FINCH, John (d. 1642), of the Inner Temple, London.

The Finches were a powerful Kentish family, long established at Eastwell, near Ashford.8Vis. Kent 1619 (Harl. Soc. xlii, 1898), 67-8. Among many who had sat in Parliament were this Member’s great-grandfather, Sir Thomas Finch† (d. 1563) and his grandfather, Sir Moyle Finch† (d. 1615).9HP Commons 1558-1603. However, his father, John Finch I†, an Inner Temple lawyer, was a younger son. Although he married a daughter of Thomas Walker, chief usher of the exchequer, his career could not compare with those of his brothers, especially Thomas Finch†, 1st earl of Winchilsea, and Sir Heneage Finch†, recorder of London and sometime Speaker of the Commons, or of his cousin, Sir John Finch†, lord keeper under Charles I.10HP Commons 1604-1629.

The early life of John Finch junior is hard to distinguish from that of his kinsmen and namesakes. His mother (a sister of Clement Walker*) died in September 1624 and was buried ‘out of Sir Heneage Finch’s house’ in St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield.11St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield, par. reg. His father began to make a will in August 1628, dividing an inheritance charged on lands in Yorkshire, Sussex and Canterbury (as specified in an indenture of 1622), between two sons, John and his younger brother William. During their minority the brothers were to have the benefit of maintenance promised by their grandmother, Elizabeth, suo iure countess of Winchilsea (d. 1634); at 21 John Finch was to have an annuity of £250, and (once debts and funeral charges had been paid) the residue of £3,500.12PROB11/158/222. The will, signed on 19 September 1630, was proved on 25 September, the day before John Finch senior was buried, in accordance with his wishes, beside his late wife at St Bartholomew.13St Bartholomew the Great par. reg. The executors who acted with such promptness were the deceased’s brothers Sir Heneage and Francis Finch†, and cousin Thomas Twysden. It was evidently through the influence of the latter two, both members of the Inner Temple, that John junior was admitted there in May 1632. At this date he was probably still not yet a teenager, and there is no indication that he was ever called to the bar, but he was described as being of that inn of court at his death ten years later.14I. Temple database.

Family interest also probably secured Finch’s election to the Short Parliament in 1640, as burgess for Winchelsea. In the early years of the century his grandfather, his uncle Thomas and his father had all at some point represented the town. Lord Keeper Finch and Francis Finch recommended John to the borough on 25 February, while the 4th earl of Dorset (Sir Edward Sackville†) also appears to have lent his support. Finch was returned on 11 March, probably without a contest, alongside another court nominee, the monopolist Sir Nicholas Crisp*.15E. Suss. RO, WIN58, ff. 47v, 49-49v. There is no recorded evidence of his activity during the brief parliamentary session.

That autumn the pair were re-elected to the Long Parliament, presumably upon the same interest.16E. Suss. RO, WIN58, f. 53v. However, Finch’s family faced considerable hostility in the House. Less than three weeks into the session a privy councillor, Sir Thomas Rowe*, presented a petition from Kentish MP Sir Michael Livesay* alleging that he had been threatened by Clement Finch, (another) John Finch and Charles Finch for ‘causing a recusant to take the oath of allegiance, whereupon the ‘three Finches’ were sent for as delinquents (23 Nov.).17Procs. LP i. 247, 249, 250, 252, 255, 258, 259. From 8 December Lord Keeper Finch faced impeachment proceedings because of his role as Speaker during the turbulent events in the Commons in 1629, and his later participation in the prosecution of William Prynne* and in the defence of Ship Money. On 18 December, making his first appearance in records of proceedings, John Finch, this Member, sought the reading of a letter sent to him by the lord keeper requesting in ‘the grace of his own words’ a hearing before the House. While John Pym and William Cage were prepared to entertain it, others, including William Strode I, were not. John Finch was permitted to report the content in his own words, and apparently did so forcefully, but to little avail.18Northcote Notebook, 84; Procs. LP i. 658, 660, 662-3. Finch moved again the next day that his kinsman be given an opportunity ‘to speak for himself’, occasioning, according to Sir Simonds D’Ewes, ‘a long and tedious dispute’.19Procs. LP i. 670, 672. Persistence finally had its reward when on 21 December yet another motion from Finch secured the House’s consent for the lord keeper to make a speech at the bar.20Procs. LP ii. 5, 7.

Before the end of the year the lord keeper fled to the continent, but Finch’s parliamentary activity continued to relate to the interests of his family. His first committee nomination on 27 February 1641 was to discuss legislation enabling land sales to pay the debts of his late uncle the earl of Winchilsea.21CJ ii. 94a. On 2 April he was nominated by Pym to be a witness at the trial of Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford, presumably on the assumption that he would testify for the prosecution. 22CJ ii. 115b; Procs. LP iii. 315. Indeed, Finch was not listed amongst the ‘Straffordians’ who opposed the subsequent act of attainder, but the fact that he was knighted by the king between then and 3 May, when he took the Protestation, suggests he actually adopted an alternative position.23CJ ii. 132b.

Thereafter, Finch made little visible impact on parliamentary proceedings. As the Commons began discussing moves to bar bishops from voting in House of Lords, Sir Roger Twysden (a kinsman) recorded that on 10 May Finch sought to assure him that there would be little support in the Commons for root and branch reform of episcopacy.24‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Journal’, Arch. Cant. i. 197. It seems likely, however, that Finch’s grasp of the mood at Westminster would have been undermined by his absences from the House. On 17 July and 18 December – his next two appearances in the Journal – the Commons granted him leave to go to the country, on the motions respectively of Sir John Hotham and Sir Hugh Cholmeley.25CJ ii. 214b, 348b; Procs. LP v. 687; D’Ewes (C), 310.

Finch was present on 13 June 1642, when he undertook to bring two horses for the use of Parliament.26PJ iii. 475. On 9 August he received what was only his second committee appointment, to execute parliamentary orders relating to the militia in Northamptonshire.27CJ ii. 711a This suggests that Finch was still perceived to be supportive of the parliamentarian cause, but he was visibly a moderate. Five days after the king raised his standard at Nottingham on 22 August, he was a teller with Sir Robert Harley – in itself an indication that his standing in the House might have been higher than otherwise meets the eye – against holding a vote on whether his fellow Kentishman, Sir John Culpeper, a future royalist, should be disabled. They secured a majority, defeating two leading radicals, Henry Marten and William Strode I.28CJ ii. 739b. However, by some time in the late autumn Finch had evidently decided to withdraw from Parliament. Shortly after 28 October, when he was named to a committee to receive despatches from MPs in the localities, he was killed by a fall from his horse, abruptly terminating plans to travel abroad with Sir Roger Twysden.29‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Journal’, Arch. Cant. ii (1859), 193; CJ ii. 825a. Administration of his estate was granted first, on 2 December, to Thomas Twysden, and then on 12 December to Twysden and Francis Finch, as his next of kin.30Duncan, ‘Kentish administrations’, 34.

On 11 February 1643 the Commons ordered a new election to find a replacement for Finch, although none was held until the autumn of 1645.31CJ ii. 963a; iv. 263a; E. Suss. RO, WIN58, f. 83. In the meantime Finch’s executors experienced difficulties over his estate because of a dispute with William Grey†, 1st Baron Grey of Warke. The matter was eventually brought to the attention of the Lords in December 1645, although the outcome is unclear.32HMC 6th Rep. 87; LJ viii. 41b; PA, MP15/12/45.