SANKEY, Jerome (c.1621-86), of Coolmore, co. Tipperary.

The Sankey family was descended from Galfridus de Sankey, who held the manor of Sankey in Lancashire under King John. By the sixteenth century the Sankeys had moved to Balderton Hall, a house in Myddle, Shropshire, and it was there that Jerome Sankey was born in 1621. Sankey’s father and grandfather were clergymen in the same county, and it was clearly intended that he would follow in their footsteps. According to the antiquary, Richard Gough, Sankey was ‘of a mean stature, a mild disposition, and accounted a very religious man’.32Gough, Hist. Myddle, 220. He matriculated at Trinity College Cambridge in 1637, transferred to Clare College in 1640, and was awarded his BA in 1641 and his MA in 1644.33Auden, ‘Zankey’, 171-2. Yet Sankey may not always have been a natural student. According to Anthony Wood, ‘he was observed by his contemporaries to be a boisterous fellow at cudgelling and football playing, and indeed more fit in all respects to be a rude soldier than a scholar or a man of polite parts’; and even before taking his MA, Sankey ‘threw off his gown’ and returned to Shropshire, where he was commissioned as captain of horse in Sir William Brereton’s* regiment (where his elder brother, Robert, served as major) as early as April 1643.34Wood, Fasti, ii. 119; Auden, ‘Zankey’, 173. His military career was varied: he was captured at the battle of Hanmer in June 1643 and exchanged four months later; praised by Brereton as a ‘valiant man’ for his part in skirmishes at Tarvin and Malpas in 1644; wounded at Beeston in January 1645; and promoted to major by April 1645.35Brereton Letter Bks. i. 385. He fought alongside Lieutenant-colonel Michael Jones in the Welsh marches in the winter of 1645-6, and in February was entrusted with delivering the captured Lord Byron to Conway Castle.36Brereton Letter Bks. ii. 89, 167, 427, 501-2, 508-9; Tanner Lttrs, 213. From early 1647 Sankey was based in London, where he worked with the Derby House Committee in raising volunteers for Ireland, and in February 1648 his troop, still quartered in Cheshire, was disbanded.37CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 750; SP28/51, f. 118.

Sankey returned to an academic career in July 1648, when he was elected fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. He was absent from Oxford for most of the next nine months, and, despite his apparent lack of a formal military commission, sat on the councils and committees of the army council at London throughout November and December 1648, and again in February 1649.38Clarke Pprs. ii. 280-1. In the turmoil which followed the execution of the king, Sankey was well placed to rise through the university hierarchy: he became sub-warden of All Souls in March, and proctor of the university in April. In May 1649 he was responsible for presenting Oliver Cromwell and Sir Thomas Fairfax* for honorary doctorates, and may have been awarded his own DCL on the same occasion.39Reg. Visitors Univ. Oxford, pp. xcv, 173, 227, 396. Cromwell stayed with Sankey during his sojourn at Oxford, and seems to have found opportunity to persuade him to join the new expedition to Ireland. Sankey did not hesitate to abandon university life once again. By 18 June he was drawing pay as a major in Cromwell’s horse regiment, and in July Bulstrode Whitelocke* complained that Sankey had taken his son ‘on his journey to the seaside and there persuaded Whitelocke’s son to go over with them as a soldier’.40SP28/61, ff. 303, 442; Whitelocke, Diary, 242.

Sankey crossed to Dublin in August 1649, and commanded the first division of Cromwell’s regiment until December, when he was given command of the horse regiment left leaderless by the death of Colonel Thomas Horton.41SP28/62, f. 97; HMC 7th Rep. 74. In the conquest of Ireland, Sankey again proved his abilities as a soldier. In December 1649 he relieved Passage Fort near Waterford; he was wounded at Dundrum Castle in co. Tipperary in March 1650, but recovered enough to lead the ill-fated assault on Clonmel in May; and in 1651 joined Daniel Axtell* and John Reynolds* in the siege of Bawn Castle.42HMC 7th Rep. 74; Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 27n, 63; Ludlow, Mems. i. 493. In 1652 he negotiated the Kilkenny articles with the earl of Westmeath’s army, and pursued the remnants of Colonel Richard Grace’s forces into the ‘fastnesses’ of King’s and Queen’s Counties.43TCD, MS 844, ff. 118-123; Bodl. Tanner, 53, f. 108. Sankey was well rewarded for his military service. In 1651 he was appointed governor of Clonmel, and in 1652 and 1653 sat on numerous administrative commissions. He also received a lease of the Camyse estate in co. Tipperary in May 1652, gained £200 a year in Irish lands by parliamentary order in October, and in December he was granted the wardship of John Fitzgerald of the Decies, which gave him control of a large estate in co. Waterford.44Eg. 1762, ff. 34v-5r, 58; CJ vii. 117b-8a, 194b. In January 1653 Sankey joined John Hewson* and other officers as commissioner for the settling of lands, and in the mid-1650s became involved in the setting out lands for military arrears.45Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 309, 566. In the ensuing land settlement, Sankey added nearly 900 acres in the barony of Iffa and Offa to his other lands in co. Tipperary.46Prendergast, Cromwellian Settlement, 202-3.

Sankey’s involvement in the Cromwellian conquest and the subsequent land settlement seems to have influenced his religious views. In September 1652 John Jones I* reported Sankey’s conversion to the Baptist church

not being assured of the faith of his parents to make his infant washing effectual, nor having the verity of that conveyed unto him by tradition, which he conceived not to be a firm foundation for him to depend upon, in point of obedience in spiritual things, fell again into the water two days since, and was taken up by Mr [Thomas] Patience.47‘Inedited Letters’ ed. Mayer, 216.

After his re-baptism, Sankey became well known for his preaching, his attempts at exorcism, his public support for Baptist conventicles in London as well as Ireland, and his role as a mediator between the Baptists and the protector.48HMC 4th Rep. 590; R. Gillespie, Devoted People (Manchester, 1998), 120; Wood, Fasti, ii. 119; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 76. Sankey was later derided as ‘the most violent Anabaptist of any officer in the army’, and as a ‘new-dipped … doughty gallant of the Thames’.49Consultations ed. Stephens, ii. 30; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 501. Even before his conversion he was on good terms with his fellow Leinster officers, corresponding with Colonel Pretty (governor of Carlow) in October 1651, and referring to the Baptist governor of Kilkenny as ‘my brother [Daniel] Axtell*’.50Bodl. Tanner 55, f. 84. Other associates included John Hewson* and his son-in-law, Richard Lawrence, governors of Dublin and Waterford respectively. Not all of these men were Baptists, but they shared Sankey’s desire for religious toleration, and his support for the policies of the lord deputy, Charles Fleetwood*.

Sankey’s relationship with Fleetwood is central to understanding his political career in the later 1650s. Fleetwood, like Cromwell, recognized Sankey’s ability, and in July 1654 proposed that he and Hewson should be appointed to the Irish council, as ‘they are both good men and faithful to my lord protector’.51Add. 4156, f. 71v. In an election held on 2 August 1654, Sankey was returned for cos. Tipperary and Waterford on his own interest as governor of Clonmel, although he no doubt also enjoyed the support of the lord deputy.52C219/44, unfol. This was confirmed in September, when Fleetwood intervened to ensure that Sankey was not purged from this Parliament, as he knew that ‘Colonel Sankey did scruple all tests and engagements’.53TSP, ii. 620. During the first protectorate Parliament, Sankey was mainly involved in government business, possibly at Fleetwood’s behest. His ten committee appointments included those for Irish elections, encouraging trade in corn, butter and cheese (which were important for the Irish economy), determining the loyalty tests for voters in Irish elections, and reforming the Irish probate laws.54CJ vii. 373b, 374b, 390b, 401a. Alongside these were items of personal relevance to Sankey, including petitions from the doctors of civil law, for the settlement of debentures and public debts, and for the enumeration of heresies under the new constitution.55CJ vii. 382a, 387b, 399b, 407b. Parliament was dissolved in late January 1655, and Sankey returned to Ireland in March.56CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 434-5, 439, 451. By the early summer, he was acting as Fleetwood’s unofficial secretary: he travelled in the lord deputy’s coach during the progress through Leinster and Munster in May 1655, and when the earl of Cork (Sir Richard Boyle*) attended Fleetwood in Dublin in August, Sankey acted as go-between.57Merc. Politicus, no. 262 (14-21 June 1655), 5416-7; Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 15 Aug. 1655. The departure of Fleetwood from Dublin soon afterwards did not weaken Sankey’s attachment to the lord deputy, and it is interesting that, when Sankey travelled to London, he usually stayed with Fleetwood at Wallingford House.58Henry Cromwell Corresp. 62, 68, 76, 370, 449, 458, 472. The relationship between the two men was reinforced by their shared religious beliefs: it was this, rather than any family relationship, which prompted Fleetwood to refer to ‘my brother Sankey’.59Henry Cromwell Corresp. 87.

In Fleetwood’s absence, Sankey made an effort to win the favour of the lieutenant- general of the army in Ireland (and acting chief governor), Henry Cromwell*. In August 1655, Sankey was present when Henry Cromwell was installed as the chancellor of Dublin University, and received the degree of DCL from his hands.60Merc. Politicus, no. 272 (23-9 Aug. 1655), 5578; Clarke Pprs. iii. 50. Henry Cromwell was understandably suspicious of Sankey’s closeness to Fleetwood, but saw him as a useful point of contact with the Baptist community, and above all with the army radicals whose loyalty to the protectorate was increasingly uncertain. Sankey played on Henry Cromwell’s fears. In September 1655 he followed Fleetwood to London, and in the following months sent reports to Henry Cromwell of private interviews between the radicals and the protector, while continuing to protest his own desire to serve the Dublin government, and assuring him of the ‘fair and friendly carriage’ of his Baptist friends.61Henry Cromwell Corresp. 62, 67, 68, 76-7, 83. When Sankey returned from London in December 1655, Secretary John Thurloe* advised Henry Cromwell to use him ‘to temper and mollify those of his principles, who are apt to take pet upon a very little occasion’.62TSP, iv. 343. Henry Cromwell’s reply was equivocal: ‘I am not without hopes, but that Sankey may be of some good use here; but I dare not boast of him at present, lest he should leave me in the lurch, as he did some you may please to remember when’.63TSP, iv. 408. The last reference is obscure, but it is clear that Henry Cromwell remained uneasy about Sankey, telling Thurloe that ‘I’ll trust [him] as far as I can see him’, even though, he added, ‘I think there may be good use made of him’.64TSP, iv. 483. In early 1656 Sankey seems to have been genuine enough in his desire to reconcile the army and the government, attending meetings with Hewson and Lawrence, and causing such firebrands as William Allen and John Vernon to be ‘very angry’ with him for his attempts at arbitration.65TSP, iv. 433, 483.

The anger of the more radical officers proved fortunate for Sankey. During the summer of 1656 Henry Cromwell was disturbed by attempts by Vernon and others to undermine his position in England, fearing that their ‘meetings are to find out some matter for Sankey to make a new clamour in England’. His concerns were reduced by an interview between them in August, when Sankey protested ‘his true respect of me, and full satisfaction concerning my management of affairs here’, and by intelligence that Vernon had again attacked his former allies, and called ‘Sankey, Hewson and some other of the forward ones little better than k[inglings]’.66TSP, v. 278, 327. Not that Henry Cromwell now trusted Sankey: in their conversations, it emerged that Sankey was suspiciously well-informed about English politics, and Henry Cromwell complained to Thurloe that ‘he and others are more privy to your secret management of affairs than myself’.67TSP, v. 278. In fact, in the light of later events, it seems likely that Sankey’s source of information was Fleetwood, rather than Vernon and his friends.

The closeness of Sankey’s alliance with Fleetwood helps to explain his apparently inconsistent behaviour in the second protectorate Parliament, which convened in September 1656. Sankey did not contest an Irish seat, instead being elected alongside Fleetwood for the borough of Marlborough in Wiltshire, but he continued to play a leading role in Irish affairs. Like Fleetwood, Sankey disagreed with many of Henry Cromwell’s wider policies, but was not opposed to measures which would bring stability to Ireland, especially when they could be squared with his concerns for religious toleration and preferential treatment for the army. Sankey was thus happy to work alongside his factional enemies (including Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*) and the Old Protestant MPs) on issues of domestic concern. He did not take his seat until late December, but was immediately added to the committee for Irish affairs.68CJ vii. 477b. In February he was named to committees for settling lands on Sir Theophilus Jones*, for compensating the city of Gloucester with Irish lands, and to consider the petition of Viscount Loftus of Ely – all issues of equal concern to the army and the Old Protestants.69CJ vii. 491b, 494a, 494b. In March and April he again was appointed to committees of common interest: for passing a bill of attainder against the Irish rebels (to ensure security of land titles for the new owners), and for the satisfaction of Irish ‘donatives’ (including his own grant of 1652).70CJ vii. 515a, 526b, 529a. There is little doubt where Sankey stood on the land question. In May 1657 he spoke against the grant of valuable Irish lands to the city of Gloucester, and agreed with Broghill that ‘they may have satisfaction out of Galway’ instead.71Burton’s Diary, ii. 109-110. In June he joined other Irish MPs in opposing the imposition of an assessment of £10,000 per month on Ireland, saying that ‘it really would be an advantage to abate them for three or seven years. I think 5 or 6,000 over-charge will be enough’; and he joined Thomas Cooper II as teller against the higher rate.72Burton’s Diary, ii. 210; CJ vii. 554a. Later in the same month, he supported the efforts of Anthony Morgan, Richard Tighe, James Traill, and other friends of Henry Cromwell, to extend the Munster Protestants’ ordinance to cover the rest of Ireland.73Burton’s Diary, ii. 248-9; CJ vii. 557a.

Sankey’s agreement with Broghill and his allies over Irish domestic business came in stark contrast to his opposition to their proposed constitutional and religious reforms. Although he was too late to take part in the main debates on the fate of the Quaker, James Naylor, on 28 February 1657 Sankey acted as teller (with Robert Lilburne) in favour of improving Naylor’s prison conditions, and was appointed to the committee which considered the matter further.74CJ vii. 497b. During the kingship crisis, initiated with the introduction of a Remonstrance (later re-named the Humble Petition and Advice) on 23 February, Sankey’s opinion was also clear. As Anthony Morgan told Henry Cromwell the following day, ‘the Irish are all for it, but Cooper, Hewson and Sankey’.75Henry Cromwell Corresp. 205-6. As the debates continued, Sankey was named to committees to consider individual points – such as the voting qualifications in article four (10 Mar.), and the religious clauses of article nine (17 Mar.) – and he was added to the committee to attend the protector to arrange an audience for further discussion of the constitution (3 Apr.).76CJ vii. 501a, 506b, 507b. There is no indication that Sankey supported the programme of reform, and although his closeness to the protectorate was criticized in the propaganda early 1658, he was conspicuous by his absence from the list of ‘kinglings’ who voted in favour of offering the crown to Cromwell in the first article.77Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 12, 23 (E.935.5). Indeed, it is highly likely that Sankey’s position on each of these issues coincided with that of Fleetwood, and this is also suggested by his inclusion in May and June on committees to revise the new constitution through the passing of an Additional Petition and Advice.78CJ vii. 535a, 540b, 557a.

Sankey’s opposition to the kinglings and the Presbyterians in the Commons was public and principled. Less laudable was his deep involvement in factionalism, which can only be glimpsed in scattered incidents, of which the most sinister involved the future of the Scottish kirk. Scottish affairs had become a focus for factionalism in this Parliament, as Lord Broghill tried to defend the moderate reforms introduced during his year as president of Scotland in 1655-6. Bitter disputes soon erupted in the protectorate council over the Kirk. Lambert and Fleetwood openly favoured the minority ‘Protester’ faction against the majority ‘Resolutioners’, who were backed by Broghill. Sankey soon became involved. In March 1657 the Resolutioner minister, James Sharp, reported to Edinburgh that he had met the prominent Protesters, James Guthry and James Simpson, ‘with Colonel Sankey in the midst’ walking through the privy garden at Whitehall. Others had warned him that Sankey was ‘one of Guthry’s agents, who court Lord Lambert and Colonel Sydenham’, and the chance meeting seemed to prove this.79Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 30. In June Sankey met the leading Protester, Sir Archibald Johnston* of Wariston, and took the opportunity to praise his work in lobbying Parliament, ‘for otherwise the House would never have had that sense and feeling of our condition nor that impression they have against the malignants in Scotland, and from our experience their fear of their own’.80Wariston Diary, iii. 84. This was a reference to the article in the Additional Petition and Advice, which included a clause relaxing restrictions on former Scottish royalists in public life. On 25 June Sankey joined John Lambert* and others in calling for the rejection of this clause – and managed to push the vote through a divided House.81Burton’s Diary, ii. 308. Drawn together, these incidents suggest that Sankey was once again following different agendas: working for the government over Ireland, while opposing the wider reforms of Broghill and his allies in public debate and private intrigue. Once again, his actions exactly matched those of Fleetwood.

The parliamentary sitting closed in June 1657. Sankey returned to Ireland in September, and was greeted with ill-concealed hostility by Henry Cromwell, who told Thurloe that ‘I have been so bitten by him, that I must treat him with care and circumspection’.82TSP vi. 506. Yet, in the next 18 months, Sankey went out of his way to cultivate Henry Cromwell – a task made all the more important by the latter’s replacement of Fleetwood as lord deputy in November 1657. Henry Cromwell was under considerable pressure from England (and apparently from Oliver Cromwell himself) to accept Sankey’s advances. As he told his father in January 1658: ‘I have observed your highness’s commands in the reception and treatment of Colonel Sankey. I hope he will satisfy your highness as much; and I hope it shall be my care, if possible, to have peace with all men’.83TSP vi. 743. In March Sankey and other officers accepted the revised Humble Petition, and, in a new departure, assured their critics that ‘in case kingship were really most suitable to the constitution of these nations, that then they would desire it’.84TSP vii. 21. In May Sankey, then in London, wrote to Henry Cromwell with his assurances that ‘I may say without feignedness that there is not any person that lives who hath more cordial affection and real respect to your excellency and his highness’s family than I have’.85Henry Cromwell Corresp. 370-1. Such pronouncements seem to have calmed Henry Cromwell’s fears, and he slowly brought Sankey back into positions of responsibility. In August 1658, when Henry conducted a progress around Ireland, Sankey was one of his entourage.86Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 2 Aug. 1658. In September he was the only radical officer to sign the proclamation of Richard Cromwell* as protector.87TSP vii. 384. On 16 November Henry Cromwell knighted Sankey at Dublin.88Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 224.

Despite this apparent rapprochement, the third protectorate Parliament, which met in January 1659, saw Sankey return to his old political tactics. His attachment to Fleetwood was as strong as ever. In the elections, Sankey was returned both for cos. Tipperary and Waterford and for New Woodstock in Oxfordshire.89CJ vii. 610b. New Woodstock had elected Fleetwood in 1654, and in 1659 Sankey’s fellow-MP was his patron’s relative, Miles Fleetwood*, so it would seem that Anthony Wood was right in saying that he was returned ‘by the endeavours of Colonel Charles Fleetwood’.90Wood, Fasti, ii. 119. When choosing which seat to accept, Sankey courted controversy by announcing that ‘he would stick to his election in England (with an emphasis)’, and there were soon suspicions that he ‘divides with the commonwealthsmen’ – the republican enemies of the protectorate.91Henry Cromwell Corresp. 472. Despite his contacts with critics of the regime, Sankey kept up the pretence of friendship with Henry Cromwell, and sent him regular letters, laden with political news and gossip.92Henry Cromwell Corresp. 449-52, 458-9, 472-4. In February and early March, Sankey continued to behave like a supporter of the protectorate. He told Henry Cromwell on 15 February of his hopes that ‘through God’s mercy the foundations of a settlement indeed will be laid’.93Henry Cromwell Corresp. 459. On 7 March his only contribution to the controversial debate on the Other House was to complain of ‘arguments of force’ which he saw as ‘throwing dirt in your faces and in your army’.94Burton Diary iv. 64-5. On 22 March he defended the right of Irish MPs to sit in the Commons, and was teller against a motion to decide their case according to their ‘legal right’ alone.95CJ vii. 618b. But on 24 March Sankey finally blew his cover, launching an all-out assault on one of Henry Cromwell’s clients, the Irish surveyor, Dr William Petty*. Sankey had been appointed to earlier commissions on land allocation, and in December 1658 he had been appointed as one of the auditors for army lands, a post which had already led him to investigate Petty’s affairs. Sankey was not motivated by a selfless desire for justice. Petty was Henry Cromwell’s creature, and he would later claim that ‘there is more of malice and crooked design in their business than every man is aware’.96Henry Cromwell Corresp. 485, 487-8; Down Survey ed. Larcom, 76, 89, 109, 265-7, 297. Henry protested to Thurloe that Petty was innocent, voicing his suspicions that ‘Petty is not the only mark aimed at’; and the protector reputedly ‘rattled’ Sankey in a private interview, ‘and told him whosoever endeavoured to blemish his dear and only brother he would esteem him his greatest enemy’.97TSP vii. 651; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 486. The nature of the attack was highly political. Rather than pursuing the matter in the relative privacy of Dublin, Sankey insisted on raising the matter at Westminster. When the case was again considered by Parliament, on 21 April, Sankey accused Petty of receiving bribes, denying lands to claimants, and reallocating others to himself and his friends – including Henry Cromwell.98Burton’s Diary, iv. 244-5; Down Survey ed. Larcom, 290-1, 298-301; Prendergast, Cromwellian Settlement, 111-2. The matter was referred to the Irish council, as there were more pressing political issues to deal with.99CJ vii. 643b-4a. The next day, Sankey was at the forefront of moves to force Richard Cromwell to dissolve the Parliament, as the first step towards bringing down the protectorate itself.100Down Survey ed. Larcom, 301. Parliament was closed on 22 April, the protector resigned in May, and Henry Cromwell stepped down as governor of Ireland.

During the turbulent summer of 1659, Sankey continued to support Fleetwood and the army interest. He sat on the officers’ council at the end of April; on 6 May he signed the declaration of Fleetwood and other senior officers, reluctantly inviting the Rump Parliament to reconvene; and in late May he and John Disbrowe* intervened to calm mutinous troops who had gathered in Hyde Park.101Henry Cromwell Corresp. 509; Whitelocke, Diary, 514; CCSP iv. 205. In June Sankey advised Fleetwood in drawing up a list of suitable officers for the purged Irish army, and on 2 July he presented the approved list to the committee of safety, which accepted the proposals six days later.102Ludlow, Mems. ii. 94; CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 2, 13. At Fleetwood’s request, in early August Sankey was given command of the Irish brigade which arrived in England in time to help Lambert defeat Sir George Boothe’s* rebellion, and he was a commissioner to negotiate the surrender of the last royalist stronghold in the Welsh borders, Chirk Castle.103Ludlow, Mems. ii. 110; Clarke Pprs. iv. 45; HMC Portland, i. 684. On 30 August he was present at the meeting of the officers at Wallingford House, chaired by Fleetwood, which considered changes in the government in the aftermath of Boothe’s revolt.104Clarke Pprs. iii. 196. Action was eventually taken on 24 September, when Sankey and other officers at Derby sent a letter to Parliament demanding a purge of the magistracy, the payment of military arrears, and the appointment of Fleetwood as commander-in-chief.105HMC Leyborne-Popham, 123-4; Clarke Pprs. iv. 58; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 118, 121-2. In the crisis which followed, Sankey was an important adviser of Fleetwood and Lambert, and was accused by one observer of being ‘instrumental … in promoting the present disorders’.106Ludlow, Mems. ii. 150-1. He was a signatory of the army’s further demands for Fleetwood’s promotion, on 20 October; and later in the month sat on the general council which nominated the new committee of safety.107Clarke Pprs. iv. 68; Whitelocke, Diary, 538. In late November Sankey was with Lambert in Newcastle, preparing to oppose George Monck* and his army in their march south; and at the beginning of December he travelled north to conduct negotiations with Monck, only to be placed under arrest.108Clarke Pprs. iv. 146, 182-3, 214; v. 347; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 162; R. Baker, Chronicle (1679), 674-5, 696. In Sankey’s absence, the Irish brigade at York was persuaded to side with Monck in late December.109Whitelocke, Diary, 554. This precipitated the collapse of Lambert’s party in the north, and he and Sankey fled southwards.110Fairfax Corresp. ed. Bell, iv. 167-8.

Despite his close connections with Lambert and Fleetwood, on the restoration of the crown Sankey was not punished (although there were unsuccessful plans to have him excepted from pardon under the act of settlement in May 1661), and he retained most of his Irish lands.111T. Carte, Life of Ormond (Oxford, 1851), iv. 53n. His survival is something of a mystery. His reasonably cordial connections with the Old Protestant community – the ultimate beneficiaries of the Cromwellian land settlement – may provide one explanation. Alongside his efforts to serve Fleetwood and to cozen Henry Cromwell, Sankey had been scrupulously careful to keep in with the Irish landowners, especially in Munster. In 1653 he had encouraged the earl of Cork’s bid for the complete restoration of his estates, and later in the decade he had mediated the earl’s access to Fleetwood, and repeatedly invited him to dinner.112Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 15-18 Apr. 1653, 15 Aug. 1655, 28 Jan., 2 Aug., 1 Dec. 1658. In 1653 he had joined Cork’s brother, Lord Broghill, and his neighbour Sir Hardress Waller*, in supporting the attempt of the marquess of Ormond’s brother-in-law, George Matthew, to avoid transplantation.113CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 476. In 1654 Sankey was obviously on good terms with John Percivalle and other landowners in County Cork.114HMC Egmont, i. 537. His position as trustee of Trinity College (from 1650), the new college of Dublin and Erasmus Smith’s charity (both from 1657), brought him into close contact with a range of Old Protestants, and his attempt to introduce measures for the advancement of learning into the Irish council in January 1658 must have received general approval.115Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, 192n, 210, 231. His personal standing may also have benefited from his military association with the celebrated Old Protestant commander, Michael Jones, in the 1640s, and also by his service in the 1654 and 1656 Parliaments, when he worked with a range of Irish MPs. Sankey’s courtesy to key Irish Protestants, and their agreement on certain issues, may have smoothed his path after 1660.

Sankey’s survival may also have been due to his political reticence after 1660. Unlike some other Cromwellians, he refused to be drawn into plots against the new government, and retired instead to his house at Coolmore. He only emerged from his country retreat to defend his local interests, as in 1662 when he signed a petition of the inhabitants of Tipperary complaining of the cost of maintaining a causeway in the county.116HMC 4th Rep. 563. Surprisingly, his personal petitions in the mid-1660s received a fair hearing, with the duke of Ormond agreeing to refund money Sankey had advanced on behalf of the lords justices immediately after the Restoration, and the king issuing an order to cancel a bond for an abortive scheme to transport Irishmen to Spain a decade before.117Bodl. Carte 43, f. 613; Carte 159, ff. 65v-66. Sankey’s main activity in the 1670s and 1680s was defending his land claims against rival families.118HMC Ormonde, n.s. iii. 24; CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 56, 486-7; Herbert Corresp. 170, 185, 225, 247, 302, 331, 336; HMC 7th Rep. 756. He remained a trustee of Erasmus Smith’s charity after it was reformed in 1669, and sat on the governors’ committee as late as 1681.119HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 78. The only activity which may have attracted adverse comment was his continued support for the Baptist churches, especially in Dublin, although he was sufficiently broad-minded to serve as churchwarden of St Bride’s in 1674, and his religious views appear to have mellowed towards the end of his life.120Gillespie, Devoted People, 120; DIB. Sankey died at Coolmore in 1686, childless and without leaving a will. The administration of his estate was granted to his nephew, Richard Sankey of Hodnet, Shropshire, in February 1687. This Richard, who served as a colonel under William III, was the ancestor of the Sankeys of Coolmore.121Auden, ‘Zankey’, 177-8.