’s daughters, married, but we find in the Horley register, in July, 1624, the marriage of Mary Danvers and Richard Watts, and the bride was doubtless Mary, the daughter of Daniel and Susanna Danvers.

Family of Anthony and Elizabeth Danvers

As the eldest son of Anthony Danvers was born in June, 1624, and as other children followed in very regular order, we may assume that Anthony married in the year 1623, before his father’s death, which is recorded in the Horley register in February, 1623 (NS 1624).  The Christian name of Anthony’s wife was Elizabeth, but diligent search has failed to discover any record of her surname.  John, their eldest son, was baptised at Horley, June 27, 1624.  He is called after his father’s eldest brother.  Frances, the next child, baptised June 25, 1626, was called after her father’s aunt, Frances Pope.  Elizabeth, named after her mother, was baptised August 24, 1628.  Anthony, baptised December 9, 1630, bears his father’s name.  Penelope, called after her father’s aunt, Penelope Pope, was baptised February 12, 1632 (NS 1633).  Samuel, called after his father’s uncle and cousin, was baptised August 6, 1636.  Susanna, called after her grandmother, was baptised March 27, 1638.  Anne, called after her aunt, Ann Danvers, was baptised May 18, 1641.  Daniel, called after his grandfather, was baptised January 15, 1644 (NS 1645).

Samuel and Susanna

Confirmed by the fact that in 1651 Samuel, son of Anthony Danvers of Horley, was apprenticed to the Skinners’ Company, we place Samuel and Susan of the foregoing list amongst Anthony’s children, notwithstanding the fact that in the register they are entered as the children of ‘Daniel Danvers.’  Our reasons for so doing will be given at length in an appendix to the chapter—at present we will simply outline them.

1.   By the help of the carefully preserved register of Culworth; of the parish accounts of the village; of the Lay Subsidy Rolls of Northampton and Oxford; and of the many extant wills and deeds of the Danvers family of the period, we become thoroughly conversant with the members of the family, and we can with confidence assert that at the time there was no member of the family named Daniel who could have been the father of the children in question, Samuel and Susanna.

2.   That if these children were not the children of Anthony and Elizabeth Danvers, a strange gap in the sequence of the births occurs between the births of Penelope, in the year 1632, and of Anne, born in the year 1639.

3.   Were children born to Anthony and Elizabeth at the time we assume, there is much probability that they would be named Susanna and Samuel—family names, the names of Anthony’s mother and uncle.  However, let it be remembered, that even though it could be proved that the children were son and daughter of a Daniel Danvers, this would not at all disprove the existence of Samuel and Susan, children of Anthony and Elizabeth, for they might have been born and baptized elsewhere, or though born and baptized at Horley, their names (knowing what we do of the history of the Horley register), may never have been entered, or may have been omitted when the present transcript was written.

4.   As already stated, the register of births, deaths and marriages between the years 1598 and 1652 is obviously a transcript of a rough register, in which the entries in question were quite possibly written so indistinctly or inaccurately that the transcriber was led to enter wrongly the name of the father of these children.  As we shall have occasion to show, transcripts, such as we have of the original Horley register.  Thus as regards the sons John and Daniel the register of the entries of their baptisms is confirmed by that of the register of Winchester College.

Charles Danvers

And a word as regards Charles Danvers.  In the Horley register, in the year 1701, is record of the burial of Maria, wife of Charles Danvers, and in February, 1702, occurs the record of his marriage at Horley with Susan Palmer.  It is very probable that Charles was the youngest son of Anthony Danvers, born after the year 1645, during the years that the register of baptisms is wholly wanting, and that he, having a taste for country rather than town life, settled at Horley.

But to return to Anthony Danvers and his life at Horley.  The Lay Subsidy Roll of 1609,13.5 has a full list of Horley residents.  Richd Light (Lytte) heads it, rated in land £10, and following him is Ed. Yorke, rated in lands £4.  In the same roll Sir Wm Pope, Knt, is rated only at £25.  In the roll of 162713.6 Horley, Anthony Danvers, gent., is rated in lands at £3—he heads the list.  In Wroxton, William, Earl of Downe, is rated at £100.  In the roll of 164113.7 Anthony Danvers appears in the Horley list.  In the roll of 167413.8 he is absent, and we have heading the list Sir Charles Wolseley, in lands, £3.  The name of Danvers does not appear again in the Lay Subsidy Rolls, nor in the hearth tax rolls of the village.

Contemporary Events

Elizabeth I to James I

Anthony Danvers was born in the year 1590, during the glorious period of the Elizabethan era, he came to manhood at a time when the great Queen had been succeeded on her throne by a King whom the majority of his English subjects distrusted or disliked.  Outwardly the country was at peace at home and abroad; but the causes of quarrel between James and the people were ever increasing, the former having a full belief in his sovereignty as of Divine right, and persistently acting thereupon; while with the people the idea of authority so based was becoming supplanted by the view that the King derived his power from their will, and might act only as their official.

Unable to obtain supplies of money from his Parliaments, the King in matters secular gave offence by the irregular methods which he employed to raise the funds needed to meet his expenditure, such as the imposition of increased duties upon the customs, the sale of monopolies, benevolences, the sale of peerages, and the foundation of the order of baronets, the members of which were made to pay heavily for their rank.  In religious matters the King offended both Roman Catholics and Puritans by his intolerance, and thus, perhaps even more than by his exactions, raised amongst the masses of the people opposition to his rule.  His guidance and his example educated his son to follow in his steps; while the growing riches, strength, and unity of purpose of the people prepared them for the struggle in which at length they engaged against the Divine right of kings and intolerance of varied religious beliefs.

Death of James I

When James I died, in March, 1625, Anthony Danvers had but recently succeeded to his father’s property in Horley and Swalecliffe, and no doubt he joined in the general hope and joy of the nation on the accession of the new King.  But his circumstances, and they were shared by many of his friends and neighbours, militated against peace between King and people.  First of all, though not wealthy, he was a prospering man having estates above £40 a year,13.9 a country gentleman living on his own land—land which was steadily rising in value and resources; he was allied in one way or another with the county families of Northampton, Oxfordshire, and Warwick, and was therefore a man quite in a position to nourish that love of liberty which had found a home amongst others of his order.  And, again, Anthony had been brought up in an atmosphere of Puritanism—one which had unquestionably at the time a very strengthening influence upon the characters of those who breathed it, and one which would undoubtedly have fostered in him the religious feeling which was a factor so powerful in the life, social and political, of the period.

Puritan Devines of Banbury

History tells us that the feeling of hostility to the government of King Charles was very prominent in Banbury and the surrounding districts, and that this was attributable in no small measure to the influence of the Puritan divines who flourished or had flourished there.  Such were Dr Brasbridge, Vicar of Banbury from 1581-90; Dr Whately, vicar from 1610-40; Mr Prime, Vicar of Adderbury, 1589-96; and Dr John Dod, who, presented to the rectory of Hanwell by Sir Anthony Cope in 1585, was ejected thence for Non-conformity, yet maintained his position as one of the Puritan lecturers at Banbury, and was in 1637 presented to the vicarage of Fawsley.  Associated with Dr Dod in his writings was Mr Robert Cleaver, Puritan minister of Drayton, a parish bordering on that of Horley, and following Dr Dod, in 1645, in the rectory of Hanwell was the minister, most famous of all these divines, Dr Robert Harris, subsequently President of Trinity College, Oxford13.10—a very able man, strong and steadfast, yet of singularly lovable character.  Born in the year 1581, he entered Magdalene Hall, Oxford, in 1597, but after taking one degree in arts, Dr Harris was driven thence because of a fearful plague, and was invited to make his home with Mr John Doyley, Esq., of Chiselhampton, a gentleman of ancient family, a great friend to the Gospel, and his wife, a woman of extraordinary knowledge and piety.  John was a nephew to Margaret Doyley who married George Danvers of Banbury.  At John’s home Dr Harris found one Mr Prior, ‘a prudent, godly man,’ and preached for him, and evidently made himself so great a name by his conduct and preaching that when Sir Anthony Cope lost Mr Dod at Hanwell he became a suitor to his brother Doyley (Doyley married Ursula Cope, sister of Sir Anthony) for Mr Harris.  So to Hanwell Harris went to preach to the congregations of that village and of Drayton, from which Dod and Cleaver had been driven.  But Archbishop Bancroft, finding no compliance in the silenced ministers (Dod and Cleaver), presented two chaplains to Hanwell and Drayton.  Upon which Sir Anthony Cope takes with him Harris and another, and presents them to the Archbishop, who causes them to be examined, the one by his most able chaplain, clearly with a view, if possible, to his rejection on the score of insufficient learning; the other, Harris, by Barlow, Bishop of Rochester, who happened to be present. Barlow, being an active and witty fellow, proceeded to try Harris in divinity, but more in other learning, particularly Greek, where the Bishop’s strength lay.  But so long, says Harris’s biographer, they both Greeked it, till at last they were both scoted, and to seek of words; whereupon they both fell a-laughing, and so gave it up.  The Archbishop, on Barlow’s high report of Harris, and with Dod’s and Sir Anthony Cope’s consent, gave Harris the rectory of Hanwell, and there he remained for many years, long enough to witness the last days of three successive patrons, Sir Anthony, Sir William, and Sir John Cope.  During his long residence at Hanwell Dr Harris had sundry calls to London, now to the Cross, now to Parliament, and he was one of the Puritan divines who, in the year 1542, was presented as fit to be consulted touching the reformation of Church government and the liturgy.  To his house at Hanwell several young students resorted, so that it became a little academy.  In his own church he was a constant preacher, and to hear him came troops of Christians from many miles around.  What a fair of souls, exclaims his biographer, was then held at Hanwell and Banbury by these two brothers, Harris and Whateley!  How did religion flourish!  How did professors thrive!

And in the immediate neighbourhood of these brethren lived Anthony Danvers, and under the influence of their religious teaching his children were brought up.  Doubtless the family were amongst the troops of Christians who collected to hear the preaching of Harris and Whateley, and very probably Anthony’s sons may have been amongst those who resorted to the little Academy at Hanwell.  And thus we are led to a period when the local history of Banbury occupies a conspicuous place in our national annals, for in the immediate neighbourhood were carried on the secret consultations amongst the chiefs of the English malcontents which led to open resistance to the Crown.13.11 Already the Danvers family of Culworth had, in the person of their head, suffered because of the illegal exactions of the King.  In May, 1640, Samuel Danvers of Culworth, John Rye of Culworth, Sir Thomas Pope of Aynho, John Danby (Mayor of Northampton), were committed to prison by order of the Council for refusing to pay contributions for coating and conducting the King’s soldiers.13.12  The same year began the meetings at Broughton Castle, the seat of Lord Saye, and at Fawsley, the seat of Richard Knightley, Esq., which on, account of their secluded positions, had been chosen by the malcontents for the purpose.  The eldest son of Richard Knightley was married to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of John Hampden; and at Fawsley, some thirteen miles north-east of Banbury, and at Broughton, Hampden and Pym, St John, Lord Saye, and Lord Brook, and later on the Earls of Bedford, Essex, and Warwick, Nathaniel Fiennes, and the younger Vane held their sittings.

Outbreak of the Civil War

And if Hanwell and Horley had on either side foci of the conspiracy, so it was that when conspiracy ran into action and war broke out, those villages became the battle-ground of the contending armies, and the experiences of Dr Harris at Hanwell must, to some extent, have been those of Anthony Danvers, a mile distant, at Horley.  In August, 1642, Harris was, by the King’s troopers, turned out of his rectory, and the same troop took possession of Hanwell Castle, then the residence of the widowed Lady Cope; and, continues the biographer, after the battle of Edghill ‘his troubles were multiplied.  Now hee was threatened with this, now with that garrison; here hee was a Roundhead, and there a Malignant; still oppressed with a succession of souldiers quartering upon him.’  Doubtless Anthony Danvers had ‘protections’ on the one side from the King, which he would owe to his connection with the now loyal family of Culworth, with the loyal Danvers (Earl of Danby), and with Pope (Earl of Downe); and on the other from the Parliamentarians which Nathaniel Fiennes would secure for him.  But these ‘protections,’ as the King explains, were merely to preserve their possessions from plundering, but by no means to exempt them from supplying contributions or provisions for the army,13.13 and no doubt Anthony Danvers had many unpleasant visits and demands from parties of the rival forces in the midst of whose operations his village stood.  At the commencement of the Civil War the northern part of Oxfordshire, together with the neighbouring parts of Northamptonshire and Warwick, were notably disaffected,13.14 and the castles of Banbury, Warwick, Northampton, and Broughton were in keeping of the malcontents.  Lord Saye had command of his own caste of Broughton and of the castle of Banbury, and was not only the keeper of these strongholds, but also, in affairs of State and religion, the chosen leader of almost the entire population of the district around Banbury.  Sprung from the same stock as Anthony Danvers, inheriting in common descent from Danvers, Fiennes, and Wykeham, Lord Saye was evidently not unmindful of their kinship, and in the proceedings which we shall presently notice he allows it before the Lords’ Committee, and is clearly the member of that committee most active in obtaining redress of his kinsman’s grievance.  However, leaving that subject for the moment, it is by no means foreign to the history of the Danvers family to take notes of the hostilities which, from the commencement to the end of the Civil War, centred around Banbury Castle.

Destruction of Banbury Castle

When the King erected his standard at Nottingham on August 22, 1642, Banbury was in possession of his enemies, and on October 15 following ‘a great butt filled with plate and money was brought into the Guildhall of London from Banbury for the Parliament’s assistance,’ and on the 22nd of that month the King, with his army then in the neighbourhood, gave orders for the siege of Banbury.  On Sunday, the 23rd, was fought the indecisive battle of Edghill, news of which came to Hanwell that evening by a soldier besmeared with blood and powder.  On the 26th the King captured Broughton, and the day following Banbury, with its castle, surrendered, and the castle, with a strong garrison, was placed in charge of the Earl of Northampton.  Shortly after Lord Saye was proclaimed a traitor, and he and his son, Nathaniel Fiennes, with Sir William Cobb of Adderbury, and John Doyley, Esq., were excepted from the pardon which the King offered to all persons in Oxfordshire who had been in arms against him.

The King had now his headquarters at Oxford, and the journals of the day give us news of constant skirmishes around the town of Banbury, but the castle was not regularly besieged by the Parliamentarians till July, 1644, when Colonel John Fiennes (brother to Nathaniel) with his forces sat down before the castle, which was defended by Sir William Compton, brother of the Earl of Northampton.

Through August, September, and the greater part of October the siege was hotly carried on, and the garrison were reduced to dire extremities; but their courage never failed, and on October 24 the Earl of Northampton came to their relief, and drove the rebels northwards to the neighbourhood of Horley and Hanwell, where they scattered and dispersed.  But though the siege was raised, the neighbourhood of the town was the scene of very frequent skirmishes, and in the year 1646 the castle was again besieged by the rebels, under Colonel Whalley.  The commandant was, as before, Sir William Compton, who held the castle till, the King having yielded himself to his enemies, terms were agreed upon for its surrender, and the garrison ‘marched out with great content,’ the officers with their horses and swords and passes to whither they would go.

Immediately upon its surrender the castle was rendered untenable, and two years after, in May, 1648, was, by agreement with its owner, Lord Saye, utterly demolished; the materials were employed for repairing and rebuilding the houses which had suffered during the siege, and now scarce one stone remains upon another of Bishop Alexander’s stronghold.  Built about the year 1125, in the reign of Henry I, upon, as it is said, the site of a Roman fortification, the castle was no unworthy sister to that of Oxford, erected some fifty years earlier by Robert de Oily, and for upwards of four hundred years it remained one of the main possessions of the Bishops of Lincoln, and as such was intimately connected with the history of the Danvers family.  At Bourton, in the immediate neighbourhood, a branch of the family was settled not long after the Conquest, holding their lands, or part of them, as a fief of the Bishops of Lincoln, and on castle-guard tenure of the wardship of Banbury.  To the castle, on the accession of each Bishop, the representative of the family went to swear fealty and offer homage, and for the same purpose each new possessor of the estate would do the same.  Beneath the shadow of the castle lived Richard Danvers and his wife, Agnes Brancestre, and here five generations of his descendants remained.  There also the ancient houses of Doyley and Danvers matched, and the only visible memorial in Banbury of the name of either family is the pane of glass in the oriel of Calthorpe House which records that event.

Anthony Danvers sympathized, we suspect, with the Puritan party—the party to which there can be little doubt his father leaned, and which probably led to his establishing himself at Horley, in a neighbourhood dominated by Puritan influences.  And evidence of Anthony’s leanings on religious matters may be found in his joining Sir William Cope in disclaiming arms in the Herald’s visitation of 1634, in his sending his sons to Winchester at a time when the college was distinctly under Puritan influence, in his alliance with Lord Saye, the leader of the Malcontents, and in the fact that, no doubt owing to their home training, his sons, John and Daniel, joined the Nonconformists.

Founder’s Kin of William Wykeham

Petition

In the year 1640 Anthony Danvers petitioned the House of Lords that his sons, as Founder’s kin, might be elected scholars of Winchester College, and the proceedings which thereupon followed show that his suit was successful.

A.   PETITION OF ANTHONY DANVERS, DECEMBER 24, 1640.

To the Right Honoble the Lords assembled in the Higher house of Parliament.

The humble petition of Anthony Danvers.

Humbly sheweth,

That in all eleccons of Schollers into ye Colledges by Winton & of New Colledg in Oxon, founded by William of Wickham, amongst all the Schollers, wch shalbe psented & examined or posed at ye said Eleccons, in the first place & afore all others they are to be elected wch are of the kindred of ye ffounder of ye said Colledge in case any such shalbe tendered, and that noe other are to be placed before them in the Elleccon Indentures, as it is most evident by the Statutes of both ye said Colledges.

Now yor humble petr, being undoubtedly of the kindred of ye ffounder of ye said Colledge, hath for this 4 yeares past, at 4 severall eleccons tendered his sonne John Danvers unto ye Wardene and Schoolmr of ye said Colledge by Winton & to ye other electors respectively in their severall yeares, according to ye forme & custome of these Eleccons, & yor peticoner’s sonne hath been examined or posed in the said severall eleccons & not any way found insufficiente or uncapable of being elected Scholler or childe of ye said Colledg by Winton.

Whereupon yor peticoner did earnestly sollicite ye said Wardene and Schoole Mr wth ye other Electors in ye severall yeares respectively, to make choyce of his sonne & to place him upon the Role or Indentures of ye Eleccon, that soe he might be capable of being made Childe or Scholler of ye said Colledg by Winton.  And yor petr did alleadg yt he was of ye kindred of the founder of ye said Colledge & did both entreate & require ye said Wardene & Schoole Mr and other Electors, according to ye tenor of ye Colledg Statute in yt behalf, to elect & place his sonne as those, wch are of ye kindred of ye founder, ought to be placed.

Notwithstanding wch importunity and earnest suite of yor peticoner unto ye said Wardene & Schoole Mr & other Electors, at his charge & trouble of taking severall jorneys to Winchester at the severall eleccons, & alsoe of Breeding his sonne at Schoole in hopes of preferring him into ye said Colledg by Winton, by vertue of ye auntiente & ever prevailing Privelidg of a founder’s kinsman, granted unto him by the Statutes of ye said Colledge, whch have ever been allowed & confirmed by Acte of Parliamente, The said Wardene, Schoole Mr & other Electors notwithstanding have denyed to receive or admitt his sonne tendered at ye severall eleccons this 41/3 yeares last past, alleadging that they could not admitt him because the number of ye founder’s kindred were full, whereas by ye Statute of ye said Colledg the number of ye kindred is not to be restreined, But others wch are not of ye kindred are onely to be elected & admitted in defecte of ye kindred, there being not enough in number of ye founder’s kindred to supply ye places wch shalbe voyd.

Moreover yor peticoner humbly sheweth that ye Wardene, Schoole Mr & other Electors having refused to admitt yor petr’s sonne at any of these 4 Eleccons last past, yor petr’s sonne is now about 15 years old, and soe now, by reason of his age, is made uncapable of being admitted into ye said Colledg of Winton, according to ye tenor of ye Statute of ye Colledg in that behalf, to ye greate wronge and prejudice of yor said peticoner.

Now yor humble peticoner prayeth this most honoble house, That, whereas ye Wardene, Schoole Mr & other Electors of ye said Colledge have, contrary to ye Statute of ye above-named Colledge & their severall oathes, taken in ye said Colledge, denyed to receave and admitt yor petr’s sonne to be a Scholler of ye Colledg by Winton, to ye greate injury of all ye founder’s kindred in generall, whoe have right to claime the same privilidge in those eleccons, & to ye great damage & trouble of yor humble peticoner in perticuler.  This high & most honoble house would take into their consideracone ye wronge yor peticoner hath suffered by ye unjust proceedinge of ye Wardene, Schoole Mr & other ye Electors in ye severall Eleccons for ye said New Colledg in Oxford & ye Colledg by Winton.

And yor peticoner shall pray (as duty binds) for the happy successe of all yor greate affaires.

ANTHONY DANVERS.

Endorsed: ‘Danvers. Rec. xxiiijo Dec. 1640, L[e]c[t]a eod[e]m die.’

Decision

Corrections in the draft; the words in square brackets being struck through, and those not in italics here being added.

B.   DRAFT (corrected) OF LETTER FROM LORDS’ COMMITTEE TO THE WARDEN OF WINCHESTER COLLEGE, REQUIRING HIM TO ATTEND WITH THE STATUTES OF THE COLLEGE.  JAN. 9, 1640.

[MR. WARDEN],

Whereas uppon the complaynt of [Mr. Danvers] Anthony Danvers, of Horley, gentleman, that he beinge of kinred to your founder, hath offered his sonn att the Election into the Colledge [of] near Winchester four yeares togeather, and hath bin refused by you, that wear the Electors, contrary to the Statutes of your houses & contrary to your oath, to his great prejudice & charge, and that thearuppon we, the Lords’ Committees for Petitions hathe [sic] sent to the Warden of New Colledg, requiring him to attend the Committee & bring with him the Statutes of that Colledg, whearby the truth may appear unto us in this cause, we doe likewise require you the Warden & Schoolmaster of the Colledge near Winton to attend att the same time and bring with you the Statutes of your house, you three being constant Electors unto those colledges.

             And so we rest

                                     yor loving friends.

Parl. House.

             9o Januar.

             164[0-1]

To or very loving friend the Warden of the Colledge neere Winchester.

Endorsed: ‘9 Januar. 164’[0-1] ‘A lre to ye Warden of Winton Colledge.

C.   Veneris, vicesimo secundo die Januarii 1640 [1640-41].

Upon a Petition to the Lords’ Committees appointed by the Lords of Parliament to receive Petitions, delivered by Anthony Danvers, Gent., shewing that he being of kindred unto the Rt  Honble  William, Lord Viscount Say & Seale, and thereby of kindred to William of Wickham, Bishop of Winton and founder of the Colledge neare Winton, & of New Colledge in Oxford, having offered his son to be received into the Colledge near Winton, according to the privilege of founder’s kinsman,13.15 by the space of 4 yeares at their yearly13.15 elections, and being delayed and at length denied; It was reported unto this House by the said Lords’ Committees, that they having sent for the 2 Wardens and the Schoolmaster of Winton, who are constantly Electors into the College of Winton, upon examination of the cause, and submission of the two Wardens and the consent of all parties; It was reported by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln, that a full satisfaction should be given by the said Warden unto Mr Anthony Danvers for the charges he had been put unto, and for the damages he had received by the refusall of his sonne, and not admitting him into the College neare Winton, according to the priviledge of a founder’s kinsman, and according to the founder’s statutes, and that at the next election he should be admitted into the College, and have some convenient maintenance in the meantime; 13.16 and for the tyme to come both the Wardens did promise that the founder’s kindred should be admitted without all difficulty, according to the Statutes of the Colleges concerning the admission of founder’s kinsmen; and the Lord Bishop of Winchester for his part, as visitor of the Colleges, did likewise promise that he would take care the same should be performed; and the Lords’ Committees did further deliver it as their opinion that a memorial hereof should be entered in the Journal Book of the Lords House13.15 of Parliament, if their Lordships should so think fit, to prevent the like wrongs in time to come that might be offered to the founder’s kinsmen; which was ordered accordingly.

And upon a motion of the Lord Viscount Say and Seale, it was further ordered by the House, that the clerk of the Lords’ House should deliver 4 copies thereof, one to the Lord Viscount Say and Seale, as chief founder’s kinsman, another to the Lord Bishop of Winton, and one to each College.

Endorsed: ‘Copie of an order concerning Winchester College, 22 Jan. 1640.’

EXTRACT FROM LORDS’ MS. MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 1640-41, BEING ROUGH NOTES OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE.

22 Jan., 1640 [1640-1].

Reported, That the founder of Winchester did ordein that his kindred before others.

One Mr. Danvers, being one of the kindred, hath (illegible) & denyed.

Ordered, The parties interested are content that he shall be elected next election, & a convenient allowance of his charges in this business in seekinge for his right.

That a Memoriall be made in this House.

That four Coppies be made, 1 to the [? founder’s kinsman], 1 to the Bp of Winton, and [2] to the 2 Colledges.

The printed journals of January 22, 1640-41 (L. J., iv 140), set out Danvers’ petition almost in extenso, and then add as follows:

‘And the Lords’ Committees did further deliver it as their opinions, That a Memorial hereof should be entered in the Journal Book of the Lords’ House of Parliament, if their Lordships should so think fit, to prevent the like wrongs in time to come, that might be offered to the Founder’s kinsmen; which was ordered accordingly.’

There is no record of the proceedings in the Committee for Petitions (to whom Danvers’ petition was referred), no Committee books of that period existing; but papers (B) and (C) help to show what was done in Committee, and supply information not given in the printed journals.

John Danvers at Winchester

It was January, 1640-41, when the Lords’ Committee ordered that John, the eldest son of Anthony Danvers, of Horley, should be admitted to Winchester College at the next election, having in the meantime some convenient maintenance; and under this order he was, according to the custom of the time, admitted a commoner until a vacancy should fall due, and in 1641 was elected a scholar.  John was at the time 16 years of age—late to begin school life—but as his father states in his petition, he had for four years past sought his son’s election, and had prepared him for Winchester ‘by breeding him at schoole.’  However, at last Anthony Danvers had gained his point, and doubtless with no small satisfaction started with his son from Horley for Winchester.  They would travel on horseback by Banbury to Oxford, and thence across the Berkshire Downs to Newbury, passing on their way Chilton, Winterbourne, and other places, once the home of their ancestral kinsmen.  On the third day the travellers would reach Winchester, where both father and son were well known by name to the warden, Dr Harris, for it was because of them that he had been ordered to appear before the Lords’ Committee to answer for having, contrary to the statutes of his house, and contrary to his oath, and to their great prejudice and charge, refused to elect the boy to the college.  But no doubt all that had been forgiven, if not forgotten, and a gracious reception awaited Anthony Danvers and his son, the more so as the then warden, Harris, in common with all thinking men, must have foreseen the coming storm, and would not miss an opportunity to commending himself to the good will of a family so powerful with the Opposition as was that of Fiennes.  We read, indeed, that Warden Harris had friends on both sides.  He was able to send to the King at Oxford in 1644 for letters of protection, while at the same time he was the good friend and correspondent of Nathaniel Fiennes, a former scholar of Winchester, and a partaker of the hospitality of the college when, in 1642, he was on his way with a troop of horse to join Waller in the West Country.  And indeed, through Warden Harris’s good management, it happened that throughout the Civil War the college never suffered further damage than the occasional billeting of soldiers.  Even the statue of the Virgin and Child, which the founder placed in a niche over the great gateway, remained unharmed; and when, after Naseby, Cromwell captured Winchester, blew up the castle, and wrecked the cathedral, the college (and the founder’s tomb alone of the monuments in the cathedral) escaped damage, and flourished throughout the Commonwealth.

And apart from the controversy regarding John’s election, the name of Danvers was not unknown at Winchester, for William Danvers and Joan, his wife, of the Berkshire family, were benefactors to Wykeham’s foundation, and as such were remembered in the college chapel.  In the Computus Roll of 1546, which contains the list of obits celebrated that year for the last time, we find, on January 19, the names of Sir William Danvers, Knight, and Dame Joan, his widow, and Maud,13.17 Countess of Oxford.

Contemporary Lifestyle

And so the boy is left at school—a big fellow, strong in mind and body, of fearless, independent character, well suited to face the trials and hardships of his new surroundings.  Perhaps this was for the first time that he had slept away from home and friends, and very possibly he found his dormitory on the ground floor of the chamber court but a cold and cheerless lodging.  At five in the morning he would be roused by the first peal, and, rising, would join in the psalms, which it was then the custom to sing at that hour.  Then the chamber is put in order; the boys comb their hair, make their beds, and wash their faces and hands in the conduit beneath the open portico in the court, and, lastly, say their private prayers in the chamber or, if they so wish, in the college chapel.  At half-past five second peal rang for morning chapel, and at six the boys went into school till nine.  The schoolroom was the chamber now known as ‘seventh,’ and here all the boys assembled.  The room had no fireplace, but was ‘warmed by the sun and the heat from the breath of the boys, which was sufficient to keep it warm.’  On Tuesdays and Thursdays the boys, in the place of morning school, went to ‘hills’ or to ‘meads,’ or, if the weather was very bad, to hall fire.  To hills or meads they walked two and two, and when there played quoits, or football, or a game resembling the ‘rounders’ of the present day.

At nine o’clock was breakfast—bread and meat and beer—the meat served in wooden trenchers, and eaten with the help of the boys’ own knives.  At eleven the bell rang for middle school, which continued till noon, when dinner was served—bread and meat (mutton or beef) and beer again.  At two o’clock afternoon school began, and at half-past three was a short interval, when bread and beer were served out.  At five o’clock the whole school went ‘circum,’ chanting hymns and psalms, but in the seventeenth century ‘circum’ proper was discontinued.  Yet the boys still went to the bench in the ambulatory to say their evening prayers.  After ‘circum’ was a supper of meat and broth and bread and beer in hall, and then the boys remained in their chambers till eight, when evensong was said, after which they went to bed.

The course of study, in accordance with the founder’s intention, seems to have been pre-eminently classical, Wykeham, in his preamble to the charter of foundation asserting his belief that a knowledge of Latin is the ‘janua et origo omnium liberatium artium.’  The sixth form read Homer, Virgil, Cicero, Hesiod, Martial, and Robinson’s rhetoric.  The fifth much the same books.  The fourth Ovid, Cicero’s Offices,’ and Terence.  Religious instruction was very fully given in the Bible, and with the help of Dean Nowell’s catechism.  The teaching of this catechism is very much that of our Church Catechism, but it is very wordy, and at the Hampton Court Conference, in 1604, was considered too long for novices to learn by heart, which, indeed, it is, or rather would certainly be so considered by the schoolboy of the present age.  The last two paragraphs, which are appended, will illustrate the style of the catechism.

‘I will do my diligence, worshipful master, and omit nothing, so much as I am able to do; and with all my strength and power will endeavour that I may answer the profession and name of a Christian.  And also I will humbly, with all prayers and desires, always crave of Almighty God that He suffer not the seed of His doctrine to perish in my heart, as sown in a dry and barren soil, but that He will, with the Divine dew of His grace, so water and make fruitful the dryness and barrenness of my heart, that I may bring forth plentiful fruits of godliness to be bestowed and laid up in the barn and granary of the kingdom of heaven.

‘M.  Do so, my child; and doubt not, but as thou hast, by God’s guiding, conceived this mind and will, so thou shalt find and have the issue and end of this thy godly study and endeavour, such as thou desirest and lookest for, that is most good and happy.’ 13.18

The school-life of the boys in those days was physically a trying one, and it is not matter for wonder that sickness and mortality amongst them was far heavier than amongst their nineteenth-century successors.  The boys were, however, well taught, and those of them who were sufficiently vigorous to maintain their health, learnt in a rough school, manliness, self-reliance, and independence.

Scholars once admitted to the college might remain upon the foundation until twenty-five years of age, and it is therefore possible that John Danvers was in college when Thomas Ken was admitted in the year 1646.  Ken, afterwards the saintly Bishop, has always been reckoned amongst the greatest of Wykeham’s children, and his name, carved by himself in two places upon the stones of the cloisters, in amongst the most reverenced of the college memorials.

John Danvers must have left college some years before his brother Daniel was, in the year 1658, at the age of thirteen, elected a scholar.  We do not find the name of either of the brothers inscribed on the walls of the chambers at Winchester, but on the third buttress on the south side of the cloisters, within a rectangular border, a large D.D.  in Roman letters is deeply cut, and the chances are at least even that these are the initials of Daniel Danvers, for such initials occur but twice only amongst the names of the boys during the period in which the practice of cutting initials in the cloisters prevailed.13.19 These are Daniel Danvers, admitted in 1658, and David Donelly in 1617.

Anthony Danvers

To return to Anthony Danvers.  Possibly, in years gone by, he had not been ignorant of the secret councils which occupied his friends and relatives at Broughton,13.20 Hanwell and Fawsley, and led to the outbreak of the Great Rebellion, and now in his old age negotiations, having however a very different object, are again being carried on in the same neighbourhood.  Young Sir Anthony Cope, of Hanwell, the son of Sir John, though brought up amongst Parliamentarians, early devoted himself to the loyal cause, and with him at Hanwell lived Richard Allestree, who was the principal agent of communication between the loyal gentlemen of that part of the country and the King in his exile.  Sir Anthony was one of the promoters of the address from the gentlemen of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, which in January, 1660, was presented to General Monk in London, asking him to call a full and free Parliament.  Shortly after this followed the Restoration, when ‘amidst the joy of all England, except the army, Charles returned to his kingdom.’

Removal of the Family to London

But it would appear that in the meantime the Danvers family had left Horley for London, for no record of the existence of any of them at Horley can be discovered, subsequent to that of the birth of Daniel in the year 1644, until that of the second marriage of Charles Danvers at the beginning of the next century.

Family Events

Puritanism was falling into disfavour in the country; the people, naturally joyous, longed for the amusements and merry-makings which for some twenty years had been the forbidden ‘fleshpots of Egypt.’  Many of Anthony’s old friends were dead, while others saw, as a time not far distant, the day when they might have to take their turn of disgrace or exile.  Anthony’s younger brother William, and his cousin, George Danvers of Ratley, were prosperous business men in the City, and this and the marriage of his eldest sister with a London tradesman, had attracted John, the eldest son of Anthony, to a business life, and so it came to pass, that about the year 1653 Anthony Danvers and his wife and children left Horley, and settled in the parish of St Andrew’s, Holborn.  Frances, the eldest daughter, born in the year 1626, was married,13.21 when about twenty years of age, to a neighbour,  . . . Burton, but he died shortly after, and Frances returned to Horley, and on March 31, 1651, was married at St Andrew’s, Holborn, to Mr Stoughton Arnold13.22—‘Stoughton Arnold of this parish (St Andrew’s) and Frances Burton, of Horley, Oxford, widow.’  Either Mr Arnold was a widower when he married or his father’s name, which is not unlikely, was also Stoughton, for in the year 1660 we find the license for marriage (issued by the Vicar-General) of Samuel Danvers, of St John Baptist, near Dowgate, London, bachelor, aged about twenty-five, to Abigail Arnold, spinster, aged eighteen, daughter of Stoughton Arnold, of St Andrew’s, Holborn.  This Danvers was first cousin to Frances Danvers, the son of her father’s brother William.

Mr Arnold is styled ‘gentleman’ in one of the entries in the parish register, and he was therefore of gentle birth.  Possibly his Christian name indicates a match between one of his paternal ancestors and a member of the old Surrey family of Stoughton.  His son, Samuel, was buried in St Andrew’s churchyard on February 7, 1664-65.  No doubt it was a relative of his, probably his son, who signs as a witness, as we shall see, to the will of Mrs Elizabeth Danvers.

The second marriage in the family was that of the second daughter, Elizabeth, born in the year 1628, and this marriage also was celebrated at St Andrew’s, Holborn, September 28, 1654—‘Edmund Chillenden, Esq., and Mrs Elizabeth Danvers, both of  . . . . parish.’  Probably both husband and wife died in the plague year, 1665, for in 1667 we find Mrs Elizabeth Danvers (sen.) making provision in her will for her grandchild, Edmund Chillenden, and committing him to the care of her eldest son, John Danvers.

The third marriage was that of the third daughter, Penelope (born in 1632).  ‘At St Andrew’s, Holborn, August 9, 1657, Samuel Draper of  . . . . and Penellipey Danvers of this parish.’

The marriage of the fourth daughter, Susan Cleaveland, is not recorded in the St Andrew’s register.  We shall presently return to it.

Sells Horley

In the year 166313.23 Anthony Danvers, Esq., and his wife, Elizabeth, and John Danvers, gentleman—that was the usual way of introducing the eldest son—sold the manor of Horley and its appurtenances,13.24 very much as Anthony had bought them, to Sir Charles Wolseley, who was married to the sister of Nathaniel Fiennes.

We have no record of the sale of the small property which Anthony Danvers bought in Horley and Chipping-Norton, and it is not unlikely that he retained it with the intention of settling his son Charles amongst the old neighbours of the family.

At the time of the sale of Horley manor, Anthony Danvers was 73 years of age, and it is probable that he died not long after, and perhaps was amongst the many unrecorded victims of the great plague, which raged fiercely in the parish of St Andrew’s, Holborn.13.25

Family of Anthony and Elizabeth Danvers

Charles Danvers

Charles Danvers, whom we have reason to think was the son of Anthony, married his second wife, Susan Palmer, at Horley on February 9, 1702.  The baptisms of their children are entered in the register as follows: ‘November 5, 1703, Martha; 1707, May 21, Charles; 1705, August 22, Maria.’  Towards the end of the register is an affidavit, made in the year 1775, that Richard Danvers of Wardington was born in Horley in the year 1715, and that the register of his baptism was by mistake omitted.  Richard was doubtless the son of Charles Danvers.  Martha Danvers, on June 7, 1747, married at Horley James Gardner of Geydon—the last Danvers entry in the register.

St Andrews, Holborn

In the year 1667 Mrs Elizabeth Danvers died, and was buried on October 10 in the churchyard of St Andrew’s, Holborn.  The churchyard has disappeared, having made way for the Holborn Viaduct and its approaches; but the church stands on the ancient site, and encased within its tower is the lower part of the fifteenth-century tower, the only portion of the ancient church which has escaped the restorer’s zeal.  Old things and new are strangely bought together by the venerable Gothic arch which opens from the tower into Wren’s Italian Church.

At the period of which we are writing the churchyard must have been a mournful place, for the parish of St Andrew’s was one of those which were very heavily stricken by the great plague of the year 1665, and the plague pit and innumerable graves then bore melancholy evidence to the violence of the visitation.

Bishop’s Head Court, Gray’s Inn Lane

The record in the register of Mrs Danvers’ death states that she was buried from Bishop’s Head Court in Gray’s Inn Lane.  The court remains still, as Stowe describes it, pretty large and indifferent, well built and inhabited, with a narrow entrance.  The houses are modern, but the court retains no doubt its ancient dimensions, and was of old, as now, open to the north towards the buildings of Gray’s Inn.  A quiet spot, near to her eldest daughter Arnold’s house, the court gave Mrs Danvers a resting-place amongst her children for her latest years.

Will of Elizabeth Danvers

In her will, which was nuncupative, made in July, 1667,13.26 Mrs Elizabeth Danvers leaves half her little property to her eldest son, John, charging him to take care of her grandchild, Edmund Chillenden, and the remainder she divides between her sons, Samuel and Daniel, her daughters, Arnold and Cleaveland and Anne Danvers (youngest daughter of Anthony and Elizabeth) and her grandchildren, Edmund Chillenden and Elizabeth Cleaveland.

Family

Of the sons of Anthony and Elizabeth, John, Samuel, and Daniel were established as sugar-refiners, the elder two at Battersea, Daniel at Liverpool.  We know nothing more of the second son, Anthony.  Probably he died and was buried at Horley during one of the years of which any record is wanting in the parish register.  Of the daughters, three as already mentioned were married at St Andrew’s; one, the youngest, remained unmarried at the time of her mother’s death.

Susanna Danvers

Marries Richard Cleaveland

Susanna, the other daughter, does not appear to have been married at St Andrew’s; but the marriage is recorded in the pedigree of the Cleavelands of Hinckley, Leicester, in Nichols’ History of Leicestershire.13.27  The Rev William Cleaveland, Vicar of Hinckley, had eleven children, of whom the eldest son, John, was the famous Royalist poet.  His youngest brother, Richard, was baptized at Hinckley in September, 1633.  According to Nichols, he married the ‘daughter of  . . . Danvers, Esq., of Oxfordshire, near Banbury.’  Unfortunately, Nichols does not give the Christian names of father or daughter, yet there can be no reasonable doubt they were Anthony and Susanna; for Anthony Danvers, who lived at Horley, two or three miles from Banbury, was the only man of his name who, so far as can be discovered, was at the time living in the neighbourhood of Banbury.  Susanna Danvers was born at Horley in 1638, and was therefore five years younger than Richard Cleaveland.  Richard, so Nichols tells us, became a merchant at Liverpool, a sugar-baker he in his will calls himself, and acquired a large fortune.  He left but one daughter, Elizabeth, the Elizabeth Cleaveland mentioned in the will of Mrs Elizabeth Danvers of Holborn, and as he had no son, he adopted John, the son of his brother Joseph.

Richard Cleaveland

Richard Cleaveland died on November 2, 1683, and was buried in the church or churchyard of St Nicholas, Liverpool, where his death is registered.  Two years later, February 3, 1685, died his widow, Susanna Cleaveland, and her death also is entered in the register of St Nicholas Church.  The wills of both husband and wife are in the Probate Office at Chester.  Richard’s was made in October, 1683.  He mentions his nephew, John Cleaveland, who at the time was living with him, and his daughter Elizabeth, wife of John Perceval; also he mentions his wife Susanna; one of the witnesses to the will is Daniel Danvers.

Will

Susanna Cleaveland’s will is dated November 7, 1685.  She mentions her brother, Daniel Danvers; her cousin, John Cleaveland; her cousin, John Arnold (one of the witnesses to the will of Elizabeth Danvers); and her daughter, Elizabeth Perceval, of Liverpool, widow.

Thus we learn that the Christian name of the ‘daughter Cleaveland’ of Elizabeth Danvers’ will was Susanna, and we are able to account for all the daughters of Anthony Danvers and his wife; while Susanna’s will also identifies Daniel Danvers of Liverpool with Daniel, son of Elizabeth Danvers, of St Andrew’s, Holborn.

John Cleaveland (Nephew)

John Cleaveland became a very wealthy man, was Mayor of Liverpool in 1703, and represented the town in Parliament 1710-13.  He died in 1716, and was buried in St Nicholas Church, Liverpool.

John Cleaveland (Brother)

Richard Cleaveland’s brother, John Cleaveland the poet, died at his house in Gray’s Inn in the year 1658, and it is quite probable that his presence in the immediate neighbourhood of the Arnold family introduced Richard to Susanna Danvers.

John Danvers of Battersea

John Danvers, the eldest son of Anthony, was prepared, by his training at Winchester and by the influence of the stirring times of his early life, for a career more enterprising and intellectual than would have been his lot as a country squire of small estate.  Doubtless he realized that for him the way to wealth was the way of trade, and that in London he would find opportunities which his vigorous mind assured him he could turn to good account.  Nor was the step he took an unusual one; for long years past it had been the way for the sons of country gentlemen to enter trade; only a few years later (in 1669) we find the Corporation of Liverpool stating as one reason of the increase of the inhabitants of that town that many gentlemen’s sons of the counties of Lancashire, Yorkshire, etc., were put apprentice in the town.  ‘The junior members of a gentle family went into trade.  The occasion of that irruption of false pride relative to “soiling the hands with trade” was the great change that ensued after Queen Anne’s reign, and it was amongst the children of the men who, having amassed fortunes in trade, were taking the place of an impoverished aristocracy, that there sprang up such a contempt for whatever savoured of the shop or the counting- house.’ 13.28

And so to London John Danvers came, and probably took counsel with his uncle William and his brother-in-law, Stoughton Arnold, as to his future career.  Eventually he became a sugar-refiner at Battersea, and it may be that it was partly by his marriage that his career was settled.  Anyhow, we know that he married Susan, the daughter of Allan Smith, of Nether-Pillerton, in Warwickshire, and that he was associated at Battersea with Mr Smith, the great sugar- refiner, who, as we shall see subsequently, introduced the sugar-refining business into the town of Liverpool.

Will

At Battersea John Danvers had as his partner his brother Samuel, and both brothers appear to have prospered in their business.  As we learn from his will, John had in the year 1677 two sons, John and Daniel, and two daughters, Elizabeth and Mary; but in a codicil added the following year he states that his son John and his daughter Mary had died.  Shortly before his death John Danvers bought the manor and lordship of West Newland in Dengie Hundred, Essex, with the manor-house and appurtenances; so perhaps he was thinking of ending his days in the country, leaving his brother Samuel and his son Daniel to carry on the business at Battersea.  In his will he leaves a legacy of £1,000 to his cousin (nephew), Edmund Chillenden, mindful of the charge which his mother on her death-bed had given to him; and he leaves also a legacy to Mr John Gosnold, pastor of the congregation to which he belonged.  A famous man was Mr Gosnold, a man of great learning and piety, and, albeit a Baptist minister, a friend and companion of Archbishop Tillotson’s, a man who could gather a congregation of 3,000, including many clergymen, to his chapel in the Barbican to hear his sermons.13.29 He did not long survive his friend, John Danvers, but died in October of the same year.

John Danvers appointed as overseers of his will13.30 his loving brothers, Mr Samuel Danvers, Mr James Child, and Mr Allan Smith.

In the Close Roll of 30 Charles II we find an indenture, dated December 4 of that year, in which Samuel Danvers makes over the Newlands property to Susan, relict of John Danvers, and receives an acknowledgement from her and from her son Daniel and her daughter Elizabeth that he had faithfully executed the trust of his brother John.

The property did not, however, long remain with the family, for in the Close Roll of 13 George I (1726) we find Daniel Danvers, son and heir of John Danvers, late of Battersea, selling it.13.31  This Daniel was evidently unfortunate in business, for in 1746 his cousin, Daniel Danvers, of Bath and Liverpool, made provision for him, and for the maintenance and education of his children.  Not long after this he died, in the year 1753, his creditors administering his estate.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER THIRTEEN

This appears to be an appropriate place in which to summarize the evidence:

1.   that Mrs Elizabeth Danvers, who died in the parish of St Andrew’s, Holborn, in the year 1667, was the widow of Anthony Danvers, of Horley, Oxfordshire;

2.   that Anthony and Elizabeth Danvers, of Horley, had, besides other children, two named Samuel and Susanna.13.32

In the year 1617 Daniel Danvers and his son Anthony bought the manor of Horley, and at Horley Daniel and his wife, Susanna, died and were buried in, respectively, the years 1623-24 and 1628.  About the year 1623 Anthony Danvers married his wife, Elizabeth, and with her lived at Horley till after the birth of their son, Daniel, in the year 1644.  Subsequent to the year 1652, neither in the parish registers, Lay Subsidy Rolls, nor elsewhere have we evidence of the presence in Horley of Anthony or any of his family, until in the year 1702 appears in the register the marriage of a Charles Danvers.

In June, 1624, the baptism of John, the eldest son of Anthony Danvers, was registered at Horley; in June, 1626, Frances, the eldest daughter, was baptized; then followed Elizabeth, in August, 1628; Anthony, December, 1630; Penelope, February, 1632-33; Samuel, August, 1635; Susanna, March, 1638; Anne, May, 1639; Daniel, January, 1644.  In the register, Samuel and Susanna are entered as the children of ‘Daniel’ Danvers.

A few words regarding the Horley registers.  From the commencement until the year 1598, the entries are in various handwritings, and are probably the original contemporaneous record.  At the beginning of the year 1652 a double line, with crosses between, is drawn across the page of the book, as if to mark a new beginning, and the registers thereafter are roughly, but, it would seem, contemporaneously, kept up.  Between the years 1598 and 1652 the handwriting is uniform, clear and clerkly, evidently that of a scribe employed to copy, into the space left vacant, from a rough register which had probably been kept by the clerk of the parish.  There are no entries of marriages for the years 1643-1651 inclusive—none of burials for the years 1639-1651—none of baptisms for the years 1646-1651.

The Horley registers are an example of what was at the time the rule in most English parishes—a rough register or notes kept by a clerk and from time to time transcribed in the register.  The errors and omissions resulting from this way of keeping the registers became so manifold and glaring that in Queen Anne’s reign Convocation took up the subject.  The errors and omissions in the early parish registers have been dwelt upon by many writers.13.33 Recently, and very forcibly, by the Bishop of Nottingham in an article in a Lincoln periodical.

Therefore the entries in the Horley transcript of Susanna and Samuel as children of Daniel Danvers need corroboration, and must be taken in connection with other evidence as regard their parentage; and let it be noted that if these were children of a Daniel Danvers, there is a noticeable gap in the sequence of the births of Mrs Anthony Danvers’ children.  Moreover, this Daniel, if he existed, must have been of the same generation as Anthony Danvers and of the same family, for none of the other branches used the names Daniel and Samuel, or had any connection with Horley; but though we have very full records of the family for the period in the registers of Culworth and Thorpe Mandeville, many wills and other deeds of the family, Lay Subsidy Rolls of these villages and of Horley (in two of the latter Anthony Danvers is included), we can nowhere, but in the transcript of the original register of Horley—made quite likely from the rough and faded notes of a more or less illiterate parish clerk—find any mention of this Daniel Danvers.

Anyhow, Mrs Anthony Danvers might have borne two children, Samuel and Susanna, at the period in question, children who were baptized elsewhere, or whose names have not been entered in the transcript, the rough notes having been lost, as often happened.  The absence of any record of them in the existing Horley register would not in the least disprove their existence.

To return to Anthony Danvers and his children: two of them, John and Daniel, were on the foundation of Winchester College, and were entered in the college register as sons of Anthony Danvers, of Horley.

In the year 166313.34 Anthony Danvers, Esq., of Horley, his wife, Elizabeth, and John Danvers, gentleman (the eldest son was usually included if alive and of age), sold the manor of Horley to his relative, Sir Charles Wolseley (we do not find he sold all the land which he bought with the manor, and it is not improbable that he had a son, Charles, who elected for country life, remained in the parish, and was the Charles Danvers who appears in the Horley register in the year 1702; this is, however, outside the main question).

When Anthony Danvers sold Horley he was 73 years of age.  We have no record of his death.  The fine is very valuable, as giving the Christian name of Anthony’s wife, Elizabeth, and as showing that she was alive in the year 1663.

Subsequently to the year 1644, we have no evidence for the next fifty years and more from the Horley register of the presence of any member of Anthony’s numerous family in the parish.  This would be very remarkable had we not evidence that about the year 1651 the family removed to St Andrew’s, Holborn.

Mrs Elizabeth Danvers of Holborn

In the year 1667, four years after the sale of Horley, a Mrs Elizabeth Danvers (widow) executed in London a nuncupative will, which still exists and is at Somerset House.  We find, on reference to the Probate Act Book, that she at the time was living in the parish of St Andrew’s, Holborn, and in the church register of that parish we find record of her burial on October 11, 1667, ‘from Bishop’s Head Court (Gray’s Inn Lane) Mrs Elizabeth Danvers buried.’

The above will is of great importance, for by its help, taken in connection with entries in the Horley and St Andrew’s, Holborn, registers, we hold we can show that this Elizabeth Danvers was the widow of Anthony Danvers, of Horley.

In this will, made in July, 1667, Elizabeth Danvers leaves half her property to her son, John Danvers, evidently her eldest son, who she makes her executor, and charges him to take care of her grandchild, Edmund Chillenden (this he did, and in his will, made at Battersea in 1678, left Edmund Chillenden the sum of £1,000).  The remainder of her property she divides between her sons, Samuel and Daniel, her daughters, Arnold, Cleaveland, and Anne Danvers, and her grandchildren, Edmund Chillenden and Elizabeth Cleaveland.  Mrs Danvers had, therefore, a daughter Chillenden the mother of an Edmund Chillenden, and we find in the St Andrew’s marriage register, on September 28, 1654, the marriage of Edmund Chillenden and Elizabeth Danvers.  There can be no reasonable doubt that this Elizabeth Chillenden was the mother of Edmund Chillenden, Mrs Elizabeth Danvers grandchild, who is mentioned in her will.

Therefore we have in this will John, the eldest son, Daniel, a younger son, and two daughters, Elizabeth (Chillenden) and Anne Danvers, names which are all in the Horley register, and in the above order, as those of children of Anthony Danvers and his wife Elizabeth; and this alone would prove that Elizabeth Danvers of Holborn (clearly, from her having grandchildren of the same age and generation as Elizabeth, the wife of Anthony Danvers, who was alive in 1663) was Anthony’s widow, Elizabeth, of Horley.  Further, this will enables us to show that Mrs Elizabeth Danvers, of St Andrew’s, Holborn, had an eldest son, John—sons, Samuel and Daniel; daughters, Arnold, Elizabeth Chillenden, Susanna Cleaveland, and Anne Danvers—for we shall see presently that Daniel Danvers (of Liverpool), who it is not doubted was brother to John and Samuel (of Battersea), of the Holborn will, had a sister, Susanna Cleaveland, to whose will he was executor.

But let it be remembered that we have no evidence that Anthony Danvers of Horley had not children Samuel and Susanna.  Indeed, the Horley register, and what has been advanced regarding the Daniel Danvers who finds a place there, favours the view that he, Anthony, had children of those names, named after his uncle, Samuel, and his mother, Susanna (Pope).  Further, we have no evidence that Mrs Elizabeth Danvers, of Holborn, had not daughters Frances and Penelope, whom we find in the Horley register as daughters of Anthony Danvers and his wife Elizabeth—indeed, we have strong evidence that she had, and it is as follows.

In the St Andrew’s register we find married, on March 31, 1651, Stoughton Arnold and Frances Burton, widow, of Horley, Oxon.  We have to remember that Elizabeth Danvers, of Holborn, mentions in her will, and first of her daughters, her ‘daughter Arnold.’  Now, a Frances was the eldest daughter of Anthony Danvers and his wife Elizabeth.  And here Frances, an uncommon Christian name, of the obscure village of Horley, is married in St Andrew’s, Holborn, to ‘Arnold,’ while in the same parish we have an Elizabeth Danvers of the same age and name as the mother of Frances Danvers, and having a daughter Arnold, sons John and Daniel, daughters Elizabeth and Anne, the names of brothers and sisters of Frances Danvers of Horley!  Can we with any reason doubt that this Frances was Frances, the eldest daughter of Anthony Danvers?  And the evidence is greatly strengthened by the fact that in the same parish we find married in 1654 Elizabeth Danvers, and in 1657 Penelope Danvers, Frances Danvers of Horley having younger sisters, Elizabeth and Penelope.  Thus, therefore, we find in Holborn the wife and children of Anthony Danvers, and are able to account for the fact that after the year 1651 none of them are mentioned in the Horley register.  Most probably, were not the register of marriages at Horley for the years 1643-51 wanting, we should find there, about 1649, the marriage of Frances Danvers and  . . . Burton.

But to return to the other marriages—September 28, 1654, Edmund Chillenden and Elizabeth Danvers were married at St Andrew’s, Holborn, and very probably both died of the plague in 1665, when one-third the population of London was carried off.  They left a child, Edmund Chillenden, mentioned in Mrs Elizabeth Danvers’ will, and committed by her to the care of her son, John Danvers.  The third marriage took place at the same church in August, 1657, Samuel Draper to Penelope Danvers.  Penelope is not mentioned in Mrs Elizabeth Danvers’ will; very probably she, too, was dead of the plague when the will was made.  The order of these marriages is that of the ages, as we find them in the Horley register, of the daughters of Anthony Danvers and his wife Elizabeth; so can we reasonably doubt that Frances, Elizabeth, Penelope, were the daughters of Anthony Danvers, and the daughters of Mrs Elizabeth Danvers, the widow of Holborn?

Now, to turn to (Susanna) Cleaveland and her daughter, Elizabeth, both mentioned in Mrs Elizabeth Danvers’ will.  Nichols, in his History of Leicestershire,13.35 tells us that Richard Cleaveland, baptized at Hinckley in September, 1633, ‘married the daughter of  . . . Danvers, Esq., of Oxfordshire, near Banbury.’  (Horley is two miles from Banbury, and Anthony Danvers the only man of the name who, so far as we can discover, lived at the time in the neighbourhood.)  Nichols tells us that Richard Cleaveland removed to Liverpool, became a wealthy merchant there, and, having no son of his own, adopted his nephew, all of which is confirmed by the histories of Liverpool.  Richard Cleaveland’s death is recorded in the register of St Nicholas, Liverpool, on November 2, 1683.  Two years later the register records the death of Mrs Susanna Cleaveland, widow.  The wills of Richard and Susanna are still in the probate registry at Chester.  Richard’s mentions his wife Susanna, and his daughter Elizabeth, married to John Perceval.  Mrs Susanna Cleaveland in her will mentions her daughter Elizabeth, widow of John Perceval.  Her executor is her brother, Daniel Danvers.  She also mentions a cousin, John Arnold—a John Arnold was one of the witnesses to her mother’s will.

We have now accounted for all the children of Anthony and Elizabeth Danvers excepting the second son, Anthony, of whom, after his baptism, we find no mention in the Horley register or elsewhere; probably he died young.

We have already said that Anthony and Elizabeth may have had another son, Charles, who settled at Horley, and who was in the year 1702 a second time married.

Now, as regards Daniel Danvers of Liverpool, who was undoubtedly the son of Mrs Elizabeth Danvers of Holborn, we find in the names of his children strong corroborative evidence of our contention that he, son of Elizabeth Danvers of Holborn, was the son of Anthony Danvers of Horley, and evidence which strengthens, and is strengthened by, the other circumstances of his family, which we have mentioned and shall hereafter mention, for the names of the children of the Horley register were John, Frances, Elizabeth, Anthony, Penelope, Samuel, Susanna, Anne, Daniel, and probably Charles.  The name of the wife of Daniel Danvers of Liverpool was Sarah; and from their wills and the wills of their children we learn the names of Daniel’s children, or rather of some of them, (e.g., Margaret, the daughter of Daniel by his first wife, Margaret Sorocold) for he may have had others of whom we have no record.  But the names of the children which we do know were Daniel, John, Anthony, Samuel, Charles, Sarah, Elizabeth, Susanna, Penelope.  Compare these names with those of the Horley register, and note the very strong evidence their enumeration bears to the parentage of Daniel Danvers, and, therefore, to the view that his mother, Elizabeth Danvers of Holborn, was wife of Anthony Danvers of Horley.

The evidence derivable from the foregoing facts and circumstances may be put briefly and effectively from another point of view—namely, by showing that the Samuel Danvers and Susanna (Cleaveland), of the Holborn will, were the children of Anthony Danvers of Horley:

1.   Their mother’s name was Elizabeth, and that was the name of Anthony’s wife, while both Elizabeths were of the same generation.

2.   Their eldest brother’s name was John, and that was the name of Anthony’s eldest son.  They had a younger brother, Daniel, and that was the name of one of Anthony’s younger sons.  They had sisters, Elizabeth (Chillenden) and Anne, and those were the names of two of Anthony’s daughters.

3.   Frances, a widow, of Horley, Oxon, was married in the church of St Andrew’s, Holborn, the parish in which Samuel and Susanna’s mother lived, to Stoughton Arnold.  They (Samuel and Susanna) had a brother-in-law ‘Arnold.’  In the same church their sister Chillenden was married, and there also was married not long after a Penelope Danvers.  Frances Arnold and Penelope Danvers are by the foregoing circumstances closely connected with Samuel and Susanna, while Anthony Danvers’ eldest daughter was named Frances, and he had a daughter Penelope.

4.   Frances Arnold, if the eldest daughter of Anthony Danvers, was twenty-five at the date of her second marriage in 1651.  Elizabeth Chillenden, if the second daughter of Anthony, was twenty-six when she married in 1654.  Penelope Danvers (Draper), if Penelope, third daughter of Anthony, was twenty-four when she married in the year 1657.

5.   Strong evidence to the same effect is this, that we have not been able to find in the St Andrew’s register or elsewhere the names of any members of the Danvers family who could be taken to be brothers or sisters of Samuel and Susanna, which are not in the Horley register as names of children of Anthony Danvers.

6.   Their (Samuel and Susanna’s) brother, Daniel, calls all his family of whom we have record (Sarah and Margaret excepted, called after his wives) after the names of the family in the Horley register.

7.   If they, Samuel and Susanna, were not the children of Anthony Danvers, they must be assumed to be the children of a Daniel Danvers, of whom we can discover no record excepting in a transcript of the original Horley register in which his children fill the gap we should have expected to find filled by the birth of two children to Anthony and his wife Elizabeth.  Moreover, the name of this Daniel’s wife must be the same as Anthony’s, and his eldest son, John, has the same name as Anthony’s eldest son; his other children also bear the same Christian names as do Anthony’s, but of their baptisms, though diligently searched for, no record can be found; and, lastly, his son (if he were husband of Elizabeth Danvers, of Holborn), Daniel, calls his children by the names of Anthony’s children.  And a circumstance which would make our non-discovery elsewhere of this hypothetical Daniel very remarkable is that he must have been of the same generation as Anthony Danvers, and of the same—the Culworth— family, for the children are called by names characteristic of that stock, and he is found at Horley, place with which Anthony and his father alone of the Culworth family were connected.

In an early page of this chapter we stated our opinion that transcripts of the original parish registers need editing, and now, in concluding the foregoing argument, we may quote a passage from the work of an acknowledged authority on the subject of church registers, Mr R. E. C. Waters.13.36  That ‘registers were in many parishes carelessly and negligently kept, was a scandal which engaged the Lower House of Convocation in the reign of Queen Anne,’ and, after giving extracts from several registers in support of the statement, Mr Waters (p. 84) continues: ‘Some of these extracts refer to the practice of omitting to make entries at the time, and of leaving it to the clerk to keep rough notes, which were at uncertain intervals transcribed into the register-books.  The clerk’s notes often made sad havoc with the names’ . . .  ‘The notes were often lost or mislaid before they were (could be?) copied, and, when the clerk kept a day-book, it constantly happened that the parish-register was not a full and accurate transcript.’ . . .  ‘Lord Eldon, in a formal judgement, declared that not one register in a hundred had been kept according to the canon.  And in the Chandos Peerage case grave doubts were suggested in the House of Lords by Lord Rosslyn whether all parish registers should not be rejected in evidence, on the ground that none of them were kept according to law.’  Burns,13.37 in his work on parish registers, remarks that ‘misnomers, which for the individual may have had most serious consequences, have occurred in every page.’  Our experience, by no means a small one, regarding the short-comings and inaccuracies of parish registers, quite agrees with that of Messrs. Waters and Burns, and, as regards that of Horley, we may reiterate what we have already affirmed, that the register from the year 1598 to the end of the year 1651 is manifestly, so far as it exists, a transcript, while the entries of several years are entirely wanting.  And this being the case, and looking to what has been said by others regarding parish registers, we advance very confidently the opinion that the entries made in the Horley register between the years 1624 and 1652 are to be used, not to interpret authentic documents, but rather that by those documents they, the entries, must be judged and interpreted.  The documents in question are as follows:

1.   The fine which sets forth the purchase by Anthony Danvers and his father, Daniel, of the manor of Horley, in the year 1617.

2.   The records of Winchester College, which show that sons of Anthony Danvers, John and Daniel, were admitted as founder’s kin to Winchester College.

3.   The Lay Subsidy Rolls, which show the presence of Anthony Danvers in Horley in 1627 and 1641.

4.   The fine setting forth the sale, in the year 1663, by Anthony Danvers, his wife, Elizabeth, and his son, John, of the manor of Horley.

5.   The nuncupative will, made in the year 1667, by Elizabeth Danvers.

6.   The Administration Act Book in the Probate Office, which shows that Elizabeth Danvers was of the parish of St Andrew’s, Holborn.

7.   The parish register of St Andrew’s, Holborn, which records the burial of Elizabeth Danvers, and the marriages of Frances Burton, Elizabeth, and Penelope Danvers at the parish church.

8.   The will of John Danvers of Battersea, proved in 1678, which mentions his brother Samuel, and Edmund Chillenden.

9.   The mention by Nichols of the marriage of Susanna Danvers and Richard Cleaveland and their wills, in which Susanna is the sister of Daniel Danvers of Liverpool.

10. The wills of Daniel Danvers of Liverpool, and of his wife, Sarah, and of their sons giving the names of the children of Daniel Danvers.

11. The will of Daniel Danvers of Bath son of Daniel Danvers of Liverpool, made in 1746, which show his father was brother to John and Samuel Danvers of Battersea.

These are the documents which must be used by an editor of the Horley register, and they will oblige him to conclude that Anthony Danvers of Horley, and his wife, Elizabeth, had children who were named John, Frances, Elizabeth, Anthony, Penelope, Samuel, Susanna, Anne, Daniel.

(Later research proved that Anthony had a son Samuel, who was in 1651 apprenticed to the Skinners’ Company, He is called Samuel, son of Anthony Danvers of Horely, Oxon, in the roll of the company.)

NOTES TO CHAPTER THIRTEEN

13.1    Oxon Fine, Mich., 15 James I (1617).

13.2    Oxon Fine, Trinity, 5 Charles I (1629).  Oxon Fine, Easter, 16 James I (1618), and Mich., 17 James I (1619).

13.3    R. E. Chester Waters’ Parish Registers, pp. 83-85.  London, 1885.

13.4    Lincoln Diocesan Magazine, May 1886.

13.5    Lay Subsidy Roll of 1609 , 163/435 Oxon.

13.6    Lay Subsidy Roll of 1627, 164/467 Oxon.

13.7    Lay Subsidy Roll of 1641 , 164/493 Oxon.

13.8    Lay Subsidy Roll of 1674,164/507 Oxon.

13.9    In 1630 Anthony Danvers of Horley is in a list of Oxfordshire gentlemen who having estates of above £40 a year, were summoned to compound for not being made knights.  Wood MS., F. 33, p. 58.

13.10  See his life by W. D., 1660, and Beesley’s History of Banbury, p. 285.

13.11  Beesley’s Banbury, p. 291.

13.12  Domestic State Papers, 1640-41.

13.13  Letter of January 10, 1642-43, from the King to Lord Northampton, vol. i of Transactions of Oxford Archaeological Society, April 1854.

13.14  Beesley’s History of Banbury, p. 292.

13.15  Interlined, but in the same hand as the draft.

13.16  Interlined in a separate hand.

13.17  Here the Countess of Oxford is Maud, on page NO TAG she is Matilda. -Ed.

13.18  Nowell’s Catechism, Parker Society, 1853.

13.19  Cf. Kirby’s Winchester Scholars, London, 1888; also Inscriptiones Wiccamicæ, Winchester, 1885.

13.20  Beesley’s History of Banbury, p. 471.

13.21  No records of marriages in the Horley Register at this period.  We learn from the Lay Subsidy Rolls that there were families of the name in villages in the neighbourhood of Horley.

13.22  Roger Stoughton, Esq., is living in Gray’s Inn Lane; and in the Lane lives also Stoughton Arnold.  Lay Subsidy Roll of Holborn, 143/390, temp. Charles II (1660 - 1685).

13.23  Oxon Fine, 15 Charles II (1674), Trinity term.

Feet of Fines, Oxford, 15 Charles II, No.14.

Hec est finalis Concordia fea in Cur dni Regis apud Westm in Crastino Sce Trinitatis Anno reguoz Caroli scdi Dei gra Angl Scocie ffranc et Hibne Regis fidei defens etc a Conqu quintodecimo Coram Orlando Bridgeman Robto Hyde Thoma Tirrell et Samuele Browne Justic et aliis dni Regis fielibz tunc ibi psentibz Int Carolum Wolseley Baronettum quer et Antoniu Danvers Armigum et Elizabeth vxem eius et Johem Danvers genosum deforc de Manio de Horley cum ptin Ac de vno mesuagio vno tofto vno Columbario vno gardino vno pomario Centum et quadraginta acris tre decem acris prati Centum acris pasture quadraginta acris Jampnoz et bruere et quindecim solidat reddit cum ptin in Horley vnde Plitm Conuecois sum fuit int eos in eadem Cur Scilt qd pdci Antonius et Elizabeth et Johes recogn pdca Maniu et ten cum ptin esse ius ipius Caroli vt ill que idem Carolus het de dono pdcoz Antonii et Elizabeth et Johis et ill remiser et quietclam de ipis Antonio et Elizabeth et Johe et hered suis pdco Carolo et hered suis imppm et pdca iidem Antonius et Elizabeth Concesser p se et hered ipius Antonii qd ipi Warant pdco Carolo et hered suis pdca Maniu et ten cum ptin Contu pdcos Antoniu et Elizabeth et hered ipius Antonii imppm Et vltius idem Johes concessit p se et hered suis qd ipi Warant pdco Carolo et hered suis pdca Maniu et ten cum ptin Contu pdcm Johem et hered suos imppm Et p hac recogn remissione quietclam Warant fine et Concordia idem Carolus dedit pdcis Antonio et Elizabeth et Johi trescentas libras sterlingoz, Oxon.

13.24  Oxon Fine, No. 1064, Mich., 20 Charles II (1679).

13.25  In November, 1668, was an administration by his creditors to the effects of Anthony Danvers of Eastham, Essex, his wife Martha having renounced.  Clearly this was not Anthony of Horley

13.26  Will of Mrs Elizabeth Danvers, July, 1667, Carr, 131.

13.27  Nichols’ History of Leicestershire, vol. iv, part ii, p. 707.

13.28  S. Baring Gould’s Old Country Life, London 1890; and Walter Besant’s London, pp. 159 and 319, London 1893.

13.29  Neale’s History of the Puritans, vol. v, p. 201.

13.30  Will of John Danvers; Reave, 109.

13.31  Close Roll, 13 George I (1726), part xvi, No. 8.

13.32  See also Anthony Danvers of Horley in Chapter Twelve.

13.33  For example, Chester-Waters’ Parish Registers, Burns’ History of Parish Registers, etc

13.34  Oxon Fine of 1663, No 14 of 15 Charles II (1674).

13.35  Nichols’ History of Leicestershire, vol. iv, part ii, p. 707.

13.36  Church Registers, by R.  E.  C. Waters.  London 1883.

  13.37 History of Parish Registers, by J. S. Burns.  London 1862.

Top

Digital edition first published: 1 Mar 2020             Updated: 12 Jul 2023                garydanvers@gmail.com