[Milton-L] Fw: Hanged in their coffins (Milton and Bradshaw in the DNB)

Carol Barton cbartonphd1 at verizon.net
Sun Mar 4 18:09:47 EST 2012


Bradshaw,  John, Lord Bradshaw  (bap. 1602, d. 1659), lawyer, 
politician, and regicide, was born at Wibersley, in the parish of 
Stockport, Cheshire, and baptized on 10 December 1602 at St Mary's, 
Stockport, the second surviving son of Henry Bradshaw (d. 1654) of 
Marple Hall and Wibersley, and Catherine Winnington (d. 1604) of 
Offerton in the same county. His grandfather, also Henry, descended 
from a respectable Derbyshire family, was described as a yeoman, but 
having purchased Marple in the break-up of the estate of Sir Edward 
Stanley early in the reign of James VI and I, the Cheshire Bradshaws 
were of comfortable gentry standing.

Early life

As a youth Bradshaw is said to have attended Stockport Free School, 
Bunbury School, elsewhere in Cheshire, and Middleton School, 
Lancashire. He entered Gray's Inn on 26 May 1620 and was called to the 
bar on 23 April 1627. Typically described as an obscure Cheshire 
attorney, Bradshaw appears nevertheless to have been at least 
reasonably well connected. His mother's family apparently had dealings 
with Sir Benjamin Rudyard, surveyor of the court of wards. In 1630 a 
John Bradshaw was appointed as steward of the manor of Glossop, which 
belonged to Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel. The manor lay close to the 
Cheshire home of the future lord president, but it has proved 
difficult to establish incontrovertibly whether it was he who served 
the earl. Bradshaw was also related to Sir Humphrey Davenport, lord 
chief baron of the exchequer from 1632.

Bradshaw was certainly already well connected in his native Cheshire, 
and it was here that his legal career began. He corresponded with the 
Leghs of Lyme, and once took a letter from Sir Peter to the earl of 
Bridgewater. Subsequently he enjoyed the patronage of Sir William 
Brereton, his neighbour and kinsman. Sir George Booth also appears to 
have been well enough disposed towards him. His clients at law 
included the brewers and bakers of Chester; the borough of Congleton; 
and families such as the Fittons of Chester and the Booths of Twemlow. 
He also represented John Milton (to whom he may have been related) in 
a chancery case in 1647, an engagement perhaps typical of those which 
prompted Clarendon's remark that he was 'much employed by the 
factious'  (Clarendon, Hist. rebellion, 4.475). This would appear to 
have marked the beginning of one of Bradshaw's most signal 
friendships.

Bradshaw's activities as a lawyer raised him to prominence in the 
affairs of his provincial homeland. In 1637 he became mayor of 
Congleton, and later became high steward there, serving in that 
capacity until May 1656. He was also chosen steward of Newcastle under 
Lyme by the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses on 31 August 1641; he held 
this office, which entailed certain judicial responsibilities in the 
town, until his death. On 3 January 1638 he married a local woman, 
Mary (bap. 1596, d. in or before 1658), daughter of Thomas Marbury of 
Marbury. Bradshaw's legal practice made him wealthy. By 1640 he 
retained no fewer than five servants.

The civil war

Lucrative as his legal career had been in peacetime, the 1640s were 
the making of John Bradshaw. He first rose to prominence in the City 
of London in 1643. Against the backdrop of revelations about Waller's 
plot to betray the capital into royalist hands, under-sheriff Richard 
Gibbs died, leaving a vacancy for a judge in the Wood Street sheriffs' 
court. Common council and the court of aldermen vied for the right to 
nominate a successor. On 18 July Alderman John Langham nominated 
Bradshaw for the vacant post, and sought the backing of the council. 
But Bradshaw's appointment was challenged by Richard Proctor, the 
preferred candidate of the lord mayor and court of aldermen. On 21 
September 1643 Bradshaw was accepted as its nominee by the common 
council in preference to the other two candidates, Proctor and William 
Steele, Bradshaw's fellow Cheshireman. On 25 September, the day MPs 
took the solemn league and covenant, Bradshaw was sworn as judge 
accordingly. The resulting legal case in the king's bench (after 1649 
the upper bench) was not resolved in Bradshaw's favour until 1656, 
although he had himself sat on the bench in the sheriffs' court since 
his appointment, and had been authorized to appoint a deputy in 1649. 
The early phase of this dispute also took place against the backdrop 
of an argument among parliamentarian militants over the command of 
militia forces in the City, an argument in which Bradshaw appears to 
have taken a prominent part himself, as well as the debate in the City 
over the principle of the 'general rising', the all-out military 
strategy favoured by 'war party' sympathizers in London.

Bradshaw entered the national stage as a parliamentarian lawyer in the 
rapidly expanding world of state and administrative advocacy. His 
first important engagement was as counsel to the committee for 
compounding with delinquents. Such was the importance of his role at 
the heart of this sensitive business that by January 1647 he was 
referred to as being 'as it were Attorney General'  (BL, M636/8, 
Verney Correspondence, unfoliated). That year, he also acted as 
counsel to the committee for the visitation of Oxford.

It was in the service of the state that Bradshaw now came to make a 
real impact on national affairs. On 23 October 1644, the third 
anniversary of the outbreak of the Irish rising, Bradshaw joined the 
legal team appointed by the Commons on the king's behalf for 
prosecution of the Irish rebel Lord Maguire. In June 1647 he was 
junior counsel in the trial of Judge David Jenkins. He acted as 
principal counsel when Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburne successfully 
appealed the Star Chamber judgment against him before the House of 
Lords on 13 February 1646.

It has been suggested that Bradshaw's retention on Lilburne's behalf 
reflected partisan calculation by an Independent faction at 
Westminster working at this time to protect the future Leveller as 
part of their political warfare with the presbyterians. When the lower 
house began to recruit its membership upon the gradual resumption of 
peace from 1645, Bradshaw had certainly figured in the plans of the 
emergent Independent interest. In November that year he failed to 
obtain election to a seat for Newcastle under Lyme, much to the 
disappointment of his patron Brereton, the parliamentary commander in 
Cheshire and north Wales. On the other hand, despite initial 
enthusiasm Brereton appears to have dropped Bradshaw from his designs 
on a seat for the city of Chester the following year. On 8 October 
1646, having been nominated by the Commons as a commissioner of the 
great seal along with Sir Rowland Wandesford and Sir Thomas 
Bedingfield, Bradshaw was rejected by the Lords. It has been remarked 
that 'we must suppose that this employment was [sought for] him 
through the influence of his great clients in the House of Commons' 
(M. Noble, Lives of the English Regicides, 2 vols., 1798, 1.48).

After some initial resistance to his nomination in the Commons, the 
House of Lords sent down an ordinance making Bradshaw chief justice of 
Chester, Flint, Montgomery, and Denbigh on 12 March 1647, which passed 
the Commons on the 16th. It has been claimed that on 18 March 
following he was also chosen by the Lords as one of the eight judges 
responsible for the Welsh great sessions. But the ordinance for 
appointing judges to go on circuit in Wales discussed in the Commons 
and the Lords on 19 and 20 March left the matter of appointment to the 
commissioners of the great seal. In any case, as justice of Chester, 
Bradshaw would have been responsible for the circuit in the three 
north Wales counties specified by his patent. On 12 October 1648 
Bradshaw was one of those created serjeants-at-law by parliament, on 
which occasion his sponsors were his Cheshire patrons Booth and 
Brereton.

The trial of Charles I

On 10 January 1649 Bradshaw was appointed lord president of the high 
court of justice set up to try Charles I, of which he had been 
appointed a member by the first unicameral act of parliament in 
English history [see also Regicides]. Conventionally it is claimed 
that Bradshaw was appointed to and then chaired this unprecedented 
tribunal only because he was the only judicial figure of any rank who 
could be persuaded to participate in proceedings. However, Bradshaw, 
along with Serjeant Nicholas, Roger Hill, and Francis Thorpe, had all 
been nominated to sit in the court first projected under the terms of 
an ordinance which was rejected by the House of Lords on 2 January 
1649. All four judges were then also named to the high court of 
justice as it was established on 6 January, and all four were absent 
from the court's first two meetings. That Bradshaw was singled out 
from among these judicial figures on 10 January to preside over the 
trial may owe a great deal to the factional machinations which 
influenced the way in which the trial was conducted. Bradshaw was 
closely linked, through the sheriffs' court and the Salters' Hall 
subcommittee for the command of the city militia, with those elements 
within the common council of the City of London which had staged a 
successful coup to seize control over the corporation from the lord 
mayor and aldermen in December and January. Since the trial was itself 
predicated on the notion of the constitutional supremacy of the House 
of Commons, it is likely that Bradshaw commended himself as a 
potential chairman of the high court of justice due to his association 
with one of the constituencies in English politics with the clearest 
interest in maintaining the new constitutional 
dispensation-represented in the court itself by commissioners Robert 
Tichborne and Owen Rowe.

Bradshaw became the focus of every effort to conduct the trial with 
dignity and a veneer of legal formality. His title was to be observed 
outside the court in Westminster Hall, as well as within. He was given 
smart apartments in New Palace Yard, and later in the dean's house at 
Westminster Abbey. Each day's proceedings began with the lord 
president's ceremonial entry into the great hall, a mace and sword of 
state going before. On the final day of the trial he was noted to have 
worn a scarlet gown. There is no contemporary evidence to support the 
legend that he wore a beaver hat lined with plates of steel for the 
duration of the trial, for fear of assassination attempts.

As lord president, the deputed spokesman of the king's judges, 
Bradshaw also played a crucial role himself in the conduct and 
handling of the trial, having been directed by his fellow 
commissioners to deal directly with the king. The immense drama of the 
trial derives in large part from Bradshaw's oratorical duelling with 
Charles, whom the lord president undoubtedly skewered in the course of 
some of the most important exchanges of the four days of public trial. 
Bradshaw's influence was apparent on the first day when it was he who 
decreed that the king ought to sit facing his judges, rather than off 
to the side, as some judges had wished. On the third day, 23 January, 
Bradshaw appears to have attempted effectively to rule the king 
contumacious after his sixth refusal to plead to the charge, and 
thereby to precipitate a move to condemnation the following day. In 
this he was overruled by his colleagues. On the final day of the 
trial, 27 January, Bradshaw had been instructed by his fellow judges 
to allow the king to offer 'anything' he might wish to say to the 
court before it proceeded to judgment. Charles duly proposed a 
trilateral conference with his Lords and Commons in camera. Bradshaw's 
attempt to brush aside this suggestion was overruled, prompting the 
high court's short withdrawal to the court of wards to consider the 
proposal. When it reconvened, Bradshaw had to tell the king that his 
judges had declined his offer. Nevertheless, clearly under strict 
instruction from the other judges, he offered Charles two further 
opportunities to propose something more acceptable. The king's failure 
to do any such thing was the cue for Bradshaw to enter the history 
books as the only Englishman ever to hand down sentence of death upon 
his sovereign.

The Commonwealth

Bradshaw was commissioned to chair the high court of justice 
subsequently set up to try and condemn several royalist delinquents, 
the duke of Hamilton (tried as the earl of Cambridge), the earl of 
Holland, Arthur Lord Capel, Lord Goring (alias the earl of Norwich), 
and Sir John Owen. On 14 February 1649 Bradshaw was among the 
forty-one peers, politicians, judges, and soldiers chosen by MPs to 
sit on the new council of state set up by the Rump as the principal 
executive organ of the Commonwealth of England and Ireland. Tied up 
with the trials in Westminster Hall, Bradshaw was unable to attend the 
council's early meetings. Nevertheless, on 10 March, the day after the 
executions in palace yard, he was appointed lord president of the 
council by his colleagues at the board, making him in effect England's 
first elected executive head of state, albeit somewhat indirectly. Two 
days later he made his first appearance in the temporary council 
chamber at Derby House, attending with unrivalled diligence 
thereafter. It may have been his influence which secured for John 
Milton appointment to the office of secretary for foreign tongues to 
the council. The journalist Marchamont Nedham, who, like Milton, was 
remembered years later in a codicil to the lord president's will, also 
appears to have benefited from Bradshaw's patronage.

Bradshaw held the chair of the council until 26 November 1651, when 
his office went into rotation, apparently to Bradshaw's great 
discontent. He held on to his seat at the board comfortably at the 
next election in the Commons house, however, and himself served as the 
first rotating president. He also polled very respectably in the 
council election of November 1652, continued as a councillor until the 
dissolution of the Rump, serving once more as lord president in 
January 1653, and was a member of standing committees on foreign 
affairs and trade, among others. He retained the title of Lord 
Bradshaw for the remainder of his political career.

Bulstrode Whitelocke remarked that at the council board Bradshaw 
'spent much of their time in his long speeches, a great hindrance to 
... business'  (The Diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 1605-1675, ed. R. 
Spalding, Records of Social and Economic History, new ser. 13, 1990, 
234). But Whitelocke also supported the first attempt to appoint 
Bradshaw to the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster, defeated by 
twenty-five votes to twenty-one on 16 July 1649. Bradshaw was awarded 
a short-term commission a fortnight later, but does not appear to have 
been entrusted with the revised duchy seals, nor the chamber in 
Westminster where duchy business was conducted. Nevertheless, despite 
obvious controversy among MPs about the status of the duchy 
jurisdiction, his commission was periodically revived and renewed, 
until 17 September 1653, when it was split with Thomas Fell.

One of Bradshaw's most politically sensitive roles during the 
Commonwealth was as chairman of the court for relief on articles of 
war. In this capacity he was responsible, from June 1649, for 
protecting the claims of individuals who had negotiated their 
capitulation with army officers during the wars in England, only to 
find that the terms they had been granted were not subsequently 
respected by parliament and its local committees. The court sat in 
adjudication of numerous such claims in the early 1650s, frequently 
ruling that the articles of war ought to be upheld in the face of 
decisions taken at Westminster or in the provinces. On one or two 
notable occasions, as in the case of Sir John Stowell, the court's 
rulings caused uproar among those who had purchased confiscated 
estates in good faith, only to find their title questioned on the 
grounds of prior claims to the benefit of articles. The whole issue 
contributed greatly to the growth of political tensions during the 
Commonwealth era.

The former lord president was eclipsed somewhat in the wake of the 
dissolution of the Rump, and was at times clearly rather out of sorts 
with the protectorate. It is popularly held that Bradshaw defied 
Cromwell on 20 April 1653, warning the lord general when he came to 
dissolve the council of state, having just ejected parliament, that 
'no power under heaven can dissolve them but themselves'  (S. R. 
Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1660, 2, 
1897, 265). But there is no direct evidence of this. Certainly 
Bradshaw was not in the chair that day, as Ludlow's account would 
appear to imply. Having no formal record of the day's business in the 
council chamber, it is impossible to say whether he was present at 
all, or even whether the council actually sat.

The protectorate

Bradshaw managed to cling onto his official suite of rooms at 
Whitehall after the meeting of Barebones Parliament, occasion for the 
ousting of many of his colleagues from the palace, and he continued to 
serve in the court for relief on articles of war. But after the 
inauguration of the protectorate Bradshaw's political position became 
precarious. In February 1654, the protector's council had recommended 
that Bradshaw be sent a new patent as chief justice of Chester, but 
evidently this was insufficient to salve the wounds inflicted less 
than a year earlier. When the first protectorate parliament met in 
September 1654 one newsbook reported that 'Lord Bradshaw', one of the 
MPs for Staffordshire, had been a candidate for speaker. About this 
time Milton praised Bradshaw for his role in condemning Charles I, an 
action which 'liberty herself ... has entrusted to eternal memory' 
('The second defence of the English people', Complete Prose Works of 
John Milton, vol. 4 pt 1, 1966, 637).

Bradshaw was in the van of the attack made by the 'Commonwealthsmen' 
on the new constitution which commenced almost as soon as the new MPs 
had settled into their seats. He rapidly fell under the suspicion of 
the new regime. His official appointments became a particular bone of 
contention, and he was forced to confront the lord protector in 
defence of his patent appointing him chief justice of Chester in 1654. 
He was dismissed in August, but successfully faced down his opponents, 
going on circuit, official sanction for which was granted in 
September.

Although Bradshaw appears to have been included in the Cheshire 
commission for securing the peace of the Commonwealth, set up to 
assist the new major-general in 1655, it is hard to see how he could 
have been omitted from a body whose support among the leaders of 
Cheshire society was thin at best. In August 1656 the major-general 
whose jurisdiction included Cheshire, Tobias Bridge or Bridges, 
managed to prevent Bradshaw's return as MP for the county, principally 
by persuading the leading gentry to exclude him from the slate. 
According to Bradshaw's brother, Henry, the popular candidacy of the 
chief justice was not forced, as his proposed running-mate, Sir 
William Brereton, would almost certainly have come off very much the 
worse if it had come to a vote. Subsequent attempts to secure Bradshaw 
a seat in the City of London came to nothing. He had become an open 
opponent of the regime by now, Monck having received intelligence the 
year before that he had conspired with other opponents of the 
Cromwellian regime to kidnap the colonel as a prelude to overthrowing 
the army leadership. Fresh attempts were made to deprive Bradshaw of 
his judicial office at Chester in August 1656. According to Noble, he 
was deprived, though if this were indeed so, by July 1659 he had 
certainly been reinstated.

Bradshaw was elected to sit in Lord Protector Richard Cromwell's 
parliament as MP for Cheshire in 1659, at least in part thanks to the 
intervention of the sheriff, John Legh of Booths, who moved the poll 
at a crucial moment to Bradshaw's home town, Congleton. Bradshaw took 
his seat only after considerable opposition to his return in the 
parliamentary privileges committee had been borne down, the vote in 
the house giving Bradshaw a bare majority of seven. The election 
itself contributed not a little to the rising of Booth in the county a 
few months later, it having been suggested that Bradshaw's appeal to 
the 'birthright' of freeholders, even Quakers, to exercise their 
political will free from gentry control forced upon Booth and his 
confederates the realization that they were left with no option other 
than 'fighting to preserve their way of life'  (Morrill, Cheshire, 
1630-1660, 298).

Nevertheless, Bradshaw had been heaped with rewards for his services 
in the course of the 1650s. In August 1649 parliament voted him land 
worth £2000 per annum from the estates of the earl of St Albans 
(marquess of Clanricarde) and Lord Cottington. The former included 
Summer Hill, which in 1645 had been sequestered and granted to 
Clanricarde's half-brother, the earl of Essex, and Tonbridge Park, 
Kent (in the same parish as Summer Hill). The Cottington estate 
included the manors of Feltham and Hanworth in Middlesex, plus other 
properties in that county, as well as Berkshire, Hampshire (including 
Fremantle Park), Kent, Somerset, and Wiltshire. In the latter county, 
the properties included Hatch, the manor of Fonthill Gifford, and land 
in the parish of Tisbury. Subsequently Bradshaw also acquired 
Farrockline House, forfeit for the treason of a Lancashire gentleman, 
by which time he was apparently living at Greenway Hall, Bagnall, 
Staffordshire. He had supposedly also acquired the estate of his 
brother-in-law, John Fallowes, the heavily indebted lord of Fallowes 
Hall, Alderley, Cheshire, who was married to Anne Bradshaw.

Last days

The restoration of the Commonwealth saw Bradshaw once again in the 
saddle, though by now ill. He was a member of the council of state 
appointed in May 1659, and in the following month became one of three 
new commissioners for the great seal. Within days he had written to 
parliament asking to be relieved temporarily of his duties as seal 
commissioner. He attended the house on 22 July to take the requisite 
oath. He rose from his deathbed to denounce the military usurpers who 
once more disrupted the Rump in October, and reputedly declared with 
almost his dying breath that had he to try the king again he would do 
it willingly. His old associate Marchamont Nedham reported that John 
Bradshaw, whom he described as 'my Noblest Friend', died at Dean's 
House, Westminster on 31 October 1659. The cause of death was 
described as 'quartan ague', usually taken to be malaria or 
malaria-like symptoms. He was buried in Westminster Abbey on 22 
November; his wife, who predeceased him, was also buried there. They 
left no surviving children. Bradshaw had bequeathed his estate to his 
wife, with reversion to his nephew, Henry, towards whom the lord 
president had apparently shown some affection during his lifetime. 
[see below] chided his son's choice of studies at Christ's in 1652, as 
ill requital of 'your uncles indulgencie in sufferinge you to make 
your owne choise what to studie'  (Bodl. Oxf., MS top. Cheshire e.3, 
fol. 15v).

On 15 May 1660 it was resolved that Bradshaw, although dead, should be 
attainted by act of parliament, together with Cromwell, Ireton, and 
Pride, all of whom had died before the Restoration. As early as 3 May 
1654 Bradshaw had been specially excepted from any future pardon in a 
proclamation issued by Charles II. On 12 July 1660 the 
sergeant-at-arms was ordered to deliver to the house Bradshaw's goods. 
On 4 December 1660 parliament directed that:

the bodies of Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Ireton 'should be taken up from 
Westminster' and hanged in their coffins at Tyburn. This indignity was 
duly perpetrated on 30 Jan 1661. The regicides' heads were 
subsequently exposed in Westminster Hall and their bodies reburied 
beneath the gallows. (DNB)
The remains of Bradshaw's wife were translated to Westminster Abbey 
churchyard on 9 September 1661. At least one legend has Bradshaw 
surviving the Restoration, then making good his escape, incognito, to 
Jamaica, where he died and was buried, a memorial inscription advising 
passers-by that they 'never, never forget that rebellion against 
tyrants is obedience to God' (Chester City Archive, Earwaker 
Collection, 'Bradshaw of Congleton', CR63/1/72/1; extract from Leek 
Times, 3 Dec 1892).

Assessment

Throughout his public career Bradshaw fairly consistently aligned 
himself with more radical elements in English politics, first in the 
City, then at Westminster, favouring the drive for outright military 
victory over the king, followed by the redistribution of the power of 
the crown away from existing elites. At the king's trial he was in a 
position to put forward for the benefit of posterity some very strong 
views about the nature of authority in the English state, and the 
subjection of the crown to laws made by the representatives of the 
English people. Inevitably, calculations of political advantage were 
bound up with the articulation of his principled convictions. In 
January 1649 the best hope of securing those convictions had seemed to 
lie, paradoxically, in securing the compliance of the king. The 
growing desperation of the trial commissioners was voiced in 
Bradshaw's admonitions, repeated over and over even in the face of the 
king's utter contempt, that Charles plead to the charges against him, 
thereby accepting the jurisdiction of the high court of justice, and 
hence the authority of the Commons to legislate independently of the 
crown and House of Lords. When this strategy failed and the monarchy 
soon after fell, Bradshaw found himself at the helm of the council of 
state, the new executive authority whose first and most pressing task 
was the final destruction of the Levellers, the only supporters of 
something more genuinely approaching the reality of 'popular 
sovereignty' in the aftermath of regicide. Simultaneously, Bradshaw 
had a hand in drafting legislation to alleviate hardships faced by 
victims of delinquent landlords. Yet as a leading light of the 
judicial establishment, he was allied with powerful military interests 
in the frontline of a struggle to uphold property and its interests 
during the 1650s, even when these clashed with those who had carried 
the burden of the struggle against the king in the provinces of 
England. His public stance at the election of 1656 was more of a 
response to the hostility of Cheshire society towards his candidacy, 
than a belief in social and political egalitarianism. However, it 
probably did in part reflect some of the 'antiformal' potential 
inherent in his religious outlook and associations.

Bradshaw's elder brother, Henry Bradshaw  (bap. 1601, d. 1662), 
parliamentarian army officer , was baptized on 23 January 1601 in St 
Mary's, Stockport. In 1630 he married Mary Wells (bap. 1606, d. 1643), 
and in 1644 he married his second wife, Anne Bowdon (fl. 1644-1660). 
On 6 July 1646 he signed a Cheshire petition for the establishment of 
the presbyterian church. He performed military service for parliament 
during the civil wars and Commonwealth, commanding in September 1651 
the Macclesfield militia at Worcester, where he was wounded. He:

sat on the court martial which tried and condemned the earl of Derby 
and other loyalists at Chester in 1652; was charged with this offence 
at the Restoration; was imprisoned by order of parliament from 17 July 
to 14 August 1660; was pardoned on 23 February 1661; and, dying at 
Marple, was buried at Stockport on 15 March [1662]. (DNB)

Sean Kelsey

Sources  DNB + pedigree of Bradshaw and Isherwood of Marple, Ches. & 
Chester ALSS, CR63/1/73 + J. Foster, Register of admissions to Gray's 
Inn, 1521-1881 (privately printed, London, 1887) + journals, CLRO, 
court of common council, vol. 40, fols. 68v, 69v, 71, 74v, 75; vol. 
41, fols. 131v-34v + repertories of the court of aldermen, CLRO, vol. 
56, fols. 194, 199v, 206, 209v, 243v-4, 246v + JHL, 9 (1646-7), 30, 
55, 75 + JHC, 3 (1642-4), 648, 651, 674 + JHC, 5 (1646-8), 113 + JHC, 
6 (1648-51), 132, 141, 261, 271, 272, 443, 599 + JHC, 7 (1651-9), 43, 
112, 241, 277, 320, 367 + JHC, 8 (1660-67), 88 + IGI + CSP dom., 1639, 
301-2; 1648-54, 411; 1656-7, 50, 117 + The letter books of Sir William 
Brereton, ed. R. N. Dore, 2 vols., Lancashire and Cheshire RS, 123, 
128 (1984-90) + A. C. Gibson, 'Original correspondence of the Lord 
President Bradshaw', Transactions of the Historic Society of 
Lancashire and Cheshire, new ser., 2 (1861-2), 41-74 + A. C. Gibson, 
'Every-day life of a country gentleman of Cheshire in the 17th 
century', Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and 
Cheshire, new ser., 3 (1862-3), 67-92 + J. P. Earwaker, East Cheshire: 
past and present, or, A history of the hundred of Macclesfield, 2 
(1880), 65-77 + G. Ormerod, The history of the county palatine and 
city of Chester, 2nd edn, ed. T. Helsby, 3 (1882), 843-7 + J. G. 
Muddiman, The trial of Charles I (1926?) + P. J. Pinckney, 'Bradshaw 
and Cromwell in 1656', Huntington Library Quarterly, 30 (1966-7), 
233-40 + J. S. Morrill, Cheshire, 1630-1660: county government and 
society during the English revolution (1974) + J. S. Morrill, 
'Parliamentary representation', VCH  Cheshire + K. Lindley, Popular 
politics and religion in civil war London (1997), 311-19 + J. T. 
Peacey, 'John Lilburne and the Long Parliament', HJ, 43 (2000), 625-45 
+ J. L. Chester, ed., The marriage, baptismal and burial registers of 
the collegiate church or abbey of St Peter, Westminster, Harleian 
Society, reg. ser. 10 (1876) + JRL, Legh of Lyme MSS

Archives TNA: PRO, letters and state MSS, State Papers 25

Likenesses  W. Dobson, double portrait, oils (with Hugh Peters), 
Helmingham Hall, Suffolk; negative, Courtauld Inst. · M. Vandergucht, 
line engraving, BM, NPG; repro. in E. Ward, The history of the grand 
rebellion, 3 vols. (1713) · engraving, NPG [see illus.]

Wealth at death  disposed of extensive real estate in Berkshire, 
Hampshire, Kent, Middlesex, Somerset, and Wiltshire; bequests of 
several thousand pounds, though many were cancelled in final codicil: 
Earwaker, East Cheshire, vol. 2, pp. 73-7




========================================================================
©    Oxford     University    Press,    2004.    See     legal 
notice:
http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/legal/




More information about the Milton-L mailing list