WHALLEY, John (c.1633-c.1666), of Sibthorpe, Notts.

Very little is known about Whalley’s upbringing and education beyond the fact that – like his cousin Peniston Whalley* – he attended Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1657, he declared that ‘from his very entrance into the world [he had] dedicated himself with a most particular zeal’ to the protector; and certainly by that year he was serving as a captain in the regiment of horse commanded by the acting governor of Ireland, Henry Cromwell* (where Whalley should not be confused with his spendthrift cousin Lieutenant John Whalley, an officer in the same regiment).10SP18/181, f. 158; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 348; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 591-2; Jaggar, ‘Whalley Fam.’, 202. Early in 1657, Major-general Whalley wrote to Henry Cromwell requesting that one of his sons be allowed to spend some time in France and that the protector had granted him a year’s leave with pay for that purpose.11Henry Cromwell Corresp. 200. It has been assumed that the son referred to was either Richard or Henry Whalley, John’s younger half-brothers.12Henry Cromwell Corresp. 200; Jaggar, ‘Whalley Fam.’, 205. But an entry in the State Papers of April 1657 clearly states that Captain John Whalley had been transported from Dublin to La Rochelle, France, on the orders of Cromwell and the Irish council.13Henry Cromwell Corresp. 334; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 348. The purpose of Whalley’s sojourn in France was apparently to initiate him into the Cromwellian diplomatic corps, and to that end he seems to have joined the staff of the protectoral ambassador in Paris, William Lockhart*.14Henry Cromwell Corresp. 334; TSP vii. 73. Henry Cromwell wrote to Edward Whalley in April 1658, explaining that

if I had not perceived so good fundamentals in him [John Whalley], I should neither have advised him to the superstructure of a foreign education, nor have exposed the weakness of so near a relation to the derision of strangers. But I saw there was matter and that it was fit to be wrought and formed. I am of opinion that we want such men for our foreign negotiations as my cousin, your son, is like to be.15TSP vii. 73.

Whalley had returned to England by the spring of 1658, when, to the consternation of his father, he fought a duel with Philip Stanhope, 2nd earl of Chesterfield. Although the major-general believed that John had been greatly provoked by Chesterfield – as indeed did the protector – he could not condone his son’s action.16Henry Cromwell Corresp. 379; Jaggar, ‘Whalley Fam.’, 205-6. Committed to the Tower in June 1658, both men were quickly released on bail; but whereas the earl was later fined for his part in the duel, Whalley seems to have escaped punishment.17SP18/181, f. 158; CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 62, 66, 254, 275, 576; Jaggar, ‘Whalley Fam.’, 207-8. His father succeeded in having his eldest son from his second marriage, Henry Whalley, take John’s place in Dublin, but only after John had received a captaincy in a regiment in England.18Henry Cromwell Corresp. 379; Abbott, Letters and Speeches, iv. 821.

It was almost certainly through his father’s influence that Whalley was returned for Nottingham in the elections to Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament of 1659.19Supra, ‘Nottingham’. He was also returned for the Sussex port of New Shoreham – very probably on the interest of his father-in-law, who had sat for the borough as a ‘recruiter’ – but opted to sit for Nottingham.20Supra, ‘New Shoreham’; CJ vii. 604a. He was named to only four committees at Westminster, none of which reveal anything concrete about his political sympathies.21CJ vii. 594b, 600b, 609a, 642a. Most of his contributions to debate were in the form of minor motions.22Burton’s Diary, iii. 233, 240, 368, 438, 502; iv. 4, 107, 240, 282, 289. But on 23 February 1659, he was more expansive, urging the House to support the protector’s proposals for sending a fleet to the Sound in order to preserve English interests against the Dutch in the war between Sweden and Denmark.23Burton’s Diary, iii. 438-9. By moving that this matter be referred to the care of the protector and his council, he was effectively conceding Protector Richard’s control of the armed forces (which the House did the next day). Whalley also took an implicitly pro-government line on the issue of the Scottish and Irish Members, whom republican MPs regarded as Cromwellian placemen and sought to have removed from the House.24Burton’s Diary, iv. 107. ‘By that rule’, argued Whalley on 9 March, ‘if two or three Members stand up and charge half the House, then must they all withdraw’. He took issue with the commonwealthsmen again on 28 March, when he spoke against ‘bounding and approving’ the Cromwellian Other House before the Commons transacted business with it.25Burton’s Diary, iv. 289.

Whalley was detained, apparently briefly, in April 1660, on the orders of the council of state, which thought him a person ‘dangerous to the state’.26CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 573. In about October 1660, his father-in-law, Harbert Springett, petitioned the crown for remission of the lands (including a rental of £200 a year issuing out of Edward Whalley’s manor of Sibthorpe) that had been settled on John and his wife at their marriage in 1658, but which had been forfeit at the Restoration by reason of Edward Whalley’s attainder as a regicide and granted to the William Cavendish, 1st marquess of Newcastle.27CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 346. Springett claimed, probably spuriously, that his son-in-law had performed ‘many signal offices of friendship’ to preserve several royalists who had otherwise perished under the late usurped authority. The claimants to the estate were left to fight it out at law, however, and during the early 1660s Whalley and his trustees commenced legal proceedings against Newcastle’s tenants, who had occupied the manor of Sibthorpe.28Notts. RO, DD/4P/22/329-40; Jaggar, ‘Whalley Fam.’, 216-29. The dispute was still not resolved in 1662, when Whalley decided, for reasons that remain unclear, to go overseas – probably to Ireland, where he had served as a soldier in the 1650s and where his uncle Henry Whalley* still resided.29Jaggar, ‘Whalley Fam.’, 229-30.

Whalley died overseas before June 1667 (in October 1666, according to one report), when the administration of his estate was granted to his son’s guardian.30C9/451/150; PROB6/42, f. 82v; Jaggar, ‘Whalley Fam.’, 230-1. None of Whalley’s immediate descendents sat in Parliament.