INGOLDSBY, Richard (1617-85), of Waldridge, Dinton, Bucks.

Richard Ingoldsby was the most prominent of a string of brothers who all served as officers in the parliamentarian army. In his case, he was recruited in the autumn of 1642 by his mother’s cousin, John Hampden*, to become one of the captains in his infantry regiment.32SP28/2b, ff. 329, 518; CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 398; BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database. Richard probably continued to serve as such after Hampden had been killed in June 1643 and succeeded as colonel by Thomas Tyrrell*, although Ingoldsby had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel at some point before October 1643.33SP28/10, f. 270 BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database. By late 1644 he had taken over as the regiment’s colonel.34SP28/19, f. 76; SP28/21, ff. 157, 174. It is possible that Ingoldsby took over from Tyrrell in the wake of the disastrous Lostwithiel campaign, for both men are known to have participated in that debacle.35Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 709. They served with somewhat more success at the second battle of Newbury (27 Oct. 1644) several weeks later.36Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 722-3; C.L. Scott, The Battles of Newbury (Barnsley, 2008), 122.

The regiment remained largely intact, with Ingoldsby being continued as colonel, under the New Model.37Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, i. 46, 57, 67, 78, 88, 148. Thomas Kelsey* and Richard Wagstaffe* served under him. The following spring Ingoldsby’s regiment was one of those sent to assist the forces besieging Taunton.38CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 459; Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva, 68. In August 1645 they besieged Sherburn Castle, before moving on the following month to help storm Bristol.39Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 63, 67. Meanwhile, Ingoldsby was briefly appointed as governor of Aylesbury to oversee the by-election there on 25 September.40Weekly Account no. 38 (17-23 Sept. 1645), sig. A3v (E.302.21). After two candidates favoured by the army (Thomas Scot I* and Simon Mayne*) had been successfully returned, he was replaced as governor by Thomas Bulstrode.41Weekly Account no. 47 (12-19 Nov. 1645), sig. [A1v] (E.309.23). That this was only a temporary appointment may have counted against him when that November he himself was a candidate for a county seat.42Add. 18780, f. 162. Once Oxford surrendered in July 1646 most of Ingoldsby’s men were given the task of garrisoning the city and they remained there in that capacity until the early 1650s. Ingoldsby thus became the city’s governor.43Wood, Fasti, ii. 133. The attempt to disband the regiment in June 1647 went wrong when, on discovering that the men were refusing to cooperate, Parliament attempted to recall the money which had been sent to pay them off, only for this message to reach Oxford too late and after the soldiers had seized it.44CJ v. 183b; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vi. 493, 500.

Ingoldsby’s importance in the army undoubtedly helped get him elected as MP for Wendover in the recruiter by-election of October 1647. One of the MPs he was replacing was Robert Croke*, a cousin of Elizabeth Croke, whom he had probably married the previous year.45Bucks. bishop’s transcripts, Hartwell. As Andover electors must have foreseen, Ingoldsby’s military duties prevented him from taking an active role in Parliament for the time being. He was named to one committee, to consider dismissing some of the fellows of St John’s College, Cambridge, just eight days after his election, but he otherwise made no known contribution to Parliament’s proceedings until after the purge of 6 December 1648.46CJ v. 331b. In the meantime, some of his men took part in the siege of Colchester (June-Aug. 1648).47Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 1135, 1172.

In October 1648 the soldiers in Ingoldsby’s regiment had called for the peace negotiations at Newport to be halted and for the king to be brought to justice.48Rushworth, Hist. Collns. vii. 1257-8, 1259, 1311-12. Ingoldsby certainly opposed further negotiations with the king, which is why he survived the army’s purge of the Commons. His attitude towards the king’s trial is more difficult to decipher. What is known is that he was named as one of the commissioners appointed to sit in judgment on the king, that he attended none of the public sessions of the high court of justice, but that he was present on 29 January 1649 and signed the death warrant.49A. and O.; Muddiman, Trial, 227. Three companies from his regiment were among the forces stationed in and around London for the duration of the trial.50Clarke Pprs. ii. 187. What is most questionable is his subsequent claim, made in debate during the Convention in 1660, that he had initially refused to sign the death warrant, but that he was physically forced to do so, with his kinsman, Oliver Cromwell*, guiding his hand.51Clarendon, Hist. vi. 222-3; Hutchinson Mems. ed Sutherland, 228. That he was never prosecuted after the Restoration need not mean that this story was thought to be convincing. Rather it provided a convenient excuse not to prosecute him when the restored monarchy had other, more important reasons to favour him.

Despite the reduced size of the House following the December 1648 purge, Ingoldsby’s activity in the Rump remained intermittent. Nothing is known about what he might have been up to at Westminster throughout the rest of 1649. What is known is that some of his soldiers did not like what his parliamentary colleagues were doing. On 8 September the men from his regiment stationed at Oxford mutinied in support of calls for a free Parliament. The officers were taken hostage and New College seized. Ingoldsby was sent at once to regain control. He quickly restored order.52CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 305, 405. The university presented him with some gloves as a mark of their gratitude.53Wood, Life and Times, iv. 62. In January 1650 he was present in the House, as he was one of those appointed to draft the declaration explaining the day of humiliation set aside to seek God’s blessing for Parliament and the army.54CJ vi. 352b. He also appears to have taken an interest in March 1650 in the passage of the bill to establish a court martial with jurisdiction within London and Westminster.55CJ vi. 382b. That autumn, with Cromwell pressing home the advantage gained by the victory at Dunbar, 300 of Ingoldsby’s men were prepared for despatch to Scotland. They marched early the following year.56CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 350, 394, 414, 567, 595, 597; 1651, pp. 29, 39, 539, 541. Meanwhile, others were sent to Carlisle to protect the route into England, in case Charles Stuart and the Scots decided to march south.57CSP Dom. 1650, p. 350. Ingoldsby’s troops remaining at Oxford were sent in May 1651 to reinforce those serving with Thomas Harrison I*.58CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 187, 191, 194, 528, 195, 202, 217-18.

As Ingoldsby did not himself take part in the Scottish campaign, it was possible for him to make occasional appearances at Westminster. In December 1650 he and Harrison acted as tellers for those who wanted an immediate vote on whether to void the London common council elections.59CJ vi. 514b. He favoured the grant of land to his fellow soldier, Philip Skippon*, and sat on the committee considered the bill to impress soldiers for Ireland.60CJ vi. 516b, 563a. Once Charles Stuart and the Scots did decide to march south, he re-joined his regiment. On 28 August he assisted John Lambert* in capturing the crossing over the Severn and so presumably was present at the battle of Worcester six days later.61T. Blount, Boscobel (1660), 7. By November, when he voted in the ballot for the council of state, he was back at Westminster.62CJ vi. 41b. On 18 February 1652 he and John Downes* acted as tellers to ensure that the Act of Oblivion was amended to ensure that the warrants which had been issued by the Army Committee to pay the army would still be implemented.63CJ vii. 92b. This was an issue in which he and his men, along with others who had served in the army, had a vested interest. Not that Ingoldsby had much to complain about. That May the Commons voted to grant him estates in Scotland worth £500 a year.64CJ vii. 132b. The lands allocated to him were part of the Hamilton barony, formerly owned by the dukes of Hamilton. Ingoldsby had no interest in retaining them and so sold them almost immediately to William Lockhart, who was acting for the duchess of Hamilton. The sale price was £3,881.65NAS, 332/F1/194; GD 406/2/M1/202.

In May 1652, on hearing of the clash between the English and Dutch fleets, the council of state increased the size of Ingoldsby’s regiment and ordered it to march to Kent. Acting on behalf of the council, Harbert Morley* secured the Commons’ approval on 21 May for the regiment to be increased temporarily to 1,200 men.66CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 248, 250, 256, 314, 563, 564; CJ vii. 134b. Two months later a further increase to 1,600 men was approved.67CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 324, 571; CJ vii. 153b-154b. Later that summer detachments from Ingoldsby’s regiment were placed on board the ships sent to protect the fishing fleets from attack by the Dutch.68CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 377; Ludlow, Mems. i. 324-5. In the meantime Ingoldsby served for 24 hours as acting lieutenant of the Tower of London, ensuring the safety of the Tower until John Barkstead* was appointed to fill the vacancy.69CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 364; CJ vii. 163b. With the immediate threat from the Dutch subsiding with the onset of winter, Ingoldsby’s regiment was returned to its former level at the end of September.70CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 424. This may have enabled him to spend more time at Westminster and on 29 October he acted as a teller in the division on the petition of William Craven, 1st Baron Craven.71CJ vii. 203b.

One measure of Ingoldsby’s increasing public profile was his election to the council of state in November 1652.72CJ vii. 221a. During the five months in which he sat on the council, he turned up for 70 of the 121 meetings, making him one of the more regular attenders.73CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. xxxiii. He was also named to an number of the council’s sub-committees, including those overseeing the ordnance, the admiralty, foreign affairs and Scottish and Irish business.74CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 2, 16, 33, 37, 185, 198, 304. What his position as a councillor of state did not do was to increase in any obvious way his activity in the Commons, although it probably provided a further reason for adding him to the Army Committee.75CJ vii. 230b. His other committee appointments in the months before Cromwell dismissed the Rump in April 1653 included that to investigate the activities of those trustees who had organised the sale of Charles I’s goods.76CJ vii. 250b, 251a, 251b, 257b, 260b. However, his main contribution to the proceedings of this Parliament at this time was to help bring it to an end. According to Bulstrode Whitelocke*, it was Ingoldsby who informed Cromwell on 20 April that the Rump was debating a bill to allow it to continue sitting, thus prompting the general to go to Westminster and close it down.77Whitelocke, Diary, 286.

Although no longer an MP or a councillor of state, Ingoldsby remained a key figure in the army. He can be assumed to have supported its attempts to find a new political settlement. There was also a war with the Dutch to fight. Since February of that year many of his troops had again been stationed on board ships in the Channel ports or just offshore.78CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 145, 164, 191, 254, 256, 257, 272, 316, 479, 537, 559; Mems. of the Verney Fam. iii. 159-60. In August 1653 the Nominated Parliament agreed to make allowances for this by restoring the size of his regiment to 1,000 men.79CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 76; CJ vii. 296b-297a, 341a. That level was continued at regular intervals until the middle of 1654, when numbers were again increased to 1,200.80CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 267, 387, 406; 1654, pp. 40, 70, 225, 245, 267. Those troops who had been sent to sea did see action; some of them were killed and some were captured by the Dutch.81CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 543, 545; 1654, p. 543. It was not until late 1654, with the military threats receding, that the regiment was reduced to just 800 men.82CSP Dom. 1654, p. 415.

Not everyone approved of Ingoldsby’s election as one of the five Buckinghamshire MPs in the 1654 Parliament. One of the Aylesbury innkeepers, who was an Anabaptist, had campaigned against him on the grounds that if Ingoldsby was elected, ‘the saints would suffer’. Not long afterwards Ingoldsby happened to meet the innkeeper in the privy gallery at Whitehall, whereupon he physically attacked him.83HMC Egmont, i. 545; A Second Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 12. Ingoldsby was punished with a brief period of imprisonment in the Tower.84Wood, Fasti, ii. 133. This was not the last time that Ingoldsby’s lack of interest in religious radicalism was noted by contemporaries.

If Ingoldsby was not pressing for godly reform in the 1654 Parliament, it is not obvious what he was pressing for. He left little trace on its proceedings. Even allowing for the fact that the references to ‘Colonel Ingoldsby’ almost certainly do refer to Richard rather than his brother Henry, he was named to only five committees, admittedly including such high-profile ones as the committee for privileges, the army and navy committee and the committee to consider the legislation which had been passed by the Nominated Parliament.85CJ vii. 366b, 370a, 370b, 375b, 387a. This was probably not a question of his military responsibilities detaining him elsewhere. Although some of his men accompanied the fleet to New England, most of them were at this time still stationed in the London area.86CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 106, 229; 1655-6, pp. 133, 566.

On 21 August 1656 he was re-elected as one of the MPs for Buckinghamshire.87Whitelocke, Diary, 447. This time it is certain that all the references to ‘Colonel Ingoldsby’ must relate to Richard, as Henry is known to have been absent in Ireland throughout the first session. What these reveal is that his committee activity in the Parliament was dominated by private and local issues.88CJ vii. 462b, 466b, 484a, 488b, 501a, 503b, 513b. In some cases this was based on personal interest. He supported the bill to grant Irish lands to Sir Hardress Waller*, because his brother Henry was married to Waller’s daughter.89CJ vii. 505b. This may also have been why he was the first of 11 MPs added on 22 May 1657 to the committee considering the bill to attaint the Irish rebels.90CJ vii. 537b. He doubtless headed the list of those named to the committee to consider the petition from the countess of Stirling over the Vanlore inheritance because the countess was distantly related to him via his wife and the Crokes also had a direct interest in the case.91CJ vii. 505b.

Ingoldsby supported the original version of the Humble Petition and Advice, including its offer of the crown to Cromwell.92Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 22 (E.935.5). According to William Jephson*, writing to Henry Cromwell* in early March 1657, Ingoldsby had been one of those army officers in favour of the Petition who had met at the house of George Downing* to encourage the lord protector to accept it.93Henry Cromwell Corresp. 213-14. Ingoldsby seems to have taken a particular interest in the clause designed to protect those clergymen who disagreed on matters of discipline and worship.94CJ vii. 507b. He was then of those MPs appointed on 27 March 1657 to ask Cromwell about the presentation of the Petition and was then sent 13 days later to ask for an explanation for the protector’s reluctance to accept it.95CJ vii. 514a, 521b, 524a. He later sat on the committee to prepare the bills to incorporate the additional votes on the subject.96CJ vii. 540b.

Ingoldsby’s kinship with Cromwell, his prominent military position and his support for the protectorate combined to recommend him for membership of the Other House. He was therefore one of those included in the summons issued on 9 December 1657.97HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 504. During the brief first session held in January and February 1658, he attended on 11 of the 13 days on which the Other House sat, although he happened to be absent on 2 February when the House was called.98HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 507-23.

In the months following Cromwell’s death, Ingoldsby proved himself to be one of Richard Cromwell’s* strongest supporters. Even as Oliver Cromwell had been dying, some of the other army officers had plotted to position themselves in preparation for his death, but they seem not to have included Ingoldsby in their discussions.99TSP vii. 365. His loyalty to the Cromwells was presumably taken for granted. Then, in the uncertain days of September 1658, Ingoldsby was appointed lieutenant of the Tower of London.100CCSP iv. 80. His regiment also remained loyal.101TSP vii. 495. The steadfast backing he was offering Richard Cromwell placed strains between Ingoldsby and those who were unimpressed by the new lord protector. By that December Charles Fleetwood* was so convinced that Ingoldsby, the 2nd Viscount Fauconberg (Thomas Belasyse*), and Edward Montagu II* were conspiring against him that he denounced them at a meeting of the council of state.102CCSP iv. 118. Ingoldsby can be assumed to have worked hard on Richard Cromwell’s behalf when the Other House resumed its sittings between January and April 1659, although it is can be established that he missed more than a third of the days on which it met.103HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 525-66. He was also named to three of its committees, those on petitions, privileges and the bill on the Other House’s powers.104HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 527, 533, 548.

When Richard Cromwell came under pressure from the army to dissolve this Parliament, Ingoldsby was one of those who tried to persuade him to resist.105CCSP iv. 184; Clarendon, Hist. vi. 103. He continued to support his cousin as long as he clung on as lord protector.106Clarke Pprs. iii. 212. Richard appreciated what support Ingoldsby was able to offer. In confronting one of his critics who felt that men who were insufficiently godly were being promoted in the army, he famously declared, ‘Here is Dick Ingoldsby who can neither pray nor preach, and yet I will trust him before you all’.107Ludlow, Mems. ii. 63; A Second Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 13. It was Ingoldsby who attempted to rally the army in London in support of the protector on 21 April when Fleetwood asserted his power by organising a military rendezvous at St James’s. That far more of the soldiers sided with Fleetwood sealed Richard Cromwell’s fate. Once the protector had been removed, it was only a matter of time before Ingoldsby was dismissed as well.108Henry Cromwell Corresp. 509; Nicholas Pprs. iv. 122; [A. Annesley], Englands Confusion (1659), 11 (E.985.1); Clarendon, Hist. vi. 104; Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, ii. 112. His regiment was given to John Okey*. Inevitably, some of those in the army worried about these developments now looked to Ingoldsby as a possible leader.109CCSP iv. 210; TSP vii. 666. Ingoldsby, for his part, was looking further ahead and further afield.

In the middle of June 1659 he made contact with John Mordaunt, the leading royalist agent in London.110CCSP iv. 235. By 26 July Mordaunt was able to report to the exiled court that Ingoldsby was keen, ‘by some worthy action, to blot out as far as in him lies, the sad unexcusable fault he committed’. To that end, he offered the services of his two troops stationed at Chichester and Lewes. He did so on the understanding that Richard Cromwell would be allowed to take over temporarily prior to the restoration of Charles Stuart.111Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 33-4. Ingoldsby’s cooperation opened up the possibility that these troops would assist those royalists who planned to rise in rebellion in Surrey and Sussex at the same time as the rising by Sir George Boothe* in the north. In the event these plans misfired even before Ingoldsby’s men had been able to declare themselves.112Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy, 266-7. How far his men would have been willing to go along with this plan is therefore unclear. Two of his captains were arrested in early August and it was reported that Ingoldsby was on the run. Although nothing could be pinned on him, the suspicion, which was entirely justified, that he had been involved in the conspiracy persisted. Nor did this setback discourage him. He still thought it made sense to plot on behalf of the king in exile. This was why on 23 December 1659 he approached Bulstrode Whitelocke to suggest that he hand the great seal over to Charles Stuart, although the attempt at persuasion got nowhere.113Whitelocke, Diary, 553.

The decision by George Monck* to march south and take control in London raised the prospect of Ingoldsby being reappointed to a military command.114CCSP iv. 511, 513; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 163. On 7 January 1660 the Rump considered whether to appoint Ingoldsby to replace Harbert Morley as one of the regimental colonels. The doubts surrounding him were so great that the Commons decided not to put it to a full vote and passed on to other business.115CJ vii. 805b. This did not discourage Mordaunt, who nevertheless spoke confidently of Ingoldsby controlling more soldiers in England than anyone else apart from Monck himself.116Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 169. The prospect of Ingoldsby returning to power was why Sir Arthur Hesilrige* now accused him of having been in arms during Boothe’s rebellion.117Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 152. Before long however Monck got his chance to reappoint Ingoldsby anyway. Within weeks the men in Ingoldsby’s old regiment were criticising the decision to re-admit the secluded Members to the Commons. Ingoldsby was then named as the replacement for Nathaniel Rich* and, after Ingoldsby went down to Suffolk to take charge in person, Rich agreed to hand over the command.118HMC Leyborne-Popham, 163-4; CCSP iv. 577, 590; Ludlow, Voyce, 85; Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, ii. 112, 147. The decision to re-admit the secluded Members was one that Ingoldsby himself had particularly pressed for.119Ludlow, Voyce, 88; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 217. The re-admission was combined with the creation of a new council of state, which Ingoldsby, by sitting on the Commons’ committee on the relevant bill, also supported.120CJ vii. 847b. Unlike Monck, who was still avoiding any direct overtures from the royalist court in exile, Ingoldsby now repeated his assurances of support to Charles Stuart.121Clarendon, Hist. vi. 186.

In late March 1660 Ingoldsby was elected as MP for Aylesbury in the Convention, with Thomas Lee†, his wife’s son from her previous marriage. It helped that their only opponent was Thomas Scot I, another regicide but one who was less willing to accommodate himself to the prevailing anti-republican mood. Once the Convention had met and decided to invite the king to return from exile, the immediate threat was presented by Lambert’s escape from the Tower. Ingoldsby was given the job of hunting him down. He marched northwards with his regiment to find him. The two forces met outside Daventry on 24 April. Once some of his men began deserting, Lambert offered to negotiate, proposing that he and Ingoldsby restore Richard Cromwell. Ingoldsby refused and had Lambert arrested.122Mercurius Publicus no. 17 (19-26 Apr. 1660), 270 (E.183.6); An Exact Accompt no. 84 (20-27 Apr. 1660), 861 (E.183.7); NMM, SAN/A/1, f. 23; Whitelocke, Diary, 580-1; CCSP iv. 675, 678; Pepys’s Diary, i. 114-15, 117; The Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend 1640-1663 ed. S. Porter, S.K. Roberts and I. Roy (Worcs. Hist. Soc. n.s. xxv), 275; R. Baker, A Chronicle of the Kings of England (1665), 720-1; G. Burnet, Hist. of his own time (Oxford, 1833), i. 155; Ludlow, Voyce, 114-16; Clarendon, Hist. vi. 184-5, 223. The last serious opposition to the Restoration had been crushed. The following month Mordaunt thought that it would have been more appropriate had Ingoldsby’s, rather than Charles Howard’s, regiment been given the honour of providing a military escort for the king on his arrival.123CCSP v. 31.

It was still not possible for Ingoldsby to be sure that his role in the regicide would go unpunished. As has already been suggested, his tale about being forced to sign Charles I’s death warrant was probably not the reason why he was never prosecuted for his role in the regicide. Even after he had been offered his support, Charles II had refused to give Ingoldsby any assurances that he would be pardoned.124Clarendon, Hist. vi. 223. Those involved in the regicide had been consistently excluded from the pardon Charles planned to offer in the event of his restoration and this was the principle finally incorporated into the Declaration of Breda. Any exceptions were to be a matter for Parliament. Ingoldsby had accepted this, but also knew that strongly supporting the king’s return would strengthen his claims for special treatment. His decision on 7 June 1660 to place his wife’s jointure estates from her previous marriage into the hands of trustees was probably intended as a precaution against possible confiscation.125Bucks. RO, D/LE/1/250-1. He need not have worried. On 12 May he had made a ‘humble and sorrowful speech’ in the Commons seeking forgiveness and had been ‘much pitied’.126Diary and Pprs. of Henry Townshend, 278. In due course, the Convention Parliament proved willing to omit his name from the list of those exempted from the general pardon granted by the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion. Just to be clear, the king also issued him with a pardon under the privy seal.127PSO5/8, unfol. He continued to command his regiment until it was disbanded in late 1660.128Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, ii. 170.

Ingoldsby sat as MP for Aylesbury in all four of the remaining Parliaments of Charles II’s reign. He retained sufficient traces of his former allegiances to be counted as a Presbyterian during that period, and in the 1670s he opposed the rule of the 1st earl of Danby (Sir Thomas Osborne†) before becoming a whig in the Exclusion Parliaments. Shortly before his death in 1685 he was briefly imprisoned as a suspected supporter of James Scott, 1st duke of Monmouth. His grandson, Thomas Ingoldsby†, sat as MP for Aylesbury during George II’s reign.129HP Commons 1715-1754.

Anthony Wood, who was no friend of the parliamentarians and who had witnessed Ingoldsby’s time as governor of Oxford at first hand, paid tribute to Ingoldsby as ‘a gentleman of courage and valour’ who ‘could neither pray, preach or dissemble, being rather a boon companion’.130Wood, Fasti, ii. 133. In contrast to so many of his fellow soldiers in the parliamentarian army, it is difficult to detect in him any deep political passions. His lack of godly zeal was well known, even notorious. Although his abilities as a soldier deserve to be credited, it would not be entirely unfair to say that, as a politician, his strongest principles proved to be first his personal loyalty to his kinsmen, the Cromwells, and then to his own self-preservation.