SKIPPON, Philip (c.1598-1660), of Foulsham, Norf. and later of Acton, Mdx.

Early life

The central factor in Skippon’s career was that he was a rare example of a professional soldier in England who had gained extensive military experience prior to the outbreak of the civil war. Without any great inheritance of his own, he had spent most of the 1620s and the 1630s fighting in Germany and the Low Countries. His father, Luke, was a minor country gentleman with lands at West Lexham in Norfolk, halfway between Norwich and King’s Lynn.61Pells, ‘Skippon’, 210. Philip, who was probably the eldest son, was born in about 1598, as he was aged 40 when his father died in 1638.62C142/773, no. 171; Pells, ‘Skippon’, 209. He had a younger brother, Luke, who became a fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge.63Al. Cant. There is no evidence that Philip attended university or one of the inns of court; Edward Hyde* even thought him ‘altogether illiterate’, a strange comment about someone who had published several books.64Clarendon, Hist. i. 509.

One contemporary, John Cruso, later implied that Skippon had been a soldier on the continent since about 1615.65Du Praissac, Art of Warre, sig. O2. What is more certain is that Skippon served in Germany during the early stages of the Thirty Years’ War. In 1620 an army of over 2,000 English volunteers under Sir Horace Vere (later 1st Baron Vere of Tilbury) joined Frederick V, the deposed king of Bohemia, to help defend the Lower Palatinate against the threat from the emperor, Ferdinand II. Those volunteers included Skippon, who became Vere’s ammunition master.66E101/612/73. He had signed up for what many of them viewed as a Protestant crusade against Habsburg tyranny. By 1622 he seems to have been based at Frankenthal, the important strategic location at the confluence of the Rhine and the Neckar, for there on 14/24 May in the Dutch church he married a local woman, Maria Comes.67‘Skippon fam.’, 38. He was later said to have been the sergeant-major of the garrison there.68Ancient Vellum Bk. 3. When he died four decades later, he owned a gold medal and chain decorated with the Frankenthal town arms.69PROB11/300/399. When Frankenthal fell to the imperialist forces in the spring of 1623, Skippon was among those who retreated to the United Provinces. Between 1623 and 1625, when she gave birth to their two eldest children, his wife was living at Utrecht. By 1628, she had moved the short distance to Amersfoort.70‘Skippon fam.’, 38. Once the Palatinate was lost, Vere assisted in the defence of the United Provinces against the Spanish. Skippon fought with him at Breda in 1625, at ‘s-Hertogenbosch in 1629 and at Maastricht in 1632.71H. Hexham, A True and Brief Relation of the Famous Seige of Breda (Delft, 1637), Information to the Reader. In 1627 he was promoted to captain.72Soc. Antiq. MS 203, ff. 25, 30*, 140; ex. info. Ismini Pells. Hyde would write of Skippon’s time in the Netherlands that

from a common soldier [he] had raised himself to the degree of a captain and to the reputation of a good officer: he was a man of order and sobriety, and untainted with any of those vices which the officers of that army were exercised in.73Clarendon, Hist. i. 509.

It was not just a question of temperate personal morals; these years seem also to have reinforced Skippon’s strong Calvinist religious beliefs.74I. Pells, ‘Scriptural truths? Calvinist internationalism and military professionalism in the Bible of Philip Skippon’, 187-202, in Writing the Lives of People and Things, AD 500-1700, ed. R.F.W. Smith and G.L. Watson (Farnham, 2016) Meanwhile, from 1629 those serving with Vere included (Sir) Thomas Fairfax*; this was probably the first contact between Skippon and his future superior officer.

By the mid-1630s Skippon was spending some of his time in England. In May 1634 he was granted permission to travel back to the Netherlands with 12 men whom he had presumably recruited for service there.75CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 37. His visit home may have been connected with the death of his uncle, William Skippon, the former secretary to William Bourchier, 3rd earl of Bath, and his inheritance of an estate at Foulsham, 15 miles to the north west of Norwich and 12 miles from West Lexham.76PROB11/165/126; PROB11/165/208; PROB11/166/409; Blomefield, Norf. viii. 206. His sixth child, Susanna, was born at West Lexham in May 1635, while his next child, Luke, was born at Foulsham in August 1638.77‘Skippon fam.’, 38-9. In the meantime, in the summer of 1636, he and his family had travelled back to the Netherlands.78CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 17. Before departing, however, he obtained denizations for his wife and their children.79Coventry Docquets, 532. In 1637 Skippon took part in the Dutch recapture of Breda. During the fighting there on 2/12 September he survived a bullet wound to his neck.80Hexham, True and Brief Relation, 24-5.

In 1639 the king nominated Skippon as captain-leader of the Society of the Artillery Garden (the Honourable Artillery Company), the private club that provided military training for London citizens.81LMA, COL/CA/01/01/057, f. 328; Raikes, Hist. of the Hon. Artillery Co. i. 95-6; Ancient Vellum Bk. 3. One later suggestion was that he had been recruited by the London vintner, Matthew Forster.82Persecutio Undecima (1648), 56. The royalist Hyde came to think this appointment a mistake, because ‘having been bred always in Holland [Skippon] brought disaffection enough with him from thence against the Church of England, and so was much caressed and trusted by that party’.83Clarendon, Hist. i. 509. By October 1640, when he suffered a period of ill health, he was living in Hackney.84Eg. 2716, f. 360. The military affairs of London would be the recurring theme throughout the rest of Skippon’s career. An early indication of the faith that the Long Parliament had in his first-hand experience of war was that he was among the professional soldiers appointed to the council of war on Irish affairs it created in November 1641 in response to the news of the Irish rebellion.85CJ ii. 308b; D’Ewes (C), 110.

Defending London, 1642

In the aftermath of the king’s attempted arrest of the Five Members on 4 January 1642, control of the capital became an issue of great urgency. The same day the corporation of London appointed its own committee of safety, with instructions to seek advice from Skippon. Four days later he was granted the freedom of the City.86LMA, COL/CC/01/01/041, ff. 11, 13v. Some MPs meanwhile took refuge in London for their own safety, and meeting at Grocers’ Hall on 10 January, promoted Skippon to command the London trained bands. He and those units then provided the escort the next day for the return of the MPs to Westminster.87PJ i. 30-1, 35, 36, 59; Verney, Notes, 142-3; CJ ii. 371a, 390a; LMA, COL/CC/01/01/041, f. 15; Clarendon, Hist. i. 509. Reporting the news of Skippon’s appointment, Josias Berners* described him as ‘an experienced old soldier’.88Bodl. Tanner 66, f. 234. On 12 January the Commons ordered him to place a guard round the Tower of London, effectively blockading it.89CJ ii. 372b; Verney, Notes, 143; PJ i. 48; CSP Dom. 1641-2, pp. 265, 269. This eventually forced the resignation of the governor, Sir John Byron†, and his replacement with the less suspect Sir John Conyers. Meanwhile, on 14 January, after the king had left the capital and when it seemed that he might return with reinforcements, Skippon was asked to use his scouts to check that no troops were approaching London.90CJ ii. 380a; PJ i. 67. The following day the Commons granted powers to the sheriffs of London and Middlesex to call out the trained bands if Skippon advised them to do so.91CJ ii. 382b, 384b; PJ i. 84-5, 86, 89, 95, 101, 103. This was subsequently reiterated.92CJ ii. 401a, 427a-b, 431b; PJ i. 92-3, 97, 119, 214. On 22 January Parliament’s committee of safety transferred control of the trained bands from the corporation of London to a newly-created London militia committee. At Parliament’s request, conveyed to them by John Venn*, Skippon’s appointment as sergeant-major-general was then formalised by the common council of London on 12 February.93CJ ii. 426a; LMA, COL/CC/01/01/041, f. 20; CSP Dom. 1641-2, p. 283; PJ i. 360, 379; Raikes, Hist. of the Hon. Artillery Co. i. 110.

In early April Skippon passed on to Robert Reynolds* some reports of various horsemen, some said to be French, leaving London and travelling north in the direction of York, where the king was now based. Reynolds informed the Commons of this on 4 April.94PJ ii. 128. The king tried to test Skippon’s loyalty in May 1642 by summoning him to attend on him at York. On receiving the letter, Skippon immediately reported it to Parliament. On 17 May the Commons ruled that, as he was not a royal servant, he was under no obligation to obey this summons and that, as he was a servant of Parliament (because the trained bands provided the guards for the palace of Westminster), this was a breach of parliamentary privilege.95CJ ii. 575a, 582b; PJ ii. 331, 334. There is no reason to think that Skippon had been even vaguely tempted to choose the king over Parliament.

By late summer both sides were raising rival armies. Skippon played a full part in the parliamentarian mobilisation, helping to raise two regiments of foot and four troops of horse in London.96CJ ii. 738b-739a. On 10 June he and other members of the London militia committee appeared before the Commons to assure them that they would ignore the king’s proclamation against the Militia Ordinance.97PJ iii. 59. These preparations for the defence of the capital would soon be tested. The inconclusive battle at Edgehill (23 Oct.) left the king with an open road to London. By 4 November Charles and his army had reached Reading. The next day an anxious House of Commons sent Sir Peter Wentworth* and Cornelius Holland* to seek assurances from Skippon that London and Westminster could be defended.98CJ ii. 837a. On 12 November the royalist vanguard under Prince Rupert had advanced as far as Brentford. The following morning the parliamentarian forces, including the London trained bands, blocked the road eastwards at Turnham Green. According to Bulstrode Whitelocke*, Skippon encouraged the trained bands with the cry, ‘Come my boys, my brave boys, let us pray heartily and fight heartily’.99Whitelocke, Diary, 139. The king retreated and the immediate crisis passed.

Right-hand man to Essex, 1642-4

In the aftermath of Turnham Green, it was decided that London should raise 1,000 light horse and 3,000 dragoons. On 15 November the Commons sent word to their lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, recommending that he appoint Skippon to command them.100CJ ii. 850b-851a, 848a; SP28/3b, f. 300. Essex did more than that, immediately recruiting him to become the sergeant-major-general of all his infantry.101SP28/3b, f. 423; Peacock, Army Lists, 19. The common council of London agreed this on 17 November.102Raikes, Hist. of the Hon. Artillery Co. i. 112. For the next year Skippon spent most of his time campaigning with the lord general.

Skippon retained his previous position as sergeant-major-general of London only, but within a few months a rival emerged. On 27 July 1643 the Commons approved the appointment of Sir William Waller* as the general of the new army to be raised in London, but on 3 August there was some discussion as to whether he should be made subordinate to Skippon.103Harl. 165, ff. 134v-135. When Essex was asked to issue the commission to Waller, the earl (who was wary of him) pointed out to Parliament that Skippon, whom he thought deserved their appreciation, would be disadvantaged thereby. Both Houses agreed that Waller’s appointment should not infringe Skippon’s existing rights.104CJ iii. 197a-b; Harl. 165, f. 146v. Later that month two of the trained band regiments (the Red and the Blue) and three of the auxiliaries (the Red, the Blue and the Orange) joined Essex’s army, serving under Skippon.105W. Emberton, Skippon’s Brave Boys (Buckingham, 1984), 73-81.

At the first battle of Newbury (20 Sept. 1643) Skippon commanded the centre of the parliamentarian line and, by taking Round Hill, the key strategic location in the centre of the battlefield, helped ensure that Essex won a narrow victory. In August he helped take Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, which became his base of operations for the next few months.106CJ iii. 302a, 397a; Harl. 165, f. 204. On 24 December, he captured the former royal palace at Grafton Regis, Northamptonshire, which had been occupied by royalist troops.107CJ iii. 351b; Harl. 165, f. 257b; Vicars, England’s Worthies, 53. By February and March 1644 he was based at St Albans.108Harl. 166, f. 18v; CJ iii. 404b, 420b; CSP Dom. 1644, p. 22. On 8 March Parliament accepted Essex’s recommendation that Skippon should also become colonel of his own regiment of foot.109CJ iii. 562b.

In June 1644 Essex took Skippon with him on his march into the west in pursuit of Prince Maurice. Skippon was later among the officers who wrote to Parliament defending this trajectory.110LJ vi. 616b-617a. Once they had reached Plymouth, Skippon argued in favour of a further advance into Cornwall.111Juxon Jnl. 56. Essex agreed, with disastrous results. Before long they were trapped at Lostwithiel. During the resulting skirmishes Skippon narrowly escaped injury. One eyewitness recorded that he had seen Skippon’s ‘glove and sleeve shot through and his buff in places on the top of the skirts with the same bullet’, all without harm.112Harl. 166, f. 97v. On 1 September Essex escaped by sea. He left Skippon in charge of the encircled army and with instructions to surrender, which Skippon did the next day.113Symonds, Diary, 65-6.

Essex’s enemies at Westminster were quick to exploit this humiliation – one in which Skippon was implicated. On 4 October, on the recommendation of the Committee of Both Kingdoms (CBK), the Commons agreed a payment of £500 to Skippon, but not everyone was so forgiving.114CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 1; CJ iii. 651b, 654a, 657b-658a, 659a. Three days later Oliver St John*, again on behalf of the CBK, informed the Commons that the officers of the City brigade had asked that Skippon be appointed to command them. Sir Simonds D’Ewes* saw in this a subtle plot by St John and Sir Henry Vane II* to remove Skippon from Essex’s army. The recorder of London, John Glynne*, opposed St John and the proposal was rejected.115CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 11, 19; CJ iii. 655a; Harl. 166, f. 128v; Juxon Jnl. 59.

In mid-October 1644 Skippon returned to service on the front line, joining the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†) in Hampshire, where the immediate objective was to prevent the king relieving Basing House.116Luke Letter Bks. 37. The result was the second battle of Newbury (27 Oct.), in which Skippon played as important a role as he had done when the two armies had met there a year earlier. He and his men took part in Waller’s circuitous march to outflank the royalists and, when they confronted Prince Maurice from the west, he commanded the centre of line between Sir William Balfour and Oliver Cromwell*. Writing to the CBK, Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston* and John Crewe* noted that Skippon had ‘hazarded himself too much’ during the battle.117Manchester Quarrel, 51. In the days that followed he besieged Donnington Castle, the stronghold to the north of Newbury where royalist soldiers under Colonel John Boys remained holed up.118Harl. 166, f. 141; Luke Letter Bks. 55. If Skippon and Cromwell had had their way, the parliamentarians would have attacked when the king attempted to relieve those forces.119Juxon Jnl. 63. The accusation that he had ignored this advice would in due course be used against Manchester. By late November Skippon had returned to London.120Luke Letter Bks. 403.

While on campaign, Skippon written works of popular religious devotion. He published the first, A Salve for Every Sore, in 1643. Its sequel, True Treasure: or, Thirtie Holy Vowes, appeared the following year, while the third, The Christian Centurian, came out in 1645. Each was aimed explicitly at the soldiers serving under him in the parliamentarian army and, as such, did not claim to be works of great scholarship or originality. Many of those fighting for Parliament believed that their cause was a religious one, but Skippon was a rare example of a senior officer who tended to the spiritual welfare of his men so directly. In early 1645 he lobbied the Norwich MP, Richard Harman*, for Edmund Agborough, the vicar of Necton, Norfolk, who was being detained at Norwich for refusing the Covenant, to be granted bail.121Add. 22619, f. 161; Add. 22620, f. 20.

Creating the New Model army, 1645-6

Despite his closeness to Essex, once Parliament began to make plans for the New Model army, Skippon was just the sort of officer many wanted to see in charge, in that he was professional, competent, experienced and eager to fight. Initially, Skippon was given command of the second foot regiment. This passed the two Houses without controversy.122Temple, ‘Original officer list’, 55; CJ iv. 26a, 26b; Harl. 166, f. 183v; Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, i. 44, 55, 65, 76, 85 An additional, nominal appointment to a captaincy in the horse regiment of Colonel Richard Graves was considered, possibly as a means of supplementing his salary, but, in the end, this was not pursued.123Temple, ‘Original officer list’, 68; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 102-3; Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, i. 53. More importantly, on 25 January 1645 the Commons decided to name Skippon as the sergeant-major-general, effectively making him the second most senior officer under Sir Thomas Fairfax*.124CJ iv. 31a.

His first task was to implement the New Model. Almost immediately, he and Sir William Balfour were sent to encourage Essex’s former troops to march with Waller.125CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 305, 307; Luke Letter Bks. 156. He then spent most of March and April 1645 persuading the old regiments to disband with as little fuss as possible.126CJ iv. 76b, 77b, 95b, 102b, 107a, 118a; Severall Letters to the Honourable William Lenthall (1645), 3-4, E.277.8; Luke Letter Bks. 512; Harl. 166, f. 203. In some cases this involved convincing soldiers to re-enlist at a lower rank.127Luke Letter Bks. 244. The Commons heard on 25 April how he had also managed to suppress the mutiny at Beaconsfield.128CJ iv. 122b; Harl. 166, ff. 189v-190, 205. That this major and highly controversial re-organisation of the army was achieved so smoothly owed much to Skippon’s hard work and efficiency, and it is generally recognised that he did as much as anyone to lay the foundations for the New Model army’s conspicuous military successes later that year. However, he did experience one setback. On 15 April, after Thomas Soame* resigned as president of the Society of the Artillery Garden, the court of aldermen of London agreed to install James Bunce as his replacement, but declined to re-appoint Skippon as the captain-leader.129Raikes, Hist. of the Hon. Artillery Co. i. 151.

On 28 April the Commons decided to send Fairfax and Skippon to relieve Robert Blake*, under seige at the county town of Somerset, Taunton, by Sir John Berkeley* and Sir Richard Grenville†.130CJ iv. 124b, 125a; Harl. 166, f. 205v; Luke Letter Bks. 525. But news that Lord Goring (George Goring*) had set out from Oxford caused the order to be reversed a week later.131CJ iv. 132a, 133a; Harl. 166, f. 207; CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 457, 458, 459. Once it became known that the king and the bulk of the royalist army were marching northwards, Fairfax, with Skippon, set off in pursuit. On 8 June, from Newport Pagnell, Fairfax and his officers, including Skippon, successfully petitioned Parliament for Cromwell’s appointment as their lieutenant-general.132Harl. 166, f. 217v. The two armies met at Naseby six days later. Skippon, commanding the infantry, was placed in the centre of the parliamentarian line, with the cavalry under Cromwell and Henry Ireton* flanking him. His own regiment was in the thick of the fighting and accounted for over half the casualties suffered by the parliamentarian infantry.133G. Foard, Naseby (Barnsley, 2004), 260. Those injured included Skippon himself.134Harl. 166, f. 219v; Sprigg, Anglia Rediviva, 49, 255. One early printed account of the battle claimed that he had been wounded by a musket on his right side, but that he was bearing his injuries stoically, declaring that, ‘though he might groan, he would not grudge under it’ and that he had prayed that ‘a sanctified use’ would result from this misfortune.135A more exact and perfect Relation of the great Victory (1645), 5-6 (E.288.28). An alternative account said he was wounded on his left side.136Vicars, England’s Worthies, 55-6. The Commons wrote to thank him.137CJ iv. 180b. Later, on 30 June, they voted to grant him £200, and sent money to pay the doctors who had treated him.138CJ iv. 190b, 223a-b, 224a, 239a. Two weeks later Oliver St John* and Sir Robert Harley* were sent to thank him in person and convey the news that the Commons had granted him the use of a house to be provided by the Middlesex and Westminster sequestration committee.139CJ iv. 206a, 225a. The house selected was one in Long Acre, which had been sequestered from the 5th earl (or 1st marquess) of Worcester.140CJ v. 428b, 430b; CAM 47; CCC 1781; PROB11/300/399. The following December he was also granted lands worth £1,000 a year.141CJ iv. 361b. Although Parliament made sure that he received the best available medical care, his recovery was very slow.142I. Pells, ‘“Stout Skippon hath a wound”’, 78-90, in Battle-scarred: Mortality, medical care and military welfare in the British Civil Wars, ed. D.J. Appleby and A. Hopper (Manchester, 2018).

In early September 1645 Skippon’s regiment took part in the successful assault on Bristol.143Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 375; Sprigg, Anglia Rediviva, 105, 116. No sooner had the city fallen to the parliamentarian forces than some of the inhabitants organised a petition to Parliament requesting that Skippon be installed as their new governor. As he was still recuperating from his war wounds, appointing him to a military position that was primarily administrative and which would not require much travelling made sense. On 15 September, therefore, the Commons advised Fairfax to appoint him.144CJ iv. 274a; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 138. Fairfax took their advice and the appointment was confirmed by a parliamentary ordinance passed two months later.145CJ iv. 348b. Skippon’s time at Bristol was largely uneventful. The city itself was secure, so his main task was to send troops to support operations elsewhere, such as Herefordshire and south Wales.146CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 332-3, 347. However, he was not happy when Fairfax removed his own regiment from the city.147Bodl. Tanner 60, f. 403; CJ iv. 428b. In February 1646 he complained to Parliament that most of the money due to the Bristol garrison had not been paid.148Bodl. Tanner 60, f. 403; CJ iv. 436b. He also helped oversee the disbanding of the garrison at Bath and the dismantling of the defences there.149CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 305, 439.

By the spring of 1646 he was sufficiently recovered from his injuries to return to frontline duties. On 1 May he arrived at Garsington to take part in the siege of Oxford.150Sprigg, Anglia Rediviva, 255-6, 258, 283. Fears that he might neglect them might well be why later that summer the Bristol corporation presented him with hogsheads of Gascony wine.151Bristol RO, 04026/23, p. 218. Following the surrender of Oxford in late June, Skippon returned to Bristol.152J. Vicars, Magnalia Dei Anglicana (1646), 370, E.348.1. He performed one final duty for his former patron when on 22 October he carried two pieces of the armour (the vambrace and the pauldron for the left arm) in the earl of Essex’s funeral procession.153The True Mannor and Forme of the Proceeding to the Funerall of the Right Honourable Robert Earle of Essex (1646), 18 (E.360.1).

Serving the Presbyterians, 1646-7

Skippon entered Parliament in early December 1646 as one of two new MPs for Barnstaple. The town’s freemen almost certainly chose him in the election on 5 December because, as governor of Bristol, he was now the key figure in the port that dominated the commercial affairs of the whole Bristol Channel. He also had family connections with Tawstock, a few miles south of Barnstaple, through his late uncle, William Skippon, and his brother Luke, who had been appointed as the rector of Tawstock in 1638.154PROB11/165/126; PROB11/165/208; C. Wrey, Monuments, Epitaphs, etc., in Tawstock Church (Barnstaple, 1928), p. xxxi; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 214; Pells, ‘Skippon’, 216.

Skippon was never a natural MP. During a debate in 1656, he told the House that, he was ‘not fond of speaking’.155Burton’s Diary, i. 101. He may also have been reluctant to master the details of parliamentary business. In any case, in the short term the Presbyterian majority in the Commons, who viewed him as a senior army officer they could trust, decided that he could be of more use elsewhere. Indeed, he may not have actually have taken his seat at Westminster until spring 1647.

No sooner had he been elected than Parliament sent him to one of the furthest corners of the kingdom. On 11 December the Commons agreed that Skippon should become governor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which was about to be vacated by the Scottish army as it withdrew from the north of England.156CJ v. 10a, 20a, 22a, 36b. It was envisaged that he would then command all the forces in the region.157Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 421. Although there were obvious practical problems in holding the two jobs simultaneously, the Commons made it clear that he was to continue as the governor of Bristol.158CJ v. 24b. He left his son-in-law, William Rolfe (husband of his eldest surviving daughter, Anna), at Bristol as his acting deputy.159Clarke Pprs. i. 162. Skippon took with him to the north the £200,000 to be used to pay off the Scots.160CJ v. 24b; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 516; Juxon Jnl. 142; Sprigg, Anglia Rediviva, 320. Since a crucial part of the deal with the Scots was that they would hand over the king, on 5 January the Commons considered whether Skippon should be the one to receive him. When this was defeated by 130 to 69 votes, presumably on the grounds that Skippon was a military figure, he was instead ordered to provide the escort to transport Charles to Holdenby in Northamptonshire.161CJ v. 42b, 43b. On 21 January and 3 February 1647 he witnessed the transfer of the £200,000 in two instalments to the Scots. The king was then moved to Holdenby and on 1 March the Common formally thanked Skippon.162CJ v. 87b-88a, 101b.

Parliament again turned to Skippon later that month when it faced demands from the army that their grievances over their arrears and indemnity be addressed. Attempts were made to suppress the soldiers’ petitions. In a sign of desperation, on 29 March the Commons ordered Skippon to re-join Fairfax’s army immediately in the hope that he might restore some order among the ranks.163CJ v. 129a; Clarke Pprs. i. 2-3. Rather naively, MPs thought that a longer-term solution would be to send some of the troops to Ireland. Unwilling to reappoint Philip Sidney*, Lord Lisle as lord lieutenant for another year and keen to reduce the lord lieutenant’s military role, the Presbyterians at Westminster wanted to create a separate field marshal to command the Irish army. It was proposed that the job be given to Skippon.164CJ v. 133b; Harington’s Diary, 47; CSP Ven. 1643-7, p. 313. Denzil Holles* subsequently claimed that this had been a wicked scheme by the Independents.165Mems. of Denzil Lord Holles (1699), 82. But the advantage at the time was that Skippon was a compromise figure acceptable to all; he would be promoted while the troops would be under the command of someone reliable. Skippon claimed that his health was poor, but on 29 April Holles informed the Commons that he was willing to accept this command.166LJ ix. 138a-139b; CJ v. 142b, 155a, 156a; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 744; CSP Ven. 1643-7, p. 316. The House thanked him with a grant of £1,000 and added him to the Presbyterian-dominated Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs, which was leading the charge to dismember the army and send the remnant to Ireland.167CJ v. 156b, 157a, 157b; LJ ix. 158b; CCC 805. Skippon was soon trying to persuade Bulstrode Whitelocke to accompany him to Ireland to serve as the lord chief justice.168Whitelocke, Diary, 193-4. The army officers were less happy, with some reported to have declared that they would only serve under Fairfax or Cromwell.169CSP Ven. 1643-7, p. 315.

The petition from the army officers was read in the Commons on 30 April. Skippon, who was present, proposed that the three army agitators who had delivered it – Edward Sexby, William Allen and Thomas Sheppard – should be called in. Having heard what they had to say, the Commons ordered Skippon, Cromwell and Henry Ireton* to go to the army as their commissioners to assure the soldiers that their grievances would be dealt with.170CJ v. 158a-b; Harington’s Diary, 48; Clarke Pprs. i. 430-1. Four days later the trio wrote to Speaker William Lenthall from Saffron Walden reporting their plan to address the regiments on 6 May.171Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 441; CJ v. 161b; Clarke Pprs. i. 20-1. When they managed to assemble the regiments on 7 May, they told the soldiers that Parliament was doing its best to address their demands.172Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 443. Skippon then took the chair when he and Cromwell met the army officers in the church at Saffron Walden on 15 and 16 May. The point he tried to stress throughout those discussions was that Parliament had already shown itself willing to attend to their complaints concerning indemnity and their arrears.173Clarke Pprs. i. 33-78; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 446-7. However, the soldiers’ hostility made him doubt that he would actually lead any of them to Ireland.174Fairfax Corresp. ed. Bell, ii. 361. Meanwhile, the corporation of London exercised its new powers to nominate the London militia committee by packing it with Presbyterians. There was then no question of removing Skippon, who was duly reappointed.175CJ v. 160b-161a. On 18 May, when the Commons asked that one of their commissioners travel back from Saffron Walden to report progress, they indicated that this should not be Skippon as he was needed to continue encouraging his colleagues in the army to serve with him in Ireland.176CJ v. 176b; Harington’s Diary, 52. It was therefore Cromwell and Charles Fleetwood* who presented their report sympathetically endorsing most of the soldiers’ demands to the Commons on 21 May.177Clarke Pprs. i. 94-9. MPs thanked Skippon, Cromwell, Ireton and Fleetwood, but pressed ahead with immediate disbandment anyway. Skippon’s own regiment, which was still stationed at Newcastle, was ordered to join the army to be sent to Ireland.178CJ v. 181b, 183b. One newsletter summed up Skippon’s dilemma when it observed that, ‘Major-general Skippon is quite lost in the army by endeavouring to please both sides: he will not get any men with him, and I much fear if he stay he will be at a nonplus.’179Clarke Pprs. i. 113. Skippon now returned to Westminster, but his predicament was soon to become even more acute.

Betraying the Presbyterians, 1647-8

The abduction of the king from Holdenby by George Joyce persuaded Parliament to be a bit less intransigent. In the early hours of 4 June 1647 the Commons agreed to withdraw its declaration of 30 March banning the soldiers from trying to make representations to them. The following afternoon Skippon headed the list of MPs appointed to draft the declaration announcing this dramatic change of policy. The arrival of a mob of disbanded soldiers at Westminster on 7 June only encouraged Parliament to offer further reassurances to the army. Skippon led the delegation of peers and MPs that was now sent to the army to remind them again of all that Parliament had done for them.180CJ v. 198b, 201b, 202a. But this ended in humiliation. When Skippon tried to address the troops at Thriplow Heath on 10 June, he was shouted down with demands that everything should be referred to the new army council. Five days later at St Albans the army presented their declaration to Skippon and the other parliamentary commissioners.181LJ ix. 269a. According to Holles, Skippon, ‘a Presbyterian, who had seem’d to dislike those factious ways before his last going down to the army’, addressed the Commons ‘in a grave way, with a doleful countenance, and lamentable voice’, and advised them to cave in to all the soldiers’ demands.182Holles, Mems. 104-5.

On 2 July Skippon was one of the six MPs, who, with Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Nottingham and Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, held talks with the army officers at High Wycombe.183Clarke Pprs. i. 148-50. He then accompanied the army to Reading.184CJ v. 240a. Faced with the very real possibility that the army would try to occupy the capital, the corporation of London wanted Skippon to organise their resistance by becoming their major-general. He agreed, on condition that he be allowed to resign as a commissioner to the army, but, because of the delay in receiving his reply, Edward Massie* was appointed instead.185Juxon Jnl. 163-4; Holles, Mems. 161-2. Then on 26 July Parliament came under attack from a mob calling for the reinstatement of the old London militia committee. By the time the two Houses reassembled four days later the Independent peers and MPs had fled to join the army. All this placed Skippon in a most invidious position, conflicting his loyalties to the army, the Presbyterians at Westminster and the civic leaders of London. In an effort to remain neutral and like the other commissioners to the army, he deliberately did not sign the declaration of 4 August from those MPs who had taken refuge with the army.186HMC Egmont, i. 440. But his continuing attendance with the army was itself a statement. He then entered London with them on 6 August.

Skippon accepted that the army’s intervention had been necessary. When on 17 August the Commons voted on whether Parliament had been ‘under a force and not free’ between 26 July and 6 August, Skippon twice joined Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire* as a teller for the yeas. The next day he was named to the committee on the bill to make void all the measures passed by Parliament between those dates. He had already been thanked by the House for his efforts as a commissioner to the army.187CJ v. 274b, 275b, 278a. Yet he probably also had misgivings over the fact that the Independents had gained the upper hand. It is telling that on 21 August he obtained permission to spend some time in the country. He was still absent when attendance was checked on 9 October, he was at King’s Lynn on 28 October and he seems not to have reappeared at Westminster until towards the end of the year.188CJ v. 281a, 329b; Bodl. Tanner 58, f. 556.

From early December 1647, however, he began to play a more visible role in the Commons. He at last became a full-time MP. Perhaps significantly, his re-emergence was marked by his appointment to the committee created on 7 December in response to the Humble Representation from Fairfax and the general council of the army.189CJ v. 376b. He found a new role as an advocate in Parliament for the soldiers’ many concerns. Sympathetic towards them on matters as various as indemnity, free quarter and the provision for wounded veterans, he also knew that the army could overstep the mark.190CJ v. 396a, 414a, 421a, 514a. In April 1648 he was among those deputed to draft a letter telling Fairfax to deal with complaints against abuses of free quarter in his own constituency of Barnstaple and at Dartmouth.191CJ v. 541a. Skippon had been replaced as governor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne by Robert Lilburne in August 1647. On 30 December, when it replaced Lilburne with Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, the Commons remembered to ask the Committee for the Eastern Association* to consider how Skippon might be rewarded for his many services.192CJ v. 410b, 411a; ‘Boys Diary’, 154. Four months later, on 19 April 1648, several MPs were instructed to revive the proposal to grant him lands worth £1,000 a year, although nothing came of this for the time being. On 3 April the Commons had also ordered the Committee of Accounts to receive Skippon’s military accounts.193CJ v. 524a, 537b.

On 25 April Skippon was among MPs appointed to perpare a declaration encouraging all London clergymen to pray for the renewed deliberations over possible constitutional settlements prompted by news that the Scots were remobilising. When two days later the corporation of London informed Parliament of rumours that the army planned to disarm all Londoners, Skippon was among those asked to investigate.194CJ v. 545a, 546a. Among their other demands, the City delegation had revived the request that he should become major-general for London.195LJ x. 235b-236a. This was again raised on 16 May, when the Commons, seeking to conciliate the London Presbyterians, debated a bill to appoint a new London militia committee. A proposed amendment naming Skippon as major-general was defeated (by 84 votes to 63), but it was agreed that a separate bill to that effect should be introduced. The riot outside the Commons the following day, which Skippon investigated with others, reinforced the sense of urgency, and the bill was passed on 18 May.196CJ v. 561b, 562b-564a; LJ x. 263b. This was enough to satisfy the common council, which declared its support for Parliament the next day. Skippon then acted as intermediary between Parliament and the London militia committee on how many guards should be assigned to protect the palace of Westminster.197CJ v. 567a, 569a, 571b, 576a.

Second civil war, 1648

Apprehension that widespread discontent might escalate into rebellion and a new civil war gave this added urgency. Risings had broken out in parts of south Wales two months before, although that specific danger was removed by Thomas Horton’s victory by Thomas Horton at St Fagans (8 May). Skippon had welcomed that news, supporting the grant of money to Horton and his men and securing agreement to a day of thanksgiving.198CJ v. 557a, 557b-558a. The rising in Kent now created a more immediate threat to the capital. On 29 May, as the Kentish rebels were advancing on Blackheath, Skippon informed the Commons that they had asked permission to send a delegation to present a petition to Parliament. The Commons responded by asking for more military protection. The following day Skippon was told to secure Whitehall.199CJ v. 577b, 578a. Just as importantly, he headed the list of 12 MPs added to the Derby House Committee, thereby giving him a seat on Parliament’s most important executive body.200CJ v. 578b; LJ x. 295b; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 90.

For the next three months Skippon was emersed in securing the capital’s defences. He dealt with a range of matters including riots outside Parliament, searches for suspicious persons, the removal of Catholics from London, plots against the Tower, receiving royalist prisoners and the demolition of the London playhouses.201CJ v. 583b, 599b, 601b, 631b, 648a; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 130, 133, 152, 153, 169, 174, 249, 267. Skippon’s determined resistance was a major reason why the 1st earl of Norwich (Sir George Goring†) and the rebels abandoned their attempt to enter London during early June. On 3 July the Commons granted £5,000 so that Skippon could raise a regiment of horse for its own protection. Two days later they also agreed that anyone willing to volunteer could enlist with him.202CJ v. 622b, 623a, 624a. The Commons then received a petition from the officers of the trained bands, seeking the merger with them of the Westminster, Southwark and Tower Hamlets militias. It also proposed that the king be brought to London as a prelude to resuming negotiations with him.203LJ x. 364a-b. Skippon allegedly attacked this second demand, taking exception that his officers ‘should presume to be in love with kings, contrary to the sense of their major-general.’204Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 15 (4-11 July 1648), sig. P1v-P2 (E.451.42). What may have particularly annoyed him was the disregard of his men for the fact that the Commons had set conditions for the renewal of negotiations just two days earlier. The Commons agreed to the merger of the militias, but referred the other point to a committee (which did not include Skippon). Six days later the Commons confirmed their approval of Skippon’s efforts to enlist volunteers to defend London.205CJ v. 624a-b, 632a, 633a, 635a, 644a. The Lords subsequently did likewise.206LJ x. 379b; CJ v. 634b.

Meanwhile, to add to his worries, Skippon had to deal with the fallout from a manufactured controversy against him. A pamphlet, A Motive to all Loyal Subjects, had appeared asserting that Rolfe, an army officer at Carisbrooke who was said to have plotted the king’s murder, was Skippon’s son-in-law. This was a (deliberate?) confusion between his son-in-law, William Rolfe, and the alleged would-be assassin, Major Edmund Rolph. The pamphlet apparently also slandered Skippon with other ‘notorious falsities’, although what those were is impossible to say, as Parliament acted swiftly to suppress it, with the result that no copies appear to survive.207CJ v. 614b, 630a.

The Lords almost immediately regretted the decision to give Skippon extensive powers to raise volunteers independently of the London militia committee, and reversed their earlier order on 22 July.208LJ x. 389b-390a; CJ v. 651a, 651b, 664b, 666a. Understandably, the militia committee itself agreed.209CJ v. 651a, 671b. On 15 August the Commons accepted their arguments and so began to prepare a new bill. The resulting ordinance confirmed Skippon’s command over the London forces, but placed the power to raise them in the hands of the militia committee.210CJ v. 672b, 682b; vi. 2b-3a, 60b. Skippon’s former friends among the London Presbyterians were no longer quite so sure that they trust him, while, not for the first time, Skippon’s own loyalties were conflicted. He now wavered as to whether a deal could be done with the king, and on 23 August he advised the Commons to resume its efforts to find a negotiated settlement.211Add. 17677, f. 191v. Some of his parliamentary colleagues agreed, and the next day the Commons revoked the Vote of No Addresses that they had passed eight months earlier.

Such inconsistency could easily have made Skippon seem suspect to those soldiers, led by Thomas Pride, who purged the Commons on 6 December 1648. Perhaps for that reason, he was quick to make it clear that he was prepared to accept their action. His intervention prevented a clash between Pride’s men and the troops from the London trained bands turning up to perform their regular guard duties outside the Commons. The purged House then sent him to the City to prevent any protests against the coup.212CJ vi. 93b, 95a. Without his support, the purge might not have proceeded so smoothly. He was subsequently included on the committee considering how to proceed against the king (23 Dec.) and he was then appointed as one of the judges for the king’s trial.213CJ vi. 103a; A. and O. On 19 January, the day before the trial began, the Commons told the officers of the London trained bands that they were to accept their orders from Skippon.214CJ vi. 121b-122a. But for him, sitting in judgement on the king was the step too far. He attended none of the sessions of the court and did not sign the death warrant. Oddly enough, given that he was a battle-hardened soldier, the reason may have been pure cowardice. He said as much himself. Edmund Ludlowe II* would later claim that Skippon had once commented to him in reference to the king’s trial that, ‘though he wanted courage to appear in that affair, yet professed he highly honoured those who had.’215Ludlow, Voyce, 146. That may have been what Ludlowe wanted to hear, but for Skippon to have been drawn in more than one direction by the tide of events would have been very much in character.

Rumper, 1649-53

Skippon was included on the council of state created to govern the new republic.216CJ vi. 141a; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 6. However, he was also among those who indicated on 19 February 1649 that they had misgivings about taking the Engagement.217CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 9. He later took the revised version and indicated his support for the republic in other ways, sitting on the parliamentary committees to justify Parliament’s recent actions (16 Feb.) and on the bill to abolish the monarchy (7 Mar.). As a teller on 2 February, he had also supported the bill to postpone the start of the law term, a practical consequence of the fact that the high court of justice had been sitting in Westminster Hall.218CJ vi. 129b-130a, 143b, 158a.

He would be re-elected to the council in February 1650 and again in February 1651.219CJ vi. 361b, 532a; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 512; 1651, p. 44. But he was never among those who attended its meetings frequently.220CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. xlviii-lxxv; 1650, pp. xv-xli; 1651, pp. xxv-xxxv. Nor did he often act on behalf of the council in Parliament. Occasionally, in their dealings with the Dutch ambassadors or when he handled the case of two Dutch merchants, it is possible to suspect that some use was being made of his likely knowledge of Dutch.221CJ vi. 145a, 149, 231b, 237b, 322b, 323b; TSP ii. 154. Added to the Committee of Navy and Customs and the committee for excise in May 1649, he reported from these bodies from time to time.222CJ vi. 219b, 249b, 438b, 442b-443a, 444a-b, 447b, 463b, 492a, 496b. Predictably, however, he was most active in Parliament and on the council on matters related to the defence of London. Parliament warned him on 11 May 1649 to uphold order in the capital, in case news of the mutiny at Salisbury encouraged the London Levellers to cause trouble. Ten days later, in the wake of the action against the mutineers at Burford, Skippon and the London authorities were asked to intercept any of them who had tried to flee to London.223CJ vi. 207b, 213b; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 151. The following October the council asked him to ensure that there were no disturbances during the trial of John Lilburne.224CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 361. In January 1650 the council began to plan new legislation on the London militia.225CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 480, 501, 502; 1650, pp. 107-8, 120, 176. The bill that emerged from the discussions between Skippon, the council and the London militia committee proposed various additional powers to assist in the levying of horses. This was presented by Skippon to Parliament, which approved it on 4 June.226CJ vi. 417a; A. and O. A second bill confirming Skippon as the major-general for London was passed three weeks later.227CJ vi. 423a, 431a. He was naturally consulted by the council in late October 1650 when it considered whether to reduce the size of the London militia’s mounted forces.228CSP Dom. 1650, p. 398. The following summer, when they were introducing the same policy nationally, the council encouraged Skippon to extend its use of the voluntary provision of horses. In response to the southwards advance of Charles II and the Scots, he twice mustered all the militias from the vicinity of London at the Artillery Gardens on 25 August and 2 September 1651.229CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 284, 349, 388, 391; CJ vii. 6b. Following Cromwell’s victory at Worcester (3 Sept.), Skippon was told to use the Middlesex militia to try to intercept any royalist refugees.230CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 412, 413, 425.

On a couple of occasions he showed an interest in issues with a personal and local connection. He was added to the committee on the bill concerning hats and hatbands in July 1649 because it had been asked to consider a petition from the Norfolk worsted weavers.231CJ vi. 260a. Later, his constituents, the Barnstaple corporation sought his assistance regarding an unidentified piece of business, most probably their concerns about piracy, that they wanted raised at Westminster.232N. Devon RO, Barnstaple borough records, B1/2526; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 55.

Beyond this, one theme recurs throughout his other contributions to the Rump. Skippon remained fascinated by religious questions – he brought out an expanded version of A Salve for Every Sore in 1649 as A Pearl of Price – and he now found himself in a position to have a direct influence over related public policy. During the Rump’s first year he sat on the committees on the revenues of Westminster Abbey (5 Feb.), on the bill to prohibit preachers preaching on politics (3 Apr.), on the bill concerning crown patronage to benefices (21 May) and on preaching the gospel (21 Dec.).233CJ vi. 132a, 213a, 336a. Later he sat on the committees on bills concerning preaching in Wales (29 Jan. 1650), the maintenance of ministers (15 Mar.), ministers at Colchester (24 May) and for regulating the universities and promoting a godly ministry (9 Apr. 1651).234CJ vi. 352a, 382b, 416a, 557b. Some of his tellerships are even more suggestive. On 26 April 1650 he and Francis Allein* were the tellers for those who tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill against incest, adultery and fornication. As the opposing tellers were Ludlowe and Henry Marten*, it seems likely that Skippon and Allein were supporting the less liberal side.235CJ vi. 404b. The significance of his three tellerships on 11 July 1651 regarding the fate of Christopher Love, the Presbyterian clergyman who had been found guilty of plotting with the Scots, is also not entirely straightforward, as all were on whether main questions should be put. But the likelihood is that Skippon favoured clemency.236CJ vi. 603a-b. In other words, he was reverting back to his default Presbyterianism.

Some of his colleagues in the Rump were keen to see Skippon rewarded for his many public services, but finalising the details proved to be a long-running saga. One issue was the £500 which he had been granted in December 1646 for delivering the money due to the Scots to Newcastle. Apparently unpaid, that money (with interest) was among the debts assigned in April 1649 to the revenues from the sale of the dean and chapter lands.237CJ v. 24b; vi. 192a; A. and O. Several weeks later the council of state encouraged Parliament to consider a bill in Skippon’s favour, probably for a grant of £2,000.238CJ vi. 205b, 225b. When Miles Corbett* reported on this to the House on 19 June, MPs augmented it by reviving the plan to grant Skippon lands worth £1,000 a year. With Corbett again taking the lead, the bill to pay him the £2,000 was passed several weeks later.239CJ vi. 237a, 266a, 279b. However, no progress was made on the proposed grant of land and the committee on the subject had be revived in March 1650. Embarrassed at the delay, MPs ordered that he should be paid £1,000 from the commissioners for compounding to compensate for the rents he had already lost out on.240CJ vi. 308a, 374b, 417b-418a; CCC 184-5, 245. Further delays meant that the bill was not finally passed until July 1651.241CJ vi. 431a, 473b, 516b, 582b, 595a, 599b. But that was still not the end of the matter. The lands allocated to Skippon comprised various Buckinghamshire manors, centred on Whaddon and Bletchley, which had been confiscated from George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham. The problem was that Lord Wharton claimed that those lands rightly belonged to his wife. This may explain why there were disagreements between Skippon and the Buckinghamshire sequestration committee shortly after the lands had been allocated to him. What is certain is that Wharton petitioned Parliament against this grant. On 9 March 1652 Parliament agreed to refer the case to a committee.242CJ vii. 6b, 101a-102b. That committee then found in Skippon’s favour.243G.F. Trevallyn Jones, Saw-Pit Wharton (Sydney, 1967), 148. Skippon sold off most of those lands, but held on to some at Bletchley.244VCH Bucks. iii. 437, 466-7; PROB11/300/399. One other piece of legislation in which he had a direct interest caused him far less trouble. In February 1651 he and Walter Strickland* secured the passage of a private bill to naturalize their respective wives.245CJ vi. 514b, 515b, 516b, 535b.

Skippon was not re-appointed when the new council of state elected in November 1651, failing to get the minimum of 41 votes required on the second ballot.246CJ vii. 42a-b. This reflected his decline in prominence at Westminster. He may not have attended Parliament at all between the victory at Worcester in September 1651 and the following spring. There followed a burst of activity over the next few months, although almost exclusively as a teller. Thus, he was a teller in two divisions on 21 April 1652 on whether to suppress the committees for regulating the universities and for indemnity, although, as both were procedural, it is not clear whether he supported either proposal. As teller for the minority on 5 May, he supported Thomas Pride’s proposed appointment as a commissioner for the relief of persons upon the articles. The next day he was a teller with Henry Marten in the vote on the bill concerning the alienation of copyhold lands. Finally, on 1 June, in the debate on the settlement of Ireland, he was the teller for those who opposed freeing recusants from the compulsion to attend religious services contrary to their consciences.247CJ vii. 124a, 130a, 130b, 138a. That November, with 53 votes on the second ballot, he was re-elected to the council of state.248CJ vii. 220b, 221b. But over the next five months he rarely attended council meetings and was probably an even less visible presence in the Commons.249CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. xxviii-xxxiii; CJ vii. 244a, 245a.

The early years of the protectorate

The dissolution of the Rump in April 1653 marked a brief political eclipse. Having previously ceased to be a councillor, Skippon was now no longer an MP. He was recommended by some of the Norfolk churches to sit in the Nominated Assembly, but the council ignored this suggestion.250Original Letters, ed. Nickolls, 124-5. This was not too surprising, as his Presbyterian inclinations would have been out of step with this gathering of the saints. But he was not side-lined for long. On becoming lord protector in December 1653, Cromwell used his powers to call Skippon to his council. Skippon took the new oaths as a councillor on 20 December.251CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 300. This time he proved active. By the summer of 1654 he was often to be found working closely with Richard Maijor* and Francis Rous*, particularly in performing the useful task of filtering out those petitions too minor to detain the attentions of the full council.252CSP Dom. 1654, p. 215, 245, 253, 308, 317, 330; 1655, p. 106.

This return to the centre of political affairs made Skippon an especially desirable candidate in the elections for the first protectoral Parliament. The corporation of King’s Lynn was doubtless easily persuaded to select him alongside the recorder, Guibon Goddard*, on 10 July 1654.253C219/44, pt. 2; Severall Proceedings of State Affairs (13-20 July 1654), 3969-70 (E.230.17); Burton’s Diary, i. p. xvii. He was also admitted as a freemen of the town 11 days later.254King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 424v; Cal. Lynn Freemen, 164n. Success here softened the blow of his defeat on 12 July in the poll for the Norfolk knights of the shire, in which, with just 586 votes, he came sixteenth in a field of 19 candidates.255R. Temple, ‘A 1654 protectorate parliamentary election return’, Cromwelliana, ser. 2, iii. 58.

His role in this Parliament was to be relatively limited. Unsurprisingly, he was included on the committee to consider the size of the army and the navy (26 Sept. 1654), while his interest in religious affairs was reflected in his appointments to the committees on the bill against scandalous ministers (23 Sept.) and to investigate the publications of the Socinian controversialist, John Biddle (12 Dec.).256CJ vii. 370a, 370b, 400b. The other committees to which he was named were those on Irish affairs (29 Sept.), the transportation of corn (6 Oct.), the relief of creditors (25 Oct.) and civil law (22 Dec.).257CJ vii. 371b, 374b, 378b, 497b.

On 13 February 1655 the corporation of London had an audience with Cromwell to raise their concerns about the threat of conspiracies. One of their suggestions was that Skippon should resume his command of the London militia.258Whitelocke, Diary, 400-1. The following month the London militia commission approved the formation of an artillery company to be based at the Artillery Gardens, thereby effectively reviving the Society of the Artillery Garden. The commissioners then named Skippon as its commander and captain-general.259TSP iii. 318; Raikes, Hist. of the Hon. Artillery Co. i. 153, 157n. Before long, wider events would cause Skippon’s role to be expanded much further.

Major-general and the 1656 Parliament

The reorganisation of the county militias in August 1655 led to the appointment of the major-generals throughout England and Wales, with the aim of integrating command of the local militias with the regular army. Since the loyalty of the London militia was always considered to be of national importance, and the privileges of the City could not be ignored, the appointment of Skippon as the new major-general for Middlesex and London reassured the corporation of London that, in the capital at least, this was no great innovation.260CSP Dom. 1655, p. 275; TSP iii. 701. Indeed, in March the following year Cromwell personally assured the lord mayor that Skippon’s powers did not infringe the City’s ancient privileges.261Clarke Pprs. iii. 66. When the final allocation of counties to major-generals was settled in October 1655, John Barkstead* was given Middlesex, and he seems also to have acted as Skippon’s unofficial deputy within London.262TSP iv. 117, 588; C. Durston, Cromwell’s Major-generals (Manchester, 2001), 28. The assumption was doubtless that Skippon would still command during any crisis, but the arrangement helped relieve him of day-to-day administration.

Skippon’s election as the MP for King’s Lynn in 1656 was less smooth than in 1654. A dispute between the corporation and the freemen resulted in a double return on 11 August, with the corporation choosing Skippon and John Disbrowe*, the major-general for the south west, but with the freemen favouring Disbrowe and Guibon Goddard.263King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 491. It was not until 20 October 1656 that Parliament accepted the recommendation from the committee of privileges that the return naming Disbrowe and Skippon should be declared valid.264CJ vii. 441b-442a, 442b; Burton’s Diary, i. pp. clxxxiv-clxxxv. With two major-generals from elsewhere standing at King’s Lynn, their local counterpart, Hezekiah Haynes*, seems to have thought it unnecessary to use his (very limited) influence to assist them.265TSP v. 328. Conversely, Skippon seems not to have assisted Haynes’s bungled interventions in any of the other Norfolk contests.

This dispute had prevented Skippon from sitting in this Parliament during its first five weeks. Once it had been resolved, he may have opted for only a secondary role in its proceedings. His few committee appointments related to such miscellaneous subjects as the petition from some Dutch merchants (28 Oct.), the bill for the relief of creditors (29 Oct.) and the bill to regulate Norfolk stuffs (25 Nov.).266CJ vii. 446b, 447a, 459a. But on one issue he did not remain silent. Throughout the debates on the alleged blasphemy of James Naylor, which dominated parliamentary business for much of December, Skippon proved to be one of the Quaker’s harshest and most vocal opponents. To him, Naylor was a heretic who deserved the most severe punishments possible. On 5 December Thomas Bampfylde* reported back to the House from the committee considering the case. Skippon was the first to respond. He warned his colleagues that God would punish them if they did not act. Naylor’s blasphemies were merely symptomatic of a wider crisis, for he was sure that ‘the growth of these things is more dangerous than the most intestine of foreign enemies’. And, while he was ‘as tender as any man, to lay impositions upon men’s consciences’, Naylor’s offences, ‘these horrid things’, were so serious that an exception had to be made. The matter was also sufficiently grave to justify them legislating retrospectively.267Burton’s Diary, i. 24-5. Later in the debate Skippon repeated his warning that a failure to act would tempt divine retribution. A further speech the next day argued that Naylor’s guilt had been established.268Burton’s Diary, i. 34, 48-50. Freedom of conscience did not extend this far. ‘If this be liberty, God deliver me from such liberty.’269Burton’s Diary, i. 50. In subsequent debates Skippon continued to maintain that Naylor was clearly guilty of blasphemy and that MPs were entitled to punish him.270Burton’s Diary, i. 63, 101, 104. On the question of the specific punishment, he took the simple line that it should be as harsh as possible and should be carried out even if Naylor repented.271Burton’s Diary, i. 153, 163-4. When the House considered whether to receive petitions supporting Naylor on 18 December, Skippon expanded on the limits of toleration.

I am for tender consciences as much as any man; but it is one thing to hold an opinion, another thing to hold forth an opinion. If a man be a Turk or a Jew, I care not so [long as] he do not openly hold it forth.272Burton’s Diary, i. 170.

He added that a general prohibition against blasphemy would be unfair, as honest men might be caught out by its vagueness; any legislation would have to be specific.273Burton’s Diary, i. 170. He was then among those MPs added to the committee on Naylor, after these petitions were referred to it.274CJ vii. 470a. Five days later he was dismissive about the further petitions from Quakers.275Burton’s Diary, i. 215. On that occasion, he claimed, ‘I was always of opinion in the Long Parliament, the more liberty the greater mischief.’276Burton’s Diary, i. 218.

Skippon’s attitude towards Disbrowe’s bill proposing that the militias be funded from a decimation tax is not known. The bill’s defeat on 29 January 1657 may have signalled the end for the major-generals, but, of them all, Skippon was perhaps the one whose position was least dependant on that specific office and who was least committed to that particular experiment. Moreover, he was now among those who looked to a rather different solution, for within weeks he was known to be one of the councillors backing the proposal that Cromwell should become king.277Henry Cromwell Corresp. 205. However, for Skippon, this new controversy coincided with a period of ill heath. That illness seems to have been genuine rather than merely diplomatic. As he explained to Henry Cromwell* in a letter of 16 March

I have of late been very weak by reason of a very sudden and sore visitation my God pleased (though in much mercy) to lay upon me, that I have not been abroad about any public business in a month’s time.278Henry Cromwell Corresp. 227.

He had stopped attending council meetings and he was probably not attending Parliament often either. No reference to him appears in the Journal between 9 February and the adjournment four months later.279CJ vii. 488b. But he was not completely absent and one issue could still persuade him to overcome his reluctance to speak. When John Glynne* claimed on 26 May that Cromwell wanted a minister to provide spiritual support to Naylor, Skippon objected that this should not be a Quaker. He also intervened the following day, when he suggested that MPs should investigate what money remained in the hands of the trustees for the sales of royalist lands.280Burton’s Diary, ii. 131-2, 139. It is not known whether Skippon attended Cromwell’s second investiture as lord protector on 26 June.

Skippon took the new oaths as a privy councillor on 21 July 1657.281CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 32; Clarke Pprs. iii. 114. Earlier that month Sir Francis Russell* had joked to Henry Cromwell* that, as advisers to Henry’s father, John Thurloe*, Francis Rous and Skippon were ‘too grave and wise for this mercurial, quick age’.282Henry Cromwell Corresp. 297. Skippon continued to play his part in council business. In August 1657 he was included on the council committees to recommend new members of the committee for ejecting scandalous ministers and to draw up the new commissions for examining the public faith.283CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 73.

Skippon’s status as a well-regarded councillor and public figure of long standing made him an obvious choice for membership of the Other House nominated in late 1657.284TSP vi. 668. He took his seat in it when Parliament reassembled on 20 January 1658 and missed only one day of business in the nxt two weeks.285HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 504, 505, 506. His three committee appointments were those for petitions (21 Jan.), on the bill against the profanation of the sabbath (26 Jan.) and on a private naturalisation bill (28 Jan.).286HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 509, 516, 519. The second of those committees may have been of particular interest to him as he had previously argued in his printed devotional works for the importance of keeping the sabbath.287P. Skippon, True Treasure (1644), 15-20.

The final years

Following Oliver Cromwell’s death on 3 September 1658, Skippon accepted his son, Richard Cromwell*, as the new lord protector.288Mercurius Politicus no. 432 (2-9 Sept. 1658, E.756.15). Eleven weeks later, on 23 November, he walked in the late lord protector’s funeral procession as a Member of the Other House.289Burton’s Diary, ii. 527. When the new Parliament assembled at Westminster on 27 January 1659, he resumed his place in that Other House. This time he was absent on about one-third of the days on which it sat, and continuously from late February until mid-March. The only committees to which he was named were those to consider how to prevent the use of the Book of Common Prayer (8 Feb.) and to propose steps to protect the nation against its enemies (11 Apr.).290HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 534, 559.

The reassembling of the Rump in early May 1659, in the wake of Richard Cromwell’s removal from power, made it possible for Skippon to sit once again in the Commons. Initially he did so simply as an ordinary backbencher. On 25 May he was named to the committee to consider a financial settlement for the deposed lord protector. Over the next few weeks he also sat on the committees to meet with the agent from Hanseatic port of Hamburg (14 June), on the impressment bill (22 June) and to review the laws against those who tried to disturb religious services (1 July).291CJ vii. 665a, 685a, 691b, 700b. His role changed as fears grew of a possible royalist uprising, however. As had become traditional, Parliament turned to Skippon to take control of the capital’s military defences. On 7 July he was re-appointed as major-general for all the forces within London. Two days later he was sent to implement the new London militia commission.292CJ vii. 707a, 708b. Later that month, by which time the feared uprising was already underway in other parts of the country, he presented the lists of proposed officers for the London militia.293CJ vii. 728b, 732a, 734b, 735b, 740b, 744b; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 54. Those names were approved on 5 August, when he also received his commission as major-general from the Speaker.294CJ vii. 747b-748a; Whitelocke, Diary, 525. He had already got Parliament to agree that junior officers could instead be appointed by the militia commissioners, and he reported their names to Parliament on 8 August.295CJ vii. 740a-b, 751a. Two days later the council of state appointed him as one of the colonels who were to raise regiments within the capital.296CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 94. His one other role in Parliament during these weeks had also been related to the militia, for on 21 July he and Sir William Brereton* were tellers for those who wanted Sir Robert Barwick to be a militia commissioner for Yorkshire.297CJ vii. 727a.

What happened next is unclear. Skippon’s report to the House on 8 August 1659 is his last documented appearance in Parliament before its dismissal in mid-October. That this indicated growing disaffection with the Rump seems unlikely. He and Fairfax headed the list of supposed signatories to the Remonstrance and Protestation condemning the army coup and the new committee of safety, which was published in mid-November.298The Remonstrance and Protestation of the Well-affected People (1659), 7. While the Remonstrance was almost certainly spurious, it suggests that Skippon was thought to be opposed the suspension of the Rump. In any case, it could be that he was already ill. There is no evidence that he sat in the Rump after it resumed its sittings in late December 1659. His London regiment was disarmed in early February 1660, after George Monck* had taken control of London.299CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 350. Moreover, on 3 March he was dismissed from his position as sergeant-major-general for London by the common council so that it could be given to Monck.300Raikes, Hist. of the Hon. Artillery Co. i. 165-6. At about this time a spoof petition was printed purporting to be his application for a place as a pensioner of the Charterhouse or as a poor knight of Windsor.301To the Honourable Citie of London The Humble Petition of Philip Skippon, Esq. [1660].

Skippon died on 28 June 1660.302C5/410/87. His will contained detailed instructions for the disposal of considerable quantities of furniture, plate, jewels and books.303PROB11/300/399. In 1657, following the death of his first wife, Skippon had married a widow. His second wife was Katherine Oxenbridge, daughter of the physician, Daniel Oxenbridge (1571-1642), whose most recent husband had been Sir Richard Philipps of Picton Castle, Pembrokeshire. She was also a sister-in-law of Oliver St John*. At the time of their marriage, she was said to be ‘a person of much piety and goodness.’304Clarke Pprs. iii. 115, 118. Skippon became stepfather to her daughter Katherine (‘The Matchless Orinda’), wife of James Philipps*. Skippon now left her the house at Acton, which, being conveniently close to London, had been his principal residence since at least 1653. She also received the house in Long Acre and some of the lands at Bletchley.305VCH Mdx. vii. 21-2; PROB11/300/399. From his first marriage, Skippon had a son, Philip†, and three daughters, Anne Bragg (the widow of William Rolfe), Mary and Susan Meredith. Philip inherited most of the lands in Norfolk and Suffolk, as well as the other lands at Bletchley. The former clerk of the Parliament, Henry Scobell, was named by Skippon as one of the two overseers of the will.306PROB11/300/399. Philip Skippon the younger, who was knighted in 1675, married Amy, daughter of Francis Brewster II*, in 1669 and Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas Barnardiston*, in 1679. From his first father-in-law, Sir Philip inherited the Brewster electoral interest at Dunwich and so sat for that town as a whig in five of the six Parliaments between 1679 and his own death in 1691.307HP Commons 1660-1690.