JEPHSON, William (c.1610-58), of Froyle, Hants and Mallow Castle, co. Cork, Ire.

Family background and early career

The Jephsons had first acquired gentry status under Henry VIII, when William Jephson’s great-grandfather purchased the dissolved monastic estate of Froyle in Hampshire, ten miles south-east of Basingstoke. Succeeding generations added to the lands and the social prestige of the family: Jephson’s grandfather built a new mansion at Froyle in the 1580s, and served as sheriff of Hampshire; his uncle, Sir William Jephson†, was the first of the family to sit in Parliament, as knight of the shire for Hampshire in 1604. Jephson’s father, Sir John Jephson, made his career in Ireland, and on his marriage to the Norreys heiress in 1607 he acquired substantial estates in north co. Cork, centred on Mallow Castle.23Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 1-15, 17. The English and Irish properties were united when Sir John succeeded his elder brother in 1615, and they would provide a comfortable patrimony to be passed to his son, William, on his death in 1638.

William Jephson inherited more than landed interests from his father. As a prominent Hampshire family, the Jephsons had formed marital alliances with a number of important dynasties in southern England. William Jephson’s marriage to the daughter of Sir John Denham of Buckinghamshire in 1636 showed that the family influence was no longer confined to Hampshire.24Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 16. Two years later, the overseers of Sir John Jephson’s will included Sir Henry Wallop* and Sir William Uvedale*, both of Hampshire, Sir Francis Wenman* of Oxfordshire (the uncle of 1st Viscount Wenman, who was related to the Denhams), and John Pym*.25PROB11/178/39. William Jephson later referred to Pym as his ‘cousin’, and also claimed kinship with Arthur Goodwin* of Buckinghamshire.26HMC 10th Rep. appx. vi. 88; Bodl. Carte 103, f. 96. Other connections may have included Richard Whitehed I*, also of Hampshire, and the Oxfordshire circle which centred on Viscount Saye and Sele and the Fiennes family: Nathaniel Fiennes I* would later refer to Jephson as his ‘cousin’.27Vis. Hants (Harl. lxiv), 90; Lansd. 822, f. 186. William Jephson’s contacts with Pym and other opponents of the Caroline regime before 1640 would be an important influence his later political career.

A parallel situation existed in Ireland. The relative newness of the Jephsons in Munster was offset by the prestige of their marital connection with the Norreys family, who had been among the first of the Elizabethan planters in co. Cork. By the late 1630s the north of the county had become dominated by a small number of successful Protestant planters, such as Sir Philip Percivalle*, Sir William Fenton and Sir Richard Aldworth, all of whom were on good terms with the Jephsons.28M. MacCarthy-Morrogh, The Plantation of Munster (Oxford, 1986), 164. The Jephson family’s attitude towards the acquisitive Richard Boyle, 1st earl of Cork, who dominated the rest of the county, was less encouraging. Sir John Jephson repeatedly refused Cork’s offers to buy the Mallow estate in the 1630s, and seems to have resented his interference in his affairs. William Jephson was on good terms with the lord president of Munster, Sir William St Leger, who came close to an open row with the earl of Cork in the late 1630s. Jephson’s family contacts may not have helped the situation, as his step-mother was the widow of Sir Francis Ruish.29Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 16. This gave him a connection with another of Cork’s critics, Lord Deputy Wentworth (Sir Thomas Wentworth†), whose brother, Sir George Wentworth I* married into the Ruish family in 1638.30C54/3778/27.

Long Parliament and Irish rebellion, 1640-2

Jephson’s election for Stockbridge in Hampshire the Short and Long Parliaments does not seem to have reflected his own local interest, as the borough was many miles from Froyle, but he presumably profited from his family’s social standing in the county more generally, and his own connections with opposition groups in Hampshire and elsewhere. Having been elected, Jephson was slow to become involved in politics at Westminster. There is no record of his involvement in the Short Parliament. He took no part in the trial of Wentworth, now 1st earl of Strafford - perhaps mindful of the kinship ties which existed between the Wentworths and the Jephsons - and his first recorded activity in Parliament came only in May 1641, when he took the Protestation.31CJ ii. 133b. Although largely inactive during the summer of 1641, Jephson’s contributions to debates give some indication of his sympathies with the opposition elements in the Commons. On 17 July he supported the suggestion made by another Irish landowner, Sir John Clotworthy*, that Catholic priests should be castrated (thus disqualifying them from celebrating mass), saying that ‘if this were pursued, he was persuaded that there would be less intercession for them’.32Procs. LP, v. 686. A few days later, on 24 July, Jephson supported the immediate indictment of his fellow Hampshire MP, Henry Percy*, for his involvement in the first army plot.33Procs. LP, vi. 83. On 9 August he voiced his distrust of the crown in supporting the addition of the opposition peers, Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, and Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, as custodians of the prince of Wales.34Procs. LP, vi. 322.

It was not until the Irish rebellion of October 1641 that Jephson became a more active Member of the Commons. In mid-August Jephson had at last taken up his leave of absence – granted by the Commons on 30 July – and returned to Ireland.35CJ ii. 230b. He was still in Ireland when the Munster Catholics, following the lead of their Ulster compatriots, rebelled against English rule. In December 1641 Lord President St Leger sent Jephson and his son-in-law, Lord Inchiquin, as envoys to Parliament, and Jephson presented a ‘narrative of the state of the province of Munster’ to the lower House on 27 December.36Bodl. Carte 2, f. 334; CJ ii. 357b. Jephson played an important role in encouraging Parliament to take the pleas of Munster seriously, leading the committee to consider the propositions, and acting as messenger to the Lords to desire a conference.37CJ ii. 357b, 360a. In conjunction with his ‘ancient’ friend, Sir Richard Cave*, Jephson was also able to promote the interests of the Munster Protestants by persuading Parliament to grant commissions, and thus useful salaries, to a number of commanders, including Inchiquin and himself.38Bodl. Carte 3, f. 10; CJ ii. 361a, 361b; D’Ewes (C), 360. In gratitude for his service, the Commons ordered on 29 December 1641 that Jephson be promoted as sergeant-major of St Leger’s horse regiment in Ireland.39CJ ii. 361b; D’Ewes (C), 371-2. Early in the new year of 1642, Jephson lobbied for more money for Munster (attending the common council of London on 22 January), and used the influence of Pym, Cave and others to secure funds to raise and maintain the troops granted to Inchiquin and himself.40PJi. 135-7, 144, 384; CJ ii. 388b, 390b-391a; Bodl. Carte 3, f. 10. On his return to Munster in February 1642 Jephson brought three troops of horse, and assurances that money and supplies would soon be sent to St Leger’s forces.41PJii. 174; HMC Egmont, i. 162, 164; CJ ii. 432b.

The military situation in Munster worsened during the spring of 1642. The castle at Mallow - which guarded a vital crossing of the River Blackwater on the Cork-Kilmallock road - was besieged, and the town destroyed, by Catholic forces under Lord Mountgarrett. At the end of March Jephson’s defiant defence of the castle against the rebels was reported to Parliament, along with his boastful claim that ‘as long as he had life, he would maintain that place’.42PJii. 174. In April and May the Commons again heard of Jephson’s service, through reports by Pym and Thomas Pury I, but despite subsequent orders for money to Jephson and his allies championed by Cave and Goodwin, this goodwill did not readily translate into military aid.43PJii. 228, 327; iii. 36; CJ ii. 542a. By the end of May it was said that Jephson had lost £1,600 in property stolen from Mallow, and had suffered a further £700 in damage to his buildings, gardens and deer park.44Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 38-9. He had little hope of speedy redress.

Political divisions within the Protestant ranks in Munster had grown by the summer of 1642. The death of St Leger in June 1642 brought clashes between his son-in-law, Lord Inchiquin, and the Boyle family, led by the 1st earl of Cork, who both coveted the presidency of Munster. In his final illness, St Leger had deputized the running of the province to Inchiquin and a council of war made up of his own allies, including Jephson.45Bodl. Carte 3, f. 239. Parliament countered this, and attempted to heal the divisions by appointing Cork’s son-in-law, the earl of Barrymore, as joint-governor of Munster with Inchiquin. This balance was destroyed on 11 July, when the Commissioners for Irish Affairs delegated the issuing of money to a council of war dominated by Inchiquin and Jephson – Viscount Dungarvan (Sir Richard Boyle*) being the only Boyle representative.46PJ iii. 396. The rival factions came together to oppose the Confederate threat: various members of the Boyle clan fought under Inchiquin at the battle of Liscarrol in September, and, according to one report, ‘Captain Jephson’ (possibly the MP?) distinguished himself by rescuing Inchiquin when he was taken prisoner by the Irish.47Add. 18777, f. 17v. But the death of the earl of Barrymore from wounds received in the same battle left Inchiquin in sole charge of military affairs in the province, and Jephson was soon in contact with Pym and Goodwin in London, trying to secure important commissions for Inchiquin and his friends, as well as urging direct military support.48Bodl. Carte 103, f. 96; HMC 10th Rep. appx. vi. 88.

Clotworthy and Inchiquin, 1643-5

In the spring of 1643 Jephson returned to England. Although the rebellion in Ireland still raged unabated, his attendance across the sea was necessary for two reasons. The English war had diverted much-needed supplies from Munster, weakening Inchiquin’s ability to resist Confederate incursions. Of equal importance was the residency at Westminster of the earl of Cork’s sons, Dungarvan and Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), as Inchiquin feared their attempts to undermine his credit with Parliament. On his arrival in April 1643 Jephson acted as Inchiquin’s agent at Westminster. He presented the Commons with letters from Inchiquin outlining the state of Munster on 7 April, and on the same day joined the select Committee for Irish Affairs, a body that was increasingly dominated by Sir John Clotworthy.49CJ iii. 34b, 35b; Add. 4782, f. 138. Jephson attended the committee again on 10 April, and on 14 April he was ordered to draft a letter of thanks to Cork and Youghal for their faithful service.50Add. 4782, ff. 140, 145. On 20 and 21 April Jephson was named to the committee on a subscriptions bill for Ireland, and acted as messenger to the Lords with the same.51CJ iii. 53b, 54b, 55a. In the meantime, the failure of the Oxford peace negotiations had left the king free to continue his overtures to the Irish Confederates – a move that had become known at Westminster as early as February 1643. In an attempt to persuade the king not to strike a deal with the Confederates, Parliament sent various delegates to Oxford on 22 and 23 April, including Dungarvan, Jephson and Sir Robert King*.52CJ iii. 57a-b. Jephson stayed at Oxford until early May 1643, when he returned to Westminster, determined to oppose the Confederate peace deal. He resumed his seat on the Irish committee on 10 May, and in the next few days worked closely with Clotworthy in formulating Parliament’s response to the king.53Add. 4782, ff. 164v, 167, 171v. On 18 May he led the committee which prepared the damning declaration against the king: that the rebellion in Ireland and the king’s war in England were a joint effort to overthrow the Protestant religion.54CJ iii. 91a. On the same day the Commons requested a conference to consider Jephson’s revelations that one of the leading Munster rebels, Lord Muskerry, had been encouraged in his rebellion by the king, and he went on to manage the conference.55Add. 31116, p. 101; CJ iii. 91b; R. Armstrong, Protestant War: the ‘British’ of Ireland and the War of the Three Kingdoms (Manchester, 2005), 86. On 19 May, he was named first to the committee appointed to receive information and examine witnesses concerning the rebellion in Ireland.56CJ iii. 92a.

From the end of May 1643 Jephson became increasingly associated with Clotworthy. On 29 May the two men were named to a committee ‘for the better expediting the affairs of Ireland’, which was to report on the state of military affairs and to liaise with the adventurers’ committee.57CJ iii. 109b. On 6 June 1643 Jephson took the Vow and Covenant, promising allegiance to Parliament.58CJ iii. 118a. On 13 June he joined a committee managed by Clotworthy, which was to prepare heads of a conference on the activities of the Irish Catholic peers, Lord Taaffe and the marquess of Antrim.59CJ iii. 127b. The following day the Irish committee granted him £500 of his pay arrears.60Add. 4782, f. 207. In the following weeks Jephson continued to be involved in Irish committees in the Commons, and on 9 and 10 July he and Clotworthy brought in an ordinance to speed the payments owed by the adventurers.61CJ iii. 129a, 129b, 154a; Add. 31116, p. 122. Jephson, like Clotworthy, was a constant presence at the Select Committee for Irish Affairs from the beginning of July until early September.62Add. 4782, ff. 223v-250v. Their closeness can be seen in an incident on 18 August, when they both proposed that ‘new treasurers’ should be appointed for Irish revenues, only to be opposed by Robert Goodwin and the matter referred to Clotworthy’s enemies on the adventurers’ committee.63Harl. 165, f. 152.

Jephson’s association with Clotworthy may have encouraged him to become more involved with English politics during the high summer of 1643. He was appointed by the Commons to a council of war on 2 August, and named to the Commons committee which opposed the peace proposals of the Lords on 7 August.64CJ iii. 191b, 197b. The latter earned him the enmity of Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, who numbered him among those who ‘gave their voices contrary to what they have voted on Saturday’.65Harl. 165, f. 148v. In this period Jephson seems to have associated with the group that had formed around Parliament’s lord general, the 3rd earl of Essex. He was chosen to sit on the committee led by John Glynne and Clotworthy to deliver instructions from Parliament to Essex on 19 August.66CJ iii. 211b. Jephson’s attachment to Essex is also suggested by his intervention in debate on 12 September, when he countered the suggestion that the earl’s rival, Sir William Waller*, should be made commander of Portsmouth with news that Lord Wharton had already been recommended for the post, and Essex asked to pass his commission.67Add. 18778, f. 38v.

By this time such factional jostling at Westminster had been overshadowed by news that the king was close to signing a truce with the Catholic rebels. On 2 September the Commons ordered that Jephson be granted leave and the Speaker’s warrant to go to Ireland, and by a further order he was commanded to deliver letters to Inchiquin, ‘to encourage him to go on for the future, and not to hearken to a cessation of arms with them, without the consent of both Houses’.68CJ iii. 226b, 227b. An order allowing Jephson two ships to conduct provisions to Munster was passed on 23 September.69CJ iii. 254a. Jephson was in probably in Ireland by early October, at least a fortnight after the Cessation of Arms had been signed by Inchiquin and other Protestant commanders. Undaunted, he went to Dublin to plead his case before the Irish council. On 28 October his agent, Thomas Bettesworth, reported that Jephson was now in Dublin, where he had ‘fallen into a supreme indignation for saying of somewhat wherein his friends here have wished his taciturnity’ - presumably concerning the Cessation.70HMC Egmont, i. 191. What happened next is obscure, but it seems that Jephson, disillusioned with the turn of events, returned to London in early November, leaving one of his brothers to attend Inchiquin in Munster, and to act as envoy between him and Ormond.71Bodl. Carte 7, ff. 426, 576.

On his return to the Commons on 12 November, Jephson complained that he had been criticised by Sir Henry Vane I, ‘in his absence’, for delaying a ship bound for Munster with supplies, adding that his reputation had only been salvaged by an intervention by Sir John Clotworthy.72Add. 31116, p. 182. Coming immediately after the unwelcome Irish truce, this slight on his honour seems to have hit Jephson hard. He withdrew from Parliament for a while, possibly going back to his estates in Hampshire. On 5 February 1644 he was even a candidate for disablement as an MP, but his case was deferred.73CJ iii. 389b. The threat of expulsion seems to have prompted Jephson’s immediate return to Westminster, where he was added to the new joint Committee for Irish Affairs on 6 February, and resumed his seat in the Commons, taking the Solemn League and Covenant on 7 February.74Add. 4771, f. 16; CJ iii. 390b. Thereafter, Jephson became closely involved in the military organization of Hampshire. Waller’s defeat of Hopton at Cheriton at the end of March had removed the immediate royalist threat in the southern counties, and in early May Jephson was appointed to the committee led by his kinsman, Richard Whithed I, to review the payment of the garrisons at Portsmouth and elsewhere.75CJ iii. 486a. On 14 May Jephson was appointed lieutenant-governor of Portsmouth, under another local grandee, Sir William Lewis*.76CJ iii. 492b. The commission was ratified by the earl of Essex two days later.77CSP Dom. 1644, p. 163. In the following June Jephson was appointed commissioner for Hampshire to raise and maintain the forces of the southern associated counties under Sir William Waller.78A. and O.

In the same period Jephson supported Clotworthy in the joint Committee for Irish Affairs, which he attended regularly in February and March, when it considered the urgent need for supplies, especially to reinforce the Protestant forces in the north west of Ireland who remained loyal to Parliament.79Add. 4771, ff. 16, 26v, 27v-28, 29, 31. The two men also collaborated in the Commons. On 20 February Jephson, Clotworthy and Robert Reynolds were appointed to consider letters from Ireland, and in early June the three were joined by the Irish veteran, Viscount Lisle (Philip Sidney*), as a committee to receive Captain William Parsons and his fellow Protestant delegates, newly arrived from abortive talks at Oxford.80CJ iii. 404a, 514a, 526a; Birr Castle, Rosse MS A5/31. The king’s snub to Parsons and his colleagues, and the warm welcome afforded to the Catholic Irish delegation led by Lord Muskerry, confirmed Jephson’s suspicions of the royalists’ bad faith, and went on to be a crucial factor in the decision by Lord Inchiquin and the Munster Protestants to defect to Parliament.

Inchiquin and his officers finally lost patience with the Cessation on 17 July, when they sent a letter to the Committee of Both Kingdoms begging for military relief, and enclosing a declaration of their defection to be presented to Parliament.81CSP Dom. 1644, p. 357. Three days later Inchiquin wrote to Jephson at Portsmouth, signalling his reluctance to serve a king ‘deluded by papistical counsel’, and promising, as a sign of goodwill, that ‘my brother Harry will (if he can) deliver Wareham again into the hands of the Parliament’.82Bodl. Carte 11, f. 538. The surrender of Wareham in Dorset – held by Henry O’Brien as lieutenant-colonel of Inchiquin’s regiment – was an attractive offer, as it would relieve the pressure on the parliamentarian garrisons at Poole and Weymouth. The Committee of Both Kingdoms jumped at the chance. Thanking Jephson for his letter of 21 July, and its enclosures, they approved of his advice, and left the management of the affair in his sole charge.83CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 365-7. By this time Inchiquin had also written to his brother at Wareham, urging him to surrender the town.84HMC Egmont, i. 233-4. In Munster, Inchiquin was also true to his word, evicting the native Irish from the key garrison towns of Cork, Youghal and Kinsale, which he now held for Parliament. Reassured, Parliament appointed Jephson and others to a committee to consider the Munster declaration, and Jephson was authorized to conclude terms with O’Brien at Wareham on 10 August.85CJ iii. 580a, 589b. Under the terms of the surrender, the Irish Protestant troops at Wareham were to be paid, and then shipped back to Munster, to reinforce Inchiquin.86CJ iii. 589b. The Committee of Both Kingdoms formally agreed to the articles on 13 August, and Parliament ratified them on the following day, asking Clotworthy and Reynolds to send a letter of thanks to Jephson for his work.87CJ iii. 589a-b; CSP Dom. 1644, p. 425. Two weeks later Jephson was again collaborating with Clotworthy and Reynolds in a committee to discuss the raising of £80,000 for Ireland.88CJ iii. 609a. The royalists now saw Jephson as one of their greatest enemies in Ireland, and singled him out for exemplary punishment. On 23 September George Lord Digby* suggested to Ormond that ‘now my Lord Inchiquin is revolted’, the custody of Jephson’s Irish lands should be passed to the Catholic royalist, Colonel John Barry.89Bodl. Carte 12, f. 363.

Although the survival of Munster continued to be of great concern to Jephson, in late 1644 and early 1645 his attention was again diverted by the needs of Portsmouth, and of Hampshire as a whole. Despite promoting proposals for the relief of Munster presented by him on Inchiquin’s behalf, and his involvement in various Irish committees in the autumn of 1644, Parliament's concern about the new royalist advance in southern England kept Jephson close to his command at Portsmouth through the winter.90CJ iii. 619a, 640b, 668a, 671a, 694a, 720b, 735b; CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 74, 234, 517; 1644-5, p. 7. This situation also caused delay in sending the Irish troops to Munster. In September 1644 the Committee of Both Kingdoms ordered Jephson to deal with Inchiquin’s soldiers (now based at Portsmouth, ready for embarkation) in order to secure their assistance in the taking of Basing House, the royalist stronghold in northern Hampshire.91CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 484, 490. Despite the earl of Essex’s concerns, voiced in October, that the Irish troops were likely to defect if the royalists advanced, they were still in Hampshire in May 1645.92CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 37; 1625-49, pp. 675, 678. Irish concerns, now they were no longer an immediate priority, quickly became subordinated to the war effort in England.

The Self-Denying ordinance, passed on 3 April 1645, removed Jephson from his command at Portsmouth. His attitude to his dismissal was ambivalent, as he broadly favoured military reform, which seemed the only viable way to win the war. In February Jephson had been named to the committee which considered the recruiting of the New Model, and in April he was appointed to the committee which drafted an ordinance allowing the Committee of Both Kingdoms to grant commissions in the new army.93CJ iv. 51a, 112b. Jephson also continued to promote Parliament’s cause locally: he was involved in providing money for the garrison at Portsmouth, delivering a petition for the payment of arrears in May; in June he was appointed commissioner for the safety of Hampshire; and in July his brother, Norris Jephson, was commissioned as major of the regiment of the new lieutenant-governor (and Jephson’s Hampshire neighbour), Colonel Richard Norton.94Harl. 166, f. 208v; Add. 18780, f. 18v; CJ iv. 139b, 220a; A. and O. On 3 June 1645 Jephson was granted a weekly allowance of £4, perhaps in compensation for his lost military salary, and he was to be assigned this allowance, and a further £1,000 in pay arrears, by the Committee for Revenue.95CJ iv. 161a; SC6/ChasI/1662, m. 10; SC6/ChasI/1663, m. 6. (The first instalment of the weekly allowance was in Jephson’s hands on 1 December 1645.)96E404/517, unfol.

Freed from his responsibilities at Portsmouth, Jephson redoubled his efforts to secure effective relief for the Munster Protestants. During the summer of 1645 Inchiquin’s forces were under intense pressure from the north and east, and Youghal in particular was threatened by superior forces under the 2nd earl of Castlehaven. In addition there were fears that a peace treaty would at last be settled between the Confederates and the royalists under Ormond. The response at Westminster to this crisis included the formation of a new Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs - apparently at Jephson’s instigation - and this became the focal point of his efforts to aid Munster.97HMC Egmont, i. 256; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 1. Jephson was in almost continuous attendance at this committee from its foundation on 1 July 1645 until the end of January 1646.98CSP Ire. 1633-47, pp. 405-31. In July and August 1645 the new committee approached the problem of Munster with great vigour: £10,000 was promised (soon increased to £20,000), and commissioners were chosen to go to the province: the four nominees including Jephson and the former Protestant agent of 1644, William Parsons.99CSP Ire. 1633-47, pp. 405-6, 408, 409-10; CJ iv. 234a. In the same period, Jephson negotiated with the adventurers, on behalf of the new Irish committee, to increase the funding available for Munster.100The State of Irish Affairs (1646), 9-10 (E.314.7). Things did not always go according to plan, however: on 11 August Jephson reported to the Commons the mutinous state of ‘those soldiers who were listed to go over into the province of Munster’.101Harl. 166, f. 251. Perhaps in response to such difficulties, in the last days of August Jephson began raising his own horse regiment for Munster, for which he was given leave to recruit volunteers, and promised £5,000 (raised to £10,000 in December).102CJ iv. 251b; CSP Ire. 1633-47, pp. 412-3, 424-5. The promise of direct aid heartened the beleaguered Munster forces, with Captain John Hodder exclaiming that ‘if we could see Colonel Jephson here with his horse, we hope we might look [the enemy] in the face’.103HMC Egmont, i. 261. Yet once again, there were delays in sending the troops to Ireland, mainly caused by events in England. On 19 September the Commons ordered the Committee of Both Kingdoms to find suitable duties for Jephson’s regiment before they were dispatched; and although the Irish committee made repeated attempts to transport them to Munster in early 1646, they remained in England.104CJ iv. 279b, 404b, 407b, 408b. Jephson, stuck at Winchester, faced discipline problems in the ranks, and bemoaned his lack of funds: for even if the regiment arrived in Ireland, without money ‘they may possibly more press upon our friends than terrify our enemies’.105HMC Egmont, i. 279.

Irish Presbyterian, 1646-8

The appointment of Viscount Lisle as lord lieutenant of Ireland at the end of January 1646 (with a year of office beginning in April) caused opinion within Munster to become increasingly divided upon English lines – with the Boyle faction, now headed by Lord Broghill, siding with the political Independents while Lord Inchiquin and his allies, including Jephson, supported the Presbyterians. The absence of Jephson, attending his regiment in Hampshire, made him vulnerable to the attacks of Lisle’s allies in the Commons. On 14 February Inchiquin’s ally, Sir Philip Percivalle*, told Jephson that the cost of his regiment (now estimated at £15,000) had been criticised by Robert Jenner* and Sir John Temple*, and Jephson was left to bewail that ‘I am so soon attempted to be ruined at the first turn of my back’.106HMC Egmont, i. 280-1. In March Percivalle reassured Jephson that, despite his enemies’ whispering, ‘many have to their powers endeavoured to right you’, and these friends were not confined to the Presbyterian interest.107HMC Egmont, i. 283-4. The wide range of Jephson’s possible supporters at Westminster is revealed in a letter of July 1646: as well as his colleagues on the Irish committees, Clotworthy and Reynolds, he presented his service to Viscount Wenman, Richard Norton and Lord Wharton, and influential MPs including William Pierrepont, Oliver St John and John Lisle.108HMC Egmont, i. 300-1. Jephson could derive less encouragement than previously from the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs, for after Viscount Lisle’s appointment the committee had come under the influence of the Independents, who proved increasingly hostile to Jephson as the year continued. On 31 March the committee forced Jephson to assign money granted to his regiment to that of Colonel Robert Sterling; and on 18 June the committee responded to Jephson’s offer to raise 200 dragoons for Ireland by granting him a mere £250 to do so: which Jephson rightly interpreted as an insult.109CSP Ire. 1633-47, pp. 443-4, 460-1; HMC Egmont, i. 295. In August the Irish committee ordered Jephson to go on service immediately or be discharged, conveniently ignoring the fact that the fault for the delay lay at Westminster.110CSP Ire. 1633-47, pp. 490-2. The irony of the committee’s final order was that Jephson had already crossed to Ireland.

Jephson’s arrival in Munster in July 1646 did little to ease the political tensions there. Lisle’s continuing failure to bring a substantial force across the Irish Sea had prevented any progress against the Confederates while diverting resources from the troops on the ground, and Jephson sent a litany of complaints back to London in the summer and autumn - money and food were desperate in July and August, ammunition was low in October, and ‘we had not one gun in five that could give fire’ - and in October and November Jephson started planning a visit to England to lobby for supplies in person.111HMC Egmont, i. 302, 304-5, 306, 322-3, 324-5, 328-9, 331-2. In the meantime, Lisle and his friends were deliberately obstructing Inchiquin, while promoting his rival, Lord Broghill, to an independent command.112CSP Ire. 1633-47, pp. 509-10. Relations between Jephson and Broghill had deteriorated by November. As Jephson told Percivalle, Broghill was daily expected in Ireland, ‘but certainly you know too much to think him fit to be made a bosom friend any more’.113HMC Egmont, i. 331.

Viscount Lisle’s expeditionary force did not arrive in Munster until the very end of February 1647. Once installed, Lisle deliberately offended the existing officer corps, as Inchiquin complained to Percivalle on 13 March: ‘in a more strict and rigid manner they handle all that have any relation to me or Major-general Jephson, and no crime can be so penal as to have either a dependency on or an affection to either of us’.114HMC Egmont, i. 373. Inchiquin immediately despatched Jephson to England, with complaints against Lisle and his allies, especially Sir Arthur Loftus (Broghill’s brother-in-law), who had traduced Inchiquin in the newly-formed Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs.115HMC Egmont, i. 372-3, 374. The ensuing political dog-fight between Jephson and Loftus demonstrates how Irish factionalism had become enmeshed with the Presbyterian-Independent controversies which raged in Parliament. In March and early April Jephson tried to neutralise Loftus’s influence in the committees in London, with the assistance of Clotworthy, their heavyweight Presbyterian colleague, Denzell Holles, and probably the 2nd earl of Warwick (whose support against Loftus had been had been solicited by Inchiquin).116HMC Egmont, i. 374, 376, 387. Jephson’s position was strengthened by his addition to the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs early in April, in itself a sign of the growing power of the Presbyterian interest in Parliament.117CJ v. 127b, 135b; LJ ix. 127b.

The dominance of the Presbyterians also led to the refusal of the Commons to renew Lisle’s lieutenancy when it expired in April. After months on the back foot, Jephson now went on the offensive. On 6 April he presented propositions to the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs, calling for regular supplies and proper reinforcements for the Munster regiments, and insisting on the auditing of public accounts.118HMC Egmont, i. 387-8. The last point was a direct attack on Loftus, who had recently been under investigation by the Committee of Accounts. On 7 April Jephson, Clotworthy and other Presbyterians were appointed to a sub-committee of the Derby House Committee, with authority to negotiate with existing units willing to go to Ireland.119CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 738-9. Jephson continued to be involved in this scheme later in the month, treating with individual units and borrowing money to transport them to Ireland.120CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 740, 744; SP21/26, p. 48. The return to England of Lisle, Broghill, Temple and their allies in May brought further recriminations, but, as Percivalle reported to Inchiquin, ‘Jephson is diligent to attend [the Derby House Committee], lest any advantage be taken’.121HMC Egmont, i. 398. Parliament considered the dispute on 7 May. Lisle and Temple called Inchiquin to account, but he was defended by Jephson, who promised to ‘engage upon his life that the Lord Inchiquin would approve himself faithful to the Parliament’.122Harington’s Diary, 51. On 11 May the case was referred to the Commons.123CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 746. Inchiquin, now back in full control of Munster, was eager to reward Jephson. As early as mid-April there had been reports that Jephson and Inchiquin were to be sent as commissioners for the government of Munster; later in the month Inchiquin announced that he planned to make Jephson general of the horse in the province, in place of Broghill; and in May Inchiquin said he was even planning to retire his post as general of the army in Jephson’s favour.124Bodl. Carte 20, f. 613v; HMC Egmont, i. 393-5, 408. Jephson reciprocated, drafting a letter from the Derby House Committee thanking Inchiquin for his service on 31 May, and arranging for further supplies to be sent to Cork and Youghal a few days later.125CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 752, 754: SP21/26, pp. 72, 77.

In the early summer of 1647 events in England moved quickly. In mid-June the Presbyterian ‘counter-revolution’ was brought to an end by the impeachment of the Eleven Members, including Clotworthy and Holles. The rule of the Independent faction was again overturned in the forcing of the Houses in late July, but in early August the New Model marched on London, and re-established Independent control. Even before the attack on the Eleven Members, Jephson had tried to distance himself from controversy. Having signed letters from the Presbyterian-controlled Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs to the army at the end of May 1647, on 7 June he got cold feet, and begged to be excused from serving as commissioner to the army with the votes of both Houses.126Clarke Pprs. i. 107, 114-5; CJ v. 201b-202a. Jephson continued to attend the Commons, where he restricted himself to purely Irish matters, only until 8 July, and attended his last meeting of the Derby House Committee on 12 July.127CJ v. 230b, 236a-b; SP21/26, p. 98. On 26 and 27 July 1647, as the Parliament was suborned by the hard-line Presbyterians, Jephson’s ‘occasions’ required him to journey to Oxfordshire - a suitably neutral location.128HMC Egmont, i. 436. Although he had returned to the Commons on 30 July, he did not openly support the Presbyterian coup, and on 11 and 18 August he participated in Independent legislation to invalidate legislation passed during the ‘forcing of the Houses’.129CJ v. 260a-b, 272a, 278a.

On 15 September 1647 Jephson was nominated as commissioner for Munster, in the company of three radical Independents: James Temple, Thomas Chaloner and Thomas Scot I.130CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 767. Jephson was able to balance this with firm connections with the opposing side: in the same month he was also in contact with such staunch Presbyterians as Sir Philip Percivalle and the 3rd earl of Suffolk, as well as the newly retired royalist lord lieutenant, the marquess of Ormond, and voiced concerns that the Independents at Westminster suspected he was busy inciting Inchiquin to free himself from their authority.131HMC Egmont, i. 462-3. It is also telling that Jephson once again confined his activity in Parliament to Irish affairs: securing provisions for Munster, reporting letters from Inchiquin, and liaising between the Commons and the Derby House Committee.132CJ v. 224a, 230b, 236a, 260a-b, 292a, 309a-b, 322b. As the rift grew between Parliament and the Munster forces led by Inchiquin, Jephson found it more difficult to abstain from English politics. In September 1647 he tried to use his influence with the New Model to defend Inchiquin at the army headquarters at Putney. The response was apparently favourable, as Percivalle told Inchiquin on 28 September, and in debate ‘Colonel [Henry] Marten* and Colonel [Richard] Norton did him right’.133HMC Egmont, i. 469. In early October Percivalle was keen that Jephson should remain in London, in order to protect the interests of Inchiquin now the appointment of a new lord lieutenant was under consideration.134HMC Egmont, i. 476. Jephson was still in contact with the army council at this time, although he was sceptical of their peace proposals to the king ‘which I wish may take good effect, though I cannot find any great hopes of it’.135HMC Egmont, i. 478. As his disappointment with the failure of peace indicates, Jephson had little sympathy with the army. This became clear in mid-November 1647, when he was named to committees led by the prominent Presbyterians, Sir Walter Erle and Sir William Masham, to examine the disturbances of the army and the activities of the army’s ‘agitators’ in London.136CJ v. 360a, 363a.

With Clotworthy impeached, by the end of 1647 Jephson had begun associating with a more diverse group of MPs within the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs. In November and January he was appointed to two sub-committees to raise money for Ireland, his fellow nominees being Robert Goodwin, Robert Reynolds, Sir John Temple and the Irish landowner, Arthur Annesley.137CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 767, 771. Annesley seems to have assumed Clotworthy’s role as the principal spokesman of Irish affairs, and was an important ally of Jephson at this time. Jephson also remained on good terms with Inchiquin. The death of the political ‘fixer’, Sir Philip Percivalle, in November 1647 had reduced the number of Inchiquin’s friends at Westminster, but had not weakened his links with Jephson. On 21 January 1648 Inchiquin instructed that his papers should be given to Sir Paul Davies* and William Parsons, and the care of his son was to be entrusted to Jephson.138HMC Egmont, i. 485. It may have been through the influence of Jephson that the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs promoted the raising of money for Munster, and on 25 January sent a letter of encouragement to Inchiquin himself.139CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 771. Old enmities remained. On 4 March Jephson and Viscount Lisle’s brother, Algernon Sydney*, were summoned to attend the Speaker to explain a dispute which had nearly led to a duel, and to ‘engage their words and honours not to proceed any further upon this or any other difference’.140CJ v. 479a, 480a.

In the spring of 1648 Jephson again became an important agent for Parliament. On 27 March the Committee of Irish Affairs granted him £970 to raise 100 horse for Munster; on the following day the Derby House Committee nominated Jephson, John Swynfen and Richard Salwey to be commissioners for Munster.141CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 9-11, 776. On 30 March the commissioners were ordered to cross into Munster, to try to prevent the defection of garrisons that had a yet remained loyal to Parliament, armed with promises of indemnity and the payment of arrears.142CJ v. 522a. On 3 April the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs granted £5,000 for Munster, and expenses for the commissioners.143CSP Dom. 1625-49, p. 715; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 776. Jephson took the opportunity to present his own petition on the same day, and received an immediate order for the payment of £2,500 arrears from the Commons, which was approved by the Lords (with Annesley acting as messenger) on 4 April.144CJ v. 524b, 526a. With his price agreed, Jephson took ship for Ireland.

Even as Jephson crossed the Irish Sea, the situation in Munster was changing dramatically, as Inchiquin had once more decided to throw in his lot with the king. Captain Crowther told Lenthall on 21 April 1648, ‘the report of Jephson’s coming over revived the drooping spirit of many well-affected [to Parliament]’ and his influence ‘might be the soonest means to reduce this province without bloodshed’.145Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 45. But by mid-May all such hopes had melted away. Inchiquin was now firmly in the royalist camp, and Crowther hurriedly transported a number of refugees to England, including Lord Broghill, Colonels Temple and Needham, and Jephson’s family; many other officers were sacked by Inchiquin, and a few were taken prisoner.146Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 45. Jephson himself withdrew, unwilling to countenance Inchiquin’s defection. Although Jephson remained loyal to Parliament, on his return to England at the end of May he seemed reluctant to take part in the affairs of Westminster. He resumed his seat on the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs, but sat only intermittently, and does not seem to have lent much support to the Presbyterian resurgence, which brought Clotworthy and others back to short-lived prominence in the summer and autumn.147SP21/26, pp. 162-9; CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 36-7. Yet Jephson derived may have derived some consolation from the changed climate at Westminster: in late August and early September he was rewarded with the grant of part of his arrears from sequestered estates; and he was appointed to the militia commission on 2 December 1648.148CCAM 447, 828; A. and O. Although estranged from Inchiquin, Jephson’s earlier activities had made him a prime target for the army, and he was secluded from Parliament during Pride’s Purge on 6 December.149A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62); A Vindication (1649), 29 (irregular pagination) (E.539.5); Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 377.

The Boyles and the Cromwells, 1649-56

For a while after the purge, and the subsequent execution of the king, Jephson’s movements become less certain. Although one ‘young Jephson’ was reputedly acting as Inchiquin’s governor at Bandon in November 1649, this was not the MP, who was surely too old for this appellation.150Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 45. Besides, there is evidence that Jephson was in London in the winter of 1649-50 (his third son, Denham, was baptized there in December), and that he tried to keep on reasonable terms with the commonwealth regime.151Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 72. It is also telling that the Rump did not treat him as an enemy. In April 1649 he was granted £1,000 arrears from the dean and chapter lands, and in April, June and December 1649 and March 1650 he received payments from the Committee for Advance of Money, as part of £1,500 granted by Parliament before the purge.152A. and O; CJ vi. 191a; CCAM 1055, 1503. The money was desperately needed. In common with other Irish Protestants, Jephson had received little rental income from his Munster estates since the outbreak of the Irish rebellion, and throughout the 1640s he was heavily reliant on his Hampshire lands for day-to-day expenses. The efforts of Jephson’s friends to safeguard his English estates during his numerous absences during the 1640s, and the careful allocation of small sums, such as his £4 weekly allowance as an MP, indicate that money was extremely tight.153HMC Egmont, i. 283-4, 297-8, 349, 470. Jephson’s worsening financial crisis was relieved only by drastic measures. In April 1653, once the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland was complete, he conveyed all his Hampshire estates, including the manor of Froyle, to John Fiennes, the son of Jephson’s distant relative, Viscount Saye and Sele.154C54/3735/11; C6/119/62. The sale was concluded in June 1653, and in mid-July Jephson sailed for Ireland.155CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 26.

Jephson’s visit to Ireland in 1653 was an important step in his return to the political arena. His influence in Munster had been demonstrated in the 1640s, and he was potentially a useful ally for the English government, which was keen to establish links with the Old Protestant interest in Ireland. The foundation of the Cromwellian protectorate in December 1653 saw the acceleration of this policy. In February 1654 Jephson was in Dublin, probably to wait on Henry Cromwell*, who was visiting Ireland as his father’s agent.156HMC Egmont, i. 536, 538. In March of the same year Jephson petitioned the lord protector for the payment of outstanding arrears amounting to £973, and the claim was referred to the protectoral council on 5 April, which formed a committee to which Jephson’s relative, Nathaniel Fiennes I, was specifically added.157CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 77-8, 145. Jephson’s arrears were finally secured under the indemnity ordinance of 7 June 1654, but he again had to use his influence with Cromwell to prevent the Mallow estate being allotted to land-hungry soldiers.158Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 45. A parliamentary order allowing Jephson £973 with interest for his arrears was finally passed on 18 January 1655.159CJ vii. 419b.

Jephson was returned for the combined constituency of Cork and Youghal in the elections for the first protectorate Parliament in July 1654.160TSP ii. 445. This gives the first definite indication that he had become reconciled to his former enemies in the Boyle family, for both boroughs were heavily influenced by Lord Broghill and his brother, Viscount Dungarvan, now 2nd earl of Cork. Jephson’s activities in this Parliament also suggest he was, like Broghill, a supporter of the protectoral government. On 15 September he joined Henry and Richard Cromwell on the list of those appointed to a committee on the judges of Salters’ Hall, who considered the relief of poor prisoners and creditors, and he went on to be teller with ‘Mr Cromwell’ (Henry Cromwell alias Williams?) in favour of suspending their activities on 25 October.161CJ vii. 368a, 378b. On 18 September he was named to a committee to attend the protector to request permission for a fast day, and on 26 September he was named with the Cromwell brothers and Broghill to a committee to consider the future shape of the armed forces.162CJ vii. 368b, 370b. When it came to Irish business, Jephson seems to have followed Broghill’s lead. Both men were appointed to the committee for Irish affairs (29 Sept.), and Jephson was added to the committee of privileges when it examined Irish elections (5 Oct.).163CJ vii. 371b, 373b. On other committees he was associated with his Hampshire neighbour, Richard Norton, and the courtiers Sir Charles Wolseley and Bulstrode Whitelocke, and on 24 November he joined Norton as teller against bringing candles and extending the debate on setting elections for a new Parliament, as part of the draft government bill – a motion opposed by leading Presbyterian critics of the regime, including John Bulkeley and John Birch.164CJ vii. 368a, 370b, 374a, 390a.

After the dissolution of Parliament, Jephson became increasingly associated with the Boyle family in Munster. On 10 March 1655 he took part in (and won) one of the regular horse races held by the earl of Cork on the strand at Youghal, and in the following November the earl consulted him about his land dealings in the barony of Carbery.165Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 10 Mar. 13 Nov. 1655. A few key appointments also suggest that Jephson was now trusted by the regime: in March 1655 he was appointed commissioner to try the royalist rebels led by Penruddock in western England; in July 1655 he was recommended by the protector to have a commission (and salary) as captain of foot; and by November 1655 he had enlisted the support of Henry Cromwell in the campaign to secure his arrears.166C181/6, p. 99; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 114; NLI, MS 758, f. 81; Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 46-7; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 73-4. Jephson’s loyalty to the Cromwells encouraged his return to Parliament in September 1656, and he again owed his return for Cork and Youghal to the Boyle family. The earl of Cork visited Jephson at Mallow three times between 11 and 19 August 1656; although the recorded discussions centred on an enquiry into church lands in Munster, the timing strongly suggests that electoral matters were also considered.167Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 11, 18, 19 Aug. 1656. On 20 August 1656, the day after Cork left Mallow, Henry Cromwell told Secretary John Thurloe* that the Irish MPs had just been chosen, and: ‘I hear my Lord Broghill, William Jephson [and] Vincent Gookin* are chosen for Cork county and towns therein’.168TSP v. 327.

Jephson’s participation in the first few months of the Parliament was disjointed, and he seems to have been absent for much of October and November 1656.169CJ vii. 431b. Nevertheless, certain themes can be traced in this period. Jephson continued to be involved in Irish issues. He was appointed to the committee for Irish affairs on 23 September, on the same day he was added to a committee preparing a bill to abolish wardships in Scotland and Ireland, and on 27 September he was named to a committee to consider which council ordinances should continue, including those touching the Irish government.170CJ vii. 427a, 427b, 429a. He was also involved in measures to protect the protector. On 26 September he was appointed to a committee to ensure the security of Cromwell’s person, and on 20 October, after returning from leave of absence in the country, he acquainted the Commons of an ‘obnoxious book’, Samuel Chidley’s Thunder from the Throne of God, which had a dedicatory epistle critical of protector and Parliament.171CJ vii. 429a, 431b, 442a-b; Burton’s Diary, i. p. clxxv. Jephson went on to be appointed as a commissioner for the security of the protector in the ordinance passed on 27 November.172A. and O.

Reforming the protectorate, Dec. 1656-June 1657

Despite his evident support for the protector and his council, Jephson did not always agree with their policies. This became obvious in December 1656, when in the protracted debates on the notorious Quaker, James Naylor, Jephson opposed calls for leniency on the grounds of liberty of conscience, even though the principle was one of the protector’s ‘fundamentals’. On 5 December Jephson joined those MPs who called for a simple vote of the fact that Naylor had committed a ‘horrid blasphemy’, followed by sentencing without right to reply. He also suggested, as an alternative, that the case might be passed to the law courts, adding snidely, ‘happily there are some laws yet in force where by you may proceed against him’.173Burton’s Diary, i. 29. Four days later Jephson took issue with the councillor, Walter Strickland, who had called for clemency and warned that the Commons must ‘beware of a precedent of this nature to posterity’.174Burton’s Diary, i. 87-8. Jephson countered: ‘I would, to choose, leave a precedent in this case, to posterity. There is no danger in it at all’. He also roundly condemned religious toleration: ‘I hope God will stir up your zeal in a matter that so eminently concerns the cause of God. We ought to vindicate His honour. For my part, I am clearly satisfied that, upon the whole matter, this person [Naylor] deserves to die’.175Burton’s Diary, i. 88-9. Jephson’s counter-attack seems to have rattled his opponents, and immediately afterwards another councillor, John Disbrowe, and his side-kick Luke Robinson, moved for an adjournment.176Burton’s Diary, i. 89. When, later in the month, the protector intervened with a letter voicing his own doubts as to the legality of proceedings against Naylor, Jephson’s response was again robust: the Commons, he suggested, should appoint a committee to look into the matter further and to gather precedents, ‘and then, having something before you, you may debate it; and no doubt but a way will be found out to give his highness an account to the letter’.177Burton’s Diary, i. 255.

As well as challenging religious toleration, Jephson was keen to find ways to undermine the military basis for the Cromwellian state. When the militia bill to perpetuate the major-generals was introduced by Disbrowe, seconded by Robinson, on 25 December, Jephson took issue with the latter, saying that ‘this gentleman … has told you much of the utile, but not a word of the honestum’. He focused on the way the decimation tax on former royalists contravened the 1647 act of pardon and oblivion, asking MPs to ‘consider how it will stand with your honour to admit and act against an act’, and recommended that the House ‘consider of repealing all or part of the former act of Parliament, and then give way to read this bill’. This was not a serious suggestion, of course, as ‘it will hardly be for your honour to break the faith of a Parliament’, and instead Jephson urged for a more just mechanism that would allow only active royalists to be punished: ‘if it appear that any of them have been really in the plot, let them pay not part, but all’.178Burton’s Diary, i. 232-3. In taking this line, Jephson was opposing Disbrowe’s allies on the council as well as in the army, but he had powerful supporters among the civilian interest, including Whitelocke, John Claypoole*, and Broghill himself. On 28 January 1657 Jephson joined Broghill’s Scottish ally, Lord Cochrane (William Cochrane*), as teller in favour of continuing the debate on the body of the militia bill, with Sir Gilbert Pykeringe and Walter Strickland telling against. This motion led to the vote that brought an effective end to the major-generals’ scheme.179CJ vii. 483a.

Jephson’s attempts to curb the power of the army and the sectaries were part of a wider strategy to change the protectoral constitution. He was probably the ‘Irish gentleman’ who moved on 28 October 1656 that the Commons debate the 32nd article of the Instrument of Government, which stated that the protector would be elective and not hereditary, but ‘it went off without the putting any question’.180TSP v. 525. On 19 January Jephson allegedly reacted to the plot of Miles Sindercombe by moving ‘that Cromwell might be king’ – an intervention described as having been made ‘suddenly and unexpectedly’ by one source, although the diarist Thomas Burton* identified John Ashe* as the one who raised the idea in the Commons, and did not mention Jephson.181Ludlow, Mems. ii. 20; Burton’s Diary, i. 362; iii. 160. Jephson was certainly involved in the aftermath of the Sindercombe plot, and was named to the committee to prepare a declaration for a day of thanksgiving to celebrate the protector’s deliverance from it.182CJ vii. 484b. The day chosen for the celebrations, 20 February, was widely rumoured to be the occasion when Cromwell would formally be offered the crown. As it turned out, the new constitution, initially known as the Remonstrance, was introduced into the House three days later. Jephson’s precise role in drafting the Remonstrance is unclear, but his close connection with men like Broghill and Whitelocke is suggestive, as is the unequivocal welcome he gave the new constitution. On 24 February he eagerly related to Henry Cromwell what had happened in the Commons the previous day: how John Disbrowe, Charles Fleetwood and others in the army interest had opposed the Remonstrance, but had been overruled by the majority in the House; and added confidently that ‘in probability of human reason, we are in good hopes of a settlement amongst ourselves’.183Henry Cromwell Corresp. 202-3.

Jephson’s eagerness for constitutional change continued during March. On 3 March he wrote to Henry Cromwell with the latest news, mentioning that he gone to a meeting at the house of George Downing, with ‘my Lord [Charles] Howard, Colonel [Richard] Ingoldsby*, and others of this army, in order to have let his highness see all his officers were not enemies to this Remonstrance’. He reassured Henry that ‘we had this day but little opposition in passing a vote to desire that his highness would be pleased to nominate and declare, during his lifetime, who should succeed him’, noting that the supporters of reform were now confident that ‘the time is come when God of his mercy will give us a happy settlement’.184Henry Cromwell Corresp. 213-4. Jephson sent another letter to Henry Cromwell on 17 March, gleeful that ‘there is now very little opposition’, although he disliked the settlement of a generous financial provision for the army, ‘not liking the Parliament should declare so much as the supposition of the perpetuity of an army here’.185Henry Cromwell Corresp. 229-30. On 25 March Jephson joined Broghill, Gookin and other Irish MPs in voting in favour of the first clause, which offered the crown to Cromwell.186Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 23 (E.935.5). On 31 March, Jephson told Henry of the Commons’ success in ‘completing (that which was first called the Remonstrance, now) the Petition and Advice... to his highness to assume the title, dignity and office of king’, and that the Humble Petition had been formally presented to the protector. He was encouraged by the discomfiture of Disbrowe and his fellow senior officers, John Lambert* and Charles Fleetwood, which he contrasted with the ‘good natured’ stance of others in the army.187Henry Cromwell Corresp. 242-3.

The protector’s ‘short reply’ was not encouraging, however, and it was soon followed by statements that indicated his unwillingness to accept the crown. The supporters of kingship responded with attempts to persuade Cromwell to change his mind. On 3 April Jephson was added to the committee to attend Cromwell with the votes on the Humble Petition, and after further deliberation on 4 April he joined Charles Howard as teller in favour of a motion calling for a further vote to ‘adhere’ to the original, monarchical, form of the Humble Petition. This motion was passed despite strong opposition from the army interest, and the main vote was also passed.188CJ vii. 519b, 520b. On 6 April Jephson was named to a committee led by Broghill to prepare a document giving reasons why Parliament continued to endorse the Humble Petition in its original form.189CJ vii. 520b.

The kinglings could sway the Commons, but they could not win over Cromwell. On 6 April a dejected Jephson told Henry Cromwell of his father’s continued refusal of the crown: ‘your lordship cannot imagine how great a damp fell upon the spirits of those who were most earnest in promoting this business when his highness demurred it. I think I may without vanity say I was the chief instrument in holding them up to what hath been since undertaken. What the success will prove, God knows’.190Henry Cromwell Corresp. 246-7 The ‘kinglings’ had indeed rallied by 9 April, when Jephson joined Broghill, Whitelocke and others on a committee to receive Cromwell’s doubts and scruples, and to answer them.191CJ vii. 521b. If Jephson attended the ‘kingship debates’ that followed he does not seem to have spoken at them. On 21 April he reported to Henry the protector’s paper of ‘exceptions’, adding that ‘we made ourselves believe we had great reason to perceive that if satisfaction were given in the particulars, the things in the Petition being so desirable, and settlement a thing of so absolute necessity, that he should hardly know how to deny it’.192Henry Cromwell Corresp. 262.

By 5 May 1657 there were still hopes that the Humble Petition would be accepted, and Jephson tried to be upbeat, telling Henry ‘I am one of those that hope well, for I cannot imagine that his highness would have held the Parliament thus long in treaty with a resolution to break with them at last’, but he remained concerned that

I find some men very doubtful that he may still stick at the title and offer to accept of all the rest under that which he now hath. I hope God will prevent it, for I find many men very violently bent to leave all to confusion if that be denied, and I really am afraid that if it should so fall out, the House will be left so thin as that the [army interest] will carry what they please.193Henry Cromwell Corresp. 267-8.

Cromwell’s final refusal of the crown, on 8 May, was a disaster for Jephson. As he told Henry Cromwell, the decision ‘hath so amazed his most real servants, as I know not what to write or say concerning it … God direct us to something which may preserve these nations from total ruin’.194Henry Cromwell Corresp. 269. This feeling of desperation took a long time to fade. In a speech to the Commons on 27 May Jephson suggested that Parliament pass an act to ‘expunge’ the four letters k-i-n-g from the English alphabet, as they seemed to cause so much offence.195Burton’s Diary, ii. 140. He did not engage with the substance of the new constitution until June, and even then he played only a minor role in revising it. On 4 June he moved that the Additional Petition and Advice should be considered ‘in paragraphs’ to ensure proper scrutiny; on 23 June he attacked Lambert for moving that the protector’s oath be dropped, as it had been provided for in the Humble Petition; and on 23 June he was named to a committee to consider the settling of the protector’s council and other matters needed to finalise the Humble Petition.196Burton’s Diary, ii. 171, 277; CJ vii. 570b.

The failure of the to secure the Humble Petition in its original, monarchical form was evidently a great blow to Jephson, but his continued attendance in the Commons was ensured by another important issue: the fate of Old Protestant land in Ireland. In February and March 1657 Jephson had been involved in two committees concerning grants of Irish land to the city of Gloucester (19 Feb.), and a bill for attainting the rebels in Ireland to give firm legal basis for land confiscation (30 Mar.).197CJ vii. 494a, 515a. The land question was another issue that brought Jephson into direct collaboration with Lord Broghill. In the debate on the Gloucester land grant on 5 May, Broghill and Dr Thomas Clarges opposed the proposal that land claims should be satisfied before those of the Old Protestants who had served before 1649. Jephson was passionate in his support for those who had fought the Irish during the 1640s: ‘We that served in the heat of the day were cast behind. Those that had the swords in their hands after, got good satisfaction and were cast there ... I have done you as good service as another, but never had a penny yet’.198Burton’s Diary, ii. 111. There was a sense of urgency behind the rhetoric: on the same day Jephson wrote to Henry Cromwell protesting that the surveyors ‘have now admeasured some parcels of my land to give out the soldiers’ and begging him to intervene to stop proceedings in his absence.199Henry Cromwell Corresp. 268. In the weeks that followed, Jephson continued to press for Irish business to be given priority. He was involved in the debate on the adventurers’ bill on 29 May, moved that the Irish assessment bill should be considered in a ‘grand committee’ on 1 June, and was named to the committee on the case of Viscount Moore of Drogheda on 4 June.200Burton’s Diary, ii. 157, 167; CJ vii. 545a. Each land claim which came before the Commons became a test case, and none more so than Broghill’s own grant of 2,000 acres in co. Cork. Jephson was named to the committee which considered Broghill’s grant on 5 June, and in debate was vociferous in his defence of his ally: ‘I hear nobody but acknowledges this honourable person’s merit; only the difference is, some would pay him with good words, others would give him just satisfaction’. Jephson also used Broghill’s case to highlight the injustice of the land settlement generally: ‘I know this noble lord’s condition in this thing as well as any man. This land was once under as good improvement as ever it was since the world began, but it was overrun, and the surveyors had no friendship for him: there was hardship in setting out the lands’.201CJ vii. 546a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 177. The passing of Broghill’s grant was allowed, but any sense of success was offset by Parliament’s insistence that this was an extraordinary case, and not to be held as a precedent.

Cromwellian ambassador, Aug. 1657-Aug. 1658

The end of the first sitting of the second protectorate Parliament left Jephson with little to show for his endeavours, except the continuing favour of the lord protector. In mid-July he prepared to return to Ireland, but his plans were interrupted by the Cromwell’s decision to send him as ambassador extraordinary to the king of Sweden.202Henry Cromwell Corresp. 303; Narrative of the Late Parliament, 14. Jephson’s mission was prompted by the unstable situation in northern Europe following the Thirty Years’ War. The Swedes still held a large part of the Baltic coast of Germany, despite hostility from the Poles and the Danes. Cromwell’s secret instructions to Jephson, issued on 22 August 1657, enjoined him to treat with the Swedes, offering English troops in return for money, in the hope of preventing a Polish invasion from the east.203TSP vi. 478-9; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iv. 603-5.. Cromwell perhaps entertained wider ambitions, including the destruction of Catholic Austria, and the advancement of the Protestant religion throughout Europe.204CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 98. A treaty with Sweden would therefore form part of a broader, Protestant, foreign policy, and according to the Venetian resident, Jephson had been chosen for this task because of his ‘peculiar experience of war’ and his ‘special devotion to his highness’.205CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 99.

Jephson arrived at Hamburg at the end of August 1657.206TSP vi. 503. His service as ambassador extraordinary can be summarised as follows. The first problem was to effect a peace between Sweden and Denmark. This was complicated by Swedish suspicions that the Danes were trying either to ally either the Poles and Hungarians or the Dutch against them, and the treaty was not concluded until February 1658.207TSP vi. 513-4, 559, 566-7; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 362-3. The protracted negotiations had caused strains between Sweden and England, as the latter’s promises of money and men had not been fulfilled, and by January 1658 Jephson even began to fear that the Swedes might join an unholy alliance with Habsburg Austria.208TSP vi. 727-9. Jephson’s second mission was to influence the election of a new emperor, and hopefully to prevent the Austrian succession, which would put the Catholic king of Hungary on the imperial throne. In early April 1658 he was ordered to go to Berlin to attend the elector of Brandenburg ‘to deal with him about the election of the emperor, giving him reasons, which are very obvious, how dangerous it will be for the Protestant interest, for him to give his voice to the king of Hungary’.209TSP vii. 63. Once in Berlin, Jephson received assurances of support from Brandenburg, but these proved worthless, as the elector had already decided to join Austria and Poland in an attack on Swedish possessions in Prussia.210TSP vii. 105-6, 189, 210-11, 247. Jephson returned to England, empty-handed, in August 1658.211CSP Ven. 1657-9, p. 238; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iv. 868.

The embassy to the king of Sweden was neither a diplomatic nor a personal success for Jephson. As early as September 1657 he told Henry Cromwell II of his desire to return home, and he repeated his request to Thurloe in October, November and December 1657, and February, March, June and July 1658.212Henry Cromwell Corresp. 317-8; TSP vi. 573-5, 597, 604, 674, 771, 848; vii. 37, 211, 247. There were two reasons for this. First, Jephson seems to have been deeply concerned about recent developments in British politics, and particularly the divisions which had appeared in the second sitting of Parliament in early 1658, ‘that our own dissensions may not deliver us up as a prey to the common enemy’ - the exiled Stuarts.213TSP vii. 37. Secondly, the embassy to Sweden was crippling his already weak finances. No proper provision had been made in the summer of 1657, as Jephson later complained to Thurloe: ‘I told you before I left London all my money was spent; and I profess I was fain to borrow money to bring me hither’.214TSP vi. 615. In November 1657, while attending the Swedish king at the Baltic town of Wismar, he had been forced to stay in a ‘beastly inn’ for the sake of economy, and was eventually forced to return to Hamburg, where the English merchant adventurers gave him lodgings. From Hamburg he again begged Thurloe for more money, ‘for if my credit be once blasted, I shall be ashamed to look any man in the face any longer in this country’.215TSP vi. 604, 615. The surviving records show that, although Jephson received grants from the protectoral council, these were relatively small amounts. In August 1657 he was granted £400 immediately, and £160 per month - hardly enough to maintain a household attached to the Swedish court.216CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 51, 56, 61, 78-9. Thurloe seems to have heeded Jephson’s complaints after November 1657, and in December the council accepted bills of exchange from Jephson amounting to £1,007.217CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 205, 370. Whether such payments solved the immediate problem or not is uncertain, but it is clear that the Swedish embassy was far from being a lucrative venture for Jephson.

Death and legacy

Underlying Jephson’s eagerness to return to England may have been the knowledge that he did not have long to live. On his return, he stayed with his wife’s family, the Denhams, at Borestall in Buckinghamshire, and was there when he drew up his will on 6 December 1658. An existing deed which granted £5,000 to Edmund Temple, Richard Knightley and Stephen Soames for his wife’s use was revoked, so that debts and legacies could be paid, and Mrs Jephson was now to receive £600 per annum from the abbey lands at Ballybegg, co. Cork, held on trust by her brother-in-law, John Jephson, Edmund Temple, and the Irish Presbyterian minister, Dr Edward Worth. Temple, who had lent money to Jephson (possibly before his journey to Sweden) ‘for which he hath no security’ was to be repaid by selling all his goods in England. These expedients seem to have helped Jephson to arrange fairly generous legacies for his children: his four daughters would receive £1,000 each and his three younger sons £800 apiece. The upbringing of the children was a particular concern for Jephson. He entrusted them to his wife, to ‘breed them up in the fear of God, and for encouragement to live in Ireland’, and he gave her a jewel given to him by the king of Sweden to be passed to his heir ‘and so continue in my family from heir to heir’. Jephson also acknowledged the support of his friends. He asked Edmund Temple to secure the estates of his eldest son, and gave his best horse to Richard Norton, ‘considering the great kindness of my good friend ... to me at all times, and especially at this time’.218PROB11/285/464. Jephson died on 11 December 1658.219Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 49. Three days later Edmund Temple wrote to Henry Cromwell, informing him that, on his deathbed, and in the presence of Lord Wharton and Richard Norton, Jephson had assigned his eldest son to Henry’s care.220Henry Cromwell Corresp. 432.

William Jephson’s attachment to Henry Cromwell, even on his deathbed, is a reminder that he was in many ways an archetypal Old Protestant. Although he had landed estates in Hampshire until 1653, and sat as MP for Stockbridge until 1648, Jephson’s political career was dominated by the situation in Ireland. In the 1640s he was able to act as a conduit between the Munster Protestants and the English Parliament, even when Lord Inchiquin’s royalist proclivities strained relations between the two, and he was an important ally for Sir John Clotworthy and Arthur Annesley in the Irish committees. In the 1650s he emulated Lord Broghill and other Old Protestants in managing to exert considerable influence over English politics, playing an important role in the offer of the crown to Protector Cromwell. He also had to face the financial crisis common to many Old Protestants, who found their political influence did not easily translate into land grants or arrears payments. Jephson’s sale of his English (rather than his Irish) estates, and his injunction to his wife that their children should be raised in Ireland, confirm that his heart lay on the western side of the Irish Sea. Of Jephson’s children, his eldest son, John, became MP for Mallow in the Irish Parliament of 1692, and married the daughter of Broghill’s brother, Viscount Shannon; his second son, William, was MP for East Grinstead and Chipping Wycombe after 1679; and his daughter, Penelope, married Dr Simon Patrick, the celebrated theologian who became bishop of Chichester and Ely. Jephson’s descendants remained at Mallow Castle until the senior line died out in 1911.221Jephson, Anglo-Irish Miscellany, 51, 72.