BOYS, Sir Edward (1579-1646), of Fredville, Nonington, Kent.

The Fredville estate had been held by the Boys family since 1484, and the family had first gained a seat at Westminster in the Reformation Parliament.31Hasted, Kent, ix. 247. Through marriage, they forged a connection with one of Oxfordshire’s leading families, the Wentworths of Lillingston Lovell, and Boys’ maternal grandfather was the notorious Elizabethan puritan, Peter Wentworth†.32Vis. Kent 1619 (Harl. Soc. lxii), 40. Boys’ early life is difficult to disentangle from that of his father. Both were knighted in 1604 and there is little evidence as to which sat for Fowey in the ‘addled Parliament’ of 1614. Nevertheless, it was our MP who secured a seat at Christchurch in 1625, upon the recommendation of Thomas Arundell, 1st Baron Arundell of Wardour, and who defeated a client of George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham, at Sandwich in 1626.33Hasted, Kent, ix. 246; Cent. Kent. Stud. PRC32/38/48v; Add. 29759, f.49v; Procs. 1625, 679-80; HP Commons 1604-1629. Boys replaced his father on the Kent commission of the peace in 1632, three years before inheriting the family estate, and proved to be an active justice of the peace during the personal rule of Charles I.34SP16/395, f. 3. At some point before 1640 he also became deputy lieutenant of Dover Castle, serving under the lord warden of the Cinque Ports, Theophilus Howard, 2nd earl of Suffolk.35Jones, Annals of Dover, 63.

Boys’ return to the Short Parliament for Dover was almost guaranteed by his position, regardless of support from the lord warden. Probably detained by his duties in the town, Boys made no recorded impression upon the proceedings. When, following Suffolk’s death in June, James Stuart, 4th duke of Lennox, succeeded him as lord warden, Boys retained his position. He was re-elected to Parliament, once again without direct evidence of ‘court’ patronage, and Boys’ later career suggests that he may not have been recommended by the lord warden. Indeed, Boys had recently cemented his ties with the townsmen by joining the town’s other Short Parliament MP, Sir Peter Heyman*, in sending a gift of deer to the corporation.36E. Kent RO, Do/FCa5, f. 281v. Moreover, there is evidence that, in the county election for the Long Parliament, Boys favoured candidates opposed to the court interest. At the beginning of October 1640, his response to the canvassing of Sir Edward Dering* was that he was already ‘engaged’ unto two unnamed ‘friends’, but felt confident that neither would stand, and therefore promised that, in this eventuality, ‘I will be for one of my voices for you’. Boys, whose support had evidently been solicited by another candidate, Sir John Culpeper*, may even have lobbied other freeholders on Dering’s behalf.37Add. 26785, f. 7. Subsequently Boys was recognised not merely as one of Dering’s most prominent supporters, but also as someone engaged for the return alongside him of Richard Browne I*.38Stowe 184, f. 15; Stowe 743, f. 156. In other words, Boys appears to have favoured a godly ‘ticket’.

Although Boys made no recorded impression on proceedings before 29 January 1641, he was present in Westminster: in December 1640 he lobbied for the exemption of the ports from the subsidy.39CJ ii. 75a; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 164v; Add. 29623, f. 129. The town clerk of Sandwich reported in March 1641 that Boys was one of the MPs who ‘stir very much in’ the matter, and at the end of April he was nominated to the committee to consider the subsidy bill.40CJ ii. 130b; E. Kent RO, Sa/C4. Boys also sat on at least one committee relating to the affairs of kinsmen (27 Feb.; the heirs of the earl of Winchelsea).41CJ ii. 94a; Harl. 477, f. 64b; Harl. 163, f. 398. Having taken the Protestation promptly on 3 May, ten days later Boys contributed to debate on security amid fears over the ‘army plot’ by laying before the House a letter revealing unsettling rumours in Calais over the weakness of Dover.42CJ ii. 133a; Procs. LP iv. 364, 366. But he exhibited broader concerns, especially for ‘further reformation’ through legislation against pluralities (10 Mar.) and abuses in ecclesiastical courts (27 Apr.), and through dealing with university colleges, including the notoriously godly Emmanuel College in Cambridge.43CJ ii. 101a, 128b, 129b, 196a, 197a. He was also named to committees considering the London water supply (29 May) and preparing the bill to pay off the occupying Scottish army in the north (5 Aug.).44CJ ii. 161a, 239a; Procs. LP v. 408.

For the next seven months Boys largely disappears from view at Westminster. Nevertheless, while he spent some time in Dover, where he was entertained by the corporation in November 1641, he was present in the House in December to introduce a motion to grant leave to his cousin Sir William Strickland*.45E. Kent RO, Do/FCa5, f. 325v; D’Ewes (C), 297. By early 1642, however, he appears to have been almost entirely preoccupied with issues relating to Kent. Despatched to Dover by the House in early February, upon his return in March, he displayed his concern with naval affairs by acting as teller in a division over a controversial appointment.46PJ i. 317; ii. 23; CJ ii. 474b. An obvious candidate for nomination as a deputy lieutenant, Boys became involved in consideration of events surrounding the controversial Kent petition of March 1642.47CJ ii. 483b, 501b. Moreover, while he was granted leave to return to Kent in early April, he was back at Westminster in early June, and displayed not merely concern for the trading interests of his corporation, but also for the implementation of the Militia Ordinance.48CJ ii. 511b, 610a, 641a; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 167v; Do/FCa5, f. 329; Add. 29623, f. 133; PJ iii. 116. His emergence as a supporter of Parliament in its disputes with the king was also evident from his offer that month to provide both horses and money to its cause.49PJ iii. 471.

As tension mounted in Kent through July, Boys was relied upon by the Commons to encourage other local gentry to serve the cause, and he was on the delegation despatched to attend the assizes, in order to undermine royalist activity in the region.50CJ ii. 655a, 686b; PJ iii. 177. Although he returned to Westminster briefly in mid-August, when he was involved in committees regarding Irish Protestants, and the preparation of a covenant to support Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, as commander-in-chief, Boys was sent again to Dover at the end of the month, and the castle having been secured for Parliament, he was named as its governor; the appointment was greeted with a gift of wine from the town’s corporation. Boys eventually received a colonel’s salary.51CJ ii. 713a, 722a, 724a, 736b; iii. 154a; Add. 33512, f. 73; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 168v; A True Relation of the Brave Exploits (1642), 3-7.

Boys immediately set about reforming the management of the castle’s courts, and he arrested those of its officials who showed royalist inclinations.52CJ ii. 750a, 843a; CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 373. He also encouraged the civic authorities to report to Parliament those who made speeches against the king.53HMC Portland, i. 64; Bodl. Nalson II, f. 161. Boys’ responsibilities extended to the collection of money in the county, above and beyond that owed by the merchants in Dover, and he took charge of local fortification works.54CJ ii. 765b, 779a; Add. 29623, f. 134. He even fostered the spiritual well-being of the inhabitants of Dover, by helping to secure the services of a preacher in the spring of 1643.55HMC Portland, i. 104; Bodl. Nalson II, f. 352. Given that the region was crucial to royalists, in terms of the movement of men, munitions, and information, in December 1642 Boys was ordered to oversee the work of the clerks of the passages throughout the Cinque Ports, and this occasioned extensive correspondence with towns such as Sandwich.56CJ ii. 894b; Add. 18777, f. 98; E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 174-83. In the months that followed, Boys sent regular reports to Westminster regarding naval movements in the Channel, and about suspicious individuals in the region.57Add. 18777, f. 125; CJ ii. 939b; iii. 17a.

The Commons recognised Boys’ service not merely by endeavouring to secure money for the castle, but also by referring to his consideration petitions on local matters.58CJ ii. 994b; iii. 40a, 111a. Over the spring of 1643 Boys emerged as a more important figure in the county at large, both as an advocate of an association of the southern counties, and as a member of the county committee.59Add. 33512, ff. 76, 78; HMC Portland, i. 702; Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 154, 156; Add. 29623, ff. 134, 135. He joined the more zealous local parliamentarians in complaining about less enthusiastic colleagues – whether MPs, local justices, or deputy lieutenants.60Harl. 164, f. 356v; HMC Portland, i. 708; Bodl. Nalson XI, f. 197. In June he signed a letter which grumbled about the failure of some MPs to make financial contributions; the authors could not

conceive any offence of a more transcendant quality, [or which] deserves a sequestration more, than for members of that honourable body to contemn that authority which themselves impose upon others to obey.61Bodl. Nalson XI, f. 198.

Boys also bemoaned the impact of malignant clergymen, without whom ‘we find the weekly tax would go cheerfully’. He and his colleagues criticised the tendency for local ministers to ‘both privately whisper and publicly speak against the unlawfulness of it, and so stagger the minds of their parishioners’.62Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 161-2.

Although Boys returned to Westminster briefly in June 1643, when he took the parliamentary covenant, he was evidently more useful in Kent, where he rapidly returned.63CJ iii. 134b, 140a; E. Kent RO, Do/FCa5, f. 349. He immediately became involved in the suppression of the Kent insurrection, and in its aftermath was involved in implementing measures to improve security in the region, particularly regarding illegal building work near forts and garrisons, and the levying of additional forces.64CJ iii. 159b, 195a, 224a; Add. 33512, f. 85; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 171; Add. 29623, ff. 136, 138; CSP Dom. 1641-3, pp. 487-8; 1645-7, p. 287; HMC Portland, i. 132; Bodl. Nalson III, f. 76. Local boroughs for which he was not directly responsible appreciated that he was a figure of great influence, and that his endorsement was vital to the success of their petitions.65E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.; CP/Bp/74; Sa/ZB2/100; Add. 33512, f. 86. However, while Boys pursued local delinquents, he was perceived to have been less oppressive and less of a firebrand than some of his colleagues on the county committee. Sir Thomas Peyton*, who called him ‘a great example of piety and religion’, evidently felt that Boys would be sympathetic to his claim to have been treated harshly by the sequestrators.66Harl. 165, f. 176; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 29-30. But he was not without religious zeal: early in 1644 he demonstrated determination to remove lingering icons and images from local churches.67Add. 33512, f. 87; SP28/235, unfol.

The subsidence of the royalist threat in Kent in the spring of 1644 enabled Boys to return to the Commons in late March 1644, even if only briefly. He belatedly subscribed the Solemn League and Covenant (27 Mar.), and secured nomination to a committee regarding the raising of money.68CJ iii. 439a, 457a. That this was his overriding concern is evident from his speech regarding the money owed to his garrison, which helped to convince the House to order payment of the arrears owed to him and his troops (17 Apr.).69Harl. 166, f. 49b; CJ iii. 462a. This accomplished, he was able to return to Kent, and to active service as a member of the sequestrations committee.70SP28/210b, unfol. A brief appearance in the Commons in June 1644, when he was named to a committee regarding the cloth trade, may have reflected his concern to represent the interests of his constituents, who made him another gift of wine at this time.71CJ iii. 523b; E. Kent RO, Do/FCa5, f. 365. Thereafter, Boys made what appear to have been only fleeting visits to Westminster. Appearances in the House in October 1644 again related to local issues, and the need to raise money for Parliament’s forces, although he was also named to the Committee for Examinations.72CJ iii. 649b, 654b, 666b; iv. 87a; CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 241.

The summer of 1645, however, saw a more regular pattern of attendance at Westminster, and a demonstration of Boys’ broader concerns.73E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 175v; Eg. 2096, f. 145. Unsurprisingly, he was named to committees on military matters, including the standing committee regarding prisoners, and he continued to be involved in deliberations about Dover (10 Sept.), but he was also reappointed to the committee for petitions.74CJ iv. 228b, 230b, 269a, 273b. Boys’ nomination to a committee to consider the abuses of sequestrators probably points to his being a political moderate, and this appears to have been coupled with support for a Presbyterian church settlement.75CJ iv. 244b. He was named not merely to a committee regarding church lands, but also to committees to prepare directions for the choice of ‘elders’ within London (25 July), and to consider complaints from within the Westminster Assembly regarding a remonstrance of the ‘dissenting brethren’ of Independents (11 Dec.).76CJ iv. 218a, 275b, 373a.

Boys may have fallen ill towards the end of 1645, when he became markedly less active both in Parliament and the county. His constituents applied for his assistance with a petition which they planned to deliver to Parliament in February 1646, proffering yet another gift of wine.77Eg. 2096, f. 149; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 177v; Do/FCa5, f. 382; Add. 29623, f. 145v. Thereafter, however, Boys almost disappears from the records, although he acted as a messenger to the Lords regarding an ordinance to provide money for his garrison in early May, and was named to a committee to prepare an ordinance regarding the demarcation of ‘scandalous offences’ later in the month.78CJ iv. 539b, 553b. Boys died sometime between 23 May and 11 August 1646, the date on which the Commons resolved to issue a writ for the election of his replacement.79CJ iv. 553b, 642a; C231/6, p. 55.

Boys’ will, drafted in 1639, employed pious formulae and expressed his desire to be buried in the chancel at Nonington with ‘no solemnity nor cost’, and ‘as near night as may be, using no candles’. He also requested that but ‘a few of my friends and kindred dwelling within two or three miles to be invited’. Boys left property to his kinsman, Sir Peter Wentworth*, and named his cousins, Sir William* and Walter Strickland* as overseers.80Canterbury Cathedral Lib. PRC31/127, no. 425. Although none of his direct descendants appears to have sat in Parliament, a cousin, John Boys*, sat as a knight of the shire until Pride’s Purge, and again during the protectorate.