CLAYPOOLE, John (1625-88), of Hampton Court, Mdx. and Northborough, Northants.

Claypoole, as he signed himself, married Oliver Cromwell’s favourite daughter at Ely in January 1646, when she was in her seventeenth year and her father was Parliament’s lieutenant-general of horse.23Sig: 'John Claypoole', SP29/3, f. 44. Her marriage portion, of £1,250, was generous in the circumstances, for Claypoole was an undistinguished Northamptonshire squire’s son.24Northants. RO, F(M) Charter/2147; Abbott, Writings and Speeches i. 398. Although it was later claimed that he served as a parliamentary officer at the siege of Newark in the winter of 1645-6, there is no contemporary evidence to support this, and Claypoole’s connection with the Cromwells may have been social rather than military, based on friendship between Oliver and Claypoole's father, or a common connection with the Russells of Chippenham in Cambridgeshire.25Oxford DNB; Abbott, Writings and Speeches i. 33. After his marriage, Claypoole followed his father on to the county assessment commission (from April 1649) and the magistrates’ bench (by February 1650), and in August 1651 he was commissioned as a captain to raise volunteer cavalry in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire to meet a possible invasion by Charles Stuart.26A. and O.; C193/13/3, f. 48v; CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 316, 326, 330, 516. In the same year, Cromwell expressed concerns at the frivolity of the young couple, telling his wife that ‘Bettie’ was too easily ‘cozened with worldly vanities and worldly company, which I doubt she is too subject to’. The culprit was not hard to discern: ‘I earnestly and frequently pray for her and for him. Truly they are dear to me, very dear; and I am in fear lest Satan should deceive them … The Lord give them truth of heart to Him. Let them seek Him in truth and they shall find Him’.27Abbott, Writings and Speeches ii. 405.

According to a later hostile account, Claypoole was ‘a long time kept out’ of office because he lacked these godly credentials, and only after Cromwell became lord protector in December 1653 was he ‘judged good enough for that dispensation’.28Second Narrative of the Late Parliament (1659), 9 (E.977.3). This is supported by Claypoole’s marked lack of success in securing employment during the Rump, despite his father-in-law’s growing influence. For example, Claypoole was rejected for the three-man commission for the sale of Dutch prizes in favour of one Robert Turpin on 27 July 1652.29CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 348. The protectorate was certainly the making of Claypoole. He was appointed as ‘gentleman of the horse’ in the protector’s household by March 1654, and master of the horse by September.30Sherwood, Court of Oliver Cromwell, 56. He played an active role in the preparation of the state apartments, the mews and stables at Whitehall ready for the protectoral family in the spring of that year.31CSP Dom. 1654, p. 32. In June 1654 he was appointed by the protector as keeper of the forests of Salset and Whittlewood in Northamptonshire.32Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 321-2. Before long Claypoole and his wife enjoyed lavish apartments of their own in Whitehall and Hampton Court, the latter including the archbishop of Canterbury’s former suit, converted as a nursery for their growing family.33Sherwood, Court of Oliver Cromwell, 60. Claypoole’s involvement in court matters riled the supporters of the Rump, and he and his brother-in-law, Henry Cromwell*, were denounced by Lucy Hutchinson as ‘two debauched, ungodly cavaliers’.34L. Hutchinson, Mems. of Col. John Hutchinson ed. Keeble (1995), 256.

As his father was a candidate for Northamptonshire, in the elections for the first protectorate Parliament Claypoole was found another seat at Carmarthenshire, where he had no interest of his own, but where Philip Jones* was very influential. At the state opening of Parliament he took part in the cavalcade from Whitehall to Westminster Abbey, ‘with a gallant led horse richly trapped’.35Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 133. He and his father were both named to the committee of privileges on 5 September.36CJ vii. 366b. The next three references to a Claypoole in the Journal for this Parliament are ambiguous: the ‘Mr Cleypole’ named to three committees, on scandalous ministers (25 Sept.), chancery reform (5 Oct.) and the Lincolnshire fens (31 Oct.), may have been his father.37CJ vii. 370a, 374a, 380a. Subsequently, all references are to ‘Lord Cleypole’, and these show him as a strong supporter of the ‘court party’ against Presbyterian attempts to subvert the Instrument of Government. He twice told for the yeas on 16 January 1655, in divisions over the terms of the new Government Bill. On the first occasion he joined Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle) as teller in favour of extending until 1659 the £700,000 a year allocated to the army; and on the second, with Lislebone Long, he failed by 31 votes to secure the concession that the bill should not pass without the protector’s consent.38CJ vii. 418a-b. Next day he was again teller with Broghill in another attempt to change the wording of the engrossed bill to ensure the protector and Parliament had to agree before the bill became law. This was defeated by 114 to 66.39CJ vii. 419a.

After the dissolution of Parliament, Claypoole settled back into the life of a fashionable courtier. In February 1655 he and Richard Cromwell* visited the royalist Sir Ralph Verney* in Buckinghamshire ‘to hunt the fox for a week’.40Verney Mems. ii. 2. In August he joined Charles Fleetwood*, Henry Lawrence* and others of the protector’s inner circle in entertaining the Swedish ambassador at Hampton Court in a day of hunting, bowls and music.41Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 802. In the same month he was organising the transport of Oldenburg horses for Henry Cromwell in Ireland.42Henry Cromwell Corresp., 56-7. In December he was present at the sumptuous feast provided for the French ambassador.43Swedish Diplomats, ed. Roberts, 215. The winter was a more sober affair, perhaps reflecting the bout of serious illness suffered by Lady Claypoole, which was described as a ‘great trial’ to the protector and his wife.44Henry Cromwell Corresp., 86, 94, 110. Claypoole was added to the committee of trade in January 1656, presumably because of his role in the horse trade, and in the next few months he was busy exporting horses to the continent.45CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 115, 577, 583. In February he was in Wiltshire with Richard Cromwell, presumably on a hunting trip.46Henry Cromwell Corresp., 110. Lady Claypoole, by now recovered from her illness, had reportedly had a change of heart, ‘whereby so much more religion shines with her wonted virtue and nobleness, as good men much rejoice’.47Henry Cromwell Corresp., 112. In this period she was also said to have ‘acted the life of a princess very naturally, obliging all persons with her civility and frequently interceding for the unhappy’ including the republican theorist, James Harrington, whose confiscated manuscript of Oceana was returned at her behest.48Oxford DNB. Henry Neville* in his satirical depiction of the Cromwellian circle playing ‘the royal game of picquet’, distributed in manuscript in September, saw Claypoole as dependent on his wife: ‘I have but one court card and she lies bare, I fear she will be snapped quickly’.49[H. Neville], ‘The Royal Game of Picquet’ (1656), unpag. (E.886.4).

In August 1656 Claypoole was returned for Northamptonshire with the support of the protectoral councillor, Sir Gilbert Pykeringe*.50Bodl. Top. Northants c.9, p. 109. He was also re-elected for Carmarthenshire, apparently again with Jones's support, and he may also have stood for Stamford with the backing of Edward Whalley*, although he was not elected for the latter seat.51TSP v. 296, 299; Henry Cromwell Corresp., 173. On 4 October Claypoole chose to sit for Northamptonshire and new writs were issued for the Welsh seat.52CJ vii. 434a. His committee appointments in the first month of the Parliament reflected his position as a courtier. He was named to the committee of privileges on 18 September, and chosen as a member of the delegation to attend Cromwell with a draft declaration ‘showing the grounds of the fast’ on 22 September.53CJ vii. 424a, 426b. On 26 September he was named to two committees, to consider the way to present bills to the protector and to consider the fate of the Portuguese prisoners held in custody in Exeter.54CJ vii. 429a. Thereafter Claypoole was also involved in a wide range of other matters, some of which had relevance for Northamptonshire. In October he was appointed to two religious committees, concerning sequestered parsonages and the maintenance of ministers throughout the country; and a few weeks later he was instrumental in bringing in a bill for the support of ministers in Northampton and he was named to the resulting committee.55CJ vii. 434a, 448b, 469a; Burton’s Diary i. 81. On 23 October he was added to the committee on the timber preservation bill, as was appropriate for the keeper of Salset and Whittlewood, and on 29 October he was named to the committee on a bill to take away the court of wards.56CJ vii. 444b, 447a. Claypoole was added to the committee on a bill against vagabonds on 13 November and a committee on a petition from doctors of civil law on 1 December.57CJ vii. 453b, 462b.

Claypoole toed the government line during the debates on the notorious Quaker, James Naylor, in December 1656. On 5 December he opposed George Downing’s proposal that Naylor be brought to the bar of the House the next morning, arguing that in doing so the Commons was claiming a judicial role that it did not possess: ‘besides the main objection, other questions will rise about the time, which you cannot determine now, and what you shall say to him when he comes?’.58Burton’s Diary i. 36. Claypoole was also concerned that the charges should not contravene protectoral policy on liberty of conscience. On 8 December he objected to Naylor being charged with ‘horrid’ blasphemy, and advised the House to define blasphemy before they judged Naylor, as ‘if he be only guilty of blasphemy – if you extend not a proportionable punishment – how strangely will this look upon your records?’, and demanded that blasphemy should first be defined. This greatly annoyed John Ashe, who ‘might have taken Lord Claypoole down, and at first, if he durst’ for not sticking to the question in hand.59Burton’s Diary i. 77. On 17 December Claypoole again took part in the debate, speaking in favour of Naylor being allowed to speak once again before he was sentenced.60Burton’s Diary i. 163. This was not the end of his interest in the matter, as in February 1657 he joined another councillor, Walter Strickland, as teller in favour of the House receiving a full report on the condition of Naylor, now languishing in prison.61Burton’s Diary i. 380.

The Naylor debate had seen Claypoole in a supporting role, but with the introduction of the militia bill on 25 December, he took centre stage. This divisive measure, introduced by the protector’s brother-in-law, John Disbrowe, was designed to secure and extend the decimation tax on royalists that funded the militia units controlled by the regional major-generals. When the question was put whether the extent of the tax should be considered, Claypoole ‘divided’ the House (25 Dec.).62Burton’s Diary i. 243. Official duties may have intervened at this stage, as at the call of the house on 31 December he was himself out of doors, but returned to be excused.63Burton’s Diary i. 288. On the first reading of the militia bill on 7 January 1657, Claypoole led the attack on it, arguing that decimation of royalists violated the Act of Oblivion (‘it will be hard to convict men upon this bill, and you will not surely lay this tax upon men till conviction’) and might prejudice their blameless children. He also thought the indemnity offered in the bill should be a matter for separate legislation. Claypoole concluded, ‘I did but only start this debate, and leave it to others who are better able to speak of it. My opinion is, upon the whole matter, that this bill ought to be rejected, and that is my humble motion’.64Burton’s Diary i. 310-11. In the heated argument that followed, Claypoole was seconded by two other ‘civilians’, Broghill and Bulstrode Whitelocke.65Bodl. Carte 228, f. 83. They were opposed by John Lambert, backed by Disbrowe and Whalley, who ‘proposed the cantonizing the nation into provinces under the major-generals’; and the personal nature of the exchange was reflected in ‘the animosities of Lambert’s and Claypoole’s ladies grow within one degree of the fishwives of Billingsgate’.66CCSP iii. 239. According to Edmund Ludlowe II*, Claypoole’s intervention ‘was a clear direction to the sycophants of the court, who being fully persuaded that Claypoole had delivered the sense, if not the very words, of Cromwell in this matter, joined as one man in opposing the major-generals’.67Ludlow, Mems. ii. 20. This made Claypoole something of a hate-figure for the major-generals and their supporters. In another sign of this, in January a cornet in the Northamptonshire militia was cashiered for ‘words spoken against Lord Claypoole’.68CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 191, 225, 243. The Claypooles gave as good as they got. A month later it was reported that when the absence of the major-generals’ wives from a Lawrence family wedding was remarked upon, Mrs Claypoole replied waspishly, ‘I’ll warrant you, [they are] washing their dishes at home, as they were used to do’.69Bodl. Clarendon 53, f. 262.

Claypoole was a strong supporter of the new monarchical constitution, the Remonstrance, introduced to the Commons on 23 February 1657. On 6 March he was named to the committee on the fourth article, concerning qualifications for voting and being elected, and three days later he joined Richard Hampden as teller for the unsuccessful bid to delete the requirement the future MPs should be of ‘known integrity’.70CJ vii. 499b, 500b. On 12 March he was named to a committee to consider the judicial role to be accorded to the new upper chamber, the Other House.71CJ vii. 502a. On 20 March he was chosen for the committee to consider how the security of the nation against the royalist threat might be provided for in the Remonstrance.72CJ vii. 508b. He voted for Cromwell to become king on 25 March, and subsequently appeared on the printed list of ‘kinglings’.73Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 16, 23 (E.935.5). After Cromwell’s lukewarm response to the offer of the crown, Claypoole was among those who attempted to change his mind. He was named to the committee of 6 April to give the House’s reasons for adhering to the Remonstrance, now re-named the Humble Petition and Advice, in the form originally offered to Cromwell.74CJ vii. 520b. On 9 April he was named to the committee to choose delegates to attend the protector to discuss his ‘scruples’ and offer reasons why he should accept the Humble Petition nevertheless.75CJ vii. 429a. Claypoole played little part in the remainder of the sitting, and he may have shared the dismay of other kinglings at Cromwell’s final rejection of the crown on 8 May. His only committee appointment during this period was on 23 May, when he was included in a committee to attend the protector to ask when the revised, protectoral version of the constitution should be presented to him.76CJ vii. 521b. Claypoole was much in evidence at the re-inauguration of the protectorate on 26 June, leading the lifeguard that attended the state coach with ‘the horse of honour in rich caparison’ and during the ceremony attending the protector with his fellow son-in-law, Charles Fleetwood*, and with Richard Cromwell*.77Whitelocke, Diary, 472; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 304.

Despite the refusal of the crown, during the second half of 1657 it looked as if Claypoole and his fellow courtiers were in a dominant position in the protector’s counsels. In July 1657, when the protector dismissed Lambert as councillor and general, Claypoole was happy to assist in the humiliation of his political rival. When Lambert asked for the lucrative position of clerk of the hanaper as a consolation prize, Cromwell ‘went out and asked the Lord Claypoole if his father would accept of it, who said he thought he would’, and on his return ‘told him it was disposed of’.78Clarke Pprs. v. 262. The formality of the court increased during the autumn, and so did the prestige of the Claypooles. On 10 December Claypoole was included in the appointments to the Other House.79TSP vi. 668. In a satire on the new lords, it was said of Claypoole that ‘his relation, as son-in-law to the Protector, is sufficient to bespeak him every way fit to be taken out of the House, and made a lord; and, having so long time had a negative voice over his wife, Spring Garden, the ducks, deer, horses, and asses in James’s Park, is the better skilled how to exercise it again in the Other House, over the good people of these nations, without any gainsaying or dispute’.80Second Narrative of the Late Parliament, 9. There was an element of self-importance about the Claypooles that attracted amused comment within the Cromwellian inner circle. Samuel Pepys told Edward Montagu* on 22 December that the death of Henry Lawrence’s* son from smallpox while resident at the palace ‘occasions my Lady Cleypole a circuit to Whitehall’.81Bodl. Carte 73, f. 187v. During the second sitting of Parliament in January and February 1658, Claypoole took his seat in the Other House, and attended all its meetings, being named to the committee of privileges on 21 January.82HMC Lords n.s. iv. 505-24. After the dissolution of Parliament, Claypoole and his courtly allies found their position challenged by a resurgent army interest. In March royalist gossip suggested that Fleetwood and Disbrowe had the protector’s ear and they were actively opposing plans to make Claypoole and his latest son-in-law, Lord Fauconberg (Thomas Belasyse*), colonels of regiments.83CCSP iv. 19. Something of this change can perhaps be detected in Claypoole’s letter of 26 April 1658 to Henry Cromwell, which bemoaned the ‘great disorder ... both in private respects and in public, the reflections and consequences whereof I am sure reaches Ireland and bring great troubles and burdens upon you’.84TSP vii. 94. Lady Claypoole also found her influence much diminished: though she ‘laboured earnestly with her father to save the life of Dr [John] Hewett’, condemned by the high court of justice for treason, she was refused.85Ludlow, Mems. ii. 41.

In the summer of 1658 private problems overshadowed the public. By the beginning of June Lady Claypoole had fallen ill; and their son Oliver died in the same month. By the end of July, according to John Thurloe*, Elizabeth’s sickness had stopped all government business, and ‘makes (as I perceive) all men to stand at a gaze’.86TSP vii. 295; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 396. She died on 6 August and was buried at Westminster Abbey four days later, with Richard, Fleetwood and Fauconberg attending the coffin.87Northants. Past and Present i. pt. 4, p. 28. The protector ‘grew melancholy’ after the death of his daughter, his sorrow heightened, it was said, by ‘her often mentioning, in the pains she endured, the blood her father had spilt’, and even by her pleas to ‘bring his majesty home in peace’.88Ludlow, Mems. ii. 42; HMC 5th Rep. 143; Clarendon, Hist. vi. 90; CCSP iv. 72. Cromwell himself died on 3 September. Claypoole wrote to Henry Cromwell later that year as one ‘whose sorrows are come like a flood upon him, who is stripped of all his glory’.89TSP vii. 489.

Claypoole supported his old friend Richard Cromwell during his brief term as protector. Some suspected his loyalties, however. In October, George Downing told Thurloe of the son of a royalist exile who ‘pretending to follow a law suit at London for his father in The Hague … hath often recourse to the Lord Claypoole’s house’.90TSP vii. 457. At the beginning of November, Claypoole told Henry Cromwell that he was still incapable of engagement with public life, ‘in regard that my late trials … have been so sad and dismal to me, that I could almost wonder I have thus far outlived them’, and feared himself ‘almost lost in darkness’.91TSP vii. 489. He remained in close contact with Sir Francis Russell at Whitehall.92Henry Cromwell Corresp. 417, 424. On 23 November he took his place in the funeral procession for the late protector, walking behind the hearse leading a ‘horse of honour, ornamented in very rich trappings, embroidered on crimson velvet and adorned with white, red and yellow plumes’.93Burton’s Diary ii. 529. In the next few weeks the gloom lifted, and Claypoole was able to discuss parliamentary elections and other business with Russell and to receive requests for favours from Oliver St John*.94TSP vii. 565, 575; cf. 618. At the opening of Parliament in January 1659 Claypoole bore the mace before him to the upper chamber, and in the weeks that followed he took his seat in the Other House.95Northants. Past and Present i. pt. 4, p. 29. Over the next three months, Claypoole’s attendance was episodic – he was absent for most of March and only parts of April – but he was named to four committees: for privileges (28 Jan.), enforcing the ban on the Prayer Book (8 Feb.) and stage plays (15 Feb.) and on the bill for indemnity (23 Mar.).96HMC Lords n.s. iv. 524-65.

The fall of the protectorate in May 1659 completely ruined Claypoole. In July he was said to be a debtor in hiding, pretending to be in France.97CCSP iv. 282. In the same month the Westminster militia was planning to confiscate Claypoole’s horses, but on reflection ‘waived the same’.98Clarke Pprs. iv. 23. Claypoole surfaced at the Restoration to declare his obedience to King Charles on 5 June 1660, claiming the pardon offered by Charles to his opponents at Breda.99CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 38. He remained in London in the next few months. In August 1660 Samuel Pepys noted that Claypoole was interested in buying his modest house ‘in Axeyard’, which he thought ‘a very great change’.100Pepys’s Diary i. 218. In the next few years Claypoole remained in contact with Richard Cromwell on the continent, received visits at Northborough from other members of the family, and gave shelter to his mother-in-law, who lived with him until her death in November 1665.101CSP Dom. 1666-7, p. 429; Northants. Past and Present i. pt. 4, p. 29. He also maintained his connections with the Russells, acting as trustee for Sir John Russell of Chippenham in June 1665.102Cambs. RO (Cambridge), R.55.7.7.11-12. During the 1660s Claypoole’s financial position became increasingly parlous, but he was saved from his creditors by a timely second marriage to the widow of a London merchant, in 1670.103Northants. Past and Present i. pt. 4, p. 30. In May 1678, when his son Cromwell, an ensign in the army, died, he had lost all his children except the daughter of his second marriage. Claypoole was already estranged from his second family, however, and had set up household instead with one Mrs Ottey or Ottley in London. He had also mortgaged his Northamptonshire estates and, facing bankruptcy, in 1682 sold them to Lord Fitzwilliam.104Northants. Past and Present i. pt. 4, pp. 30-1. He died on 28 June 1688, leaving in a hastily drawn up will the remnants of his estate to his mistress, while his wife and surviving daughter were bequeathed only 10s for mourning rings. The widow, who survived until 1692, secured some relief for her daughter in chancery.105Noble, House of Cromwell, ii. 380; PROB11/393/245.