Cromwell, Richard (DNB00)
CROMWELL, RICHARD (1626–1712), Lord Protector, third son of Oliver Cromwell [q. v.] and Elizabeth Bourchier, was born on 4 Oct. 1626 (Noble, i. 158). He is said to have been educated at Felstead school, like his eldest brother Robert (ib. i. 158), and probably entered the parliamentary army as his brothers Oliver and Henry did. Lilburn, writing in 1647, states that both Cromwell's sons then held commissions in the army, and only Richard and Henry then survived (Cromwelliana, p 36). On 27 May 1647 Richard Cromwell was admitted a member of Lincoln's Inn (Noble, i. 159). In February 1648, through the good offices of Colonel Richard Norton, negotiations were commenced for the marriage of Richard Cromwell with Dorothy, daughter of Richard Mayor, or Major, of Hursley in Hampshire. The treaty was broken off on the question of settlements, but resumed again in February 1649, and ended in Richard's marriage to Dorothy Mayor on 1 May 1649 (Carlyle, Letters liii. lvi. lxxxvii. xcvi.) The character of Richard Cromwell at this period may be gathered from his father's letters. Cromwell suspected his son of idleness and lack of the seriousness which the times required (ib. xcix. ci.) He urged Mr. Mayor to give his son-in-law plenty of good advice. 'I would have him mind and understand business, read a little history, study the mathematics, and cosmography; these are good with subordination to the things of God; better than idleness or mere worldly contents; these fit for public services for which a man is born' (ib. c.) In a subsequent letter to Richard himself his father urged him to 'take heed of an inactive, vain spirit, read Sir Walter Raleigh's history of the world, and endeavour to learn how to manage his own estate' (ib. cxxxii.) But Richard did not follow these counsels; he exceeded his allowance and fell into debt, neglected the management of his estate, and allowed himself to be defrauded by his bailiff (ib. clxxviii.) During the early part of tlie protectorate he appears to have devoted himself entirely to hunting and field sports. In the parliaments of 1654 and 1656 Richard was in each case returned for two constituencies, but decided to sit in the former for Hampshire, in the latter for Cambridge (Return of Names of Members elected to serve in Parliament, 1878, pp. 501, 505). On 11 Nov. 1665 the Protector appointed Richard one of the committee of trade and navigation; this was his first public employment. The Protector at first seems to have kept back his sons; his desire was, he wrote, that they should both have lived private lives in the country (22 June 1655, Letter cxcix). He informed parliament in January 1655 that if they had offered to make the government hereditary in his family he would have rejected it; men should be chosen to govern for their love to God, to truth and to Justice, not for their worth; for as it is in the Ecclesiastes, ‘Who knoweth whether he may beget a fool or a wise man ?’ (Carlyle, Speech iv.) After the second foundation of the protectorate, and the attribution to the Protector by the petition and advice of the right to nominate his own successor, a change seems to have taken place in Cromwell’s policy. Richard was brought to the front and given a prominent place in the government. He became chancellor of the university of Oxford in his father’s place (18 July 1657, Mercurius Politicus, pp. 7948, 7957), a member of the council of state (31 Dec. 1657, Cal. of State Papers, Dom. 1657-8, pp. 208, 239), and was given the command of a regiment (before March 1658, ib. p.338). He was naturally nominated a member of Cromwell’s House of Lords, and is the subject of a very unfavourable sketch in a republican pamphlet on that body. ‘A person well skilled in hawking, hunting, horse-racing, with other sports and pastimes; one whose undertakings, hazards, and services for the cause cannot well be numbered or set forth, unless the drinking of King Charles, or, as is so commonly spoken, of his father’s landlord’s health’ (‘A Second Narrative of the late Parliament,' 1658, Harleian Miscellany, iii. 475). Although no public nomination had taken place, Richard was already regarded by many as his father’s destined successor (ib.; see also Lockhart’s letters in Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1657-8, 266). On his journeys through England be was received with the pomp befitting the heir of the throne (Mercurius Politicus, 1-8 July 1658, ‘Account of Richard Cromwell’s Visit to Bristol’). The question of the succession was raised in August 1658 by the Protector’s illness. A letter written by Richard on 28 Aug. to John Dunch shows that he expected his father to recover (Parliamentary History, xxi. 223). No nomination had then taken place. Thurloe, in a letter dated 30 Aug. 1658, states that Cromwell, immediately before his second installation as Protector. nominated a successor in a sealed paper addressed to Thurloe himself; but kept the paper in his own possession, and the name of the person a secret (Thurloe, vii. 364). After he fell sick at Hampton Court he sent a messenger to search for the paper in his study at Whitehall, but it could not be found. There were, therefore, fears lest he should die before appointing a successor. In a subsequent letter Thurloe states that Cromwell on Monday, 30 Aug., declared Richard his successor, but Fauconberg, writing on 30 Aug., states that no successor is yet declared, and in a letter of 7 Sept. states that Richard was nominated on the night of 2 Sept., and not before (ib. 365, 372, 375). According to Baker's ‘Chronicle’ Richard was twice nominated, first on 31 Aug. and again more formally on 2 Sept., and this story appears best to reconcile the conflicting accounts given by Thurloe and Fauconberg (Baker, Chronicle, ed. 1670, p. 652). Richard was proclaimed protector some three hours after his father’s death. According to Fauconberg the intervening time was spent simply in drawing up the proclamation (Thurloe, 375); but an interview is also said to have taken place between the leaders of the civil and military parties in the council, in which the latter solemnly pledged themselves to accept Richard (Baker, 653). The official proclamation of Richard may be found in ‘Mercurius Politicus,’ 3 Sept. 1658 ; the ‘Old Parliamentary History,’ xxi. 228. Richard’s accession met, for the moment., with universal acceptance. Addresses from every county and public body in England fill the ages of ‘Mercurius Politicus,’ and are to be found collected in a pamphlet said to be by Vavasour Powell (‘A True Catalogue or Account of the several Places and most eminent Persons in the Three Nations by whom Richard Cromwell was proclaimed Lord Protector: as also a Collection of the most material Passages in the several blasphemous, lying, flattering Addresses, being ninety-four in number, &c.,’ 1659). The university of Cambridge combined lamentations and rejoicings in verses entitled ‘Musarum Cantabrigiensium luctus et gratulatio.' The court of France, which went into mourning for Oliver, conveyed the friendliest assurances to Richard. Spain sent overtures for peace, and John De Witt expressed to the English envoy his lively joy at Richard’s peaceful accession (Guizot, 1. 9; Thurloe, vii. 379). One danger, however, threatened the new government from the very beginning. Thurloe, in announcing to Henry Cromwell his brother's easy an peaceable entrance upon his government (‘There is not a dog that wags his tongue, so great a calm are we in’), was oblige to add: ‘There are some secret murmurings in the army, as if his highness were not general of the army as his father was.’ ‘Somewhat is brewing underhand,’ wrote Fauconberg a week later; ‘a cabal there is of persons, and great ones resolved, it is feared, to rule themselves or set all on fire’ (Thurloe, vii. 374, 386). An address from the officers of the army, promising support I was presented to Richard on 18 Sept. (Mercurius Politicus, 18 Sept. 1658 ; Parliamentary History, xxi. 236). At the beginning of October, however, a number of officers met together and resolved to petition for the aiipointmeut of a commander-in-chief, who should be a soldier and have the appointment of inferior officers, and that for the future no officer should be dismissed but by the sentence of a court-martial (Thurloe, vii. 434-6). This petition does not seem to have been actually presented, but Richard called the officers then in London together, heard their desires, and then in an able speech, partly composed by Thurloe, set forth his reasons for refusing to comply with their wishes (ib, vii. 447 ). He ended by saying that nothing troubled him so much as that the pay of the army was in arrears, and expressing his intention to settle their pay better for the future. In pursuance oi this policy he had already, if Bordeaux is to be trusted, increased the pay of the soldiers, raising that of the cavalry fourpence and that of the infantry twopence a day, by which sums their pay had been reduced some years before (Guizot, i. 238). Besides the divisions in the army there were divisions in the council. The military members were jealous of the influence of Thurloe with the Protector, and he was driven to ask leave to retire (Thurloe, vii. 490). It was said that Thurloe governed the Protector, and St. John and Pierrepoint governed Thurloe (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 423). An attempt to add Lords Broghil and Falconbridge to the council roused fierce opposition (Baker, p. 657; Guizot, i. 271). Under these circumstances there was a certain hesitation in the foreign policy of the government. England was still at war with Spain, and pledged by the policy of the late protector to assist Sweden against Denmark and its Gennan allies. But in spite of the pressure of Mazarin, Richard's advisers delayed intervening on behalf of Sweden (Guizot, i. 23). In November, however, a fleet under Admiral Goodson was despatched to the Sound, but it was met by contrary winds and returned having effected nothing (Cal. State Papers, Dom 1658-9, pp. 182, 198, 23l). A parliament was necessary to decide between contending parties, to strengthen the government in its foreign negotiations, and provide for the needs of the public service, So great was the government's need of money that the Protector had been driven to attempt to borrow 50,000/. from Mazarin, the garrison of Dunkirk was in a state of mutiny, and there were -rumours in London that the soldiers meant to seize the body of the late protector as security for their pay (Guizot, i. 21, 29, 260). On 29 Nov. it was decided to call a parliament, and to make it more favourable to the government it was resolved to return to the old method of election. The little boroughs were more easy to influence than the larger constituencies created by the 'instrument of government' and the petition and advice. The representatives of Ireland and Scotland were retained, because those countries could be relied on to return supporters of the government (Thurloe, vii. 541 ; Ludlow, ed. 1751, p. 234). Parliament met on 27 Jan. 1659, and it was computed that it contained over two hundred steady supporters of the protectorate, and only fifty determined opponents (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 440). Richard's opening speech contained a dignified tribute to his father, and assurance of his resolution to govern through parliamenta. He commended to the care of the house the payment of the arrears of the army and the preservation of the freedom of the Sound (Parliamentary History, xxi. 265 ; Burton, iii. 7). An opponent notes that the Protector made, 'beyond expectation, a very handsome speech, exceeding that which followed by his keeper of the great seal' (Bethel, 'A brief Narrative ot the Parliament called by Richard Cromwell,' annexed to The Interests of the Princes and States of Europe, 1694, p. 334). On 1 Feb. Thurloe introduced a bill for the recognition of the Protector (Burton, iii. 27). In the debate on the second reading the opposition, while professing great affection for Richard's person, refused to admit the validity of his authority. 'I do love the person of the Lord Protector,' said Haselrig ; 'I never saw nor heard either fraud or guile in him.' 'If you think of a single person, I would sooner have him than any man alive,' said Scott. 'The sweetness of his voice and language has won my heart, and I find the people well satisfied with his government,' said a third member (ib, iii. 1C5, 112). On 14 Feb. by 223 to 134 votes it was decided 'to recognise and declare his highness, Richard, lord protector, to be the lord protector and chief magistrate of England, Scotland, and Ireland,' but the opposition secured the omission of the term 'undoubted,' and the addition of a resolution that the Protector's power shoidd be bounded by supplementary clauses to form part of the bill (ib. iii. 287; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 426). The question next raised was the recognition of the second chamber established by the petition and advice, and it was resolved on 25 March, by 198 to 125 votes, 'to transact with the persons now sitting in the other house, as a house of parliament, during this present session’ (Burton, iv. 293). It was also resolved that the Scotch and Irish members should be admitted to sit and vote during the present parliament (21 and 23 March, ib. iv. 219, 243). Moreover, in the debates on foreign affairs, though the republicans made a damaging attack on the foreign policy of the late protector, and raised the whole question of the right of peace and war, the disposal of the fleet to be set out was eventually left in the hands of the Protector, instead of being entrusted to a committee (ib. iii. 376, 493). At the end of March a fleet was accordingly despatched to the Sound under the command of Admiral Montague. By these repeated victories the essential principles of Richard's government had obtained parliamentary sanction, but in two respects he was less successful. The debates on the question of supplies were long and bitter. The existence of the fixed revenue of 1,300,000l. established by the petition and advice was attacked, and, when a bill was introduced to settle certain taxes on the Protector for life, it was defeated by a resolution that, after the termination of the present parliament, no tax should be levied under any previous law or ordinance, unless expressly sanctioned by the present parliament (ib. iv. 327, 1 April). Still more serious were the proceedings of the committee of grievances. The cases of Fifth-monarchy men imprisoned without legal trial, cavaliers deported to Barbadoes, and persons oppressed by the major-generals, gave rise to excited discussion. One of the major-generals was impeached, and a committee was appointed to consider of a course of proceeding against him, and against other delinquents (ib. iv. 412, 12 April). From the first these proceedings threatened the soldiers who had executed the orders of the late government and roused the hostility of the army. About the end of March Fleetwood and Desborough contrived to obtain the consent of Richard to the meeting of the council of the army, but the history of this transaction is obscure (Morris, Orrery State Papers, i. 64, ed. 1743 ; Ludlow, p. 242, ed. 1751). On 6 April the council presented a declaration to the Protector setting forth the dangers of the cause and the grievances of the army. It concluded with the demand for a public assertion of the good old cause, a justification and confirmation of all proceedings in the prosecution of it, and a declaration against its enemies (Parliamentary History, xxi. 345; Guizot, i. 116). The Protector forwarded the declaration to the House of Commons, who replied to it ten days later by a vote that no general council of officers should be held without the permission of the Protector and both houses of parliament, and that no person should hold a commission in the army or navy unless he signed an engagement not to interrupt the meetings of parliament (Burton, iv. 461, 18 April). The Protector, who was requested to acquaint the officers with this vote, immediately sent for them, and ordered them to repair to their commands (Thurloe, vii. 658; Guizot, i. 364; Ludlow, p. 243). The council professed obedience, but continued their meetings and prepared for action. It was believed that an attempt would be made to seize the Protector at Whitehall. Colonel Charles Howard and Colonel Ingoldsby offered to arrest the chief conspirators, but Richard is traditionally reported to have answered, ‘I will not have a drop of blood spilt for the preservation of my greatness, which is a burden to me’ (Heath, Chronicle, p. 744; Noble, i. 330). He sent for Fleetwood to Whitehall, but Fleetwood did not even answer his summons, and ordered a rendezvous of the army at St. James's for 21 April. The Protector ordered a rendezvous at Whitehall at the same time, but nearly all the regiments in London obeyed Fleetwood, and even the greater part of regiments held trustworthy deserted their commanders and marched to St. James's. On the afternoon of the 21st Desborough came to Richard at Whitehall and told him ‘that if he would dissolve his parliament the officers would take care of him; but that if he refused so to do they would do it without him, and leave him to shift for himself’ (Ludlow, p. 244). After some hours' hesitation Richard decided to throw in his lot with the army. Bordeaux, in a despatch written the day before, had predicted that he would do so, and had given the reasons. ‘He will yield to the wishes of the army leaders, and prefer this to placing himself in the hands of the parliament, which is composed of men of no solidity who would desert him at a pinch, and some of whom are on his side only so long as they believe it to be consistent with the design of restoring the king’ (Guizot, i. 367). After resisting for several hours Richard gave way, and late on the night of the 21st signed an order dissolving the parliament (Burton, iv. 482; Guizot, i. 371). Fleetwood and Desborough seem to have really intended to maintain Richard in the dignity of protector. ‘The chief officers would have left the Protector a duke of Venice, for his father's sake, who raised them, and their relation to him which they had forgotten till now’ (‘England's Confusion,’ 1659, Somers Tracts, vi. 520; Lublow, 244; Guizot, i. 373). But the inferior officers and the republican party in in the city were too strong for them, and obliged them to recall the Long parliament, 7 May. In a meeting between the heads of the army and the parliament some days before the recall of the latter, it was agreed that some provision should be made for Richard, but that his power should come entirely to an end (Ludlow, p. 246). Meanwhile, he was receiving through Thurloe repeated offers of French assistance to re-establish his authority (Guizot, i. 379, 385). ‘Either because his heart failed him, or because his friends were unwilling to expose themselves to the chances of a civil war,’ writes Bordeaux, ‘I received no answer but in general terms, and instead of confessing the danger, the secretary of state, on the very eve of the restoration of the Long parliament, sent me word there were great hopes of an accommodation with the army’ (ib. i. 385).
At the same moment great efforts were being made to induce both Richard and Henry Cromwell to forward a restoration. The French ambassador was ready to support such a project rather than see England again a commonwealth, and Heath speaks of a negotiation conducted through the Danish ambassador (ib. i. 386, 394; Heath, Chronicle, ed. 1663, 744). One of the royalist agents states circumstantially that Richard had at one time determined to declare for the king. He had arranged to write to Montague, Lockhart, Colonel Norton, and Henry Cromwell to concert a movement, and was to be rewarded by a pension of 20,000l. a year and a corresponding dignity. At the last moment, however, he drew back and refused to sign the letters which had been prepared, or to take advantage of the opportunity of escaping and joining the fleet which had been arranged for him (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 469, 477, 478). But these statements need some confirmation from independent sources. On 13 May the army presented a petition to the restored Long parliament, by one article of which they demanded that all debts contracted by Richard since his accession should be satisfied; that an income of 10,000l. a year should be settled on him and his heirs, and an additional 10,000l. during his life, ‘to the end that a mark of the high esteem this nation hath of the good service done by his father, our ever-renowned general, may remain to posterity’ (Parliamentary History, xxi. 405). The house appointed a committee to consider the late protector's debts and receive his submission. On 25 May his submission to the new government was communicated to the house. ‘I trust,’ he wrote, ‘that my past carriage hitherto hath manifested my acquiescence in the will and disposition of God, and that I love and value the peace of this commonwealth much above my own concernments. … As to the late providences that have fallen out amongst us, however, in respect of the particular engagements that lay upon me, I could not be active in making a change in the government of these nations; yet, through the goodness of God, I can freely acquiesce in it being made’ (ib. xxi. 419). With his submission Cromwell forwarded a schedule of his debts and a summary of his estate, by which it appeared that the former amounted to 29,000l., and the latter, after deducting his mother's jointure and other encumbrances, to a bare 1,300l. a year (Noble, i. 333). The parliament ordered that he should be advanced 2,000l. for his present wants, and referred the question of a future provision for him to a committee. He was again ordered to leave Whitehall, which he was extremely reluctant to do till some arrangement had been made respecting his debts. This was very necessary, for he was in constant danger of being arrested by his creditors. ‘The day before yesterday,’ writes Bordeaux, ‘he was on the point of being arrested by his creditors, who sent the bailiffs even into Whitehall itself to seize him; but he very wisely shut himself up in his cabinet’ (Guizot, i. 412; Heath, 745). On 4 July parliament made an order exempting him from arrest for six months, and on the 16th of the same month they settled upon him an income of 8,700l., secured on the revenue of the post office; lands to the value of 5,000l. a year were to be settled upon him and his heirs, and he was absolutely discharged from the debt of 29,000l'., which became a public debt (Parliamentary History, xxi. 434; Noble, i. 335). But this arrangement was not carried out, for in April 1660 Cromwell was driven to appeal to Monck for assistance. He writes of himself as ‘necessitated for some time of late to retire into hiding-places to avoid arrests for debts contracted upon the public account,’ and concludes by expressing himself persuaded ‘that, as I cannot but think myself unworthy of great things, so you will not think me worthy of utter destruction’ (English Historical Review, January 1887, p. 152). There were still rumours in February 1660 that the republicans in their desperation would set up the Protector again (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 690–3), and in April St. John was reported to be still intriguing for that object (Carte, Original Letters, ii. 330). According to Clarendon, Lambert proposed to Ingoldsby the restoration of Cromwell to the protectorate during the brief conference which took place before Lambert's capture (Rebellion, xvi. 149; Whitelocke, f. 699). Early in the summer of 1660 Cromwell left England for France (Ludlow, p. 360). Jeremiah White told Pepys in 1664 ‘that Richard hath been in some straits in the beginning, but relieved by his friends. That he goes by another name, but do not disguise himself, nor deny himself to any man that challenges him’ (Diary, 19 Oct. 1664). In 1666, during the Dutch war, the English government contemplated the issue of a proclamation recalling certain English subjects resident in France, and Mrs. Cromwell endeavoured to obtain a promise from Lord Clarendon that Cromwell’s name should be left out of the proclamation, on the ground that his debts would ruin him if he were obliged to return to England. William Mumford, Mrs. Cromwell’s agent in this matter, was examined on 15 March 1666 concerning the ex-protector’s movements. He stated that Cromwell was living at Paris under the name of John Clarke, by which name he usually passed, ‘that he may keep himself unknown beyond the seas, so as to avoid all correspondency or intelligence;' that he ‘did not hold any intelligence with the fanatics, nor with the king ole France or States of Holland.' He went on to say that he had spent a winter; at Paris with Cromwell, ‘and the whole diversion of him there was drawing of landscapes and reading of books.’ His whole estate in right of his wife was but 600l. per annum, an he was not sixpence the better or richer for being the son of his father, or for being the pretended protector of England. Finally he said that he had often heard Cromwell pray in his private prayers for the king, and speak with great reverence of the king's grace and favour to himself and family in suffering them to enjoy their lives and the little fortunes they had (Waylen, p. 16; State Papers, Dom., Charles II, ch. 17). Cromwell's name was eventually omitted from the proclamation, but he thought best, by the advice of Dr. Wilkins, to avoid suspicion by removing to Spain or Italy. According to Clarendon he pitched upon Geneva, and it was on his was thither, at Pezenas, that he heard himself, characterised by the Prince de Conti as a fool and a coxcomb (Clarendon, Rebellion, xvi. 17, 18). Noble states that he returned to England about 1680 (i. 173). He lived for the remainder of his life at Cheshunt in the house of Serjeant Pengelly, still passing by the name of Clarke. In a letter to his daughter Anne, written in 1690, he writes: ‘I have been alone thirty years, banished and under silence, and my strength and safety is to be retired, quiet, and silent’ (O. Cromwell, Life of Oliver Cromwell and his sons Richard and Henry, p. 685). His wife, Dorothy Cromwell, died on 5 Jan. 1675-6, and his eldest son, Oliver, born in 1656, died in 1705. Three daughters still survived, and a dispute arose whether the interest in the Hursley estate, which Oliver had inherited from his mother, passed to his sisters as coheiresses, or to his father for life. The conduct of the daughters in pressing their claim has been represented in the darkest colours; but so far as the correspondence of Richard is preserved, and so far as other trustworthy evidence of his feelings exists, it is evident that they continued on good terms together (Waylen, p. 12; O. Cromwell, p. 684). A popular story represents the judge before whom the suit was tried rebuking the daughters for their conduct, and treating Cromwell with the respect due to a man once sovereign of England (Noble, i. 175). But accounts differ as to whether the judge was Chief-justice Holt or Lord-chancellor Cowper, and the details of the story are evidently fabulous (O. Cromwell, p. 684). Other gossip relating to the later years of Cromwell’s life is collected by Noble (House of Cromwell, i. 172-6). Dr. Watts, who was frequently in his company, says he ‘never knew him so much as glance at his former station but once, and that in a very distant manner’ (ib. p. 173). He died at Cheshunt on 12 July 1712, and was buried in the chancel of the church at Hursley, Hampshire (ib. p. 177).
The character of Richard Cromwell has met with harsh judgment, and to some extent deserved it. Dryden, in ‘Absalom and Achitophel,’ describes him as ‘the foolish Ishbosheth.’ Flatman, in his ‘Don Juan Lamberto,’ st les him ‘the meek knight,' and ‘Queen Sick’ is a favourite name for him with royalist satirists. ‘Whether Richard Cromwell was Oliver's son or no ? ’ begins a popular pamphlet entitled ‘Forty-four Queries to the Life of Queen Dick’ (1659), and the contrast between father and son is the subject of many a derisive ballad (see the collection called The Rump, 1662, vol. ii.) Richard was not without some share of his father's ability, for his speeches are excellent, and both friends and adversaries admitted the dignity of his bearing on public occasions (Whitelocke, f. 675; Burton, iii. 2, 7, 11). It is often said that he would have made a good constitutional king, and a royalist remarks that the counsellors of the late protector referred the prudent temper ofthe son to the bold and ungovernable character ofthe father (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 441). What he wanted was the desire to govern, the energy to use the power chance had placed in his hands, and the tenacity to maintain it. As Monck said, ‘he forsook himself ’ (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 628), but it was probably the best thing he could do. In his private character, although accused by zealots of irreligion, he was a man of strict morals and strong religious feeling. Maidstone terms him ‘a very worthy person, of an engaging nature and religious disposition, giving great respect to the best of persons, both ministers and others’ (Thurloe, i. 766). ‘Gentle and virtuous, but became not greatness,' is the judgment of Mrs. Hutchinson (Life of Colonel Hutchinson, ed. 1885, ii. 203).
[Noble's Memoirs of the Protectoral House of Cromwell, ed, 1787; Oliver Cromwell, Life of O. Cromwell and his sons Richard and Henry, 1820; Waylen's House of Cromwell, 1880; Guizot's Richard Cromwell and the Restoration of the Stuarts, translated by Scoble, 1856; Carlyle's Cromwell's Letters and Speeches; Calendar of the Domestic State Papers; Thurloe State Papers, 7 vols. 1742; Clarendon State Papers, 3 vols. 1767-86; Hist. MSS. Comm. 1st Rep.; Ludlow's Memoirs, ed. 1751; Heath’s Chronicle, ed. 1663; Somers Tracts, vol. vi.]