FINCH, Nathaniel (1588-1649), of Serjeants’ Inn, Chancery Lane.

Finch belonged to one of the most powerful legal families of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. His father, Sir Henry Finch†, was a noted lawyer and legal reformer, as well as a prominent puritan, and a controversial Hebraist and philosemite, whose book, The Worlds Great Restoration (1621) resulted in brief imprisonment in the Fleet. Sir Henry’s eldest son, John Finch†, knighted in 1625, was Speaker of the Commons in 1628, and became chief justice of the common pleas in 1634, and chief justice in the Ship Money trial. Elevated to the peerage as Baron Finch of Fordwich, he was made lord keeper in 1640.22HP Commons 1604-1629.

Nathaniel Finch was admitted to Gray’s Inn at the request of his father, in his capacity as reader, in August 1604.23G Inn Admiss. 107. Called to the bar in 1611, he was made an ancient in 1622 and became a bencher in 1635. Although far less prominent within the profession than either his father or brother, Finch nevertheless became a serjeant-at-law in 1637, at the instigation of his cousin Thomas Finch†, 2nd earl of Winchilsea, and Philip Herbert*, 4th earl Pembroke, and king’s serjeant, as his father had been, in May 1640.24Baker, Serjeants at Law, 439. From 1635 he was also a leading attorney on the Western assize circuit, probably because his brother presided over the proceedings.25Western Circuit Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 83-175. Friendships beyond the legal profession are revealed by his having been the dedicatee of John Ford’s romantic comedy, The Lovers Melancholy in 1629, but there is little evidence of his political views.26J. Ford, The Lovers Melancholy (1629), sig. A2. However, he was ostensibly loyal to the Caroline regime, and is known to have contributed £22 towards the bishops’ wars in March 1639.27SP16/538, f. 84. In February 1640 he was referred to as ‘her Majesty’s [i.e. Henrietta Maria’s] serjeant-at-law’.28C231/5, p. 367.

In the spring of 1640 Finch was returned to Parliament for Sandwich, on the basis of a strong family connection with the borough and his own four years as recorder, as his father had been before him. He mentioned his pretensions to a seat in correspondence with the borough in December 1639.29E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 8-9, 11-12. In February 1640 he secured a letter of recommendation from his brother, and himself wrote hopefully in early March.30E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 10-11; Sa/C4. By 19 March, however, numerous other candidates had appeared: Sir John Manwood*, with the backing of the lord warden of the cinque ports, Theophilus Howard, 2nd earl of Suffolk; Edward Nicholas†, with the support of Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland; and three men who stood on their own interest, Sir Thomas Palmer, Sir Thomas Peyton* and Edward Partheriche*. Finch, Manwood and Nicholas, were all made free of the borough, but the others were rejected by the townsmen, unaware that they were thereby disqualified from being chosen as burgesses. The withdrawal of Nicholas, and this technicality, enabled Finch and Manwood to secure the seats, despite a disturbance on the day of the election by godly supporters of Partheriche threatening a legal challenge to the result.31E. Kent RO, Sa/AC7, f. 365-7v; CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 561-2; Add. 33512, ff. 40-1. A delegation of disaffected townsmen presented a petition at Westminster, but no official investigation was launched, and Finch retained his seat.32Add. 33512, f. 42.

Finch made no recorded impression on the proceedings of the Short Parliament, although on 26 April the agents of the cinque ports in London wrote of Finch’s having offered legal advice regarding their petition to the Commons.33HMC 13th Rep. iv. 212. As recorder of Sandwich Finch continued to give counsel, although he proved unwilling or unable to attend the borough sessions, despite more than one request from the civic authorities in May and June.34Add. 33512, ff. 45, 47, 52; E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 36-7. Whether this adversely affected Finch’s prospects of securing re-election to the Long Parliament is unclear, but he certainly faced a more serious threat from those who had been prevented from standing in the spring. Finch was confirmed as a freeman on 28 October, on the day that Peyton and Partheriche were made free, alongside the court candidate, Lord Grandison. Whether Finch pursued his candidacy is uncertain, but he received no recorded votes in the poll which saw Peyton and Partheriche chosen.35E. Kent RO, Sa/AC7, f. 377; Sa/C1, p. 62.

Although not returned to the Long Parliament, Finch received fees as recorder of Sandwich until his death.36E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 76-8, 81-2, 115-18, 147-8, 172; Sa/C4; Sa/AC7, ff. 384v, 417; Sa/FAt39, pp. 5, 69, 137, 163, 227, 253. His correspondence with the borough reveals that his parliamentary duties as a serjeant-at-law permitted only rare visits to Kent in the early 1640s.37E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 76-7, 185-6. Nevertheless, it seems he gave behind-the-scenes legal advice at Westminster during the entire decade, his presence confirmed by the part he played as a messenger between the Lords and Commons.38PJ i. 94-467; ii. 144-290; iii. 66, 75. The impeachment and flight abroad of his brother left Finch vulnerable. The deposed lord keeper warned him from The Hague in August 1641 that he ‘must now put all upon the old shore, for my future obliging of thee or any other is past my hopes’, although the brothers remained in contact through the good offices of men like Sir John Lambe.39HMC Var. Coll. viii. 54; CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 96. After the outbreak of civil war, Finch was suspected of disaffection. In November 1642 Miles Corbet* informed the Commons that Finch had not subscribed financially to the cause, and had entertained Kentish delinquents and cavaliers, but he escaped imprisonment because of the parliamentary privilege accorded to him as a king’s serjeant.40Add. 18777, f. 63b. In June 1645 the Kent county committee attempted to secure his removal from the recordership of Sandwich, but the corporation refused to take any action.41E. Kent RO, Sa/AC8, f. 55.

Thereafter, Finch not only remained at liberty, but also served as a leading legal adviser to the Lords – perhaps as an ally of his sometime patron, the earl of Pembroke – until at least November 1648. His motivation for remaining at Westminster may have been connected with his attempts to secure possession of the family’s sequestered estates, about which he petitioned the Lords in May 1644. Peers seem to have been amenable to his claims, and on more than one occasion placing pressure on the Commons, until the lands were leased to Lady Finch in 1645.42LJ vi. 567b-568a, 577b, 629a. Finch’s formal duties, meanwhile, related to a number of high profile legal cases. On 9 May 1644, he was appointed to assist the committee with the ordinance concerning the former vicar-general, Sir Nathaniel Brent.43LJ vi. 545b. In June he was appointed to help search the chambers of William Laud at Lambeth Palace for material with which to construct the legal case against the archbishop, although he reported to the Lords that William Prynne* had taken at least some of the papers before they arrived.44LJ vi. 580a, 583b. In February 1645 the Lords ordered him, as steward of Sandwich, to examine one Francis Church regarding treasonable words against the king, while in May he produced a certificate relating to the legal rights of the countess of Sussex.45HMC 6th Rep. 46, 60; LJ vii. 164, 384.

More important was his role in the prosecution in 1646 of the future Leveller leader John Lilburne. Lilburne had been arrested on 11 June for the publication of The Just Mans Justification, in which he levelled accusations against the earl of Manchester, and following a dramatic appearance at the bar of the Lords. From his prison, Lilburne had appealed to friends in the Commons, and had secured the publication of The Freemans Freedom Vindicated. Finch was responsible for drawing up the articles exhibited against Lilburne on 10 July, which charged him with scandals against the earls of Manchester and Stamford, and with having published pamphlets accusing the Lords of tyranny.46HMC 6th Rep. 126; LJ viii. 429-30. Following another bravura performance by Lilburne before the Lords on 11 July, in response to which he was fined £2,000 and imprisoned in the Tower, Finch was appointed to the high-powered legal team entrusted with preparing the judgement in Lilburne’s case, which was produced on 17 September.47LJ viii. 433a, 494. On 13 November 1648 Finch was involved in another high-profile case, having been ordered to prepare draft ordinances for banishing the marquess of Hamilton and other royalists.48LJ x. 587a

Finch drafted a brief will on 15 December 1648, shortly after Pride’s Purge.49PROB11/208/600. He died in May 1649 and was buried in London.50St Dunstan-in-the-West par. reg. His widow and executrix, Elizabeth, later married the leading Kentish royalist and military commander Sir John Boys of Bonnington.51Berry, Pedigrees of Kent, 441; ‘Sir John Boys’, Oxford DNB.