GOFFE, William (c.1620-aft.1678), of Westminster.

Goffe was a younger – perhaps the youngest – son of Stephen Goffe, who was rector of Bramber until deprived for nonconformity in 1606, and who from at least 1614 to 1628 served as minister of Haverfordwest in Pembrokeshire, while retaining links with Sussex.37J. Phillips, ‘William Goff the regicide’, EHR vii. 717-20. In March 1652 the corporation of Haverfordwest, addressing their ‘much honoured friend’ William Goffe, described the town as his ‘native place’.38Phillips, ‘William Goff’, 718. Despite Goffe’s father’s puritanism, Goffe’s eldest brother, Stephen (1605-1681), became a royal chaplain, royalist agent and close associate of Henry Jermyn*, and eventually converted to Catholicism; another brother, John Goffe (bef. 1611-1661) was ejected for his living and imprisoned as a delinquent in the 1640s.39‘Stephen Goffe’, ‘John Goffe’, Oxford DNB; Al. Ox.; Clergy of the C. of E. database; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 338. Like his brother James (d. 1657), who became a Leatherseller, William Goffe went into trade, being apprenticed in July 1634 (as son of Stephen of Sussex, clerk, and presumably aged about 14) to William Vaughan, Grocer.40PROB11/262/49 (James Goffe); GL, ‘London apprenticeship abstracts, 1442-1850’. Later accounts dubbed him mistakenly as a Salter or Mercer (of whom there was a contemporary namesake, son of William), but seem correct that his ‘time being near or newly out, [he] betook himself to be a soldier, instead of setting up his trade’; if he indeed served first as a quartermaster once he had been admitted free of the Grocers’ Company in 1642, then the move was not inappropriate.41‘William Goffe’, Oxford DNB; Second Narrative, 13; The True Characters (1660), 4 (E.1080.15); London Roll; SP16/539, f. 117. He was apparently the William Goffe among the parliamentarian officers who testified to Parliament in May 1643 about the notorious ill-treatment of prisoners taken by the royalists to Oxford castle.42LJ vi. 61b. By July 1643, however, he was a captain in the regiment of Henry Barclay, for whom he received money until at least December 1644.43SP28/8, f. 225; SP28/10, ff. 151, 258; SP28/11, ff. 298, 347; SP28/12, f. 76; SP28/14, ff. 343, 348; SP28/17, f. 104; SP28/21, ff. 155, 179. On the creation of the New Model army, Goffe became a captain in the regiment of Colonel Edward Harley*, with whom he served at Naseby, Bridgwater, Bristol, and Dartmouth.44Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 359. Harley was subsequently replaced by Thomas Pride*, and by April 1646 Goffe was the regiment’s senior captain.45Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 360-4; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 505-12; SP28/265/2, f. 211; SP28/39, f. 311.

Radical army officer

During the mid-1640s Goffe emerged as a leading figure on the radical wing of the army. A later critic claimed that he was ‘very zealous and frequent in praying, preaching and pressing for righteousness and freedom’, and that he was ‘highly esteemed in the army, on that account, when honesty was in fashion’.46Second Narrative, 499. At an unknown date he married a daughter of another prominent soldier, Edward Whalley*, and the two men became almost inseparable in both their political and personal lives. In August 1646 Goffe joined Pride to present a tolerationist petition to Parliament, and he was probably responsible for A Just Apologie for an Abused Armie (Jan. 1647), which attacked the Scots and their English apologist, the Presbyterian firebrand Thomas Edwards, and which also mused upon the providential success of the New Model army.47An Answer Without a Question (1649); W. G. A Just Apologie for an Abused Armie (1646), sigs. A3v-A4, 3, 5, 6 (E.372.22). In April 1647 Goffe joined Whalley, John Okey* and Thomas Kelsey* in delivering to the Commons the Vindication of the Officers of the Armie, which had been drawn up at Saffron Walden, and which justified the army’s demands and its petitioning activity.48Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 471; The Petition and Vindication of the Officers of the Armie (1647, E.385.19). The following month he was deputed by the general council of officers to ‘draw up something in writing to express the reasons why they cannot engage for Ireland’.49Worcester Coll. Clarke MS XLI, f. 22v; Clarke Pprs. i. 25; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 505-10. Eventually, Goffe played a prominent part in discussions regarding the army’s charge against Eleven Presbyterian Members of the Commons, and he was nominated to the delegation which delivered the impeachment to Parliament.50Clarke Pprs. i. 151; CJ v. 236; Perfect Diurnall no. 200 (5-12 July 1647), 1640 (E.518.3); Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 607; The Heads of the Great Charge… Against the Eleven Impeached Members (1647, E.397.11). Perhaps as a result of such service, by the middle of July 1647 Goffe had achieved the rank of lieutenant-colonel, in which capacity he regularly attended meetings of the council of war in Reading, at the request of Sir Thomas Fairfax*, who asked that he should ‘attend daily at my quarters to advise upon all emergencies of the affairs of the army’.51Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 365; Clarke Pprs. i. 176, 217.

In late October 1647 Goffe made notable contributions to the Putney debates. He called for a prayer meeting, advising ‘a seeking of God’, and he warned of the army’s ‘wanderings from God’ and the danger that ‘God would be with us no longer than we were with him’. Noting that ‘God hath thrown down the glory of the king’, he urged his fellow soldiers to ascertain the will of God, in order to avoid meeting the same fate (28 Oct.).52Clarke Pprs. i. 253-6, 278. Taking inspiration from biblical passages in Revelation, Goffe portrayed the war as part of the saints’ battle against the Antichrist, but advocated a tolerant church settlement (29 Oct.).53Clarke Pprs. i. 281-5. Goffe also urged that the army should not deal with enemies ‘precipitously’, but rather ‘wait upon God’, which Oliver Cromwell* interpreted as a personal rebuke (1 Nov.).54Clarke Pprs. i. 363, 374-6. Goffe remained at Putney after the record of debates ends, and he was involved in preparing an ‘engagement’ for submission to the regiments at a forthcoming rendezvous (8 Nov.).55Clarke Pprs. i. 413, 415. In April 1648 he participated in the infamous Windsor prayer meeting, where he encouraged the resolution to pursue royalist enemies more vigorously, and to call Charles Stuart (‘that man of blood’) to account.56W. Allen, A Faithful Memorial of that Remarkable Meeting (1659), 4-5 (E.979.3).

Goffe practised what he preached during the second civil war, and campaigned in Pembrokeshire (June 1648), and at the battle of Preston (Aug.).57Phillips, ‘William Goff’, 718-9; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 365. In the wake of such victories, his regiment joined the ranks of those who called for the trial of the king.58Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 366. Goffe himself attended the Whitehall debates in the wake of Pride’s purge, and was appointed to an army council committee to consider the best means for bringing the king to justice (15 Dec. 1648).59Worcester Coll. Clarke MS CXIV, f. 138; Clarke Pprs. ii. 132’ Taft, ‘Voting lists’, 147. Having been transferred to the regiment of Sir Thomas Fairfax*, Goffe was one of the officers appointed to the high court of justice in January 1649.60Wanklyn, New Model Army i. 97; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 327, 329, 367; SP28/58, f. 376. He attended all four days of the trial, signed the death warrant, and continued to sit among the commissioners after both the trial and execution. In the spring of 1649, furthermore, he used his influence on the council of officers to urge the execution of royalist grandees like James Hamilton, 1st duke of Hamilton.61Clarke Pprs. ii. 190-1, 197.

That year Goffe’s regiment provided a guard for both the Commons and the council of state, as well as the military muscle for attempts to apprehend suspects in London, and Goffe himself was styled ‘colonel’ by early August.62Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 329; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 262, 303, 368, 398, 503, 570, 592. He also preached an important sermon before Cromwell’s army departed for Ireland in July.63Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 92; Whitelocke, Memorials, 413; Heath, Flagellum (1672), 121. Goffe’s religious zeal, displayed in his support for the Independent minister John Canne (for whom he supplied a testimonial in 1649), also underpinned his support for the regime’s military campaigns, evident from his involvement in May 1650 in preparing a letter of the army council regarding the forthcoming march into Scotland.64SP46/95, ff. 155-6; The Fifth Monarchy (1659), 9-12 (E.993.31). Serving in Cromwell’s regiment, Goffe participated in the Scottish campaign, and was present at the battle of Dunbar (3 Sept. 1650).65Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 329; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 318, 324; SP28/91, f. 241. For his bravery on the battlefield, Goffe was rewarded with his own regiment of foot, which remained in Scotland until travelling south with Cromwell to engage with royalist forces at Worcester (3 Sept. 1651).66Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 330, 482; Mercurius Politicus no. 18 (3-10 Oct. 1650), 308 (E.614.7); Clarke Pprs. ii. 224-5; Several Proceedings no. 94 (10-17 July 1651), 1442-3 (E.786.19); SP28/80, f. 503; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 331; Cary, Memorials, ii. 357.

Thereafter, Goffe returned to London to serve the regime in the trial of prisoners, and by considering complaints regarding the navy.67CSP Dom. 1651, p. 478; 1651-2, p. 70. In the summer of 1652, during the first Dutch war, his regiment served with the fleet, and was expanded to include 1,200 men.68Ludlow, Mems. i. 325; Mercurius Politicus no. 115 (12-19 Aug. 1652), 1803-6 (E.674.6); CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 319, 324, 386, 388, 409, 424; SP28/96, f. 626. By mid-August, however, Goffe had come to share the army’s disillusionment with the Rump, and he helped to prepare and present their petition demanding not just propagation of the Gospel, law reform, and arrears of pay, but also the dissolution of Parliament, and the calling of a ‘new representative’ (13 Aug.).69CJ vii. 164; Mercurius Politicus (12-19 Aug. 1652), 1806; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 520; A Declaration of the Armie… for the Dissolving of this Present Parliament (1652, E.673.13); Weekly Intelligencer, no. 85 (10-17 Aug. 1652), 561-2 (E.674.3); The Humble Petition of the Officers of the Army (1652, 669.f.16.62). That Goffe did not belong to the most radical element in the army, however, is clear from his involvement with the Independent minister John Owen* in drafting proposals which placed limitations upon religious toleration, by suggesting that congregational meetings should be officially registered.70CJ vii. 258-9, 262; Shaw, Hist. Eng. Church, ii. 82; Proposals for the Furtherance and Propagation of the Gospell (1653, E.683.12); Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate ii. 98-100. Moreover, Goffe was regarded as being firmly attached to Cromwell’s faction in the army, who were styled the ‘mere Independents’, and who were distinguished from supporters of Thomas Harrison* and John Lambert*. Rather than advocating radical reform, it was said that their design was ‘to maintain and continue the government in the hands of these men that are of the House at present’.71Bodl. Clarendon 45, f. 140v; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 615.

The early protectorate, 1653-4

It was as an ally of Cromwell that Goffe supported the dissolution of the Rump in April 1653, and in the months which followed he worked closely with the council of state, apart from when his regiment was required to serve alongside Admiral Robert Blake*.72Fifth Monarchy, 21-4; CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 310, 319, 328, 403, 407. Although Goffe was not a Member of the Nominated Parliament, he and his regiment continued to receive orders from the council of state.73CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 41, 73, 206, 207, 209, 285; CJ vii. 296b, 341a. He can also be presumed to have approved of the controversial report from the committee for tithes, which echoed the views of himself and John Owen, and which proposed Goffe as a commissioner for ejecting ministers.74CJ vii. 361b. It was the defeat of such proposals by the radicals which prompted the resignation of the Parliament, and it was Goffe and his son-in-law Colonel Francis White* who forcibly ejected the radical remnant of the assembly (12 Dec. 1653).75Faithful Scout no. 157 (16-23 Dec. 1653), 1255 (E.222.30); TSP i. 637; Clarke Pprs. iii. 10; Second Narrative, 499. As a result, Goffe’s enemies later reflected that he, like Cromwell, had ‘an evil tincture of that spirit, that loved and sought after the favour and praise of man, more than of God’.76Second Narrative, 499.

Although not named to the protector’s council in December 1653, Goffe served the fledgling protectorate as a Westminster justice of the peace, not least in arresting delinquents and examining conspirators.77CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 86, 417; 1654, pp. 59, 203, 204, 205, 227, 263, 436; TSP iii. 349-50; A True Account of the Late Bloody and Inhumane Conspiracy Against His Highness the Lord Protector (1654), 41, 47 (E.813.22). He also continued to receive orders from, and deliver reports to, the council, on matters relating to military organisation and finances.78CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 382, 401, 1654, pp. 78, 89, 106, 144, 196, 318; 1655, pp. 74, 89, 103, 112, 113, 121, 125, 148, 149, 171, 181, 196, 291, 320, 324. That his regiment remained among the most trusted in the army is clear from its having been enlarged during this period.79CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 387, 406; 1654, pp. 40, 70, 201, 225, 245, 415; 1655, pp. 90, 106, 107, 229, 292. Goffe also served as a ‘trier’ in the spring of 1654, and as a commissioner for inspecting treasuries.80To All the Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ (1654), 5 (E.733.2); Add. 24861, f. 81; SP28/104, unfol.

Such loyalty ensured that Goffe was able to secure election to the 1654 Parliament, albeit in controversial circumstances. He was returned at Great Yarmouth, a town whose defences he had earlier helped to organise, and where he had powerful friends, including the Independent minister William Bridge.81CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 398, 614; 1652-3, pp. 34, 83. The election revealed tension between the Independent-led corporation, which held the franchise, and the freemen, by whom Goffe’s election was contested.82Norfolk RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 246-7v; Weekly Intelligencer no. 37 (26 Sept.-2 Oct. 1654), 231 (E.813.3). The dispute resulted in a protest to Cromwell, but the Commons eventually declared Goffe’s return valid (21 Sept.).83Norfolk RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 247v; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 285; CJ vii. 369a-b, 371a.

Goffe took his place sometime before 25 September, and immediately became involved in committees on matters of personal interest, such as the ejection of scandalous ministers, and the commonwealth’s military forces.84CJ vii. 370a-b. He was also named to committees to consider the enumeration of heresies and to examine the book by the Socinian John Biddle, and he acted as a teller in favour of a motion to secure the finance of the navy and garrisons to 1659 instead of merely 1656.85CJ vii. 399b, 400a, 418a. Like the assembly itself, however, Goffe became preoccupied with the constitution, and the new Government Bill championed by the Presbyterians.86CJ vii. 370a, 392b. Unsurprisingly, Goffe was a strong supporter of the status quo. He acted as teller three times on religious and financial clauses in this bill, working with government stalwarts such as his father-in-law Edward Whalley and Charles Worsley in opposition to leading Presbyterians including Sir Richard Onslow, Sir Ralph Hare, John Bulkeley and Sir William Boteler.87CJ vii. 401a, 415a, 418a.

Major-general, 1655-6

As matters of security became more pressing in the spring of 1655, Goffe began to attend meetings of the committee of officers in London.88TSP iii. 536; CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 230, 248, 329, 331-2, 357, 390; 1656-7, p. 160. Moreover, he was an obvious candidate to be one of the major-generals, and in August 1655 was given control of Sussex, Hampshire and Berkshire.89CSP Dom. 1655, p. 275; Clarke Pprs. iii. 50; TSP iii. 701; iv. 88, 117. As part of this reorganisation, Goffe lost his regiment of foot, but he gained command of a regiment of horse.90CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 309, 340, 402; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 285; TSP iv. 294. During the ensuing eighteen months, Goffe proved zealous in such service, but regularly expressed doubts regarding his own ability, and fears that Cromwell might ‘repent the laying [of] so great a trust upon so poor and inconsiderable a creature’.91SP28/246, unfol.; CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 338; 1656-7, pp. 4, 5, 235; TSP iv. 151, 190, 525-6. Goffe arrived in Sussex in early November, and went on to Hampshire and Berkshire to commence the task of selecting men for commissions, before establishing his base at Winchester, where he lodged with a prominent Independent minister, Henry Whitfield.92TSP iv. 151, 239-40, 284-5, 294, 408-9, 414, 444-5, 525-6; v. 9; Oxford DNB.

As a respected military commander, Goffe had little difficulty in securing the loyalty of the militias, but being ‘very much a stranger in these counties’ he was reliant upon the goodwill and advice of local magnates, and spent much time visiting the most prominent figures in the region.93TSP iv. 160-2, 239-40, 642-3. He quickly realised the difficulty he faced in finding members of the gentry elite – even those with parliamentarian credentials – who were willing to serve the regime, particularly on innovative administrative bodies.94TSP iv. 160-2, 190, 208, 239-40, 642-3. He reported that John Busbridge* resented being nominated as sheriff of Sussex; that Harbert Morley* was willing to serve only as a justice of the peace; that William Hay* was ‘too gracious with disaffected men’; and that John Fagge* would not ‘stir a hair’s breadth without Colonel Morley’. Goffe also feared that Anthony Shirley* might be dissuaded from active service by relatives like Sir Richard Onslow*.95TSP iv. 151, 160-2, 190, 208, 218, 394, 593, 642-3. Moreover, Goffe found it difficult to assess the loyalty of powerful individuals, and although he received ‘the civil respects of all sorts of persons’, he professed not to know ‘the hearts of men’.96TSP iv. 190. He wrongly believed the protestations of loyalty made by future royalist plotters like John Stapley* and Anthony Stapley II*.97TSP iv. 151, 394. Goffe found a loyal ally in William Freeman*, and came to rely heavily upon the advice of Richard Norton*, Richard Cromwell*, and Richard Maijor*.98TSP iv. 208, 229, 239-40, 329, 582, 642-3, 764-5; HMC Bath, ii. 113. But he was also forced to turn to Thomas Kelsey*, his counterpart in Kent, and bemoaned the fact that he was ‘much alone, and have not been formerly acquainted with this kind of work’.99TSP iv. 408-9, 497-8.

Goffe’s inevitable involvement in religious disputes sheds important light on his own attitudes. He complained about radical preachers like John Sturgeon at Reading, as well as the ‘unworthy carriage’ of certain civic officers in Southampton ‘against the godly party’.100CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 228; TSP iv. 752, 764-5. When he encountered ‘too many differences amongst godly people’, his inclination was to seek reconciliation, but there were clear limits to his tolerance of religious enthusiasm.101TSP v. 215. Goffe probably led the proceedings in Berkshire against John Pordage, who was accused of being a Ranter and a Familist, and although he protected the Lewes Fifth Monarchist Walter Postlethwaite, he did so on the grounds of the latter’s ‘moderation’, and expressed concern regarding the level of support for the sect in the region, and regarding an anti-tithe petition then circulating in Sussex.102Calamy Revised, 396; C. Fowler, Daemonium Meridianum (1656), sig. A2 (E.868.7); TSP iv. 151, 160-2. More obviously, Goffe was vehement in his opposition to the Quakers, and in January 1656 he reported that George Fox and his associates were ‘doing much work for the devil, and delude many simple souls’, and declared his intention to ‘lay Fox and his companions by the heels if I see a good opportunity’.103TSP iv. 408-9, 642-3; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 278.

Goffe’s attitude towards delinquents was equally forthright. Although he was prepared to defend those who submitted to Cromwellian rule, he was determined to arrest particular opponents, and was keenly aware of the danger from insurgents and plotters. As he implemented the policy of decimation, however, Goffe was dismayed to encounter obstruction from those who professed their innocence, and those who sought to protect and undervalue their estates.104CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 231; 1655-6, pp. 105, 172; TSP iv. 160-2, 208, 213, 218, 239-40, 344-5, 444-5. This in turn prompted concern about his ability to raise sufficient money to finance the militia, and he resisted pressure to treat royalists leniently.105TSP iv. 217, 218, 257-8, 497-8, 642-3; CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 94, 99, 128, 134, 156, 172. The tendency to undervalue estates even led him to suggest that decimation should be widened to include those with estates worth a mere £50.106TSP iv. 344-5. Indeed, financial problems were at the root of Goffe’s professions of inadequacy.107TSP iv. 752; v. 150-1.

Second protectorate Parliament

By May 1656 Goffe was concerned that his greatest problem was political and constitutional uncertainty, and he claimed that ‘our business suffers for want of settlement’.108TSP iv. 752. He may thus have received news of another Parliament with mixed emotions. He expressed hope ‘that the government [will] be strictly adhered to’, but he feared a repetition of the protracted constitutional debates which he had witnessed in 1654.109TSP v. 171-2. His desire to facilitate a productive and compliant assembly explains his determination to influence the results of the elections. In Hampshire he immediately registered Richard Cromwell’s concern regarding the possibility that Richard Norton would exploit his power as foreman of the grand jury in order to influence the elections, and having seen a list of candidates, Goffe suggested that Norton and Cromwell should ‘debate and agree their men before the day of choice’, so as to ensure that they could ‘carry it without dispute’.110TSP v. 215. Goffe’s plan may have been put into effect, and he expressed satisfaction at the return of allies like Thomas Cole* and Richard Cobb*, whom he expected would support ‘a settlement’.111TSP v. 329. Nevertheless, Goffe recognised the possibility that his plans would be disrupted by the ‘unquiet spirit of discontented men’. He noted that the Quakers were mobilising support in Southampton, in the hope of displacing John Lisle*.112TSP v. 287. In Sussex, where Goffe relied upon Richard Boughton* for support and advice, he recognised that Harbert Morley ‘ruled the roost, by the help of the disaffected party, much to the grief of the honest party, and that it was their design to have no soldier, decimator, or any man that hath salary’. To undermine Morley, Goffe had to enter complex negotiations with individual boroughs, such as by striking a deal to try and effect the return of Anthony Shirley* for the county, in return for securing a place for his ally, William Freeman, at Arundel. He also tried to gather incriminating evidence against candidates whom he suspected to be delinquents, and indicated that ‘some honest men will article against [George] Courthop*, if they may be heard at the council’.113TSP v. 287, 341, 382-3.

Goffe himself was proposed at Abingdon in July 1656, although he was concerned that ‘all the rabble of the town were last year for one [Thomas] Holt* who is an ill-man, and no friend to the protector’. Having colluded with another Cromwellian, John Dunch*, Goffe favoured the latter’s plan to ‘make a godly party amongst the ordinary sort’ for Gabriel Beck*, although he admitted that his overriding concern was merely ‘to keep out the bad man’.114TSP v. 215. Goffe was eventually returned, with the assistance of Richard Norton and Richard Cromwell, as one of the knights of the shire for Hampshire.115TSP v. 329. He finally concluded that, although the elections were ‘not so good as we could have wished them, yet they are not so bad as our enemies would have had them’.116TSP v. 365. However, he was soon preoccupied with rumours of plots in Hampshire, and this may have prompted his suggestion that he would not attend Parliament without Cromwell’s express desire.117TSP v. 341, 396-7. Goffe’s presence in Westminster was evidently considered desirable, however, and he was probably in the House for the opening of the session.118CJ vii. 424a.

Once at Westminster, Goffe’s concern regarding Ireland, which had been manifest from his submission of position papers during the Rump, saw him nominated to the committee for Irish affairs, and during the course of the first session he demonstrated a keen interest in awards of land there, not least to members of his own family.119CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 23; CJ vii. 427a, 463b, 464b, 469a, 477a, 505b, 526a, 550b; Burton’s Diary, i. 223; ii. 198, 200. As a staunch Cromwellian, Goffe also played a prominent part in drafting legislation regarding the security of the protector, and he may even have proposed the idea of loyal addresses to Cromwell.120CJ vii. 429a, 435b; Burton’s Diary, i. 361-2. More important was Goffe’s interest in religion, church settlement, and moral reform, through which he once again revealed his own religious Independency.121CJ vii. 426b, 430a, 432b, 448b; TSP v. 472; Burton’s Diary, i. 20. In June 1657 he was ordered to thank William Carter, a London minister and former member of the Westminster Assembly who had refused to accept a parochial living, for his sermon before Commons.122CJ vii. 545b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 175; ‘William Carter’, Oxford DNB. Goffe made a speech in favour of a congregational preacher, and argued against a bill to encourage catechising, on the grounds that ‘it does grieve the souls of a great many godly ministers’.123Burton’s Diary, ii. 14-15, 203-4. Nevertheless, he attempted to defend an ordinance for the approbation of ministers, even though ‘superstitious and profane persons may clamour’ against it.124Burton’s Diary, ii. 52.

The most important religious issue during the early part of the assembly was the case of the notorious Quaker, James Naylor, and having been named to the committee to consider the case at the end of October, Goffe played a prominent part in subsequent debates.125CJ vii. 448a. He urged the House to proceed with caution, even though he considered Naylor guilty of blasphemy and suggested that he should be branded as a grand imposter, and as a seducer of the people. He also supported the move for a delegation of Independent ministers to try and convert Naylor, which he called a ‘great motion of mercy’.126Burton’s Diary, i. 31, 44, 52, 79, 80. On 11 December, however, Goffe indicated his support for the death penalty, and sought to overcome the qualms of his fellow Members. He argued that it was ‘written upon every man’s heart that a blasphemer should die’, and he refused to admit that the House was powerless to punish such crimes. Goffe suggested not just that the law of blasphemy remained in force, but also that the power to execute it had ‘devolved upon you, and you have justly assumed it’. Professing his willingness to ‘spend my blood’ for the Instrument of Government’, Goffe nevertheless argued that ‘if it hold out any thing to protect such persons I would have it burn in the fire’.127Burton’s Diary, i. 108-10. Later, Goffe insisted upon harsh conditions for Naylor’s imprisonment, although he was prepared to delay his punishment on grounds of ill-health.128Burton’s Diary, i. 118, 155, 183.

Goffe expressed concern at the fractious nature of debates in late December 1656, and may have sought to defuse tension on controversial issues.129Burton’s Diary, i. 195, 270. His sense of disillusionment may have been exacerbated by the decisions which ended the major-generals experiment, and his activity declined noticeably during the winter of 1656/7. Nevertheless, he was concerned to maintain numbers in the Commons, and remained active on the committee for bibles, and on the committee for Drury House.130CJ vii. 470b, 472b, 476b, 483a, 484a, 488b, 490b; Burton’s Diary, i. 286, 300, 307, 344. Moreover, he refused to sanction an adjournment, even though he was concerned at the health of the Speaker, whom he told, ‘we must be merciful to you and not debate you to death’.131Burton’s Diary, i. 322.

Goffe resumed his position of prominence within the House during debates on the Remonstrance, the new civilian constitution introduced on 23 February. Initially, he joined other senior officers in withdrawing from the House to signal his opposition to reform, but on 3 March it was said that Goffe and Whalley were among those who ‘begin to come in’.132Henry Cromwell Corresp. 214. In March 1657 he was named to committees regarding various aspects of the document, from Scotland and Ireland to the liberty and property of the people, and from security against royalists to the need to ensure the continuance of legislation.133CJ vii. 499b, 505a, 508b, 511b. He was also named to the committee to consider how to protect those ministers who disagreed with the national church on discipline, if not on doctrine.134CJ vii. 507b. The crucial issue, of course, was kingship, on which Goffe’s position was probably pragmatic. On 21 March William Jephson* wrote that Goffe and Whalley ‘grow good natured’, and three days later it was reported that, while most of the major-generals were ‘much averse’ to kingship, ‘Whalley and Goffe were moderate opposers, almost indifferent’.135Henry Cromwell Corresp. 236, 243. Eventually, on 27 March, Goffe was among those who presented the Humble Petition and Advice (as it was now called) to Cromwell, and on 6 April he was appointed to committees to prepare reasons for adhering to the document, and to consider Cromwell’s answer.136CJ vii. 514a, 520b, 521a-b, 524a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 35. Nevertheless, his ambivalence regarding the offer of the crown appears evident from his involvement in the army’s attempt to petition Parliament against placing further pressure on Cromwell regarding the issue.137CP iii. 108; TSP vi. 281. Goffe remained involved in the preparation of the revised version of the Humble Petition and Advice in ensuing weeks, as well as in attempts to consider the title and powers of the protector, and the role of a projected second chamber, and he was also named to the committee to present the petition to Cromwell in late May.138CJ vii. 535a, 538b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 23, 93, 122, 135. In the wake of Cromwell’s acceptance of this document, Goffe was also involved in preparing the Additional Humble Petition, particularly regarding the exclusion of Scottish members, and the settlement of the protector’s council, and he and Whalley defended a proviso giving Cromwell power to levy money (4 June).139CJ vii. 557a, 570b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 10, 173, 249. Goffe also participated in debates regarding the protector’s oath, and supported the idea of an oath to be taken by MPs.140Burton’s Diary, ii. 285, 289, 291, 297, 302.

Goffe remained active in the House until the end of the first session, on 26 June, on matters relating to public revenue and debentures, which he argued should be paid in full from general taxation.141CJ vii. 563a, 576a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 241, 307. After the end of the first session, Goffe resumed his service for the protector’s council, and worked alongside Independent divines like Owen and Joseph Caryl in considering papers from Scottish ministers (14 July), and in preparing instructions to county commissioners.142CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 28, 43. He was also involved in preventing a royalist uprising in London, as a result of which he resumed control of his old regiment of foot.143CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 217; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 286, 332; SP28/117, f. 53; Clarke Pprs. iii. 132. Goffe’s subsequent return to Parliament as a Cromwellian peer in the ‘other house’ (Jan. 1658), was much commented upon.144TSP vi. 668; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 232. Radical critics mocked the idea of him wielding ‘a negative voice’, and his apparent suggestion that ‘he never in all his life … fought against any such thing, as a single person, or a negative voice, but only to put down Charles, and set up Oliver’.145Second Narrative, 499. Goffe attended the new House regularly, and was named to the committee for petitions, and to the committee to consider penalties for profaning the sabbath.146HMC House of Lords n.s. iv. 506-24.

Friend of Richard Cromwell

After the dissolution of Parliament, Goffe worked zealously on behalf of the council; attended meetings between the council of officers and Cromwell; and served as a justice in Westminster, interrogating those involved in the Stapley plot.147CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 344, 356, 360, 364, 373; 1658-9, pp. 67, 95, 211, 230; Clarke Pprs. iii. 143, 146; TSP vi. 806; vii. 65-9, 74-5, 77-83, 85-90, 92-9, 102-11, 116-17. He was reckoned to be one of Cromwell’s intimate circle of allies, and his proximity to the protector was evident from his participation in the daily meetings of the committee appointed to discuss plans for the next Parliament, and the treatment of royalists (June 1658).148Bodl. Clarendon 57, f. 175v; TSP vii. 192. Goffe was sufficiently prominent at court that contemporaries talked of him as a possible successor to Cromwell.149Second Narrative, 499. Nevertheless, when his old friend Richard Cromwell became protector, Goffe did not hesitate to demonstrate his loyalty, and he was thought to ‘stand firm to the protector’.150HMC 5th Rep. 172; TSP vii. 495. Indeed, Goffe laboured to placate those disaffected members of the army who clamoured for Charles Fleetwood* to be made military supremo, by advising them to ‘unity of spirit in carrying on the good old cause’.151Clarke Pprs. iii. 165, 169; HMC 5th Rep. 172; TSP vii. 406. Perhaps relieved at such loyalty, Cromwell rewarded Goffe’s ‘great worth and merit’ with a grant of land in Ireland, worth £500 per annum.152TSP vii. 504. Goffe felt compelled to explain that he had formerly refused to accept ‘honours and gratuities’, because they were dependent upon his loyalty to Oliver Cromwell, but that he could accept Protector Richard’s offer because it could not possibly make him any more loyal.153Henry Cromwell Corresp. 430. What became of this plan is unclear, however, given the concern expressed by Henry Cromwell* regarding the scarcity of Irish land left for distribution.154TSP vii. 493.

Goffe returned to Westminster in January 1659 as a Member of Richard Cromwell’s ‘Other House’ and that spring was a member of John Owen’s gathered church.155Henry Cromwell Corresp. 475. But our knowledge of his activity in the House is limited to attendance, which was regular, and committee appointments, which involved issues of perennial concern to the godly, such as sabbath-breaking and stage plays, as well as issues of particular concern to military men, such as indemnity and national security.156HMC Lords n.s. iv. 525-66. As political tension rose that spring, Goffe remained loyal to Cromwell’s interest, and he was labelled a ‘creature of the court’. In this he is to be distinguished from the commonwealthsman Lieutenant-colonel William Gough.157HMC Popham, 114-15; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 61-2; Clarke Pprs. iv. 6, 146; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 395; 1659-60, pp. 98, 202, 238-9; TSP vii. 662. Indeed, by April Goffe was at odds not merely with the army radicals, but also with the Wallingford House party.158TSP vii. 661. As a result, he became a focus for radical discontent, and one tract called him a ‘tyrant and traitor both to God and man’.159A Faithfull Searching Home Word (1659), 16, 19 (E.774.1). When Cromwell was placed under pressure to dissolve Parliament, Goffe signalled his willingness to defend Whitehall, only to find that his troops disobeyed his orders.160CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 335-6; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 69; Clarke Pprs. iii. 212. His men demanded the removal of officers who deserted the ‘good old cause’, and of those members of Goffe’s family who had been granted commissions, and they complained that he had witheld their pay.161The Humble Remonstrance of the Commission Officers and Private Soldiers of Major General Goffs Regiment (1659), sigs. A2, A2v (E.979.6); The Humble Petition of the Sentinels in the Regiment Formerly Belonging to Major General Goffe (1659, 669.f.21.47). Goffe was duly cashiered in May, although he received his arrears of pay in July.162Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 333, 507; CJ vii. 668; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 82; Walker, History of Independency (1660), 39 (E.1052.4); TSP vii. 666; SP28/118, ff. 188, 206, 415, 417; SP28/119, f. 323.

From late October 1659 Goffe became involved in discussions between the congregational ministers in London and George Monck*, and he accompanied Whalley and Joseph Caryl to Scotland to express opposition to the general’s current policy, and to affirm that ‘the state of the quarrel in these parts now is not a parliament or none, the last parliament or not, but [the preservation] of our lives from the common enemy or not’.163Clarke Pprs. iv. 82, 104, 185, 215; Worcester Coll. Clarke MS XXXII, ff. 168v-71. Thereafter, however, he made little impact on national affairs before mid-April 1660, when an order was issued for his arrest, on suspicion of involvement in the rising organised by John Lambert*.164CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 573; HMC 7th Rep., 484; Rugg, Diurnall, 73, 75; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. 335.

Restoration Exile

As a regicide, Goffe also faced arrest after the Restoration, and he fled London with Whalley on 4 May. Thereafter their movements were recorded in Goffe’s journal (1660-7), which was lost in the late eighteenth century.165LJ xi. 32b, 52b; E. Stiles, Hist. of Three of the Judges (Hartford, 1794), 21-9, 99-106. The two men arrived in Boston on 27 July, with testimonials from two congregational ministers, John Rowe and Seth Wood, and they aroused notable interest, especially from another eminent minister, John Davenport.166T. Hutchinson, Hist. of the Colony and Province of Mass. Bay ed. L. S. Mayo (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), i. 183; Letters of John Davenport, ed. I. M. Calder (1937), 172-4. They were said to have been held in ‘exceeding great esteem for their piety and parts’, and ‘gained universal applause and admiration, and were looked upon as men dropped down from heaven’, although it was reported that ‘penitence for the horrid murder for which they fled did not appear to be any part of their piety’.167CO1/15, f. 165; CSP Col. America and W.I. 1661-8, p. 54.

Rumours abounded in the years which followed that they were plotting against Charles II in Europe, but the Stuart regime knew of their whereabouts from October 1660.168CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 273; 1663-4, pp. 144, 352, 380, 486; 1664-5, pp. 287, 455, 559-60; 1665-6, p. 37; Kennett, Register, 264; Rugg, Diurnall, 114; HMC 5th Rep. 174; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 487. Persistent attempts were made to effect their arrest, but although the colonial authorities made a show of cooperating with the government in London, the two men had sufficient friends and sympathisers to evade capture.169HMC 5th Rep. 202; Hutchinson, Hist. i. 184; CSP Col. America and W.I. 1661-8, pp. 15, 26, 27-8, 30, 54, 345; Recs. of the Gov. and Company of The Mass. Bay in New England ed. N. B. Shurtleff (Boston, 1853-4), iv. pt. ii. 26-7; CO1/15, f. 167; ‘Hutchinson Papers’, Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. 3rd ser. i. 51-3. Although periodically forced to hide in caves outside New Haven, in 1664 they settled in Hadley, where they lived with the minister, John Russell, for the remainder of their lives. They received moral and financial assistance from prominent figures in the colony, as well as from friends at home, and they maintained ‘constant and exact intelligence’ regarding events in England, and the fortunes of their old friends.170Hutchinson Papers II (Prince Soc. ii, 1865), 52-7, 63-4; CSP Col. America and W.I. 1661-8, pp. 15, 33-4, 53, 345, 420; Hutchinson, Hist. i. 184-5; CO1/15, ff. 162-5v; Letters of John Davenport, 190-4, 257; ‘Letters and papers relating to the regicides’, 122-5, 127, 134-5, 143-56, 156-64, 166-9, 198-9, 207-9, 224-5; Stiles, Hist. of Three of the Judges, 99-106. Nevertheless, they guarded their anonymity so as to frustrate official attempts to locate them, and Goffe appears to have been unknown to many of the local community when he assisted in defending Hadley from an attack by native Americans in 1675.171CSP Col. America and W.I. 1675-6, p. 408; 1677-80, pp. 123, 125, 130, 284-5, 297-9; Recs. of the Gov. and Company of The Mass. Bay in New England, v. 200; Hutchinson, Hist. i. 186.

Goffe’s pseudonymous correspondence during the 1670s reveals the persistence and strength of his providentialism.172CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 13; ‘Letters and papers relating to the regicides’, 133-4. His letters contain religious meditations, as well as reflections upon events in England, and the fate of the church.173Hutchinson, Hist. i. 440-1; ‘Letters and papers relating to the regicides’, 128-30, 133-4, 136-43; ‘Hutchinson Papers’, 60-2. Hutchinson Papers II, 184-95. In 1672 Goffe ‘tremble[d] to think what may become of poor England, whose sins are grown to a great height … the approaching storm which many fear may be more dreadful than ever yet the nations have felt’.174Hutchinson Papers II, 161-5; ‘Letters and papers relating to the regicides’, 136-7, 142. In 1674 he hoped ‘that the inhabitants of poor England would learn righteousness’.175‘Letters and papers relating to the regicides’, 148-56. He told his wife: ‘these are dying times, wherein the Lord hath been and is breaking down what he hath built, and plucking up what he hath planted, and therefore it is not a time to be seeking great things for ourselves’.176Hutchinson Papers II, 186. In 1676, however, he expressed confidence in the promises of Revelation, and regarding England’s providential role.177‘Letters and papers relating to the regicides’, 156-9, 162-3. In August 1678 he wrote

there is a great day of trial come, and coming upon the poor people of God everywhere. Oh that we were more thoroughly awakened and prepared to meet the Lord, and to wait for him in the way of his judgement.178‘Letters and papers relating to the regicides’, 160-1.

Goffe’s last surviving letter was written on 2 April 1679, and he probably died soon after, although the place and date of his burial remains unknown.179‘Letters and papers relating to the regicides’, 163-4.