STRANGWAYS, Sir John (1585-1666), of Melbury Sampford and Abbotsbury, Dorset.

Originally from Lancashire, the Strangways family had acquired their seat at Melbury Sampford in north Dorset through marriage in the late fifteenth century. The dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII allowed the family to purchase an estate at Abbotsbury near Weymouth; and, despite financial wrangles during his minority, Sir John Strangways – who rendered his name thus – inherited considerable wealth and local prestige when he reached his majority in 1606.37Sig. Bodl. Tanner 58, f. 758: 16 Mar. 1648; WARD9/158, ff. 193v-4; WARD9/159, f. 33. Signs of his increasing local standing are numerous: marriage to the daughter of a prominent Dorset gentleman, Sir George Trenchard, by 1607; sufficient wealth and status to consider, but finally reject, the expense of a baronetcy in 1611; and election as knight of the shire for Dorset in the Parliament of 1614.38Keeler, Long Parl. 353. Strangways also made strenuous efforts to improve his estates, acquiring the reputation of being ‘a wise, crafty, experienced man, but extremely narrow [mean] in expenses’.39Christie, Shaftesbury i. appx. i. p. xix. His financial and social security was threatened during the 1620s when he became involved, as MP for Dorset and Weymouth, in attacks on the 1st duke of Buckingham led by the 1st earl of Bristol. In 1626 he was arrested and dismissed from his local offices in Dorset, and his opposition to the Forced Loan in 1627 brought incarceration in the Fleet prison with that other Dorset malcontent, Sir Walter Erle*. Strangways was unrepentant, and during the 1628-9 Parliament he was again at the forefront of opposition to the Caroline regime.40HP Commons 1604-1629.

During the 1630s, Strangways remained in close contact with the opponents of Charles I in Dorset. In 1632 he witnessed the land settlement made at the marriage of Bristol’s son, George Lord Digby*, with a daughter of the 4th earl of Bedford; and in 1635 he stood surety for Digby after his quarrel with William Crofts.41Dorset RO, D/SHC/KG/1279, 2741; Strafforde Letters ed. Knowler, i. 426. This connection with the Digbys served strengthened Strangways’ existing ties with two other aristocratic opponents of the Caroline regime: the earls of Hertford and Bedford. The 2nd earl of Hertford was related to the Strangways by marriage, as his mother was a member of the Rogers family, whose heir, Edward Rogers, had been the first husband of Strangways’ daughter, Howarda; her second husband, Sir Lewis Dyve†, was the step-son of the earl of Bristol.42Vis. Dorset 1677 (Harl. cxvii), 63-4. Strangways’ connection with the Russells was a direct result of his friendship with the Digbys. In 1633 Strangways was acting as Bedford’s agent in raising money from his western estates, with assurances from the earl that ‘you may let and state as freely for me as if myself were personally present’.43Dorset RO, D/FSI, box 233: earl of Bedford to Sir John Strangways, 27 Mar. 1633. In 1635 Strangways was ‘to be heard of at Bedford House’ in London.44HMC Cowper, ii. 81. His plans to drain the Fleet lagoon near Abbotsbury, set on foot in 1636, may have been inspired by Bedford’s more ambitious schemes in East Anglia.45SO3/11, unfol.: June 1636 grant; Dorset RO, D/FSI/43a. The Bedford connection complemented Strangways’ existing relationship with the Trenchard family. When his father-in-law, Sir George Trenchard, died in 1630, he made Strangways one of the overseers of his will, and bequeathed him his best suit of armour.46PROB11/159/112. In April 1635 Strangways appointed Sir George’s sons, Sir Thomas Trenchard* and John Trenchard* as feoffees of his manors in Dorset and Somerset, and when John Trenchard arranged the marriage of his daughter to William Sydenham* on 24 March 1640, Strangways acted as feoffee of the settlement.47Coventry Docquet Bks. 674; Dorset RO, D616/T1. Strangways bought property in Covent Garden from John Trenchard for £1,000 on 6 April 1640, and sold it back 18 months later, for the same price: an arrangement which may have been connected with the Sydenham marriage.48C54/3227, C54/3275.

Strangways’ interconnected social circle was further strengthened by a shared interest in the arts. This is exemplified in the case of the noted Hispanist and translator, James Mabbe. Mabbe had accompanied Bristol on his embassy to Spain in 1611, and acted as tutor for his step-son, Sir Lewis Dyve, who was later to marry Strangways’ daughter. In the following decades Mabbe dedicated his translations of various Spanish texts to Strangways and his brothers-in-law, Sir George Trenchard and Sir John Browne I*, and in old age he retired to Strangways’ house at Abbotsbury.49Celestine or the Tragicke-Comedie of Calisto and Melibea (by Fernando de Rojas), translated by James Mabbe ed. G.M. Lacalle (1972), 9-13. In January 1639, Lord Digby sent his catalogue of Spanish books ‘as are thought the best by one well versed in the several authors of that language’ – probably a reference to Mabbe – to Viscount Conway in London.50CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 306. Such cultural patronage networks went hand-in-hand with a shared hostility to the court of Charles I, now under the influence of his French queen, Henrietta Maria. The king certainly viewed Strangways with suspicion, as can be seen in the peremptory refusal of his request to spend the Christmas of 1634 in London: instead, he was ordered to ‘keep house in the country’.51Whiteway Diary, 154. In the following summer, Strangways was engaged in a dispute with the bishop of Bristol, George Coke, over the presentation of Maiden Newton parsonage, and the involvement of Archbishop William Laud in this row may have further distanced Strangways from the Caroline court.52HMC Cowper, i. 305; ii. 81, 83, 86, 89, 97. In 1637 Strangways was one of those tried in star chamber for transporting gold out of the country.53D.L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c.1640-1649 (Cambridge, 1994), 60. Although there is no evidence that he refused to pay Ship Money, in the spring of 1639, Strangways was among those who refused to reply to the privy council’s request for money to fund the war against the Scots.54Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iii. 913. In the same year he acted as feoffee for the politically significant marriage between Sir Walter Erle’s son and the daughter of Viscount Saye and Sele, which brought together two families that were among Charles I’s most prominent opponents.55Dorset RO, D/BLX/F2.

Yet Strangways’ opposition to the crown was never as strong as that of Bedford and the Trenchards. In Strangways’ case, friendship with such ‘godly’ men belied his own religious preferences, as he followed Bristol in open support for the established church. His attitude to church decoration is evident in his gift to Wadham College Chapel of a magnificent east window in 1622,56Hutchins, Dorset, ii. 214. and in the ornate plaster ceiling of the chancel of Abbotsbury parish church, erected in 1638, with panels depicting seraphs and angels rising above a frieze of the family’s coats of arms.57RCHM Dorset, i. 2. Strangways’ efforts to decorate the east end of these buildings point to an appreciation of the ‘beauty of holiness’, and perhaps to a commitment to sacramental religion, although other evidence suggests that he was not exactly an enthusiastic supporter of the innovations introduced by Archbishop Laud. Nevertheless, in his later musings on religion, Strangways defended the established order of the church as ‘a hedge or wall about the doctrine of religion; a curb to licentious courses’ and he also upheld bishops as the traditional means of achieving that order. ‘Episcopacy is an apostolical institution’ he wrote: ‘the church never flourished as within 500 years after Christ, when it was governed by bishops’.58Beinecke Lib., Osborn Shelves b.304, part i, p. 75. Strangways’ support for conformity in Dorset is suggested by his institution of William Hurdaker and Matthew Osborne to various rectories during the 1630s.59PRO Institution Books, Dorset, pp. 6, 7, 19, 43. Both clerics were sequestered in the following decade, and Osborne attended the king at Oxford before returning to the Strangways household before the Restoration.60Walker Revised ed. Matthews, 134, 136. It was hardly surprising that Strangways was described by Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper* as ‘a great enemy of the puritans’, in sharp contrast to his verdict on the Trenchards.61Christie, Shaftesbury, i. appx. i. p. xix.

Such differences became apparent only gradually. At the beginning of the Short Parliament, in April 1640, Strangways – along with Bristol, Digby and Hertford – was still an ardent opponent of the crown, eager to gain redress for the grievances which had dominated the Parliaments of the 1620s. Strangways had been returned, on his own interest, for the double borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis on 18 March 1640. The three other successful candidates were his eldest son, Giles Strangways*, his friend Sir Gerard Naper* and his local lawyer, Richard King*.62C219/42/92. During the brief session, Strangways joined in the general attack on the government. He was named to the committee of privileges (16 Apr.), the committee on the violation of parliamentary privilege at the end of the 1629 Parliament (18 Apr.), and other committees to consider granting supply (23 Apr.), presenting grievances (24 Apr.) and reforming ecclesiastical courts (1 May).63CJ ii. 4a, 6b, 10a, 12a, 17b. In debate on parliamentary privilege on 18 April, Strangways defended ‘liberty in Parliament … for without that we sat there in vain’, and warned that if the king got his way ‘we are all tenants at will … liberty of speech and the Ship Money settled’.64Procs. Short Parl. 159; Aston’s Diary, 12-13. On other occasions, however, he followed the more moderate constitutionalist line of his friend, Sir Francis Seymour*. On 23 April 1640, Strangways moderated his call for the consideration of grievances by emphasising his readiness to serve the king if concessions were allowed: ‘The thorn in our feet disabled us to stand, [but] let us but be enabled to go and we will run; we will trust the king if he will enable us to’.65Procs. Short Parl. 171; Aston’s Diary, 38. This approach echoed Seymour’s speech of 16 April, which had asserted that all problems would be solved by removing evil counsellors from between the king and his people.66Procs. Short Parl. 140-3. On 24 April he conceded that Ship Money ‘had been so well dispended that we have no cause to complain’ except on grounds of its legality.67Aston’s Diary, 56. On 29 April, Strangways opposed altars in a debate on religion because they were not sanctioned by Edward VI’s Prayer Book and were criticised in Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, rather than from strictly Calvinist principles.68Aston’s Diary, 90. As early as April 1640, therefore, Strangways can be seen championing moderate reform, rather than radical reformation.

Strangways was again returned for Weymouth in October 1640. In the first few months of the Long Parliament he seems to have acted with the main body of opposition to the king. In November 1640 he was named to committees to consider the state of the kingdom and its army (10 and 26 Nov.), to examine breaches of privilege after the Short Parliament (10 Nov.), and to determine the witnesses to be used in the trial of the 1st earl of Strafford (30 Nov.).69CJ ii. 25a, 25b, 37a, 39b. In a speech on 24 November Strangways denounced Ship Money as illegal, and called for limits on the power of the courts of star chamber and high commission.70D’Ewes (N), 63; Northcote Note Bk. 4. He was also involved in measures against Catholics, including two committees appointed on 9 November to prevent them from sitting as MPs and to disarm those papists living in London.71CJ ii. 24a-b. In December he was named to committees against Ship Money (7 Dec.), the ‘abuses’ perpetrated by the Laudian bishops (3, 12 and 22 Dec.), coat and conduct money (14 Dec.), and the innovations imposed by the ecclesiastical Canons of 1640 (16 Dec.).72CJ ii. 44b, 46b, 50a, 50b, 52a, 53b, 56a. The abuse of coat and conduct money provoked Strangways’ wrath. On 13 December he complained that the ‘soldiers [had been] changed for money like oxen’ and that the scheme had ‘cost the county [of] Dorset £2,000’, and he returned to the issue on 21 December, demanding that ‘goods distrained be restored upon security’.73Northcote Note Bk. 58, 88. On 30 December he was named to the committees on a bill for annual Parliaments and the next day he went to the Lords to desire a conference on charges against Strafford’s side-kick, Sir George Radcliffe.74CJ ii. 60a, 61a. In the New Year of 1641, Strangways was involved in efforts to settle the military stand-off in the north of England. He was appointed to three committees to facilitate the raising of money through a new subsidy to pay the king’s army (on 11 Jan., 6 Feb. and 23 Feb.).75CJ ii. 66a, 80a, 91b. On 3 March he reported a conference with the Lords concerning the 8th article of the treaty with the Scots and on 5 March he was named to the committee that considered the matter further.76CJ ii. 96a, 97a. On 9 March he reported from another conference on the cessation of arms that would form part of the treaty, and on 17 and 22 March he reported from two conferences on the affairs of both kingdoms.77CJ ii. 106b, 110b.

Despite his evident opposition to Charles I’s regime and concern to address some of the problems it had created, Strangways’ speeches in the Commons reveal his considerable doubts as to the plan of reform put forward by John Pym* and his friends at Westminster. First, he was very suspicious of the intentions of the Scottish army, despite (or even because of) his involvement in treaty negotiations. On 13 November 1640 he argued that the English army should be kept together and supported calls for a subsidy to avoid money being ‘irregularly granted’, and he was more forthright on 23 December, arguing that the English army must stay on its guard, ‘that if the Scots should at all attempt anything against their commanders’ wills, our army... might be able to repel and repress violence’.78D’Ewes (N), 184. When the question of paying-off the armies arose in the spring of 1641, Strangways urged speedy payment ‘to rid the Scottish army out of the kingdom’ (11 Feb.), and he was described as speaking ‘vehemently against the Scottish paper’ (27 Feb.).79D’Ewes (N), 398, 417. Equally telling was Strangways’ reluctance, during this period, to disband the new Irish army, with its Straffordian associations, before the Scots were removed from the north of England.80Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 187-8.

Nor did Strangways always agree with the leading opponents of the crown on other issues. On 5 January, for example, he moved that the Canons and Ship Money would be given priority over the charges against the lord keeper, Sir John Finch†.81D’Ewes (N), 219. A particular bone of contention was the plan of religious reform pushed with increasing urgency by Pym and his allies. On 9 February Strangways followed Digby in opposing a remonstrance delivered by seven puritan ministers (including John White of Dorchester), claiming that some of the Dorset clergy had subscribed ‘with reservation’, but after hostile questioning by John Hampden* he was forced to admit that they had not actually signed the petition.82D’Ewes (N), 313. On the same day Strangways opposed admitting legislation on episcopacy, arguing that ‘the bishops were one of the three estates of the kingdom and had a voice in Parliament’, and adding that if such matters ‘were once raised in ecclesiastical matters ... whether they would rest there, but they would ask a parity in matters civil’.83D’Ewes (N), 339-40; Two Diaries of Long Parl. 3. Strangways was not prepared to support a radical line which might unsettle the status quo. In other areas he was equally pragmatic. Although he continued to support moves to disarm papists, pressing on 11 February that ‘the papists be speedily disarmed’, on 16 March he urged the Commons to desist from their attack on the Catholic, Sir John Winter, the queen’s secretary, because of Henrietta Maria’s help in securing that more important constitutional safeguard, the act ensuring triennial Parliaments.84D’Ewes (N), 350, 493n. It is suggestive that the queen’s part in the triennial act had been brought to the attention of the Lords by Strangways’ friends, the earls of Bristol and Hertford.85D’Ewes (N), 393.

Strangways’ wariness of political and religious zealotry also underlay his response to Strafford’s trial. He had been happy to be involved in the preparation of the impeachment from November 1640, and was named by Pym as one of the MPs to be present at the trial on 2 April 1641.86CJ ii. 39b, 61a, 98a, 107b, 115b; Procs. LP iii. 320. But when the impeachment proceedings were abandoned on 10 April (under pressure from the Scots) in favour of an act of attainder, Strangways publicly objected to the new turn of events.87Procs. LP iii. 501. It was no coincidence that, two days later, he was given leave to absent himself from Parliament ‘upon his great occasions’, and did not return until early May, after the attainder had been passed by the Commons.88CJ ii. 119b, 141a. In his refusal to countenance the attainder, Strangways was acting in concert with his allies in both Houses. The Straffordians included such Commons-men as Edward Kyrton, John Digby and George Lord Digby, and peers such as Bristol, Hertford and Seymour followed Strangways in absenting themselves from the vote in the Lords. His close sympathies with the Straffordian position were suspected by others. Some of the lists of MPs who voted against the attainder included Strangways himself, and this seemed to touch a raw nerve; on his return to the Commons on 8 May 1641, he angrily objected to his inclusion, telling the House ‘he had been wronged (for he was indeed then out of town) and he protested he would rather choose to die, than to live in an evil opinion of this House’.89Rushworth, Hist. Collections iv. 249; Procs. LP iv. 51, 277. Perhaps in an attempt to prove his point, on 10 May Strangways signed the Protestation.90CJ ii. 141a.

Despite his attempt to distance himself from the Straffordians, it was no secret that Strangways was increasingly out of sympathy with Pym and his allies during the summer of 1641 – a situation probably exacerbated by the death of the 4th earl of Bedford in May. Although Strangways was named to a committee to answer the Lords’ objections to anti-episcopal legislation on 3 June, he was now openly hostile to the attack on the bishops – a position that led to a confrontation with William Strode I* on 7 June.91CJ ii. 165b. According to contemporaries, Strode’s ‘indiscreet speech ... gave offence to Sir John Strangways’, and the debate two days later produced ‘much slashing ... betwixt W. Strode, Sir J. Strangways and others’.92Procs. LP iv. 8, 16. Strangways clashed with the reformist interest again on 9 June, when he was a minority teller with Sir John Culpeper against (not in favour, as the clerk of the Commons mistakenly recorded) sending Sir William Withrington* and Herbert Price* to the Tower for taking away the candles the previous evening in order to end a debate on the army plotters. The opposing tellers were Denzil Holles and Sir John Clotworthy.93CJ ii. 171b; Procs. LP v. 66.

Despite the tensions, during the summer there seem to have been concerted attempts to keep Strangways within the opposition fold. Thus, at the end of June he was named to committees for the poll tax (18 June), paying the Scots (22 June), dealing with scandalous ministers (24 June), and considering the reaction to the imminent royal journey to Scotland (25-26 June).94CJ ii. 180a, 182b, 184b, 187b, 189b. On 28 June Strangways was appointed to the committee, which included Sir Henry Vane I and Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire, to examine the ten propositions brought to the Commons by John Pym as the basis for a settlement. This appointment suggests that Strangways still enjoyed a degree of support from opposition leaders, although, significantly, these propositions did not address the more controversial religious problems.95CJ ii. 190b. Any such efforts to keep Strangways on board were undermined by the Commons’ desire for vengeance against his friend, Lord Digby, who had defended Strafford during the attainder. On 13 July, Strangways and Edward Kyrton were tellers in favour of ameliorating amendments being inserted into the bill against Digby’s published speech from the Strafford trial, and, possibly to avoid further confrontation, Strangways was granted leave of absence on the following day.96CJ ii. 209b, 210a.

Strangways’ activities during the summer and early autumn of 1641 are uncertain; but after his return to Westminster at the end of October he became an open supporter of the king. On 28 October, Sir Edward Nicholas† gave the king a list of those ‘champions in maintenance of your prerogative’ who had opposed measures against the 13 bishops; Strangways’ name was among them.97D’Ewes (C), 47n. By the end of November, Strangways’ stance on episcopacy had begun to threaten his own safety. The demonstrators against bishops listed him among the ‘persons disaffected to the kingdom’; Strangways complained to the Commons that he had been confronted by a mob ‘pressing him to give his vote against the bishops’ as he tried to enter the House; and he subsequently incurred the displeasure of his colleagues by alleging there was a wider conspiracy led by certain MPs.98Clarendon, Hist. i. 464; D’Ewes (C), 213-14; CJ ii. 327a. At the end of December, Parliament again turned its attentions against the Digbys, demanding that Lord Digby and the earl of Bristol should be removed from the court and the council, and producing evidence ‘which drew Sir John Strangways in the defence he had made on the earl of Bristol’s behalf’.99D’Ewes (C), 361. Strangways’ defence of episcopacy and his support for the Digbys forced Pym and his allies to abandon their efforts to appease him, and he was named to only three committees between October 1641 and February 1642.100CJ ii. 290a, 333a, 338b.

Despite the growing hostility of ‘Pym’s junto’, Strangways seems to have decided to remain in Westminster to try to further the king’s cause through the existing parliamentary framework. Although he continued to be excluded from significant committees, he was able to defend his friends from the wrath of the Commons. On 8 February he was given leave to visit the bishop of Durham, Thomas Morton, in the Tower.101PJ i. 321. On 4 March he opposed allegations that Henry Jermyn* and Lord Digby were plotting against Parliament, and called for proof of the charges against them.102PJ i. 506. Strangways also defended his son-in-law, Sir Lewis Dyve. On 17 February 1642 he agreed to act as surety that Dyve would return to Parliament on demand, and on 9 May he was able to extend the time allowed for his ordered return.103CJ ii. 439a; PJ ii. 293-4; CJ ii. 564a. Strangways also resisted moves to disable absent MPs from sitting. On 16 June he was teller against a motion suspending absentees until their excuses had been considered by the House, and on the same day told against a motion for fining them.104CJ ii. 626b, 627a. The second of these measures was won by Strangways, emphasizing the importance of royalist MPs in mobilising floating voters in the Commons even at this late stage. The fact that he was involved in the abortive committee to consider the preamble of the king’s reply to the Nineteen Propositions on 23 June also points to the influence of pro-royalists in stalling parliamentary business during the summer of 1642.105CJ ii. 637a.

The deterioration of the national situation, and the exodus of royalists and neutrals from Westminster in the spring and summer of 1642, made such stalling tactics increasingly difficult. On 9 July 1642 Strangways was ordered to attend the service of the House, and on the same day he joined the noted common lawyer, John Selden, as teller against Parliament's highly irregular motion raising 10,000 volunteers against the king.106CJ ii. 663a. Strangways’ failure to defeat this motion, by 45 votes to 125, may have hastened his departure from Westminster. On 22 July the Commons ordered that he should be summoned to attend; but he had not obeyed by 20 August, when he was threatened with prosecution for contempt, as he had done ‘ill services in the county of Dorset’. The Commons gave him a further week to appear, on the advice of ‘some wiser judgements’.107CJ ii. 685b, 728b; PJ iii. 311. On 6 September 1642 he was finally disabled for ignoring the summons.108CJ ii. 754b.

During the first civil war, Strangways was active in the defence of royal interests in Dorset. He was appointed to the commission of array for the county in the summer of 1642, and at the outbreak of hostilities, he joined Sir Gerard Naper, Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper and Robert Coker* in aiding his old ally, the marquess of Hertford.109Northants RO, FH133, unfol.; Add. 18777, f. 27. During the parliamentary supremacy in the county over the spring of 1643, he used his connections to try to agree a local truce which would materially help the precarious royalist position in the south west. Strangways, Richard Rogers* and others met Sir Thomas Trenchard* and John Browne I, in the hope of reducing military encroachment to a minimum.110Bayley, Dorset, 63. Although Strangways fled to Oxford shortly afterwards, his own house at Abbotsbury was still fortified by troops commanded by his son, Colonel James Strangways. It was taken by storm in November 1644 by forces under the former royalist, Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. Once again, the Strangways family could rely on its local contacts to avert disaster. With the house ablaze, John Trenchard’s son-in-law, Colonel William Sydenham*, disobeyed orders, and ‘riding to the other side of the house, gave them quarter’.111Christie, Shaftesbury, i. 62-3. In April 1645 Strangways was present at a meeting of western royalists to raise an army for their defence.112Mems. of Prince Rupert, iii. 80. The fall of the earl of Bristol’s castle at Sherborne, where Dyve was constable, led to the capture of Giles Strangways, and shortly afterwards Sir John Strangways was apprehended attempting to flee from Cardiff.113Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 64; HMC Portland, i. 293; Harl. 166, f. 271v.

After his capture, Strangways was brought to the lowest point of his fortunes. He had already become something of a hate-figure at Westminster for his role in the war. Apart from his local activities, he had attended the Oxford Parliament in January 1644, and on 26 September of that year the Commons resolved that he should be exempted from pardon in any negotiations, a decision applied soon after his capture, when he was formally excepted from the pardon allowed by the Newcastle Propositions on 27 November 1645.114Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 573; CJ iii. 639a; iv. 356b. On the following day Strangways sent a letter to Speaker Lenthall, enclosing a petition to Parliament in which he (rather unconvincingly) claimed to have left the king’s service in October 1644, and that he now came to Parliament as a penitent, ‘bringing along with me tears in my eyes, faithfulness in my heart, and satisfaction in my hands, which are the only satisfaction that God requires from the greatest offenders’.115Bodl. Dep. C.156, f. 89r-v. Such pleas were in vain: Strangways was brought before the bar of the Commons on 29 November 1645 and imprisoned in the Tower of London on charges of high treason.116Add. 31116, pp. 477, 490.

During his sojourn in the Tower, Strangways compiled a commonplace book, which provides an insight into his political, religious and ethical ideas, both as an individual and as an example of a former critic of the crown who turned royalist. The political content of the writings is overt. Much of it is poetic in form, and although he wrote poems against the destruction caused by ‘those that oppose themselves against the king’, and drew parallels between the plight of Charles I and the ‘saintly’ Henry VI, he continued to emphasize the need for ‘moderation’ within a mixed polity.117Beinecke Lib. Osborn Shelves b.304, part i, p. 57; part ii, p. 56. By the mid-1640s, he believed, this could only be achieved through a treaty between the king and Parliament, and in a poem dated 23 November 1646, Strangways showed that he was worried about the effects of an all-out victory by either side:

Say what you will, ‘tis not safe for the state,
To make the sword the judge of this debate.
If in this war the Parliament prevail,
To us and ours they do the war entail.
And if the king regain his crown by arms
Then we may thank ourselves for all our harms;
For having so got all into his hands
He is made lord of all our lives and lands,
And we our laws and liberties (which cost
Our fathers so much English blood) have lost.
But if by treaty it receive an end

We may with safety our affairs attend.118Beinecke Lib. Osborn Shelves b.304, part i, p. 72.

Strangways’ lack of enthusiasm for a decisive royalist victory reflects his view of the commonwealth in general. He was in favour of legal safeguards, as ‘we do well know that our estates, lives, and fames are preserved by the laws, and that the king is bound by his laws’.119Beinecke Lib. Osborn Shelves b.304, part ii, p. 47. Echoing Aristotle, Strangways said that the key to a stable state was a measure of toleration and pragmatism on both sides, for ‘moderation is the inseparable attendant of true wisdom and policy; she makes those councils and those sovereign courts and Parliaments happy, where she sits in the chair’.120Beinecke Lib. Osborn Shelves b.304, part ii, p. 57.

The bulk of Strangways’ commonplace book consists of religious writings, whether prayers, translations of the Bible into verse, or the copying of passages by other authors. These, and Strangways’ own writings reveal him to be a staunch supporter of the Church of England. He denounced both the ‘blind obedience’ of the papists and the ‘high disobedience’ of the dissenters, and defended episcopacy against Presbyterian forms of government.121Beinecke Lib. Osborn Shelves b.304, part i, p. 33. He maintained that bishops were an ‘apostolical’ institution, confirmed by act of Parliament under Elizabeth I.122Beinecke Lib. Osborn Shelves b.304, part ii, p. 73. Strangways also wrote in praise of justification by faith, holy days and preaching – a typically episcopalian mixture – and copied the verses of Bishop Joseph Hall of Exeter, his fellow inmate in the Tower.123Beinecke Lib. Osborn Shelves b.304, part i, pp. 38-9, 61, 127; part ii, p. 2. The via media of the Church of England served to reinforce the pragmatism of Strangways’ political ideas.

While in prison, Strangways remained in contact with his old friends and allies of both political persuasions. His son, Giles Strangways, was also in the Tower; his son-in-law, Sir Lewis Dyve, was another prisoner; and he continued to receive letters from the king via Lieutenant-colonel George Strangways.124Dyve Letter Bk. 85. Strangways acted as one of the representatives of the royalist prisoners in presenting complaints about the delay in legal trials and the confiscation of estates to Oliver Cromwell* in September 1647.125Dyve Letter Bk. 87. Strangways was also in contact with his old friends in Parliament. On 7 February 1646, the Commons ordered that his brothers-in-law, Sir Thomas and John Trenchard, and the Gloucestershire Presbyterian, John Stephens*, should be given liberty to visit Strangways in the Tower.126CJ iv. 431b. Despite his frequent laments on the perfidy of fair-weather friends, such men were in fact already mobilising their local influence to help preserve Strangways’ estates during his captivity.127Beinecke Lib. Osborn Shelves b.304, part i, pp. 44-5, 59, 66-7, 80.

Sequestration proceedings against Strangways began only very slowly. He was assessed by the Committee for Advance of Money for £4,000 in July 1644, but no proceedings were taken against him until 22 April 1646, when the Devon committee for sequestrations was ordered to seize Strangways’ goods and lands.128CCAM 436; CCC 36. In Dorset a similarly lackadaisical attitude also prevailed, no doubt encouraged by Strangways’ friends on the county committee (who included John and Sir Thomas Trenchard, William Sydenham, and John Bingham). These connections explain the lenient treatment of Strangways’ estates at the local level. Robert Seagar, who held some of the Strangways lands in Dorset during 1646, was repeatedly scolded by the county committee for letting the property fall into disrepair.129Dorset Standing Cttee. ed. Mayo, 9, 21, 23. On 21 November 1646 the county committee ordered that, in the following year, the whole estate would be leased back to Lady Strangways for a rent of £1,000 excluding her legal fifths.130Add. 8845, f. 40v; Dorset Standing Cttee. ed. Mayo, 76, 142-3. In 1647 Lady Strangways asked Lady Trenchard ‘to present my humble thanks unto himself [Sir Thomas Trenchard] and to the rest of my friends which joined with him in the letter which was now sent to the [county] committee’ to allow her to enjoy the fifth part of her estate.131Dorset RO, D/FSI, box 233, bundle: ‘Grace Strangways: letters 1645-9’, unfol. In the same year she thanked Sir Thomas Trenchard for his efforts on her behalf, as ‘you may judge by their inclinations what justice I could expect from them if I had no friend to stand for my right’, and begged that the £1,000 lease might be renewed.132Dorset RO, D/FSI, box 233, bundle ‘Grace Strangways: letters 1645-9’, unfol. Although this last request could not be fulfilled, for the following two years Lady Strangways was recompensed for quartering soldiers and felling woods on the estate.133Dorset Standing Cttee. ed. Mayo, 257, 326.

There is some evidence that Trenchard family influence was also acting on Strangways’ behalf at Westminster. The lack of hostile treatment from the Committee for Advance of Money may have owed something to John Trenchard’s membership of that body.134Keeler, Long Parl. 364. In January 1647 came the threat that Strangways’ estates would be included in an ordinance to sell sequestered land to pay army arrears.135Add. 31116, p. 597. Again, the local connection was brought into action: John Fitzjames*, a cousin of Strangways’ wife with links to the Trenchards, urged his friends at Westminster to aid Strangways’ petition to compound in February 1647.136Alnwick, Northumberland MS 547, ff. 24, 72v, 82-3. In October 1647 another attempt to use Strangways’ sequestered land to pay public debts also seems to have failed.137Bodl. Nalson XV (i), f. 73r. Thereafter, Parliament’s harsh line towards him seems to have softened. On 9 March 1648 the Commons resolved that Strangways and his son were to be allowed to compound for delinquency.138CJ v. 489a. Strangways’ petition was read, and after the consent of the Lords, the fine was set at a crushing £10,000, payable in two instalments.139CJ v. 497a, 500b. The only concession was that Strangways was absolved from signing the negative oath and the Covenant, after assurances ‘upon the word of a gentleman’ that he would not oppose Parliament again.140Bodl. Tanner 58, f. 758. The financial terms of the composition led Strangways to lodge an unsuccessful appeal, and on 3 May 1648 he was forced to borrow £1,000 to pay the first instalment.141CJ v. 510a; LC4/203, f. 28v. On 19 April the Commons agreed that Strangways would be free to leave the Tower and reside in Dorset on the payment of the first amount, and he was released on 15 May.142CJ v. 537b; Beinecke Lib. Osborn Shelves b.304, part i, p. 127. On 1 June the Dorset committee was ordered to release the property to the family.143Dorset Standing Cttee. ed. Mayo, 326, 394.

Retirement to Dorset did not mean inactivity for Strangways. He at once busied himself in restoring his damaged estates, telling his fellow antiquarian, Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, in October 1649 of his distress at the loss of ‘the greatest part’ of his ‘old evidences’, which had been ‘either burnt or plundered’.144S. D’Ewes, Autobiography and Correspondence ed. J.O. Halliwell (2 vols. 1845) ii. 317; Smith, Constitutional Royalism, 283. Once the damage to his property had been addressed, he spent the mid-1650s constructing an elaborate duck-decoy at Abbotsbury, a scheme no doubt copied from the lucrative prototype built by the royalist Sir Edward Rodney in Somerset.145Harl. 374, f. 290; RCHM Dorset, i. 8. His social connections remained as a strong as ever. He tried to help the family of his son-in-law, Sir Lewis Dyve, who had gone into exile after escaping from king’s bench prison in January 1648. On 4 August 1650, Mary Gresley implored Strangways to secure a fifth for the maintenance of his daughter, Lady Dyve, and her children.146Dorset RO, D/FSI/233 (ii), bundle: ‘Dyve corresp. 1645-52’, unfol. This was a difficult request, as Dyve had been branded a traitor, and his wife thus had no claim over the estate. Strangways intervened in March 1652 by purchasing Dyve’s principal estate, at Bromham in Bedfordshire, for £4,970, a vast sum for a man who had compounded for £10,000 four years before. Strangways’ intervention effectively freed the estate from the penalties which followed from Dyve’s delinquency.147Dyve Letter Bk. 110-1; CCC 588, 1303. The cohesion of Strangways’ social circle was strengthened by the 1653 marriage of Sir Thomas Trenchard’s son to John Fitzjames’s sister, and the group retained a degree of political influence through John Trenchard’s activities in the Rump, and Sydenham’s role in Cromwell’s council.148Dorset RO, D/HIL/T7.

Although there is evidence that Charles II sought sanctuary at Melbury Sampford after the battle of Worcester, he was received by Giles, not Sir John, and it is not clear that Strangways was involved in plots against the regime.149Smith, Constitutional Royalism, 283. He was arrested and imprisoned after the Penruddock rising in 1655 and, despite his protestations of innocence, his estate was subjected to the decimation tax by Major-general John Disbrowe* at the end of that year.150Underdown, Fire from Heaven, 215; TSP iv. 336-7. While in gaol in Dorchester, Strangways composed lines ‘upon a private a retired life’ in which he followed other royalist poets in emphasising his determination not to meddle in politics but to keep ‘henceforth in the dark and silent shade’.151Smith, Constitutional Royalism, 284. Despite such resolutions, there is some evidence to suggest that Strangways was prepared to interfere in local politics, behind the scenes. In October 1654, for example, he was conniving with Fitzjames over the appointment of a suitable sheriff.152Alnwick, Northumberland MS 551, f. 6. At the end of the decade, Fitzjames was encouraging Strangways to take a greater role in public life. In October 1658, when the gentry were summoned to sign an address to Richard Cromwell* as the new protector, Fitjames assured Strangways that ‘if you please to think it fit to be there, Mr Sheriff (though he does not write to you himself) will own this [letter] as his summons’.153Alnwick, Northumberland MS 552, f. 40v. In January of the following year, Fitzjames (who was acting in concert with Ashley Cooper in election-fixing) was in consultation with Strangways over the Weymouth elections.154Alnwick, Northumberland MS 552, f. 68v.

At the restoration of Charles II, Strangways was able to re-establish his standing in Dorset with relative ease. In April he joined his son, Giles, and Sir Gerard Naper in signing a declaration that the former royalists in Dorset would pursue ‘the public peace … submitting all to the resolves of Parliament’.155Declaration of the Knights and Gentry of the County of Dorset (1660, 669.f.24.66). He played a prominent part in the proclamation of the new king at Sherborne in May, and joined Fitzjames, Ashley Cooper and others in signing the Dorset humble address of thanksgiving on 12 June 1660.156Merc. Publicus no. 21 (17-24 May 1660), 329, 331 (E.183.17); Som. and Dorset N. and Q. xiii. 179-80; Bayley, Dorset, 387. Rewards soon followed. He was granted the office of steward of the duchy of Cornwall’s manors at Fordington and Ryme near Dorchester in November 1660, and his son, Giles Strangways, was nominated as a member of the projected order of the Royal Oak.157CTB i. 35; Bayley, Dorset, 386. Strangways regained his seat at Weymouth in the elections for the Cavalier Parliament in 1661.

Strangways died on 30 December 1666 and was buried at Melbury Sampford on 13 January 1667.158Hutchins, Dorset, ii. 679; Dorset RO, Melbury Sampford par. reg. By the time of his death, Strangways’ finances had recovered enough for him to bequeath sizeable sums to the poor of six parishes in the south west, and to provide marriage portions of £3,000 and £4,000 for his unmarried granddaughters.159PROB11/323/237. Although his house at Abbotsbury had been destroyed during the war, Strangways was able to reside in splendour at Melbury Sampford, in a mansion with 32 hearths.160Dorset Hearth Tax, 6. Refaced, this house was later to form part of an even grander dwelling built by Strangways’ descendants, the earls of Ilchester. Apart from his son, Giles, three of Strangways’ grandsons were MPs in the later seventeenth century.161HP Commons 1660-1690.