Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Brandon

Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 jun 2006 23:32:52

Burke's Landed Gentry, 18th ed., 1: 580-81, shows that Sir John Poyntz
of Iron Acton, Gloucestershire (1560-1633), had the following children
by his fourth wife Grissel:

--Nicholas Poyntz, b. ca. 1607
--Frances Poyntz, bapt. 3 April 1601 m. ..... Gifford.
--Ann Poyntz, bapt. 29 Aug. 1602, m. 3 Feb. 1628/9, Isaac Bromwich, of
Gloucester.
--Mary Poyntz, bapt. 27 Sept. 1604 m. John Walter, and (2) Walter
Bethell.

The HOP biography of Sir John Poyntz mentions that his father was
"suspect in religion," or something to that effect (i.e., had Catholic
tendencies). One other of Sir John Poyntz's daughters, Elizabeth, the
wife of Viscount Thurles, was a Catholic, according to _Complete
Peerage_ (sub Ormonde). Hence, it seems very possible his daughter
Frances married into the Catholic family of Giffard of Chillington,
Staffs.

Bromwich himself was quite the loud, drunk, and difficult person. See
for instance Rev. John Webb, ed., _Military Memoir of Colonel John
Birch, Sometime Governor of Hereford in the Civil War_ (Camden Society,
new series, vol. 7 [1873]), pp. 141-44, 148, 150, 235:

"found him [Lingen, a Cavalier] drinking Sack in a Common Inn called
the Falcon, with Mr Isaac Bromwich and Mr Harbert Parrett, both of the
Committee.--The Captain of the Watch sent up to speak with Mr Lingon
and Mr Bromwich. The Captain of the Watch told them his business:
Lingon demanded by what order he came, and what he war--The Captain
then replied he was Captain of the Watch--But Mr Bromwich told him, he
knew no man that had anything to do to take any man a prisoner.
Expressing to him much violent language and carriage and refused
to let the Prisoner go along with him--unless he did procure an order
under hands, Notwithstanding which the Captain of the Watch
understanding that they were Committee men was so modest as to forbear
Disputes, but left him with them, and came and acquainted the
Lieutenant Colonel with these passages. He considering the nature of
his offences, not knowing the intent of his coming to Town armed, nor
the event of this drunken Bout, gave a second order (and that in
writing) for his being secured--With which order the Captain of the
Watch went again and required Lingon to go along with him; whom though
seemingly willing: Mr Bromwich would not suffer: But holding him often
repeated, Thou shalt not go, Thou shalt not go--And with all reproached
the Captain of the Watch, with Scurrilous Language calling him: Busy,
troublesome, saucy fellow, but laying violent hands upon him thrust him
as if he would have fallen upon him. Whereupon the Captain of the
Watch wished him to forbear, Or otherwise he had power to call up his
Guards. Mr Bromwich presently replied, And I have power to raise the
Sheriffs, Constables, Churchwardens, and other Officers of the County
to beat you all out of the Country. Nor was this all, But he reviled
the Officers of the Garrison, Saying they were Cowards, for when any
occasion is to fight You know all how to run away: Mr Parrett
perceiving the Captain of the Watch and the Soldiers with him much
discontented, Desired him to bear with Mr Bromwich, for (said he) you
may perceive that he hath drunk very hard--But that if he would let the
Cavalier alone, he would see him forthcoming: The Captain of the Watch
came and repeated all this to the Lieutenant Colonel who admiring these
carriages and passages out of Respect to the Committee repaired to them
and acquainted them with all these proceedings.--And withal gave the
Captn of the Watch special commands to execute his Order--In the
Interim the Governor returned (it being about four of the Clock in the
Evening), unto whom the Lieutenant Colonel with divers other Officers
went, Who in the relation of these things, was interrupted by the
sudden and hasty return of us, A great broil and tumult that he found
between Bromwich, Lingon, and others fighting in the Inn Many people
running in, and running forth ...

....

therefore thought good to send to speak with Mr Bromwich, from whom
they hoped probably to receive some satisfaction, at least concerning
these words he spoke, Whereupona Captain from that Board was sent to
him but instead of coming along with him, he burst forth in swearing
against him ...

....

Then Mr Bromwich was desired to come in, and the Governor standing up
told him that he was intrusted by the Parliament for the preservation
of that City and County for their service and that he was liable to
give an account with his life for the miscarriage of either, and
therefore that it concerned him to take Cognizance of all words and
actions that tended thereto, Of which nature this day had produced many
from him, and therefore the present Board desired to know of the
Meaning and Reason of such words and actions. But he immediately told
them he would make them no answer, but whatsoever he had done, he would
answer it before the high Court of Parliament ...

....

In the mean time as it follows in course to any that appeals, Mr
Bromwich should go to his Chamber, and there stay until further order.
The next day the Officers met together; consulted what way they could
best convey Mr Bromwich to London, according to his appeal, and to draw
up his Charge, which was to be grounded upon the breach of those
articles which they were bound to keep inviolate, And one of those by
him broken, as they humbly considered, was the 7th article: Which
saith, That whosoever shall by words or Gesture affront or menace that
Court shall died for the same. Which Crime of his with the rest of his
Accusation they have humbly presented with him to the high Court of
Parlamt ...

....

At this sitting was read some deposic'ons taken at the councell of warr
at Hereford against Mr Bromwich, whereby (if true) did appeare his
intemperance, and rashnesse, and unadvised words ...

....

Insulted by Bromwich.

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jun 2006 00:01:35

The HOP biography of Sir John Poyntz mentions that his father was
"suspect in religion," or something to that effect (i.e., had Catholic
tendencies). One other of Sir John Poyntz's daughters, Elizabeth, the
wife of Viscount Thurles, was a Catholic, according to _Complete
Peerage_ (sub Ormonde). Hence, it seems very possible his daughter
Frances married into the Catholic family of Giffard of Chillington,
Staffs.

She was "a Popish Recusant" etc. ...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... tz+thurles

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jun 2006 15:41:11

Here is what Kay Allen said was on p. 96 of Maclean's _Poyntz
Genealogy_:

Children of Sir John Poyntz:

--Frances Poyntz, bap. St. Dunstan's in the West, London, 3 April 1601;
? mar. ... Gifford, Chanc. Proc. Ch. I, Bund. 8, No. 36.

--Ann Poyntz, bap. at Iron Acton, 29 Aug. 1602; mar. 3 Feb. 1628-29 to
Isaac Bromwich of Gloucester, Esq.

--Mary Poyntz, bap. at Iron Acton, 27 Sept. 1604; mar. at Iron Acton,
(1) 12 May 1636 to John Walter; mar. (2) to Walter Bethell. He d. 1
Nov. 1686, bur. St. Laurence York. M.I.

--Nicholas.

I'm going to try to figure out that ref., "Chanc. Proc. Ch. I, Bund. 8,
No. 36."

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jun 2006 16:24:40

"The coal-mines in Hawksbury have, formerly, brought in great sums to
this charity: for, February 11, 1642, the city received, of Mr.
Knightley, Mr. Bromwick, and Mr. Pym, for one year's rent of these
coal-mines, 320 l."

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0ysJu ... Ih86P9kmus

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jun 2006 17:15:25

Mr. Knightley and Mr. Pym both seem to have been Puritans.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... tsR2toiiS4

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 16:06:17

Here is Andrew R. Warmington's account of the 1647 Cirencester election
(from _Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire,
1640-1672_ [Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1997], pp. 84-85).

Matters came to a head at the Cirencester by-election in January 1647.
(Sir John Seymour was returned for the shire at the same time without
incident, as was Massey for Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire.) Cirencester
was contested by two slates, Fairfax and the future Fifth Monarchist,
Colonel Nathaniel Rich, against John Gifford of Bream and Bromwich.
This was not a straightforward civilians against soldiers contest.
Gifford and Bromwich had been in arms too, and they were to clash with
each other later over the spoiling of the Forest of Dean. However,
they clearly drew their support from anti-military sentiment.
Bromwich, the veteran troublemaker who had antagonised Massey
and his officers, had also served on the Warwickshire and Herefordshire
Committees and had recently been imprisoned and sent to London by
Colonel Birch under sentence of death, having publicly associated with
Royalists and challenged Birch to a duel at a Council of War. His
Harley connections saved him from punishment. An unidentified 'libell'
later accused him of 'debauch't' behaviour at the election, to which he
retorted by calling on Fairfax to vindicate him, though he admitted
opposing Rich as 'a meer stranger to the relations and severall
interests of this County.'
The poll was taken on 3 January 1647. According to a pro-Army
source, Fairfax and Rich had a clear majority of voices, but the town
was packed out by rowdy ex-Cavalier soldiers and the influential Lady
Poole bribed the bailiff to adjourn until Monday. Then, amidst threats
and drawn swords, Gifford and Bromwich were returned. The sheriff,
William Browne of Hasfield, was also implicated and shrugged off the
threat of a petition, saying 'do it when you will we have as strong a
party in the House as ye'. This double return became locked in the
Committee of Privileges until February 1649, when Fairfax and Rich were
declared elected. It was a lot of fuss over an honour Fairfax was said
to have 'little desired'.

Per my interpretation, the "unidentified 'libell'" would have been the
work of John Gifford, Bromwich's fellow candidate in 1647, apparently a
writing that went unpublished in this war of words.

Back in July 2001 Paul Reed said he thought the Lady Poole who bribed
the bailiff (? shot the sheriff) was probably "William Brydges'
daughter Beatrix [who] was wife of Henry Pole, son to Sir Henry Pole of
Saperton [HS 21:237]." There were claims at least that two Beata or
Beatrix Brydges had married into successive generations of the Poole of
Saperton (Gloucs.) family. See

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC1 ... lton+poole

I've collected a few references hinting that the two John Giffords of
Cirencester-Dean-New England took a particular interest in members of
the Brydges or Bridges family:

1. Kennett J. Beecham's _History of Cirencester_, pp. 287-88, prints a
letter of John Gifford of Cirencester:

John Giffard, "A letter, sent to a Worthy Member of the House of
Commons, concerning the Lord Shandois coming to Ciceter to execute the
Commission of Array."

Worthy Sir,--We are bold to present you with the passage of
businesse, yesterday at Cisseter, in our County of Gloucester, my Lord
Shandois having last weke sent several Letters to divers of the
principall of the Gentlemen of our County to give him a meeting then
and there. Our Country-men and the Volunteers got notice of it, and
apprehending that he came to execute the Commission of Array, there
came at least a thousand Armed men to assist the Townsmen, who had with
posts and chains fortified the Town to keep out horse, and they did all
purpose to keep my Lord out of the Town if he did not promise and
protest that he did not come to execute the Commission of Array, which
he solemnly did to divers Gentlemen that met him upon Randcomb-down,
and to some of the Townsmen, who, observing that he came not with above
thirty persons, and those no weapons but swords, brought notice of it
to the Town, and so he was admitted in, and after dinner the Justices
of the Peace and other Gentlemen being in conference with my Lord, the
Souldiers and Arm'd men came and beset the house where they were, and
demanded of my Lord, wherefore and for what he came thither? he
answered that it was only to confer with the Gentlemen for the peace of
the County.
Then they required him to deliver up his Commission of Array
unto them or otherwise they would bring him to the Parliament; at
length upon meditation and intreat of the Gentlemen the Souldiers were
content to depart; if my Lord would put it under his hand that he would
never execute the said Commission nor any others for him in any
part of this County, but would oppose and hinder it to his power, and
that he would maintaine the Power and Priviledge of Parliament and the
Laws and Liberties of the Subjects with his Life and Fortune, all which
being in extreme fear he condiscended unto, and a note being drawn to
that purpose, my Lord, Sir Robert Tracey, and some others put their
hands to it, which did in some sort pacifie the Souldiers; yet a great
many not herewith content did protest they would bring my Lord to the
Parliament, and would not otherwise be satisfied a great while, yet
with very much intreaty about eleven of the clock at night they
departed to their lodgings intending to speak with my Lord again this
morning, but he being still in great fear was conveyed away on foot
very privately by Sir William Masters and other gentlemen through his
house, let out a back way and so departed, the Souldiers coming to look
for him this morning and finding him gone were extremely enraged and
had like to have pulled down the house, took his coach and drew it
themselves into the Market Place, cutt it and tore it in pieces.
The Gentry and Commons of this County do generally declare
themselves against the said Commission.
Believe me this is a true relation, I was an eye and ear
witnesse of it, and the main body of our County resolve to keep their
Protestation. Not having else at present, I remain,
Your obliged to serve you,
JOHN GIFFARD.

Cisseter, the 16th of August, 1642.

(This pamphlet is also available in the microfilm series, "Early
English Books, 1641-1700," roll 246, item E. 113 [no. 6].)

2. John Gifford of New England definitely tried to butter up/
influence Capt. Robert Bridges of Lynn. See Henry Webb's letter in
_Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County,
Massachusetts_, 2: 80: "I must acknowledge that Captaine Bridges haue
spent a great deale of time herein [the ironworks business] & doth much
acknowledg his erors in writinge in the behaulfe of John Gifford beinge
over com wth indulgencies & his faire & cullord [colored] prtences to
him but now of late did clerely see his [Gifford's] underhand
dealings." See

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/wit ... ex080.html


3. Bromwich, "Spoiles," p. 13: "Master Libeller, I must tell you, I
have converst with those Gentlemen [the Commissioners of Bristol], and
do finde that they do out-honest and out-wit you, Twas not the cleanly
tempering of your Noune Relatives, could disoblige them from their
duty, or the search of your knavery, They who Commerce with the Princes
of Christendom, are not that sort of Seafish to be Catch't in the net
of such a gull as you are; if it be an offence to you, to go to Sea for
Iron, t'will appear a crime to others, to make it at home of Shipping
Timber." What are people's thoughts on the meaning of "cleanly
tempering of your Noune Relatives"? I suggested before that it might
mean "cleanly tampering of your own relatives," and could perhaps be a
dig at Gifford over Lady Poole's bribe in the Cirencester affair. But
maybe "tempering your noun relatives" has to do with grammar and
speech, somehow. (I had also wondered whether "relatives" would be
used as a word for "kinsmen" this early -- wouldn't "relations" have
been more likely in this period?).

But if, in fact, this can all be worked out, and these particular
Giffords accepted as relations somehow of the Brydges family, this may
help place the family. See p. 43 of the 1623 Gloucestershire
Visitation for an Ursula Cole, wife of William Gifford "of Steine in
com. Northampton." This William Gifford shows up in Moriarty's
articles on Gifford-behind-Sargent in the NEHGR; he was part of the
Buckinghamshire Gifford family that used arms of "three lions in pale."

http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... s/p53.html

Ursula Cole's mother was Anne Brydges or Bruges of the Gloucestershire
family.

This arrangement could fit with the facts that the Cirencester-Dean-New
England family bore arms of "three lions in pale" (i.e., those of the
Bucks. family), AND possibly had a relationship to the Brydges family
of Gloucestershire.

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 17:08:50

Of course, all of the latter-day Pooles of Sapperton would have been
descendants of the Brydges family, anyway, through Leonard Poole's
wife, "Catherine d. of Gyles Brydges Knight" (see page 125 of the 1623
Gloucs. Visitation), so the identity of the particular bribing Lady
Poole may be irrelevant anyway.

http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... /p135.html

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 17:17:31

See

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... 1GPZ1aVGCE

for "your own" written as "your nown" ...

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 17:32:57

And apparently "relatives" had the meaning of "family members" at least
as early as James I:

"Had the first Logitians lived heere, Father and Sonne had never passed
soe long for Relatives, they are heere whollie Individualls, for no
demonstrance of Duetie or Authoritie can distinguish them ..."

http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN0 ... ives+finde

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 19:17:42

It is interesting that while Warmington's interpretation of the
Cirencester election highlights mainly "military vs. non-military,"
David Underdown states that "success depended on local interest, not
military reputation," and tends to play up the importance of religious
moderation vs. extremism, with Bromwich (and apparently Gifford) as
more moderate (in the scheme of things) Presbyterians, and Lord General
Fairfax and Col. Rich (the future Fifth Monarchist) as religious
extremists.

Does anybody know anything about General Fairfax's religious views?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»