BENNETT, Robert (1605-83), of Hexworthy, Lawhitton, Cornw.

Early life and civil wars, 1605-48

The Bennetts were descended from one Ellis Bennett, who lived in Sussex in the 1500s, but by the end of the sixteenth century they had moved to Cornwall, marrying into the Couches of Lawhitton, near Launceston.30Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 27. Richard Bennett of Hexworthy, master of the utter bar in the Middle Temple, cemented these local connections with his marriage to a daughter of Oliver Clobery of Bradstone in Devon. Robert, the eldest son, succeeded his father as a minor in 1619 or 1620, and followed him both to Exeter College, Oxford, and the Middle Temple.31M. Temple Admiss. i. 113; Al. Ox. Little is known of Robert Bennett’s life before 1642, and he seems to have lived for a time at his mother’s house at Bradstone.32Coate, ‘Original Diary’, 256. He was a captain of the Cornish trained bands in September 1629, when the deputy lieutenants authorised him to correct abuses among the ordinary soldiers, ‘which have been so often complained of by yourself and others’.33FSL, X.d.483 (2).

Bennett probably retained his militia role until the outbreak of the civil war, as in the summer of 1642 the local commanders were eager to secure his services to raise rival forces in the south west. His first regular commission (which may not have been confirmed) was from the parliamentarian lord lieutenant of Cornwall, John Robertes, 2nd Baron Robartes, who, in June 1642, appointed him captain of a foot company to be drawn from the parishes around Launceston.34FSL, X.d.438 (3). In July, however, Bennett agreed to join the parliamentarians in North Devon, and was given command of a company in Sir Samuel Rolle’s regiment; but when he arrived at the muster at Torrington in August, he was ordered to exchange this for another command. Taking ‘some small disrelish’ at this treatment, Bennett left Devon for Cornwall, where, on 22 August, he was given a second commission by Lord Robartes. In the confusion that followed Sir Ralph Hopton’s* arrival in the south west and the strengthening of support for the royalists there, Bennett took his family to safety in Exeter, and then assumed charge of a company in Sir John Bampfylde’s regiment at the bridge over the Exe, before his return to Rolle’s regiment (after Sir Samuel had ‘earnestly solicited’ him to do so), at Torrington in January 1643, brought the bewildering series of changes of regiment to an end.35Coate, ‘Original Diary’, 251-3, 256; FSL, X.d.438 (5, 6).

During the spring of 1643 Bennett was part of the army under Henry Grey*, 1st earl of Stamford, which marched against the Cornish royalists and was bloodily defeated at Stratton in April. Although his company was said to be in good order, thanks to the arrival of ‘Low Country officers’, it was swept away in the rout, and Bennett lost his trunk, with his papers, clothes and money. After Stratton, Bennett served first at Barnstaple and then, on the town’s surrender to Prince Maurice, based himself at Plymouth, while his wife, ‘being frighted by a troop of the cavaliers’ miscarried and died at Bradstone.36Coate, ‘Original Diary’, 253, 257-8. During the winter of 1643-4, Bennett crossed from Devon to south Wales, joining the parliamentarian forces under John Poyer and Rowland Laugharne†, and assisting at the capture of Tenby. He was at Tenby in June 1644, when he received news of the advance of Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, into the west country, and, with the encouragement of Colonel John Luttrell at Barnstaple, in July he crossed the Bristol Channel with arms and ammunition to aid the parliamentarian resurgence.37Coate, ‘Original Diary’, 254; FSL, X.d.438 (8, 9). Instead of rejoining Rolle’s regiment, Bennett received a more senior command, either as lieutenant-colonel of Luttrell’s newly-formed regiment, or as colonel in his own right. Lord Robartes’ letter to ‘Colonel Bennett at Barnstaple’, penned at Bodmin on 31 July (‘I hope your regiment is in such forwardness and so well furnished as you and your men may be spared without prejudice to the town or country’) suggests the latter.38FSL, X.d.438 (9, 10). Bennett did not march west, however, and so avoided being caught up in Essex’s humiliating defeat at Lostwithiel. The indirect effects of this reverse were soon apparent, as Devon was now exposed, and after a brief period of resistance, Barnstaple fell to George Goring* on 17 September. Bennett was allowed to take his men to Southampton, and they disbanded at Portsmouth thereafter.39Coate, ‘Original Diary’, 255, 259.

Despite his involvement in some of the least glorious of Parliament’s military exploits, Bennett emerged from the western campaigns with his reputation intact. From 1 May 1645 he served alongside John Searle as treasurer, commissioner and muster-master of the western brigade commanded by Major-general Edward Massie*, taking his orders directly from Parliament’s Committee of the West.40SP28/139/16, unfol. During the summer and autumn of 1645, Bennett went with the brigade as it accompanied Sir Thomas Fairfax’s* New Model army to the siege of Sherborne Castle in Dorset, Chard in Somerset, the siege of Taunton, and into Devon, eventually arriving in his old garrison town of Barnstaple. During the advance, Bennett was in charge of supplying money to the troops, dealing with other expenses, and running a rudimentary intelligence service. In October 1645, for example, he dispersed ‘directories, cabinets and covenants’ (copies of the Directory of Public Worship, the King’s Cabinet Opened and the Solemn League and Covenant) to locals, and in November accounted for sums ‘laid out for intelligence out of Barnstaple and from Cornwall’.41SP28/139/16, unfol.; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 38. With the conquest of most of the south west in the new year of 1646 Bennett could at last take his place on the Cornish county committee (to which he had belonged, notionally, since 1 July 1644), and to play a part in local government, including being made a free burgess of Launceston.42A. and O.; Cornw. RO, B/LAUS/350. His main role was still a military one. In July 1646 his regiment (new or reformed?) mustered at full strength, and in August 1646 he was among the officers who negotiated the surrender of Pendennis Castle, the last royalist garrison to hold out in Cornwall.43FSL, X.d.438 (11); Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva, 309; CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 467-8. On 3 August 1647 Fairfax appointed Bennett to be governor of two strongholds in the west of Cornwall: St Michael’s Mount off Penzance, and Dennis Fort near Helston.44Cornw. RO, AU/4.

During the second civil war, Bennett emerged as one of the leading supporters of Parliament in the south west. When the regional commander, Sir Hardress Waller*, received notice that the royalists were planning a rising in Cornwall, he immediately requested Bennett’s return from the west of the county.45FSL, X.d.438 (16, 17). In early May 1648 Bennett, Waller, John Moyle II* and the sheriff, Richard Chiverton, met to consider what needed to be done to keep the county quiet. Suspects were identified and orders issued for their arrest; but such moves did not prevent a rising later in the month, and Bennett was given charge of the main force sent to root out resistance, centred on Penzance. After the rebellion collapsed, he was also involved in the investigations, and further arrests, that followed.46Coate, Cornw. 238-9, 241; M. Stoyle, West Britons (Exeter, 2002), 120-2, 125; FSL, X.d.438 (18-21). Bennett’s zeal was religious as well as political, and Moyle noted with some disquiet the refusal of ‘Sir Hardress Waller and Bennett with the rest of our military janissaries’ to join the local fast day following the defeat of the rising.47Antony House, Carew-Pole muniments, BC/24/2, no. 170. Bennett was clearly intimate with Waller at this time, and during further security scares later in the summer the two men worked closely together.48FSL, X.d.438 (23-6). He was in also favour with the Independents of the Derby House Committee, who, in September, ordered Bennett to take care of the Isles of Scilly – an order that came too late to prevent the royalists from seizing the islands a few days later.49FSL, X.d.438 (28).

Cornish government, 1649-51

Bennett was a strong supporter of the regicide, publishing a version of his speech made to the Truro quarter sessions in April 1649, entitled King Charles’s Triall Iustified. In the pamphlet, Bennett answered a number of ‘objections’ to the trial and execution, making it clear that he believed that ultimate power came from ‘the commons of England’ who gave kings ‘their office and trust’ by delegation, and that Charles had ‘fallen by the stroke of justice, which smote him openly for his crimes, and the blood he had shed in the face of Heaven’. He also defended the role of the army in Pride’s Purge, which he saw as a corrective to Parliament’s ‘folly’ in continuing to negotiate with the king. The ultimate arbiter was God, and Charles had been punished for his rebellion against the Lord, as ‘God is the alone giver of safety, and well-governing is the good ruler’s best preservation’.50Bennett, King Charle’s Triall Iustified, 3-5, 11-12, 14. In the months that followed, Bennett made the most of the political changes to settle scores with enemies, including the royalist Arundells of Trerice, whose harsh treatment was partly due to Bennett’s intervention. He wrote to Speaker William Lenthall* on 21 May 1649 that John Arundell† senior was ‘one of the most irreconcilable amongst us’ and opposed any reduction in his fine.51Bodl. Tanner 56, no. 42; Coate, Cornw. 263. In the same period Bennett lined his own pockets, using his arrears of pay to purchase the former duchy of Cornwall manors of Tintagel and Helston in Trigg in July 1650, and, a few months later, acquiring the castle and lands of Launceston.52Coate, Cornw. 272; E320/D13; CCC, 310. He also indulged in a lengthy legal dispute with his Clobery cousins, especially John Clobery senior and his son, Christopher, over episcopal lands they had purchased jointly in Lawhitton parish.53C4/47/80; FSL, X.d.438 (158-161). Bennett used his political connections to good effect. In March 1650 the council of state assured him that his petitions to the council and to Parliament had been read, and promised that Parliament would do him justice, although it is uncertain whether this petition concerned his arrears or his dispute with the Cloberys.54CSP Dom. 1650, p. 44.

From 1649 until 1651, Bennett was omnipresent in Cornwall. Surviving mayors’ accounts from the Cornish boroughs contain many references to him, either sending or receiving letters and messages, or attending the towns in person, and being entertained by the burgesses.55Cornw. RO, B/BOD/286. His relationship with Liskeard, where he was made recorder in 1649, was particularly strong, and he was the principal patron of the leading burgess (and several times mayor), Hunt Greenwood*.56Cornw. RO, B/LIS/291, 292, 296. In March 1649 the council of state considered Bennett to be the dominant figure in the county committee, alongside John Moyle, James Erisey* and Colonel Anthony Rous*.57CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 33. Of these, Bennett worked most closely with Moyle in the months following the regicide. Moyle, stuck at Westminster in August and September 1649, relied on Bennett’s immediate influence for the removal of unsuitable ministers, the choice of new militia commissioners, and the reform of the commission of the peace. In return, he promised to help Bennett in his private business in Parliament and in the courts, and was a keen advocate of moves to reduce the tax burden on Cornwall.58HMC Hodgkin, 46-8; FSL, X.d.438 (44). Bennett’s role in civilian government was founded on his position as a justice of the peace, his membership of the local commissions, and his ad hoc role, from the spring of 1650, in the arrest of suspects on the orders of the council of state.59CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 138, 149; 1651, 295; CCC 2705; A. and O; FSL, X.d.438 (53-4). The quantity of work undertaken by Bennett in this period was daunting. As Moyle had complained in September 1649, there was an urgent need to get more gentlemen involved in the local administration, ‘and not two or three gentlemen in a shire to be made pack-horses for all the rest, and to be laughed at for their pains’.60FSL, X.d.438 (44). The absence of men like Moyle did little to help, and in October 1649 Bennett was suffering pains in his chest and lungs, brought on by over-work and ‘hard riding’.61FSL, X.d.438 (155).

Bennett’s influence was mainly dependent on his military position. He continued to be a close ally of his former commander, Sir Hardress Waller, to whom he dedicated his printed justification of the regicide.62Bennett, King Charle’s Triall Iustified, 16. In May 1649 Waller praised Bennett’s ‘unwearied and incessant travail’ in the south west, adding that ‘it seems that providence hath placed you there for such a time as this is’.63FSL, X.d.438 (37). John Disbrowe* was equally impressed by Bennett. Disbrowe was genuinely concerned by news that Bennett was ‘exceeding ill’ in February 1650, and when he left the south west in October of that year, he left Bennett in charge of Cornwall, and was fulsome in his praise of his efforts thereafter.64FSL, X.d.438 (49, 68, 80). Bennett remained as governor of the Mount and Dennis Fort during the early 1650s, and was encouraged by Fairfax to improve the defences there, but his military influence was much wider.65FSL, X.d.438 (36). In the early weeks of 1650, the council of state depended on Bennett for settling the militia in Cornwall, and he was commissioned as captain of foot on 14 February.66CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 480, 521; 1650, p. 34. After a series of alarms, the following June he was chosen as colonel of a new regiment for the west.67CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 163, 199; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 74. At first this regiment was limited to four companies, apparently to augment the local garrisons, including Launceston and Fowey, and in October Disbrowe, although promising to get money to repair the garrisons, warned Bennett that further recruitment ‘is not convenient for the present’.68FSL, X.d.438 (64, 65, 68). When Charles Stuart arrived at Worcester at the head of a Scottish army in the summer of 1651, it was feared that he would head south west in the hope of meeting up with royalists there, and Bennett was the lynchpin of the commonwealth’s defence in Cornwall. An early warning came from President John Bradshawe*, who told Bennett that ‘the enemy is in motion’ and warned of ‘insurrections’.69Add. 12098, f. 8. In August 1651 he received from Plymouth letters from Charles Fleetwood* and Robert Blake* (who had taken over command of the west from Disbrowe a few days earlier), warning of the royalist approach.70Cornw. RO, AU/5; Add. 12098, f. 10. Bennett responded with his customary vigour, arresting all the usual suspects.71FSL, X.d.438 (97-8). The defeat of the Scots on 3 September reduced the security risk across England, and Parliament took the opportunity to reduce a number of regiments, including that of Bennett, which was disbanded after an order of 2 October 1651.72CJ vii. 24b. On 28 October the Commons resolved that Bennett should be allowed to take his seat as the new MP for West Looe, where preparations for his election had been underway since at least May 1649.73Supra, ‘West Looe’; CJ vii. 31a.

The period between the regicide and Bennett’s arrival at Westminster was crucial for his political career. During this time, Bennett forged close relationships with senior army officers. His friendship with Waller blossomed: neither had any patience with the Levellers in the spring of 1649, nor with the Irish rebels in 1650-1, and both attributed their successes, and those of Parliament, to divine providence.74FSL, X.d.438 (37-8, 50, 100). Indeed, Bennett went further, criticising the Rump itself for failing to reform, and especially to listen to ‘the complaints of poor grieved afflicted people’ among the godly sects.75Worden, Rump Parliament, 270, quoting FSL Add. 494, f. 195. Bennett was not only on good terms with Disbrowe, but his relationship with Disbrowe’s brother-in-law, Oliver Cromwell*, although more distant, was also friendly. When Bennett was in the midst of his legal dispute with the Cloberys over the episcopal lands in Lawhitton in 1650-1, he sent ‘several letters’ to Cromwell, who, in April 1651, replied that he had ordered Major John Clobery to attend a council of officers, who would arbitrate between them, and signed himself ‘your loving friend’.76Abbott, Writings and speeches, iii. 406. Interestingly, Cromwell asked another senior officer, Major-general John Lambert*, to take care of Bennett’s interests in the case when it came to arbitration at the end of 1651.77FSL, X.d.438 (158). There are also signs that Bennett had already caught the eye of Major-general Thomas Harrison I*, although there was, as yet, little direct contact between them.78FSL, X.d.438 (64).

Waller, Disbrowe, Cromwell, Harrison and (to a lesser extent) Lambert were all members of Independent congregations, with tolerant attitudes towards more radical sects, including the Baptists, whose number now included Bennett. Yet Bennett’s association with the army leadership, and his religious radicalism, did not play well to a Cornish audience. John Moyer had been well inclined towards Bennett in the autumn of 1649, but by November 1650 the two had begun to disagree, especially about religion, and Moyer urged him not to persecute one of the ‘orthodox’ Presbyterian ministers, adding sardonically that ‘I trust you will afford him that latitude that you desire to have yourself’.79FSL, X.d.438 (71). Another new opponent was Anthony Rous*, who in December 1651 protested at ‘the several contempts and incivilities … against the state and myself their officer’ that he had received from Bennett’s subordinates in Cornwall, and promised that ‘I shall oppose you to the uttermost of my power and have justice against them’.80FSL, X.d.438 (103). Rous’s anger, apparently caused by Captain Waight’s interference in the levying of customs revenue in Cornwall, demonstrates the extent of Bennett’s unpopularity among the more conservative parliamentarians in the county.81FSL, X.d.438 (104).

Westminster politics, 1651-3

Bennett’s increasingly controversial reputation may have delayed his election to Parliament. Although he was allowed to take his seat in October 1651, a letter from Waller, dated 8 May 1649, suggests that there had been an attempt to elect him much earlier in the life of the Rump Parliament.

For that which you specify touching the burgess-ship of West Looe, I have in a great measure my end in your being chosen, for had it been otherwise I should not have rest[ed] satisfied till you had been in the same predicament, only I could wish my name had not been brought upon the stage, though I can easily pass over that where the common good is involved, and therefore desire that all formalities touching the writ and indentures may be speedily and effectually accomplished.82FSL, X.d.438 (37).

As Waller implies, either an election had taken place already, or would be held in short order. Bennett’s seat at West Looe was in the bag. All that remained was to tidy up ‘the formalities’, procure a writ for the election, and fill in the official indenture certifying the return of an MP. Even by the standards of the commonwealth this was a casual approach to parliamentary elections, and it is likely that other interests in Cornwall, or the authorities at Westminster, mounted a successful attempt to prevent Bennett’s election in the spring of 1649. By October 1651 Bennett could call on patrons more powerful than Waller, and he was duly returned for West Looe and admitted to sit in Parliament.83CJ vii. 31a.

During the last 18 months of its sitting, Bennett proved an assiduous member of the Rump, apparently working with the ‘Cromwell-Harrison group’ at Westminster.84Worden, Rump Parliament, 308, 328. He seems to have taken his seat in early December 1651, when he was added to the navy committee and named to the committee for the sale of forfeited estates.85CJ vii. 46b. The latter was of particular interest to Bennett, and on 20 January 1652 he acted as teller in favour of widening the act of pardon and oblivion, which would have obvious affects on royalists seeking to compound.86CJ vii. 75a. The bulk of his work seems to have concentrated on financial affairs. He was named to a number of financial committees, including those on bills to regulate the treasurers-at-war (26 Dec. 1651), to remove obstructions to the sale of crown lands (30 Mar. 1652), and the committee to deal with complaints by contractors for the sale of bishops’ lands (6 Apr.) – all matters in which he had a personal stake.87CJ vii. 58a, 112a, 115a. He went on to be appointed to committees to consider reducing the costs of the government (2 June), to raise money from forfeited estates (15 July) and to improve the treasury generally (27 July).88CJ vii. 138b, 154b, 159a. He was also teller in favour of increasing the number of Lancashire royalists whose estates were to be sold, on 2 July.89CJ vii. 148b. Bennett was also heavily involved in law reform, being appointed to a series of committees dealing with such matters in the winter of 1651-2, and he was also named to a committee to consider ‘inconveniences’ in the law in February 1653.90CJ vii. 58b, 107b, 253b. Surprisingly, religious policy formed only a small part of Bennett’s recorded involvement in this parliament. On 10 February he was named to the committee to confer with ministers about proposals to propagate the gospel, and he returned to this issue a year later, when on 25 March 1653 he reported the findings of a committee investigating allegations from south Wales against the propagators there, which dismissed them out of hand.91CJ vii. 86b, 271b.

Cromwell’s forced closure of the Rump on 20 April 1653 immediately brought Bennett back into politics, as part of the cadre of officers who now dominated the government. As a newsletter writer noted, Bennett was among ‘those of the Parliament that are already come in’ to support Cromwell, three days after the dissolution, and he was included in the interim council that took charge of affairs at Whitehall by the end of the month.92Clarke Pprs. iii. 2, 4. On 4 May he joined Disbrowe as drafter of an instrument continuing the powers of assessment commissioners in the localities, and on 11 May he was appointed to a committee (with Lambert and Harrison) to review the admiralty court.93CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 305, 320. Other appointments followed. On 21 May it was reported that he was to become one of the treasury commissioners: a rumour which, although unfounded, shows Bennett’s standing at Whitehall.94Clarke Pprs. iii. 6. Instead of the treasury, on 24 May Bennett joined the committee for the mint, and in the next few weeks was involved in the issue of ‘new money’ and the prevention of forgery.95CSP Dom. 1652-3, 349, 445; 1653-4, pp. 8, 45. In early June Bennett was granted the Whitehall apartments formerly allocated to Sir James Harington*, in recognition of his new status, and at the end of the month he was added to both the ordnance committee and the committee for officers’ petition, as befitted his military expertise.96CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 394, 451, 454.

On 4 July 1653 Cromwell summoned Bennett to sit in the Nominated Assembly, as one of the members for Cornwall.97FSL, X.d.438 (107). Bennett was in the Commons the very next day, when he returned the compliment, as a member of the committee sent to ask the general to take his own seat in the House by co-option.98CJ vii. 281b. On 9 July, Bennett was elected as a member of the new council of state, and was named to the committee to nominate further councillors.99CJ vii. 283a-b. On 20 July he was appointed to the influential Army Committee – an appointment confirmed seven days later.100CJ vii. 287a; A. and O. At this point Bennett was clearly at the heart of the regime, a close adviser to men like Cromwell and Harrison, and a councillor with responsibility for crucial areas such as coinage and military affairs; but on 22 July he was given leave to return to the country for a month – extended to six months by Parliament on the next day, and he seems to have left his duties in London almost immediately.101CJ vii. 288b; CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 44 Bennett’s absence in the late summer of 1653 has caused speculation that he was disillusioned with the regime, but it is more likely that he was taking care of his military duties in the south west.102Oxford DNB. A letter from Cornwall, dated 16 August, states that Bennett was expected to arrive in the county shortly to join John Moyle and other justices, adding that both men had been active in pressing men for naval service in the Dutch wars.103CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 91. Whatever the reason for Bennett’s absence, there is no doubting that it was unwelcome to the authorities in Whitehall, and on 10 September President Bradshawe instructed Bennett to come back to the council.104FSL, X.d.483 (109).

Bennett did not return to the Nominated Assembly until 12 October, when he was teller against allowing Charles Cavendish, Viscount Mansfield, the benefit of the act of pardon.105CJ vii. 334a. He did not attend the council until 17 October.106CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 205. Yet there is no sign that he was estranged from the government after his return. During October and November he regularly attended the council and the Nominated Assembly. In the council, he was busy on committees on trade and the effect of war on merchants, those on sporadic rioting by seamen resisting impressments, and the printing of seditious pamphlets.107CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 205, 209, 218, 231, 236, 251. He was named to the committee on Irish and Scottish affairs on 8 November, alongside Oliver and Henry Cromwell*, and on the same date was given ‘care’ of the committee of examinations.108CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 237. He was also made a commissioner to meet Dutch deputies to discuss peace, and was ordered to report to Parliament the best way to settle the government of Jersey.109CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 223, 265. If Bennett’s conciliar committees suggest a new preoccupation with security, his parliamentary committee appointments indicate that he continued the involvement in law reform that had marked his career in the Rump. He was added to committees on chancery and ‘the new body of the law’, and, on 29 October, was a teller in favour of ingrossing the bill on writs of error.110CJ vii. 334a, 336a, 342a, 348b. Other apparent areas of concern included the fate of former royal forests, and he acted as teller against amendments to the bill for their sale on 19 November.111CJ vii. 337b, 352b. Religion was still an important issue, and on 17 November Bennett joined his old colleague John Moyer as teller in favour of taking powers away from church patrons – a controversial move that threatened the establishment of a national church.112CJ vii. 352a. Bennett’s role in the council of state and the Nominated Assembly after October 1653 confirms his continuing importance in government circles, which in turn increased his local standing. Anthony Nicoll*, writing to Bennett on 9 November, wrote of his delight at the prospect of peace with the Dutch and the restoration of trade, and also anticipated the effect of law reform; but he also hoped for ‘some settlement in matters of religion’ and acknowledged the need to give ‘respect to dissenting Christians’ as long as heretics were punished. Nicoll clearly considered that these were issues supported by Bennett, and generally favoured by the government.113FSL, X.d.438 (112).

There is no record of Bennett’s involvement in the dissolution of the Nominated Assembly in December 1653, or in the moves to establish the protectorate a few days later, but this does not necessarily indicate that he was at this stage opposed to the new government or to Oliver Cromwell. Bennett’s closest alliances had been with those around Cromwell – especially Disbrowe – and there is little evidence of a personal, rather than political connection, between him and discontented figures like Thomas Harrison I. Bennett was not included in the protectoral council, but again this need not suggest opposition to Cromwell and his government. Indeed, Bennett’s letter to the protector of June 1654 shows that he was prepared to accept the new arrangements, although he took the opportunity to press for the continuation of reforms started by others, mixing godly endorsement (‘the Lord direct you in the way to answer all the gracious intentions of the Lord to this people’) with the cautionary advice that ‘[God] hath a very great jealousy for them’. Bennett went on to present his detailed grievance about local government, including ‘the multitude of petty jurisdictions infested with whole swarms of most wicked town clerks, stewards and attorneys that pray upon the labouring bees of the commonwealth’, especially in Cornwall.114FSL, X.d.438 (114).

Oliver’s protectorate, 1653-8

Bennett’s guarded acceptance of the protectorate, and his overriding concern for local matters, can be seen elsewhere. Despite an apparent reluctance to become too closely involved in central government, he was happy to use his influence with the protector and council to gain compensation for the large sums he had spent on St Michael’s Mount and Dennis Fort in previous years.115CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 421; 1655, pp. 112, 121, 190; FSL, X.d.438 (116-17). His relationship with Parliament was also equivocal. Although he was returned for Launceston for the first protectorate Parliament in 1654, there is no evidence of his attendance at Westminster, even though he was present in London in November of that year, lodging ‘in the Strand near Somerset House’.116FSL, X.d.438 (171).

This reluctance to engage with the protectoral regime at the centre did not translate into an unwillingness to support its work in Cornwall. From February 1654 until the summer of 1659 Bennett was named to every commission for oyer and terminer in the south west, and he was re-appointed as assessment commissioner in June 1657.117C181/6, pp. 8-378; A. and O. He was an active figure on the commission of the peace, and when Joseph Hunkin was sworn in as a justice of the peace in February 1657, the oath was taken by Bennett and Rous.118C231/6, p. 358. The government was keen to involve Bennett in the administration of Cornwall, but it did not always succeed in this. In March 1655, for example, Disbrowe advised that the recent disturbances caused by Penruddock’s royalist rising required the settlement of the militia, and told Cromwell that Bennett would take charge of Cornwall; but a few months later he voiced his frustration that Bennett ‘is yet at London … and his absence hinders that troop’s raising’, and asked Secretary John Thurloe* to ‘speak with him’.119TSP iii. 309, 585. In April 1655 the protectoral council ordered the sheriff of Cornwall to make sure that Bennett attended the oyer and terminer commission at Exeter, to try those suspected of involvement in the rising.120CSP Dom. 1655, p. 114.

In August 1656 Bennett did not seek re-election for Launceston, despite his dominant position in the town. Once again the reason for this may have been his importance in Cornwall rather than disillusion with the regime. Bennett’s relations with Disbrowe, as major-general of the south west, seem to have been as cordial as ever during 1656-7. On 6 September 1656, shortly before the Parliament met, Disbrowe had sent him warning ‘that the old enemy is attempting again, not only from abroad but indeed at home’, and charging him to put the garrison of St Michael’s Mount at a state of readiness.121FSL, X.d.438 (120). In 1657 the major-general promised that he would lobby the protector for more money to repair the Mount’s defences, and in April 1658 Bennett was again actively involved in moves to defend Cornwall from yet another rumoured invasion.122FSL, X.d.438 (121-2). The only possible sign of tension between Bennett and the government can be seen in the spring of 1658, when John Seyntaubyn* claimed his right of ownership over the Mount, prompting an investigation by the protectoral council as to the state’s right to the island, although it is far from clear that this was a sign of official disapproval.123CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 320; Cornw. RO, AU/8. Indeed, Bennett’s apparent distance from the central government during the final months of Oliver’s protectorate may have been caused less by dissatisfaction than by ill-health. On 12 July 1658 he told Rous that he was too ill to attend the quarter sessions at Truro, but was eager to improve the accommodation available to the assize judges at Launceston Castle, and to rebuild the prison there.124FSL, X.d.438 (183).

Bennett’s religious views, like his concern for the security of Cornwall, tended to bring him closer to the protectoral regime, at least in its early years. Membership of a Baptist congregation was something he shared with other leading officers in the south west. In November 1654 John Talbot at Exeter wrote to Bennett urging him to keep true to his faith.125FSL, X.d.438 (171). In May 1655, Colonel John Clerke II* referred to Bennett as his ‘much honoured and very highly esteemed in our Lord Jesus’.126HMC Hodgkin, 299. A small, but influential, group of Cornish Baptists provided Bennett with encouragement. The Cornish boroughs of East Looe and Liskeard were Baptist strongholds, and Bennett was also in close contact with the congregations at Plymouth and Exeter.127FSL, X.d.438 (171-4). In the spring of 1656 Bennett represented the East Looe Baptists at the general meeting of the congregations at Wells in Somerset.128FSL, X.d.438 (175-6). The growth of the Baptists was not unchallenged, however. The parliamentarian gentry of Cornwall were overwhelmingly Presbyterian, and were eager to thwart Bennett and his allies if they could. Such tensions probably lay behind the reverse suffered by Bennett at the elections for the combined constituency of East and West Looe in July 1656. According to one newsbook, ‘Colonel Bennett and his whole company met that day, and thought to have had one of their own [elected], but their endeavour was to little purpose; for all almost of both towns were before resolved for Mr [John] Buller* of the Middle Temple, who was in the morning chosen by them’.129The Publick Intelligencer no. 44 (4-11 Aug. 1656), 754 (E.497.4). The result was a blow not just to Bennett but to the Baptists of East Looe, and revealed the fragility of the local hegemony of both.

The Cornish Baptists were also under threat from the Quakers, who poached their members. In March 1656, Abraham Cleare at East Looe told Bennett of one ‘Sister Cornish’ who had fallen prey to ‘the present spreading delusion’, and had commended ‘the Quakers’ zeal’ in religion. Bennett was asked ‘to give diligence (what you may) to prevent the spreading of that gangrene about those parts near Liskeard, where it hath the greatest likelihood to do harm’ and to urge another local Baptist, Hunt Greenwood, ‘to set a greater edge upon his activity’.130FSL, X.d.438 (174). Bennett duly visited Sister Cornish, but was not encouraged by what he found, and he concluded that the Quakers ‘are at one with the dissolute Ranters’ in their behaviour and potential to corrupt the godly.131FSL, X.d.438 (175).

The recruitment of Baptists by the Quakers challenged Bennett’s commitment to religious toleration. Like Cromwell, he had been prepared to give radicals a fair hearing. In January 1654, for example, he had been among the senior officers and councillors who had visited the mystic, Anna Trapnel, in London.132A. Trapnel, The Cry of a Stone (1654), 2 (E.730.3). Bennett entertained Trapnel during her tours of the west in 1654 and 1656, and in the latter year he also gave a patient hearing to two itinerant women Quakers as they expounded their beliefs.133Oxford DNB; K. Peters, Print Culture and the Early Quakers (Cambridge, 2005), 143. George Fox, in his complaint at the treatment of himself and other Quakers in Launceston gaol, published in February 1657, also distinguished Bennett from Presbyterian justices like Thomas Gewen* and Peter Ceely*. Indeed, Bennett had used his influence with John Disbrowe to secure the Quakers’ release, and when they refused to sign an undertaking to leave the Launceston area, he arranged a meeting, ‘friendly parted from them’, and allowed them to go ‘without condition’. This was in opposition not just to Gewen and his friends, but also to fellow radicals like Richard Lobb* (who may have been Bennett’s son-in-law), and to committed Cromwellians like James Launce*. It was only after an insolent display by the defendants before the quarter sessions that Bennett lost patience with the Quakers, saying ‘that they must restrain them, unless they would answer yea or nay’ to the court’s questions.134G. Fox, The West Answering to the North (1657), 64, 125, 139-40 (E.900.3). Fox’s reaction was harsh. Instead of praising Bennett for his attempts to relieve the suffering of the Friends, he singled him out for condemnation.

Poor Colonel Bennett, how is the day of the Lord come upon thee? How are all thy coverings ripped off? Thy hidden things, how are they searched out … and in thee how is there found the same spirit that ruling P[eter] Ceely, T[homas] Gewen, and the gaoler … Thy profession is at an end; all that thou hast done and suffered for liberty, for liberty of conscience, and the nation, thou hast spilt upon the ground.135Fox, West Answering to the North, 152-3.

Richard’s protectorate, 1658-9

Like that of other radical army officers, Bennett’s support for the protectorate had always been conditional. With Oliver Cromwell as protector, he was content to work with the regime – at least locally; but the death of Oliver and the succession of the civilian and pro-Presbyterian Richard Cromwell* weakened Bennett’s resolve to cooperate with the protectorate. In this he was no different from men much closer to the ruling House, like John Disbrowe and Charles Fleetwood, whose dissatisfaction with the protectorate began to grow after 1657. Such officers were gradually pushed into an alliance with the former Rumpers, or commonwealthsmen, who attacked the protectorate in Parliament in 1658 and again in 1659. Bennett had certainly retained personal links with the republicans during the protectorate. In May 1655, for example, Sir Henry Vane II* sent him his new work, The Retired Man’s Meditations, as ‘a token of his love’.136HMC Hodgkin, 299.

The connections between the army officers and the commonwealthsmen remained informal until the meeting of the third protectorate Parliament in January 1659. In the elections, Bennett was again returned for Launceston, and he soon became an active member of the Commons. In debate he balanced claims to be politically uncommitted with sly digs at the protectorate. On 8 February he demanded clarification before the recognition of the government could be voted on, ‘lest by stepping into this question, we do a thing we understand not’, but, turning to the protector himself, added, ‘I cannot tell what power he has (I know not his person), or how consistent it is with our liberties’.137Burton’s Diary, iii. 138-9. On 14 February he claimed to have ‘no principle engaging me to any particular form of government’, and said that although ‘I liked a commonwealth well’ it would not do ‘when we are so full of distractions’. He therefore claimed to support a personal recognition of the protector, but also called for safeguards for ‘the liberties of the people’.138Burton’s Diary, iii. 266; Schilling thesis, 73. On 19 February his attitude was equally ambiguous. He feared the debate on the Other House would divide the Commons, saying that ‘there are different understandings in the matter of this question. Let us not be too hasty, but hear one another’, but then went on (in a sideswipe at the protector as much as the admission of the old peers to the Other House) to attack all hereditary claims.

A greater power than the power that made that House hath taken it away. I mean not any power on earth, but God himself. He hath let us know that it is he that planteth and plucketh up, and taken away. I am of opinion that he hath taken it away by a long series of providences, and what God hath taken away, I shall never plant again.

Bennett’s echo of Oliver Cromwell’s speech rejecting the crown in 1657 was surely deliberate, and was perhaps linked to his use of the past tense when, earlier in the debate, he stated ‘I was for the single person’139Burton’s Diary, iii. 359-61; Schilling thesis, 95. In February 1659 there was little doubt where Bennett’s sympathies lay.

Other interventions by Bennett also suggest a link between him and the commonwealthsmen. He was vigorous in his defence of the republican Henry Neville*, who faced charges of atheism, demanding proof from the accusers and ‘in the meantime we ought to look upon the person as innocent’.140Burton’s Diary, iii. 297. He showed a particular concern for Elizabeth Lilburne, widow of the Leveller, John Lilburne, who was trying to clear her husband’s name. Bennett was named to the committee which received her petition on 5 February, and, after a period of close collaboration with Sir Arthur Hesilrige behind the scenes, on 28th of that month he reported its conclusions to the Commons. He was also the MP to whom Mrs Lilburne delivered her papers to be destroyed, thus bringing a final end to the case.141CJ vii. 600a, 608a; Burton’s Diary, iii. 503-7. On the same day, in a further debate on the Other House, Bennett agreed with Vane II in backing the approval of the existing members of the upper chamber, even though this led to a public disagreement with Hesilrige and Neville.142Burton’s Diary, iii. 545. Significantly, on 5 March, Bennett supported the disgraced army commander, John Lambert, in his attack on the Other House, and again attacked hereditary rights: ‘if a posterity of ruined gentry and ruined nobility shall have it put in their hands to make a price of the Commons, and for a time have a party of the Commons to back them, it is as great a temptation as ever Achish, King of Gath, had’. Bennett did not dwell on the first book of Samuel for long, turning instead to immediate problems, and stating baldly that he thought hereditary peers would ‘bring Charles Stuart in’. At the end of his speech, however, he was more conciliatory, saying once again that an appointed Other House, along with the rule of a single person, was acceptable, if not ideal: ‘I am for a government with defects rather than none at all’.143Burton’s Diary, iv. 29-30; Schilling thesis, 168-9.

From the end of March 1659, when the Commons passed a series of votes recognising the protectorate, the commonwealthsmen were on the back foot, and Bennett’s intervention in the House became less significant. He supported the charges of corruption against Henry Cromwell’s ally Dr William Petty*, brought by another radical army officer, Jerome Sankey*, on 24 March; attacked proposals to transact with the Other House, discussed on 6 and 8 April; and argued for only very minor penalties against the former major-general William Boteler* on 12 April. His continuing disquiet at the activities of the Quakers no doubt encouraged him to oppose the presentation of their petition to the Commons on 16 April.144Burton’s Diary, iv. 247, 353-4, 373, 403, 446. In many of these cases, Bennett’s speeches were brief, and ineffective. There are signs that the majority in the House was impatient with men like Bennett, whose only contribution was a negative one. On 1 April Bennett tried to hijack the debate on the customs and excise bill, and, in the words of Thomas Burton*, ‘made a long speech to three or four several questions; as to settlement, and barring out of pretenders; adjournment; a committee, etc; and concluded to reject the bill’. This rambling attack on the government forced the Speaker to bring the House to order; and even Bennett’s allies, keen to defend him against charges that this was but a ‘ramble’, admitted that ‘it was not well timed’.145Burton’s Diary, iv. 319-20. When the Commons passed its motion asserting its control over the army on 18 April, Bennett tried to disassociate himself from the vote by leaving the chamber, but was called back in after a resolution requiring all MPs to be present. Faced with censure, Bennett stated, diplomatically, that he had left only ‘for the dispatch of some private and particular affairs of his own, which required some haste’ and claimed that he had returned ‘of his own accord’ – a weak explanation, nevertheless accepted by the House.146CJ vii. 641b.

Commonwealth, Restoration and retirement, 1659-83

The sudden dissolution of the third protectorate Parliament on 22 April, and the collapse of the protectorate itself a few weeks later, brought a return of the commonwealth. Bennett had told the Commons two months before that ‘if the condition of the people were as receptive of a commonwealth as it might be, I still have thought a commonwealth better for us’, and now greeted the change with enthusiasm, immediately resuming his old seat in the restored Rump Parliament.147Burton’s Diary iii. 360. In May and June 1659 he was heavily involved in measures to erect the new government, being named to committees on bills to indemnify and pardon previous office holders, to create a new council of state, admiralty and navy commissioners and a commander-in-chief of the army, to institute commissioners to govern Ireland, and to arrange assessments in England, and the payment of money due to the state.148CJ vii. 655a, 656a-b, 658a, 672b, 678a-b, 690a. In July, Bennett was named to committees for financial and legal reform and to relieve debtors.149CJ vii. 700b, 702a, 708b, 717b, 722a.

During the security scares across England that accompanied Sir George Boothe’s* rising in the north west, Bennett was central to the Cornish defences. He worked with the militia commissioners to organise the two Cornish regiments into an effective force.150FSL, X.d.438 (125). He was given extra troops and money to protect St Michael’s Mount, and reappointed as governor on 5 August; later in the month he was on committees to sequester the estates of rebels; and in early September he was rewarded for his efforts with a new suite of apartments at Whitehall.151CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 59, 75, 165, 173, 580; CJ vii. 750a, 766a, 767b, 769a. During September and early October, Bennett again resumed his committee work, being named to bodies to consider the settlement of the government, the form of Engagement appropriate for officials to swear, and the sequestration of delinquent estates.152CJ vii. 774b, 775b, 791b.

The Commons Journal show Bennett’s activities in affairs of state; but surviving letters from the Falmouth merchant Richard Lobb during the early summer of 1659 reveal the extent to which Bennett was acting in the interests of Cornwall. In June Lobb asked that Bennett keep in mind the corporation of tinners, who had suffered punitive taxation for their support of the Stuarts during the 1640s, but now professed their loyalty; he also reminded Bennett of ‘our pilchard men’, hoping that a vote in the third protectorate parliament to ease their customs payments ‘might be confirmed in this’.153FSL, X.d.438 (124). In his reply, dated 17 August, Bennett was able to report success in Cornish matters, leaving Lobb to respond with thanks ‘for your great pains about taking off the custom from our fish’, and to express his hopes that ‘you might be also instrumental to get off the unreasonable custom imposed on our tin’.154FSL, X.d.438 (127). In September Lobb repeated his request, and sent, as a sweetener, two barrels of pilchards ‘for your favour in being instrumental to take off the tax from fish’.155FSL, X.d.438 (128). Lobb’s final letter, of 10 October, was again full of thanks, this time for Bennett’s intervention on behalf of the tin miners, and asking for his support for a petition for the re-establishment of the office of warden of the stannary courts.156FSL, X.d.438 (129).

In October 1659 the seizure of power by a group of senior officers brought the Rump Parliament to a sudden end, and with it the hopes of the Cornish tinners. On 26 October the committee of officers at London informed Bennett that he had been nominated as a member of the committee of safety that would run the government.157FSL, X.d.438 (132); A True Narrative of the Procs. in Parl. 41. But, despite the involvement of Disbrowe, Lambert and other former associates, Bennett met this invitation with a blank refusal. Instead he retired to Cornwall, where he worked with the local gentry in securing the peace of the county, and attended meetings of ‘divers gentlemen of quality’ as well as the ‘general sessions of the peace’, where the officers’ actions were roundly condemned.158FSL, X.d.438 (134). His involvement in local affairs continued through the winter of 1659-60. On 12 December he joined Rous and others authorised to execute the powers for settling the militia in Cornwall, and in January 1660 he was again named to the assessment commissions in Cornwall and Devon.159C231/6, p. 448; A. and O. In January 1660 Bennett drew up his defence against the expected charges against him: he claimed he never attended the meetings of senior officers at Wallingford House, and did not sit on the committee of safety; he resolved to live ‘quietly at home’ from now on; and blamed his position on former friends and relatives, including George Monck* and his ‘Cousin Clobery’, who were the ‘grand confidants’ of Sir Arthur Hesilrige*.160FSL, X.d.438 (133). But his enemies within the restored Rump were unwilling to accept that Bennett was now a reformed character. Some thought that his refusal to join the committee of safety was just a front, saying that he ‘went of their errand’ to bring Monck’s commissioners to Wallingford House to treat with the officers in the autumn of 1659.161Clarke Pprs. iv. 300. Others remembered Bennett’s support for the execution of the king, and thought, however mistakenly, that he had sat as an MP at the time, and was only prevented from being a regicide by illness.162Cal. Baxter Corresp. i. 394. These views clearly prevailed at Westminster, and on 24 January the Commons ordered that Bennett, along with Fleetwood and other opponents of a ‘free Parliament’ were to appear before them.163CJ vii. 820b. In the weeks that followed, Bennett was stripped of his offices and military positions, despite testimonials sent from many in the west country, including ‘several brethren of the congregation of Christ in Cornwall, attesting to his loyalty to Parliament in the previous autumn.164FSL, X.d.438 (134-9). On 12 March 1660, Monck ordered Bennett to disband his garrison at St Michael’s Mount, and to deliver the island, its ordnance, arms and ammunition, to its former owner, John Seyntaubyn.165Cornw. RO, AU/9.

After the Restoration, Bennett remained suspect in the eyes of the government. In the early weeks of 1661 he was imprisoned at Exeter, in late 1661 he was arrested on his sick-bed during a security alarm, and in August 1666 an agent of Henry Bennet, 1st earl of Arlington, included Bennett among other supporters of the ‘good old cause’ likely to cause trouble in the south west.166FSL, X.d.438 (142, 147a-b); CSP Dom. 1666-7, p. 31. There was, however, little reason for government paranoia. Instead of fomenting unrest in Cornwall, Bennett was intent on retirement from public life. On 8 June 1660 his brother-in-law Peter Kekewich* sent him ‘a form … to be embraced by all whom it may concern’ attesting to the loyalty of former parliamentarians, and Bennett signed it without demur.167FSL, X.d.438 (141). In March 1661, on his release from prison at Exeter, he also subscribed an oath of allegiance before the mayor of Launceston.168FSL, X.d.438 (142). There are signs that Bennett kept in touch with his old Baptist friends, like Hunt Greenwood, but he was also careful to rebuild his links with those in good standing with the new regime, including Piers Edgcumbe* and his ‘Cousin Clobery’.169FSL, X.d.438 (142, 147a, 191, 195). The last years of his life were dogged by ill-health and legal disputes.170FSL, X.d.438 (147a, 187, 195). Bennett died in 1683, and was buried at Lawhitton on 7 July of that year, aged 79.171Al. Ox. He was succeeded by his eldest son, William Bennett.172Devon RO, 1926/B/K/T/3/91-2. No members of his immediate family in sat in Parliament.