Open main menu

LUDLOW, EDMUND (1617?–1692), regicide, son of Sir Henry Ludlow of Maiden Bradley, Wiltshire, by Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Phelips of Montacute, Somerset, was born at Maiden Bradley, and matriculated at Trinity College, Oxford, 10 Sept. 1634, aged 17 (pedigree communicated by Mr. H. Ludlow Bruges; Hoare, Modern Wilts, ‘Heytesbury,’ p. 15). On 14 Nov. 1636 he took the degree of B.A., and in 1638 was admitted to the Inner Temple (Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, 1500–1714). Sir Henry Ludlow represented Wiltshire in the Long parliament, and was one of the most extreme members of the popular party. On 7 May 1642 he was rebuked by the speaker for saying that the king was not worthy to be king of England (Clarendon, Rebellion, v. 280, 441). Edmund Ludlow, moved by his father's persuasion and his own respect for the authority of the parliament, enlisted at the beginning of the civil war among the hundred gentlemen who formed the bodyguard of the Earl of Essex (Memoirs, i. 42, ed. 1698). He was present at the skirmish at Worcester (23 Sept. 1642), where the guard ran away, and at Edgehill (23 Oct. 1642), where it distinguished itself in a more honourable manner. At the close of the first campaign he returned to his native county, and became captain of a troop of horse for Sir Edward Hungerford's regiment (10 April 1643). When Hungerford took Wardour Castle, Wiltshire (8 May 1643), he appointed Ludlow its governor. Ludlow made himself famous by the tenacity with which he endured a three months' siege. His answer to the summons sent him by Sir Francis Dodington was published by the newspapers of both parties—by ‘Mercurius Aulicus’ to show his obstinacy, by ‘Mercurius Britannicus’ to show his fidelity (Mercurius Aulicus, 19 March 1643; original Tanner MSS. lxii. f. 627).

After a short imprisonment at Oxford, Ludlow was exchanged early in the summer of 1644, and became major of Sir Arthur Hesilrige's regiment of horse, in the army under Sir William Waller (10 May 1644). On 30 July 1644, however, Waller gave him a colonel's commission, and sent him into Wiltshire to raise a regiment of horse. Parliament about the same time made Ludlow sheriff of his native county, and for the rest of the war he was engaged in endeavouring to reduce it to obedience. He took part, however, in the second battle of Newbury (27 Oct. 1644), in the siege of Basing House (November 1644), and in an expedition for the relief of Taunton (December 1644). At the beginning of January 1645 his regiment was surprised by Sir Marmaduke Langdale [q. v.] at Salisbury, and Ludlow himself escaped with great difficulty. On the formation of the new model, the committee for the selection of officers, ardently backed by Sir Arthur Heselrige, recommended Ludlow for the command of a regiment, but the Wiltshire committee professed that they could not spare him (Memoirs, i. 113, 127, 141; Nichols, Leicestershire, ii. 744).

Ludlow's election as member for Wiltshire (12 May 1646) shows the esteem which his countrymen had for his services. Like his father, he from the first associated himself in parliament with the most advanced section of the popular party, with Harry Marten and the so-called ‘commonwealthsmen.’ Without being exactly a leveller or an anabaptist himself, he sympathised strongly with both parties, and was trusted by them. As a speaker he did not distinguish himself, and his later political importance was due to his influence outside parliament rather than within it.

Ludlow took the part of the army in their quarrel with the parliament in the summer of 1647, and signed the engagement of 4 Aug. (Rushworth, vii. 755). But the negotiations of the army leaders with the king, and their suppression of the levelling party in the army, roused his suspicions. He opposed the vote of thanks given to Cromwell for his conduct at the Ware rendezvous, and was still further alienated from him by his avowed preference for monarchy (Memoirs, i. 207, 223, 240). Nevertheless in the summer of 1648, when Major Huntington accused Cromwell, Ludlow wrote to encourage the latter, and to promise him support (ib. i. 253, 258). Convinced of the danger of a treaty with the king, he urged Ireton and Fairfax to put an end to the proposed negotiation by force, and was one of the chief promoters of Pride's Purge in December 1648 (ib. pp. 263, 267; Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 471, 537). He was appointed one of the king's judges, was present at eleven meetings of the court, and his name is the fortieth in the list of those who signed the king's death-warrant (Nalson, Trial of Charles I). On 7 Feb. 1649 he was ordered to draw up instructions for the proposed council of state, was himself elected a member of that body on 14 Feb., and was also a member of the second council elected in February 1650 (Commons' Journals).

When Cromwell returned from Ireland in June 1650, he thought it necessary to appoint ‘some person of reputation and known fidelity’ to act as second in command to Ireton, and to replace him in case of death or illness. For this post he selected Ludlow, to whom he privately vindicated his former conduct, and professed his desire to effect that ‘thorough reformation of the clergy and the law’ on which Ludlow had set his heart. Ludlow hesitated to accept, pleading the condition of his estate, but was nominated by the council of state on 27 June, and approved by parliament on 2 July following (Memoirs, i. 321–33; Commons' Journals, vi. 435). He received a commission from Cromwell as lieutenant-general of the horse in Ireland, and from parliament as one of the commissioners for the civil government of that country. In the latter capacity he was paid a salary of 1,000l. a year (the instructions of the commissioners are printed, ib. vi. 479, vii. 167). Ludlow, however, complains that during the four years he served in Ireland he expended 4,500l. out of his own estate over and above his pay (Memoirs, i. 465). He landed in Ireland in January 1651, passed the Shannon with Ireton in June, and took part in the siege of Limerick. On the death of Ireton (26 Nov. 1651), the commissioners of the parliament issued a circular letter ordering the army to give obedience to Ludlow, but on 9 July 1652 parliament voted Fleetwood commander-inchief (Commons' Journals, vii. 152). Fleetwood did not land till October 1652, so that Ludlow held the chief command for nearly a year. Galway, the only important place in the possession of the Irish at Ireton's death, surrendered in April 1652, and the rest of the war consisted of skirmishes and capitulations. Ludlow narrates at length the hardships of campaigning in Ireland, and the severe measures which he used to force the Irish to submit. The royalist lord deputy, the Earl of Clanricarde, proposed to Ludlow (March 1652) a treaty for the settlement of the country, which the latter refused, saying that ‘the settlement of this nation belongeth of right to the parliament of the commonwealth of England, to whom we are obliged in duty to leave it’ (Memoirs, i. 358). On 22 June 1652 Ludlow concluded an agreement with Lord Muskerry [see under {{sc|MacCarthy, Donogh, earl of Clancarty] for the surrender of his forces, and on 28 June the Earl of Clanricarde also capitulated. Ireland was practically conquered before Fleetwood landed.

In the settlement of Ireland the confiscated estate of Walter Cheevers of Monkstown, near Dublin, was granted to Ludlow as satisfaction for his pay (Prendergast, Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland, 2nd ed. p. 177). Of the policy of the transplantation, and of the principles on which the settlement was based, he thoroughly approved, and took part in the preliminary measures. The news that Cromwell had expelled the Long parliament (20 April 1653) did not prevent Ludlow continuing to act both in his civil and military capacity, but he obstructed for several weeks the proclamation of Cromwell as protector, and refused to sign it himself (30 Jan. 1654) (Memoirs, ii. 461, 483). After it took place he refused to act further as civil commissioner, lest he should seem to acknowledge Cromwell's authority as lawful; but he resolved to keep his commission as lieutenant-general till it should be forced from him (ib. ii. 484–6). Henry Cromwell, who attributed this to the fact that the military office was the more profitable, after failing to convince Ludlow of the lawfulness of the government, recommended his removal (ib. ii. 490; Thurloe, ii. 149). But the Protector was reluctant to proceed to extremities, and Ludlow was allowed to continue in this anomalous position till January 1655, when it was found that he was circulating pamphlets hostile to the government. Fleetwood then demanded the surrender of his commission. To avoid this, Ludlow engaged to appear before Cromwell within a couple of months in order to answer the charge, and meantime to act nothing against his government (30 Jan. 1655). But Cromwell's council preferred to keep Ludlow in Ireland, and forbade him to come to England. On receiving a second and still more definite engagement (29 Aug.), Fleetwood gave him leave to go, but Henry Cromwell and the rest of the Irish council were against it, and had him arrested as soon as he landed in England (October 1655) (Memoirs, ii. 520–43; Thurloe, iii. 113, 136, 142, 407, 744). After remaining six weeks a prisoner at Beaumaris, he was allowed to proceed, and had an interview with Cromwell at Whitehall on 12 Dec. 1655. Throughout he persistently refused to engage not to act against the government. He asserted that the present government was unlawful, but denied that he was privy to any plot against it. However, if Providence should open a way and give an opportunity of appearing in behalf of the people, he could not consent to tie his own hands beforehand, and oblige himself not to lay hold of it (Memoirs, ii. 553). On 1 Aug. 1656 Ludlow was again summoned before the council and ordered to give security to the amount of 5,000l. for his peaceable behaviour. ‘What is it that you would have?’ said Cromwell to Ludlow, praising the quiet the nation enjoyed under his rule. ‘That which we fought for,’ answered Ludlow, ‘that the nation might be governed by its own consent’ (ib. ii. 570). Though threatened with imprisonment for his refusal to give security, he was allowed to retire with his relations to Essex. The government was anxious to keep him out of his own county for fear he should obstruct the election of its partisans to the ensuing parliament. Both in 1654 and in 1656 a numerous party in Wiltshire wished to elect Ludlow as one of their members, but in each case the opposition of the presbyterian clergy and the influence of the government prevented it (ib. ii. 498, 578; Copy of a Letter sent out of Wiltshire wherein is laid open the dangerous designs of the Clergy, 4to, 1654). After Cromwell's death, however, Ludlow was returned to the parliament of January 1659 to represent Hindon. At first he would not take his seat, as he objected to the oath by which members were required to oblige themselves not to act or contrive anything against the Protector. Then he slipped in quietly, and, though attention was called to the fact that he had not taken the oath, was allowed to continue sitting (Memoirs, ii. 618–623; Burton, Diary, iii. 68; Return of Members of Parliament, p. 510).

Before the parliament met Ludlow and the other leaders of the opposition had arranged their plan of campaign (Thurloe, vii. 550). He spoke often but briefly, opposed the bill for the recognition of Richard Cromwell as Protector, and sought to set limits to the Protector's power over the military forces. ‘I honour his highness,’ he declared, ‘as much as any man that sits here. I would have things settled for his honour and safety, but if we take the people's liberties from them, they will scratch them back again.’ He denied also the right of the members for Ireland and Scotland to sit in the house, and attacked the new House of Lords with special vehemence. ‘The men who sat there,’ he protested, ‘had been guilty of all the breaches upon the liberty of the people’ (Burton, Diary, iii. 145, 282, iv. 173). Before and after the dissolution of the parliament he negotiated with the army leaders for the overthrow of Richard Cromwell and the recall of the Long parliament.

The recall of the Long parliament (7 May 1659) and the re-establishment of the Commonwealth made Ludlow a man of great importance. The parliament at once appointed him a member of the committee of safety (7 May), one of the council of state (14 May), and one of the seven commissioners for the nomination of the officers of the army (4 June). He obtained the command of a regiment in the English army (9 June), but was next month chosen commander-in-chief of the Irish army, with the rank of lieutenant-general, and the command of a regiment of horse and another of foot (4 July). At the end of July he landed in Ireland. There he reorganised the army, changed many of the officers, and put in their places men of republican principles. He also despatched a brigade to England to aid in the suppression of Sir George Booth's rising (Memoirs, pp. 689, 696). When his work was finished he appointed Colonel John Jones to command in his absence, and returned to England (ib. p. 705).

Ludlow landed at Beaumaris in October 1659, and was met by the news that Lambert and the army had again expelled the Long parliament. Hastening to London, he used all his efforts to reconcile the army and the parliament, and in conferences with the leaders of the two parties strove to moderate their animosities and make them sensible of the danger of their quarrels to the republic. The army endeavoured to win him by appointing him one of their committee of safety (26 Oct.) and one of the committee for the consideration of the form of government (1 Nov.) He refused to act with them, but complied so far that his parliamentary friends suspected him. He opposed the calling of a new parliament which the army announced, and objected to their scheme for the establishment of a select senate. His own plan was to summon a representative army council and to recall the expelled parliament. The essentials or ‘fundamentals’ of the republican cause were to be clearly stated and declared inviolable, and one-and-twenty ‘conservators of liberty’ to be appointed to watch over them and decide any difference between parliament and army (ib. ii. 749, 756, 759, 766).

During these discussions Ludlow learnt first that Jones and the Irish army had declared for the army, and next that Sir Hardress Waller and other dissentient officers had seized Dublin Castle (13 Dec.), arrested Jones and the other commissioners, and declared for the restoration of the Long parliament. Accordingly he set out to restore order, and arrived off Dublin on 31 Dec. 1659. But Sir Hardress Waller and the officers at Dublin not only refused obedience, but prepared to arrest him if he landed. A few officers, however, still adhered to Ludlow, and the governor of Duncannon received him into the fort there (5 Jan.) The Dublin officers openly charged him with neglecting his duty in Ireland and in parliament, and encouraging the usurpation of the army, accusations which he indignantly refuted in a correspondence with Waller (ib. ii. 783–802; A Letter from Sir Hardress Waller and several other Gentlemen at Dublin to Lieutenant-general Ludlow, with his Answer, 4to, 1660). Sir Charles Coote drew up articles of treason against Ludlow and the three commissioners for the civil government of Ireland, which were presented to the now restored parliament on 19 Jan. 1660 by Colonel Bridges (Commons' Journals, vii. 815; the text of the articles is among the Clarke MSS. in Worcester College Library, lii. 53). The news of this impeachment met Ludlow on his return to England, and he hastened to demand a hearing. But before he could be heard Monck arrived in London, and both in his speech to the parliament on 6 Feb. and in his letter of 11 Feb. supported Ludlow's accusers. Privately, however, he told Ludlow that he had nothing to object against him but his favour to the fanatic party in Ireland, and protested his own faithfulness to the republic (Memoirs, ii. 828, 832). Ludlow nevertheless distrusted Monck's designs. Vainly he urged his friends to adjourn parliament to the Tower and collect their scattered forces for armed resistance. Nor was he more successful in getting a day to justify his own conduct (ib. ii. 841–3). The readmission of the secluded members (21 Feb.) put an end to all hope of maintaining the commonwealth by parliamentary means, and Ludlow plotted a rising of the republican regiments. Obliged to leave London for fear of arrest, he succeeded in getting the electors of Hindon to return him to the convention (4 April 1660), though he durst not appear personally at the election. He was preparing to join Lambert in his abortive insurrection, when he received the news of Lambert's recapture. Thereupon he went to London, ‘to wait (as he said) the pleasure of God, either by acting or suffering in his cause’ (ib. ii. 877). He took his seat in parliament on 5 May, and distinguished himself at once by refusing to take any part in nominating the commissioners sent to Charles II at Breda. On 14 May the House of Commons ordered that all persons who sat in judgment on the late king should be forthwith secured, and on the 18th Ludlow's election was voted void. As he lay concealed in a house near Holborn, he saw the crowds returning from welcoming Charles II to London (ib. iii. 7, 20).

Ludlow did not long remain in hiding. Though he was not one of the seven regicides capitally excepted by the commons from the Act of Indemnity, he was included among the fifty-two persons excepted for penalties less than death (Commons' Journals, viii. 61). At the request of the commons the king issued a proclamation (6 June) summoning all the judges of Charles I to surrender on pain of entire exemption from pardon. Relying on the implied promise contained in this proclamation, Ludlow surrendered himself to the speaker on 20 June, hoping to escape with a fine, and to gain time to settle his estate. The speaker committed him to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, who allowed him his liberty, accepting sureties for his appearance when wanted. Ludlow provided four men of straw, and waited to see what the king and the lords would do. Before long he discovered that his life was in imminent danger, and at the end of August 1660 made his way to Lewes, and escaped to Dieppe (Memoirs, iii. 29–51).

The government, ignorant of his movements, thought he was still in England, and offered a reward of 300l. for his arrest (1 Sept. 1660). Twice during the autumn his capture was actually announced (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1660–1, pp. 314, 412, 495; Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. pp. 138, 169, 201). In October 1661 he was said to be lurking in Cripplegate. Spies reported that forty thousand old soldiers were pledged to rise in arms, and fanatics asserted that a few days would see Ludlow the greatest man in England. No rumour was too absurd to find credit. In July 1662 he was to head a rising in the west of England. In November he had been seen at Canterbury, disguised as a sailor, and soldiers scoured Kent and Sussex to find him (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1661–2). It was believed that Ludlow had bound himself by an oath never to make his peace with the king, to refuse pardon and favour if they were offered to him, and to wage perpetual war with all tyrants (Parker, History of his own Time, ed. Newlin, 1727, p. 10).

Meanwhile Ludlow quietly travelled through France, and established himself at Geneva, in the house of an Englishwoman, where he says ‘I found good beer, which was a great refreshment to me’ (Memoirs, iii. 56). Not finding himself sufficiently assured of safety there, he removed in April 1662 to Lausanne, and in the following autumn to Vevay. On 16 April 1662 the government of Bern granted to Ludlow and his fellow-fugitives, Lisle and Cawley, an ‘act of protection,’ by which they were permitted to reside in any of the territories of that canton. The fugitives were cautiously described as exiles on account of religion, but the certificates granted them gave their proper names in full (Stern, Briefe Englischer Flüchtlinge in der Schweiz, p. 23). Ludlow paid a personal visit to Bern to thank the magistrates, who received him with great kindness and honour (Memoirs, iii. 120–37).

As soon as the English court discovered that Ludlow had found refuge at Vevay, plots against his life began. ‘You are hated and feared more than all your companions,’ wrote a friend from England. Irishmen, Savoyards, and Frenchmen were successively engaged in these designs. John Lisle was assassinated at Lausanne on 11 Aug. 1664, but the vigilance of the authorities of Vevay and his own caution frustrated all attempts against Ludlow.

The war between England and Holland (1664–7) seemed to many of the exiled republicans an opportunity for re-establishing by Dutch aid the English republic. Ludlow was urged to come to Holland, and was promised high command in the Dutch service and armed support in this enterprise. D'Estrades, the French ambassador in Holland, sent him a passport to guarantee his safe passage through France. Ludlow resisted these offers, saying that he was ready to embrace any good occasion of delivering his country from oppression, but distrusting the sincerity of the Dutch, and demanding securities that they would not abandon the cause of the English republicans when it suited their convenience (ib. pp. 165–200). His friends were disgusted by his caution, and Colonel Blood, who was sent over to persuade Ludlow to head a rising in England, described him as very unable for such an employment (A modest Vindication of Oliver Cromwell from the Accusations of Lieutenant-general Ludlow, 4to, 1698, p. 2).

The history of the later part of Ludlow's exile is very obscure. His memoirs end abruptly in 1672, and say little about himself after 1667. His letters between 1667 and 1670 show that he watched with great keenness the course of events in England. For more security he adopted his mother's name, and signed the letters ‘Edmund Phillips’ (Stern, p. xv). His wife had joined him about 1663, and remained with him for the rest of his exile. One by one he lost the companionship of his fellow-regicides. Cawley died in 1666, Nicholas Love in 1682, and Andrew Broughton in 1687. In April 1684 some of the exiled whigs endeavoured to persuade Ludlow to head a rising in the west of England. Their agent found him ‘no ways disposed to the thing, saying he had done his work, he thought, in the world, and was resolved to leave it to others’ (Confession of Nathaniel Wade, Harl. MS. 6845, f. 269). The revolution seemed to open to him the prospect of a return to England. The preface to the first edition of his ‘Memoirs’ states that he was sent for as a fit person to be employed in the reconquest of Ireland (p. vii). On 25 July 1689 he took a solemn farewell of the magistrates of Vevay, telling them that the Lord had called him home to strengthen the hands of the English Gideon (Archæologia, xxxv. 114). He went to London, where his house became the rendezvous of the survivors of the republican party (A Caveat against the Whigs, ed. 1714, iii. 47). On 6 Nov. 1689 Sir Joseph Tredenham called the attention of the House of Commons to his presence in England, and they resolved to ask the king ‘to issue out a proclamation for the apprehending Colonel Ludlow, who stands attainted of high treason by act of parliament for the murder of King Charles I.’ An address to this purpose was presented to the king by Sir Edward Seymour on 7 Nov. William answered that the desire of the commons was reasonable and just, and published a proclamation offering 200l. reward for Ludlow's arrest (Grey, Debates, ix. 397; Seward, Anecdotes, ed. 1798, ii. 177). Ludlow escaped to Holland, according to the tories with the connivance of the king, and returned in safety to Switzerland. His death is mentioned in Luttrell's ‘Diary’ (ii. 623) under 26 Nov. 1692.

He was buried in St. Martin's Church, Vevay, and the monument erected there by his widow in 1693 states that he died in the seventy-third year of his age. The epitaph is printed in Addison's ‘Travels’ (ed. 1745, p. 264) and in the preface to the 1751 edition of Ludlow's ‘Memoirs.’ Over the door of the house in which Ludlow lived at Vevay he placed a board, with the inscription

Omne solum forti patria
quia patris.

‘The first part,’ says Addison, ‘is a piece of verse in Ovid, as the last is a cant of his own.’ This board is now in the possession of Lord-justice Lopes. The authorities of Vevay set up during the present century an inscription, marking the site of the house in which Ludlow resided. But according to M. Albert du Montet of Vevay (quoted by Sir Richard Burton), the inscription is wrongly placed, and should be on the house now No. 49 Rue du Lac (Academy, January 1889).

Ludlow left no issue. He married, about 1649, Elizabeth, daughter of William Thomas of Wenvoe, Glamorganshire, by Jane, daughter of Sir John Stradling of St. Donats. After Ludlow's death his widow married, in 1694, Sir John Thomas, bart., and died 8 Feb. 1701–2, aged 72 (G. T. Clark's Genealogies of Morgan and Glamorgan, 1886, p. 558; Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. p. 385).

The best portrait of Ludlow is that prefixed to the ‘Memoirs.’ According to a note by Thomas Holles in the copy of the 1751 edition which he gave to the public library at Bern, it is ‘a bad print from a very good drawing on vellum by R. White, taken from the life when the general was in England in the reign of King William’ (Stern, p. xi). The full-length equestrian portrait by P. Stent is Hollar's portrait of the Earl of Essex with alterations, and the etching by Cipriani is a fancy portrait.

Ludlow's ‘Memoirs,’ the composition of his exile, were first printed in 1698–9, in three vols. 8vo, nominally at Vevay. Editions in one vol. fol. and 4to were published at London in 1751 and 1771, and an edition in three vols. 12mo at Edinburgh in 1751. The editor of the first edition took the liberty of suppressing all passages which reflected on the character of the Earl of Shaftesbury. Copies of these passages were found among Locke's papers, and are printed in Christie's ‘Life of Shaftesbury’ (vol. i. pp. lvi–lxii). It is said that the original memoirs were entrusted to Slingsby Bethel [q. v.], and given by him to an unnamed whig to be published. A tradition current about the middle of the eighteenth century states that they were edited by Isaac Littlebury, the translator of Herodotus (Regicides no Saints nor Martyrs, 8vo, 1700, p. 8; Tyers, Political Conferences, ed. 1781, p. 89). A manuscript of the ‘Memoirs’ was a short time ago in the possession of a relative, but has recently disappeared. The ‘Memoirs’ give a curious and interesting picture of the civil war in Wiltshire and of campaigning life in Ireland; but their chief historical value lies in their faithful representation of the ideas of the republican party, in the account given of their opposition to Cromwell, and of the factions which caused the overthrow of the republic after its restoration in 1659. Ludlow is an honest and truthful writer, but often inaccurate and confused in his chronology, and extremely prejudiced in his judgments. An anonymous critic published in 1698 ‘A modest Vindication of Oliver Cromwell from the Unjust Accusations of Lieutenant-general Ludlow in his Memoirs, together with some Observations on the Memoirs in general’ (reprinted in the Somers Tracts, vi. 416, ed. Scott). Carlyle, writing with a similar object, styles Ludlow an honest, dull man, and habitually refers to him as ‘wooden-headed’ (Cromwell, Introduction, chap. ii.) Guizot, in the valuable life and criticism prefixed to his edition of the ‘Memoirs,’ describes Ludlow's mind as ‘naturally limited and obtuse,’ and Ludlow as ‘incapable of comprehending events and men.’ Nevertheless his faithful adherence to his principles compels respect, and his stubborn courage excellently qualified him to maintain untenable positions and lost causes. The republicans and advanced whigs of the next century cherished his memory, and adopted his views of Cromwell and the Commonwealth.

Besides the ‘Memoirs’ Ludlow's only published work is the answer to Sir Hardress Waller already mentioned (A Letter from Sir Hardress Waller … to Lieutenant-general Ludlow, with his Answer, 4to, 1680). In 1691–2 three pamphlets were published under his name, though pretty certainly written by some other person: 1. ‘A Letter from Major-general Ludlow to Sir Edward Seymour, comparing the Tyranny of the first four years of King Charles the Martyr with the Tyranny of the four years' Reign of the late abdicated King,’ 4to, 1691. 2. ‘A Letter from General Ludlow to Dr. Hollingworth [see Hollingworth, Richard], defending his former Letter to Sir Edward Seymour,’ 4to, 1691. 3. ‘Ludlow no Liar, or a Detection of Dr. Hollingworth's Disingenuity,’ &c., 4to, 1692. All three are said to be printed at Amsterdam, and were reprinted by Maseres in 1812: ‘Three Tracts … entitled Ludlow's Letters.’

[Memoirs, ed. 1698–9, 3 vols. 8vo; an edition of the Memoirs by the author of the present article is in course of publication; Guizot's Portraits politiques des hommes des différents partis, 1852, translated by Scoble under the title of Monk's Contemporaries, 1851; Cal. of State Papers, Dom.; Thurloe State Papers; Stern's Briefe Englischer Flüchtlinge in der Schweiz; Tanner MSS., Bodleian Library. An ode to Ludlow is in Thomas Manley's ‘Veni, Vidi, Vici,’ 1652.]

C. H. F.