STANE, Dr William (1610-80), of Denny Abbey, Waterbeach, Cambs.

William Stane was the second son of Dr Richard Stane, a lawyer who resided at High Ongar in Essex. The family did not lack money, and Stane was educated generously for a younger son, studying medicine at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, for a decade in the 1630s and being admitted as a candidate at the Royal College of Physicians in 1639, and as fellow in October 1641.13Munck, Roll, i. 231. The Stane family seems to have been well connected within East Anglia, and William’s career would revolve around one of these connections – with the Cromwells. In the mid-1640s, Oliver Cromwell* treated the Stanes as friends. In a letter to William Stane, of January 1645, he signed himself ‘your loving father’ (although there seems to have been no formal kin relationship between them), and he entrusted William’s brother, Dr Richard Stane, with money to provide for his wife.14Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 282, 324. The origins of this friendship are probably to be found at Ongar, where the Stane’s neighbours included the Pallavicini family, who intermarried with the Cromwells.15Supra, ‘Edward Sedgewick’. Other points of contact included Cambridge University, where both Stane brothers studied, with Richard attending Cromwell’s old college, Sidney Sussex.16Al. Cant. The borough of Cambridge, where Cromwell was twice elected as MP in 1640, provided another link, as William Stane married Dorothy, daughter of William Knight, acquiring thereby not only an estate at nearby Waterbeach but also a close connection with dominant families in the town itself, including the Hobsons, Kitchingmans and Frenches.17Clay, Waterbeach, 79; VCH Cambs. ix. 246, 264; PROB11/393/136; W.C. Metcalfe, ‘Pedigree of Cambridgeshire Families’, The Gen. iii. 304; A. Barclay, Electing Cromwell (2011), ch. 8. Dorothy’s many East Anglian cousins included Thomas Parker of Anglesey Abbey, and her family owned right to fenlands near the Isle of Ely.18PROB11/393/136. The connection with Ely was strengthened by Richard Stane, who had, by the early 1640s, settled in the city, and Cromwell’s sister would lodge with him there in 1651.19Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 282. The mercurial career of William Stane can only be fully understood once this connection with Cromwell and his circle is fully appreciated.

William Stane’s earliest known patron was another East Anglian landowner, Lord Mandeville (Edward Montagu†). In August 1642, as the opposing forces mobilised for civil war, Stane was in Coventry. In a letter to Mandeville he reported on the royalist attempts to raise an army in the west midlands, advising that Parliament’s supporters should ‘enter into a covenant to adhere to my lord of Essex [Robert Devereux, 3rd earl] and the Parliament’ and persuade those in London to give a set sum ‘for two or three months in the case the war continues so long’ to raise 10,000 foot soldiers to oppose the king. He also took the opportunity to recommend ‘one Jonathan Goddard*’ to Mandeville as his replacement as physician to the army, until ‘my business will permit me to wait upon the army’. Stane had sent further reports of ‘occurrences’ in the Coventry area ‘in a letter directed to my Lord Saye or your lordship’.20PA, Willcocks MS 2/27. The mention of William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, is interesting, as it shows that Stane was broadening his network to include those outside his immediate East Anglian circle. Yet it would be entirely wrong to see the link with Saye as constituting ‘his longest – and most profitable – association’.21J.S.A. Adamson, ‘The English Nobility and the Projected Settlement of 1647’, HJ xxx. 573. In the early years of the war, Stane’s most useful patron was the 2nd earl of Manchester (as Mandeville became later in 1642). At first, Stane declined Manchester’s offer of a position as physician in the earl of Essex’s army, but in 1643 he agreed instead to become Manchester’s personal doctor, and by April 1644 he had been appointed auditor-general of the earl’s Eastern Association army.22Holmes, Eastern Assoc. 128; SP28/14, f. 145; SP28/17, f. 237. During the summer and autumn of 1644 Stane worked closely with Manchester and his senior officers, signing warrants and organising funding for the army, and he seems to have spent much of his time in London, leaving his deputy, Thomas Bristow, in charge of matters in the army’s camp.23SP28/17, f. 237; SP28/18, ff. 156, 165, 214, 227, 301; SP28/19, ff. 125, 297; SP28/20, f. 90; SP28/27, ff. 51-269. In August he was granted power of attorney to receive money on Manchester’s behalf.24SP46/106, f. 210.

From the autumn of 1644, Stane’s attachment to Manchester became increasingly compromised by his growing friendship with Oliver Cromwell, who, having served faithfully as the earl’s lieutenant-general, now became the his sternest critic. It has been argued that Stane supported neither side in the dispute, but surviving correspondence between Cromwell and the Stane brothers during this period suggests that his allegiances were already plain.25Holmes, Eastern Assoc. 216; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 282, 324. Stane’s connections with Cromwell during the mid-1640s were certainly more important than any relationship he may have enjoyed with other Independent grandees. In the summer of 1644, for example, Stane was part of a group which lobbied Viscount Saye, as master of the court of wards, for a grant of the Yorkshire lands of Sir William Savile*; but there is no indication that Stane was acting as a member of a ‘syndicate’ with Saye’s friends, nor that this was anything more than a financial venture on Stane’s part. Indeed his interest in the Savile estate was just another example of speculative ventures undertaken by Stane in the 1640s, including the Irish Sea Adventure and the ‘discovery’ of other delinquent estates for profit.26WARD9/556, pp. 622, 693, 776, 802; C142/774/17; Bottigheimer, Eng. Money and Irish Land, 191; CCC 1167-8; cf. Adamson, ‘Projected Settlement’, 574.

Stane was also becoming embroiled in political controversy at this time. In June 1645 he was accused of playing a part in the secret negotiations masterminded by the royalist agent, Lord Savile (Sir Thomas Savile†), although his role in the affair is far from clear.27Adamson, ‘Projected Settlement’, 574. In the investigation which followed, Oliver St John* said that Viscount Saye had spoken of Stane as ‘a fitting man to be sent to the Lord Newport according to his desires’; and Lord Savile’s examination also states that Stane was chosen by the royalist 1st earl of Newport when he requested ‘to have a man sent down to him’, adding that Saye ‘did name a person that the earl of Newport had named to him, who was a doctor in the earl of Manchester’s army’, who was then identified as William Stane.28PA, Main pprs. June-July 1645, ff. 223v, 232. Viscount Saye himself, in his statement about the affair, described Stane as ‘the man named by the Lord Newport’, whom he trusted to treat not only with the Independents but also with Lord Goring (George Goring*). Stane’s involvement in the affair may have owed something to his connections with the county of Essex – Newport was the half-brother of the influential Essex landowner, the 2nd earl of Warwick (Sir Robert Rich†) – as much as to his acquaintance with Viscount Saye or other leading Independents. But neither explanation is entirely convincing. What can be said for certain is that during the summer of 1645 Stane, having cut his connections with Manchester, had assumed a new, dangerous role as an agent and conspirator. His paymasters remain obscure; but it may be important that at this time John Lilburne warned Cromwell not to put too much trust in Stane, whom he considered ‘a juggling knave’.29J. Lilburne, Jonahs Cry Out of the Whales Belly (1647), 8 (E.400.5). How far Cromwell knew and approved of Stane’s involvement in the Savile affair is therefore open to speculation.

Despite his involvement in conspiracy, Stane seems to have had little trouble in securing his political survival. On the disbandment of the Eastern Association army in the spring of 1645 he had retained his post as auditor-general in the New Model army; and by September 1645 he had been appointed commissary-general of the musters by Sir Thomas Fairfax*.30CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 168. With Manchester side-lined, Stane courted Fairfax, probably using his existing connections with the former Eastern Association officers, and especially Cromwell, to gain the general’s trust. A later hostile commentator denounced ‘that sneaking sycophant Stane, who now makes a monopoly of the general’s favour’, and there is little doubt that at end of 1645 their relationship was already very close.31Monthly Mercury no. 1 (7 Oct.-8 Nov. 1648), 8 (E.526.28). In November of that year there were reports that Stane was being employed by Fairfax as a negotiator with royalists, this time going to visit Lord Goring in France, to discuss his possible defection.32CCSP i. 287. In August 1647, Fairfax included Stane on the influential general committee of officers.33Clarke Pprs. i. 223-4; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, 122. Stane’s closeness to Fairfax, and his friendship with Cromwell, also determined his involvement, in July 1647, in negotiations between the army and the Independents over the ‘projected settlement’ with the king, which resulted in the presentation of the ‘Heads of the Proposals’ to Charles on 23 July.

The details of these clandestine negotiations are necessarily unclear. On 6 July Sir Lewis Dyve†, incarcerated in the Tower of London, told the king to expect a visit from Stane and his colleague, Scoutmaster-general Leonard Watson, warning that ‘there are not two more dangerous dissembling fellows in the army’.34Life and Lttrs. of Sir Lewis Dyve, 65-6. On 19 July Dyve reported that Stane was back in London, ‘to negotiate with Sir Henry Vane the younger [Sir Henry Vane II*], Mr [Oliver] St John the solicitor, and the Lord Wharton and some other leading men of their faction in both Houses, to advance their own dangerous design, wherein some of the officers of the army, not without just cause, are suspected to be of the same confederacy’.35Life and Lttrs. of Sir Lewis Dyve, 68. In a later letter, Dyve identified Cromwell as the leading army officer in cahoots with the Independents at Westminster.36Life and Lttrs. of Sir Lewis Dyve, 84. Sir John Berkeley’s account of the same period again identifies Stane, with Watson and Colonel Nathaniel Rich*, as those who attended the king with ‘a draft of proposals, which [Henry] Ireton* had drawn, which would certainly be voted by the whole army … and if his majesty would consent to them there would be an end of all difficulties’.37Add. 29869, f. 5. Both accounts point to Oliver Cromwell as the man behind Stane’s visit to the king and the subsequent negotiations with the Independents of both Houses.38Cf. Adamson, ‘Projected Settlement’, 573-6, 601. Stane’s involvement with Cromwell was now well known, and those who distrusted attempts to find settlement with the king, such as Lilburne, again warned the lieutenant general not to trust his ‘chief counsellors’, including Stane, who ‘I will justify it, and am confident, will deceive you in the day of trial’.39Jonahs Cry, 8-9. This fits with the earl of Clarendon’s [Edward Hyde’s*] comments that in 1647 Stane and Watson held Cromwell’s ‘chief confidence’, and that both were ‘in good credit with Cromwell’.40Clarendon, Hist. iv. 271.

Despite his closeness to Cromwell and Fairfax, Stane’s activities as an agent damaged his reputation with some of the army officers. He was repeatedly portrayed as untrustworthy. In May 1648 an anonymous writer told Fairfax of Henry Vane II’s decision to support a treaty with the king, adding that ‘some honest men were fearful of his revolt of late, because Dr Stane and Scoutmaster-general Watson had been too conversant with him’.41Clarke Pprs. ii. 17. Fairfax was seen as having Stane ‘at his elbow’ in October 1648, and the doctor – ‘this heathen double-faced fellow’ – was accused of working on the general ‘to inculcate to him that authority ought not to be resisted’, against the wishes of the more radical soldiery.42Monthly Mercury (7 Oct.-8 Nov. 1648), 8. Contemporary fears may have been heightened by rumours of Stane’s continuing involvement in secret negotiations. In November, Stane’s friend and former conspirator, Watson, wrote from Paris to an anonymous ‘brother Independent’ in London, reporting on political developments there, and especially the possibility of weaning the French away from their alliance with Charles I by making common cause with the frondeurs. In the letter Watson refers to Stane, who corresponded with him from London, and the two seem to have been working together once again, though there is no indication of the interest they were serving.43Clarendon SP, ii. 454-6; CCSP i. 448; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 335. Whatever the context of this letter, copies soon circulated in England and France, and knowledge of Stane’s continuing undercover work can have done little to appease his critics. As late as May 1650 Stane was again under suspicion, with some army officers raising doubts about his ‘affection’ to the commonwealth, but, with the power of Cromwell in the ascendant, the matter was not pursued.44CSP Dom. 1650, p. 171.

Stane’s career in the 1650s was more straightforward. He remained as commissary of the musters in 1649-50, and was active in sending recruits to Ireland to join Cromwell’s forces there.45CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 350, 424; 1650, pp. 6, 90. In the winter of 1650-1 he was acting in the same capacity for the army in Scotland, with John Baynes as his deputy.46Add. 21419, f. 248; SP28/76, f. 16; SP28/80, ff. 469-70, 492. Stane does not seem to have visited Scotland during his tenure as commissary-general, and his reliance on Baynes soon turned to friendship, as the deputy attested to his brother, Adam Baynes*, in their correspondence between 1652 and 1655.47Roundhead Officers ed. Akerman, 47-50, 103, 106, 120. John Baynes saw Stane (in October 1654) as among the ‘friends of the army’; and other associates in the early 1650s included his fellow Independent, Colonel John Jones*; but it is clear that his principal allegiance continued to be to Protector Cromwell and his family.48Roundhead Officers ed. Akerman, 103; ‘Inedited Letters’, ed. Mayer, 190-2. In his letters to the protector’s younger son, Henry Cromwell*, Stane repeatedly asked after the Cromwells, and their relatives in the Fleetwood and Russell families.49Henry Cromwell Corresp. 65, 94, 133, 162. In December 1655 he and his friend, Dr [Jonathan] Goddard, tended Cromwell’s daughter, Elizabeth Cleypole, in a serious illness, telling Henry that ‘Dr Goddard and I have sat up against each night; I never saw two parents so affected than my lord protector and her highness; truly my lady hath given a sweet testimony in this sickness if the Lord continue his love further’.50Henry Cromwell Corresp. 85.

Stane used his intimacy with the Cromwells to voice his religious and political views. As a staunch Independent, Stane wanted religious liberty to be extended to a wide range of Protestants. In September 1655 he advised Henry Cromwell to tolerate sectaries in the army, and ‘to take in such whom you find of the most quick and active spirit for God of all sorts, without distinction, other than what God hath put’.51Henry Cromwell Corresp. 65. He supported the creation of the major-generals in England and was eager to promote the interests of radical friends within the Irish army, recommending Matthew Thomlinson* and Jerome Sankey* to Henry Cromwell.52Henry Cromwell Corresp. 57-8, 84. The connection with the protector’s son-in-law, Lord Deputy Charles Fleetwood*, was particularly important to Stane in this period. In September 1655 he organised Fleetwood’s return journey from Chester to London, and in January 1656 he told Henry Cromwell that ‘my lord deputy now follows business hard: and indeed, it is no more than is needful, the work is great and the hands suitable to it, few’.53Henry Cromwell Corresp. 57-8, 93-4.

Despite bewailing the divisions between ‘good people’, as the protectorate continued Stane became closely identified with Fleetwood and his ally (and the Baynes’ patron), John Lambert*, who stood bitterly opposed to the moderate policies promoted by Henry Cromwell in Ireland.54Henry Cromwell Corresp. 132. It may be significant that Stane’s letters to Henry Cromwell suddenly stop in July 1656, just before the divisive second protectorate Parliament.55Henry Cromwell Corresp. 161-2. In January 1657 Stane was in London, where he wrote to Edward Montagu I* with news of the militia bill, and the ‘hard point’ of the continuation of the decimation tax on royalists.56Bodl. Carte 73, f. 22. In the same month General George Monck* wrote to Stane in London concerning the reduction of the Scottish army, and clearly saw him as a useful contact with the council’s army committee which included Fleetwood and Lambert.57Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS LI, f. 1. Indeed, association with the ‘army interest’ may have cost Stane his job. With the removal of Lambert from his military and civilian posts in July 1657, and the (temporary) decline in Fleetwood’s standing at court, Stane lost valuable patronage in the army; and in December he was replaced as commissary-general of the musters by Monck’s brother-in-law, Dr Thomas Clarges*.58Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS LII, f. 18 [of 2nd numbering].

Perhaps in reaction to this reversal of fortune, in the later 1650s Stane retreated to civilian life, setting up as a London physician, and being named as an ‘elect’ of the Royal College in June 1658.59Munck, Roll, i. 232. He still remained attached to the Cromwellian regime, however, and his election for Dunbartonshire, Argyllshire and Bute in January 1659 was presumably on the strength of this association and on the interest of George Monck. Stane was also returned for the Norfolk seat of Thetford, which he held with a cousin of the Cromwells, Robert Steward. There is no indication that Stane played any part in this Parliament. In July 1659 he was briefly restored to his position as commissary-general by the commonwealth regime, and his continuing influence in army circles is also suggested by the decision of Colonel Richard Lawrence’s regiment (in the Irish army) to choose Stane as its representative at the general council of the army in December 1659.60CSP Dom. 1659-60, 57, 81; A. Clarke, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland (Cambridge, 1999), 105. After the Restoration, Stane prudently retired from politics altogether. He became an increasingly prominent figure in the Royal College of Physicians, serving as censor from 1666, registrar from 1670, and consiliarius from 1669 until his death.61Munck, Roll, i. 232. His private practice flourished, and in 1669 he treated Bulstrode Whitelocke* ‘for his bloody water’.62Whitelocke, Diary, 748.

Stane died in 1680. He left no direct heirs, having lost one son in October 1654 and another (‘our last (and only) child’) in February 1656.63Roundhead Officers, ed. Akerman, 103; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 110. In his will, drawn up in February 1680, he left all his property to his wife, Dorothy, with bequests to medical friends, ejected clergy (‘the poor, that is such as labour in the word and gospel’), and other members of the extended Knight family. The bulk of the estate was, after his wife’s death, ‘to be disposed of to teaching children to read or work for their living or to poor children to put to apprentice – and in all charitable uses to have respect to their society whereof Dr [John] Owen* is pastor’. He also left £5 to the Independent divine for his personal use.64PROB11/362/418. Stane’s widow, who died in 1688, translated her husband’s instructions into a bequest of her own, to set up two ‘English Protestant schools’, equipped with Bibles and suitably godly books, in the parishes of Waterbeach and Little Gransden in Cambridgeshire.65PROB11/393/136.