Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Administration and its personnel under the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, 1653-1658. 1968

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1968_A8 S67.pdf [ 9.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0104532.json
JSON-LD: 1.0104532+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0104532.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0104532+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0104532+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0104532+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0104532.ris

Full Text

THE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PERSONNEL UNDER THE PROTECTORATE OF OLIVER CROMWELL, 1653-1658 by BERNARD SPRING B. A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966 A THESIS.SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF' MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 22, 1968 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s thesis f o r scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis f o r f i n a n c i a l , gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of History The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada A p r i l 22, 1968. I i ABSTRACT The administrative history of the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum has been largely ignored and dismissed as an aberration i n the main stream of" development. Yet the administrative history of the period i s of great i n t e r e s t and significance both i n I t s e l f , as an integral part of one of the most vibrant periods of English history, and as a part of the general development of the nation's administrative history. However, the period of the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum i s too large a subject to be dealt with i n i t s e n t i r e t y . Consequently, the study l i m i t s i t s e l f to a consideration of only one p a r t — t h e Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell. The administration of the years 1653 to I658 w i l l be dealt with i n three i n t e r - r e l a t e d parts. The f i r s t section sets out ;.to: establish what administrative machinery existed i n these years. The preceding period of the Long Parliament, 1642-1653> discontinued the use of and even abolished some of the t r a d i t i o n a l machinery and created other new departments. This part of the paper establishes what existed under the Protectorate, when i t was created, what' i t s purposes were,and what o f f i c i a l s were concerned with i t . The dual nature of the. administration of these years i s established--the old t r a d i t i o n a l machinery, i n various stages of use, and the new machinery organized on a Committee and Commission basis. i i i The second part of the paper deals with the terms of employment of the office-holders under the Protectorate. Changes from conditions of entry and service prevalent under the monarchy are noted. It i s found that i n general there i s a marked a l t e r a t i o n i n means of payment, the exaction of fees and the nature of tenure under the Protectorate. In f a c t , the administration under the Protectorate can he c a l l e d f a r more t i g h t l y controlled or centralized, and somewhat more honest and e f f i c i e n t . The t h i r d and l a s t part of the paper concerns i t s e l f with the personnel of the administration. A group of f i f t y - e i g h t office-holders were found to have been p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t under Cromwell's administration. This Key group, selected from the ranks of the extremely important but secondary l e v e l of o f f i c i a l s , i s then analyzed to see i f the nature of the group can add to an understanding of Cromwell's r u l e . The Key o f f i c i a l s were found to be e s s e n t i a l l y a group of Cromwellian placemen. Analysis of geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n , s o c i a l origins and other factors determines that a large number of them represent a "lesser" and minor s o c i a l class of men, originating from the backwaters of the English country- side. The Cromwellian administration i s found to be a t r a n s i t i o n a l phase between the Republicanism of the Rump and the Restoration of the Monarchy. It was t i g h t l y controlled from the centre, by Cromwell and the Council of State, and was fundamentally e f f i c i e n t and free from corruption. i v V TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER . PAGE I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF THE PROTECTORATE OF OLIVER CROMWELL. . . 1 II SURVEY OP THE CENTRAL .ADMINISTRATION, PART I. . . . 9 III SURVEY OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION, PART II . . . 39 IV. ENTRY TO OFFICE AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE . . . . . . 52 V PAYMENT OF OFFICERS . . . . . . . . . ' . 71 VI THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL 84 VII CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . 108 FOOTNOTES . 112 BIBLIOGRAPHY 131 APPENDIX I 142 APPENDIX II 173 APPENDIX III 181 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION.,TO THE STUDY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF THE PROTECTORATE OF OLIVER CROMWELL In recent years several important studies have been made of the Parliaments of the years of the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum, 1642-60.1 Members of the Parliaments of the period, especially of the Long Parliament (1640-53)» have been i d e n t i f i e d and subsequently categorized into family, geographical, economic, r e l i g i o u s , s o c i a l and even age groups. Christopher H i l l , i n an a r t i c l e i n History (1956), having f i r s t commented upon the value of such studies, nevertheless noted the limited v a l i d i t y of interpretations of events of the English Revolution based on an exclusive study of some f i v e hundred Members of Parliament at 2 Westminster.' He goes on to suggest that studies of other groups should be undertaken i n order to present a more balanced view. Yet among his suggestions f o r study, mention of the Central Administration i s conspicuous i n i t s absence.-^ With th i s i n mind, the Central Administration of the period presents i t s e l f f o r consideration as an important "group" of people whose history has large l y been ignored. Why has t h i s subject received so l i t t l e attention from historians? There i s , of course, the obvious yet important explanation that with the wealth and variety of intere s t i n g and valuable themes i n the C i v i l Wars and • 2 Interregnum period, other problems _have captured the . attention of historians to the v i r t u a l exclusion of administrative history. The subject has therefore found i t s e l f low on the l i s t of p r i o r i t i e s . Furthermore, studies dealing e s s e n t i a l l y with other subjects, such as Parliament, the armed forces, f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s , law reform, and the many biographies of Interregnum p e r s o n a l i t i e s , have often, uncovered considerable d e t a i l concerning the administration. Consequently, i t can seem, i f only i n a somewhat fragmentary way, as i f most of what i s worth knowing about the administra- t i o n has already been uncovered. For example, the L i f e of Milton, by D. Masson, contains much, i f not most, of what i s known about the Council of State under the Protectorate.^ Yet even though i t i s by no means an adequate substitute fo r a proper study of that body, l i t t l e has been added to i t s information i n the seventy years since i t s publication. In another example, Abbot's Writings and Speeches of O l i v e r Cromwell brings to l i g h t many d e t a i l s concerning the administration without being, or pretending to be, a study of the subject.^ It seems then as i f the great deal of fragmentary information extant concerning the Administration has been allowed to take the place of a more complete examlnationaand has misled historians about the necessity of such a study. A further reason f o r the neglect of administrative studies should be mentioned. It seems to be generally accepted that the changes and developments .3 within the administration In the years 1642-60 were es s e n t i a l l y brought to an end with the return of Charles II and that at the same time the old, pre-1640 system was substantially restored. According to this view the innovations and experiments of the administrative history of the period were an aberration, a departure from the norm that bears no obvious r e l a t i o n to future English his t o r y . Such a view detracts from the value of a study of the subject. Nevertheless, a study of the administrative history of the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum could be of great value. Apart from the fact that the subject i s of considerable i n t r i n s i c value i n its own right as a chapter i n the develop- ment of B r i t i s h administrative history, the subject would perhaps also throw l i g h t upon some of the other problems of the English Revolution from a fresh point of view. For example, i n a very general sense, knowledge of the personnel of the administration would perhaps help to explain the nature of the body of men who controlled the fortunes of the country i n the period concerned. In a more p a r t i c u l a r sense, the study of, say, the administration of the Navy i n i t s personnel and i n i t s form, could help to explain how the English Navy i n the years 1642-60 came to be as feared and respected as it.most c e r t a i n l y was. Such a study then would help to explain how the state managed to mobilize the necessary resources, both i n men and materials, to undertake 4 successfully such a large project. This example could,, of course, be extended to the Army, the Customs and Excise and several other departments. Can a study of the administration of the period be j u s t i f i e d on a larger s c a l e — a s a study that would throw l i g h t on the greater sweep of English history? Here one i s again confronted with the argument that the period was an aberration that came to a sudden end i n 1660 and that therefore a l l of the experiments and innovations were wiped from the board? i n 1661 i t was as i f nothing had happened since 1642. This argument, i f true, would c e r t a i n l y detract from the significance of a study of the administrative history of the Interregnum. However, i t i s not hard to point out that i n many cases developments of the Interregnum, while not carried over into the post-1660 era i n a concrete form, were carried on i n p r i n c i p l e . An excellent example of t h i s can be seen i n a b r i e f examination of the l e g i s l a t i o n of the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum. From 1642-60 more than 1300 Acts and Ordinances were passed by the various Parliaments and Councils of State exercising l e g i s l a t i v e a\ithority. By an Act of Parliament i n 1661, a l l l e g i s l a t i o n between 1642 and 1660 was declared i n v a l i d . ^ However, as C. H. F i r t h points out i n some d e t a i l i n his Introduction to Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660, v o l . I l l , Several Acts passed i n 1661 and i n subsequent years are also based on measures passed during the Long Parliament of the P r o t e c t o r a t e S o m e l a t e r statutes are also closely related to enactments of the Interregnum period. 5 Mr. F i r t h then proceeds to c i t e several examples. This whole question of the fate of the l e g i s l a t i o n of the Interregnum i s s i m i l a r to that of the fate of the administra- t i v e developments of the same period. In the case of the l e g i s l a t i o n , while the s p e c i f i c enactments were rejected, the aims of the l e g i s l a t i o n and even the methods by which i t was put into operation can be seen to reoccur i n l a t e r P times. In the case of the administration, the end which the Interregnum rulers wished to at t a i n , an e f f i c i e n t , centralized regulated governmental machinery, was to have an effect on l a t e r history. The extraordinary demands of the Interregnum period upon the administrative system brought about new l e v e l s of e f f i c i e n c y . Consequently, the administration made an important step forward i n the development of the true C i v i l Service as opposed to the old concept of a body of King's Servants. The following study w i l l seek to throw some l i g h t upon one part of the administrative history of the Interregnum— the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, 1653-58. This p a r t i c u l a r period has been chosen f o r several reasons. These years, l y i n g as they do towards the end of the Interregnum, o f f e r themselves as a vantage point; one i s able to look back over the developments of the past decade, to trace t h e i r progress and th e i r f a t e . In r e l a t i o n to the years immediately preceding, the period i s one of comparative peace and s t a b i l i t y , a condition which permits an easier examination of any administrative development. Furthermore, the study of the Administration of this period w i l l perhaps help us to increase our understanding of the nature and methods of the personal government of Oliver Cromwell, especially when viewed from th i s p r a c t i c a l l y unused angle. Also the years 1653-58 can be seen as forming a t r a n s i t i o n a l phase between the Republic at i t s most extreme and the Restoration of the Monarchy. Increased knowledge of t h i s period may be able to throw some l i g h t upon the phenomenon of the Restoration. F i n a l l y , the period presents i t s e l f as a somewhat obvious d i v i s i o n f o r study i f only f o r the fact that i t imposes- a reasonable l i m i t within an era noted f o r i t s complexity. In order to make the following study more manageable, further l i m i t s and conditions have been imposed. F i r s t , i t w i l l only be concerned with the Central Administration.. By this i s meant those departments, p r i n c i p a l l y found i n London, which deal with matters a f f e c t i n g the whole nation. Local, community government, county government and the purely l o c a l representatives and o f f i c i a l s of the Central government, w i l l not be included. The administrative departments of Scotland and Ireland w i l l not be dealt with except insofar as in d i v i d u a l o f f i c i a l s i n these areas are also involved i n the Central government i n England. Purely m i l i t a r y and naval administration, that i s , the o f f i c i a l hierarchy of the Army and Navy,' w i l l be omitted; however, the e s s e n t i a l l y c i v i l i a n departments concerned with the 7 armed forces, such as the Army Committee and the Admiralty Commissioners, w i l l be dealt with. In the l a t t e r part of the paper considerable emphasis w i l l be placed upon the personnel of the.administra- t i v e departments and upon the conditions of t h e i r entry and service rather than upon the departments themselves. This course i s taken as one object of the study i s to f i n d out something about the group of men who controlled England . through th e i r p o s i t i o n i n the Central Administration and, furthermore, to see what this group of men can show about the nature of the years 1653-58. As the personnel w i l l be dealt with d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y i n a large part of the paper, some comments must be made about the " l e v e l " of o f f i c i a l with which we are mainly concerned. By " l e v e l " i s meant the rank or p o s i t i o n of an o f f i c i a l i n the hierarchy. Thus the lower l e v e l of o f f i c i a l , the minor clerks, messengers, doorkeepers, porters, and others of the menial type, w i l l often be no more than noted as having existed. S i m i l a r l y , the highest l e v e l of o f f i c i a l s , the Councillors of State, w i l l also be passed over quickly. What w i l l be dealt with here i s the administrative o f f i c e r i n the purest sense—the o f f i c i a l below the l e v e l of policy-maker and above the l e v e l of menials, servants, and the lower echelons of the o f f i c i a l c l a s s — t h a t i s , those o f f i c i a l s who put into execution government policy and who were responsible f o r making things function as smoothly as possible. However, the personnel of the Administration w i l l by- no means be dealt with to the exclusion of a l l else. The paper w i l l open with a survey of the Administrative Depart- ments operating i n the years 1653-58 and with a b r i e f account of t h e i r history and function during the period. This w i l l be followed by a discussion of the conditions . of office-holding, means of appointment, terms of service and s a l a r i e s and fees of office-holders i n general. From the ranks of these men w i l l then be Identified a group of the "key'1 Administrative Personnel who seem to warrant special attention because Of t h e i r fundamental importance during these years. CHAPTER II SURVEY OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION, PART I The f i r s t task i n this paper i s to undertake a survey of the Central Administration. The survey w i l l attempt to determine what administrative bodies were i n existence during the Protectorate, what t h e i r main functions were, and what developments took place within them during th i s period. Discussion w i l l be broken down into two rough d i v i s i o n s . The f i r s t w i l l deal primarily with the permanent administrative e n t i t i e s such as the Household, the Customs, and the Exchequer; here w i l l be found most of what remained of the old, t r a d i t i o n a l pre-1642 machinery. The second w i l l deal with the more temporary or extra- ordinary administrative machinery that existed during the Protectorate; such as that dealing with confiscated lands; here w i l l be found most of the new Committees, Commissions and groups of Trustees. However, as the d i v i s i o n of t h i s survey i s primarily intended f o r convenience rather than for d e f i n i t e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , exceptions w i l l perhaps occur. The Central Executive An examination of the departments or " d i v i s i o n s " of the Central Administration should necessarily begin with the Council of State. This:body had been i n existence since February, 1649. Under the Protectorate i t was to 10 continue with much added importance. From Pride's Purge u n t i l the d i s s o l u t i o n of the Long Parliament, the Council had consisted of forty-one men elected more or less annually by Parliament. A l l of the actions of the Council of State were subject to approval by Parliament. In fa c t , the Council under the Rump was l i t t l e more than an important Committee. 1 From the d i s s o l u t i o n of the Rump i n A p r i l , 1653 to July of the same year, England was ruled by Cromwell i n his p o s i t i o n as Commander-in-Chief. He was assisted by a truncated Council of State composed of himself and twelve 2 others, mainly army o f f i c e r s . With the c a l l i n g of the "Barebones** Parliament a seventh and eventually an eighth Council of State were formed, each composed of thirty-one rather than forty-one members. I t could be said that from July to December, 1653 the system used i n the time of the Rump was restored. An important change came with Cromwell's assumption of the Protectorate on December 16, 1653« On this^day a new Constitution c a l l e d the Instrument of Government was published, a document prepared by Lambert and the Council of O f f i c e r s . According to the Instrument, A r t i c l e I I , The exercise of the chief magistracy, and the administra- t i o n of the government . . . s h a l l be i n the Lord Protector, assisted with a Council, the number whereof s h a l l not exceed twenty-one nor be less than thirteen.3 Thirteen members of the Council were named i n the Instrument.^ Periodic elections or nominations, r e s u l t i n g i n a rota t i o n of membership such as that seen i n the Councils under the 11 Rump, were not provided f o r under the Protectorate. Appoint- ment under the Instrument was f o r l i f e 5 c ouncillors could not be removed by the Protector but only by a commission appointed by Parliament and Council working with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper or the Commissioners of the Great Seal. On the death or removal of any c o u n c i l l o r , Parliament would nominate six persons f o r every vacancy. From among these nominees, the Protector would choose one. In the event that Parliament was not s i t t i n g at the time, the Protector and the major part of the Council could add such persons as they thought f i t . The thirteen men named i n the Instrument, with the addition of seven more, formed the t o t a l number of Councillors of State during Oliver's Protectorate.5 There were never more than nineteen nor less than f i f t e e n persons at one time s i t t i n g on the Council of State. The Council was therefore a very compact body and enjoyed great continuity of membership. The above developments formed the core of the change brought about by the Instrument of Government—in ef f e c t , the l i m i t a t i o n of the authority of Parliament and the creation of a very strong executive power. The new Council of State had become much stronger than i t s predecessors under changes were again to occur i n the new c o n s t i t u t i o n of May, 1657, known as the Humble P e t i t i o n and Advice.^ Under th i s document the Council of State was henceforth to be ca l l e d the Privy Council, a change well i n tune with the Council of King Charles. Some minor creation of an hereditary Protectorship. There was also i n s t i t u t e d , i n the Humble Additional and Explanatory P e t i t i o n and Advice of June, 1657. an oath of f i d e l i t y to the Protector obligatory to a l l councillors.? Some held back, but a l l eventually gave i n and took, the oath. The one notable exception was Lambert. The e f f e c t of the changes under this new constitution was to weaken the p o s i t i o n of the Council. Much more, of course, could be said about this important group. However, fo r the present purpose i t i s enough to note t h e i r formation, composition and p o s i t i o n at the head of the Administration.^ More to the purpose i n "this paper i s the history and development of what can be call e d the Secretariat of the Council of State. At the head of t h i s important administrative body was the secretary of the Council. In December, 1653 John Thurloe, Secretary to the Council of State of the Rump since March 30, 1652, was confirmed as Secretary to the new Protector's Council.9 Before long 10- Thurloe was being referred to as Secretary of State. As he was beginning to handle business formerly managed by the Secretary of State, such as correspondence with foreign powers, t h i s development came as no surprise. In t h i s capacity he was frequently ordered to attend committee meetings of the Council even though he did not formally occupy a seat at the Council table u n t i l July 13, 1657• 1 1 Just previous to the commencement of the Protectorate, Thurloe had as assistants William Jessop and Gualter Frost. 13 Other important o f f i c e r s under Thurloe were L a t i n Secretary Milton and his assistant P h i l i p Meadows. Thurloe also exercised a general authority over the Clerks of the Signet whose numbers had been reduced from four, as under the monarchy, to two under the Lord P r o t e c t o r . 1 2 There were also a number of under-offleers such as eight clerks, twelve messengers, a sergeant-at-arms with nine deputies and various other menial s e r v a n t s . ^ Several changes took place i n the two months following the beginning of the Protectorate. 1^ Gualter Frost was given a new post as Treasurer f o r Council's Contingencies, his old place as assistant to Thurloe being taken by Henry Scobell, who was also Clerk of Parliament (1649-58). By t h i s time Milton, incapacitated by almost complete blindness, had been given the honorary t i t l e of L a t i n Secretary Extraordinary. His place as L a t i n Secretary was taken by his former assistant Philip.Meadows. The rest of the establishment remained the same. The t o t a l cost of the Council's Secretariate was estimated at £3.500 per annum.15 This figure, however, i s somewhat increased by the addition of several charges not s t r i c t l y r e l a t i n g to Council work; f o r example, Marchmont Needham's salary as a state-supported j o u r n a l i s t was paid out of Council funds. In A p r i l , 1655. an attempt was made to economize* 1^ Some o f f i c e s were done away with; Henry G i f f a r d , an assistant to Frost with a salary of £45 12s. 6d. per annum, was removed, as was another extraordinary o f f i c i a l , 14 John H a l l , who was paid £100 per annum. Some s a l a r i e s were removed from the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Council Secretariat while the o f f i c e s themselves remained; f o r example, Bene Augier's salary as an i n t e l l i g e n c e r was henceforth to be paid out of money reserved f o r the i n t e l l i g e n c e service. Furthermore, some s a l a r i e s were decreased. F r o s t s was reduced from £400 to £300 per annum, Milton's from £288 to £150 per annum. These reductions, however, probably resulted from a reassessment of t h e i r functions rather than as an economy move, for at the same time Scobell and Jessop received a raise from £365 to £500 per annum i n recognition of the increased amount of work assign- ed to them. The organization of the Secretariat was to remain substantially the- same for several years with only minor changes. For a while Meadows, absent on a diplomatic mission, was replaced temporarily by Andrew Marvel. 1? Also an extraordinary o f f i c i a l of some importance, Gabriel Beck, appears with a salary of £200 per annum i n May, I656. He was to be under Thurloe*s authority and was to perform, M . . . such public business as he s h a l l receive d i r e c t i o n ?n R f o r from Council or Mr. Secretary . . . . Under the Protectorate the organization of the Council Secretariat was a much more compact and e f f i c i e n t body than i t s counter- part under the monarchy; more work was achieved with fewer o f f i c i a l s and, consequently, with less expense. Under the general heading of the Central Executive several miscellaneous but highly important o f f i c e s should be mentioned. During the Protectorate the o f f i c e of Lord Keeper of the Great Seal was suspended. Instead the o f f i c e was executed by three Commissioners. In December, 1653* these Commissioners were Bulstrode Whitelock, S i r Thomas Widdrington and Richard Keeble, . When Cromwell became Protector, Keeble was replaced by John L i s l e . On June 6, 1655» following t h e i r refusal to put into execution the Ordinance f o r the reformation of Chancery, Whitelock and Widdrington were forced to r e s i g n . 1 ^ L i s l e retained his p o s i t i o n and Was given Nathaniel Fiennes as a colleague. From th i s time on u n t i l January, 1658, these two men acted as sole Commissioners of the Great Seal, Fiennes also occupied the p o s i t i o n of Lord Privy Seal. Under his authority were the four clerks of the Privy Seal and the four Masters of Requests. These l a t t e r o f f i c e s and others i n the Central Administration which have not been dealt with, such as the Attorney-General, the Sol i c i t o r - G e n e r a l , the clerk of the Hanaper, and the clerks of the Petty Bag, remained i n existence and performed much the same tasks as they had before 1642. 2 0 The Household of the Lord Protector The Household of Oliv e r Cromwell as Lord Protector was only a shadow of i t s existence under the monarchy. As s p e c i f i c , detailed information on t h i s aspect of the Protectorship i s scarce, one must r e l y mainly upon annual expenditure to give a guide to the size and complexity of 16 the Household. In February, l655i John Maidstone, Steward of His Highness' Household, was allowed £64 ,000 per annum, payp.b]e quarterly, f o r the necessary charges of the Household. Later that year the sum allowed was increased to £80,000 and then reduced in February, 1656 to the old figure of £ 6 4 , 0 0 0 . 2 2 Later yet, the yearly allowance was again put up to £80,000 and then to £100,000 per annum. Exactly what expenses these yearly allowances were intended to cover i s not at a l l c e r t a i n Were they intended, f o r example, to cover the cost of maintenance end repair? to His Highness' houses? In th i s case the answer i s probably no. John Embree, the Surveyor of his Highness' houses, was paid separate i r r e g u l a r sums to cover the cost of his operations. In any case the cost of the Household was somewhere i n the range of £80,000 to £100,000 per annum. This amounts to only a f r a c t i o n of the cost of Charles I's household where i n an average year i n the late 1630's Royal d i e t alone cost £107,000 per annum.23 Complete information on the exact number and type of Household o f f i c e s i n existence under the Protectorate i s lacking i n any available printed sources. However, a few basic facts that i l l u s t r a t e the nature of Cromwell's establishment can be pieced together. At the beginning of 24 the Protectorate the Household must have been quite simple. However, i t soon began a gradual process of elaboration. In early mid-1654, a Steward of the Household, a, Keeper of the Wardrobe, His. Highness' Waterman and his Highness' Avenor 17 a l l appear. 2^ In August, 1655 considerable additions took place. S i r G i l b e r t Pickering was appointed Chamberlain to ?6 the Household, and P h i l i p Jones was appointed Comptroller. Also four Gentlemen of the Bedchamber, the f i r s t heard of t h i s group, were appointed, namely? S i r Thomas B i l l i n g s l e y , Mr. Rolt, Mr. Barrington and Mr. Harvey.2''7 John Cleypole was also referred to as a Gentleman of the Bedchamber.2^ Another group, more loosely connected to the Household, was the Protector's Life-Guard. Its development also demonstrates gradual elaboration. In August, 1654 i t was decided to s e t t l e the number of the guard at f o r t y - f i v e besides officers? the commander, at 20s. per day, was to be Charles Howard.2^ By 1656 t h i s number was found to be i n s u f f i c i e n t both f o r purposes of guarding the Protector and f o r supplying the necessary dignity due him. In February of that year, the number of the L i f e Guard was increased to 174 consisting of a captain, Richard Beake at 28s. per day, a- Lieutenant, coronet, quartermaster, six subordinate lieutenants, four trumpeters, and 160 s o l d i e r s . ^ 0 Certainly* whatever the elaboration, the Household was f a r from what i t had been under the late King Charles. Yet instead of being praised fo r the r e s u l t i n g reduction i n cost, the Protector was often c r i t i c i z e d f o r his f r u g a l i t y and was charged with f a i l i n g to support his o f f i c e with the proper dignity J.31 ••' 18 Revenue Departments During the years of the Commonwealth the Exchequer had not been i n use. Instead the Long Parliament had created a m u l t i p l i c i t y of funds of receipt to handle the revenues. In I65O there were as many as ten of these treasury funds active at once . 3 2 i n 1652, .lust before the d i s s o l u t i o n of the Rump, attempts to f i n d a remedy f o r t h i s confusing and wasteful condition were undertaken. An Ordinance of December 10, 1652, appointed Dennis Bond, Francis A l l e n , John Downes and Cornelius Holland to investigate the e x i s t i n g state of a f f a i r s and furthermore to inform themselves, . . . how the s e v e r a l l receipts and issues of the Revenue and Treasuries of t h i s Commonwealth may be brought with a l l Convenient Speed into one Channell and managed with ;Least Charge and best Advantage to the Commonwealth. . . . On July 28, 1653, another Ordinance appointed six d i f f e r e n t men to undertake a s i m i l a r task.-^ On December 31, 1653, an Order of the Council of State again restated the task i n a more formal manner and appointed eight men as Commissioners f o r Inspecting the Treasuries . 3 5 Something concrete seems to have been achieved by t h i s l a t t e r group for t h e i r work resulted i n the recommendation that the Exchequer be restored. On June 21, 1654, "An Ordinance for the bringing the Publique Revenues of t h i s Commonwealth into one Treasury" was p u b l i s h e d . ^ This Ordinance re-established the Exchequer, e f f e c t i v e June 24, 1654. 19 According to the wording of the Ordinance i t was to be known as, "The Receipt of the Exchequer of His Highness the Lord Protector" and was to be, " . . . kept and executed i n the usual and accustomed Places, Method, Maner [ s i c ] and Way of Receipt as formerly."3? There were only to be.a few minor a l t e r a t i o n s between the operation of the Exchequer under the monarchy and i t s operation under the Protectorate. From th i s time on English instead of L a t i n was to be used i n Exchequer transactions. Fees were to be allowed but were to be, " . . . such moderate Fees, Wages, Rewards and Allowances onely, as His; Highness the Lord Protector, with the advise and consent of his Council . . . s h a l l think f i t to l i m i t and appoint."38 ^ n y v i o l a t i o n s of t h i s order were to be severely punished. Although the Ordinance stated that a l l moneys should be paid into the Exchequer, th i s was never f u l l y enforced. The monthly assessments, f o r example, continued to go through the hands of the treasurers-at-war. Revenues from Ireland and Scotland did not go into the Exchequer, nor did some • of the revenues from land sales.-^9 O f f i c e r s f o r the revived Exchequer were to be appointed by the Lord Protector by Letters Patent under the Great Seal. They were to enjoy a l l of the powers and p r i v i l e g e s that had been enjoyed by t h e i r predecessors This Ordinance of June 21, l6$k was not f u l l y carried out as soon as i t was passed. F u l l implementation of the 20 plan was not to occur u n t i l Parliament met i n September, 1654. At th i s time another amplifying Ordinance was issued to put the Exchequer under the management of the Treasury Commissioners. The Ordinance stated that a l l O f f i c e r s , . . . s h a l l observe and conform unto a l l such rules, orders and direct i o n s , as they s h a l l from time to time receive from the Commissioners of the Treasury. 1 The Treasury Commissioners were appointed by Letters Patent on August 3, 1654. They were Bulstrode Whltelocke, S i r Thomas Widdrington, and John L i s l e (the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal); Henry Roole and Oliver St. John (Lords Chief Justices)? and Edward Montague, William Sydenham, and William Masham (Commissioners of the Treasury), These Ordinances and regulations were therefore to determine the existence and management of the Exchequer f o r the years of the Protectorate. One of the most r e l i a b l e and rewarding forms of revenue available to seventeenth century governments wase the customs. F. C. Dletz has estimated that the farm of the customs i n the two years before the outbreak of the C i v i l War brought i n £177,836 i n 1640 and £169,388 i n 1641. The average gross receipts during the years of the Interregnum have been estimated at roughly twice the above sums.^3 During the Protectorate the c o l l e c t i o n of the customs was administered on a commission basis. Small groups of men handled the c o l l e c t i o n of these revenues during the short periods of time f o r which they were appointed, 21 usually from a year to eighteen months. The Commissioners were to pay the moneys collected weekly into the Exchequer, having f i r s t deducted s a l a r i e s and operating c o s t s . ^ For thi s task they received 4d. on the pound plus i n t e r e s t on money paid.in advance of receipt. On, or by July, 1655, t h i s was reduced to 3d. on the pound.^ In order to keep a close eye on the dealings of the Customs Commissioners, a Committee f o r the Preservation of the Customs existed. This group, created before the establishment of the Protectorate, seems to have lapsed about mid-1654, the time of the r e v i v a l of the Exchequer. However, i t was to be renewed i n the following year. Among the State Papers i s an order of February 23, 1655 i n s t r u c t i n g a group of six men to act as a Committee f o r the Preservation of the Customs as they were before September 2, 1654.^ The membership of t h i s Committee was made up of experienced Exchequer and f i n a n c i a l experts headed by S i r William Roberts, auditor of the receipt. By November, 1655 t h i s Committee had come across i r r e g u l a r dealings among some of the Customs Commissioners. Early i n thi s month one of the Commissioners, Colonel Edmund Harvey, and the cashier-general, Captain Henry Langham, were committed to the Tower f o r embezzlement.^ Furthermore, i t seems that the other Commissioners l o s t t h e i r appoint- ments as new men were soon being treated with to be Customs 4ft Commissioners. Shortly a f t e r t h i s scandalous state of a f f a i r s some attempt at reform seems to have been made. An 22 Accountant-General f o r the Customs was to be appointed by and be responsible to the Protector. This o f f i c i a l was to be wholly dependent on the State f o r his salary and to be answerable f o r the conduct of his c l e r k s . I t was intended that he act as a check on the Customs Commissioners and t h e i r o f f i c e r s . Furthermore, the Cashier-General and receivers i n the Port of London and a l l of the c o l l e c t o r s i n the out-ports were to be nominated by the Customs Commissioners, but approved by the Committee f o r the Preservation of the Customs. Also the Customs Commissioners, recently appointed, were to present to the Protector the names of a l l the present o f f i c e r s i n t h e i r service i n order that those of honesty and i n t e g r i t y could be approved and continued, and those excepted to, discharged.^9 During the early years of the C i v i l Wars a new tax was brought into e f f e c t i n England.^ 0 This was the Excise. 51 The c o l l e c t i o n of t h i s tax was administered by a group of Excise Commissioners s i m i l a r to t h e i r counterparts i n the Customs. By an Act of September 2 0, 1650, six men had been appointed Excise Commissioners with an allowance of 3d. on the pound.5 2 The next group of appointees mentioned by Ashley did not take o f f i c e u n t i l March, 1654.53 This, however, i s not a complete picture. An Ordinance of December 24, 1653 appointed Luke Hodges, Thomas Buistrode and William Parker to be Excise Commissioners. It i s f a i r l y evident that t h i s group was intended as a stop-gap; they were appointed f o r three months only, t h e i r salary was reduced to Id. on the pound and they were not allowed, as t h e i r predecessors had been, to l e t out to farm any of the Excise.5^ Afte r the secure establishment of the Protectorate a more permanent body was appointed. This group, appointed March 17, 1654, was f i v e i n number and had an allowance of 2d. on the pound.55 As has been mentioned above, parts of the Excise were l e t out to farmers, s t a r t i n g about 1650. By the end of the .Interregnum over half the Excise was administered by farmers. 56 The supervision of this sectionalized excise farming was undertaken by a body known as the Commissioners f o r Appeals and Regulating the Excise. They were.first appointed March 17, 1654 and were, f o r the most part, experienced Treasury o f f i c i a l s such as S i r William Roberts, John Stone, Gervas Bennet and Adam Baines.57 In the i n i t i a l Ordinance creating the body a salary was not mentioned, but i n August, 1654 they were given £300 per annum each payable from the previous March.58 One other administrative group concerned with the Excise should be mentioned. On December 29, 1653 & group known as the Commissioners f o r Inquiring into Arrears of Excise was -appoint- ed. These men had considerable power over the Excise Commissioners f o r the purpose of conducting inq u i r i e s and s e t t l i n g complaints. They also had power to l e t out portions of the Excise to farm and to supervise payment of s a l a r i e s and expense money to the Commissioners and th e i r under-officers.59 Whether or not these Commissioners were to be permanent o f f i c i a l s i s not clear as t h e i r i n i t i a l appointment was to l a s t only u n t i l March 25, 1654. 24 Perhaps i t was only a temporary body intended to straighten out complications-existing at the beginning of the Protectorate. A new department of the Administration created i n 1653, which provided a l u c r a t i v e source of revenue, was the Court of Probate. U n t i l the a b o l i t i o n of the episcopacy by the Long Parliament the management of testamentary a f f a i r s had belonged to the realm of e c c l e s i a t i c a l j u s t i c e . By an Act of A p r i l 8, 1653 a commission of twenty men was set up, " . . . to hear, sentence and decree a l l matters touching W i l l s , Administration and Inventories."^ 0 These men held the p o s i t i o n of judges and i n most respects exercised the functions of the old e c c l e s i a s t i c a l judges. Of the group of men i n i t i a l l y appointed a l l but one had previously sat on the celebrated Committee of the Long Parliament f o r Law R e f o r m . T h e i n i t i a l Act was only to l a s t u n t i l October 1, 1653 but i t was revived i n i t s entirety a f t e r a lapse of nearly three months, on December 2k, 1 6 5 3 I n t h i s Ordinance nine additional judges were appointed. The Act was continued on A p r i l 3, 1654 and confirmed on June 26, 1657^3 Salaries f o r the judges are not mentioned in. any of the Acts and Ordinances. However, a salary of £300 per annum seems to have been given them at f i r s t . ^ This appears to have been reduced at a l a t e r date to £200 per annum each.^5 The two p r i n c i p a l under-bf f 1-C.ers .were the Registrar and the Keeper of the Seal and Treasurer of the P r o f i t s . There also were at least twenty or more clerks associated with the Court. In 1656 i t was stated that fees exacted by the clerks were excessive and that the r e g i s t r a r made as much as £2,000 per annum mainly by thi s means. A suggestion was made that half the number of o f f i c e r s could do the same job.66 Whatever the i n e f f i c i e n c y the Court of Probate provided a considerable source of revenue. A f t e r payment of i t s o f f i c e r s a l l p r o f i t s from the permitted fees were to be sent to the Exchequer? the average annual revenue from this source was approximately£6,250. National Defence Associated with the Army was an important c i v i l i a n administration, This administration consisted of three main parts, . , . the Committee of the Army took charge of the men, the Office of Ordnance of the weapons and stores, and the Treasurers at War of the finance. . . ."° Early i n the C i v i l War, the Army Committee seems to have enjoyed only an intermittent existence. In l a t e r years, especially under the Protectorate, i t became permanent. The Committee was appointed by Parliament and was made up of Members of Parliament. Its duties consisted of a general oversight of Army a f f a i r s , the supervision of 69 the Monthly Assessment, and the management of recruitment. E a r l i e r Army Committees tended to be very large; f o r example, the Committee appointed i n January, 1652 had f i f t y - s e v e n members.^ The Committee appointed during the Barebones Parliament was considerably smaller; i t had seventeen 26 members.However, the Committee that sat during the Protectorate consisted of a compact nine men. This group of men was f i r s t appointed on January 28, 1654, at a time when a general administrative settlement was taking place. It i s not surprising that i t s members were a new breed of men i n comparison to the older Committees. The new men were without a doubt administrators, not a group of Important p o l i t i c a l personages, or s t r i c t l y m i l i t a r y men. The same Committee was continued on June 2 9 , 1654 and again on July 10, I 6 5 6 . ? 2 Five of the nine men had sat on the Committee appointed by the Barebones Parliament.73 Although a l l nine members sat i n Protectorate Parliaments and t h e i r i n i t i a l appointment was by Parliament, t h e i r continuance i n o f f i c e was due to the Protector and his Council. No mention of a salary f o r Army Committee members i s made i n the Acts and Ordinances appointing them. However, an order of the Council of State i n May, I 6 5 6 gave James P h i l i p s , Who had no other public employment, and Colonel John Clerk, the chairman, £300 each per annum. Whether or not a l l members were to have an allowance i s not clear, but i t does seem as i f only the two special cases mentioned were included 74 i n t h i s order. The two Treasurers at War were appointed at the same time as the Army Committee. Their task, overlapping that of the Army Committee, was to supervise a l l f i n a n c i a l matters, to act as receivers f o r the Monthly Assessment and to take care of disbursements. During the Protectorate these posts were held by John Blackwell (the younger) and Richard Dean. Blackwell seems to have been a Treasurer since 1 6 5 1 ; Dean's f i r s t appointment was i n July, 1 6 5 3 - The department of the Ordnance w i l l be dealt with under the Navy. Under the Protectorate the highest l e v e l of o f f i c i a l s i n the Administration of the Navy were the Commissioners of the Admiralty and Navy. The f i r s t group of Admiralty Commissioners, as they were known, consisted of eleven men and was appointed December 3 t 1 6 5 3 These men were primarily experienced f i e l d o f f i c e r s and Parliamentary committeemen. The Admiralty Commissioners were involved mainly i n the determination of policy, the rendering of advice to Parliament and the Council of State, and i n general supervisory capacities. The greater part of the administrative work and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f e l l on the shoulders of the Navy Commissioners. Under the Protectorate there were generally seven Commissioners operating at a salary of £ 2 5 0 per annum each. Their tasks were manyfold, including the purchase and d i s t r i b u t i o n of stores, the management of the dockyards, and the supervision of shipbuilding and re p a i r s . " ^ Perhaps the most notable post i n the Administra- t i o n of the Navy was that of the Navy Treasurer, Richard H u t c h i n s o n . H i s work consisted of the supervision of a l l Navy funds, and while this was a somewhat onerous task, 28 the talent and e f f o r t involved bore no r e l a t i o n to the salary he received, which at times exceeded £2,000 per annum. Oppenheim has the following to say about the administration of the Navy of the Interregnum, Never, on the other hand, so f a r as administration was concerned, had England been better prepared f o r war. Instead of o f f i c i a l s who, as i n the preceeding half-century, owed t h e i r posts to court influence, to purchase, or to senority, the work was i n the hands of men chosen f o r business aptitude and who, i n most instances, had given proof of higher q u a l i f i c a t i o n s „g on the f i e l d of b a t t l e or i n parliamentary committees.' Several other subordinate departments were associated with p a r t i c u l a r problems i n the administration of the Navy. These are V i c t u a l l i n g , Sick and Wounded, Prize Goods and Ordnance. The f i r s t , the Department of Victualling,came into existence during the Protectorate, i n 1655* Previously v i c t u a l l i n g had been handled by contract. Colonel Thomas Pride and an associated syndicate handled the task; however, they had decided to resign the contract i n October, 1654. To replace t h i s private syndicate a department was set up under the authority of the Navy Commissioners. The head of t h i s new creation was to be Thomas Alderne at a salary of £500 per annum.?9 Alderne died i n early 1657 and his place was taken by three Navy Commissioners who were given £250 per annum each extra salary.80 N 0 further changes took place u n t i l the Restoration. Care of the Sick and Wounded was an important task fo r the Navy administrators. In September, 1653 a new department was created to handle the problem and was put under the care of f o u r "Commissioners of s i c k and wounded at L i t t l e B r i t a i n " ? they had f i f t e e n subordinate o f f i c e r s to a i d them. Other c h a r i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s d i d e x i s t that a s s i s t e d i n the care of s i c k and wounded s a i l o r s , such as Chatham Chest, but the only o f f i c i a l body extant was the one mentioned above. Whether or not Army p a t i e n t s were a l s o under the care of these Commissioners i s not c l e a r but a remark i n C. H. F i r t h ' s Cromwell's Army would lead one 82 to b e l i e v e that t h i s was the case. Whatever the case, the Department of S i c k and Wounded was under the a u t h o r i t y of the Admiralty. During the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum the continuous c o n f l i c t s at sea brought about a need f o r a permanent department to administer the s a l e of P r i z e Goods. On A p r i l 17, 1649 a group of nineteen men.were appointed Commissioners f o r the s a l e of P r i z e Goods. J These men, however, were only a supervisory body of Members of Parliament. The a c t u a l s a l e of p r i z e s and the c o l l e c t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of the moneys obtained was placed i n the hands of three 84 "Treasurers and C o l l e c t o r s of prize-goods." They were to have 12d. on the pound f o r wages and expenses. On March 8, 1653 three more t r e a s u r e r s were a p p o i n t e d . ^ These s i x men were to remain i n c o n t r o l of the s a l e of P r i z e Goods u n t i l at l e a s t mid-1657* The Treasurers apparently had a s t a f f Of. of twenty-six u n d e r - o f f l e e r s . In the "Act f o r Indemnifying of such persons as have acted f o r the S e r v i c e of the P u b l i c " 30 of June 26, 1657 the above six men are c a l l e d the " l a t e Commissioners f o r Prize-Goods."^ Exactly who replaced them i s unknown. The Department of Ordnance operated much as i t had done before 1642 u n t i l an important change occurred i n 1653- In t h i s year the Ordnance lost i t s old independence and became a department of the A d m i r a l t y , ^ However, i t operated much as before supplying both Army and Navy with the necessary a r t i l l e r y and large ordnance. Other Departments of State On August 10, 1642 the Tower Mint was seized by Parliamentary f o r c e s . ^ Most of the highest o f f i c i a l s , such as the Master, the Warden and the superintendant of the melting house, f l e d to the King, while the majority of the other under-offleers seemed to have remained at t h e i r places. A new Master was appointed i n the person of S i r Robert Harley who had previously occupied this post from 1626 to 1635' Harley was eventually replaced on May. 16, 1649 by Dr. Aaron Guerdain who occupied t h i s p o s i t i o n u n t i l the Restoration. Parliament appointed John St. John, brother of the more famous Oliver, as sole Warden of the Mint; he held the post from 1643 to 1660.90 The p o s i t i o n of Chief Graver of the irons and seals was f i r s t held by Edward Greene, who.had continued from the King's service and who died i n 1645« He was replaced by Edward Wade and Thomas Simon 31 acting J o i n t l y . Wade died i n 1648, but Simon did not succeed to sole command u n t i l ±655- For the f i r s t year and a half of the Protectorate the Posts were farmed out to John Manley at a yearly rent of £10,000. His i n i t i a l appointment as Farmer of the Posts was on June 30, 16.53 and was to l a s t f o r two years.91 This appointment was confirmed i n September, 1654 when Manley i s referred to as Posstaaster-General.92 Manley's o f f e r i n the o r i g i n a l bidding f o r the farm of the posts had only been f i f t h highest, at £8,259 per annum. I t was suspected that a "deal" had been made between Manley and the Council of State supervising the appointment.93 on June 30, 1655 Manley's contract expired and was not renewed. Instead, control of the posts was given to. Secretary of State Thurloe, who was to pay the same annual rent of £10,000. In 1657 an Act was passed, the f i r s t of i t s kind i n England, establishing set prices f o r the conveyance of l e t t e r s . I t was stated that there would only be one general Post Office and one supreme o f f i c e r e n t i t l e d the Postmaster General of England the Comptroller of the Post Offlee.9 ^ Accordingly, the Lord Protector appointed Thurloe to f i l l the o f f i c e . The control of the Posts thus given to Thurloe enabled him to use i t to the benefit of'his renowned i n t e l l i g e n c e service. Furthermore, the p r o f i t s to the State because of Thurloe's management more than paid f o r the cost of the i n t e l l i g e n c e system.95 32 During the Interregnum the Court of Chivalry did not cease to ex i s t . On March 19» 1646, a Parliamentary Ordinance was published e n t i t l e d , an "Ordinance, appointing Commissioners for the Herald's Office, to prevent abuses and offences."9^ By t h i s Ordinance f o r t y - f i v e Commissioners were appointed to take care of a l l matters concerning Heraldry? i n e f f e c t , they were to act as E a r l Marshall. During i n i t i a l meetings i n A p r i l , a number of subordinate o f f i c e r s were nominated. ' On A p r i l 14, 1646 a Register, an Advocate of the Court, a Serjeant-Marshal and a Messenger were appointed, and on A p r i l 21, four proctors and Garter and Clarencieux Heralds were added.97 At some undetermined.time i n the future a Norroy Herald must have been appointed as there are traces of his a c t i v i t y i n 1655.98 of the seven or eight Pursuivants, l i t t l e i s known of the state of t h e i r existence. The only trace of these o f f i c i a l s i s the appointment of a Bluemantle Pursuivant i n October, 1646.99 During the period September, 1646 to A p r i l , 1648 the Commissioners themselves sat on the occasion of any l i t i g a t i o n . But on A p r i l 28, 1648 Dr. John Exton, formerly Court Advocate, was made Lieutenant and was'In future to take the place of the Commissioners. Government of the Court of Heraldry seems to have remained i n t h i s condition u n t i l the Restoration. G. D. Equibb, i n his work The High Court of Chivalry, says that a f t e r 1649, "No l a t e r causes before the Commissioners have been found, but the Commission seems to have remained i n being 33 u n t i l the Restoration. . . ."100 However, i t i s quite certain that the Heralds, f o r example, continued to function throughout the period. In February, 1655. informa- t i o n concerning a family's arms was given by Norroy Herald; i n December, 1656 a decision on a claim to arms mentions Garter, Clarencieux, and Norroy. Heralds; i n 1657 Garter Herald made a grant of arms. 1^ The Tower of London remained an important part of the Central Government under the Protectorate as i t had been under the monarchy; as a prison f o r state and p o l i t i c a l enemies, as an important defence position, as a control over the v i t a l City of London, and as a home f o r several govermental departments, p a r t i c u l a r l y the Mint, always i n need of f i r s t class security, and the Ordnance. The establishment of the Tower c i r c a i n November, 1654, only s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from that under the monarchy, can be found i n a document included i n the Calendar of State Papers, e n t i t l e d "The State of the Tower." 1 0 2 The paper mentions some fifty- t w o under-offleers not including the Lieutenant, S i r John Barkstead. The t o t a l annual cost f o r s a l a r i e s and "materials" was estimated at £1,750 l i d . This l i s t , however, i s not quite complete as i t f a i l s to mention, f o r example, the Keeper of the Tower Records, William Ryley. However, this and other exceptions which occur r e s u l t from the f a c t that t h e i r s a l a r i e s were not charged to the Tower establishment. 34 Justice Departments In the ear-.ly months of the Long Parliament the ancient Court of Chancery and the newer prerogative courts of High Commission and Star Chamber came under a great deal of c r i t i c i s m . In 1641 the two l a t t e r courts, along with the Court of Requests, the Council of the Marches, and the Council of the North were abolished. 1 03 Chancery, however, remained untouched except that the functions of the Lord Chancellor were now to be exercised by a Commission of three. During Barebones Parliament several attempts were made either to reform or to abolish Chancery. 1 0** None of the various proposals p.ut forward were accepted by Parliament as a whole and Chancery remained. It was not u n t i l Cromwell assumed the Protectorate that any scheme f o r Chancery reform was translated into l e g i s l a t i o n . On August 21, 1654 an "Ordinance f o r the.better regulating and l i m i t i n g the J u r i s d i c t i o n of the Court of Chancery" was published on the authority of the Protector and his C o u n c i l . 1 0 5 This Ordinance made several important changes i n the personnel of Chancery which should be considered here. The greatest administrative change was made i n the Six-Clerks O f f i c e . According to the Ordinance, " . . . i n stead of the six Clerks, i n Chancery, there s h a l l be three chief Clerks, and no more." 1 0^ These three chief Clerks were put in charge of a number of attorneys, not to exceed six t y , whose fees were stated, A further personnel change concerned the Of f i c e of Register i n Chancery. From th i s time the o f f i c e was not to be executed by deputy and furthermore there were to be four registers i n the Court. On the second issuance of the Ordinance i n May, 1655. the number of Masters in Chancery was reduced to s i x , 1 0 ' ' Other regulations i n the Ordinance concerned conditions of employ ment. Fees payable to the various o f f i c e r s in Chancery were s t r i c t l y regulated? a long table of permissible fees was appended to the o r i g i n a l Ordinance. The sale of o f f i c e by any o f f i c i a l from the Master of the Rolls down was forbidden on pain of loss of o f f i c e and a f i n e of twice the amount received by the g u i l t y p a r t y . 1 0 ^ Furthermore, the Commissioners of the Great Seal were charged with over- seeing a l l Chancery operations to ensure complete honesty and lack of corruption. The extensive reforms promulgated i n th i s Ordinance do not seem to have been put into e f f e c t immediately on publi c a t i o n . This i s undoubtedly due to the fa c t that the f i r s t Parliament of the Protectorate was to assemble i n the following month, September. Therefore, the Protector and Council would wait f o r Parliament's approval. However, when at l a s t the Parliament did discuss the new Chancery regulations i t decided to suspend the Ordinance u n t i l Christmas. 1 0 9 This Parliament was not to complete any designs i t had upon the subject of Chancery reform f o r i t was dissolved on January 22, 1655• In the following 36 A p r i l , the Protector and his Council issued a revised form of the o r i g i n a l Ordinance. 1 1 0 A c r i s i s occurred over the reforms proposed i n this new document which resulted i n the resignation of Whitelock and Widdrington from t h e i r appointments as Commissioners of the Great Seal. The Protector, however, ins i s t e d on reform and would not give i n to complaint} evidently the Ordinance of 1654 was enforced. The Court of Common Pleas, l i k e Chancery, was also c r i t i c i z e d . However, i n i t s case the point of l e g i s l a t i o n was not reached. For example, a proposal was made that any q u a l i f i e d attorney be allowed to practise within t h i s court. This was intended to bring to an end the monopoly enjoyed by the state-appointed serjeants-at-law of p r a c t i s i n g within t h i s c o u r t . 1 1 1 However, t h i s proposed reform came to nothing and the Court of Common Pleas continued as i t had done under the monarchy. The same can also be said of the Court of Upper Bench. No fundamental changes occurred i n th i s Court except the a l t e r a t i o n of i t s name from King's Bench. As these departments did not undergo any important changes during the Protectorate, no more need be said of them at this time. Under the monarchy, the Duchy of Lancaster acted as a revenue department, an estate o f f i c e and a court of law. Under the Protectorate, the Duchy s t i l l existed but to what degree i t exercised i t s old j u r i s d i c t i o n i s unsure. I t i s most l i k e l y that i t s only r e a l function i n th i s period, was as a court of law. The confiscation and sale of Crown lands must have taken away most of i t s other business. The question of the t o t a l a b o l i t i o n of the Duchy j u r i s d i c t i o n came up many times during the.Commonwealth. A number of c o n f l i c t i n g resolutions were adopted by Parliament. One, of November 26, 1651. determined that the court of the duchy and county palatinate of Lancaster should continue no. longer than A p r i l 1, l 6 5 2 . 1 1 ^ However, on A p r i l 1, 165 2, the j u r i s d i c t i o n was continued f o r a further ..six months.11** This procedure was followed'.'.until, on A p r i l 8, 1653» on p e t i t i o n of the Justices of Peace and two grand juri e s assembled at the assizes, the a b o l i t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n was postponed sine d i e . 1 1 ^ During the Protectorate two Ordinances concerning the Duchy were published. The f i r s t , of February 28, 1654, revived the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the county palatine of Lancaster. A l l actions before the Duchy Court were to continue. Also the Ordinance appointed Matthew Hale and Hugh Wyndham justices of Assize and Goal- delivery f o r the county. Their commissions were to be given to them i n the accustomed manner, under the seal of the Duchy, by the Commissioners f o r keeping the Duchy seal, Thomas F e l l , who was also appointed i n the Ordinance. 1 1^ The second Ordinance involving the Duchy was published on June 9 of the same year. This decree revived once more the Duchy j u r i s d i c t i o n but only f o r causes depending. For 3 8 t h i s purpose two judges were appointed who were also to hold j o i n t l y the Seal of the Duchy? they were John Bradshaw and Thomas F e l l . 1 1 ? Nothing further i s heard of the court. As new causes were not allowed to begin, according to the Ordinance of June, 1654 i t must be assumed that i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n ceased when a l l depending causes were f i n a l i z e d . CHAPTER III SURVEY OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION, PART II During the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum a great many new administrative bodies were created. Most of them were much d i f f e r e n t from the older, more t r a d i t i o n a l bodies that have just been examined. The majority of the new creations were In the form of Committees or Commissions set up to manage a s p e c i f i c , and usually i t was hoped, a temporary problem. However, because of the short duration of the Commonwealth and Republic, many of these administrative bodies remained in existence throughout the entire period. An example c a n be found by examining any one of the several administrative groups charged with the sale of confiscated property? f o r instance, the body f o r the sale of Episcopal lands. This body, created i n 1646, remained i n existence u n t i l 1660. Its a c t i v i t i e s diminished as the years passed and eventually i t s task would have been completed with the sale of a l l the lands and the c o l l e c t i o n of a l l moneys owing. However, i t was s t i l l operating under Oliver Cromwell and indeed was not finished by 1660. Thus many "temporary" bodies of o f f i c i a l s can a c t u a l l y be considered permanent for present purposes as they were i n operation f o r the entire period under consideration. Most of the s i g n i f i c a n t administrative bodies of t h i s sort w i l l be considered below. 40 Each one i s a case by i t s e l f . They w i l l be considered separately and an outline of t h e i r administrative organiza- t i o n w i l l be given. Land Sales The most numerous and probably the most important of these newly created bodies were those set up to administer the sale of lands and goods confiscated from the Crbwn, the Established Church, and the defeated Royalists. This section w i l l outline the formation of the administrative units set up to handle t h i s vast task. As the form of each of the related bodies was similar* comments can be quite b r i e f . A l l of the following bodies were in operation during the Protectorate. Even though sales of lands were heaviest during the years preceding the Protectorate, the groups were s t i l l operative. The f i r s t lands to be put up f o r sale were those of the Archbishops and Bishops. In an Ordinance of October 9, 1646, the name and t i t l e of "Bishop" and "Archbishop" were abolished and the l e g a l possession of a l l t h e i r properties was placed i n the hands of a group of twenty-four Trustees. 1 The lands were not formally put up f o r sale 2 u n t i l a further Ordinance of November 17, 1646 was passed. The Trustees had several r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to perform. They were to act as receivers f o r a l l rents and revenues attached to the properties; they were to c o l l e c t and safeguard a l l charters, deeds, accounts and writings pertaining to the lands; they were to appoint stewards and manors and other o f f i c i a l s to oversee the properties; they were to see that a complete survey of the lands was carried out and were . responsible f o r the appointment of surveyors and other o f f i c i a l s necessary for th i s task. F i n a l l y , of course, the Trustees were given f u l l power to convey the premises to q u a l i f i e d purchasers. In an additional Ordinance of March 5» 164? the number of Trustees was reduced by four, to twenty, Thomas Adams, S i r George Clark, John Langham and John Jones pleading i n s u f f i c i e n t time f o r the work.^ The only mention of a salary given these Trustees i s a sum of £2,000 provided f o r i n the Ordinance mentioned above, to be divided among the twenty Trustees. The actual sale of the premises was to be handled by a group of eleven Contractors. These men had power to . deal with prospective purchasers, agree on a price, and • draw up the necessary documents. For t h e i r pains they L were to have an allowance of 2d. on the pound. None of the Contractors were allowed to purchase land. Also appointed i n the Ordinance of November, l6k$ were three Treasurers. They were to receive a l l money connected with the possession and sale of the episcopal lands and were, on^ d i r e c t i o n from;:the Trustees, to make any necessary payments. They were'also Treasurers f o r a loan of £200,000 f o r the use of the Commonwealth.5 Their salary was to be Id. on:, the pound. Other o f f i c i a l s appointed were a Keeper of the Records of Register, at £100 per annum plus writing fees, a Register-Accomptant, at £200 per annum f o r himself and clerks, and a Comptroller of Entries, Receipts and Payments, at £200 per annum. Instructions f o r the various o f f i c i a l s were included i n the Ordinance. The personnel appointed to administer t h i s sale has been dealt with at some length here as other bodies f o r the sale of confiscated lands are quite s i m i l a r In t h e i r organizations r e p e t i t i o n can he avoided by using the episcopal lands as a model. The sale of the lands of the Deans and Chapters was provided f o r i n an Act of A p r i l 30, 1649.° The machinery and regulations f o r the sale of these lands p a r a l l e l e d that of the Bishops' Lands. A body of f i f t e e n Trustees was named, and the lands were vested i n t h e i r possession u n t i l sold. The Trustees were to appoint' surveyors who were placed under the supervision of a Surveyor-General. Also appointed by the Act were twelve Contractors, three Treasurers, a Register, a Register-Accomptant and a Comptroller. The Act stated what s a l a r i e s were to be enjoyed} the Trustees, Contractors and Treasurers were to have a poundage while the other i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e r s had a set salary.? This body of o f f i c i a l s was extant throughout •the Protectorate; t h e i r Accounts f o r the period can be o seen i n W. A. Shaw's History of the English Church. 0 In July, 1649 the goods, personal estate and lands . of the King, Queen and Prince were put up f o r sale. The f i r s t A c t o f J u l y 4, 1649 p r o v i d e d f o r t h e s a l e of t h e Crown g o o d s .9 Once a g a i n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e s a l e was t o be s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e E p i s c o p a l l a n d s . A g r o u p o f e l e v e n T r u s t e e s , s i x C o n t r a c t o r s and two T r e a s u r e r s were a p p o i n t e d . A l l were a l l o w e d p o u n d a g e . L a t e r i n t h e same m o n t h , on J u l y 16, 1649, a n A c t was p a s s e d f o r t h e s a l e of t h e Crown l a n d s . 1 0 T h i r t e e n T r u s t e e s , t w e l v e C o n t r a c t o r s and f o u r T r e a s u r e r s were named i n t h e A c t . 1 1 A l l were t o have p o u n d a g e . A l s o a S u r v e y o r - G e n e r a l , C o m p t r o l l e r , R e g i s t e r , and R e g i s t e r o f D e b e n t u r e s were a p p o i n t e d , a l l w i t h s t a t e d s a l a r i e s . The A c t o f J u l y 16, 1649 p u t t i n g t h e Crown l a n d s up f o r s a l e had s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t the A c t s h a l l , . . . n o t e x t e n d t o any F e e - f a r m R e n t s , o r o t h e r R e n t s now due and p a y a b l e t o t h e Commonwealth out of any s u c h M a n o r s , L a n d s , o r o t h e r H e r e d i t a m e n t s , where t h e r e h a t h n o t been r e s e r v e d i n t h e Crown any R i g h t o r P r o p r i e t y i n o r t o s u c h M a n o r s , L a n d s o r H e r e d i t a m e n t s , o t h e r t h a n [ s i c ] t h e R e n t s r e s e r v e d . . . These F e e - f a r m R e n t s were n o t t o r e m a i n exempt f o r l o n g . A n A c t of M a r c h 11, 1650 e n t r u s t e d t h e . s a l e o f t h e s e R e n t s t o t h e same o f f i c i a l s h a n d l i n g t h e s a l e of Crown l a n d s . F o r t h i s e x t r a work t h e T r u s t e e s , C o n t r a c t o r s and T r e a s u r e r s and t h e u n d e r - o f f l e e r s r e c e i v e d a d d i t i o n a l w a g e s . I n a n A d d i t i o n a l A c t o f F e b r u a r y 6, 1651 a n o t h e r new o f f i c i a l , 11 t h e R e g i s t e r - A c c o m p t a n t , was a p p o i n t e d . H i s work i n v o l v e d o n l y t h e s a l e of F e e - F a r m R e n t s ; he was a l l o w e d a s a l a r y of £ 200 p e r annum. The next properties to he put up f o r sale were those belonging to Royalists who had either refused to 14 pay composition fines or who were not allowed to do so. The f i r s t Act f o r the sale of these lands was passed on July 16, 1651. 1^ This Act, placing on the market a large group of f o r f e i t e d estates, named seven Trustees to perform the task. Contractors were not used i n the sale of these lands but other o f f i c i a l s , s i m i l a r to those i n use by the other bodies f o r sale of confiscated properties, were appointed. Thus the Act named two Treasurers, a Surveyor- General, a Register,: Register-Accomptant, and a Comptroller. A second Act f o r sale of further estates was passed on August 4, 1652. 1 d The same o f f i c i a l s were entrusted with th i s sale. A t h i r d Act, of November 18, I 6 5 2 , brought 1 7 minor changes i n the o f f i c e r s . ' One of the Trustees was replaced by another-man and The Register-Accomptant was replaced by three other men. Fee-Farm Rents were not the only exception stated i n the Act f o r the Sale of Crown Lands; the other was the royal timber growing i n the woods and forests of England. This omission was remedied when, on November 22, 1653 an Act was passed, " f o r the Deafforestatipn, Sale and Improvement of the Forests and of the Honors, Manors, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments . . . heretofore belonging to the late King, Queen and Prince."18 To'administer this Act seven Trustees were appointed. They were.the f i r s t . Trustees to have regular salary, £300 per annum, Instead of the usual poundage. The other o f f i c i a l s appointed were a Surveyor-General, Reglster-Accomptant and two Treasurers. A number of forests exempt from-the foregoing Act were put up f o r sale i n 1654. The proceeds from the sale of these four reserved forests were to be used f o r the payment of s o l d i e r s . A group of ten new Trustees was appointed to oversee the sale. They were to be assisted by the Contractors appointed i n 1649 f o r the sale of Crown Lands.^9 Two f u r t h e r administrative e n t i t i e s connected with the sale of confiscated property should be mentioned here; the Commissioners f o r Removing Obstructions and the Commissioners fo r naming Discoveries. Since November, 1648 various committees had been appointed by Parliament to see to the removing of any obstructions and impediments to the sale of the lands. The f i r s t committee df forty-three members had been appointed to remove obstructions to the sale of episcopal l a n d s . 2 0 Another committee of forty-seven had the same task i n regards to capitular lands. By 1652 there were several of these committees in existence. On A p r i l 1, 1652 the powers and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of these bodies were taken away and placed i n the hands of seven Commissioners for the Removal of Obstructions. x Thus several large parliamentary commit tees were at a stroke replaced by. a small • . 46 group of paid o f f i c i a l s , most of them experienced administra- t o r s . 2 2 By March, 1656 the group seems to have been dissolved. 2 3 In A p r i l , 1656 a new body was created c a l l e d the Commissioners f o r naming Discoveries. Reference to t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s i s extremely rare? t h e r e f o r e , i t i s ' d i f f i c u l t to determine what t h e i r functions were apart from the f a c t that they were concerned with supervision over discoveries of concealed lands. The Commissioners were six i n number? they had a Register and an Assistant-Registrar. The Cromwellian Church Establishment Three administrative groups w i l l be considered under this general heading? the Trustees f o r the Maintenance of Preaching Ministers, the Commissioners f o r the Approbation of Preachers, and the Commissioners f o r Eje c t i n g Scandalous Ministers. The f i r s t , the Trustees f o r Maintenance, were appointed i n June, 1649. 2 o By th i s Act, " a l l t i t h e s appropriate, vicarages, churches, chapels, donatives, and fee farm rents issuing out of parsonages., vicarages, and ti t h e s were transferred from the trustees f o r the sale of bishops' lands and the trustees for the sale of capitular 27 lands to the thirteen trustees f o r maintenance. . . ." ' That i s , the control of income from spe c i f i e d lands to be used f o r the supply of the ministry were vested i n a group of t h i rteen trustees. In September, 1654 a further •4? Ordinance brought about a change.in the trustees administer- ing the Act; f i v e o r i g i n a l trustees were retained and f i v e new ones were named.2^ These men, who acted throughout the Protectorate, were appointed f o r l i f e and were to have a yearly salary of £100. The Commissioners f o r the Approbation of Preachers, also known as the T r i e r s , were i n i t i a l l y appointed i n March, 1654. These men, t h i r t y - e i g h t i n a l l , were authorized, M . . . to judge and take knowledge of the a b i l i t y and f i t n e s s of any person so presented, nominated, chosen or appointed, according to the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s above-mentioned, and upon t h e i r approbation . . . to grant unto such a person admission to such Benefice or Lecture. . . . " 2 9 On September 2, 1654 four additional Commissioners were appointed. No salary was mentioned, or intended at f i r s t , but i n August, 1655 an order of the Protector and Council stated that they were to have£200 each per annum.^° A t h i r d body which should be mentioned was the Commissioners f o r Ejecting Scandalous Ministers, often known simply as the Ejectors. These Commissioners, f i r s t appointed i n August, 1654, were i n s t i t u t e d to exercise control over incumbents of Church l i v i n g s . As t h i s body operated on a l o c a l l e v e l , i t i s beyond the scope of t h i s paper to say much more than t h i s . New Departments of Justice Two important new additions to the apparatus f o r dispensing justice were i n i t i a t e d during the Interregnum, both of which were i n operation, under the Protectorate, namely, The Court of Admiralty- and the High Court of Justice The Court of Admiralty was created by a n Ordinance of A p r i l , 1648. This Ordinance determined the cases i n which th i s Court was to have j u r i s d i c t i o n and settled i t s method of procedure. It also allowed f o r the appoint- ment of three judges. The Ordinance was to l a s t f o r three years. In A p r i l , 1651 i t was continued, and again i n June, Three judges were appointed by another Ordinance of July, 1653; they were Dr. John Godolphin, Dr. William Clark and Charles George Cock . 3 2 The judges continued s i t t i n g under the Protectorate. During 1655 two new judges are mentioned. John Clerke and Thomas Kelsey were added as Admiralty judges on May 4, •1655»^ Dr. Walter Walker 34 i s c a l l e d an Admiralty Judge e a r l i e r i n the same year. Whether or not the t o t a l number of judges s i t t i n g at the same time was thus increased from three to f i v e or six, or whether these new men were replacements, i s not clear. The s a l a r i e s of Admiralty judges seem,?, to have been £500 per annum. 35 The High Court of Justice does not r e a l l y f a l l within the scope of a study of the Central Administration. However, i t does require mention because of i t s great 49 importance and power, and because many of i t s members were part of the Central Administration. Thus, the various High Courts appointed within the Cromwellian period formed to a degree an extensions of the influence of some of the important administrators. In the Appendix membership i n the High Courts by administrators w i l l be noted. Other Admlnistrative Bodies During the Rump the number of committees concerned i n some way or another with sequestered estates multiplied and t h e i r authority became confusingly interwoven. After February, 1654 some order was brought to t h i s chaos and a new Committee for Sequestration at Goldsmiths' Hall took over the authority formerly exercised by the Commissioners f o r Compounding with Delinquents, Commissioners f o r Indemnity, and various other groups. The Commissioners at Goldsmiths* H a l l were concerned with':"the management of sequestered estates. The Commissioners i n operation under the Protectorate were appointed on February 10, 1654 and exercised the powers of the older committee for compounding.-^ Their prime function was to manage or lease any of the estates under sequestration fo r delinquency or recusancy, and to oversee l o c a l sequestration o f f i c i a l s . They also had a wide range of authority over various matters touching the composition of delinquents. At f i r s t s a l a r i e s were not given but i n 1655 a recommendation was made. Acting on t h i s advice the Protector and Council allowed them £300 each f o r the period from June 24, 1654 to March 25, 1655«3? Whether the Commissioners were paid at t h i s rate a f t e r March 25, 1655 i s not known. In October, 1653 seven men were appointed Commissioners f o r the receipt of l i s t s of public debtors and c r e d i t o r s . Their job was to act as receivers and examiners of certain l i s t s of debts due to the State that had been ordered to be made up and submitted by an "Act f o r Accompts and Clearing of Public Debts? And f o r discovering Frauds or: Concealments of anything due to the Commonwealth.M38 This group of men was also known as the Committee f o r Accounts. From a p e t i t i o n f o r payment by members of t h i s Committee, t h e i r salary appears to have been £200 each per annum.^ A' semi-administrative body of great influence In * commercial and f i n a n c i a l matters was the. famous Committee f o r Trade and Navigation. The twenty o r i g i n a l members were named i n July but i n November the Committee was increased to f o r t y - f i v e , Later, others were added u n t i l i t numbered more than seventy. Its duty was e s s e n t i a l l y to act i n an advisory capacity on general p o l i c i e s towards trade and commerce.^1 The Committee had a s t a f f of six at an annual cost of£ 280.^ 2 One l a s t group of administrators should be mentioned. At various times the Council of State appointed groups of men to perform a s p e c i f i c task, to investigate a pressing 51 problem, or perhaps to act as referee i n a d i s p u t e . These various groups d i d not belong to a p a r t i c u l a r department, u s u a l l y they d i d not have a s a l a r y , and were appointed only u n t i l the p a r t i c u l a r job was completed. They were, then, a type of temporary committee. Many such committees were u t i l i z e d by the Counci l of State to perform miscellaneous, but often Important jobs. For example, i n October, 1655, f i v e men were delegated to: invest igate charges made against the Commissioners of P r i z e G o o d s . ^ In November of the same year eight f i n a n c i a l o f f i c i a l s were appointed with power to examine a l l receivers of State money since 1642. What t h e i r s p e c i f i c task was on t h i s occasion i s not known. On October 16, 1656 a Committee appointed to examine the accounts of the la te K i n g ' s goods was allowed a c l e r k , a doorkeeper, and a messenger, at a t o t a l . c o s t of £ 8 0 per annum, plus rooms i n Worcester H o u s e . ^ While these miscellaneous committees are almost impossible to c l a s s i f y and sometimes even more d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y , t h e i r importance must not be underestimated. The o f f i c i a l s who composed most of these Committees were u s u a l l y important administrators} t h e i r a c t i v i t y on such bodies i s most s u r p r i s i n g . If these bodies were ignored i n a study of the adminis t ra t ion under Cromwell, a great d e a l of the work of some of the most important Cromwellian o f f i c i a l s would be overlooked. CHAPTER IV ENTRY TO OFFICE AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE Having completed a survey of the administrative departments i n operation during the years 1653-58, i t i s time to consider.those people who composed the administrative personnel. Before looking at the men themselves, the means of t h e i r appointment to o f f i c e and the conditions'of t h e i r service w i l l be examined* A l a t e r chapter w i l l discuss the method of t h e i r payment. Appointment to O f f i c e Under the monarchy a complex but usually well-defined system of ri g h t to appoint to o f f i c e e x i s t e d . 1 That i s , cert a i n o f f i c e s t r a d i t i o n a l l y lay within the sphere of influence of a p a r t i c u l a r o f f i c i a l . The Crown had the greatest rights of nomination to o f f i c e extending from the most elevated ministerial- p o s i t i o n to a humble clerkship i n the Ordnance O f f i c e . But the rights of the Crown to appoint to o f f i c e were by no means unlimited. Quite the reverse; many other persons enjoyed t h i s r i g h t . For example, the Lord Chamberlain of the Household controlled appointment to o f f i c e s i n the bedchamber; the Lord Chancellor had s i m i l a r power i n the Exchequer. Perhaps the best way to explain the system under the monarchy i s to look at a p a r t i c u l a r depart- ment. In Chancery the two most important o f f i c i a l s were appointed by the King. These two o f f i c i a l s i n turn controlled appointment to the other under-offices, the Chancellor naming some, the Master of the Rolls others. The res u l t i n g d i v i s i o n of the ri g h t to appoint created the somewhat unusual s i t u a t i o n of the second i n command, the Chancellor, appointing o f f i c e r s independently of the f i r s t i n command, the King. S i m i l a r l y , the t h i r d i n command, the Master of the Ro l l s , could appoint independently of either the King or the Chancellor. The right to appoint thus resembled a sort of complex "sub-infeudination." The King appointed a l l of the highest l e v e l of o f f i c i a l s , some of the second l e v e l and some of the lowest l e v e l ; the most important o f f i c e r s controlled some secondary and some t h i r d l e v e l appointments. Sometimes the chain of command would go through several stages, each l e v e l c o n t r o l l i n g the appointment of the l e v e l below i t . Thus a t h i r d l e v e l o f f i c i a l , such as a minor clerk i n Chancery, would have two or more superiors between him and the King. However, i n other cases, a t h i r d l e v e l o f f i c i a l could be appointed d i r e c t l y bytthe King. What was the case under the Protectorate? The Instrument of Government, the constitution under which the Protector was to govern, had l i t t l e to say about the control of appointments to o f f i c e . A r t i c l e XXV named the f i r s t t hirteen Councillors of State and provided an i n t r i c a t e method of appointing additional members. Thp actual power of appointment to these important positions was i n ef f e c t 2 shared among Parliament, the Council and the Protector. The appointment of other great O f f i c e r s of State, "the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal, the Treasurer, Admiral, Chief Governors of Ireland and Scotland, and the Chief Justices of both the Benches, s h a l l be chosen by the Approbation of Parliament; and i n the Intervals of Parliament, by the Approbation of the major Part of. the Council, to be afterwards approved by the Parliament."3 Nothing was said concerning appointment to other o f f i c e s but as J . P. Kenyon noted i n his commentary on the Instrument, " . . . i n the absence of any statement to the contrary i t must be assumed that a l l other appointments were i n the hands of the Protector."^ In order to f i n d out to what extent t h i s i s true perhaps the best course would be to ascertain how the various Protectorate o f f i c i a l s had come to be appointed. F i r s t , i t must be kept i n mind that a f a i r l y large percentage of the office-holders during this' period had been appointed either i n the e a r l i e r years of the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum or even i n the time of the King. O f f i c e r s o r i g i n a l l y appointed by the King somewhat nat u r a l l y formed only a small percentage of those serving under the Protectorate.^ However, a few notable exceptions can be found. S i r Henry Croke, clerk of the Pipe, was o r i g i n a l l y appointed by James I i n l 6 l 5 . u By making ce r t a i n that he remained innocuous he managed to hold this o f f i c e throughout a l l changes of government u n t i l his death i n 1659; even then he was able to pass on the o f f i c e to his son. Clement Kinnersley, who had been Chief O f f i c e r to the King's wardrobe of beds, acted as Wardrobe Keeper to the 7 Protector. He also acted as a Contractor f o r the.sale of the King's Goods, and was a purchaser of Crown lands.® Other o f f i c e r s dating from pre-1642 were S i r George Cburthope, Deputy Commissioner f o r alienations;9 Thomas Simon, Mint worker par excellence; William Ryley, Clerk of the Tower Records, and Norray King at Arms; 1 0 John Embree, Serjeant Plumber to King Charles and late Surveyor of the Lord Protector's Houses j . 1 1 and William Drake, chirographer of the Court of Common Pleas. An examination of the majority of those o f f i c e r s who had survived the changes leads one to the conclusion that the o f f i c e s held i n t h i s way were not key administrative positions but were ones with limited influence on the administration as a whole. Office-holders either exhibited a pro-Government outlook, as did Clement Kinnersley, or remained quiet and unobtrusive, as did William Ryley or William Drake. O f f i c e r s dating from pre- 1642 who gave the s l i g h t e s t suspicion of opposition or lack of cooperation, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the o f f i c e was at a l l important, were soon replaced. For example, S i r Robert Pye, Auditor of the Receipt since 1620, was removed from th i s p o s i t i o n on Cromwell's r i s e to the Protectorship. A greater number of office-holders under the Protectorate were, of course, appointed during the years l642-53« A few occupied important positions such as the Masters of Requests, Francis and Nathaniel Bacon, the Attorney-General, Edmund Prideaux, the Lieutenant of the 56 Tower, John Barkstead, and Henry Rolle, Chief Justice of the Upper Bench. Of this group i t can be said once again that they retained o f f i c e primarily because of t h e i r p o l i t i c a l outlook as government supporters or, at lea s t as neutrals. Other o f f i c i a l s of whom the new government had cause to doubt were almost without exception dismissed. For example, Richard Keeble, a Commissioner of the Great Seal, was replaced shortly a f t e r the asendancy of the Lord Protector; Robert Reynolds, Solici t o r - G e n e r a l since I 6 5 O 1 was also replaced; John Wilde, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, was removed i n December, 1653* Several judges of the Upper Bench and of the Common Pleas received s i m i l a r treatment. However, as i s to be expected, many minor or secondary o f f i c i a l s appointed between 1642 and 1653* especially those positions were of no p o l i t i c a l s ignificance, remained i n o f f i c e . O f f i c i a l s f o r the sale of confiscated estates were appointed mainly before the time of the Protectorate; they remained i n o f f i c e . In the Mint,.the o f f i c i a l s were not altered; s i m i l a r l y , the Commissioners of the Wavy, the Admiralty Judges, and the Prize Goods Commissioners. The most important, though perhaps not the largest numerical group of office-holders were those appointed during the Protectorate. Shortly a f t e r the appointment of Cromwell as Lord Protector, an extensive reorganization of the administrative personnel took place, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the higher ranks. Because of the importance of thi s reorganiza- tio n , i t w i l l be looked a t i n some depth i n an attempt to 57 give a clear picture of i t s extent. Immediate changes i n the days and weeks following December 16, 1653 were not extensive. Some time was permitted to pass before major changes were attempted, to allow f o r a period of smooth t r a n s i t i o n . Nevertheless, a beginning was made. On December 29, 1653 a new Committee to inquire into arrears of excise was organized, and on December 31 a new Committee f o r inspecting the treasuries was named. During the next eight months extensive but gradual changes took place. In January,, 1654 a new Baron of the Exchequer was named, Robert Nicholas; another, Richard Pepys, followed i n June. The patent of Francis Thorpe, also a Baron of the Exchequer, was renewed i n February. Later, i n August, 1654, the re- organization of the Exchequer took.plafce. In the Upper Bench, the patents of Chief Justice Henry Rolle and of puisne justice Richard Aske were renewed i n February. A new j u s t i c e , Richard Newdigate, was appointed i n June. In the Court of Common Pleas, two new ju s t i c e s , Matthew Hale and Hugh Wyndham, were appointed i n the early months of 1654. Two new Commissioners of the Great Seal, S i r Thomas Widdrington and John L i s l e , were named i n A p r i l . A new Army Committee was named i n January; a new Sequestration Committee,in February; new Commissioners f o r the approbation of ministers, i i i March; a new organization f o r the maintenance of ministers, i n September. Other innovations included the establishment of the customs on.a commission basis and the attempted reorganisation of Chancery. Important .58 i n d i v i d u a l appointments included a new So l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l , a new Clerk of the P e l l s , three new Exchequer T e l l e r s , and two new Auditors. Before Cromwell had been i n o f f i c e a single year, the personnel of the administration had thus been extensively reorganized and staffed by large numbers of Cromwellian supporters. How was t h i s important job accomplished? The answer seems to be quite straight forwardj Cromwell and his Council controlled the entire system of appointment. According to the Instrument of Government, the great O f f i c e r s of State were to be appointed by the Protector and Council and be approved by Parliament. The wording of the clause specifying the "Approbation" of Parliament was s u f f i c i e n t l y vague to leave v i r t u a l l y a l l the power of appointment with the Protector and Council. In practise these appointments were always approved with l i t t l e , ' i f a n y , d i f f i c u l t y . What about the appointment of the host of other secondary o f f i c i a l s ? A r t i c l e II of the Instrument of Government stated, "That the Exercise of the chief Magistracy, and the Administration of the Government . . . s h a l l be i n the. Lord Protector, assisted with a Council."12. This could, i f taken i n i t s widest sense, mean that a l l patronage, now lay i n the hands of the Protector and Council. In practise, this seems to have been the case. Numerous o f f i c i a l s were appointed i n Acts and Ordinances s p e c i f i c a l l y passed f o r this purpose.^3 Other o f f i c i a l s were appointed i n Ordinances concerned mainly with the-creation or regulation 59 of a ce r t a i n department.^ These Acts and Ordinances were drawn up under the d i r e c t i o n df the Protector and his Council. A l l appointments i n these documents were thus controlled by the Protector and his Council. S p e c i f i c appointments sometimes seem to have been made by Cromwell himself, as i n the case of the appointment of Abraham Barrington as an auditor of the prests, In January, 1657 and of Thomas Dunne as Registrar f o r appearances i n London i n December, ±655More frequently the Council made a recommendation to the Protector, "to advise his Highness to appoint Robert G r i f f i t h a Commissioner f o r D i s c o v e r i e s . " 1 ^ The Council did not appoint i n i t s own right but usually made a "recommendation" to the Protector. 17 The Protector was often present at Council meetings and frequently approved appointments i n person. There i s very l i t t l e , i f any, doubt that both the Lord Protector and the Council took a sur p r i s i n g l y great i n t e r e s t i n small administrative d e t a i l such as the appointment of various minor o f f i c i a l s . In cases where others were to oversee the appointment the approbation of the Protector or the Council was usually needed; f o r example, i n March, 1656 the Customs Commissioners were ordered to, "present to His Highness the names of a l l present o f f i c e r s , that those of honesty and i n t e g r i t y be continued and those excepted, discharged, m 18 Nevertheless, the Council of State or the Protector could not be expected to oversee the appointment of a l l o f f i c i a l s of the Central government. Department heads or other important o f f i c i a l s 60 made recommendations, to.the Protector or the Council who would then "rubber-stamp"_the choice.^9 With th i s generally- s t r i c t oversight of appointments by the Protector and the Council most of the undisputed rights of the.higher o f f i c i a l s to appoint to o f f i c e disappeared. Patronage therefore became more ind i r e c t ; recommendations could s t i l l be made but d i r e c t appointments, by-passing the Central Executive, would probably not have given secure t i t l e to an o f f i c e . An excellent example of the problem of patronage i n this period can be seen i n the case of John L e n t h a l l . At some unknown date i n the mid-1640's John Lenthall had been appointed one of the s i x clerks of Chancery by his father, William Lenthall, Master of the R o l l s . In 1654 the Ordinance reforming Chancery stated that the Six Clerks were to be reduced to three; John Lenthall was not one of the three named. P e t i t i o n i n g the Protector and Council was. of no O A a v a i l . His case i l l u s t r a t e s that even the son of an important o f f i c i a l and Government supporter was not irremovable, and that what l i t t l e power and opportunity f o r the exercise of patronage existed under the Protectorate was, without a doubt, subordinate to the wishes of the Protector and Council. Private and d i r e c t patronage perhaps existed i n lower l e v e l s of the administration, but at the higher l e v e l s the Protector and his Council exercised complete authority. Tenure and Sale ;of -Office 61 The nature of the tenure of o f f i c e under the monarch could d i f f e r greatly from one to another. An o f f i c e could be granted for ̂ number of years, f o r l i f e , or even f o r a number of l i v e s . It could also be granted on the agreement that i t be held during the pleasure of the patron, or during the good conduct of the person appointed. A discussion of tenure under the Protectorate must f i r s t take note of the dual nature of the administration. The largest part of the administration was composed of the new machinery such as the various committees and commissions governing the Army, the Navy, the land sales, Excise, Customs and Prize Goods. The o f f i c i a l s s t a f f i n g these departments were mainly nominated by Ordinance; the length of t h e i r appoint- ment was often given. The Army Committee, the Admiralty Commissioners and the Customs and Excise Commissioners o n were named f o r a stated period, usually a year or l e s s . x More frequently, the length of time of the appointment was not stated. The o f f i c i a l s f o r the sale of the various con- fi s c a t e d properties, f o r example, remained i n o f f i c e f o r however long i t took to complete the assigned task. The appointment of the Commissioners fo r the Approbation of Public Preachers i s a t y p i c a l case. A s p e c i f i c term of appointment was not given. Successors were to be nominated upon the "death or removal of any of them."22 i n other words, o f f i c e r s were appointed u n t i l they resigned, died, 62 or were replaced; they were substantially at the mercy of the Protector and Council. Although at f i r s t t h i s seems a p e r f e c t l y normal way of making an appointment, i t must be remembered that under the monarchy o f f i c e r s had, a f t e r t h e i r nomination to o f f i c e , a d e f i n i t e l e g a l r i g h t to t h e i r places. Even the King would have extreme d i f f i c u l t y replacing them, especially f o r solely p o l i t i c a l reasons. The c o n f l i c t of t h i s older view with that i n existence under Cromwell i s e a s i l y seen i n the case of John L e n t h a l l . In 1655% the Ordinance regulating Chancery displaced him from his p o s i t i o n as one of the Six-Clerks. In a p e t i t i o n to the Protector Lenthall said, The property of people i n freeholds and estates i s confirmed by the law of God, Magna Charta, Acts and Statutes of Parliament, and by your oath on taking government. King James, i n his reformation, com- pensated those who suffered loss thereby, as other Kings have done, and as I fear not but you w i l l do. 3 Even though Lenthall had a grant of the o f f i c e for l i f e and even though he regarded the o f f i c e as his property, he found himself without any employment.;2^ In the remaining part of the administration, the surviving t r a d i t i o n a l departments,such as Chancery and the Exchequer, tenure seems to have remained much as i t had been before 1642. The few examples of the sale of o f f i c e s that exist would indicate that at least something of the old concept of the ownership of an o f f i c e continued to e x i s t . However, these notions were without a doubt subordinate to any requirements of the Protector and Council. Their decision on any question concerning the appointment or dismissal of an o f f i c i a l did not necessarily take into account any of the t r a d i t i o n a l ideas of office-holding. P a r t l y as a re s u l t of th i s condition, sale of Offices did not take place to any great degree under the Protectorate. Among the State Papers can be found the draf t of an"Act against the sale of o f f i c e . " 25 It i s quite possible that t h i s draft was prepared either i n the l a t e r months of the Barebones Parliament or i n the f i r s t few weeks of the Protectorate. However, as the document i s undated the precise date of i t s o r i g i n i s unknown. Clauses i n the dra f t Act-provided that henceforth o f f i c e s would not be granted f o r l i f e , or i n reversion, nor would they be bought and sold. Severe penalties were to be provided f o r offenders. The Act did not"proceed beyond the d r a f t stage. Perhaps the inherent conservatism of the Cromwellian regime thought the Act too d r a s t i c . Nevertheless^the government made a f a i r attempt to do away with, or at least to l i m i t and discourage any t r a f f i c i n o f f i c e s . In the Ordinance regulating Chancery any o f f i c e r accepting money or g r a t u i t i e s " . . . f o r nominating or admitting of any person or persons to any o f f i c e or place within his or t h e i r d i s p o s i t i o n " was to lose his place and pay a f i n e of twice the sum rec e i v e d . 2 ^ Instructions to Exchequer o f f i c i a l s i n the Ordinance re- constituting that department could also be interpreted as 64 having the same meaning. 2? Yet, some sale of o f f i c e s did take place. In August, I658 the Remembrancer's o f f i c e i n the Exchequer was sold; what the terms were or any other information regarding t h i s sale remains unknown.20" j n 1654 Edmund Squibb purchased the o f f i c e of T e l l e r of the Exchequer from his brother, Arthur. His case i s in t e r e s t i n g i n that i t throws l i g h t both upon the sale of o f f i c e under the Protectorate and upon the closely related subject of tenure.. O r i g i n a l l y the T e l l e r s h i p had been granted by King Charles . to Arthur Squibb who seems to have remained i n o f f i c e u n t i l 1653' Edmund, upon his purchase of the o f f i c e , petitioned!,thedPrbtector f o r admittance. Cromwell promised to consider the case but Edmund was not admitted to the 20 o f f i c e , at least i n the l i f e of Cromwell. 7 Whether- or not Edmund Squibb was prevented from entering the o f f i c e of T e l l e r because the sale was not recognized as v a l i d , i s unknown. Probably the case centred more upon the question of the v a l i d i t y of the o r i g i n a l King's patent than upon the sale of the o f f i c e . Apparently the Protector and Council decided to overlook the o r i g i n a l grant.30 This decision was primarily one of expediency.- It was more convenient that the Te l l e r s h i p be kept from Squibb, whose family had r o y a l i s t connections. Several other examples exi s t to support t h i s interpretation of the government's "po l i c y of expediency." William Legg had been granted the o f f i c e of wardrobe keeper by Charles I. He had continued to exercise this function as 0 65 i s evidenced by his receiving payment as l a t e as June, 1654.-^ In January, 1655 Legg's patent had been declared "useless" and the o f f i c e had been given to Clement Kinnersley who had l a t e l y proven himself of some value by preserving and discovering some of the late King's goods.32 There was l i t t l e other j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s act than pure preference. Si m i l a r l y , Lawrence Squibb had exercised his place as a T e l l e r , granted by the King, u n t i l l653« His p e t i t i o n f o r confirmation of his place i n the early months of the Protectorate was " l a i d aside" and he never regained his office. 3 3 Robert Bowyer, appointed by King James to be Usher of the Exchequer, petitioned the Council f o r con- firmation of his patent and seems to have been denied. 3k S i r Robert Pye asked f o r confirmation of his patent as auditor of the Exchequer; he was told that the place was already disposed. 35 Those that did not have t h e i r patents confirmed were either not desired by the - government or t h e i r places were given..to. government supporters. Cromwell preferred freedom of action i n the s t a f f i n g of government of f i c e s to any consistent system of recognition of Royal patents. Oaths During the seventeenth century the use of oaths i n connection with appointment to o f f i c e was very frequent. Oaths had several important uses. They could be u t i l i z e d as 66 an expression of l o y a l t y , as a symbolic act on en t e r i n g o f f i c e , as a t e s t to screen people, as a means of swearing to secrecy and as a means of s t a t i n g and agreeing upon the d u t i e s which accompanied an o f f i c e . In other words, i n the seventeenth century the oath was almost the equivalent of the modern-rday Contract, i n which are stated the o b l i g a t i o n s one assumes on undertaking a c e r t a i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or task. Three cen t u r i e s ago, i n a more r e l i g i o u s age,, an oath was oft e n held to be f a r more binding that i t would be today.36 i t i s therefore not s u r p r i s i n g that i n the days of the " P u r i t a n Revolution" frequent use was made of oaths i n connection to o f f i c e - h o l d i n g . One of the most famous Oaths of the Commonwealth was that known as the Engagement. Promulgated on February 2, l650,the Engagement s t a t e d , I Do de c l a r e and promise, that I w i l l be true and f a i t h f u l to the Commonwealth of England, as i t i s now E s t a b l i s h e d , without a King or House of Lords.37 This Oath was to be taken by every person that occupied at the time, or who would come.-to occupy, an o f f i c e of Trust or P r o f i t under the Commonwealth; that i s , any and a l l o f f i c e - h o l d e r s were obliged to subscribe to the Engagement before they could continue i n o f f i c e . 3 ^ This Act remained i n f o r c e u n t i l Cromwell became Lord P r o t e c t o r . Then, i n January, 1654, an Ordinance was passed f o r r e p e a l i n g the t a k i n g of the Engagement. The reasons given i n . t h i s Ordinance were t h a t , 6? . . . many general and promissory Oaths and Engagements, i n former times imposed upon the People of t h i s Nation have proved burthens and snares to tender Consciences.. . . .39 Although Cromwell and his advisors saw f i t to do away with the more general use of such an oath as the Engagement, they c e r t a i n l y did not abandon the use of an o a t h i n more s p e c i f i c instances. The Instrument of Govern- ment provided f o r the taking of an oath by the Protector, the members of his Council and the Commissioners of the Great Seal, although i t did not provide the oaths themselves However, i n the second Constitution i n use under the Protectorate, the P e t i t i o n and-Advise, an oath was provided. The Protector was to swear to uphold the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n , to preserve the Peace and to maintain the Rights of the nation; the Councillors swore to uphold r e l i g i o n and to be f a i t h f u l to the Lord Protector.^ 1 Oaths were also used on the appointment of o f f i c i a l s of lower ranks. These oaths d i f f e r e d i n the ends' which they were meant to achieve. The one to be subscribed to by the clerks of the Protector's Council was designed primarily as an attempt to insure secrecy; i t s single clause stated, ... . 1 w i l l be f a i t h f u l i n the trust committed to me, and not reveal anything i n whole or part, d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , that s h a l l be debated i n Co.uncil, and ordered to be kept secret, without permission. The Commissioners f o r the sale of Crown Forests appointed i n August, 1654 were to take an oath f a i t h f u l l y to discharge the duties'outlined i n the Ordinance and to do. this without, 68 M . . . Favour or Affe c t i o n , Reward or G i f t , or Hope of Reward or G i f t . . . ."^3 This type of Oath was common to the numerous groups of Trustees, Contractors, Surveyors and Commissioners named to attend to the sale of confiscated e s t a t e s . ^ During the Protectorate Oaths/s were used when extraordinary positions of trust? were involved, such as i n the various temporary groups f o r the sale of.confiscated estates, and where regular means of appointment to established departments did not ex i s t . However, the use of Oaths? as a test f o r p o l i t i c a l l o y a l t y , such as i n vogue under the Long Parliament, was substantially diminished. Deputies and Pluralism The use of a deputy to perform the duties of an o f f i c e was quite common under the monarchy. Usually t h i s practise did l i t t l e to a f f e c t the general l e v e l of administrative e f f i c i e n c y . However, i n some cases i t could lead to a decrease i n e f f i c i e n c y i f , f o r example, the deputy was not properly q u a l i f i e d for the o f f i c e or i f he was remiss i n his duties knowing that f i n a l , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y did not rest with him. Abuses such as these led at times to complaint about the use of deputies. Under the Protectorate there were cases where serious abuses resulted i n the pr o h i b i t i o n of the use of deputies. In the Ordinance regulating Chancery the Registrars were s t r i c t l y forbidden the use of deputies; none of the other o f f i c i a l s were affected. 69 Other than this case and a few others, deputies were tolerated. John Wheatley acted as deputy f o r Henry Colbron, Registrar for the sale of Crown Lands and Fee- farm rents; Wheatley eventually succeeded to the p o s i t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , Edward Fauconberg acted as deputy f o r his brother i n the l a t t e r ' s p o s i t i o n as Chamberlain of the Exchequer; he also succeeded to the o f f i c e . ^ ? Some o f f i c i a l s f o r the sale of confiscated properties were allowed to use a u o " s u f f i c i e n t deputy." 4 , 0 In the administration as a whole i t would appear as i f a more e f f i c i e n t s e l e c t i o n and supervision of under-officers resulted i n less use being made of deputies under the Protectorate than under the King. Pluralism, the holding of more than one o f f i c e by one man, was quite common under the Protectorate. Pluralism could be seen as an abuse i f i t meant that the various positions held by the one person did not each receive adequate attention. On the other hand,if a l l of the of f i c e s were properly cared f o r a great degree of c e n t r a l i z a - t i o n and continuity could be the r e s u l t . Some of Cromwell's most important o f f i c e r s were p l u r a l i s t s . One of the best- know was S i r William Roberts. This man was a Commissioner for Appeals and Regulating the.Excise, a Commissioner for the Preservation of Customs and Excise, a Judge fo r Probate of Wi l l s , a Contractor f o r the sale of Crown Lands, Fee-Farm Rents and Deans' lands, and the Auditor of the Receipt i n the Exchequer. '•' He also had other o f f i c e s ?0 and was an important member of a great many temporary committees appointed by Council to look a f t e r avrious extra- ordinary problems. His connection with a great many f i n a n c i a l matters must have brought a great continuity and intercommunication to the various f i n a n c i a l departments with which he was involved. Furthermore, the sheer number . of o f f i c e s to which he was appointed must have meant that he exercised them i n a supervisory capacity using under- . o f f i c e r s or deputies to do the routine work. Pluralism of t h i s type was an important fa c t o r i n Cromwell's administration. S i r William was by no means the only example; many others w i l l be dealt with i n a l a t e r chapter. CHAPTER V PAYMENT OF OFFICERS Under the Monarchy government o f f i c i a l s were paid i n a variety of ways. Salaries, i n the usual present day sense of the word, as fixed money payments representing the t o t a l monetary value of the employment made at regular i n t e r v a l s by the employer, were not at a l l common. The closest equivalent was known as a Fee. While th i s was Indeed a fixed annual money payment, i t was usually only a part of the t o t a l earnings of a p a r t i c u l a r o f f i c i a l . By the seventeenth century these Fees, most of which had been set:.in the Middle Ages, bore l i t t l e r e l a t i o n to the importance or true value of the o f f i c e . Key o f f i c i a l s , high i n the administrative "hierarchy, often received smaller Fees than lesser o f f i c i a l s . To add more inconvenience to these Fees as a means of receiving payment, they were often i r r e g u l a r l y paid and were frequently i n arrears f o r a number of years. There were, however, several other sources of additional income available to the office-holder. O f f i c i a l s who were i n favour with the King often received income i n the form of pensions or annuities given either for l i f e or f o r a stated number of years. A few of the highest o f f i c i a l s received a payment of th i s kind by virtu e of the po s i t i o n they held? that i s , the o f f i c e carried with i t a pension or annuity. Most such benefits, however, were given to individuals, not attached to an o f f i c e . Another form of supplementary payment was an allowance f o r D i e t . C e r t a i n o f f i c e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the Household, had a s p e c i f i c D i e t assigned to them. For example, the Master of the Household was allowed a "seven d i s h " d i e t ; the nine o f f i c e r s of the Compting house shared a three d i s h D i e t . These were commutable to a money payment, a . three d i s h d i e t being worth about £ 3 9 0 . p e r annum, a seven d i s h d i e t about £ 8 5 0 per annum.1 An a l t e r n a t i v e to D i e t was an allowance c a l l e d Bouge. O r i g i n a l l y I t provided o f f i c e r s w i t h an amount of bread, a l e , firewood and candles but a l s o came to be commutable. Other " f r i n g e b e n e f i t s " could take the form of a Royal grant of property, the use of a house, immunity from t a x a t i o n , the g r a n t i n g of a monopoly, or ex t r a o r d i n a r y allowances f o r t r a v e l l i n g or f o r l i v e r y . However,perhaps the most important method of supplementing an income was by the t a k i n g of f e e s . By "fee s " are meant sums of money,usually s m a l l , .paid to c e r t a i n o f f i c i a l s f o r a s e r v i c e which i t was t h e i r r i g h t to perform, such as payment f o r a document processed. Thus, fees w i t h a small " f " were u s u a l l y paid by the p u b l i c , or sometimes by another o f f i c i a l , while stipendary Fees, w i t h a l a r g e "F", were paid by the Crown. 2 During the l640's and l650*s attempts were made to remedy some of the abuses a r i s i n g out of the system of payment of o f f i c i a l s under the King. The i n s u f f i c i e n c y of the stipendary Fees attached to many o f f i c e s encouraged corruption and discouraged e f f i c i e n c y ; nor would low payment a t t r a c t the best candidates f o r a p o s i t i o n . The need to gain a supplementary income, and the existence of so many ways i n which to do so, often encouraged extortion and bribery. The system was f u l l of i n j u s t i c e ; some important o f f i c i a l s received inadequate payment, other sinecurists enjoyed tremendous p r o f i t s for very l i t t l e service performed. Considerable reform was achieved under the Long Parliament; however, this cannot be dealt with at t h i s time. The approach to the subject taken under the Protectorate w i l l be discussed, i n p a r t i c u l a r , what reforms were made or attempted, what abuses remained, and to what extent the system existing under the Monarchy began to reappear. The general approach to reform under the Protectorate was to adjust and regularize stipendary allowances or sal a r i e s and to reduce incidental fees to a minimum. F i r s t , l e t us examine the matter of s a l a r i e s . Under the Monarchy the Clerks of the Signet had no salary; they depended e n t i r e l y on fees, d i e t and g r a t u i t i e s f o r th e i r wages.^ Under the Protector they were, given a regular allowance of £150 per annum. S i m i l a r l y , the Auditors of the Imprest received a salary increase from £67 to £500 per annum;5 the Clerk of the P e l l s from £172 to £350 per annum?^ the Surveyor of the Ordnance from £92 10s. to £194 per annum;? '• " ft the Clerk of the Ordnance from £105 to£215 per annum? a T e l l e r of the Exchequer from £33 per annum to £400 per annum.9 . Yet while i t i s true that annual s a l a r i e s or Fees were i n general raised considerably above the pre-1642 standard, i s i t also true that the t o t a l value of an o f f i c e increased? There does not seem to be any simple answer to this question. The y i e l d of some o f f i c e s seems to have actually decreased. For example, the clerks of the Signet did not have an annual salary under the Monarchy but t h e i r o f f i c e was worth from £150 per annum plus g r a t u i t i e s and writing fees f o r a junior clerk, to £,300 per annum plus g r a t u i t i e s and writing fees f o r the Senior c l e r k . 1 0 Under the Protectorate they were given a salary of £150 per annum but l o s t t h e i r d i e t , g r a t u i t i e s and fees. On September 19, 1655 the four clerks of the Signet and Privy Seal petitioned the Protector and Council f o r "Competent" s a l a r i e s . They stated that the business from which they, derived the most benefit had been taken away and that the public business, f o r which they were allowed no fees, had much increased? as a re s u l t they received l i t t l e recompense for t h e i r l a b o u r . 1 1 A Committee of Council delegated to investigate the p e t i t i o n recommended that each of the clerks receive £100 per annum with fees s u f f i c i e n t to guarantee £200 per annum. The Council raised the basic salary to £150 per annum and permitted the clerks to take fees to raise t h e i r t o t a l income to £200 per annum. 1 2 Comparing this sum to the annual value of the o f f i c e under the Monarchy, i t would seem that the Signet clerks under 75 the Protectorate were probably not as well paid. The y i e l d of other o f f i c e s remained about the same. For example, the o f f i c e of Keeper of the Tower Records was worth between £160 to £200 per annum under the Kings under Cromwell i t was endowed with an annual salary of £200 per annum.13 Some o f f i c e r s seem to have been better paid. The Auditors of the Imprest had previously received a salary of only £67 per annum but t h e i r t o t a l earnings were . boosted approximately £l80 per annum by the addition of fees, making a rough t o t a l of £250 per annum. Under the Protectorate these o f f i c i a l s were given a salary of £500 per annum.x^ Even though the i n d i v i d u a l auditors were to pay f o r t h e i r own clerks out of this sum they were considerably better off under Cromwell. The progress of s a l a r i e s seems at f i r s t glance to have been quite uneven? some o f f i c i a l s received larger s a l a r i e s , some smaller, some the same. Was t h i s an indiscriminate development or was there a pattern or explanation behind i t ? Probably i t represents an attempt to d i s t r i b u t e wages more e f f i c i e n t l y and r a t i o n a l l y . A great many sinecure o f f i c e s were removed; pensions and annuities as a means.of paying state o f f i c i a l s a l l but disappeared; d i e t and bouge seem to have been abandoned. On an i n i t i a l survey i t appears as i f o f f i c i a l s were de l i b e r a t e l y given what could be call e d f a i r and adequate s a l a r i e s on the one hand, rather than overly generous or inadequate sa l a r i e s on the other. This subject cannot be separated from the question of fees. During the rule of the Long Parliament many attempts were made not only to c u r t a i l the taking of fees but also to do away with them altogether. I t was hoped that regular annual s a l a r i e s would take t h e i r place and thereby r i d the nation of a great many annoying • exactions. Under the Protectorate a modified form of thi s p o l i c y was attempted. In a few cases fees were prohibited; fo r example, clerks under the Masters of Requests were forbidden to make any e x a c t i o n s . ^ Complaints were s t i l l made of excessive fees being t a k e n . l u Par-more-: frequently, however, remarks were made about the need f o r at least a p a r t i a l restoration of the system of fees or f o r other action to combat inadequate s a l a r i e s . In A p r i l , 1654, the four cursitors of Chancery f o r London and Middlesex petitioned f o r . the return of fines amounting to £500 per annum among them. They suggested that a return of these • fees would be b e n e f i c i a l f o r a l l . 1 ' ' Henry Middleton, serjeant-at-arms i n Chancery, complained about the loss of p r o f i t s he had suffered since l o s i n g the fines paid on default of appearance. By the patent of his o r i g i n a l appointment i n 1648, he was to have£ll8 5s. per annum plus the above f i n e s . In a p e t i t i o n to the Council i n A p r i l , 1656 he asked permission to surrender his o f f i c e and have a new grant with increased salary. A reference from the Commissioners of the Great Seal enclosed with his 77 p e t i t i o n recommended £365 per annum; the Council, however, decided on £200 per annum plus a return of some of the fees. In t h i s instance, then, fees were thought necessary. A s i m i l a r case was that of the three clerks i n Chancery appointed by the Ordinance f o r the better regulation of Chancery. 1^ In t h i s Ordinance the fees o r i g i n a l l y belonging to the Six- Clerks had been seriously reduced and given i n t h i s revised form to the three new clerks. In February, 1656 the new clerks petitioned the Council of State pleading that these fees were so lessened they would not cover the expenses and 20 pains of the work. From an examination of these three examples the dilemma becomes evident. The government would . no doubt have preferred to eliminate the fee system. The numerous attempts made under the Long Parliament a t t e s t to t h i s desire as well as the attempts, even.though less frequent,' under the Protectorate. But i n order to achieve th i s end s u f f i c i e n t s a l a r i e s had to be given to the o f f i c i a l s . I t has been seen that attempts were made to raise basic annual s a l a r i e s . However, these raises did not i n many cases provide the o f f i c e r s with a t o t a l annual income as high as i t had been under the Monarchy; nor could the government of the Lord Protector afford to make annual s a l a r i e s match the various salary plus fringe benefit opportunities under the Monarchy. Furthermore, the o f f i c e s to which fees and other fringe benefits were most important were located i n such departments as Chancery, the Exchequer, and the Household. I t was 78 p r e c i s e l y these departments that were beginning to return to f u l l operation under the Protectorate. Other newer bodies of o f f i c i a l s , such as those on the multifold committees and commissions concerned with the Cromwellian Church, the sale and management of confiscated property, and customs and excise,, had no long-established t r a d i t i o n s or customs to r e f e r back to i n regard to wages. Their salary, once agreed to, was established as a firm precedent. But the older departments had a long history to look back upon. When current conditions f a i l e d to match up to those of former years, complaint could be made and pressure exerted. In the face of demands f o r salary increases to match pre-1642 l e v e l s , e s p e c i a l l y when i n most cases more work was being done, and i n view of the desperate condition of State finances, a return to fees offered i t s e l f as a simple (solution. By the fourth year of Cromwell's rule the extent of the return of fees was considerable. In May, 1655 a report of a Committee of Council examining the s a l a r i e s and fees of the Exchequer o f f i c i a l s recommended s a l a r i e s for the Auditors, Clerk of the P e l l s , T e l l e r s , Chamberlains, t a l l y cutters, serjeant-at-arms, and ushers; a l l of these o f f i c i a l s were to be allowed to take the "fees anciently allowed."21 In January, 1656 complaint was made of large fees being taken by the o f f i c e r s under the Judges f o r the Probate of W i l l s . According to the report there were, "more than twenty-one clerks who have very large fees."22 These 79 fees had o r i g i n a l l y been allowed i n an Act of A p r i l 8, 1653 f o r the Probate of W i l l s and granting administrations although i t i s suspected that the o f f i c e r s concerned were somewhat"stretching t h e i r rights.23 In February, 1657 an argument arose over the ri g h t of possession of money collected i n fees by re g i s t r a r s of the Admiralty' Court. These fees were not i n s i g n i f i c a n t amounting to £987 f o r a period of.two years four months, or about £423 per O i l annum.'4. Some of the o f f i c i a l s conducting the sale of confiscated-lands were allowed to take fees. The Register f o r the sale of Deans' and Chapters' lands was allowed writing fees as was his counterpart f o r the sale of Crown Lands. 2^ O f f i c i a l s f o r the sale of confiscated property also received another form of payment that can be classed as a type of fee—poundage. By thi s i t i s meant that the o f f i c i a l receives a percentage or commission on a l l money handled by him. The trustees and contractors f o r the Deans' lands received 3d. on the pound of revenue from*.the sale of land, the trustees f o r the sale of Crown goods received 7d. on the.pound and the contractors, 5d. 2 ^ Contractors, trustees and treasurers f o r the sale of f o r f e i t e d properties also received poundage, as did Commissioners f o r the 2 7 Customs, f o r the Excise and for Prize Goods. The return of fees was not allowed to get out of hand. The key word i n the government's attitude towards fees was to be moderation. In the Ordinance f o r the regulation of Chancery a long l i s t of permitted fees was included. However, o f f i c i a l s were warned that to, . . . demand, take or receive any other Fees than what are contained i n the Table annexed. , . s h a l l be and i s hereby adjuged and declared to be extortion, and s h a l l be punished as extortlon. 2° Si m i l a r l y , the Ordinance bringing the Revenues into one Treasury allowed only such "moderate fees" as his Highness and the Council would see f i t to include i n the 29 Letters Patent appointing to o f f i c e . 7 On July 31, I656 the Council of State sent out an order to the o f f i c e r s of the Exchequer forbidding them to take any fees on the payment of charitable pensions or on debts due from the State on penalty of offending o f f i c i a l s l o s i n g t h e i r places. Moreover, i t i s evident that t h i s order came upon the heels of complaints about the same problem.30 In summary, one can say that although those i n power may have wished to abolish fees i n entirety, and there i s no conclusive proof that t h i s was indeed the case, the economic straights i n which the government of the Protectorate found i t s e l f would not permit the replace- ment of fees with a simple annual salary. Although many sa l a r i e s were increased, they often did not equal the t o t a l annual income of o f f i c e r s paid i n part by fees. Salaries were paid i n a variety of ways under the Protectorate. Usually a salary would be assigned to a p a r t i c u l a r treasury.3 1 Most of the Secretariate f o r the Council of State, f o r example, were paid from funds at the disposal of the Treasurer f o r Council Contingencies; the s t a f f of the Household were paid by the Steward of the Household. The o f f i c i a l s f o r the sale of confiscated property, both those on poundage and those with fixed s a l a r i e s , were paid from money which they c o l l e c t e d . The source of payment was an important factor, both f o r government administrators supervising the payments and for the individuals waiting f o r t h e i r s a l a r i e s . In order to lessen the s t r a i n on available funds, department heads sometimes t r i e d to remove the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of paying a certain salary from themselves to someone else. For example, i n A p r i l , 1655 the s a l a r i e s of several o f f i c e r s were removed from the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Council of State. The Keeper of the Paper Office and the Keeper of the Tower Records were i n future to be paid by the Exchequer; an Admiralty S o l i c i t o r was to be paid by "some other treasury a r i s i n g by Admiralty proceeds"; and various o f f i c i a l s concerned with the maintenance of Whitehall had t h e i r s a l a r i e s transferred to the Household.3 2 In May of the same year f i v e o f f i c e r s of Dover Castle, whose sal a r i e s had also been paid by the Council, were n o t i f i e d that i n future t h e i r s a l a r i e s were to be paid from the revenues of Kent. 33 For the individuals hoping to c o l l e c t t h e i r s a l a r i e s , the treasury of fund to which i t had been assigned was of considerable importance. Some sources, such as the treasury f o r the Council of State, 82 were more r e l i a b l e and involved a shorter waiting period. Also a convenient treasury was that of the Household. In August, 1657 at a time when the government was extremely short of funds-,' i t was ordered that the Household be given p r i o r i t y , that i t receive f o r i t s use the f i r s t funds that became available.34 The Customs was one of the most r e l i a b l e sources of public revenue and, frequently, important s a l a r i e s , such as those of the. Judges, were assigned to i t . ^ ~ Anyone lucky enough to have a salary assigned to a treasury withvpriority stood a f a r better chance of being paid on time. Furthermore, i n the years when expenditures f a r exceeded revenue i t was important to receive order f o r payment of wages as early as possible. This s i t u a t i o n created the opportunity f o r a form of i n d i r e c t patronage. In a system where " f i r s t come, f i r s t served','was often the rule, o f f i c i a l s with friends or influence had less trouble i n obtaining t h e i r s a l c r j e s . Less fortunate individuals could encounter man-made delays i n receiving the order f o r payment or i n having the order processed. Sometimes, there would be i n s u f f i c i e n t funds l e f t i n the assigned treasury to cover the amount due. With the great burdens placed upon the revenues during the Protectorate, wages often f e l l into arrears. The State Papers of the period abound with•requests f o r the payment of arrears. Having waited f o r many'months a f t e r the termination of t h e i r employment, three hundred surveyors and clerks employed under the Act f o r the sale of t r a i t o r s ' estates petitioned f o r payment. The council replied with an order f o r an i n i t i a l sum of £10,000 to be d i s t r i b u t e d proportionately among them.3^ It i s doubtful that they ever received f u l l payment. Salaries in arrears of two to three years were not at a l l uncommon.37 Sometimes It was worse. Richard Clarke, surveyor and keeper of the stores i n the Tower Armoury, petitioned the Council f o r wages i n arrears six years; he added that he was i n "Desperate condition."38 Even th i s was not unusual. In A p r i l , I656 John Greensmith and six other members of the Committee f o r receiving the accounts of the Commonwealth petitioned Council f o r arrears. By a former p e t i t i o n of November, 1652 they had been awarded arrears for three years; having not yet received these wages they asked again f o r arrears now t o t a l l i n g s i x and a half years, approximately £9,100. The Council recommended that they be paid f o r the i n i t i a l three years arrears i n I r i s h lands and that f o r the other three and a half years and f o r future wages, they receive payment from the Exchequer. CHAPTER VI THE ADMINISTRATIVE' PERSONNEL In previous chapters the administrative personnel, has been discussed i n a general sense i n r e l a t i o n to methods of entry to o f f i c e and terms and conditions of service. However, l i t t l e has yet been said about'the men as i n d i v i d u a l s . The present chapter w i l l concern i t s e l f with this subject, p a r t i c u l a r l y with these men. But f i r s t something w i l l be said about the administrative personnel i n Parliament. Office-Holders i n Parliament Sin A p r i l , 1645, the famous Self-denying Ordinance was passed which stated that, . .••'•.'••all and every of the Members of either House of Parliament s h a l l be, and by Authority of this Ordinance are discharged . . . of and from a l l and every Office orj.Command M i l i t a r y or C i v i l . . . . The aim of t h i s "Ordinance, as stated above, was achieved to only a^very limited extent. By the time of the Rump i t was as i f such an Ordinance had never existed. Certainly nothing of t h i s nature was i n evidence under the Protectorate. Office-holders were frequently elected to Parliament i n th i s period. As t h i s i s a topic of considerable importance an analysis of the number of office-holders s i t t i n g i n the two Protectorate Parliaments of 1654 and 1656 was undertaken. 2 A l l members.of both Parliaments who can be i d e n t i f i e d as having occupied one or more posts i n the Central government were included i n the study. Office-holders who sat i n Parliaments other than those of 1654 and 1656 were not dealt with. Nor were those i n Parliament who were not . 1 t office-holders i n the s t r i c t e s t sense, such as those with m i l i t a r y positions. Thus Major Richard Beake, Captain of Cromwell's L i f e Guard,who sat f o r a Scottish seat i n 1656, was not included even though his po s i t i o n could be interpreted as something more than a m i l i t a r y o f f i c e . j Nor was S i r John Trevor Included even though he was important as a leasee of the coal monopoly and sat i n 1654 and 1656. However, c i v i l government administrate-ips whose o f f i c e s were i n Scotland or Ireland were included; i n any case t h e i r number i s small. The study then set narrow boundaries fo r inclusion, f a r more so than the l i s t of members of Parliament included i n The Narrative of the l a t e Parliament, published i n 1657, which encompassed Places of P r o f i t , Salaries and Advantages.3 If errors have occurred i n those l i s t e d i n Appendix II of this paper, they w i l l be errors of ommission rather than of wrong i n c l u s i o n . An analysis of the results of the study showed 136 members of both Parliaments" held one or more positions i n the Central government. Eighty-five sat i n both 1654 and I656, seventeen sat only i n 1654, and t h i r t y - f o u r sat only i n I656 . These figures indicate that the government had. 101 office-holders s i t t i n g i n Parliament i n 1654, and 113, not including f i v e who were excluded, i n 1656. By f a r the greatest percentage of these office-holding Parliamentarians were Cromwellian supporters. This was only to be expected, expecially a f t e r having examined the methods by which Cromwell and the Council controlled appointments. Other evidence supports t h i s view. Only 5 of the 118 i d e n t i f i e d office-holders s i t t i n g i n 1656 were excluded; furthermore, 45 voted f o r Cromwell as King. The membership of these men ini-Parliaments c a l l e d a f t e r the end of the Protectorate indicated that they had been Cromwellians. In 1660, only 25 of the above 136 men were elected to Parliament; 3 of the 25 were excluded. The overthrow of the Protectorate therefore meant the end of a Parliamentary career f o r over eighty percent of the Cromwellian office-holders. Thus, the large number of members of Parliament over whom Cromwell had some control seems to emphasize the assertion that the f a i l u r e of the Parliaments of 165^ and 1656 was, not due to a lack of government supporters•but rather to a lack of leadership and management.^ "Key" Office-Holders Part of the o r i g i n a l , aim of t h i s paper was. to investigate the.administrative personnel to determine the nature of the men who controlled England under the Protectorate. The administration as a whole, even at a secondary l e v e l , would have proven too large to handle; i t was therefore decided to l i m i t t h i s part of the study to - more manageable proportions, while trying to ensure that the "sample" selected was s t i l l as s i g n i f i c a n t as possible. Accordingly, 87 a group of f i f t y - e i g h t office-holders has been isol a t e d f o r study.5 The men selected represent the "Key" o f f i c e - holders who founded the core of the administration under Cromwell. What were the c r i t e r i a used to determine the composition of thi s group of men? Ba s i c a l l y , a l l of the ; most important c i v i l o f f i c i a l s of the Central Government below the ranks .of the Council of State and above the le v e l s of clerks and minor functionaries were considered. Some of the men were chosen because they occupied an o f f i c e of great importance, such as Edmund Prideaux, the Attorney- General or John Glynn, Lord Chief Justice of the, Upper Bench. Others were chosen because they occupied several l e s s e r positions that, taken i n combination, gave them great influence, such as John Stone, T e l l e r i n the Exchequer, Comptroller of the Customs, Commissioner f o r Appeals i n Excise and other o f f i c e s . Also considered'in making the sel e c t i o n were factors such as l o c a l importance, family connections and membership i n Parliament. In eff e c t , an ind i v i d u a l assessment was made of each office-holder and his importance judged. The r e s u l t i n g c o l l e c t i o n of men forms what can t r u l y be ca l l e d a Key administrative group. Among them they occupied and controlled v i r t u a l l y a l l of the important administrative o f f i c e s plus a great proportion of the secondary o f f i c e s . Inevitably other men could have been included i n ; t h i s group. The "cut-off" l i n e f o r inclusion at the lower end of the administrative scale was 88 d i f f i c u l t to define. Without doubt the importance of some of the o f f i c i a l s not Included i n the study has been under- estimated. However, i t i s f e l t that a l l of the f i f t y - eight men included are essential f o r such a study. Those chosen make, up a large percentage of the most important , office-holders under the Protectorate. Furthermore, i n case of mistakes, the large number of men considered, f i f t y - eight, increases the p r o b a b i l i t y of the group being t r u l y representative of the Protector's administration and decreases the p o s s i b i l i t y .of a loaded .sample. Having established the means by which the men were selected, they w i l l now be examined f i r s t , as a group and second, as in d i v i d u a l s . Who were these Key o f f i c i a l s ? Where did they come from and what was t h e i r background? Available sources f o r biographical information on most of the men were l i m i t e d . However,' enough information has been col l e c t e d to permit a few tentative conclusions to be drawn. Perhaps the most complete information available was i n regard to geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of the office-holders. In order to determine th i s the following procedure was u t i l i z - ed. The map of the B r i t i s h I s l e s , exclusive of Ireland, was divided into nine parts.^ Each o f f i c i a l was then assigned to one of these d i v i s i o n s . The assignation of each subject was determined by taking into account his o r i g i n and residence, and the place of his primary a c t i v i t y GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE FIFTY-EIGHT KEY OFFICE-HOLDERS 89 90 and influence. In a great majority of cases the subject could be assigned to. one geographical d i v i s i o n and s t i l l s a t i s f y most, or a l l , of the above requirements. In the few remaining cases where a l l of the facts were not available, or when the facts c o n f l i c t e d , an i n d i v i d u a l judgment had to be made. For example, Thomas Kelsey was born i n London but his m i l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s and his parliamentary seats were i n Surrey and Kent. In t h i s instance i t was f e l t that his place of o r i g i n was of primary significance; he was therefor assigned to London. Dis- t r i b u t i o n was worked out f o r a l l f i f t y - e i g h t men. The re s u l t s were int e r e s t i n g but not s t a r t l i n g . They correspond quite closely to the geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n worked out by Aylmer fo r the office-holders under Charles I.? The counties of the East and South-East were the best represented by office-holders with approximately the same proportions as before 1642.. London, perhaps, was s l i g h t l y better represented i n the Protectorate. The North's representation remained about the same as did that of the Western counties and Wales combined. Wales i t s e l f increased somewhat account- ing f o r four out of the f i f t y - e i g h t office-holders under the Protectorate opposed to only two out of one hundred seventy-two under Charles I. Cornwall, Devon and the South-West increased t h e i r representation under the Protectorate while the South-East suffered a decrease. The main difference between the d i s t r i b u t i o n of office-holders under the Protectorate and under Charles I was that the outlying areas,such, as Wales and the South-East, accounted fo r a larger proportion of the office-holders. These findings alone are not of great importance but when considered with the s o c i a l origins of the o f f i c e holders they are of more i n t e r e s t . A comprehensive analysis of the s o c i a l origins and background of the group of Key office-holders i s f a r more d i f f i c u l t to a r r i v e at. However, information to varying degrees was found f o r most of them. Results indicated that members of the group could be found i n most of the recognized s o c i a l d i v i s i o n s . Some, such as Nathaniel Fiennes and Oliver St. John came from the Upper gentry; others, such as Miles Corbet, the Bacon brothers and Richard Lucy came from, what has been c a l l e d the "lesser" gentry. Important merchants were represented by such people as Martin Noel and Christopher Pack; small merchants and trades- men by Thomas Pury and John Stone. S i m i l a r l y , there can be found both men from London and men from small p r o v i n c i a l towns, men of considerable landed wealth and men of no income. Is--there, then, no s i g n i f i c a n t pattern to the s o c i a l background of t h i s seemingly varied group? On the contrary. While individual examples can be drawn to f i t almost any category, when considered as a whole a few important conclusions can be made. Trevor-Roper, i n his a r t i c l e The Gentry, 1540-1640, argued that the English C i v i l War was primarily caused by the decline of a part of the gentry.9 Lesser gentry, prevented from improving t h e i r f i n a n c i a l and s o c i a l p o s i t i o n by exclusion from court and o f f i c e , became welded into a party of "outs" i n d i r e c t opposition to the greater or " r i s i n g " gentry who composed the court party, or the " i n s . " 1 0 In a l a t e r a r t i c l e on the subject Trevor-Roper c a l l e d the men who grasped power a f t e r 1642, ...'•the backwoods gentry," "p l a i n , conservative, untravelled country-gentlemen. "H Furthermore, he added, These were the men who became, i n time, the "Independents"; and Cromwell, though he transcended them i n personality and m i l i t a r y genius, was t h e i r t y p i c a l , if. also t h e i r greatest, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . x 2 One, then, might expect to f i n d members of thi s "party" i n o f f i c e when Cromwell came to power. Although Trevor- Roper's argument may need serious modification i n many of i t s p a r t i c u l a r aspects, evidence from an analysis of the group of Key. administrators under the Protectorate would tend to support his general the s i s . Trevor-rRoper was e s s e n t i a l l y concerned with the gentry. Perhaps t h i r t y of the group of f i f t y - e i g h t Key office-holders could be ca l l e d gentry. Of these t h i r t y probably only six were what could be ca l l e d substantial men of land or intimately connected to the landed i n t e r e s t . The other twenty-four were lesser, though not necessarily "declining" gentry.13 These figures are stated with caution. Only f o r some of the t h i r t y men labeled "gentry" i s information adequate. Yet even among those f o r whom the information i s r e l i a b l e , the number of lesser gentry i s s t r i k i n g . x ^ Furthermore, as one would expect information to be more readily accessible f o r members of substantial i f a m i l i e s , such as the St. Johns, Fiennes, Widdfingtons and Whitelockes, so also would one expect information to be scarce f o r members of small undistinguished f a m i l i e s . This helps explain the lack of information f o r such a large percentage of.the Key group. Although negative evidence, such a consideration adds to the general impression of the "le s s e r " origins of the majority of Protectorate o f f i c e - holders. Other, more po s i t i v e evidence can be found to increase t h i s impression. At least t h i r t e e n of the Key men were merchants; only two of these could r e a l l y be called very substantial, namely, Martin Noell and Christopher Pack. 1^ Men such as these small merchants, though not discussed to any extent by Trevor-Roper, were i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n to the.lesser gentry. Lack of o f f i c e or friends and influence at court could e a s i l y prevent them from elevating themselves i n either the business or the s o c i a l world. An ambitious, but minor merchant such as Adam. Baynes, was able to make tremendous p r o f i t s while i n o f f i c e under the Protectorate though opportunities would probably have been denied him i n other times. He must have been t y p i c a l of many others. A further group can be d i s t i n g u i s h - ed that also adds to the general impression of backwoods 9b provincialism—those men who originate from the small country towns and who are involved i n l o c a l p o l i t i c s and o f f i c e . Perhaps twenty-nine out of the f i f t y - e i g h t men have been i d e n t i f i e d as having held important l o c a l positions under the Protectorate.1° For some these town connections were of long standing. Robert Nicholas had been Recorder of Devizes and l e g a l advisor to the town since before 1642. S i m i l a r l y , Edmund Prideaux, John Parker and Thomas Pury also had long standing l o c a l connections. Many others became i n f l u e n t i a l i n l o c a l county and town a f f a i r s a f t e r 1642, but before they came to o f f i c e under Cromwell. Men i n t h i s category include Robert Aldworth, the Bacon brothers, Charles George Cocke and numerous others. The findings concerning the s o c i a l origins of the-Key o f f i c i a l s f i t quite well with the findings concerning t h e i r geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n , ^Together; they demonstrate that . the "backwoods" areas were better represented. Furthermore, the findings on the s o c i a l origins of Cromwell's administra- tio n , while, agreeing i n a very general sense with the , thesis put forward by Trevor-Roper, suggest a few modifications. F i r s t , more than the gentry need be considered i n any 17 •explanation of events during the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum. Under the Protectorate perhaps half or less of the o f f i c e - holders could be c a l l e d gentry.' 1' Furthermore, Trevor-Roper includes country lawyers and other l o c a l o f f i c i a l s i n the ranks of the "court" and " o f f i c e " p a r t y . 1 8 Of the f i f t y - eight Protectorate o f f i c i a l s t h i r t y - f o u r can be i d e n t i f i e d either as lawyers or as occupying an o f f i c e which suggested l e g a l t r a i n i n g or experience . 1 9 some of these' lawyers, such as William Steele, O l i v e r St. John and William Lenthall were very successful and wealthy. But the majority were small p r o v i n c i a l lawyers such as William Sheppard, Nathaniel Bacon and Nicholas Lechmere. Perhaps, then, i n the face of this evidence, the pos i t i o n of lawyers i n general could be re-assessed. The question—Why were these men i n o f f i c e under the P r o t e c t o r a t e ? — i s closely connected to the above discussion of s o c i a l origins and background of the group of Key administrators. It has been pointed out that the men composing th i s Key group were drawn predominately from the ranks of the lesser gentry, small merchants and tradesmen, and country lawyers and o f f i c i a l s , almost exactly the same class of men that Trevor-Roper suggests as those responsible f o r the C i v i l War. But do facts s o l e l y about t h e i r s o c i a l origins explain why these men took part i n the administra- t i o n during the Protectorate? The answer i s a d e f i n i t e no. Christopher H i l l has already pointed out that Trevor-Roper and others do not place enough emphasis, f o r example, on r e l i g i o n as an explanation of p o l i t i c a l allegience during the years of 20 the C i v i l War and Interregnum. In some cases r e l i g i o u s opinions probably were ~, more Important factors i n deciding which p o l i t i c a l side a man would, take than were s o c i a l background. S i r William Roberts, f o r example, who can be seen as a member of the lesser gentry, f l e d from England to Holland just p r i o r to the c a l l i n g of the Long Parliament apparently " f o r fear of Bishops." 2 1 I t i s quite possible that his r e l i g i o u s outlook played an important part i n explaining his p o l i t i c a l outlook. Dennis Bond could also be described as a man whose r e l i g i o u s views played an important part i n determining his allegience as he was said to be "very severe and resolved against the Church and Court," and was noted f o r his lack of p e c u l a t i o n . 2 2 Far too l i t t l e evidence i s available to give a complete view of the r e l i g i o u s feelings of the group of Key men. Information f o r only twenty-one out of f i f t y - e i g h t men has been discovered. Six could be classed as s t r i c t Puritans, six as Presbyterians, seven as Independants and two as Baptists. J However, these figures do include the r e l i g i o u s leandings of some of the most outstanding men within the Key group, notably some whose comfortable s o c i a l condition suggests that r e l i g i o u s feelings rather than s o c i a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n played a d e f i n i t e part i n t h e i r p o l i t i c a l decisions. Did the administrators take o f f i c e under Cromwell for the opportunities i t would provide them f o r s e l f - advancement? Undoubtedly some of them d i d . Adam Baynes made a fortune t r a f f i c k i n g i n f o r f e i t e d estates. John 97 Blackwell made considerable investments i n Episcopal lands, as did Roger H i l l , John Barkstead and Lislebone Long. In a l l at least eighteen men purchased varying amounts of 24 f o r f e i t e d estates. Notorious p r o f i t e e r s , however, are not at a l l common. Other ways existed to increase ones economic and s o c i a l p o s i t i o n besides investments i n land. Thurloe increased his wealth through his p o s i t i o n as Postmaster-General as had Edmund Prideaux before him. Others obtained l u c r a t i v e positions as representatives of various towns and boroughs. Nathaniel Bacon became R ecorder of London, as had Lislebone Long and John Glynn before him. John Parker was Recorder of Gravesend; Daniel Blagrave, Recorder of Reading. A few men were given sinecure o f f i c e s . Under the Protectorate William Jessop had the o f f i c e of b a l l a s t i n g of ships, a form of disguised monopoly. He surrendered the o f f i c e i n 1657 f o r £200 per annum. A few men received " g i f t s " of one sort or another. William Sheppard was given a pension of £100 per annum to compensate him f o r the loss of his country l e g a l practise through the necessity of his residence i n London to advise the Protector. After the completion of his diplomatic mission to Denmark, P h i l i p Meadows was given ahGallowance ,\of £ 100 per annum to- l a s t f o r a period of ninety-nine years. He l a t e r surrendered t h i s grant f o r a settlement of £l000cash. The merchants undoubtedly received considerable benefit by being i n o f f i c e , close to the centre of power. Robert 98 Tichborne made tremendous fortunes through positions open to him as an office-holder and supporter of the Protectorate. I t should be added here that a number of the important Key- o f f i c e r s received less tangible but important rewards i n the form of knighthood and advancement to Cromwell's House of Lords. Among the f i f t y - e i g h t men the following honours were distributed t two were made baronets; s i x were knighted; twelve were nominated to the House of Lords as members and four as a s s i s t a n t s T a k i n g into consideration the bestowal of dual honours, nineteen men were s o c i a l l y advanced i n thi s way. Probably the most s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n an explanation of why these men were i n o f f i c e under the Lord Protector i s that they were almost to a man "Cromwellians." By t h i s i s meant that they were e s s e n t i a l l y "party followers." Some, as has been implied above, were active i n the government because of the very obvious means f o r self-advancement which presented themselves. However, i t i s thought that t h i s motive was not as widespread as has sometimes been imagined. It i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to judge whether a man made money because he occupied a p o s i t i o n or whether he wanted a p o s i t i o n i n order to advance himself. In any case, notorious p r o f i t e e r i n g by office-holders under the Protectorate was not common. Consequently, i t does not seem as i f a large percentage of the Key men were Cromwellians f o r t h e i r own p r o f i t . A number of these men were undoubtedly 99 supporters of Cromwell because he represented the de facto power. Men such as John Glynn, G r i f f i t h Bodurda, George Downing and even William E l l i s could turn with the wind If need be and when i n 1660 the need arose they managed to turn t h e i r allegiance to the Crown and survived p r o f i t a b l y . Others such as Bulstrode Whitelocke, Nathaniel Bacon and S i r Thomas Widrington probably supported Cromwell because at the time he represented the best chance f o r a secure, non-military government short of the return of the King. Finally,some men were Cromwellians,at least partly, through admiration of and l o y a l t y to Cromwell. Among these can be numbered John Thurloe, John Barkstead, Thomas Kelsey, Christopher Back, and James P h i l i p s . An i n d i c a t i o n of the number of the Cromwellians can be found by looking at those who voted f o r Cromwell as King i n 1656 and those who were nominated to the Committee f o r the Security of the Protector i n the same year. In a l l , twenty-one of the f i f t y - e i g h t men voted f o r Cromwell as King; nineteen were appointed to the Committee f o r Security. Taking account of men s a t i s f y - ing one or both c r i t e r i a , a t o t a l of twenty-nine Crom- wellians are discovered. 2^ Of course, the f a c t that a man does not appear i n connection with either of these two items c e r t a i n l y does not eliminate the p o s s i b i l i t y that he was a Cromwellian. Only a few of the main reasons accounting f o r the presence of these men i n o f f i c e have been dealt with. Other reasons are as varied as the number of 100 men involved. For a f u l l study considerable in d i v i d u a l biographical treatment would be needed to assess adequately the part of each man. Only l o c a l sources i n England could provide the necessary materials. What happened to the Key o f f i c i a l s upon the return of the King i n 1660? Twelve of the men had been nominated - to the High Court that t r i e d and sentenced Charles I. 2? Only four of them, John Barkstead, Daniel Blagrave, Miles Corbet and Robert Tichborne signed the death warrant. Barkstead and Corbet were executed, Tichborne died i n prison and Blagrave died abroad. Of the others, six died before the return of the King, two f l e d abroad and f o r nine there i s no information. Eighteen men l o s t t h e i r o f f i c e s and probably some of th e i r lands although only three l o s t t h e i r o f f i c e s as a r e s u l t of exclusion from the Act of Indemnity. A further eight survived and almost c e r t a i n l y l o s t t h e i r employment. The remaining eleven out of f i f t y - e i g h t survived and continued i n o f f i c e , though not necessarily the same o f f i c e . The re s u l t s thus show that thirty-two men suffered considerably by the Restoration. How much does th i s indicate the r a d i c a l nature of the Cromwellian office-holders? Perhaps not as much as might be thought. The return of the King was bound to involve extensive administrative changes. For nearly twenty years Charles I and Charles II had been promising o f f i c e s to l o y a l supporters who now 101 had to be s a t i s f i e d . Furthermore, a large body of public opinion had to be placated by at least the dismissal of the Cromwellians from a l l positions of trust and p r o f i t . Of course, pro-Royalist feelings such as these grew at an increasing rate as the return of Charles drew near. To conclude t h i s section dealing with the Key administrative o f f i c i a l s as a group, one further observation must be made. A close examination of these men brings to l i g h t two d i s t i n c t d i v i s i o n s among them. On the one hand, there are a number of very prominent, well-known figures whose involvement i n the p o l i t i c s of the C i v i l Wars and Interregnum goes back to the early l640*s. These include men such as William Steele, John Glynn, Bulstrode Whitelocke' and Dennis Bond. On the other hand, a large number of previously unknown men appear. These men usually occupy the lower secondary o f f i c e s . They s t a f f many of the miscellaneous committees and commissions created on either a •-permanent or on a part-time basis. Furthermore, they were often used by the Protector and Council of State to investigate p a r t i c u l a r problems, to carry out a s p e c i f i c task or to make recommendations. These men made up about half of the f i f t y - e i g h t Key o f f i c i a l s . Their importance i s not easy to grasp as information on any of them Is minimal. I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y with t h i s group of men i n mind that we look at a few i n d i v i d u a l biographical sketches. 1.02 Biographical Sketches In view of the f a c t that many of the o f f i c i a l s who have been included i n the group of Key o f f i c i a l s discussed i n the pages immediately above are almost t o t a l l y unknown and have received l i t t l e or no notice i n any other studies, biographical sketches of some of the most important of'them w i l l be presented. In many cases, l i t t l e more than the o f f i c e they held and functions they performed can be given. Nevertheless,, i t i s thought that the information which has been collected i s worthwhile presenting i n that these men are so s i g n i f i c a n t to the administrative history of the period. - • ' 28 RICHARD ALDWORTri - was a prominent B r i s t o l merchant noted f o r his introduction of the f i r s t sugar refinery i n B r i s t o l . He f i r s t became, an active parliamentarian i n the early l640*s and at one time i n the same years became Mayor of B r i s t o l . In I65? he was appointed S h e r i f f of B r i s t o l . He ..sat f o r the same c i t y i n 1654 and 1656 and i n the l a t t e r year supported the movement for Cromwell as King. In November, I656 he was appointed to the Committee fo r the Security of the Protector* In the Central Administration he occupied positions as a judge f o r poor pr i s i o n e r s , a Trustee fo r the sale of Crown Forests, and a Commissioner f o r Removing Obstructions. At the restoration he l o s t his o f f i c e s and shortly a f t e r disappears from view. 103 '-29 GERVAS BENNET - an alderman from Derby, Bennet f i r s t came to national prominance as a member of the Barebones Parliament i n 1653 and as a member of the eighth Council of State. In the. same year he was appointed a Commissioner of the Excise, a Judge for the Probate of W i l l s and a Commissioner f o r Inquiring into Arrears of Excise. In 1654 he was appointed to .the Committee of the Army and to the Committee f o r Appeals i n Excise. He sat i n the Parliaments of 1654 and 1656 and i n the l a t t e r year voted f o r Cromwell as King. .He was active on many l o c a l assessment and . m i l i t i a committees i n Derby and London. At the Restoration he l o s t his o f f i c e s but otherwise survived. JOSIAS BERNERS - f i r s t became active c i r c a 1649. In thi s year he became a contractor f o r the sale of Capitular Lands, was appointed to the London m i l i t i a committee and to the assessment committees f o r Surrey and Middlesex. He was also appointed to the High Court of Justice i n the same year. During the Protectorate his o f f i c i a l positions were as.follows! A Judge f o r Probate of W i l l s ; A Trustee f o r Sale of Crown Forests; A Commissioner f o r Removing Obstructions; A Commissioner f o r Managing Estates under Sequestration. He sat f o r Middlesex i n 1654. In r e l i g i o n he was a Baptist. Berners died i n 1660 just before the return of the King. 104 JOHN BLACKWELL31 of Moreclack, Surrey. Blackwell f i r s t . appears on the assessment committee for Surrey i n 1648. He was appointed to the important p o s i t i o n of Treasurer-at- War i n l651| sat i n the Parliament of I656 f o r Surrey. He was.'elected an alderman of London i n 1659. Probably could be described as a small merchant. Invested i n Bishops* Lands. At the Restoration he was excepted from o f f i c e by the Actio f Indemnity. GRIFFITH BODURDA3- of Carnarvonshire, Wales. Was brother-in- law to John Glynn, and was probably a Royalist sympathizer i n the l640*s. Under the Protectorate he had an o f f i c e under the Excise Commissioners, was Keeper of the Records of the Common Pleas and receiver, of F i r s t F r u i t s . He sat i n Parliament f o r Anglesey i n 1656 and f o r Beaumaris i n 1659» 1660 and 1661. He survived, the Restoration and took o f f i c e under Charles I I . Was s t i l l a l i v e i n 1675. Could be classed as of the lesser gentry. , JOHN CLARKE^2 origins are obscure. Was a captain under SMppoh and l a t e r , i n 1649, became a major. He saw active service i n Ireland i n 1652. In 1653 he was appointed to the Committee of the Army and as a Commissioner of the Admiralty. He sat i n the Parliaments of 1654 and 1656 and. .in the l a t t e r voted f o r Cromwell as King. Clarke married a s i s t e r of John Thurloe. In 1660 he was imprisioned. What became of him i s unknown. 105 EDWARD CLUDD3H- _ described as a wealthy landed proprietor of Nottinghamshire. In 1653 was appointed to the Committee of the Army, as a Judge f o r Probate of W i l l s and as a Commissioner f o r Inquiring into Arrears of Excise. Sat i n the Parliaments of. .1653 and 1656 f o r Nottinghamshire. He was appointed to the Committee f o r the Security of the Protector i n 1656. Sat on various assessment and m i l i t i a committees f o r Nottinghamshire. Was a member of the New England Committee. What happened to him i n 1660 i s unknown. JOHN GLYNN35 - Glynn does not appear i n either the Dictionary of National Biography or i n the works by Yule, Keeler and Brunton and Pennington. However, a useful treatment of him appears i n Hexter's The Reign of King Pym.. On Cromwell's becoming Protector he was created a serjeant-at-law. Wjsnt on the Oxford C i r c u i t as a Judge'in 1654. In A p r i l , 1655 he presided at the t r i a l of Penruddock. On July 15, 1655 he was appointed Chief Justice of the Upper Bench. He also injoyed the pos i t i o n of Chamberlain of Chester. He was Recorder of London at the time of the Long Parliament's f i r s t s i t t i n g ; he was elected to this assembly f o r Westminster. He also sat i n the Parliaments of 1654 and I6561 i n the l a t t e r year he voted f o r Cromwell as King. Glynn was one of those elevated to Cromwell's House of Lords. He survived the Restoration p r o f i t a b l y and enjoyed high p o s i t i o n under Charles 106 RICHARD LUCY36 _ The t h i r d son of S i r Thomas Lucy of Chalcot, Warwickshire. Sat on various assessment and m i l i t i a committees fo r Warwick and other counties fro m 1649 to 1660. In 1653 he was made a Judge f o r Probate of W i l l s , appointed to the Committee f o r the Army, and as Commissioner f o r Inquiring into Arrears of Excise. In 1654 he was appointed a Commissioner f o r the Preservation of Excise, and to the High Court of J u s t i c e . He sat f o r Warwickshire i n 1653, 1654 and 1656, i n which l a t t e r year he voted f o r Cromwell as King. In 1656 he was also placed on the Committee for-Security of the Protector. He was pardoned at the Restoration. SIR WILLIAM ROBERTS37 _ (1605-1662) Attended Queens College, Cambridge and Gray's Inn. Pled to Holland " f o r fear of Bishops," before the c a l l i n g of the Long Parliament. Sided with Parliament at the opening of the C i v i l War. Active i n minor capacities u n t i l 1650 when he was made head of the Middlesex M i l i t i a . In 1652 was made a Commissioner fo r Removing Obstructions. He acted also i n the sale of Crown Lands and Forfeited Estates. In November, 1653 he was appointed to the eighth Council of State. Under the Protectorate he enjoyed several o f f i c e s . He was a Commissioner f o r Appeals i n Excise, a Commissioner f o r Inquiring into Arrears of Excise, on the Committee of the Army, a Commissioner 10? f o r the Preservation of the Excise and Auditor of the Receipt of the Exchequer. He sat f o r Middlesex i n 1653, 1654 and I656 and voted f o r Cromwell as King. He was Elevated to Cromwell's House of Lords i n 1656. Although he had been named to the High Court of Justice to try King Charles I, he had refused to s i t , thus he was abled to be pardoned at the Restoration. Nevertheless., he l o s t a l l of his o f f i c e s . JOHN STONE38 . F i r s t appears as a Commissioner f o r the assessment.- i n London i n 164-9. In the same year he was appointed a Trustee f o r the sale of Capitular Lands. In the next year he was appointed Auditor of London, a po s i t i o n he held u n t i l 1652. In I65I he became an alderman of London. In 1653 he rose to prominance as an Admiralty Commissioner and as.a member of the Committee of the Army. In the same year,he was appointed a Commissioner f o r Inquiring into Arrears of Excise. The following year he was appointed a Commissioner for Appeals and Regulating the Excise. Other o f f i c e s he held i n the Central government were Comptroller of the Excise and Customs, a T e l l e r i n the Exchequer and Receiver-General of the Taxes ini.London. He sat i n the Parliaments of 1653, I654, 1656 and 1659• In I 6 5 6 he voted f o r Cromwell as King and was also placed on the Committee for the Security of the Protector. Stone was probably a small merchant. He was also a member of the New England Society'. He l o s t his o f f i c e s at the Restoration but what became of him i s not known. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION':. Cromwell's Protectorate i s often seen as a period of t r a n s i t i o n between the Republicanism of the Rump and the return of the Monarchy. The years 1653-58 saw the return of government by a single person, although one surrounded by more " l i m i t s " than King Charles. The Instrument of Government which created the Protectorate was an attempt to place Cromwell's power,derived from his pos i t i o n as the most important man i n the nation, on a cons t i t u t i o n a l basis. But the Protector was not able to work with the partner provided by the Instrument—Parliament. The.'.: assembly of 1654 was a f a i l u r e . Following : t h i s grave disappointment Cromwell placed England under the government of the Major-Generals. 1 However, i n 1656 a new Parliament was c a l l e d and another attempt made to get back on the path to con s t i t u t i o n a l government. This Second Protectorate Parliament saw a marked turn to the r i g h t . During this Parliament the rule of the. Major-Generals was ended, the of f e r of the Crown was made to Cromwell and the Humble Petition,<\and Advice was brought forward as a new Constitution. The Humble P e t i t i o n and Advice was a more conservative document than i t s predecessor. By i t s terms the Protector assumed the Kingship i n v i r t u a l l y a l l but the name i t s e l f . The Protectorship was made hereditary. If Cromwell had li v e d a few more years perhaps a new dynasty would have been created i n England a f t e r a l l . 109 Developments i n the administration p a r a l l e l e d those i n p o l i t i c s . Some of the old administrative maxiii-nery crept back i n the years 1654-58. The Exchequer made i t s re- appearance i n 1654, a year which also saw the r e v i v a l of Chancery. i:,?• ?.:• :̂ .;As i t has been pointed out, neither of these departments were completely inuuse &.s they had been under the monarchy. Another of the most obvious re v i v a l s of royal formswas the Lord Protector's Household. In I658 a sum of £100,000 was allowed f o r Household expenses. While t h i s was s t i l l f a r from the cost of that department under the monarchy, i t represented a sizeable increase from the sum o r i g i n a l l y a l l o t t e d . Elaboration of the administrative personnel of the Household proceeded apace, as did a general elaboration, of procedure surrounding the figure of Cromwell.3 Rather than money being a l l o t t e d f o r "troops of horseJVin 1657, one finds the sum of £650 13s. 6d. being allowed for , va' "sceptre."^ Not only the old departments returned; newer creations underwent modification. Bodies such as the Committee of the Army changed from a parliamentary Committee with as many as thirty-seven members under the Rump, to a v i r t u a l l y permanent body of nine paid.men-under the Protectorate. S i m i l a r l y , but on a higher l e v e l , the Council of State changed from forty-two men elected annually by Parliament to f i f t e e n or sixteen permanent well paid appointees. This development can be seen i n several other departments ' ' 110 and can be interpreted i n two ways. F i r s t , as a con- centration of power into the hands of a few privileged ̂ people. Second,.as an attempt at administrative c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . A committee of nine i s more manageable than one of thirty-seven. Thus,-. ;the. old Committee : . v system of the Rump was replaced under the Protectorate by paid, bodies of professional administrators. Another intere s t i n g but seldom mentioned symptom of the return of the old "ways" was the movement f o r the a b o l i t i o n of purveyance. The return to public l i f e of a wider section of the landed classes at the same time as an increase took place i n the cost of the Household set i n motion a desire f o r the formal a b o l i t i o n of an instrument of exaction* that,,'while i t had not been used recently, might possibly return to threaten the landed interests.5 Accompanying the return of the old t r a d i t i o n a l departments was a general movement back to some of the old administrative p r a c t i s e s . For example, incidences of the use of fees began to become more numerous as the government found that i t could not afford to pay f o r reform. Such older practises as those involving fees, deputies and the sale of o f f i c e s became s l i g h t l y more common as the years wore.on even though Cromwell's tight supervision kept a l l of these practises i n a state of moderation. In the administration as i n other facets of national l i f e the "swing to the right".under the Protectorate • • . 111 Inevitably brought a return of the old procedures. Further- more, as the years wore on and office-holders enjoyed years of secure tenure they began to become increasingly conservative. As they approached the actual s o c i a l and economic p o s i t i o n and encountered the same problems and desires as o f f i c i a l s had under the monarchy, the Protectorate office-holders began to s l i p into the pattern of the old system. When the majority of "outs'* rose on the scale to become "Ins" they .began to change t h e i r a t t i t u d e s . Nothing struck contemporaries quite as much as seeing Thomas Pride, the. once lowly brewer's assistant, turn into Lord Thomas Pride, gentleman and a r i s t o c r a t . But i n spite of a gradual general return to the older established machinery and administrative procedures, the Cromwellian administration remained substantially d i f f e r e n t from that under the King. I t was considerably more centralized and under a f a r ti g h t e r control from above. I t probably suffered less from corruption and dishonesty than any administration England had seen f o r a great while. At least partly by the use of his e f f i c i e n t Central administration, Cromwell was able to make England feared and respeoted abroad as she was not to be again fo r many years. - 112 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I The most important and, extensive works dealing with the Parliaments of the years 1640-60 are: M. F. Keeler, The Long Parliament (1954) t H. R. Trevor-Roper, "Oliver Cromwell and his Parliaments,", i n Essays Presented to S i r Lewis Namier (1956); D. Brunton and D.H. Pennington, Members of the Long Parliament (1954). Many other a r t i c l e s on more p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the same subject have also been written i n recent years. On the Long Parliament there are a r t i c l e s by D. H. Pennington i n Past and Present (VI) and by Brian Manning, Past and Present (VI). A r t i c l e s on other Parliaments arej Austin Woolrych, "The C a l l i n g of Barebones Parliament." Erig. Hist. Rev. (1965); P- J- Pinekney, "The Scottish representation i n the Cromwellian Parliament of 1656", Scot. Hist. Rev. (1967)5 G. Davies, "The E l e c t i o n of Richard Cromwell's Parliament, I658-9," Eng. Hist. Rev. (1948). On Committees and other groups i n the Long Parliament there are a r t i c l e s by Lotte Glow, i n H i s t o r i c a l Journal (VIII) and i n Journal of B r i t i s h Studies (1965), and one by V. Pearl i n Eng. Hist . Rev. (1966). V. F. Snow also has an a r t i c l e on "Parliamentary Reapportionment Proposals i n the Puritan Revolution" i n Eng. Hist. Rev. (1959). 2 Christopher H i l l , "Recent Interpretations of the C i v i l War," i n Puritanism and Revolution (London, 1958), p. 23. 3 Ibid., pp. 25-9. Unless one Includes the Administra- t i o n i n his, " . . . r e l a t i o n of individuals and groups to the state power. . . . ," p. 28. D. Masson, The L i f e of Milton, 6 v o l s . (London, 1859-94). ^ W. C. Abbott, The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1937-47). 6 Statutes of the Realm. V, 305. 13 Car. I I , c. 1. 7 C. H. F i r t h and R. S. Rait, Acts and Ordinanees of . the Interregnum, 1642-1660, 3 vols. (London, 1911). I l l , x x x i i i . Ibid., x x x i i - i i i . 113 FOOTNOTES. CHAPTER II 1 E. R. Turner, The Privy Council, of England i n the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, 2 vols. (Baltimore,' 1927), I, 306T 2 Ibid., I, 302. Turner c a l l s t h i s the Sixth Council of State. 3 F i r t h and Rait, 813• ^ Turner, Privy Council, I, 308. 5 The complete l i s t of Councillors i s as followsj R. Cromwell, A. D. Cooper, J . Desborough, N. Fiennes, C. Fleetwood, P. Jones, J . Lambert, H. Lawrence, Viscount L i s l e , H. Mackworth, R. Major, E. Montague, E a r l of Mulgrave, G. Pickering, F. Rous, P. Skippon, W. Strickland, W. Sydenham, J. Thurloe, C. Wolsley. 6 F i r t h and Rait, II, 1048-56. 7 Ihid., II, 1182-86. 8 The Council of State was extremely interested i n administrative a f f a i r s . A b r i e f glance at the Order books . of the Council, contained i n the Calendar of State Papers, w i l l reveal the great number and variety of small d e t a i l s with which they were concerned. 9 Masson, L i f e of Milton, IV, 427. 1° Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1649-1660, ed. M. A. E. Green, 13 v o l s . (London, 1875-86TT~VIII (1655). 127-128. Hereafter t h i s i s referred to as C. S. P. D. 1 1 Turner, Privy Council, I, 317. 1 2 A Co l l e c t i o n of the State Papers of John Thurloe, ed. Thomas Birch, 7 vols. (London, 1742), VII, 78b\ Hereafter referred to as Thurloe. x3 As complete a l i s t as i s possible w i l l be found i n the Appendix, part I. ^ C. S. P. D., VI (l653-'54), 386. Ilk 15 L o c . c i t . 1 6 C' S. P. P., VIII (1655), 127-128. 1 7 Masson, L i f e of Milton, V, 375. 1 8 C. S. P. P., IX (1655*56), 312. 19 s . R. Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate 1649-1660, 3 v o l s . (London, I 9 O I ) , I I I , 154-155. 2 0 See a l i s t of these o f f i c e s i n the Appendix, part I. 2 1 Calendar of the Laing Manuscripts (London H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission, 1914), I, 298. F i r t h Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (London, 18447. Appendix I I , p. 24~8, p. 250. 2 ^ G.-E, Aylmer, The King's Servants (London, 1961), p. 27. Z ^ Abbot, Writings and Speeches, I I I , 371. 2-5 The l i s t of Household O f f i c e r s i n the Appendix adds more d e t a i l s . 2 ^ Clarke Papers, ed, C.H. F i r t h , 4 vols. (Camden . Society, 1891-1901), I I I , 47. 2 ? Loc. c i t . 2 8 M. Urwick Smith, "Cromwell's Master of the Horse," Northamptonshire Past and Present, I, no. 4 (1951), 23-33. 2 9 C. S. P. D., VII (1654), 290. 3 0 Ibid., IX (1655-56), 203. Charles I had about 210- men i n his body-guard. See Aylmer, King's Servants, p. 473* 31 Abbot, Writings and Speeches, I I I , 371. 32 These ten Treasury funds werei Goldsmith's H a l l , Old Ordinances f o r Ireland, Public Revenue, Delinquent Estates, Deans' and Chapters' Lands, Ordinances f o r Ireland, Army Treasury, Excise, Council of State, and Prize Goods. For further information see W. 0. Scroggs, "English Finances under the Long Parliament," Quarterly Journal of Economics, XXI (1907), 46.3-487. 'Firth and Rait, II, 652-3. 115 3^ Ibid., II, 711-712. 3 5 C S. P. D., VI (1653-54), 317. 3 6 F i r t h and Rait, II, 918 -921. 3 7 Ibid., I I , 919. 3 8 Ibid., II, 920. 39 see R. D. Richards, "The Exchequer i n Cromwellian Times," Economic History, II (193D, 213-233. ^° F i r t h and Rait, II, 920. 2 4 , 1 Ibid., I I , 1016-19. ^ 2 F. C. Dietz, English Public Finance 1558^1641, cited i n Ashley, Fi n a n c i a l and Commercial Policy, p. i x . ^3 M. P. Ashley, F i n a n c i a l and Commercial Policy under the Cromwellian Protectorate (London, I96T), p. 60. ^ F i r t h and Rait, II, 919. c . s . p . p . , V I I I (1655), 232. ^ Ibid•. IX (1655-56), 51. Also see F i r t h and Rait, II, 1127. ^ ? C. S. P. P., IX (1655-56), 18. 48 i b i d . , IX (1655-56) I89. ^9 These reforms, i n the shape of amendments to the Customs Commissioners * contracts, are found i n C. S. P. D., IX (1655-56), 241. (March 26, 1656). 5° The Excise, although a C i v i l War innovation, has been included i n t h i s section because of i t s close r e l a t i o n to the Customs. 51 The f i r s t Ordinance for the levying of Excise was to take ef f e c t on July 22, 1643. See F i r t h and R a i i , I I , 202. 52 Ibid., II, 422. 53 Ashley, F i n a n c i a l and Commercial Policy, p. 63 54 F i r t h and Rait, II, 823. 55 Ibid., II, 845- 116 5° Ashley, F i n a n c i a l and Commercial Policy, p. 65. Also see Charles Wilson, England's Apprenticeship 1603-1763 (London, 1965), p. 130. 57 F i r t h and Rait, II, 851.. 5 8 C. S. P. P., VII (1654), 343. 59 F i r t h and Rait, II, 828-829. 60 i b i d , , II, 702-703. 61 see Appendix, part I. 62 F i r t h and Rait, II, 824. 63 Ibid., II, 1131. 6 4 c:. s. p. p., v i i (1654), 455. 6 5 I b i d " . , IX- (1655-56), 107-108. Also see Thomas Burton, Piary of TJiomas Burton, Esq., ed. J . T. Rutt, 4 vols, (London, 1828), I,~226\ 6 6 C. S. P. P.. IX (1655-56), .107. This suggestion was made on January 9, 1656. 67 This figure was computed from the yearly figures given i n Ashley's F i n a n c i a l and Commercial Policy, p. 86. 68 J.. W. Fortescue, A History of the B r i t i s h Army, 2 vols. (London, 1910), I, 220. 69 Ibid., I, 219. 70 F i r t h and Rait, I I , 562. 7 1 Ibid., II, 703. 72 Ibid., I I , 939-940. For the Committee of July 10, 1656 see C. S. P. D „ X, (I656-57), 16. 73 F i r t h and Rait, II, 703. 7^ c. S. P. P.. IX.(1655-56),.320. 75 F i r t h and Rait, II, 812-813. 76 Information on t h i s subject i s drawn from M. Oppenheim, A History of the Administration of the Navy (London, I896), pp. 346-352. 117 77 He was f i r s t appointed on January 1,16.51. Oppenheim, Administration of the Navy, p. 351. 7 8 I b i d . t PP. 305-306. 7 9 C. S. P. P., VII (1654), 377? VIII (1655). 279. 80 Oppenheim, Administration of the Navy, p. 326. 8 1 Ibid., p. 322. 8 2 C. H. F i r t h , Cromwell's Army (London, 1962), p. 261. F i r t h says, "The management of the m i l i t a r y hospitals . . . were,-placed i n the hands of the Commissioners who governed these two..Lfcly,House and the Savoyj. R The commissioners seem to be the same'as the oneswhose creation i s mentioned. 83 F i r t h and Rait, II, ? 5 - ? 8 . 8 ^ Ibid., II, 7 6 . 85 Oppenheim, Administration of the Navy, p. 309- 8 6 C. S. P. P., VII (1654), 170. (May, 1654). 8 7 F i r t h and Rait, II, 1181.. 88 Oppenheim, Administration of the Navy, p. 361. 89 I am indebted i n t h i s paragraph to S i r John Craig, The Mint (Cambridge, 1953). 00. 150-153. 90 There were usually two Wardens of the Mint. Only one, however, appears i n the Interregnum. See Aylmer, King's Servants, p. 479• 91 F i r t h and Rait, II, 1008. 92 i b i d . , II, 1007-13. 9 3 J . C. Hemmeon, The History of the B r i t i s h Post Off i c e (Cambridge, Mass., 1912), p..22. 9 4 F i r t h and Rait, II, 1110-13. 95 C. H. F i r t h , "Thurloe and the Post Of f i c e , " English H i s t o r i c a l Review, XIII (I898), 527-533. An excellent a r t i c l e on the relationship between Thurloe and the Posts. 9 6 F i r t h and Rait, I, 838-839. 9 7 G. Pi. Squibb, The High Court of Chivalry (Oxford, 1959), P. 69. 118 9 8 C. s, P. P., VIII (1655). 60. 99 Squibb, Chivalry, p. 70. 1°0 Ibid., p. 72. 1 0 1 C. S. P. P., VIII (1655). 60; X (1656-57), 215, 229. 1 0 2 This paper Is dated November 4, 1654. C. S. P. P., VII (1654), 390. 1 0 3 The Statutes of the Realm (London, 1819), V;-..] 110-112. 16 Chas. I. c. 10, 11. Stuart E. P r a l l , "Chancery Reform and the Puritan Revolution," The American Journal of Legal History, VI (1962), 34-37. 1 0 5 F i r t h and Rait, II, 949-967. 1 0 6 I b i d - . 950. 1 0 7 Abbot, Writings and Speeches, I I I , 704. 108 F i r t h and Rait, I I , 963. 109 Burton, Piary, I, xcvi, 1. 1 1 0 This Ordinance i s not included i n F i r t h and Rait, presumably because i t was not put into p r a c t i s e . 1 1 1 F. A. Inderwick, The Interregnum (London, 1891), p. 230. 112 A. l i s t of judges and o f f i c i a l s ' appears In the Appendix, part I. 113 Journals of the House of Commons (London), VII, 43. Hereafter referred to as C. J . I l 2 * Ibid., VII,' 112. 11.5 Ibid., VII, 277. 116 F i r t h and Rait, II, 844-845. 11? Ibid., II, 916. 119 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER III 1 F i r t h and Rait, I, 879-883. 2 Ibid., I, 887-904. 3 Ibid., I, 921-924. 4 Ibid., I, 890. 5 Ibid., I, 892. 6 Ibid., II , 81-104. ? Complete information w i l l be found i n the Appendix,part I. 8 2 v o l s . (London, 1900), I I , Appendix VII, 514-557. 9 F i r t h and Rait, II, 160-168. 1° Ibid., I I , 168-191. This subject has received very f u l l treatment i n Sidney J . Madge, The Domesday of Crown Lands (London, 1939)• 1 1 See Appendix* part I. 1 2 F i r t h and Rait, II, 171. For a discussion of Fee- farm Rents see Madge, Domesday of Crown Lands, pp. 96-101; 231-238. 13 F i r t h and Rait, I I , 498-500. 1̂  Joan Thirsk, "The Sales of Royalist Land During the Interregnum," Economic History Review, 2nd series, V (.1952), . 188-207. p. 190. 15 F i r t h and Rait,. I I , 520-545. 1° Ibid., II, 591-598. 1 7 Ibid., I I , 623-652. 18 Ibid., II, 783-812. For a discussion of the sale of Crown Forests see Madge, Domesday of Crown Lands, pp. 107-115; 239-246. 19 F i r t h and Rait, I I , 993-999. 20 Under the Ordinance of November 21, 1648. 2 1 F i r t h and Rait, I I , 581-582. 22 For example, S i r William Roberts and Josias Berners. Their salary was £200 per annum.• See C. S. P. D., VII (1654), 397. , 2 3 o. s, P. D'., IX, (1655-56), 203-207. z k Ibid., IX (1655-56), 278. 2 5 i b i d . , IX. (1655-56), 279. 2 6 F i r t h and Rait, II, 142-148. ' 2 7 G.. B. Tatham, "The Sale of Episcopal Lands During . the C i v i l Wars and Commonwealth," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, XXIII (1908), 91-108. p. 96. 2 8 F i r t h and Rait, II, 1000-06. Also see Shaw, History °£'the English Church,- II, Appendix VI, 496-513 f o r a report made by these trustees i n l6~55« 2 9 F i r t h and Rait, II, 856. However, the Commissioners for the Approbation of Preachers had no power over incumbents See E. W. Klrby, "The Cromwellian Establishment," Church History, X;, no. 2 (June, 1941), 144-158. 3 0 C. S. P. P., VIII (1666), 304. 31 F i r t h and Rait, I I , 510, 902. 32 i b i d . , 11, 712-713. 3 3 c. s. p . p., v i i i (1655), 152. 3 ^ .Ibid., VIII (I655), 1. However, i t seems quite l i k e l y that Pr. Walker was not a Judge but a. Judge-Advocate of the Admiralty Court. See A Calendar of the Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1655-16~59, ed. E. B. Sainsbury (Oxford, 1913T, P- v. 35 Inderwick, The Interregnum, p. 182;.C. S. P. P., VII (1654), 144. ' 36 F i r t h and Rait, II, 839-842. , 37 c S. P. P., VIII (I655). 97. 38 F i r t h and Rait, II, 765-767. 121 3 9 £i..Jju?.i-£«» I X ; (1655-56), 299. ^° Ibid., IX (1655-56), 5^. 2 + 1 Background material f o r th i s Trade Committee and i t s predecessors can be found i n C... M. Andrews, B r i t i s h Committees, Councils and Commissions of Trade and Plantations, 1622-16787 (Baltimore, I90BT * *~ — — ^ 2 c. s, p. p.. ix: (1655-56), 113. 4 3 Ibid., VIII (1655), 372. ^ Ibid., X (1656-57), 133. kS Some of these o f f i c i a l s w i l l be looked at below. 122 • FOOTNOTES '.CHAPTER IV 1 For material used.in the following paragraph I am indebted to G. E. Aylmer's The King*s Servants, p a r t i c u l a r l y pp. 69-96. 2 F i r t h and Rait, II, 819. 3 i b i d . , I I, 821 k J . P. Kehyon, The'Stuart Constitution (Cambridge, 1966), p. 334. . 5 "Aylmer,: King's Servants, p. 417. 6 i4. F. Keeler, The Long Parliament, 1640-1641 (Philadelphia, 1954), 0 . WfT 7 C. S. P. P., X (1656-57), 179. • . . 8 F i r t h and Rait, II, 163. 9 Aylmer, p. 391. 1 0 Masson, L i f e of Milton, V, 287. 1 1 C. S. P. P., VII (1654), 393- 1 2 F i r t h and Rait, II, 813 13 i b i d . , 1 1 , 828, 946, 1025. . 1^ Ibid., II, 949, 1007, 1016. ! 5 c. S. P. P., X (1656-57), 237; IX (1655-56), 75• 16 i b i d . , X.(1656-57), 247. I? For further examples of t h i s procedure see C. S. P.P., VII (1654), 337; IX (1655-56), 220, 224. 1 8 Ibid., IX (1655-56), 241. 19 For such recommendations see C. S. P. D., VIII (1655), 279, 289. 2 0 Ibid., VIII (1655), 230 - July 4 , 1655; IX (1655-56), 102 - January 8 ,,I656. 123 2 1 For further examples see F i r t h and Rait, II, 812- 813, 823, 829, 835- 2 2 Ibid.., II., 856. 2 3 g . S. P. D . , V v l l l (1655), 230. 2 b e Ibid.. IX (1655-56), 102. 2 5 Ibid., VI (1653-54), 339. 2 6 F i r t h and Rait, II, 963. 2 7 Ihid., II, 920. 28 Report of the H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission, (The Duke of Sutherland MSS), V., part I, p. 146. 29 p.. S. P. P., VII (1654), 272. 30 shortly a f t e r Edmund Squibb 1s p e t i t i o n to the Protector, a judgment was made by Justice Matthew Hale that a King'.s grant was good. His decision i s recorded i n C. S. P. P., VII (1654), 33^. Apparently i t had no eff e c t on the determination of th i s case. 31 Ibid., VII (1654), 449. 3 2 Ibid., VIII (1655). 13. 33 i b i d . , VII (1654), 272. 3^ i b i d . , VIII (1655). 1^0. 35 pp.. c i t . 16 J This point, however, should'not be over-emphasized. As many " l e g a l " contracts are broken today, so oaths and promises were probably broken i n the seventeenth century. 37 F i r t h and Rait, I I , 325. 38 r p f t g Engagement was by no means limited to the use of office-holders but was intended to be taken by a l l men over the age of eighteen. : 39 F i r t h and Rait, II, 83O-83I. ^° Ibid., II, 818, 822. * H Actually, the oath i t s e l f i s i n the "Humble Additional and Explanatory P e t i t i o n and Advice" i n F i r t h and Rait, II, 1182-86. 42 *c. C. S. P. P., XI (1657-58), 27. F i r t h and Rait, II, 949. kk Examples of oaths can be found i n F i r t h and Rait, II, 86, 172, 177, 528. ^ Ibid., II, 960. 6̂ C S . P. P.. IX (1655-56), 105,168. ' - ^7" Ibid., IX H655-56), 190;' • ' ^8 For example, the Keeper of the Records of Bishops' lands, the Registrar f o r Peans' lands, and the Comptroller f o r Peans' lands; F i r t h and Rait, I, 894; II, 89, 103. 125 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER V 1 Aylmer, K i n g ' s Servants, p . 169. 2 The subject of fees i s dea l t with below. 3 Aylmer, King* s Servants, p . 204. The information i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraph concerning s a l a r i e s under the monarchy i s extracted from Aylmer. k Abbot, Writ ings and Speeches, I I I , 784. 5 C. S. P . P . , IX. (1655-56) 212. 6 I b i d . , VIII (1655). 172. 7 Oppenheim, Adminis t ra t ion of the Navy, p . . 361 . 8 OR- £11- 9 C. S. P . P . , VII I (1655). 172. 10 ' Aylmer, K i n g ' s Servants, p . 204. 1 1 C. S. P. P . . VII I (1655). 3^2. 1 2 I h l d . , IX (1655-56), 62. 1 3 I b i d . , VIII (1655). 128. 14 I b i d . , VIII (1655), 172. 1 5 i P i d . , X (1656-57)182. S i m i l a r l y , the Judges f o r the Probate of W i l l s were forbidden from taking any f e e s . I b i d . , X (1656^57), 374. 1 6 i b i d . , IX (1655-56), 107. 1 7 i M d " V I 1 (165^). 136. A s i m i l a r case appears i n V I I I (lc~55T. 105. 1 8 I h i d . , IX (1655-56), 281. 1 9 F i r t h and R a i t , I I , 963. 2 0 C. S. P . P . , IX (1655-56), 149- 2 1 I h i d . . VIII (1655). 172. 22 I b i d . , IX (1655-56), 107. •126 2 3 F i r t h and Rait, II, 702-703. 2 2 * C * S « P - D » « X (1656-57), 268. 2 5 F i r t h and Rait, II, 89, 175. 2 6 Ibid. :, II, 96, 163, 166. 2 ? See Appendix f o r the rates at which they were paid. 2 8 F i r t h and Rait, II, 963. 2 9 Ibid., II, 920. 3 0 p. s. p. P., x.(1656-57), 47. 31 The Letters Patent appointing a p a r t i c u l a r o f f i c e r often stated where his salary would be paid. As these patents have not been available f o r study s p e c i f i c information i s very l i m i t e d . 3 2 C. S. P. P . , VIII (1655). 128. 3 3 Ibid.. VIII (1655). 177- 3^ Ibid., XI (1657-58), 83. 3 5 . F i r t h and Rait, II, 1133. 36 c . S. P. P . , VI (1653-5^)t 31^; VII (1654), 104. 37 i b i d . , VII (1654), 397? VIII (1655), 37; IX (1655-56), 15, 126. 3 8 Ibid., VIII ( I655 ) . 315. 127 FOOTNOTES • CHAPTER. VE 1 F i r t h and Rait, I I , 66^665. 2 See Appendix II f o r a complete l i s t of office-holders i n Parliament. 3 Printed i n the Harlelan Miscellaney, I I I , 448-469. k This thesis i s presented by H. R. Trevor Roper i n his "Olive r Cromwell and his Parliaments," Essays Presented to S i r Lewis Namier, ed. R. Pares and A. J . P. Taylor TLondon, 1956), pp. 1-48. 5 The complete l i s t of these men i s contained i n Appendix I I I . 6 See the map on page 89. 7 Aylmer, King's Servants, pp. 267-272. 8 Ibid., p. 268. 9 Economic History Review Supplement, I. 10 This b r i e f summary can hardly do jus t i c e to Trevor- Roper's a r t i c l e not to mention the vast l i t e r a t u r e occasioned by the disagreement i t uncovered. 11 Trevor-Roper,"Crojmwell and his Parliaments", p. 3« 12 p_£. c i t . 1.3 E. Bacon, N. Bacon, J . Berners, D. Blagrave, G. Bodurda, G. Fenwick, M. Corbet, R. Lucy, R. Nicholas, J . Price, W. Roberts, J . Hildesley, J . P h i l i p s , A. Rous, W. E l l i s , E. Clud, N. Lechmere, L. Long, W. Sheppard, J . Glynn, R. H i l l , G'.. Downing, W. Lockhart, W. Steele — these men can be called "lesser" gentry. The upper gentry were represented by — N. Fiennes, 0. St. John, T. Widdrington, B-.. Whitlocke,, W. Len t h a l l , E. Prideaux. 14 Reliable information leads one to belie.ve that the following 13';men can be called " l e s s e r " gentry without serious doubt? F. Bacon, N. Bacon, D. Blagrave, J , Berners, G. Bodurda, M.. Corbet, R. Lucy, J . Price,, W. Roberts, J . Hildesley, J . P h i l i p s , A. Rous,E. Clud. ' , 128 •^Those that could be ca l l e d " l e s s e r " merchants werei J . Barkstead, R. Aldworth, A. Baynes, E. Hopkins, J . Blackwell D. Bond, I . Pury, H. Robinson, J . Stone, R. Tichborne, T. Wood. 16 These twenty-nine men werei R. Aldworth, F. Bacon, N. Bacon, J . Barkstead, G. Bennet, J . Blackwell, D. Blagrave, G. Bodurda, W. Burton, C, G. Cocke, M. Corbet, W. E l l i s , J . Glynn, J . Hildesley, T. Kelsey, L. Long, R. Nicholas, M. Noel, C. Pack, J . Parker, J . P h i l i p s , E. Prideaux, T. Pury, W. Robinson, J . Sadler,. W. Steele, R. Tichborne,, B. Whitelocke, T. Widdrington. 17 Christopher H i l l makes t h i s suggestion i n his a r t i c l e "Recent Interpretations of the C i v i l War," Puritanism and Revolution (London, 1962), p. 8. 18 Trevor-Roper, Gentry, p. 18. 19;These t h i r t y - f o u r men weret F. Bacon, N. Bacon, G. Benhet, J . Bernefs, D. Blagrave, G. Bodurda, E. Clud, C. G. Cocke, M. Corbet, W. E l l i s , J . Glynn, M. Hale,. J . Hildesley, R. H i l l , N. Lechmere, W. Lentha l l , L. Long, R, Lucy, R. Nicholas, M. Noell, J . Parker, E. Prideaux, W. Roberts, A. Rous, J . Sadler, 0. St. John, W. Sheppard, J . Sparrow, W. Steele, J . Thurloe, R. Tichborne, B. Whitelocke T.. Widdrington, T. Wood. 2 0 H i l l , Interpretations, p.. 11-12. 21 H. A. Glass, The Barebone Parliament (London, I899), P. 83... 22 clarendon, quoted i n G;. E. Yule, The Independants i n the English C i v i l War (Cambridge, 1958), p. 89. 23 The six Puritans werei D. Blagrave, D. Bond, N. Fiennes J . Glynn, M. Hale, 0. St. John. The six Presbyterians werei N. Bacon, F. Bacon, W. E l l i s , R. H i l l , L. Long, I . Prideaux-, The seven Independants werei J . Barkstead, M. Corbet, E. Hopkins, M. Noell, T.. Pury, R. Tichborne, B. Whitelocke, The two Baptists werei J . Berners, W. Steele. ^ The eighteen men who purchased lands etc. werei J . Barkstead, A. Baynes, J . Blackwell, D. Blagrave, J . Glynn, R. H i l l , W. Lenthall, L. Long, C. Pack, J . P h i l i p s , T. Pury, W. Roberts, H. Robinson, A. Rous, W. Steele, J . Thurloe, R. Tichborne, T. Widdrington. 2 5 Men who were advanced by Cromwell were as follows. Knights (6); C. Pack, J . Barkstead, W. Lockhart, R. Tichborne, B. Whitelocke. The Baronets (2); E. Prideaux, W. E l l i s . 129 Lords (12); N. Fiennes, B. Whitelocke, W. Roberts, J . Glynn, 0. St. John, W. Lockhart, C. Pack, R. Tichborne, J . Barkstead, J . Clarke, W. Steele, W. L e n t h a l l f v Assistant's (4); M. Hale, R. Nicholas, J . Parker, R. H i l l . ' 26 p o r those -ton the Committee for- the. Security "off the Protector see F i r t h and Rait, I I , 1038-42. For those who voted f o r Cromwell as King see Parliamentary History, XXII, 3-23. 2? por those nominated to the High Court of Justice see Firth"and Rait, I, 1253-55* 28 References used f o r Robert Aldworth were* C. S. P. D . , F i r t h and Rait, and P. McGrath, Merchants and Merchandise i n Seventeenth-Century B r i s t o l . ( B r i s t o l Recors Society, v o l . XIX). 29 Sources consulted were; C. S. P.P.; F i r t h and Rait; and the Pariiamentary History. 30fc Sources consulted were; C. S. P. P. ; F i r t h and Rait» and L. F. Brown, Baptists and Fffth Monarchy Men (Washington, 1912). 31 Sources used were; C. S. P. D . , F i r t h and Rait; the Parliamentary History» and A. B, Beaven, The Aldermen of the City of London (London, 1908-13). 32 The sources used were; C. S. P. D . ; F i r t h and Rait; Parliamentary History ; W. R. J . Williams, ed. The Parliamentary History... of Wales (Brecknock, 1895); A. H. Dodd, Studies i n Stuart Wales (Cardiff, 1952). 33 The sources used were; C. S. P.P.; F i r t h and Rait; F i r t h and Pavies, The Regimental History of Cromwell's Army; H. A. Glass, The Barebone Parliament. 3^ The sources used were; C. S. P. P.; F i r t h and Rait; H. A. Glass, The Barebone Parliament. 35 Sources, used were; C. S. P. P.; F i r t h and Rait; Foss, Judges of England; Dodd, Studies i n Stuart Wales; Hexter, The Reign of King Pym. 36 Sources used were; C. S. P.P.; F i r t h and Rait; H. A. Glass. 37 Sources used were; C. S. P. P.; F i r t h and Rait; Venn, Alumni cantabrigiensls; Glass, Barebone Parliament; Pictlonary of National Biography. 38 His sources are C. S. P. P.; F i f t h i a n d Rait; H. A. Glass. 130 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER VII 1 The oppressiveness of the rule of the Major-Generals has heen over-estimated, and over-emphasized i n many of the popular accounts of t h e i r actions. Although indeed they were a form of m i l i t a r y government. Their contact with c i v i l i a n s , was not extensive. r 2 C.S. P.P., XI (1657-58), 113. 3 Abbott, The Writings and Speeches, I I I , 433. ^ C. S. P. D.. XI (1657-58), 109. •5 See G. E. Aylmer, "The Last Years of Purveyance," Economic History Review, 2nd series, X;, No. 1, 81-93. 131 BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l items i n the Bibliography are available i n The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Library except those marked with an asterisk. I. PRIMARY SOURCES A. CONTEMPORARY WORKS AND PAMPHLETS The Harleian M i s c e l l a n p ; A C o l l e c t i o n of Scarce, Curious, and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts ed. William Oldys and Thomas Park. 10 v o l s . London, 1808-13 (reprint 1965). "The Mystery of the Good Old Cause b r i e f l y unfolded. In a Catalogue of such Members of the Late Long Parliament, that held Places, both C i v i l and M i l i t a r y . . . ." London, 1660. (Printed i n The Parliamentary History of England, ed. William Cobbett" 36 v o l s . London, IB"08. V o l . I l l , 1591-1612). "A Narrative of the l a t e Parliament (so c a l l e d ) , t h e i r Elections and Appearing; the Seclusion of a great Part of them; the S i t t i n g of the Rest; With an Account of the Places of P r o f i t , S alaries, and Advantages which they hold and receive under the. present Power. . . . " London, 1657 • (Printed i n The Harleian Miscellany:.' V o l . I l l , 448-469). N e v i l l e , Henry. Shufling, Cutting and Dealing, i n a game at Pickquet; being acted from the year 1653 to T&$8 by P. 0. London, 1659' (Printed i n The Harleian Miscellany; -Vol. V, 314-316). "A Second Narrative of the late Parliament (so c a l l e d ) . Wherein, a f t e r a b r i e f Reciting some remarkable Passages i n the former Narrative, i s given an Account of t h e i r second Meeting. . . ." London, 1658. (Printed i n The Harleian Miscellany. ? Vol . I l l , 470-489). Shaw, W. A., ed. Select Tracts and Documents I l l u s t r a t i v e of English Monetary History, 1626-1730. London, I896". 132 Tanner, J . R., ed. John Holland's Two Discourses of the Navy. Navy Records Society, 1896'. • "The World's Mistake i n Oliver Cromwell; or, a short P o l i t i c a l Discourse, shewing, that Cromwell's Mal-administration (during his Four Years and. Nine Months pretended Protectorship) l a i d the Foundation of our present Condition, i n the Decay of Trade." London, 1668. (Printed i n The Harleian Miscellany.' o Vol. I, 287-296). " : . •B. STATE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660, ed. C. H. F i r t h and R. S. Rait, 3 vols. London, 1911' Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660, ed. W. Noel Sainsbury. London, i860 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1649-1660, . ed. M. A. E. Green. 13 v o l s . London, 1875-86. ' Calendar Of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles I I , 1660-1661, ed. M..A>E. Green. London, I8o"0 Calendar of Treasury Books, 1660-1667, ed. William A. Shaw. London, I90C A C o l l e c t i o n of the State Papers of John Thurloe, ed. Thomas Birch. 7 v o l s . London, 1742. E v e r i t t , A. M., ed. Suffolk and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660. Suffolk Records Society, V o l . I l l , i960. F i f t h Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. London, 18^4. Journals of the House of Commons. McGrath, Patrick, ed. Merchants and Merchandise i n Seventeenth-Century B r i s t o l . B r i s t o l Record Society, Vol.. XIX, 1955. Reports of the H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission. Rye Corporation MSS, Report V, part I, I876. Duke of Sutherland MSS, Report V, part I, 1876. House of Lords MSS, Report VII, part I, 1879. E a r l of Jersey MSS, Report VIII, part I, 1881. Pole-Gell MSS, Report IX, part I I , 1884. Laing MSS, part I, 1914. 133 Rushworth,. John, ed. H i s t o r i c a l Collections of Private Passages of State. 8 vols. London, 1659-1701. Sainsbury, Ethel B., ed. A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1635-16^59. Oxford, 1916. The Statutes of the Realm. C:. PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE, DIARIES, MEMOIRS Burton, Thomas. Diary of Thomas BUrton, Esq., ed. J . T. Rutt. 4 vo l s . London, 1828. Clarke Papers, Selections from the Papers of William Clarke, ed. C. H. F i r t h . Camden Society, 1891-1901. Clarendon,, Edward Hyde, E a r l of. The History of the Rebellion and C i v i l Wars i n England, ed. W. Dunn Macray. 6 vols. Oxford, l888~i Evelyn, John. The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer. 6 vols. Oxford, 1955- Ludlow, Edmund. The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, ed. C. H. F i r t h . 2 vols. Oxford, l89h~. Pepys, Samuel. The Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. Henry B. Wheatley. 8 vo l s . London, 1904. Whitelocke, Bulstrode. Memorials of the English A f f a i r s . 4 vols. Oxford, 1853. I I . SECONDARY WORKS Abbott, W. C. Bibliography of Ol i v e r Cromwell. Cambridge . LMass.O, 1929. A , : ; ' - . , , ed. The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. 4~vols. Cambridge [MassJ, 1937-47. Aiken, William Appleton, and B a s i l Duke Herring. C o n f l i c t i n Stuart England. London, i960. Andrews, C. M. B r i t i s h Committees, Councils and Commissions of. Trade and Plantations, 1622-1678. Baltimore, 1908". 134 Ashley, Maurice P. Cromwell's Generals. London, 1954. . Fin a n c i a l and Commercial P o l i c y under the Cromwellian Protectorate. London Lcopyright, 1962]. . The Greatness of Oliver Cromwell. New York, 1961 Lcopyright, 1957J• Atton, Henry and Henry Hurst Holland. The King's Customs. London, 1908. Aylmer, G. E. The King's Servants. London, I96I. . The Struggle f o r the Constitution, 1603-1689. London, 1963. • "The Last Years of Purveyance, 1610-60," Economic History Review, 2nd series, X, No. 1, 81-93. . "Office Holding as a Factor i n English History, 16^5-42," History, XLIV; (1959), 228-240. . "The O f f i c e r s of the Exchequer, 1625-1642," Essays i n the Economic and So c i a l History of Tudor and Stuart England, ed. F. J . Fisher. Cambridge, 1961, pp. 164-181. Bagwell, Richard. Ireland under the Stuarts and during the Interregnum. 3 v o l s . London and New York, 1909. Baines, Edward. The History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster, ed. James Croston. London, 1888. *Beaven, A. B. The Aldermen of the Ci.ty_ of_ London. 2 v o l s . London, I 9 O 0 V L 3 . Brooks, F. W. "The V i c i s s i t u d e s of a Lincolnshire Manor during the C i v i l Wars and the Commonwealth," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, LVIII (1943), 344. Brown, Louise Fargo. The F i r s t E a r l of Shaftesbury. New York and London [copyright, 19331^" . The P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s of the Baptists and F i f t h Monarchy Men i n England during the Interregnum. Washington, 1912. Brunton, D. and D. H. Pennington. Members of the Long Parliament. London, 1954. 135 Chesney, H. E. "The Transference of Lands i n England, 1640-1660," Transactions of the Royal H i s t o r i c a l Society, 4th series, XV (1939/ 181-210. C.oate, Mary. Cornwall i n the Great C i v i l War and Interregnum, 1642-1660. 2nd ed. Truro, 1963. Coates, Willson H. "An Analysis of Major C o n f l i c t s i n Seventeenth-Century England," C o n f l i c t i n Stuart England, ed. W. A. Aiken and B. D. Herring. London, I960, pp. 15-39- Cohbett, William, ed. The Parliamentary History of England. 3.6 vols. London, 1S08. C^okayne], G[eorge] E[]dward] . Complete Baronetage. 5 vols. Exeter, 1900-06. Coleman, D. C. S i r John Banks Baronet and Businessman 4 Study of Business, P o l i t i c s and Society i n Later Stuart England. Oxford, 1963. Craig, S i r John. A History of Red Tap_ei An Account of the Origin and Development of the C i v i l Service. London, 1955. . The Mint. Cambridge, 1953. Davies, Godfrey. Bibliography of B r i t i s h History Stuart Period, 1603-1715*1 Oxford, 1928, .. The Restoration of Charles I I . San Marino, 1955. .. "The E l e c t i o n of Richard Cromwell's Parliament, 1638-9," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, LXIII(1948), 488. The Dictionary of National Biography, ed. S i r L e s l i e Stephen and S i r Sidney Lee. London, 1937-38. Dodd, A. H. Studies In Stuart Wales. Car d i f f , 1952. Evans, F. M. G. The P r i n c i p a l Secretary of State. Manchester, 1923. F i r t h , Charles Harding. Cromwell's Army, 4th ed. London, 1962. _. The House of Lords during the C i v i l War. London, 1910. . The l a s t years of the Protectorate, 1656-58. 2 vols. London, 1909. 136 . "Cromwell and the Crown," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, XVII (1902), 429-442;XVIII (1903), 52-80. . "The Royalists Under the Protectorate," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, LII (1937), 634. . "Thurloe and the Post O f f i c e , " English H i s t o r i c a l Review, XIII ( I 8 9 8 ) , 527-533- , and G.. Davies. The Regimental H-istory of Cromwell 1 s Army. 2 vols.. Oxford, 1940. Fisher, F.. J . t ed. Essays i n the Economic and So c i a l History of Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge, I96I. Fortescue, J . W. A History of the B r i t i s h Army. 2 vols.2nd ed. London, 1910. Foss, Edward. The Judges of England. London, I857. Vol VI. Foster, Joseph, ed. Alumni oxoniensis. 4 v o l s . Oxford, 1891-92. Frank, Joseph. The Beginnings of the English Newspaper, 1620-1660. Cambridge |_Mass7J, I 9 6 I . Gardiner, Samuel Rawlinson. History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1656. 4 vols. London, 1903. *Glass, Henry A. The Barebone Parliament. London, I 8 9 9 . Glow, Lotte. "The Committee-Men i n the Long Parliament, August,1642-December, 1643," H i s t o r i c a l Journal, V o l . VIII, No. 1, 1-15- . "The Manipulation of Committees i n the Long Parliament, 1641-2," Journal of B r i t i s h Studies, V, No. 1.(November, 1965)• Godwin, William. History of the Commonwealth of England. 4 vols. London, 1827. Guide to the Reports of the Royal Commission on H i s t o r i c a l Manu- scr i p t s 1870-1911• Part II - Index of Persons, ed. Francis Bickley. 2 vols. London, 1938". Guide to the Reports of the Royal Commission on H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts 1911-1957. Part II - Index of Persons, ed. A.C. S. H a l l . 3 vols. London, I966T 137 Habakkuk, H. J . "Public Finance and the Sale of Confiscated Property during the Interregnum," Economic History . Review, 2nd series, XV., No. 1 (1962), 70-88. Hardacre, Paul H. The Royalists During the Puritan Revolution. The Hague, 1956. . "William Boteler. A Cromwellian Oligarch," Huntingdon Library Quarterly, XI (1947), 1-11. . "Writings on Oliver Cromwell since 1929," Journal of Modern History, v o l . XXXIII (March, 1961) No. 1, 1-14. Hemmeon. J . C. The History of the B r i t i s h Post O f f i c e . Cambridge [Mass . J , 1912. Hewins, W. A. S. English Trade and Finance Chiefly i n the 17th century. London, I892. Hexter, J . H. The Reign of King Pym. Cambridge [Mass.], 1941. . "The Problem of the Presbyterian Independents," Reappraisals i n History. New York, 1961. 163-184. H i l l , Christopher. The Century of Revolution 1603-1714. London, 1961. . "Recent Interpretations of the C i v i l War," Puritanism and Revolution. London, 1958. 3-31. . "The Agrarian L e g i s l a t i o n of the Interregnum," Puritanism and Revolution. London, 1958. 153-196. Hobman, D. L. Cromwell's Master Spy. A Study of John Thurloe. London, 1961. Hughes, E. Studies i n Administration and Finance. Manchester, 1934. Inderwick. F.A. The Interregnum. London, 1891. James, Margaret. So c i a l Problems and Po l i c y During the Puritan Revolution, 1640-1660. London, 1930. Jones, C. F. Trevallyn. "The Composition and Leadership of the Presbyterian Party i n the Convention," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, LXXIX (1964), 307- 138 •Jordan, W. E. Men of Substance> A Study of the Thought of Two English revolutionaries, Henry Parker and Henry Robinson. New York, 1967. Keeler, M. F. The, Long Parliament, l 6 4 0 - l 6 4 l . Philadelphia, 1954. : : Kellaway, ¥. The New England Company, 1649-1776. London, Kennedy, W. English Taxation, 1640-1799. London, 1913. Kenyon, J . P. The Stuart Constitution. Cambridge, 1966. Kirby, Ethyn W. "The Cromwellian Establishment," Church History, X, No. 2, June, 1941, 144-158. MacCormack, J . R. "The I r i s h adventurers and the English C i v i l War," I r i s h H i s t o r i c a l Studies, X (1956-57), 21-58. Madge, Sidney J . The Domesday of Crown Lands; a.study of the l e g i s . surveys, & sales of Royal Estates under the Commonwealth. London, 1938. Marsden, P h i l i p . The Of f i c e r s of the Commons 1363-1965. London, 1966 Masson, David. The L i f e of John Milton. 6 v o l s . London, 1859-80. *Noble, Mark. Memoirs of the Protectorate-House of Cromwell. . . . 2 vols. Birmingham, 1784. Oppenheim, M. A History of the Administration of the Royal and of Merchant Shipping. London, I96I (_First published I896J. Pares, Richard and A. J . P. Taylor, eds•.Essays Presented to S i r Lewis Namier. London, 1956. The Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England. 2nd ed. 24 v o l s . London, 1763. Pearl, V a l e r i e . London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution. Oxford, 1961. . "Oliver St. John and the "middle group" i n the Long Parliament; August, 1643 - May, 1644," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, LXXXI (1966), 490-519. 139 Pennington, D. H. "The Accounts of the Kingdom," Essays on the Economic and Social History of Tudor and Stuart England. ed. F. J . Fisher. Cambridge, 1961. Petersson, R. T. S i r Kenelm Digby- The Ornament of England l603-l6"o"5. Cambridge [Mass.], 1956. Pinckney, Paul J . "Bradshaw and Cromwell i n I656," Huntingdon Library Quarterly, XXX, No. 3 (May, I967), 233-240. . "The Scottish representation i n the Cromwellian parliament of I656," Scottish H i s t o r i c a l Review, XLVI, No. 142 (October, 1967), 95-114. P r a l l , 5Stuart E. The Ag i t a t i o n f o r Law Reform during the P u r i t a n Revolution 1640-60. The Hague, 1966. . "Chancery Reform and the Puritan Revolution," The American Journal of Legal History, VI (1962), 28-4IK Prestwich, Menna. "Diplomacy and Trade i n the Protectorate," Journal of Modern History, XXII, No. 2 (June, 1950), 103-121. - • Rannie, D. W. "Cromwell's Major Generals," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, X (1895), 471-506. Richards, R. D. "The Exchequer i n Cromwellian Times," Economic History, II (193D. 213-233. Robinson, Howard. B r i t a i n ' s Post O f f i c e . Oxford, 1953. Round, J . H. "Colchester under the Commonwealth," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, XV (1900), 641-694. Scroggs, W. 0. "English Finances under the Long Parliament," Quarterly Journal of Economics, XXI (1907), 463-487. Shaw, W. A. A History of the English Church during the C i v i l Wars and under the Commonwealth. 2 vols. London, 1900. . . "The Commonwealth and the Protectorate," Cambridge Modern History.{ Cambridge, 1906, IV, 454-458. Smith, M. Urwick. "Cromwell's Master of the Horse," Northamptonshire Past and Present. V o l . I, No. 4 (1951), 23-33. Snow, Vernon F. "Parliamentary Reapportionment Proposals i n the Puritan Revolution," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, LXXIV. (1959), 409. Squihb, G. D. The High Court of Chivalry. Oxford, 1959. *Stearns, R. P. The Strenuous Puritan, Hugh Peter, 1598-1660. Urhana, I l l i n o i s , 1954. Strauss, E. S i r William Petty. Glencoe, I l l i n o i s , 1954. Swart, K. W. Sale of Offices i n the Seventeenth Century. The Hague, 1949. Tatham, G. B. "The Sale of Episcopal Lands During the C i v i l Wars and Commonwealth," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, XXIII (1908), 91-108. Thirsk, Joan. "The Restoration Land Settlement," Journal of Modern History, XXVI (1954), 315-328. . "The Sales of Royalist Land During the Interregnum, Economic History Review, 2nd series, V; (1952), 188-207. Thomas, F. S. Motes of Materials f o r the History of Public Departments. London, 1846. *Thomas-Stanford, Charles. Sussex i n the Great C i v i l War and the Interregnum, 1642-1660. London, 1910. Trevor-Roper, H. R. "The Gentry 1540-1640," Economic History Review, Supplement, I. • "Oliver Cromwell and his Parliaments," Essays Presented to S i r Lewis Namier, eds. Richard Pares and A. J . P.. Taylor. London, 1956, 1 - 4 8 . Turner, Edward Raymond. The Privy Council of England i n the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, 1603-178^7 2 vols. Baltimore, 1927, V o l . I. Underdovjn, D. E. "The Independants Reconsidered," Journal of B r i t i s h Studies. I l l , No. 2 (May, 1964), 57-W. Upton, Eleanor Stuart, ed., Guide to Sources of English History from 1603-1660 i n early reports of the Royal Commission on H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts. 2nd ed. New York, 1964. 141 Venn, John and S. A. Venn. Alumni cantabrigiensis. 4 vols. Cambridge, 1922-27. Watson, Foster. "State and education during the Commonwealth," English H i s t o r i c a l Review,XV (1900), 58-72. Weyman, Stanley J . "Oliver Cromwell's Kinsfolk," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, VI (1891), 48-60. Williams, Orlo Cyprian. The C l e r i c a l Organization of the House of Commons 1661-1850. Oxford, 1954. Williams, W. R. J . , ed. The Parliamentary History of the P r i n c i p a l i t y of Wales, 1541-95. Brecknock, 1895. Wilson, Charles. England's Apprenticeship 1603-1673• London, 1965- Wood, Anthony A. Athenae oxonlensis. 2 vols". Oxford, 1692. Woolrych, Austin. "The C a l l i n g of Barebone's Parliament," English H i s t o r i c a l Review, LXXX (1965), 492. Yule, G. The Independents i n the English C i v i l War. Cambridge, 1958. Zagorin, Perez. "The Englishl'.Revolution, 1640-1660," Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale. II (1955), 668-681; 895-914. 142 APPENDIX I TABLE OF OFFICERS The object of t h i s Appendix i s to present as complete a l i s t of the o f f i c e r s s t a f f i n g the i n d i v i d u a l administrative departments as i s possible. This Is not Intended to be a l i s t of " o f f i c e s " but rather of " o f f i c e r s " ; as a r e s u l t only the most s i g n i f i c a n t positions have been included. Minor o f f i c e r s have usually been omitted. However, a sub- s t a n t i a l body of information has been co l l e c t e d about those l e v e l s of the administrative hierarchy which are of p a r t i c u l a r concern i n this paper. Information on these lev e l s i s f a i r l y complete but there are exceptions. Sources available did not permit the accumulation of complete l i s t s of o f f i c i a l s f o r departments such as the Exchequer and Chancery. However, i t i s hoped that the use of the main sources available f o r the period, most of which are given below, has at least provided the great majority of the s i g n i f i c a n t o f f i c e r s . . information on annual s a l a r i e s and allowance has been included when known, as has data such as the date of appointment, replacement and so on. The tables of administra- t i v e departments are placed i n the same order as they appear i n the text. Sources have been given i n an abbreviated form f o r added convenience. A Key i s provided below. Abbott A&O Burton CSPD Clarke Papers DKPR DBK. Foss Lords Madge :>. Masson Noble Oppenhelm P a r i . Hist. Round Shaw Thurloe Whltelocke 1^3 Abbott, W. C. The Writings and Speeches of O l i v e r Cromwell. Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-16T0, ed. C. H. F i r t h and R.S. Rait Burton, Thomas. Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq., ed. J . T. Rutt. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1649-1660, ed. M. A. E. Green. Clarke Papers, Selections from the Papers of William Clarke, ed. C. H. F i r t h . Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records The Dictionary of National Biography, ed. S i r L e s l i e Stephen and S i r Sidney Lee. Foss, Edward. The Judges of England. House of Lords MSS, Reports of the H i s t o r i c a l Manuscripts Commission. Madge, Sidney J . The Domesday of Crown Lands; a study of the l e g i s , surveys, & sales of Royal Estates under the Commonwealth. Masson, David. The L i f e of John Milton. Noble, Mark. Memoirs of the Protectorate- House of Cromwell. . . . Oppenheim, M. A History of the Administration of the Royal and of Merchant Shipping. The Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England. Round, J . H. "Colchester under the Common- wealth," English H i s t o r i c a l Review. Shaw, W. A. A History of the English Church during the C i v i l Wars and under the Common- . wealth. A C o l l e c t i o n of the State Papers of John Thurloe, ed. Thomas Birch Whltelocke, Bulstrode. Memorials of the English A f f a i r s . 144 COUNCIL OF STATE, December, 1653 to September, 1658 The p r i n c i p a l sources f o r the following were the tables of attendance of the Councils of State given i n the introductions to the Calendar of State Papers, 1649-1660. Salary was £.1000 per annum except f o r the President, Henry Lawrence, who seems to have received £ 1200 per annum. Cromwell, Oliver - D e c , 1653 Cromwell, Richard - July, 1657 Cooper, Anthony A. - Dec. 16, 1653 Desborough, John - Dec 16, 1653 Jones, P h i l i p ' - Dec 16, 1653 Lambert, John - Dec 16, 1653 Lawrence, Henry - Dec. 16, 1653 L i s l e , Viscount - D e c 16, 1653 Mackworth, Humphrey - Feb. 7, 1654 Major, Richard - D e c 16, 1653 Montague, Edward - Dec 19, 1653 Pickering, G i l b e r t - Dec 16, 1653 Rous, Francis - Dec 16, 1653 Skippon, P h i l i p - Dec. 16, 1653 Strickland, Walter - Dec. 16, 1653 Sydenham, William - Dec .16, , 16$3[. Wolsley, Charles - Dec. 16, 1653 Mulgrave, E a r l of - June 30, 1654 Fiennes, Nathaniel - A p r i l 26, 1654 Fleetwood, Charles - Dec. 16, 1653' Thurloe, John - July 13, 1657 to Sept Sept Dec. Sept Sept June Sept Sept Dec. mid- Sept Sept Sept Sept- Sept Sept Sept Sept Sept Sept Sept ., 1658 ., 1658 , 1654 ., 1658 1658 /July, 1657 ., 1658 ., 1658 , 1654 1654 1658 I658 1658 1658 I658 1658 1658 1658 1658 1658 1658 145 SECRETARIAT OP THE COUNCIL OF STATE The basic format of the Secretariat can be found i n a document of January 30, 1654 presented f o r approval to the Protector and Council (CSPD, VI, 383). Further additions or changes have mainly been extracted from the Calendar of State Papers and from Masson's L i f e of Milton. Secretary of the Council of State - John Thurloe (£800 p.a.) Treasurer f o r the Council's - Gualter Frost (£400 p.a.) Contingencies L a t i n Secretary - P h i l i p Meadows (£200 p.a.) L a t i n Secretary Extraordinary. - John Milton (£ 288 p.a.) Serjeant-at-Arms - Edward Dendy (£365 P-a.) Minor Under-Officers t Under-clerks - seven at 6s. 8d. per day . Messengers - twelve at 5s. per day plus 6d. per mile t r a v e l l i n g . expenses Serjeant-deputies - ten at 3s. 4d. per day plus 8d. per mile t r a v e l l i n g expenses Usher of the Council - Richard Scutt at 7s. per day Chamber with two assistants Keeper of the Council - Thomas Bennett at 4s. per Chamber day Not mentioned i n the document presented to Council i n January, 1654 were the two assistants to Thurloe - William Jessop (£365 P« a.) - Henry Scobell (£365 p. a.) Also attached to the Secretariat weres • Master of His Highness' Barge - Richard Nutt (£80 p. a.) Assistant - Thomas Washborne (£20 p.a.) Watermen - twenty-five at £4 p. a. each In A p r i l , 1655 Frost's salary was reduced from £400 to £300 p. a.; Milton's salary was also reduced from-*-288• to £.150 p. a. (CSPD, VIII, 127). 146: OTHER OFFICES IN THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE Commissioners of the Great Seal February 8, 1649 A p r i l 5, 1654 June 15, 1656 Keeper or Lord of the Privy Seal Clerks of the Privy Seal (2) - information from Foss, VI, 401-402. Salary was £1,000 p.a. - Bulstrode Whitelocke John L i s l e Richard Keeble (continued u n t i l Cromwell became Protector) - Bulstrode Whitelocke John L i s l e S i r Thomas Widdrington (the Protector removed Whitelocke and Widdrington and appointed the following) - John L i s l e Nathaniel Fiennes (who retained t h e i r position' u n t i l Cromwell's death) - Nathaniel Fiennes (£l,000 p.a.) - Miles Fleetwood Thomas Smithsby ( u n t i l l a t e I656) - Their salary was £ 150 p.a. each (CSPD, IX, 62) Masters of Requests (4) - Francis Bacon Nathaniel Bacon John Sadler (appointed January 20, 1654 - Abbott, II I , 167) Lislebone Long ( u n t i l early 1657 - DKPR.V, 262) - Their salary was £500 p.a. each (CSPD, X, 182) Clerks of the Signet.(2) - Samuel Morland P h i l i p Nuttley - Their salary was £150 p.a. each (Abbott, III> 784) 147 OTHER OFFICES IN THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE (continued) Solicitor-General - William E l l i s (from May, 1654 - DNB) Attorney-General - Edmund Prideaux (from A p r i l , 1649 u n t i l his death i n 1659 - DNB) THE HOUSEHOLD Chamberlain to the Household - S i r G i l b e r t Pickering • (appointed Aug, 1655 - Clarke Papers, III, 47) Comptroller Auditor Steward Keeper of the Wardrobe Gentlemen of the Bedchamber Knight-Marshall of the palace Clerk of the Green Cloth Private Secretary to His Highness - P h i l i p Jones (appointed August, 1655 - Masson, V, 324) Mr. Barrington John Maidstone Clement Kinnersley (appointed early 1654 - CSPD, VII, 394; his salary was £600 p. a. - CSPD, IX, 71) • Mr. Harvey U . ^ r - ' z i) Mr. Rolt John Barrington S i r Thomas B i l l i n g s l e y (appointed i n August, 1655 Clarke Papers, I I I , 47) P h i l i p Meadows (appointed i n 1658 - DNB) Abraham Barrington (Round, p. 658) William Malyn (Thurloe, II, 224) 148 THE HOUSEHOLD (continued) S o l i c i t o r to His Highness Master of Ceremonies Surveyor to His Highness' Houses and Serjeant-Plumber Master of the Horse B a i l i f f of Cromwell's lands i n Wales Steward of Cromwell's lands i n Wales His Highness' waterman His Highness' avenor His Highness' L i f e Guard - S i r William W i l l i s (Noble, I I , 532) - S i r Oliver Fleming (Whitelocke, TV?', 234; his salary was £200 p.a. - DKPR, V, 258) - John Embree (appointed January, 1653 • with a salary of £ 300 p.a. - CSPD, VII, 393) - John Cleypole (Noble, II, 249) - S i r Edward Herbert (P a r i . Hist., XXI, 10) - P h i l i p Jones (Pa r i . Hist., XXI, 19) - Thomas Redriff (CSPD, VII, 451) - Charles Rich (CSPD, VIII, 257) - In August, 1654 the Guard numbered f o r t y - f i v e , besides o f f i c e r s , under the command of Lord Howard (CSPD, VII,290) In early 1656 i t was increas- ed to 173 under the command of Captain Beake (CSPD, IX, 203; Clarke Papers, 111,62) 1A9 THE EXCHEQUER Commissioners of the Exchequer Chief Baron of the Exchequer Barons of the Exchequer (Puisne) - Appointed August 3, 1654 (Whltelocke, IV, 128) Bulstrode Whitelocke S i r Thomas Widdrington John L i s l e Henry Rolle Oliv e r St. John Edward Montague William Sydenham William Mascham - W i l l i a m Steele (from May, 1655 to August, 1656 - DNB:) . S i r Thomas Widdrington (appointed i n June, 1658 - DNB) - In mid-1654 the personnel was as follows t Francis Thorpe • Robert Nicholas Richard Pepys In 1655, Thorpe, was replaced byj John Parker In I656, Pepys was replaced by» Roger H i l l (Information from Foss, VI) Baron of the Exchequer (Cursitor) - Appointed September, l645» Richard Tomlins (Foss, VI) Auditors of the Imprest (2) - Bartholomew Beale William Scott (CSPD, VIII, 369) In January, 1657 Scott was replaced byt Abraham Barrington (CSPD, X, 237-238) Their salary was £500 p.a. (CSPD, VIII,172) • 150 THE EXCHEQUER (continued) Auditors of the Revenue (7?) Exchequer Remembrancer (Old King's Remembrancer) Clerk of the Pipe Clerk of the P e l l s T e l l e r s (4) Auditor of the Receipt - Mr. Shadwell (CSPD,VII,213) Henry Broad (CSPD,VIII,112) Mr. H i l l (CSPD, X, 248) Thomas Fauconberge (appointed August 31, l6§4^ - DKPR, IV, 189-198$-died" i n May, 1655 - CSPD,VIII,169) S i r William Roberts (Appointed August 31* 1654 - DKPR, IV, 189-198) Mr. Wingfield Salary was £ 300 p. a. plus fees. - Thomas Coke • (CSPD, IX, 212) - S i r Henry Croke (DKPR, I I , App.II, 216) - Dennis Bond (Appointed August 21, 1654 - Abbott, II I , 417) Salary was£ 350 p. a. plus fees - In September, 1654 the following three were appointed' Christopher L i s t e r John Stone Edward Horseman (CSPD, VII, 367) George Downing (Appointed i n 1656 - P a r i . H i s t . XXI, 5) Salary was £400 p. a. each plus fees - S i r William Roberts Salary was £500 p. a. plus fees (CSPD,VIII, 172) COMMISSIONERS POR INSPECTING THE TREASURY 151 The following were appointed on December 31, 1653 (CSPD, VI, 317)• - S i r William Roberts William Sydenham Edward Cresset Gervas Bennet Robert Tichborne . Edward Montague William Goffe Hezekiah Haynes COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CUSTOMS In February, 1655 the following men were ordered to continue as they had been before September 2, 1654 (CSPD, v i i i , 1655). - S i r William Roberts John Stone Adam Baynes John Price Gervas Bennet John Bocket COMMISSIONERS FOR INQUIRING INTO ARREARS OF EXCISE These Commissioners were appointed on December 29, 1653 (A&O, II , 828). S i r William Roberts Gervas Bennet Richard Lucy Thomas Wood James P h i l l i p s John Stone John Hildesleyv Edward Cludol Anthony Rous Nathaniel Barton COMMISSIONERS FOR APPEALS AND REGULATING THE EXCISE The Commissioners were f i r s t appointed March 17, 1654 (A&O, II , 851). A salary of £300 p. a. each was given to them i n August, 1654 (CSPD, VII-, 343). - S i r William Roberts John Stone Henry E l s i n g Gervas Bennet Adam Baynes John Bocket In March, 1655 John Price was appointed to replace Henry E l s i n g , deceased (CSPD, VIII, 66). 152 COMMISSIONERS OF THE EXCISE The following were appointed on December 24, 1653- Their allowance was Id. on the pound (A&O, I I , 823). - Luke Hodges Thomas Bulstrode William Parker The following were appointed on March 17, 1654. Their allowance was 2d. on the pound (A&O, II, 845). They were continued on February '28, 1655-(A&O, I I , 1035). - Thomas A l l e n Richard Bury George Langham. Thomas Wood George Foxcraft Comptroller of the Excise and Customs - John Stone Salary was £400 p. a. (Pa r i . Hist-. XXI, 7) 153 PROBATE OF. WILLS The o r i g i n a l Judges"were appointed i n an Act of A p r i l 8, 1653 (A&O II, ?02). Additional Judges were added on December 24, 1653 (A&O II, 824). Judges Salary was at f i r s t £300 per annum (CSPD, VII, 455). It was l a t e r reduced to £200 per annum (Burton I, 226? CSPD, IX, 107-108). S i r Anthony A. Cooper S i r Henry Blount Matthew Hale William Steele John Sadler Charles G. Cock Thomas Manby -Thomas Blount Josias Berners' John Desborough Samuel Boyer Matthew Tomlinson John Fountain John Fowk William Packer Hugh Peters S i r William Roberts John Mansel John Rushworth John Sparrow, J r . Additional Judges Richard Lucy John Hildesley Nathanial Barton Gervas Bennet Anthony Rous Joachim Matthewes Edward Clud Thomas Wood Robert Tichborne Registrar - Mark Cottle (CSPD, I, I83) Keeper of the Seal and Treasurer of P r o f i t s - Richard Sankey (CSPD, VII, 8 9 ) 15^ COMMITTEE OF THE ARMY The Committee that sat during the Protectorate was composed of the following men. They were f i r s t appointed January 28, 1654 (A&O, II, 835-839). They were continued on June 29, 1654 (A&O, II, 939-9^0) and on July 10, 1656 (CSPD, X, 16). TREASURERS-AT-WAR These two o f f i c i a l s were appointed and continued i n the same Ordinances as the Committee of the Army. THE NAVY The Admiralty Commissioners i n o f f i c e at the beginning of the Protectorate were appointed on December 12, 1653 (A&O, II, 812-813). Their salary seems to have been £400 p. a. each (CSPD., VIII, 155)- - John Clerk Richard Lucy James P h i l l i p s John Hildesley Adam Baynes Edward Clud Edward Horseman Edward G i l l Gervas Bennet - John Blackwell, J r . Richard Dean - Robert Blake George Monk William Perm John Clerke John Desborough P h i l i p Jones John Sit one Edward Horseman Vincent Gookin William Burton Thomas Kelsey Anthony Rous (was added March 31» 1654 - CSPD, VII, 67/) A new Committee appointed August 28, 1654 did not include John Stone, Edward Horseman, William Burton and Vincent Gookin (Abbott, I I I , 426). 155 THE NAVY (continued) A further body of Admiralty Commissioners was appointed i n November, 1655 (CSPD, IX, 10). John Lambert William Sydenham John Desborough P h i l i p Jones Thomas Kelsey Edward Salmon Edward Montague George Monk Robert Blake John Clerke Edward Hopkins Commissioners of the Navy Seven Commissioners active i n the Protectorate were appointed before 1653' Additions are noted. Their salary was £250 p. a. each,(CSPD, V.I, 351; Oppenheim, p. 347). John Holland Peter Pett Francis Willoughby Edward Hopkins Thomas Smith Robert Thompson Nehemiah Bourne George Payler (replaced Holland i n 1654 CSPD, VII, 76) Nathan Wright (replaced Hopkins i n 1657 Oppenheim, p. 3^7) Treasurer of the Navy - Robert Blackbourne His salary was.£250 p. a. Treasurer of the Navy .- Richard Hutchinson (appointed i n January, 1651 at a salary of £1000 p. a., which was eventually raised to more than £ l500 \ p.a. Oppenheim, p. 351-352; CSPD, IX, 24, 44) DEPARTMENT OF VICTUALLING A new department'was set up i n 1654. Its head was Captain Thomas Alderne at a salary of £500 p. a. (Oppenheim, p. 3 2 6) . On his death* i n A p r i l , 1657 he was replaced by three Navy Commissioners who were then -tq be styled Commissioners of the Navy and V i c t u a l l i n g . They received an additional £250 each. . . . - - Robert Thompson Nehemiah Bourne Francis Willoughby 156 COMMISSIONERS OF PRIZE GOODS The only operative o f f i c e r s i n thi s department were the Treasurers and Collectors of Prize Goods. The six o f f i c e r s active during the Protectorate were a l l appointed before December, 1653 (Oppenheim, p. 309). - John Sparrow Richard Blackwell Humphrey Blake Richard H i l l Samuel Wilson Robert Turpin Their Comptroller was Clement Oxenbridge (CSPD, VII,349), ORDNANCE OFFICE Information from CSPD, VII, 331. Surveyor - George Payler(£l94 P»a.) Clerk - Jonathan White (£215 P.a.) Storekeeper - Jonathan Falkner (£216 p.a.) Clerk of the delivery - William B i l l e r s (£166 p.a.) Master" Gunner - Richard Wollaston (DKPR, V, 250) COURT OF CHIVALRY Information from G. D. Squibb, High Court of Chivalry, pp. 68-72. Register - John Watson Lieutenant - D r . John Exton Garter Herald - Edward Bysshe Clarenceaux Herald - Arthur Squibb 157 COURT OF CHIVALRY (continued) Windsor Herald Norroy Herald Advocate of the Court - Edward Norgate - William Ryley (CSPD, VIII, 60) - Dr. Walter Walker THE TOWER In CSPD, VII, 390 i s a paper dated November 6, 1654 and e n t i t l e d , "The State of the Tower!* It l i s t s the o f f i c e r s as follows* Lieutenant of the Tower - S i r John Barkstead Salary was £200 p.a. Other minor o f f i c e s - Yeoman Warders (40) at Is. 2d. per day Gentleman Porter at Is. 4d. per day Minister Gaoler Clockkeeper Pumper Scavenger Gunners (6) Offi c e s not mentioned abovei Keeper of the Tower Records Keeper of the Paper Office at 3 s . 5 l d. per day at Is. 1-3/4 d. per day at 3d. • per day at 8d. per day at 6d. per day at 2s. per day each - William Ryley Salary was £100 p.a. (Masson, V, -287) - Mr. Randolph Salary was £160 p. a. (CSPD, VIII* 601) 158 CHANCERY The o f f i c e r s mentioned below are i n accordance with the Ordinance f o r the regulationjot Chancery of August 21, 1654 (A&O, II., 949-967) . Master of the Ro l l s Masters i n Chancery (6) Chancery Clerks (3) Registrars (4) William Lenthal (from 1649 to 1660 - Foss, V I , 403) William Lenthal John Sadler Nathaniel Hubart Arthur Barnardiston Thomas St. Nicholas Robert Aldworth (Abbott, I I I , 704) Lawrence Maidwell Matthew Pindar Robert Hales (A&O, I I , 950) Jasper Edwards William Goldisborough (the above two men served from 1654 to 1658 - Lords, I , 79) John Goodwin (?) Walter Long (?) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Chief Justice O l i v e r St, John (from 1649 to 1660 - Foss, V I , 407) Justices John Puleston Peter Warburton Edward Atkins (the above three were appointed i n 1649; the f i r s t two were replaced i n 1654 - Foss, V I , 407) Matthew Hales Hugh Wyndham . (replaced Puleston and Warburton i n 1654 - Foss, V I , 407) 159 COURT OF UPPER BENCH Chief Justice Justices - Henry Rolle (from 1648 to June, 1655 - Foss, VI, 405) John Glynne (replaced Rolle. Appointed June 15, 1655 - Foss, VI, 405) - P h i l i p Jermyn Robert Nicholas Richard Aske (the above three were appointed i n 1649? Nicholas was replaced i n 1654 and Jermyn i n 1655 - Foss,VI,406) Richard Newdigate (appointed June 2, 1654; removed i n 1655 ••,and restored i n 1657 - Foss,VI, 406) i Peter Warburton (appointed i n June, 1655 - Foss, VI,406) 160 BISHOPS' LANDS' The Trustees were appointed i n the Ordinance of October 9, 1646 (A&O, I, 879-883).' The Contractors and other o f f i c i a l s were named i n the Ordinance of November 17, 1646 (A&O, I, 887-904). Those Trustees marked by an asterisk l e f t the employment i n March,.1647 (A&O, I, 921-924). Trustees An Ordinance of March 5, 1647 (A&O, I, 921-924) gave them £2000 to be divided among them, •Thomas Adams S i r John Wollaston * S i r George Clark *John Langham John Fawk James Bunce William Glbbes Samuel Avery Thomas Noel Christopher Pack John Bellamy Edward Hooker Thomas Arnold Richard Glide William Hobson Francis Ash John Babington Laurence Bromfield Alexander Jones *John Jones Richard Venner Stephed Estwlck Robert Mead James Story Contractors - Their allowance was 2d. on the pound Register and Keeper of Records John Blackwell, Sr. S i r William Roberts Thomas Vyner Col. Richard Turner James Russel William Methold Thomas Ayres - £ 100 p. a. and writing fees William Prin Robert Fenwick Timothy Middleton Edward Cresset Henry Elsyng Register- Ac comp tant £ 200 p. a, Robert Manwaring Comptroller £ 200 p. a. John Fowk Treasurers - Their allowance was Id. on the pound William Gibbs Thomas Noel Francis Ash 161 DEANS1 AND^CHAPTERS' LANDS The Act of A p r i l 30, 1649 appointed a l l of the main o f f i c e r s (A&O, II, 8l r104). Trustees - Their allowance was 3d. on the pound. S i r John Wollaston Thomas Arnold Stephen Estwicke Mark Hildesley Daniel Tayler Thomas Noel Owen Roe Robert Tichborne John White William Rolf William Hobson George Langham John Stone William Wyberd Rowland Wilson Contractors - Their allowance was 3d. on the pound. Treasurers S i r William Roberts James Russel Robert Fenwick John Heyling Roger Smith Josias Berners John Blackwell, the elder Thomas Ayres Edward Cressit Nathaniel Whetarn Dr. William Parker Clement Oxenbridge.. - Their allowance was 2d. on the pound. Thomas Noel Stephen Estwicke William Hobson Register Register- Accomptant £100 p.a. and writing fees Henry Scobel ^ £200 p.a. •Robert Manwaring Surveyor- General £150 p.a. Col. William Webb Comptroller - John Fowk A further Ordinance of May 4, 1654 (A&0, II, 890-897) appointed James Noel as a Treasurer i n place of Thomas Noel (deceased). 162 CROWN GOODS The Act of July 4, 1649 appointed a l l of the main o f f i c e r s (A&O, I I , l 6 0 - l 6 8 ) . Trustees - Their allowance was 7d. on the pound. John Humphreys George Withers Anthony Mildmay Ralph Grafton Michael Lampier John Belchamp P h i l i p Cartwright Henry Creech John Foach David Powel Edward Winslow Contractors - Their allowance was 5d. on the pound. Daniel Norman John Hales Clement Kinnersley John Price Henry Parre William A l l e n Treasurers - Their salary was 2d. on the pound Humphrey Jones John Hunt 163 GROWN LANDS The major o f f i c i a l s were appointed i n the i n i t i a l Act of July 16, 1649 (A&O, II, 168-191). Additional minor o f f i c e r s and various replacements have mainly been extracted from Sidney Madge's The Domesday of Crown Lands, p a r t i c u l a r l y Appendix I I I , part IV., pp. 3^2-3457 Trustees - Their allowance was 3d. on the pound Thomas Coke William Boseville John Sparrow William Kenrick Ralph Harrison William Scott S i r Henry Holcroft ( u n t i l Dec. 31, 1652 - Madge, p. 343) William Steele, Silvanus Taylor Dr. Thomas Hubbard Cornelius Coke, John Hunt S i r Edward Barkham Contractors - Their allowance was 3d. on the pound S i r William Roberts Thomas Ayres John White James Stockal Edward Cresset S i r Richard Saltonstal John Humphreys (resigned Dec. 31, 1652) Daniel Searl Nicholas Lempriere Nicholas Bond Richard Sidenham Robert Fenwick Treasurers - Their allowance was Id. on the pound Thomas Andrews John Dethick S i r John Wollaston Francis A l l e n Registrar - £l00 p. a. and writing fees Henry Colbron On his death, sometime before Feb., 1656, he was replaced by John Wheatley (CSPD, IX, 168). Record Clerk - William Ryley (Madge,p.343) 164 CROWN LANDS (continued) Surveyor- General £150 p. a. Col. William Webb After the Act of December 31, 1652 (A&O, II, 69I-696), Silvanus Taylor, a Trustee, was appointed Assistant Surveyor-General. Comptroller - £300 p. a, Henry Robinson Madge also names a Deputy, Henry Sefton, and a further Comptroller, Henry Smith (Madge, p. 343) . However, i t seems ce r t a i n that Robinson kept his p o s i t i o n u n t i l the Restoration (Jordan, p. 6$). With the s i m i l a r i t y of names—Henry Sefton and Henry S m i t h — i t i s possible that they are one and the same man. Registrar of - William Potter (Madge, p. 343) Debentures Secretary to - Michael Lea (Madge, p. 343) the Trustees Examiners - Jegon Mandeville William Jessop John Caser John Light John C o l l i n s (Madge, pp. 342-344) Auditors - William Jugh Mr. Powell William H a l l (Madge, pp. 342-344) Counsel for - Ralph Darnall Richard Graves Sale and Conveyancing (Madge, p. 343) 165 FORFEITED ESTATES A l l of the main o f f i c i a l s were named i n the f i r s t Act f o r the sale of f o r f e i t e d estates of July 16, 1651 (A&O, II, 520-545). A second group of estates was put up f o r sale i n an Act of November 18, 1652 (A&O, II, 623-652). Minor changes i n personnel i n the second Act have been noted below. Trustees - Their allowance was 2d, on the pound William Skinner William Robinson Samuel Gooking Henry Sealy William L i s l e Arthur Samuel Sampson S h e f f i e l d ( u n t i l Nov., 1652) Matthias Valentine (from Nov., 1652) Treasurers S i r John Wollaston Thomas Andrews John Dethick Francis A l l e n Surveyor- General £ 1 0 0 p. a. John Baker Register £100 p. a. Ralph Darnal Comptroller £200 p. a. Randal Manwaring Register- Accomptant - £100 p. a. Robert Manwaring In the Act of November, 1652, the Register- Accomptant was replaced by three o f f i c i a l s who were to have £ 200 p. a.' each. P h i l i p Tandy Edward Green William Benson 166 FEE FARM RENTS The i n i t i a l Act of March 11, 1650 (A&O, II, 358-362) named the same Trustees and Contractors as those appointed f o r the sale of Crown Lands. Furthermore, the same four Treasurers were also named as was the same Registrar and Comptroller.. The s a l a r i e s of the Trustees, Contractors, Treasurers, Comptroller and Registrar were given i n an additional Act of February 6, 1651 (A&O, II, 498-500). A l l were to have 2d. on the pound divided among them i n a proportion to be decided by the Committee fo r Obstructions. However, this poundage was allowed only when doubling occurred i n the contract. This was a reduction from the salary allowed i n the o r i g i n a l Act, 3d. on the pound on the straight sales. CROWN FORESTS The main o f f i c i a l s were appointed i n the i n i t i a l Act of November 22, 1653 (A&O, 11, 783-812). Trustees - Their salary was £300 p. a. each Edward Cresset William Webb John Parker Josias Berners Henry P i t t Robert Aldworth Francis Mussenden Treasurers Surveyor- General , and Register Their salary was £200 p. a. each Charles Doyly Matthew Sheppard His salary was £100 p. a. Ralph H a l l - ' • Register- Ac comp tant His salary was £150 p. a. William Benson 16? SALE OF FOUR FORESTS RESERVED FOR SOLDIERS An Act of August 30,•1654 •(A&O,' II, 993-999) vested the sale of four forests reserved f o r soldiers i n the hands of the same body of Trustees and Contractors, s t i l l surviving, that were named i n the Act f o r the sale of Crown Lands. COMMISSIONERS FOR REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS These o f f i c i a l s were appointed i n an Act of A p r i l 1, 1652 (A&O, II, 581)' The same Commissioners remained i n power at least u n t i l March, 1656 when they were called "dissolved" (CSPD", I X , 203-207). Their salary was £200 p. a. each (CSPD, VvII, 397). COMMISSIONERS FOR NAMING DISCOVERIES This seems to be a new body appointed A p r i l '6, 1656 (CSPD, IX., 278). - Josias Berners Francis Mussenden S i r William Roberts John Parker Henry P i t t , Matthias Valentine Robert Aldworth - Ralph H a l l Edward Oarey , Mr. E l l i s t o n Mr. G r i f f i t h Mr. Wilsby Major Bridges Registrar - Ferdinando Packhurst (CSPD, I X , 279) TRUSTEES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF. PREACHTNG MINISTERS 168 The Trustees i n o f f i c e under the Protectorate were appointed i n an Ordinance of. September 2, 1654 (A&O, II, 1000-06). Their salary was £100 p. a. each. - William Steel Ralph Hall S i r John Thorowgood Richard Sydenham George Cowper Edward Hopkins Richard Young John Humphrey John Pocock Edward Cresset Under the Trustees f o r Maintenance were several o f f i c i a l s f o r the supervision of F i r s t E r u i t s and Tenths (Shaw, II, Appendix IX, 570-6000). Remembrancer - James Rogers Deputy - Thomas Baker Remembrancer Receiver of F i r s t F r u i t s and Tenths and Treasurer to the Trustees f o r Maintenance - Lawrence Steele COMMISSIONERS FOR THE APPROBATION OF PREACHERS The o r i g i n a l Commissioners were appointed i n an Ordinance of March 20, 1654 (A&0, II, 855-858). Commissioners - They do not seem to have been paid u n t i l August, 1655 when they were given£200 p.a. each (CSPD, M i l , 30k). - Francis Rous Dr. John Owen Dr. Arrowsmith Dr. Horton Mr. P h i l i p Ny Mr. Sidrach Simpson Mr. William Strong Mr. Samuel. Sla t e r Mr. Stephen Marshal Mr. Walter Cradock Mr. Hugh Peters Mr. Samuel Bamford Mr. Henry Jessee Mr. Nicholas Lockier Mr. James Russel Dr. Thomas Goodwin Mr. Thankful Owen Dr. Tuckney Mr. Joseph Caryl Mr. William Carter Mr. William Greenhill Mr. Thomas Manton Mr. William Cowper Mr. John Tombes Mr. Sanuel F a i r c l o t h Mr. Peter Sterry Mr. Thomas Valentine Mr. Obadiah Sedgewick Mr. Daniel Dyke Mr. Nathaniel Campfield (cont.) 169 Robert Tichborn Thomas Wood William Goffe William Packer Mark Hildesley John Sadler Thomas St. Nicholas Edward Cresset Additional - Appointed i n an Ordinance of September.2, 1654 Commissioners (A&O, II, 1025-26). John Row Mr. John Bond Mr. George G r i f f i t h John Turner Godfrey Bosvile COURT OP ADMIRALTY The Admiralty Judges i n o f f i c e during the Protectorate were appointed i n an Ordinance of July 30,,1653 (A&O, I I , 712-713)» Other judges appear to have been added l a t e r . Judges - Their salary was £500 p. a. each (CSPD,, V..1I, 144) . • Dr. John Godolphln Dr. William Clark Charles-George Cock Additional - Dr. Walter Walker (mentioned CSPD, VIII, l j Judges January, 1655) John Clark (added May 4, 1655,CSPD, VIII, Thomas Kelsey (152) Marshal of the - Solomon Smith (CSPD, VII, I 8 9 ) Admiralty Court Registrars John Rushworth (appointed mid-1654, William Roe CSPD, VII, 374) 170 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE The only High Court of Jus t i c e appointed during the Protectorate was i n i t i a t e d i n an Ordinance of June 13• 1654 (A&O, II, 917-918). Commissioners - John L i s l e Richard Ask William Steele Robert Tichborn Thomas Andrews William Underwood Matthew Sheppard Maurice Thompson Daniel Taylor S i r William Roberts Edward Cresset S i r John Thorowgood Anthony Rous James P h i l i p s John Stone Alban Cox Edward Atkins Robert Nicholas John Corbet Stephen Es.twick Mark Hildesley Thomas A l l e n George Langham Richard Shute Edmund Waring George Cooper William Webb William Ligon Richard Lucy Edward Winslow Thomas Fauconberge John Bocket President - John L i s l e (Abbott,III, 35D Clerk of the - John Phelps (Abbott, I I I , 351) High Court COMMISSIONERS FOR MANAGING ESTATES UNDER SEQUESTRATION . The o f f i c e r s i n power under the Protectorate were appointed on February 10, 1654 (A&O, I I , 839-842). Commissioners - Their salary was £ 3 0 0 p. a. each (CSPD,VIII,97). Treasurers Registrar Auditors Examiner Josias Berners Richard Moor Edward Gary Richard Sherwin Edward Winslow John Upton Rice Williams John Leach £ 150 p. a. Martin D a l l i s o n (CSPD, VIII, 97) £175 P« a. each Thomas Browne Dancer Hancock (CSPD, VIII, 97) £ 100 p. a. John Birkenshaw (CSPD, VIII, 97) 171 COMMISSIONERS FOR RECEIPTS OF LISTS OF PUBLIC DEBTORS AND CREDITORS The following Commissioners were appointed i n an Act of October 7, 1653 (A&O, I I , 765-?6?). Commissioners - Their salary was £200 p. a. each (CSPD, IX, 299) • Major William Bridges John Greensmith Simon Cressy Mark Coe Robert Perwich P h i l i p Tandy William Maddison TRADE AND NAVIGATION COMMITTEE Some were named i n an Order of July 12, 1655 (CSPD, VIII, 240). - Edward Montague S i r Charles Wolsley P h i l i p Jones S i r Thomas Widdringto Thomas Grove Andrew Riccard Dennis Bond Mr. Snow George Foxcraft Martin Noel Others were added November 1, -.Lord Richard Cromwell John Glynn ? Mr. Cullen John Trevor William Ashurst William Steele Mr. T o l l Col. John Bright John Crew John Stone Mr. Dunne Mr. Legay William Pierpoint William Sydenham S i r G i l b e r t Pickering Bulstrode Whitelocke n Oliver St. John Christopher Pack Maurice Thompson S i r Henry Blount John Upton Nathaniel Wright Captain Henry H a t s e l l 1655 (CSPD, IX, 1). John L i s l e Thomas Dickenson Joseph Jackson William Berry Nathaniel Fiennes Robert Tichborne Francis Drake S i r G i l b e r t Gerrard Justice Hale Thomas Bonner Richard Norton S i r John Hobart 1?2 TRADE AND NAVIGATION COMMITTEE (continued) Others were added from time to time. John Thurloe Dec. 12, 1655 (CSPD, IX, 5k) Francis Dincke II •t William Wheeler • i it Edmund Waller « ti George Downing Dec. 25. 1655 (CSPD, IX, 73) John Ireton Jan. 4, 1656 (CSPD, IX, 100) William Purefoy it II Godfrey B o s v i l l e II II Edward Lawrence Jan. 11, 1656 (CSPD, IX, 114) John St. Barbe ti II John Claypole Jan. 15, 1656 (CSPD, IX, 115) John Barnard II II S i r John Reignolds Jan. 30, 1656 (CSPD, IX, 141) Col. Arthur H i l l II It George Berkeley ti It Thomas Whitegreave n II Francis St. John Feb. 5, 1656 (CSPD, IX, 162) Col. John Jones it It Henry Wright _ n II Mr. Frederick Feb. 15, 1656 (CSPD, IX, 188) Richard Ford M II Nehemiah Bourne •1 M Charles Howard A p r i l 3. I656 (CSPD, i x , 252) Robert Berwick A p r i l 15 ;,, 1656 (CSPD, IX, 272) Richard Ingoldsby May- 20, 1656 (CSPD, i x , 327) Edmund Thomas n It Thomas Banks June 19, 1656 (CSPD, IX, 382) Christopher L i s t e r July 8, I656 (CSPD, x , 10) MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE LONG PARLIAMENT FOR LAW REFORM ; Sat from January I652 u n t i l the d i s s o l u t i o n of the Long Parliament i n 1653• Information from F. A. Inderwick, The Interregnum, p. 206. Matthew Hale, Chairman Charles George Cock John Sadler Josias Berners Samuel Moyer Col. Matthew Tomlinson Alderman J . Fowk Major W. Packer Mr. W. Methwold John Rushworth Dr. Walker William Steele Thomas Manby Col. Thomas Blunt John Desborough John Sparrow,Jr. John Fountain Mr. Hugh Peters S i r William Roberts John Mansel S i r Anthony A. Cooper Dr. Turner 173 APPENDIX II OFFICE-HOLDERS IN PARLIAMENT The following comprises a l i s t of a l l known c i v i l o ffice-holders who sat i n the Parliaments of 1654 and I656. The method of se l e c t i o n used to determine incl u s i o n i n the l i s t i s discussed above on pages 84 to 86. Appreviations used i n the tables are as followsj R = Recruiter I = Rumper P = Purged from Long Parliament K = Voted f o r Cromwell as king E = Excluded from s i t t i n g i n I656, or 1660 * m Elected but didn't s i t L = Sat i n the House of Lords The main sources used to determine the membership of the Parliaments dealt with were* Burton, Thomas. Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq., ed.'J. T. Rutt. Brunton, D. and D. H. Pennington. Members of the Long Parliament. Cobbett, William, ed. The Parliamentary History of England. Davies, Godfrey. "The E l e c t i o n of Richard Cromwell's Parliament, 1658-9," English H i s t o r i c a l Review. Glass, Henry A. The Barebone Parliament. Jones, C. F. Treyallyn. "The Composition and Leadership of the Presbyterian Party i n the Convention," English H i s t o r i c a l Review. 17k K e l l e r , M. F. The Long Parliament, 1640-1641. MA Narrative of the la t e Parliament. . . . " (Printed i n The Harleian Miscellany.) "A Mystery of the Good Old Cause. . . ." (Printed i n The Parliamentary History of England, ed. William Cobbett. The Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England. Pinckney, Paul J . "The Scottish representation i n the Cromwellian parliament of 1 6 5 6 , " Scottish H i s t o r i c a l Review. Williams, W. R. J., ed. The Parliamentary History of the P r i n c i p a l i t y of Wales, 1541-95. Y u l e , G . The Independents i n the E n g l i s h C i v i l War. 175 L. P.. 1653 1654 1656 1658 1660 ALDWORTH, Robert ; x xK x x AUDLEY, Lewis x BACON, Francis xRI x xK x x BACON, Nathaniel xRI x xK x x BARKSTEAD, S i r John x x x BARTON, Nathaniel x x BAYNES, Adam x x x BEDFORD, Samuel x xK BEKE, Richard xK BEKE, Robert x xK x BENNET, Gervas x x xK x BERNERS, Josias x BLACKWELL, John x BLAGRAVE, Daniel xRI x x BLAKE, Alexander x x x BODURDA, G r i f f i t h xK x x BOND, Dennis x l x xK BURTON, William x x x BUTLER, Edward x BROGHILL, Lord x xK L BYSSHE, Edward xP x x CAREY, Edward x GRADWICK, James x x CLAPTRORNE, George x* CLERKE, John x x xK x CLEYPOLE, John • x xK x .CLUD, Edward x x L. P. 1653 1654 1656 1658 1660 COCK, Charles George X COKE, Thomas X COOPER, Anthony A. X* X X xE. X X CROMWELL, Henry X xK X X CROMWELL, Richard X X DESBOROUGH, John X X X DESBOROUGH, Samuel X X X DOWNING, George X xK X DUNNE, Thomasr X EDWARDS, Richard xEI X ELLIS, William x l X X X xE FAUCONBERGE, Thomas X FENWICK, Robert X X X FENWTCK, William xRP X X X X FIENNES, Nathaniel xP X xK X FLEETWOOD, Charles. xRI X X X FLEETWOOD, Miles xK X FOOT, Thomas X xK GIBBS, William X xE GILES, Edmund X GILL, Edward X X GLYNN, John xP X xK X X GOFFE, William X X X GOODWIN, John x l X xEK X X GOODWIN, Robert x l X X L. P. 1653 1654 1656 1658 1660 GOOKIN, Vincent X X X GORGES, Thomas X X X X HALE, Matthew X X X HARVEY, Edmund X xE xE HATSEL, Henry X X X HAYNES, Hezekiah X HERBERT, S i r Edward xK HILDESLEY, John X X X X X HILL,, Roger x l X HOPKINS, Edward X HORSEMAN, Edward X X X HOSKINS, Bennet' xRP X X X HOWARD, Charles X X xK X X JEPHSON, William xP X xK JONES, P h i l i p xRI X X xK X KEELING, Edward X X KELSEY, Thomas X X KING;, Ralph X x~ KING, S i r Robert X X X LAMBERT, John X X X XE: LAWRENCE, Henry xRP X X xK X LAWRENCE, William X LECHMERE, Nicholas xRI X X X LENTHALL, William x l X xK X LISLE, John x l X xK X L . P. 1653 1654 1656 1658 LISLE, Viscount x l x X X X LISTER, Christopher X X LLOYD, Charles X xK X LOCKHART, William X X xK X LONG, Lislebone xRI X xK X LUCY, Richard X X xK MacDOWEL, S i r James X X X MACKWORTH, Humphrey X MACKWORTH, Thomas xRP X X MAIDSTONE, John X X MARGETS,., Thomas , X X MARKHAM, Henry xK X MASHAM, S i r William X MATTHEWES, Joachim X X X MONTAGUE, Edward xRP X X xK X NICHOLAS, John X X NOELL, Martin xK PACK, Christopher xK X PARKER, John X X X PEDLEY, Nicholas X X PHILIPS, James X X xK X PICKERING, S i r G i l b e r t x l X X X X PRICE, John X X PRIDEAUX, Edmund x l X xK X PURY, Thomas Sen. x l X RHODES, S i r Edward X X L. P. 1653 1654 1656. ROUS, Anthony x X X ROUS, Francis x l X X X ROBERTS, S i r William • x : X xK RUSSEL, S i r Francis xRI X xK ST.. AUBIN, John , X ST. NICHOLAS, Thomas X X SALMON, Edward X SHAPCOT, Robert xRP X X SKIPPON, P h i l i p xRI X X SMITH, Anthony X xK SMITH, George X X SMITH, Thomas xK STEELE, William X STONE, John X X xK STRICKLAND, Walter xRI X x X SWINTON, John X X X SYDENHAM, William xRI X X X TEMPLE, S i r John • xRP X THOROWGOOD, S i r John X THORPE, Francis xRI ' X xE THURLOE, John X xK UPTON, Arthur X X UPTON, John X xK L. P. 1653 1654 1656 180 1658 1660 WARCUPP, Robert WARING, Edward WATERHOUSE, Nathaniel WEMYSS, S i r John WHALLEY, Henry WHETAM, Nathaniel WHITELOCK, Bulstrode x l WIDDRINGTON, S i r Thomas x l WINGATE, Edmund WOLSELEY, S i r Charles x X X X X X xK X X xK X xK X X 181 APPENDIX III THE KEY MEN Robert Aldworth Thomas Kelsey 1 Francis Bacon Nicholas Lechmere Nathaniel Bacon William Lenthall S i r John Barkstead William Lockhart Adam Baynes Lislebone Long Gervas Bennet Richard Lucy Josias Berners P h i l i p Meadows John Blackwell Robert Nicholas Daniel Bladgrave Martin Noell G r i f f i t h Budorda Christopher Pack Dennis. Bond John Parker William Burton James, P h i l i p s John Clarke, John Price Edward Clud Edmund Prideaux Charles George Cocke Thomas Pury, Sen. Thomas•Coke S i r William Roberts Miles Corbet Henry Robinson Edward Cresset Anthony Rous George Downing John Sadler William E l l i s O l iver St. John Robert Fenwick William Sheppard Nathaniel Fiennes John Sparrow, J r . John Glynn, William Steele . Matthew Hale John Stone John Hildesley John Thurloe Roger H i l l Robert Tichborne Edward Hopkins Bulstrode Whitelocke Edward Horseman S i r Thomas Widdrington William Jessop Thomas Wood

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 15 1
France 3 0
China 3 1
Japan 2 0
Germany 2 179
Chile 1 1
Canada 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 6 180
Buffalo 5 0
Fort Lauderdale 3 0
Beijing 3 0
Ashburn 2 0
Tokyo 2 0
Matawan 1 0
Boardman 1 0
Oakville 1 0
Roubaix 1 0
Dallas 1 0
Mountain View 1 1

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items