HAMMOND, Robert (1621-54), of Chertsey, Surr. and Reading, Berks.

In the words of Sir John Oglander†, Hammond was ‘a gentleman, and also [the] younger son to a gentleman’.20Royalist’s Notebook ed. Bamford, 111. The fortunes of the family had been established by this MP’s grandfather, John Hammond, who had been one of James I’s physicians, and who in 1602 acquired the lease on the manor of Chertsey, the site of what had been Chertsey Abbey, and eight years later had been granted it outright by the crown. On Hammond’s death in 1617, this had passed to his eldest son, Robert. That son, the MP’s father, had survived him by only five years, leaving the property to Robert’s elder brother, John.21VCH Surrey, iii. 407-8. Robert therefore grew up knowing that he would have to make his own way. By the time he came of age, the country was fighting a civil war and he made a career for himself as a soldier.

Fighting the king, 1642-7

In late 1641 Hammond accompanied Sir Simon Harcourt to Ireland on the expedition sent to suppress the Irish rebellion.22An Answer to a Scandalous Letter, 4. Returning to England the following year, presumably because of the deteriorating relations between the king and Parliament, he sided with the latter and became a captain under Sir John Hotham* at Hull. He then transferred to the lifeguard of Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex.23BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database; SP28/7, f. 121; SP28/10, f. 286. If Anthony Wood is to be believed, it was his uncle, Thomas Hammond, who persuaded him to fight for Parliament and who secured him his early military positions.24Ath. Ox. iii. 500. Hammond later joined the regiment of Edward Massie* as a major. It was while serving under Massie, on a march between Tewkesbury and Gloucester in early August 1644, that Hammond got into an argument with Major Edward Gray of the regiment of Henry Grey*, 1st earl of Stamford. Swords were drawn and, in the heat of the argument, Hammond killed Gray.25CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 396-7; Bibliotheca Gloucestrensis ed. J. Washbourn (Gloucester, 1825), 109-10. He was arrested on the spot and taken as a prisoner to London. On 19 September he petitioned the Commons, asking either to be tried quickly or to be bailed. Having first referred the matter to the commissioners for martial law, the Commons decided on 9 October that he should be tried on by a council of war and, in the meantime, granted bail. But 12 days later he attempted to press his case in person in one of the Lords’ committees and so was re-arrested. His trial probably took place on 28 November and Sir Philip Stapilton* told the Commons on 5 December that he had been acquitted on the grounds that he been acting in self defence.26CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 467, 483; 1644-5, pp. 14, 33; CJ iii. 622a, 633a. 657a, 712b; LJ vii. 30a; HMC 6th Rep. 32; Ath. Ox. iii. 500.

This incident does not seem to have harmed Hammond’s prospects. After Major-general Lawrence Crawford refused to serve in the New Model army, the command of the regiment of foot which had been earmarked for him was assigned to Hammond.27Temple, ‘Original officer list’, 56; Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, i. 56. Sir Samuel Luke* then claimed that Hammond’s was one of the ‘chiefest praying and preaching regiments in the army’.28Luke Letter Bks. 324. He and his men spent the rest of that year on campaign with Oliver Cromwell*. On 8 June the council of officers, meeting at Sherington in Buckinghamshire, sent Hammond to London with their request that Cromwell be appointed as the lieutenant-general of horse.29Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva, 32; CJ iv. 169b. He later distinguished himself during the capture of Bristol in early September and so, along with Edward Montagu II*, was sent by the lord general, Sir Thomas Fairfax*, to report the news of this major victory to Parliament.30Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 376; LJ vii. 583b; CJ iv. 277a-b. He re-joined the army at Devizes.31Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 379. Having then made their way to Winchester, Hammond and Thomas Harrison I* acted as Cromwell’s intermediaries in the negotiations for the surrender of the royalist garrison defending the city.32Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 383. Their next stop was Basing House, held by the 5th marquess of Winchester (Sir John Paulet†). During the course of the ensuing siege, Hammond and Major Nathaniel King were captured by the royalist defenders and held as hostages.33Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 384. Edmund Ludlowe II* would later claim that, as Hammond was distantly related to Winchester, there had even been rumours that their capture had been pre-arranged.34Ludlow, Mems. i. 124. Hammond was rescued unharmed after the house was stormed by Cromwell on 14 October. In reporting its capture to the Speaker, William Lenthall*, Cromwell made a point of mentioning that Hammond had lost much during the war.35Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 387. Just to make sure that the Commons took the hint, Hammond appeared before them the next day to give them full details of this latest success. The Commons immediately granted him £200.36CJ iv. 309a.

On 9 April 1646 Exeter surrendered to the parliamentarian army. That same day Fairfax wrote to Parliament recommending that Hammond be appointed as the new governor. This was approved four days later.37CJ iv. 506a; Harington’s Diary, 19. For the time being, therefore, Hammond would be based in the south west. Within days he had captured St Michael’s Mount.38CJ iv. 520b; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 416. He then moved on to besiege Pendennis.39CCSP i. 312. With the south west now secured for Parliament and the war elsewhere winding down, he probably spent most of that summer at Exeter.40CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 454; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 461. He had returned to London by 22 October, when he carried one of the bannerols in Essex’s funeral procession.41The True Mannor and Forme of the Proceeding to the Funerall of the Right Honourable Robert Earle of Essex (1646), 18 (E.360.1).

By the spring of 1647 Hammond, like every other soldier in the New Model army, was facing the choice of being disbanded or serving in Ireland. For Hammond, more than most, the latter option was a tempting one. He had already served there and seems to have been ideologically committed to the project of an English Protestant re-conquest. His brother John had invested in the Irish Adventure.42CSP Ire. Adv. 1642-59, p. 124. Initially he agreed to go, although he made it clear that Parliament would need to give him some assurances on pay and conditions. These were supplied by the Commons on 9 March.43CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 531, 534; CJ v. 109a, 112a; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 736.

But it soon became obvious that others were much less eager. Wary of alienating them, Hammond began to give his support to the many reservations and doubts still entertained by his colleagues and their men. He was present at the meetings at Saffron Walden on 21 and 22 March at which the general mood was one of great scepticism about the terms of the planned disbandment.44LJ ix. 112a, 113a. Subsequently he was among the officers who played some part in drafting (or redrafting) the soldiers’ petition expressing those concerns. As such, he was one of those then summoned to the Commons and who, appearing on 1 April, gave assurances to the disapproving MPs that they would help suppress the offending petition.45CJ v. 109a, 132a; Clarke Pprs. i. 2. Over the next few weeks the commissioners sent by Parliament to encourage the soldiers to agree to serve in Ireland found that several of the officers in Hammond’s regiment were still in favour of going. Others differed, however.46LJ ix. 153a; Clarke Pprs. i. 16-17. When Philip Skippon* spoke to the meeting of the army officers on 7 May, it was Hammond who took the lead in responding on behalf of the others who were present. He assured Skippon that he would be willing to go to Ireland, but pointed out that the soldiers’ loyalty to Skippon could not be taken for granted.47Clarke Pprs. i. 30. He may have realised that his caution would carry particular weight. Later that month he helped gather in the responses to the soundings taken in the army for the benefit of Cromwell and the other parliamentary commissioners.48Clarke Pprs. i. 81. At the meeting on 16 May between the army officers and the commissioners, he indicated that his men would accept the terms being offered to them.49Clarke Pprs. i. 51, 64-5, 77. On approving its general disbandment scheme, Parliament ordered that Hammond’s regiment should disband at Bedford on 15 June and that those of his men who were to be sent to Ireland should march to Newport Pagnell.50LJ ix. 208a; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 749.

Like the rest of the planned disbandment, this was almost immediately abandoned. In the crisis that then unfolded, Hammond and his regiment joined the army’s march towards London.51LJ ix. 257a-b; CJ v. 208a. On 15 June he was part of the delegation who delivered the Declaration of the Army to the representatives from Parliament at St Albans.52LJ ix. 269a. Some of his men meanwhile had to be ordered by Fairfax not to quarter themselves in Hatfield House.53Hatfield House, CP 131/190. On 1 July Fairfax included Hammond in the delegation he appointed to negotiate with the parliamentary commissioners.54LJ ix. 312a-b. Given all this, Hammond was well placed to play a full part in the discussions between the senior army officers about the shape of any agreement they might offer to the king. That was doubtless why, later that month, he was one of the four officers who travelled to Woburn to present the king with the outcome of those discussions, the Heads of Proposals.55Sundry Reasons Inducing Maj. Robert Huntingdon (1648), 7. He and the others were then disappointed by Parliament’s unenthusiastic response.56LJ ix. 355a-356a. His regiment can be assumed to have taken part in the army’s entry into London on 6 August.

That Hammond was appointed to the ‘general committee of officers’ nominated by Fairfax on 29 August seemed to indicate that he would continue to take a significant role in the army’s policy debates.57Clarke Pprs. i. 223-4; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, 122. Yet this was also the moment at which he began to try to extricate himself from so high-profile a position. Less radical than many of his colleagues, he preferred a moderate deal with the king. That same day the 4th earl of Pembroke (Philip Herbert*) informed the House of Lords that he wished to step down as governor of the Isle of Wight. On Fairfax’s recommendation, Hammond was immediately designated by the Lords as Pembroke’s successor.58HMC 6th Rep. 194; LJ ix. 421a; CCSP i. 388. This must, at this point, have seemed a quiet posting which would enable Hammond to make a dignified withdrawal from the front line of army politics. The ordinance appointing him was passed on 6 September, while his patent of appointment was ready later that month.59LJ ix. 421b, 422b, 423b, 437a, 437b; CJ v. 291a, 292b, 293a, 293b, 306a-b; CCSP i. 393. His lieutenant-colonel, Isaac Ewer, took over as colonel of his regiment.60Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, i. 86. Hammond’s subsequent appointments as the vice-admiral for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and as a member of the committee for the Isle of Wight were then mere formalities.61LJ ix. 460a-461b, 506a, 507a; CJ v. 324b, 345b, 347a; ADM7/673, pp. 401-2; HMC 6th Rep. 206. As it became clear, at Putney and elsewhere, just how radical some within the army were becoming, Hammond became all the more certain that he had done the right thing. In the second week of November, depressed at the way things were going, he travelled back to the Isle of Wight. On the way there, he happened to meet one of the king’s grooms of the bedchamber, John Ashburnham*. In conversation, according to Ashburnham’s later account, Hammond told him that, ‘he was going down to his government, because he found the army was resolved to break all promises with the king, and that he would have nothing to do with such perfidious actions’.62A Narrative by John Ashburnham (1830), 108. Hammond could hardly have foreseen the huge consequences those indiscreet remarks were about to have.

Gaoler to the king, 1647-8

Several days later, on 13 November 1647, Hammond’s life was turned upside down. That morning he set out on horseback from Carisbrooke Castle, the main stronghold on the Isle of Wight, intending to ride to Newport, the island’s largest town. On the way he was overtaken by Ashburnham and Sir John Berkeley*. The two courtiers informed Hammond that the king had fled from Hampton Court with the intention of taking refuge on the island with him. Both Ashburnham and Berkeley later recalled vividly Hammond’s visible horror. His initial reaction was to advise them against bringing the king there, but, pressured by them and quite possibly against his better judgment, he agreed that, if the king was in fear for his life and required his assistance, he would act as ‘a person of honour or honesty’.63Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 112-15, clxviii-clxxv. Hammond had probably already realised the huge conflicts of interest, between Parliament, the army and his king, that this would cause. Vague and elastic though his promise was, it was about as much as could reasonably be expected in the circumstances and, as it was, he would have to take a huge risk. After further discussion and probably with some reluctance, Ashburnham and Berkeley agreed to take Hammond to the secret location on the mainland where the king was hiding. This turned out to be Titchfield, a house belonging to Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, located on the mainland just across the Solent.

The king did not welcome Hammond’s arrival. As Charles immediately realised, since Hammond now knew their location, if they decided not to go with him to the Isle of Wight, he could raise the alarm. Hammond then offered the king further assurances of his honourable intentions. Perhaps feeling that he now had no other viable option, Charles agreed to place himself into Hammond’s hands. Accompanied by the third member of the royal party, William Legge†, all five crossed to Cowes.64Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. pp. clxxv-clxxvii, 115-19; Mems. of the Two last Years of the Reign of ... King Charles I (1702), 160-1. From there Hammond wrote to Parliament informing them of the king’s whereabouts.65LJ ix. 525b; CJ v. 359a; HMC 6th Rep. 209; His Majesties Grievances (1647), 3-5 (E.416.16). The following morning they travelled to Carisbrooke, where Charles was installed in the castle.66Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. p. clxxvii. Hammond called a meeting of the island’s leading inhabitants at Newport on 15 November to explain to them what was happening. In his speech he stressed that they all had a duty to protect the king.67Royalist’s Notebook ed. Bamford, 113-15.

Contemporaries and historians have been equally fascinated by the idea that the king’s flight to Hammond on the Isle of Wight had been prearranged.68CCSP i. 402; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 267; Ludlow, Mems. i. 168. Had Cromwell suggested it to Charles? Had he given him assurances that Hammond, his old friend, was trustworthy? Had Ashburnham always intended to take Charles to the Isle of Wight or had that been decided only once they had left Hampton Court? Did Hammond know in advance? Regarding Hammond, the last of these questions is the most important. If he did know, the significance of the whole incident and of his role in it would change. However, what evidence there is for that particular conspiracy theory is especially weak. It is true that the main sources for Hammond’s actions at the crucial moment are the two accounts by Ashburnham and Berkeley, who had their own reasons for denying advance planning. Ashburnham, in particular, needed to refute the charge that he had led the king into a trap, and both needed to establish that crucial decisions were ad hoc, and independently taken. Yet, for all their minor discrepancies, their two accounts match on the basic details.69Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. pp. clxxi, 114. Were they invented? There does seem something honest in Berkeley’s claim that Ashburnham had admitted, on their way to find Hammond, that he knew the governor ‘not very much’, having formed his opinion of his trustworthiness mainly from their conversation several days earlier.70Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. p. clxx. The most that anyone has ever been able to cite as possible evidence for Hammond’s foreknowledge of the plan was the fact that he had travelled back to the Isle of Wight just a few days before.71Clarendon, Hist. iv. 267. But he had only recently taken up his new posting there, so his decision to spend time there cannot, in itself, be considered suspicious. That Hammond’s uncle, Henry Hammond, was one of the royal chaplains in attendance on the king at Hampton Court could certainly have provided one possible link between Charles’s intimate advisers and Hammond. But equally it might have reassured them that he would probably help them if they approached him without prior warning.

Hammond’s letter informing them that the king was with him on the Isle of Wight was read to the two Houses on 15 November. Cromwell took the opportunity to assure the Commons that Hammond could be trusted.72LJ ix. 525b; CJ v. 359a; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 274. By the next day a set of formal instructions to him had been completed, setting out that the king was to remain at Carisbrooke Castle and that access to him was to be restricted. These were sent to Hammond, along with further orders, on 18 November.73LJ ix. 525a, 526b, 527a-b, 529b; CJ v. 359a, 360a, 361b, 362a. A second letter from Hammond, sent on 16 November, asked that the king’s allowance should be continued. The Commons told the Revenue Committee to investigate.74LJ ix. 531b, 532b-533a; CJ v. 362b-363a; HMC 6th Rep. 210; Heads of His Majesties Letter and Propositions (1647), 5-8 (E.416.12). However, in the package forwarded on 18 November was an order to Hammond to send Ashburnham, Berkeley and Legge to London as prisoners. In his reply of 19 November Hammond refused to comply, arguing that this would amount to treating the king as a prisoner.75CJ v. 359a; LJ ix. 537b, 538b-539a; HMC 6th Rep. 210, 211; A Declaration of the Northern Counties (1647), 4-7 (E.417.10); His Majesties most Gracious Declaration from the Isle of Wyght (1647), 5-8 (E.416.33); Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. p. clxxviii; CCSP i. 401. Probably he also thought that this would violate the verbal assurances he had given the king. Already his loyalties were in conflict. The Commons discussed whether to insist on the point, only to decide against pressing it to a vote.76CJ v. 366a.

At least initially, Hammond did what he could to treat the king as a king. Local royalist Sir John Oglander observed that the governor behaved ‘fairly and respectfully’ towards his de facto prisoner.77Royalist’s Notebook ed. Bamford, 128. Clarendon (Edward Hyde*) later conceded that the king had been treated ‘with all demonstrations of respect and duty’.78Clarendon, Hist. iv. 266. The king was said to like Hammond.79CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 37. In August 1648 Nathaniel Rich* was told by one of his soldiers that Charles was ‘very familiar’ with Hammond and that the pair regularly played bowls together.80HMC Pepys, 224. It helped that they shared the view that the army agitators had become too influential.81Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. p. clxxviii; Ludlow, Mems. i. 174. But, as time went on, as the king’s freedom was reduced, relations between the two became more strained and they began to get on each other’s nerves. Ashburnham, who, as we shall see, had good reason to dislike Hammond, accused him of increasingly treating the king ‘with irreverence’.82Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 119. Oglander heard of how on one occasion Charles had snapped at Hammond, reminding him that ‘one day he might be beholden to him or his son for his life’, to which Hammond had grumpily replied, ‘You are grown very high since you came into the Island.’83Royalist’s Notebook ed. Bamford, 128. Even so, Hammond was trying his best and, as a military gaoler, he was more congenial than he might have been.

In late November Hammond encouraged Berkeley to approach Cromwell and Henry Ireton* in the vain hope that they might be prepared to negotiate with the king. But others were more keen to do so. The following month Hammond received the separate delegations from the English and the Scottish Parliaments sent to meet the king. On 24 December the English commissioners presented Charles with the Four Bills. His rejection of them four days later removed the hope of an immediate settlement. Recognising that this deadlock increased the chances that royalists would attempt to free the king, Hammond responded by tightening security.84Add. 19399, f. 46; LJ ix. 620b. He had already been warned by Cromwell that Sir George Carteret†, the royalist lieutenant-governor of Jersey, might be planning a rescue.85Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 574-5. At the same time, Hammond removed all the king’s servants from around him. Ashburnham and Legge were arrested.86CCSP i. 407; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 122-7; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 279. This provoked an attempt to rescue the king on 29 December by some locals, but it was quickly crushed.87Clarendon, Hist. iv. 279-81. The Commons thanked Hammond on 31 December and voted him £200 in additional expenses.88CJ v. 413a, 413b-415a; LJ ix. 622a, 622b; ‘Boys Diary’, 154. His action was tacitly approved by Parliament, for on 5 and 6 January 1648 the two Houses agreed to grant powers jointly to him and Sir William Constable* to remove any suspected persons from attendance on the king.89CJ v. 419b; LJ ix. 639b, 642a. None of this pleased Hammond. The failure of the negotiation depressed him, not only in its own terms, but also because it meant that the king would have to remain in his custody. For the first time, Hammond had asked Parliament that the king be removed from the Isle of Wight or, alternatively, that he be relieved of the governorship.90Add. 19399, f. 46; LJ ix. 620b. This was ignored.

By late January 1648 the Derby House Committee had created its own special secret sub-committee to liaise with Hammond.91CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 5-6; Letters betw. Col. Robert Hammond, Gov. of the Isle of Wight, and the Cttee. of Lords and Commons at Derby-House (1764), 26-7. Money was sent from London so that he could improve the defences at Carisbrooke.92CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 9, 11, 16; Letters betw. Hammond, 28-9, 30-1. Hammond sought approval from Parliament for the creation of an entirely new household for the king.93CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 11. On 5 February the Commons confirmed that he could remove anyone from around the king and gave him the power to appoint eight servants for the king until such time as Fairfax could decide who should serve him.94CJ v. 457a. Thirty servants were ultimately envisaged. Hammond lost no time in implementing the appointment of four gentlemen waiters (including Anthony Mildmay* and Silus Titus†).95Letters betw. Hammond, 30; LJ x. 35a, 35b-36a. Fairfax meanwhile instructed him to list those about the king and on the Isle of Wight who could be trusted as part of the process of appointing that household.96Fairfax Corresp. ed. Bell, ii. 7-8. The two of them had completed the full list by the middle of the month, allowing the Commons to approve it on 18 February.97CJ v. 467b.

All this cost money. The fines from participants in the uprising the previous December were therefore allocated to Hammond.98CJ v. 473b. In March 1648 the king’s daily allowance was increased to £30, while 500 additional soldiers were sent to reinforce the Carisbrooke garrison.99Letters betw. Hammond, 37-8; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 30. After he complained that he had received only half the money formerly promised for that purpose, a second payment of £500 was made to Hammond to help upgrade the castle.100Mems. of the Great Civil War ed. Cary, i. 387, 403-4; CJ v. 556a, 556b; LJ x. 253a. But Parliament also rewarded Hammond personally, voting a one-off payment of £1,000 and increasing his daily allowance from £10 to £20.101CJ v. 507b, 524b; Royal Archives, SP/ADD/9/8. He put the latter to good use: the governor kept ‘a very good table’.102Royalist’s Notebook ed. Bamford, 127. This was not all. When Cromwell wrote on 6 April to inform him of these latest grants, he told Hammond that an ordinance was being planned which would grant him £500 a year.103Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 594. A draft bill for this existed by early May.104CJ v. 556a, 559a. In all £6,350 would pass through Hammond’s hands during his time as governor.105CSP Dom. 1654, p. 322. It is a measure of the importance of his duties that, despite the large sums of money involved, he was excused the requirement that he travel to London in person to get his accounts audited.106CJ v. 477b.

The possibility that the king might escape remained a constant fear.107Letters betw. Hammond, 33-6; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 15, 28. Henry Firebrace’s plot failed on 20 March because the king was unable to fit through his bedroom window.108CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 37; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 594. This did not deter further plotting in the weeks that followed.109Letters betw. Hammond, 42-8. On 22 May, when he wrote to the Derby House Committee to report his latest suspicions, Hammond asked for more troops and more ships to protect the island.110LJ x. 285b, 287a-b; CJ v. 575b; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 80; Letters betw. Hammond, 51-60; Mems. of the Great Civil War ed. Cary, i. 426-30. A royalist uprising was widely expected, heightening the risk that efforts would be made to free the king. Moreover, Hammond and his superiors in London already had specific information about such a plot and Hammond easily foiled it when it was attempted six days later.111Clarke Pprs. ii. 23-4; Letters betw. Hammond, 61; LJ x. 294b-295b; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 456-9. That part of the fleet had mutinied created the further danger that rebel ships might organise a seaborne rescue.112CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 85, 91, 99; Letters betw. Hammond, 63-4. The Commons, which may have been anxious to ensure Hammond’s loyalty, responded by reviving talk of the bill to grant him an annuity and, at the prompting of the Derby House Committee, by sending him £2,500.113CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 90, 91; CJ v. 582a, 583b; Letters betw. Hammond, 62. The Committee also agreed to his request for more troops.114Letters betw. Hammond, 66, 68; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 120, 121, 122, 128, 129, 143, 144. Hammond wanted more, however. On 23 June he warned Fairfax and Parliament that if the rebel ships attacked, he would be unable to resist, and thus that he would need 300 horse and a further 1,500 foot soldiers.115Fairfax Corresp. ed. Bell, ii. 8-9; Letters betw. Hammond, 69-74. Nothing came of this request, presumably because Fairfax and the Derby House Committee felt that the reinforcements already approved would be sufficient for the time being. But the threat from the rebel ships could not be ignored and Hammond was kept fully informed of intelligence about their movements.116CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 192, 193, 218, 220, 222; Letters betw. Hammond, 74-6, 81-5. Moreover, throughout the summer of 1648, with the second civil war still in progress, any reports of plots to release the king had to be taken seriously.117LJ x. 332b, 335b, 337b; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 165, 208; Letters betw. Hammond, 78-9, 85-6. Anyone visiting the king was treated with suspicion.118Letters betw. Hammond, 76-7; LJ x. 354b, 361b; CJ v. 626b. As a additional concern, one of Hammond’s officers, Major Edmund Rolph, faced accusations of having been involved in the escape attempt of 28 May. Rolph denied the charge and Hammond backed him, helping clear his name.119LJ x. 345a-346b, 370a; CJ v. 611a; Colonel Hammond’s Letter sent to William Lenthal (1648, E.449.32); Clarendon, Hist. iv. 456-9. The Commons expressed their thanks to Hammond on 11 July for all his hard work.120CJ v. 632b.

Hammond had every reason to welcome the prospect of revived negotiations between the king and Parliament. For one thing, this encouraged the Commons to send him more troops and to pay those already under his command.121CJ v. 636b, 646a, 672a-b; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 229, 273; HMC Pepys, 223-4. He also almost certainly favoured a negotiated settlement which would release him from being the king’s gaoler. He expressed such hopes in a letter to Nathaniel Rich on 8 August.

My God hath carried me through strong temptations. I have been also impatient of my load and have sought ease but found none from without. I now apprehend God is about to set me free from the world, that which my soul hath long thirsted after, but I fear in a carnal way, the Lord lay it not to my charge. I could rather live in a cottage with such a friend as thyself than in the palace of the ungodly.122HMC Pepys, 223.

Between 21 and 25 August Parliament prepared a new set of instructions for Hammond, replacing those of 16 November 1647, so that the terms of the king’s confinement could be relaxed.123LJ x. 441b, 453a-454b; CJ v. 676b, 678b-679a, 681a, 682-683a. In response, Hammond informed them that the king had given him his word that he would remain on the Isle of Wight for the duration of the negotiations. Hammond also asked for and obtained extra naval protection for the island, more troops and more money.124Royal Archives, SP/ADD/9/9; Mems. of the Great Civil War, ed. Cary, ii. 3-10; Bodl. Tanner 57, f. 287; LJ x. 474b-475b; CJ v. 692a, 694b; vi. 1b, 2a, 24a, 31b; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 282, 290. He was, in effect, the host once the talks between the king and the parliamentary commissioners opened in the town hall at Newport on 18 September. In that role he was not exactly impartial. When Cromwell wrote asking that he warn Sir Henry Vane II*, who was one of the commissioners, against making too many concessions to the Presbyterians, he clearly expected Hammond to comply.125Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 676-8. This can only have increased Hammond’s pessimism about the chances of success, and he began to consider a strategy to manage failure. On 7 November he reported to the Derby House Committee that the king had given him assurances that he would not abuse the twelve-day period of freedom of movement he had been promised following the end of the negotiations. The Commons confirmed this on 15 November, even though there were rumours of yet another rescue plot.126CJ vi. 77b; LJ x. 592b-593b; Mems. of the Great Civil War ed. Cary, ii. 54-6; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 321, 323-5. Four of the senior army officers, led by Ireton, were sufficiently worried that they wrote to Hammond recommending that the king’s person be nevertheless secured.127Letters betw. Hammond, 87-9.

Hammond knew what was at stake. Writing to Parliament to confirm that the king had acknowledged the vote of 15 November, he once again expressed a desire to resign.128LJ x. 599b. More provocatively, he probably indicated to Fairfax that he was reluctant to re-impose the stricter conditions under which the king had been held previously. Fairfax took this as evidence that Hammond was becoming unreliable. On 21 November the lord general summoned Hammond to his headquarters at St Albans. Isaac Ewer, Hammond’s former subordinate and colonel of his old regiment, was sent to take his place.129LJ x. 610a-611b; Mems. of the Great Civil War ed. Cary, ii. 59-60, 61-2. Ireton advised Hammond to obey.130Letters betw. Hammond, 95-101. Cromwell added to this pressure, writing to him at length on 25 November to encourage him to do his duty and submit himself to God’s will. Specifically, he challenged Hammond’s belief that he had a duty to obey Parliament, arguing instead that God’s will could equally be represented by the army.131Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 696-9. The general council of the army meanwhile ordered Hammond to secure the king.132LJ x. 614b-615a. On 27 November Parliament defied Fairfax and ordered Hammond to remain on the Isle of Wight.133LJ x. 610a-611a; CJ vi. 88b, 89a, 91b; Mems. of the Great Civil War ed. Cary, ii. 63. That same day Ewer arrived at Carisbrooke with new orders from the general council repeating the summons to army headquarters, now located at Windsor. Hammond agreed to go, but only on condition that Ewer accompany him. Several of his officers, including Rolph, were left in command on the island.134Clarke Pprs. ii. 55-6, 59; LJ x. 614a-617a. It was not until the following day, when he and Ewer had reached Farnham, that he received the contrary orders from Parliament. To prevent him turning back, Hammond was arrested and escorted to Windsor.135LJ x. 613a, 616a; CJ vi. 91b; Mems. of the Great Civil War ed. Cary, ii. 66-70; Soc. Antiq. MS 444A, f. 31. Meanwhile, the general council had issued orders that the king was to be moved from Carisbrooke to Hurst Castle. They wanted to make sure that any negotiated settlement would be impossible.

Retirement, 1648-53

Hammond was now finally granted his wish to withdraw from public life. Nominally he remained vice-admiral for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but gave that up the following summer as soon as he was required to take action in that capacity.136CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 203. The Rump nevertheless took care to ensure that his annuity of £500 was continued, although they may have allowed it to lapse two years later.137CJ vi. 257b, 582b; HMC 6th Rep. 473. In the meantime, Hammond’s inactivity worried Cromwell. By early 1650 Cromwell was telling their mutual friend, Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, that he feared that Hammond – ‘whom truly I love in the Lord with most entire affection’ – was being led astray.138Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 190. In his subsequent, well-known letters admonishing Wharton for his own unwillingness to serve under the Rump, Cromwell included Hammond among those who, in conjunction with Wharton, had ‘helped one another to stumble at the dispensations of God, and to reason yourself out of His service’.139Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 328, 453.

Hammond had in the meantime become one of Cromwell’s distant relatives. In February 1650 he married Mary Hampden, the youngest daughter of the late John Hampden*.140St Mary Bothaw, London par. reg. According to Clarendon, Hammond, who ‘always adored’ Hampden’s memory, had done so on Cromwell’s advice, but like many subsequent historians, Clarendon considerably antedated the marriage and so mistakenly supposed that it had had some bearing on the events of November 1647.141Clarendon, Hist. iv. 264. In fact there was a prior connection: Hammond’s maternal aunt was Hampden’s widow and Mary’s stepmother. But that made for an even more convoluted connection to the Cromwells. Hitherto the close bond between Hammond and Cromwell had probably been based less on kinship and more on their shared military experiences.

When possible commanders of horse for Ireland were being discussed in June 1650, Hammond was one of the names suggested to the army officers by Edmund Ludlowe. This met with little support. According to Ludlowe, Hammond’s behaviour while holding the king still rankled with many of the soldiers.142Ludlow, Mems. i. 247. Perhaps Hammond might have accepted this position if offered. Less than a year later Cromwell got the impression that he wanted to re-join the army, specifically in order to serve in Ireland.143Abbott, Writings and Speeches, ii. 418. In July 1651 Hammond attempted without success to persuade Cromwell to ask Parliament for clemency towards the Presbyterian minister Christopher Love, following his conviction for royalist plotting.144Original Letters ed. Nickolls, 75-6.

Ireland and a new Parliament, 1654

From 1653 Cromwell’s influence began to count in Hammond’s favour. That August Hammond petitioned the council of state about his former annuity. The council had recently renewed this and he probably now suggested they should instead grant him some Irish lands.145CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 117, 450. He already owned some property there, having been awarded estates in Westmeath and Kilkenny in the division of the confiscated lands earlier that year.146CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 453. The council duly passed on that suggestion to the Nominated Parliament, which effectively shelved the matter.147CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 117; CJ vii. 316b. The new protectoral council continued the payments and then, in August 1654, approved an Irish land grant to replace the annuity.148CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 459; 1654, pp. 93, 321, 328, 445.

That reflected a change in Hammond’s attitude. Once Cromwell had become lord protector, Hammond’s reluctance to become involved again in politics evaporated. By early July 1654 there were rumours that he was about to be named to the Irish council of state.149HMC Egmont, i. 546, 554. This proved to be the case.150TSP ii. 545; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iii. 407; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 453; 4th DKR, ii. 191; Ire. under the Commonwealth, 443; Clarke Pprs. v. 199; Letters from Dorothy Osborne to Sir William Temple 1652-54 ed. E.A. Parry (1888), 290. He would, after all, get his chance to serve again in Ireland. Before he set out, he put his English affairs in order by submitting his accounts from his time as governor of the Isle of Wight.151CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 286, 318, 322.

Moreover, in the meantime he had been elected as the MP for Reading. His connections with this town were not new. His grandfather, Sir Francis Knollys I*, and his uncle, Sir Francis Knollys II*, had represented Reading in the Long Parliament. But now, as well as owning property in the town, Hammond was probably resident: one of his daughters was baptised there in 1653 and in the election indenture he was described as ‘of Reading’.152PROB11/241/614; Reg. of the Par. of St Mary, Reading, i. 64; C219/44, unf. His fellow residents presumably recognised him assomeone very likely to thrive in public life under the protectorate of his kinsman and close friend. The corporation had already indicated their support for him, having appointed him as their high steward just two days before the election.153Reading Recs. iv. 532. Several weeks later they consulted him about a dispute concerning the local workhouse.154Reading Recs. iv. 536.

Hammond probably never took his seat in Parliament. It assembled at Westminster on 3 September 1654 and he had arrived in Dublin by 13 September.155TSP ii. 602. The priorities facing Hammond and the other newly-appointed councillors on their arrival in Ireland were the reform of the Irish finances and the re-establishment of the law courts. They got to work immediately.156TSP ii. 602, 633. But, in Hammond’s case, these were tasks he did not complete. By 5 October he was already ill and so drew up his will.157PROB11/241/614. Less than three weeks later, on 24 October, he died.158Ath. Ox. iii. 502; Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 463-4. Shortly afterwards the vicar of St Lawrence, Simon Ford commemorated him by preaching a sermon at Reading on coping with adversity. His dedication to Hammond’s relatives alluded to the fact that the town had thus lost its new MP.159S. Ford, The Spirit of Bondage and Adoption (1655), 585-6 (E.1553.1).

Hammond left his wife and two young daughters, Elizabeth and Mary, but no son to inherit his estate. He therefore bequeathed his lands at Chertsey to his mother for life and then to his nephew Robert Hammond. His widow received the manor of Willen in Buckinghamshire as her jointure lands. Together with her brother, Richard Hampden*, she acted as his executor.160PROB11/241/614. She later married Sir John Hobart, 3rd bt.*