BOYS, John (1607-78), of Betteshanger, Kent.

The Boys family had many branches in Kent by the early seventeenth century. Our MP, often referred to as John Boys of Trapham, Wingham, or Betteshanger, is sometimes difficult to distinguish from one namesake in particular, a cousin from Elmington and Fredville, who was the son of Sir Edward Boys and succeeded him as governor of Dover Castle in 1646.23Vis. Kent 1663, 21-3; Vis. Kent 1619 (Harl. Soc. xlii), 39; C231/5, p. 472; LJ vii. 365a; viii. 326a, 503a-b, 521b; ix. 238b, 321a. Boys is also to be distinguished from (Sir) John Boys of Bonnington, who became an active royalist in the 1640s.24CSP Dom. 1629-31, pp. 336, 367. Although Boys’ family was well established in Wingham and Betteshanger, they were less prominent in Kentish affairs than their cousins during this period.25Cent. Kent Stud. U352/F7; Hasted, Kent, ix. 224-41; x. 44-9. A committed member of the local godly community by 1640, Boys first appears on the public stage as a supporter of the candidacy of Sir Edward Dering* in the county election for the Long Parliament; he also donated £3 to the relief of Irish Protestants in 1641.26Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11; SP28/192, unfol. Thereafter, he played little role in parliamentarian affairs in the county until the spring of 1643, and it was his cousin, John Boys of Fredville, who served as a deputy lieutenant and on the county committee in the early months of the civil war.27‘Papers relating to proceedings in Kent’, 2-3; Bodl. Nalson II, f. 171; Stowe 184, f. 69. Boys himself was nominated to the deputy lieutenancy, and added to the county committees, only in April 1643, and thereafter he worked alongside his father as well as his cousin.28CJ ii. 5b; iii. 43b, 195a, 504b; LJ vi. 12b; Add. 42618, ff. 9, 15, 20; Add. 29623, f. 134; Add. 33512, ff. 76, 81, 84, 90, 91, 93, 95, 98; HMC Portland, i. 184, 459; Bodl. Nalson III, f. 258; Nalson XI, ff. 154, 156; Tanner 62, ff. 186, 222, 519, 573; PA, Main Pprs. 17 June 1643; ‘Papers relating to proceedings in Kent’, 35; SP28/235, unfol; SP23/223, p. 877; SP28/210B, unfol.; SP28/130iii, f. 103v; E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 79. By January 1645 he had also taken on military responsibilities, and was styled ‘captain’.29SP28/210B, unfol.

Despite this delayed emergence within local parliamentarian circles, Boys was an enthusiastic supporter of the war effort. In the summer of 1643 he joined colleagues in complaining to the Speaker, William Lenthall*, about deputy lieutenants who were somewhat less than active, and those, like Sir Norton Knatchbull*, who deserved to be fined.30HMC Portland, i. 131, 459; Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 155, 192-3, 197; Nalson III, f. 64. He also took vigorous action against the Kentish rising of 1643, and sought to punish those who spread seditious literature in order to foment rebellion.31HMC Portland, i. 150; Bodl. Nalson III, f. 139; Tanner 62, f. 275. Boys was accused of pursuing local delinquents with unnecessary rigour, and Sir Thomas Peyton complained more than once about his behaviour, describing him as a man ‘now invested with so great authority’.32Add. 44846, ff. 18v, 20v, 23, 29v, 31, 31v, 32; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 22. Boys also courted controversy by joining those who complained to Lenthall about seditious sermons preached at Canterbury in late 1643, and advocated the sequestration of the ministers involved, and their replacement by new men.33HMC Portland, i. 145; Bodl. Nalson III, f. 125. He subsequently supported the petition of the notorious Kentish iconoclast, Richard Culmer, for a preacher’s place in the cathedral in October 1644, signing a statement regarding his sufferings for refusing to publish the Book of Sports.34PA, Main Pprs. 4 Oct. 1644. In early 1644, moreover, Boys joined his father in remonstrating with the corporation at Sandwich for failing to remove crosses and images from their churches.35Add. 33512, f. 87. He also called for them to organise sermons in order to ‘stir up’ local residents to take the Solemn League and Covenant, and to report on those who refused.36Add. 33512, ff. 88, 89. Late in 1644 Boys was also involved in undertaking a survey of poor church livings in the region.37Add. 33512, f. 94.

Boys’ growing status within the county led to his election to Parliament as a recruiter MP in September 1645, replacing the ejected royalist, Sir John Culpeper*. Within three days of the writ being issued, there were as many as five candidates for the place besides Boys: Sir John Sedley, Sir Richard Hardres, Henry Oxinden*, Richard Beale* and Thomas Blount*.38CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 138. The contest appears to have revolved around tension between rival factions in the county, as represented by a moderate figure, Sir John Sedley, and his personal and political rival, the more fiery Sir Anthony Weldon.39‘Papers relating to proceedings in Kent’, 42. Weldon and his associates backed Boys, and engaged in ‘deliberation and discussion’ at Maidstone, as a result of which Oxinden, and perhaps others, withdrew from the contest. Oxinden explained that he had decided to ‘give up my interest to Captain Boys ... who hath a strong party’, whereupon he resolved to ‘help him with all the power’ he possessed.40Add. 28001, f. 35. The tactic was successful, and Boys was duly returned on 22 September.41Scotish Dove no. 102 (26 Sept.-3 Oct. 1645), 806 (E.303.34); CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 155; HMC 9th Rep. pt. 2, 438.

On taking his seat in mid-October 1645, Boys immediately became active in the Commons, and thereafter it was almost certainly his cousin who continued to serve on the county committee.42CJ iv. 311a, 658b; PA, Main Pprs. 21 Nov. 1646; Bodl. Tanner 58, f. 211; Nalson VII, f. 50-v; HMC Portland, i. 459. Although Boys retained an interest in Kentish affairs in the Commons, he assumed a key role on committees dealing with issues of national importance, not least military organisation, peace propositions and negotiations with the king, as well as law reform, and allegations of political corruption involving MPs.43E. Kent RO, H1257; Add. 33512, f. 99; Add. 71534, f. 92; CJ iv. 311a, 319b, 351a, 354b, 362a, 387b, 416b, 616b, 658b, 673b, 674b, 681b, 689b, 701b, 703a; v. 6b, 77b, 87a, 134a, 167b. Boys was also added to the Committee for Compounding, which met at Goldsmiths’ Hall, and his subsequent parliamentary activity naturally involved a number of committees regarding delinquents, and the disposal of their estates.44CJ iv. 313b, 571a, 613a, 625b, 637b; v. 61b; SP23/183, p. 884.

During this period, Boys was also heavily involved in religious affairs, not only promoting preaching and maintaining the ministry, but also church discipline, reform of church courts, and moral reform, as well as arranging the visitation of Oxford University.45CJ iv. 312a, 381b, 562b, 615b, 641a, 678b, 681a, 695a, 696b, 714b, 719b; v. 7b, 51b, 84a, 189a. Boys was by this time a staunch religious Presbyterian, and his private views no doubt underpinned his activity in relation to the abolition of episcopacy (on which he chaired a grand committee in the autumn of 1646), as well as in relation to the disposal of church lands.46CJ iv. 678a, 680b, 684b, 685a, 712a; LJ viii. 513a. Boys was involved in considering initiatives regarding the subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant in October 1646, by which stage the Covenant was a highly contentious issue which divided the House along clear factional lines.47CJ iv. 326a, 691a, 725a. Boys was deputed to request parliamentary sermons from prominent Presbyterian ministers like Daniel Cawdry and Nathaniel Ward.48CJ iv. 635b; v. 204a. He also involved in the House’s investigation of a notorious sermon by the Independent preacher William Dell in December 1646 and its consideration the Presbyterian book called Jus Divinum, and he also had a hand in securing livings for Dr Thomas Temple, Samuel Austen, and Thomas Carter.49CJ v. 10b, 11a, 52a, 84b; PA, Main Pprs. 15 Mar. 1648. Boys’ Presbyterianism may have inclined him towards support for the Scots from early in his parliamentary career, and during 1646 he was named to a number of committees regarding official correspondence and meetings with the Scottish commissioners and their military leaders, not least in relation to attempts to suppress anti-Scottish pamphlets, as well as negotiations regarding the disposal of Charles I.50CJ iv. 422a, 570b, 586b, 644b, 675a; v. 65b.

From late 1646, Boys also became involved in controversial issues relating to the City of London, including raising loans and organising its defences. Having been involved in plans for raising loans from the City for the Irish campaign, Boys apparently chaired a committee to consider a petition from London’s commanders in October 1646, and was also named to the committee to consider the ordinance regarding the London militia in April 1647, after a successful attempt by the political Presbyterians to prevent the issue being considered by a committee of the whole House.51CJ iv. 641b, 694b, 722a; v. 132b, 187a. By the spring of 1647, Boys was involved in considering a number of controversial political issues relating to army affairs, not least being first named to a committee to prepare a declaration to prevent tumultuous gatherings of disbanded soldiers at Westminster, and being appointed to the committee appointed on 27 March to consider the petition being circulated in the army.52CJ v. 75b, 89a, 127b. Boys was also named to a number of committees regarding the indemnity ordinance during this period.53CJ v. 166a, 174a, 198b, 199a.

Although he evidently had much in common with the political Presbyterians, Boys evades easy pigeonholing in terms of parliamentary factions. He is sometimes considered as one of the ‘uncommitted’, but was labelled by one neutral as being part of the ‘godly gang of Independents’.54‘Boys diary’, 144; C. Walker, Hist. of Independency (1648), 127 (E.445.1). Indeed, Boys appears to have been more closely aligned with the moderate Independents than with Denzil Holles* and Sir Philip Stapilton*. In participating in controversial issues such as the disposal of the great seal in late 1646, and in raising loans from the City in the spring of 1647, Boys may have been working with the Independents, and in divisions he acted as a teller alongside men like Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire and Denis Bond, against prominent Presbyterians.55CJ iv. 703b, 714a; v. 12a, 17b, 163b, 168b, 187b, 220b. Boys was also added to John Bulkeley’s* Independent-inspired committee regarding complaints against Members.56CJ v. 122b, 205a. It may thus have been as a moderate Independent that Boys participated in the House’s deliberations regarding the service of reformado officers, and its consideration of growing pressure from the radical sections of the army in June 1647, by drafting important declarations regarding their demands and their intimidatory tactics.57CJ v. 198b, 210a, 213b, 214a-b, 217a; LJ ix. 270a.

That Boys was on the very moderate fringe of the Independent party is evident from his activity both during and after the tumultuous events of July 1647. His attendance in the House appears to have come to an abrupt halt after his appointment to the Committee for Plundered Ministers on 30 June, and he was granted leave of absence, on the grounds that he was ‘sick and indisposed’, on 14 July.58CJ v. 228b, 243b. Absent during the ‘forcing of the Houses’ on 26 July, Boys returned to Westminster shortly before the army’s march on London (6 Aug.), and was immediately named to the Presbyterian-dominated ‘committee of safety’.59CJ v. 266a, 267b; LJ ix. 370b. After the return of the Independents, however, Boys defended the legality of the legislation passed during the Speaker’s absence, not least as a teller alongside the leading Presbyterian, Sir Walter Erle*.60CJ v. 271b, 278a, 279b. While Boys played a prominent part in investigating the events of 26 July, and in prosecuting those involved, he acted as a teller alongside another Presbyterian, Arthur Annesley*, in an attempt to defeat an Independent initiative to remove Edward Bayntun* from the House.61CJ v. 269a, 283a, 290b, 366b, 546a. Such alliances and alignments suggest that Boys should not be seen as a trenchant Independent in the summer of 1647.

In the months which followed, Boys returned to his duties as a commissioner for compounding and on the Committee for Plundered Ministers, as well as busying himself with the disposal of the lands of the church and delinquents and moves to bar delinquents from office.62CJ v. 278b, 295b, 320a, 344a, 419b, 447b, 460b, 587a, 601b; vi. 39a, 67a, 78b; SP46/108, f. 86; SP23/228, ff. 30, 245. He also played a leading role in Independent initiatives such as the reform of press legislation, and chaired the committee regarding tithes grievances.63CJ v. 290b, 294a, 302a, 460b. More importantly, his attitude towards bigger issues relating to political settlement indicates that he remained on intimate terms with the core group of moderate Independents.64CJ v. 291a, 302a. As the Independent alliance came under strain in late 1647, Boys joined those who sought to undermine the army radicals and Levellers in the period around the Putney debates, not least through involvement in committees investigating John Lilburne, and the activities of the army ‘agents’ and agitators.65CJ v. 334a, 359b, 360a, 363a, 376b, 414b.

Boys served as chairman of the grand committee regarding ‘the whole matter concerning the king’ on 22 September 1647, sat on other related committees in the weeks which followed, and managed conferences with the Lords regarding propositions for settlement.66CJ v. 312a, 330a, 333b, 336a, 339a, 340a, 343b, 345b, 346b, 351b, 352b, 358b. Although, following the king’s escape to the Isle of Wight, Boys appears to have differed with his Independent colleagues over whether Carisbrooke was the safest place for the king to remain, he was nevertheless one of those responsible for the final drafting of the ‘four bills’ to be presented to the king (27 Nov.).67CJ v. 360a, 367a, 371a. The king’s rejection of the bills once again exposed the fragility of Boys’ relationship with some of his more radical Independent colleagues, and although he was naturally preoccupied with Kentish affairs following the Christmas riots at Canterbury, he nevertheless expressed unease regarding the language contained in the votes of No Further Addresses.68CJ v. 400b, 407b, 413a, 422a-b, 444b, 481b, 538a. Boys’ interest in these debates was evident from his parliamentary diary (Sept. 1647-May 1648), which is at its most useful for the debates regarding the king in January 1648.69Add. 50200, pp. 30-32.

Perhaps disillusioned with the decision to terminate talks with the king, Boys appears to have drawn closer to the political Presbyterians in London and Scotland in the weeks which followed. He not only returned his attention to matters relating to the church, in terms of observation of the sabbath, the payment of tithes, and the confession of faith, but also found himself opposing men like Sir Arthur Hesilrige and Evelyn of Wiltshire over the impeachment of Presbyterian members, and over Scottish objections towards Erastianism.70CJ v. 425a, 427a, 445a, 471a, 472b, 494b, 502b. He evidently supported the classical church system, and was involved in drafting the ordinance which granted presbyters the power to institute ministers.71CJ v. 649b. Boys also resumed his role in seeking, and giving thanks for, sermons from Presbyterian ministers, like Thomas Wilson, Thomas Manton and Samuel Annesley, and supported moves to award reparations to the Presbyterian minister, John Bastwick, for his sufferings during the 1630s.72CJ v. 443a, 580b, 647b; vi. 60a. On balance, however, Boys probably remained closer to the moderate wing of the Independent faction than to the Presbyterians, and this probably explains his nomination to important standing committees which were instigated and dominated by Independents, such as the committee for grievances, the committee for petitions, and Samuel Browne’s committee overseeing the work of the Committee of Accounts, as well as his chairmanship of the committee to prepare the national militia ordinance, following the illness of John Bulkeley.73CJ v. 417a, 434a, 481a, 485b, 486a, 552b, 559a, 571b, 661b. Evidence from a division in October 1648 also indicates that his attitude towards the sale of church lands was more radical than that of many Presbyterians.74CJ vi. 51b. Indeed, in August 1648, one MP who had been expelled from Parliament named Boys as one of the leading Independents among the ‘traitors and rebels’ in the House.75G.S. A Letter from an Ejected Member (1648), 24 (E.463.18).

Boys was naturally forced to turn his attention to events in Kent during the second civil war.76CJ v. 559a, 559b, 560a, 568b, 569b, 579a, 585a, 597a, 599b, 634b, 672a; vi. 45a; LJ x. 260a; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 79. He also participated in wider issues relating to petitions and unrest in other counties, as well as wider issues relating to the control of tumultuous petitioning campaigns, and on such issues he was perfectly willing to work alongside Presbyterians like John Stephens* and John Swynfen*. Boys was also involved with the organisation of London’s defences, notably in support of Philip Skippon*, in the face of opposition from both the City and the Lords.77CJ v. 566a, 567a, 581a, 593a, 599a, 630a, 649a, 651b, 671b, 673b, 680a, 683b; vi. 47a. He also helped to investigate English complicity in the Scottish invasion, and helped to orchestrate Parliament’s response to the navy revolt.78CJ v. 640b, 676a. In Parliament, Boys was prepared to side with Presbyterians in divisions over the fate of moderate royalists, such as Sir Thomas Peyton*, and to act as a teller against motions to give reparations to John Lilburne, and he welcomed renewed plans for a treaty with the king in the summer of 1648, not least by managing a conference on propositions for settlement.79CJ v. 624a, 640a, 686a; vi. 47a. Boys’ parliamentary activity during October and November 1648 was dominated by the Newport Treaty, and by consideration of the king’s concessions, particularly over the church.80CJ vi. 51a, 62b, 68b; LJ x. 575b; OPH xvii. 434. Indeed, it was Boys’ support for the negotiations which resulted in his seclusion on 12 December, as part of Pride’s Purge, even though he was, in the words of William Prynne* (who confused him with the deceased Sir Edward Boys*), a ‘great friend’ of the army.81CJ vi. 87a; W. Prynne, The Second Part of the Narrative (1648), 4 (E.477.19).

Boys played no part in public life during the Rump, and is to be distinguished from cousins and kinsmen from the county who were active in the Kentish militia.82CSP Dom. 1650, p. 509; 1651, p. 224; 1652-3, p. 621. Nevertheless, he was returned as a knight of the shire in the first protectorate Parliament in 1654, perhaps as part of a wider opposition movement within the county. During the session he was named to 15 committees, including, in September, the committee of privileges and the standing committees for Irish and Scottish affairs.83CJ vii. 366b, 371b, 373a, 374b, 379a, 381a, 388a, 401a, 419a. Boys joined other Presbyterians in withdrawing from the House after Cromwell’s imposition of a ‘recognition’ on Members, but he had returned by early October.84Archaeologia xxiv. 140. During that month he was named to the committees to consider the legislation passed during the Nominated Assembly (much of which he no doubt opposed), he was appointed to the public accounts in November, and he displayed his conservative religious credentials in committees on the case of the Socinian, John Biddle, in December.85CJ vii. 375b, 388a, 400a, 401a. Boys was very much involved in attempts to change the protectoral constitution, spearheaded by the Presbyterian interest. On 7 December he was named to a committee to organise the disparate votes into a coherent government bill; on 2 January he was teller with Sir Richard Onslow against changing the distribution of Kentish constituency (and re-enfranchising Queenborough); on 9 January he was teller with John Bulkeley in a successful bid to prevent alterations to chapter 34, which gave Parliament a role in vetting MPs; and on 12 January he joined Onslow, Bulkeley and other Presbyterians on a committee to draft a clause preventing the protector from changing the new arrangements without parliamentary consent.86CJ vii. 398a, 411b, 414a, 415a. Boys’ anti-Cromwellian stance in 1654-5 explains his subsequent exclusion from the 1656 Parliament, to which he had once again been returned as a knight of the shire.87SP18/144, f. 111; CJ vii. 425a; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 280.

Boys returned to the local administration as a militia commissioner in the spring of 1660, and resumed his seat in the Commons following the readmission of the secluded Members in February of that year, although he was only named to two committees before the dissolution.88Add. 42596, f. 8; Grand Memorandum (1660, 669.f.24.37); CJ vii. 856a, 868b. Excluded from both local and national office at the Restoration, he probably lived in quiet retirement; rumours that he was responsible for helping the regicide Edmund Ludlowe II* to escape from England in November 1662 are demonstrably false, at least with regard to timing.89CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 571. That Boys remained a zealous Presbyterian is evident from the fact that, according to his will, his library contained books not only by divines like Richard Sibbes, Richard Rogers and Robert Bolton, but also those of at least one ejected Presbyterian minister, Samuel Cradock. Boys also left bequests to a number of non-conformist ministers, including John Bale and John Baker of Dover, as well as two known Presbyterians, Francis Taylor of Canterbury, and Peter Johnson of St Laurence, Thanet, and also the widow of a third, Sampson Hieron of Chartham.90PROB11/360/227; Cent. Kent Stud. U352/F7; Calamy Revised, 23, 255, 299-300, 477. Boys died in 1678, and was buried at Betteshanger. He was succeeded by his son Jefferay, who became a Gray’s Inn bencher, while another son, Thomas, served as rector of the family parish before becoming master of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge.91Hasted, Kent, x. 46.