SKYNNER, Augustine (c.1594-1672), of Totesham Hall, West Farley, Kent.

Skynner’s family were relative newcomers to Kent, his father having purchased Totesham Hall in the early years of James I’s reign.33Hasted, Kent, v. 142. Their ancestors had been, as their kinsmen and namesakes remained, Devon clothiers.34Vis. Kent 1619, 122; PROB11/165/636; PROB11/185/428. Despite being the heir to a younger son, Augustine Skynner junior – who spelled his name thus – received a gentleman’s education, at Oxford and the Middle Temple, although he ended his legal studies in 1614 without being called to the bar, perhaps upon his marriage to the daughter of a London merchant.35SP16/257, f. 194; MTR ii. 544, 570, 584. Skynner made little impression on the Kentish administration before 1640; his only appointment was to a sewers commission in 1628. That he was overlooked thereafter may have reflected tension within the county, since his involvement in attempts to improve the navigability of the Medway in the years which followed brought him into conflict with both the sewers commissioners and eventually the privy council.36Cent. Kent Stud. U1115/O14/5-7; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 480; 1633-4, p. 385; SP16/257, f. 194. By the end of the decade Skynner had also antagonised the government by his opposition to Ship Money, and was summoned to appear at the council board in September 1639.37CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 493, 532.

There is no indication that Skynner sought election to either the Short or Long Parliaments in 1640, although he became an active justice of the peace after his nomination to the county bench in December of that year, and seems also to have become a militia captain.38Cent. Kent Stud. U47/47/O1, p. 16; PJ ii. 102. He eventually secured a seat in the election called to secure a replacement for Sir Edward Dering*, following the latter’s expulsion from the House in February 1642. Skynner was evidently returned with ease, ‘little opposition being made against him’, despite the presence of a rival, one Mr Spencer, who forced a poll.39Bodl. Rawl. D.141, ff. 20-1; Stowe 744, f. 13. Skynner took his seat on or before 2 March, when he was added to the committee regarding religious innovations, and he soon signalled his support for the reformers in the Commons by presenting information to the House about the conservative Kentish petition organised by Dering.40CJ ii. 465b; PJ ii. 102. His opposition to this petition evidently surprised men like Sir Roger Twysden*, who later claimed that Skynner had promised to present the petition to Parliament, ‘seeming to approve what had passed’.41‘Sir Roger’s Twysden’s narrative’, i. 204-5. However, in May 1642, Skynner helped secure an audience in the Commons for those responsible for a counter-petition from within the county, led by Thomas Blount*.42PJ ii. 278. In the weeks which followed, Skynner sought to implement the Militia Ordinance, offered to provide horses, and helped in negotiations with the City of London over a loan for Parliament.43CJ ii. 610a, 623b, 684b; PJ iii. 47, 76.

Skynner was preoccupied by Kentish affairs in the summer of 1642, not least in securing the attendance of the county’s representatives, and such business took him away from the Commons on more than one occasion.44CJ ii. 636a, 685b; PJ iii. 116. Named to a delegation to attend the assizes in July, he quickly became embroiled in a controversy which had profound implications for the role and duties of MPs.45CJ ii. 686b. Local royalists who sought to present a petition to the king as well as demands to Parliament, issued ‘certain instructions’ for their knights of the shire, which Skynner refused to accept. It was later alleged that the instructions ‘were after thrown unto him’, and that their authors, ‘being indeed full of resentment, did require Mr Augustine Skynner, as their servant, to certify the House of Commons there was no ground for such an information as had been made to the county’ regarding them. They also required him ‘to offer their humble advice for the settling the distractions of the times’.46‘Sir Roger Twysden’s narrative’, ii (1859), 186-7; Cent. Kent Stud. U47/47/O1, p. 21. This attempt to give Skynner precise instructions, which soon appeared in print, was evidently resented by Parliament.47Cent. Kent Stud. U120/Z16/2, pp. 3-6; Humble Petition of the Commons of Kent (1642), 3-6 (E.112.26); CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 314; SP16/490, ff. 56-7; CJ ii. 700b.

Although Skynner was despatched to Chester in early August, in order to oversee the despatch of arms and provisions to Ireland, he quickly returned to Westminster and to Kentish affairs, perhaps prompted by his nomination as a deputy lieutenant on 17 August.48CJ ii. 709a, 724a. During the opening months of the war he was involved in local military preparations, the arrest of known delinquents, the collection of money, and the gathering of intelligence, as well as in responding to local petitions, both in Kent and the Commons.49CJ ii. 737b, 745a, 756a, 760b, 820b, 851b; Cent. Kent Stud. U522/A3, f. 11; ‘Papers relating to proceedings in Kent, 1642-46’, 2-5, 7. Thereafter, Skynner’s local duties kept him from Parliament almost entirely between November 1642 and the spring of 1644, during which time he played a prominent role in attempts to secure an apologetic declaration from Dering’s pen, as well as in the early work of local sequestrators.50‘Pprs. relating to proceedings in the county of Kent, 1642-6’, 18, 22, 35; Stowe 184, ff. 71, 76; HMC Portland, i. 702, 708; Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 154, 178-9; SP28/210B, unfol.; ‘Letters of Thomas Stanley’, ed. C.S. Robertson, Arch. Cant. xvii (1867), 367; SP20/1, f. 49; Add. 5494, f. 262; Add. 42596, f. 9. He was also involved in the arrest of prominent county figures like Twysden, and took a hardline position regarding his fellow Kentish MPs whose support for Parliament was merely lukewarm, and against the preaching of malignant clergymen in the region.51Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 161-2, 192-3, 197-8; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s narrative’, iii. 114, 117. Apart from appearing in the Commons in order to take the covenants of 1643, Skynner generally attended the House merely in relation to military affairs and local business, not least in the wake of the Kentish rising in the summer of 1643.52CJ iii. 113b, 118a, 125a, 174b, 195a, 268b, 335b. In the aftermath of the insurrection, he became an assiduous member of the county committee, and a zealous sequestrator of local delinquents.53Bodl. Tanner 62, ff. 186, 222, 275, 561-v, 573; Canterbury Cathedral Archives, U85/35/7; Cent. Kent Stud. U120/C4/2; U522/A3, f. 12v; U455/O4 ; ‘Pprs. relating to proceedings in Kent, 1642-46’, 40-1; SP28/210B, unfol.; Add. 33512, f. 89; SP28/235, unfol.; FSL, G.c.13; Stowe 184, f. 99.

As the royalist threat in Kent subsided, Skynner was able to devote more time to Westminster politics, and he attended the House fairly frequently between the summer of 1644 and the autumn of 1645. During this period he retained an overriding interest in Kentish affairs, and was regularly involved in preparing, despatching and delivering instructions to the county committee, rather than merely implementing the orders of others.54CJ iii. 573b, 655b, 708b, 720b, 733a; iv. 41a; v. 6b, 267b; CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 291, 373, 433, 439; HMC 6th Rep. 21. In October 1645 he became involved in questioning the 2nd earl of Warwick’s (Robert Rich†) nomination of his son, Charles Rich*, in the Sandwich recruiter election.55CJ iv. 311a. A personal connection to a local minister, Francis Taylor of Yalding, probably explains his involvement in thanking him for a sermon delivered to the House later in the same month.56CJ iv. 326a. Skynner’s interests were not confined to Kentish affairs, however, and during this period he was also named to committees on wider issues relating to the management of the war effort, in terms of the size of the army and the provisioning of the navy, and their financial support, not least as a member of the excise committee, which he had joined in June 1645. Skynner was also involved in committees relating to the structures of local administration, as well as complaints regarding the management of sequestrations and the conduct of the army.57CJ iii. 430b, 467b, 523b; iv. 28b, 107a, 203a, 244b, 262a.

Skynner’s support for a vigorous war effort, and a stern attitude towards neuters and delinquents, made him an obvious ally for the nascent Independent faction. He partnered Sir Arthur Hesilrige as teller in a vote against raising a loan for the Gloucester garrison on 20 June 1644; he was chosen for a committee to consider a petition against Colonel Crawford, which formed part of the row between Oliver Cromwell* and Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, on 24 January 1645; and it may also be significant that he was chosen to oversee plans for the funeral of the countess of Dorset, governess of the royal children.58CJ iii. 536a; iv. 28b, 227a. Although not a leading figure in the Commons after the end of the first civil war, Skynner was nevertheless involved in preparing the visitation of Oxford University, and again revealed his Independent sympathies on 8 July 1647, when he was nominated to the committee chaired by John Bulkeley* to consider complaints against MPs. Following the Presbyterian coup at Westminster of late July, Skynner was among joined those MPs who took refuge with the army and he signed their declaration on 4 August, pledging support for Sir Thomas Fairfax* and his men.59CJ iv. 404a, 589a, 594b, 595b, 598b, 599a, 608a, 625a; v. 6b, 86a, 238a. Skynner returned to Parliament after the New Model army’s ‘march on London’ in early August, although thereafter rising tension in Kent probably kept him from the Commons, and his absence was excused.60CJ v. 267b, 330a, 332b, 366b. In the wake of the Christmas disturbances in Canterbury, Skynner resumed his duties on the county committee, and his parliamentary activity in the following spring largely reflected his preoccupation with the defence of his county. On 20 April he was granted custody of Bromley Manor, formerly owned by the bishop of Rochester, which he had purchased a few weeks before; and on 15 May he was one of the MPs ordered to draft a letter to the Kent committee, thanking them for their efforts against the rebels at Canterbury.61Bodl. Tanner 58, ff. 645, 653; CJ v. 538a, 559a, 574a.

Skynner made no impression on parliamentary proceedings between late May and early December 1648, although he returned to the Commons shortly after Pride’s Purge, to commence his most active period in the House.62Clarke Pprs. ii. 14; HMC Portland, i. 459; Bodl. Nalson VII, f. 50; SP28/234, unfol.; CJ vi. 98b. Appointed a commissioner for compounding before even taking the dissent, on 6 January 1649 Skynner was named to the high court of justice for the trial of Charles I, although he declined to participate, and resumed his seat only after formally conforming himself to the Rump regime on 28 February, almost a month after the king’s execution.63CJ vi. 99a, 102a, 152a; LJ x. 633a; A. and O. Thereafter, he became an active servant of the republic, not least as a zealous commissioner for compounding.64SP46/108, ff. 112, 123, 129, 136, 138, 139a, 139b; Eg. 2978, f. 255; Bodl. Rawl. A.117, f. 21; SP23/228, ff. 85, 101, 261. He was named to a further 36 committees before the dissolution, including those dealing with assessments (8 Mar. 1649, 18 Feb. 1650), composition fines (21 Feb. 1650), the bill for pardon and oblivion (4 Mar. 1651), regulating the universities (22 May 1651) and the additional bill for the sale of forfeited estates (3 Dec. 1651).65CJ vi. 159a, 202a, 237a, 251b, 257a, 267a-b, 270a, 275a, 325b, 368a, 369b, 418a, 430b, 507b, 544b, 562b, 577b, 598b; vii. 46b, 49b, 93a, 155b; SP24/10, ff. 14v, 122. He was also involved in framing legislation to establish parliamentary commissioners in Ireland (11 Dec. 1650) and to assert the rights of the commonwealth over Scotland following the victory at Worcester (9 Sept. 1651).66CJ vi. 534b; vii. 14a, 15a. During this period, Skynner was appointed to a number of important executive bodies such as the committee for removing obstructions from the sale of bishops’ lands (20 June 1649), the Army Committee (4 Feb. 1650), the Committee for Plundered Ministers (4 July 1650).67CJ vi. 161b, 201a, 357b, 558a; Bodl. Rawl. A.224, f. 96-v; LPL, Add. Commonwealth Records 1, ff. 76, 84.

When it came to religion, it seems that Skynner favoured the centre ground, avoiding both a rigid Presbyterianism and unrestricted Congregationalism. This is suggested his appointment not only to committees on bills for the maintenance of ministers (26 Apr. 1649) and presentation to livings (8 Feb. 1650), but also to a committee to review the Presbyterian church settlement to make sure it accommodated ‘tender consciences’ (6 Aug. 1649).68CJ vi. 196a, 275b, 359a. Similarly, although he was named to the committee on the radicals scheme to propagate the gospel in Wales on 29 Jan. 1650, a few months earlier, on 9 July 1649, he had joined Sir William Allanson as teller in favour of putting a question to include sanctions against ‘non-conformist’ preachers who refused to obey Parliament’s declarations, even though this motion was opposed by two political heavyweights, Oliver Cromwell* and Henry Ireton*.69CJ vi. 257a, 352a. He was active on the committee for regulating the universities, which worked with the Committee for Plundered Ministers in settling a godly, ‘orthodox’ ministry.70CJ vi. 577b; LPL, Sion L40.2/E16. Skynner’s political views are more difficult to discern, but his withdrawal from Westminster in 1652 – he made no impression between 19 February and 16 July, and was absent thereafter – suggests disillusionment with the growing conservatism of the Rump, and perhaps opposition to the Dutch war also. That his retirement was almost total is evident from the fact that his service in the county, as a militia commissioner and committee member, tailed off at the same time.71CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 263, 265; 1650, p. 145; 1651, p. 259; 1651-2, p. 70; SP23/228, f. 85; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s narrative’, iv. 192.

Skynner returned to public life during the protectorate, but only in a limited way. Elected as one of the knights of the shire in 1654, he received only two committee appointments, to the privileges committee (5 Sept.) and the committee on public accounts (22 Nov.), and made no recorded speeches.72CJ vii. 366b, 387b. During 1655 and 1656 he was consulted by the protectoral council on local matters, and served as a commissioner for securing the peace of the county, and in subsequent years he occasionally made his presence felt on the county bench.73CSP Dom. 1655, p. 291; SP28/235, unfol.; SP28/234, unfol.; SP18/181, f. 81. That his preference was for the ‘good old cause’ and the republic, however, is evident from his enthusiastic involvement in the restored Rump in 1659. Skynner was named to 20 committees during its first phase, from May to early October. These included committees on bills to levy revenue arrears (8 June, 20 June), establish new assessments (14 June, 1 Sept.), settle probate (14 July) and enforce the sequestration of royalist estates (4 Oct.). Skynner was also named to committees on bills concerning military affairs, including the appointment of Charles Fleetwood* as commander-in-chief (4 June) and to settle the militia (27 June).74CJ vii. 648b, 656b, 672b, 673b, 676b, 684b, 690a, 694b, 698a, 702a, 706a, 710b, 711a, 717b, 722a, 756b, 772a, 780b, 782a, 791b. He almost certainly supported the civilian rather than the military republicans, however, and after the army’s interruption of proceedings in October, he returned to Westminster in January 1660 as a supporter of Harbert Morley* and George Monck*. His loyalty to the Rump meant that his activity in the Commons ceased with the return of the secluded Members in February 1660, although it was suggested that he was present in the House until the end of the Long Parliament a month later, and he certainly remained active as a militia commissioner.75CJ vii. 806a, 807a, 808b, 813a, 818a, 822b, 827a, 838b; Grand Memorandum (1660, 669.f.24.37); Add. 42596, f. 8.

Skynner’s absence from public life after the Restoration reflected not merely his political views, but also his parlous financial position. This may have been caused by over-ambitious purchases of church lands, principally the acquisition of Bromley Manor in March 1648, as well as the difficulties in securing an income from these lands, not least during the period when its previous occupant, Bishop John Warner, refused to vacate the property.76Bodl. Rawl. B.239, p. 7; CJ v. 538a-b, 561b, 564a; LJ x. 213a, 263b; HMC 7th Rep. 23. Skynner’s debts required the passage of legislation in order to permit the sale of lands during the Convention, and such transactions continued in subsequent years.77HMC 7th Rep. 125; LJ xi. 140b, 154b, 158b, 171b; Whitelocke, Diary, 667. Skynner had evidently sold the family seat by 1671, when he wrote his will, as by that time he was living, on a short lease, in a house in Portugal Row, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Skynner died in July 1672, without male heir.78PROB11/339/538.