WALLER, Sir William (1598-1668), of Winchester Castle, Winchester, Hants.

Bred in riches

The Wallers of Groombridge had been a Kentish gentry family for at least two centuries. The Buckinghamshire Wallers, including Edmund*, were a distant cadet branch, while Sir Hardress Waller* was this MP’s first cousin.42Vis. Kent 1619-21, 129-30. Sir William was born in 1598 at Knole, the house of his maternal grandfather, Sampson Lennard. His father, Sir Thomas†, served as the lieutenant of Dover Castle and represented Dover in the 1604 Parliament, but died in 1613 when William was still a teenager. What would prove to be his most valuable financial legacy to his son was the office of chief butler of England, obtained from the lord treasurer, the 1st earl of Dorset (Thomas Sackville†), eight years earlier. It brought with it the right to collect the crown’s prisage of wines and butlerage, enabling the Wallers to claim a substantial cut on all wine imports in return for payment of a much smaller sum to the government. This would make them very wealthy indeed.

Edward Hyde* considered Waller to have been ‘well bred’.43Clarendon, Hist. iii. 80. In 1612, aged 15, William enrolled at Magdalen Hall, Oxford, although he left without taking a degree.44Al. Ox. He later set out on a European grand tour which took him to Paris and then on to northern Italy, including Venice, Bologna and Florence.45Poetry of Anna Matilda, 113-14. He gained his first experience of military action when he fought with the Venetians at the siege of Gradisca in 1618. After a brief return to England, he entered the service of the ‘Winter King’, the Protestant king of Bohemia, Frederick V.46Poetry of Anna Matilda, 108-9. He therefore witnessed at first hand the fall of Prague to the imperial and Catholic forces of the Emperor Ferdinand II in November 1620. In June 1622, on his return to England, Waller was knighted by Frederick’s father-in-law, James I.47Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 179.

During the 1620s and the 1630s he failed to put down roots in any particular county. In August 1622 he married Jane Reynell and they spent much of the next ten years living on her family’s estate, Forde House, in Devon. A second marriage in the late 1630s to Anne Finch, daughter of Thomas, 2nd earl of Winchelsea, who herself had strong family connections with Kent, might have prompted Waller to re-locate back to his native county. Instead, he took up residence in Hampshire because that same year the crown granted him Winchester Castle, which had formerly been held by the late lord treasurer, the 1st earl of Portland (Sir Richard Weston†).48CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 447. Another piece of royal property in Hampshire once owned by Portland and now also granted to Waller was the forest of Bere, outside Farnham. In May 1639 some of the locals successfully persuaded the privy council to order Waller to allow them to continue collecting wood for the beacon located nearby.49CSP Dom. 1639, p. 215. One consequence of this rootlessness was that, apart from a brief spell as a justice of the peace in Devon in the early 1630s, Waller held no local offices, and indeed played no obvious role in public life during these years. Hyde would claim that one of Jane Reynell’s relatives had accused Waller of striking him within Westminster Hall, which counted as the precincts of a royal palace, and that ‘this produced in him so eager a spirit against the court that he was very open to any temptation that might engage him against it’.50Clarendon, Hist. iii. 80-1. But this seems too facile an explanation of the developing political views of a man who would show himself to be a thoughtful, well-informed observer of the great crisis in which he would play such an important role.

Waller’s first attempt to get elected to the Long Parliament in 1640 ended in a humiliating defeat. Some Oxfordshire gentlemen approached him and suggested that he stand there as a knight of the shire with Bulstrode Whitelocke*. His lack of real ties to the county disadvantaged him in the face of opposition from the Fiennes interest, headed by William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, who hoped to re-elect his eldest son, James Fiennes*. While this seems to have deterred Whitelocke, Waller stood anyway, but received no more than a ‘few votes’ in the poll on 28 October 1640.51Whitelocke, Diary, 121-2.

However, the death of Sir Henry Rainsforde* early the following year occasioned a by-election at Andover. Encouraged by others (as he later claimed) Waller stood in the poll on 13 April 1641.52W. Waller, Vindication of the Character and Conduct of Sir William Waller (1793), 108. The result was allegedly close, with the corporation evenly divided between Waller and his opponent, Henry Vernon*, who was then elected on the casting vote of the bailiff. Waller petitioned against the result, and on 30 April the Commons referred it to its committee on disputed elections for a decision.53CJ ii. 130b; Procs. LP iv. 149, 153. In the meantime, Waller helped organise the Hampshire petition calling for Catholic peers to be deprived of their votes in the House of Lords, which was presented to Parliament on 10 March 1642.54PJ ii. 22-3; LJ iv. 640a-b. A ruling on the Andover by-election was eventually reached on 3 May 1642, when the Commons decided that Vernon’s election was void and then, by 107 votes to 102, affirmed Waller as the rightful MP.55CJ ii. 554a-b, 568a; PJ ii. 267, 271.

Waller joined an assembly on a collision course with the king. Civil war had already broken out in Ireland, significantly increasing the worsening tensions in England. Waller’s first committee appointments in the Commons, dating from mid-May 1642, concerned the need to raise provisions and money to support the Protestant cause in Ireland. He was then named to the committee on the plan to foil the king’s attempts to seize the magazine of the Hull garrison by removing it by sea (18 May). A month later, Waller was included on the committee attempting to stop the king assembling forces at York (17 June).56CJ ii. 571b, 572b, 577a, 630a. By then he had already offered four horses and £100 to Parliament to assist its counter-preparations.57PJ iii. 475.

Conquering hero, 1642-3

As sides were drawn for war, Waller unambiguously supported Parliament. He later justified this on the wholly conventional grounds that he wished, ‘that religion might be reformed and maintained; the person, dignity and honour of the king preserved, and the peace and safety of the kingdom settled.’58Waller, Vindication, 7. This was probably no less truthful for being so clichéd. Colleagues in the Commons were taking equally principled stands. What was remarkable about Waller was that a mere couple of months after taking his seat, he emerged as a significant figure on the parliamentarian side. The Committee of Safety, created on 4 July, was clearly intended to concentrate decision-making into the hands of the innermost circle of peers and MPs, so it is especially striking that Waller was one of the ten MPs included.59CJ ii. 651b. His appointment soon after as a cavalry colonel may yield an insight into this decision.60Peacock, Army Lists, 45, 47; BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database. Waller, with his (relatively rare) military experience and the wealth behind him to raise troops, seems already to have been identified as someone who might play a prominent part in the war against the king. It may even be that appreciation of his potential had helped smooth his entry into Parliament such a short time before.

The first task assigned to him was to besiege Portsmouth, where the garrison under its governor, George Goring*, had declared for the king. After a month, Goring surrendered on 7 September. Some of the local gentry subsequently petitioned Parliament requesting that Waller be appointed as Goring’s successor.61Add. 18777, f. 4. But Waller was needed elsewhere and the lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, was reluctant to appoint him. Waller and his regiment now joined Essex’s forces, which marched northwards in search of the king’s army. When the two armies engaged at Edgehill (23 Oct.), Waller fought on the parliamentarian left wing and his horse was shot from under him.62Poetry of Anna Matilda, 109. Once the king’s advance on London had been repelled, Waller concentrated on capturing a series of strategic towns and fortresses across southern England. Farnham Castle, his own Winchester Castle, Arundel Castle and Chichester fell to him in quick succession during December 1642.

Waller returned to Westminster early in 1643 having fully justified Parliament’s confidence in him. On 16 January the Commons welcomed him back by instructing the Speaker to convey to him its thanks and by indicating that it would consider appointing him as the governor of Plymouth. Four days later he was asked to act as their messenger to the Lords seeking a conference on one of the propositions from the king. He took with him the bill for a loan of £10,000.63CJ ii. 929a, 935a, 935b. Understandably, he was now keen that the army be properly financed. Several weeks earlier he had allegedly told Sir Henry Vane II* that the army would not march unless it was paid.64Add. 18777, f. 82.

In February 1643 Parliament gave Waller a new role as sergeant-major-general of the counties of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Somerset, Worcestershire and Shropshire.65CJ ii. 960b-961a, 962b; A. and O. His task was to secure the Severn valley and counter the threat launched by royalists against Gloucestershire and, more importantly, Bristol from their base at Oxford. A group of MPs – Nathaniel Stephens*, Thomas Hodges I*, Robert Jenner*, John Ashe* and Waller himself – personally lent £4,000 to finance this mission.66CJ ii. 964b. However, not for the last time, Waller now faced accusations that he was reluctant to leave London. On 16 February, when Francis Drake* complained to the Commons that one of his farms had been burnt down by parliamentarian troops, it emerged that, instead of having departed, Waller had been seen in the court of requests earlier that morning.67Harl. 164, f. 298; CJ ii. 967b. But once in the field, he soon silenced his critics. Having first taken Malmesbury, he crossed the Severn into Wales and, after defeating a small royalist force at Highnam (24 Mar.), gained control of Monmouthshire and later Tewkesbury (12 Apr.). His defeat by Prince Maurice at Ripple (13 Apr.) was offset by the taking of Hereford (25 Apr.). The reaction at Westminster was recorded by Sir Simonds D’Ewes* who noted that Waller was widely regarded as ‘a man of extraordinary valour and integrity’.68Harl. 164, f. 368. However, a new threat emerged in the form of Sir Ralph Hopton*, who by June was sweeping through Somerset with Prince Maurice. When Hopton wrote to Waller proposing that they meet, the latter famously replied, politely declining the suggestion and setting out how he saw his own role in the war they were fighting.

That great God, which is the searcher of my heart, knows with what a sad sense I go upon this service, and with what a perfect hatred I detest this war without any enemy, but I look upon it as Opus Domini, which is enough to silence all passion in me. The God of peace in his good time send us peace, and in the meantime fit us to receive it. We are both upon the stage and must act those parts assigned us in this tragedy. Let us do it in a way of honour, and without personal animosities, whatsoever the issue be.69Adair, Roundhead General, 79.

Within weeks they faced each other on the battlefield. At their first engagement at Lansdown on 5 July, Hopton and Maurice were able to withdraw their army largely intact. Worse, Waller’s re-match with Maurice at Roundway Down outside Devizes eight days later was a complete disaster for the parliamentarians. So comprehensive was that defeat that Waller had no real option other than to return to London. He arrived there on 25 July.70Harl. 165, f. 130v.

Rival to Essex, 1643-5

Yet he was greeted in London as a hero. No one could deny that he had fought the royalists with maximum tenacity. Defeat had been the price for taking on the enemy. One measure of his personal standing at Westminster – and of the strength of his friends there – was that Parliament had only recently passed a private bill confirming him in possession of the prisage farm.71CJ iii. 164a. But, to a significant extent, Waller’s popularity now also existed as a weapon to be used against Essex. Those who celebrated him for his fearless pursuit of outright victory saw him as standing for everything that, in their eyes, the earl was not. Their respective reputations thus became entangled up in the factional intrigues within Parliament. All this placed Waller in a difficult position. He felt he had no quarrel with Essex and would later ‘seriously protest’ to D’Ewes that ‘he did not know that ever he had done anything wittingly or unwittingly to disservice the earl of Essex’.72Harl. 165, f. 179. His preference was probably just to return to the front, but, as he clearly appreciated, this required the backing of the war party in Parliament, whose support for him was motivated primarily by their loathing of Essex and desire to undermine the earl.73Waller, Vindication, 16. He thus found himself, almost certainly against his better judgement, drawn into the growing parliamentary infighting.

Some Londoners marked Waller’s return by petitioning Parliament for his appointment as the general of a new army to be raised in the capital. When he appeared in the Commons two days later, some noted that he made no report about recent events. Instead, later on 27 July, Henry Marten* reported from the committee which had been considering that petition and the Commons agreed that Essex should be asked to give the command of that army to Waller.74Harl. 165, ff. 130v-131. The House then thanked Waller for ‘the great and good service’ he had performed and for ‘his good affections to religion and the commonwealth’, and added him to the committee from which Marten had reported.75CJ iii. 183a-b. On 29 July, on the recommendation of the Committee of Safety, the Commons approved the new posting.76CJ iii. 187a; Harl. 165, f. 131v. A few days later Waller took the Solemn League and Covenant and was appointed to the council of war.77CJ iii. 190a, 191b. However, hs recent record was challenged when on 5 August Nathaniel Fiennes I* appeared in the Commons and attempted to defend his own surrender of Bristol by trying to shift the blame on to Waller, accusing him of depleting the size of its garrison.78Harl. 165, f. 137. The uncomfortable truth was that the royalist victory at Roundway Down had paved the way for the fall of Bristol and, at the crucial moment, Waller had returned to London instead of assisting Fiennes. Moreover, Waller soon disappointed some of those who looked to him for firm leadership. Also on 5 August he and (in D’Ewes’s words) ‘divers other men eminent for religion’ supported most of the peace propositions which had been prepared by the Lords. However, he was accused of being one of those who recanted on this two days later in the face of the protests by the London mob.79Harl. 165, ff. 145, 148v.

The Commons meanwhile continued to press Essex to acknowledge Waller as the general of the new army. On 7 August Denzil Holles* told MPs that Essex had issued the required commission. But, recognising that Essex had done so with the greatest reluctance, some MPs decided to press the point. The next day the Commons ordered Essex to issue a further commission giving Waller the powers to raise this army and to accord him the status of its commander-in-chief.80CJ iii. 193a, 197a, 198b. Essex was even less inclined to grant Waller additional rivalling his own, and by 25 August had still given no direct reply.81CJ iii. 208a, 210a, 218b. Debates on the subject that day revealed the extent of divisions between pro-Essex and pro-Waller factions.82Harl. 165, ff. 157v, 179. In the meantime the latter displayed their support for Waller by securing for him the use of Bedford House in the Strand.83CJ iii. 216a, 218b. The next day John Pym* informed the Commons that Essex had prepared the requested commission but had pointedly left blank the name of the recipient. If the Commons wanted to appoint Waller, they would have to do so themselves. Understandably irritated, Waller then rose to ask that

if he had offended or miscarried himself in anything, it might be made known unto him, for he did conceive that some imputations might lie upon him in respect of those expressions which were in the lord general’s letter.84Harl. 165, f. 158v.

No one cared to elaborate for him and, with his name having already been added to the commission, the matter was left there.85CJ iii. 219a; Harl. 165, f. 158v. Waller later claimed that he had found it necessary to resist pressure from his godly supporters in Parliament to appoint his officers for this army primarily on the basis of their religious beliefs.86Waller, Vindication, 13-15.

By mid-September concerns were being expressed that Waller had not yet left London.87CJ iii. 237a. To confuse matters royalist raids in Hampshire prompted suggestions that Waller should be sent to defend Southampton and Portsmouth, while a petition from the latter’s inhabitants, read in the Commons on 12 September, revived the idea that he should be appointed as their governor. The Commons agreed, even although this required seeking another commission from Essex, thereby delaying further Waller’s departure.88CJ iii. 237b, 239b, 249a. The earl assured a delegation despatched on 28 September to mediate between the pair that he was willing to put their differences behind him.89CJ iii. 256a, 256b. In a Commons debate on 7 October, Waller made it clear that he would have no problem in serving under Essex. But since the earl thought this undertaking incompatible with the requirement in Waller’s commission by which he was to receive his instructions from Parliament, both Houses declared Waller’s overriding duty to obey the lord general. Lacking reassurance, on 9 October Waller announced that he wished to surrender his commission, and the Commons agreed to it.90CJ iii. 266b-267a, 269b.

Waller’s army, newly raised in London, was now given a different mission in the south east. An ordinance was passed in early November instructing Essex to appoint him as major-general of the associated counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire.91A. and O. Without waiting for Essex’s commission, Waller set out to reduce Basing House, the royalist stronghold in north-east Hampshire, but he was no more successful than Richard Norton* had been earlier in the year. On the other hand, his victory at Alton (13 Dec.) balanced out that failure and early the following month he re-took Arundel Castle. The Commons hailed the latter news by passing a motion praising his ‘valour and resolution’. Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, perhaps his closest ally in the House, and Sir Henry Vane II* drafted the letter of thanks.92CJ iii. 360a-b. Meanwhile, on 22 December, in Waller’s absence, John Glynne* had tried to introduce a bill to allow troops from the London militia to operate in Surrey. Several MPs, led by Sir Henry Vane I*, blocked this, partly because it would undermine Waller’s authority as major-general in that county.93Harl. 165, ff. 253v-254. But it was not actually until the Commons reminded him on 1 January 1644 that the lord general issued the commission conveying that authority which had been ordered two months previously.94CJ iii. 355b, 356b-357a.

In February 1644 Waller was included on the new Committee of Both Kingdoms, which was designed to provide badly-needed central coordination to the parliamentarian war machine.95CJ iii. 391b, 392b; A. and O. This strengthened his position at Westminster, allowing him to protect his own interests, and keeping him inside the loop of the key discussions. It also explicitly aligned him with the group of leading war party MPs who dominated this committee from the outset. This appointment coincided with a brief period during February and March when Waller resumed his attendance in the House. On 8 February he was included, appropriately, on the committee concerning the defences of the Isle of Wight, while on 2 March he was among MPs accused of trying to avoid voting in the division on whether Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire* should be released.96CJ iii. 393b, 414a. One bill which he must have followed with interest was that to raise 3,000 foot, 1,200 horse and 500 dragoons to serve under him in Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent. This was amended on 16 March to clarify that, if Essex were absent, Waller was to have the full powers of a commander-in-chief.97CJ iii. 429b; A. and O. By then Waller had returned to Hampshire to oppose the eastern advance into the county by Hopton. His victory over Sir Ralph at Cheriton on 29 March, although less than clear-cut on the day, proved to be decisive once Hopton’s badly depleted forces retreated in disarray.

Now that Hampshire had been secured, Waller was sent to assist Essex in the Thames valley. Although relations between them were undoubtedly rather strained, Waller did his best to be cooperative. First they had to re-take Reading.98A. and O. Again slow to set out, Waller was ordered by the Commons on 15 May to join his forces.99CJ iii. 493a. That same day he presented the petition from Edmund Waller*, who, under arrest for his role in ‘Waller’s plot’, wanted Parliament to reach a decision on his fate.100Harl. 166, f. 61v; Harl. 483, f. 68. Four days later Sir William helped Essex to occupy Reading. Then, on 1 June, Waller gained control of the Thames crossing at Newbridge, a strategic advance as it would greatly aid any future attack on Oxford. Abingdon also fell to him. When the king marched westwards from Oxford, Waller gave chase. At a council of war at Stow-on-the-Wold on 6 June, Essex announced his decision was that he would try to relieve Lyme Regis from a siege by Prince Maurice, while Waller would continue his pursuit of the king. On the other hand, the Committee of Both Kingdoms and the Commons issued instructions to Waller that he, not Essex, should continue marching westwards. But since Essex refused to accept this, Waller was obliged to stick by his commander’s unpalatable decision.101CJ iii. 526a, 526b, 533a, 539a. The king meanwhile had circled back to the east. Waller caught up with him near Banbury. The resulting battle at Cropredy Bridge on 29 June was a clear victory for the king.

Dividing the two armies had been shown to be a major mistake. On 17 July the Commons debated sending Waller to join up with Essex in the west country, but recognised that what was left of Waller’s army was in no condition for such a mission. Further orders were therefore left to the discretion of the Committee of Both Kingdoms.102CJ iii. 564a. A month later, by which time Waller had found new recruits, it was decided that he should indeed march into the west. By early September he was on his way.103CJ iii. 596b, 600a, 601a, 602b, 616a-b, 620a. But it was too late for reinforcements: Essex had already been humiliated at Lostwithiel. Waller was now instructed to join up with the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†) to prevent any advance by the king towards London.104CJ iii. 635b. When the king instead marched to Salisbury, Waller followed. He tried to defend his own constituency, Andover, until the approach of Goring forced him to withdraw to Basingstoke.105CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 46-7. The presence of Waller and Manchester there then diverted the king towards Newbury. On 27 October the armies clashed to the north of the town in the second battle of Newbury. A major factor in the parliamentarian victory was Waller’s audacious night march which enabled him to attack the royalist army unexpectedly from behind. Perceptions that Manchester, who had been left to undertake the frontal assault, had had the easier task coloured the criticism about Manchester’s conduct that soon became an explosive political issue.

On 25 November 1644 Waller and Oliver Cromwell* briefed the Commons on the recent campaign, particularly the events at Newbury.106CJ iii. 703b, 704b; Juxon Jnl. 66. The denunciation of Manchester by Cromwell then served as the pretext for an investigation against the earl headed by Zouche Tate*. When questioned by Tate’s committee, Waller testified in support of the contention that Manchester had been too cautious in command.107CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 148, 157-8. Perhaps most damningly for Manchester, Waller confirmed his notorious comment that (as recalled by Waller), ‘if we beat the king never so often yet he will be king still, but if we are once beaten we shall be hanged and our posterity will be slaves.’108CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 148. Not that Waller necessarily believed that beating the king outright was the only option. On 16 December, he was part of the delegation appointed to meet James Stuart, 1st duke of Richmond, and Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, who brought news that the king was willing to re-open peace negotiations.109CJ iii. 724b, 725b. But he did not see this as a reason to relax the military pressure on the king. He also spent these weeks securing money and supplies for the army and by the time the negotiations opened at Uxbridge, he was about to take to the field once more.110CJ iii. 720a, iv. 25a, 36a.

The plan was that Waller would do what Essex had failed to do and recover the south west. An army for that purpose was being assembled and Waller was named as its commander by the Commons on 15 January 1645.111CJ iv. 21a, 31b, 36a. By mid-February there were the usual complaints that he had not yet departed. By 4 March the Commons seems to have been disappointed that he had only got as far as Farnham.112CJ iv. 46b, 47a-b, 53a, 67b. His minor victory at Trowbridge on 12 March showed that he was making at least some progress.

Waller’s military career was about to be terminated, however. The attack on Manchester had broadened out into a more general attack on the aristocratic commanders (most obviously Essex) and, by extension, those MPs serving in the army. On 9 December 1644 the Commons had voted that no peer or MP should hold military or civil offices. At the time, Thomas Juxon had thought, somewhat optimistically, that this ‘stills all differences between [the] lord general [Essex] and Waller, and between Lord Manchester and Cromwell’.113Juxon Jnl. 69. It was now being proposed that this should be enacted by legislation. On 11 March Parliament passed an ordinance transferring all soldiers under Essex, Manchester and Waller to the command of Sir Thomas Fairfax*.114CJ iv. 75a-b, 76a. On 3 April the Self-Denying Ordinance was passed. Waller would later maintain that he had voted for the Self-Denying Ordinance willingly.115Waller, Vindication, 109. As he was not in London at the time, he must be referring to the earlier proposals. The effect of the Ordinance was to deprive him of his existing commission and to prevent him being appointed to the New Model army. He may have accepted that he was paying the price for some larger political principle, but that did not mean that he accepted it graciously. On 16 April the Commons heard that Waller had written to the Speaker to complain that the removal from him of his regiment had dishonoured him and that he wished to be recalled so that he could resume his duties as an MP.116Harl. 166, f. 201v.

Politician at Westminster, 1645-7

Finding himself as an MP at Westminster for an extended period was a new experience. Yet he could not simply revert to being an ordinary backbencher, not least because he remained a member of the Committee of Both Kingdoms. That said, the Committee used him as a spokesman in the Commons on military matters less often than it might have done. That he presented their recommendations concerning the garrison at Portsmouth on 29 May 1645 was only to be expected, given that he was its ex-governor.117CJ iv. 156a-b. On occasion he also raised matters concerning the Windsor garrison, while in October 1645 he was allowed to recommend Lieutenant-colonel Lower as the new governor of Winchester Castle.118CJ iv. 187b, 307a, 314b. When in August 1645 the royalists sent reinforcements to Newark-upon-Trent, Waller was among those MPs asked to draft a letter to warn their Scottish allies.119CJ iv. 240b. The following month he seems to have taken the lead in drafting the declaration condemning the brutalities of the royalist lieutenant-governor of Jersey, Sir George Carteret†.120CJ iv. 269a, 271a-b, 282a. As had been the case a quarter of a century before, he still supported the cause of the Palatinate and so was given the honour of carrying up to the Lords the bill to grant an annuity to the elector palatine, Charles Louis.121CJ iv. 293b, 294b. In 1646 Edward Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Chirbury seems to have relied on Waller to represent his interests at Westminster when discussions were taking place as to whether Montgomery Castle should be slighted.122Herbert Corresp. 122-4. Then there was the matter of Waller’s own military accounts, which needed to be audited by the Committee of Accounts, and of the arrears still due to him.123CJ iv. 153a, 213b, 265a, 446a, 449a, 607b. When his accounts were presented to the Commons for its approval on 6 September 1645, his colleagues used this as another opportunity to declare their continuing gratitude towards him.124CJ iv. 265a. As one of the leading ex-commanders, his name inevitably figured in the latest round of talks about a settlement with the king in December 1645. Parliament’s proposal was that the honours to be distributed to its supporters should include a barony and lands worth £2,500 a year for Waller. Some years later a contrite Waller would ruefully recall that he was therefore

puffed up with a presumption that I should never be moved, whereupon God most justly within a few months after sent those several chastisements upon me, banishment, imprisonment, sickness, the death of my wife, poverty.125Poetry of Anna Matilda, 132.

Actually, he had misremembered the date. This catalogue of misfortunes would not begin to befall him until 1647.

The king’s flight to join the Scots at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the spring of 1646 strengthened the position of the Scots, but at the price of increasing suspicions between them and the English Parliament. In preceding months Waller had been a regular reporter to the Commons on relations with the Scots, probably because he still believed in the necessity of the alliance.126CJ iv. 362b, 397a, 454a, 478b. One reason for that was his religious outlook was not so very different from the Scots: it is likely that, on ecclesiastical issues, he was now a fairly conventional Presbyterian.127CJ iv. 312a, 553b, 562b, 595b, 608a, 664a; v. 35a But, like most of his colleagues, his first reaction to the news of the king’s arrival at Newcastle was to assert the right of the English Parliament to decide where Charles should be held. He probably also wanted to demand that the king order all the royalist forces to disband, although he may have thought that the Commons ought first to secure the agreement of the Lords.128CJ iv. 541a, 541b, 542b. The Newcastle Propositions, offered to the king in late June, cannot have differed very much from Waller’s own personal preferences for a settlement.129CJ iv. 584b, 593b. But once it became clear that the Scots wished to withdraw from England, the priority became managing their departure with the minimum acrimony. Waller was one of the signatories to the treaty of 23 December and it fell to him to give details to the Commons on 1 January 1647 of the agreement to pay the Scots £400,000.130CJ v. 30a, 36b, 38a.

Waller thought that it was entirely reasonable that Parliament should proceed to disband the English army as quickly as possible.131Waller, Vindication, 40-2. The war against the king had been won and most of the soldiers were no longer required. But the issue had also become bound up in factional politics. In favouring disbandment, Waller knew that he could be accused of ‘having at first sided with that party which is now declared independential and since with the other known by the name of Presbyterian’, but he felt that he had remained constant to his own principles and that it was others who had changed their positions.132Waller, Vindication, 9-10. Be that as it may, in this new factional landscape the Presbyterian label was one he could not escape. In any case, Waller believed that the deal being offered to the soldiers was fair. He wanted their arrears paid to them as quickly as was practical and would boast that, ‘I was for it to the uttermost farthing.’133CJ v. 28b; Waller, Vindication, 22. He also thought, as he had done in 1642, that re-conquering Ireland was essential, and in June 1646 he had been added to the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs accordingly.134CJ iv. 549a, 554a, 578a, 578b, 579a; LJ viii. 351a. In September 1646 the Commons had even debated the idea of sending Waller to be the commander-in-chief in Ireland during the absence of Philip Sidney*, Lord Lisle, although, in the end, it had decided not to appoint anyone.135Harington’s Diary, 39; CJ iv. 677a. To him, redeploying some soldiers to Ireland seemed only sensible.

From the early months of 1647 Waller took the lead on these issues. In February 1647 he probably disapproved of the attempts by groups of disbanded soldiers to apply pressure on Parliament.136CJ v. 75b, 82a. As a teller on 23 February, he opposed the retention of Plymouth garrison, while on 13 March he and Edward Massie* as tellers probably opposed plans to retain most of the incumbent garrison governors.137CJ v. 98a, 111a. Even more significantly, he and Sir John Clotworthy* headed the delegation sent to Fairfax’s headquarters at Saffron Walden on 20 March in the hope of persuading the officers to accept the despatch of some of the regiments to Ireland.138Waller, Vindication, 44-52. Waller would subsequently argue that he was doing no more than acting on behalf of Parliament.139Waller, Vindication, 42-3. However, their talks on 21 and 22 March did not reassure the officers, who organised a petition setting out their fears about the plan. When Clotworthy and Waller reported back to the Commons on 27 March, Waller singled out Henry Ireton*, Robert Hammond*, Robert Lilburne* and Thomas Pride* as those responsible.140CJ v. 127a; Waller, Vindication, 56-60. Waller himself was ready not only to serve in Ireland but to take command. He and Sir Philip Stapilton* were tellers for the majority who agreed five days later to discuss who should be appointed to that position and Waller’s was the name proposed to the House on 1 April. But the Commons then voted by 99 to 76 against putting that motion to the vote, and Waller then failed to stop the House hearing from Ireton and the other petitioners.141CJ v. 127b, 131b, 132b. However, the following day he partly saved face by persuading the Commons to accept his nomination of Philip Skippon* as the commander instead.142Harington’s Diary, 47; CJ v. 133b. A fortnight later, Waller was on another delegation to Saffron Walden to seek agreement to deployment to Ireland.143Waller, Vindication, 78-85. Over subsequent weeks he also sat on several of the committees created to address the soldiers’ concerns, such as the need for an indemnity bill.144CJ v. 159b, 165b, 166a, 174a. When on 7 June a group of angry ex-soldiers besieged Parliament to demand their arrears, Waller and Sir William Brereton* were sent out to speak with them and it was Waller who then brought in their petition. On 14 June Waller, Massie and John Birch* held another meeting with the ex-soldiers to try to assure them that Parliament was taking steps to deal with their concerns.145CJ v. 201b, 202a, 210b.

Outcast, 1647-8

On 16 June 1647 the army made public its intention to bring charges against the 11 Presbyterian MPs it regarded as doing most to obstruct the soldiers’ interests at Westminster. Waller was one of those ‘Eleven Members’. Their fate would now be the immediate context for a direct clash between Parliament and the army. On 22 June, with fears escalating that the army might take control of London by advancing on the capital from St Albans, Waller, Sir John Maynard* and John Venn* were sent to reassure the London apprentices that the Commons intended to take seriously their most recent petition.146CJ v. 220a. The army meanwhile kept up its pressure for impeachment trials against Waller and his colleagues and, in this game of brinkmanship, it was the Eleven Members who blinked first. On 26 June they were all granted permission to withdraw from Westminster. Not that this satisfied the army, who presented formal articles against the Eleven Members to the Commons on 6 July.147CJ v. 225a, 236a. But within weeks, the situation was reversed. The invasion of both the Lords and Commons chambers by a mob on 26 July persuaded those peers and MPs most sympathetic to the army to withdraw four days later. This left the Commons firmly under the control of those who supported the Eleven Members. They then lost no time in inviting Waller and the others to return. Just as importantly, they also immediately added Waller and Massie to the Presbyterian-dominated ‘committee of safety’, which had been set up in June to mobilise London against the army.148CJ v. 260a-b. Waller would later claim that before this point his intention had been to withdraw to the country and that he had obtained a pass from Fairfax to permit this, only for this plan to be overtaken by the summons from the Commons.149Waller, Vindication, 185-7. The MPs at Westminster reiterated their confidence in him four days later when they named him as commander of the cavalry forces they intend to raise to defend London and themselves against the army.150CJ v. 266b, 267a.

Within days however all this too was irrelevant: the army entered London unopposed and the Eleven Members’ major opponents resumed their seats in Parliament. Waller was among those who soon concluded that they were beaten. He and four others of the Eleven obtained permission on 16 August to leave the country.151Waller, Vindication, 201-2; Poetry of Anna Matilda, 114-15. They reached Calais the next day and Waller was present when Sir Philip Stapilton died the day after that.152Poetry of Anna Matilda, 108. Waller was fully aware that their flight made them look like cowards. His retrospective justification, in allusion to Julius Caesar’s Commentarii de Bello Gallico, was that ‘they did not think themselves obliged to make a stand (like those vain Celtic Gauls) against such a tide as was broken in; where nothing was to be expected but a perishing to no purpose’.153Waller, Vindication, 201. From Calais, Waller travelled on to the United Provinces, spending time first at Leiden and then at The Hague.154Waller, Vindication, 212-13.

Some in Parliament were still eager to proceed against him. On 4 September Waller and the others were given until 16 October to appear before the Commons to answer the charges against them.155CJ v. 291a, 445b. Waller ignored this. On 27 January 1648 the Commons appointed Richard Knightley* to replace him on the Derby House Committee and, that same day, he and others of the Eleven Members were expelled from the House. A writ for a by-election at Andover was ordered on 14 March.156CJ v. 445a, 445b, 497b-498a, 589b.

On this occasion Waller’s exclusion from the House was to be only temporary. On 3 June 1648, with royalist rebels advancing towards London and with Parliament keen to conciliate Londoners, the Commons agreed to re-admit the surviving Eleven Members, a decision confirmed five days later.157CJ v. 584a, 589b. Waller had resumed his seat by 20 July, when he was appointed as a manager of the joint conference with the Lords concerning the bill to suppress the uprising in Sussex.158CJ v. 640b. While the threat from royalist rebels remained serious, he was included on the committee to meet with some of the ex-army officers to discuss their arrears (8 Aug.) and the committee to liaise with the London militia committee to prevent any disturbances in the capital (17 Aug.).159CJ v. 664b, 673b. He was also named to the committee created following the victory at Preston to establish whether any of the captured Scottish soldiers had been forced to serve against their will (29 Aug.). On 21 September he was asked to prepare a bill for payments to Nathaniel White.160CJ v. 692a; vi. 26a. Thereafter his activity was more miscellaneous; he was named to the committees on the bills to grant Peter Chamberlaine a monopoly on the production of Bath stones (22 Sept.) and to compensate John Bastwick (24 Oct.), while on 2 October he was a teller for those who opposed the petition from the warden and assistants of Dover harbour.161CJ vi. 27b, 41b, 60a. On the question of a deal with the king, Waller was among those who viewed the negotiations at Newport as offering the possibility of a viable constitutional settlement. As a teller in the division on 31 October, he was probably supporting the proposed arrangements for composition by delinquents, although, as the vote was not on the substantive motion, this is not entirely certain.162CJ vi. 66a. In the crucial division on 5 December, he supported the motion that the king’s reply provided grounds for further negotiations.163Waller, Vindication, 221.

Prisoner and crypto-royalist, 1648-60

The vote on 5 December led to the purge of the House by the army the following morning. One of the most high-profile targets, Waller was arrested on his way to the Commons.164Poetry of Anna Matilda, 104. He was then among those MPs thrown into prison.165The Parliament under the Power of the Sword (1648, 669.f.13.52); A Vindication (1649), 25 (irregular pagination) (E.539.5). Naturally, Waller regarded these events with the utmost disapproval. The purge amounted to ‘the utter subversion of both that and all future Parliaments’, while the Rump was ‘nothing but a representative of a representative, a shadow of a dream, a nothing of nothing’.166Waller, Vindication, 28, 32. He thought the regicide the worst sin in human history.167Waller, Vindication, 304. Unlike most of the MPs imprisoned in December 1648, Waller was not soon released. He spent the next two years in custody, first in St James’s Palace, then (from July 1650) at Windsor and finally (from April 1651) in Denbigh Castle.168Poetry of Anna Matilda, 104, 118-20; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 255; 1651, pp. 81, 137, 151. Despite this, the Rump handled some of his interests with a degree of fairness. In April 1649 the arrears of £841 10s still owed to him were among those assigned to be paid from the revenue raised by the sale of the dean and chapter lands.169CJ vi. 192a; A. and O. Waller claimed that, while still in prison, he compounded for this at the rate of 12s to the pound.170Waller, Vindication, 208. In June 1649, when it was decided to slight the defences of Winchester Castle, it was recognised that Waller as its owner was entitled to compensation for the resulting damage.171CJ vi. 228b; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 180.

Waller spent his time in prison writing his Vindication, a strong defence of his conduct during the 1640s, although this would remain unpublished for over a century after his death. In it he strongly asserted his wish that the pretender in exile, Charles Stuart, should be restored to his rightful throne.172Waller, Vindication, 306-8. He also penned a series of religious meditations. One of those which pondered what it meant to be a prisoner tried to view his plight as stoically as possible.

Thoughts are free. Let the imprisonment be never so close and straight, if I be not straightened in my self, I am at liberty; it is not the narrowness of the room but of the mind, that makes the prison incommodious; no man suffers by it, but he that is unwilling to suffer; for he that will do what he must do is a free man, because he does what he will: a free imprisonment is better than a servile liberty.173W. Waller, Divine Meditations Upon Several Occasions (1680), 65.

In late January 1652 Waller was brought to London so that the council of state’s committee for examinations could consider his request to be released.174CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 90, 91, 125. That request was then granted.175Poetry of Anna Matilda, 104-5.

Despite the disruptions of the civil war, Waller had been able to continue operating his rights as chief butler. Thus in February 1650, when he had still been in prison and after several years of negotiations, the Bristol Merchant Venturers recognised his rights and agreed to pay him 5s per butt of wine.176Bristol RO, Soc. of Merchant Venturers, bk. of procs. 1639-70, pp. 112, 124, 127, 148, 151, 216. Three years later some government officials queried whether Waller should still hold it, but the only effect of this was that the Revenue Committee ordered him to pay £1,100 to the receiver-general, Thomas Fauconberge*, for the arrears due from the farm of the prisage of wines and butlerage for the previous 11 years.177CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 167, 532. In 1656 Waller, with his delegated manager, William Paul, tried without success to get those wines exempt from customs duties.178CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 181, 237, 267, 269-70, 273, 286; 1657-8, pp. 62, 73, 109.

The continuance of the prisage ensured that Waller remained very wealthy. His most significant land acquisition during this period was the purchase of Osterley House from the heirs of Sir Michael Stanhope† in about 1655.179VCH Mdx. iii. 109. This provided him with a substantial country seat conveniently close to London. As an army veteran, he was also entitled to a share of lands from the Irish Adventure. This caused considerable problems in the mid-1650s, as he and others found that the lands they had been allocated in the barony of Slane were also claimed by Edward Dendy*.180Eg. 2648, ff. 251-2, 268-9; Eg. 2651, ff. 218, 221-9; CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 117, 353; CSP Ire. 1647-1660, pp. 596-7, 834. In June 1657 they blocked the attempt by Dendy to use the passage of the bill confirming the Irish land settlement to ratify the grant in his favour, with the completed statute instead specifically excluding these lands from the confirmation.181CJ vii. 550a-b; A. and O.

During these years Waller was ostensibly living in quiet retirement, but the protectoral government continued to regard him with suspicion. In the aftermath of Penruddock’s rising in 1655 there were unsubstantiated rumours that the plan had been for Waller to take control of the capital on behalf of the rebels.182TSP iii. 315, 345. In time his involvement in royalist conspiracy became more than mere rumour. By February 1658 John Mordaunt, one of the leading royalist agents in London, had certainly made contact with him. Waller’s reaction indicated that he would be willing to work for a restoration of the Stuarts.183CCSP iv. 15, 17, 18. The dangers involved in such conspiracies soon became apparent, because, quite possibly as direct result of those contacts, Waller was called in for questioning by the government on 22 March.184CCSP iv. 30; TSP vii. 20; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 357. His interrogation was conducted at Whitehall by the lord protector in person. Waller felt that Cromwell ‘did examine me as a stranger, not as one whom he had aforetime known and obeyed’.185Poetry of Anna Matilda, 116. This proved inconclusive and Waller was held for only a few days.186CCSP iv. 31. In the months that followed the secretary of state, John Thurloe*, continued to gather information against him.187TSP vii. 66, 68, 79, 80, 84, 99, 100, 102.

During the spring of 1659 Waller was recruited to take part in the royalist uprising planned for that summer.188CCSP iv. 144-5, 156, 157, 168-9, 189; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 8-9, 10, 12, 17, 22, 34. Mordaunt told Charles Stuart in March that Waller believed that a free Parliament would restore him with as few conditions as possible.189CCSP iv. 165; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 5-6. By late July, on the eve of the rising, (Sir) Edward Hyde was toying with the idea of asking Waller to seize Bristol.190CCSP iv. 297. Any intention Waller had of taking part in these risings was cut short by his arrest in Kent on 5 August.191Poetry of Anna Matilda, 105. Eight days later the council of state gave him the option of being released if he was willing to give securities that he would not cause trouble. He refused to do so and so was transferred from Dover Castle to the Tower of London on 22 August.192CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 107, 112, 135; Poetry of Anna Matilda, 105. By then the rebellion, in so far as it had ever got off the ground, had already been crushed. By 31 October the government released him, although only after he had provided bail of £500 and bonds amounting to £1,000.193CCSP iv. 430, 432; Poetry of Anna Matilda, 106. There are hints that this latest imprisonment made Waller more cautious than before. Several weeks later Mordaunt assured him that he would not be asked to rise again if he did not think it wise to do so.194Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 114. That December it was alleged that he had prevented the rising in London being planned by Richard Browne II*.195CCSP iv. 494. There was also a suggestion that some Presbyterians had converted him to the view that the king should only be restored on the basis of the terms agreed during the 1648 Newport negotiations.196CCSP iv. 500; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 148. Even so, he continued to be viewed by various royalist agents as a key contact to be cultivated and who, in turn, would cultivate other key figures.197CCSP iv. 518-19, 528, 534, 544, 557, 570.

On 21 February 1660 Waller and William Prynne* led the other secluded Members into the Commons on their re-admission to the House. According to John Aubrey, Waller tripped on Prynne’s ‘old long rusty sword’, much to the amusement of everyone present.198Aubrey, Brief Lives, ii. 175. The changed balance of power brought about by their re-admission made itself apparent immediately. Over the next two days Waller was included on various committees.199CJ vii. 847b, 848a, 848b. He was among those appointed to the new council of state on 23 February.200CJ vii. 849b; A. and O. On 27 February he was named to the committee to consider who should now be released from prison and which sequestrations should be suspended. That same day he and Arthur Annesley* were the tellers against taking a vote for Thurloe’s reappointment as the secretary of state, presumably because he opposed it.201CJ vii. 854a, 855a. His committee appointments during the Long Parliament’s final weeks all related to matters in which he had a known interest, such the London militia (29 Feb.) or assistance for injured soldiers and those who had lost husbands and fathers during the war (1 Mar.).202CJ vii. 856a, 857a, 858a. By now those royalists in contact with him were more confident than ever that the king could rely on him.203CCSP iv. 573, 585, 590, 593.

There is a case for saying that Waller was somewhat snubbed by the new king. Others with parallel involvement in the abortive royalist plots of the previous years, such as Manchester or Sir Horatio Townshend*, were well rewarded after the Restoration. Waller would have been as credible a promotion to the peerage then as he would have been in late 1645. But he did benefit from the king’s generosity in one significant way, for Charles confirmed him in office as the farmer of the prisage and butlerage of wine at the previous rent of £500 a year.204CTB i. 37, 97, 301, 363, 392, 445, 451, 455, 500. The potential profit was then estimated to be £2,500 a year, although experience later reduced that to a more realistic £1,500.205CCSP v. 66-7; Reed, ‘Osterley Park in 1668’, 120. He had been elected to the 1660 Convention as the MP for Middlesex and stood unsuccessfully at Honiton in 1661. He then spent the remaining years of his life in retirement. His heir on his death in 1668 was his eldest son, William†, whom he regarded as a disappointment, so he left his estates in the hands of trustees in what would be an unsuccessful attempt to prevent William junior depleting them.

There had been a brief period during the early stages of the civil war when Waller had been the most celebrated figure on the parliamentarian side and, despite his fair share of subsequent defeats, his reputation as a soldier of substance was difficult to deny. It was instead as a politician that his good name had been undermined. Those soldiers who had fought under him between 1642 and 1645 ought, under other circumstances, to have been those who held him in the highest regard, yet Waller never shared in the radicalisation experienced by so many in the parliamentarian armies and by 1647 he had aligned himself with those they had come to distrust. This limited his influence later, when the republic began to crumble. He was not one of those soldier-politicians, like Cromwell or George Monck*, who decisively influenced political events by carrying the army with them. A cultured, well-read man who appreciated fine buildings, art, music, gardens and fishing, Waller tried to look back on the events he had lived through with a certain detachment. His considered view by the early 1650s was that ‘the Commons and the Lords have their respective operations; but without the influence of a king upon both, there would be nothing but confusions and exorbitances’.206Waller, Vindication, 297. As he said himself, the injunction of the Psalms to ‘put not your trust in princes’ applied as much to Parliaments.207Poetry of Anna Matilda, 137. He could have said the same about armies.