CROMWELL, Richard (1626-1712), of Huntingdon, Hunts.

Richard Cromwell was not born to rule, nor was he raised to play much of a role in public life. Since he was only the third son of Oliver Cromwell, it was not even obvious that he would control the modest family estates: he would only assume the position of heir apparent following the deaths of his elder brothers – Robert in 1639 and Oliver in 1644. Nevertheless, Richard Cromwell received a suitably godly education at Felsted School, under the eye of his maternal grandfather, Sir James Bourchier, and under the tutelage of Martin Holbeach.43Noble, Mems. i. 158. He then moved on to Lincoln’s Inn, where he was admitted in May 1647 with the assistance of John Thurloe*, although he apparently ‘took no pains to gain a knowledge of the law’.44Noble, Mems. i. 159. Thereafter it seemed that Richard avoided participation in the momentous events in which his father played so prominent a part. During the revolutionary months of 1648-9 he was preoccupied with the complex and protracted negotiations surrounding his marriage to the daughter of Richard Maijor*, a prominent Hampshire parliamentarian.45Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 585, 589-92; ii. 8-9, 12-13, 21, 27-30, 40-1, 46-7, 52, 56-7, 61-2. Following the marriage, in May 1649, Oliver’s letters reveal a sense of frustration regarding Richard’s laziness, love of pleasure, and lack of frugality, and he pleaded with Maijor and Dorothy Cromwell to offer advice and guidance to his son.46Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 95, 102-4, 159-60, 289, 330, 425-6; CSP Ven. 1653-4, p. 275. Nevertheless, for the moment Oliver appears to have been content for Richard to live a life in the country, so long as it was a godly and an active one.47Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 236-7; TSP iii. 572.

Early career

Yet Richard Cromwell’s early career was not entirely without public responsibilities. His studies at Lincoln’s Inn were probably cut short by a period of military service, as captain of the lifeguard of Viscount Lisle (Philip Sidney*) during his brief campaign in southern Ireland in the spring of 1647, and then as captain of the lifeguard of the New Model’s commander, Sir Thomas Fairfax*, from the following autumn into the early weeks of 1648.48CCAM 59; Wanklyn, New Model Army, i. 84, 96; Fairfax, Displaying of the Life-Guards Colours, 2. Cromwell was made a commissioner for draining the fens in May 1649, and he was named to a number of local commissions in the same year, including the Hampshire commission of the peace in June; he was routinely appointed to all of the Hampshire committees in February 1650.49CJ vi. 241a, 367b; C231/6, p. 160. The council of state also referred a number of local matters to him as a member of the Hampshire gentry, and from May 1651 his name appears as a justice of the peace for Radnorshire, no doubt reflecting the lands in south Wales he had been granted as part of his marriage settlement.50CSP Dom. 1651, p. 151; 1653-4, pp. 217, 287, 296; 1655, pp. 222, 349-50; SP18/100, ff. 324-5; C231/6, p. 340.

Even after his father became lord protector, Cromwell remained largely in the shadows. His greatest distinction was to be returned as one of the knights of the shire for both Hampshire and Monmouthshire in 1654, almost certainly with backing from the Cromwellian court – in the latter case as a result of the influence of Philip Jones*. He opted to sit for Hampshire, but made very little impression on the House, and is not recorded as having made any speeches. He was named to a number of major standing committees during the opening weeks of the session, such as the committee for privileges, the committees relating to Scottish and Irish affairs, and the committee to consider the state of the army and navy.51CJ vii. 366b, 370b, 371b. He was also named to committees relating to legal matters, such as the proceedings of the judges at Salters’ Hall and the chancery court, as well as committees relating to state finances, in terms of public accounts and public debts.52CJ vii. 368a, 374a, 387b, 419a His local interests and personal experience probably explain his nomination to committees relating to fen drainage schemes and Cambridge University, and his personal relationship with the protector may have prompted his interest in the committee regarding the bill for taking away purveyance.53CJ vii. 380a, 407b. Cromwell acted as a teller on one occasion, against a motion to retain the 40 shilling freehold qualification for the electoral franchise in the shires (27 Nov. 1654).54CJ vii. 391b. There was little in his parliamentary activity to indicate that he was the eldest son of the head of state.

In the aftermath of the 1654-5 Parliament, Richard Cromwell’s role gradually changed. In March 1655, he and his brother Henry Cromwell* deputised for their father in inspecting the London militia.55Mercurius Politicus no. 249 (15-22 Mar. 1655), 5211 (E.830.23). In May 1655 it was reported that Richard was to be made deputy in Scotland, and in June he was rumoured to be in line for the key jobs of lord high admiral and lieutenant of the Tower of London.56Clarke Pprs. iii. 43; TSP iii. 538; Swedish Diplomats at Cromwell’s Court ed. M. Roberts (1988), 72, 80. Although such appointments were not made, Cromwell was nominated, in November 1655, as chairman of the new committee for trade, while in January 1656 he was added to the council-appointed committee charged with organising the collection for distressed Protestants in Piedmont.57Swedish Diplomats ed. Roberts, 200; CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 1, 100; TSP iv. 177; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 89, 94. From April 1656 he was active in fulfilling his duties as warden of the New Forest, a position of some importance given the value of the region’s timber supplies, especially for the navy.58CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 544, 548; 1656-7, pp. 392, 521, 557. Despite these new roles, Cromwell remained an infrequent visitor to London. During 1654 part of his lodgings in Whitehall were occupied by the admiralty commissioners; in November 1655, he spoke of his ‘private condition’ in a letter to his brother, Henry, adding that ‘writing to my unskilful hand is very irksome’; and the satirical ‘Royall Game at Picquet’, which circulated in London in September 1656, portrayed him as saying ‘I will play my game in the country’.59CSP Dom. 1654, p. 401; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 75-6; Stowe 185, f. 95; ‘The Royall Game at Picquet’ (1656, E.886.4). Life away from the capital certainly suited Cromwell. He was known for his passion for the chase, and suffered a serious accident while hunting in 1657.60Mems. Of the Verney Fam. ii. 1-2; Wariston Diary, iii. 96-7. He was also keen on racing, presenting a cup for a meeting at Winchester in the same year.61Hants RO, W/E6/2, unfol. The critic who mocked Cromwell as ‘a person of great worth and merit, and well skilled in hawking, hunting, horse-racing, with other sports and pastimes’ may have had a point.62A Second Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 11 (E.977.3).

Life out of the limelight had its advantages. Oliver Cromwell was sensitive to allegations that he was promoting his own family, emphasizing to his son-in-law Charles Fleetwood* that he intended his sons ‘to have lived private lives in the country’.63Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iii. 568. Richard Cromwell’s chaplain, William Hooke, thought that the protector kept him from public employments ‘designedly’, ‘lest it should have been apprehended he had prepared and appointed him’ to succeed him in office.64Winthrop Pprs. II (Mass. Hist. Soc. ser. 4, vii), 591. Cromwell certainly seems to have had more of a rapport with the country gentry than his father, striking up friendships with men like the Dorset Presbyterian, John Fitzjames*, and even intervening on behalf of the family of the Wiltshire royalist insurgent, John Penruddock.65Alnwick Castle, Northumberland 551, ff. 21v, 22, 27v, 40v, 47v, 65; 552, f. 14; Wilts. RO, 332/265/16, 17, 39, 50. Cromwell’s links with the religious Presbyterians are also worth noting. He extended patronage and other favours to a bevy of conservative divines, including James Mowbray, John Gipps, Zachary Clifton and Samuel Annesley, and in January 1657 the French ambassador reported that Richard ‘in order to make himself more agreeable to the Presbyterians’ was ‘frequenting their churches’. 66J.T. Peacey, ‘“Fit for Public Services”: the upbringing of Richard Cromwell’ in Oliver Cromwell: new perspectives ed. P. Little (Woodbridge, 2008), 252; PRO31/3/101, f. 44.

Another useful by-product of rural retirement was Cromwell’s increasingly influential position within Hampshire, most obviously during the rule of the major-generals. When William Goffe* arrived in Hampshire in November 1655 he held discussions with Cromwell and Maijor, who advised him regarding nominees as commissioners for securing the commonwealth.67TSP iv. 229, 238, 363. In May 1656 Goffe commented that Cromwell was ‘very sensible of the wicked spirit of the magistrates’ at Southampton, and that he considered it ‘absolutely necessary that something be done against them’.68TSP iv. 582, 764. Cromwell’s influence within the county was also evident during the elections for the 1656 Parliament. In July 1656, Goffe commented on Cromwell’s fears concerning the ‘design’ of Richard Norton*, and suggested that he and Norton meet in order to ‘agree their men before the day of choice, and certainly they would carry it without dispute’.69TSP v. 215. On 21 August, Goffe indicated that Cromwell was elected at the head of the list of county MPs, adding that he was also ‘pleased to take great pains on my behalf’.70TSP v. 329, 344; Bodl. Rawl. A.41, p. 696. Cromwell was also returned for Cambridge University but eventually opted to represent Hampshire.71CJ vii. 432a

Second protectorate Parliament, 1656-7

Cromwell played a more active role in the proceedings of the second protectoral Parliament, although his participation in debates remained limited.72Burton’s Diary, i. 84, 95. He was named once again to the committees for privileges and Scottish affairs, and although most of his other appointments related to minor matters, local issues, and private legislation, he was also included in committees on matters such as law reform, and the arrears of excise.73CJ vii. 424a, 427a, 428a, 435b, 438a, 453a, 456a, 457a, 459a, 466a, 473b, 482a; Burton’s Diary, i. 215. His local experience, not least as warden of the New Forest, no doubt explains his nomination to committees relating to the preservation of timber, and other minor matters relating to Hampshire affairs.74CJ vii. 429b, 444b, 457b. Cromwell took an obvious interest in legislation regarding the security of the protector, and his one tellership (9 Oct.) related to this particular measure, albeit on an issue which did not divide the House along ‘party’ lines.75CJ vii. 429a, 437a. He was also an obvious choice for a committee to attend the protector regarding the passing of legislation.76CJ vii. 459a. Cromwell’s involvement in the business of the House was generally uncontroversial, but it is interesting that on 10 December, when nominating new members for the committee for debts upon public faith, he chose two leading Presbyterians, Richard Hampden and Griffith Bordurda.77Burton’s Diary, i. 95. A conservative streak can also be seen in his involvement in drafting the declaration concerning the public fast (22 Sept.), as well as his nomination to the committee regarding the bill for the better observation of the Lord’s day (18 Feb. 1657).78CJ vii. 426b, 493b. Cromwell’s attitude towards James Naylor, the Quaker, is revealing. Although he is not recorded as having contributed to debates on Naylor’s punishment, in private he was ‘very clear in passing his judgment that Naylor deserves to be hanged’.79Burton’s Diary, i. 126.

Cromwell’s participation in events at Westminster declined sharply after the beginning of December 1656, perhaps because of the illness which caused his absence at the call of the House on 31 December.80Burton’s Diary, i. 284. Cromwell’s only other noteworthy contribution to this sitting was inadvertent, as during the Commons’ attendance upon the protector at the Banqueting House on 27 January 1657, he was injured upon the collapse of the staircase.81Bodl. Carte 228, f. 86; Clarke Pprs. iii. 87; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 257; CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 14; CCSP iii. 245. Even when he had recovered from this accident (he had returned to the House by 18 February), there were soon other reasons for him to stay away, as the Commons debated changing the written constitution.82CJ vii. 493b. Writing to his brother from Whitehall on 7 March, Cromwell said that, ‘there is a bar to my pen in state affairs’, adding that ‘I know no news being, by reasons of some debates in the House, shut out for a wrangler, only I hear that that House hath made themselves the Commons, by voting another House’.83Henry Cromwell Corresp. 220-1. Cromwell did not take part in the vote on the offer of the crown to his father on 25 March, but his attitude towards the Humble Petition and Advice is obvious in a letter of June 1657, in which he criticised those ‘whose design hath been for a long time laid to take root for the hindering national advantages, [and] settlement, where it might occasion difficulty to their getting into the saddle, respecting their own ambitious minds, and advantages before religion, peace, or what else may stand in their way’.84Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 22-3 (E.935.5); Henry Cromwell Corresp. 286-8.

Although absent from the Commons for the rest of the sitting, Cromwell remained active on the committee of trade, was involved in local affairs in Hampshire, and played a prominent part in the proceedings attendant upon Oliver’s second inauguration on 26 June 1657.85CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 232, 308; SP18/154.18; Whitelocke, Diary, 471; Burton’s Diary, ii. 513, 515. His correspondence during this period, however, reveals little of his perspective on political events, and his letters to Henry after the summer are generally limited to attempts to secure favours for clients.86Henry Cromwell Corresp. 296-7, 299, 301-2, 307-8, 369, 398. This was perhaps a result of ‘so many miscarriages of letters’, which, he claimed, made it ‘altogether unsafe for either of us to write anything but what the world may see, nay particularly our enemies’. Nevertheless, he felt able to say that ‘things are upon the wheel, which moves as slowly as the Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea’, and that he was thankful that God had ‘taken care for us in giving us deliverances, out [of] six or seven troubles, from the hands of open and private enemies’.87Henry Cromwell Corresp. 300. Although Cromwell protested his ignorance of political affairs, his letters show that he was clearly developing an understanding of events surrounding him, not least in terms of European politics, commenting on his hopes for Swedish success against Denmark, in order to ‘bridle the angry Dutch, who hath too much connived at the assistance their merchants (much to our prejudice) hath made them against our affairs’.88Henry Cromwell Corresp. 364, 395-6.

Heir-apparent, 1657-8

In the period after the adjournment of Parliament, Oliver finally decided to bring his son into the full glare of public life. As a first step, Richard was nominated as Oliver’s successor as chancellor of Oxford University, on 20 July 1657.89CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 48; Mercurius Politicus no. 373 (23-30 July 1657), 7948, 7957-8 (E.505.8); Wariston Diary, iii. 96-7. Although this was in large part a symbolic and ceremonial post, Richard Cromwell was evidently interested in educational affairs, having been named to a committee relating to the university in January 1657, and he seems to have taken his role seriously, notwithstanding his incapacitation as a result of his much commented upon hunting accident in the summer of 1657.90CJ vii. 482a; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 309, 314-6, 398; CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 84, 86, 87, 215, 260, 272, 278, 349; Wariston Diary, iii. 96-7; Clarke Pprs. iii. 118; CSP Ven. 1657-9, pp. 106, 110; TSP vi. 455, 493, 496, 516. Cromwell also played a part in dealing with the factionalism within the university, and in undermining the Independent vice-chancellor, Dr John Owen*, who was increasingly critical of the Cromwellian regime, not least the drift towards a monarchical constitution.91J. Butler, ‘Richard Cromwell and Oxford, 1657-1660’, Cromwelliana (1982-3), 21. In doing so, Cromwell sided openly with the Presbyterian academics led by the protector’s brother-in-law, John Wilkins, and it was Wilkins’ ally John Conant who eventually replaced Owen as vice-chancellor in October 1657.92Peacey, ‘“Fit for Public Service”’, 255-6.

The Oxford appointment in fact marked a false start to Cromwell’s public career, as a serious injury sustained while hunting in August 1657 led to a period of enforced idleness. Contemporaries noted that this had ‘strangely trysted his father’s design of bringing him forth in the world’, or pondered the fact that the accident to ‘Prince Richard’ had occurred in the New Forest, ‘that fatal place to the sons of our princes’.93Wariston Diary, iii. 96-7; CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 335, 338. It was not until the late autumn that he received further promotion. In November 1657 he was allowed to reside at St James’s Palace, ‘in which princes have traditionally lived’; in December he was elevated to the peerage, and nominated to the protectoral council; and a month later he was also appointed to command the regiment of horse formerly under William Goffe.94PRO31/3/101, ff. 437, 496; CSP Ven. 1657-9, pp. 154-5; CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 206, 208, 210; Clarke Pprs. iii. 129, 132. Cromwell attended the Other House on every day of its sitting during the second sitting of Parliament (20 Jan.-4 Feb. 1658), and, having taken his place on the council on 31 December, proved assiduous in its service, to judge from his committee appointments and reports.95Sl. 3246; TSP vi. 668, 735; HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 503-24; CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 236-7, 239, 240, 262, 264, 268, 269, 286, 294, 296, 301-2, 324, 329-31, 334. Immediately afterwards, there were rumours that Richard ‘is to be made king, and that very shortly, his father remaining still lord protector till the government be more and more settled’.96R. Vaughan, Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell (1838), ii. 436. By March 1658 there was also discussion of the possibility of Cromwell and his regiment marching to Scotland, perhaps in order to replace George Monck* as commander-in-chief in the north.97CSP Ven. 1657-9, pp. 170, 179; CCSP iv. 17, 32; CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 335, 338; Clarke Pprs. iii. 145. Despite the heightened sense of anticipation, Cromwell remained in London, where he was busy working on council business throughout the spring.98CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 338, 344, 354, 356, 360, 362-3, 366, 370-1, 374, 376, 377, 379, 381; 1658-9, pp. 3, 8, 22, 27, 30, 35, 39, 41, 45, 47. He was in London for the launch of the Richard, named in his honour in late May, and then he travelled to the west country for his health until he was recalled to Whitehall and the council in mid-July, amid talk of another Parliament.99Mercurius Politicus no. 417 (20-27 May 1658), sig. Yyy4v (E.750.18); no. 423 (1-8 July 1658), 664-5 (E.753.12); no. 425 (15-22 July 1658), 686 (E.756.1); CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 209; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 392-3, 395-6; CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 98, 99, 101, 102, 112, 113, 118-9, 120. He was thus in London when Oliver was taken ill in August, and was present at his father’s deathbed on 3 September.

Lord protector, 1658-9

The nature and timing of Richard Cromwell’s succession to the protectorate remains a matter of debate, given the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Oliver’s ‘will’ and the uncertain circumstances of his deathbed nomination.100TSP vii. 363, 375, 415; A Collection of State Letters of the Right Honourable Roger Boyle (Dublin, 1743), i. 53-4; J. Fitzgibbons, ‘“Not in any doubtfull dispute”: reassessing the nomination of Richard Cromwell’, Hist. Res. Lxxxii. 281-300. Richard’s own correspondence from the last week of August indicates a profound concern regarding the personal implications of Oliver’s death, not least because stories were circulating of his own appointment as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.101Henry Cromwell Corresp. 400-1; OPH xxi. 223-4; Clarke Pprs. iii. 161; CSP Ven. 1657-9, pp. 238-9. TSP vii. 415. Richard was acknowledged as his father’s successor as lord protector on 3 September, and was proclaimed in London the following day.102CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 129-30; HMC 5th Rep. 299; Whitelocke, Diary, 496; Mercurius Politicus no. 432 (2-9 Sept. 1658), 804-5 (E.756.15); Publick Intelligencer no. 141 (30 Aug.-6 Sept. 1658), 796-800 (E.756.14); TSP vii. 372-3. Official accounts recorded unanimous support in the council, the army and the country, and reported the local addresses submitted to Cromwell in the weeks which followed.103Mercurius Politicus no. 432 (2-9 Sept. 1658), 803-4; Publick Intelligencer no. 141 (30 Aug.-6 Sept. 1658), 794-5, 795-6, 799; no. 143 (13-20 Sept. 1658), 818, 826-7, 829-30 (E.756.18); no. 144 (20-27 Sept. 1658), 850-1 (E.756.20); A True Catalogue, or an account of the several places and most eminent persons… by whom Richard Cromwell was proclaimed (1659), 53, 75 (E.999.12). Thurloe was upbeat, telling Henry Cromwell on 7 September that the succession had been ‘easy and peaceable … there is not a dog that wags his tongue, so great a calm are we in’, although he added, darkly, ‘that there are some secret murmurings in the army, as if his highness were not general of the army, as his father was’.104TSP vii. 374.

Cromwell clearly recognised the danger of unrest among the soldiers, and sought to secure their favour with speeches during his first weeks as protector.105Add. 4159, ff. 238-42; TSP vii. 405, 447-9; Mercurius Politicus no. 434 (16-23 Sept. 1658), 838, 844-7 (E.756.19); no. 438 (14-21 Oct. 1658), 913-15, 922-5 (E.760.6); Henry Cromwell Corresp. 405-7; Clarke Pprs. iii. 164; C.H. Firth, ‘A Speech by Richard Cromwell, 14 October 1658’, EHR xxiii, 734-6. Cromwell’s fair words were mixed with a determination not to concede his position as commander-in-chief, and he warned against army meetings and petitioning, although he went some way towards satisfying their demands by appointing his brother-in-law Charles Fleetwood as lieutenant-general of the British army, and by making Fleetwood and another relative, his uncle John Disbrowe*, joint lords warden of the Cinque Ports.106Clarke Pprs. iii. 165-6, 173; HMC 5th Rep. 146; CCSP iv. 100-103; TSP vii. 452, 559; F. Guizot, Hist. of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration of Charles II (1856), i. 262, 264, 268, 271. Cromwell also sought to maintain a ‘good correspondency’ with the officers, while seeking all means of paying the army’s arrears.107Henry Cromwell Corresp. 422-3; HMC Var. i. 19; CCSP iv. 108; TSP vii. 511; Clarke Pprs. iii. 169-70; Mercurius Politicus no. 443 (18-25 Nov. 1658), 24 (E.760.16); Whitelocke, Diary, 501. This explains his frequent attendance at the council, and his proposals to it for the settlement of the soldiers’ pay claims.108PRO31/17/33, esp. p. 131. Although somewhat successful in this, he admitted that his affairs were ‘very heavy and difficult’.109Lansd. 123, ff. 119-20. Even the elaborate funeral for Oliver on 23 November, intended in part to placate the army, did not succeed in quietening military discontent over arrears of pay, and they remained suspicious of a protector with little or no military experience.110TSP vii. 413; HMC 5th Rep. 173; Clarke Pprs. iii. 168; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 253-4, 260. During this period Cromwell had considerable support from his council. Key allies included the lord president, Henry Lawrence I*, the lord keeper, Nathaniel Fiennes I*, and Sir Charles Wolseley*, Philip Jones* and Edward Montagu*.111Little and Smith, Parliaments and Politics, 156. The most important of his advisers was probably Thurloe, although one insider saw two non-councillors as crucial, as ‘Thurloe governs Cromwell, and [Oliver] St John* and [William] Pierrepont* govern Thurloe’.112Clar. SP iii. 425. But even with the backing of such powerful men, Cromwell struggled to get his own way. Attempts to remove ‘ill counsellors’, and to add to the board allies like Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*) and Viscount Fauconberg (Thomas Belasyse*) were defeated by an opposition group led by John Disbrowe.113TSP vii. 510, 581; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 271; R. Baker, Chronicle of the Kings of England (1670), 657.

The issue that most divided the council was whether or not to call a new Parliament. The need for money in order to finance the fleet and to honour Oliver’s Anglo-Swedish alliance may have tipped the balance.114Clarendon, Hist. vi. 99; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 429-30. The decision to call a third protectorate Parliament was probably taken in the last week of November 1658, although rumours about a new session were current as early as September, and in October it was reported that Cromwell was preparing the ground by ‘making adroit insinuations to the strongest and most important of the counties to nominate persons dependent on him, of whose loyalty he can feel sure without a shade of doubt’.115Lansd. 123, ff. 119-20; CSP Ven. 1657-9, pp. 254-5; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 243-4, 270.

Third protectorate Parliament, 1659

Despite such reports, Cromwell’s personal role in the elections for the new Parliament is hard to fathom. He is known to have intervened directly to influence elections in Hampshire constituencies such as Lymington and Whitchurch, but on the whole it seems likely that the court’s election strategy was managed by men such as John Thurloe and Oliver St John* in England, with the assistance of Henry Cromwell, George Monck and Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*) in Ireland and Scotland.116BL, RP 2573(ii); TSP vii. 541, 549, 555, 559, 562, 565, 572-5, 579, 581-2, 584-8, 593, 595, 597, 600-601; CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 277; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 276. As the council had lost the right to exclude Members under the Humble Petition, the elections produced a House split between old royalists, Presbyterians, Cromwellian courtiers, and republican commonwealthsmen.117CCSP iv. 140; CSP Ven. 1657-9, pp. 285-6. Cromwell’s opening speech, in which he pledged himself to the army, the ‘maintenance of the peace, laws, [and] liberties, both civil and Christian, of these nations’, and a Protestant foreign policy, was well received.118The Speech of His Highness the Lord Protector (1659), 5, 7, 9 (E.968.1); Clarke Pprs. iii. 176; CCSP iv. 140; CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 288; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 294-5. He upheld the Humble Petition, and commended Parliament as in institution, calling it ‘a great council of the chief magistrate, in whose advice both he and these nations may be most safe and happy’ and urged MPs to ‘maintain and conserve love and unity among yourselves’ to ensure that it would be a ‘happy Parliament’.119The Speech of his Highness, 4-5, 9.

Thereafter, although Cromwell presumably had some influence over the big debates surrounding the ‘recognition’ of the protector, the admission of the Scottish and Irish Members, the Other House and the threat of religious intolerance, as well as the attitude towards the army and the raising of money, the details are unclear. His known interventions were less than helpful. For example, his defence of Richard Ingoldsby* from the accusations made by religious radicals, and his support for Edward Whalley* after his clash with Colonel Richard Ashfield, may have undermined any support he still enjoyed among the junior officers.120Second Narrative of the Late Parliament, 30-1; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 61-3; Phoenix Britannicus (1732), 155; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 153; TSP vii. 638; HMC Popham, 114-15; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 469-72, 490-2. Furthermore, rumours of his private conferences with the Speaker of the Commons aroused suspicion regarding court manipulation of parliamentary proceedings, while news that he was courting Lord Fairfax may also have alienated potential supporters in the House and in the army.121S. Bethel, A True and Impartial Narrative (1659) 12 (E.985.25); CCSP iv. 149. In religious affairs, Cromwell’s continuing links with the Presbyterians made him suspect in the eyes of the army and their allies.122Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 277. According to the Scottish minister, James Sharp, Richard’s critics among the Independents were ‘very observant and grieved when this protector does take special notice of those of the Presbyterial way’.123Consultations ed Stephen, ii. 153. Ominously, by March a new Independent congregation had been formed in London, headed by Dr John Owen, and counting among its members Fleetwood and Disbrowe – a move ‘not … very well liked at Whitehall’.124Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 158; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 475.

As yet, army unrest did not prevent Cromwell’s government from making significant gains within Parliament. Although the tone of the debate – and the grand-standing of the commonwealthsmen in particular – could lead to heated exchanges in the Commons, the protector himself was treated with considerable respect. Even opponents of the regime seem to have had no personal animosity towards Cromwell. The army grandee William Packer* conceded that ‘the gentlemen deserves the government as well as any man’, while a Presbyterian critic, Richard Knightley*, admitted that the protector was a man ‘of good disposition, free from guile’, and even a leading commonwealthsman like Sir Arthur Hesilrige* could claim, ‘I do love the person of the lord protector’.125Burton’s Diary, iii. 104, 161, 262. The lack of personal rancour did not prevent the protector’s policies from being given a rough ride, but by the end of March there was much to celebrate: Cromwell had been recognized as protector; the Other House had been accepted; the right of Scottish and Irish MPs to sit had been secured. Some reported that ‘the republican party are upon the declining hand’, while ‘there is good reason to look for a happy issue in conformity with the wishes of the protector’, whose ‘party is abundantly the more powerful’.126Nicholas Pprs. iv. 87; Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 160; CSP Ven. 1659-61, pp. 1, 6; Bodl. Clarendon 60, f. 307.

Progress in the Commons did nothing to reassure the army.127CCSP iv. 159; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 5; England’s Confusion (1659), 7-9 (E.985.1); Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 302, 305, 314. At the end of March Cromwell agreed to a request from Fleetwood and Disbrowe to allow a general council of officers to convene at Wallingford House, and there followed a series of meetings and a formal representation to the protector, outlining their grievances. This was seen by Bulstrode Whitelocke* as ‘the beginning of Richard’s fall’.128Little and Smith, Parliaments and Politics, 164; Whitelocke, Diary, 511 The representation was debated on 18 April by the Commons, which passed resolutions asserting Parliament’s right not to be intimidated, and denouncing the general council. An angry Cromwell then summoned the officers to a conference, where he ordered the immediate suspension of meetings at Wallingford House, and the return of the officers to their commands. The officers’ refusal to cooperate led to rival musters, with Fleetwood summoning regiments to St James’s while Cromwell ordered the troops to gather at Whitehall. It soon became clear who would win any test of strength, and on 21 April Disbrowe visited Cromwell to tell him ‘if he would dissolve his Parliament, the officers would take care of him’.129Little and Smith, Parliaments and Politics, 166-7; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 69. After a hasty consultation with Thurloe, Fiennes, Broghill, Wolseley and other advisers, Cromwell bowed to the inevitable, and order the dissolution of Parliament on 22 April.130Little and Smith, Parliaments and Politics, 167.

Fall from power and later career

In the period immediately following the dissolution everything was up for grabs. It was not yet clear that the protectorate would be abolished, as some among the senior officers were minded to retain Cromwell as a useful figurehead.131CCSP iv. 188, 191; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 506-7; Wariston Diary, iii. 107; Nicholas Pprs. iv. 126; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 371, 373, 374. Outwardly Cromwell continued to act as protector during early May, even as the new council of state was appointed and the Rump Parliament reconvened.132Hunts. RO, 731/10; TSP vii. 666; CSP Ven. 1659-61, pp. 10-12, 16-18; Nicholas Pprs. iv. 122. There were wild rumours in royalist circles that Cromwell would now proclaim himself king, or perhaps find a role in the new commonwealth government, perhaps as head of a new council of state.133HMC 10th Rep. VI, 194; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 340; CCSP iv. 197-8; Clarke Pprs. iv. 7; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 379. Such reports took no account of Cromwell’s understandable bitterness towards Fleetwood and Disbrowe, and his sense of depression more generally, both of which are evident in his correspondence with Henry Cromwell and Edward Montagu.134CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 335-6; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 516-7; Clarke Pprs. iv. 297; Bodl. Carte 23, f. 314. By early June, indeed, his sense of betrayal was reported to have extended to loyal courtiers like Thurloe.135CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 367. Some contemporaries even expected that Cromwell’s treatment would push him into the arms of the royalists.136CCSP iv. 200; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 13; CCSP iv. 201, 204, 205, 209-11; Clar. SP iii. 477-8. Ultimately there was no room to manoeuvre, as Cromwell did not dare leave Whitehall for fear of his creditors.137CCSP iv. 201, 203; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 354; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 413. The Rump took advantage of this by making a financial settlement conditional upon Cromwell’s compliance with the new regime, and may have threatened him with the prospect of a trial before a high court of justice.138CJ vii. 655b; CCSP iv. 206; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 384, 400, 409. Disillusioned, on 25 May Cromwell declared his willingness to comply with the new regime, and provided a statement of his financial position, and the debts inherited from his father. He was granted oblivion by the Rump, his debts were taken over, and he was granted £2,000 pending a more permanent settlement.139CJ vii. 664b-65a; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 356; SP18/203, ff. 33-4; Whitelocke, Diary, 516; CCSP iv. 213; HMC 3rd Rep. 89; Nicholas Pprs. iv. 148. He remained at Whitehall until mid-July 1659, when his personal security was ensured by the decision to exempt him from arrest for six months (4 July), and his financial position improved by the decision to guarantee him an income of £10,000 a year.140CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 367, 386; 1659-60, pp. 32, 576; HMC Bath, ii. 134; CCSP iv. 238; CJ vii. 704b, 720a-b; Whitelocke, Diary, 522; Nicholas Pprs. iv. 152; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 432.

Although Cromwell retired to Hampshire in the second week of July 1659, he remained the subject of rumours regarding plots to overthrow the Rump, and his reinstatement as protector continued to be discussed by senior army officers like John Lambert*, and civilian republicans like Harbert Morley*, until the Restoration, perhaps because he was considered more malleable and less threatening than Charles Stuart.141CCSP iv. 260, 263, 282, 316, 355, 424-6, 434, 477, 572, 574, 581, 595; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 25; CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 37, 52, 396; CSP Ven. 1659-61, pp. 45-6, 126; Clarke Pprs. iv. 167, 169; Mems. of the Verney Fam. ii. 158; Pepys’s Diary, i. 74, 76, 79; Whitelocke, Diary, 581; Clarendon, Hist. vi. 184; A Collection of Original Letters and Papers ed. T. Carte (1739), ii. 310, 331-2; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 445-6, 450. All that is known for certain regarding Cromwell’s activity during these months, however, is that he remained active in relation to his post as chancellor of Oxford University, although by mid-April 1660 he felt compelled to write to Monck in order to solicit his support in the forthcoming Parliament, to prevent him having to ‘return to hiding places to avoid arrests for debts contracted upon the public account’.142Add. 24863, f. 82; Eg. 2618, f. 67. Following the opening of the Convention, Cromwell resigned from his position at Oxford University on 8 May.143HMC Popham, 182.

Cromwell fled to the continent at the Restoration, in fear of his creditors rather than Charles II. He travelled in France, Switzerland and Italy before settling in Paris in relatively impoverished circumstances, under the name John Clarke.144Clarendon, Hist. vi. 107-8; Noble, Mems. i. 171; Pepys’s Diary, v. 296, vii. 94; Hants RO, 58M71/E/T22-3; A.S. Burn, ‘Correspondence of Richard Cromwell’, EHR xiii. 93-5. Although it was accepted that he was not an active plotter, his correspondence was monitored by the king’s agents, and his name appeared in intelligence reports relating to possible conspiracies against the regime in the 1660s.145CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 570; 1661-2, pp. 356, 404, 449; 1665-6, pp. 240, 281, 340; 1666-7, pp. 429, 495-6, 584; 1671-2, p. 162; 1677-8, p. 388. On the basis of testimony regarding his private and unengaged life in Paris, and his loyalty to the Stuart dynasty, Cromwell appears to have been exempted from the call for exiles to return to England in the spring of 1666.146CSP Dom. 1665-6, pp. 299, 318; SP29/151, f. 36. Although he was suspected to be in England in 1671, Cromwell only returned in the wake of his wife’s death in 1676.147CSP Dom. 1671, pp. 335-6, 340, 497, 563; Hants RO, 58M71/E/T24. Thereafter he lodged with Rachel Pengelly, daughter of Jeremy Baynes*, in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, and although he continued to use the name John Clarke, he did not live as a recluse, and his identity was an open secret.148Noble, Mems. i. 173; Mus. of London, 46.78/19/6-79, 84, 85, 88, 98, 102-3, 123, 165, 168-9; Add. 32456, ff. 4v-102v; Burn, ‘Correspondence’, 95-124; Hunts. RO, 731/82-122. Although he lived quietly, his connections with dissenters, and the appearance of his name in depositions regarding the Rye House plot in 1683, led to moves to have him questioned.149CSP Dom. 1683, pp. 33, 98, 444; Noble, Mems. i. 184. Upon the death of his son in 1705, Cromwell inherited a life interest in the estate at Hursley, although he had to endure a lengthy legal dispute with his daughters before gaining control of the property in 1706.150Jesse, Mems. ii. 169-70; Noble, Mems. i. 174-5; Mus. of London, 46.78/19/2, 109, 112-16, 120-21, 133, 135, 137, 142, 147, 153-61; 46.78/625, 627; Hants RO, 36M66/90-91; Hunts. RO, 731/52, 125, 128, 130-2. Cromwell died at Cheshunt on 12 July 1712, and was buried at Hursley.151Mus. of London, 46.78/19/176-8; 46.78/21-2, 624-6; Hearne, Reliquiae Hearnianae, i. 261; Noble, Mems. i. 176.

Conclusion

Richard Cromwell, ‘the pretended protector’, has generally been portrayed as a man who would have preferred to remain an obscure country squire than take on the role of head of state. It is said that he was unsuited for the job, not least in lacking the ruthlessness necessary to deal with those who coveted his position or who sought to dominate his government, and allowing them to undermine his Parliament, his government and the protectoral constitution.152Bethel, True and Impartial Narrative, 3; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 6; Bishop Burnet’s History of his own Time ed. T. Burnet (1833), i. 150-1. He was dismissed as ‘the meek knight’, ‘the mushroom prince’, ‘queen Dick’ or ‘tumbledown Dick’.153Jesse, Mems. iii. 160-1; Wood, Hist. Univ. Oxford, ii. 694. Nevertheless, Cromwell was more capable than his enemies and detractors have been prepared to admit, and he certainly impressed those who came into contact with him. Although he lacked the support his father had enjoyed as a military man and a religious radical, Cromwell’s connections with the Presbyterians and the country gentry promised to broaden the base of the protectorate, and held out the hope that the regime might become permanent. Ironically, it was the growing success of such policies that provoked the military coup that brought down his protectorate.