PYKERINGE, Sir Gilbert, 1st bt. (1611-68), of Titchmarsh, Northants., and Old Tilt Yard, Whitehall

The descendant of ‘an ancient and respectable family in Westmorland’, Pykeringe’s ancestor and namesake purchased lands at Titchmarsh, on the Northamptonshire-Huntingdonshire border, in 1553. Pykeringe’s grandfather was employed by Lord Burleigh ‘by which he considerably improved his fortune’, and his father sat for the county in 1626 and in the following year was imprisoned with other Northamptonshire men for refusing to pay the Forced Loan. Pykeringe succeeded to the estates in early 1628, when he was still a minor. His father had been on friendly terms with the powerful Montagu family and Pykeringe married into the Huntingdonshire branch of that family. It was probably to his father-in-law, Sir Sidney Montagu*, that Pykeringe owed his baronetcy, granted in 1638, the same year as his marriage.31Bridges, Northants., ii. 383, 387.

At the Northamptonshire election on 19 March 1640, John Crewe I* was returned in first place; but there followed a contest for the second between the deputy lieutenant Thomas Elmes, who was backed by the local nobility including the earl of Peterborough, and Pykeringe, who enjoyed the support of Thomas Ball and other Puritan ministers. Pykeringe’s supporters traduced Elmes as one who had oppressed the people during the bishops’ wars, and intimidated voters on the day of the election by shouting ‘A Pykeringe, A Pykeringe! No Elmes, no deputy lieutenants!’ in the castle yard at Northampton. Such tactics were successful, but did nothing for Pykeringe’s position in Northamptonshire.32J. Fielding, ‘Opposition to the Personal Rule of Charles I: the diary of Robert Woodford, 1637 -41’ HJ xxxi. 786. During the Short Parliament, Pykeringe’s one recorded intervention in debate was on 17 April, when he presented a petition from Northamptonshire, ‘delivered him at his election’, against religious innovations, Ship Money and military charges.33Procs. Short Parl., 157, 275; Aston’s Diary, 10; CSP Dom. 1640, p. 7. Pykeringe was robust in his defence of the petition, saying ‘there are some things complained of as the grievances of this county, others as national grievances, wherein this county has her share as well as others and therefore it is added’.34Hirst, Representative of the People?, 268.

The Long Parliament, 1640-9

Pykeringe was re-elected for the county on 29 October 1640 in tandem with his uncle, Sir John Driden*. His first intervention, on 10 November, was to present a petition against the former secretary of state, Sir Francis Windebanke*.35D’Ewes (N), 22. In December 1640 he was mostly involved in the dismantling of the Caroline church. On 3 December, he was appointed to the committee to consider the petition of William Prynne*, Henry Burton and other victims of the Archbishop William Laud.36CJ ii. 44b. Later in the same months he was named to committees for his godly alma mater in Cambridge, to examine the state of the preaching ministry and to hear a petition against the bishop of Ely.37CJ ii. 53a, 54b, 56a. By the end of the month there were signs that Pykeringe was being drawn in the attack on secular policies, as on 30 December he was named to the committee on a bill for the holding of annual Parliaments.38CJ ii. 60a. He also delivered a petition from ministers of Peterborough on 23 January 1641.39D’Ewes (N), 277n. After this vigorous start, Pykeringe disappears from the parliamentary record altogether for three months, and apparently played no part in the trial of Thomas Wentworth, 1st earl of Strafford. He was listed as taking the Protestation in May, and spoke in the episcopacy bill debate on 12 June, making the sardonic comment ‘that if ministers were good and painful men yet when they were made bishops they fell off and became ill members of the commonwealth’.40CJ ii. 133a; Harl. 478, f. 64. In August, in a letter to Sir Rowland St John, Pykeringe expressed his frustration with the Lords’ reluctance to allow the disarming of papists, commenting ‘if the Lords will not concur with us, we shall see what an order of the House of Commons can do’.41Beds. RO, St John MS J1387. Pykeringe was sufficiently respected among his colleagues to be named to the Recess Committee on 9 September.42CJ ii. 288b. After the return of the House, Pykeringe’s attendance was patchy. He was named to a committee on the trade in salt and wine on 30 November and on 24 December he was one of eight MPs appointed to consider an obnoxious sermon preached by Mr Williamson at St. Martin-in-the-Fields.43CJ ii. 327b, 356b. After another gap he was named to a committee on Gray’s Inn on 18 February 1642, and on 5 March he was included in the committee to consider the bill against the impeached bishops.44CJ ii. 440a, 467b.

Pykeringe’s only slight involvement with parliamentary business before the summer of 1642 did not indicate a lack of enthusiasm for the campaign to restrict royal power. As civil war approached, he became an important figure in the organisation of resistance in Northamptonshire. On 8 June 1642 he was charged with ensuring the execution of the militia ordinance in the county, and on 20 June he was able to inform the House ‘how readily and willing the county of Northampton yielded to the ordinance’.45CJ ii. 614a, 633b. On 9 August he was among a group of local MPs – including Driden and Crewe – sent to Northamptonshire to execute the militia ordinance and secure the peace of the county.46CJ ii. 711a. He was also appointed a commissioner to deal with muster of horses and arms at Northampton on 18 August.47CJ ii. 725b. Pykeringe remained in the locality for the rest of the year. In January 1643 he signed a letter with Crew and other local gentlemen at Northampton concerning the levying of money from the royalist landowners.48HMC 5th Rep. 69. In the same period he was active in such matters as recusants and the supply of timber, and in February he was made an assessment commissioner for the county.49CJ ii. 725b, 957a; LJ v. 583b, 607b, 618a.

Pykeringe appears to have remained in Northamptonshire until the autumn of 1643. In late October and November, after the royalist withdrawal from Newport Pagnell, Pykeringe was among the commissioners sent to consult with the 3rd earl of Essex about setting up a garrison there.50CJ iii. 295a, 311b. With Crew and others, Pykeringe took the Solemn League and Covenant at the end of January 1644, and this marked the beginning of his re-engagement with the wider war effort.51CJ iii. 383b. In the following months, he was almost exclusively concerned with military and financial matters. He was named to committees for the ordinance to disable ‘delinquent’ MPs and peers on 11 March and to prepare a system of paying the armies on 25 March.52CJ iii. 423b, 437a. He was appointed to the delegation to the City of London’s militia committee to encourage the raising of more troops for the field armies on 6 April, and to the committee for an ordinance to improve the levy from sequestrations on 30 April.53CJ iii. 451a, 473b. In May he was named to the committees to maintain the garrisons at Windsor Castle and Newport Pagnell, and in June he was added to the committee for Gloucester when new sources of money to pay for ammunition were considered.54CJ iii. 507b, 510b, 536b. He was charged with ensuring that cavalry arms initially granted to Northamptonshire be delivered instead to the ordnance office on 6 June, and on 19 July he offered the House information about the neighbouring county of Rutland, which was then referred to the Committee of Both Kingdoms.55CJ iii. 520a, 564b. Later in the summer he was named to the committees for an ordinance about ejecting scandalous ministers in Southampton (5 Aug.), to raise money for the navy (21 Aug.) and to make arrangements for the Prince Elector’s arrival (30 Aug.).56CJ iii. 579b, 601a, 612b. Pykeringe was appointed to committees to resolve differences between army commanders and several county committees on 3 September, to investigate a dispute concerning officers on the Isle of Wight on 21 September, and to consider the finances of the Eastern Association on 8 October.57CJ iii. 617a, 635b, 655b. On 12 October Pykeringe was ordered to attend the countess of Peterborough to apologise for the forced entry of her London house to search for concealed goods.58Add. 31116, p. 331.

During the winter of 1644-5, Pykeringe’s parliamentary activities became more overtly political. On 7 December he was added to the committee to decide whether Denzil Holles* had breached privilege when he gave his report on the charges brought against the 2nd earl of Manchester; and a month later, on 8 January 1645, he was sent to ask Essex and Manchester why they had not observed orders from the Committee of Both Kingdoms.59CJ iii. 717b; iv. 13b. Two days later he reported back the generals’ denial, which was dismissed by the Commons, which continued to ‘interpret it to be a disobedience’.60Add. 31116, p. 370. Such appointments suggest that Pykeringe was now aligned with the Saye-St John group in the Commons, soon to become known as the Independent faction. Yet Pykeringe’s involvement in national affairs was intermittent, as he was continually side-tracked by his local duties. On 4 February the Commons again ordered him to go to Northamptonshire ‘forthwith’, to speed the collection of money, but he seems to have delayed his departure, as on the next day he was named to the committee to consider the Lords’ amendments to the Self-Denying Ordinance.61CJ iv. 41a, 42b; LJ vii. 223a. On 22 February he was given charge of collecting the arrears of money owed by Rutland for the support of the New Model, and he presumably travelled north again in the next few days.62CJ iv. 59b. He was back in Westminster on 6 March, when he was appointed to the committee to confer with the City on the raising of a loan of £80,000 for the New Model army, but his focus soon shifted away from Westminster, when he was ordered to write to the Rutland committee about assessment arrears on 9 April.63CJ iv. 71a, 105a.

Nothing is known of Pykeringe’s activities during the summer of 1645, and he may have returned to Northamptonshire in the aftermath of the battle of Naseby in June. He had returned to Westminster by mid-September, and on 16 October he was one of several MPs added to the privileges committee to consider ‘recruiter’ elections.64CJ iv. 286a, 311a. Religious affairs were still a priority for Pykeringe. On 17 October he was named to the committee to consider godly preaching in Cambridge and on 26 November he was asked to thank the preacher at a recent fast day, the Independent divine, Peter Sterry.65CJ iv. 312a, 355b. Such connections may have brought Pykeringe into closer contact with Oliver Cromwell*, and another link between the two men was Pykeringe’s brother, John, an Eastern Association officer who had supported Cromwell in his quarrel with Manchester at the end of 1644. John Pykeringe died on campaign in Devon in November 1645, and at the beginning of December Cromwell wrote to Colonel Thomas Ceely* asking that he might be buried at Lyme Regis, a request he made at ‘the desire of Sir Gilbert Pykeringe’.66Abbott, Writings and Speeches i. 291n, 293n, 391. There is no mention of Pykeringe in the parliamentary record from the end of 1645 until his inclusion in the committee to prepare an ordinance against scandalous offences on 23 May 1646, and even then his appearances were intermittent.67CJ iv. 553b. He was given leave of absence on 7 July.68CJ iv. 605a. He was named to a committee on Ireland on 11 August and spoke ‘conscientiously’ in a debate about Scotland on 18 September.69CJ iv. 641b; Harington’s Diary, 37. On 11 September he was appointed to a committee to consider the Newcastle election.70CJ iv. 666b. On 7 December he presented a petition on behalf of the Savoy hospital and on the last day of the year he was named to the committee to examine complaints against lay preachers.71CJ v. 3a, 35a.

Pykeringe’s contributions to the Commons during 1647-8 were occasional, at best. He was an infrequent visitor to the House in February and March, when he was named to two minor committees, and on 2 April he was appointed to the large committee for the new London militia ordinance.72CJ v. 90a, 102b, 132b. He reappeared on committees only in the autumn, when he was added to the committee for plundered ministers (5 Oct.), and to the committee to prepare propositions to the king concerning the settlement of church government (6 Oct.).73CJ v. 326b, 327b. On 12 October he was named to the committee on St John’s College, Cambridge, but thereafter his attendance appears to have ceased altogether.74CJ v. 331b. In December he was sent to Northamptonshire to supervise the bringing in of the assessment, and he may have remained there for much of the next twelve months.75CJ v. 400b. On 8 May 1648 he was given formal leave of absence, and in the autumn he was yet again put in charge of collecting the county’s assessment.76CJ v. 553b; vi. 88a. By this time, Pykeringe was clearly a member of the circle around Sir Henry Vane II and Oliver St John, and Cromwell ended a letter to the latter, dated 1 September, with a request to send his service to ‘honest Pykeringe’.77Abbott, Writings and Speeches i. 644.

After the intervention of Thomas Pride* and other officers to purge the Commons on 6 December, Pykeringe returned to Westminster, and his involvement in affairs at the centre increased markedly. His first committee appointment after the purge was on 13 December, barely a week after the Purge, and on 19 December he was named to a committee on the assassinated Colonel Thomas Rainborowe*.78CJ vi. 96b, 100b. A day later he acted as teller with Thomas Lord Grey of Groby for the minority against renewing the message to the lord general, Sir Thomas Fairfax*, demanding the readmission of the secluded Members.79CJ vi. 101b. On 28 December he took to the Lords a message concerning Northamptonshire troops, and was added to a committee to consider elections to the common council of London.80CJ vi. 105a-b. On 15 January 1649 he was named to the committee to discuss a petition from the common council, and two days later he was appointed to the committee for Portsmouth.81CJ vi. 118a, 120b. In the meantime, he was appointed to the high court of justice to try the king, but attended only two sessions, on 22 and 23 January.82A. and O.; Muddiman, Trial, 89, 96, 210. He was seemingly absent from the House for the last week of January, and it was later said that, in private at least, ‘he disowned … at all his consent to the king’s death’.83TSP v. 674.

Commonwealth to protectorate, 1649-53

Once the regicide was a fait accompli, Pykeringe was happy to lend his support to the fledgling commonwealth, although a later critic was surely exaggerating when he described him as ‘a great stickler in the change of the government from kingship to that of a commonwealth [who] helped to make the laws of treason against kingship’.84Second Narrative of the Late Parliament (Apr. 1659) 4 (E.977.3). Pykering’s progress was more hesitant. On 12 February he took the dissent, disowning the peace negotiations with the late king.85PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, p. 681. On 14 February he was elected to the council of state, but he refused to sign the Engagement when it was tendered to him five days later.86CJ vi. 141a; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 6, 9. In the Commons, Pykeringe was named to the committee for the bills to abolish monarchy (7 Mar.) and to make an inventory of the late king’s goods (23 Mar.), but this need not suggest unalloyed enthusiasm for the recent changes.87CJ vi. 158a, 172a. Pykeringe’s support for the forthcoming invasion of Ireland in the council and the Commons was firmer. He was appointed to the council committee for Irish business on 27 February, and during June and July he was involved in measures to raise money for the campaign and to consult with the senior officers chosen to lead the expedition, including Oliver Cromwell.88CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 22, 63, 208, 221, 242, 243. This conciliar activity ran in parallel with his efforts in Parliament. On 9 April he reported from the council on plans for a City loan for the Irish service; on 4 July he was named to the large delegation to attend the City authorities and request another loan for Ireland; and on 20 July he was added to the committee for Irish affairs.89CJ vi. 183a, 250a, 266b. In the same period, Pykeringe was also involved in religious affairs, including committees on repealing laws forcing attendance at parish churches (29 June), and a bill against scandalous and seditious publications (9 Aug.).90CJ vi. 245b, 276a. On 6 August he was teller with Sir John Danvers against making specific mention of the continuance of tithes in a declaration on church government and the maintenance of ministry – an early sign of his opposition to the traditional means of supporting the clergy.91CJ vi. 275a.

Pykeringe’s attendance in Parliament was much reduced in the autumn and winter of 1649, and his total absence from council meetings in October and November suggests that he had returned to Northamptonshire.92CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. lxxiv-lxxv. On his return in December he was added to the council’s Irish committee and named to a parliamentary committee to consider how the gospel should be preached in England.93CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 438; CJ vi. 336a. He was re-elected to the council of state on 11 February 1650, and thereafter became more engaged with public affairs.94CJ vi. 361b. In this period Pykeringe was active in commercial and financial matters. He had been instructed to report the corn bill from the council of state in January, and in March he was named to the committee for the bill to regulate trade.95CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 472;.CJ vi. 383b. Trade matters were closely connected with relations with the Netherlands, and in March Pykeringe first became involved in diplomatic negotiation, presenting to the Commons a letter from Walter Strickland* concerning Dutch business, and also reporting the reception of the Dutch ambassador and other foreign ministers.96CJ vi. 384a; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 38, 46. He was also named to committees on wider financial matters including bills for the sale of delinquents’ estates and to reform the treasury on 6 and 18 April, and in the same month he was appointed to the council committee to consider raising loans on dean and chapter lands and fee farm rents.97CJ vi. 393b, 400a; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 92.

On 29 May 1650, Pykeringe, Sir Henry Mildmay and Thomas Scot I were sent to meet Cromwell at Windsor on his return from Ireland, and there were soon other indications of Pykeringe’s support for the lord lieutenant.98CSP Dom. 1650, p. 178. On 11 June he was added to the council’s Irish committee to consider a declaration concerning the settlement of Ireland, and on 12 June he was instructed by the council to report to the Commons their discussions with Fairfax and Cromwell about the new expedition against the Scots.99CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 198-9. Other evidence suggests the connection between Pykeringe and Cromwell was now very close. In September Vane II referred to letters sent from Cromwell in Scotland to Pykeringe, and the lord general told his wife that she would learn more of his recent activities from ‘Harry Vane or Gil: Pykeringe’.100Abbott, Writings and Speeches ii. 326n, 329. On 21 December Pykeringe was added to a council committee to consider papers from Scotland addressed to Cromwell.101CSP Dom. 1650, p. 476. In other respects, Pykeringe’s parliamentary career was unexciting, as. He seems to have concentrated on individual cases in the Commons. He was named to a committee on the debt owed to Dr John Arthington by the renegade MP, Thomas Jermyn*, on 14 August, and given care of the business (eventually reporting the matter back to the Commons from the council of state in July the following year).102CJ vi. 279a, 444a; CCC, 1869. On 23 August he was teller with William Purefoy I in a division over the composition fine to be levied on the 3rd earl of Northampton.103CJ vi. 459a. He was named to the committee on a bill defining the powers of the Committee for Compounding and the Committee for Advance of Money on 3 July and to another committee on corruption charges against the chairman of the latter, Lord Howard of Escrick, on 20 July.104CJ vi. 436b, 448b. Pykeringe’s interest in religious matters continued. He was named to committees for better preaching and maintenance of ministers in Colchester on 24 May and for the suppression of Ranters on 14 and 24 June.105CJ vi. 416a, 423b, 430a. He was named to the committee for the bill giving further powers to the high court of justice on 20 August.106CJ vi. 456a. During the autumn of 1650 Pykeringe was much less active in the House, and his absence from the meetings of the Council of State throughout September, October and November suggests that he had taken his usual autumn trip to Northamptonshire.107CSP Dom. 1650, pp. xl-xli.

Pykeringe was again elected to the council of state on 7 February 1651.108CJ vi. 532a. In the early weeks of the year he was involved in foreign affairs. He was added to the committee to liaise with the Spanish ambassador on 7 Jan. 1651; on the same day he was charged by the council with finding a translator for French correspondence; and two weeks later he reported from the council on diplomacy with the Dutch.109CJ vi. 520a, 527a; CSP Dom. 1651, p. 6. On 22 January he reported to the Commons the nomination of Oliver St John and Walter Strickland as ambassadors to the Netherlands.110CSP Dom. 1651, p. 19. He was named to committees dealing with the sale of the late king’s goods on 3 and 18 April, and was teller with St John in favour of a clause allowing the ‘doubling’ of claims against delinquents’ estates on 17 June.111CJ vi. 556a, 563b, 588b. During this period, Pykeringe’s parliamentary activities became more overtly political. On 11 March he had acted as teller with Philip Skippon* for the minority against putting the question that the council be authorised to remove from garrisons all those who refused the Engagement.112CJ vi. 547b. On 11 August, after the Scottish invasion of the north, he was appointed to a council committee to attend the London authorities to ask for the raising of forces and measures for the security of the City during the crisis.113CSP Dom. 1651, p. 315. On 16 August he was teller with Sir James Harington* for the minority in favour of postponing the execution of the Presbyterian minister and conspirator, Christopher Love.114CJ vii. 2a. This presumably reflected Pykeringe’s belief in liberty of conscience, but it was also an attempt not to provoke those who might sympathise with the Scots.115Worden, Rump Parl., 247. On 6 September, after the House had been given a detailed account of the battle of Worcester, it was resolved that Bulstrode Whitelocke*, John Lisle*, St John and Pykeringe should attend Cromwell at Aylesbury to express Parliament’s thanks.116CJ vii. 13a-b; Abbott, Writings and Speeches ii. 471. Before his departure, Pykeringe was among those named to a committee to decide how Cromwell should be rewarded for his victory, and on his return he was named to the committee (19 Sept.) to arrange a thanksgiving day for 24 October.117CJ vii. 13a, 20a. On 27 October he was included in the council committee to consider the writings of a ‘history of these times’, alongside Cromwell, Whitelocke, Lisle and Thomas Harrison I.118CSP Dom. 1651, p. 498. Pykeringe gave notice to, and thanked, Peter Sterry for his sermon delivered on 5 November.119CJ vii. 32a, 35b.

In the aftermath of Worcester, Pykeringe became an active member of the Cromwellian interest which pressed for further reform. He was elected to the council of state in third from last place – a sign of his growing unpopularity among his fellow MPs - on 25 November, and delivered the election papers to the clerk.120CJ vii. 42a-b. On 2 December he was appointed to the council committees on the ordnance and for Irish and Scottish affairs.121CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 43. On 26 December he was appointed to the committee to nominate people fit to sit on the law reform commission, which was an important aspect of the Cromwellian agenda.122CJ vii. 58b. On 15 January 1652 Pykeringe was given leave to ‘go forth’ from Parliament, but this time his absence was only very brief.123CJ vii. 71b. In February, he became involved in moves for religious reform. He was named to committees to consider a petition from ‘divers ministers of the gospel’ and specifically to discuss with the ministers proposals for better propagation of the gospel (10 Feb.).124CJ vii. 86b. On 29 April he joined Henry Marten as teller against a resolution ‘that tithes shall be paid as formerly’, but lost the division by 27 votes to 17.125CJ vii. 128b. He reported to the Commons from the Committee for Plundered Ministers on 7 May.126CJ vii. 130b. Pykeringe remained committed to changing the legal system, and he was added to the committee to receive proposals from, and debate with, the Hale commission on 19 March.127CJ vii. 107b. He was one of the MPs given special care of the bill for poor relief on 27 April.128CJ vii. 127b. Pykeringe continued to support harsh measures against ‘delinquents’. He was named to a committee on the bill to remove obstructions to the sale of forfeited estates on 30 March.129CJ vii. 112a. Between June and August he was teller in three divisions concerning delinquents and their estate, siding with Vane II, Purefoy I and Charles Fleetwood.130CJ vii. 144a, 157b, 160b. Later in the year he was named to a committee to prepare a bill for the sale of royal palaces and parks (27 Nov.) and acted as teller with Lord Monson (William Monson) and Sir James Harington in two divisions in favour of the sale of the royal property of Wallingford House (29 and 31 Dec.).131CJ vii. 222b, 238a, 239b. As political tensions increased during the second half of 1652, it was obvious where Pykeringe’s sympathies lay. On 13 August, when the House received a petition from officers of the army, Pykeringe was among those named to the committee set up to find out how many and how far their demands, including discussion of electoral qualifications and legal reform, were already under consideration.132CJ vii. 164b; Worden, Rump Parl. 308. Immediately afterwards, he was again absent from London, attending no council meetings in September and October, and few in November.133CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. xlvii. This did little to placate his enemies in the Rump, however, and he was only narrowly re-elected to the council of state on 24 November.134CJ vii. 220a-b. On 2 December he was appointed to the council committee for trade, plantations and foreign affairs, along with Cromwell, Whitelocke and Lisle.135CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 2.

Pykeringe’s attendance at the council of state in the early weeks of 1653 was desultory, and his involvement in parliamentary activity was slight.136CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. xxxiii. On 6 January he was named to the committee for a bill ‘explaining the meaning’ of the Toleration Act of September 1650.137CJ vii. 244a. He was also appointed to the committee to consider the ‘inconveniences in the proceedings of the law’ that might arise from the bill for county registers on 2 February, and he was teller with Vane II in a division over the sequestration of money owed to the late Sir Edward Hungerford* on 18 February.138CJ vii. 253b, 260b. On 24 March Pykeringe was ordered to give notice to Walter Cradock to preach at the day of thanksgiving for a recent victory over the Dutch, and on 6 April he made a report from the council of state on the payment of money paid in Northamptonshire for the requisition of draft horses for the Worcester campaign eighteen months before.139CJ vii. 271a, 276a; CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 75, 207.

Pykeringe was not directly involved in the dissolution of the Rump, but there is no doubt that he approved of the move. According to John Milton, at the end of the Rump Cromwell’s staunchest supporters included Pykeringe, his friend Walter Strickland and his cousin, Edward Montagu II.140Abbott, Writings and Speeches ii. 544, 617. In the last week of April a newsletter writer listed Pykeringe among the ‘late Members … advising and consulting about settling the affairs of the nation’, along with John Carew, Richard Salwey, Anthony Stapley I and Walter Strickland.141Clarke Pprs. iii. 2, 4. Pykeringe continued to be involved in the council of state in May and June, being chosen to treat with the Portuguese and Dutch ambassadors, and acquiring an official residence in the Queen’s Closet at Whitehall Palace.142CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 333, 340, 415, 445. On 9 July he was re-elected to the council of state and appointed its president for two weeks, and on 27 July he was appointed to the council’s committee for foreign affairs.143CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 14, 16, 53; CJ vii. 283a. During the summer and autumn he was busy with receiving and entertaining foreign dignitaries, and making arrangements for English representatives to travel overseas.144CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 87, 90, 146, 159, 209, 223, 279. Throughout this period, Pykeringe seems to have been developing an interest in the formal ceremonial that surrounded such negotiations. This included their setting. In late August he was sent the ‘Triumphs of Caesar’ from Hampton Court for copying, and was appointed to a council committee to consider what hangings and tapestries were suitable for adorning the rooms used by the state.145CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 111, 113. There are also hints that he was encouraging the correct protocols at Whitehall, as on 5 September, when he formally accompanied Bulstrode Whitelocke to petition Cromwell to be excused from the job of ambassador to Sweden.146Whitelocke, Diary, 290.

In July 1653 Pykeringe was called to the Nominated Assembly as a member for Northamptonshire, and immediately established himself as one of the most influential figures in the House. On 5 July he was among eight Members appointed to invite Cromwell to join the Assembly, and the next day he acted as teller with John Carew for the minority against putting the question that the assembly should take the title of Parliament, although, unlike Carew, he was probably motivated by political conservatism rather than religious scruple.147CJ vii. 281b, 282a; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 153. On 7 July, he was named to the small committee to prepare a declaration inviting the nation to pray for the success of the Assembly.148CJ vii. 282b. Pykeringe’s importance in the Assembly can be seen in his choice as teller on a number of controversial subjects, many of which he had championed in the latter years of the Rump. After several days’ debate on tithes, on 19 July Pykeringe joined Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper as teller in favour of referring the clergy’s right of property to a committee, perhaps to prevent the radicals from forcing an immediate ban without considering alternative support for the clergy. The division was won by seven votes but for some reason Pykeringe was not on the subsequent committee list.149CJ vii. 286a; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 200. On 19 August, he acted as teller with Sir Charles Wolseley against adjourning the debate on reforming the law, and he was named to the resultant committee ‘to consider of a new body of law’.150CJ vii. 304b. He acted twice in divisions over the Irish adventurers’ bill, on 6 and 8 September, alongside Alderman John Ireton and Colonel John Clarke.151CJ vii. 315a, 316a. Pykeringe could also work with the radicals in the House on certain issues, without necessarily sharing their political agenda. On 15 October he was teller against adjourning chancery proceedings, on 18 and 19 November he twice acted as teller (with Praisegod Barbon and Robert Bennett) in divisions over the sale of forest lands, and on 3 December he was also teller (with Philip Jones) in favour of Carew being appointed as an admiralty commissioner.152CJ vii. 335a, 352b, 362a. A further sign of Pykeringe’s growing influence can be seen in the result of the election to the council of state, held on 1 November. In marked contrast with his previous elections, he received 110 votes, second only to Cromwell.153CJ vii. 344a. Pykeringe was clearly involved in the political manoeuvrings that saw the dissolution of the Nominated Assembly and the surrender of power into the hands of Oliver Cromwell in December, but his exact role is uncertain. Later hostile accounts saw him as part of ‘the corrupt party’ that had plotted against the religious radicals from the beginning, with ‘a spirit of enmity and hatred secretly lodging in their breasts’; or noted, more succinctly, ‘he helped to break it’.154A Faithfull Searching Home Word (1659), 14, 16, 19 (E.774.1); Second Narrative of the Late Parliament, 4.

Protectoral councillor, 1653-6

Along with Strickland, Edward Montagu II and other associates, Pykeringe was appointed to the lord protector’s council in December 1653. Evidence from the order books suggests there was considerable continuity with his work in earlier councils. Religion was a major concern. On 25 January 1654 Pykeringe was appointed to a committee to consider papers concerning two Fifth Monarchists, John Simpson and Christopher Feake.155CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 368. On 1 March he was chosen to discuss proposals for the approbation of preachers submitted by Philip Nye, Thomas Goodwin and others; and on 5 April he joined Philip Jones and Sir Charles Wolseley on a committee to draft an ordinance for the ejecting of scandalous ministers.156CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 1, 76. He continued his diplomatic and ceremonial role. In March 1654 the Dutch ambassadors, newly arrived in London, were ‘brought to Westminster by Sir Gilbert Pykeringe and Master Strickland in a very handsome manner’, and both men were subsequently appointed as commissioners to negotiate the peace treaty that was signed on 28 April.157Clarke Pprs v. 158, 161; Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 213, 278; TSP ii. 133; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 3. At the end of March Pykeringe was one of the councillors assigned to dine with the French ambassador, and in April it was reported that he and Strickland favoured an alliance with France.158CSP Dom. 1654, p. 54; Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 272. On 20 June Pykeringe, Henry Lawrence*, Nathaniel Fiennes I*and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper were made a committee for treaties with foreign ministers.159CSP Dom. 1654, p. 215. In July Pykeringe and Strickland again attended the Dutch ambassador, this time to discuss the queen of Bohemia’s devoted servant, Lord Craven, who had been declared a delinquent by Parliament.160TSP ii. 499; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 268. Pykeringe’s experience in stage-managing such occasions made him an obvious choice as an officer in embryonic protectoral household. On 22 March 1654 Pykeringe was appointed to a council committee to consider ‘a model of the protector’s family’, alongside John Lambert*, Strickland and Montagu, and at the end of the month it was reported that Pykeringe had ‘accepted of the place of lord steward to his highness’s family’.161CSP Dom. 1654, p. 46; Clarke Pprs v. 171. Although it seems he was never given a formal title, throughout the spring and summer Pykeringe was involved in assembling suitable plate, household goods and tapestries and other furnishings for Whitehall, working mainly with Strickland and Jones, and at the end of August the three were assigned to consider a report on Hampton Court.162CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 93, 146, 203, 286, 291, 309, 347.

Pykeringe was elected to the first protectorate Parliament as Member for Northamptonshire, but he did not play a significant part in the session. His committee appointments suggest that he concerned with those issues he had championed in earlier parliaments and successive councils. On 25 September he was named to the committee on an ordinance for ejecting scandalous ministers – a matter that he had considered in the protectoral council the previous spring.163CJ vii. 370a. Perhaps in acknowledgement of his activity during the Rump, he was named to the committee for Irish affairs on 29 September and to the committee on the ordinance to reform the chancery court on 5 October.164CJ vii. 371b, 374a. On 3 November he was named to the committee on the thorny case of Lord Craven, and on the same day he was given leave of absence.165CJ vii. 381a-b. Pykeringe missed most of the debate on revising the Instrument of Government, and returned to the Commons only in the new year of 1655, being named on 13 January to a committee to consider the revenue clause in the proposed Government Bill.166CJ vii. 415b.

After the dissolution of the Parliament in January 1655, the Venetian ambassador alleged that Pykeringe and others had deliberately absented themselves from the council table.167CSP Ven. 1655-6, p. 28. There is no evidence for this in the attendance records, however, and Pykeringe was present at Cromwell’s private interview with the Fifth Monarchist John Rogers, in February.168CSP Dom. 1655, p. xxviii; Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 614. Pykeringe’s intimacy with the Cromwell family in the spring and summer of 1655 also suggests all was well between them. In March the expenses of the protectoral household were referred to Pykeringe and Strickland; in May he was appointed to a committee to consider a petition from Henry Somerset, Lord Herbert of Raglan ( whose inheritance had mostly been acquired by the Cromwell family); and in the same month he was involved in ordering wine for the protector’s use.169CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 76, 172, 191; Abbott, Writings and Speeches iii. 318-9. In July Pykeringe was among the councillors who accompanied Henry Cromwell* for the first few miles of his journey to Ireland.170Henry Cromwell Corresp., 55. In August 1655 it was said that Pykeringe had been given the official position of lord chamberlain of the protector’s household, although it is not clear that this was as yet a formal appointment.171Clarke Pprs. iii. 47. Another important connection was the protector’s son-in-law, Charles Fleetwood. Pykeringe was instrumental in securing Wallingford House for Fleetwood’s family at the end of August, and in early September he was a member of a committee to consider obstructions to Fleetwood’s enjoyment of lands confiscated from Sir Ralph Hopton*.172Henry Cromwell Corresp., 57; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 314. In the new year of 1656, Pykeringe’s influence at Whitehall can be seen in his own collection of suitors, such as the imprisoned earl of Lauderdale, whose wife claimed a kinship with ‘my dear cousin, my Lady Pykeringe’, and in later months continued to hope that Sir Gilbert would use his influence in the protector’s council on her husband’s behalf.173Add. 23113, ff. 42, 46v; Tollemache MS 994. Pykeringe’s continuing closeness to the protector is suggested by an incident in March 1656, when Cromwell. Pykeringe and Strickland were involved in a boating accident on the Thames, returning from Lambert’s mansion at Wimbledon.174Abbott, Writings and Speeches iv. 111.

Pykeringe’s standing at court was further strengthened by his role in foreign negotiations. On 21 February 1655 he was appointed to a committee to read papers from the Dutch ambassador and on 2 March he was included in the committee for foreign plantations.175CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 48, 65. On 17 May he was a member of the committee that considered initial reports of the massacre of Protestants in the Savoy, and in June and July he was involved in the affairs of Switzerland and Hamburg.176CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 165, 218, 232, 248. In August he was chosen as a commissioner to negotiate with the French representatives, and in the same month he joined Viscount Lisle (Philip Sidney*) and Strickland as the main negotiators with the Swedish ambassador.177Swedish Diplomats at Cromwell’s Court ed. M. Roberts (Cam. Soc. ser. 4, xxxvi.), 56, 139. In October he and Strickland were appointed to receive the Venetian ambassador, and they were joined by Jones on a committee to consider complaints from the French ambassador later in the same month.178CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 363, 380. In January 1656, when Cromwell had a private interview with the Dutch ambassador, it was said ‘there remained only with him the Lords Lambert, Pykeringe and Thurloe’.179TSP iv. 388. In February it was rumoured that he would be sent to Paris as ambassador, although the place was eventually taken by another courtier, Sir William Lockhart*, who had recently married the protector’s niece.180Abbott, Writings and Speeches iv. 96; CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 166. In the spring, Pykeringe was appointed to committees to consult with the Swedish ambassador over a breach of privilege, with French merchants on wine prices, and with the Dutch over the wool trade.181CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 207, 302, 335. In the summer Pykeringe was ordered to arrange a suitable gift for the departing Swedish ambassador, and he and Strickland accompanied the ambassador and his entourage to the dockside.182CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 50, 78; Whitelocke, Diary, 448.

Alongside this portrayal of Pykeringe as the smooth courtier and master of ceremonies must be set his role in the day-to-day business of the council. In February 1655 he was appointed to the committee for trade; in July he was on the committee to consider the money needed for the public service; in August he was appointed to the committee to regulate printing; and in November he was involved in discussions with Manasseh Ben Israel.183CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 44, 235, 309; 1655-6, pp. 15, 20.. In the early months of 1656 Pykeringe was appointed to a variety of committees considering a variety of matters from the report on law reform from Matthew Sheppard (8 Feb.) to the statutes suitable for Durham College (10 Mar.).184CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 169, 218. Pykeringe also played a key role in moves to establish the major-generals’ scheme from the late summer of 1655. In August Pykeringe, John Disbrowe* and John Lambert were instructed to attend the protector with the council’s suggestions for the reform of the militia system.185CSP Dom. 1655, p. 268. In October he was appointed to a committee on instructions to be issued to the major-generals, reporting back to the council its recommendations concerning a register for delinquents travelling to London and the institution of a decimation tax to pay for the militia forces, and helping to draft the declaration that authorised the latter.186CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 370, 373, 395. Pykeringe was also involved in the implementation of the scheme in the east midlands. In October he had drawn up a list of commissioners to assist the incumbent major-general, William Boteler*, in Rutland; in November Boteler mentioned to Thurloe that he was consulting with Pykeringe about arrangements in Northamptonshire; and in December Pykeringe passed on an order for the release of Quakers in Northampton.187CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 390, 641; TSP iv. 190. In January 1656, Pykeringe was appointed to the committee to receive petitions from those seeking to avoid decimation, and in March he was added to the committee to consider those who had been discharged.188CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 89, 233. Whether Pykeringe agreed with his fellow councillor, John Disbrowe, who called for decimation to be extended, and complained vigorously that too many royalists were being exempted by Cromwell, is not known. But a hint that by the autumn of 1656 he was having doubts about the protectoral oligarchy is provided by Henry Neville’s* enigmatic remark (first made in September 1656) that Pykeringe ‘had rather play at another game where more may play’.189‘The Royall Game at Picquet’ (2 Sept. 1656, E.886.4).

The second protectorate Parliament and after, 1656-9

In August 1656, just before the elections to the second protectorate Parliament, Pykeringe was made lord high steward of Westminster, and played a role in the election contest that followed.190Clarke Pprs. iii. 69. Pykeringe also influenced the Huntingdon election, in conjunction with Thurloe and on behalf of the absent Edward Montagu.191Bodl. Carte 73, f. 26v. Pykeringe’s own election, for Northamptonshire on 28 August 1656, may have been secured with the assistance of William Boteler. In the early weeks of the Parliament, Pykeringe fulfilled the supportive role expected of a councillor. On 22 September he was one of a large delegation chosen to present the fast declaration to the protector, and four days later he was named to the committees to decide a way of addressing Cromwell and to consider the bill for his security.192CJ vii. 426b, 429a. Pykeringe was also named to committees to continue or repeal all acts and ordinances (27 Sept.) and to consider abuses in alehouses (29 Sept.), and on 30 September he was teller with Strickland on a pardon.193CJ vii. 429b, 430a, 430b. Following the decision to hold another day of thanksgiving, he was ordered to request that Joseph Caryll preach and Peter Sterry assist, and he was appointed (2 Oct.) to the committee to attend Cromwell and draw up the declaration.194CJ vii. 432b, 433a. He was a teller in a division over an inheritance fine on 3 October, and later in the month he was named to committees on the bill for quiet enjoying of sequestered parsonages (4 Oct.), a bill to repeal earlier legislation on corn and meal (7 Oct.), to require accounts for the sale of crown and church lands (17 Oct.), to consider the debate touching incumbrances (18 Oct.) and to prepare a bill for relief of creditors and poor prisoners for debt (29 Oct.).195CJ vii. 434a, 435b, 440b, 441b, 447a. In early November he was named to the committee for the bill to abolish purveyance (3 Nov.) and added to that for a bill concerning the court of wards (6 Nov.).196CJ vii. 449b, 450a. He was teller with John Lambert, and against Strickland, for the minority against referring the bill confirming land sales to a grand committee on 19 November.197CJ vii. 455b. Pykeringe was appointed to a bill to improve the ministry in Northamptonshire (17 Dec.), and his support for the introduction of a bill to suppress the celebration of Christmas Day on 25 December, which he pronounced ‘well timed … You see how the people keep up these superstitious observations in your face – stricter, in many places, than they do the Lord’s Day’.198CJ vii. 469a; Burton’s Diary i. 229.

Despite this intolerance of traditional religious festivities, Pykeringe spent much of December 1656 championing liberty of conscience. He ‘made a long story to little purpose’ at the second reading of the bill against recusants, on 3 December, which demonstrated his commitment to liberty of conscience, arguing that

if a man shall renounce the supremacy of the pope and haply in his own private opinion may hold purgatory or some other thing in the oath, it is hard for this he should be sequestered. I would have no man suffer for his bare opinion.199Burton’s Diary i. 8.

He was named to the subsequent committee.200CJ vii. 463b. Two days later another case concerning religious liberty was initiated, when the Presbyterian, Thomas Bampfylde, made a report on the case of the notorious Quaker, James Naylor, who had entered Bristol with his followers in a re-enactment of Palm Sunday. Pykeringe was uncomfortable with this case. At first he moved that other, less controversial, business be heard first; and when this failed he spoke against Naylor being kept a close prisoner, hoping that ‘the terror of death may so work upon him as that he may retract his errors’. Harsher treatment would reflect badly on Parliament: ‘I hope there is none here but desire his repentance rather than his ruin’; but perhaps realising that such views commanded little support, he added, ‘I speak from the heart in this thing, though none second me’.201Burton’s Diary i. 24, 36. The next day, 6 December, Pykeringe attempted to delay Naylor’s appearance at the bar, and then, ‘being unsatisfied’, he offered a further question to be put to the accused, ‘about what his hopes were in Christ’s merits, and how he prayed to that Christ that died in Jerusalem’, which allowed Naylor to answer ‘pretty orthodoxly to those questions’ and to confirm that his views were Trinitarian.202Burton’s Diary i. 48. Later in the day Thomas Burton* found Pykeringe ‘very serious with the clerk in the lobby, copying out Naylor’s charge, to be better prepared against Monday’.203Burton’s Diary i. 53. On that day, 8 December, Pykeringe responded to arguments by Philip Skippon that Naylor’s actions amounted to ‘horrid blasphemy’, which carried the death penalty, Pykeringe argued that the crime in question was not blasphemy but idolatry, and even then the truly idolatrous people had been Naylor’s followers, who ‘are not equally but more guilty in this business than himself’. ‘My present apprehension’, Pykeringe continued, ‘is this, that the person is both a flat idolater and idolatry itself. I am ready to give my sense in it, as to the punishment of this, but to give my vote for blood I shall be very tender in it’. He knew such a position would be controversial: ‘Haply, some will say I am fallen from the faith, [but] I speak my conscience, the will of God be done in it’.204Burton’s Diary i. 64-5.

On the afternoon of 8 December, Pykeringe again tried to divert proceedings by arguing that a petition he brought in, rather than continued debate on Naylor, was the order of the day, but he was unsuccessful.205Burton’s Diary i. 66. Later, he argued against sending divines to interview Naylor, saying that he must change his mind of his own free will, not under duress: ‘he will say you only court him to forsake his opinion, with the arguments of death’.206Burton’s Diary i. 80. When Burton arrived at the chamber the next day, Pykeringe ‘had been speaking a good while ... He concluded for some lesser punishment than death to be inflicted, as whipping’.207Burton’s Diary i. 89. By 16 December, Pykeringe had decided that even whipping was too harsh a punishment, as ‘he has been a soldier, and it is not proper to whip him’, and going on to recommend that ‘hard labour and imprisonment will be sufficient’.208Burton’s Diary i. 150, 153. Pykeringe also told the House of his further researches into Quaker beliefs: ‘I have, within these two days, talked with a very sober man of that sect who tells me Naylor is not to be heeded in what he said, for he is bewitched, really bewitched, and keeping him from company, especially from that party that bewitched him, your imprisonment will do’.209Burton’s Diary i. 153. In the same debate, Pykeringe was at pains to emphasise that he was motivated by his belief in liberty of conscience, not by any sympathy with the Quakers themselves, whom he denounced ‘as infectious as the plague’.210Burton’s Diary i. 155. Despite this, on 23 December Pykeringe joined Strickland in defending the right of the Quakers to petition Parliament for the reducing of Naylor’s sentence.211Burton’s Diary i. 215, 220. Pykeringe’s concern about the Naylor case was echoed by the lord protector, whose letter pointing out the difficulty of a unicameral Parliament acting as a court of law was read on 26 December. In the debate that followed, Pykeringe wanted to go further:

It is very fit this jurisdiction should be debates. It seems though the judicatory power of Parliament cannot extend to life, yet, by this means, by a vote of today, you may pull out a man’s eyes tomorrow, slit his nose or cut off his hands, ears or tongue. This is very hard, and ought to be considered’.212Burton’s Diary i. 256.

On 27 December he moved that Naylor’s punishment should be suspended for two or three days, ‘otherwise, while debating the legality of the sentence, the greatest part will be performed’.213Burton’s Diary i. 261. Pykeringe’s personal interest in the case continued into 1657. On 28 February he was named to a committee to receive an account of the Quaker’s condition from the governors of Bridewell gaol, and on 26 May he again moved for lenient treatment of ‘that reckless person, Naylor’.214CJ vii. 497b; Burton’s Diary ii. 131-2.

Apart from the arguments over the fate of Naylor, the winter of 1656-7 was pregnant with political tension. At the end of November, the question of hereditary rule had been mooted and then quickly suppressed. On 26 November Pykeringe wrote to his brother-in-law, Edward Montagu, with news that the debate had fizzled out, and ‘it is believed by those that seem to understand their affairs it will hardly be brought on again’, adding that ‘his highness has been pleased to allow some of his faithful servants to open their hearts to him upon this subject with great freedom’.215Bodl. Carte 73, f. 47. Pykeringe’s response to this shows his continued intimacy with the protector, and this can also be seen in a letter sent by Pykeringe to Montagu on 4 December. In it, he reported that the plight of the Spanish princes captured with the plate ships earlier in year – and whose treatment was a matter of honour for the government – had been considered by ‘his highness, the council being present’, who ‘did express so much tenderness of these young children’; and he also passed on some court gossip – in this case the sad news that Sir Francis Russell’s* son, a cornet in the protector’s lifeguard, had died.216Bodl. Carte 73, f. 56. Pykeringe’s position in the protectoral household did not make him immune from criticism in Parliament, however. On 20 December, when the thinness of the House was noted, and Denis Bond commented that the common people counted it a scandal that ‘we are now made up of none but soldiers and courtiers’, there was a bad-tempered exchange which ended with ‘some reflection upon persons and calling one another to the bar’. The leading Presbyterian, Lambarde Godfrey, was called down by Pykeringe for ‘his two or three months absenting himself from the House’, and when Thomas Bampfylde objected to this, he was also called by Strickland.217Bodl. Carte 228, f. 81; Burton’s Diary i. 193-5. On 25 December Disbrowe took advantage of the poor turn-out to introduce a ‘militia bill’ to make permanent the regime of the major-generals and the decimation tax that funded their militia units. When this was challenged by those opposed to military rule, Pykeringe was among its defenders, saying ‘I doubt it will appear both before God and man that it is but too honest and just, too apparent a cause to lay this tax’. He reminded MPs that the royalists were never likely to accept the present regime: ‘They keep their interest up in a body. Your friends are sure to hear of their malice, when they can have power to exercise it. It is implacable, and irreconcilable to our interest, till time out-date it’.218Burton’s Diary i. 233.

Fear of royalist plots heightened after the disclosure of the Sindercombe plot to assassinate Cromwell in early January 1657. Pykeringe was appointed to a council committee to examine Miles Sindercombe’s accomplices, and on 19 January he spoke in the House for an early thanksgiving day, in case ‘we give way for another plot before the appointed day come’, and moved that the whole House attend Cromwell ‘to congratulate his deliverance’.219CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 239; Burton’s Diary i. 358, 360. He went on to suggest that Major-general William Goffe’s* suggested wording for an address to Cromwell the previous year, congratulating him on the success of the fleet against Spain, should be used as a model. Pykeringe reminded the House that this consisted of ‘a long preachment, seriously inviting the House to a firm, and a kind of corporal, union with his highness’.220Burton’s Diary i. 361-2. As it turned out, the hoped-for union would immediately start to unravel, as on the same day John Ashe again raised the question of hereditary government, and over the next week the militia bill came under attack from the army’s opponents. On 28 January Pykeringe acted as teller with Strickland against the House further debating the bill, but they were overwhelmingly defeated, and the dismantling of the major-generals’ system was completed.221CJ vii. 483a. A further cause of tension was the dispute between the rival factions in the Scottish Kirk, which was considered by the council in from early February. Pykeringe joined Strickland, Fleetwood and Lambert in supporting the minority Protester faction, while the opposing side, the Resolutioners, was backed by Jones, Wolseley and John Thurloe*, in what amounted to a proxy war between the army and civilian interests within the protectoral council.222Reg. of the Consultations of the Edinburgh Ministers ed. W. Stephen (Edinburgh, 1921-30), i. 350, 364; ii. 20. It was a sign of things to come.

Open hostility erupted on 23 February, with the unveiling of the Remonstrance, with its call for a return to the ‘ancient constitution’ comprising two Houses of Parliament and Cromwell as king. On 24 February it was said that those who had imposed the new constitution from the start included ‘Disbrowe, [William] Sydenham*, lord deputy [Fleetwood], Strickland [and] Pykeringe.223Henry Cromwell Corresp., 205. Apart from one committee appointment, to receive a London petition on 1 April, he does not seem to have played any part in the proceedings of the Commons between the end of February and the middle of May.224CJ vii. 497b, 516b, 535a. Unlike Sydenham, he did not absent himself from the council over this period, attending 8 of 9 meetings in February, 5 of 6 in March, 3 of 4 in April and 4 of 5 in May.225CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. xxi. Yet, even after his return to the Commons, Pykeringe played little part in its proceedings. After the House had replaced the title of ‘king’ with that of ‘protector’ in the first article the Petition and Advice, making its more acceptable to its opponents, Pykeringe was named to the committee to consider the powers of the protector on 19 May.226CJ vii. 535a. A week later, 26 May, he spoke in the debate on Lord Craven’s estates, arguing against the right of purchasers to petition, as ‘they have not an immediate but only a consequential right to be heard in this’; and he also spoke unsuccessfully against excluding private business to allow the swifter passage of matters of state.227Burton’s Diary ii. 128, 133-4. The next day he was named to the committee to prepare bills arising from the additional votes to the Petition and Advice.228CJ vii. 540b He was appointed to the committee to attend Cromwell with the assessment bill on 4 June and he spoke in a debate on the matter on 12 June, warning of ‘the danger of assessors being more favourable and partial in one place than another’, and seconding a proviso to abate the tax levied in Cardigan.229CJ vii. 545b; Burton’s Diary ii. 236-7. On 15 June he was named to the committee on a bill ‘for better choosing of persons into places of trust’.230CJ vii. 557b.

The question of kingship probably led to the brief break-down of Pykeringe’s relationship with Cromwell in the summer of 1657. When the council reconvened in early July, Pykeringe was absent, and may have been deliberately kept away from Whitehall until after the removal of John Lambert from his military and civil positions on 13 July.231Abbott, Writings and Speeches iv. 577. It was rumoured on 18 July that Pykeringe and Sydenham were both to be sacked from the council; on 23 July it was recorded that Pykeringe had refused to take the oath; a newsletter of 25 July recorded that Pykeringe was one of those councillors who ‘are not come out of the country’; and the order books show that it was not until 28 July that Pykeringe took the oath and was allowed to rejoin his colleagues.232Clarke Pprs iii. 114; Abbott, Writings and Speeches iv. 589; HMC 5th Rep., 164; CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 40, 42. Relations seem to have recovered in the following months, however, and through the council Pykeringe was again involved in dealings with foreign embassies. He was named to committees to consider the costs of William Jephson’s* mission to the king of Sweden (4 Aug.), to treat with the Portuguese ambassador (13 Oct.), and to attend Cromwell to consider a reply to Jephson (27 Oct.).233CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 51, 127, 138. In November his position in the household was confirmed when he was formally accorded the title of lord chamberlain of the household.234HMC 5th Rep., 152; R. Sherwood, The Court of Oliver Cromwell (1977), 66. As Samuel Pepys told Montagu in November

he that sees the strictness used for staging that free passage of strangers through Whitehall and the ceremony used in passing the Presence-Chamber will say that Sir Gilbert Pykeringe is a perfect lord chamberlain.235Bodl. Carte 73, f. 187.

In the months that followed, other references confirm that Pykeringe was now performed the traditional role of chamberlain. On 10 December 1657 he was granted money ‘for building some conveniences for his highness and council’ at Whitehall; in March 1658 he arranged for the strengthening of the guard at the palace and the construction of a new guardhouse; and on 10 June he was instructed to furnish Somerset House to accommodate visiting foreign dignitaries.236CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 556; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 57; Sherwood, Court, 66.

Pykeringe had been called to the Other House in December 1657, but did not attend the new upper chamber during the brief session that followed, perhaps because of the pressure of his court duties. It is perhaps telling that, during the same period, his attendance at the council was minimal.237CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. liv. It is, however, curious that at the call of the House on 2 February, Pykeringe was listed among those who ‘did not appear, nor any excuse made for them’.238HMC Lords n.s. iv. 504, 522. Despite his non-attendance, Pykeringe was still held up for ridicule in the Second Narrative as a ‘knight of the old stamp and of considerable revenue in Northamptonshire’, who was ‘finical, spruce and like an old courtier’.239Second Narrative of the Late Parliament, 4. He remained a familiar figure in the protectoral council during the spring and summer of 1658, being appointed to a range of committees including those on a book ‘reflecting on the government’ (23 Mar.), a petition from Scottish Catholics (22 Apr.), a complaint from a London merchant about customs (8 July) and for the uniting and dividing of parishes (12 Aug.).240CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 339, 374; CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 90, 112. The workload, especially as lord chamberlain, was considerable. In June, among his other duties, Pykeringe was one of the councillors sent to meet the representatives from the king of France as they landed at the Tower, and in the same month the agent of the earl of Lauderdale, who had usually received a friendly reception, found Sir Gilbert and his wife polite but unhelpful.241Henry Cromwell Corresp., 385; Tollemache MS 994.

It was appropriate that on the death of Cromwell on 3 September 1658 Pykeringe brought the news to the council, and the next day signed the proclamation declaring Richard Cromwell* his father’s successor, and took the oath as his councillor.242Sherwood, Court, 67; PRO31/17/33, p. 16. He continued as lord chamberlain and councillor under Richard, attending foreign ambassadors, considering measures against Quakers, operas and anti-government publications, and making arrangements for the day of prayer and fasting to commemorate the late protector.243PRO31/17/33, pp. 56-8, 63, 70, 76, 83, 350, 367. On 23 November he played a prominent role in the late protector’s funeral procession, walking immediately ahead of the coffin, ‘in close mourning, with his staff’.244Burton’s Diary ii. 529. Pykeringe took his oath as a member of the Other House on 27 January 1659, and attended almost every meeting from then until 22 February, being named to a variety of committees, including those for privileges (28 Jan.), the bill of recognition (1 Feb.) and the bill to disannul to title of Charles Stuart (15 February).245HMC Lords n.s. iv. 524-67. His abrupt disappearance from the Other House at the end of February, a few days after the Commons passed the bill recognising Richard Cromwell* as lord protector, may indicate a growing disillusionment with the regime.

From Rump to Restoration, 1659-68

Despite his close connections with the protectorate, Pykeringe was willing to serve the restored commonwealth in May 1659, resuming his seat in the Rump Parliament. His first committee appointment was on 16 May 1659, to prepare a bill constituting a new council of state.246CJ vii. 656a. He was also named to committees to consider the constitutional changes since 1653 (21 May) and, having with Oliver St John attended Richard Cromwell and presented his renunciation to the House, what settlement should be granted to him (25 May).247CJ vii. 661b, 664b, 665a. He was appointed to the committee to bring in a new militia bill on 27 June, and on 2 July he was named to the committee on Robert Scawen’s* petition.248CJ vii. 694b, 702a. Pykeringe seems to have been absent for much of the summer, but had returned by early September, when he was placed on the committees for the assessment bill (1 Sept.), the Engagement (6 Sept.) and the settlement of the government (8 Sept.).249CJ vii. 772a, 774b, 775b. Although he did not oppose the army coup in October, and joined Strickland, Sydenham and Whitelocke as one of the moderates appointed to the committee of safety, he was not an active supporter of the generals.250Ludlow, Mems. ii. 131. With the return of Parliament in December, Pykeringe withdrew from public life. This seems to have been a voluntary retirement. At the election of the new council of state on 23 February 1660 it was noted that he ‘put in no papers’.251CJ vii. 849a.

At the Restoration Pykeringe was exempted from the act of indemnity. His wife solicited her brother’s help and it was on Montagu’s motion that on 6 August 1660 Pykeringe was pardoned but incapacitated from public office for life.252CJ viii. 60b, 117b; Pepys’s Diary i. 174-5; HMC 5th Rep., 155. The Pykeringes were unwilling to accept defeat in their own parish, however, and the family, led by Lady Pykeringe, refused to allow the former rector of Titchmarsh, Henry Deane, to re-enter the living immediately after the king was restored.253H. Belgion, ‘Village Violence at Titchmarsh in 1660’, Northants. Past and Present 4/3 (1968), 55-7. In other respects, the Pykeringes lived quietly enough, and on a visit to Northamptonshire in February 1664, Charles II dined with them.254CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 489. On 21 Oct. 1668 Pepys wrote that Pykeringe was ‘lately dead, about three days since, which makes some sorrow there; though not much, because of his being long expected to die, having been in a lethargy long’.255Pepys’s Diary ix. 334. His will, which was not proved until 1672, was brief and without preamble. He spoke of the little that remained after he had paid off his debts, and he left to his children plate worth £50.256PROB11/340/458. Pykeringe was succeeded by his son John, who became second baronet.257CB.

On the surface, Sir Gilbert Pykeringe was an unexciting character, who spent much of the 1640s torn between Westminster and Northamptonshire, became a foot soldier for the Cromwellian interest during the Rump, and then a major figure in the lord protector’s inner circle for most of the remainder of his career. But beneath the façade, the ‘finical, spruce … old courtier’ was a man of deep principle. Pykeringe’s religious beliefs lay at the heart of his political attitudes, even though they are routinely misrepresented. The jaundiced view of one Northamptonshire clergyman, Dr John Walker, that Pykeringe was ‘first a Presbyterian, then an Independent, then a Brownist, and afterwards an Anabaptist’ has proved influential among later historians, but is almost certainly wide of the mark, and a modern historian is surely right to characterise him as a ‘middle-of-the-road Independent’.258DNB; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 23; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 200. This is reinforced by the ministers with whom he associated, including Peter Sterry, Joseph Caryll, Philip Nye, Thomas Goodwin and Walter Cradock, and by his engagement with classic Puritan issues such as the sanctity of the sabbath and the iniquity of Christmas. That other Independent obsession, liberty of conscience, was clearly fundamental for Pykeringe, who defended Quakers and even suspected Catholics on that ground, despite his dislike of their ideas. He was opposed to tithes in principle, but unlike Thomas Harrison I and others he was not prepared to make it a divisive issue; and he was also reluctant to take oaths (as in 1649 and 1657) – a scruple that could easily be misunderstood as political opposition. Pykeringe was not one of Cromwell’s most powerful councillors, but his role in state occasions, and his pivotal role in the protectoral household, made him a sensitive barometer of feeling within the Cromwell establishment. His reaction to the Remonstrance in February 1657, his estrangement from Cromwell in June and July of the same year, and his apparent refusal to sit in the Other House in January and February 1658, reveal the depth of crisis that was occurring within the government in the last 18 months of Oliver’s life. It was also telling that, after an initial period of enthusiasm, Pyckeringe withdrew from the Other House in February 1659, two months before the overthrow of Richard Cromwell. Despite his hopes, both Cromwells had been a disappointment to the godly Pykeringe.