PARTHERICHE, (Sir) Edward (?1601-1662), of Langley, Kent, and Littleport, Isle of Ely.

The Partheriche, or Partridge, family had been established among the minor gentry of Kent since at least the early sixteenth century. One ancestor of Edward Partheriche (who signed himself thus) appears to have been an enthusiastic early Protestant reformer in the 1530s, and his grandfather, William Partridge†, twice sat in Parliament, representing Camelford in 1563, and Rochester in 1572.35Cambs. RO, R.59.31.9.3, f. 48v; HP Commons 1558-1603. Less is known about Partheriche’s father, but he was clearly well-connected within the county. Following his death his young son may have been brought up in the household of his mother’s kinsman Sir Thomas Culpeper†. Young Edward’s entry to the Middle Temple in 1622 was assisted by Sir Thomas’s son Cheyney Culpeper, who was to be a lifelong friend, and (Sir) Robert Honywood*, from another eminent Kentish family. Partheriche shared Culpeper’s chamber during his brief spell of legal training, before surrendering it to John Pyne* in May 1623.36MTR ii. 669-70, 681.

That Partheriche moved in godly circles is evident from his marriages. Through his first wife, Catherine, the younger daughter of Sir Arthur Throckmorton† whom he married in 1627, he acquired an estate in Worcestershire and became the brother-in-law of Richard, Lord Dacre and Sir Peter Temple*.37Coventry Docquets, 315; Bridges, Northants. i. 312; VCH Worcs. iv. 7-8. Partheriche’s second wife Mary Fagge had an interest in the advowson of Goodneston near Faversham; when James Oxinden gained the living at the turn of 1641, it was on the strength of ‘certificates from the puritan divines’ as well as support from Peter Temple’s uncle William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele.38Oxinden Lettrs. ed. Gardiner, 256, 265-6. Partheriche’s godliness also emerges from the account of his household penned by Lady Springett, wife of the future parliamentarian, Sir William Springett, who noted how the family observed the sabbath strictly, although they remained attached to the Book of Common Prayer before the civil wars, and frowned upon attempts by their guests to attend the sermons of more advanced puritans.39H. Dixon, ‘Original account of the Springett family’, Gent. Mag. cxxix, pt. ii. 366-7.

Partheriche’s earliest recorded public service was as a sewers commissioner and this, together with the acquisition of land at Faversham, may have encouraged at an early date the wider interest in marsh and fen drainage apparent later.40C181/4, ff. 19, 38v, 75v, 101v; Coventry Docquets, 540. In 1638 and 1639 Partheriche sold land at Bridge and purchased an estate at Littleport in the Isle of Ely from Sir Miles Sandys, a gentleman with Kentish connections who had shares in – among similar entreprises – the Great Level scheme of Francis Russell, 4th earl of Bedford.41Coventry Docquets, 719; E214/524; HP Commons 1604-1629. Thereafter, he seems to have divided his time between Kent and East Anglia, although judging by the rate books, he was also to become a long-term resident of Westminster.42WCA, Westminster rate books, 1634-1900.

Following the issue of writs for the Short Parliament, Partheriche wrote on 2 January 1640 seeking election at Sandwich, and perhaps innocently became the focus of notable controversy.43E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, p. 13. With two other Kentish gentlemen, Sir Thomas Palmer and Sir Thomas Peyton*, Partheriche faced competition from three aristocratic nominees, Nathaniel Finch*, Sir John Manwood* and Edward Nicholas†, who respectively received the backing of the lord keeper, the lord warden of the cinque ports and of Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland. Partheriche, Peyton and Palmer were denied admission as freemen, the townsmen apparently being initially unaware that this precluded them from standing for election. Grasping this belatedly, those freemen whose priority was resistance to outside influence insisted that the three men should still be allowed to stand and, having refused to participate in the election themselves, declared – fruitlessly – that they believed Peyton and Partheriche to have been returned. Those who did participate returned Manwood and Finch, and dismissed Partheriche as the candidate of ‘factious non-conformists’ and a ‘stranger’ to the corporation.44E. Kent RO, Sa/AC7, ff. 365v, 366r-v, 367v; Add. 33512, ff. 40-1; CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 561-2.

The ‘nonconformists’ learnt from the experience. On 28 October 1640, in advance of the autumn election, Partheriche and Peyton were admitted as freemen and both men were duly chosen as the town’s burgesses, ahead of Irish peer William Villiers, 2nd Viscount Grandison, and Nathaniel Finch.45E. Kent RO, Sa/AC7, f. 377. Once again it was alleged that Partheriche was returned by the ‘meanest sort of people’, and with the support of the ‘unruly multitude’.46E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, p. 61.

Between the opening of what became the Long Parliament and the early autumn recess of 1641, Partheriche received 22 committee appointments related to a range of business, national and local, private as well as and public.47CJ ii. 44a, 51b, 64b, 128b, 164a. In the early weeks he was among MPs addressing legal and commercial grievances arising from the personal rule of Charles I, including those related to customs farmers, to the courts of high commission, star chamber and wards, and to victims of their proceedings like William Prynne*.48CJ ii. 44b, 73b, 87a, 92a, 108a. To matters such as salt marshes (27 Jan. 1641) and the supply of water to London (29 May), which drew on his experience, was joined involvement in discussing money-raising, notably the subsidy bill, from which he sought to secure exemption for the Cinque Ports (28 Dec. 1640).49CJ ii. 88a, 130b; Northcote, Note Book, 113. Here Partheriche was acting as a loyal servant of his borough, with which he exchanged gifts of venison and assiduous correspondence containing information and advice on specific legislative measures and petitions.50E. Kent RO, Sa/FAt39, p. 35; Sa/C1, pp. 82-3, 84-5, 86-7, 102, 105-6, 126, 127, 128, 131, 158; Sa/C4/1. Partheriche expressed to his constituents approval of proceedings in the trial of the lord deputy of Ireland, Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford, and was confident of the success of the legal case, although he was uncertain about the attitude of the Upper House.51E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 84-5. He took the Protestation promptly in the wake of the ‘army plot’ (3 May 1641), loyally sent parliamentary orders regarding the new oath to Sandwich, and was subsequently named to committees related to regional security (14 May) and other military matters including the import of gunpowder (the manufacture of which was becoming important to the economy of Faversham).52CJ ii. 133a, 146b, 196a, 219b, 223a; Harl. 477, f. 69b; E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, p. 87.

Partheriche soon emerged as an opponent of ‘root and branch’ religious reform and the abolition of episcopacy. When on 7 June some MPs tried to defer debate on the issue until ‘next Wednesday’ or even ‘the next session of this parliament’, Partheriche apparently ‘wished it might be put off till doomsday’.53Procs. LP v. 8. It may have been in the hope that he might abandon other opinions critical of royal policy that on 31 July the king awarded him a knighthood.54Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 210. If so, the reward was wasted. Apparently concerned about the influence of papists, on 13 August Partheriche was a messenger to the Lords regarding the treaty with the Covenanter Scots and the next day he was named to prepare for a conference about putting the kingdom in a posture of defence.55CJ ii. 254a, 257a, 258a; Harl. 479, f. 151a.

Following the recess Partheriche was soon in evidence at Westminster to address difficulties in local subsidy collection (26 Oct.).56D’Ewes (C), 38. Committee nominations in the next few weeks included one to examine a petition from Wisbech (11 Dec.), his continuing involvement in drainage being apparent in a further commission appointment that month; it was on his motion that Sir Cornelius Vermuyden was subsequently summoned as a delinquent for having ignored the orders of the House and undertaken works which threatened the viability of those of the earl of Bedford (25 Jan.).57CJ ii. 298a, 314a, 338b; Lincs. RO, Spalding Sewers/449/5; PJ i. 160, 167. Following acceptance of Partheriche’s motion for tighter regulation of swearing, drinking and sabbath-breaking, he was named to a committee preparing a declaration on the subject (17 Dec.).58CJ ii. 348a; D’Ewes (C), 308. Reporting to his constituents the ‘lamentable condition of Ireland’ as news broke of rebellion, he was among those appointed to consider a report on the state of Munster (27 Dec.); with Sir William Springett he was to contribute £300 to the Irish Adventure. 59CJ ii. 357b; E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, p. 131; MacCormack, ‘Irish adventurers’, 53. But he had already been caught up in political crisis nearer home. Named on 13 December to review the guard around the Houses, three days later he was added to the joint committee delivering the Grand Remonstrance to the king.60CJ ii. 340a, 346b. On 29 December Partheriche was included in another delegation to Charles with representations in response to allegations emanating from the court of a plan by ‘fiery spirits’ to imprison the queen and prince of Wales, while two days later he was again named to consider supplies of powder and arms.61CJ ii. 360b, 364b.

There is no direct evidence that Partheriche was in the House to witness the attempted arrest of the Five Members in January 1642. However, he informed the townsmen of Sandwich that the charges against those concerned were formulated ‘in a most illegal way’, and expressed his hopes that ‘evil counsellors’ would soon be removed and that ‘there will come a right intelligence again, and that all these things will have a happy end, for there are many sober religious men that endeavour it’.62E. Kent RO, Sa/ZB2/92; Sa/C1, pp. 139-40. Named to a committee appointed on 12 January to prepare a declaration regarding putting the kingdom in a posture of defence, as a Member for one of the cinque ports he took a leading role in confering with the lord admiral and the navy (13, 14, 17, 20 Jan.).63CJ ii. 372a, 375b, 378b; PJ i. 57, 62, 68, 90, 122. He was also included on committees to petition the king over the breach of privilege (17 Jan.), and to press him for an answer to the Houses’ representations (28 Jan.).64CJ ii. 384a, 401b; PJ i. 210-14.

Partheriche was evidently convinced of a clear religious and moral dimension to the crisis. He was involved in discussions on disarming recusants (20 Jan) and collecting arrears of their fines (2 Feb.).65CJ ii. 387a, 409a. On 26 January he proposed that, in view of the state of affairs in Ireland and the distractions of the kingdom, the lord chamberlain should seek the suppression of stage-plays, although John Pym* (among others) thought otherwise, and the motion was rejected.66MacCormack, ‘Irish adventurers’, 53; PJ i. 182 Yet Partheriche’s position was more nuanced than this might indicate. Initially at least, local loyalty, or his own reservations about some ecclesiastical reforms, or both, tempered his view of the case of fellow Kentish MP Sir Edward Dering*, whose unauthorised publication of his parliamentary speeches attacking the Houses’ orders regarding religion and the Grand Remonstrance had landed him in serious trouble. Partheriche was a teller in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent Dering being incarcerated in the Tower, and while he professed his dislike of Dering’s book, he argued that the latter should not be excluded from the Commons (2 Feb.).67CJ ii. 411a; PJ i. 255, 265. However, when Dering’s views were echoed in a petition from Kent supporting the traditional church order and condemning Parliament’s militia ordinance, Partheriche joined Augustine Skinner* in identifying its ringleaders to the House (29 Mar.).68PJ ii. 102. Meanwhile, on his own account, Partheriche promoted some modest religious change. His motion that the inhabitants of Maidstone might be allowed to appoint as their lecturer Thomas Wilson, a noted local puritan who had suffered under Archbishop William Laud, was accepted (12 Feb), as was his recommendation (with others) of Nathaniel Bowles to a local living (Mar.).69PJ i. 355, 360; Al. Cant. iv. 432; E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 123, 125-6; Boys, Sandwich, ii. 711. Named to the committee of 4 April to declare the House’s intentions relating to church reform, on 31 May was he appointed manager of a conference regarding the establishment of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.70CJ ii. 510b, 595b.

In the spring of 1642 Partheriche continued to be engaged in a range of business at Westminster, from matters of particular sensitivity – the publication of parliamentary proceedings by Lucius Cary*, 2nd Viscount Falkland, another former critic of the crown now shifting his position (8 Feb.); the problem of absent Members (25 Mar.) – to those concerning commerce and individuals.71CJ ii. 414b, 421a, , 429b, 441b, 475a, 496b, 544a. A good deal of his activity related in some way to his region or locality, however, including keeping an eye on gunpowder supply and reporting information from Dover.72CJ ii. 491b, 515a, 685a; PJ ii. 151, 167. In the increasingly tense political atmosphere the affairs of that strategically vital port were contentious, and even momentary lapses of attention had consequences liable to annoy constituents and interested parties. On 30 May Henry Oxinden of Deane told his cousin Henry Oxinden of Barham that he could ‘give very little account of’ a committee decision on business relating to Sir Anthony Percivall, comptroller of customs, (perhaps arising from the petition of merchant strangers) for his ‘Uncle [Partheriche] did but step out to speak a word with a friend and the question was put in the interim’; Partheriche ‘would have been against him had he been present; but this makes [i.e. counts for] nothing, for it must pass the House’.73Oxinden Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 307; CJ ii. 491b, 523b-524a.

Invisible in the Journal between 31 May and 21 July, Partheriche perhaps spent time in Kent.74CJ ii. 595b, 685a. He was part of a delegation despatched there on 22 July to investigate plots against Parliament of which he may himself have given notice, and on 2 August he reported to the Commons on what had transpired at the Kent assizes.75CJ ii. 696a, 700b; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Journal’, Arch. Cant. ii. 181. As the outbreak of war approached, his previously expressed views made him an obvious nominee to the committee charged with preparing a bill for due observation of days of public fasting (4 Aug.).76CJ ii. 702b. A certain religious conservatism may have prompted the king to name him as a commissioner of array, but his commitment to Parliament was soon clear: he subscribed the Covenant of loyalty to the earl of Essex (7 Sept.) and then, perhaps more decisively, offered to provide plate worth £50 to the cause.77CJ ii. 755b, 772a.

Judging by entries in the Journal, over the next few years Partheriche attended the House spasmodically, his activity shaped above all by local affairs and emerging factional struggles, but also coloured by his religious outlook. A mere three committee nominations and one tellership between 3 October 1642 and 28 March 1643 related to money-raising and to the removal from the kingdom of Capuchin friars attached to the French embassy and property belonging to the queen’s half-brother, César de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme.78E. Kent RO, Sa/C4; CJ ii. 792b, 900a, 945b; iii. 4a, 23a. Some in Kent found Partheriche’s role in collecting assessments fell short of expectations. On 5 April the House discussed a letter of complaint from Sir John Sedley and Sir Edward Boys* apparently alluding (among others) to Partheriche and Sir Edward Hales*, while on 18 May the Commons heard a letter from Hales and other ‘principal gentlemen of Kent’ alleging that Partheriche, Sir Norton Knatchbull*, Sir Thomas Peyton* and Sir Francis Barnham were responsible for ‘a great obstruction ... in the execution of the ordinances of Parliament’: these gentlemen ‘did Janus-like carry two faces, one looking to Parliament, as pretending to do service there, the other to the country where they did disservice’, seeking only the interests of themselves and their friends, and ‘would do nothing in assistance to the well-affected’.79Harl. 164, f. 356v; Add. 31116, pp. 100-1. Adopting a suggestion of the complainants that his loyalty be thereby tested, MPs agreed to add Partheriche to the committee for sequestrations for Kent.80CJ iii. 91a. In June the Kent county committee wrote to Speaker William Lenthall* exonerating Partheriche from the accusations, and his subsequent demeanour was sufficiently convincing for him to be included on a committee advising on the progress of assessments (13 Nov.).81HMC Portland, i. 713; CJ iii. 309b.

In the meantime Partheriche had been added to the committee for Irish affairs (10 May); he was later appointed to prepare for the collection of money for the relief of distressed Protestants in Ireland (3 Sept.) and to prepare an assessment ordinance for funding the military expedition there (27 Aug. 1644).82CJ iii. 78b, 228a, 609a; Harl. 165, f. 167a. He took the National Covenant on 8 June 1643, and sent a letter to Sandwich on the matter.83CJ iii. 120a; E. Kent RO, Sa/AC8, f. 24. However, while Partheriche maintained his interest in the proceedings of the Westminster Assembly (10 Aug.), he asked for more time to consider the terms of the Solemn League and Covenant (30 Sept.), perhaps fearing the prospect of a Presbyterian settlement along Scottish lines, although he subscribed it on 3 October.84CJ iii. 201a, 259b, 262a. A clear indication that, notwithstanding his absolution on money-raising, he was committed to a middle path is provided by his acting on 3 November as a teller for bailing Sir John Evelyn of Surrey*, who had been arrested on suspicion of an intention to defect to the king.85CJ iii. 301a. Furthermore, the fact that between 13 November 1643 and the late summer of 1644 he was visible in the Journal only on 1 January, when he received two committee nominations including on a minor naval matter, suggests that he himself may have been wavering in his commitment to Parliament for a period.86CJ iii. 309b, 355a, 356a, 609a.

Partheriche’s reappearance from late August 1644 seems to have been marked by something of a geographical reorientation, involving interaction with men of a different political stamp. Among a handful of committee nominations that autumn were not only one to the Committee for Examinations – to consider a petition from Sussex militants against Sir Thomas Parker* and Sir Thomas Pelham* (for whom he would have had sympathy, 16 Oct.) – but also another for the Eastern Association and the security of the Isle of Ely, where his landed interest meant he rubbed shoulders with men of an altogether less compromising kidney (8 Oct.).87CJ iii. 609a, 619b, 665b, 666b, 690a. That month he was named an assessment commissioner for Cambridgeshire.88A. and O. While continuing to address Kentish affairs (31 Jan. 1645), he was involved with Solicitor-general Oliver St John* in raising extra troops for the Eastern Association (27 May), as well as preparing the ordinance for draining the fens (4 Aug. 1645, 28 Apr. 1646) and dealing with dissension between town and gown in Cambridge (4 Aug. 1645).89CJ iv. 38a, 155b, 229a, 229b, 525a. His level of commitment to the region is unclear, but he is known to have attended the Commons committee for the Eastern Association in late November and early December 1647.90Cambs. RO, R.59.31.9.1, f. 12; R.59.31.9.3, ff. 24v, 25, 26v (2nd foliation).

In the mid-1640s Partheriche occasionally received committee nominations related to divers other issues including the law (where he was first named to discuss the regulation of the court of chancery, 21 Oct. 1646) and, in the wake of the surrender of Oxford, dealing with delinquents and appointing loyal sheriffs.91CJ iv. 69b, 256b, 625b, 701a, 708a, 709b. He was also among MPs of different persuasions appointed to receive controversial reports from the Presbyterian-dominated Committee of Accounts (18 Apr. 1645).92CJ iv. 116a. But in late 1645 and 1646 religion, and the shape of the church settlement, appears as his prime concern. While he seems to have approved of the settlement of a Presbyterian system of classes and elderships (21 Jan. 1646), he conceived of it as resting within a firmly Erastian, rather than exclusively clerical, framework, since on 10 October 1645 he was a teller for the majority in favour of giving Parliament a deciding voice in the ordinance concerning church government.93CJ iv. 303b, 413b, 502a. Partheriche’s concern to nourish the church was reflected in appointments to committees for extending provision of preaching ministers (7 Apr. 1646), printing the Bible from Greek manuscripts (16 Oct.) and for the repair of churches (4 Nov.), while perhaps a concern for purity of doctrine informed his membership of the committee which investigated the controversial printed edition of the parliamentary sermon by the Independent minister William Dell (12 Dec.).94CJ iv. 502a, 695a, 714b; v. 10b. He had lost none of his earlier zeal in promoting public fasts (Dec.).95E. Kent RO, Sa/XB2/110.

Named to a committee on navy matters on 9 January 1647, Partheriche was granted leave to return to Kent on 27 February, and made only four further appearances in the Journal that year.96CJ v. 47a, 100b. Those four entries reveal that he was in Westminster in the weeks after the forcing of the Houses (26 July), involved in Presbyterian attempts to justify to county committees the election of a new Speaker and to expose the ‘designs’ of the army (1 Aug.), as well as in preparing instructions for the delegation sent to talk with the army (3 Aug.).97CJ v. 263a, 266a. He then remained in the Commons after the army’s march on Westminster, and was named to committees to consider repealing all orders and ordinances passed during the absence of the Independents (11, 18 Aug.).98CJ v. 272a, 278a. But perhaps this was in the hope of mitigating the reversal. Thereafter, he vanished again from the Journal.

In the wake of the Vote of No Addresses Partheriche was named to the committee for grievances (4 Jan. 1648), but this did not mark a return to regular engagement at Westminster.99CJ v. 417a. Apart from a nomination on 8 March to consider the claims of Henry Peck*, commissary-general for Sussex, Partheriche was not in evidence again until the summer, when royalist insurrection in Kent seems to have prompted his presence in the chamber (14 June).100CJ v. 484b, 599b. Over the next few weeks, as well as receiving an order to thank Kentish MP Sir Michael Livesay* for his role in quashing local rebellion, he collected several committee appointments which hint at an inclination to reduce radical elements in the army and militas.101CJ v. 603b, 630a, 631a, 633b. On 22 July he was named to a committee to prepare a declaration to satisfy the Scots regarding Parliament’s determination to preserve the union between the two kingdoms, but thereafter he disappears from view; he granted leave to return to Kent on 23 August.102CJ v. 643b, 681a. An appointment on 17 November is the only other indication of his presence before Pride’s Purge.103CJ vi. 78b. That he was secluded by Pride’s officers on 6 December is unsurprising, and is confirmed by his letter of protest, delivered to the House the next day.104CJ vi. 94b; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 1355.

Partheriche’s time thereafter appears to have been occupied almost entirely by the affairs of the adventurers for the Great Level of the fens, although this service probably explains why he was also retained on the commission of the peace for Cambridgeshire.105Names of the Justices (1650), 7 (E.1238.4). He is recorded as having attended the adventurers’ meetings zealously from June 1649, in London, Peterborough and Wisbech.106Cambs. RO, R.59.31.9.1, ff. 4v-31 (2nd foliation); R.59.31.9.2, unfol.; R.59.31.9.4, ff. 1-96; R.59.31.9.5-8. Indeed, he presented his own proposals for draining the north part of the level in return for £30,000, which were initially adopted by a sizeable majority in a vote on 12 December 1649, ahead of the plan submitted by his old antagonist Cornelius Vermuyden. However, as negotiations progressed, Vermuyden’s claim that Partheriche’s scheme would be ‘destructive’ to the project led the adventurers to reverse their decision. Partheriche remained active the management of the scheme, however, and was one of the nine adventurers appointed as overseers on 10 January 1650.107Cambs. RO, R.59.31.9.2, unfol. He was a keen adventurer in the first half of the 1650s, but his attendance at meetings later became progressively infrequent. Although named as one of the ‘lords’ of the Great Level in 1656, Partheriche disappeared from the records of the corporation soon after the Restoration.108Cambs. RO, R.59.31.9.8, ff. 18v, 25.

Meanwhile, Partheriche had returned to Westminster following the readmission of the secluded members in February 1660. He was in the House by 2 March, when he was named to a committee to consider the bill for the approbation of ministers.109CJ vii. 858a. A week later he was added to the committee for religion, to consider the bill for taking accounts and redressing grievances regarding tithes and church livings in Wales, and for the advancement of learning there.110CJ vii. 868a. Thereafter he became involved in preparations for the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of new elections, especially as regards preparing writs for the Cinque Ports, and in the wider question of the future of the House of Lords.111CJ vii. 868b, 872b, 873b, 876b. He later claimed to have played a vital role in securing the restoration of the Stuart dynasty, having been ‘many days the only man (of the excluded members) that named the king’.112E. Kent RO, Sa/C4. Partheriche was recorded as being present on the final day of the Long Parliament (16 March), when he made a speech in opposition to George Monck’s* orders regarding the militia, in which he ‘spoke high that if the king had sent such a letter it would have been deemed such a high breach of privilege’.113HMC 7th Rep. 484; The Grand Memorandum (1660, 669.f.24/37).

In April Partheriche failed to secure election at Sandwich in the heavily contested election for the Convention, having been passed over before the poll, along with General William Penn†, because they had ‘none that urged on their behalf’.114E. Kent RO, Sa/AC8, f. 147. Before the elections to the Cavalier Parliament Partheriche wrote to the corporation offering his services once again, claiming that, had he been chosen for the Convention, he might have been ‘instrumental of a greater settlement of the affairs of this kingdom than now they are in’. He would have sought to settle the church ‘upon the foundation of our first reformation in King Edward the 6th and Queen Elizabeth’s lives’ and would have

endeavoured and shall if it please the lord to make me a Member of the House to serve for you ... that not only the king may be righted and restored to the full in all that belongs to his crown and dignity as amply and larger than ever any the kings or queens of England enjoyed and be secured in the good laws against the fear of future rebellions.115E. Kent RO, Sa/C4.

Nonetheless, Partheriche once again failed to secure election. He died intestate in November 1662, administration of his estate being granted to a creditor in June 1666.116E. Suss. RO, Danny 879; PROB6/41, f. 118v. However, the bulk of his estate seems already to have been settled on his son Edward, probably at or soon after the latter’s marriage in December 1650 since the family was still in possession of land in Kent, Worcestershire and Cambridgeshire well into the eighteenth century.117St John the Baptist, Croydon, Surr. par. reg.; C6/50/71; Vis. Berks. (Harl. Soc. lvii), 119; VCH Worcs. iv. 7-12; VCH Cambs. and Ely, iv. 95-102. No further family member sat in Parliament.