IRETON, John (1615-90), of Warwick Lane, London.

The Iretons were originally a Derbyshire family (taking their name from the village of Little Ireton) but in the early seventeenth century Ireton’s father established a branch at Attenborough, Nottinghamshire.30Add. 6669, f. 106; Brown, Notts. Worthies, 181-2. As staunch puritans, the family were well known to the ecclesiastical authorities and Ireton’s parents were frequently reported for not following the rites of the established church.31R.W. Ramsay, Henry Ireton (1949), 2-3. In December 1634 John Ireton, as a younger son, was apprenticed to a London clothworker and having obtained his freedom in 1641 he set up in business in Paternoster Row.32Girtin, Golden Ram, 318. Although he remained in London during the first civil war, Ireton concentrated on his commercial interests during the early 1640s and apparently did not share the desire of his brother Henry Ireton* to become involved in military or political affairs. This may have been the result of lack of means, rather than absence of enthusiasm for the cause. In February 1645 he was assessed by the Committee for Advance of Money* as liable to pay £200, but this was respited a month later on the payment of a smaller sum until his debts were paid off.33CCAM 509. In August 1646 Ireton became involved on the fringe of the war effort when the Committee for Compounding appointed him to oversee the payment of £6,000 to parliamentary troops who were being reduced in his native Nottinghamshire.34CCC 43, 795. During this period, Ireton became well-known in Independent circles as a member of George Cokayne’s Independent congregation, a gathered church attended by other City radicals including Richard Tichborne*.35BDBR ii. 134-5; M. Tolmie, Triumph of the Saints (Cambridge, 1977), 103-4.

In December 1647 Ireton’s fortunes were transformed by the death of his father-in-law, Thomas Squire, who bequeathed to him ‘all the ... goods and chattels not before given’ to other beneficiaries, and made him his executor.36PROB11/202/663. Ireton took steps to maximise his own share of the inheritance and prosecuted a number of cases in the court of chancery to recover debts due to Squire.37C5/380/72. He also petitioned the Commons in March 1648 for repayment of £3,236 which had been borrowed from Squire for the use of Parliament and he secured an order for payment of £2,500 of this money out of such sequestered estates ‘as the said Mr John Ireton shall discover’.38Bodl. MS Dep. C.175, f. 353; HMC 13th Rep. pt. 1, p. 446; LJ x. 130a, 133a. No doubt inspired by this, Ireton became an active informer against delinquents in Worcestershire, Essex and London, although his main efforts were against John Maitland, 2nd earl of Lauderdale. As a result Ireton was given possession of Lauderdale’s house in Highgate and thus became lord of the manor of Cantelows in or after 1649.39CCAM 372, 949, 950-1, 1072, 1439; Varley, Highgate Worthies, 8-9. In 1650 Ireton also obtained part of ‘London House’, the bishop’s residence near St Paul’s Cathedral.40Sparrow Simpson, ‘Palaces… of Bishops of London’, 18-19. In the later 1640s and early 1650s he also speculated in recusant property with another London alderman.41CCAM 1008. He retained his interest in Nottinghamshire by purchasing the manor of Ratcliffe-upon-Soar from his cousin Colonel John Hutchinson*.42Noble, Mems. of the Protectoral House of Cromwell i. 445. During his brother Henry’s absence in Ireland from 1649 until his death in 1651, Ireton acted as an agent for his business concerns.43Add. 12098, f. 7.

In September 1651 Ireton entered civic politics when he was elected alderman for Bread Street ward, with the support of Samuel Moyer*.44CLRO, Rep. 61, ff. 220v-221; Beaven, Aldermen of London i. 50. In the court of aldermen Ireton soon formed an alliance with Robert Tichborne, Thomas Foot* and others who were championing the constitutional claims of the common council. A few months later he was chosen to serve as sheriff with Andrew Riccard*.45Beaven, Aldermen of London i. 50. When the plans were drawn up for the state funeral of Henry Ireton in December, it was suggested that Sheriff Ireton should be the chief mourner.46CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 386. At the funeral Ireton had to placate an irate Colonel Hutchinson who had been sent neither mourning nor a particular invitation, despite being one of the deceased’s nearest relations. At Hutchinson’s arrival

the alderman came to him making a great apology that they mistook and thought he was out of town and had much injured themselves thereby to whom it would have been one of their greatest honours to have had his assistance in a befitting habit, as now it was their shame to have neglected him.

Hutchinson’s wife, however, attributed the neglect to the influence over the Ireton family exercised by Oliver Cromwell*, Henry’s father-in-law.47L. Hutchinson, Mems. of the Life of Col. Hutchinson, ed. N.H. Keeble (1995), 250-1. On the death of another brother, Thomas, in the summer of 1652, John Ireton inherited an income of £100 a year and a further £50 ‘to buy him a horse’.48PROB11/224/341. His attempt to recover from the treasurer for the sale of bishops’ lands the full cost of converting London House into a prison was rejected by the Commons, who ordered, on 27 August 1652, that he should receive less than a quarter of the cost.49CJ vii. 170b-171a. In the City Ireton’s status increased further when he was made master of the Clothworkers’ Company in 1652, and he continued to champion the cause of the common council, even when it meant some personal loss.50Soc. Gen. Boyd’s Inhabitants, 15642. On 7 September he and Riccard appeared before the common council and declared that they ‘expected no allowances from this city but only that they should be discharged from the fee farm rents payable by the sheriffs formerly’. As this was less than the amount they should have received in salary the common council, not surprisingly, accepted their offer.51CLRO, Jor. 41, f. 74. Ireton, however, may have intended this action to stymie those who opposed the arrangements recently made by the common council for paying a salary to the chief city officeholders.

During the early 1650s Ireton also became more prominent in national affairs. In September 1652 he was appointed to the revived commission for articles to give relief to royalists denied benefits granted in their terms of surrender – an issue of concern to the army, which felt its honour to be at stake.52A. and O. In May 1653, shortly after the dissolution of the Rump Parliament, Ireton joined Tichborne as one of the aldermen appointed by the council of state to organize a collection to rebuild Marlborough which had been destroyed by fire.53CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 337; Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 508. Later in the month a City petition, condemning the dissolution of the Rump, although subscribed by only a small minority of the ‘City fathers’, was sufficient to raise suspicions about the loyalty of London, and it was said that ‘the army thinks not fit to trust them, at least not to have their [money] bags out of their power’.54Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 124; Bodl. Clarendon 45, ff. 435v-536v. It fell to Ireton to reassure them, and he ‘and some others met a committee of officers on Monday about it under the pretence of a dinner at Highgate, and on Wednesday they met publicly and by order at Guildhall’. The business was ‘not absolutely concluded’ and ‘the City is highly discontent’, but Ireton and his fellow aldermen had done their best to pour oil on troubled waters.55Bodl. Clarendon 45, ff. 435v-436v.

In June 1653 Ireton was summoned to attend the Nominated Assembly as one of the representatives for London, presumably selected for his prominence in the City, his membership of a suitably godly congregation, and his existing family links with Cromwell.56Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 126-7. In what may have been an acknowledgement of the latter connection, in July Ireton was one of those MPs given official lodgings at Whitehall.57CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 33. There are other indicators that Ireton was very much an insider in the months that followed. He assisted the council of state with the administration of justice in London, and the compounding and advance of money commissioners with several cases involving City delinquents.58CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 92; CCC 3151, 3158; CCAM 1440. Despite this, Ireton was no government lackey. Throughout the parliamentary session he consistently showed his radical streak by his open hostility towards the court of chancery and lay patronage of church livings, which contrasted with his more conservative attitude towards matters concerning revenue and trade. One of the first items of business to be considered by the assembly was the Rump’s ‘tyrannical enactment’ denying recourse to law to anyone who declined to take the Engagement to be faithful to the commonwealth, and on 8 July Ireton was named to the radical committee appointed to consider what action should be taken.59CJ vii. 283b. As MPs came to recognize that their small membership and even smaller fund of parliamentary experience created particular problems, Ireton was appointed to the committee to consider the best way of ordering the House’s business by committees on 14 July.60CJ vii. 285a. It was apparently on the recommendation of this committee that Ireton was appointed to committees for receiving petitions and on trade and corporations on 20 July.61CJ vii. 287a.

Ireton’s experience in fiscal and financial matters was frequently called upon in the months that followed. On 1 August he was added to the committee charged with inspecting the treasuries and attempting to find ways of reducing the burden of the excise, a tax opposed by many radicals.62CJ vii. 293b. On 23 August Ireton was named to a committee to consider houses belonging to the state and how they might be allocated, including as lodgings for MPs.63CJ vii. 306b. On 6 September, when amendments were reported to the bill for continuing the excise commission until the end of the year, Ireton opposed the motion, although it is not clear whether he supported a longer extension or no renewal at all. The tellers in favour included Ireton’s old associate, Robert Tichborne.64CJ vii. 315a; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 307n. Ireton was teller against two clauses in the bill to satisfy the Irish adventurers: the first proposing that the quit rents of Ireland should be remitted for five years (6 Sept.), and the second that exports might be custom-free for three years (8 Sept.). Ireton’s fellow tellers in these two divisions, Sir Gilbert Pykeringe and Charles Howard, were both supporters of Cromwell.65CJ vii. 315a, 315b. On 23 September Ireton was named to the committee for the better regulation of the customs.66CJ vii. 323b. Ireton opposed the policy of admitting royalists to a composition even though it provided a valuable source of revenue, and twice acted as teller against such an arrangement with the formidable countess of Derby, in opposition to leading Cromwellians such as Edward Montague II, Henry Lawrence I, Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper and Philip Jones.67CJ vii. 325a. Ireton was a supporter of law reform. On 15 October he acted as teller with Samuel Hyland, in a deeply divided House, in favour of the radical motion that proceedings in the court of chancery should be suspended for a month.68CJ vii. 335a. When the bill was presented to the House two days later he was again teller (this time with William Spence) in favour of passing it into law, but his group lost on the Speaker’s casting vote.69CJ vii. 335b.

Ireton’s activities in the next few weeks were less controversial. He was added to the committee for advancing money on 28 October.70CJ vii. 341b. In the elections for the council of state on 1 November, Ireton was one of those appointed to count the votes.71CJ vii. 343b. By the second half of November, however, Ireton was again pursuing a radical agenda. When the bill to renew the assessment was under consideration on 16 November, Ireton joined Robert Bennett in opposing the appointment of the moderate John Gorges* as a commissioner for Somerset.72CJ vii. 351a. In the debate on the right of lay patrons to present to benefices on 17 November, Ireton joined another radical, Thomas Blount, as a teller in favour of putting the bill for abolition before the House immediately, with their opponents being the more moderate Tichborne and Ashley Cooper.73CJ vii. 352a; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 318. Ireton also acted as teller in the minority on three occasions against clauses in the bill for the sale of royal forests between 18 and 22 November, once again opposing Cromwellians such as Montague, Pykeringe, Howard and Sir Charles Wolseley.74CJ vii. 352b, 355a. On 28 November, in what would be his last recorded appearance in the chamber, Ireton was teller with Blount in favour of granting the sequestered mastership of St John’s College, Cambridge, into the hands of one John Yates, and in this they were opposed by Wolseley and Ashley Cooper.75CJ vii. 359a.

After the dissolution of the Nominated Assembly and the foundation of the protectorate in December 1653, Ireton was more accommodating than some of his radical colleagues, perhaps as a result of his personal connection with Cromwell. Ireton was included in the London oyer and terminer commission in January 1654 and over the next few months he was occasionally called upon to advise the protectoral council, particularly on matters concerning London.76C181/6, p. 2. In February he was asked to report to the protectoral council on what had been done previously in the case of Dr John Bastwick; in the same month he joined Christopher Packe* and others in reporting the compensation still owed to another victim of Laudian oppression, Peter Smart; and in May a petition from the ‘meal men’ of London and Southwark was referred to Ireton and other aldermen.77CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 385; 1654, pp. 139, 315. In June he successfully petitioned the protector for the satisfaction of the costs of converting London House to a prison, denied to him by the Long Parliament.78CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 209-10, 241, 263. As an alderman, Ireton attended the Guildhall for the election of the London Members to the first protectorate Parliament in 1654, and although he was one of those nominated, he was not returned as MP.79Harl. 6180, ff. 164-5. As a justice of the peace for Middlesex, he was an enthusiastic upholder of the law and in January 1655 the council had to intervene to release a horse and rider employed by the postmaster general, detained by Ireton for travelling on the Sabbath.80CSP Dom. 1655, p. 22. Nevertheless there are some indications that Ireton was not happy with all aspects of policy in the early years of the protectorate, particularly in matters of religion. The imprisoned Fifth Monarchist preacher, John Rogers, was on good terms with Ireton and his friends, and praised them as men ‘of such merit and singular honour among the choicest saints, for their unspotted sanctity and integrity to the betrayed truth and cause of Christ’. Ireton and other friends of Rogers, including Thomas Harrison I* and John Carew*, attended Cromwell to plead on his behalf in February 1655.81E. Rogers, Some Account of the Life and Opinions of a Fifth Monarchy Man (1867), 219-20; Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 615.

Such sympathies did not lead to Ireton’s estrangement from the protectorate, however. In February 1655 he was appointed as a commissioner for the militia in London, and in the following months he was active in local government, considering cases referred to him by the council and, as a magistrate, conducting civil marriages.82Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 624; CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 94-5, 99; St Olave Hart St. Par. Reg. (Harl. Soc. xlvi), 273; St Matthew Friday St. Par. Reg. (Harl. Soc. lxiii), 59. He also supplied the protector and council with ‘wares and commodities’, for which he received £150 13s. on 21 June 1655.83CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 232, 606. On 4 January 1656 he was added to the council’s trade committee and the following month the council recommended that he should be appointed to the excise commission.84CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 100, 189. He was an active member of the latter by the end of July.85CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 42. By this time, Ireton had become a firm supporter of the regime. On 25 March 1656 he had been made a commissioner for securing the peace of the commonwealth, assisting the deputy major-general for London, John Barkstead*.86CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 238. In the following August Ireton, was involved in the arrest of a man suspected of speaking treasonous words against the protector.87CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 58. At the end of November he was appointed a commissioner for the security of the protector.88A. and O. In May 1657 he was busy collecting information about those involved in publishing the pamphlet Killing No Murder, which argued that the assassination of Cromwell was both lawful and desirable.89TSP vi. 317-8. In March 1658 there was another security scare, as the government received information that the marquess of Ormond was in London, trying to enlist support for a royalist uprising. The City was put into a state of readiness, and Ireton and the other friends of the protectorate immediately set to work to thwart him. Within a few days they had also drawn up a loyal address which a deputation (including Ireton) presented to the protector on 17 March.90CLRO, Jor. 41, ff. 170-1. Five days later, on 22 March, Ireton was knighted by Cromwell at Whitehall.91Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 224; Abbott, Writings and Speeches iv. 768; Clarke Pprs. iii. 145. Ireton continued to give material support to the government and in May the council heard that he had now lent a total of £2,500, of which only £570 had been repaid.92CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 17. In August Ireton married Elizabeth Sleigh, the wealthy widow of one of his former colleagues on the aldermanic bench, although she was careful to procure an indenture retaining power over her own wealth and property.93PROB11/384/22.

In October 1658 Ireton reached the pinnacle of his career in City politics when he was elected lord mayor, an event celebrated ‘with great pomp’.94CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 257; J. Tatham, Londons Tryumph (1658), Sig. A2. One of his first official engagements was to take part in the procession at Cromwell’s state funeral on 23 November, and he used his influence with the Clothworkers’ Company to persuade them to provide £164 for a lavish display of standards and banners.95Burton’s Diary ii. 526; J. Prestwich, Respublica (1787), 201-3. Otherwise, in the opening months of Richard Cromwell’s* protectorate Ireton seems to have remained distant from national politics, concentrating instead on the City, where he set about filling up the vacant seats on the aldermanic bench.96Beaven, Aldermen of London i. 40, 133, 141. Ireton apparently struggled to transfer his loyalty from the old protector to the new, and he was reputedly unhappy about the return of Presbyterians as MPs for London in January 1659.97Oxford DNB, 'John Ireton'. In the spring, as the relationship between Richard Cromwell and the revived council of officers became more strained, Ireton and Tichborne joined forces in an attempt to bring the City and its militia into line with the army. In April they supported Cromwell’s brother-in-law, Charles Fleetwood*, in his move to dissolve Parliament in defence of the ‘good old cause’.98Guizot, Richard Cromwell i. 373. According to one source

Tichborne and Ireton, two aldermen of London and principal commanders of that militia, drew up likewise another remonstrance which they sent to the council of officers; in which they declared their resolutions with the army to stick to the good old cause, and they were resolved to accompany them in whatsoever they should do for the nation’s good.99Clarendon, Hist. vi. 101-2.

Such radicalism came at a price. Royalist agents soon reported that the army’s contempt of Richard Cromwell had ‘amazed all hearers’ and that ‘the City are universally enraged against their Lord Mayor and Tichborne for their compliance as tis possible for men to be’.100Bodl. Clarendon 60, f. 465. But Ireton, determined to overcome any opposition, cashiered the officers of the city militia ‘whose principles were of a different character’ to his own.101Guizot, Richard Cromwell i. 373; R. Hutton, The Restoration (Oxford, 1986), 47. He also joined with other commonwealthsmen in London to organize a petition for a further purge of the city militia, which was presented to the restored Rump on 9 May. In the turmoil, rumours abounded: on the one hand royalists reported that Ireton and Tichborne, ‘the two city jugglers’, were using their interest to ‘preserve the City for themselves’; on the other, it was claimed that Ireton was imprisoned by the army because he had not implemented army orders quickly enough: but as Ireton continued to support the army’s demands this seems unlikely.102Beaven, Aldermen of London ii. 182; HMC 10th Rep. pt. vi. 199; HMC Bath ii. 132. He persuaded the City to prepare a ‘petition and address’ asking for religious liberty, speedier litigation and confirmation of the City’s traditional privileges, which was presented to Parliament on 2 June.103Hutton, Restoration, 47; CJ vii. 671a. He was in contact with Fleetwood at this time, on the evening of 6 June sending him a letter warning of Fifth Monarchist broadsheets circulating in London against the army, ‘brought to my hand by some citizens, seeming to be much amazed and alarmed thereby’.104Bodl. Tanner 51, ff. 73-4. Unable to drum up enough support in the court of aldermen for a loan to enable the Rump to pacify the army by paying some of their arrears, ‘the conformitant mayor’ had more success in the common council, ‘where the business after great debate was carried in the affirmative, that they would supply the present necessities of the state’.105Nicholas Pprs. iv. 163. On 7 July Ireton was appointed a commissioner for reorganizing the London militia and on 16 July Parliament approved his appointment as colonel of the newly raised city regiment of horse.106A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 10, 32; CJ vii. 720b. Although the initial success of Sir George Boothe’s* rebellion in Cheshire encouraged discontented groups in London, Ireton dealt effectively with any opposition by apprehending all suspects. He sent frequent reports to Thomas Scot I*, Charles Fleetwood and other members of the council of state and was formally thanked for his diligence.107Bodl. Clarendon 63, ff. 53-4, 191-2, 196A, 227-8; Clarendon 64, ff. 41-2, 91-4, 116-7; CJ vii. 754a; Mayers, 1659, 85-6. It was, therefore, hardly surprising that the Venetian ambassador concluded that ‘the mayor and aldermen are almost all creatures of the government and morally hate his majesty and all who follow him’.108CSP Ven. 1659-61, p. 54. At the end of August there were rumours that a declaration for a free Parliament would be issued through the common council but Ireton, described by one opponent as ‘an Anabaptist, opposed to Presbyterians and entirely devoted to Parliament’, prevented this by informing the government, doubling the watch, and refusing to call a common council.109CSP Ven. 1659-61, p. 57.

With the danger of a rising in London averted, on 2 September the Commons decided to risk alienating City opinion by forcing Ireton’s re-election as mayor for another year ‘in relation to the safety of the commonwealth as of the City of London’.110CJ vii. 773a; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 360; cf. Mayers, 1659, 87-90. It was said that Ireton ‘would fain have been in another year out of his love to the place and to its good masters in the Rump’, but the aldermen and common council were in no mood to comply and began a campaign of steady, persistent and ultimately successful opposition.111Mystery of the Good Old Cause (1660), 46 (E.1923.2); CLRO, Rep. 66, f. 310v. On 28 September, the day before the mayoral election, the House considered two petitions, one from Ireton and one from the City, and eventually decided in favour of reconciliation with the City by 38 votes to 13. Ireton’s petition was referred to the committee of inspections and, probably as some form of recompense, he was appointed to the excise commission.112CJ vii. 787b, 788a. The following day the City showed its independence by electing the royalist Thomas Alleyn as its new lord mayor. The Venetian ambassador reported that Ireton ‘was not liked by any of the citizens, indeed he is universally detested’, but even royalists were prepared to admit that ‘the House was not to be blamed if they desired the continuance of Ireton, for he hath served well of them: for had it been any but he we should have had great troubles in the City’.113CSP Ven. 1659-61, pp. 70-1; Bodl. Clarendon 67, ff. 97-8. After Alleyn's election the more ardent commonwealthmen withdrew from the city government, and of the 144 meetings which were held before the restoration, Ireton attended only one.114D.C. Elliot, ‘Elections to the Common Council of the City of London’, Guildhall Studies in London Hist. iv. (1981), 142n, 152.

Royalist satirists made the most of Ireton’s discomfiture. A mock oration portrayed Ireton as a hypocrite, who ‘cheated the people’ in his trade and his religion, who chided the citizens for their lack of manners: ‘I am sure you have chosen a thousand mayors, and you might have given the Parliament leave to choose one’.115Mr John Ireton’s Oration at the Choosing of the new Mayor (1659), 3. Another pointed out that Ireton still had important friends on the council of officers and he had ‘played so well that the chief gamesters would not leave him nor his good brother Tichborne out of their committee of safety, who were to give them aim against the City’.116Mystery of the Good Old Cause, 46. Ireton’s appointment to the committee of safety was confirmed on 26 October, and he took his place alongside Fleetwood as well as Tichborne.117Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 366; HMC 3rd Rep., 89. This attracted yet more jibes, with one pamphlet published in early November describing the London militia as being in the hands of ‘the City cuckolds’, with Ireton ‘appointed to lead up the van’.118The Game is Up, or 31 New Queries (5 Nov. 1659), 6 (E.1005.12). When General George Monck’s* letter to the City was delivered at the end of November, Ireton and Tichborne tried to persuade the authorities to arrest the messengers but when their motion was defeated they reportedly ‘swelled for anger like to toads that the letter was read’.119Bodl. Clarendon 67, ff. 35, 47.

By the beginning of December 1659, Ireton’s period of influence had come to an end. When a City committee was formed to protect London’s interests it was resolved that ‘they would not permit Alderman Tichborne nor Alderman Ireton into their society’.120Diurnal of Thomas Rugg, ed. W. L. Sachse (Camden Soc. 3rd ser. iii), 16. Although ‘not valued in London’, the committee of safety still held Ireton and Tichborne in ‘very high esteem’ and both men were among the conservators appointed to draw up a list of business to be considered by the second restored Rump on 16 December.121Rugg Diurnal, ed. Sachse, 17. With the collapse of the army interest and the restoration of the Rump, Ireton’s remaining influence evaporated. At the end of the month he lost his place on the excise commission.122CJ vii. 798a. During January 1660 the City’s opposition to military rule became more pronounced the militia was purged of Ireton and others associated with the army.123G. Davies, The Restoration of Charles II (1955), 257. Ropes were hung at the doors of both Ireton and Tichborne and several ‘jeering’ pamphlets were issued by their opponents.124Hutton, Restoration, 88. In April both men were briefly imprisoned by the council of state but were released after promising ‘to live peaceably under the present government’.125CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 574, 575; HMC 5th Rep., 167; HMC Var. v. 171.

Despite his implacable opposition to the monarchy, Ireton took part in the cavalcade when Charles II made his entrance into London at the end of May 1660, ‘which was exceedingly wondered at’.126Noble, Mems. of the Protectoral House of Cromwell i. 445 In the same period a royalist pamphleteer denounced him as ‘always since the beginning a true servant in rebellion, an enemy to the monarchy and served the Rump’. In June Ireton was excepted from the act of pardon, but his punishment was limited to a ban from holding public office for life, and he lost his seat on the aldermanic bench in August.127Exact Account no. 99 (8-15 June 1660), 975 (E.186.4); Beaven, Aldermen of London i. 50. The earl of Lauderdale was quick to demand the restoration of his Highgate properties and on 30 November the Lords issued an order for their return.128HMC 7th Rep., 123, 135; LJ xi. 193a, 195b. Ireton was suspected of conspiring against the government and he was arrested with John Wildman*, James Harrington and others in November 1661.129Eg. 3349, ff. 12, 74; HMC 11th Rep. pt. vii. 3; Pepys’s Diary ii. 225. In January 1662 there were further allegations of plots, and Ireton was named with other London radicals, including Samuel Moyer and Praise-God Barbon.130W. Kennet, Register and Chronicle (1728), 601-2; Ludlow, Voyce, 291. In July Ireton and Wildman were sent from the Tower to the Scilly Isles, where, it was reported, they expressed to ‘dislike their change from the Tower but pretend innocence and expectation of discharge’.131E404/56, f. 119; Eg. 3349, ff. 85v, 111, 115. Although Ireton was later released, his activities remained under government scrutiny. In 1664 he was one of 13 ‘fanatics’ reported to be attending a conventicle at East Sheen led by the ejected Independent minister, Thomas Brooks.132CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 144; Oxford DNB, 'John Ireton'. That same year the government obtained a judgment against him in the court of king’s bench for failing to return Charles I’s jewelled Garter.133KB27/1866, rot. 1790 dorse; SP29/125, f. 69; SP44/22, f. 98v; E. Ashmole, Institution, Laws and Ceremonies of the most Noble Order of the Garter (1672), 204; A. Barclay, ‘Recovering Charles I’s art collection’, HR lxxxviii. 637-8. In August 1665 Ireton was again committed to the Tower for ‘dangerous and seditious practices’, but the length of his imprisonment on this occasion is uncertain.134CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 508. His excise accounts were finally approved in 1676, but he continued to be hounded by the authorities.135CTB v. 309. When his son was arrested in 1684 suspicion also fell on Ireton and he was imprisoned for ‘high treason in holding correspondence with traitors beyond sea’ (6 May 1685).136CSP Dom. 1683-4, p. 335; SP29/437/48-9; N. Luttrell, Brief Hist. Rel. of State Affairs i. 340. Ireton’s wife died the following year and chose to be buried beside her first husband. Although she was a wealthy woman, most of her money went to the offspring of her first marriage, with an additional bequest to the Independent divine, George Griffiths, and she left Ireton only what he could recover from her debts – with the caveat that if he contested the will he was to receive ‘£10 only and no more to be paid six months after my decease and £10 for mourning’.137PROB11/384/22. Ireton died in obscurity and was buried on 16 March 1690 in the church of St Bartholomew the Less. Administration of his estate was granted to his son, Henry.138St Bartholomew the Less par. reg.; PROB6/66, f. 54v.