SEYLIARD, John (c.1615-67), of Delaware, Brasted, Kent.

Seyliard could trace his Kentish ancestry to reign of King John, and by the seventeenth century there were representatives of a number of the family’s many branches living in close proximity, and sharing the same Christian names.12Misc. Gen. et Her. ser. 2, i. 7-20. This means that Seyliard, like his father, an active local commissioner and justice of the peace, is sometimes difficult to distinguish from kinsmen and contemporaries.13‘Extracts par. reg. Edenbridge’, 288, 289; Chiddingstone par. reg. The most prominent of these was probably his uncle – from whom he was sometimes distinguished as John Seyliard junior – who was a prominent local lawyer, and county feodary by the mid-1630s.14‘Extracts par. reg. Edenbridge’, 236; PROB11/211/260; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 449; 1636-7, p. 168; SP16/334, f. 60. Our MP is also to be distinguished from a neighbour and almost exact contemporary, John Seyliard of Penshurst (d. 1667).15‘Extracts par. reg. Edenbridge’, 289; PROB11/327, f. 242.

Seyliard played little part in county politics during the civil wars, although this may be attributed to his relative youth, and also to the prominence of his father, who was a zealous local parliamentarian. Nevertheless, those reformers in the region who supported the candidacy of Sir Edward Dering* in the county election for the Short Parliament felt able to rely upon the support of ‘little Seyliard’, even if it is not known whether such support materialised.16Stowe 743, f. 140; J. Peacey, ‘Tactical organization in a contested election’, Parl. Politics and Elections, 1604-1648 ed. C.R. Kyle (Cam. Soc. ser. 5, xvii), 255. Likewise, as the county divided in the spring of 1642, Seyliard lent his weight to those who sought to undermine the influence of the proto-royalists. With his father, Seyliard was summoned to Westminster in mid-April as a witness regarding the Kentish petition promoted by Dering, and he subsequently signed the parliamentarian petition produced in response, under the guidance of Sir Michael Livesay*.17CJ ii. 526b; PA, Main Pprs. 5 May 1642. After the outbreak of hostilities, however, Seyliard’s role in county affairs was extremely limited, and although he was made a commissioner for sequestrations in late 1644, there is little evidence of his participation in the parliamentarian administration. He became a militia captain, at an unknown date before 1650, and in the aftermath of the royalist rising in the summer of 1648 he also made a few appearances on the county committee, and was nominated to the militia commission.18CJ iii. 689a; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 507; Bodl. Tanner 57, ff. 208, 457.

Having succeeded to the family estate on the death of his father in February 1650, Seyliard assumed more public responsibilities, in conformity with the republican regime.19PROB11/211/260. He was named to the assessment commission by the Rump in May 1649, added to the commission of the peace the following December, confirmed as a militia commissioner in May 1650, and in June 1650 received his commission as a lieutenant-colonel of the militia.20CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 164, 507. He saw service in Surrey during the period of Charles Stuart’s attempted invasion in 1651, but was probably demobilised shortly after the order to return to Kent on 6 September, once the royalist threat had passed, to resume his duties as a local magistrate.21CSP Dom. 1651, p. 412; 1658-9, p. 29; SP18/181, ff. 79, 81; ‘Extracts par. reg. Edenbridge’, 292.

It is probable that Seyliard’s election to the first protectoral Parliament in 1654 was arranged by Kentish opponents of the Cromwellian regime who effectively controlled the county seats. Despite this, he was permitted to take his seat by the council, perhaps in the knowledge that he was unlikely to be a particularly active or vocal critic of the government. Indeed, he is not known to have made any contribution to debates, and was named to just one committee, on 12 December, to consider the enumeration of heresies to be included in the new Government Bill.22CJ vii. 399b. Clearer evidence of his disaffection emerges in relation to the elections for the 1656 Parliament, to which he was once again returned as knight of the shire.23SP18/144, f. 111. On this occasion, Seyliard was prevented from sitting, although this decision was subsequently reversed, sometime before 23 December.24CJ vii. 425a, 473b. On that day Seyliard received the first of only two committee appointments, both relating to private bills, one of which involved the possible divorce of another Kentish gentleman, Thomas Scott of Scotshall.25CJ vii. 473b, 505b.

Thereafter, Seyliard’s career is obscure. He remained active in local administration into the Restoration, although it is uncertain whether he retained his position within the local militia beyond the spring of 1660 or sought re-election to Parliament.26Add. 42596, ff. 8, 8v, 9v. He was elevated to the baronetcy in 1661, but played no further role in public affairs until his death in December 1667, apparently without male heir, but with wealth sufficient to provide portions totalling £4,500 for his four living daughters.27CB; PROB11/326/322.