VENABLES, Robert (c.1612-87), of Antrobus Hall, Mobberley, Cheshire.

The Venables family had lived in Cheshire since the eleventh century, and claimed the title ‘baron of Kinderton’, granted to Giles Venables by William the Conqueror. Robert Venables, who was eighteenth in direct descent from Giles, grew up at the family seat of Antrobus Hall, Mobberley, near Northwich.18Chetham Misc. iv. 1. Little is known of Venables’ early life, but on the outbreak of first civil war he joined the parliamentarian forces in Cheshire and Lancashire, in the regiments of Robert Duckenfeild and Sir William Brereton, and served with distinction at the sieges of Nantwich and Chester (where he was wounded), and in campaigns which ranged as far as Yorkshire and Montgomeryshire.19Narrative of General Venables, 2; HMC Portland, i. 288. From 1647 he served as assessment commissioner in Cheshire, and in 1648 he was appointed governor of the Liverpool garrison.20A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 99. Although his focus remained local, and he was not an officer in the New Model, Venables seems to have taken some part in the army’s increasing involvement in politics during the late 1640s. In December 1648 he travelled to London to attend the council of war at Whitehall, and on 15 December he was one of a number of officers who met to consider the best way of bringing the king to justice.21Clarke Pprs. ii. 132, 280. Although there is no evidence that he took any further part in the regicide, his uninterrupted service on local commissions during 1648 and 1649 suggests that later claims that he was ‘much affected with the barbarous murder of the royal martyr, and was too generous an enemy not to lament his untimely end’ were greatly exaggerated.22Life of Dr John Barwick, 184-5.

In April 1649 Venables was authorised to raise a foot regiment as part of Oliver Cromwell’s* expeditionary force, bound for Ireland. The rapid recruitment of this regiment – in less than three months – pleased the council of state, which was anxious to reinforce the Protestant forces besieged in Dublin.23CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 67, 127, 131, 136, 149, 191, 192, 207. Venables’ men arrived in Ireland in July, and on 2 August played a prominent part in the defeat of the marquess of Ormond’s army at the battle of Rathmines, masterminded by another veteran of Brereton’s army, Michael Jones.24Bodl. Tanner 56, f. 87. In September 1649, after the arrival of Cromwell, Venables joined the army at the siege of Drogheda, leading the second wave of the assault and capturing the bridge over the River Boyne, which divided the town.25Oxford DNB. While the main body of the army then turned its attention towards the south of Ireland, Venables was put in charge of a separate brigade, with orders to march north, in the hope of capturing the strategically important ports in eastern Ulster, and making contact with the parliamentarian forces under Sir Charles Coote*, holed up in Londonderry. In this, his first experience of independent command, Venables’ record was mixed. He took Carlingford and Newry with little trouble, but an attack by royalist cavalry under Colonel Mark Trevor caught Venables by surprise. He hesitated, uncertain whether to counter-attack, until his subordinate officers (led by Major William Meredith*) intervened, routed the enemy, and saved the day.26HMC 8th Rep. i. 599-600; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 43-5. A series of successes in the next few months helped to repair Venables’ damaged reputation: in the closing weeks of 1649 Lisburn, Belfast and Carrickfergus were taken after short sieges; and in the spring of 1650 the English brigade finally made contact with Coote’s army in the north west.27HMC 8th Rep. i. 600.

From 1650 to 1654, Venables worked closely with Coote in Ulster. In June 1650 Mercurius Politicus reported that ‘Tuam’ (Toome?) had been taken by ‘those two valiant commanders, Sir Charles Coote and Colonel Venables’.28Merc. Politicus no. 1 (6-13 June 1650), 9 (E.603.6). Venables assisted Coote in his victory over the Ulster Irish at Scarrifhollis in Donegal later in the same month, and negotiated the surrender of Charlemont in August.29Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 667; Oxford DNB. In 1651 the two men cooperated in Monaghan and other areas of southern Ulster; and in 1652, backed by Edmund Ludlowe II* and John Reynolds*, they moved against the remaining rebel strongholds in ‘the fastnesses’ of Cavan and Fermanagh.30Bodl. Tanner 53, f. 73; Merc. Politicus no. 42 (20-7 Mar. 1651), 681 (E.626.13); no. 109 (1-8 July 1652), 1397-8 (E.669.16); no. 118 (2-9 Sept. 1652), 1855 (E.674.32). In September 1652 Venables accepted the surrender of Lieutenant-general Farrell, who commanded the remaining rebel forces in Ulster.31Firth and Rait, Regimental Hist. ii. 667. Through Coote, Venables was brought into contact with a number of important Old Protestants in Ulster. In 1650 and 1651 he and Coote were both signatories of army pay warrants for the province, and from August 1651 he worked, as Ulster revenue commissioner, alongside Tobias Norrice, Arthur Hill*, James Traill* and George Rawdon* – all established settlers.32SP28/70, ff. 300-8, 710-76; SP28/71, ff. 148-98; SP28/72, f. 52; SP28/75, ff. 15-59; SP28/77, f. 406; SP28/80, ff. 168-70; SP28/83, f. 3; SP28/85, f. 47; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 383. Although Venables supported the efforts of Timothy Taylor to foster religious Independency in eastern Ulster, Venables was also prepared to encourage Presbyterian ministers who eschewed sedition, and in December 1652 defended the Presbyterian peer, Viscount Montgomery of the Ards, against attempts to sequester his estate.33CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 581-3; StJ.D. Seymour, The Puritans in Ire. (Oxford, 1921), 24, 70-2, 76, 78-9. After the defeat of the Irish rebellion, the government turned its attention to subduing the Ulster Scots. The proposed plan – to transplant Scottish planters to the south of Ireland – was investigated in the spring and summer of 1653, but it was never enacted, possibly because of an unfavourable report by Venables.34Bodl. Firth c.5, ff. 107v, 109-10, 113; Carte 118, f. 46. News of Venables’ moderate stance soon spread, and in February 1654 Arthur Annesley* and others petitioned Venables to support efforts by a Presbyterian minister to return to his charge in Ulster.35CCSP, ii. 316. In July 1654 Venables joined Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), Colonel [Thomas?] Coote* and others in defence of a ‘loyal’ Catholic, Lord Barnewall of Turvy.36CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 609. Such incidents reinforce the impression that Venables was becoming increasingly sympathetic to the Old Protestant interest.

Venables’ election for the combined counties of Antrim, Down and Armagh in July 1654 was no doubt the result of his prominence in Ulster as commander-in-chief and his appointment as governor of Belfast precinct from the beginning of 1651.37Ludlow, Mems. i. 261; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 385. His performance at Westminster was low-key: named to committees on the armed forces and for Scotland (but not, for some reason, to the Irish committee) in September, he seems to have played no part in the constitutional debates which followed.38CJ vii. 370b, 371b. One reason for this inactivity was Cromwell’s decision to appoint Venables commander-in-chief in the ‘Western Design’, the expedition to capture territory from the Spaniards in the West Indies. The formal appointment was made in December, but Venables had been involved in preparations since his return to England during the summer.39Narrative of General Venables, p. viii. There is no evidence to support the idea, peddled by Venables’ apologists at the Restoration, that his appointment was a ‘pretended favour’, granted by a protectoral council suspicious of his loyalties, and intended to remove him from the British Isles.40Life of Dr John Barwick, 185-6; Clarendon, Hist. vi. 5; Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iii. 486-7. Cromwell’s Caribbean ambitions were real enough; and, on paper at least, Venables was militarily qualified, and his loyalty unquestionable. Far from sending him off in disgrace, the council made every effort to satisfy his pay arrears in Irish land, and to award him £6 a day for immediate expenses.41CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 338, 357. The only tension between Venables and his masters before his departure was over logistics: requests for the levies to be supplemented with troops from Ireland ‘seasoned with hardship and danger’ were ignored, and a row with Major-general John Disbrowe* developed over the lack of supplies set aside for the expedition.42Narrative of General Venables, 4-6.

The Western Design was an unmitigated disaster. By the time the fleet reached the West Indies, in the spring of 1655, Venables had nearly 7,000 men under his command, but sickness and indiscipline made this force much less effective.43HMC Portland, ii. 90-2 Hispaniola, the first objective, was attacked in June. Through a mixture of bad luck and indecision, two assaults on the Spanish garrison failed, and the English troops, thoroughly demoralized, retreated to their ships. An attempt to capture Jamaica was more successful, but the over-cautious Venables missed the opportunity to consolidate the victory.44TSP iii. 509-11. Recriminations followed. Venables blamed the quality of the troops and the obstructiveness of the senior officers - especially the vice-admiral, William Penn. Penn and his allies were quick to criticize the ‘irregular acting’ of Venables, who had refused to consult with his colleagues, and seemed more inclined to line his own pockets than to manage the army.45TSP iii. 646-7, 689; Penn, Memorials, ii. 89, 94, 123. While there is little doubt that the troops were sub-standard and supplies inadequate, the crucial problems seem to have been the growing tension between the senior officers – which Venables, as commander, did nothing to resolve – and the effects of indecision and delay in the field.46Narrative of General Venables, pp. x, xiii, xiv-v, xvii, xxii, xxvi. Venables’ hesitation had damaged his reputation in Ireland in 1649; in Hispaniola in 1655 it ruined his career.

Venables, although seriously ill with the ‘flux’, returned to England to defend himself before the protector and his council in early September 1655. Penn, ‘suspecting he would lay the whole blame of that affair on him’, also hurried home.47Ludlow, Mems. i. 386. Neither man had received permission from the lord protector to return to England, and Venables, in addition, had left the army in the hands of Colonel Richard Fortescue, ‘without acquainting his highness’s commissioners [in the West Indies]’.48TSP iii. 651, 675, 689. On 9 September, Venables arrived at Portsmouth, and wrote to the council saying that he had only returned ‘death being certain if I stayed’, and asking to be allowed to sail to London, rather than risk a land journey, which would further damage his health.49CSP Dom. 1655, p. 326; TSP iv. 21-2. The council, flatly refusing to grant him this courtesy, demanded his immediate attendance at Whitehall. The interview did not go well. Venables, ‘being able to give no reason for his leaving his command without licence, to the hazard of the army’, was sent to the Tower, and Penn, similarly chastened, joined him there shortly afterwards.50TSP iv. 55; Narrative of General Venables, 72-4, 77. The council’s apparently harsh treatment of both men indicates the embarrassment that the Western Design had caused, not least to the protector himself. As a man with open sympathies with the Old Protestants and Presbyterians in Ireland, Venables was an obvious choice as scapegoat. His colleagues in the army not only ascribed the defeat to ‘the hand of the Lord’ but also considered ‘there had been too great a ground’ for Venables’ punishment for abandoning his command.51Henry Cromwell Corresp. 62-3, 65. It is interesting to note that, apart from the Cheshire divine, Samuel Eaton, Venables’ most useful friends during his imprisonment were Lady Ranelagh (the sister of Lord Broghill) and the Ulster Presbyterian, Sir John Clotworthy*.52Narrative of General Venables, 78. It was largely through their efforts that Venables was released on 30 October 1655, having agreed to resign not only his Caribbean generalship, but also (and significantly), his commands in Ulster.53TSP iv. 177; CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 402-3.

Spurned by the protector, Venables retired to Cheshire, where he had recently strengthened his local connections through his second marriage, to the widow of Thomas Lee of Darnhall.54Chetham Misc. iv. 7-8. The match appears to have been a business transaction, and the couple never lived in amity.55Oxford DNB. Venables returned to the local assessment and militia commissions from June 1657, but was not politically active. After the fall of the protectorate in the spring of 1659, however, Venables became involved in the royalist plot which culminated in Sir George Boothe’s* rebellion. As early as May, Venables had been included in Boothe’s plans to seize the strategically important town of Chester, and in June he was in contact with Charles II through the royalist agent, John Barwick.56TSP vii. 685; CCSP iv. 201, 218, 242. On the outbreak of the revolt in August, Venables displayed characteristic caution: as Barwick put it, ‘Colonel Venables lay concealed, waiting to surprise the garrison of Chester ... if this attempt should succeed’.57Life of John Barwick, 207. The rebellion was over before Venables could make his move, and he later defended his inactivity by claiming that he had been sick, and that his advice to Boothe had been ignored.58Life of John Barwick, 219; CCSP iv. 640. Despite this inauspicious start, Venables’ career as a crypto-royalist continued through the winter of 1659-60, and he remained in contact with the exiled court.59CCSP iv. 439, 457, 497. When George Monck* marched south, and Daniel Redman* took Chester from John Lambert’s* forces, Venables was installed as governor of the town.60TSP vii. 853.

On the eve of the Restoration, the royalists were undecided how to treat Venables. Barwick considered him reliable, and fit for further employment; but Sir Edward Hyde* was unhappy about his attachment to the ‘Independent party’, which was difficult to square with his professed loyalty to the king.61CCSP iv. 640; Life of John Barwick, 521-2. Venables’ detractors seem to have prevailed: he lost his command at Chester, and in 1664 there were reports circulating that he had joined such hardened republicans as John Duckenfield* in plotting a rebellion among the Independents and Presbyterians of the north west.62CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 512. The linking of Venables with Duckenfield (a religious radical and a former ally of Lambert) suggests that such rumours were unfounded. Indeed, the surviving evidence suggests that Venables had dedicated himself to quieter pursuits. In 1662 he bought an estate at Wincham, and published The Experienced Angler, a fishing book highly praised by Izaak Walton, which ran into several editions in the author’s lifetime.63R. Venables, The Experienced Angler, or, Angling Improved (1662); Discourse of the Warr in Lancashire ed. Beaumont, 99; Chetham Misc. iv. 6-7. Venables died in 1687, and, in the absence of surviving male heirs, was succeeded by his grandson, from whom the Lees of Darnhall are descended.64Chetham Misc. iv. 8, 16.