WITH ORIGINAL CORRECTIONS TO THE 'ATTESTATION', 1641 [ASTON (Sir Thomas, 1600-1646, Sheriff of Cheshire, 1634-1635, M.P. for Cheshire in the Short Parliament, from 1628 1st Baronet of Aston near Runcorn), Sir George BOOTH (1566-1652, Sheriff of Cheshire, 1621-1622, of Lancashire, 1623, from 1611 1st Baronet of Dunham Massey, Sir Richard WILBRAHAM (1579-1643, High Sheriff of Cheshire, 1615-1617, from 1621 1st Baronet of Woodhey, near Nantwich) and others]

Contemporary Copies in the same hand, unsigned, - (A) of Sir Thomas Aston's 2nd Petition to the Lords in support of Episcopacy, on behalf of the Nobility, Gentry and Inhabitants of Cheshire, (read in the Lords 2nd April 1641), with (B) the Attestation to the Lords against the production of (A), by Sir George Booth, Sir Richard Wilbraham and others, not named here, but bearing numerous Original Corrections by one of the Attestors, and with (C) a Fair Copy of (B) in the same copyist's hand as (A) and (B) but a little smaller, with transcriptions.
In (A) Sir Thomas recalls that he "did lately present", (27th February 1641), a 1st petition "unto your honours ... attested by the Subscription of divers persons of honour and of quality of that County which your Lordships were pleased to approve of, and to [be] committed to the consideration of the Committee for Religion",
since when "some seditious person ... hath caused to be printed a most invective Libel ... in name of a petition from the Inhabitants of the same County, in answer ... herein most Scandalously reviling the whole order of Bishops as the professed enemies of the Gospel, That they are only of Ethnical or Diabolical institution, that they have exceeded the primitive persecutors, in ... shedding the Blood of God's dear Saints, that in their doctrine there's nothing taught but what is different from the word of God, or the Articles ratified by Law".
In addition the libel traduces "your honours, that your Lordships have unanimously voted that the Bishops have corrupted the purity of the Gospel ... with Romish errors", the libel is clearly "fictious" though "in every particular doubling the number" of subscribers to Aston's 1st petition, including "all the vulgar people ... who cannot well imagine" fathering "such a Bastard" and "Blemish upon the whole County", Aston prays for warrants against "the several persons whose names are ... annexed" so that "your Lordships' Judgments shall ... testify to the world your Lordships' care of the Public Peace. And that the Inhabitants of the said County ... be not constrained to seek their own" vindication "by protestation".
Aston names three people as 'Stationers', two as 'Dispersers', Barnard Alsopp and Thomas Fawcett as 'Printers', all with their addresses in London, and Henry Walker as 'the supposed Author'. <CR>
(B) The "Attestation and Certificate", addressed to the Lords by "divers knights and gentry of the County Palatine of Chester whose names are subscribed [no names present]", states that "Sir Thomas Aston Baronet hath preferred to this honourable house a Petition", (A) above, "in the behalf of the Nobility Gentry and Inhabitants of this County Palatine of Chester; And therein mentioneth a former petition ... presented by him to your honours ... And also he takes notice of a late printed libel in answer to his former petition, which we disclaim as never approved or seen in this County till the press made it common", but their main point is that "We (who ... hold ourselves to be a considerable part of this Shire) do utterly dislike, that any one man should take so much power upon himself, without public trust and appointment to use the name of the County ... (when none of us were held worthy by him to be consulted withal, or to be made acquainted with his intent)".
Now, following this 2nd petition of Aston's "it is high time to express our dislike of this his voluntary act, not holding it safe to refer to any of so forward a disposition the managing of any business in the name of the County ... without the approbation of those the County hath entrusted as knights for our shire".
They "leave him to himself to justify his own undertakings", pouring doubt on Sir Thomas's "manner of gaining hands thereto", but referring it "wholly to the consideration of this honourable house, being confident to find much good and happiness in the resolutions" and "wisdom of this honourable Parliament". The writers see in Sir Thomas's reference to their Lordships' "care of the public peace", a further slur on their Lordships, twisting it to mean "want of care", and another on the County, which could not have "such an indiscreet thought" as "to threaten to seek their own by protestation".
(B) has a great many alterations in a vigorous hand, no doubt by a leading Attestor, (see further below), showing the original thoughtsbefore they were (mostly) toned down
(C) is, with one minute change, the same as (B) without the deletions, and bears the short title "Our Attestation to Sir Thomas Aston's 2nd petition to the House of Lords April 19th 1641".
3 sides folio and short title on side 4, + 1 side folio with short title on verso, 19th April a few tiny holes in former folds just touching two letters (easily read)
(Transcription of (A), Sir Thomas Aston's 2nd Petition)
To the right honourable the Lords assembled in Parliament
The humble petition of Sir Thomas Aston Baronet in the behalf of the Nobility Gentry and Inhabitants of the County Palatine of Chester
Humbly sheweth
[line 5] That whereas your petitioner did lately present unto your honours a petition attested by the Subscription of divers persons of honour and of quality of that County which your Lordships were pleased to approve of, and to [be] committed to the consideration of the Committee for Religion.
Now your petitioner further sheweth that sithence some seditious [10] person to put a Scandal upon the County, hath caused to be printed a most invective Libel both in Contempt of the Laws of the Land and of this honourable Assembly in name of a petition from the Inhabitants of the same County, in answer of the former petition,
therein most Scandalously reviling the [15] whole order of Bishops as the professed enemies of the Gospel, That they are only of Ethnical or Diabolical institution that they have exceeded the primitive persecutors, in martyring and shedding the Blood of God's dear Saints, that in their doctrine there's nothing taught but what is different from [20] the word of God, or the Articles ratified by Law,
alleging and traducing your honours, that your Lordships have unanimously voted that the Bishops have corrupted the purity of the Gospel (we now profess) with Romish errors, with many other most execrable and most unchristianlike Assertions, which though [25] to the judicious, it will be easily discerned to be a mere f[i]ctious Libel,
yet (being underwrit, as figured) by 8 Noblemen, 199 Knights and Squires, in every particular doubling the number to the former petition, with all the vulgar people, and many others, who cannot well imagine so bold and impudent a presumption, should [30] possess any man to father such a Bastard upon a County as had never been seen there nor presented to this honourable Assembly it may carry a species of some reality, and may reflect a great Blemish upon the whole County to pass as the Reputatious Authors of such a Libel.
[35] Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your Lordships will be pleased to grant out immediate warrants to attach and bring before your Lordships the several persons whose names are in the paper annexed [Side 2] amongst which, your petitioner doubteth not to find the Authors Printers Dispersers & Stationers that have contrived and divulged [40] this Libel.
And that your Lordships in your wisdoms will inflict some such exemplary punishment upon the Delinquents as in your Lordships' Judgments shall seem most meet to testify to the world your Lordships' Care of the Public peace, And that the Inhabitants of the said County may receive such [45] satisfactory vindication, that they be not constrained to seek their own by protestation.
And your petitioner shall ever pray &c.
Warrants prayed for these persons.
Henry Hudd of St. Dunstan's Church Yard)
[50] Bankes of Bridewell Stairs).
Samuel Power of Holborn Bridge) Stationers
Thomas Bates in Bishop's Court in Old Bailey)
John Harrison his servant) Dispersers
Barnard Alsopp) )
[55] Thomas Fawcett) of Smithfield) Printers
Henry Walker the supposed Author
(Transcription of (B), the 'Attestation' by Booth, Wilbraham and others)
<< >> = crossed through in original. Letters b, c, d in the margin of the original at lines 68, 81, 84 refer to the same letters in the text.
To the right honourable the Lords assembled in Parliament
The humble <<petition of the Gentry>> Attestation and Certificate, of divers knights and gentry of the County Palatine of Chester <<whose names are subscribed>>.
[60] Humbly sheweth
That there is lately come to the knowledge of <<your Petitioners>> us whose names are subscribed, That Sir Thomas Aston Baronet hath preferred to this honourable house a Petition in the behalf of the Nobility Gentry and Inhabitants of this County Palatine of Chester; And therein mentioneth a former [65] petition presented by him to your honours: (or as he saith in his last petition) <<which>> found your good approbation &c.
And also he takes notice of a late printed libel in answer to his former petition
<<wherein he hath stamped his large character and which we also dislike as never approved or seen in this County neither can nor will defend and like>> <<we>>
which we disclaim as never approved or seen in this County till the press made it common.
<<For>> We (who in respect of our <<calling and>> interests hold [70] <<hold>> ourselves to be a <<remarkable>> considerable part of this <<County>> Shire) do utterly dislike, that any one man should take so much power upon himself, without public trust and appointment to <<transact>> use <<thus with your house>> the name of the County.
And though hitherto we have [Side 3] been silent, (as unwilling to nourish discontents in our country [75] by excepting against <<the>> his former petition) yet now when we see one man assume so much boldness to himself, and with confidence to petition your Lordships in the name of the Gentry and Inhabitants of this County, (when none of us <<was>> were held worthy by him to be consulted withal, or to be made [80] acquainted with his intent) it is high time to express our dislike of this his <<employment and>> voluntary act,
not holding it <<fitting or>> safe to refer to any of <<such>> so forward a disposition <<and spirit>> the managing of any business in the name of the County, nor him fitting to do it without <<fitting restraints or boundaries>> the approbation of those the County hath entrusted as knights for our shire;
so that hereby we [85] make bold to disclaim this last petition of his to your honours <<honours>>.
<<And>> <<against it>> <<we leave him to himself to justify his own boldness and undertakings>> [interlinear after lines 85 and 86:] <<and pray that it may not be taken to be the act of the country for we protest against it,>> and <<we>> leave him to himself to justify his own undertakings [end of interlinear insertion].
And for the substance of <<the>> his former petition with the managing thereof, and the manner of gaining hands thereto, as hitherto we have been silent, though [90] sensible of, so do we in all humility as is fitting (without further expression of our conceptions) refer it wholly to the consideration of this honourable house, being confident to find much good and happiness in the resolutions that by the wisdom of this honourable Parliament shall be taken in so weighty a business.
[95] We cannot <<doubt or>> harbour any such undutiful and causeless <<or irreverent>> jealousies of your Lordships' want of care of the Public Peace, nor can our County own such an indiscreet thought <<as>> to threaten to seek their own by protestation <<against your honours>> as is intimated in the conclusion of the forenamed [100] petition.
All which with ourselves we commend to your honours' consideration; And we will ever pray &c.
(Transcription of (C), the fair copy of (B))
[Side 1] As (B) but omitting deletions, and, in the first main paragraph, for "(or as he saith in his last petition)" reading "which (as he saith in his last petition)".
[Side 2, short title] Our Attestation to Sir Thomas Aston's 2nd petition to the House of Lords April 19th 1641.

On 2nd April 1641, (A), the 2nd Petition of Sir Thomas Aston in support of Episcopacy was read in the Lords, but they took exception to some phrases. After ruling that he must appear at the Bar, but need not kneel, Aston satisfied their Lordships. Henry Walker, the suspected author of the "most invective Libel", was an extreme anti-episcopalian and pamphleteer. The desired warrants were ordered, and on 8th April those "particularly charged" were granted "reasonable bail", the matter going to the "Committee for examining the Printing of Libels". Some further persons, identified as printers and dispersers, were to be sent for, including Michael Sparkes (father and son) and John Hammond. (See Lords' Journals).
Back in November 1640, the opening of the Long Parliament had released a flood of petitions against practices that had flourished during Charles I's 'Personal rule', 1629-1640. Puritans singled out the Archbishops and Bishops and their Courts, especially the High Commission, as the fount of all their miseries. On 11th December 1640, 15,000 Londoners petitioned that the Office of Bishop be abolished "roots and branches".
Aston took a determined middle view. He protested against the exactions of Church Courts and their officers in enforcing Laudian regulations, but loved the Prayer Book and the Elizabethan settlement. He saw no reason to abolish the Office, as being of divine or at least Apostolic origin, and as having a pastoral role towards clergy as well as people. But he strongly urged due punishment of the holders of the Office, not its abolition.
On 27th February 1641 (modern year reckoning), Sir Thomas had presented his 1st petition to the Lords, signed by over 6,000 noblemen, gentry, ministers and freeholders of Cheshire. In answer, the printed "libel", that he complains of here, simply doubled the numbers of subscribers. As a petition it was clearly spurious, and disliked by the Attestors. It appears to have been composed in London, with the full backing, if not the authorship, of Sir William Brereton (1604-1661, from 1627 1st Baronet of Handforth, near Stockport). He had emerged as a champion of total abolition.
Most of the remaining gentry in Cheshire were in favour of reform, but had divided into two camps. These reflected not so much a religious division as a desire for political importance. In fact it was Sir George Booth and Sir Richard Wilbraham who in April 1640 had been defeated in the election for the County by Sir Thomas Aston and his then running mate Sir William Brereton. They had also had some slight reservations when asked to sign his 1st petition. Here the Attestors do not criticise Aston's views but only his claim to represent the County. Allegiances were far from split into Royalist or Parliamentarian, as they were forced to be in the Civil War. See in particular J.S. Morrill, 'Cheshire, 1630-1660: Church Government and Society during the English Revolution (1974)', where he shows that this "Attestation" is more of a claim for local pre-eminence.
Aston made a copy of the 'Attestation' (BL Additional MS 36913, ff. 63-64), with the (copy) signatures of Booth and Wilbraham, in the variant form addressed to the Commons. In a parallel column he replies to each clause. It was indeed true, that Aston had gone ahead without signatures for his 2nd petition. He adduces the urgency of the situation, and describes how he did consult in London with two MPs connected with Cheshire. They urged him to proceed, but said it would be difficult for them to subscribe since they were in the Commons and the petition was to the Lords.
Of the changes here made to (B), most notable is that (B) was originally headed a Petition. Indeed, It is difficult to see what actual action the writers expect of the Lords. Some of the other changes are for brevity, for example, by deleting the first two words in "employment and voluntary act", or for modesty, the Attestors, "a remarkable part of this County", being now "a considerable part of this Shire". But other changes re-write whole lines, sometimes inserted between earlier lines, with second and third thoughts. Aston's acts, originally "without fitting restraints or boundaries" become "without the approbation of those the County hath entrusted as knights for our shire", a jibe at his not being re-elected. See the Transcription of (B) for the full picture.
In 1642, Aston raised forces for Charles I, who, after Edgehill, made him Major-General for Cheshire. In 1643 he was defeated at Middlewich by Sir William Brereton. After Nantwich, 1644, Aston lost his command. At Bridgnorth, 1645, he was wounded and captured, and died in a parliamentary prison the following March.
Provenance and Family Connections: From a small group of papers, 1640-1641, one marked "brought these papers from Woodhey 1741". Woodhey Hall, near Nantwich, was in 1741 among the Cheshire properties of Lionel Tollemache, 4th Earl of Dysart. His grandmother Grace was the daughter of Sir Thomas Wilbraham, (1630-1692, 3rd and last Baronet of Woodhey), who was Sir Richard Wilbraham's grandson. Sir Thomas, a Royalist, in 1651 married heiress Elizabeth Mytton (1632-1705, the architect). Elizabeth was also stepdaughter to Sir William Brereton, who, by his first marriage, was son-in-law to Sir George Booth.

Item Date:  1641

Stock No:  55799      £1750

             Add to Wish List     Order/Enquire