FLEETWOOD, George (1622-bef. 1674), of The Vache, Chalfont St Giles, Bucks.

Like his second cousin Charles Fleetwood*, this MP was descended from Thomas Fleetwood†, a mint official who during the third quarter of the sixteenth century acquired estates around Chalfont St Giles in Buckinghamshire.29‘Pedigree of the Fleetwoods’, 106-7; Lipscombe, Buckingham, iii. 227; VCH Bucks. iii. 188. On Thomas’s death in 1570, his estates were divided between the two eldest surviving sons from his two marriages, William† and George†. William mostly received the lands in their father’s native county, Lancashire, and those which had been inherited by his mother, while George got the Buckinghamshire estates, including The Vache, their principal manor at Chalfont St Giles. When George died in 1620, he had already transferred those lands to his wife for life. The following year his widow and their eldest son, Edward, agreed to transfer their interests to the second son, Charles, who thus became the sole owner. The consequence of this was that when Charles died in 1628, the Buckinghamshire lands passed to his eldest son, George, the future MP.30Lipscombe, Buckingham, iii. 227; VCH Bucks. iii. 188. As the latter was still a minor, his wardship was granted to his mother and her brother, Sir David Watkins.31Coventry Docquets, 470.

Despite his relative youth, Fleetwood did all he could to support Parliament from the outset of the civil war. As early as October 1642, when he was still aged only 20, he was serving as one of the captains in the Buckinghamshire militia.32Bucks. Contributions for Ireland, 112. By the time he was elected to the Commons three years later he had been promoted to the rank of colonel.33CJ iv. 335b. As the county was on the front line of the fighting for much of that period, he would have gained real military experience. He was also able to combine his military duties with membership of the county committee and of the local assessment commission.34A. and O.; Luke Letter Bks. 341. The regular payments made to him by the county treasurer between August 1644 and March 1645 suggest that he was then one of the most enthusiastic members of the county committee.35SP28/151: acct. of T. Scot, pp. 86, 92, 96, 127, 141, 319, 324.

As early as 1643 the deaths of John Hampden* and Arthur Goodwin* had left Buckinghamshire without a knight of the shire. A by-election was held in November 1645 and Fleetwood, along with Edmund West*, another prominent local parliamentarian, was elected. It probably helped that at least four of the companies in his militia regiment were then stationed at Aylesbury.36SP28/151: acct. of T. Scot, p. 360. Almost immediately, however, the result was challenged and the dispute was referred to the committee for privileges.37CJ iv. 335b. Fleetwood does seem to have been allowed to sit while this matter was being considered, as he took the Covenant, as an MP, the following June.38CJ iv. 586a. Three references to ‘Mr Fleetwood’ in the Journal from July 1646 are probably to him, although they could just conceivably refer to his second cousin, Charles Fleetwood*, who had since been elected as MP for Marlborough. If so, this means that he sat on the committees to consider the petition from Robert Lilburne* (3 July), to investigate the authorship of the London remonstrance (11 July) and to receive complaints against delinquents (23 July).39CJ iv. 601b, 616a, 625b. This was still a very slender record of activity. Nor did George Fleetwood become more obviously active once the Buckinghamshire election dispute was finally resolved in his favour in July 1647.40CJ v. 258a. What can be deduced is that, if he was pulling his weight at Westminster, he is likely to have been doing so on behalf of the Independents, as he was one of those MPs who took refuge with the army during the Presbyterian coup at Westminster of late July and early August 1647.41LJ ix. 385b; HMC Egmont, i. 440; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 755. At some point during that autumn, he broke his leg, which was why he was absent when the House was called on 9 October.42CJ v. 330a. Even once he recovered, evidence for his activity in Parliament remains elusive. Apart from a single possible committee appointment in January, no mention was made about him throughout the whole of 1648.43CJ v. 417a. That he survived the purge of December 1648 indicates that he had been siding with the Independents.

Fleetwood’s probable absence from Parliament throughout 1648 adds some weight to his later attempts to explain away his role in the king’s execution, even although he made those claims in 1660 in an attempt to save his neck. His story following the Restoration would be that he had not been present in the Commons when the bill creating the high court of justice was passed, that his name was added to it without his consent and he missed the early stages of the trial. He also claimed that he only returned to London the evening before sentence was due to be passed and that he went to Westminster the following day without intending to sit as one of the commissioners. It was only because he happened to meet Oliver Cromwell*, who ‘fell violently’ on him ‘with most bitter words’ and, by ‘subtle insinuations’, persuaded him against his better judgment, that he agreed to sign the death warrant.44SP29/9, f. 225. In a separate retelling of this story, he claimed that his involvement had been ‘accidental and enforced’.45PA, Main Papers 7 Feb. 1662. All this is almost, but not quite, consistent with the documented facts. Fleetwood had in fact been present for the hearings on 18 January 1649, although it was true that otherwise he attended only for the sentencing on 26 and 27 January.46J.G. Muddiman, Trial of King Charles the First (Edinburgh and London, 1928), 205, 224, 225. What was undeniable was that he did then sign the death warrant.

Despite the depleted numbers in the Commons, Fleetwood’s visible contribution to its proceedings remained decidedly intermittent throughout the Rump. Between early 1649 and the spring of 1651 he sat on, at most, a handful of committees and some of those references may actually, until his departure for Scotland, have related to his kinsman and fellow colonel, Charles Fleetwood.47CJ vi. 217a, 263b, 302b, 420b, 577b. His most considerable contribution related to a piece of personal business. In May 1650 he used the debate on the wardships bill to secure agreement that the money owed from his estates for his own wardship should be set off against the arrears he was owed by Parliament. The precise details of this deal were, however, still under discussion three months later.48CJ vi. 409a, 457b. At a local level, he did at least continue to be one of the crucial figures in the Buckinghamshire militia and was one of those commissioners appointed to enforce subscriptions of the Engagement.49CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 521; 1650, pp. 449, 509; National Art Library, V. and A., Forster MS 58, no. 32.

In 1653 Fleetwood was one of the two men summoned from Buckinghamshire to sit in the Nominated Parliament. His activities in the previous Parliament, such as they had been, had presumably been sufficient to establish his godly credentials. He seems not to have played a major role in this new Parliament, although the two occasions on which he was singled out for appointment by it were significant ones. First, on 19 July, he was appointed to the Army Committee.50CJ vii. 287a. Then, during what turned out to be the final weeks of the Parliament, he was elected to the new council of state, having received 54 votes in the ballot.51CJ vii. 344a-b. During his brief period as a councillor, he sat on a number of the council’s more minor sub-committees.52CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 230, 233, 234, 237. He was said to have been one of those MPs in this Parliament who supported a preaching ministry.53Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 418. The elevation of Cromwell to the office of lord protector was accompanied by the dissolution of the existing council and its replacement with a new set of councillors who did not include Fleetwood.

Fleetwood would be one of the protectorate’s strongest supporters in Buckinghamshire. Over the next couple of years he served on local commissions as various as those for oyer and terminer, for ejecting scandalous ministers and for securing the peace.54C181/6, p. 54; A. and O.; TSP iv. 583. He combined these duties with a third stint as MP for Buckinghamshire, although nothing is known of his contributions, if any, to the 1654 Parliament. The major-generals experiment, implemented from the autumn of 1655, further enhanced his importance. Charles Fleetwood’s appointment as major-general for Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire was always rather unsatisfactory, not least because he was absent in Ireland serving as lord deputy. The decision was therefore taken in February 1656 to appoint William Packer* and George Fleetwood as his deputies. Technically, Packer was deputy in all three counties, but acting jointly with George Fleetwood in Buckinghamshire.55CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 164; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iv. 102; I.F.W. Beckett, Wanton Troopers (Barnsley, 2015), 151-3. However, in practice Fleetwood probably performed most of the duties within his county. Very little is known about his those activities, because, unlike some of his counterparts elsewhere, he seems not to have written to the secretary of state, John Thurloe*, on a regular basis. One indication either of his local unpopularity or ineffectiveness is that he was the only major-general or deputy-major-general who was not elected to the 1656 Parliament. That Cromwell knighted him two days before that Parliament opened provided some consolation and suggests that at least the lord protector thought highly of him.56Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 223. The order from the council of state in November 1656 instructing him to dismiss one of the captains from his militia regiment need not have been intended as a personal criticism of Fleetwood.57CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 152.

In the event, Fleetwood still got a chance to sit in the second protectoral Parliament. His loyalty to the regime was further rewarded when, in December 1657, he was one of the new peers summoned to sit in the Other House.58HMC Lords, iv. 504. He responded with enthusiasm. During the brief session from 20 January to 4 February 1658, he missed only one of the sittings. His one committee appointment was to consider the bill to increase the penalties for those profaning the sabbath.59HMC Lords, iv. 506-23. His status as a peer was the reason he was given a prominent position in Cromwell’s funeral procession the following November, escorting John Fiennes* as he carried ‘the great banner’.60Burton’s Diary, ii. 528. He again took his seat in the Other House when it reassembled for the 1659 Parliament. Although he missed roughly a third of the days on which the House sat during that Parliament, he can still be considered a conscientious participant in its proceedings. His committee appointments included those on petitions, on breaking the sabbath (again) and on the indemnity bill.61HMC Lords, iv. 525-67.

Fleetwood’s personal links to Charles Fleetwood may have helped predispose him to the removal of Richard Cromwell* and the recall of the Rump in the spring of 1659. He seems to have been present at Westminster during the earlier weeks of its resumed sittings, as on 26 May he was named to the committee to consider the petition from the inhabitants of Colchester.62CJ vii. 344b. That August he helped secure Buckinghamshire at the time of Sir George Boothe’s* rebellion, which was no doubt why his colleagues in the Rump then reappointed him as an officer in the Buckinghamshire militia.63CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 125; CJ vii. 772a. Any willingness on his part to support the army may have begun to evaporate when the Rump was suspended in October 1659. He would later claim that he had refused to serve on the committee of safety created to take its place.64SP29/9, f. 225.

He evidently took up his place in Parliament again when the Rump resumed its sitting in December 1659, as he would later assert that he opposed the oath to abjure the Stuarts, a claim supported by the testimony of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper*.65SP29/9, f. 225; PA, Main Papers 7 Feb. 1662. If he really did express doubts about the Rump’s policies, that did not deter his colleagues giving him a military command. In February 1660 they appointed him as colonel of one of the regiments of foot, filling the vacancy created by the dismissal of John Biscoe*.66Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 402; Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, ii. 135. Over the following weeks Parliament confirmed the appointments of a number of his subordinate officers.67CJ vii. 824b, 829b, 834a, 835a, 836b, 839a, 840a. George Monck* would later corroborate Fleetwood’s claim that he supported Monck’s moves to restore the king.68PA, Main Papers 7 Feb. 1662. Fleetwood did so by joining his regiment at York and then assisting in the proclaiming of Charles II there on 11 May.69HMC 7th Rep. 160; SP29/9, f. 225; PA, Main Papers 7 Feb. 1662.

He may have had his own reasons for now so visibly supporting the restoration of the monarchy. As one of the signatories of the late king’s death warrant, Charles II’s return placed his life in danger. Fleetwood complied with the deadline by which he and the other regicides were expected to surrender themselves. He was in custody by the middle of June 1660.70Whitelocke, Diary, 606. It was probably at that point that he petitioned the king asking for mercy.71SP29/9, f. 225. This made no difference. On 10 October 1660 he was tried for treason at the Old Bailey. That appearance was brief. Asked to plead, he seems to have entered a plea of innocence by protesting that he had surrendered himself as required, only to concede immediately that he was guilty as charged. The court treated this as a guilty plea.72State Trials, v. 1005; J. Kelyng, A Report of Divers Cases in Pleas of the Crown (1708), 11; Ludlow, Voyce, 267. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Some confusion surrounds his later fate. The pardon which it has sometimes been claimed was granted to him by Charles II was actually the one granted to Charles Fleetwood.73‘The Mather pprs.’, Collns. of the Massachusetts Hist. Soc. 4th ser. viii. 187. Mark Noble, the eighteenth-century biographer of the regicides, would claim that George Fleetwood was allowed to emigrate to America, but as almost everything else he said about him is incorrect, this can be discounted.74M. Noble, The Lives of the English Regicides (1798), i. 245. It is much more likely that Fleetwood was one of the imprisoned regicides sent to Tangier in 1664. That his wife petitioned the king against this move is hardly evidence that it never took place.75CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 536. The other prisoners were certainly sent and, although he was not the best source on such a point, Edmund Ludlowe II* claimed that they included Fleetwood.76Bodl. Eng. hist. c. 487, p. 1019. Few of those sent survived for long and it seems reasonable to assume that Fleetwood died at Tangier at some point during the late 1660s. Although his comments contain some inaccuracies, the rector of Chalfont St Giles referred to Fleetwood’s wife Hester in 1669 as ‘the widow Fleetwood’, and Fleetwood was certainly dead by 1674.77Bucks. Dissent and Parish Life 1669-1712 ed. J. Broad (Bucks. Rec. Soc. xxviii), 9; PROB11/347/561; R.W.B. ‘An unknown Fleetwood pedigree’, N and Q 9th ser. ix. 261.

Fleetwood’s estates had been confiscated by the crown following his conviction.78E178/6148. Their value was found to be £637 6s 8d a year, although a jointure and various annuities amounting to £295 had to be paid from this.79LR2/266, f. 4. An attempt by the 1st Baron Berkeley of Stratton (Sir John Berkeley*) to persuade the king to grant them to him failed; instead they were given to the duke of York. York then sold them to Sir Thomas Clayton† for £9,500.80CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 72; Lipscombe, Buckingham, iii. 227; VCH Bucks. iii. 188. Although deprived of the family home, Fleetwood’s wife continued to live at Chalfont St Giles. The report by the local rector in 1669 claimed that a Presbyterian conventicle was held there in her house each week.81Bucks. Dissent and Parish Life, 9. She had become a Quaker by 1678, when she attended one of the monthly meetings for Quaker women at Larkins Green.82The Min. Bk. of the Monthly Meeting of the Soc. of Friends for the Upperside of Bucks. ed. B.S. Snell (Bucks. Rec. Soc. i), 64. She spent her final years living with two of her Quaker friends, William and Bridget Russell, and when she died in 1714 she was buried in the Quaker burial ground at Tring.83PROB11/540/96; ‘The Fleetwoods and Milton’s Cottage’, 423. The eldest son, John, died in 1670 leaving no heirs. The second son, Robert, became a London glass seller, as did a number of his descendants.84R.W.B. ‘An unknown Fleetwood pedigree’, 261-2; ‘The Fleetwoods and Milton’s Cottage’, 424. Meanwhile, the eldest daughter, Anne, owned the house in Chalfont St Giles which was leased by John Milton in 1665 when he fled London to avoid the plague. This was arranged by Milton’s friend, Thomas Ellwood, who was also a friend of the MP’s widow. Anne Fleetwood died unmarried in 1675, leaving the house to her uncle, David Fleetwood, who remained the owner until selling it in 1683.85The Life Recs. of John Milton ed. J.M. French (New Brunswick, NJ, 1949-58), iv. 401; PROB11/347/561; Lipscombe, Buckingham, iii. 229-31; ‘The Fleetwoods and Milton’s Cottage’, 422; RCHME Bucks. ii. 83. The house is now known as ‘Milton’s Cottage’ to commemorate this connection with the poet.