BULKELEY, John (1614-62), of Nether Burgate, Fordingbridge, Hants.

Numerous Bulkeleys from Cheshire and Anglesey sat in Parliament in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. This MP’s ancestor Charles Bulkeley†, a Middle Temple lawyer, came from a branch which left the north west and in the fifteenth century settled at Fordingbridge, at the western extreme of Hampshire. That Bulkeley represented Salisbury in 1542 (at least), Wiltshire being the focus of his successful public career.38HP Commons 1509-1558; HP Commons 1558-1603; HP Commons 1603-1629. John Bulkeley’s father William inherited the estate as a minor, on the death in 1608 of Sir John Bulkeley, and on his marriage extended it with the acquisition of property in Milborne Stileham in Dorset, where he was embedded in gentry life.39Hants RO, 1M53/426-9. When William too died in 1617, John, his only son, was less than three years old, but his widow purchased the wardship.40PROB11/129/672; Hants RO, 1M53/434-6, 834; WARD9/162, f. 253.

John Bulkeley studied briefly at Hart Hall, Oxford, and the Middle Temple, before completing his education on the continent; a three year pass was granted in August 1634.41Al. Ox.; MTR 813; CSP Dom. 1634-5, pp. 192-3. Meanwhile, before 1629 his sister Elizabeth married Sir John Leigh*, and some time after December 1630 their mother abandoned a widowhood during which she had expanded the Bulkeley estates to marry Sir John’s father, Barnaby Leigh of North Court, one of the leading gentlemen of the Isle of Wight.42Oglander Memoirs, 145; PROB11/189/280 (Barnabas Leigh); Hants RO, 1M53/437, 440-1, 583, 835-6, 1179, 1261; 5M50/2011. At a date unknown a complaint was launched on Bulkeley’s behalf against his mother, stepfather and stepbrother, alleging refusal to release to him property used as surety for the payment of his sister’s dowry, but the conflict would appear to have been resolved amicably.43Hants RO, 1M53/1261. The Leigh connection presumably lay behind the licence obtained in January 1638 for John Bulkeley to marry Anne, daughter of Sir William Dodington† of Breamore, a wealthy and influential Hampshire puritan.44Hants Marriage Licences, 126; Vis. Hants, 104; Berry, Hants Pedigrees, 122.

Short Parliament and first civil war

Although Bulkeley had many friends among the Dorset gentry – notably two future parliamentarians, Thomas Grove*, named in his father’s will, and Sir Walter Erle* – his election to Parliament in the spring of 1640 was almost certainly on the Leigh interest.45Hants RO, 1M53/449-50, 459, 1179. At the age of only 25 and with no experience of local administration, Bulkeley was elected at Yarmouth, where Leigh was a longstanding freeman of the borough.46C219/42ii/135. He made no recorded impression on the proceedings of the Short Parliament, and in the autumn elections made way for his significantly older brother-in-law Sir John Leigh.

Reflecting in 1659 on the causes of the civil wars, Bulkeley stressed the protection afforded by the king to delinquents, as well as the ‘exorbitancy in the church government’, and the ‘toleration of popery’.47Burton’s Diary, iii. 105-7. Whether or not this accurately reflected Bulkeley’s motivation in 1642, he proved an active parliamentarian from the outset, as treasurer for maimed soldiers in Hampshire.48Add. 24861, f. 39. In August that year he was reported as having ‘spread warrants signed with the sheriff’s hand of Hampshire … to command all people not to give any assistance to Portsmouth’, in an attempt to prevent supplies from reaching royalists in the town.49I.o.W. RO, NBC45/16a, pp. 433-4; The Copy of a Letter Concerning Portsmouth (1642), 7 (E.112.35). In the months which followed he was named to local commissions and came to be regarded as a reliable local agent by the Committee of Both Kingdoms.50I.o.W. RO, OG/BB/472; CSP Dom. 1644, p. 73. Named in February 1643 to the Hampshire committee and in June 1644 to that for the Isle of Wight, he was active in the latter’s proceedings in 1644 and 1645, not least in relation to meetings with the local clubmen.51LJ v. 691b-692a; x. 447b; CJ iii. 537a; I.o.W. RO, OG/BB/484; OG/BB/485; Add. 24860, ff. 53, 133, 134, 143, 145; SP28/129/10, f. 6v.

Recruiter MP 1645-1647

Bulkeley’s zeal underpinned his return as a recruiter MP in November 1645. He was elected at Newtown on the Isle of Wight as one of the replacements for the disabled royalists John Meux* and Nicholas Weston*.52I.o.W. RO, JER/BAR/3/9/8, p. 42. Having also planned to stand at Christchurch, perhaps with the backing of John Lisle*, he withdrew on 10 November, recommending to the electors in his stead Richard Edwards*, ‘from whom I hope you will not by any workings whatsoever be drawn off, sure I am you cannot have an honester nor abler man’.53Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 41. Bulkeley had arrived at Westminster by 8 December, when he was nominated to a committee to consider the refusal of City of London to lend money for campaigning in Ireland.54CJ iv. 368b. He took the Covenant on 31 December, but then vanished from the Journal for over six months.55CJ iv. 393a. Possibly preoccupied during that time with Hampshire affairs, he made a notable reappearance on 11 July 1646, when he was not only appointed to investigate Presbyterian petitioning but also named first to the committee considering radical pamphleteering.56CJ iv. 616a. However, having received a further nomination to consider church-building in the City (4 Aug.), on 18 August he was granted leave to go into the country.57CJ iv. 632a, 647a.

Resurfacing only in December, thereafter Bulkeley played a more active role in the Commons. On the 3rd he was instructed to ask John Ward of Ipswich, an experienced preacher to Parliament and a member of the Westminster Assembly, to again deliver a fast sermon, and five days later to thank him.58CJ iv. 737a; v. 7b. Detail of their connection does not appear, but Bulkeley’s later comments suggest that he had sympathy with religious Presbyterianism and thus that he may have brought this to bear on the committee considering the publication of an assertion of its basis in divine right (12 Dec.) and as a commissioner for the visitation of Oxford University (23 Mar. 1647).59CJ v. 11a, 121a. He claimed in 1659 that the Solemn League and Covenant had been entered into ‘highly and solemnly’, and bemoaned the fact that it was ‘thrown behind your door as an almanac out of date’, and that ‘we sent away our [Scottish] brethren with frowns’.60Burton’s Diary, iii. 105-7.

Yet on political issues there are signs that Bulkeley was emerging as an ally of the Independents. Among several other committee appointments around the turn of the year, including to consider the locally significant issue of paying for arrears by the brigade of Edward Massie* (25 Dec.), on 25 January 1647 he was added to the committee to oversee the work of the Committee of Accounts, and thereby to counter the influence of Presbyterians like William Prynne*.61CJ v. 6b, 14b, 28b, 47a, 62b. Although he was named to the important committee appointed on 27 March to consider radical petitioning campaigns within the army, he was not aligned with those Presbyterians who were most outraged at such practices.62CJ v. 127b. This became clear when, following another leave of absence (1 Apr.) and nomination to the committee discussing the ordinance for supply (12 May), he was added to, and made chairman of, the committee initiated by Independents for receiving complaints against Members and their servants (3 June).63CJ v. 131b, 168b, 196a, 205a, 220b. The same day he was a teller with Nathaniel Fiennes I* in a successful attempt to repeal the ‘declaration of dislike’, which had been passed by the Presbyterians on 29 March.64CJ v. 197a. On 8 June, with another Independent grandee, Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire*, Bulkeley marshalled a majority to reject the Lords’ vote to remove the king to Oatlands.65CJ v. 203a. Three days later, he was involved in attempts to prevent disorders orchestrated in London by Presbyterian apprentices, and on 16 June he was a teller against leading Presbyterians, in support of a motion to put the question regarding payment of a month’s army pay.66CJ v. 207b, 214a. He was therefore almost certainly an Independent representative on the committee appointed on 30 June to nominate those who were to prepare heads for a peace settlement.67CJ v. 228b.

A teller (again with Evelyn) in favour of an Independent motion on 5 July to consider penalties for those MPs who had acted against Parliament, Bulkeley probably used his chairmanship of the committee of complaints to the advantage of his allies.68CJ v. 233b, 237b. He adopted a less hardline policy than Sir Arthur Hesilrige* and Henry Marten*, whom he opposed as a teller on 9 July to allow 20 days, rather than a mere week, for Members who had been in arms against Parliament to explain their actions.69CJ v. 238b. Nevertheless, his replacement as chairman of the committee for complaints on 14 July by another Independent, John Corbett*, did not signal a change of allegiance: on 23 July Bulkeley was added to the committee for reforming the ‘Presbyterian’ London militia, which helped provoke the ‘forcing of the Houses’ on 26 July.70CJ v. 244a, 255b.

Bulkeley vanished from the Journal during the Presbyterian coup, but if he fled to the army, he did not sign the resulting engagement. Reappearing at Westminster following the return of the Independents, however, he was named to prepare the ordinance for repealing votes passed during their absence, and was a teller on 13 August for the majority who approved it.71CJ v. 271b, 273b, 278a, 279b. Later, he was among those who investigated allegations regarding the complicity in the riots of MPs like Thomas Gewen* and Edward Stephens*.72CJ v. 366b. Although granted leave to go into the country on 21 August, Bulkeley was back by the 27th, when he was a teller for the Independents who sought unsuccessfully to reduce the number of royalists who were to be indemnified in the propositions for peace.73CJ v. 286a. His Independent allegiance and his local interest lay behind his nomination to the committee considering the ordinance for the appointment of Robert Hammond* as governor of the Isle of Wight, and his appointment to accompany Hammond to the island to settle its affairs (9 Sept.).74CJ v. 291a, 298b. Still absent at the call of the House on 9 October, at his return on 20 October he was excused and his fine repaid.75CJ v. 330a, 337a.

Peace negotiator 1647-1648

In succeeding weeks Bulkeley was involved in measures for securing arrears of army pay, for the sale of bishops’ lands and for the relief and employment of the poor, any of which might be construed as indicating support for a radical agenda.76CJ v. 339a, 340a, 344b, 366b, 460b, 645a. But his primary activity indicates that he adhered to a more moderate strain of Independency. Having managed a conference with the Lords on the terms for settlement (26 Oct.), he was still prepared to marshall support for discussion of a letter from the general council of the army expressing hostility to talks with the king (6 Nov.).77CJ v. 343b, 352a. Yet he patently did not share that hostility. On 14 December he was named to the delegation to the Isle of Wight to present the ‘Four Bills’ to Charles and, having reported back to the House on 1 January 1648, was initially directed to return to the king with John Lisle*, only for this order to be reversed following the decision to make ‘No Further Addresses’ (3 Jan.).78CJ v. 383b, 415a, 415b. Having been named to the committee for grievances on 4 January, Bulkeley was not seen in the Journal for over a month, and on 11 February joined Sir John Evelyn of Surrey* as a teller against the declaration justifying the 3 January vote.79CJ v. 462a. Having lost that division, Bulkeley disappeared from the records of Commons proceedings, signifying either his reluctance to countenance a non-negotiated settlement, or else his involvement in secretive talks between Charles and the Independent grandees.

Bulkeley resurfaced at Westminster as it became clear that such negotiations were fruitless, and that more needed to be done to placate the City, and those eager for a personal treaty. On 27 April he was named to the committee to consider the London petition, which forced the Independents to make at least some concessions, not least the appointment of Philip Skippon* as military commander in London.80CJ v. 546a. Once the decision had been made to revoke the vote of no addresses (28 Apr.), Bulkeley resumed a position of prominence within the House. He was made chairman of the committee for the militia, charged with overseeing the defence of the counties in the face of the growing royalist threat, and he reported the new militia ordinance (13 May), although a request for leave to recover his health resulted in the appointment of a new chairman.81CJ v. 550b, 551a, 553b, 558a-559a. He was soon back in action: he was named to investigate the disorder accompanying the presentation of the Surrey petition (17 May) and to discuss security with the City fathers (18, 26 May); his committee for complaints was eventually revived (18 May, 1 July).82CJ v. 562b, 563b, 565a, 574a, 619b. Having helped Lisle to secure leave (20 May), he was a messenger to the Lords in pursuit of the Independent aim of maintaining control of the Derby House Committee (25 May).83CJ v. 571a, 573a.

There was no sign of Bulkeley at Westminster in June 1648, perhaps because insurgency in Hampshire claimed his attention, but he had returned by 15 July to assert the Independent position that negotiations with the king must be founded upon the demand that Charles agree to the ‘three propositions’ (the settlement of Presbyterianism, parliamentary control of the militia for ten years, and the revocation of declarations against Parliament).84CJ v. 637a. He was also named to discover who had invited the Hamiltonian Scots to invade England on behalf of the king. (20 July).85CJ v. 640b. A teller for the majority who voted to revive debate on peace (22 July), he also found time to promote Isle of Wight and other business.86CJ v. 644a, 645a, 646a, 655a. But following MPs’ agreement to unconditional talks at Newport (28 July), Bulkeley was among commissioners appointed to attend the king (2-3 Aug.).87CJ v. 658b, 660a. His report to the House on 14 August of Charles’s ‘longing desire for a speedy settlement’, and his ‘importuning us to do all good offices which might tend thereto’, proved highly controversial. Several of the more fiery Independents, like Harbert Morley*, Thomas Scot I* and Thomas Chaloner*, ‘began to gnash their teeth at the reporter’, and argued that Bulkeley and Sir John Hippisley* should be called to account for having ‘gone beside their commission, by private conference with the king’. On the following day, however, the two men called the bluff of their opponents and ‘conjured the House either to acquit them presently, or condemn them, that they might know what to trust unto, and not have the matter put by at present’; upon the ensuing vote, the House approved their proceedings, and gave them thanks.88CJ v. 670a-b; Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 20 (8-15 Aug. 1648), sig. X2 (E.458.25); no. 21 (15-22 Aug. 1648), sigs. Aav-A2v (E.460.21).

Thereafter Bulkeley combined joint conferences with the Lords over the peace negotiations with talks with the City surrounding security during the continuing insurgency.89CJ v. 671b, 673a-b, 674b, 697b. Named on 1 September as a commissioner for the Newport treaty, he duly went to the Isle of Wight, but left his post over two weeks early, returning to receive the thanks of the House on 9 November.90CJ v. 697a-b; vi. 72a; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 277; HMC Portland, i. 500, 501, 503; LJ x. 536, 544, 547, 553, 575. In a vain attempt to prolong the talks on one of the crucial sticking points, he was a teller for the minority who tried to amend one of the questions posed to the king, in the light of his answer of 4 November, regarding the church and the Book of Common Prayer (11 Nov.).91CJ vi. 74a. He was named to a committee to frame an answer to the king on 13 November, and on 1 December, the day that the army seized Charles from Carisbrooke, marshalled a majority against a motion to consider the king’s final answer at Newport, thus delaying a final decision on the possibility of a settlement.92CJ vi. 75b, 92a. On 2 December, in defiance of the army’s entry into London, he was a teller for those who secured a further adjournment.93CJ vi. 93a. He later reflected that the Newport treaty ‘brought a good return’, and bemoaned the fact that it was ‘blasted’ by the army.94Burton’s Diary, iii. 105-7. In debate in the chamber on 4 December, he remembered, those supporting the treaty initially held a healthy majority, but were defeated by the lateness of the hour, which prompted many aged members to leave the chamber, and by the ‘papers of terrors from the army sent in to us’. Bulkeley also recalled the circumstances of his seclusion and arrest on 6 December: Colonel Thomas Pride had asserted that ‘you have a mark upon you. You are a noted man’. Bulkeley was imprisoned at Surrey Court, examined at Whitehall and finally imprisoned in the King’s Head ‘with great reproach’ until 29 December.95Burton’s Diary, iii. 105-7; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 1355, 1369; Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 36-7 (5-12 Dec. 1648), sig. Ccc3v (E.476.2).

The Rump and the protectorate

Bulkeley was implacably opposed to the Rump, and later described the commonwealth as ‘a monster’.96Burton’s Diary, iii. 105-7. Nevertheless, he did not visibly resist the new regime, although in the spring of 1652 he and his friend Richard Whithed I* appear to have circulated a petition in support of the maintenance of a public preaching ministry.97Add. 24861, f. 67; Hants RO, 1M53/454-5. He was also opposed to the creation of the protectorate, later reflecting that it was ‘new to me’ that Parliament had ever moved for power to be resigned up to a single person. While he conceded that the Instrument of Government ‘had much good in it’, he nevertheless told Parliament in 1659 that ‘in the bowels of it took away your rights. That liberty was not left you which is your due: not that I would set the crown upon the head of the people’.98Burton’s Diary, iii. 105-7. Such comments provide the context for Bulkeley’s election in 1654 to the first protectorate Parliament. Defeated at Andover by a ‘court’ candidate, John Dunch*, he was subsequently returned for Hampshire.99Hants RO, 37M85/4/M1/1, f. 24a.

As an experienced Member, Bulkeley was named to the committee of privileges on 5 September, but with Cromwell’s intervention in the Commons, and the imposition of the ‘recognition’, he joined other Presbyterians in withdrawing from the House.100CJ vii. 366b. According to Thomas Gewen*, Bulkeley had resolved to return in early October, and he went on to sit on a variety of committees, including those for the abolition of the court of wards, the bill regarding which he reported to the Commons on 15 December, and fraud in relation to debentures, which he raised in the House on one occasion.101Archaeologia xxiv. 140; CJ vii. 378b, 380a, 381a-b, 387b, 402b; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 9. A major preoccupation was religious affairs. He was ordered on 1 November to request the Presbyterian minister Thomas Manton to preach a sermon, and was a teller in favour of a vote on suspending the ordinance for the exclusion of scandalous ministers (6 Nov.).102CJ vii. 380a, 382b. He was appointed to meet (and later to thank) divines who had been enlisted to advise on religious policy (6 Dec.), to consider empowering local authorities to raise money for funding the ministry (7 Dec.), to enumerate heresies (12 Dec.), and to consider the books by the Socinian, John Biddle (12 Dec.).103CJ vii. 396a, 397b, 399b, 400a. As might be expected from a leading Presbyterian, Bulkeley was twice a teller (13, 14 Dec.) against motions to insert in the proposed constitutional settlement clauses setting out the power of the protector and Parliament over religion, notably in deciding fundamental principles of doctrine.104CJ vii. 400b, 401a.

This was symptomatic of his opposition to investing extensive power in the protector over any matter – a position of which he emerged as a leading proponent. Bulkeley was named to several committees addressing the new Government Bill, including those considering the power of the protector and the public revenue, but more important were his tellerships, in which he was invariably lined up against leading Cromwellian courtiers.105CJ vii. 398a, 415a-b. Apart from the occasions already mentioned, on 14 November he marshalled a majority against a motion granting the protector a negative voice, while on 24 November he tried fruitlessly to prolong debate on the settlement, and on 2 December, also unsuccessfully, he joined Harbert Morley* in an attempt to block a motion to grant the protector power to nominate candidates for the council.106CJ vii. 385a, 390a, 394b. In January 1655 he was a teller on a further six occasions – three of them with the Surrey Presbyterian, Sir Richard Onslow*, his partner of 14 December – in divisions over the settlement relating to such issues as the franchise, and the manner of presenting bills to the protector; his opponents included Walter Strickland*, Richard Cromwell*, John Cleypole II* (Lord Cleypoole), Roger Boyle* (Lord Broghill), and Henry Cromwell*.107CJ vii. 414a, 417b, 419a, 420a-b. Looking back in 1659, Bulkeley claimed that ‘never [a] Parliament gave out their spirits and labours to make a happy government and foundation for posterity as’ did that of 1654, and took pride that its settlement proposals ‘had provided well to circumscribe the single person’, although he bemoaned the fact that ‘it had not another House in it’.108Burton’s Diary, iii. 105-7.

His record of opposition to the regime ensured that, although Bulkeley was returned to Westminster once again as a knight of the shire in 1656, and also (in circumstances that do not appear) for Wiltshire, he was excluded by the protectoral council, not least because of information from William Goffe* of Bulkeley’s suspected involvement in a local plot against the protector.109CJ vii. 425a; HMC Egmont, i. 579; TSP v. 329, 396-7. Nevertheless, he was far from being regarded as an inveterate enemy. In February 1657 he was named as a commissioner for a Hampshire matter and in February 1658, with Sir Walter Erle* and John Hildesley*, he was ordered to consider a petition regarding Wimborne Minster in Dorset.110CJ vii. 491b; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 282.

Parliament of 1659

In 1659 there was no way of preventing Bulkeley from returning to Westminster, after he was elected at Christchurch, and he soon resumed his position as one of the leading Presbyterians in the House.111Christchurch Bor. Council, corp. minute bk, p. 565. Unlike 1654-5, Bulkeley and his allies pursued a more constructive policy in this Parliament. He later claimed to have been motivated by the need to ‘bring court and country together’, and while he continued to oppose exorbitant protectoral power, he was now more aware of the threat from the army, and as a result distanced himself from republican opponents of the protectorate.112Burton’s Diary, iv. 347. Although his committee appointments were relatively limited, Bulkeley appears to have been active on the committee for elections, notably in relation to the cases of Durham’s MPs, and against the electoral influence of the Howard family.113CJ vii. 594b, 622b, 632a; Burton’s Diary, iii. 23; iv. 310, 312. An unsurprising nominee to the committee considering how to supply the northern counties with ministers (5 Feb.), he later supported a motion for a fast, with the hope that it could be used ‘to declare against erroneous opinions and practices’, such as those of the Quakers.114CJ vii. 600b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 300. More in evidence in the chamber, he sought the punishment of radical MP and army officer Lewis Audley* (2 Feb.), and supported the printing of fast sermons by John Owen, Edward Reynolds, Edmund Calamy and Thomas Manton (4 Feb.).115Burton’s Diary, iii. 40, 42, 43, 68. Among other contributions, Bulkeley decried the long speeches which spun out debate, and made minor interjections regarding the ‘acknowledgement’ of Richard Cromwell.116Burton’s Diary, iii. 150, 278-9. He also opposed the London petition, on the grounds of its political radicalism (15 Feb.), and initiated a complaint against Henry Neville* for atheism and blasphemy (16 Feb.).117Burton’s Diary, iii. 296, 289-90, 299, 301, 302, 303. Returning to an old theme, he criticised those members of the Army Committee who were in receipt of salaries (17 Feb.).118Burton’s Diary, ii. 311. He spoke on foreign policy, clashing with Sir Henry Vane II*, as he did on other occasions.119Burton’s Diary, iii. 395, 492; iv. 295. He sought to placate the army by paying their arrears, in order to prevent them from exerting too much political influence.120Burton’s Diary, iv. 140. He also proposed hearing the case of one of Cromwell’s radical victims, Robert Overton.121Burton’s Diary, iv. 152.

More importantly, Bulkeley contributed to debates on the ‘recognition’ of Richard Cromwell’s protectorate. In a lengthy speech on 7 February, in which he reflected upon the history of wars and his own experiences, he explained that he was ‘engaged … to promote a House of Lords. Those lords that were faithful, it were the greatest dishonour that ever were to kick them out’.122Burton’s Diary, iii. 105-7. ‘The ground of your war’, he later claimed, ‘was not to take away … the House of Lords’ (18 Feb.), and accordingly he spoke about the method of choosing the Other House (28 Feb.).123Burton’s Diary, iii. 344-5, 544. On 7 February Bulkeley demonstrated a much more conciliatory attitude to protectoral power than heretofore, and in this he joined other leading Presbyterians, including Thomas Grove and Lambarde Godfrey, who countered the arguments of Sir Arthur Hesilrige, Thomas Scot and others.124Henry Cromwell Corresp. 448, 451. Opposition to the republicans, whose views were ‘against the sense of the nation’, led Bulkeley to insist on separating the questions of the recognition and the ‘other house’ and to declare that ‘unless the chief magistrate have this approbation, every rascal may affront the chief magistrate’.125Burton’s Diary, iii. 105-7. However, the next day Bulkeley walked a fine line between playing into the hands of the republicans by denying the recognition, and accepting the proposed settlement. The only constitution acceptable to him was one which involved a single person, but despite trusting Richard ‘would not have too little power given nor too great’, he considered that the powers envisaged were so great that he would ‘rather vote him as king, upon the terms of former kings, than give him this that is moved’.126Burton’s Diary, iii. 145-6. Reiterating his support for polity with a monarchical element, he asserted that it had never been the aim of the civil war to ‘take away the single person’. Furthermore, ‘if he be not major singulis [i.e. possessing pre-eminent power] he will not be able to suppress and allay factions, which you will see break out’. While Bulkeley was ‘against advancing the single person beyond bounds as much as any man’, neither did he wish to ‘make him insignificant’ (18 Feb.).127Burton’s Diary, iii. 344-5. On 19 February he seconded the attorney-general’s motion to discuss setting limits to the power of the Commons, saying that it was ‘easier to bound the chief magistrate than them’.128Burton’s Diary, iii. 367, 368.

By early March MPs were contemplating transacting with the Other House. Perturbed by the prospect but determined to confront it, on 7 March Bulkeley was a teller for the tiny majority for pursuing debate.129CJ vii. 611b. He complained that

a greater power is given to that house by the Petition and Advice than ever the old peers had, in the business of money, which none have touched yet. I could leap over the rest, but this passed, I doubt it will ever be recovered in any age.

Once the Commons went down the path of transacting, ‘we cannot alter a tittle of this Petition and Advice without their concurrence’; MPs ‘never did so downright give away their privilege. All the advantage that this House ever had, was that they had their grievances redressed, when they gave money’.130Burton’s Diary, iv. 55-6. Yet he recognised a ‘necessity of transacting’, thought it possible to appoint Members to meet with the upper chamber, as with the army, ‘without owning them as another House’, and on this basis eventually supported transacting.131Burton’s Diary, iv. 278, 293. In his support for the Other House, Bulkeley was again working with other leading Presbyterians such as Thomas Grove, John Swynfen, Thomas Bampfylde and Lambarde Godfrey, who, according to one commentator, all ‘fell in with the court party’.132Henry Cromwell Corresp. 473. Named on 6 April to the relevant committee, he even advocated transacting with the Other House on equal terms.133CJ vii. 627a; Burton’s Diary, iv. 377.

When the House turned to the question of the right of the Scottish and Irish Members to sit in the House, Bulkeley again supported the regime against its republican opponents. On 9 March he claimed that ‘the consequence will be dangerous, to throw out, not only the Members, but the union, for want of a formality’.134Burton’s Diary, iv. 108-9. While they might not have a perfect right to sit, they had ‘an equitable right by the terms of the union’. That union was based upon shared Protestant faith and gratitude for past Scottish assistance, and conferred the benefit of financial assistance towards paying the army.135Burton’s Diary, iv. 176-7. Consistently, Bulkeley was a teller against republican efforts to exclude the Scots both from the debate (18 Mar.) and from sitting at all (21 Mar.).136CJ vii. 616a, 616b. Appropriately, on 1 April he was named to the committee for Scottish affairs.137CJ vii. 623b.

1660 and the Restoration

Although unable to sit in the Commons during the restored Rump, Bulkeley returned to Westminster when the secluded Members were readmitted in late February 1660. In the next three weeks he received six committee appointments. Added to the committee for the militia (25 Feb.), he was also named to review sequestrations (27 Feb., 1 Mar.).138CJ vii. 853a, 854a, 856b. As before, religion may have been his chief concern: he was nominated to three committees relating to the provision of ministers and the confession of faith (29 Feb.; 2, 15 Mar.).139CJ vii. 855b, 858a, 877a. Additionally, he was made a commissioner for the New Forest (1 Mar.).140CJ vii. 856b. He was still in the chamber when Parliament dissolved itself on 16 March.141The Grand Memorandum (1660, 669.f.24.37).

Bulkeley was an active militia commissioner in April and was returned unopposed to the Convention for one of the county seats.142Sloane 813 f. 17; HP Commons 1660-1690 He was also elected to the Cavalier Parliament, for Lymington, and used his influence at Christchurch to help secure the election of Humphrey Weld† and Henry Tulse II*.143Hants RO, 27M74/DBC2, f. 57; Christchurch Bor. Council, corp. minute bk, p. 550; HP Commons 1660-1690. He received a royal pardon upon the coronation of Charles II and sat in Parliament as a friend of Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, speaking in favour of moderate and limited episcopacy.144Hants RO, 1M53/468. However, he died before the second session opened, sometime between 11 September 1662, when he drew up his will, and 3 October following, when it was proved. His estate was such that he was able to bequeath £300 per annum to his widow, and a portion of £2,000 for his daughter, as well as property in Hampshire and Wiltshire to his sons.145PROB11/309/167; Hants RO, 1M53/469-70; 27M74/DBC2, f. 57. His grandson, Sir Dewey Bulkeley†, sat for Bridport between 1719 and 1727.