INGOLDSBY, Richard (1617-85), of Waldridge, Dinton, Bucks.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1660-1690, ed. B.D. Henning, 1983
Available from Boydell and Brewer



4 Oct. 1647
1656 - 10 Dec. 1657
Mar. 1679
Oct. 1679

Family and Education

bap. 10 Aug. 1617, 2nd s. of Sir Richard Ingoldsby (d.1656) of Lenborough by Elizabeth, da. of Sir Oliver Cromwell of Hinchingbroke, Hunts.; bro. of Francis Ingoldsby and Henry Ingoldsby. educ. Thame g.s., Oxon.; G. Inn 1638. m. by 1650, Elizabeth (d.1675), da. of Sir George Croke, j.K.b. 1628-41, of Waterstock, Oxon., and coh. to her bro. Thomas, wid. of Thomas Lee of Hartwell, Bucks., 1s. 1da. KB 23 Apr. 1661.1

Offices Held

Capt. of ft. (parliamentary) 1642, col. 1645-55; col. of horse 1655-9, Feb.-Dec. 1660; capt. of horse 1667.2

J.p. Bucks. 1645-70, Oxon. 1649-?Mar. 1660; commr. for militia, Bucks. 1648, 1655, 1659, Mar. 1660, assessment, Bucks. and Oxon. 1649-52, 1657, Bucks. Jan. 1660-80, scandalous ministers, Bucks. 1654, security 1656-7, dep. lt. c. Aug. 1660-80, commr. for corporations 1662-3, recusants 1675.3

Member, high court of justice 1649; Councillor of State 1652-3; commr. for trade 1656-7; gent. of the privy chamber 1661-85.4


Ingoldsby’s ancestors had held the manor of Lenborough since the 15th century, but he was the first of his family to sit in Parliament. His father and at least six of his brothers were active on the parliamentarian side during the Civil War and Interregnum. His kinship with the Cromwells earned him a regiment in the New Model Army, and he was able to purchase Waldridge, five miles from Aylesbury, in 1650. He sat in Cromwell’s ‘Other House’, but became an active Royalist when the Rump deprived him of his regiment in I659. He claimed unconvincingly that his signature on Charles I’s death-warrant had been procured by force, but was told that, as a regicide, he would have to earn his pardon. As ‘the most popular man in the army’ when restored to his command by George Monck, he soon had ample opportunity to work his passage.5

Ingoldsby was returned to the Convention for Aylesbury on the interest of his step-son, Thomas Lee I, defeating the unrepentant regicide, Thomas Scott. He was entitled to the sole credit for the recapture of Lambert, and received a vote of thanks from the House on 26 Apr. 1660; but a fortnight later he appeared, bathed in tears, to express his penitence for the King’s execution. He did not speak again, and was appointed to only two committees, of no political significance, those for the drainage of the fens and to enable the master of the rolls to make leases. Nevertheless Lord Wharton marked him as a friend reserved for his own management. Sir George Booth obtained leave for him to petition the Lords for a debt owed to him by his fellow-regicide, Sir Hardress Waller, whose daughter had married his brother, and on 7 Dec. Lord Auniger (Francis Aungier) presented a proviso to the indemnity bill on his behalf.6

Ingoldsby was re-elected in 1661, given a place at Court, and made a knight of the Bath for the coronation. An active Member of the Cavalier Parliament, he was appointed to only 27 committees. He was still listed among Wharton’s friends, but also remained in favour at Court. Sir Henry Bennet wrote to Ormonde to support his case before the commissioners of settlement in Ireland, while on his behalf the claims of a devoted Royalist to a lease of the Lincolnshire manor of Ingleby, bought ‘during the late times’, were overridden. He was named to the committees for the private bills on behalf of the younger children of Bulstrode Whitelocke, and to enable Ingleby to be sold. He was reckoned a court dependant in 1664 and a friend of Ormonde, and in 1669 Sir Thomas Osborne included him among those to be engaged for the Court by the Duke of York. ‘Honest Dick Ingoldsby’, in his cousin’s unfortunate phrase, could ‘neither pray nor preach’, and for some time he maintained an Independent chaplain in his household for these purposes. Later Samuel Pepys included him among the Presbyterian commissioned to raise troops of horse after the Dutch raid on the Thames; but he must have conformed, at least until the Conventicles Act, when he lost his place on the commission of the peace. When Osborne took office as Lord Treasurer Danby, Ingoldsby, doubtless under Lee’s important committee was for the liberty of the subject (13 Nov. 1675). He was included on the working lists among Members to be influenced by the King in person; but Sir Richard Wiseman saw ‘little cause to hope well’ of him. Shafterbury marked him ‘worthy’ in 1677, and he was appointed to the committee for the recall of British subjects from the French service. During the Popish Plot alarm he was among those Members appointed to investigate the sounds of knocking heard in Old Palace Yard, and on the proposal to call out the militia he made his only recorded speech:

I think the horse of the militia are most convenient to be employed. That charge lies upon the gentlemen only. The foot are useless, and mostly lying upon the poorer sort. The horse can be everywhere in the county.7

Ingoldsby was re-elected to the Exclusion Parliaments, and again marked ‘worthy’ on the Shaftesbury’s list. He was given leave to go into the country for a fortnight on 1 May 1679, but returned in time to vote for the bill. But he was named to no committees and made no speeches. He was defeated in 1685, but did not join in Lee’s petition, although it was reported that they had a majority of six to one over the Tories. On the news of Monmouth’s landing he was sent to the Tower, but released later in the month. He died on 9 Sept. 1685 and was buried with his wife at Hartwell. His grandson sat for Aylesbury as a government supporter from 1730 to 1734.8

Ref Volumes: 1660-1690

Authors: M. W. Helms / Leonard Naylor


  • 1. Limpscomb, Bucks. ii. 169.
  • 2. E. Peacock, Army Lists, 43; CSP Dom. 1641-3, pp. 379-98; 1667, p. 396; Pepys Diary, 13 June, 6 July 1667.
  • 3. Thurloe, iii. 583; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 93; 1679-80, p. 438; Huntington Lib. Stowe mss, 2/452.
  • 4. CSP Dom. 1652, p. 505; 1655-6, p. 327; Carlisle, Privy Chamber, 172.
  • 5. DNB; VCH Bucks. ii. 278; iii. 483; D. Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy, 255; Clarendon, Rebellion, vi. 222-3; Cal. Cl. SP, iv. 666.
  • 6. Cal. Cl. SP, iv. 626, 628; 675; Hutchinson Mems. 323-4; HMC 7th Rep. 96; Bowman diary, f. 54; Old Parl. Hist. xxiii. 42.
  • 7. Bodl. Carte 32, f. 153; 46, f. 15; CSP Dom. 1663-4, pp. 98, 117; Ludlow Mems. ii. 63; D. R. Lacey, Dissent and Parl. Pols. 414-15; Pepys Diary, 13 June 1667; Grey, vi. 214.
  • 8. HMC Frankland, 61; CSP Dom. 1685, pp. 241, 268; Lipscomb, ii. 169.