DISBROWE, Samuel (1619-90), of Elsworth, Cambs.

Samuel Disbrowe was a younger brother of Major-general John Disbrowe*, but the brothers had little else in common.26Sig. Lansdowne 823, f. 102 (21 Sept. 1658). While John was groomed as heir to his father’s estate, secured a marriage with the Cromwell family in 1636, and went on to follow a military career, Samuel received no formal education, and was sent to seek his fortune in America, becoming a civilian official in the colonial town of New Haven. In July 1643, at the age of 23, Disbrowe was admitted as freeman of New Haven, and by October of that year he had become deputy for the town of Guilford. In October 1646 he was chosen as magistrate for Guilford, and in the later 1640s he was much in demand as an arbitrator in land disputes between individuals and neighbouring townships.27Recs. New Haven ed. Hoadly, 96, 112, 275, 333, 372, 467, 492. He was still active in New Haven in November 1650, but by the middle of January 1651 he had returned to England, apparently permanently.28New Haven Hist. Soc. Ancient Town Recs. I ed. F.B. Dexter (New Haven, 1917), 50. In a letter to Oliver Cromwell* – his brother’s brother-in-law, then commanding the army in Scotland – Disbrowe said that ‘divine providence’ had seen fit to ‘bring me once again to see my native country’, and hinted that he was looking for employment, ‘was I any way capable of doing your lordship any service’.29Original Letters ed. Nickolls, 54. Cromwell was soon able to oblige. In June 1651 the council of state sent Disbrowe to Scotland to work with another returned American colonist, Richard Saltonstall, as commissioner to improve the lands occupied by the English army, working directly under Cromwell.30CSP Dom. 1651, p. 237.

Scottish administrator, 1651-1656

From 1651 onwards Disbrowe became a main-stay of the English administration in Scotland. Appointments to office came thick and fast: he became judge of the admiralty in March 1652, commissioner for sequestrations the next month, and visitor and commissioner for the universities by June.31HMC Portland, i. 629; Cromwellian Union ed. Terry, 164; Scot. and Commonwealth ed. Firth, 44-5. Based at Leith, Disbrowe and his colleagues (principally Richard Saltonstall and Colonel Edward Syler) became, in effect, the Scottish civil service. One newsletter from April 1652 predicted that the three ‘will be designed commissioners for dispatch of affairs, and for regulating of sequestrations, customs and admiralty, etc.’32Cromwellian Union ed. Terry, 164. Competence brought confidence. As early as September 1651 Disbrowe was happy to challenge the actions of the army officers, in a ‘great dispute … about the disposal of the ships taken at Dundee. He claimed them in right of the state, which they denied, and went on in the sale of them’.33Scot. and Commonwealth ed. Firth, 16. Others recognised Disbrowe’s influence. When a new commander-in-chief was proposed in 1653, William Clarke asked him to use his ‘interest’ to make sure he kept his job as secretary.34Clarke Pprs. v. 78-9. The man eventually chosen, General George Monck*, was happy to continue Clarke, and to promote Disbrowe: soon after his arrival in April 1654 appointing him as commissoner for settling land claims under the act of pardon.35A. and O. The agent of no less a figure than John Lambert* went cap-in-hand to Disbrowe in the following July, securing the promise that ‘nothing will be a-wanting in them to pleasure my lord in his request’.36Roundhead Officers ed. Akerman, 61, 88.

The burgesses of Edinburgh also courted Disbrowe: in June 1654 they persuaded him to act as their ‘arbitrator elect’ in the on-running dispute with the merchants of Leith, and on 2 August 1654 they elected him as one of their MPs.37Recs. Burgh Edinburgh, 1642-55, 340, 343. The Edinburgh city council evidently expected to gain a great deal from this association. They met to draw up detailed instructions for Disbrowe on 15 August, granted him (and his fellow MP, George Downing*) £400 expenses while at Westminster, and wrote at least two more letters to their MPs during the session.38Edinburgh City Archives, SL1/1/18, ff. 106v, 108, 110v, 124, 142. The extent to which Edinburgh’s investment received a return is uncertain, although it may be significant that on 6 October Disbrowe was named to the committee to consider the encouragement of trade, which also included Edinburgh’s town clerk (and MP for Peebles Burghs), William Thomsone*, and which would have been of interest to the city’s merchants.39CJ vii. 374b. A letter from his former associate in New Haven, William Leete, dated 10 October 1654, acknowledging Disbrowe to be ‘one of the cordial friends of New England there’, and asking him to use his contacts in England on the colonists’ behalf, suggests that he may also have been lobbying on their behalf during his time at Westminster.40Genealogical Gleanings, i. 246-9; Eg. 2159, ff. 10-11. Disbrowe’s main role was, however, as agent of the Scottish government. In November, he received instructions from Monck to secure favours for Alexander Brodie* of Brodie, and his few committee appointments (to the committee of Scottish affairs on 29 September, and committees to consider legal and parliamentary reforms in November) also suggest that his service in Parliament was an extension of his official function.41Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XLVI, unfol.: 20 Nov. 1654; CJ vii. 381b, 392b.

With his appointment to the new Scottish council in May 1655, Disbrowe’s role became more overtly political.42TSP iii. 423; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 152. In August, even before the council was convened, the earl of Lothian’s agent saw Disbrowe as one of three men worth approaching to further his master’s schemes, and the earl of Tweeddale (James Hay*) waited on him shortly afterwards.43Corresp. of Earls of Ancram and Lothian (2 vols. Edinburgh, 1875), ii. 397; NRS, GD 40/2/5, no. 81. When the president of the council, Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), arrived in Edinburgh in September, he was impressed with Disbrowe, whom he considered ‘a very good husband for the state, and laborious and industrious’ and immediately recommended him as judge of the planned exchequer court.44TSP iv. 57. In some matters, such as the reform of the postage system considered in November 1655, Broghill decided policy in private meetings with Disbrowe and Monck, ‘before the council do sit’.45TSP iv. 188, 199. Disbrowe’s close alliance with Broghill was founded on their agreement on religious policy. Both factions in the Kirk were hopeful that Disbrowe would favour them in the council, but their reception was very different. The Protesters, led by Sir Archibald Johnston* of Wariston, attended Disbrowe repeatedly in December 1655, but with little success.46Wariston Diary, iii, 18-20. As Wariston recorded on 4 December, ‘we were twice at Mr Disbrowe’s and after keeping us half an hour in his outer room, he sent us word that he was busy about some other business and could not speak with us then’.47Wariston Diary, iii. 19. Disbrowe’s incivility reveals his personal preference. In September 1656 another Protester, Sir Andrew Ker* of Greenhead, denounced him as ‘the great enemy to all our business’; and in later months, the rival Resolutioner party came to treat him as an ally.48Wariston Diary, iii. 41. In December 1656 the Edinburgh ministers thanked Disbrowe for ‘the civilities your honour did afford us when you were here’; and in the same month, the Edinburgh city council paid for a new ‘high seat’, for his sole use, in the church of the leading Resolutioner, George Hutchison.49Consultations ed. Stephen, i. 245-6; Recs. Burgh Edinburgh, 1655-65, 44; Edinburgh City Archives, SL1/1/19, f. 174. Disbrowe’s support of the Resolutioners, and coolness towards the Protesters exactly replicated the private opinions, and public policies, of Lord Broghill.

As he grew closer to Broghill, Disbrowe’s administrative portfolio expanded further. On Broghill’s advice, he became a judge of the exchequer and lord of session in May 1656, and, shortly afterwards, keeper of the Scottish great seal.50CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 326. The keepership had been awarded by the Scottish council the previous January, but was only approved by the protectoral council at Whitehall on 16 May.51Add. 57309, f. 19. A letter from Broghill makes it clear that Disbrowe had been acting as keeper – signing papers by hand – long before the seal itself was sent up to Edinburgh in June.52Eg. 2519, f. 15. Once it had arrived, the seal was ceremonially ‘carried before him to the exchequer house … in a rich purse made for that end … through the whole street, all discovered’.53J. Nicoll, A Diary of Public Transactions (Edinburgh, 1836), 183-4. From this time onwards, Disbrowe held most of the top civilian posts in Scotland, being ‘constant president’ of the high court of justice, judge of the exchequer and keeper of the great seal – or, as the diarist John Nicoll, put it: ‘chancellor and president in all the three courts’.54Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 385-90. In October 1658 Disbrowe admitted that he could not fulfil all his duties, especially in the high court of justice, as ‘only I am there sometimes, as other occasions will permit’.55TSP vii. 435. Despite this, the lack of suitable candidates meant there was no question of Disbrowe relinquishing any of his posts. Besides, pluralism was making him rich. The keepership alone brought a salary of £200 and profits of £800, and by this time his official income was at least £2,000 a year, allowing Disbrowe to purchase an estate in his home county of Cambridgeshire.56Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XLIV, pp. 5, 12 and unpag.; li, f. 30v; TSP iv. 526, 528.

Disbrowe’s return for Edinburgh Shire (or Midlothian) in the elections of 20 August 1656 was influenced by Broghill. On 9 August the president told Secretary John Thurloe* that Edinburgh Shire had asked him to be their candidate, but as he had already agreed to stand for the burgh, ‘I shall engage the interest I have in Midlothian for Mr Disbrowe’.57TSP v. 295. Once this change had been arranged, the election itself went smoothly, with the Scottish voters duly returning their English representative unopposed.58C219/45, unfol. Broghill then had to encourage Disbrowe to leave his administrative tasks and travel to Westminster. As Broghill told Thurloe, ‘Mr Disbrowe is indeed very earnest to go up, but ‘tis more to satisfy his wife than himself, who is very impatient to be there. He says, if his highness command him down again in six days, he will return’.59TSP v. 322. Disbrowe’s doubts were compounded by the concerns of Monck that, without a quorum in the council, the Scottish government would be emasculated. As Monck complained to Thurloe on 9 September, with the departure of two other councillors, John Swinton* and Sir Edward Rodes*, ‘there is none of the council left but Mr Disbrowe and myself; so that business cannot now be carried on’.60TSP v. 396. Monck’s reluctance to allow Disbrowe to leave Scotland is obvious: the pass for him to travel to London was issued only on 17 September 1656; Disbrowe, who took his seat in the Commons on 18 September, must have left Edinburgh several days before.61Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XLVI, unfol.: 17 Sept. 1656.

The second protectorate Parliament, 1656-7

During the first sitting of the second protectorate Parliament, Disbrowe emerged as an active supporter of the civilian interest, working closely with his colleagues from the Scottish administration, especially Lord Broghill, George Downing and Charles Howard*. As in 1654, his committee appointments reflect a professional interest in the administration. He was named to a large number of ad hoc committees to consider such matters as abuse of the wine trade (9 Oct.), the accounts of trustees for sale of church and royal lands (17 Oct.), the recovery of small debts (1 Nov.), the regulation of chancery (30 Apr. 1657), the inspection of the treasuries in all three nations (30 May): all of which would benefit from his administrative and legal expertise.62CJ vii. 436b, 440b, 449a, 528a, 543a. Disbrowe was also appointed to the committee of trade (6 Oct.), and soon became an active member, in December becoming embroiled in a dispute between the Merchant Adventurers and the Clothworkers’ Company, apparently in support of the latter.63Burton’s Diary, i. 89, 175, 221. Scottish business was paramount, and Disbrowe was appointed to the committee of Scottish affairs, which handled much of the relevant business, on its creation on 23 September 1656.64CJ vii. 427a. On 4 December he became involved in a dispute over the clause in the Scottish union bill confirming the rights of burghs. Disbrowe reported the matter from the sub-committee, and championed the burghs, despite the objections of two prominent army supporters, Adam Baynes and William Sydenham.65Burton’s Diary, i. 12-13. On 28 April 1657, when the union bill was again debated, Disbrowe argued for concessions to salt manufacturers in Scotland, who could not compete on equal terms with their counterparts at Shields.66Burton’s Diary, ii. 57. A day later, he urged the Commons to confirm the earlier order and declaration guaranteeing the customs and excise rates in Scotland.67Burton’s Diary, ii. 77. In June, he was involved in the debates on the Scottish assessments, and also supported the provost of Edinburgh, Andrew Ramsay*, in his attempt to have the Scottish ‘small coals’ exempted from customs duties.68Burton’s Diary, ii. 208, 215, 231-2, 273. There is evidence that Disbrowe acted for other members of the Scottish council in their private causes. In November 1656, for example, he was approached by Sir William Lockhart* (then in Paris) to prevent his brother-in-law, George Lockhart I*, for being excluded from the Parliament.69TSP v. 586.

In the spring of 1657 Disbrowe became a prominent supporter of the Remonstrance – the new civilian constitution backed by Lord Broghill, which later became known as the Humble Petition and Advice. He was deeply involved in the constitutional debates that followed. On 19 March he was named to the important committee to consider the 10th article, concerning religious toleration, and on the next day he was appointed to the committee on provisions within the constitution to ensure the peace of the nation against the king’s party.70CJ vii. 507b, 508b. For some reason Disbrowe was not included in the list of ‘kinglings’ who voted in favour of including the offer of the crown to Cromwell in the new constitution on 25 March, but two days later he was named to the committee to meet the protector to ask for a date to present the completed Humble Petition to him.71Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 23 (E.935.5); CJ vii. 514a. While Cromwell delayed in his reply to the Humble Petition, Disbrowe was appointed to committees on 6 and 7 April to prepare reasons why it should be accepted in its original form (including the controversial article giving Cromwell the crown), and to present these reasons.72CJ vii. 520a, 521a. On 24 April he was named to a committee to meet some of the protector’s objections to the 16th article, on the provision of justice in the three nations.73CJ vii. 524a.

Disbrowe’s other concerns during this Parliament included the fate of the Scottish Kirk and the ‘qualifications’ which would restrict the franchise north of the border. These were interconnected and controversial matters, not least because they reflected on the policies introduced by Broghill and the Scottish council and opposed by John Lambert* and the army interest (which included Disbrowe’s brother John). The army interest was loosely aligned with the Protester faction in the Scottish church, which sought to achieve political as well as religious hegemony through excluding from the franchise their royalist opponents, the Resolutioners, and by penalising them through the confiscation of estates. Disbrowe’s relations with the Protesters worsened as Parliament progressed. On 8 December 1656 Wariston heard from the Protester agent, Matthew Simpson, ‘about Mr Disbrowe’s terrible discourse against Mr James Guthrie and me, as these who would cut the protector’s throat’.74Wariston Diary, iii. 56. In March 1657 the letters of the Resolutioner agent, James Sharp, confirm that Disbrowe was one of their staunchest supporters. Disbrowe insisted that rehabilitating the Resolutioners was essential to the settlement of Scotland, and that ‘if at any time the council of Scotland had done any just act, that was one’.75Consultations ed. Stephen, i. 21-2. The honour of the council was involved, as well as the necessity of promoting the Resolutioner ministers (including his own pastor, George Hutchison) who were ‘eminent for piety above the Protesters’.76Consultations ed. Stephen, i. 32. It was also telling that, in June, libels against the Protesters were traced back to Sharp, ‘and by him to my Lord Broghill and by him or Mr Disbrowe to the Secretary [John Thurloe*]’.77Wariston Diary, iii. 83.

The restriction of the Scottish franchise to exclude all former royalists was closely connected with the religious controversy. On 23 April 1657 Disbrowe was adamant that those who had proved loyal since the Engagement of 1648 should be rehabilitated, arguing that ‘such as are your friends, I would have them restored’.78Burton’s Diary, ii. 11-12. The franchise question was resurrected by Lambert and his allies as part of the Additional Petition and Advice in June 1657, and hotly contested by Broghill, Thurloe and Philip Jones*. Wariston recorded that Disbrowe worked with these men in the committee of 25 June, bringing in ‘two clauses which take in all out malignants and Engagers [from] 1648’.79Wariston Diary, iii. 86. Later on the same day, in the Commons, ‘Mr Disbrowe had a serious harangue about the engagement of the council’s credit on the business’.80Wariston Diary, iii. 86. This ‘hot discourse’ brought Samuel into direct conflict with his brother John, who ‘answered him’.81Wariston Diary, iii. 87. The vote was close and (according to James Sharp) Samuel Disbrowe spoke for an hour ‘so fully to the purpose that no thing in reason could be opposed to him, but the officer faction stuck together and would have it carried’.82Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 43. Burton’s Diary mis-attributes this speech to John Disbrowe, but there is no doubt it was Samuel who pleaded ‘the necessity of this clause. You have excluded all that advised, assisted, etc. and so were taken in. If it be thus large, there will not be one left out of exceptions’. He went on to attack the marquess of Argyll (Archibald Campbell*) and the Protesters, saying that

the difference in Scotland was only about the Argyll and Hamilton families, and not out of any affection to you … The truth is, they were all a mass of Cavaliers … I am unwilling to speak of it in this place, but to choose honest men out of both parties. Those that you entrusted there [ie. the Scottish council], I dare say, would be as loath to let in ungodly men as any … this very party [the Protesters] that are pleaded for were those that fetched in Charles Stuart, your grand enemy. This party will not come in to you, but preach against those that come in to you, and excommunicate them.83Burton’s Diary, ii. 307-8.

Disbrowe’s vindication of the Scottish council’s policies towards former royalists, and his attack on the Protesters, shows his appreciation of what was at stake. But, in the absence of Broghill (who had been struck down with gout), the army interest were able to force the franchise restrictions through.

Amid the factionalism and bitterness, Disbrowe was also involved in horse-trading over the Scottish and Irish lands, confiscated from former royalists and granted as ‘donatives’ to prominent officers. The Scottish donatives were of obvious relevance to Disbrowe as commissioner for sequestrations, but they also involved George Monck, whose own donative, drawn from the Hamilton estates, was under question. When the ordinances were discussed on 28 April 1657, Disbrowe joined the Scottish judge-advocate, Henry Whalley*, in moving the House to confirm them, and the matter was referred to a committee. The next day Disbrowe reported from the committee, putting forward a proviso to allow wives and children of the former owners to have the benefit of part of the estate. This proviso was questioned by Lambert and John Swinton, both of whom had a vested interest in the confiscated estates of the earl of Lauderdale, and conflict was avoided when, in return for strict measures against Lauderdale, the pardons of two other royalists, Lord Cranston and the earl of Callander, were proposed by Swinton.84Burton’s Diary, ii. 63, 65-6, 75; CJ vii. 526a, 527a; NRAS 332 (Lennoxlove), L.1/189, no. 15. Disbrowe’s role in this compromise is unclear, but his reappearance at the committee meetings to arrange the Cranston and Callander pardons in June suggests that he was party to the deal.85CJ vii. 557b; NLS, MS 7032, f. 97. Less satisfactory was the attempt to reward Lord Broghill by increasing his land grant in Ireland.86CJ vii. 546a. This was strongly opposed by Lambert and his allies, and Disbrowe intervened on 5 June, telling the House: ‘he very well deserves it at your hands. He maintained two regiments at his own charge, and suffered much for you’.87Burton’s Diary, ii. 177. Disbrowe was reporter of the additional clause for settling the lands on Broghill on 24 June, and the bill was duly passed.88CJ vii. 573b. Little wonder that Wariston saw Disbrowe as a key influence over ‘Lord Broghill and his band’.89Wariston Diary, iii. 90-1.

Monck’s man, 1657-9

The first sitting of the second protectorate Parliament had seen Disbrowe defend the religious and political reforms promoted in Scotland by Lord Broghill; but in doing so he did not alienate George Monck, who was rethinking his position on many key issues at this time. Indeed, from the summer of 1657 Disbrowe became Monck’s firm ally in the Scottish administration, and shared the general’s frustration at the delay in sending the new commission to the council in the autumn of 1657, and also voiced his irritation that moves to increase the powers of the exchequer court ‘do stick with some members of the [protectoral] council’.90TSP vi. 498-9, 516-7. The renewal of his own commission as keeper of the great seal was signed on 16 September.91Eg. 2519, ff. 17v-18. In December he attended the Scottish council when it issued orders for a detailed survey of the estates of the late duke of Hamilton, which included the donative lands granted to Monck.92NRAS 332 (Lennoxlove), L.I/189, no. 14. In April 1658 Disbrowe sent Thurloe plans for improving crown revenues in Scotland using means ‘agreeable to the laws of this nation’ to effect ‘a legal repossessing of the crown of its ancient patrimony’. His comments show not only his concern to accommodate Scottish sensibilities, but also his (perhaps unconscious) use of monarchical language when talking of the protectorate.93TSP vii. 59-60. Disbrowe’s loyalty to the Cromwellian regime undoubtedly had a personal element. He mourned the death of Oliver Cromwell in September, writing to Henry Cromwell* with condolences at the passing of ‘your blessed father’, whom he extolled as ‘a precious, pious prince’.94Henry Cromwell Corresp. 405-6. Briefly abandoning his Scottish duties, on 23 November Disbrowe was present in London for Oliver’s funeral; and in the procession he was one of four dignitaries who carried the train of the chief mourner, Charles Fleetwood*.95Burton’s Diary, ii. 529.

Disbrowe’s importance in Monck’s government can be seen in the elections for Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament in the winter of 1658-9. Fear of the growing opposition to the protectorate encouraged the Scottish government to manage these elections very closely, and Disbrowe’s role in this was crucial. On 9 December, Disbrowe told Thurloe that it was ‘everyone’s duty, who wishes well to the peace of our Sion, to be industrious in his station to promote an election of persons of honest and sober principles’, and asked for nominations of Englishmen ‘who may do service in the House, whom you may desire to be chosen for Scotland, which I doubt [not] may be effected, if you please to commend any such to the general, wherein I shall give my best assistance’.96TSP vii. 555. Disbrowe was true to his word. On 21 December he told Thurloe that Monck had received his nominations, and ‘we joined together in several letters for those persons you were pleased to mention’.97TSP vii. 575. He sent the writs out to the various sheriffs the next day.98NRS, GD 157/2074/1. Opponents of the government were certainly treated severely. The Protesters remained a threat, and there was little love lost between Disbrowe and men like Wariston, who had earlier opined: ‘Lord keep us from Mr Disbrowe his malice, violence, calumnies and suggestions’.99Wariston Diary, iii. 94-5. In late December, when Wariston suggested his own candidacy for Linlithgow Shires, he found that Disbrowe had got there first, telling the local gentry that he ‘took ill other folks’ recommendations of men’ and insisting on an English MP being returned.100Wariston Diary, iii. 105. Others were less easily warned off. According to Disbrowe’s own account, ‘some persons … laboured to counteract us’ – perhaps a reference to the marquess of Argyll, who secured a seat for Aberdeenshire despite the opposition of the government.101TSP vii. 584. Despite such set-backs, Disbrowe and Monck managed the elections effectively. When Disbrowe put himself forward ‘for the place I formerly served for’, he was duly elected for Edinburgh Shire; but he was aware that his absence at Westminster would hamper the Scottish government, and asked ‘humbly to know whether it may be his highness’s pleasure I should attend’.102TSP vii. 555. By 30 December, however, Disbrowe’s scruples had been satisfied, and although claiming he was ‘unfit for a winter journey, but much more for the service in Parliament’, he assured Thurloe that he intended ‘to set forward about ten days hence’.103TSP vii. 584.

During the third protectorate Parliament, Disbrowe acted as Monck’s agent. Surviving letters show that the general sent him regular (probably weekly) reports of affairs at Westminster, and Monck’s repeated complaints ‘to hear how slow you proceed’, ‘and that you stand on such little punctilios’, matched Disbrowe’s impatience in the House.104Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 411-2, 414. On four occasions – 9, 10, 14 and 16 February – Disbrowe protested against deliberate interruptions of the recognition bill, which he saw as a simple matter of ‘owning your chief magistrate’.105Burton’s Diary, iii. 154, 196, 276, 283-4, 304. Hair-splitting and obfuscation also riled him during the debate on the Other House. On 18 February he complained: ‘if you say that there is another House, or not another House, till that be determined I cannot give my vote clearly’.106Burton’s Diary, iii. 343. In other speeches, Disbrowe comes across as pragmatic. He defended the peerage on 2 March, as a ‘fence to the liberties of this nation’ but warned that ‘greatness and goodness should go together’ and advised strict qualifications for membership of the Other House, ‘that no enemy may come in’.107Schilling thesis, 157. But there was no doubt where Disbrowe’s loyalties lay. On 8 March he spoke in favour of the Humble Petition (and the provision for the Other House contained therein) warning that, ‘I doubt we are pulling down those foundations that God has provided for us; I dread the consequence … If the Lord would give us a settlement on this foundation, I doubt not but our civil and religious liberties may be as well hedged and cared for as ever they were’.108Burton’s Diary, iv. 84-5.

Later in March, Disbrowe defended of the right of Scottish MPs to sit at Westminster.109Eg. 2159, f. 19. In a long speech on 17 March, he pressed the legal right of the Scots to sit, as even without the Humble Petition ‘Scotland had a statute law to have recourse to, which says they shall have 30 Members’, and although the distribution of seats had not been confirmed ‘this act of union has the precedency of the Members coming to the last Parliament’. For Disbrowe, the union was vital to the survival of the protectorate, for if the union fell, ‘a three-fold cord will all snap at one blow, the consent of Parliament, of his highness, of the people’; and the union had brought harmony between English and Scots: ‘You may make laws for union, but you cannot unite their hearts. They are united to you. They submit unto all things. A man may ride all Scotland over with a switch in his hand and £100 in his pocket, which he could not have done these five hundred years’.110Burton’s Diary, iv. 167-9. Disbrowe’s view of union as intrinsically good, as a binding force not just for the three nations but for the protectoral regime as a whole, shows how closely he agreed with the arguments espoused by Broghill and, more cautiously, by Monck. Disbrowe’s attachment to Monck may have moderated his tone when it came to criticism of the army interest. On 1 April, when the revenues were debated, he upheld the large sums promised to the government under the Humble Petition, but tried to soothe the opponents of the regime: ‘this is no gift, but to maintain the army, and you must maintain them, it’s not to maintain the young of the court as formerly’.111Derbs. RO, D258/10/9/2, ff. 13v-14. Likewise, on 15 April Disbrowe supported the excise as vital ‘for payment of your army’ but argued for Parliament to retain control of the tax.112Burton’s Diary, iv. 435. It is also interesting that he was not involved in the attacks on the army in the fortnight that followed.

Disbrowe also acted as Monck’s agent in countering the influence of the marquess of Argyll. New evidence of his duplicity with the royalists in 1652-3 had now come to light, and Monck told Disbrowe on 24 March 1659 that ‘there is no man in the three nations does more disaffect the English interest than he’, adding that ‘I think you will do very well to follow your resolution in keeping him out of the House, and I think there is enough … to do it’.113Eg. 2159, f. 19. Disbrowe could do little to effect this, and in April Monck again wrote warning of Argyll’s attempts at ‘making friends in the House’ for financial as well as political gain.114Eg. 2159, f. 29. The Scottish government’s concerns can be seen in other aspects of Disbrowe’s activity. As in earlier Parliaments, he was involved in matters concerning the Scottish economy. He was named to the committee of Scottish affairs when it was appointed on 1 April, and to the committee on the excise (which would affect Scottish salt exports) on 13 April.115CJ vii. 623b, 639a. He was also drawn into the debate on customs, which he described as ‘the greatest grievance that ever was complained of this Parliament’.116Burton’s Diary, iv. 324. Disbrowe maintained his good relations with the Resolutioner party in the Scottish Church. When the Edinburgh ministers sent James Sharp back to London in March 1659 they wrote to Disbrowe for support ‘humbly to entreat and expect that your lordship will lay forth yourself in this particular’.117Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 153. Sharp’s letter to his Edinburgh masters of 29 March attested to Disbrowe’s willingness to help their cause, in conjunction with other friends from 1657, Broghill, Thurloe and Philip Jones.118NLS, Wodrow Folio MSS 26, f. 167. There was a private as well as a public motivation in Disbrowe’s involvement in religious affairs. In the House, Disbrowe repeatedly sided with the English Presbyterians, for example over the printing of fast sermons and the maintenance of ministers in Wales (4 and 5 Feb.), and this suggests he sympathised with their cause.119Burton’s Diary, iii. 68, 83. Disbrowe certainly had strongly-held, conservative religious views.120Original Letters ed. Nickolls, 54; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 405-6. In the midst of the Scottish debate he took exception to biblical references being used lightly by another MP: ‘I would not have scripture used argumentatively. I would not have scripture made to laugh at’.121Burton’s Diary, iv. 201.

Restoration and retirement, 1659-1690

With the fall of the protectorate in May 1659, Disbrowe lost his official positions in Scotland, and his political career came to an abrupt end. There were rumours that in June he was working with Monck’s brother-in-law, Dr Thomas Clarges*, to further the general’s business in London, but he appears to have played no role during the political crisis of the winter of 1659-60, when Monck suddenly became the most important figure in the three nations.122Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 416. Monck’s influence ensured that, unlike his brother John, Samuel did not suffer at the Restoration. On 21 May 1660 Disbrowe submitted to the Declaration of Breda, in a document witnessed by Monck in person; and on 24 October he was granted a royal pardon.123Eg. 2159, ff. 32, 34. He lived in retirement on his Cambridgeshire estate until his death in December 1690. His will, written in September 1680, gave Elsworth and the Irish lands to his only son from his first marriage, James, but reserved a substantial life-interest for his second wife. James died a few weeks before his father, however, and the estate eventually passed to his only daughter, Elizabeth.124PROB11/404/236; Genealogical Gleanings, i. 245-6, 250-1.