WAUTON (WALTON), Valentine (1600-70), of Great Staughton, Hunts.

The Wautons had owned land at Great Staughton on the Huntingdonshire-Bedfordshire border since the fourteenth century.37Noble, Mems. of House of Cromwell, ii. 221; VCH Hunts. ii. 357. Several members of the family had since served as MPs and one of them, Sir Thomas Waweton†, had been Speaker of the House of Commons in the 1425 Parliament. However, Valentine Wauton was born into a cadet branch of the senior line, for his great-grandfather, Nicholas, had been only a younger son. Members of that junior branch had probably settled in London and, at the time of Valentine’s birth, the Huntingdonshire estates were held by Nicholas’s nephew, Sir George Wauton.38VCH Hunts. ii. 357-8. When exactly the future MP was born is the subject of some conflicting evidence, as his baptism was registered on two different dates in the registers for the London parish of St Katherine by the Tower – 18 May 1599 and 18 May 1600.39Regs. of St Katherine by the Tower, 19, 20 That the latter date was correct is confirmed, however, by the 1612 inquisition post mortem for Sir George Wauton.40C142/337/112.

A problematic inheritance, 1606-40

The death of Sir George Wauton in 1606 transformed the prospects of young Valentine, who had already lost his father. Sir George left no children and Valentine, his cousin twice removed but his nearest male heir, inherited the lands at Great Staughton. Just as importantly, his wardship was bought by Sir Oliver Cromwell† of Hinchingbrooke, who was already acting as his guardian.41C142/337/112; VCH Hunts. ii. 358. This connection with the Cromwells would shape much of Wauton’s later career. In 1617, rather than send Wauton off to university, Sir Oliver preferred to reinforce this link by marrying him off to his niece, Margaret Cromwell, one of the younger sisters of the future lord protector.42Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 30.

The Cromwells’ control of his lands ended when he came of age, but this only gave rise to new problems. Wauton’s claim to the Great Staughton estates was now challenged by members of the Throgmorton family, the descendants of one of Sir George’s sisters.43VCH Hunts. ii. 358. By January 1624 the house at Great Staughton was being occupied by John Throgmorton and, when Wauton obtained a chancery order for his eviction, Throgmorton used force to resist the efforts by the sheriff of Huntingdonshire to enforce it.44CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 151. That spring the House of Commons apparently rejected the case presented in a petition from the Throgmortons, although this left no trace in the official records.45APC June 1623-Mar. 1625, p. 219. In June 1624 the privy council was still issuing orders commanding that Wauton be allowed to take possession of the property.46APC June 1623-Mar. 1625, pp. 218-19, 226-7. Adding an extra edge to the dispute may have been the fact that the Throgmortons were probably Catholics.47CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 151.

In 1626 Wauton witnessed the deeds by which his wife’s uncle, Henry Cromwell† of Upwood, transferred control of his lands to Sir Oliver’s son, Henry Cromwell of Ramsey (father of Henry Cromwell alias Williams*).48Add. Ch. 53656-53666. Henry Cromwell of Upwood died four years later, leaving two young daughters, Elizabeth (later the wife of Oliver St John*) and Anna. The administration of his estates was then granted to Wauton during the girls’ minorities.49Add. Ch. 53667-53668.

Even once he had gained control of the estates at Great Staughton and despite his links with the Cromwells, Wauton remained outside the highest ranks of the Huntingdonshire gentry. The only local office that he is known to have held before 1640 was as a captain in the county militia.50CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 159. But he was not politically inactive. In 1630 he was slow to pay his knighthood fine, although whether on the grounds of principle or lack of ready cash is not clear.51Bodl. Carte 74, ff. 191, 193v. More certain is that he opposed the collection of Ship Money and that it was this which made possible his election as an MP in 1640. One observer of the Huntingdonshire Long Parliament election, who then reported the result to the 2nd earl of Leicester (Sir Robert Sydney†), did not recognise Wauton’s name but was able to discover that he had been ‘one that would not pay the Ship Money’.52HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 334. Wauton’s popularity resulting from that refusal was enough to defeat Sir Oliver Cromwell’s eldest son, Henry, in the Long Parliament contest.

MP and soldier, 1640-5

Like most MPs sitting for the first time, Wauton’s known activities during the early stages of the Long Parliament are few. His appointment to the committee on the petition from the inhabitants of Hughenden, Buckinghamshire, which had raised the subject of preaching ministers (19 Dec. 1640), hints at his support for godly reform, although he never seems to have been quite as interested in religious matters as some of his colleagues.53CJ ii. 54b. Other rare committee appointments were those on the post office (10 Feb. 1641) and on the bill to explain the recent Subsidy Act (28 July 1641).54CJ ii. 82a, 228a. When on 24 August 1641 the Commons ordered sheriffs to pay in the poll money revenues at York (for the use of the northern army), he volunteered to inform the sheriff of Huntingdonshire.55Procs. LP vi. 537-8. He took the Protestation at the earliest possible opportunity.56CJ ii. 133b. The most obvious intimation of his future politics was that in January 1642 he and Oliver Cromwell* tipped off the Commons that James Ravenscroft, a Huntingdonshire justice of the peace, had allegedly said that if the king and Parliament fell out, no gentleman would side with Parliament.57PJ i. 101; CJ ii. 386b. Presumably already both Wauton and Cromwell had considered the possibility that, if it came to that, they would choose Parliament. A fortnight later Wauton informed the Commons that Ravenscroft was unrepentant and so got him dismissed from the commission of the peace.58PJ i. 257. In March 1642 he was named to the committee on the bill for the suppression of the Irish rebels.59CJ ii. 468b.

The seizure of the plate of the Cambridge colleges in August 1642 was as much the making of Wauton as it was of Oliver Cromwell. This unambiguously demonstrated that, as war threatened, the two brothers-in-law were siding with Parliament. The king had written to the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, Richard Holdsworth, on 24 July requesting that the colleges send him their plate, but Cromwell and Wauton were able to intercept most of it on the road between Cambridge and Huntingdon. Moreover, on 12 August Wauton persuaded the Commons to send for three Huntingdonshire gentlemen whom he accused of having attempted to resist them.60CJ ii. 717b. The following week the two Houses passed orders indemnifying Cromwell and Wauton for what they had done.61CJ ii. 726a, 729a; LJ v. 307b. Complaints that one of the Huntingdonshire constables had disobeyed orders from Wauton, which probably related to this same incident, prompted the Commons to summon that constable to appear before them as a delinquent.62CJ ii. 732b.

Wauton had previously promised to supply Parliament with two horses and £100.63PJ iii. 468. Now that war had become unavoidable, he volunteered his own services. By late August he had already raised a troop of horse of which he duly became captain.64SP28/1a, f. 211; SP28/2a, ff. 141, 304; SP28/2b, f. 472; SP28/3b, ff. 337, 347; Peacock, Army Lists, 56. He saw action at Edgehill on 23 October, but during the battle he was taken prisoner.65Harl. 165, f. 120; Ludlow, Mems. i. 45. It would later be alleged that, on being removed to the king’s headquarters, he was ‘locked up for three days and three nights at Oxford in a poor chamber without food’.66Briefe and true Relation of the Seige and Surrendering of Kings Lyn, 7. For the next eight months he remained in royalist custody, seemingly forgotten by his fellow MPs at Westminster, except possibly in April 1643, when he was one of the four prisoners who received the £100 sent to Oxford by Parliament to assist the poorer prisoners.67CSP Dom. Add. 1625-49, p. 649. Only in June 1643 did the possibility of his release begin to be seriously considered. When it was proposed that an exchange of John George* be sought, the Commons insisted that Wauton and John Francklyn* should be included in any deal as well.68Harl. 165, f. 114v; CJ iii. 142a. In the hope of encouraging these moves, Wauton wrote to Parliament on 3 July proposing that he be exchanged with Sir Thomas Lunsford. Piling on the pathos, Wauton declared that, if this offer fell through, ‘he must look to lay his bones in Oxford’. The Commons, on considering this request five days later, was far from convinced. Some MPs thought that it would be inappropriate to exchange a colonel (Lumsford) for a mere captain (Wauton). In the end, however, they agreed that Sir Thomas Fairfax* should make this offer.69CJ iii. 158b-159a; Harl. 165, f. 120. Wauton and George then kept up the pressure by lobbying for other exchanges as well and on 1 August the Commons confirmed that they would be willing to make an exchange for Wauton.70HMC Portland, i. 125; CJ iii. 189b. The actual exchanges probably took place in mid-August 1643.71CJ iii. 205a.

Wauton lost no time in returning to front-line action. The parliamentarian governor of King’s Lynn, Sir Hamon L’Estrange†, had recently gone over to the royalist side and so in late August 1643 parliamentarian forces under the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†) began besieging the town. Wauton was also present. When negotiations for a surrender began, he was one of the commissioners appointed to represent Manchester. After those negotiations stalled, Manchester threatened to renew the attack, with Wauton’s forces supporting those commanded by Sir Francis Russell* when on 16 September they prepared to assault the royalist defences. This was enough to persuade L’Estrange to surrender.72Briefe and true Relation of the Seige and Surrendering of Kings Lyn, 3, 5; SP28/11, f. 116. In the immediate aftermath of the re-taking of the town, Parliament appointed Manchester as the governor of King’s Lynn and Wauton as his deputy.73CJ iii. 250b. This arrangement seems never to have been implemented, however: instead Wauton became governor in his own right.74Briefe and true Relation of the Seige and Surrendering of Kings Lyn, 7. At about the same time, he was promoted to the rank of colonel and given the command of an infantry regiment which then served as the King’s Lynn garrison.75CJ iii. 314b; SP28/11, f. 116; L. Spring, Regts. of the Eastern Assoc. ii. 104.

King’s Lynn was considered a town of some strategic significance as the perennial fear was that the royalists might attack the parliamentarian heartland of East Anglia from the north west. There would be several scares about such attacks over the next 18 months and, although none of those proved to be substantial, Parliament needed a dependable supporter to secure the town.76CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 271; 1644-5, pp. 19, 20, 325, 326. Wauton was perfect for the job. It helped that the Eastern Association seems to have been able to keep his men regularly supplied with pay, weapons and uniforms.77SP28/12, ff. 188, 262; SP28/18, ff. 138, 316, 329; SP28/19, ff. 257, 324, 414; SP28/20, ff. 168, 170; SP28/22, f. 325; SP28/25, ff. 368, 427, 450, 454, 520, 526; SP28/26, ff. 97, 98; Suff. ed. Everitt, 44, 90. What may have made the difference was that Wauton himself now became an active member of the association’s committee at Cambridge.78SP28/13, f. 200; SP28/17, f. 409; SP28/25, ff. 323, 367, 379-380, 396, 220, 475, 476A, 476B. He was also able to use his contacts in London. In July 1644 the Commons gave permission to Wauton to export grain from King’s Lynn in order to raise money for arms and ammunition, while at the same time exchanging older cannons from the town for newer models from the ordnance in London.79CJ iii. 547a. These were ideas which Wauton had probably taken care to sound out beforehand with Sir Henry Vane II*.80CSP Dom. 1644, p. 300. Parliament had meanwhile employed Wauton, with the two local MPs, John Percival* and Thomas Toll I*, to assess what compensation should be paid to individual residents of King’s Lynn for damages incurred during the siege.81CJ iii. 287a, 550a, 568a. As he was the man on the ground in north west Norfolk, there was also a tendency for Parliament to turn to Wauton concerning matters elsewhere in East Anglia. Thus, in November 1643 he was told to check that the excise treasurers at Bury St Edmunds made payments which Parliament had ordered them to make, while August 1644 the House of Lord asked him to ensure that the estates in Norfolk of Thomas Howard, 21st earl of Arundel, were protected.82CJ iii. 314b; LJ vi. 654b.

This is also the period for which Wauton’s friendship with Cromwell is best documented. Wauton’s eldest son, Valentine junior, a captain in Cromwell’s cavalry regiment, was killed at Marston Moor (2 July 1644).83Ludlow, Mems. i. 99; Spring, Regts. of the Eastern Assoc. i. 20. Cromwell, who, like Sir Francis Russell, was with him when he died, wrote to inform Wauton of the news, assuring him that his son had been a ‘precious young man, fit for God’ who would now be ‘a glorious saint in Heaven’.84Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 287-8. Moreover, three months later Cromwell wrote to Wauton declaring his confidence in the justness of the parliamentarian cause. As he confided in that letter, he wrote because, ‘it gives me a little ease to pour my mind, in the midst of calumnies, into the bosom of a friend.’85Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 292.

Wauton’s responsibilities at King’s Lynn made it difficult for him to spend long periods in London. He seems to have been able to make a brief visit to the capital in late December 1643 and early January 1644, as he took the Solemn League and Covenant on 22 December and was later named to a couple of committees.86CJ iii. 349b, 352a, 366a. One of those committees was – or would later have – some personal significance for him. One of his fellow prisoners at Oxford had been George Austin, ‘an eminent merchant in London’ who had ‘died through the hard usage he received’ while in custody.87Ludlow, Mems. i. 45. Austin’s widow had encountered problems in proving his will and so on 13 January 1644 the Commons appointed a committee, including Wauton, to assist her.88CJ iii. 320b, 366b. This was the woman who became Wauton’s second wife; their son Valentine, born ‘at Colonel Walton’s house near Chancery Lane’, was baptized in February 1646.89St Andrew Holborn par. reg.; Wood, Life and Times, i. 462; CSP Ire. Adv. 1642-1659, pp. 128, 285-6; CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 408, 465; VCH Oxon, vi. 106.

Wauton was back at Westminster in October 1644, possibly only in order to press a couple of items of business of particular interest to him. Thus, on 4 October, when the Commons ordered that a consignment of arms and armour should be sent to Cromwell, Wauton was the person asked to ensure that this was carried out.90CJ iii. 652a. Similarly, he may well have been instrumental four days later in persuading the Commons to appoint a committee on the garrisons defending the Eastern Association.91CJ iii. 655b. He may then have re-joined his regiment which later that month took part in the second battle of Newbury (27 Oct.).92C.L. Scott, The Battles of Newbury (Barnsley, 2008), 123. In February 1645, during another visit to London, he was asked by the Commons to write to officials in Huntingdonshire about delays in the collection of the assessments, as well as being named to the committee to consider army recruitment under the New Model.93CJ iv. 41b, 51a. The whole question of the proposed reorganization of the army could hardly fail to be of interest to him, especially if it was to be linked to the principle of ‘self-denial’. As a sitting MP, Wauton now faced losing his military offices. It is likely that he had previously sided with Cromwell in his dispute with the earl of Manchester, although whether he gave evidence against the earl to the Commons committee on the matter in late 1644 is less clear. Perhaps he was the army officer whose name was abbreviated to ‘Wa.’ in the surviving records and who alleged, quite possibly with reference to the battle of Newbury, that ‘when there were propositions made to the earl to put his army into action he was very backward’.94Manchester Quarrel, 96. That the reforms intended to remove peers and MPs from military commands would affect his own future was doubtless the reason why he resurfaced at Westminster in April 1645.95CJ iv. 107a, 112a. That, as a teller in a division on 25 April, he backed a motion to combine two existing regiments, indicates that he had no problem with at least some of the planned changes.96CJ iv. 123a. If this was what it would take to defeat the king, the loss of his own offices was plausibly a personal sacrifice he was willing to make. On 23 April he headed the list of MPs appointed to raise £1,000 for the defence of the Isle of Ely on their own credit.97CJ iv. 120a. Two days later he obtained an order from the Commons for the payment of the arrears to his regiment and of the money owed for the building work on the King’s Lynn defences.98CJ iv. 123a-b. He then obeyed the Self-Denying Ordnance and resigned his commissions. His replacement as governor of King’s Lynn, James Hobarte, was appointed on 9 May.99CJ iv. 136b. Hobarte also succeeded him as the colonel of his foot regiment.100Spring, Regts. of the Eastern Assoc. ii. 104.

Continuing the fight, 1645-8

Wauton’s resignations from his military position did not mean that he ceased to be involved in the local affairs of King’s Lynn. The very next day after Hobarte’s appointment as governor, Wauton, Sir Dudley North* and Miles Corbett*, were asked by the Commons to investigate a plot within the Isle of Ely.101CJ iv. 138a. One result of this was probably their proposal, raised in the Commons on 5 June, that a bill to establish martial law within the Eastern Association be introduced.102Harl. 166, f. 216. Later that summer the Commons gave Wauton the job of ensuring that cavalry forces raised in Huntingdonshire were sent to Lincolnshire.103CJ iv. 192b, 202a. When he was present in Parliament, he tended to take the most interest in military affairs, whether raising money for the army (5 June), the treatment of the prisoners taken at Naseby (18 June) or the arrears owed to some of the reformadoes (12 Aug.).104CJ iv. 164a, 177a, 183b, 195b, 226a, 238a, 244b. On 26 September he was given leave to go into the country for a month, although this may have become a prolonged absence, as he cannot firmly be placed at Westminster until the following spring.105CJ iv. 290b. Possibly in his absence, the Commons ordered in January 1646 that Adrian Scrope was to be paid £47 for money that Wauton and Edward Wingate* had borrowed from him to assist the prisoners at Oxford.106CJ iv. 407a.

In May 1646 the Commons moved to strengthen its control over East Anglia. It entrusted to Wauton and Corbett the task of disarming all delinquents in Norfolk and Suffolk. Their instructions specified that one of them was to base himself at King’s Lynn, where the governor was to defer to him in all matters. It is likely that this would be Wauton, with Corbett concentrating instead on the eastern regions of these two counties. Troops were moved from Newark-on-Trent, where the royalist garrison was about to surrender, to King’s Lynn to assist them.107CJ iv. 535a-b; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 434. Wauton may therefore not have been present later that month when the Commons included him on the committee on Cromwell’s arrears (28 May).108CJ iv. 557b. Over that summer John Gaule published his Select Cases of Conscience, which denounced the methods of the East Anglian ‘witchfinder-general’, Matthew Hopkins. Gaule’s dedication of that book to Wauton was obviously because, as vicar of Great Staughton, he was Wauton’s local minister, but probably also because Wauton’s powers to act against delinquents throughout the eastern counties meant he might act against Hopkins.109J. Gaule, Select Cases of Conscience (1646), sig. A2 (E.1192.1). Wauton may not have returned to Westminster until later that year, when he was named to the committee on a petition from the army officers in London (15 Oct.) and was added to the committee of privileges (16 Dec.).110CJ iv. 694b, 15a.

His absences during 1647 and 1648 were probably even more lengthy. Indeed, he may not have attended Parliament at all. He was certainly listed as absent when the House was called on 9 October 1647 and again on 26 September 1648.111CJ v. 329b. Re-appointed as governor of King’s Lynn in August 1647 – reportedly with General Fairfax’s ‘approbation’ and to the ‘great satisfaction’ of the inhabitants – he wrote to the mayor of Norwich late that month demanding that the city pay the arrears it owed to the King’s Lynn garrison.112Perfect Occurrences no. 33 (13-20 Aug. 1647), 221 (E.518.20); Add. 19399, f. 29. The Norwich MP, Thomas Atkin*, was soon worried that Wauton intended to raise this matter in the Commons.113Add. 19399, f. 33. Wauton evidently did do so on 20 September, when the Commons ordered that £1,500 be paid to him from Norfolk as governor of King’s Lynn to meet the arrears.114CJ v. 309a; LJ ix. 451b. Wauton still held that position in May 1648, when the Derby House Committee ordered him to give all assistance he could to his counterpart at Croyland when it feared that he would face a royalist uprising.115CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 60. Indications of his presence in Parliament during these years are rare. In late 1647 he apparently persuaded the Commons to delay its consideration of the case of the dowager countess of Northampton (some of her estates were located in Huntingdonshire), although the Commons lifted her sequestration early the following year.116CCC 1250; CJ v. 421b. He was named to the committee on the bill to indemnify tenants of delinquent landlords in late January 1648.117CJ v. 447b. He also signed warrants issued by the Eastern Association Committee at Westminster in March and September 1648.118SP28/251, unfol.: warrants, 16 Mar. and 29 Sept. 1648.

Rump, 1648-53

The crisis of late 1648 brought Wauton back to Westminster. He was not excluded in the purge of 6 December and probably supported the reaffirmation of the Vote of No Addresses on 13 December.119CJ vi. 96b. With the Commons now substantially depleted, Wauton was added to a series of major committees, including the Committee for Indemnity, the Committee for Advance of Money and the Derby House Committee (6 Jan. 1649).120CJ vi. 101b, 109a, 112a, 113b. The Rump was, in the circumstances, understandably keen to pay the army, so on 21 December Wauton and Thomas Scot I* were specifically asked to see what revenues were still outstanding.121CJ vi. 102a. On 19 January Wauton secured the payment of over £7,000 for the garrison in the Isle of Ely.122CJ vi. 121b. Above all, he supported the proceedings against the king. On 23 December he was included on the committee to consider how the king might be tried and then, once it had been decided to create the high court of justice, he was named as one of the judges.123CJ vi. 103a, 110b. Unlike many, he was willing to serve and attended almost all the sessions of the court.124J.G. Muddiman, Trial of King Charles the First (1928), 76, 88, 96, 195, 196, 197, 202, 208, 210, 222, 223, 224, 226, 229. He then signed the death warrant.

Wauton’s activity in Parliament had until now been rather patchy. The advent of the republic changed that. Wauton was clearly committed to the principle of republican rule and prepared to do his bit to make it work in practice. His colleagues quickly utilised this enthusiasm by appointing him to the new council of state.125CJ vi. 141a; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 6. As a teller, he then supported those who wanted it to have a lord president.126CJ vi. 143b. When the council met, he took the Engagement.127CJ vi. 146b.

He immediately became one of the council’s spokesmen on naval affairs. This was not a subject on which he can be said to have had any previous expertise. It would appear that he had been a member of the Committee of Navy and Customs by mid-January 1649 and he was certainly one by 10 February when he secured Parliament’s approval for a reward to the crew of the frigate, Elizabeth.128Bodl. Rawl. A.224, f. 1; CJ vi. 119b, 137b. More importantly, two days later he informed the House that the Committee of Navy and Customs wished to nominate Richard Deane*, Robert Blake* and Edward Popham* as the new generals-at-sea.129CJ vi. 138a. Later that month he was again a spokesman for the Committee of Navy and Customs in the House.130CJ vi. 149b-150a, 152b. He was also included on the committee considering the bill for the impressment of sailors (20 Feb.).131CJ vi. 147a. The council now reinforced these naval interests by appointing him to its sub-committees on the preparation of the fleet and on the admiralty and the navy.132CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 28, 33, 34. One of his first tasks was to pilot through the new Act extending the powers of the admiralty judges.133CJ vi. 156a-157b, 167b, 171a, 185b-186a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 47. He also helped oversee the passage of the bill to appoint commissioners for the sale of prize goods.134CJ vi. 186b. On 19 March he sought clarification from Parliament restricting the responsibilities of the committee of merchants for regulating the navy purely to matters relating to the customs, leaving the management of the navy to the Committee of Navy and Customs.135CJ vi. 169a. When the fleet was preparing to sail, he presented the names of the naval captains to Parliament for its approval.136CJ vi. 166a, 181a. Once the fleet was at sea, he kept Parliament informed of any messages received from its commanders.137CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 122-3; CJ vi. 200a-b, 204b. On 25 June he announced the ships that were to be sent out as the forthcoming winter fleet.138CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 201; CJ vi. 242b-243a. A rare failure was the rejection that same day of his proposed bill to appoint an admiralty judge for the Cinque Ports, although Parliament did accept his bill authorising the council of state to grant letters of marque.139CJ vi. 243a. In late December 1649 and early January 1650 he again reported on the preparations for the fleet to be sent out the following summer. This involved presenting estimates of the likely costs and introducing the bill to reappoint Deane, Blake and Popham.140CJ vi. 339a, 339b, 340a, 340b, 342b.

With so much of his time devoted to naval business, Wauton’s other activities in Parliament during the first year of the republic were much more miscellaneous. He had also become a member of the Army Committee by February 1649, when he reported to Parliament from it on the subject of the auditing of army officers’ accounts.141CJ vi. 152, 154b. A couple of pieces of legislation can be associated with him. In May 1649 he and Thomas Scot I were assigned to prepare the bill to compound with the Anglesey delinquents, while he is likely to have been the key figure who promoted the bill to appoint the Huntingdonshire lawyer, Robert Bernard*, as steward of the court of pleas of the Isle of Ely.142CJ vi. 150a, 202a, 220a, 239b; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 142. He also quite possibly took the lead in drafting the declaration denouncing the murder of Isaac Dorislaus.143CJ vi. 209b. His committee appointments included those to negotiate a loan from the corporation of London (9 Apr.), for the repayment of money on the public faith (9 May), on propagating the gospel, in New England (13 June) and in England (20 Dec.), and on the repeal of the laws against non-attendance at church (29 June).144CJ vi. 183a, 205b, 231a, 245b, 336a. As a teller, he opposed the motion to discharge Robert Jenkinson* from serving as sheriff of Oxfordshire (27 Nov.).145CJ vi. 326a. Another occasion on which he acted as a teller was when he and others attempted without success to amend the assessment bill to preserve the preferential rating for King’s Lynn dating back to 1645.146CJ vi. 328a.

All Wauton’s hard work was rewarded with his re-appointment to the council of state in February 1650.147CJ vi. 362b; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 512. He was then included on the council sub-committees dealing with the navy and the army.148CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 3, 18. He was soon briefing Parliament on the latest naval appointments and on the plans to build new ships.149CSP Dom. 1650, p. 15; CJ vi. 374b, 375a-b, 389b. In the meantime, the admiralty sub-committee relied on him to keep the council briefed about naval contracts.150CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 61, 219. Later that year he obtained Parliament’s approval for the recommendation from the Committee of Navy and Customs that London customs officials should not be allowed to engage in commercial activities (9 Apr.).151CJ vi. 395b. He also reported back to the House on the proposed amendments to the bill to prevent wrongs and abuses to merchants at sea (13 Apr.).152CJ vi. 397a-b. Other bills with which he was closely involved probably included those to restrict the export of bullion and to regulate the excise.153CJ vi. 387b, 403b, 426b-427a, 438b-439a, 442b. Fortifications were another of his interests, whether it was the compensation granted to Lord Chandos for the damage done to Sudeley Castle (29 May) or the state of the defences of Great Yarmouth.154CJ vi. 417b; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 385. It must have given him some personal satisfaction to support the moves to end the use of Oxford Castle as a gaol in order to return it to purely military uses.155CSP Dom. 1650, p. 187.

By this date Wauton had been reinstated as a regimental colonel. It is quite possible that he had been so ever since he had been re-appointed as governor of King’s Lynn. However, it is only from 1650 that firm evidence survives for the existence of a regiment under his command. That April the council of state transferred 300 men from Wauton’s regiment to Great Yarmouth to replace troops under John Barkstead*, although they were immediately replaced by the deployment of two new companies.156CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 95, 105. Perhaps as a result, Wauton then submitted proposals concerning the garrisons over which he had control to the council of state.157CSP Dom. 1650, p. 170. Soon after, Wauton was granted £100 for repairs at King’s Lynn and Croyland.158CSP Dom. 1650, p. 230. That May the council sent Wauton to arrest Edward Martin, the former president of Queens’ College, Cambridge, who was in hiding in Suffolk at the house of Henry Coke* at Thorington. Martin’s friends later lobbied Wauton in order to help persuade the council to release him.159CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 160, 203, 517; W.G. Searle, Hist. of the Queens’ Coll. (Cambridge, 1867-71), ii. 504. The following October another paper by Wauton – this time about the existence of possible conspiracies within his garrison – was considered by the council.160CSP Dom. 1650, p. 385. That same month 400 men from his regiment were instructed to march to Scotland.161CSP Dom. 1650, p. 394. By that stage Wauton was owed £2,132 6s in military arrears and so, on 6 November, Parliament ordered that he be granted a debenture for that money.162CJ vi. 491a.

Later that month Wauton was sent to King’s Lynn.163HMC Leyborne-Popham, 79. This proved to be most fortuitous, given that, even before he set out from Huntingdonshire, he received news of the royalist uprising in Norfolk. His letter of 30 November forwarding this news to the council was read to Parliament on 3 December.164CSP Dom. 1650, p. 452; CJ vi. 504a. On reaching King’s Lynn he asked the council in London for money and reinforcements.165CSP Dom. 1650, p. 462. In the event, the uprising was quickly suppressed and Wauton was then appointed to the high court of justice which sat at Norwich to try the rebels.166A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 474. As might be expected, the council later relied on him whenever dealing with matters relating to those prisoners.167CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 48-9, 169, 205-6. This recent experience of the continuing threat of rebellion may explain why Wauton acted as teller on 23 January 1651 in a division on the bill for the sale of delinquents’ estates.168CJ vi. 527b. Once the Norfolk rising was over, the decision to send some of Wauton’s troops to Scotland was confirmed.169CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 29, 39, 518, 539, 541.

Wauton had meanwhile been strengthening his personal connections with East Anglia by investing in some of the fenland being drained by the Bedford Level Adventurers. In March 1650 he purchased 250 acres which had belonged (separately) to John Pym* and Robert Scawen*.170Cambs. RO, R.59.31.1A, ff. 177-178; R.59.31.9.2, unfol.; R.59.32.9.4, f. 66v. The following November he bought 2,000 acres, some of which had previously belonged to Sir Gilbert Gerard*.171Cambs. RO, R.59.32.9.4, f. 70v. Then in May 1651 he acquired one-quarter of the ninth share in the Adventure.172Cambs. RO, R.59.31.1A, ff. 199-200v. The only exception to this pattern of accumulation was his sale of 50 acres at Byall Fen in Cambridgeshire to John Thurloe* in June 1652.173Cambs. RO, R.59.31.1B, f. 109.

Wauton was re-elected as a councillor of state in February 1651.174CJ vi. 532a; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1651, p. 44. He was then named to the usual range of sub-committees, such as those on the admiralty, the ordnance and the army.175CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 66-7 He may now have become rather less visible in Parliament, but he did report to the House on 19 February on a couple of navy-related petitions.176CSP Dom. 1651, p. 3; CJ vi. 536a. He was also briefly active in Parliament in mid-April, being named to the committee to draft the preamble to the assessment bill (15 Apr.) and, as a teller, attempting to block discussion about the appointment of a new governor for Dover Castle (16 Apr.).177CJ vi. 561a, 562b-563a. That he stopped attending council meetings after 17 May suggests that he then left London.178CSP Dom. 1651, pp. xxviii-xxx.

By the end of the summer his attentions were certainly focused elsewhere, as he spent August 1651 taking steps to counter the threat from the invasion by Charles Stuart and the Scots. On the orders of the council, he first raised ten companies within Norfolk, Suffolk and the Isle of Ely from the county militias.179CSP Dom. 1651, p. 302; 1651-2, p. 96. He was also ordered to send some forces to Stamford and others to London.180CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 306, 325. By 19 August Wauton himself was marching towards Dunstable, although he was then told to head for Northampton.181CSP Dom. 1651, p. 342. Two days later some of the men he had left behind in East Anglia advanced from Newmarket to Royston.182CSP Dom. 1651, p. 359. Once the invading army had been defeated at Worcester (3 Sept.), Wauton was warned to guard against fleeing royalist cavalry units which might seek refuge in the Isle of Ely.183CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 398, 401, 403. The reorganisation of the army that autumn in the wake of this victory may have marked the end for Wauton’s regiment. Seven of his troops were certainly disbanded, while some of his men were redeployed to Scotland.184CJ vii. 24b; CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 578.

Wauton was back in London by late October 1651. His return was marked by his appointments to the council sub-committees on the post office, trade and prisoners.185CSP Dom. 1651, pp. xxxiii, 455, 494, 496, 497. On 19 November, acting on behalf of the existing council, he set in motion the moves by Parliament to elect a new council of state.186CSP Dom. 1651, p. 21; CJ vii. 37a-b. In the first round of voting on 24 November, Wauton received 78 votes; ranked fourteenth, he earned his place on the new council.187CJ vii. 42a-b. Over the next 12 months, he continued the pattern of occasional activity in Parliament. That was partly because he seems again to have been absent from London between late June and late October, quite possibly because of the outbreak of the war with the United Provinces.188CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. xli-xlv. However, in February 1652 he twice acted as a teller in divisions on the Act of Oblivion, on both occasions favouring the less charitable option.189CJ vii. 87a, 92a. This may have been linked to his recurring interest in measures relating to the sales of the forfeited estates of convicted traitors.190CJ vii. 46b, 112a, 207a-b. Despite the context of a naval war against the Dutch, naval affairs may also have been less central to Wauton’s contributions in the House than previously. On 23 April he presented the proposal that the ordnance office be placed under the control of the navy commissioners, while later that year (4 Nov.) he was included on the committee to encourage merchants to allow their ships to be used by the navy.191CJ vii. 124b-126b, 210a. His involvement in the negotiations with the East India Company about the supply of saltpetre should perhaps be seen as another example.192CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 283; CJ vii. 100a, 143b. It is also true that he was still regularly participating in council meetings on naval business.193CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 278, 285. On 26 November, at the council’s request, he briefed Parliament on the cost of the frigate-building programme and on the need to pay the sailors as soon as possible.194CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 293; CJ vii. 222a.

For Wauton, the result of the council elections in November 1652 were almost exactly a re-run of the previous elections. His support fell slightly to 76 votes, which again gave him fourteenth place overall.195CJ vii. 220b. In late December he was the teller in a division on how the French king should be addressed in Parliament’s reply to a message from the French ambassador, while the following month he was named to three committees: on the bill to explain the former Act for the relief of tender consciences (6 Jan. 1653), on the bill for the sale of the former royal forests (8 Jan.) and on the petition of James Temple* (27 Jan.).196CJ vii. 236b, 244a, 245b, 251a. Meanwhile, on the council, he busied himself drafting articles of war for the fleet and new instructions for its commanders.197CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 39, 62, 92. His final recorded contribution in Parliament for the time being came on 17 March 1653, when he reported to the House on the subject of what salaries should be paid to the officials for the sale of delinquents’ estates.198CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 200; CJ vii. 269a. He also failed to attend any council meetings after 18 March, and on 15 April, when his opinion was sought on the proposed demolition of the blockhouse at King’s Lynn, the council had to write to him.199CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. xxxi-xxxii, 280. It is therefore likely that he was not around on 20 April when Cromwell dismissed the Rump and suppressed the council.

Out of office, 1653-9

Wauton had many good reasons to welcome the establishment of the protectorate. Although his first wife was now dead, he had known her brother better and for longer than most. He could legitimately expect to become an even more important figure under the new lord protector. Yet he deliberately rejected this glorious opportunity. Cromwell’s decision to rule alone was the point at which their friendship broke down. There can be no doubt that Wauton terminated all his links with Cromwell purely out of political principle. Cromwell had betrayed the republic and could never be forgiven. It was for Wauton as simple as that.

But Wauton did not withdraw entirely from public life. For one thing, he attempted to get re-elected to Parliament when the next chance arose. On 12 July 1654 he stood in the election for the three Huntingdonshire MPs. The major interest ranged against him was that of Edward Montagu II*, who had hopes of gaining all three seats for himself and two of his allies. There would be accusations that on the day some of Wauton’s supporters, allegedly his tenants from Somersham, threatened their rivals as they tried to vote.200Bodl. Carte 74, f. 89. Even this failed to prevent Montagu’s election and was not enough to secure Wauton any of the seats. However, the protectoral government was willing to continue Wauton in most of his local offices. He remained as a justice of the peace for Huntingdonshire and for the Isle of Ely, and also as a militia commissioner for the former, throughout this period.201CSP Dom. 1655, p. 79.

The impression nevertheless is that Wauton spent the mid-1650s sulking on his Huntingdonshire estates. In December 1653, just a week after Cromwell had been installed as lord protector, Wauton extended those estates by purchasing the former royal manor of Somersham.202Norris Museum, St Ives, UMS/SOMER/26. The seller, Robert Blackbourne, had paid £19,884 for it earlier that year.203VCH Hunts. ii. 224. The marriage of his son, Robert Wauton, in early 1657 would prompt Wauton to make further adjustments. Although only the fourth-born son, it is possible that by now Robert, who had become a London mercer, was the eldest surviving.204Noble, Mems. of House of Cromwell, ii. 228. His bride was Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Pride*. As part of the marriage settlement, Wauton granted the use of his lands at Great Staughton to Robert for 99 years.205Norris Museum, St Ives, UMS/G.STA/079; UMS/G.STA/076. Moreover, he also leased Somersham to Pride and other trustees for one year for a peppercorn rent.206Norris Museum, St Ives, UMS/SOMER/26-27.

There seems to have been no reconciliation with Cromwell before the lord protector’s death in September 1658. Wauton then became the most notable kinsman (other than the two sons) not to walk in the funeral procession.207Burton’s Diary, ii. 527. The accession of his nephew, Richard Cromwell*, was even less acceptable, although when Montagu visited Wauton at Hinchingbrooke on 1 January 1659 to discuss the Huntingdonshire election, the latter reportedly assured him that ‘his principles were not such as they might be represented, and that he was firm to his highness, and not for a commonwealth government’; he had, said Montagu, ‘in divers other particulars discoursed very orthodoxly’.208TSP vii. 587. But this was just Wauton telling Montagu what he would have wanted to hear. Less welcome to Montagu was that Wauton also made it clear that he intended to stand in the election.209TSP vii. 587. However, at the poll held a week later, the Huntingdonshire voters preferred Henry Cromwell alias Williams* and Nicholas Pedley*, both of whom were more credible supporters for the continuing rule of the Cromwell dynasty.

The republic revived, 1659-60

Wauton can have had few regrets about the increasing irrelevance of Richard Cromwell and he welcomed the recall of the Rump in early May 1659. He had resumed his seat in it within days of its revival.210CJ vii. 648b, 650b. His election to the new council of state then confirmed him as one of its leading figures.211CJ vii. 654a; A. and O. Just as important was his appointment as one of the nine commissioners for the admiralty and the navy. Wauton had actually acted as a teller with Edmund Ludlowe II* for those who opposed the appointment of MPs to that role in the crucial division on 26 May.212CJ vii. 666a. But the defeat of that motion then made it possible for him to be nominated after all.213CJ vii. 666b, 670b; A. and O. He was then named to the committee on the bill to appoint Charles Fleetwood* as the commander-in-chief.214CJ vii. 672b. As an admiralty and navy commissioner, Wauton naturally found himself dealing with naval business in Parliament, whether it was informing the House of the commissioners’ recommendation for navy appointments or amending the bill for the impressment of sailors.215CJ vii. 673b, 690a, 691b, 694a, 702a, 740b-741b. On 6 September he was one of the three men sent to seek reassurances of loyalty from Montagu, who was then at anchor in Southwold Bay.216CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 164, 167-8, 184-5, 195; Jnl. of Edward Mountagu, First Earl of Sandwich, ed. R.C. Anderson (Navy Recs. Soc. lxiv), 46. Acting as a councillor, Wauton reported to Parliament on the cases of the royalist plotters Sir Thomas Armstrong and John Weston (15 June), secured Parliament’s agreement to the proposed demolition of Liverpool Castle (4 July) and persuaded them to summon Alexander Popham*, who was thought to be another possible royalist plotter (30 July).217CJ vii. 685b-686a, 704a-b, 740a. With such royalist plots now a very real threat, Wauton offered his services as a soldier once again. On 13 July he was given the command of the Huntingdonshire militia, but a month later resigned in order to raise a volunteer regiment of dragoons also from Huntingdonshire.218CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 24, 51, 564, 565. At the same time, he presented Parliament with the council’s list of officers for the Berkshire and Norfolk militias.219CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 110; CJ vii. 760a. Then, on 20 August, he briefed Parliament on what money was needed for the army.220CJ vii. 765a. His appointment to the committee to review the bills for the late lord protector’s funeral (4 July) was not entirely disinterested, as his son Robert was one of the London mercers owed money for the mourning cloth they had supplied.221CJ vii. 704b; Noble, Mems. of House of Cromwell, ii. 228.

When the tensions between the Rump and the army came to a head in October 1659, the trio of Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, Harbert Morley* and Wauton demonstrated themselves to be the Rump’s staunchest defenders. On 12 October Morley and Wauton joined with Hesilrige to denounce John Lambert*, John Disbrowe* and other senior officers in the army for plotting against Parliament. Fleetwood was dismissed as the commander-in-chief and a new commission for governing the army was created to replace him. Hesilrige, Morley and Wauton were among its seven members.222CJ vii. 796a; A. and O.; Whitelocke, Diary, 534; Clarke Pprs. iv. 60; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 137. This backfired when the army reacted by suspending the Rump. The creation of the committee of safety later that month appeared to freeze out Hesilrige, Wauton and their friends from the discussions as to how to resolve the continuing constitutional uncertainty. But there was one factor that might yet have reversed this – by early December, in part with their encouragement, the commander in Scotland, George Monck*, seemed increasingly likely to intervene in England on behalf of the Rump.223Clarke Pprs. iv. 207-8, v. 343-4. This prompted Hesilrige, Morley and Wauton to seize control of Portsmouth on 3 December.224Lttrs. of Samuel Pepys 1656-1703, ed. G. de la Bédoyère (Woodbridge, 2006), 27; Whitelocke, Diary, 549; Clarke Pprs. iv. 165, 166, 186; Diurnal of Thomas Rugg 1659-1661, ed. W.L. Sachse (Cam. Soc. 3rd ser. xci), 21; Pepys’s Diary, ii. 92; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 157; HMC Leyborne Popham, 199, 209. One unfounded rumour was that they had then sailed to Scotland to join up with Monck.225Lttrs. of Samuel Pepys, 28. Once they began issuing military commissions of their own, their challenge to the army became open and direct.226CCSP iv. 478. Their justification for doing so, set out in a letter to Fleetwood on 14 December, was that they had more authority to issue commissions to officers who would support the recall of the Rump than Fleetwood had to prevent that recall. The letter also confirmed Wauton’s sense of betrayal by the late lord protector. The trio pointed out that politicians could always claim to be acting to achieve ‘good things for the nation’, but that, in Cromwell’s case, his later actions had shown ‘his own advancement’ to have been his real motive.227TSP vii. 795. On 25 December they wrote to the former Speaker, William Lenthall*, declaring their intention to march on London.228HMC Portland, i. 689. With the navy supporting them, with Monck massing his troops on the Tweed and with news of the military coup in Dublin, this was no idle threat. In fact, in conjunction with the old council of state, Lenthall was already taking steps to reassemble the Rump and it resumed its meetings the following day. Hesilrige, Morley and Wauton took their seats again in triumph on 29 December, evidently doing so immediately on arriving in the capital, as they entered the Commons’ chamber while still wearing their riding clothes. The House then declared itself satisfied with their recent actions.229Whitelocke, Diary, 556; CJ vii. 799a.

A new council of state, including Wauton, was set up two days later, while he, Hesilrige and Morley were given emergency powers to make appointments in the army.230CJ vii. 800a, 800b, 801a; Whitelocke, Diary, 558; Diurnal of Thomas Rugg, 24. Naturally enough, Wauton was also included on the various committees making other important patronage decisions, such as those on the appointment of the new commissioners of the great seal (9 Jan.) or on the exclusion of MPs from Parliament (11 Jan.).231CJ vii. 806a, 807a. But purging the army, on which Wauton reported to Parliament from the council of state on 11 January, remained the most immediate priority. The appointments the House then approved included his own as colonel of Disbrowe’s regiment of horse. His commission was presented to him by the Speaker on 13 January.232CJ vii. 807b, 808a, 808b-809a, 812a, 815a; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 208. Meanwhile, he had helped secure the passage of the bill to appoint new commissioners for the admiralty and the navy and on 28 January Parliament agreed that he should be one of them.233CJ vii. 808b, 825b; A. and O.; Diurnal of Thomas Rugg, 33, 40. In that capacity, he then acted as the council’s spokesman when it wanted to raise the issue of naval supplies with Parliament.234CJ vii. 830b. It also fell to him to secure Parliament’s approval for the appointment of a new judge advocate and an adjutant for the army.235CJ vii. 816b.

However, time was running out for the Rump. On 11 February 1660, as Monck wavered over whether to impose military order on the City of London, Parliament moved to undermine him by vesting control of the army in five commissioners. Wauton, its trusted defender, was one of the five men appointed.236CJ vii. 841a; Whitelocke, Diary, 569; CCSP iv. 561; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 223-4. But this was a power struggle Monck would win. Ten days later the secluded Members were readmitted and the army commission was superseded by Monck as sole commander-in-chief. One of Monck’s first actions on becoming commander was to dismiss Wauton from his regiment, replacing him with Charles Howard*.237Ludlow, Voyce, 85, 88; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 209. All Wauton could do was to dub Monck ‘General Turd’.238Clarke Pprs. v. 362.

Exile, 1660-70

This was the end of Wauton’s political career. Now that the Long Parliament was about to vote itself out of existence, he almost certainly stopped attending. With the restoration of the monarchy appearing imminent, the most pressing issue became his own survival. The regicides were always those least likely to be forgiven by the new king and indeed, in due course, Wauton would be exempted by name from the 1660 Act of Indemnity.239SR. Refusing to submit and beg for forgiveness, he chose to go into exile.240Ludlow, Voyce, 154.

Information about his subsequent fate is sparse. In November 1661 the English envoy in The Hague, Sir George Downing*, believed that Wauton and John Okey* had travelled to Switzerland that summer and then moved to Frankfurt.241CCSP v. 153. The following spring Downing heard that Wauton, Sir Michael Livesay* and Daniel Blagrave* were at Hanau.242CCSP v. 202. That seems to be confirmed by the subsequent claim by Edmund Ludlowe, himself an exile, that Wauton was one of those regicides who became burgesses of Hanau.243Ludlow, Voyce, 297. The most detailed story, that recorded by Anthony Wood, is that Wauton worked incognito as a gardener in the Low Countries and only revealed his true identity shortly before his death in order that his wife could be informed. Since Wood knew that Wauton’s wife died in poverty in Oxford in November 1662, it might be inferred that Wauton had died before then.244Wood, Life and Times, i. 462. But this is contradicted by Ludlowe’s probably more reliable account, which records the deaths of Wauton and Thomas Wogan* in his narrative for events associated with 1670. He also claimed that Wauton, who remained staunchly republican to the end, had died ‘in the arms of his friendly landlady’ and that, ‘according to his desire’, he was then ‘buried in his landlord’s garden, who there erected a monument for him’.245Bodl. Eng. hist. c. 487, p. 1250. One consequence of Wauton’s exclusion from the Act of Indemnity was that all his estates had been confiscated to the crown.246LR2/266, f. 20v; CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 344, 345-6, 407, 559, 560; 1661-2, pp. 24, 276; 1663-4, p. 413. The lands at Great Staughton were first leased to Manchester’s eldest son, Viscount Mandeville (Robert Montagu†), and were later granted to James, duke of York.247VCH Hunts. ii. 358.

However, Wauton may have left behind one tantalising legacy. In 1733 Thomas Hearne was told by the Oxford printer, Joseph Brookland, that his brother, John Brookland, had heard that Wauton had written

a history of the civil wars, which is in MS in the hands of someone related to his family at this time and that many original letters of Oliver Cromwell are in it. Money (five hundred libs. [£500]) hath been offered (it seems) [in order that it] be kept as a secret, and not to be published, … lest abundance of his and others’ roguery and villainy may be from thence discovered.248Remarks and Colls. of Thomas Hearne, ed. C.E. Doble and H.E. Salter (1885-1921), xi. 287.

The whereabouts of that volume remains unknown.