SYDENHAM, William (1615-61), of Wynford Eagle, Dorset, and Clapham, Surr.

The Sydenham family claimed Saxon descent, and had certainly been settled near Bridgwater in Somerset since the twelfth century. The Dorset Sydenhams were a cadet branch, established at Wynford Eagle through marriage in the mid-sixteenth century.47Sydenham Fam. 6-7, 218. William Sydenham’s father, William senior, was a fairly prosperous landowner, whose estates included the manor of Wynford Eagle, and land in the parishes of Toller Porcorum and Compton Valence.48Dorset RO, D616/T1; E179/105/328, m. 3v; E179/105/331, m. 3. William junior was born in 1615, and may have been educated at Trinity College, Oxford, in the early 1630s, although he is not recorded in its admissions register.49Sydenham Fam. 233. As early as 1637, although the settlement was not concluded until 1640, he married Grace Trenchard, daughter of the important Dorset landowner, John Trenchard*.50Wynford Eagle par. reg. Although his wife came with a modest portion, and Sydenham himself was provided with a mere £140 per annum from his father’s estates, the match was an attractive one, as it brought him into contact with a powerful gentry circle, which included the Strangways of Melbury Sampford and Abbotsbury, and Brownes of Frampton as well as the various branches of the Trenchard family. The trustees of the marriage settlement included Sir John Strangways*, John Trenchard and his brother, Sir Thomas Trenchard*.51Dorset RO, D616/T1. The husbands of John Trenchard’s other daughters would include John Bingham* and John Sadler*. All of these men were critics of the Stuart regime.

Dorset soldier, 1642-53

At the beginning of the first civil war, Sydenham was drawn into the opposition to the king in Dorset, which was led by his wife’s relatives. In September 1642 he was one of the captains in charge of recruiting forces at Dorchester to serve against the newly-established royalist garrison of Sherborne Castle, but he did not pay his quota of men, and was accused of sharp practice.52Bayley, Dorset, 49. In the spring of 1643 Sydenham repaid most of the £40 he had received for ‘the soldiers at Sherborne’, and was reconciled with the leading parliamentarians.53Bodl. Gough Dorset 14, f. 85. In the weeks that followed he was appointed to the commission for the sequestration of delinquents in the county, and the committee for raising money for the army.54A. and O; LJ v. 658b; Northants. RO, FH133, unfol. In June he was serving as a captain in the force under Sir Walter Erle* that went to besiege Corfe Castle.55Bayley, Dorset, 84. Sydenham’s efforts left his finances over-stretched, and in July 1643 he was forced to borrow over £500 from his father.56Add. 29319, f. 2. Within a month, however, most of Dorset, including Dorchester, Wareham and Weymouth, had fallen under royalist control, and Sydenham, who had been left in charge of the siege of Corfe, was forced to withdraw his men to Poole before they were overrun.57Bayley, Dorset, 87. By September he had abandoned the county altogether, residing at Fulham and then Hounslow, outside London, where he was given responsibility for what remained of Erle’s troop of horse as well as his own.58SP28/10, fos. 301-2, 384; CJ iii. 233b. These units were apparently incorporated into Sir William Waller’s* army, and by February 1644 Sydenham had returned to Dorset, where he was promoted to major, and given £140 by Parliament to compensate for that ‘laid out of his purse’ in the previous year.59Bayley, Dorset, 123; CJ iii. 249a, 408a.

In June 1644 Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, retook Weymouth and Melcombe Regis for Parliament. He installed Sydenham – whom he considered ‘a gentleman of approved courage and industry’ – as military governor, and made him head of the commission appointed to take the town ‘into their care’.60CSP Dom. 1644, 271; Stowe 184, f. 107; Eg. 2126, f. 11. Essex also gave Sydenham a commission as colonel of horse, and authorised him to raise money to repair the defences of the town.61Eg. 2126, ff. 11, 13. The forces that had taken Weymouth quickly rejoined the main army on its march westwards, and Sydenham was left to fend for himself.62Add. 29319, ff. 5, 11. On 1 July he was appointed to the county committee, and on the same day the Commons ordered that Waller should allow him to remain in Dorset with his troop.63CJ iii. 548a. In July Sydenham began an aggressive campaign against the local royalists, and in August he was instrumental in recapturing the town of Wareham.64Bayley, Dorset, 208. During the late summer and autumn of 1644, however, Sydenham was barely able to keep his head above water. Essex’s humiliating defeat in Cornwall had left Dorset exposed, and in September the county committee fell out with Waller, who complained that they had tried to cancel his commission to Sydenham, presumably prior to issuing one of their own.65CSP Dom. 1644, p. 478.

During this period, Parliament sent little help to Sydenham beyond words of encouragement.66CSP Dom. 1644, p. 461; 1644-5, p. 15. Instead, he had to rely on ad hoc handouts from the county committee.67Bodl. Gough Dorset 14, ff. 18v-25. Despite these problems, Sydenham continued to play a major part in the local parliamentarian war effort, and fought at the siege of Abbotsbury in October, where he countermanded Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper’s* orders to give no quarter, and allowed his wife’s kinsman, Colonel James Strangways, to surrender unharmed.68Christie, Shaftesbury, i. 62. Such expeditions came to an end in February 1645, when a royalist army made a surprise attack on Weymouth, capturing the town and killing Sydenham’s brother, Francis. Bottled up in neighbouring Melcombe, Sydenham resisted fiercely, and eventually the royalists were forced to withdraw after several weeks’ siege.69Bayley, Dorset, 228, 239, 243. After the siege Sydenham’s forces in Weymouth were reduced by the demands from the New Model army for recruits, even though Weymouth was far from secure, and a royalist garrison still held out in Portland Castle across the harbour.70Eg. 2126, f. 17; Add 29319, f. 32.

On 3 November 1645 Sydenham was elected as one of the three recruiter MPs for the combined borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, presumably on his own interest as governor of the town, although contemporaries also identified John Trenchard as an influence over his election.71Weymouth Charters, 114; G. Bankes, Story of Corfe Castle (1853), 231. At this stage local issues were the priority, and on 8 November Sydenham wrote to Speaker William Lenthall* ‘to recommend the care of the garrison’ at Weymouth to Parliament, both in terms of money and encouragement.72HMC Portland, i. 304. Sydenham did not take his seat at Westminster until 21 January 1646, when he was named (along with Sir Thomas Trenchard) to a committee to implement a Presbyterian system across London, and he signed the Covenant seven days later.73CJ iv. 413b, 420b. In March he was given leave to go back to Dorset, where, on 4 April, he signed the articles of surrender of Portland Castle.74CJ iv. 475a; LJ viii. 268b. For six months from May 1646 Sydenham was only an occasional visitor to Westminster, being appointed to committees on Oxford University, on the City of London’s remonstrance, and on the fate of the absentee MP for Peterborough, Sir Robert Napier* (who had sat for Dorset seats in the 1620s).75CJ iv. 595b, 615b-616a; 712b.

Sydenham soon benefited personally from his first few months as an MP. In September 1646 the Commons ordered that the committee of accounts should hasten their consideration of the arrears owed to Sydenham and his wife’s brother-in-law John Bingham.76CJ iv. 672b. More indirectly, Sydenham was now able to exert considerable influence in Dorset politics. The surrender of Portland probably encouraged the county committee to grant him control of sequestered lands to help to pay his arrears in the days following.77Add. 29319, f. 38. In June 1646 his troop was charged with protecting the county committee when it met at Blandford.78Bodl. Gough Dorset 14, f. 28v. In the recruiter election for Shaftesbury, held in the autumn, John Fitzjames* acknowledged Sydenham’s importance, saying that his rival candidate, George Starre*, had been ‘set on work’ by Sydenham and Bingham, and that his own hopes of election depended on the gamble that ‘Sir Thomas Trenchard and my cousin John, his brother, may effectually persuade Colonel Bingham and Colonel Sydenham to take off Starre’.79Alnwick, Northumberland 547, ff. 53v-4, 65. It was Starre, not Fitzjames, who took the seat in November 1646.

Just at the point Sydenham had finally established himself as a leading figure in Dorset, his position at Westminster began to deteriorate, possibly because of the resurgence of the Presbyterian interest. Between November 1646 and late August 1647 there is no record of his attendance in the Commons. On 4 May he was granted leave of absence; and shortly afterwards he was replaced as governor of Weymouth by a moderate, Robert Coker*, while the command of his company there was given to Major Hayne.80CJ iv. 714a; v. 162a, 286a; Dorset Standing Cttee ed. Mayo, 208. The change of governorship, confirmed by both Houses on 17 June, probably marks a covert attempt to undermine Sydenham’s influence in the county.81CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 563. It may be significant that after the Independent party, backed by the New Model army, had re-established their dominance over Parliament in August 1647, Sydenham returned to Westminster. He was teller in favour of the Lords’ nominations of ‘conservators of the peace’ on 27 August; in September he was named to a committee to remove delinquents from office; and in October he was added to the committee to investigate fraudulent military accounts and named to the Committee for Plundered Ministers.82CJ v. 286a, 320a, 322a, 326b.

From mid-October 1647 onwards, Sydenham was mostly resident in Dorset, and for the next 18 months his appearances in the Commons were infrequent. There is no question that Sydenham remained a trusted supporter of the Independent faction, however. On 1 March 1648, Parliament voted Sydenham and Bingham £1,000 each from delinquent estates to cover part of their military arrears.83CCC 144. In one of his rare visits to Westminster, on 24 May Sydenham was teller against settling the militia and religion, as a first step towards a new treaty with the king.84CJ v. 572b. From April until October 1648 he sat on the county committee and acting as a crucial ally of the government during the second civil war.85Dorset Standing Cttee ed. Mayo, 383-453. In July he was one of the committeemen who ‘marched with those men and horse which came in unto them to endeavour with them to preserve the peace of the county from Dorchester to Shaftesbury’, and he was excused for his absence from a call of the House in the same month.86Bodl. Gough Dorset 14, f. 49v; Nalson 7, f. 208. In August he was one of three men given warning by the government that renewed unrest was likely in the south-west, and when a messenger came to the Dorset committee in September, with news of the defeat at Preston Scottish royalist forces under James Hamilton, 1st duke of Hamilton, he was rewarded on Sydenham’s order.87CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 245; Bodl. Gough Dorset 14, f. 52v. In November 1648 Sydenham returned to Westminster, and was named to the committee to consider which castles and garrisons needed to be retained after the latest conflict had been quashed.88CJ vi. 87a.

Sydenham was in Dorset throughout the trial and execution of the king.89Dorset Standing Cttee ed. Mayo, 488-494. He returned to the Commons immediately after the regicide, being added to the committee for petitions on 2 February, and four days later he was teller in favour of consulting the Lords about earlier votes passed by the Commons.90CJ vi. 130a, 132b. On 13 February 1649 Sir Thomas Fairfax* commissioned Sydenham to command Philip Skippon’s* old regiment, which had been ordered to garrison Bristol.91Stowe 184, f. 152. This new command did not last long, as the regiment mutinied in favour of the Levellers in June, and soon afterwards Sydenham was replaced as colonel by Alban Coxe*.92Regimental Hist. ii. 434. Sydenham’s dismissal may not have been a sign of official disapproval, however. In the summer of 1649 there were efforts at Whitehall to implement the earlier vote allowing Sydenham and Bingham £1,000 each; on 3 August he was officially ‘admitted’ to the Commons (even though he had sat briefly in February); and on 8 August, he was appointed as joint governor of the Isle of Wight, a position he shared with Oliver Cromwell’s* protégé, Charles Fleetwood*.93CCC 144, 1135, 1166-8; CJ vi. 274a; Add. 29319, f. 44. Sydenham did not leave for the Isle of Wight immediately. He was named to parliamentary committees in mid-September, and then travelled to Dorset, where he held meetings with local bigwigs, like Sir Thomas Trenchard and John Fitzjames.94CJ vi. 296b, 298a; Alnwick, Northumberland 548, f. 74v. He probably arrived on the Isle of Wight at the end of September or the beginning of October 1650.

The situation that greeted Sydenham on the island was one familiar from his term as governor of Weymouth. Like the double-borough, the island was a place of strategic significance which could only be secured with large numbers of men and considerable sums of money to spend on maintaining defences. The council of state pestered Sydenham with warnings of unrest and demands that the garrison take the Engagement to the commonwealth, while Sydenham repeatedly petitioned the council for an increase in the size of the garrison, and money to repair the defences of the various forts and castles on the island, but these were not always forthcoming.95CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 468, 474, 476; 1650, pp. 4-5, 74, 148, 270; 1651, p. 479. An additional security problem was created in July 1650, when it was decided to send Henry, duke of Gloucester, and his sister Princess Elizabeth from Penshurst to Carisbrooke for safekeeping.96Eg. MS 2126, f. 21; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 257-8. Sydenham’s absence on the Isle of Wight did not affect his standing in Westminster, as his friends and relatives protected his interests. On 23 October 1649 John Trenchard reported the accounts of the treasurers at Goldsmiths’ Hall, and complained that money promised for fortifying the Isle of Wight, including £500 allocated to its governors, had not been paid.97CJ vi. 311b. And when Sydenham was ill in the summer of 1650, John Bingham was appointed ‘to take care of that place’.98Add. 29319, f. 55.

Apart from occasional brief visits to London and Dorset, Sydenham remained on the Isle of Wight until September 1651.99CJ vi. 409a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 468; Dorset Standing Cttee ed. Mayo, 569. In the aftermath of the defeat of Charles Stuart at Worcester, however, he became a more frequent visitor to Westminster, where he became active in the Commons, presenting a full account of the monthly charges of the garrisons on the Isle, and (on 19 Sept.) being named to the committee to arrange a public thanksgiving for the recent victory.100CJ vii. 18b-19a, 20a. The government took the opportunity to reward Sydenham for his service: in October his salary as governor was increased, and on 3 December his accounts were finally presented to Parliament, which awarded him £2,578 to be paid from crown lands.101CSP Dom. 1651, p. 479; CJ vii. 46b-7a. In February 1652 he was named to two committees to receive the petition from the ministers led by Dr John Owen*, and to confer with them afterwards.102CJ vii. 86b. This began an association with Owen which continued throughout the decade. After February 1652 Sydenham’s attendance in the Rump became increasingly sporadic. This was mainly because the outbreak of war with the Dutch made the Isle of Wight vulnerable to attack, and necessitated Sydenham’s constant presence there.103CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 312-3. He returned to the Commons in November 1652 (before hurrying back to the Isle of Wight once more in December) and again in April 1653. On the latter occasion, he reported from the council’s navy committee on the wrongful sale of lands in Dorset which belonged to his own constituency.104CJ vii. 205a, 222b, 275a; CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 18.

Cromwellian politician, 1653-6

Only after the dissolution of the Rump Parliament and his own election as a councillor of state at the end of April 1653 could Sydenham concentrate all his attention on London. The new council was an interim body, intended to rule ‘till the governors be chosen’, and it was not until June that Sydenham became an active member, working closely with men such as Sir Gilbert Pykeringe* and Walter Strickland*.105Clarke Pprs. iii. 4. He was provided with lodgings in Whitehall, and appointed to numerous council committees. He was added to the committee for Irish lands, and, with John Disbrowe* and Thomas Harrison I*, was put in charge of monitoring the work of the Committee for Revenue.106CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 444, 445, 454. Sydenham’s financial responsibilities increased in July, when he was appointed as one of the commissioners to inspect the commomwealth’s treasuries, and from then on he was frequently named to council committees on accounts and the revenue.107CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 55, 86, 169. Other committee appointments suggest that Sydenham was particularly interested in the admiralty and foreign policy throughout the summer and autumn of 1653.108CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 45, 47, 53, 91, 172, 281. He was also involved in the report sent in August from Guernsey, where John Bingham was governor.109CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 74, 84, 93. Working with Disbrowe, he continued to play a role in monitoring unrest in the south west, and in September and November, he dealt with petitions from Weymouth.110CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 79, 139, 157, 233, 237, 273. Sydenham’s importance as a councillor (and his closeness to leading figures like Cromwell) during this period can be seen in two appointments in October and November. He was chosen as president of the council in place of Charles Howard* from 4 October until 3 November, and on 8 November he was one of four councillors (including Cromwell) named to the committee of secrecy, to manage intelligence.111CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 185, 201, 236.

Sydenham’s support for Cromwell can also be seen in his activities during the Nominated Assembly, when he sat as a Member for Dorset. Sydenham’s summons, dated 6 June, was sent directly from Cromwell, and he was one of those chosen to attend the general and invite him to take his seat in the House, on 5 July.112TSP i. 274-5; CJ vii. 281b. The next day Sydenham acted as teller in favour of the motion that the Assembly should be styled as a ‘Parliament’.113CJ vii. 282a. On 9 July he was re-elected as a councillor of state and appointed to the committee for Ireland and Scotland.114CJ vii. 283a-b. In the Commons Sydenham worked with ‘prominent moderates’ like Pykeringe and Strickland, colleagues on the council who also shared his association with Independent divines, in particular John Owen.115Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 107, 153-4, 199-201.

There was a considerable overlap between his roles as councillor, treasury commissioner and MP. In the Commons he reported financial matters from the council of state, and was active to the committee to consider propositions for raising money, reporting (in early Sept.) its suggestions for dealing with compositions and being involved in the debates on the bill for selling recusant estates.116CJ vii. 292a, 300a, 313a, 317a, 337b. He also reported to the Commons from the commissioners for inspecting treasuries, and dealt with a petition of the customs farmers.117CJ vii. 321b. Other matters that concerned Sydenham as an MP as well as a councillor included the state of Guernsey (which he reported from the council on 29 Aug.), admiralty and foreign policy matters, and the maintenance of ministers.118CJ vii. 286a, 288b, 297b, 299b, 309a. The question of tithes was of importance to Sydenham. He had been named to the committee on the issue on 19 July, and when the committee reported on 10 December, he joined Philip Jones* as teller in favour of accepting its recommendations. Opponents to an established ministry narrowly won the vote, however, and the House was thrown into confusion.119CJ vii. 286a, 363b. Two days later, Sydenham was a prominent member of the faction that moved against the Nominated Assembly, standing up in the House and ordering the Speaker to close the session.120Clarke Pprs. iii. 9. According to the published memoirs of Edmund Ludlowe II*, in the row that followed, ‘Colonel Sydenham, Sir Charles Wolseley and others … bitterly inveighed against the transactions of the convention, and particularly charged them with a design to destroy the army, by not making a sufficient and timely provision for their pay… [and also] of endeavouring to destroy the clergy, the law, and the propriety of the subject’.121Ludlow, Mems. i. 366. Sydenham and his friends then withdrew from the Commons, forcing its dissolution. That evening, members of the faction held a party in Sydenham’s rooms in Whitehall.122Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 354.

As a key figure in the destruction of the Nominated Assembly, an important man in the administration, and a friend of Cromwell, Disbrowe, Pykeringe and Strickland, Sydenham was an obvious choice as a member of the protectoral council set up under the Instrument of Government on 16 December 1653. He again took on a leading role in financial matters, and he was re-appointed on 31 December as a commissioner to inspect the treasuries.123CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 317. In the new year of 1654 Sydenham was appointed to a number of committees charged with putting the government’s revenues on a sounder footing, such as those for the sale of forest lands and royal houses, to bring in the new excise ordinance, and to settle the costs of the protector’s household, the army and navy.124CSP Dom. 1653-4, 350, 358, 363, 371, 381, 397, 406, 413, 419. In March he was one of the councillors who met the Dutch ambassadors to negotiate peace, and he was on the committee which drew up the ordinance on public preachers.125CSP Dom. 1654, 3, 27. During the summer of 1654 Sydenham was again pre-occupied with revenue matters, becoming involved in such thorny issues as the Irish land settlement, and (with John Lambert* and Disbrowe) the military establishment in Ireland and Scotland.126CSP Dom. 1654, 106, 181, 214, 258, 284. Ludlowe had a point when he described him as one of the protector’s ‘creatures’.127Ludlow, Mems. i. 372.

In the elections for the first protectorate Parliament Sydenham was returned for Dorset (together with John Trenchard and John Bingham) and for the Isle of Wight. On 4 October 1654 he chose to sit for the former.128C219/44, unfol.; CJ vii. 372b. He played little part in this Parliament, presumably because the resolution of major financial issues would have to wait until the long debates on the constitution were over. He was named on 26 September to the committee to consider what forces should be continued by land and sea, and on 10 October he was appointed to the committee to consider the validity of laws made during the Nominated Assembly, and the Commons approved his appointment as treasury commissioner on 24 October.129CJ vii. 370b, 375a, 378a. It is likely that Sydenham’s main activity in the months that followed was in voting against Presbyterian attempts to dismantle the Instrument of Government. There is no doubt that he supported the protectorate in its original form. On 19 January 1655 he joined Disbrowe as teller in favour of retaining control of the militia in the hands of the protector and council in the intervals between Parliaments, but the vote was defeated, and critics of the regime pushed for a reduction in the council’s role in this as in other areas of government.130CJ vii. 420b.

During 1655 Sydenham returned to his role as financial adviser, joining Lambert, Disbrowe and others in sorting out the funding of the army and navy, suggesting ways to reduce the number of soldiers in England, Ireland and Scotland, and dealing with the property confiscated in Scotland and England.131CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 22, 26, 42, 148, 229, 235, 252, 260, 256, 267, 352, 392; 1655-6, p. 8. He also continued his involvement in papists’ estates, the problems of Guernsey, and in foreign affairs, pressing Bulstrode Whitelocke* to undertake another embassy to Sweden in January 1656.132CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 6, 251, 353, 375, 371; Whitelocke, Diary, 421-2. Sydenham’s attitudes had acquired a harder edge, however, and he seems to have become increasingly close to the military councillors during this period. This was partly because of his experience of the strength of opposition to the protectorate, which had been demonstrated by Parliament in 1654-5, and, more alarmingly, by Penruddock’s rising in the south west during the spring of 1655. Sydenham shared the council’s reaction against political dissent, being involved in the declaration against delinquents holding office, and the proclamation forcing royalists to leave London.133CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 343, 395. His own views are clear from a confrontation in December 1655, when he countered Ludlowe’s protestations that he was not disloyal, only following the ‘light of reason’. According to Ludlowe, ‘Colonel Sydenham said, we might be mistaken in judging that to be a power giving us a just and rational call to act, which may not be so’.134Ludlow, Mems. i. 432, 435.

The Penruddock rebellion heightened Sydenham’s fears for the safety of Dorset. In the spring of 1655, as treasury commissioner, he handled the confiscation of rebel lands, and considered the fate of those imprisoned.135CSP Dom. 1655, p. 82; 1655-6, p. 37. He was also keen to implement the ordinance for ejecting ministers, which had not been observed in some counties, including Dorset, and he drafted the letter to be sent to John Bingham, Henry Henley* and John Whiteway*, demanding compliance.136CSP Dom. 1655, p. 144. In later months he received numerous petitions from the county, and Bingham may have acted as his unofficial agent in the locality.137CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 113, 181, 206, 211. The situation in Dorset may have encouraged Sydenham to support the creation of the major-generals’ scheme in the autumn of 1655. On 30 January 1656 he was on the committee to consider the pay of the new county militias, and on 27 February he joined that to consider the major-generals’ judicial role.138CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 141, 200. In August he joined Lambert and Fleetwood in preparing a letter to the major-generals, encouraging the ejection of scandalous ministers.139CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 65. When, in June 1656, John Fitzjames intervened on behalf of a neighbour ‘as to his decimation’, he wrote to Sydenham for assistance.140Alnwick, Northumberland 551, f. 82. In later months Sydenham was again one of the councillors who dealt directly with the major-generals.141CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 167, 214. His support for the major-generals suggests that he was by this stage close to the founder of the scheme, John Lambert, and his friends in the ‘army interest’, especially Disbrowe and Fleetwood. Sydenham certainly remained an intimate of Oliver Cromwell in this period. In June 1655 there were rumours that Sydenham was to be made lord treasurer, rather than one among several commissioners.142Clarke Pprs. iii. 42. In April 1656 one observer noted that when Cromwell went to Hyde Park by coach, ‘in it with him [were] Disbrowe and Sydenham’.143TSP iv. 676. In July Sydenham was made warden ranger of the forests and master of the game in the Isle of Wight, in a further mark of the protector’s favour.144Eg. 2126, f. 32.

Opponent of reform, 1657-9

In August 1656 Sydenham was elected as MP for Dorset, and for the Isle of Wight, choosing (on 2 Oct.) to sit for the former.145Alnwick, Northumberland 551, f. 94v; CJ vii. 431b. His activity in Parliament reflected both his private and public concerns. He appears to have been active as a governmental manager of the Commons, particularly in the first few months of the Parliament. He was named to committees to organise the formal business of the House in September, and was involved in revenue business, as reporter of the public debts, pay and arrears, and as a member of numerous committees on trade, taxation and revenue, in October.146CJ vii. 424a-429b, 435b, 438b, 440a, 440b, 444a, 445b. He also reported business from the council to Parliament on fraudulent debentures, on 16 October, and reported the committee’s findings on this on 19 November.147CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 133; CJ vii. 455b. His position as a councillor probably influenced his addition to the committee to justify the costly war against Spain on 17 October, and on 7 November he reported that he had presented the protector with a financial prediction about the war.148CJ vii. 440a, 450b. Thereafter, Sydenham’s official role seems to have declined. He was chosen to escort Whitelocke to his chair as replacement Speaker on 27 January 1657; in May and June he was involved in the details of the assessment bills; and he joined the discussion on the sale of forest lands, which had been in his care as a member of the council in previous years: but the level of his governmental activity was far less in the last six months of the sitting than it had been in the first three.149Burton’s Diary, ii. 195, 210, 216, 236, 240-1; CJ vii. 482b, 542a, 545b, 562a.

Sydenham still pursued his private interests. He was conscientious in representing his county, and one Weymouth resident looked to him for support in his petition in May 1657.150CJ vii. 536b. Similarly, in February of that year Edward Butler, the MP for Poole, told his constituents that their concerns would be dealt with by Sydenham, ‘who told me he would do it himself’.151Poole Borough Archives, MS L5. In the Commons, Sydenham often partnered Denis Bond in debates, and on 23 December 1656, when an abatement of assessments in Yorkshire was pushed by Lambert and other of his allies, Sydenham opposed it, arguing that it would ‘encourage others to petition for the taking off assessments’, and, presumably, increase the burdens on other counties, such as Dorset.152Burton’s Diary, i. 172, 190, 209; ii. 98, 236. Other matters of concern included the Isle of Wight. On 24 December Sydenham supported the introduction of a bill to maintain a minister on the island, and the second reading and commitment was done on his motion two days later.153Burton’s Diary, i. 223, 245; CJ vii. 475b. He was also involved in moves to increase support for ministers generally, and on 1 May 1657 he joined Strickland, Bond and others in supporting a grant of £100 to Dr John Owen from Irish lands.154Burton’s Diary, ii. 98.

Sydenham had a personal interest in Scottish and Irish affairs, and his involvement suggests that he was supporting his allies, Lambert and Fleetwood, who had long opposed the reforms introduced in the two nations by Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*) and Henry Cromwell*. When the Scottish Union bill was debated in December 1656 Sydenham not only argued against the confirmation of burgh rights, but insulted the Scots, saying that they were a nation of ‘dangerous’ anti-English laws and customs, and that ‘I would not have you at all confirm them till you know them’.155Burton’s Diary, i. 13. In 1657 he became a patron of the Protester ministers who had been the victims of Broghill’s attempts to broaden the base of the religious settlement north of the border. In March it was noted that friends of the leading Protester, James Guthrie, ‘court Lord Lambert and Colonel Sydenham’, and in April Sydenham sat on the council’s committee to compensate Sir Andrew Ker* of Greenhead, an MP and a lay leader of the Protester interest, whose cause was championed by Lambert.156Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 30; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 358. There were also reports in later months that Sydenham was close to another Protester minister, Patrick Gillespie, and that he and Fleetwood were his friends in the council chamber.157Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 47, 117. Sydenham’s support for the Protesters, and his opposition to Broghill, no doubt influenced his opposition to a widening of the Scottish franchise, which, he said, would bring in ‘the worst enemies you have’, and ‘let in a general evil’ that would endanger England as well.158Burton’s Diary, ii. 249-50. A clause restricting the Scottish ‘qualifications’ for voting under the Humble Petition and Advice was subsequently reported by Sydenham.159Burton’s Diary, ii. 252. When it came to Ireland, Sydenham seems to have gone out of his way to offend. In June 1657, when Irish assessments were debated, he opposed any reduction in the rate, saying that ‘it has been our misfortune to have conquered nations lie still on our charge; if Rome had done so with her colonies, she had not profited by her conquests’. The Irish members were understandably furious at this attack on Ireland’s status within the Union.160Burton’s Diary, ii. 210.

Sydenham’s attitude to Ireland and Scotland was something he shared with other members of the ‘army interest’ who opposed moves to overturn military rule and establish a more broadly-based civilian regime across the three nations. Sydenham was in fact one of the more outspoken opponents of reform. An early sign of this came in December, during the debate on the fate of the notorious Quaker, James Naylor. Sydenham was teller in favour of the immediate discussion of the case, on 13 December, and he was added to the committee appointed to examine him on 18 December.161CJ vii. 468a, 470a. The discussion that followed revealed not only Sydenham’s religious views but also his deep-seated distrust of Parliament. The 1654-5 session had shown him how dangerous an untamed House of Commons could be, and now the House was claiming a judicial role. Sydenham argued that harsh measures against Naylor could create a precedent: ‘it may be any man’s case, hereafter, to be accused of an offence, and from the bare report of a committee, to have the sentence of death passed upon him without further hearing’.162Burton’s Diary, i. 41-2. Besides, it was unclear whether Naylor was guilty of blasphemy or ‘error’, and the test imposed by some Presbyterian MPs was too near the bone for Independents like himself

These Quakers, or Familists, affirm that Christ dwells personally in every believer … that which sticks most with me is the nearness of this opinion to that which is a most glorious truth, that the spirit is personally in us … If some of those Parliaments [in the past] were sitting in our places, I believe they would condemn most of us for heretics.163Burton’s Diary, i. 51, 68-9, 86.

Sydenham evidently saw Parliament as the natural enemy of religious liberty. A constant theme in his speeches during the Naylor debate was his concern that all Quakers would automatically share his guilt. Sydenham stressed that ‘I am as much against the Quakers as any man’, but added

[I] would not bring in a law against Quakers by a general word … it is of a dangerous consequence to make a law under general terms, and leave it to after ages to interpret what the offences shall be’.164Burton’s Diary, i. 172.

The legal basis for Parliament’s actions was uncertain: ‘I doubt you have opened a gap to prostitute both life, member and liberty to the arbitrary power of men, who by a vote may do what they like’. To leave laws open to future interpretation made Parliament a tyranny over people’s rights.165Burton’s Diary, i. 174. His final verdict, on 30 December, again showed a deep-seated distrust of Parliament: ‘We live as Parliament men but for a time, but we live as Englishmen always. I would not have us be so tender of the privilege of Parliament, as to forget the liberties of Englishmen’.166Burton’s Diary, i. 274.

As a supporter of the major-generals, it was no surprise that Sydenham supported the Militia Bill introduced by Disbrowe on 25 December 1656. He attacked the critics of the bill, telling William Jephson that the royalists deserved to pay the decimation tax as they had continually demonstrated their bad faith

it is well enough known that plots were laid; how implacable and inveterate that party are against you; how they separate themselves to this day. They have not relinquished their party; not one of them declared against Charles Stuart’.167Burton’s Diary, i. 233.

The voting down of the militia bill was followed in February by the attempt to introduce a new constitution, known as the Remonstrance (later the Humble Petition and Advice), which proposed a return to the ‘ancient constitution’ and offered the crown to Cromwell. Sydenham was one of the strongest opponents of the proposals. When the Remonstrance was presented on 23 February, he joined Lambert’s ally, Luke Robinson, as teller against reading it at all.168CJ vii. 496a. When this vote was lost, ‘Sydenham moved a committee might be appointed to find out the contrivers of this Remonstrance’, and in the debate that followed the first reading, he was joined by his other friends on the council: ‘Lord Lambert is violently against it. Disbrowe, Sydenham, Lord Deputy [Fleetwood], Strickland, Pykeringe and some others of the council are against it’.169Henry Cromwell Corresp. 205. After his initial outburst, Sydenham ostentatiously withdrew from the Commons in disgust. He returned only on 6 April, when, as one MP noted, ‘Colonel Sydenham, who has been six weeks from us’ came back into the House with his allies ‘thronging in with their negatives’, hoping to overturn the vote to retain the offer of the crown in the Humble Petition.170CJ vii. 520b; Bodl. Carte 228, f. 84v; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 216.

From the beginning of April Sydenham was appointed to a number of committees on the constitution, but his attitude towards the reforms in debate was entirely negative.171CJ vii. 521b, 535a, 540b, 557a-b, On 23 April he argued against an explanatory bill, saying that ‘the Petition [and Advice] is not a bill till his highness’s consent’ – and reminding MPs that that consent was far from certain.172Burton’s Diary, ii. 10. Even Cromwell’s final rejection of the crown did not appease Sydenham. At the end of May he sneered that the new, protectoral, version of the Humble Petition still contained (in article 15) a reference to monarchy, which would ‘leave the nation at a loss which [king or protector] you adhere to’; and if MPs needed help with the distribution of seats, he suggested they should ‘have an eye’ to the Instrument of Government instead.173Burton’s Diary, ii. 137-8, 140. Sydenham also attacked some of the chief proponents of the Humble Petition in person. He questioned the legality of Secretary John Thurloe’s* postage bill, and on 5 June carped at changes to the bill granting Lord Broghill Irish lands, before joining Lambert, Fleetwood and Disbrowe in withdrawing from the vote itself.174Burton’s Diary, ii. 156, 176, 178 Sydenham was violently opposed to the oaths that went with the Humble Petition, which were discussed at the end of June. Again, his distrust of Parliament was exposed: ‘it is said to bind but to honest things; a Parliament may alter it’. And, again, Parliament was the enemy of the godly nation. He was teller against discussing the protector’s oath in committee, and in the debate that followed said that it would prove ‘a snare to the people of God’.175Burton’s Diary, ii. 275, 278-9, 282; CJ vii. 570a-b. He was also teller against an oath for MPs.176CJ vii. 572a. This time his objections were on political as well as religious grounds:

you do in effect lay an oath upon the people of England; the collective body of England … Who will you keep out? Those that are faithful to you and your good intentions. They that can tumble down nations and kingdoms, none [are] more ready to take it; none less ready to keep it.177Burton’s Diary, ii. 289, 291-2.

The crisis over the new constitution seems to have dented Sydenham’s confidence in the protectorate as a whole. During the first months of the second protectorate Parliament he had attended the council with his usual assiduity, dealing with financial affairs, dealing with Dr Owen about payments to ministers and the state of Oxford University, and, as we have seen, reporting various matters from the council to Parliament.178CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 130, 132, 140, 143, 167, 177, 198, 235, 237, 253, 256, 281. But with the introduction of the Remonstrance in February, Sydenham stopped attending council as well as Parliament. The council registers show that he was present at 36 of the 45 meetings from 1 October 1656 until 24 February 1657. For the six weeks from 24 February until 7 April – exactly the same time that he was absent from Parliament – he did not attend a single council meeting, and from then on he turned up to only half the meetings.179CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. xxi-xxii. The change is striking, and suggests that Sydenham’s angry display in Parliament was not mere politicking, but a principled rejection of the whole notion of kingship – which brought him to the brink of breaking with the protectorate altogether. In this Sydenham was in agreement with Lambert but at odds with other military councillors. When, on 24 June 1657, Sydenham attacked the new upper chamber, the Other House, he said that Parliament’s approbation of its Members would inevitably lead to ‘a returning to another line’ – the restoration of the monarchy; and his provocative stance alarmed Disbrowe, who tried to put a conciliatory gloss on his friend’s speech, urging that ‘it is not best to lay a foundation of heat and difference’ when an acceptable arrangement might be agreed. For Disbrowe and the more conservative soldiers, Sydenham was becoming something of a loose cannon.

Political controversy did not end with the re-installation of the protector on 26 June 1657. John Lambert refused to take the new oath as a councillor and was sacked. At first there were expectations that Sydenham and other hard-line councillors would resign, but on 21 July he meekly took his oath as a councillor, and was appointed to the committees to consider public faith debts and the costs of the government and armed forces.180Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 47; HMC 5th Rep. 164; CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 32-3. Sydenham’s willingness to continue in post was the result of many factors. His critics accused him of venality, as ‘a gentleman of not very much per annum at the beginning of the wars’, who had now ‘augmented his revenue to some purpose’ and had ‘grown very great and considerable’; yet they also recognised that Sydenham had a strong personal loyalty to Cromwell, which had survived the kingship debacle.181Harl. Misc. iii. 478. Unlike Lambert, it seems that Sydenham was willing to give the protectorate one last chance.

During the rest of 1657 and 1658, Sydenham returned to his role as a prominent councillor, and continued to be active in the business he had undertaken before. Throughout this period he was appointed to committees to consider Guernsey (where Bingham was still governor), the Isle of Wight, and Weymouth.182CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 84, 159, 204; 1658-9, pp. 27, 48. In September 1657 he was again using his influence to support the Protester ministers in Scotland; in December he dealt with the report on fraudulent debentures; and in the spring of 1658 he was involved with the army and navy matters that resulted from the French alliance and the military action in Flanders.183CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 88, 199, 269, 351, 355, 360; Consultations ed. Stephens, ii. 117. In December Sydenham was made a member of the Other House he had so fiercely criticised only six months before, and he took his seat for the first few days of the second sitting of Parliament in January 1658, before he was excused ‘being lame’.184TSP vi. 668; HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 504-22. There are signs that Sydenham was still bitter about the events of the spring of 1657, however. In September he was involved in a customs case against Sir Christopher Packe*, and reported back to the council on it. Packe was a wealthy London merchant, but also the MP who had introduced the Remonstrance in February 1657, and the prosecution may have had a hint of malice.185CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 94, 107. More worryingly for the government, in the council Sydenham seems to have been less prepared to take a prominent role in financial affairs.

The death of Oliver Cromwell in September 1658 further distanced Sydenham from the protectoral regime. He felt no personal loyalty to Richard Cromwell*, and his activity in the treasury declined further. As Whitelocke (who, as a fellow treasury commissioner, now had to shoulder more of the burden) noted, Sydenham was ‘often absent’, although he attributed this to his workload in the council.186Whitelocke, Diary, 501. Sydenham was by now openly hostile to Secretary Thurloe, and was seen as the leader of ‘the godly party, though not the wisest statesman’.187HMC Ormonde, n.s. i. 327-8. As early as 21 September 1658 he was associated with a radical group of officers, described as a ‘cabal’, which was promoting an ‘address’ criticising the government, and in November Henry Cromwell told Broghill that he suspected Sydenham, with Fleetwood and Disbrowe, of covering up some design within the army.188TSP vii. 406, 490. During the third protectorate Parliament convened in January 1659, Sydenham took his seat in the Other House, sitting regularly throughout the session, and being named to committees on morality and stage plays, as well as those on the recognition of the protector, deciding the upper chamber’s rights, and securing the nation against the ‘common enemy’.189HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 525-65.

Attendance did not equate to compliance. Indeed, in the Other House Sydenham continued to associate with the critics of the government. The Scottish Protester Sir Archibald Johnston* of Wariston said he found Sydenham and Fleetwood ‘very kind’ to him when he arrived to take up his own seat in the upper chamber.190Wariston Diary, iii. 105. In March it was reported that Sydenham, with Fleetwood, Disbrowe and other officers, was a member of the Independent congregation set up by Dr Owen, ‘which hath divers constructions put upon it’, and by April Sydenham was closely identified with the ‘Wallingford House, or army, party’, suspected of conspiring against the protectorate.191Henry Cromwell Corresp. 475; Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 158; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 61, 65-6; Clarke Pprs. iii. 196. After the forced closure of Parliament at the end of April, Sydenham played a major part in the army interest’s deliberations. Wariston said he met Sydenham with Fleetwood and Owen, and argued with them about restoring the Rump Parliament instead.192Wariston Diary, iii. 106. After ‘the officers’ held a day of fasting and prayer on 3 May, Sydenham, Lambert and James Berry* met republicans like Ludlowe, Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, Richard Salwey* and Sir Henry Vane II*.193Wariston Diary, iii. 108. It was probably at this meeting, and a further gathering two days later, that the forced resignation of Richard Cromwell and the restoration of the Rump Parliament were decided. Sydenham, Fleetwood and Disbrowe were identified later as the ‘three [men] that had the chief hand in turning out the last protector’.194CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 354; Clarke Pprs. iv. 8. On 7 May the Rump MPs appointed Sydenham to its interim executive, the committee of safety, and on 19 May he was again made a councillor of state.195CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 341, 349; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 512-3.

Rump and Restoration, 1659-61

The summer and autumn of 1659 saw the return of Sydenham as a key figure in the government. As well as resuming his seat in Parliament, he reprised his role in financial affairs, being named to the committee for public revenues on 9 May, and reporting from the committee of safety on army pay arrears on 16 May, and from the council on the same matter on 26 May.196CJ vii. 647b, 655b, 667a. From June onwards, Sydenham was involved in raising revenue, settling the militia, and religious matters, in a return to the prominent role he had played in the mid-1650s.197CJ vii. 684b, 694b, 700b, 705a, 721a, 726a, 727a, 732a. He was granted lodgings in Whitehall, and then allowed to move to St James’s Palace, with his old rooms being allotted to Bingham and John Trenchard.198CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 15, 79. Sydenham retained his place as governor of the Isle of Wight, and carried out reforms of the forces there, and on 17 June he was also commissioned as colonel of a regiment of foot, which was stationed at Somerset House during the crisis which accompanied Sir George Boothe’s* royalist rising in the north.199CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 36, 55, 99, 103, 112, 221; CJ vii. 681a, 683a, 688a. Sydenham did not take the field during the rebellion. Instead he stayed in London, managing the militia in both council and Commons, and after Boothe’s defeat he pressed Parliament for the payment of arrears to the army.200CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 135, 160, 178; CJ vii. 746a, 747a, 749b, 757b. Sydenham was one of those ordered to prepare a declaration giving thanks for the victory over Boothe on 23 August, and he presented it to Parliament on 24 September.201CJ vii. 766b, 786a.

When relations between the army and Parliament broke down in early October, Sydenham naturally sided with the former. This made him enemies in the council as well as in the Commons, and on 15 October his speech ‘wherein he endeavoured to justify these proceedings of the army’, which he saw as ‘a particular call of the divine providence’, provoked President John Bradshawe* to accuse him of blasphemy, and withdraw from the council altogether.202Ludlow, Mems. ii. 140. Sydenham was one of the senior officers who now established a new council, but his authority was undermined by the mutiny of his regiment, three companies of which marched off to join Harbart Morley* and other commanders loyal to Parliament.203Wariston Diary, iii. 146; Regimental Hist. i. 383.

The failure of Lambert’s attempt to intimidate Parliament’s allies, and the return of the Rump at the end of December 1659 brought Sydenham’s public career to a sudden end. In January 1660 he attended the Commons, hoping to clear himself of the charges against him, but, like other supporters of Lambert, he was now considered one of the ‘butts to be shot at’, and on 17 January the Commons disabled him from sitting as an MP.204CJ vii. 813b; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 201; CCSP iv. 512; Whitelocke, Diary, 562. Sydenham retired to the house he rented in Clapham, Surrey, but he was not able to avoid further censure. His regiment was given to Sir John Lenthall* on 1 February.205CJ vii. 829a-b. When the Convention Parliament elections were held in April, there was no place for Sydenham, and there were even suspicions that he and other ‘fanatics’ were plotting violence against the election at Richmond.206HMC Leyborne-Popham, 172. In the same month he was sacked as vice-admiral of Hampshire, and his old colleague, Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper*, appointed in his place.207CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 573.

The Restoration of Charles II brought no hope of a reprieve. Although he was not a regicide, on 13 June 1660 Sydenham was ‘voted to be in the second exception’ under the act of pardon, and was bound over not to disturb the peace.208Whitelocke, Diary, 605, 605n. On 2 August he was listed as one of the persons disabled from all office, civil or military, for life.209LJ xi. 115a. Despite this, Sydenham remained unrepentant. He faced down demands for restitution from those who had suffered at his hands during the wars, saying that former royalists deserved all that had happened to them, and claiming that he had been freed from any obligation by the act of oblivion.210CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 320. On 29 December 1660 he was again bound for £1,000 not to act against the government.211CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 426. Sydenham’s attitude softened somewhat when he fell ill in 1661. Perhaps mindful of his children’s inheritance, he tried to conciliate the Dorset royalist Giles Strangways*, who had threatened legal proceedings against him. ‘I humbly beg your pardon for all things wherein I have done amiss’, he wrote, ‘although I am at present sick, yet if you will have it so, I will crawl on all four to the assizes if you will not be otherwise satisfied’.212Dorset RO, D/FSI/233 (ii), bundle ‘Giles Strangways Corresp.’

Sydenham died at the end of July 1661, and was buried at Wynford Eagle on 1 August. His will, drawn up a week before, left his wife the lease of his house in Clapham, and made provision for his younger children (including ‘my child of which my wife goes withal, if the same shall live’), and appointed his wife, his brother Thomas Sydenham, and his brother-in-law, John Sadler*, as three of his five executors. It is uncertain whether Sydenham had retained any of the property and money he had acquired during the interregnum, although he referred to his ‘personal estate’ left in the hands of James Gould*.213PROB11/309/303. He had only a reversionary interest in the manor of Wynford Eagle and other family lands, as his father outlived him by three months.214PROB11/309/303. It was left to Sydenham’s eldest son, William, to inherit the family estate on his grandfather’s death, but he did not share the good fortune of his father or grandfather. In 1706 he put Wynford Eagle in a lottery, which he hoped to fix in a friend’s favour, but when the wrong man won, he refused to transfer the estate and was thrown in gaol, where he died in 1718.215Sydenham Fam. 234-6.