GOODWIN, Arthur (1595-1643), of Upper Winchendon, Bucks.

The Goodwins had acquired lands in Buckinghamshire at Upper Winchendon and Wooburn in the 1550s and 1560s.21VCH Bucks. iii. 109-10, iv. 123. By the time Arthur was born in 1595, they were firmly established among the more prominent families of the county. As early as 1586 his father Sir Francis† had been elected as one of the knights of the shire.22HP Commons 1558-1603. Marriages by Sir Francis to a daughter of Lord Grey and by Arthur to a daughter of Sir Richard Wenman helped to reinforce that position. Already by the 1620s, while his father was still alive, Arthur was being regularly elected to Parliament for Buckinghamshire constituencies.23HP Commons 1604-1629. However it was only after Sir Francis’s death in 1634 that the son seems to have fully emerged as a major local figure in his own right.

In September 1637 Goodwin took what would prove to be the crucial step of marrying his only child, Jane, to Philip, 4th Baron Wharton.24Langley, Hundred of Desborough, 446. Already it must have been envisaged that Wharton would become Goodwin’s heir and, in time, that inheritance would provide the basis for the powerful Wharton interest in Buckinghamshire. Wharton would later commemorate the marriage by commissioning portraits of Goodwin and his wife from Sir Anthony Van Dyck.25C. Brown and H. Vlieghe, Van Dyck 1599-1641 (1999), 330-1; S.J. Barnes et al. Van Dyck: a complete catalogue of the paintings (New Haven and London, 2004), 513-14. But securing Wharton as his son-in-law, by the payment of a substantial dowry, may have strained Goodwin’s finances. By an indenture of 10 October 1638, he conveyed his lands at Bishops Wooburn to four trustees, including his brother-in-law Sir Thomas Wenman* and John Hampden*.26PROB11/192/8. The choice of Hampden is significant. He and Goodwin were close friends, having been contemporaries at Magdalen College over 20 years earlier and that friendship explains much about Goodwin’s subsequent career. Of course, by 1638 Hampden was famous as the defendant in the Ship Money case. Goodwin himself had failed to pay some of his Ship Money on time in 1635, although he seems to have paid his full assessment the following year.27Ship Money Pprs. ed. C.G. Bonsey and J.G. Jenkins (Bucks. Rec. Soc. xiii), 52, 64, 78. Through Hampden, Goodwin can be assumed by this date to have had connections with many of the future key figures in the Long Parliament, like Oliver St John* and John Pym*. Hampden (together with Wharton) would prove a useful ally.

It was in partnership with Hampden that Goodwin was elected in 1640 as knight of the shire for Buckinghamshire for the Short Parliament. There is no doubt that Hampden won his seat in a large part because of his fame following the Ship Money case and it is likely that Goodwin gained the other seat mainly as his associate. But the power of the Goodwin interest should not be discounted, not least because his father had sat as knight of the shire in four of the previous six Parliaments. Nothing is known of Goodwin’s role in the Short Parliament. The following October the two men were re-elected for those same seats, although there are hints that attempts were made to dispute that result.

Right from the opening days of the Long Parliament there is a problem in assessing the true extent of Goodwin’s contributions to its proceedings. He was not the only Goodwin sitting in the Commons – John Goodwyn was the MP for Haslemere – and the Journal often fails to distinguish between them. But there are still enough references that unambiguously refer to Arthur Goodwin for it to be possible to reconstruct his parliamentary activities in some detail, and there is no doubt that he was an active and enthusiastic MP.

The first real indication of his importance was in the debates about Ship Money and the Hampden case. This was doubtless in a large part because of his known links with Hampden and, as Hampden himself was careful to hold back from direct involvement in the debates on his case, there may have been a sense in which Goodwin was acting as his unofficial spokesman. It can certainly not have been a coincidence that Goodwin should have been the MP who moved on 7 December 1640 that charges be prepared against Lord Keeper Finch (John Finch†) and the other Ship Money judges.28Procs. LP i. 488, 493; Northcote Note Bk. 37; CJ ii. 46b. With it having been agreed that such charges should be prepared, Goodwin reported to the Commons on the following day about the evidence that had been taken from one of the judges, Sir William Jones, about Finch’s behaviour. According to Goodwin, Jones had denied that Finch had pressurised him into finding against Hampden.29Procs. LP i. 512, 516, 518, 520; Northcote Note Bk. 41. This was perhaps not what Goodwin would have wanted to hear, but it did mean that Jones would have to stand by his controversial comments on the case. Once articles against Finch had been drafted and passed on to the Lords, it was Goodwin who was sent to seek a conference with the Lords to discuss them.30CJ ii. 67b, 68a; LJ iv. 132a; Procs. LP ii. 185.

The other issue that was clearly of concern to Goodwin at this time was the king’s religious policies. Among the committees to which he was certainly named were those to receive petitions against the bishop of Bath and Wells, William Piers, to prepare votes on the ecclesiastical Canons, to review the laws against Catholic priests and to consider the bills against pluralities and Catholic recusants.31CJ ii. 50a, 52a, 73b, 101a, 113b, 136b. On 1 May 1641 he also delivered the bill to prevent clergymen from holding secular offices to the Lords.32CJ ii. 131b; Procs. LP iv. 160; 163; Two Diaries of Long Parl. 117. Moreover, the first division in which he may have served as a teller was that on 4 June 1641 in which ‘Mr Goodwin’ joined with Sir Thomas Barrington* in acting as the teller for the minority who supported two of the proposed amendments to the bill to prohibit the bishops from voting in the Lords.33CJ ii. 167b. If this was indeed Goodwin, it was the first of many divisions in which he was paired with Barrington as a teller.

In some local ecclesiastical controversies brought before the Commons, Goodwin took an interest because they had a Buckinghamshire dimension. Thus he sat on the committee to consider the request for a preaching minister from the inhabitants of Hughenden, while he was the MP who raised the complaints by the inhabitants of Waddesdon against Archbishop William Laud’s vicar-general, Sir Nathaniel Brent, for requiring them to pay the salary for an organist.34CJ ii. 54b, 97a; Procs. LP ii. 331. On 20 July he was given the job at the joint conference with the Lords of reading the articles blaming Inigo Jones† for demolishing St Gregory’s as part of his embellishments to St Paul’s Cathedral.35Procs. LP vi. 22. All this confirms Goodwin as an eager opponent of the Laudian innovations and as a keen anti-Catholic.

His role in the prosecution of the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†) seems to have been mostly secondary, although his impatience to bring down the earl was never in doubt. On 18 February 1641 he and Henry Marten* suggested that the Commons should adjourn until 24 February as it would not be until then that Strafford was due to give his replies to the Lords to the articles against him.36Procs. LP ii. 479. Goodwin also sat on the Commons committee appointed on 20 March to prepare heads for their conference with the Lords to discuss progress on the earl’s trial.37CJ ii. 107a. It was then either Goodwin or John Goodwyn who, when the secretary of Sir Henry Vane I* was questioned on 12 April about the papers that allegedly confirmed Vane’s account about Strafford wanting to bring an Irish army to England, moved that Vane ‘might expound the other names in the paper’.38Procs. LP iii. 511. This specific allegation against Strafford certainly played on one of Goodwin’s particular fears, for he was as worried as any of his colleagues about the dangers of a military coup. Just four days before this he had been the MP sent by the Commons to ask the Lords for a conference about disbanding the Irish army and disarming Catholics.39CJ ii. 117a; Procs. LP iii. 467. That was even before the paper conveniently confirming Vane’s story had come to light. The discovery of the first army plot only increased those concerns, which is why it is interesting that he may have been the MP who moved the first of the impeachment articles against Henry Percy* on 24 July.40Procs. LP vi. 84, 95.

Given these fears, Goodwin was especially keen (like Hampden) to conclude a deal with the Scots. Only then could both armies be disbanded, ending the possibility that their respective soldiers might seek – or be used – to interfere with Parliament. Thus, on 7 June 1641 Goodwin acted as one of the joint reporters for the conference with the Lords on the proposed treaty with the Scots and on its corollary, the disbandment of the two armies.41CJ ii. 170a; Procs. LP v. 30. The following week (15 June) he spoke in support of agreeing to the Lords’ request for a further conference on that subject.42Procs. LP v. 171. Later that same month he was among those MPs appointed to receive the money which had been voted for the Scots.43CJ ii. 182b; Procs. LP v. 283. As further testimony of his commitment to the treaty, he and Hampden declared on 23 July that they would each lend £1,000 to help ensure that the Scots were paid as soon as possible.44CJ ii. 222a, 236b. Goodwin naturally supported the bill to secure the Scots’ arrears.45CJ ii. 239b. Such conspicuous support for the policy of disbandment explains why on 19 August Goodwin was appointed, with John Hotham* and Sir Henry Anderson*, to travel to the army in the north with the order commanding the immediate disbandment of the cavalry forces. Goodwin had to decline this duty, however, on the grounds that he was ‘infirm of body and unable to ride post’.46CJ ii. 264a; Procs. LP vi. 490. As it happened, the fact that he could not undertake that journey meant that he was then able the following week to secure agreement from the Lords allowing the money for the payment of those troops to be delivered to York.47CJ ii. 270b; LJ iv. 376a-b; Procs. LP vi. 551. The idea that some of the soldiers should be recruited by Spain or France seems to have had Goodwin’s support, presumably because it would encourage them to acquiesce in the disbandment.48CJ ii. 282b.

All this took place against the background of the king’s visit to Scotland which was viewed with suspicion by Parliament because Charles might take the opportunity to reach a separate agreement with the Scots. The potential implications for the treaty were doubtless why Goodwin had sat on the various Commons committees to plan for the king’s proposed absence.49CJ ii. 189b, 208a, 220a. Goodwin had also been the person sent by the Commons to the Lords on 3 July to coordinate the pressure to be applied by them to ensure that the king agreed to several major pieces of legislation, such as the bill for the abolition of star chamber and high commission, before he left.50LJ iv. 299a. During the first fortnight of August Goodwin acted as the messenger between the two Houses as the time ticked down to the king’s departure.51CJ ii. 244a; LJ iv. 354a-b; Procs. LP vi. 271.

Immediately prior to the recess on 9 September 1641, Goodwin had attended on the Lords in an attempt to persuade them to act against the bishop of Lincoln, John Williams, over a prayer of thanksgiving he had published.52CJ ii. 282b; LJ iv. 395b; Procs. LP vi. 685, 713. On Parliament’s return after the recess he helped resume the pressure on the bishops. Once again performing the role of messenger from the Commons to the Lords, he asked the peers to accept the testimony of William Wheler* about the drafting of the ecclesiastical Canons in connection with the impeachment proceedings against the 13 bishops.53CJ ii. 297b; LJ iv. 408b-409a; D’Ewes (C), 43, 44, 47, 48. Nor did he forget about this issue after other matters had distracted both Houses. On 6 December he pressed the Commons to seek a conference with the Lords about the lack of progress on these impeachments.54LJ iv. 464a; D’Ewes (C), 240-1.

But it was for Catholics that Goodwin reserved his real contempt. On 30 October he persuaded the Lords to continue sitting to hear the latest news of alleged Catholic plotting in England.55CJ ii. 299a; LJ iv. 411b; D’Ewes (C), 55, 56. What he and his colleagues could not have foreseen was that news of rebellion in Ireland would arrive the following day. This only hardened Goodwin’s paranoia. His immediate reaction was to propose that a joint Lords and Commons committee be created, to which he was then appointed the next day.56D’Ewes (C), 65; CJ ii. 300a, 302a. That same week he made sure that Father Phillips, a Catholic priest being held in the Tower, received no visitors.57CJ ii. 304b; LJ iv. 420b; D’Ewes (C), 77-8. (He similarly wanted to restrict access to Sir John Berkeley* and help investigate claims that the French ambassador was trying to raise troops in London.)58D’Ewes (C), 80, 129; CJ ii. 313b. Moreover, when it was proposed that two other Catholic priests be executed, Goodwin acted as teller for those of his colleagues who thought that the death penalties should be carried out.59CJ ii. 339b. That he was sent on 18 December to inform the Lords that the Commons wished to impeach Daniel O’Neill† suggests that he likewise strongly supported that particular move.60CJ ii. 349a; LJ iv. 481a; D’Ewes (C), 311; Add. 64807, f. 13v. Two days earlier he had also told the Commons that he would be willing to donate £10 towards those Protestants who had fled the violence in Ireland.61D’Ewes (C), 296. Such anti-Catholic fears found their fullest expression in the Grand Remonstrance, which also had Goodwin’s steadfast support. Indeed, that was the occasion of the single most important division in which he would be a teller, for in the crucial vote on 22 November 1641 in which the Commons decided by 159 to 148 to pass the Remonstrance, Goodwin and Sir John Clotworthy* were the tellers for the majority.62CJ ii. 322b.

Like most of his colleagues, Goodwin’s immediate reaction to the king’s attempt to arrest the Five Members was probably one of shock. But he was also quick to support Pym’s moves to exploit it to their advantage. Bearing in mind his friendship with Hampden, his role as a teller for the yeas in the division on 5 January 1642 for the appointment of an emergency committee to sit at the Guildhall was not an accident.63CJ ii. 368b; PJ i. 15. Six days later he arranged for the Commons to receive the Buckinghamshire petition deploring the influence of popish peers and bishops.64CJ ii. 370b-371a; PJ i. 34-5. He also demanded that the lieutenant of the ordnance be called in for questioning and was among those MPs tasked with seeking out any stashes of arms that he might have been hiding – a body that would evolve during 1642 into the Committee for Examinations.65CJ ii. 375b; PJ i. 57. On 17 January the Commons asked Goodwin and Hampden to thank those who had suppressed an attempted protest at Kingston-upon-Thames.66CJ ii. 384a; PJ i. 90. Again, bearing in mind his closeness to Hampden, that Goodwin was sent on 20 January as the messenger to seek the backing of the Lords for the Commons’ petition of protest to the king about the Five Members can only have been a carefully calculated piece of political theatre.67CJ ii. 389a, 390a; LJ iv. 528a-b; PJ i. 118, 119. The petition itself may also, in part, have been the result of Goodwin’s draughtsmanship.68CJ ii. 384a.

In the meantime, he was one of those MPs sent to reassure the Scottish commissioners amid this latest crisis in relations between Parliament and the king.69CJ ii. 383a, 386a. Goodwin was now being regularly used as a messenger by the Commons when they wanted to communicate with the Lords, suggesting that his fellow MPs regarded him as someone who would carry weight with the peers.70CJ ii. 379b, 400a, 402a, 424b; LJ iv. 513b, 514a, 619a; PJ i. 72, 481, 483. Among the matters which he was sent to raise with them was another consequence of the Five Members incident, namely the proposed impeachment of the attorney-general, Sir Edward Herbert I*.71CJ ii. 458a. Meanwhile, when on 11 February 1642 William Pierrepont* proposed that the 1st marquess of Hertford (William Seymour†) be appointed as the new lord lieutenant of Somerset, Goodwin attempted to block this with the counter-proposal of 1st Baron Howard of Escrick (Sir Edward Howard†). Goodwin was outmanoeuvred, however, when others successfully suggested that Howard be instead appointed for Worcestershire.72PJ i. 346-7; CJ ii. 426a.

In early March 1642 Goodwin was among those MPs sent by the Commons to inform the king of their latest reply concerning the militia.73CJ ii. 462a. The previous November he had supported the militia bill introduced by Sir Arthur Hesilrige*.74CJ ii. 317b; LJ iv. 442b; D’Ewes (C), 146, 147, 153, 154. Recent events had only increased fears that the king would resort to military force, making control of the militia all the more vital. Goodwin now followed the continuing, fruitless exchanges between the king and Parliament over this issue with interest.75CJ ii. 484a, 488a, 553a; LJ iv. 655a; v. 53b; PJ ii. 60, 260. He almost certainly supported the Nineteen Propositions which Parliament sent to the king in early June, although, for reasons that are unclear, when the Commons had debated them on 31 May he had argued that they should drop the clause demanding that senior royal officials should be approved by Parliament.76PJ ii. 393. His reasons were presumably tactical. He had until this point firmly sided with Parliament and he was not about to waver.

By June 1642 both sides were reaching the stage where they would finally resort to arms. As part of the resulting flurry of activity, on 4 June Goodwin carried up to the Lords a bundle of important measures, including the bill to create the Westminster Assembly and the order to stop money being sent to the king at York.77CJ ii. 604b, 605a, 605b; LJ v. 104a; PJ iii. 15, 16. In the days that followed, he busied himself helping to pass the various measures enabling Parliament to raise men and money for a war that was now unavoidable.78LJ v. 122b, 126a; CJ ii. 617b, 622a; PJ iii. 70. On 10 June he was one of those MPs who took the lead in encouraging their colleagues to make personal donations to the cause. Goodwin himself promised £100 and four horses.79PJ iii. 466. It is telling that when Sir William Brereton* wanted to inform Parliament about his attempts to implement the Militia Ordinance at Manchester, he did so by writing to Hampden and Goodwin.80LJ v. 174b. There is every indication that Goodwin, sure of Parliament’s cause, had come to accept that conflict as a necessity.

Naturally enough, now that this war had become a reality, he was particularly concerned about mobilising support for Parliament in Buckinghamshire. In late May he had secured the Commons’ approval to the appointment of two new deputy lieutenants for Buckinghamshire.81CJ ii. 591b; PJ ii. 384. When two wagons of muskets were intercepted at Chipping Wycombe in early June, Goodwin and Hampden wrote to the town’s mayor thanking him from the House, and Goodwin was one of those MPs appointed on 14 June to prepare the orders concerning the Buckinghamshire militia.82CJ ii. 607a-b, 609b, 623a; PJ iii. 21-2, 76. In replacing William 5th Baron Paget with Wharton as lord lieutenant of the county, Parliament was in effect appointing Goodwin to that position, given that Wharton’s standing within Buckinghamshire was still entirely dependent on his kinship with his father-in-law and that Wharton would tend to defer to Goodwin in matters concerning the militia.83G.F.T. Jones, Saw-Pit Wharton (Sydney, 1967), 59-60. On 24 June Goodwin presented the petition from the Buckinghamshire trained bands requesting this change to the Commons, and was then sent to secure the Lords’ approval to Wharton’s appointment.84PJ iii. 126-7; CJ ii. 638a; LJ v. 157b, 158a. Unsurprisingly, Goodwin was named as one of the new Buckinghamshire deputy lieutenants.85LJ v. 178b; Whitelocke, Diary, 131n. Goodwin’s closeness to Wharton also explains why he was the MP asked to thank Sir Rowland Wandesford for the money he had lent Parliament; Wandesford was Wharton’s father-in-law from his previous marriage.86CJ ii. 612b; CSP Dom. 1641-2, p. 335. On 5 July Goodwin was one of a number of Buckinghamshire MPs instructed to go back to the county to encourage the collections under the Propositions for money and plate.87CJ ii. 654b. When debating Leicestershire on 4 July, Goodwin made it clear that he thought lord lieutenants and their deputies in one county should be able to seek assistance from those in neighbouring counties.88PJ iii. 166-7.

But Goodwin did more than just raise money or encourage others to organise. Over the next few weeks he raised his own regiment of horse.89SP28/1a, ff. 104, 124, 126, 127, 128, 188; SP28/1c, f. 226; Bucks. Contributions for Ireland, 115-17. This formed the cavalry counterpart to the infantry regiment being raised by Hampden and those two regiments were to be the main contribution made by Buckinghamshire towards the army of Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, during the opening years of the war. Unlike some of the regimental colonels, Goodwin could at least claim to have some military experience, having served with the elector palatine in the mid-1620s.90CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 49. Officers who would serve under him in 1642 and 1643 included Richard Grenville*, Francis Ingoldsby*, Sir Robert Pye II* and Thomas Tyrrell*. He also raised his own cavalry troop.91SP28/1a, f. 196; SP28/3a, f. 256; SP28/5, ff. 152, 302; SP28/7, ff. 82, 431, 450; SP28/8, f. 97; SP28/9, f. 53. His regiment was mustered at Aylesbury on 11 August.92Bucks. Contributions for Ireland, 115. Before setting out, Goodwin updated his will, noting that, had it not been for ‘these divisions and distractions’, he would have proceeded with his plans to build almshouses at Waddesdon.93PROB11/192/8. He and his men first saw action later that month when they marched with 2nd Baron Brooke (Robert Greville†) as part of the force that set out to take control of Warwickshire. On the way he and Hampden captured several prominent royalists, including the 1st earl of Berkshire (Sir Thomas Howard†) and Sir John Curzon*, at Watlington.94His Majesties Proceedings in Northants. Glos. Wilts. And Warws. (1642), 5 (E.113.4); Exceeding Good News from Oxford-shire (1642), 2 (E.114.3). Goodwin escorted these prisoners to London and handed them over to Parliament on 16 August.95LJ v. 294b.

This brief return to Westminster allowed the Commons the following day to use him as their messenger to the Lords to recommend the appointment of one of the officers to serve in Ireland.96LJ v. 297b. He had re-joined his regiment by 28 August, when he and Hampden repulsed an attack at Southam by the 2nd earl of Northampton (Spencer Compton†).97A True Relation of the Skirmish in Southam Field (1642, E.114.25); A true Relation of the manner of taking of the Earl of Northampton (1642), 2-3 (E.115.14). Fifteen days later, acting on instructions from Parliament, he and his troops were the first parliamentarian forces to enter Oxford. It was then reported that, together with William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, and Hampden, he was marching towards Worcester.98CJ ii. 763a; PJ iii. 349; Wood, Life and Times, i. 60; A True Relation of a great Battell (1642, E.118.17). On the way there he and Hampden secured Coventry from attack by Prince Rupert.99Exceeding Joyfull Newes from Coventry (1642), sig. A2 (E.123.13). By 18 October he was outside Worcester, having made rendezvous with Essex’s main forces as they prepared to intercept the king’s advance from Shrewsbury towards London, and he then took part in the capture of Worcester on 20 October.100LJ v. 412b; Exceeding Joyfull Newes from the Lord Sey (1642), 4 (E.118.32). This makes it likely that his troops were among those that marched with Essex to engage the king in battle at Edgehill on 23 October.

By the end of 1642, with the king based at Oxford and with the royalists having pulled back from their attempted advance on London, the Thames valley had become the crucial battlefront between the two opposing armies. Goodwin’s estates at Upper Winchendon, lying between the fort at Brill and the major garrison town at Aylesbury, were in a particularly exposed location. He was reported as being at Upper Winchendon in late November.101Mems. of Prince Rupert, ii. 72. His occupation of Abingdon in early December was thus one of the first attempts to probe the defences of the towns encircling the university city that had become the king’s headquarters. As a bonus, he managed to capture the baggage train of Robert Dormer, 1st earl of Carnarvon. When sending the earl’s plate to London, Goodwin suggested to Speaker William Lenthall* that it might be a good idea to coin the plate and then use the money to pay the troops.102HMC Portland, i. 77. The Commons agreed to do so on 5 December.103CJ ii. 875b. Arrears of army pay were thus already an issue. The immediate threat of attack from the south was removed when Winchester was taken by Sir William Waller* on 12 December, with assistance from Goodwin. They then marched on to Portsmouth.104HMC 5th Rep. 60-1. But these were temporary distractions. Goodwin’s focus remained his own county. Oxfordshire’s new role as the centre of royalist military operations made it all the more vital to Parliament that they retain control of Buckinghamshire and, what is more, they would now have to fight in order to do so. Coordinating the various forces now based in the county had become crucial, which was why in early January 1643 Goodwin was given overall command of them.105Bodl. Carte 103, f. 106. Defending his county was to be his overriding aim during the remaining eight months of his life.

Goodwin’s duties in Buckinghamshire did not prevent him continuing to influence events at Westminster, although that influence was now more often than not applied via correspondence. The letter which he had intercepted and which implicated Sir Nicholas Crisp* as a royalist agent was passed on by him to Parliament. This was then printed.106CJ ii. 921b, 978b; Harl. 164, ff. 306v-307; A Lttr. of Dangerous Consequence (1643, E.91.3). That month, January 1643, he was also among the leading Buckinghamshire parliamentarians who wrote to the Commons reporting that they had halted money being sent to the royalists and that they had captured several royalist supporters.107CJ ii. 924a, 928b, 935b, 959b; HMC Portland, i. 88. Such communications with Parliament had the advantage of creating the impression, which was probably justified, that Goodwin’s appointment as commander had made an immediate and constructive impact. Visits by him to Westminster may now have been rare. However, discreet lobbying, either in person or by his friends on his behalf, secured a ruling from the Commons on 6 March approving the appointment of Edward Perkins as the vicar of Upper Winchendon.108CJ ii. 990a-b. Perkins was both Goodwin’s personal chaplain and the chaplain to his regiment.109A. Laurence, Parliamentary Army Chaplains, 1642-1651 (1990), 163.

On 27 January 1643 Goodwin attempted to take Brill but was rebuffed by the royalist defenders.110Mercurius Aulicus no. 4 (22-28 Jan. 1643), 52-3 (E.246.9). Otherwise his record of military successes continued. He was soon to lead another probing attack from Buckinghamshire across the Oxfordshire border to threaten Oxford, this time with the intention of distracting Prince Rupert as he prepared to set out against Waller. Moreover, together with Hampden, Goodwin helped repel the royalist attack on Aylesbury on 21 March. The two of them then made sure that the Commons was told of this success.111CJ iii. 14b; Harl. 164, f. 338; Two Lttrs. of great Consequence (1643), 6-8 (E.94.2). When Reading fell to the parliamentarian forces on 27 April, Goodwin, Hampden and Sir Philip Stapilton* again wrote to Parliament with the news.112An Exact Relation of the delivering up of Reading (1643, E.100.11). Two days later Goodwin and Stapilton appeared in the Commons in person to ask for money to pay their men.113Harl. 164, f. 381v. It could be argued that these were all no more than modest victories. But holding the parliamentarian front line and keeping up the pressure on Oxford was always going to be a hard slog.

Goodwin had at least one more major part to play at Westminster. Along with Clotworthy, he acted as the teller for the yeas on 15 May in the division on whether a substitute great seal should be produced for Parliament’s use.114CJ iii. 86b. This decision was an important landmark for Parliament and Goodwin’s role in it is the clearest possible indication that he fully supported the view that, given the circumstances, Parliament should not hesitate to appropriate whatever executive powers were required in its war against the king. Three days later either he or Hampden presented to the Commons the letter which had been written to them by Tyrrell and Sir John Witteronge* giving details of the royalist atrocities allegedly being committed in Buckinghamshire.115CJ iii. 91a; LJ vi. 52b-53a; The Copy of a Lttr. from Alisbury (1643), sig. A2-A3 (E.102.15).

Despite his claims that it was all God’s will, Hampden’s death on 24 June 1643 was a shattering blow for Goodwin. The two of them had made most effective partners, whether in Parliament or on the battlefield. Goodwin was with Hampden at Thame when he died and he then transported the body back to Great Hampden for its burial. A black ribbon was subsequently added by him to his battle standard in Hampden’s memory.116J. Adair, A Life of John Hampden (1976, repr. 2003), 242-3. But there was still the war to fight. On 2 June, just a week after Hampden’s funeral, Goodwin and Stapilton were fighting royalists in a skirmish near Buckingham.117CJ iii. 160b; LJ vi. 127a; Harl. 165, ff. 122. When Stapilton spoke in the Commons on 11 July about possible peace negotiations with the king, Sir Simonds D’Ewes* interpreted those remarks as evidence that Stapilton and Goodwin had become more hostile to that option. Goodwin, who had also returned from the front, then joined Stapilton in defending Essex against comments by Sir Henry Vane II*. However, D’Ewes noted that Goodwin said nothing at all, either for or against, any peace talks.118Harl. 165, ff. 123v-124.

Soon none of this would matter to Goodwin. At Clerkenwell on the night of 16 August 1643, he too died.119C142/777/104; Add. 27396, f. 172. Whether wounds he had gained in fighting for Parliament contributed to his death is not known. The Whartons would subsequently claim that, on his deathbed, Goodwin had declared that, if Parliament won the war, he hoped to recover the estates at Whaddon which he considered to have been unjustly confiscated many years before from his uncle, Thomas, 15th Baron Grey of Wilton, and which had since been granted to the dukes of Buckingham.120CJ vii. 102b. Goodwin’s body was removed to Wooburn where it was buried in the local church.121Langley, Hundred of Desborough, 463. Richard Browne II* took over the command of his regiment.122BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database.

With Goodwin’s death, the male line of the family became extinct and his estates passed to his daughter, Jane, and so to the Wharton family. He had left instructions that the trustees who held the lands at Bishops Wooburn were to sell them in order to pay off his debts. In accordance with the 1642 codicil, Lord Wharton founded six almshouses in Goodwin’s memory at Waddesdon endowed with £30 a year.123PROB11/192/8. Their construction had been completed by 1657.124C.O. Moreton, Waddesdon and Over Winchendon (1929), 155-6. But it must be said that, in all other respects, the public memory of Goodwin would be eclipsed by his friendship with Hampden. The two men were so close and their political careers so intertwined that it was probably inevitable that Goodwin would be overshadowed by the friend who was undeniably the more important figure in the Long Parliament and whose death was so much more dramatic. Yet in the Commons Hampden could not have hoped for a more effective ally, and Goodwin’s contribution as a soldier in their war against the king had been at least as great. No man had done more than Goodwin to secure Parliament’s hold on Buckinghamshire and he had done so when it had mattered most.