BLAKE, Robert (1599-1657), of Bridgwater, Som.

Of all the men who sat in the Parliaments of this period, only two – Robert Blake and Oliver Cromwell* – have been widely thought to be military geniuses. And of the two, Blake’s claim to be considered as such is more secure. John Aubrey summed up the view of many contemporaries when he wrote of Blake that, ‘he did the greatest actions at sea that ever were done.’25Aubrey, Brief Lives, i. 107.

The Blake family can be traced back to Quemerford at Calne in Wiltshire in the early sixteenth century. Their connections with Somerset dated from the lifetime of Blake’s great-great-grandfather, John Blake, who had settled at Over Stowey by the time of his death in 1558.26M.J. Sayer, ‘Peds. of co. fams.’, Gen. Mag. xix. 285. Two generations later the MP’s grandfather, Robert Blake, moved to the nearest town, Bridgwater, and established the family’s shipping business. Robert’s eldest son, Humphrey, inherited his ships in 1592. That Humphrey’s eldest son, Robert, born in 1599, continued this sea-faring tradition is therefore not at all surprising. But it says something of Humphrey’s success that he probably envisaged grander things for his first son. In 1616 Robert Blake entered St Alban’s Hall in Oxford. He then tried to obtain a scholarship from Christ Church, and although that attempt was unsuccessful, he later transferred to Wadham and took his BA degree. He then tried to become a fellow of Merton.27Al. Ox.; Wood, Fasti, 369-70. Edward Hyde*, who studied in Oxford several years later, would claim many years afterwards that Blake was

versed in books, for a man who intended not to be of any profession, having enough of his own to maintain him in the plenty he affected, and having then no appearance of ambition to be a better man than he was.28Clarendon, Hist. vi. 37.

However, the decision to seek the fellowship at Merton probably means that the young Blake had considered a career in the church.

Despite considerable research by his numerous biographers, there is much about Blake’s life during the 1620s and the 1630s that remains uncertain. The name is a common one and he can plausibly be connected with a wide variety of places. However, the safest assumption would be that he initially returned to Bridgwater. He certainly inherited his father’s principal property, the manor of Puriton cum Crandon a few miles to the north of Bridgwater, on Humphrey Blake’s death in 1625.29PROB11/148/224; Coventry Docquets, 311. Also, if his rather unreliable eighteenth-century biographer John Oldmixon is to be believed, Blake opposed William Laud’s religious policies in the Bridgwater area when Laud was bishop of Bath and Wells between 1626 and 1628.30Oldmixon, Blake, 6-7. What is less clear is whether he ever traded as a merchant. His name does not appear in any of the Bridgwater or Minehead port books for this period.31E190/1087/1-19; E190/1088/1-16; E190/1089/1-6. Attempts have however been made to link him with a number of persons trading elsewhere. It is thus possible that he was the man admitted as a freeman of Dorchester in July 1629.32Recs. of Dorchester, ed. Mayo, 425. In December that year this Robert Blake was part of the four-man delegation appointed by the Dorchester corporation to present a petition to the privy council for the full reimbursement of costs incurred by Sir Thomas Fryer for billeting soldiers in 1628.33Recs. of Dorchester, ed. Mayo, 676; APC 1629-30, p. 220. Two months later, in February 1630, he was shipping timber from the Dutch port of Middelburg in Zeeland on board the Tessell of Medemblik, only to be prevented from landing this cargo at Weymouth by customs officials on the grounds that he was not a member of the Eastland Company. In May the privy council decided that, as he had been unaware of this restriction, he should be permitted to import the timber.34CSP Dom. 1629-30, pp. 258, 263; APC 1629-30, p. 393. This delay cannot have helped his finances, which were sufficiently dire that soon after, in December of that same year, he was declared bankrupt.35Birmingham City Archives, Croome Court collection, 602107; Coventry Docquets, 492. All told, the evidence that this was the correct Robert Blake is not strong. What is certain is that the future MP was not the English merchant of that name who had links to Sallee in Morocco.

Even if he was the Dorchester merchant, in 1640 Blake still retained his links with Bridgwater. He continued to hold the land at Puriton and his properties within the town were assessed at £1 for the 1641 subsidy.36Som. Protestation Returns, 248. His younger brother Humphrey may have been an even more prominent figure in Bridgwater, as he was quite possibly the man who later that year became the town’s mayor.37Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 200. The town’s burgesses, in choosing Robert Blake as their MP for the Short Parliament of 1640, possibly thought of him as a local merchant who could balance their selection of the landowner (and notorious monopolist), Edmund Wyndham*. Blake made no known contribution to proceedings at Westminster.

At the next election later that year, probably against his wishes, Blake was replaced by Sir Peter Wroth*. However, in January 1641 the Commons decided to expel Wyndham, thereby creating a vacancy for the other seat. John Pyne* and Alexander Popham* set about gathering support for Thomas Smyth I* and, in doing so, they consulted Blake. Blake made it clear that he would back Smyth, but that if Smyth did not stand, he would seek the seat for himself. According to Pyne, Blake’s priority was to block Sir Thomas Wroth*, feeling that it was important for the town to be represented by someone who would take the correct line in Parliament on the subject of episcopacy.38Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 168. As Smyth eventually decided to stand, Blake’s own candidacy proved to be unnecessary.

According to Hyde, even as a young man, Blake had been in the habit of ‘inveighing against the licence of the time and the power of the court’ and that, in private, ‘he had an anti-monarchical spirit, when few men thought the government in any danger.’39Clarendon, Hist. vi. 37. Such disaffection, combined with his hostility towards the bishops, made him a natural recruit for the parliamentarian cause in 1642. He probably began his military career as a captain in the regiment of foot raised by William Strode I* during the earliest months of the civil war.40BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database. From March 1643 he combined this with the civilian appointment as a sequestration commissioner for Somerset, although the royalist seizure of the county during that summer soon made that particular appointment irrelevant for the time being.41A. and O. That royalist advance was crowned by Prince Rupert’s taking of Bristol. During that siege in late July 1643 Blake distinguished himself in the field for the first time with his dedicated defence of Prior’s Hill Fort.42W. Prynne and C. Walker, A True and Full Relation of the Prosecution, Arraignment, Tryall and Condemnation of Nathaniel Fiennes (1644), 45 (E.255.1); Clarendon, Hist. vi. 37-8. This established his reputation as one of Parliament’s most unwavering champions under fire. This same willingness to hold out at almost all costs was again evident between April and June 1644 when, as the officer commanding soldiers from the regiment of Alexander Popham*, Blake helped defend Lyme Regis against Rupert’s brother, Prince Maurice. Blake held out until his forces were relieved by the navy and in June Maurice abandoned his blockade.

Blake then joined with Sir Robert Pye II* to attack Taunton, which fell to them in early July 1644 after a brief siege.43Lives and Letters of the Devereux, Earls of Essex, ed. W.B. Devereux (1853), ii. 415. This was of considerable strategic significance for the war in the south west, for Taunton now became the principal bastion of parliamentarian defiance at a time when the king still controlled the rest of Somerset. The royalists repeatedly attempted to retake the town. Edmund Wyndham tried to do so between October and December 1644. Asked by Wyndham to surrender, Blake and his officers (including Samuel Perry*) defiantly declined to ‘prefer the honour and reputation of gentlemen before the goodness and power of an Almighty Saviour’.44Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 2. That first siege ended on 14 December when they were relieved by James Holborne and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper*. With the resumption of campaigning the following spring, Lord Goring (George Goring*), Sir John Berkeley* and Sir Richard Grenville† all tried without success to crush Blake.45CCSP i. 259, 261, 262; CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 511-12, 525; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 17- 20. Blake’s resolve eventually paid off. On 11 May 1645 Ralph Weldon* entered Taunton as part of the advance guard of Sir Thomas Fairfax’s* army, which by the end of the summer had re-taken most of Somerset. But, just as Blake had doggedly held Taunton against royalist control of the rest of the county, Francis Wyndham* (Edmund’s brother) now held Dunster Castle in the face of this parliamentarian takeover. Blake therefore spent the final months of 1645 and early 1646 trying to overcome this last royalist redoubt in the county.46Perfect Passages no. 56 (12-19 Nov. 1645), 446 (E.266.19); Perfect Passages no. 63 (31 Dec. 1645-6 Jan. 1646), 501 (E.314.20).

By early 1646 Blake’s home town of Bridgwater had been left with no MPs. The by-election, which was held during the first half of February, resulted in the return of Blake and Sir Thomas Wroth, the man whose potential election five years earlier he had been so determined to block.47Supra, ‘Bridgwater’. Blake was now a substantial man within the county and had the weight of the army behind him, so it would have been remarkable if he had not been chosen. However, he could not return to Westminster just yet: Dunster still held out.48Perfect Passages no. 68 (4-11 Feb. 1646), 543 (E.322.15); The Cities Weekly Post no. 9 (10-17 Feb. 1646), 5 (E.322.30). Eventually, on 19 April, Wyndham decided to give up and the castle was handed over three days later.49Foure strong Castles taken by the Parliaments Forces (1646), 11-13 (E.334.8); Mercurius Civicus no. 152 (23-30 Apr.), 2222-3 (E.335.3); Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 3-4. Edmund Ludlowe II*, who was not elected for Wiltshire until 12 May, later recalled how he and Blake entered the Commons together, with Ludlowe feeling that, as Blake had ‘been faithful and active in the public service abroad’, the pair ‘should be as unanimous in the carrying it on within those doors.’50Ludlow, Mems. i. 133-4. This would have taken place before 13 June, when Blake was appointed to the committee to consider the expedient concerning the militia which had been sent down from the Lords.51CJ iv. 576a. Eleven days later he took the National League and Covenant.52CJ iv. 586a.

Over the next year Blake was a keen participant in Commons’ proceedings. Often this was because the matters involved were of personal concern. He was an obvious man for the Commons to include among those Somerset MPs who in August 1646 were asked to ensure that the leading local royalist, Sir John Stawell*, was prosecuted for treason at the next Somerset assizes.53CJ iv. 648a; Som. RO, DD/HI/B/466: Som. MPs to [Som. standing cttee.], 18 Aug. 1646. Appointed in October 1646 to assist in the disbandment of the brigade of Edward Massie*, he had the advantage that he was someone who would have been respected and trusted by soldiers alongside whom he had previously served.54CJ iv. 681b, v. 28b. The disbandment process soon affected him more directly. On 17 November the Committee of the West was authorised to wind up the Dunster and Taunton garrisons, with the additional option of disbanding Blake’s own regiment.55CJ iv. 724b. A week later, on 24 November, the Commons gave him permission to present his accounts for auditing to the Committee of Accounts.56CJ iv. 728b. The following March that committee was ordered to give a discharge to him for a payment of £400 he had received from Denis Bond*.57CJ v. 106b. Meanwhile, on Christmas Day 1646, the Commons had awarded him £500 from Sir John Hele’s delinquency fine.58CJ v. 28b.

As an army veteran, Blake plausibly shared the growing concerns of the remaining regiments. Antipathy towards the Presbyterian majority at Westminster may explain his apparent inactivity in the Commons during the spring and early summer of 1647. In the political crisis of mid-1647 he probably sided sided with the army and their Independent allies, and he was certainly named to committees for repealing the legislation passed during the Presbyterian coup at Westminster of late July and early August.59CJ v. 272a, 278a. Shortly thereafter, however, on 26 August, he obtained permission to return to the country and he was still absent in early October.60CJ v. 284a, 330a. It is possible that he spent all the first half of 1648 away from Westminster; only in June can he be assumed to have resumed his seat in Parliament.61CJ v. 593a. But he did not remain there for long. Three months later, in early September, he was among those members of the Somerset county committee who took steps to ensure that the county would in a state of readiness to confront any uprisings following the disturbances elsewhere.62Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 4-7. His feelings towards those rebels were made clear when, on 1 November 1648, he was included on the Commons committee considering the bill to sequester the estates of those who had risen in Essex.63CJ vi. 67a. Blake was committed to what the army and Parliament had already achieved and he probably had little time for those who now wished to challenge it. Nevetheless, there is no evidence that he attended the House in December 1648 or January 1649, and it was not until 5 February that he entered his dissent to the 5 December 1648 vote and was admitted to the Rump.64PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, p. 645; CJ vi. 131b; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 368.

Blake was not just willing to serve under the new republic, however – he would do so with considerable distinction. This moment saw the most fundamental shift in his career. Until 1649, Blake had made his mark on land as a soldier. Now the Rump decided to send him to sea.65HMC Leyborne-Popham, 9; A. and O.; CJ vi. 138a, 149a, 156a-157a. First-hand experience of combat at sea was not in this period considered an essential requirement for those being appointed to naval commands; none of the three men now chosen by the Rump as their generals-at-sea – Blake, Richard Deane* and Edward Popham* (Alexander’s brother) – can be said to have had much of it. What they did have was some knowledge of sea-faring in peacetime, although, in Blake’s case, this would have been gained during the mysterious period in the 1620s and 1630s. Blake would mostly learn on the job. He was to be an MP in every Parliament from now until his death, but his naval duties, involving long periods at sea, would henceforth take clear priority.

The immediate concern was to provide naval support for the invasion of Ireland. The small royalist fleet commanded by Prince Rupert threatened to interfere with the shipping of men and supplies across the Irish Sea. Deane and Blake were given the task of providing the necessary protection. In mid-April, prior to setting sail, the pair wrote to Speaker William Lenthall seeking clarification from Parliament on the extent of the ban on trade with Ireland – important because their sailors wanted as many opportunities as possible to intercept illicit shipments – and requesting that more prize commissioners be appointed.66Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 29-31. Their requests were presented to Parliament on 16 April.67CJ vi. 29. On arriving off Ireland, Blake blocaded Rupert’s ships lying in Kinsale harbour and prevented them causing trouble. On 13 June, after he had been temporarily forced to withdraw to Milford Haven, he and Deane assured Parliament that their only aim was ‘to be accounted but faithful servants of men for the Lord’s sake.’68Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 42; CJ vi. 236b. Once resumed, Blake’s blockade of Kinsale continued to contain Rupert until he escaped to Portugal in October. It seemed to Cromwell, however, that Blake’s talents would be even more usefully deployed on land and in September 1649 he offered him the position of major-general of foot in Ireland.69HMC Leyborne-Popham, 35, 38; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 118. Parliament gave Blake permission to change jobs if he so wished.70CJ vi. 301a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 328. As he observed to Popham

It was a strange surprise – greater than that of my present employment which although it was extremely beyond my expectations as well as merits I was soon able to resolve upon by your counsel and friendship. This resolution remains the same and I pray you that if the motion be not yet made public you will interpose your interest for the prevention of it or to oppose it if it shall be, that I may not be brought to that great unhappiness as to waive any resolution of Parliament, which in this case I shall be constrained to do.71Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 46.

His only desire was ‘from my heart to serve Parliament in anything I can’.72Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 46. Unsurprisingly, he declined Cromwell’s offer.

On 3 January 1650 the Rump confirmed Blake, Popham and Deane in office as the generals-at-sea for another year.73CJ vi. 342b; HMC Leyborne Popham, 56. In early March Blake pursued Rupert and the royalist fleet to Portugal, where Popham later joined him with reinforcements and authorisation to attack.74Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 59-60; CJ vi. 437a-b. Amid deteriorating relations with the king of Portugal, John IV, on 14 September Blake intercepted a fleet of Portuguese ships returning from Brazil and captured seven of them.75Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 63-4. This success was reported to Parliament on 6 November.76CJ vi. 491a-b. However, in the meantime, Rupert took advantage of the diversion to slip out once again from his confinement in the Tagus. Blake followed him into the western Mediterranean.77CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 429-30; CJ vi. 511a. On 18 December Parliament heard that seven weeks earlier Blake had written to the council of state assuring them that he would pursue Rupert ‘as far as Providence shall direct’.78Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 65; CJ vi. 511a. During the first week of November Blake had already caught up with part of Rupert’s fleet off Spain, and had destroyed, captured or scattered them.79Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 69-70. Although Rupert himself was elsewhere, any major threat from him was over. News of this victory was greeted with delight when it reached Westminster on 8 January 1651. Parliament sent him a letter of thanks and ordered the Committee of Accounts to determine what arrears were owed to him.80CJ vi. 520a-521a. Blake arrived back in England on 10 February. Three days later he reported to Parliament in person on his success. His fellow MPs voted him a reward of £1,000.81CJ vi. 534a; CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 86, 552. Later that month they passed the bill extending the tenures of the three generals-at-sea for another year.82CJ vi. 537b-538a, 543b; A. and O.

Blake’s first mission during 1651 was to capture the Isles of Scilly, which, as a remaining royalist outpost under the command of Sir John Grenville, were a potential base for royalist privateers. The Dutch admiral, Maarten Harpertszoon Tromp, was also known to be operating in the area. By late May Blake had forced Grenville to surrender.83Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 99-104; CJ vi. 587a. In August, when John Disbrowe* and his regiments were sent to Reading, Blake was seconded to take over his command of the forces on land in the south west.84CSP Dom. 1651, p. 312. However, Popham’s death on 19 August meant that Blake could not be spared and so he was almost immediately sent back to re-join the fleet.85CSP Dom. 1651, p. 357. A month later he was ordered to provide naval support for the invasion of Jersey. On 26 October he wrote to Lenthall reporting that they had landed, causing the royalist bailiff and lieutenant-governor, Sir George Carteret†, to abandon all of the island except Elizabeth Castle.86Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 111-12; CJ vii. 31b. Guernsey was taken the following month.

None of this harmed Blake’s chances when Parliament then held the elections for the new council of state. In the second round of balloting, held on 25 November 1651, he gained a place with 42 votes, towards the bottom of the list of successful candidates.87CJ vii. 42b-43a. He attended the council meetings regularly between December 1651 and early March 1652 when he was still in London.88CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. xxxv-xxxviii. During that period he was also appointed to a number of council sub-committees, including (unsurprisingly) those on the ordnance, the admiralty and foreign affairs.89CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 43, 46, 54, 76, 85, 94. Quite possibly at his prompting, on 10 February 1652 Parliament ordered the collectors of prize goods to complete the process of passing his accounts for the prizes seized from the Portuguese in 1650.90CJ vii. 85b.

With many in the English government and Parliament eager for a military conflict with their main commercial rivals the Dutch, on 19 May, in a staged encounter in the Channel, Blake challenged Admiral Tromp to acknowledge him by striking his flag. When Tromp refused, the two exchanged fire. Blake’s letter to Lenthall written the following day ended with the almost arrogant observation that the Dutch had now provided them with a pretext for war.91Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 159. Parliament’s response on 21 May was to order that he be formally thanked by the council of state.92CJ vii. 158-9; Ludlow, Mems. i. 313. Blake spent July in the North Sea trying to intercept the Dutch East India fleet.93CJ vii. 150a, 161b. Then, on 28 September, he and William Penn† achieved a messy victory over the Dutch at the Kentish Knock.94Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 176-80; CJ vii. 188b-189a.

On 26 November 1652 Parliament heard that two days earlier Blake had again spotted the Dutch in the Channel.95Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 182-3; CJ vii. 222a. MPs then voted to reappoint Blake and Deane as the generals-at-sea for another year, with George Monck* being appointed to join them for the first time.96CJ vii. 222a. But on 30 November Tromp defeated Blake in a battle off Dungeness – a defeat made much worse by the fact that some of the English ships declined to take part. Humiliated, Blake offered his resignation to the admiralty commissioners.97Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 184-6. He had no choice but to retreat to the Downs and to allow Tromp to sail on unhindered to the Ile de Ré.98Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 186-8. As he explained in a letter read to Parliament on 6 December, ‘this fleet, so weak and unresolved as it is, is in no way capable of making opposition’ and there was ‘no other place safe or fit for the speedy reinforcement and reformation of it’. That might ‘be done if your honours [the council of state] please (to quicken all hands) in a short time, and we again enabled to look the enemy in the face’.99Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 188; CJ vii. 226a.

The warning was largely heeded. By February 1653 the fleet was ready to re-engage with the Dutch. Before sailing, Blake and Deane informed Parliament that they were ‘very deeply sensible of the extraordinary importance of the present service in hand, the high expectations raised about it, and the obligation of the great trust reposed in us.’100Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 203; CJ vii. 259a. Off Portland on 18 February they duly defeated Tromp. However, an injury sustained by Blake during the battle exacerbated existing conditions and forced him to spend much of that spring and summer on shore, although he was present at the culmination of the next major English victory, the battle of the Gabbard on 2 and 3 June.101Sydney Pprs. ed. R.W. Blencowe (1825), 139, 165; CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 199, 213, 218, 224.

Blake was then the most eminent of the four Somerset representatives summoned to sit in the 1653 Nominated Parliament. However, the recurrence of his ill health prevented him attending its opening months.102CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 7, 9, 13, 15, 17. It was in his absence that on 8 August, at the suggestion of the council of state, he and Monck were awarded gold chains by Parliament in recognition of their success at the Gabbard.103CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 7; CJ vii. 296b; Burton’s Diary, i. p. vii. When he finally took his seat on 10 October, the House thanked him ‘for his great and faithful services to the Parliament, and this Commonwealth’.104CJ vii. 332b; Burton’s Diary, i. p. xii. The following December they re-appointed Blake and Monck as the generals-at-sea, adding Disbrowe and Penn to serve alongside them.105CJ vii. 361a, 362a; Soc. Antiq. MS 444A, ff. 9v-10; CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 280. Meanwhile, he had made no visible contribution to the Parliament.

Following the conclusion of peace with the Dutch in the spring of 1654, on 14 July Blake was elected as the MP for Bridgwater for the first protectoral Parliament. However, he was absent in service for its entirety. His long voyage between August 1654 and October 1655 was spent mostly in the Mediterranean, trying to hamper the French attempts to take Naples and trying to protect English shipping from the Algerian corsairs. With Britain now at war with Spain, he and Edward Montagu II* were sent in the spring of 1656 to assist the Portuguese and to harry Spanish shipping. While away, Blake was elected as MP for Taunton (Disbrowe instead taking the Bridgwater seat), but, as in the previous Parliament, he never took this seat.106TSP v. 302, 303; Som. Assize Orders, ed. Cockburn, 74. Nonetheless, from a distance Blake made possible one of the great set piece occasions this Parliament witnessed. On 28 May 1657 John Thurloe* informed the Commons that one of Blake’s subordinates, Richard Stayner, had intercepted the Spanish treasure fleet off Santa Cruz on Tenerife. This was the most sensational coup by the English navy of the mid-seventeenth century. The Commons immediately ordered that Blake should be rewarded with a jewel worth £500.107CJ vii. 541a-b; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iv. 548-9; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 34. Andrew Marvell* hailed the victory as ‘The saddest news that ere to Spain was brought’.108The Poems and Lttrs. of Andrew Marvell, ed. H.M. Margoliouth (Oxford, 1927), i. 119, l. 165. The following month, in the knowledge of the substantial riches then being shipping back to England, the Commons ordered that Blake’s brother, Alexander, the MP for Northamptonshire, should be paid £4,000 from the prize goods to cover Blake’s expenses.109CJ vii. 561a-b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 256.

Blake’s return to England ought to have been a public triumph. In a sense it was, but his health was deteriorating fast and on 7 August at about noon, as his flagship approached Plymouth, he died.110CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 57; Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 462-3. His state funeral was modelled on that of his old friend and colleague, Richard Deane, four years earlier.111CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 60-1, 179. The body lay in state in the Queen’s House at Greenwich and was then taken by barge on 4 September to Westminster, where it was buried in Henry VII’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey.112Add. 12514, f. 234; Westminster Abbey Regs. 150. Blake had never married -- some said he was a misogynist – and he left no children. His will, which he had made at sea before sailing to Spain in March 1656, divided most of his wealth between his brothers, with the lands at Puriton going to Humphrey and his house in Bridgwater to Benjamin. The gold chain he had received from the Nominated Parliament was left to his nephew, Robert, son of his brother, Samuel. Two bequests of £100 each were made to the poor of Bridgwater and Taunton, the two boroughs he had represented in Parliament.113PROB11/267/111; Lttrs. of Robert Blake, 342-5.

On hearing the news of Blake’s death, Bulstrode Whitelocke* had written that he had been ‘a man of as much gallantry and sincerity as any in his time, and as successful’.114Whitelocke, Diary, 474. This is a sentiment few have ever disputed. Four years later, after the Restoration, Blake’s body was among those disinterred from Westminster Abbey.115Westminster Abbey Regs. 521-3. But since then he has always been remembered as one of the great heroes of English naval history, outshone perhaps only by Nelson – a bluff sailor and patriot, with a particular appeal to those who viewed that past in imperialistic terms. One of Cromwell’s earliest biographers, writing in 1660, claimed that Blake had declared, ‘’Tis not our duty to mind state affairs, but to keep foreigners from fooling us.’116The Perfect Politician (1660), 318. Yet, in reality, Blake was a true product of the civil war, as radical and as godly as many of his former comrades who had been shaped by their service in the parliamentarian armies of the 1640s. His celebrated accomplishments in the 1650s were undertaken principally in the hope of securing the survival of what they had previously achieved.