MRP: HCA13/69

HCA13/69

Editorial history

01/04/12, CSG: Created page

---

---

Abstract & content

The volume HCA 13/69 (1654) contains a number of interesting cases.

(1) The case of Daniel Skinner the elder and his two sons, Daniel Skinner the younger and Thomas Skinner, all merchants of Dover, shows a merchant family active outside London, yet maintaining links with London. The links were maintained through Albertis (alias Albertus) Skinner, then aged twenty eight, another son of Daniel Skinner the elder. In his HCA deposition, Albertus Skinner reported being requested by his Dover family to seek an insurance policy on the ship the Yong Gyant (formerly the Yong Elephant) of Dover and its cargo of cognac wine, which he presumably sought to do at the Exchange in London. He also paid bills of exchange as requested by his family.

Research by this author shows that Daniel Skinner the elder (b. ca. 1579, d. 1659), was active in the Antwerp cloth trade and located in Antwerp earlier in his commercial career (1608 to 1635/36), nearly twenty years prior to the HCA proceedings of 1654. Albertus Skinner (b. ca. 1626, d. post 1660) referred in his deposition to being borne in Antwerp, as were his brothers Daniel Skinner the younger and Thomas Skinner, though Albertus had been back in England for most of the last ten years (since ca. 1644 or 1645). Daniel Skinner the elder, appears frequently in the EEIC Court Books, 1645-1649, recorded as located in Dover and assisting the EEIC in purchasing bullion in considerable quantities in Dover, as well as providing shipping news. It is unclear whether he was free of the EEIC.

A further son, Frederick Skinner, had gone out to Bantam in 1650 as a factor for the EEIC, and subsequently became Agent at Bantam. He appears to have been an active private trader and to have fallen into dispute with the EEIC. His father, Daniel Skinner the elder, stood security for him. Albertus Skinner is recorded in the EEIC Court Books in 1652 as his brother, as much later is Thomas Skinner.

There are some further records of Albertus Skinner, merchant of London, trading with France in the 1650s. He died intestate, leaving two children, according to his brother Daniel Skinner the younger, whose own will was proven in 1685.

The Skinner family connection with Dover was retained until at least the early 1660s. A document, probably drafted by Sir Andrew Riccard, in the early 1660s, refers to the Thomas of Dover, which Damiel Skinner the younger, Thomas Skinner, and Frederick Skinner, were alleged to have dispatched to the East Indies in the late 1650s, and which they subsequently reported lost.

Daniel Skinner the younger (b. ?, d. ca. 1685) moved his residence at some time after 1654 from Dover to London, describing himself in his will as "of London". His (?eldest) son, Daniel Skinner (b. ?. d. ?), was educated at Westminster School, and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he bacame a minor fellow (1673), and a major fellow (1679). The son, Daniel Skinner, played an important role in attempting to publish (and later to suppress the publication of) several papers of John Milton, including De Doctrina Christiana.

---

---

---

Index of cases

P1090806
Unfoliated (artificial f. 1r.)

The Lord Protector of the commonwealth
of England Scotland and Ireland
and the dominions thereto belonging
against the shipp S:t ffrancis
Joachim Starbus XXX.

Rowe d:t

The 7:th of Aprill 1654

JOACHIM STARBUS of Hambourgh
Mariner, master of the said shipp
aged 49 yeares of thereabouts XXXX
in XXXXX, saith and deposeth as
followeth, viz:t

To the first abd second Interroies hee saith and deposeth that the said
shipp the S:t ffrancis belongeth to the port of Hamburgh, and that
her owners were and are only two oersons who hee saith were and are are hamburghersm Merchantsm Inhabitants
& Burghers of that citie and subiects of the free state of Hamburgh
and were and are all natives of Hamburgh and have dwelt there all
theire time, and for their names hee saith they were and are Detleff
fflaXhoff and ?Henre Samall, and that noe other persons or person
XX farr as hee knoweth or beleeveth had or hath any peice or share
therein, but whether they the said two owners have parte distinct or
are ioynt owners without distinction of parte hee knoweth not, and saith
the said owners bought the said shipp (as this deponent hath bin
informed) at Dunquirke about two yeares since, but this deponent
was not present nor knoweth ought of the payment therefore;
but knoweth their said owner shipp; being constituted nor by them
and XX them fitt and furnish the said shipp out in theire ?costs and
chardges. And otherwise cannot depose, saving the said vessell
by the XXXX soe XXX to him to be English built, and as hee hath
heard was built at Yarmouth

To the thirde hee saith that for theise seaven monethes last,
namely from a month before Michaelmas last or there hee
this deponent hath bin master of the said shipp the S:t ffrancis and
come first aboard her then at Hamburgh as master thereof, and that
a Dunquirke as this deponent was told XX bin master of her next before this deponent, who having bin plundred
in the Elbe; had lost the said shipp at Hamburgh 3 or 4 monethes befoer
this deponent became master of her. And otherwise saving this
foregoing depon hee cannot depose.

To the fourth and saith the said shipp did never before as hee
knoweth and he XXX beleveth ?belong to Amsterdam or other port
without the Dominion of the States of the United Netherlands, and
XXX that XXX beXXX are outwards voiage from Hamborough
about a fortnights before Michaelmas last, at w:ch time XXX
came there in a fleete of other shipps under English XXXX XXXX
for this port abd laden with XXXX and came and arrived here and delivered her said
outward lading to and to the XXX of M:r Alderman ffrederick and companie, upon
whose accompt there was freighted at Hamburgh by M:r John `Barcke
an Englishman their factor theire. And after such deliverie, XXX
was freighted and againe laden there with lead and sugar by M:r Richard
fford merchant of this citie and companie for HaXXXX ?Grace, XXXX
this deponent XXX with the said shipp and delivered the said lead and
sugar

---

P1090807
Unfoliated (artificial f. 1v.)

Transcription

sugar for their accompt according to consignement to his factor there,
and saith that the said affraightment of the said M:r fford this deponent
having delivered the said XXXX and sugars at XXXX da XXXXX
bring a cargo of goods to this port for accompt of him or of him
and companie, w:ch this deponent accordingly did, and at S:t Maloe
received the said shipps lading in bales of linnen for the said accompt
referring himselfe to this Roll or manifest of this his lading
XXized by Captaine XXXX and to the bills of lading XXXX by him
for the particlaritie of cargo of goods; and that the said cargo was aboard
XX the time of the said seizure by Captaine XXXX, and noe silver,
Jewells, armes or ammunition were in the said shipp; and
saith that the said cargo of linnens were laden by mons:r Le Mot
Arman, and consigned to this port to the said M:r fford, XXX
otherwise hee cannot depose, showuîng as aforesaid and what followeth

To the XXth hee saith hee signed only true (OR, three) bills of lading for
the said cardo of linnens, w:ch were all of one tenor, and were
and are all true and reall, and that the goods were really consigned
to the port menconned in the said bills, namely this port of London,
and were and are truely and really (ashee verily beleeveth) belonging to the person
or persons to whom they are consigned or for XXXX accompt they are
in the said bills mentioned to be laden, namely to the said M:r fford or to
him and companie, and the said Monsi:r Le Mot Arman alsoe told
and acquainted this deponent that the said goods were for the said acco:t
And otherwise hee cannot depose, XXXX as aforesaid

Tp the XXXX hee saith his company as XXXX of the said seizure
XXXX of 6 man and a boy, two of the XXX and the said boy
all which are Hamborgers, two Fdanes, one ffrenchman, the steersman
a MiddleXXXX, but XXX this deponent here at London, and this
is one of the said Hamburgers, having lived there and bin a ?burger there
26 yeares and bin a married man and XXXXX there XXXX,
XXXX borne in Pomerland, and otherwise negatively.

To the 8:th XXX XXX hee was borne under the dominion of the
Duke of Pomerland, but nevertheless XXX XXXX is under the XXXX
and XXXX the rest XXXX hath notified the the XXXX before

To the 9:th negatively.

To the 10:th hee saith hee XXX signed a bill of lading for the said
good for Amsterdam, w:ch was donne nearly for a colour and to
XXXX the said goods from seizure by the Hollanders in XXX hee
could be XXX by them, and for the XXX XXX sea XX hee
XXXX the bills predeposed XXXX for
London, alonge in the said shippe, XXX XXXX and
colourable bill for Amsterdam, w:ch came to the hands of the
sd XXXX, and lest the said true bill XXXX Maloes with
their said factor

To the 11:th negatively

To the 12:th hee saith hee was to receive the the freight for the said
goods of the said M:r fford XXX XXX delivered, XXXX the said
XXXX

---

P1090808
Unfoliated

XXXX

On the behalfe of John Cole of London
Merchant touching the double
shallop the ffrancis Late of deep
but nowe of London

The 10:th of Aprill 1654

JOHN COLE of London Merchant
aged thirtie two yeares of thereabouts
sworne before the right wor:ll
William Clarke and John Godolphin
doctors of lawes Judges of the cort of the
Admiraltie of England, saith and deposeth
That the double shallup or frigat named the ffrancis late of
Deepe and nowe of this port of London of the burthen of thirteene
tonnes or thereabouts where of David Barre was and is master
was really and bona fide bought by John Samborne merchant
(having procucacon from this deponent to that purpose) of the
master David Barre at Caen in Normandie on or about the
thirtieth day of March last past (newe stile) for the price and
summe of twelve hundred and twenty livred Tournois upon and for
the sole and proper accompt of hee this deponent
really and truely paid for the same with his effects
remayning in the said Sambornes hands
unto the said John Samborne upon accompt: and with the
truth and ?reallitie of the said buying of the said shipp may and doth
appeare in an Instrument or act Notarial thereupon made and ?passed
at XXXX the said tjirtieth of may 1654. before XXXX Le ?Suour
and John Crestien Tabellious Royall there residing, w:ch
Instrument hee noe produceth and ?sheweth and with that the
contentes thereof were and are true w:ch hee knoweth for the XXXX XXX. And further that hee this deponent
was and is an Englishman and nowe XXX XXX Resident in this citie of London
and that hee this vessell is were an french vessell and belonging
to this his XXXX, and that hee thsi deponent the XXXX owner
thereof and of her tackle and furniture

JOHN COLE [His signature]

---

P1090809

Against the S:t ffrancis aforesaid

Rowe d:t

The 10:th of Aprill 1653 (sic)

2. ABRAHAM PETERSON of fflushing Mariner
Stiersman of the said shipp
the S:t ffrancis, aged 26 yeares or thereabouts
sworne as aforesaid saith as followeth.

To the first and second Interries hee cannot depose, saying hee doth
not knowe the owners of the said shipp, nor where they live, nor
where shee was built.

To the third hee saith that the name of the master of the said shipp
is Johnis Starbus, and otherwise hee cannot depose;
hee this deponent never knew the said shipp before hee comming to
London, where this deponent was shipt in her about November
last being hired by the said skipper for ffrance and XXback for London

To the fowrth and fifth hee saith the said shipp came last before her seizure
from S:t Maloe bound for this port, w:ch hee jnoweth being then
Stiersman of her. and saith that from hence XXX went frewighted
by M:r fford, a marchant of this citie for XXXer le ?Gurare, laden
with lead and sugar, and XXX XXXX, whch XXXX
delivered upon and for accompt of the said M:r fford (or of him and
XXXXXX) to one M:r Britton his factor there, and that the said
shipp XXXX upon the said affreightmanbt and XXXX from Dover da ?B:areane to S:t Maloe, in ballast and there received a cargo of linnen and XXXXcloth and
old ?chintz and XXXXX and other linnen commodities to be brought
to this port and ?there to be delivered for accompt aforesaid
of the said M:r fford or of him and companie, XXXX hee was informed both
by the said skipper and alsoe by the said M:r fford before the said
seizure preceeading from hence that the said shipp was to fetch the
said ?serge from S:t Maloe for the ssaid accompt. And saith the
said cargo of linnen wares was laden at S:t Maloe by one mons:r
le ?niot ?Harman, and XXX XXXX to the said M:r fford or to him and
company, serving him use to the bills of lading, and wich hee
heard thX said M:r le mot say that for said XXX were for the said accompt
XXX hee said at the time of the XXXX the bills of lading for
the XXXX by the skipper, whereon this deponent was prsent, and
further he cannot depose.

To the 6:th are saith the said master XXXXX thX bills of lading for
the goods aboard, all of and XXX, and all for this part for XXXX to be delivered

---

P1090810

Artificail f. 3r.

XXXX

The Lord Protector x:r against the
XXX XXXX for XXX

RoXXXX:t

The 11:th of Aprill 1654.

J. JOLIAS HARRISON of ?Dunwick in Suffolk
apprentice to Samuel ?Driver of the
XXXX, aged 12 yeares or thereabouts
sworne and examined.

To the first and second Interrogatories hee saith that the fishing boate
or barque aclate the SuXXX coming about five dayes since
fromwalserXXXX for this port of London laden with butter and
XXXX to be there delivered was neere the Spistes met with a
and taken by a duty shallop a man of warre subiect to the
States

---

P1090811

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

On the behalfe of Hugh Riley and)
comp: touching the ffortune

XXXXX

The 11:th of May 1654

ALEXANDER COVELL of Portsmouth Barber, aged 25 yeares
or thereabouts sworne in Court the say above XXX before the
right hono:ll William Clarke and John Godolphon doctors of
lawes Judges of the high court of the Admiralty saith and
deposeth by reason of his oath

Tha the shipp the ffortune of CaXXXX was mett with and seized at
sea to the Northward about XXXXX last by
Captaine John Dudley commander of the Mary, w:ch hee knoweth
being one of his companie and present and XXXX the XXXX seizureof ffortune, w:ch was laden with malt and barley, and XXXX by the
XXXX XXXXX and company brought XX into the river of XXXX

The marke of Alexander Coverll [His mark]

The Clayme of Mannuel Leis Carnero
for his goods in the shipps the ?Tagus
Kings and John de Grace

XXXX

The eighteeneth day of May. 1654
Examined upon y:e sayd allcn.

JUAN THOMAS MILATI of Cadiz in Spayn
merchant aged 23 yeares or thereabouts a
witness sworne and examined deposeth and saith
as followeth viz:t

To y:e first and secon arles of y:e said allon and two schedules XXX
menconed and here to annexed This deponent saith That coming
in August 1653 last past as a passenger from Cadiz in Spaine to S:T
Malloe ffrance in a certaine shipp named y:e S:t VincentXXX
well

---

P1090812
Unfoliated
X r.

well remembreth that some dayes before the says shipps depture
from Cadiz he saw one Raphael d Luna who was the servant of the
acclate Manual Lowij Carnero carry on board y:e sayd shipp a good pcell
of Indian hides, which hee sayd were his masters, and he consigned
the same to William Claviel att S:t Mallo who does busines as a facto:r for y:e sayd Carnero: And these hides of this deponents knowledge
who went a passenger in y:e S:t Vincent came safe to y:e sayd
Claviels hands, and XX as this deponent is well assured did here
XXX y:e same and convert the proceead thereof in to Linnen Cloath
for accompt of y:e sayd Carnero: for hee saith that in the moneth
of September 1653 last past hee saw the sayd Claviel goe
on board y:e aclate shipp y:e Three Kings then lyeing att S:t mallo
where y:e said John de Grace did then likewise remaine and saw him
?carry with him three bales of linnen marked as farr as
this deponent can now remember with an R. or some such like
marke, which three bales the sayd Claviel told this deponent then
standing upon y:e Strand and having goods to lade on board y:e
same shipp for cadiz that he did lade for accompt of the
say:d Manuel Levij do Carndro by way of returne of his hides and did
consogne them to y:e saiyd XXXX de Luna whom this deponent well knew to be the servant of y:e sayd Carnero, for which reasons
this deponent is as he saith well assured that y:e sayd Carnero att
the tyme of lading y:e sayd bales was and att p:rsent is the true
and lawfull owner of the same

XXXX

---

P1090813
Unfoliated
X v.

XXXX

---

P1090814
Unfoliated
X r.

The 29 day of May 1654

The clayme of Daniell Skinner the Elder)
Daniell Skinner the Younger & Thomas Skinner)
English Marchants of Dover for the shipp)
the Younge Gyant of Dover (Robert Hopkins M:r)
& her tackle & furniture & for her ladeing of)
the sayde shipp being XXXX Taken by)
some of the shipps of the State & Commonwealth )
of England XXXX ffrancklin)

S:p

Examined on an allegaccon on the behalfe
of the sayd Daniell Skinner the Elder
Daniell Skinner the younger and Thomas
Skinner

1. JOHN ASHURST the younger of the pish of
S:t Andrew Undershafte London Marchant
aged 25 yeares of thereabouts a witness
sworne & examined saith and deposeth
as followeth viz:t

To the seaventh article of the sayd allegaccon hee saith and deposeth
That hee this deponent hath receaved letters of advice from one
William Wildegoose a factor or Agent for the producente in ffrance bearing date the sixth day of this instant month
of May (new style) wherein he did advise this deponent that hee had drawne
upon Albertis Skinner of London Merchant for Accompte of the producente
Daniell Skinner the Elder Daniell Skinner the younger & Thomas Skinner
the summe of six thousand five hundred Livres Turnois and was XXX
the summe of sixe thousand five hundred Livre Turnois more for the
accompt of the sayd producents upon them selves or such persons
as they should appointe,
and hee this deponent verily beleeveth that the says 13 thousand
Livre was for and towards satisfaction and payment for the 221
tonnes of wynneaclate and that the sayd producents are to pay and
satisfie the same And further hee cannot depose

Upon the rest of the articles hee is not examined by discreccon of
the producents

To the Interries

To the first Interrie hee saith hee this deponent was borne in the
pish

---

P1090815
Unfoliated
Xv.

pish of S:t Margaret Newfish streete London & hath lived ?these 4 yeares
last or thereabouts in the pish of A:t Andrew Undershafte aforesayd and before
for the most parte in ffrance during the tyme Interrogate & to the rest of
the Unterr hee answereth negatively

To the second Interrogatorie hee saith hee hath not deposed ought touching
the contents of the matters in this Interr conteyned nor knoweth ought of the
Contents thereof

To the 3:d hee cannot depose

To the 4:th hee cannot depose

To the 5:th hee answereth that hee knoweth not the Intera ffrncio Claoson nor
what countryman hee is by birth nor where hee hath lived during the tyme
Interr.

To the 6:th Interr hee saith that savong his foregoeing deposiccons to the
allegaccon whereto hee referreth hee cannot depose.

To the 7:th Interr hee cannot answere not being in ffrance at the tyme
Interr nor knowing ought of the things in this Interr menccondd

To the 8:th 9:th & 10:th Interrieshee knoweth nothing of the contents of them

To the 11:th Interr hee saith it conceneth him not to answere thereto hee having
not deposed to the contents of the article Interrogate

To the 12:th hee saith that hee knoweth not nor beleeveth that the shipp and
Wynes Interr or any part thereof doe belonge to any ducthman or
dutchmen subiects of the States Interr or ffrench man or ffrench men
suniects of the ffrench King , but on the contrary hath heard & verily beleeveth
that the sayd shipp & wynes doe belonge to the Interr Daniell Skinner the
elder Daniell Skinner the Younger & Thomas Skinner And further hee
cannot depose

To the thirteenth Interr hee saith hee doth not knowe nor hath at any time seene the shipp Interr
nor knoweth ought of the contents of this Interrie

To the 14:th Interr hee saith hee hath not deposed to the contents of the article
mentiondd in this Interrie nor knoweth ought or the contents of this Interr

To the 15 hee knoweth nothing of the contents of this Interr

To the 16:th hee saith hee knoweth nothing of the contents of this Interrie

JOHN ASHURST JUNIOR [His signature]

R:p 2:US ALBERTIS SKINNER of the pish S:t George
Buttolphe Lane London Merchant aged 28
yeares or thereabouts a witness sworne and
examined saith & deposeth as followeth viz:t

---

P1090816
Unfoliated
Xv.

To the first and second articles of the sayd allegation he this deponent
saith and deposeth that he was not p:sent when the aclate Thomas Skinner
did XXX buy by the shipp the Younge Gyant aclate formerly called the Yonge Elephant
of the Commissioners of this Commonwealth for prize goods but saith that
hee hath credibly heard & beleeveth that the sayd Skinner did in or about the
Moneth of August 1652 aclate really buy off the sayd Commissioners
the sayd shipp the Yonge Gyant then called (as this dep:t hath heard & beleeveth
the Yonge Elephant) togeather with an other shipp called the ?BXXXX XXXX for
which sayd two shipps hee this deponent shortly after the sayd moneth of August
did by the order and direction of the sayd Thomas Skinner pay unto the sayd
Commissioners the summe of five hundred eighty two pounds sterling. And saith
that the sayd Thomas Skinner within the tyme in the second article mentioned
and XXX sayd Month of August 1652 did sell (as
this deponent hath heard unto Daniell Skinner the father of the sayd Thomas

one third part of the sayd shipp the Yonge Gyant her tackle & furniture

and unto Daniell Skinner the Younger brother of the sayd Thomas one
other third part of the sayd shipp her tackle & furniture. And saith that for
true & lawfull Owners of the sayd shipp Yonge Gyant her tackle apparell
furniture they the sayd Saniell Skinner
the Elder Daniel Skinner the yonger & Thomas Skinner
have bin XXX comonly accompted & reputed And further to these articles he
cannot depose

To the 3 and 5:th articles of the sayd allegacon hee saith & deposeth that hee
hath heard that after the sayd shipp was bought as aforesayd by the name
of the Yonge Elephant, shee was by the aclates Thomas Skinner Daniell
Skinner the Elder & Yonger called & named by the name of the Yonge Gyant
and that being soe named they the sayd Skinners did XXXXX XXXX equipp & sett her
out to sea XXXXXXX on a voyage from Dover to Newcastle (under the Comand of
the aclate Robert Hopkins as Master of her by their appointment (who XX this deponent knoweth to be an Englishman
/ subiect of the Commonwealth) to lade Coales there for the Accompt
of the sayd Skinners [INSERT LONG BUT UNREADABLE TWO LINES] and hee this deponent well knoweth that
one Nicholas PXXXX of Newcastle did by bill of
Exchange drawe upon this deponent the somme of nynty two pounds sterling
for XXXXled by him laded on board the sayd shipp & delivered to the sayd Hopkins
for the use & Accompt of the sayd Skinners which bill this deponent accepted
of & paid to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX according to order And further to these articlces hee cannot depose

To the 5:th 6:th 7:th 8:th and 9:th articles of the sayd allegacon hee saith and
deposeth that in the moneths of December & January 1653 hee recdd XXXX
letter of advice from Dover from the sayd Daniell Skinner the elder and
Daniell Skinner the Yonger therein they advised this deponent that hee had
XXX the aclate ffrancis Clauson order ar ?Royall to lade for
sayd

---

P1090817
Unfoliated
Xr

shipp Yonge Gyant with Conicak wynes and that they had reced advice
from him that hee had accordingly laded the sayd shipp with two hundred twenty one tonnes of Coniack wines
for the Accompt of them & the sayd Thomas Skinner and that
they had ordered Robert Hopkins the Master of the sayd shipp to sayle the
same with the sayd wine from SLXXXant into the Downes
and they the sayd Daniell Skinner the elder & younger by XXX their letters
sent to this deponent ordered him this deponent to ensure on their behalfes
one thousand pounds sterling on the sayd shipp & wines if hee this
deponent could have the said ensurance after the rate of eight per Cent
but not to give above where upon this deponent on or about the 12:th day of the moneth of January
last caused a pollicie of Ensurance to be made according to XXX order
& had communication with divers assurers in London & offered them 8:li p
Cent for assurance, but he says sayd assurers would not assure
the same under Tenn pounds p Cent & this dept having order not to
exceed eight p Cent nothing was done as touching the sayd assurance
which otherwise had bin done if they would have accepted of 8:li p Cent
And further saving his subsequent deposicons
& saveing that for the reasons aforesaid and XXXXX this dep:t hath bin by letter from Daniell Skinner the Yonger & Daniell Skinner hee beleeveth the sayd Daniell
Skinner the elder Daniell Skinner the yonger & Thomas Skinner are XXX
the true & sole Owners of the sayd 221 Tonnes of wines & that
noe Hollander or ffrench man subiects of the States of the United
Provinces or ffrench King or any other whatsoever have any part or
interest in the sayd wines hee cannot depose

To the 10:th & 11:th articles of the sayd allegation hee saith that the sayd Daniell
Skinner the yonger hearing that the sayd shipp Yonge Gyant & the wines oredeposed of were seized by the Saphir ffrigatt belonging to this
Commonwealth, in XXXX from ffrance did by his letter from Dover advise this deponent that
hee had reced from the aclate ffrancio Clauson an Invoice & a bill of
ladeing for the sayd wines predeposed of (to witt the two schedules aclate)
and XXX sent the same to this deponent in the sayd letter to exhibite into this Court
for the better ?clearing the sayd shipp & wines from the sayd seizure And this
deponent having prused the two schedules aclate to the allegacon annexed verily beleeveth the same
to be the same invoice & bill of lading soe sent to this deponent by his sayd
brother, Daniell Skinner the yonger, and that the contents of them are reall & true & not coulourable
& further hee cannot depose saving hee saith that it appeareth by the
letter of advice aforesayd that the sayd Invoice & bill of ladeing herein
mentioned & sent to this deponent were recd by the sayd Daniell Skinner the
yonger from the sayd ffrancis Clauson before any
newes came to the sayd Daniell of the seizure of the sayd shipp.

To the 12:th acle hee saith hee hath heard & beleeveth that the bill of lading
aclate was only colourable tp p:rserve the sayd shipp & wines from
condemnation in case they had bin seized by the hollanders or ffrench or any others
in hostility with this Commonwealth And further hee cannot depose

To the 13:th article of the sayd allegaccon hee saith that the aclate

---

P1090818
Unfoliated
Xv.

Daniell Skinner the elder is an Englishman borne and
all the sayd Skinners have lived at Dover for divers yeares éast past
and are commonly reputed Englishmen & subiects of this common
wealth of England And further hee cannot depose saving hee saith
That the sayd Daniell Skinner the yonger & Thomas Skinner were borne at
Antwerpe in Brabant.

To the last hee saith his foregoeing dep:on is true.

To the Interries

To the first Interr hee saith hee as none of the Company of the shipp Yonge
Gyant at the tame Interr nor was hee on board her And saith hee this deponent
was borne at Antwerpe under the dominion of the Kinge of Spaine and hath lived
for these 10 yeares last in England & is a ffree man of the Cittie of London where hee
hath lived for the most pt of the sayd tyme and saith that Daniell Skinner the elder
is this deponents father & Daniell Skinner the younger & the sayd Thomas Skinner
this deponents brothers And to the rest of the Interr hee answereth negatively

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

To the 5:th Interr hee saith hee knoweth not the Interr ffrancis Clauson save only by generall fame the same Clauson having bin diverse yeares a factor & correspondent to this deponents father Daniell Skinner the Elder, and saith hee hath heard & beleeveth
the sayd Clauson liveth at Royall in ffrance & soe hath done divers yeares but
what countryman by birth or whether hee keepe a family this dep:t knoweth not

---

P1090819
Unfoliated
Xr.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

To the 15:th Interr hee saith hee knoweth not how many men
belonged to the shipp Interr but hath heard that by reason of a presse for
sea men at Dover for the service of the sate at XX tyme as the shipp Interr
was sett out to sea by the producents, they the sayd producents did make
use of divers ffrench mariners to sayle in the sayd shipp the voyage in
question, and as this deponent hath alsoe heard there was for the better
preservation of the sayd shipp & wines on board her a colourable
Master on board the sayd shipp besides the Interrogate Robert Hopkins
viz:t one Jaques ffountaine a ffrenchman who did as this dep:t hath heard
as Master whereof signe the colourable bill of ladeig for delivery of
the wines predeposed of at Dantzicke only for the reason
before expressed And further hee cannot depose

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ALBERTUS SKINNER [His signature]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

---

Notes

Skinner Family of Dover

Daniel Skinner the Elder

(1) "[1635/36.] Jan. 26 46. Separate examinations of Peter Lettin, late of Flanders, now of Dover, and Nicholas Eaton, Thomas Cullen, and Daniel Skinner, all of Dover. All save Skinner deposed to John Reading, minister of St. Mary's in Dover, having applied to John de la Villetta of that town, merchant, to bring his child to church to be baptized, which he agreed to do when his wife's mother came over from Flanders. Reading told de la Villetta that he being the King of Spain's subject, ought not to be required to conform to the Church of England, but for his child born at Dover he desired his answer that he might inform the Archbishop of Canterbury and receive his instructions. Lettin deposed that none of the King of Spain's subjects resident in Dover had ever been molested in matters of conscience, and Skinner stated that he had lived about twenty years at Antwerp from 1608, and had had born there eleven children, all which he had been compelled to take to their church to be baptized by the Romish priests, and that the Bishop of Antwerp peremptorily required him to frequent their churches, which he refused to do being the King of England's subject, and a few months after came from thence. (Copy. 2 pp.).

(2) "[1642-1643] Examinations taken by him, concerning their having Contraband Goods on Board.

A Translation out of Dutch, of the Examinations of the Masters of the Vessels which Admiral Trumpe seized on, and sent by him to the Earl of Warwick.

The Relation of the Masters of the Ships which were convoyed over for Dunkirke, by Captain Blyth, in your Ship The Mary Rose.

This Master was taken by a French Shallop, which we did take afterwards, being shot with our Guns.:

William Cumbley, of Dover, Master in a small Holland Vessel, which came from Ireland from Youghall,and hath, as he faith, Fortyseven or Forty-nine Punchers of Tallow, wherein is Eighteen Thousand Pounds Weight, with Six Hundred and Twenty Hides, and about Twenty Barrels of Christopher's Salt loose, which belongs to one Mr. Daniell Skinner, of Dover; also Two Packs of White Irish Cloth; also, of the Master's own Merchandize, Sixty Firkins of Irish Butter, with Two Chests of Sugar, either weighing Fifty-six Pounds."

(3) "Hatchments,

Are here, to the memory of Daniel Skinner, Merchant, who died Mar. 12, 1659, AEt. 80, and Elizabeth his wife, who died Aug. 7, 1679. AEt 90, Arms. r. a chevr. engrailed between 3 lions ra,pt. fab. on a chief indented 3 stags heads erased proper, impaling I. Gu. a chevron between 3 birds head O. II. Vert, a tree between two fowls, O. (foreign.)
There is also a tombstone with a long inscription to his memory."

(4) Daniel Skinner the elder may have been a catholic when active in Antwerp earlier in his trading career:

- "Other English Catholics active in the cloth trade in Antwerp included Gabriel Colford, Francis Collimore, John Questell, Daniel Skinner, James Thompson, Clement Throckmorton, and the partners John Corham and Lionel Wake."

---

Frederick Skinner

Frederick Skinner, EEIC Agent at Bantam, was probably a son of Daniel Skinner the elder, merchant of Dover, whose name appeared frequently in the EEIC Court Book 1645-1649. Daniel Skinner, the father, stood security in April 1650 for his son Frederick, after his appointment as a factor in Bantam. A later reference in the Court Books to Albertus Skinner, brother of Frederick Skinner, confirms that this is the Skinner family of Dover and London, which appears in the HCA 13/69 1654 depositions.

- "[February 6, 1650] Frederick, son of Daniel Skinner, requesting to be employed in India, he is promised that his entertainment shall have first consideration."

- Frederick Skinner was nominated as a factor for Bantam at the same time as Christopher Oxenden was for Surat (A Court of Committees for the Fourth Joint Stock, February 20, 1650 (Court Book, vol. xx, p. 489( (Sainsbury (1913:22))

- "The following securities are also accepted : Thomas Smith for his son John, John Goodman for Godfrey Goodman, Daniel Skinner for his son Frederick, Nathaniel Teemes for Richard Clarke, Robert Neale for Thomas Heme, and George Sandford for his son George."

- "Albertus Skinner petitions for the delivery of several parcels of goods (some prohibited) sent by his brother Frederick ; the Court resolves that these shall be examined first and, being informed of many misdemeanours committed by the said Frederick Skinner at Bantam, orders the particulars to be inserted in the Black Book and that Skinner must answer the same before he is cleared."

---

Thomas Skinner

The EEIC Court Minute reference to Thomas Skinner below just may be to Thomas Skinner, who in 1654 was "of Dover". Elsewhere in the Court Minutes, 1660-1663, a Daniel Skinner (presumably "the younger", is identified as the brother of Frederick Skinner, who has been Agent at Bantam. This Daniel Skinner together with Hugh Forth, attempted to send a private ship in 1660 to the "South Seas" in alleged breach of the EEIC's privileges (A Court of Committees, April 13, 1660 {Court Book, vol. xxiv, p. 255, Sainsbury (1922:14).

- "From November, 1661, onwards the Company was increasingly troubled by the claims of Thomas Skinner, which were to give rise later on to a celebrated conflict between the two Houses of Parliament. Skinner, who was a brother of Frederick Skinner, one of the Company's agents at Bantam, had in the time of open trade gone out with a ship to the Far East and had obtained from the King of Jambi the grant of the small island of Berhala. His complaint was that the servants of the Company, after the grant of Cromwell's grant, seized his ship and goods at Jambi, though they afterwards restored the former, at the same time warning him not to trade within the limits fixed in the Company's charter. For the consequent losses, including the prevention of his development of the island. Skinner claimed compensation. The Company in reply (November, 1661) declared that the goods seized belonged to Skinner's brother Frederick, who was in debt to the Company; they denied his other assertions, and ridiculed the extravagance of his claims. This reply appears to have resulted from an application from Skinner to the Privy Council, with a consequent reference to a Committee. The proceedings dragged on, and the next allusion to them in the present volume occurs in the autumn of 1662, when Skinner submitted a detailed answer to the Company's contentions. The Company replied on November 24, suggesting the issue of commissions to examine witnesses in the East Indies. In May, 1663, the Company petitioned the King to dismiss the case and leave Skinner to seek his remedy in the law courts ; and this course was ordered to be adopted. In August, however, Skinner procured a fresh reference to the Privy Council and the Company was again put upon its defence. The Committees presented another petition (October 6), again begging that the case might be left to the determination of the law ; but this time the Privy Council decided to persist in its examination of the plaint and appointed some of its number to hear it and endeavour to settle the difference amicably. The Company's statement was submitted on October 24 ; and on November 9 the committee of the Privy Council ordered that the dispute should be arbitrated by two representatives of each side. The Company remonstrated, but in vain ; and on December 16 its representatives were duly nominated. Thus the matter remained at the close of 1663."

- "[August 29, 1660] The Court consents to the business between the Company and Frederick Skinner being referred to arbitration. Skinner and his brother Daniel to seal a bond of 20,000/. penalty to stand to the award or deliver up the person of the former ; John Mascall and John Bence to act for Skinner, and Sir Richard Foard and Thomas Murthwayte for the Company, the award to be settled by the 31st October next."

---

Albertus Skinner

"10. 4, Also the petition of Albertus Skinner, merchant of London, to consider whether the comodities which he desires to import from France are necessary for the navy, and to report."

"Depositions of John Dawson and 2 others of Dover, and Albertus Skinner of London, dated 22 March, 9 April, 10 May, and 10 June 1661, that eight bags of money belonging to Daniel Skinner, containing 18,000/., were shipped at Dover, and seized off Calais by a man-of-war under Capt. Thos. Browne, who took the money to Helvoetsluys, in Holland, and delivered it to Lords Colpepper and Hopton..."

---

Daniel Skinner the younger

Daniel Skinner the younger was probably the father of Samuel Pepys' mistress, Mary Skinner, with whom Pepys took up after the death of Pepys' wife, and whom Pepys remembered generously in his will. It is likely that Daniel Skinner the younger moved his residence from Dover to London at some time after 1654 to the parish of St. Olave Hart Street, London, which contained the naval Office and was the parish in which Samuel Pepys was resident from 16XX.

Daniel Skinner the younger lived in St Olave Hart Street, London, from at least 1659, the year of his father's death and burial in Dover. In September of that year there is a record of the christening of his third son, Robert Skinner (Sep. 3 1659), to "M:r Daniel Skinner, march:t, & Francis," with records of the christenings of a daughter, Suzanna (Jan 18 1660/61), and three further sons, Briant (April 10 1662), Fredericke (July 1 1663), and Corbet (June 15 1665). He died ca. 1685, probably still resident in St Olave Hart Street.

He was probably the "Danell Skiner 8 hearths" on "Cruchett Fryers north side" in the 1666 hearth tax return

The same Daniell Skinner appears in the Little London Directory of 1677 in "Crutchet Fryers":

"[1677] Daniel Skinner, Crutchet Fryers"

He appears in EEIC court minute books in association with Thomas Andrewes. The two men also appear together in Chancery Cases (which require investigation):

- "[Post 1671, pre 1673] Daniel Skinner and Thomas Andrews, merchants, in 500/. for Obrian Skinner, writer."

- C 6/178/92 Short title: Vincent v Herne. Plaintiffs: Sir Francis Vincent baronet, Daniel Skynner, Thomas Andrews and John Sheppard. Defendants: Joseph Herne. Subject: money matters, Surrey. Document type: bill, answer. 1667

- C 10/74/1 Roger Andrewes, John Connis, William Pennoyer, Francis Dashwood and Edward Crispe v Frederick Skinner: money matters, Middx 1664

- C 10/86/2 Thomas Andrewes, Daniel Skinner, Frederick Skinner and Francis Gardener v Albertus Skinner and Martin Skinner: money matters, Middx 1668

- C 10/101/6 Thomas Andrewes and Daniel Skinner v John Kempthorne, Thomas Kendall, Walter Hampson, Robert Cunning, Gervace Cook and others: money matters, Middx 1662

Daniel Skinner the younger made his will on January 2nd, 1684/85:

"DANIEL SKINNER of London, mercht. 2 Jan. 1684. My daus. Mary & Eliz. Skinner and Frances now Lady Buck. My sons Daniel, Augustus, Robt., O'Bryer, Corpett & Peter Skinner. My wife Frances. Money owing from Col. Willm. Beale dec. late of B'dos. My brother Thos. Skinner. The two chil'n of my brother Albertus Skinner who died intestate. Kinsman Andrew Corbet. Lionel Skinner. Wits...."

Letter from Daniel Skinner to Samuel Pepys, Rotterdam, Nov. 19, 1676 (extracts)

"May it please your Worship,

...Your worship may please to remember, I once acquainted you with my having the works of Milton, which he left behind to me, which out of pure indiscretion, not dreaming any prejudice might accrue to me, I had agreed with a printer at Amsterdam to have them printed one tittle of them....And though I happened to be acquainted with Milton in his life-time, (which out of mere love to learning I procured, and no other concerns ever passed betwixt is but a great desire and ambition of some of his learning,)...Daniel Skinner refers to a letter which Elzevir has written to Sir Joseph Williamson; in a footnote the author writes "There is another "Copy of a Letter," also in French, from the same printer, "To Mr. Daniel Skinner, sen., Merchant, in London, relative to Milton's Manuscripts, dated D'Amsterdam 19 Feb. 1676-7."

Letter from Daniel Elzevir to Daniel Skinner, the younger, February 19th, 1676/77

"In the first volume of this work, there is a curious letter addressed to Pepys by Mr. Daniel Skinner, dated Rotterdam, which throws great light on the question of the authorship of Milton's work, "De Doctrina Christiana;" a translation of which was published some years since by Bp. Sumner; the original MS. of which, together with a complete and corrected copy of all the Latin letters to foreign princes and states, written by Milton while he officiated as Latin secretary, was enclosed in an envelope superscribed, "to Mr. Skinner, Merchant. The letter in question is chiefly occupied on the subject of some works by Milton, left by him to the writer, and which he states he had agreed with a printer at Amsterdam to have printed. These works, from the same letter, appear afterwards to have come into the possession of Sir J. Williamson, who was keeper of the State Paper Office at the time, where it would seeme they were deposited by that functionary. The editor of these volumes, in the Appendix, has printed two letters, found by him in the State Paper Office, written by Daniel Elzevir, the celebrated printer in Amsterdam; one of which is addressed to Sir J. Williamson, and the other to Mr. Samuel (sic) Skinner, Merchant, London, the father of the correspondent of Pepys. The second of these we shall give entire. (The original is in French, but we copy the translation given by the editor.)

TRANSLATION.

Amsterdam, February 19, 1676-7

Sir, - I have the honour of yours of the 2d instant, and have punctually received by Symon Heere, Milton's two manuscripts, viz. his Treatises on Theology, and his Letters "Ad Principes." These remain just in the state received, not having found a proper time to print them. You, doubtless, know that your son has honoured me with a visit, when he was highly gratified to find that I had not printed those works, which he requested me to send by the first opportunity to the secretary of the embassay at Nimeguen. But the frost having set in before I could execute your son's orders, I have since received orders from him at Paris to send them to you by the first ship. These orders I shall not delay to execute, committing the manuscripts, safely packed, to the care of Jacob Hendrix, whose vessel will be the first to sail for your city. I ghave regretted to leave your son's orders so long unexecuted, from the endurance of the frost, which, for more than three months, has interrupted all navigation. In the mean time, by your son's directions, I have written to Sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of state, assuring him that the books were still in my possession, but with no design to print them, and that your son had reclaimed them. Thus, sir, you have no cause of anxiety on this subject. In the first place, I am sure that your son had no intention of printing the manuscripts, but, on the contrary, to put them into the hands of the lord [knight] before.mentioned; and that, on my part, I would not, for divers reasons, print them to gain 1000/. sterling. Be assured, sir, that the books shall be sent to you by Jacob Hendrixen [sic], and that you will have timely advice. I present to you my service, and am, with my whole heart,

Sir,
Your very humble servant,
DANIEL ELZEVIR.

(Superscribed,) - For Mr. Samuel Skinner [sic], Merchant, at his house in Crutchet Fryers, at London."

Parish registers of St Olave Hart Street

"1659: Sep. 3 Robert s. M:r Daniel Skinner, march:t, & Francis" (p. 66)

"1660/61: Jan. 18 Suzanna d. M:r Daniell Skinner, marchant, it Francis borne 17 Jan. it bap Feb. 2." (p. 67)

"1662: April 10 Briant s. M:r Daniel Skinner, marchant, & Francis" (p. 69)

"1663: July 1 Fredricke s. M:r Daniel Skinner, march*, & Mrs. Francis his wife" (p. 70)

Note that Daniel Skinner's eldest two sons, Daniel and Augustus, do not appear in the register of the Parish of St Olave Hart Street. Were they born in Dover?

"Report made to the Lords Referees touching the Business of Thomas Skinner (Home Miscellaneous, vol. xlii, pp. 42-3) (Unsigned and undated, probably by Sir Andrew Riccard)

In obedience to Their Lordships' commands, he has perused the books and examined the business concerning the frivolous pretences of Thomas Skinner against the East India Company, and humbly conceives that from the beginning it was a mere plot to defraud the said Company. Frederick Skinner, the Company's agent at Bantam, ought only to have traded for his masters' account and by their order; yet he took the liberty of trading with their stock and laded several ships with pepper for other men's account. Daniel and Thomas Skinner, brothers of Frederick, having notice that 'Oliver, the late Usurper', intended to restrict the trade to a company as formerly, they resolved to send a pinnace and advise Frederick, hoping to lade her home at the Company's expense. It is recorded at the Insurance Office on the Royal Exchange, London, that on June 13, 1657, Daniel Skinner caused the ship Thomas of Dover, burden 130 [sic] tons, to be insured with her goods by several merchants for the sum of 1,150/. as a full valuation, at the rate of 10/. 16s. per cent, for a year, and 18s. per month for every 100/. until intimation should be given to cease. On August 30, 1660, Daniel Skinner intimated to the insurers that the Thomas of Dover and her goods had been cast away upon the coast of Jambi, and that he renounced all right, title, and interest he or those insured had in the said ship and goods to the use and benefit of the said insurers, thus excluding himself from the demands of any but the insurers. Thomas Lever, who had been for a long time the Company's chief factor at Jambi, in his journal charges 107 pieces of eight for the cost of recovering the said goods from Thomas Skinner, which Lever says Skinner ought to make good to the Company ; and again in the said journal Lever makes out an account to the Old Stock for goods belonging to Frederick Skinner and taken out of the Thomas of 12,057 pieces of eight, and he, being a trader with Frederick Skinner, knew well to whom the goods belonged. From letters from the factors and commissioners at Bantam to the King of Jambi and the factors of that place it appears that Frederick Skinner was indebted to the Company 24,000 pieces of eight, that he provided his brother Thomas with money and goods to the value of 9,454 pieces of eight, and that the said Thomas had little or nothing of his own. It also appears that the Company's letters and instructions fell into the hands of Thomas Skinner, who had given advice of the same to Frederick, and that Thomas owed Frederick 9,454 pieces of eight, which rightly belong to the Company. Frederick Skinner gave the Company a general release from the 30th of April, 1661. From all this Their Honours will clearly judge : 1. That Thomas Skinner has no pretence in law or equity against any one but the insurers, to whom he renounced all his own rights and also those of any others who were concerned with him in the said ship and goods. 2. That the goods which the Company obtained possession of through their agents at Jambi were taken as the goods of Frederick Skinner, and served him in clearing his account with the Company, to whom he has given a general release. In consideration of all which Their Honours are requested by their report to ease the King and the Company of any further trouble of the impertinent and vexatious caville of Thomas Skinner."

---

Daniel Skinner, son of Daniel Skinner the younger, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge

According to Gordon Campbell et al. (1996), Daniel Skinner (fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and son of Daniel Skinner the younger) claimed to Samuel Pepys that he was "in some sense Milton's unofficial literary executor."

Campbell et al. (1996) write "Certainly it would be helpful if we were to know more about the history, and especially the early history, of Daniel Skinner. It is often asserted that he was a pupil of Milton, but the nature of his occasional slips in Latin, Greek and Hebrew renders this assumption suspect....Leo Miller (1984) surveyed the evidence and concluded that the Skinner draft was probably "not begun until after Milton was dead." Maurice Kelley had reached the same conclusion in 1941 (p. 56), based on his observation that there are no revisions in Skinner's hand; the only changes are added phrases and minor corrections, which suggests that Skinner took the trouble to check his transcription. However, it is that case that no aspect of his conduct while the papers were in his possession suggests that he would have been selected for the task of seeing into print what the author of SP 9/61 calls "my best and richest possession" ("quibus melius et pretiosus nihil habeo") (CE, XIV, 8-9). Skinner was about 23 years old and apparently something of a novice in dealing with Dutch presses -- Elsevier, after all, held the manuscripts for many months, from an unknown date in 1675 to March 1677, without printing them. Milton knew others much better equipped for the purpose. Moreover, in the summer of 1674 Milton had had some distinct sense of his impending death, enough to have made, while bedfast, a nuncupative will in the presence of his brother. If this manuscript were indeed so precious to him, then he may well have been expected to take similar precautions at such strong intimations of his own mortality."

Campbell et al. (1996) suggest that Wood later confused Cyriac Skinner for Daniel Skinner. The author, quotes Wood:

"the framing [of] a Body of Divinity out of the Bible . . . which he finished after His Majesty's restoration. . . . [Those of Milton's books that are not now extant include] The body of Divinity, which my friend calls Idea Theologiae, now, or at least lately, in the hands of the author s acquaintance called Cyr[iack] Skinner, living in Mark Lane, London." (Darbishire, pp. 46-7)

but correct him, stating:

"It was of course Daniel Skinner who had been living in Mark Lane. Wood's friend, the source of this confusion, was Aubrey, who had recorded among Milton's works the "Idea Theologiae in MS in the hands of Mr Skinner a merchant's sonne in Mark Lane" (Darbishire, pp. 9-10). Wood had also drawn on Cyriack Skinner, whom we now know to be the so-called "anonymous biographer", who had said of Milton that after the onset of blindness, "hee began that laborious work . . . a Latin Thesaurus. . . . Also the composing Paradise Lost and the framing a Body of Divinity out of the Bible: All which . . . hee finish'd after the Restoration" (Darbishire, p. 29)."

Earlier Campbell et al. write:

"It seems odd that Lemon should not have mentioned the presence of Milton's name when he prepared a document (now in SP 9/61/4) setting out his reasons for attributing the treatise to Milton. Milton's name was on the State Papers as Iohannis Miltonii, with an H in the Christian name. The second I in the genitive inflexion was apparently added at a later date; our hypothesis is confirmed by the running title on the verso pages, which is Iohannis Miltoni. Lemon noticed the name on the State Papers, and guessed that the theological treatise might also be the work of Milton. He noted that the wrapper bore the address "Mr Skinner, Merchant," and turned to Charles Symmons's edition of Milton's prose (1806), where he discovered that the treatise "was once in the hands of Cyriac Skinner, but what became of it, afterwards, has not been traced" (VIII, p. 500). Lemon was not to know that Symmons, following Wood, had confused Daniel Skinner with Cyriack."

The bibliography to the 1996 paper includes:

MS LBK8 p. 755 (letter from Pepys to Skinner, 17 November 1676).
SP 29/386 fol. 96 (Skinner's testimony of 18 October 1676).
SP 29/390/159 fols. 282-4 (Isaac Barrow's letter of 13 February 1676/7 to Skinner in Paris.
SP 44/51, p. 252 (Daniel Skinner's passport).
Longleat, Marquis of Bath's Collection: Coventry Papers f.60 (Unsigned and undated letter discussing Daniel Skinner's dealings to publish Milton's papers after his death).
Oxford, Bodleian Library: Rawlinson A185, fols. 133-4 (Daniel Skinner's letter from Paris to Pepys of 28 January/ 7 February 1676/7.; Rawlinson A185 fols. 271-4 (Daniel Skinner's letter of 9/19 November 1676 to Pepys from Rotterdam); Rawlinson A185, fols. 396-7 (Daniel Skinner's letter to Pepys dated 5 July 1676; in Latin).
Hanford, James H. (July, 1931), "Pepys and the Skinner Family." Review of English Studies 7: 251-70.
Kelley, Maurice (1940) "Addendum: The Later Career of Daniel Skinner." PMLA 55: 116-8.
Kelley, Maurice (1940a), "Daniel Skinner and Milton's Trinity College Manuscript." N&Q 222: 206-7.

---

Possible primary sources

TNA

C 3/461/51 Short title: Skinner v Skinner. Plaintiffs: Daniel Skinner. Defendants: Albert Skinner and another. Subject: money matters. Document type: answer only. 1642-1660

C 6/50/76 Short title: Skinner v Keale. Plaintiffs: Daniel Skinner. Defendants: Sir Jonathan Keale baronet and William Beale. Subject: recovery of rent etc, in the Island of Barbados, West Indies. Document type: bill, answer. 1667
C 6/64/83 Short title: Lord Robartes v Skynner. Plaintiffs: John Roberts Lord Robartes of Truro, Sir Richard Wynn baronet, Henry Wynn, Robert Roberts and Sarah Roberts his wife. Defendants: Daniel Skynner, Thomas Andrews, Edmund Hinton, John Sheppard, Sir Francis Vincent baronet, Sir Harbottle Grimston and others. 1669
C 6/178/92 Short title: Vincent v Herne. Plaintiffs: Sir Francis Vincent baronet, Daniel Skynner, Thomas Andrews and John Sheppard. Defendants: Joseph Herne. Subject: money matters, Surrey. Document type: bill, answer. 1667

C 10/74/1 Roger Andrewes, John Connis, William Pennoyer, Francis Dashwood and Edward Crispe v Frederick Skinner: money matters, Middx 1664
C 10/86/2 Thomas Andrewes, Daniel Skinner, Frederick Skinner and Francis Gardener v Albertus Skinner and Martin Skinner: money matters, Middx 1668
C 10/101/6 Thomas Andrewes and Daniel Skinner v John Kempthorne, Thomas Kendall, Walter Hampson, Robert Cunning, Gervace Cook and others: money matters, Middx 1662

PROB 4/11582 Skinner, Frederick, of All Hallows in the Wall, London ob. beyond the seas [goods left unadmd. by Daniel Skinner, son and admr., also since dead] 1685 21 Feb. [sic]

SP 9/194 Copies, in the hand of Daniel Skinner, of John Milton's Latin Letters of State. [1649 Aug. 10-1659 May 15]

---

Centre for Kentish Studies

Sackville Manuscripts (U269/O1 - U269/Z93) : Copy of warrant from the Lord Treasurer U269/O46 1663
- 1 doc; Contents: Giving permission for wine imported by Daniel Skinner in a Dutch ship to be unloaded at an English port contrary to the Navigation Acts

Bdl. 80