KNATCHBULL, Norton (1602-85), of Mersham Hatch, Kent.

The family of Norton Knatchbull, who could probably claim to have been one of the few genuine scholars to sit in Parliament during the 1640s, had been settled in Kent since at least the reign of Edward III, and their seat at Mersham, 15 miles north of Romney, had been in the family since 1485.28Add. 5520, ff. 257v-8; Berry, Pedigrees of Kent, 297-9. Knatchbull’s father was a younger brother, but Knatchbull succeeded to the Mersham estate in 1636 upon the death of his uncle, Norton Knatchbull†.29C142/398/114; J. Cave-Browne, Hist. Parish Church of All Saints Maidstone (Maidstone, 1889), 159; Canterbury Cathedral Lib. PRC32/52, f. 116.. That Knatchbull’s family was inclined towards godly Protestantism is evident from his father’s request that his children should be educated in ‘religious fear of God’, and from his uncle’s marriage to the widow of a London merchant, Thomas Westrowe, who had been prominent among the most active puritan circles.30Cent. Kent. Stud. PRC32/45, f. 375v; Berry, Pedigrees of Kent, 297-9; Vis. Kent (Harl. Soc. liv), 92. Knatchbull himself married one of Westrowe’s daughters, and in the 1620s appears to have been one of those legal students whose Protestant zeal was fired by the Palatine cause. His papers contain verses in honour of the ‘winter queen’, and the pass he obtained from Louis XIII in 1627 to travel through France may indicate a plan which went beyond participation in the Grand Tour.31Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/C215; U951/C119. Indeed, Knatchbull appears to have been considered for the service of the queen of Bohemia in 1631, although nothing came of this.32SP81/36, f. 191; Knatchbull-Hugessen, Kentish Family, 2.

Knatchbull also took an interest in the fortunes of the godly nearer home, acquiring a manuscript account of the 1637 proceedings against Henry Burton, John Bastwick and William Prynne*, and copies of Scottish petitions and propaganda in the years which followed.33Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/Z11; U951/O9/2; U951/O10/28. Nevertheless, he seems to have remained sympathetic to episcopacy, and may even have been close to controversial figures within the English and Scottish church. In October 1638 he appears to have lent £250, through the offices of Archbishop William Laud, to James Wedderburn, bishop of Dunblane, who was responsible for orchestrating the introduction of the English liturgy north of the border, the catalyst for the Covenanter rebellion.34Bodl. Tanner 67, ff. 37-8. There is little to indicate, therefore, that when Knatchbull stood for election to the Short Parliament he represented those dissatisfied with the Caroline regime, although he may have had reservations about policies such as Ship Money, and he took particular interest in the arguments outlined by Sir George Croke†, one of the dissenting judges at the trial of John Hampden* in 1637.35Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/C214. Knatchbull’s election as knight of the shire is more likely to have reflected his gentry status than his partisan appeal. He secured the support of Sir Edward Dering*, who apparently acted on his behalf in London, and returned the favour by supporting Dering’s candidacy.36Bodl. Top. Kent. e.6, pp. 82-4. There is even some evidence that there was support for a Dering-Knatchbull ‘ticket’.37Stowe 743, f. 140. Knatchbull was also endorsed by Dering’s rival, Sir Roger Twysden*, who described him as ‘an honest gentleman’, and who predicted that his ‘own worth’ as well as his kinship ties with Sir Edward Scott† would secure him broad support.38Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 3-5. Indeed, by the middle of December 1639 it was reported that ‘all the gentlemen of Kent were engaged already’ for Knatchbull.39Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 1-3, 6-7, 8. Duly elected, Knatchbull made only a slight impression on proceedings, however: his only appointment was to the committee for privileges.40CJ ii. 4a.

In the county elections for the Long Parliament Knatchbull stood aside. While his papers demonstrate a continued interest in the activities and attitudes of those most eager for reform – he acquired, for instance, a copy of the petition of the ‘twelve peers’ which called for the summoning of a new Parliament – his own views seem to have been more conformist.41Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/O10/5. He evidently campaigned for a future royalist, Sir John Culpeper*, with whom he met during late September and early October.42Stowe 743, ff. 146, 158. Dering was informed that Knatchbull had despatched letters to gentry grandees in East Kent, and was advised to

examine the confidence you have in Norton Knatchbull, because I have seen some letters from him to some friends of mine near Maidstone pressing them exceedingly to engage for their first voice to Sir John Culpeper, and some other of my friends have lately told me they have seen letters from him sent to some in or about Canterbury urging the same engagement.43Stowe 743, f. 150; Stowe 184, ff. 15-16.

Knatchbull himself secured election at New Romney, a borough sufficiently close to his seat to suggest that he was returned on his own interest, rather than that of the lord warden. Returned on 18 October, Knatchbull was made a freeman ten days later.44E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 282-4.

The official Journal suggests that Knatchbull was inactive at Parliament until the end of January 1641, when he received his first committee nominations.45CJ ii. 73b. His papers indicate engagement with matters agitated in the opening weeks, however, including Ship Money, and the questioning of the attorney general, Sir John Bankes†.46Cent. Kent. Studs. U951/O10/25; U951/C208. Moreover, Dering’s papers indicate that Knatchbull was a zealous member of the sub-committee for religion during this period, and that his absence from the chamber of the Commons was caused by his involvement in questioning ministers and in considering petitions from those with religious grievances.47Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 80, 81, 82, 86, 96. Knatchbull’s own papers reveal that religion was his primary concern, and he collected notes of speeches, including those by John Pym* and Sir Benjamin Rudyerd* regarding the church, as well as a copy of a petition against the jurisdiction of the court of high commission.48Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/O10/6, 24; U951/C205; U951/C206. He almost certainly perceived abuses in the area of church government, and in the spring of 1641 was named to committees regarding pluralities, the ‘free passage’ of the gospel, and recusancy laws.49CJ ii. 101a, 119a, 139a. In February 1642 he would be named to the committee to consider the suppression of religious innovations.50CJ ii. 438a. Nevertheless, he probably opposed ‘further reformation’, and he was regarded by at least some contemporaries as opposed to puritan firebrands. The parishioners of Ashford, for example, conceived that he would be sympathetic to their 1641 petition, which complained about their minister, Dr Ambrose Richman, who refused to celebrate communion until stained glass was removed from the church windows, and about the anti-episcopal petition then circulating in the county.51Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/C261/19.

Knatchbull’s other committee appointments in 1641 concerned less controversial business, including many private matters, although they often involved matters of personal expertise.52CJ ii. 77b, 87b, 107a, 164a, 187b, 217a, 235a. These included the management of marshes and watercourses, the reformation of electoral abuses, review of the power of individuals like the lord warden of the Cinque Ports, and the control of educational institutions.53CJ ii. 73b, 114a, 161a, 195b. In general, however, enthusiasm for parliamentary business is apparent only periodically, and in reaction to dramatic and dangerous events. Knatchbull’s zeal, like that of many Members, was fired by revelations regarding the army plot, after which he took the Protestation and became involved in organising the collection of money and plate.54CJ ii. 133a, 165a. In a letter to his wife in late May he not only relayed news of negotiations with the Scots for the disbanding of their army in England, and of the bill for the abolition of episcopacy, but also provided details, which he sought his wife to keep secret, of the evidence provided to the House by George Goring*.55Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/C261/37; Knatchbull-Hugessen, Kentish Family, 6-9. Thereafter, however, Knatchbull appears to played a less prominent part in proceedings until the arrival of news of the Irish rebellion, after which he was nominated to the Committee for Irish affairs (2 Nov. 1641), and involved in plans to secure supplies of money.56CJ ii. 302a, 357b; Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/O7/16. Likewise, in the wake of the attempted arrest of the ‘Five Members’ and the king’s departure from London, Knatchbull was added to a new committee for naval affairs, which would evolve in August into the Committee of Navy and Customs (17 Jan. 1642).57Supra, ‘Committee of Navy and Customs’; CJ ii. 384a. However, the level of his parliamentary activity then quickly subsided. He was involved in attempts to raise money in the spring, in plans to muster forces in Kent in June 1642, and in attempts to counter the influence of ‘ill-affected’ persons in the county during July. He also assented to the declaration in support of Parliament’s lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, and offered to provide £100 in plate in late September.58Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/C261/36; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Journal’, Arch. Cant. ii. 4; E. Kent. RO, NR/AC2, p. 306; Harl. 163, f. 383v; CJ ii. 686b, 783b. However, he may have withdrawn from Westminster in early October, after moving the House to take measures for the security of Dover Castle.59CJ ii. 792b; Harl. 164, f. 9v.

Knatchbull’s inactivity ensured that his loyalty was soon called into question, and on 12 November he was ordered to be brought into custody.60CJ ii. 845b. The outcome of this order is uncertain but in early April 1643 a complaint was made against him by leading parliamentarians in Kent.61Harl. 164, f. 356v. Accusations regarding his obstructive behaviour were renewed in mid-May, but this did not prevent the inclusion of Knatchbull’s name among those who were appointed to the committees for assessment and sequestration in Kent.62Add. 31116, pp. 100-101; CJ iii. 91a. Indeed, he evidently returned to the Commons, although he rapidly found himself in trouble over his scruples regarding the new Covenants. On 6 June he asked for more time to consider the parliamentary Covenant, although he subscribed it two days later.63CJ iii. 118b, 120a. On 12 June, however, the House finally ordered proceedings against him for his failure to assist in raising money in Kent, and the sequestration of his estate. Sir Simonds D’Ewes* apparently protested that such disengagement had been caused by Knatchbull’s business in London, and complained that this punishment was ‘a great oppression’, although he ‘professed that it grieved him more to see the privilege of Parliament so violated than for his own particular loss’.64CJ iii. 126b-127a; Harl. 165, f. 111. The Kent committee considered that ‘his crime deserves above one third part, yet by the general vote of the committee a £1,000 was thought fit’.65Bodl. Nalson XI, f. 197. Although Knatchbull petitioned against this order, he was fined 1,000 marks.66CJ iii. 135a, 144a; Add. 31116, p. 114.

Knatchbull presumably paid at least part of this fine, and he resumed his place in the Commons, but he soon found himself removed once again for his objections to the Solemn League and Covenant.67CJ iii. 272b, 371a. After pleading in September and October 1643 for more time to consider this oath, Knatchbull was finally suspended on 6 November, alongside the other two refusers, James Fiennes* and Sir Philip Parker*, with whom he regularly sat ‘at the lower end of the House’. This decision evidently caused some tension in the chamber, and was reached only after ‘the House sat a pretty while silent’. Although Sir Anthony Irby* argued that they should be imprisoned and their estates sequestered, this motion was rejected, not least by D’Ewes, who argued that the Covenant was merely a theological issue, and ought to have been a matter for individual consciences.68CJ iii. 259b, 262a, 297b, 299a, 302b; HMC 7th Rep. 445b; Add. 31116, p. 179; Harl. 165, ff. 200, 202, 222-3. Subsequently, however, Knatchbull was readmitted to the Commons upon demonstrating his willingness to take the Covenant, which he finally subscribed on 7 February 1644.69CJ iii. 374a, 389b, 390a, 390b. Nevertheless, his dissonant religious views seem apparent from the fact that he subsequently took as his personal chaplain one Myrth Waferer, a minister who in 1640 had been imprisoned briefly by the House of Lords for suggesting that certain English peers were answerable for the Scottish invasion, and who was later sequestered from his Hampshire living for refusing the Covenant, and for briefly joining the royalists at Winchester.70CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 289; Walker Revised, 191; LJ iv. 105, 113, 250; HMC 4th Rep. 31.

After his readmission to the House, Knatchbull was not very visible in the Commons, and he may have been something of a peacenik. He certainly appears to have taken an interest in the peace proposals discussed by the Committee of Both Kingdoms and the Scots in April 1644.71Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/O9/12. He was named to just three further committees before Pride’s purge - on Kentish affairs, Cambridge colleges, and fen drainage - and he was granted leave of absence on three occasions, in October 1645, July 1646 and March 1647.72CJ iii. 688a; iv. 229b, 316a, 525b, 608a; v. 101b. However, during at least part of this period he was active in local affairs, especially in relation to sewers business.73Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/O7/17. Moreover, his attendance at Westminster may have been more regular than such evidence suggests. He is known to have been working on behalf of Hythe borough in February 1646, and although his accounts for this period are now lost, they evidently indicated that he was in London during 1648.74E. Kent RO, Hythe, H1257; Knatchbull-Hugessen, Kentish Family, 14.

Knatchbull was secluded at Pride’s Purge in December 1648, and was an obvious candidate for the army’s attentions.75A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62); A Vindication (1649), 29 (irregular pagination) (E.539.5). He retired from public life entirely during the 1650s, when he was named to no local commissions. Instead he played an active role in the management of his estates, and oversaw the erection of a monument to his parents at Maidstone, for which he paid £45.76Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/C80/18; U951/C224; U951/C261/40. He is also known to have visited the imprisoned Kentish royalist Sir Thomas Peyton* in the Tower of London.77Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 217. He may have devoted the bulk of his time to scholarly activity, however, and in April 1659 published a substantial work of biblical exegesis, which would be republished three times in the 1670s, and translated into English after his death.78N. Knatchbull, Animadversiones in Libros Novi Testamenti Paradoxae Orthodoxae (1659); Annotations Upon Some Difficult Texts in all the Books of the New Testament, trans. S. L. (Cambridge, 1693). Following the completion of this work, he is recorded as having returned to Westminster, upon the readmission of the secluded members, and he was in the House on the day that the Long Parliament finally dissolved itself (16 Mar. 1660).79Grand Memorandum (1660, 669.f.24/37).

Recommended after the Restoration as a deputy lieutenant, Knatchbull quickly became involved in raising money for Charles II.80CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 130; Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/O9/15; U951/O15. He was returned to both the Convention and the Cavalier Parliament for New Romney, and proved active as a justice of the peace.81Cent. Kent. Stud. U951/O1; Add. 22883, f. 28; HP Commons 1660-1690. Although he retired from Parliament in 1679, he probably remained active in pursuing his academic interests and biblical study, and was evidently highly esteemed. In 1663 the diarist John Evelyn called him ‘a worthy person and learned critic, especially in the Greek and Hebrew’.82Evelyn Diary ed. De Beer, iii. 359. Knatchbull was a close friend of the dean of Rochester, Dr John Castillion, a former rector of Mersham, and in 1680 he received a generous dedication of a book by Peter du Moulin the younger, in which the latter thanked Knatchbull for locating and donating manuscripts written by his father, and mentioned Knatchbull’s own ‘excellent labours’, which had ‘shown to the world how well you can match hearty piety with eminent learning’.83PROB11/381/76; P. du Moulin, A Short View of the Chief Points in Controversy Between the Reformed Churches and the Church of Rome (1680), A2v, A3. Knatchbull’s scholarly interests, and his high-minded approach to public life, are reflected in the contents of his library, which was sold after his death, and which comprised nearly 1,500 bound volumes (including composite volumes of pamphlets), devoted largely to divinity, history, and political thought.84The Library of Sir Norton Knatchbull (1698). It is also reflected in the monumental inscription erected in his honour, which described him as the ‘glory and defence of church, fatherland and family’, and the ‘darling of the muses, leader and oracle of the critics’. It also claimed that ‘the people of Kent considered him equal to the arduous business of ruling, and he actually showed himself superior to it’, and it suggested that, ‘to an age unwilling to accept them, he restored and he adorned the religion of an earlier day’.85Knatchbull-Hugessen, Kentish Family, 36-7. At his death in 1685, Knatchbull was succeeded by his son, John Knatchbull†, who had sat alongside him as MP for Romney in 1660, and who later represented the county in the parliaments of James II and William III.86HP Commons 1660-1690; HP Commons 1690-1715.