BRIDGE, Tobias (d. 1673), of Lambeth Marsh, Surr.

Bridge is one of the least well known of the Cromwellian major-generals.42C. Durston, Cromwell’s Major-Generals (Manchester, 2001), 41, 52. He was the son of an Essex tailor (he was also described as a yeoman) and the nephew of Tobias Bridge of Hatfield Broad Oak ‘gentleman’, who was steward to the godly Essex matriarch Lady Joan Barrington.43PROB11/221, f. 52v; PROB11/193, f. 346v; SP28/131, pt. 3, f. 40v; GL, MS 34038/11, p. 128; Barrington Lttrs. 18, 114. Apprenticed to a liveryman of the London Merchant Taylors’ Company in 1637 (suggesting that he was born some time in the early 1620s), Bridge became a freeman of the company in October 1646.44GL, MS 34038/11, p. 128; MS 34017/5, unfol. His elder brother John had been apprenticed to a London draper in 1635.45Recs. of London’s Livery Companies Online; PROB11/204, f. 91v.

At some point during the early years of the civil war, Bridge was appointed lieutenant of the troop of dragoons commanded by the future regicide Captain Isaac Ewer in the Eastern Association army.46E121/1/1/37. The colonel of the regiment was the future Leveller leader John Lilburne.47‘John Lilburne’, Oxford DNB. Bridge and Ewer had almost certainly known each other before the war, for not only it is very likely that both men had been born and raised in Hatfield Broad Oak, but Ewer was also Lady Joan Barrington’s man-of-business and therefore a colleague of Bridge’s uncle Tobias.48Barrington Lttrs. 18; ‘Isaac Ewer’, Oxford DNB. The Bridge and Ewer families were thus part of a powerful parliamentarian network in Essex headed by Robert Rich, 2nd earl of Warwick, and Lady Joan’s son Sir Thomas Barrington*, and which included the future Cromwellian secretary of state John Thurloe*, whose sister married Ewer.49Infra, ‘John Thurloe’; ‘Isaac Ewer’, Oxford DNB. As steward to the Barringtons, Bridge’s uncle Tobias was an important member of this network and played at least some role in the supply of the Eastern Association army.50Eg. 2646, ff. 169, 186; Eg. 2647, f. 334. The tavern-talk among MPs in the second protectoral Parliament – that Bridge had risen from being ‘a common dragooner in Yorkshire’ – is true only to the extent that he had probably begun his military career as a dragoon trooper.51Burton’s Diary, i. 331. But his connections were anything but common, and he apparently had nothing to do with Yorkshire beyond his likely participation, with the rest of the Eastern Association army, in the battle of Marston Moor in July 1644.

In the spring of 1645, Bridge was commissioned as a captain in the New Model army regiment of dragoons under Colonel John Okey* (Lilburne having resigned from the army), and, as such, he probably saw action at the battle of Naseby and in the army’s campaign in the west country of 1645-6.52LJ vii. 278b; Oxford DNB, ‘John Okey’. He was peripherally involved, at best, in the army’s defiance of the Westminster Presbyterians during the first of 1647.53Worc. Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XLI, f. 102. Early in September, however, he signed a petition to Sir Thomas Fairfax* from ‘the agitators of the army’, demanding a purge of the Presbyterians in the Commons. Bridge’s fellow signatories to this petition included William Rainborowe* and the arch-agitator Edward Sexby.54The Resolution of the Agitators of the Army (1647), 6-8 (E.405.22). Nevertheless, Bridge may have been among the less radical officers in the New Model, for he and his men presented an address to Fairfax in December, pledging their loyalty and denouncing

the treacherous and underhand proceedings of a generation of upstart agents [the pro-Leveller ‘new agents’], who endeavouring to advance their own particular designs and interests and to introduce a parity into this kingdom and army...would freely and willingly captivate us to their anarchical liberty.55Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 931.

Okey’s regiment – and probably Bridge along with it – was involved in various engagements during the second civil war, but again, there is no sign that Bridge was radicalized by the experience.56Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 295. He is known to have attended only one of the council of officers’ debates on the Agreement of the People in December 1648, voting against the inclusion of a clause forbidding the projected new Parliament from punishing individuals where no law existed – a Leveller-inspired measure designed to limit the governing power.57B. Taft, ‘Voting lists of the council of officers, Dec. 1648’, BIHR lii. 144, 149. There is no evidence that Bridge was implicated in the regicide – unlike his colonel, who signed the death warrant. Nevertheless, as major of the regiment from the summer of 1649, he was markedly less hostile than was Okey to their subordinate Captain Francis Freeman, a man of highly radical religious views.58Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 296; F. Freeman, Light Vanquishing Darknesse (1650), 10-11, 16, 21 (E.615.7). With Okey’s regiment among those earmarked for the invasion of Scotland in 1650, Bridge, Thomas Pride*, Edward Whalley* and other officers signed a letter to the general council of the army, rejoicing at the prospect of attacking their former allies: ‘we are used as a rod of iron in Christ’s hand to dash His enemies in pieces ... in a time when His work is to establish His own kingdom in the ruin of Babylon, as – in the apprehension of many of His people – it is this day’.59The Fifth Monarchy, or Kingdom of Christ (1659), 9-12 (E.993.31); Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 297-8. And in the autumn of 1652, Bridge, Pride and three of their colleagues – including the Baptist officer William Kiffen – addressed an open letter to the Rump, denouncing the anti-government publications of the Presbyterian ministry and referring to Parliament as ‘the happy instruments of our freedom, and painful labourers in the work of Christ’.60The Beacons Quenched (1652, E.678.3). Nevertheless, when the army turned out the Rump in April 1653, Bridge and 15 other officers of Okey’s regiment sent an address to Oliver Cromwell* and the council of officers in England, approving their actions.61Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 298.

Bridge had no difficulty accommodating himself to the protectorate and was promoted to colonel of his regiment following Okey’s dismissal late in 1654 for plotting against the Cromwellian regime.62Infra, ‘John Okey’; Clarke Pprs. i. 439; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 675. Bridge, for his part, professed himself deeply sensible of ‘seditious papers’ and designs among the soldiery.63CCSP iii. 4-5. In February 1655, he wrote to Secretary Thurloe – who regarded him as ‘a very honest, sober man’ – complaining that the regiment had been in Scotland for nearly five years, and angling for a recall to England.64Add. 4156, f. 140; TSP v. 317. Bridge was duly recalled to the army in England with his appointment that autumn as deputy to Major-general Charles Fleetwood*, with care of the counties of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire.65CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 20; Durston, Major-Generals, 27. His only known intervention in the affairs of these counties came at the behest of the protectoral council, which, on the day of his appointment as Fleetwood’s deputy, ordered him to investigate a long-running dispute among the office-holders of the Buckinghamshire borough of Chipping Wycombe.66CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 21; Durston, Major-Generals, 27. His report, completed by the end of January 1656, recommended a purge of those he deemed troublemakers, swearers and drunkards, and royalist sympathizers.67Supra, ‘Chipping Wycombe’; CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 192-3. He also set out detailed provisions for the town’s poor and advised that the corporation’s charter be surrendered. The protectoral council approved Bridge’s recommendations on 20 February.68CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 193.

Perhaps because of his lack of connections with his allotted region, the council decided in February 1656 to replace him as deputy major-general with George Fleetwood* and William Packer*. There is certainly no indication that he had fallen out of favour at Whitehall, for on 18 July 1656 he was appointed major-general of Cheshire, Lancashire and Staffordshire in place of the recently deceased Charles Worsley*.69CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 28. Despite his lack of local knowledge or connections, he felt confident enough in mid-August to nominate four men as candidates for Cheshire in the forthcoming elections to the second protectoral Parliament.70Supra, ‘Cheshire’; P. Pinckney, ‘The Cheshire election of 1656’, BJRL xlix. 396-7. One local commentator, however, clearly thought he was over-reaching himself: ‘Here is a new major-general come down, his name is Bridges [sic], and I hear labours to have a great influence upon elections and that he hath laid a good foundation to his mind in Staffordshire as he passed. It’s thought he will miss of his aim, however’.71Mems. of the Verney Fam. iii. 283. Bridge’s nominees in Cheshire were all of solid gentry and parliamentarian credentials, although they were generally intolerant of the sects and unwilling to trouble their royalist friends and neighbours. Bridge’s primary objective in Cheshire was to prevent the election of John Bradshawe*, the county’s foremost opponent of the protectorate. In the event, only one of Bridge’s nominees for Cheshire (Thomas Marbury) was returned; and although Bradshawe was not among the successful candidates, his failure on election day owed more to sharp practice by his gentry opponents than to the disapproval of Bridge and the protectoral government.72Supra, ‘Cheshire’; Pinckney, ‘Cheshire election’, 398-426. Nevertheless, none of the county MPs for Cheshire or for Lancashire – where Bridge had anticipated ‘much thwarting’ of his plans and had consequently delayed the county poll by several weeks while he tried to influence its outcome – were excluded by the protectoral council as an enemy of the government. In Staffordshire, on the other hand, two of the county’s MPs (John Bowyer and Thomas Minors) were denied their seats.73Supra, ‘Lancashire’; ‘Staffordshire’; Durston, Major-Generals, 193-4. In all, only five MPs returned from constituencies within Bridge’s association were excluded – a figure bettered only by William Boteler* and Charles Howard*.74Durston, Major-Generals, 200. In his absence in the north west, Bridge was returned for Chipping Wycombe, where the new ruling group evidently hoped that he would continue to favour its interests in the matter of the new charter.75Supra, ‘Chipping Wycombe’.

Bridge was named to 41 committees in the second protectoral Parliament and served as a teller on one (minor) division.76CJ vii. 576b. Very few of these nominations offer much insight into his alignment in the House; and more revealing are his appointments on 1 and 12 January 1657 to request the moderate Independent divine Matthew Barker to preach before the House and to thank him for having done so.77CJ vii. 477b, 480b; ‘Matthew Barker’, Oxford DNB. Here, perhaps, is the only firm evidence we have for Bridge’s religious sympathies during the 1650s. In the debates that winter over the punishment of the Quaker evangelist and alleged blasphemer James Naylor, Bridge sided with those of his army colleagues in the House who favoured a non-capital sentence, which he conceived would be more conducive to ‘suppressing of that party [the Quakers]’.78Burton’s Diary, i. 137; Durston, Major-Generals, 208. However, he was named to only one committee concerning Naylor and made only one recorded speech on the matter.79CJ vii. 448a. Indeed, Naylor’s fate seems to have concerned him less than the question of which version of the psalms he and other members of the ‘committee for bibles’ would determine was fittest for public use.80Burton’s Diary, i. 350. His somewhat conservative political instincts – at least compared with those of a majority of his fellow major-generals – were also on show in the committee for trade, where (true to his mercantile background) he was among that small minority of Members who defended the Merchant Adventurers’ monopoly against calls for free trade.81Burton’s Diary, i. 309.

Bridge was not identified among the group of major-generals that spearheaded opposition to the introduction of kingly government under the 1657 Remonstrance. He was named to eight committees concerning either the Remonstrance or its revised form, the Humble Petition and Advice, between March and June, including those set up on 6 and 9 April to justify the House’s adherence to its offer of the crown to Cromwell.82CJ vii. 501a, 505a, 514a, 520b, 521b, 535a, 540b, 557a. Although Bridge was not subsequently listed among the ‘kinglings’ in the House, he certainly acquiesced in the shift towards a more monarchical settlement. And in the spring of 1658, he joined John Disbrowe*, Whalley and other senior officers in an address to Cromwell in which they expressed their support for him ‘as our general and chief magistrate’ and their confidence in the Petition and Advice as a means of securing ‘the great ends of all our former engagements: our civil and spiritual liberty’.83A Further Narrative of the Passages of These Times (1658), 51-2.

Bridge seems to have remained active as a major-general in his association until well into 1658, presenting an address from Staffordshire to Protector Richard Cromwell* soon after his succession in September 1658, ‘filled with expressions of duty and love’.84TSP vi. 691-2; vii. 414; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 226. He was also among the signatories to the army’s loyal address to Richard, requesting that he maintain the army under men of ‘honest, godly principles’, with liberty of conscience to ‘all persons that profess godliness that are not of turbulent spirits as to the peace of these nations’. The officers pledged to stand by Richard against ‘all that shall oppose you ... or make it their design to change or alter the present government established in a single person and two Houses of Parliament, according to the Humble Petition and Advice’.85Bodl. Rawl. A.61; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 405; Mercurius Politicus no. 434 (16-23 Sept. 1658), 844-7 (E.756.19).

In the elections to Richard Cromwell’s Parliament of 1659, Bridge was returned for both Chipping Wycombe and for the Staffordshire constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme.86Supra, ‘Chipping Wycombe’; ‘Newcastle-under-Lyme’. The fact that he was a carpetbagger in both boroughs – his main place of residence was in Lambeth Marsh, Surrey – suggests that he was considered an influential figure at the Cromwellian court.87TSP vi. 692; J. Nichols, Hist. and Antiquities of Lambeth (1786), 60. In the event, he opted to sit for Newcastle-under-Lyme, where he had been given the senior place.88CJ vii. 607a. His continuing commitment to the protectorate was underlined by his appointment on 26 January 1659 as a commissioner for administering to MPs the oath of loyalty to the protector prescribed under the Humble Petition.89CJ vii. 593. But he was far from conspicuous in the court interest at Westminster, receiving only five committee appointments in this Parliament.90CJ vii. 594b, 600a, 600b, 627a, 637a. His only recorded contribution to debate was in reference to charges of royalism levelled against the MP Robert Danvers alias Villiers on 12 February. Bridge had been a member of the panel appointed by the protector to investigate Villiers’s case and had apparently been convinced by certificates ‘as to his reformation’.91Burton’s Diary, iii. 245. Bridge’s appointment to a committee set up on 18 April for drawing up an impeachment against Major-general William Boteler on charges of using his military power to maltreat royalists is harder to explain.92CJ vii. 637a. Although the attack on Boteler was evidently meant as a swipe at the army, it hardly reflected well on the protectoral government, in whose name Boteler had been acting. Presumably, Bridge sought appointment to this committee in an attempt to temper the reaction against his former colleague.

Faced with the threat of an army revolt in support of the commonwealthsmen in the Commons, a group of loyalist Cromwellian officers that included Bridge and Charles Howard approached the protector in the spring of 1659 and offered to mount a pre-emptive strike against John Lambert* and the Wallingford House grandees.93Baker, Chronicle, 641; Ludlow, Voyce, 88. Following the fall of the protectorate in April, Bridge, Howard and other loyalist officers were removed from their commands.94Baker, Chronicle, 642. In August, the restored Rump re-instated Okey as colonel of the regiment and demoted Bridge to major and sent him to serve at Dunkirk.95CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 105, 114, 115, 143, 151, 230, 411; CJ vii. 760b; TSP vii. 743, 747.

Bridge apparently welcomed the Restoration in 1660, but almost certainly lost the crown lands he had purchased with army debentures in the early 1650s – despite pleas to (Sir) Edward Harley* that ‘unless it shall please the Lord to stir up some friends to appear for me’ he would be ruined.96HMC Portland, iii. 225, 234; I. Gentles, ‘The Debentures Market and Military Purchases of Crown Land 1649-60’ (London Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1969), 259. However, he retained his place in the garrison at Dunkirk, and in March 1662, he was commissioned by the crown as a captain of horse, subordinate only to the the king and the governor.97CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 192; CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 297, 525. In 1663-4, he commanded several troops of horse at Tangiers, and by May 1664 he had been knighted – possibly as a reward for his service in so inhospitable an outpost.98Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 305-6; HMC Heathcote, 152, 154. In about June 1664, he was chosen interim governor by his fellow officers after most of the garrison and its commander had been ambushed and killed by the Moors.99Eg. 2618, f. 114; HMC Heathcote, 152, 154, 157.

Bridge was commissioned as a colonel of foot early in 1667, and he and his regiment were sent to Barbados in March (Bridge had acquired experience in colonial affairs as a member of the council for Jamaica under the protectorate).100Eg. 2395, ff. 123r-v, 158v, 159; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 306; CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 111. In 1672, he commanded the English forces against the Dutch-held island of Tobago.101CSP Col. W. I. 1669-74, pp. 450-1; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 306. He died some time between mid-October 1673, when he made his will, and mid-December, when it was entered in probate.102Barbados Recs.: Wills and Admons. ed. Sanders, i. 46. His place of burial is not known, but it was almost certainly on Barbados. He was the first and last of his line to sit in Parliament.