REYNOLDS, (Sir) John (1625-57), of Castle Camps, Cambs. and Carrick-on-Suir, co. Tipperary.

John Reynolds was a younger son from a prominent Cambridgeshire family, whose landed interests spanned much of East Anglia.21Cambs. Monumental Inscriptions ed. W.M. Palmer (Cambridge, 1932), 21-2. John’s father, Sir James Reynolds, had been knighted by James I in 1618, and his half-brother, Robert, was a successful lawyer and MP for Hinton in the Long Parliament.22Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 168; infra, ‘Robert Reynolds’. The young John Reynolds (who was only 15 in 1640) no doubt derived some benefit from his family’s social position, and from his own education at Cambridge and the inns of court, but his rise to wealth and political influence was mainly due to his service as an officer in the parliamentarian army. It is unlikely that he was the ‘Captain Reynolds’ commended for his bravery for leading the Plymouth horse in action in Cornwall in August 1644.23Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 605-6. Instead, he may have served with Colonel Bartholomew Vermuyden’s regiment in the final months of the Eastern Association army, and he was certainly a captain in the same unit when it was incorporated into the New Model army in April 1645. In early June the regiment was reassigned to Oliver Cromwell, who became Reynolds’ mentor as well as his commanding officer.24Wanklyn, New Model Army, 52, 62, 73. Another possible patron was Sir Thomas Fairfax*, who interceded with the Commons to ensure Reynolds’ inclusion in the officer list in March 1645.25CJ iv. 65b; R.K.G. Temple, ‘The Original Officer List of the New Model Army’, BIHR, lix. 65. Reynolds saw active service with Cromwell’s regiment, and soon demonstrated his bravery by heading the assault troops at the storm of Bridgwater in late July 1645.26I. Gentles, The New Model Army (Oxford, 1992), 104.

After the first civil war, Reynolds was beguiled by the religious and political radicalism which pervaded many of the New Model cavalry regiments – an interest which may have been encouraged by his position as ‘one of the greatest favourites’ of Oliver Cromwell.27Clarke Pprs. i. 22. Reynolds’ commitment to the cause, and his proven bravery in the field, also seems to have heightened his reputation among the men of the regiment. When the troopers sent representatives to the army council in the spring of 1647, Reynolds was hailed as ‘the chairman of the agitators’.28Petition and Vindication of the Officers (1647), 1 (E.385.19); Clarke Pprs. i. 22, 426-7. This was more than a mere title: in May 1647 he coordinated the efforts of the army representatives in their meetings at Saffron Walden to protest at the disbandment of the army and its transportation to Ireland, and he may have had a hand in the petition which the agitators sent to Parliament.29Clarke Pprs. i. 22, 426-7. Reynolds’ close involvement with the rank and file threatened to sour his relationship with Cromwell and the other commanders, and Fairfax vetoed his nomination of governor of Weymouth in September 1647.30Gentles, New Model Army, 198. Tensions came to a head in the spring of 1648, when a group of soldiers and junior officers met at St Albans to prepare a petition inciting the army to revolt.31The Armies Petition (3 May 1648), 2-3 (E.438.1). The army commanders summoned the conspirators to Westminster, where they were imprisoned by a council of war and threatened with the death penalty for mutiny.32The Perfect Weekly Account no. 8 (26 Apr.-3 May 1648), 58 (E.438.8). Reynolds, one of only a few officers involved, was sentenced ‘to endure three months imprisonment and then to be cashiered’; other culprits were sentenced to death.33Windsor Projects and Westminster Practices (1648), 5-6 (E.442.10).

The shock of imprisonment (and the threat of worse to follow) seems to have caused Reynolds to rethink his position, and he soon made overtures to his old friends in the high command. In later pamphlets published by Levellers in his regiment, Reynolds was denounced as a ‘turn-coat’ and worse, and he was accused of securing promotion and monetary rewards by responding to ‘a motion from the Committee of Derby House to transport us for Ireland’, selling his comrades into the Irish service ‘for four pounds a man and horse’.34The Levellers Vindicated (1649), 4 (E.571.11); J. Nayler, The Newmade Colonel, (1649), 6-7 (E.552.10). The emotive nature of these attacks on Reynolds notwithstanding, it appears that his critics might have had a point. They were right to date his rejection of the soldiers’ cause to the period after his release from prison in the autumn of 1648; and a mention in the Derby House Committee’s records of negotiations with Reynolds in November of that year suggests that he was indeed planning to re-establish his own military standing by taking a regiment to Ireland.35CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 329. By this time, Reynolds had been promoted to major, and was trusted enough to be sent to attend the king on the Isle of Wight in December.36Gentles, New Model Army, 301. In the same month he became a regular attender at the army council - another sign of his return to favour with the general officers.37Clarke Pprs. ii. 278.

The first test of the strength of Reynolds’ allegiance to the army hierarchy came in the spring of 1649, as Cromwell began preparations to take an expeditionary force to Ireland. The Levellers received no support from Reynolds, and in March he was busy recruiting his own regiment of horse to join the Irish campaign.38SP28/59, f. 95; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XLIX, unfol.: 12 Feb. 1649. Disorder again broke out in early April, when Reynolds was ordered to join his regiment and march for Liverpool, ready for embarkation.39CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 66, 68, 94. In late April the regiment was in Warwickshire, but refused to march any further, and in early May the soldiers began to foment unrest in units stationed in Northamptonshire and Shropshire.40CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 111, 125; The Newmade Colonel, 11-12. At the end of the first week of May, a section of Reynolds’ regiment ‘declared for the Levellers’, and joined in the general disturbances which culminated in the defeat of the insurgents at Burford later in the summer.41The Kingdomes Faithfull Scout no. 15 (4-11 May 1649), 119 (E.530.2). Reynolds suppressed unrest in his own regiment, and went on to play an important role in defeating the Levellers at Banbury, and in restoring order across the west midlands generally.42The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer no. 311 (8-15 May 1649), 1353, 1388-9 (E.555.18); The Moderate no. 44 (8-15 May 1649), sig. xx (E.555.16). Despite desertion and disorder causing more delays, by late July Reynolds and his regiment at last made it to the Welsh coast, and were transported to Dublin as part of an advance guard under Robert Venables*, sent to reinforce the beleaguered Protestant garrison commanded by Colonel Michael Jones.43CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 233, 236, 242.

Within days of landing in Dublin, Reynolds and the other English colonels took part in the battle of Rathmines – Michael Jones’s crushing victory over the marquess of Ormond’s royalist army, just outside the gates of the Irish capital.44Bodl. Tanner 56, f. 87. After Cromwell’s arrival, Reynolds joined the main field army, serving at the sieges of Drogheda and Wexford, before joining the march into the southern province of Munster.45SP28/62, ff. 29, 444; SP28/63, f. 25; SP28/64, ff. 11, 253. In the following four years, Reynolds was one of the most active regimental commanders in the army in Ireland: in December 1649 he took Carrick-on-Suir in co. Tipperary, and defended the same against a fierce counter-attack; in 1650 he served in south-west Munster; and in 1651 he joined forces with Sir Charles Coote* and Edmund Ludlowe II* in a series of campaigns in Connaught.46Bodl. Tanner 56, f. 150; Merc. Politicus, no. 4 (27 June-4 July 1650), 63 (E.607.4); ibid. no. 48 (1-7 May 1652), 780 (E.628.9); Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 48-9, 56, 59, 102. It was during this period that Reynolds was promoted as commissary-general of the horse in Ireland. In 1652 Reynolds was in command of ‘a considerable party of horse and foot’ at Athlone, and worked in conjunction with Coote in retaking the Confederate strongholds of Roscommon, Jamestown, Carrick-on-Shannon and Sligo, and in harassing ‘the fastnesses of the enemy in Ulster’.47Bodl. Tanner 55, f. 174; Merc. Politicus no. 93 (11-18 Mar. 1652), 1461 (E.656.20); no. 96 (1-8 Apr. 1652), 1516-7 (E.659.11); no. 118 (2-9 Sept. 1652), 1855 (E.674.32); Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 128, 168-70, 172, 210, 217, 221, 227. As 1652 wore on, Reynolds was involved in negotiating treaties which led to the surrender of the remaining Irish forces on the mainland of Ireland, and in early 1653 he commanded expeditions against the Arran Islands and Innisboffin, to stamp out the last areas of resistance.48Ire. under the Commonwealth, i, 197, 236-7, 279-80; Merc. Politicus no. 138 (27 Jan.-3 Feb. 1653), 2201 (E.686.6); no. 143 (3-10 Mar. 1653), 2278 (E.689.16); Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 312-3, 319.

While on active service, Reynolds also became involved in the administration of Ireland. In October 1652 he was appointed as an assistant to the high court of justice set up to prosecute those Irish rebels accused of murder, and the next month he was drafted onto a committee to advise on further measures to be taken against recalcitrant Confederates.49Merc. Politicus no. 125 (21-8 Oct. 1652), 1969 (E.678.26); Eg.1761, f. 52v. In 1654 Reynolds served on committees to organize the transplantation of the native Irish and to administer the court of claims; and he was also involved in measures to care for maimed soldiers and the families of those killed in the wars.50Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 451, 454, 473, 538. Reynolds’ financial prospects had improved considerably by this time. His debentures for arrears were exchanged for over 7,000 acres in co. Cork, and to this he added lands in Waterford purchased from Colonel John Fowke.51TSP, vi. 761. In August 1654 Reynolds was rewarded by the protectorate council with the confirmation of an earlier grant of lands worth £500 per annum, centred on the castle and lands formerly owned by the earls of Ormond at Carrick-on-Suir, co. Tipperary.52CSP Dom. 1654, p. 295. Success in Ireland brought advancement in England. After protracted negotiations; Reynolds signed an agreement with Sir Henry Mildmay* for the hand of his daughter in December 1653, and the wedding took place at Wanstead in Essex in January 1654.53Essex RO, D/DM/T3/1; Wanstead par. regs.; Add. 22546, f. 156. In February 1654 Reynolds was given a prominent place in the military procession that accompanied Cromwell’s formal entry into the City of London.54Clarke Pprs. v. 151.

In the elections for the first protectorate Parliament at the beginning of August 1654, Reynolds was returned for two Irish constituencies: cos. Tipperary and Waterford and cos. Galway and Mayo.55TSP ii. 445-6; C219/44, unfol. The southern seat was presumably secured because of his recent acquisitions in both counties, and he may have owed the western seat to the interest of his former colleague in the army (and his fellow MP for the constituency), Sir Charles Coote*. Although Reynolds eventually chose to sit for Galway and Mayo, security concerns kept him in Ireland in the first months of the Parliament, and when he did cross the Irish Sea in the closing weeks of 1654, he went as a messenger from the lord deputy, Charles Fleetwood*, to the lord protector, and played no part in proceedings at Westminster.56TSP ii. 719, 733; Merc. Politicus no. 235 (7-14 Dec. 1654), 4086 (E.820.2). Another reason for Reynolds’ journey may have been the illness of his young wife, then living in Westminster, who was ‘full of weakness of body’ when she wrote her will in August 1654, and was dead before the beginning of February 1655.57PROB11/247/60.

Reynolds’ reputation for loyalty to the Cromwellian regime was reinforced in the spring of 1655, when he was sent as commander of an Irish brigade to secure Warwickshire and Shropshire against royalist unrest in the wake of Penruddock’s western rising.58TSP iii. 264-5, 285, 298, 336-7, 356. He was rewarded with a knighthood in June 1655.59Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 223. Reynolds’ return to Ireland a month later coincided with the arrival of the protector’s younger son, Henry Cromwell*, as major-general of the army in Ireland and (after Fleetwood’s recall to England in the following month) de facto governor of the island. A close friendship and political alliance soon developed between the two men. As early as August 1655, Reynolds endorsed Henry Cromwell’s more pragmatic approach to Ireland, telling Secretary John Thurloe* that ‘the most present remedy will be the settlement of power in the hands of moderate, wise, religious men’ – an implicit rejection of the Baptist-influenced army faction previously sponsored by Fleetwood.60TSP iii. 691. In September 1655 Henry Cromwell supported Reynolds’ candidacy as commander of the forces based in the West Indies, although he told Thurloe that ‘if you take him hence, you deprive me of my right hand’.61TSP iv. 24, 54. In mid-November, after continuing unrest in the Irish army, Reynolds became more open in his opposition to the ‘discontents amongst the officers here, especially of the baptised churches’, and called for the return of Fleetwood, or, better still, the appointment of Henry Cromwell as lord deputy.62TSP iv. 197.

In January 1656, Reynolds left Ireland for England, and in the next few months acted as Henry Cromwell’s agent at the protector’s court.63TSP iv. 407. On his arrival, he presented the protector with a petition from the Irish officer corps in favour of Henry, and met Thurloe to reassure him of the sound ‘management’ of the government in Ireland.64TSP iv. 421, 478, 505; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 102-3. In February Reynolds championed Henry Cromwell’s call for new appointments in the Irish administration, pressing for the appointment of three veteran Old Protestants, Sir Robert King*, Sir Gerard Lowther and Sir John Temple*, as councillors, and for the nomination of other sympathetic men for places in the Irish judiciary and treasury. Reynolds also argued against the appointment of army officers to such positions, because ‘military men are best employed in their own work with less offence and more usefulness’.65Henry Cromwell Corresp. 108-9. By May 1656 Reynolds was working in conjunction with Dr Thomas Harrison and others to foil attempts by Colonel John Hewson* and other officers to undermine Henry Cromwell.66TSP v. 150, 177. He was not over-confident, however, telling Henry on 27 May of ‘the delay of my expectation of a sober settlement of Ireland’.67Henry Cromwell Corresp. 131. Despite reports from Reynolds in June that the protector had promised that his son ‘should receive full encouragement speedily’, in early July Henry had been brought close to despair by the actions of his enemies, and threatened to resign.68Henry Cromwell Corresp. 137-41; TSP v. 177. Reynolds, who feared that ‘if you quit this cause ... the sober settlement of Ireland is betrayed’, managed to persuade Henry to stand firm.69Henry Cromwell Corresp. 156-7. His success in this testifies to the strength of trust that had grown between the two men; and this may have been further enhanced by news that Reynolds was courting Henry’s sister-in-law, the daughter of Sir Francis Russell*.70Henry Cromwell Corresp. 114, 128, 138.

Progress towards the settlement of Ireland was interrupted by the decision to call a new Parliament in the autumn of 1656.71Henry Cromwell Corresp. 165-4. Sir Francis Russell ‘and some others of his Cambridgeshire friends’ had intended to canvass for Reynolds to sit as knight of the shire, but these plans were abandoned when Reynolds was ordered to return to Ireland in early July.72Henry Cromwell Corresp. 163-4, 172-3. He arrived in Dublin in mid-August, and immediately travelled to Tipperary ‘to secure his election’, before meeting Henry Cromwell at Kilkenny.73TSP v. 196, 213, 237, 327. Reynolds owed his return for cos. Tipperary and Waterford to his own status as a local landowner; but he may also have benefited from the support of Henry Cromwell and the Boyle family, especially the 2nd earl of Cork (Sir Richard Boyle*) who had extensive landed interests in the two counties.74TSP v. 327. This conjunction of interests gave Reynolds’ election a distinctly factional flavour, and this may have prompted some around the protector to try to block his passage from Ireland, claiming that his presence there was essential ‘in this time of imminent danger’. Henry Cromwell objected to this manoeuvre, however, and the protector soon relented, allowing Reynolds to travel to England in mid-September.75TSP v. 398, 424, 443.

Once at Westminster, Reynolds became an important spokesman for Henry Cromwell’s government. He was added to the committee of Irish affairs on 11 October, and over the next few months he was routinely named to committees dealing with the allocation of land in Ireland, including the cases of Sir Hardress Waller*, Anthony Morgan*, Sir Theophilus Jones*, John Blackwell and Henry Cromwell himself, and defended former royalists, such as Lord Montgomery of the Ards and Lord Claneboy, against adventurers and army officers who coveted their lands.76CJ vii. 437b, 443b, 452a, 477a, 491b, 505b; Burton’s Diary, i. 2-3, 245, 259-60. Although Reynolds was named to committees on English issues, including those to reform excise, recover of debts, and encourage civil lawyers, during the winter of 1656-7 he became increasingly keen to prevent side-issues from getting in the way of Irish legislation.77CJ vii. 445b, 449a, 457a, 462b. He played a minor role in the proceedings against the Quaker, James Naylor, telling against an adjournment of the business on 13 December and being added to the committee to receive petitions against Quakers on 18 December, but he was impatient with the slowness of Parliament’s deliberations, asking that the matter be referred to a meeting of ministers on 8 December, and on 16 December opposing any moves that would ‘hinder’ the decision, calling instead for ‘a new day for Ireland’.78CJ vii. 468a, 470a; Burton’s Diary, i. 74, 79-80, 148, 150. Similarly, on 23 December Reynolds joined Fleetwood in calling for the Irish Union bill to take precedence over that for Scotland; and on 20 January 1657 he joined Anthony Morgan and others in pressing for the Irish attainder bill to be read for the first time.79Burton’s Diary, i. 215, 367. At the beginning of February it was reported that Reynolds, Thurloe and Sir Gilbert Pykeringe* had met the protector in private to discuss Irish business.80TSP vi. 37. Even the introduction of the Remonstrance was seen by Reynolds as something of a distraction, for ‘the public business of the new model of government ... take up the whole time, and no room for Ireland in the thoughts of any until this be dispatched’.81Henry Cromwell Corresp. 217, 232-3.

Although Reynolds regretted the impact of the constitutional debates on the Irish bills, there is no question of his support for the Remonstrance, or his importance in the process by which it was transformed into the Humble Petition and Advice over the next few weeks. On 24 February, Reynolds wrote to Henry Cromwell with an outline of the proposed changes, noting that ‘the business is so raw at present as it will endure only gentle handling’.82Henry Cromwell Corresp. 206-7. Thereafter, he sent Henry weekly letters charting progress, in which he repeatedly signalled his ‘true loyalty to his highness’ through his support for reform.83Henry Cromwell Corresp. 217, 232-3, 235-6, 243-4, 259-60. His claims are borne out by his activities in the Commons. On 2 March he joined Charles Howard as teller against delaying consideration of the first article, which proposed setting up a hereditary monarchy; on 6 March he was named to a committee to incorporate Irish and Scottish matters into the third article, concerning parliamentary privilege; and on 10 March he was appointed to a committee to consider the 4th article, involving ‘qualifications’ for voters and candidates in elections.84CJ vii. 498a, 499b, 501a. Reynolds soon became involved in committees to amend other articles. On 16 March he was named to the committee to consider the liberty and property rights in article 7; on 19 March he was included in a committee to consider limited religious toleration under article 10; and on 20 March he was named to a committee appointed to consider softening the effect of anti-royalist legislation on Irish and Scottish Protestants under article 12.85CJ vii. 505a, 507b, 508b.

On 24 March Reynolds reported to Henry Cromwell the ‘pitched battle’ which had taken place between Broghill, Whitelocke and others against John Disbrowe and the major-generals, in the debate over the ‘title and office of king’.86Henry Cromwell Corresp. 235-6. But Reynolds was not just a spectator of this factional row. On 25 March he voted in favour of including the offer of the crown to Cromwell in the first article, and acted as teller with Charles Howard in favour of the controversial motion when the House divided.87CJ vii. 511a; Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 23 (E.935.5). After the success of the ‘kinglings’ in pushing through this vote, Reynolds was named to a committee to finalize the text of the Humble Petition, and on 27 March he was one of those chosen to attend the protector with the news that the constitution was ready for his perusal.88CJ vii. 511b, 514a. On 6 April, Reynolds was appointed to the committee which tried to persuade Cromwell to accept the Humble Petition in the monarchical form passed by the Commons, and, three days later, he was named to the committee which sought to answer his doubts.89CJ vii. 520b, 521b. Reynolds told Henry Cromwell of the heightened tension at Westminster at this time - ‘the Parliament hath put off all business until his highness’s pleasure be declared’ – and of his own fears for the future: ‘the Lord dispose to a good settlement!’90Henry Cromwell Corresp. 251. His mood had not improved on 14 April, when he reported two conferences with the protector, after which ‘we are at present in suspense’; and on 27 April he admitted: ‘I have not so much sanguine hope as some of my companions, but do assure your lordship our cause is not so given up as that the blades have cause to be jocund’.91Henry Cromwell Corresp. 259-60, 263. On 2 May Reynolds told the Commons that ‘we have more reason to expect an answer now than ever, because his highness has promised it’, and on 5 May he confided to Henry Cromwell that ‘yet we wait upon God and upon his highness to establish government by a lawful authority, and that necessity may be laid aside’.92Burton’s Diary, ii. 105; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 268-9. Cromwell’s refusal of the crown three days later was a serious set-back for Reynolds and his friends.

Yet Reynolds did not emerge from the kingship debates entirely empty-handed. The settlement of Irish lands continued during April and May, and, after pressure from Lord Broghill and others, an act was passed in June confirming Reynolds in possession of £500 per annum in land awarded to him earlier in the decade, and in other lands granted by the Long Parliament.93CJ vii. 529a, 558b; A. and O.; Burton’s Diary, ii. 95-6. Furthermore, on 25 April he had received military promotion, as captain-general of the 6,000 troops to be sent by Cromwell to reinforce the French against the Spaniards and their royalist allies in Flanders.94Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iv. 504-5; CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 358, 368-9. There was much uncertainty surrounding the new command. At first Reynolds suspected it was a trick, and reportedly ‘went to the lord deputy [Fleetwood, and] told him he thought it a design to be rid of him, and that therefore was not willing to go’.95Henry Cromwell Corresp. 258. On 27 April Sir Francis Russell thought Reynolds was ‘at present in some kind of trouble of mind’ over his new command, and something of this can also be seen and two days later, when Reynolds told the House, during the debate on the marriage bill, ‘I know not how soon I may be called away, and would fain to see the end of it before I go. I moved it not only for my particular good, but for the public’.96Henry Cromwell Corresp. 264; Burton’s Diary, ii. 74. Reynolds’ commission was presented to the Commons by Broghill on 5 May, and Reynolds ‘stood up, and put off his hat, and leave was given him accordingly’.97CJ vii. 530b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 115.

Henry Cromwell was distraught at the prospect of Reynolds’ long-term absence from Ireland, but as Thurloe asserted, ‘I think he will not be useless to our affairs in the place where he will be’.98TSP vi. 223, 230-1, 261. The preparations for Reynolds’ departure were hurried. He married Sarah Russell a few days later, spending only one week with his new bride before sailing to France on 18 May.99Hunts. RO, Acc. 731/57/16; TSP vi. 291. During the summer’s campaign Reynolds was honoured as ‘a person of extraordinary esteem’ on the continent.100TSP vi. 487. The high-point of his military activities was the taking of the fort at Mardyke in September, and his defence of the same against Spanish attempts to recapture it.101TSP vi. 522-3, 605; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 167; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 328. But the absence of French support and the reluctance of Cromwell to invest in the scheme, made Mardyke untenable, and Reynolds became eager to return home, not least to visit his ‘loving and faithful wife’.102Add. 4125, ff. 245, 383-4. His new father-in-law, Sir William Russell, lobbied Cromwell, Fleetwood and Thurloe to allow his return to England, and by early December Reynolds was able to take advantage of a lull in the fighting to plan his crossing to England.103TSP vi. 605, 630, 653-4, 658-9. On 5 December Reynolds and Colonel Francis White* set sail in a small vessel, hoping to meet the British warship, Half Moon, off the coast of France. Missing the rendezvous, the crew set course for England instead, but soon ran into ‘terrible winds’, and the ship foundered on Goodwin Sands with the loss of all on board.104TSP vi. 665; CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 213, 219; Whitelocke, Diary, 481. News of Reynolds’ death reached London on 15 December, and Dublin a week later.105TSP vi. 681, 699. Sir Francis Russell went to London to comfort his distraught daughter on 18 December.106Hunts. RO, Acc. 731/57/16. The body was never recovered.

The sudden death of Sir John Reynolds caused general dismay among his friends in England and Ireland. John Thurloe bemoaned that ‘this loss is exceeding sad and a very great blow to us’, and similar sentiments were expressed by Henry Cromwell and even Charles Fleetwood, who complained that it was ‘a very public as well as private loss’.107TSP vi. 676, 680, 681, 699; Clarke Pprs. v. 263. Reynolds’ death also caused enormous problems for his heirs. Most of his landed interests were still in the form of debentures, which, as personal (rather than real) estate, should have passed to his wife for her lifetime, while the Carrick-on-Suir lands passed to the heir-general, his sister, Dorothy Calthorpe.108TSP vi. 761; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 388-9. But because the will only specified English property, the Irish lands were claimed by Reynolds’ brother, Robert Reynolds, who challenged his sister’s rights. In retaliation, the Calthorpes claimed that the will was void, and in July 1659 the dispute reached the Rump Parliament, which upheld the will and the claims of Robert Reynolds.109PROB6/334, f. 336; CJ vii. 725a-6a. Reynolds’ widow was in the meantime saddled with her husband’s debts, and although Henry Cromwell did his best to protect her interests, there was little he could do now that he was out of office.110Hunts. RO, Acc. 731/57/17. It is uncertain whether Robert Reynolds managed to retain the Waterford and Cork lands after the Restoration, but the Carrick-on-Suir estate was returned to its previous owner, now duke of Ormond, in 1660.