GOODWYN, John (c.1603-74), of the Inner Temple and later of Bletchingley, Surr., Farnham Castle, Surr. and Rowfant, Worth, Suss.

As a second son (Robert Goodwin* being his elder brother), following his call to the bar of the Inner Temple in 1630, John Goodwyn pursued a career as a professional lawyer. It is an indication of his growing reputation that he was appointed to lecture as its reader by one of the inns of chancery, Clifford’s Inn, in 1641.34Baker, Readers and Readings, 201 His income from the bar was supplemented through marriage, for his wife, Katherine Deane, inherited £1,800 from her father, a former lord mayor of London, on his death in 1635.35PROB11/168/438. Election to Parliament was often an obvious step for a rising barrister and many easily combined service as an MP with extensive legal practices, but Goodwyn’s service in the Long Parliament and the three protectoral Parliaments may have prevented him from reaching the top of his profession.

Novice MP, 1640-2

Goodwyn was first elected to Parliament in October 1640 when he stood at Haslemere. The poll, held on 17 October, resulted in a double return, but the rival candidate, Sir John Jaques* did not challenge the return in favour of Goodwyn and Poynings More*. Goodwyn had certainly taken his seat in Parliament by 8 February 1641, when he spoke in favour of referring the London petition against bishops (the ‘Root and Branch’ petition) to a committee.36Procs. LP ii. 391.

Tracing Goodwyn’s career in the Long Parliament is fraught with difficulties. Not only was his brother Robert also an MP, but both were often in the early years confused with the other two Goodwins in the Commons, Arthur* and Ralph*. These problems are particular acute during Goodwyn’s first year as an MP. A rare example of an appointment that can be firmly linked to him was when he was added to the committee concerning the fens on 9 March 1641. That is also the first hint of his later interest in fen drainage. He is known to have taken the Protestation on 3 May.37CJ ii. 99b, 133a. His earliest known speech was on 8 August 1641 and related to proceedings against the bishops, but all that can be said about it is that it was interrupted by the arrival of messengers from the House of Lords.38Procs. LP vi. 294, 299. On 30 August Goodwyn successfully persuaded the Commons to refer various petitions from prisoners to the committee for prisoners.39Procs. LP vi. 611. His presence in the House cannot have gone completely unnoticed by his colleagues, as he was included on the Recess Committee (9 Sept.) created to sit during the king’s absence in Scotland.40CJ ii. 288b.

One event helps bring Goodwyn’s activity into rather clearer focus. Few in Parliament viewed the rebellion in Ireland in late 1641 as anything other than an emergency of the greatest urgency. However, as the crisis in England worsened, there was always the possibility that it would be side-lined at Westminster by events closer to hand. Goodwyn was one of those MPs who worked hard throughout 1642 and 1643 to ensure that it was not forgotten. As early as mid-January 1642, he and Isaac Penington* were asked to persuade the executors of Sir James Cambell (uncle of James Cambell*) to donate the money he had left for unspecified charitable purposes to the suppression of Irish rebels. Two months later (22 Mar.) he was second on the list of MPs appointed to consider the bill to extend the deadline for those wishing to invest in the Irish Adventure.41CJ ii. 381b, 493a. Goodwyn himself invested £100.42Bottigheimer, English Money and Irish Land, 182. He may have been added to the committee on the Irish contributions on 10 August, when the petition from the distressed English Protestants in Ireland was referred to it, while he was certainly added to the committee on the plight of the Irish judges on 8 September.43CJ ii. 713a, 759b. On 29 September he carried to the Lords for their approval the order concerning the allowances for the committee that had been appointed to travel to Ireland.44CJ ii. 788a; LJ v. 376a-b.

His involvement in Irish business became more formal that autumn, with the creation of the Committee for Irish Affairs. Its meetings were either chaired by Goodwyn or Robert Reynolds* and, as a result, Goodwyn often reported back to the House on its behalf. His first report from the Committee was heard on 5 October, when Henry Marten* challenged his claim that the Adventurers had lent £100,000 by unhelpfully pointing out that most of that money had, as yet, only been promised.45CJ ii. 796a; Harl. 163, f. 417v. When Goodwyn next reported, in early December, he discovered just how difficult it could be to gain a hearing: after other business caused a two-day postponement, when he finally made his statement on 10 December, he was interrupted by the latest news from the lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex. Marten again made a nuisance of himself, this time arguing that English business was much more urgent.46CJ ii. 880a, 883b, 892b; Harl. 163, ff. 244, 245v-246, 263. On 29 December ‘Mr Goodwyn’ was described for the first time described in the Journal as the Committee’s chairman.47CJ ii. 906a. On 26 January 1643 he secured the Commons’ agreement to a grant of money to pay for a shipment of ammunition to be sent to the army in Ireland.48Harl. 163, ff. 280v-281, 282v; CJ ii. 944b. Even more importantly, two days later he introduced the bill for a new Irish contribution.49Harl. 163, ff. 283v, 284v. He then took part in the conference with the Lords on the proposed appointment of the 2nd earl of Leicester (Sir Robert Sidney†) as the new lord lieutenant.50CJ ii. 947a. On 31 January he tried to persuade the Commons that his bill for the Irish contribution was more pressing than the proposals for a collection to assist refugees from New England.51Harl. 163, f. 286v. He encountered further trouble from Marten’s friends (those Sir Simonds D’Ewes* referred to as the ‘fiery spirits’) when he tried to make a further report on 9 March; Goodwyn was shouted down and he gave way to Miles Corbett*, who wanted instead to raise the case of Sir Robert Coke†.52Harl. 164, ff. 317v-318. He was more successful later that month when he persuaded the Commons to approve payments to merchants who had provided supplies for Ireland.53Harl. 164, f. 339; CJ iii. 23b. On 17 April he moved that they proceed with the bill for £200,000 to fund the Irish campaign. When Sir Henry Vane I* opposed this, John Pym* and D’Ewes backed Goodwyn.54Harl. 164, ff. 370v-371. Over that summer he sat on the committee to expedite Irish affairs (29 May) and on supply for Ireland (23 June), while he was probably the MP sent to the Lords on 12 July to seek their concurrence to the bill for the new Irish subscription.55CJ iii. 109b, 142a; LJ vi. 129a.

All this had taken place in parallel with the unfolding crisis in England. In the spring of 1642, when the control of London was a major concern, Parliament had begun proceedings against the lord mayor of London, Sir Richard Gurney, a firm ally of the king, and other senior members of the corporation of London. Goodwyn played a central role in this. On 14 March 1642 he told the Commons that he had visited Gurney on 12 March and that, being very sick, Gurney had indicated that he would be willing to appoint a former lord mayor, Sir George Whitmore, as his acting deputy.56CJ ii. 477b; PJ ii. 34. The following week Goodwyn was included on the committee to prepare charges against the recorder of London, Sir Thomas Gardiner* (22 Mar, and was later added to the committee on the grievances of the common council (28 Mar.). On 19 July he was appointed as one of the joint managers for the conference with the Lords on the evidence to be used at the planned trial of Gurney.57CJ ii. 492b, 500b, 681b.

War, 1642-5

With the prospect of a war against the king ever more likely, Goodwyn sided unambiguously with Parliament. In June 1642 he offered a horse and £50 as his personal contributions towards the parliamentarian war effort.58PJ iii. 470. In early October Goodwyn, Bulstrode Whitelocke* and Richard Knightley* were given the task of drafting an order to allow the Northamptonshire militia commissioners to seize arms. In November he sat on the committee to prepare the list of new deputy lieutenants for eastern Surrey (2 Nov) and on the committee for seizing horses (25 Nov.).59CJ ii. 797a, 831a, 863b. On 16 November he also reported to the Commons in support of the proposal that those who had been plundered by the king’s army should be compensated from the estates of the king’s supporters, although, as yet, this seems to have been a step too far for the Commons and his proposal was laid aside. He meanwhile helped defend Parliament’s actions to wider audiences, sitting on the committees to reassure the corporation of London of their desire for peace (8 Nov.) and to prepare a counter-declaration to the king’s declaration against those MPs still sitting at Westminster (1 Dec.).60CJ ii. 840a, 852b, 870a. He probably already supported the moves for an alliance with the Scots.61CJ ii. 901b.

On 2 January 1643 Goodwyn and William Strode I* were tellers in the division on whether to proceed with a vote concerning one of the peace propositions to be offered to the king, although his own views on the clause itself are difficult to discern.62CJ ii. 911a. That same month he promoted the bill to confiscate the income of the vicarage at Horsham so that it could be paid instead to the local lecturer.63CJ ii. 943b; LJ v. 583a-b; Harl. 163, f. 286. On 21 March he raised the cases of Sir William Boteler and Sir Anthony St Leger, two royalists who had recently escaped from prison. The Commons agreed with Goodwyn that their estates should be confiscated and so asked him to prepare a bill for that purpose.64Harl. 164, f. 337v; CJ iii. 11b. On 17 April, acting on behalf of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, he informed the House that John Bewdith of Chardstock, Dorset, had violated parliamentary privilege by entering into lands belonging to D’Ewes. The Commons agreed that the property should be seized from Bewdith.65Harl. 164, f. 370; CJ iii. 47b. Goodwyn also spoke in the debate two days later concerning the complaints by the Lords that Henry Marten had opened the correspondence of Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland.66Harl. 164, f. 374. On 24 May he got the Commons to appoint a committee to investigate a local official who, he claimed, had been seizing horses in Surrey and Hertfordshire from persons who were not royalist delinquents.67Harl. 164, f. 392. On 2 June he and Sir Arthur Hesilrige* were asked to ensure that Sir William Waller*, the commander-in-chief in the west, received the payment of £736 that the Commons had voted to him. On 6 June, in the wake of the news of the royalist plot linked to Edmund Waller*, Goodwyn joined with his colleagues in the vow to support Parliament.68CJ iii. 113a, 118b.

Arthur Goodwin’s death in August 1643 helps resolve the problem in distinguishing between the various Goodwins; thereafter the clerks compiling the Journals took more care to differentiate Robert and John. This reveals that John was supporting the alliance with the Scots, and he was probably happy to take the Solemn League and Covenant on 30 September.69CJ iii. 244a, 259a. Evidently keen to vote supplies to the English armies, he and William Cage* took the lead in November 1643 when the Commons appointed a committee to consult with the London militia committee concerning the collection of the weekly assessments. In October 1643 he was added to the Committee for Plundered Ministers*.70CJ iii. 257b, 283b, 285b, 309b-310a. On 17 January 1644 he opposed the suggestion by William Strode I that the sequestration against the earl of Holland (Henry Rich†) might be lifted.71Harl. 165, f. 278. On 24 January he was appointed by the Commons as a deputy lieutenant for Surrey.72CJ iii. 376a.

Evidence for Goodwyn’s activities in the Commons for the rest of 1644 is remarkably sparse. The handful of committee appointments that may refer to him could equally relate to his brother.73CJ iii. 467b, 580a, 666b. It could well be that he spent some time away from Westminster. The presence in Hampshire of the royalist army under Sir Ralph Hopton* during the early months of the year threatened to bring the war to Surrey. Goodwyn’s appointment as a deputy lieutenant had been part of the efforts to ready Surrey for any fighting. But the victory by Sir William Waller at Cheriton on 29 March removed that immediate danger. What is known is that Goodwyn was taking sides in the factional politics within Surrey, for by September of that year he was one of those seeking to undermine the position of the governor of Farnham, Samuel Jones*.74Harl. 166, f. 124v. Moreover, Goodwyn’s apparent absence from Westminster is partly illusory, as he was still regularly attending and chairing meetings of the Committee for Irish Affairs, which, since the previous November, had been merged with the Adventurers’ Committee – although it found itself increasingly side-lined by the Committee of Both Kingdoms*.75Add. 4771, ff. 4v-53; CJ iii. 603b. Named in January 1644 to the committee to examine the accounts of the excise commissioners. Goodwyn was mentioned as its chairman as late as mid-November 1644.76CJ iii. 360a, 699b.

There can be little doubt that he fully supported the creation of the New Model army. The Lords finally passed the New Model ordinance on 15 February 1645. Three days later the Commons capitalised on this by instructing Goodwyn to draft a bill for the impressment of soldiers for this new army. This bill was ready by 25 February, whereupon it was immediately passed by the Commons and then carried to the Lords by Goodwyn.77CJ iv. 52a, 62a. He or his brother was subsequently named to the committee on the bill that became the Self-Denying Ordinance (24 Mar.). Apart from reporting from the Committee for Irish Affairs in early March, his contributions to the proceedings of the House during the first half of 1645 are otherwise unrecorded.78CJ iv. 88a, 130b, 133b. He was, however, one of those MPs granted a weekly allowance on 3 June. In late July he was named to the committee to prepare instructions for the commissioners for the sale of delinquents’ estate (31 July).79CJ iv. 161a, 225b.

Aftermath of war, 1645-8

Then, in August 1645 Goodwyn suddenly discovered a new parliamentary role for himself. When on 5 August Sir John Trevor* sought permission to take a brief period of leave in the country, the Commons appointed Goodwyn to take over from him as the chairman of the committee for petitions. This was probably envisaged only as a temporary arrangement, but, despite Trevor’s return, Goodwyn was still acting as its chairman the following October.80CJ iv. 230a, 309a. The expedient had become permanent and for the next two years chairing this committee would be Goodwyn’s primary responsibility at Westminster. In that time dozens of petitions were referred to that committee by the Commons.81CJ iv. 317b, 338a, 364a, 371a, 382b, 383a, 397a, 404b, 427a; v. 188a. Moreover, as chairman, Goodwyn regularly reported back from it to the Commons.82CJ iv. 309b, 316a, 324b, 325a, 337b-338a, 354a, 362a, 363a, 376b, 377b, 389a, 404a, 517b; v. 63b. He was, unsurprisingly, among the MPs named to the committee set up on 14 February 1646 to investigate the powers of the committee for petitions.83CJ iv. 440b. The latter took on a particular significance as the war drew to its close, as it began to receive petitions from army veterans still owed arrears by Parliament, in the first instance some of the officers of the Scottish army serving in England. On 19 June 1646, on the recommendation reported by Goodwyn, the Commons voted that these officers should be reimbursed.84CJ iv. 493a, 581b, 584a. Two months later a similar petition from some of their English counterparts was referred to the committee, which then drew up a list of the reformado officers. A further list of the Scottish officers was prepared in April 1647.85CJ iv. 641a, 722a; v. 7a, 150a. During June 1647, with the army’s grievances moving to the top of the political agenda, arrangements were made for the English officers to be paid off via the committee for petitions.86CJ v. 196b, 199a, 205b, 206a, 210b, 235b. On 22 July Goodwyn was asked to draft a bill to pay off those stationed in Surrey.87CJ v. 253b.

Moreover, during that same period Goodwyn was probably being named to a wider range of committees than ever before. Among them were those related to the excise accounts (11 Mar. 1646), compensation for the officials of the former court of wards (20 May and 24 Nov.), the sales of the estates of delinquents (10 July) and bishops (27 Feb. 1647), and preventing the appointment of malignant clergymen to ecclesiastical livings (22 Mar.). In early 1646 he and William Ellys* probably promoted the bill relating to the wardship of William Oldfield*.88CJ iv. 432b, 472b, 552a, 613a, 727a; v. 99a, 119b. (Oldfield’s sister would subsequently become Goodwyn’s daughter-in-law.) In March 1647 he obtained special permission from the Commons to begin legal proceedings concerning lands belonging to Sir George Sondes† even although Sondes’s estates were still under sequestration.89CJ v. 122a.

Goodwyn’s involvement via the committee for petitions in the payment of the army arrears indicated a certain sympathy with the army’s grievances and by the summer of 1647 he was probably aligned more with the Independent faction in the Commons. That he cannot be placed in the Commons between 22 July and mid-September 1647, while not decisive evidence, would be consistent with support for the Independents during the crisis of late July and early August.90CJ v. 253b, 298a, 301b. Later that year he was included on the committee on the case of John Lilburne (15 Oct.), while he was also named to the committee to prepare instructions for the governor of Carisbrooke Castle, Robert Hammond*, following the king’s flight to the Isle of Wight (15 Nov.).91CJ v. 334a, 359a. He remained an active presence in the House throughout the early months of 1648. In late January he secured the payment of £1,000 for William Ashhurst*, while in March 1648 he finally introduced the bill for the Surrey-based soldiers ordered by the Commons the previous July.92CJ v. 450b, 451a, 500b; LJ x. 10b. He probably also supported the bill to compensate the surviving feoffees for the purchase of impropriations (28 Mar.), as well as the additional bill for the relief of Ireland (20 Apr.). During the second civil war that summer his main role was probably to help secure Farnham Castle, as one of the Goodwin brothers was among the MPs asked on 29 June to obtain £100 from the Surrey sequestrations for that purpose.93CJ v. 519a, 538b, 616b. This is more likely to have been John, as he was now the castle’s owner, having recently purchased it from the commissioners for the sale of bishops’ lands.94VCH Surr. ii. 604. John was later appointed to the committee to investigate the uprisings in Surrey (11 July). His other known contribution to this emergency was to reassure the army by supporting the latest measures to pay their arrears.95CJ v. 599a, 631b, 654a.

Rump, 1648-53

Neither of the Goodwin brothers was affected by the purge of the Commons on 6 December 1648. Later that month John was included on the committee on the king’s trial (29 Dec.), but he was not named as one of the judges and there is no evidence that he supported the king’s execution. On that day, 30 January, he may have been present in the House, as he was named to the committee on the bill to repeal some of the statutes that the regicide would violate.96CJ vi. 106a, 126a. He had, in the meantime, headed the list of those added to the Committee of Navy and Customs, as a replacement for those secluded (6 Jan.). (It may not be a coincidence that his wife’s cousin, Richard Deane*, was appointed as one of the navy commissioners a few weeks later.) On 8 February Goodwyn sat on the committee to revise the commissions of the peace to ensure that all the justices were men willing to support the new republic. The following month he was a teller in one of the divisions concerning the funding for the army to be sent to Ireland (21 Mar.);97CJ vi. 112b, 134a, 170b. he was no doubt pleased that Parliament was finally taking steps to mount a full-scale re-conquest. He was still described as chairman of the committee for petitions in April, when it was agreed that the money to be paid by it to the Scottish army officers should come from the revenues to be raised from the sale of the lands of the cathedral chapters.98CJ vi. 192a; A. and O. He was therefore probably also the MP named to the committee on the loans to be raised against those sales (5 June 1649). He doubtless took the Engagement and subsequently supported the moves to compel all MPs and later the nation at large to do so too.99CJ vi. 225a, 307b, 321b.

Goodwyn’s exact role in the Rump remains difficult to assess, given that the Journals once again became careless in distinguishing between the two brothers. Some facts are clear. Several matters were specifically referred by his colleagues to John. Thus, in May 1649 he and Nicholas Love* were asked to take care of the committee created to consider the futures of the marshalsea and the court of the verge, two bodies that had hitherto been offshoots of the royal household. In August 1649 the House entrusted to him the bill for taking public accounts when it was sent to its committee stage. In January 1650 he and Miles Corbett* were asked to prepare a bill to permit the company of London merchants trading to France to collect customs duties.100CJ vi. 206b, 274b, 353b. Goodwyn seems moreover to have had a particular interest in fen drainage. On 21 May 1649 Goodwyn reported to the House amendments to the bill for the draining of the Great Level, including those which added the names of commissioners (himself among them).101Cambs. RO, R.59.31.9.1, f. XIVv; CJ vi. 204b, 210b, 212b-213a; A. and O. He was evidently still involved with that committee a year later, while in April 1652 he and Henry Marten were instructed to prepare the legislation for the draining of the Lincolnshire fens.102CJ vi. 413a, 413b, vii. 111b, 118b.

It is plausible that Goodwyn sat on several committees in mid-1649 relating to the sale of the royal lands, including that he was first-named to the committee that prepared the bill to retain some of the royal palaces in public ownership (30 June 1649).103CJ vi. 205b, 247a, 254a. Indeed, it was presumably at about this time that Goodwyn became steward of Queen Henrietta Maria’s former manor of Wimbledon – he certainly already held that position when the estate was surveyed by the parliamentary commissioners in November 1649 – and he continued to perform that role after the manor had been bought by John Lambert*.104Hart, ‘Parliamentary surveys’, 138; Extracts from the Court Rolls of the Manor of Wimbledon (1866), 229, 231, 234. As a member of the committee to remove obstructions to these sales, Goodwyn reported to the House on 15 April 1650 concerning the claims being made by the 2nd earl of Salisbury (William Cecil*) regarding the keepership of Theobalds Park.105CJ vi. 398a-399a. Goodwyn seems similarly to have supported the sales of the contents of the royal palaces and of the delinquents’ estates that remained in public hands.106CJ vi. 382a, 393b, 599a.

Some of his activity in the Rump related to local matters with specific Surrey connections. In late 1650 Goodwyn took the lead in promoting legislation to create a new county gaol for Surrey. On 7 November 1650 the House asked him to bring in a bill to effect this and he was therefore almost certainly included on the committee to which that bill was referred on 12 March 1651.107CJ vi. 492a, 548b. After the bill was passed in April 1651, Goodwyn was one of the trustees appointed to purchase a property for that purpose, a task which they completed in August 1654 with the acquisition of the White Lion Inn in Southwark.108Hart, ‘Further remarks’, 202-4. Similarly, he sat on the committees relating to Sackville College in East Grinstead (31 Mar. 1650) and on the bill to improve the River Wey (26 Feb. 1651). There were also a couple of matters in which Goodwyn’s relatives had direct personal interests. In late December 1650 the compounding commissioners were instructed to pay Robert Goodwin money which was owed to the late Peregrine Pelham* so that this could be passed on to Pelham’s creditors. Having been named to the committee on the subject, John Goodwyn was then told to take care of this. In September 1652 either Robert or John was included on the committee for the private bill concerning the jointure of the wife of their second cousin, Robert Wallop*.109CJ vi. 418a, 516a, 542a; vii. 182a. In 1652 there was an attempt to get John Goodwyn appointed as the chirographer of the court of common pleas. The lord chief justice, Oliver St John*, however sided with (Sir) William Drake* who had held the reversion to that position since 1636.110CCSP v. 43-4; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 217.

Protectorate, 1653-9

Goodwyn seems to have accepted the advent of the protectorate in December 1653. The following year there was no question of him seeking re-election for his former constituency, as Haslemere had been disenfranchised under the Instrument of Government. There was, however, a convenient alternative. His brother Robert’s electoral interest at East Grinstead had enabled him to sit as its MP four times since 1621, but in 1654 Robert was absent in Ireland, so his interest was used to elect John instead. Robert’s absence also meant that John was the only Goodwin sitting in this Parliament, so there is no problem in identifying his activities in it. Not that those activities were extensive. Goodwyn was appointed to just three committees – on the petition from Thomas Levingston* and his wife Anne (21 Nov. 1654), on the enumeration of damnable heresies (12 Dec.) and on the bill to abolish purveyance (22 Dec.).111CJ vii. 387a, 399b, 407b.

In the 1656 elections Goodwyn was returned both at East Grinstead and at Reigate, where he had owned half the manor since 1648, when he had bought it from the 3rd earl of Nottingham.112VCH Surr. iii. 235. However, for reasons that remain unclear, Goodwyn then found himself among those MPs barred from taking their seats by the council of state. That exclusion was only temporary and Goodwyn had taken his seat by 28 November, when he informed the House that he wished to sit again for East Grinstead.113CJ vii. 425b, 461a. In the subsequent by-election at Reigate Goodwyn probably supported Jerome Sankey* and, when the matter was raised in Parliament on 13 December, he implicitly criticised the sheriff, Thomas Pride*, who had his own hopes of gaining the seat, for delaying the indenture in Sankey’s favour.114Burton’s Diary, i. 127.

Goodwyn had meanwhile been attending the committee for recusants, apparently with the aim of objecting to certain sections of the bill that was passed by the committee without alterations on 15 December.115Burton’s Diary, i. 117, 148 When the House came to debate James Naylor, he said nothing on the case itself, but took a hard-line view of Parliament’s right to punish him. On 17 December he opposed the suggestion that MPs should question Naylor before pronouncing judgment, arguing that he would only deny their jurisdiction and that, in any case, they had already decided that he was guilty. After Cromwell queried their decision, Goodwyn thought that they should simply assert their right to judge him and leave it at that.116Burton’s Diary, i. 165, 252-3. Given that his brother Robert was a member of the Irish council of state and was close to Henry Cromwell*, Goodwyn continued to be interested in Irish affairs. When on 27 December 1656, during the debate on whether to grant Irish land to Edward Whalley* and Erasmus Smith, some proposed that Henry Cromwell also be granted lands. Goodwyn agreed, arguing that the suggested size of the grant was insufficient.117Burton’s Diary, i. 260. He probably also supported the bill to attaint the Irish rebels.118CJ vii. 515a. In June 1657 he opposed moves to reduce the Irish share of the assessment tax, on the rather optimistic grounds that the Irish economy was steadily recovering.119Burton’s Diary, ii. 246. But he also spoke on other issues. In April 1657 several peers petitioned Parliament to halt legal proceedings against them over a bond for £50,000 which had been borrowed from London at the start of the civil war. Goodwyn sided with the Londoners, as he thought that there had been plenty of time for Parliament to repay the money.120Burton’s Diary, ii. 84; CJ vii. 528b.

Goodwyn was said to have voted for kingship on 25 March 1657.121Narrative of the Late Parliament) (1657), 22 (E.935.5). In the debate on the Other House on 14 June, he demanded to know whether the second chamber would rank as the equal of the Commons or whether one would take precedence over the other.122Burton’s Diary, ii. 300. He intervened twice over private matters, supporting the estate bill for Lord Cobham (Sir John Brooke*; 20 Dec.), while, on the other hand, questioning whether it was worth considering the petition from the tenants of Thomas Tyrrell* at all (22 Dec.).123Burton’s Diary, i. 189, 197. He may have some specific interest in the private bill to allow Charles Barnsley to sell lands to pay his debts, as he and Robert Jenkinson* were the only two MPs added to the committee on the bill on 6 March 1657. ‘Mr Goodin’ was named to the committee on one of the clauses in the estate bill for Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*) (5 June 1657).124CJ vii. 499a, 546a. He chaired at least one committee, namely that on the petition from the corporation of London (19 Dec. 1656).125CJ vii. 470b; Burton’s Diary, i. 342.

In the 1659 elections the Goodwin interest at East Grinstead was used in favour of Robert, so John was instead elected for Bletchingley. By this time Goodwyn had probably become the leading resident within this small constituency, as it is likely that he was already living at Bletchingley Place as a tenant of its owner, Elizabeth, dowager countess of Peterborough and her son, the 2nd earl.126Lambert, Bletchingley, i. 275. Fortunately, although his brother also sat in the 1659 Parliament, Robert had since been knighted, so the possibility for confusion was largely eliminated. John was, by some margin, the more active. Most of his contributions related to the various election disputes. At the start of the Parliament, he was included on the committee for elections (28 Jan.) and he reported from it on one occasion, presenting the House on 10 March with its recommendations concerning the Carmarthen boroughs dispute.127CJ vii. 594b, 612b. In the debate on the Reading election, he opposed the motion that Henry Frewin should be summoned to the bar for having falsely claimed to be the town’s mayor, but he did so because he thought that this would be more appropriately dealt with by a committee.128Burton’s Diary, iii. 23. As he pointed out himself, he had a personal interest in the insults allegedly made by Lewis Audley* against the two MPs for Gatton, Edward Bysshe II* and Thomas Turgis*, as the three men were ‘my near neighbours’. He believed that it was right that Audley had been sent to the Tower of London, but he played down the alleged insult, calling it a mere ‘slip of passion’.129Burton’s Diary, iii. 44. As a teller for the noes, he then helped block the move for the House to vote on whether to dismiss Audley from the Surrey commission of the peace.130CJ vii. 597b. Someone else he thought should be sent to the Tower was William King, the man who claimed that he had been tricked into thinking that he had been elected as an MP. Having already decided to send him to Newgate, the House ignored Goodwyn’s suggestion. That same day (5 Feb.) the House also ignored the motion moved by George Starkey* and seconded by Goodwyn that a new election writ be issued for Oxford.131Burton’s Diary, iii. 81, 84. Goodwyn again intervened on 12 February during the debate on the case of Edmund Jones*, the former delinquent who had been elected for Breconshire. When Sir John Northcote* attempted to draw a parallel with Sir Richard Onslow*, Goodwyn jumped to the defence of his fellow Surrey resident by pointing out that Onslow had never been charged with delinquency.132Burton’s Diary, iii. 237. The fate of the MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies raised more general issues, as the question was whether they had any right to sit at all. When Goodwyn spoke in the debate on the subject on 21 March, he argued in favour of the proposal that the motion should be framed as to whether the Scottish MPs should be allowed to continue to sit; in other words, he was implicitly supporting the view that they were already MPs, even if the House now voted to remove them.133Burton’s Diary, iv. 212. Two committee appointments – to prepare a bill to assist those held prisoner on islands beyond the reach of habeas corpus (16 Mar.) and on the petition of George Coney concerning lands purchased by him in the sale of delinquents’ estates (11 Apr.) – completed Goodwyn’s known activities in this Parliament.134CJ vii. 614b, 634b.

Rump Restored, 1659-60

The forced dissolution of Parliament in late April 1659 only briefly interrupted Goodwyn’s parliamentary career, because, as a Rumper, he was able to resume his seat when the Rump reassembled several weeks later. He was back in the House by 18 May, when he was named to the committees to decide which passages needed to be excised from the Journals and to prepare the nominations for the commissions of oyer and terminer, and gaol delivery for London.135CJ vii. 656b. He was one of the MPs granted lodgings at Whitehall on 9 July.136CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 15. One particularly pressing issue for the Rump was the need to maintain the steady flow of tax revenues and so over the following months Goodwyn spent much of his time on committees involving the public finances.137CJ vii. 690a, 691a, 772a, 780b, 786b. In the case of the committee on the bill to settle the revenues, by mid-August he may well have been serving as its chairman.138CJ vii. 761a, 761b. On 21 September he reported back to the House on the amendments made by the committee considering the bill to appoint commissioners to bring in the public revenues. Those amendments were accepted and the bill was passed. Unsurprisingly, his other committee appointments included that on the petition from the Irish Adventurers (6 July).139CJ vii. 706a, 784b. During the summer of 1659 the immediate threat to the republic came from the attempted royalist uprisings. One of the suspects arrested in their wake was Richard Cromwell’s* brother-in-law Thomas Belasyse*, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg. There is a hint that Goodwyn thought that this arrest was an overreaction. When the Rump voted on the matter on 24 September, on whether to vote on whether to send Fauconberg to the Tower, Goodwyn was a teller for the minority noes.140CJ vii. 786a.

Goodwyn once more took his place in the Rump when it sat again in late December 1659. The committee to improve the defences of the Tower of London, to which he was named on 11 January 1660, was a symptom of the ongoing political uncertainty, while the committee on the qualifications for MPs, to which he was also named that day, was a reminder that he and his colleagues remained extremely wary of restoring completely free elections.141CJ vii. 807a, 818b. His probable support for the proposal that George Monck* be granted extensive estates shows that he grasped exactly who would determine the Rump’s fate. He was later named to two committees in the immediate aftermath of the readmission of the secluded Members on 21 February, including a new committee on the subject of MPs’ qualifications (22 Feb.).142CJ vii. 813a, 848b, 849a. As he was not named to any subsequent committees, it could be that he viewed these latest developments with some disquiet. He must have been aware that this would pave the way for the return of the Stuarts, a prospect that is unlikely to have gladdened him.

Goodwyn sat in the 1660 Convention as MP for Bletchingley. He seems to have retained his interest in the drainage of the fens, as one of his few committee appointments in that Parliament was on that subject.143CJ viii. 149b. Thereafter he retired from public life, although, to a large extent, he had little choice in the matter as he was removed from the Surrey commission of the peace and he was not appointed to any of the other local commissions. He had acquired Rowfant House at Worth, Sussex, presumably before the death of his mother in 1658, as she was buried in the local church.144Llewellyn, East Suss. Church Monuments, 421. Goodwyn died there on 18 February 1674 and, in accordance with his wishes, he was buried alongside her. His wife died only a week later.145Petersons, Rowfant Story, 8. His only son, Deane, who had married Thomazin, a daughter of Samuel Owfeild*, had predeceased him, but there were surviving grandsons.146Vis. Surr. 1662-8, 51; Llewellyn, East Suss. Church Monuments, 423. Goodwyn’s estates were left to his executrix, his eldest daughter, Joanna, to be held by her in trust for seven years until they could be passed to Deane Goodwyn’s eldest son, Deane junior.147PROB11/344/308.