TWYSDEN, Sir Roger (1597-1672), of Roydon Hall, East Peckham, Kent.

Born while his father was at war, in August 1597, Twysden was the scion of a family that had been established in Kent since the thirteenth century.30Add. 34163, f. 4. Twysden was educated at St Paul’s School and Emmanuel College, Cambridge, knighted in 1620, and travelled to France in 1621 on a pass granted by the privy council.31APC 1619-21, p. 390; Cent. Kent. Stud. U1655/Z1, unfol.; U49/F1, pp. 16, 20. Upon his return to England, sometime before February 1623, he was admitted to Gray’s Inn, although he was not subsequently called to the bar. Despite his youth and inexperience in public affairs, Twysden was returned to Parliament for Winchelsea in 1625 and 1626, upon the interest of kinsmen from the Finch family, on the second occasion sitting alongside his future father-in-law. It is unclear why Twysden made way for his aged father in the 1628 Parliament, given that the latter died in early January 1629.32PROB11/155/94. It is plausible that he may have wished to devote more time to his scholarly interests, which were reflected in his acquisition of ancient manuscripts, as well as in his notebooks.33Add. 53710; Eg. 2677, f. 2; Stowe 12, f. 375v; Stowe 49; Stowe 62, f. 2v; Stowe 96, f. 1; Stowe 378, f. 1; Stowe 312; Cent. Kent. Stud. U1655/F9. The death of his father, however, forced Twysden to spend time reviving the family’s flagging financial fortunes, a process which may have been assisted by his marriage in 1635.34Cent. Kent. Stud. U1823/2/T24; Add. 34176, ff. 54-9; Add. 34163, ff. 4-v, 7v-14, 15, 15v-19, 100-101, 112v, 109v. Happily, Twysden’s wife was a kindred spirit, who shared his enthusiasm for the Elizabethan church settlement.35Add. 34163, f. 109v; Cent. Kent. Stud. U1655/F8, p. 23.

During the 1630s, Twysden played a far greater role in local administration, not least as a zealous justice of the peace.36Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/O7/18; U47/47/Z2, pp. 115-18; U47/47/O1, pp. 1-5, 13-15; U47/47/Z1, pp. 11-12, 43-4, 75-82; U49/F19; LPL, MS 1389. He was, however, growing increasingly uneasy about the crown’s financial policies during the personal rule of Charles I.37Add. 34163, f. 130. His extensive annotations on John Cowell’s Interpreter reveal, for example, that he opposed the raising of money without parliamentary consent.38Add. 24281, f. 86-v; Add. 24282, f. 94; Cent. Kent. Stud. U48/Z1, p. 252. The policy to which he was most obviously opposed, however, was Ship Money, in terms both of Kent’s contribution and of the wider political issues raised by the tax.39Add. 34176, f. 70; Sir R. Twysden, Certaine Considerations Upon the Government of England ed. J.M. Kemble (Cam. Soc. xlv), 145; Add. 24283, f. 99; Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/7/O1, p. 14; U47/47/Z1, pp. 45-74, 133-7. Twysden followed the proceedings against John Hampden* closely, and concurred with the legal argument of Sir George Croke†.40Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/O1, p. 3; U47/47/Z1, pp. 137-41; U47/47/Z2, pp. 107-10, 189-92, 197-8, 202-4; U49/F19, unfol. He also sympathised with those who denied that Ship Money could be justified by ‘necessity’, and who defended Parliament’s role in dealing with emergencies.41Add. 24283, f. 17v. Nevertheless, Twysden was ready to support the government when it raised money by legal means, and by 1639, when he began to compose his ‘Considerations’ upon government, he sought to defend limited monarchy from the views of thinkers like his friend Sir Robert Filmer.42Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/O1, p. 14; U120/C6, unfol.; U49/Z15. Twysden also appears to have tolerated Laudian religious innovations. Although he noted with interest the railing of altars in Kent churches, he expressed no obvious opposition.43Add. 34163, f. 131. Moreover, his interest in cases such as those of Henry Burton, John Bastwick and William Prynne* sprang from his opposition to ‘further reformation’ along Presbyterian lines, and as a magistrate he sought to enforce conformity in Kent in 1638.44Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/Z2, p. 204; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 299. By the end of the decade, Twysden seemed to be seeking a middle way. He expressed no sympathy for the Scottish Covenanters, and considered their church system a threat to monarchical power, but had reservations about the prerogative courts and the judicial power of clerics, and dismissed talk of a puritan ‘conspiracy’ against the government.45Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/Z1, p. 142; U49/F19, unfol.; U49/Z19, p. 300; Add. 24281, ff. 140-v, 142-v, 148v.

As elections for the Short Parliament approached, Twysden occupied an uneasy position at odds with both the court and its opponents. Initially reluctant to stand for election as a knight of the shire, he backed a prominent local courtier, Sir Henry Vane I*, as a defender of the established church and subjects’ liberties, and planned to seek a borough seat for himself.46Add. 34163, f. 108v; Add. 26785, f. 1. It was only upon realising that opposition to Ship Money would prevent Vane’s election that Twysden opted to stand for the county.47Add. 34163, f. 108v. When Sir Edward Dering* also announced his candidacy, however, Twysden became involved in an acrimonious contest with his kinsman, and although he professed not to have canvassed the county on the scale undertaken by his rival, he was accused of having sought to discredit Dering by highlighting his support for knighthood fines.48Add. 34163, ff. 108v, 109; Stowe 743, f. 140. Twysden was also forced to deny having branded Dering a puritan for opposing Laudian policies.49Stowe 184, ff. 10-11v. In the poll which resulted, on 16 March, Twysden defeated Dering, albeit in controversial circumstances.50Bodl. Rawl. D.141, p. 4; J. Peacey, ‘Tactical organisation in a contested election’, in Parliament, Politics and Elections, 1604-1648 ed. C.R. Kyle (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xvii), 237-72. During the brief session that followed, Twysden naturally made Ship Money his prime concern, although he was far from active in the Commons.51Add. 34173, ff. 18-v. Apart from a minor speech during a debate on 20 April, and nomination to the committee for privileges, his only recorded contribution to proceedings was a speech in which he said that he would support the granting of subsidies only if Ship Money ‘and some other things’ were taken away (4 May).52CJ ii. 4a; Aston’s Diary, 22, 143. Apart from Ship Money, Twysden was prepared to compromise, and he later remembered his ‘great amazement’ that a Parliament which ‘carried itself with such moderation as not to have put the question anything might displease the king’ was ‘sent home without doing ought’.53Twysden, Certaine Considerations, 145.

Twysden later professed to have been an enthusiastic supporter of the petition of the Twelve Peers and of the calling of the Long Parliament, and to have opposed any recourse to illegal methods to ‘retard the calling of one’.54‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, Arch. Cant. i. 187. During the elections in October 1640 it was alleged that Twysden sought to stand again for the county, but a more accurate rumour was that he sought to advance his friend Richard Browne I* against Dering, while supporting Sir Henry Vane II* at Maidstone.55Stowe 743, f. 157; Add. 26785, ff. 11v, 13; Stowe 184, ff. 15, 17. Twysden himself was not elected, and there is no evidence of his having sought a seat. Despite this, he clearly took a keen interest in proceedings at Westminster.56Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/Z1, p. 143. What he observed caused him considerable alarm. He disliked the tendency to redress grievances ‘by a way not traced out unto them by their ancestors’, and in ways which threatened ancient liberties.57‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 187. He opposed the use of ‘close committees’ in proceedings against Sir Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford, fearing that ‘if we did change our task masters, our burdens would not be less’.58‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 187-8; iii. 149. He also resented the way in which Parliament issued orders to justices of the peace in January 1641, and that representatives commanded ‘those had sent them thither’.59‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 188-9. He later claimed to have opposed the decision to make Parliament both ‘assessors’ and ‘controllers’ of subsidy money.60‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 191-2; Twysden, Certaine Considerations, 154.

Aside from such procedural objections, Twysden was broadly supportive of the policies of the reformers in Parliament in the early months of 1641.61‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 194-5. He approved of measures against Ship Money, on the basis of ‘the laws and statutes of this realm, the right of property, the liberty of the subjects, former resolutions in Parliament, and the petition of right’.62Add. 24283, f. 99. He also supported moves to constrain the king’s prerogative power, later arguing that excessive royal power might provoke ‘seditions, conspiracies, and such like of too great a burden’, and that both prerogatives and liberties were governed by the laws of the land, rather than by the king’s will.63Add. 24283, ff. 17v, 19; Twysden, Certaine Considerations, 83. Moreover, he displayed strong support for annual Parliaments, suggesting that their absence tended to ‘give factious spirits opportunity to raise discontents with the commons’.64Cent. Kent. Stud. U49/Z19, p. 293; Add. 24283, f. 19; Add. 24282, f. 180v; Twysden, Certaine Considerations, 141, 144. Yet, as the year continued, Twydsen became increasingly uneasy. He opposed the decision to execute Strafford in May on the basis of the ‘equity’ rather than the ‘letter’ of the law.65‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 195. He also considered that the ‘Perpetual Parliament Act’ heralded a new tyranny, given that ‘men in authority do not easily quit that [which] they have possessed themselves of, and generally look rather at what may confirm their power, than the particular good of those that trusted them, and without whom, perhaps, they had not ascended to that pitch’.66‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 196. Furthermore, Twysden opposed plans for church reform. Although he recognised that bishops were ‘great advancers of prerogative’, he feared that their exclusion from Parliament ‘was but a step to take away their function’.67‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 197; ii. 176. His defence of the church was pragmatic and legalistic, as was his opposition to the severity of policies against Catholics in the summer of 1641.68‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 189-90; ii. 177.

On the basis of such concerns, Twysden ‘resolved to sequester myself from anything of public so much as lay in my power’, and began planning a trip to the continent.69‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 195; ii. 175-6. He refused to help collect subsidy money in Kent, and later claimed that the reformers on the Recess Committee sought to ‘make trial whether they should not find obedience enough upon their own strength to issue out and force us to submit to other commands of theirs’.70Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/O1, p. 16; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 190. Later, in February 1642, he was alarmed at the imprisonment and removal of Sir Edward Dering* from the Commons, on the grounds that it raised the prospect of Parliament being dominated by a ‘factious’ majority, and of the law being changed at their whim.71‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 190. More serious still was Parliament’s demand for control over the militia, which Twysden regarded as ensuring that Parliament had ‘all the rights of sovereignty’, with ‘the people under an absolute arbitrary voting tyranny’.72‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 198-200.

When Twysden arrived in Kent, ready for the Maidstone assizes in March 1642, he felt thoroughly alienated from Parliament; he soon joined those who reacted against the recent Kentish petition, suspecting that such petitions had been organised at Westminster, and instead supported a rival statement.73‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 200-202. Although he claimed not to have been its instigator, Twysden was certainly involved in its composition and distribution, and he later justified such proceedings as being both uncontroversial and an inherent part of the representative process.74‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 202-6, 210; LPL, MS 1390, p. 152; Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/Z2, pp. 217-20. When the Commons learnt of the counter-petition, however, they ordered Twysden’s arrest (28 Mar.), a decision he considered to be ‘without parallel in Europe’.75PJ ii. 100-1; CJ ii. 501b, 502b-503a; Stowe 184, f. 49; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 205-6, 211. He insisted that he had sought merely to maintain ‘a fair intelligence’ between king and Parliament, and to ensure that subjects were ‘governed by laws, not by arbitrary revocable votes, orders, or ordinances’.76‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 210. Such warrants, he argued, were ‘the basis or ground of all our sufferings’.77‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 212. Rather than flee, Twysden gave himself up at the end of March 1642, and was examined by the Commons on 1 April. A plea for bail was rejected, although he later claimed that little evidence could be presented against him, given that his only intention had been a peaceable petition.78‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 212-13; CJ ii. 507a; PJ ii. 114. Although some Members considered Twysden and his allies as guilty of treason, it was resolved that they should merely cease mobilising the county, and call in copies of the petition.79LPL, MS 1390, p. 152; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 213; ii. 179. Upon hearing Twysden’s petition on 9 April, the Commons agreed to release him on bail, on condition that he remained in London.80CJ ii. 516a, 517a, 520b; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 179. Twysden reluctantly accepted these terms, and secured bonds from his uncle Francis Finch† and Sir Robert Filmer.81‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 179-80. He was eventually allowed to return to Kent in mid-May.82‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 180; Add. 34161, f. 2; PJ ii. 192, 248-9, 256; CJ ii. 550a, 568a.

After his rough treatment, Twysden again resolved ‘to live quietly and meddle as little as possible with any business whatsoever’.83‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 181; Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/O1, p. 19. Nevertheless, he could not help becoming riled by the activities of a tiny cabal at Westminster, not only because of their claims regarding the motives of the king and the ‘necessity’ of Parliament securing ever great power, but also because of the threat they posed to the church, the king, and the liberties of the subject, all of which they professed to be defending. It was not long before an incensed Twysden returned to the public stage.84‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 199-201. In his capacity as a justice of the peace, he attended the Kent assizes in July 1642, and immediately became involved in preparing a response to the parliamentary committee which had been delegated to ensure the security of the region.85‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 181, 184-5. The precise nature of his involvement in a plan to deliver instructions to one of the knights of the shire, Augustine Skinner*, is unclear, but he certainly defended the close relationship between MPs and constituents, and the accountability of the former to the latter, not least because of the payment of parliamentary wages.86‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 186-8; Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/O1, p. 19-21; U47/47/Z2, pp. 231-3; U47/47/Z1, pp. 155-8; Twysden, Certaine Considerations, 153-4. See also: LPL, MS 1390, p. 157; Cent. Kent. Stud. U49/Z19, pp. 209, 373. Twysden’s involvement in such debates resulted in his being summoned to Parliament in early August. His bail was withdrawn, and he was returned to custody and dismissed as a justice of the peace.87‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 189; CJ ii. 700b, 704a; Cent. Kent Stud. U47/47/O1, pp. 21-2. Suspecting that little evidence could be marshalled against him, Twysden delivered a petition to the Commons (10 Aug.), but the House offered merely his confinement at the house of his brother-in-law Sir Hugh Cholmeley* (24 Aug.).88‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 189, 192; CJ ii. 712b, 735b. Twysden refused such terms, and remained in prison, where he befriended two royalist grandees, Sir Basil Brooke and Sir Kenelm Digby.89CJ ii. 712b; LPL, MS 1390, p. 152; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 189-90. He was subsequently released upon bail, upon Cholmeley’s motion and following another petition (8 Sept.).90PJ iii. 337; CJ ii. 758b, 761a; C233/6, f. 5.

After his release, Twysden resolved once again to travel to France, but his plans were blocked by the demand for his assessment money, and the subsequent seizure of his goods in London (Nov. 1642).91Cent. Kent. Stud. U120/C6, unfol.; Add. 34163, f. 96; LPL, MS 1390, p. 152; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 193-5. Alleging that the assessment was illegal, and citing his earlier opposition to Ship Money, Twysden rejected the advice of Sir Francis Barnham*, and refused to pay.92‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 195, 201-2. He delayed his journey to France again, pending the outcome of the Oxford peace talks, which he considered to have been scuppered by Parliament, despite the genuine possibility of a lasting settlement.93‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 195. Oddly enough, Twysden resolutely refused to join the king at Oxford in the spring of 1643, despite attempts to persuade him otherwise. Indeed, he remained critical of the king, and later claimed that Charles’s decision to declare cooperation with Parliament treasonable ‘was a cause of his utter ruin’.94‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 197-9.

Twysden soon suffered further humiliations at the hands of the parliamentarians. His house in Kent was plundered in May 1643, and his estate was sequestered by the county committee.95Add. 34163, f. 127; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iii. 148; SP28/210b, unfol.; LPL, MS 1390, p. 152. In his defence, he protested that an intention to petition Parliament did not justify a charge of delinquency, since it did not involve ‘warlike engagements’ against Parliament and that it took place before the date from which parliamentary pardons commenced.96LPL, MS 1390, p. 155. He also railed against the ‘severity’ of the county committees, and the ‘barbarous’ way in which ordinances were implemented.97‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 203, 206. He alleged that estates were more quickly seized than released, and complained of deliberate delays, to ‘weary him out’.98‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 205, 208-10 In reaction to this abuse, Twysden again resolved to go to France, but before he could depart he was arrested and despatched to London.99‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 199; iii. 145-7; LPL, MS 1390, p. 152. Having refused to contribute towards the assessment, Twysden was imprisoned in Southwark Compter, although he subsequently complained that no cause was given for his detention.100CJ iii. 124b, 137a; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iii. 147-8. He was eventually moved to Lambeth Palace in February 1644, through the efforts of his brother, Thomas Twysden*, and Sir Christopher Yelverton*, who successfully lobbied Richard Knightly*, chairman of the committee for prisoners.101‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iii. 149, 152, 153, 155, 166; CJ iii. 203b, 297b; Harl. 165, f. 200.

From prison, Twysden struggled not merely to regain control of his estate, but also to secure an explanation of his offence, but the county committee demanded an acknowledgement of his guilt, and began felling woodland on his property.102‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iii. 153-4, 156-8; LPL, MS 1390, p. 159. His petitions to the parliamentary Committee for Sequestrations yielded orders to the Kent committee on his behalf, but these proved ineffective in the face of counter-claims that he had incited local royalists, and maintained correspondence with Catholic priests (Feb. 1644).103Add. 34174, f. 47; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iii. 158-60; LPL, MS 1390, pp. 152-3. Although the county committee admitted that no single crime warranted his sequestration, ‘yet the accumulation of so many are sufficient’.104LPL, MS 1390, p. 153; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iii. 167-70. Twysden came to suspect that his treatment reflected personal malice and old family feuds, and suggested that it was only among the Kentish parliamentarians that his guilt was accepted.105‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iii. 160-2, 166-7, 170. However, he also recognised that the improvement of his fortunes was unlikely to occur without his taking the Solemn League and Covenant, at which he scrupled.106CJ iii. 409a; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iii. 166; see Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/Z1, pp. 168-70. Time and again his hopes were raised by the apparent willingness of parliamentary committees to consider his case, only to be dashed by delays at Westminster, and obstruction in the county.107‘Sir RogerTwysden’s Narrative’, iii. 170-3; iv. 137-40; Add. 34174, f. 47; LPL, MS 1390, p. 153.

Twysden eventually secured a hearing in late August 1644. His counsel sought to demonstrate that supporting a petition to Parliament on 16 March 1642 did not constitute delinquency, since news had not then reached Kent of Parliament’s decision to declare its ordinances binding.108‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iii. 174-5; iv. 131-2; LPL, MS 1390, p. 159. This challenge proved fruitless, however, in the face of the determination of Twysden’s enemies.109‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 134. He remained in prison and his estate remained under sequestration, and while he was admitted to compound in October 1644, little could prevent further plundering of his property and estate.110LPL, MS 1390, p. 153; CJ iii. 674a; Add. 34166, f. 34; CCC 864; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 132, 141-3, 145, 160-7. Eventually, in March 1645, his estate was formally valued at £2,000, and his fine was set at £3,000.111SP23/173, pp. 163, 179; CCC 864; CJ iv. 72a; LPL, MS 1390, pp. 153-4; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 146-7. Twysden still refused to acknowledge his delinquency, however, and further attempts to secure relief, undertaken with the help of his friend Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, proved fruitless.112‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 147-8, 165, 168-9, 170.

This first-hand experience of parliamentarian authority prompted the research and reflection which Twysden undertook in prison. He obtained manuscripts from the libraries of D’Ewes and Sir Henry Spelman†, compiled a ‘dictionary’ of law, parliament and history, and published an edition of Henry I’s laws.113Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/Z1, pp. 161-3; U47/47/Z2, pp. 237-8, 596; Harl. 374, f. 237; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 145, 148; Add. 22916, f. 56; Stowe 329, ff. 1, 13v-17; Stowe 312; Stowe 359, f. 13; Cent. Kent. Stud. U49/Z19; Historiae Ecclesiasticae Gentis Anglorum… et Ultimo, Leges Henrici I Nunc Primum Editae ed. A. Wheelocke and Sir R. Twysden (Cambridge, 1644), pt. 2, pp. 153-216. He also completed the first draft of ‘Considerations upon the Government of England’, which revealed his rejection of key royalist ideas, and his acceptance of moderate parliamentarian claims for limited monarchy.114Cent. Kent. Stud. U49/Z15; Twysden, Certaine Considerations, 22, 33, 41, 44, 86, 111-12, 127-8; Add. 24282, f. 14v. He even recognised the legitimacy of defensive arms, although he considered that this tended to be done on the basis of ‘specious pretences’, and generally failed to achieve its professed aims.115Twysden, Certaine Considerations, 93, 98-100; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 148-60.

With the support of Yelverton, Twysden’s petition was read on 9 December 1645, when his friend, Richard Browne I, ‘spoke very well and earnestly on my behalf’. Twysden was duly bailed, and he was finally released on 20 February 1646.116‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 173-4; LPL, MS 1390, p. 154; CJ iv. 370b. Rather than return to Kent, however, he remained in Westminster in order to undertake vigorous lobbying of Parliament regarding his ruined estate.117‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 180-1. Twysden was eventually ordered to compound (19 May), his fine being set at £1,340 (8 June).118CJ iv. 460a; LPL, MS 1390, p. 154; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 181, 185. That neither was this undertaken, nor the sequestration of his estate lifted, however, reflected his refusal to subscribe the Covenant.119‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 181; CCC 102.

Twysden’s constant presence in Westminster in the years after his release enabled him to observe political developments at close hand. He was struck by the growing radicalism in the City and army, not least regarding the excise.120‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 210-12. He also recalled discussions in Westminster Hall with Leveller petitioners, and although shocked by their ideas, he found them difficult to counter.121‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, ii. 213-14. Twysden’s interest in the Levellers may also have sprung from sympathy with their insistence upon the liberty to petition Parliament.122LPL, MS 1390, pp. 158-9. He also reflected upon parliamentarian taxation, and considered that the excessive amounts raised reflected the ‘ambitious appetites’, private interests and lust for power of certain grandees, as well as financial and political corruption on an unprecedented scale.123‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 194-5; ii. 214-15, 219; Twysden, Certaine Considerations, 167, 171.

As tension rose in London during the summer of 1647, Twysden retired to Kent, although he returned to London in January 1648.124Add. 34169, ff. 30, 36; Add. 34170, f. 6. The ensuing months were spent composing The Commoners Liberty: or the English-Mans Birth-Right, published in September 1648 as a response to Prynne’s Plea for the Lords, in order to deny that peers possessed the authority to judge and imprison commoners.125Sir R. Twysden, The Commoners Liberty: or the English-Mans Birth-Right (1648), 1, 3, 4-5 (E.463.10); see Cent. Kent. Stud. U48/Z2-3. Twysden also reflected upon the ‘arbitrary power’ sought by parliamentarian ‘grandees’, and defended the Leveller leaders who were Prynne’s targets, at least in terms of their harsh treatment, if not their ‘railing and libelling’, and their wider ideas.126Twysden, Commoners Liberty, 4, 9, 12, 21, 25. Twysden’s distance from certain strands of royalism was also indicated by his determination to rebut Filmer’s Anarchy of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy, as well as the response to the declaration of ‘No Further Addresses’.127Twysden, Certaine Considerations, 17, 94.

Twysden’s lobbying of Parliament bore fruit only after Pride’s Purge. His fine was reduced in January 1649, and in the following March he lobbied Nathaniel Stephens* and John Ashe* and submitted another petition.128Add. 34170, ff. 22, 24, 26, 28; SP23/228, f. 84; Add. 34171, ff. 13, 15; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 182-3; CCC 864; SP23/125, pp. 577, 579. Despite the strictness of the Rump’s demands, he found the new regime ‘easier to be embraced, in that they required no promisory oath of the compounder’, and he also benefitted from the eclipse of his enemies in Kent.129‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 181-2, 184. With the help of Sir Arthur Hesilrige* and Sir Henry Vane II*, the House waived his former fine in mid-May, and referred his case to the commissioners for compounding.130‘Sir Rioger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 183-4; CJ vi. 202b, 212a; Add. 34171, f. 17. His fine was set at £1,500, which in early June was reduced to £1,340, of which he promptly paid £670.131CCC 864; SP23/212, p. 397; LPL, MS 1390, p. 154; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 185; Add. 34171, f. 17. After further petitions and negotiations, his fine was reduced again, and his delinquency was finally discharged on 19 January 1650.132‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 186-8; LPL, MS 1390, p. 154; Add. 34161, f. 32; CCC 864; SP23/228, p. 51. In the meantime, Twysden had returned to Kent in July 1649 to find his estate ‘miserably torn and ransacked’.133Add. 34171, f. 21; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 186. His efforts to restore his finances continued to be hampered by opposition within the county, and in April 1651 he was briefly arrested and detained in Leeds Castle.134Add. 34162, ff. 2-61; Add. 34164, passim; Add. 34167, passim; CCC 865; SP23/228, f. 85; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 192, 194; Add. 34172, ff. 14, 16. Moreover, further lobbying was required in relation to the demand for his assessment money, in September 1651, caused by the failure to complete his composition before 20 April 1649, or to pay his fine on time. Twysden, who ‘plainly saw they intended to excoriate me’, eventually paid £400 in November 1651.135CCAM 1394; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, iv. 188-3; LPL, MS 1390, p. 154; Add. 34171, f. 28.

Such financial matters aside, during the interregnum Twysden concentrated upon his scholarly pursuits rather than participating in public life, even though he showed a grudging willingness to accommodate the protectorate.136‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Narrative’, i. 196; ii. 206. He oversaw the transcribing of ancient chronicles from Sir Robert Cotton’s† library, which were edited for publication in 1652, published Sir Robert Filmer’s discourse on usury in the same year, and collaborated with Abraham Wheelocke on an edition of England’s ancient laws in 1654.137Cent. Kent. Stud. U49/Z16, pp. 90, 101; Add. 4783, f. 21; Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores X ed. Sir R. Twysden (1652); R. Filmer, Quaestio Quodlibetica ed. Sir R. Twysden (1653), sigs. A2-a2v; Archaionomia ed. A. Wheelocke and Sir R. Twysden (1654), 153-8. His scholarly circle of friends also included Isaac Worrall, Sir William Dugdale and Herbert Thorndike.138Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/Z2, pp. 295-6, 299-300, 306; W. Hamper, The Life, Diary and Corr. of Sir William Dugdale (1827), 330-1, 335-7. In 1653 Twysden also helped secure subscriptions for publication of the Hebrew Bible.139Add. 34164, f. 100. His subsequent historical research in the mid-1650s centred on the history of Kent and of the English church, leading to the publication of a defence of the Elizabethan reformation in An Historical Vindication of the Church of England (1657).140Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/Z2, pp. 32, 51-68, 292, 343-4; U47/47/Z1, pp. 83-131, 253, 583; U49/Z3/1; U1655/Z2; HMC 4th Rep. 412; Stowe 857, ff. 3, 17-18v; Sir R. Twysden, An Historical Vindication of the Church of England (1657). In December 1657, Twysden completed his ‘Historicall Narrative’ of his own troubles, and he continued to revise his treatise upon the government of England, although neither was published in his lifetime.141Arch. Cant. iv. 195; Cent. Kent. Stud. U49/Z15. His papers from 1658-9, meanwhile, reveal a lengthy correspondence with Thomas Whetenhall on theological issues and planned publications.142LPL, MS 1391, ff. 2-9v; Cent. Kent Stud. U49/Z3/3; U48/Z1; Add. 34176, f. 74.

Twysden played little part in the tumultuous events of 1659, although the republication of Prynne’s Plea for the Lords prompted him to reissue The Commoners Liberty.143Sir R. Twysden, The Commoners Liberty (1659). He was a target for the suspicions of the authorities during the restored Rump, when his arms appear to have been seized, but he made little further impression on public affairs until after the return of Charles II.144Add. 34167, f. 45. In June 1660, however, he became involved in levying taxes in Kent, and also sought to uncover evidence regarding his own treatment at the hands of the county committee in the 1640s.145Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/O1, p. 22; Add. 34176, f. 75. He was also restored as a justice of the peace and made a deputy lieutenant, and resumed active service in the county, not least as a commissioner for corporations.146SP29/11, f. 205; Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/O1, pp. 24, 28-32, 43, 47-8; U49/Z3/2; U951/O9/15; U243/O1, f. 16; LPL, MS 1394; ‘Twysden Lieutenancy Papers’, ed. G. Scott Thomson, Kent Records X; Eg. 2985, f. 66; Add. 34161, ff. 7, 9; HMC Finch i. 409. Despite his renewed involvement in the local administration, he also maintained his programme of research and publication, although many of his projects failed to reach fruition.147Sir R. Twysden, An Historical Vindication (1663); LPL MS 1392-3; Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/Z2, pp. 379-83; U49/Z3/2; U49/Z18, pp. 113, 129, 232, 380; ‘Twysden Lieutenancy Papers’; HMC Finch, i. 409; Stowe 33; Burney 297.

A reluctant candidate in the county election in 1661, Twysden made little effort to canvass the freeholders, and was not returned, despite recognising grievances which required redress, notably the illegal imprisonment of commoners by the Lords.148Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/O1, pp. 32-3; HMC Finch, i. 510. In 1668, indeed, he claimed that ‘we may, in a short time, talk of liberty, but find none’.149HMC Finch, i. 511-12. Such views probably underpinned his dispute with the lord lieutenant of Kent, Charles Stewart, 3rd duke of Richmond, which in 1668 resulted in Twysden’s dismissal as a deputy lieutenant.150Add. 34168, f. 62. Twysden remained active as a justice of the peace, and it was while fulfilling his official duties on 27 June 1672 that he suffered a fit of apoplexy.151Cent. Kent. Stud. U47/47/O1, pp. 86, 89; Add. 34168, ff. 61, 62. According to his will, Twysden died ‘in the true apostolic faith, now professed in the Church of England’, and he pleaded with his son to ‘keep constantly his allegiance and loyalty to his king’, and never to be drawn into taking up arms, even if the monarch seemed ‘the worst of tyrants’. He remained confident that England possessed ‘so good laws to distinguish the prerogative of the king from the right of the subject’. Twysden’s estate – which ‘God hath blessed me with, and evil men by sequestration and otherwise have not bereft me of’ – permitted him to give a portion of £1,500 to his unmarried daughter.152PROB11/343/578; Cent. Kent. Stud. U1823/2/F1; U49/T47/1. Twysden’s heir, Sir William Twysden†, sat as knight of the shire in 1685.153HP Commons 1660-1690.