ROGERS, Richard (1611-43), of Bryanston, Dorset.

The Rogers family had become established in Dorset as early as the fifteenth century, and by the beginning of the seventeenth century had acquired extensive connections with the nobility and greater gentry of the locality. Richard Rogers’s aunt had married Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp (and lord of the blood royal), and their children, the 2nd earl of Hertford and Sir Francis Seymour*, were therefore his first cousins; his mother was a Hopton; his father’s first wife was a sister of John Browne I* of Frampton; and his half-brother, Sir Edward Rogers, married a daughter of the future royalist, Sir John Strangways*.15Hutchins, Dorset, i. 250; Vis. Dorset 1623, 79. Rogers’s own marriages helped to reinforce these connections. His first wife was related to the Hoptons, and his second, whom he had married before 1641, was a cousin of the 2nd earl of Warwick, and thus distantly related to the countess of Hertford.16Hutchins, Dorset, i. 250; Morant, Essex i. 61. The youthful Rogers mixed easily with other prominent Dorset gentlemen at the regular bowling matches held at Handley, which attracted such eminences as the Hon. Henry Hastings (brother of the earl of Huntingdon), Sir Gerard Naper* and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper*. But rank brought envy as well as prestige. Ashley Cooper complained of Rogers that ‘the earls of Hertford had married into his family, which filled his sails with no small vanity’, and his snobbery towards other county families caused them ‘to apprehend him as one who expected to command us all, and valued himself to the court as already doing so’.17Christie, Shaftesbury i. appx. i. p. xiii; Bayley, Dorset, 32.

Resentment of Rogers’s pretensions was no doubt fuelled by his ready cooperation with the government during the personal rule of Charles I. Although he was distrained for refusing to accept a knighthood in the early 1630s, he was appointed sheriff of Dorset in 1636-7, at the age of 25, and soon proved himself a conscientious collector of Ship Money.18E407/35, ff. 47-9; List of Sheriffs, 39. Resistance to Ship Money was increasing at this time, and Rogers bore the brunt of opposition. In February and March 1637 he was forced to impose his own rates on the corporate towns after 40 days of fruitless negotiations to fix a mutually acceptable levy, and in May collection was further hindered by a dispute in the Sherborne Division.19CSP Dom. 1636-7, pp. 419, 542; 1637, pp. 150-1, 168. In the summer of 1637 Rogers was faced by a tax strike, led by some of the most prominent county gentry, including Denis Bond*, Sir Walter Erle*, and his own relative, John Browne I*.20SP16/319/89. Despite local acrimony, Rogers seems to have taken a firm line. His zeal certainly impressed Francis Cottington†, Lord Cottington, who told Nicholas in September 1637 that Rogers had collected all but £200 of the money due, and that his actions in distraining Erle and Browne had ‘reduced the rest to conformity’. Rogers, he concluded, was ‘a very good sheriff, and heartily affected to his majesty’s service’.21CSP Dom. 1637, p. 400.

Despite the unpopularity of the tax, the Ship Money disputes did not diminish Rogers’ local standing in Dorset, and in March 1640 he was elected as knight of the shire for the Short Parliament, with 942 votes - significantly more than the 800 votes cast for the other knight of the shire, George Lord Digby*.22Dorset RO, D/BOC/22, f. 52. As with Digby, Rogers’ election probably reflected not only his own social standing, but also his ties of kinship with prominent opposition figures such as the Seymours and the Strangways. The example of such men did not, however, encourage Rogers to take an active part in the Short Parliament. Cottington’s estimation of his allegiance was soon proved correct, however. In July 1640 he was engaged in sending horses and providing carts for the second Bishops’ War – a cause generally opposed by other Dorset gentlemen.23CSP Dom. 1640, p. 453.

In the following October Rogers’ continued loyalty to the crown did not hinder his election as knight of the shire (again in tandem with Lord Digby) in the Long Parliament elections. His activities in the early months of the session suggest that he was to some extent swayed by Seymour and Strangways and other critics of the crown, and he was named to committees to scrutinize such abuses as the new Laudian Canons (16 Dec.) and the activities of the customs farmers (24 Feb.).24CJ ii. 52a, 92a. Rogers’ main concerns lay elsewhere, however. He was particularly concerned to speed the disbandment of both armies in the north of England: twice, in November 1640 and March 1641 he put up bonds of £1,000 to secure parliamentary loans for this purpose.25D’Ewes (N), 52, 451n. On 20 May 1641 he was named to a committee to attend a conference with the Lords on the question of disbandment.26CJ ii. 152a. In doing so he was perhaps striving to prevent local disorder, which would also explain his involvement in committees to guard against recusants and the implications of the army plot. He had taken the Protestation on 4 May and four days later echoed Sir Walter Erle’s fears as to the security of Dorset itself, for ‘if the French come, by reason of the want of powder’.27CJ ii. 134a; Procs. LP iv. 274. On 24 July he was named to the committee on the bill concerning the trained bands and provision of ammunition to prevent any further unrest.28CJ ii. 223a. Rogers was not above causing disorder of his own, however. In August 1641 he fought a duel at Paddington with Sir Edward Bayntun*. According to Edward Nicholas†, it was ‘Mr Rogers’ fortune to give Sir Edward … so dangerous a hurt in his body that it was reported he was dead’.29Nicholas Pprs. i. 5-6. No reason for the quarrel was given, but as Bayntun had fallen out with Sir Francis Seymour over the collection of Ship Money, Rogers may have been defending his family honour.30CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 232-3.

Bayntun survived, but the duel may have encouraged Rogers to keep a low profile during the next few months. He reappeared in the parliamentary record only on 17 January 1642, when he was named to a committee to meet with the Lords to frame a petition to protest to the king about the attempt to arrest the Five Members.31CJ ii. 384a. Rogers’ involvement in this may have been provoked by growing concern at reports of Catholic plots. On 4 February Rogers and William Constantine were sent as messengers to the lord keeper for a warrant to administer the oaths of supremacy and allegiance to all Catholics in Dorset.32CJ ii. 411b; PJ i. 285. The security of the county from Catholic and royalist plotters was an essential part of the Dorset petition presented to the Commons, through the agency of Rogers, on 19 February.33PJ i. 416. In April he was added to the commission against scandalous ministers in Dorset, and also brought in a bill for the education of Catholic children as Protestants.34CJ ii. 516a, 523b. On 13 and 14 April Rogers was sent as a messenger to the Lords to desire a conference concerning the decision of his relatives, the 3rd earl of Essex and the 1st earl of Holland, not to attend the king at York.35CJ ii. 525b, 527a-b. Despite his connections with the opposition peers and his fears of plots and popery, by this time Rogers had evidently started to have second thoughts about Parliament’s activities. Alarmed, perhaps, by the illegality of the militia ordinance, Rogers was granted leave of absence from the Commons on 22 April, and returned to Dorset.36CJ ii. 538a. It is probable that Rogers was acting in conjunction with his cousin, the marquess of Hertford, at this time. Both Hertford and his brother, Lord Seymour, had also left London in April, preparatory to joining the king, and it is telling that Rogers stayed with the marchioness of Hertford at Essex House on 21 April, the day before his own departure.37CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 312; G.A. Harrison, ‘Royalist Organisation in Wiltshire, 1642-6’ (PhD thesis, London Univ. 1963), 61-3; Longleat, Misc. Coll. 26, f. 24.

Once in Dorset, Rogers soon became an open supporter of the royalist cause. He was named to the king’s commission of array in June 1642.38Northants RO, FH133, unfol. He was denounced by Parliament for his ‘ill service’ in Dorset on 20 August, suspended from the House of Commons on 2 September, disabled from sitting on 12 September and excluded from pardon a few days later.39PJ iii. 311, 446; CJ ii. 750a, 762a; Add. 18777, f. 7. Rogers was able to bring the full weight of his local influence to the service of the king’s cause. When Hertford arrived at Sherborne Castle in September, Rogers ‘came in to him that afternoon, with a thousand foot of the trained bands of Dorsetshire’, forcing the parliamentarians to withdraw to Yeovil.40Bellum Civile, 16. Rogers went on to become involved in the neutralist negotiations between groups of royalists and moderate parliamentarians in the south west conducted during March 1643. He and Sir John Strangways met their cousin, John Browne I, and another relative, Sir Thomas Trenchard*, in a plan which, beneath its veneer of mutual defence, would have materially benefited the king.41Bayley, Dorset, 63. Soon afterwards, Rogers died, aged 32. He was buried at Blandford Forum, Dorset, on 4 June 1643.42Hutchins, Dorset, i. 264. Whether he died of illness or in action is uncertain, but his death came as a bitter blow to the royalists of the south west. The 1st earl of Clarendon (Edward Hyde*) later celebrated Rogers as

a gentleman of a rare temper and excellent understanding; who, besides that he had a great interest with the marquess [of Hertford], being his cousin-german ... had a wonderful great influence upon the county of Dorset, for which he served as one of the knights in Parliament, and had so well designed all things there, that Poole and Lyme, two port towns in that county, which gave the king afterwards much trouble, if he had lived had been undoubtedly reduced; but by his death all those hopes were cancelled, the surviving gentry of that shire being (how well affected soever) so unactive that the progress that was that year made there to the king’s advantage owed little to their assistance.43Clarendon, Hist. iii. 76-7.

While Clarendon’s assessment of Rogers’ influence is perhaps exaggerated, his death certainly deprived the royal cause of a wealthy contributor to its coffers. The records of the parliamentary Committee for Compounding, which was still trying to unravel rival claims over the estate in the early 1650s, reveal that Rogers possessed substantial holdings in London, Essex, Kent and Hampshire, as well as in Somerset and Dorset.44CCC 2873-4. On his deathbed, Rogers tried to assure his wife would she would receive her full jointure entitlements against his heirs general. In drawing up the will, he probably relied on the legal advice of Richard King* of the Inner Temple, who witnessed the document.45PROB11/194/72. Although he had no male children, Rogers’s two surviving daughters further extended the family’s aristocratic connections: Elizabeth married Viscount Mansfield, the eldest son of the 1st duke of Newcastle, and after his death married the duke of Richmond and Lennox; Rogersa married Henry Belasyse†, son of John Belasyse*, 1st Baron Belasyse of Worlaby.46Hutchins, Dorset, i. 250; HP Commons 1660-90.