Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Lambert, John (1619-1683)
LAMBERT, JOHN (1619–1683), soldier, was baptised on 7 Nov. 1619 at Calton, near Malham Tarn, in Yorkshire, where his father resided (Whitaker, History of Craven, ed. Morant, p. 268), According to Whitelocke he studied law in one of the inns of court, but his name does not appear in any printed admission-lists (Memorial, ed, 1853, ii. 163). On 10 Sept. 1639 he married Frances, daughter of Sir William Lister, knight, of Thornton in Craven, Yorkshire (pedigree of Lambert of Calton, Whitaker, p. 256). When the civil war began, Lambert took up arms for the parliament in the army under the command of Lord Fairfax. Colonel Lambert is said to have 'carried himself very bravely' in the sally from Hull on 11 Oct, 1643, and he is praised by Sir Thomas Fairfax for his services with the parliamentary horse at the battle of Nantwich on 25 Jan. 1644. In March 1644 Lambert and his regiment were quartered at Bradford. On 5 March he beat up the royalists' quarters, and took two hundred prisoners. A few days later he repulsed the attempt of Colonel John Bellasis, the king's governor of York, to recapture Bradford (Rushworth, v. 303, 617; Vicars, God's Ark, pp. 40, 168, 199; Fairfax Correspondence, iii. 94; Diary of Sir Henry Slingsby, ed. Parsons, p. 103). At the battle of Marston Moor Lambert's regiment was part of the cavalry of the right wing which was routed by Goring, but Lambert himself, with Sir Thomas Fairfax and five or six troops, cut their way through the enemy, and joined the victorious left wing under Cromwell (Vicars, God's Ark, p. 274; A full Relation of fie late Victory … on Marston Moor, sent by Captain Stewart, 1644, p. 7). When parliament sent for Fairfax to command the new model army, Lambert, then commissary-general of Fairfax's army, was ordered to take charge of the forces in the north during his absence (Commons' Journals, iv, 27; Whitelocke, i. 369). But this appointment was only temporary, as Colonel Poyntz was ultimately made commander of the northern army. In March 1645, when Langdole raised the siege of Pontefract, Lambert was wounded in attempting to cover the siege (ib. p, 403). As the war in Yorkshire was ended he sought employent in the new model, and succeeded in January 1546 to the command of the foot regiment which had been Colonel Montagu's, He was one of the negotiators of the treaty of Truro (14 March 1646), and of the capitulations of Exeter and Oxford (Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva, ed, 1854, pp. 236, 244, 258). It is evident that he was from the first regarded as an officer of exceptional capacity, and specially selected for semi-political employments.
The dispute between the army and the parliament in 1647 brought Lambert into still greater prominence. In the meetings between the officers and parliamentary commissioners during April and May 1647 he acted as spokesmun of the discontented officers, and was entrusted by them with the task of digesting the particular complaints of each regiment into a general summary of the army'd grievances (Vindication of Sir William Waller, pp. 83, 116; Clarke Papers, i.36, 43, 82). Having 'a suble and working brain,' as well as a legal education, he assisted Ireton in drawing up the 'Heads of the Proposals of Army' (ib, pp. 197, 312, 217; Whitelocke, ii. 163). In July 1647 the soldiers of the northern army threw in their lot with the soldiers of the new model, seized General Poyntz, and sent him a prisoner to Fairfax. Lambert was despatched to replace Poyntz and restore order, He took over the command at a general rendezvous on Peckfield Moor on 8 Aug. 1617, and made a speech to his troops, in which he engaged himself to command nothing but what should be for the good of the Kingdom, and desired them to signify their acceptance of himself as their general. In a few weeks he disbanded the supernumerary soldiers, reduced the insubordinate to obedience, and succeeded in establishing a good understanding between the soldiers and the country people. The newspapers praised his 'fairness, civility, and moderation,' and his endeavours to reconcile quarrels and differences of all kinds. 'A man so completely composed for such an employment could not have been pitched upon besides' (Rushworth, vii. 777, 806, 824, 832).
In May 1648 the northern royalists took up arms again, and at the beginning of July the Scottish army under Hamilton invaded England. Against the former Lambert more than held his own, driving Sir Marmaduke Langdale, with the bulk of his forces, into Carlisle, and recapturing Appleby and four other castles (ib. vii. 1148, 1167, 1186). But the advance of Hamilton, which was preceded by the surprise of Pontefract (1 June), and followed by the defection of Scarborough (28 July), obliged Lambert to fall back. In a letter to which Lambert naturally returned a somewhat sharp answer Hamilton summoned him not to oppose the Scots in their pious, loyal, and necessary undertaking' (ib. pp. 1189, 1194). Lambert retreated on Bowes and Barnard Castle, hoping to be able to hold the Stainmore pass against Hamilton, but was obliged in August to retire first to Richmond and then to Knaresborough (ib. pp. 1200, 1211 ; Gardiner's, Great Civil War, iii. 416, 434). Cromwell joined him on l3 Aug., and the 'two fell on the Scots at Preston and routed them in a three days' battle (17-19 Aug.) Lambert was charged with the pursuit of Hamilton, who surrendered at Uttoxeter on 25 Aug. (ib. p. 447). On Hamilton's trial in 1649 it was disputed whether he had rendered to Lambert or been captured Lord Gray, but the evidence leaves no doubt that Gray seized him after the signature the articles with Lambert's officers (Burnby, Lives of the Hamiltons, ed. 1862, pp. 461, 491). In October Cromwell sent Lambert to Edinburgh, in advance of the rest of army, with seven regiments of horse, to support the Argyll party in establishing a government, and left him there with a couple of regiments to protect them against the Hamiltonians (Carlyle, Cromwell, Letters lxxvii.) At the end of November Lambert returned to Yorkshire to besiege Pontafract which surrendered on 22 March 1649. On the earnest recommendation of Fairfax parliament rewarded Lambert's services by a grant of lands worth 300l. per annum the demesnes of Pontefract (Commons' Journal, vi. 174, 406; Tanner MSS. Bodleian Library, lvi. f. 1). Though Lambert's military duties kept him at a distance during the king's trial, there can be little doubt that he approved of it (Rushworth, vii. 1367).
When Cromwell marched into Scotland July 1650, Lambert accompanied him with the rank of major-general and as seconf in command. Cromwell gave him the command of the foot regiment, lately Colonel Bright's (Memoirs of Captain John Hodgton, p. 41). In the fight at Musselburrgh on 29 July Lambert was twice wounded and taken prisoner, but was rescued almost immediately {ii. p. 39; Carlyle, Letter cxxxv.) At Dunbar he headed the attack on the Scots in and was, according to one account the man whose advice decided the council of war to give battle, and author of the tactics which led to the victory (ib. Letter cxl. ; Memoires, Hodgson, p.43). On 1 Dec. Colonel Ker attacked Lambert's quarters at Hamilton, near Glasgow but was taken prisoner, and his forces completely scattered (Carlyle, Letter cliii.) On 20 July in the following year Lambert defeated Sir John Browne at Inverkeithing in Fife, taking forty or fifty colours and fifteen hundred prisoners (ib. Letter clxxv. ; Mercurius Politcus, 24-31 July, contains Lambert's despatch). When Charles II started on march into England, Lambert and the cavalry of Cromwell's army were sent ahead to 'trouble the enemy in the rear,' and if possible to join Harrison in stopping their advance (Cary, Memorials of the Civil War, p. 295). At Warrington Lambert and Harrison succeeded in checking the Scots for a few hours, but they where not strong enough in foot to venture a regular engagement (Mercurius Politicus, 14-21 Aug.) On 28 Aug. Lambert captured Upton Bridge, seven miles from Worecester, seecuring thereby the passage of the Severn, and in the crowning victory of 3 Sept. he had his horse shot under him (Cromwelliana, pp. 111, 115). 'The carriage of the major-general,' Cromwell had written to the speaker after the battle of Inverkeithing, 'us in all other things so in this, is worthy of your taking notice of (Carlyle, Letter clxxxv.) Parliament at last took the hint, and on 9 Sept. 1651 voted Lambert lands in Scotland to the value of 1,000l. a year (Commons' Journals, vii. 14).
After Worcester, Lambert returned to Scotland. but only for a short time. On 23 Oct. 1661 parliament appointed him one of the eight commissioners to be sent thither 'for the managing of the civil government and settlement of affairs there,' in reality to prepare the way for the union of the two kingdoms (ib. vii. 20, 30). Lambert's wife had joined him in Scotland in the summer of 1651 (Letters of Roundhead Officers from Scotland, Bannatyne Club, pp. 31, 36). But the death of Ireton (26 Nov. 1661) rendered it necessary to appoint a new lord deputy of Ireland.' On 30 Jan. 1652 parliament decided to appoint Lambert, at the recommendation of the council of state, and required Cromwell, the lord-lieutenant, to commission Lambert as his deputy (Commons' Journals, vii. 77, 79). Lambert came to London and mode great preparations, 'laying out five thousand pounds for his own particular equipage' (Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson, ii. 188). But on 19 May 1652 parliament, which had appointed him for only six months, abolished the lord-lieutenancy, and the post of deputy necessarily ceased with it. Lambert might have been reappointed as commander-in-chief of the forces and one of the commissioners for the civil government of Ireland, might he refused to accept the diminished dignity, and Fleetwood was appointed In his place (Commons' Journals, vii. 142, 152). Mrs. Hutchinson attributes this slight to the offence which Lambert gave the parliament by 'too soon putting on the prince,' and to deep-laid plot of Cromwell to get Fleetwood the place (Hutchinson, ii, 189). Ludlow regards it as concerted by Cromwell in order to create ill-feeling between Lambert and the parliament, and make him willing to assist in its overthrow (Memoirs, ed, 1698, pp. 412-H). Cromwell certainly thought Lambert hardly treated, and requested that 2,000l. out of the arrears of salary due to himself as lord-lieutenant should be paid to Lambert (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1651-2, p. 6S3). Lambert afterwards persuaded himself that Cromwell had really planned it all, and asserted that Cromwell exasperated him against the parliament, saying that 'not anything troubled him more than to honest John Lambert so ungratefully treated' (Thurloe State Papers, vii. 660). There is no doubt that Lambert began to press for the dissolution of the parliament and urged Cromwell to effect it (Ludlow, p. 459). On the afternoon of 20 April 1663 he was with Cromwell when the latter visited the council of state and put a stop to their sittings. He was the first president of the new council appointed by the officers of the army (ib. p. 461; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1652-3, p. 301).
In the discussions which now took place on the future form of government Lambert's political views became more clearly revealed. While Harrison moved that the supreme power should be entrusted to a council of seventy, Lambert wished to give it to ten or twelve persons. The conclusion was its devolution to 139 puritan notables composing the 'little parliament,' who immediately invited Lambert to take his seat among them (6 July 1653; Commons' Journals, vii. 231; Ludlow, p. 462). He was chosen a member of the first council of state which they appointed (9 July), but not of the second (1 Nov.) When the 'little parliament' surrendered its powers back to Cromwell, Lambert was the leading spirit in the council of officers who now drew up the instrument of government and offered the post of protector to Cromwell. He and a few of the 'leaders had prepared the draft of a constitution beforehand, cut short all discussion, and imposed it on the council at large (Ludlow, p. 476; The Protector Unveiled, 1655, 4to, p. 12; Thurloe, i. 610, 754). Lambert became a member of the Protector's council of state, and it was reported that he would be general of the three nations, and was to be made a duke (ib. i. 642, 645).
Observers supposed that Lambert had procured the dissolution of the 'little parliament' in order to get rid of his rival Harrison, and that be supported Cromwell's elevation because he hoped to succeed to his power. 'His interest,' said a newsletter in April 1653, 'was more universal than Harrison's both in the army and country; he is a gentleman born, learned, well qualified, of courage, conduct, good nature, and discretion' (Cat. Clarendon Papers, ii, 206). 'This which Lambert aimed at he hath effected,' says a letter written in December following. 'The general will be governor and must stay here. He will gain the command of the army, and it cannot be avoided. Harrison is now out of doors, having all along joined with the anabaptists' (Thurloe, i. 632).
Up to the summer of 1657 Lambert remained the strongest supporter of the Protector. In October 1654, when the ‘instrument of government was under discussion, he made a long speech to persuade the parliament that it was necessary to make the protectorship hereditary, but some believed he did so merely to remove all jealousy of his own aiming, knowing it would be rejected for the other’ (ib. ii. 681–5; Cal. Clarendon Papers, ii. 438). When the major-generals were appointed he was entrusted with the care of the five northern counties, but acted through deputies, Colonels Charles Howard and Robert Lilburne (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1655, p. 387). He was undoubtedly one of the chief instigators of their establishment, and in the parliament of 1656 no one was more eager for their continuance. ‘I wish,’ he said, ‘any man could propound an expedient to be secure against your common enemies by another way than as the militia is settled. The quarrel is now between light and darkness, not who shall rule, but whether we shall live or be preserved or no. Good words will not do with the cavaliers’ (Burton, Cromwellian Diary, ii. 240, 319; Cal. Clarendon Papers, iii. 239; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1655, p. 296). On questions of public policy his views were much the same as the Protector's. He advocated the war with Spain, and was anxious to keep the Sound from falling into the possession of the Dutch or Danes or of any single power (Burton, iii. 400). He was in favour of liberty of conscience, spoke on behalf of James Nayler, and approved the Protector's intervention on his behalf (ib. i. 33, 218; Hobbes, Behemoth, p. 187, ed. Tönnies). Like Cromwell, he firmly believed in the necessity of limiting the power of parliament by constitutional restrictions (Burton, i. 255, 281). In dealing with republicans who refused to own the legitimacy of Cromwell's government no one of the Protector's council was less conciliatory (Ludlow, pp. 555, 573). At the same time Lambert seemed to outsiders to be independent of the Protector and almost equal in power. He was ‘the army's darling.’ As fast as recalcitrant officers were cashiered he filled their places with his supporters. He was major-general of the army, colonel of two regiments, a member of the council, and a lord of the Cinque ports, enjoying from these offices an income of 6,500l. a year (‘A Narrative of the Late Parliament,’ Harleian Miscellany, ed. Park, iii. 452; Cal. Clarendon Papers, ii. 380). ‘It lies in his power,’ wrote a royalist, ‘to raise Oliver higher or else to set up in his place. One of the council's opinion being asked what he thought Lambert did intend, his answer was that Lambert would let this man continue protector, but that he would rule him as he pleased’ (Carte, Original Letters, ii. 89).
The question of kingship caused an open breach between Lambert and Cromwell. Cromwell plainly asserted that the title of king had been originally offered to him in the first draft of the instrument of government, and hinted that Lambert was responsible for the offer (Burton, i. 382; Godwin, History of the Commonwealth, iv. 9). But now, at all events, Lambert steadfastly opposed it, and people believed he would raise a mutiny in the army rather than consent to it. In the end Thurloe, who at first shared these suspicions, announced to Henry Cromwell that Lambert ‘stood at a distance’ and allowed things to take their course, leaving Fleetwood and Desborough to lead the opposition. But he joined with them in telling the Protector that if the title were accepted all three would resign (Thurloe, vi. 75, 93, 219, 281; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 326, 333). Cromwell's refusal of the dignity did not put an end to Lambert's discontent. On 24 June 1657 parliament determined to impose an oath on all councillors and other officials (Commons' Journals, vii. 572). Lambert strenuously opposed the oath in parliament, refused to take it when it was passed, and absented himself from the meetings of the council (Burton, ii. 276, 295; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1657–8, pp. 13, 40). Finally Cromwell demanded the surrender of his commissions (23 July 1657; Thurloe, vi. 412, 425, 427; Hist. MSS. Comm. 3rd Rep. p. 247).
For the rest of the protectorate Lambert lived in retirement at his house at Wimbledon, which he had purchased when the queen's lands were sold. His regiment of foot was given to Fleetwood, his regiment of horse to Lord Falconbridge. To soften the blow, or ‘to keep him from any desperate undertaking,’ Cromwell allowed him a pension of 2,000l. a year (Ludlow, p. 594). About six months before he died Cromwell sought a reconcilation with his old friend. When Lambert came to Whitehall ‘Cromwell fell on his neck, kissed him, inquired of dear Johnny for his jewel (so he calls Mrs. Lambert) and for all his children by name. The day following she visited Cromwell's wife, who fell immediately into a kind quarrel for her long absence, disclaimed policy or statecraft, but professed a motherly kindness to her and hers, which no change should ever alter’ (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 329). But the breach was too wide to be closed. Royalist agents tried to use it to win Lambert to their cause, but without success. ‘I wish Lambert were dead,' writes one of these agents the day after Cromwell's death, 'for I find the army much devoted to him, but I cannot perceive that he is in any way to be reconciled to the king, so that 'tis no small danger that his reputation with the army may thrust Dick Cromwell out of the saddle and yet not help the king into it' (ib. iii. 408). Richard Cromwell's advisers were very sensible of the danger. They sought to conciliate Lambert, sent him mourning for the late Protector's funeral, and received in return the assurance of his fidelity (Thurloe, vii. 415; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 238).
Lambert took no part in the military intrigues of October and November 1658. He was elected to the parliament of 1659 both for Aldborough and Pontefract, but preferred to sit for the latter. When the bill for the recognition of the new protector was brought in, he gave a general support to it. 'We are all,' he said, 'for this honourable person that is now in power.' At the same time he urged the house to limit the protector's power over 'the military forces, and his negative voice in legislation. 'The best man is but a man at the best. I have had great cause to know it.' Therefore. whatever engagement they entered into with their protector, 'let the people's liberties be on the back of the bond' (Burton, iii. 185-91, 231, 323, 334). In a similar spirit he supported the foreign policy of the new government, but expected to the admission of the Irish and Scottish members to parliament (ib. iii. 400, iv. 174). It is evident that he endeavoured to ingratiate himself with the republican party, and to apologise for his share in turning out the Long parliament (Thurloe, vii. 660). But he was no longer a member of the army, and was not in the councils of the Wallingford House party. In spite of rumours and suspicions it is not clear that he took any part in concerting the coup d'état which obliged Richard Cromwell to dissolve his parliament (22 April 1659).
Lambert now recovered his old position. Fleetwood and Desborough had laboured, but be reaped the fruit of their victory. The inferior officers obliged them to recall the Long parliament and to restore Lambert to his commands. He became once more colonel of two regiments, and acted as the chief representative of the army in the negotiations which preceded the restoration of the parliament (Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 374, 379 ; Baker, Chronicle, ad. Phillips, 1670, p. 659; Ludlow, p. 645), He presented to (7 May) the declaration in which the army invited the members of the Long parliament to return, and the larger declaration in which the soldiers summed up their political demands (13 May; Baker, pp. 691–694). Parliament in return elected Lambert a member of the committee of Safety (9 May), and of the council of state (13 May), and one of the seven commissioners for the nomination of officers (4 June). He received on 11 June the commissions for his own two regiments from the hands of the speaker (Commons' Journals, vii. 680). But this harmony did not lost long. The promise act of indemnity was delayed, and seemed to him when passed to leave those who had acted under Cromwell at the mercy of the parliament. 'I know not,' said he, 'why they should not be at our mercy as well as we at theirs' (Ludlow, pp. 661, 677). But Lambert's revelation of some offers made to him by the royalists restored the confidence of the parliament, and on 6 Aug. he was appointed to command the forces sent to subdue Sir George Booth's rising (ib. p. 691; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 76). He defeated Booth at Winwick Bridle, near Northwich, in Cheshire (19 Aug.), and recaptured Chester city (21 Aug.) and Chirk Castle (24 Aug.) (The Lord Lambert's Letter to the Speaker, &,c., 4to, 1659; a Second and Third Letter from the Lord Lambert, &c.; Carte, Original Letters, li. 196). Parliament voted Lambert a jewel worth 1,000l., but rejected a proposal of Fleetwood's to appoint him major-general (Ludlow, p. 695; Commons' Journals, vii. 786; Ginzot, i. 464). Lambert's officers thereupon agitated for his appointment, and assembling at Derby drew up an address to the house (The humble Petition and Proposals of the Officers under the command of the Lord Lambert in the late Northern Expedition; Baker, p. 677). Parliament ordered Fleetwood to stop the further progress of the petition (23 Sept.), and some members even urged that Lambert should be sent to the Tower (Ludlow, pp. 706, 719; Guizot, i. 479, 483). They also passed a vote that to have any more general officers would be 'needless, chargeable, and dangerous to the commonwealth' (Commons' Journals, vii. 785). The general council of the army now met, vindicated the petition of the northern brigade, and added many demands of their own (5 Oct.; Baker, p. 679). Some of these the parliament granted, but learning that the council were seeking subscriptions to their petition from the officers throughout the three kingdoms, they suddenly cashiered Lambert and other leaders (12 Oct. 1659; Commons' Journals, vii. 796). Lambert had disavowed the Derby petition and remained as passive spectator of the quarrel. He now collected the regiments who adhered to him, marched to Westminster, displaced the regiments of the parliamemt, and set guards on the house. The speaker and the members were forcibly debarred from entering (13 Oct.)
Lambert told Ludlow a few days later that 'he had no intention to interrupt the parliament till the time he did it, and that he was necessitated to that extremity for his own preservation, saying that Sir Arthur Haslerig was so enraged against him that he would be satisfied with nothing but his blood' (Ludlow, pp. 720, 730, 739; Carte, Original Letters, pp. 246, 267). Vane also stated that Lambert 'had rather been made use of by the Wallingford House party than been in any manner the principal contriver of the late disorders' (ib. p. 742). Milton, however, wrote of Lambert as the 'Achan' whose 'close ambition' had 'abused the honest natures' of the soldiers (A Letter to a Friend concerning the Ruptures of the Commonwealth).
The council of the army now made Lambert major-general, and he became a member of the committee of safety which succeeded the parliament's council of state. Bordeaux thought his great position precarious because the Fifth-monarchy men distrusted him 'as having no religion or show of it' (Guizot, ii. 275). The royalists expected him to make himself pretector, and were eager to bribe him to restore the king. Lord Mordaunt proposed a match between the Duke of York and Lambert's daughter, and Lord Hatton suggested that the king should marry her himself. 'No foreign aid,' wrote Hatton, 'will he so cheap nor leave our master so much at liberty as this way. The race is a very good gentleman's family, and kings have condescended to gentlewomen and subjects. The lady is pretty, of an extraordinary sweetness of disposition, and very virtuously and ingenuously disposed; the father is a person, set aside his unhappy engagement, of very great parts and very noble inclinations' (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 592; Carte, Original Letters, ii. 200, 237; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, pp. 235, 246).
When Monck openly declared for the parliament, Lambert was sent north to oppose his advance into England (3 Nov.) His forces were larger than Monck's, but he was reluctant to attack, and negotiated till the opportunity was lost. Portsmouth garrison declared for the parliament (8 Dec); the fleet followed its example (13 Dec.), and the authority of the parliament was again acknowledged by the troops in London (24 Dec.) The Irish brigade under Lambert's command joined the rising of the Yorkshire gentlemen under Lord Fairfax (1 Jan. 1660), and his whole army dissolved and left him. People expected that Lambert would take desperate resolution, but the parliament wisely included him in the general indemnity promised to all soldiers who submitted before 9 Jan., and Lambert at once accepted the offer (Commons' Journals, vii. Clarendon State Papers, iii. 659). He was simply deprived of his commands and ordered to retire to his house in Yorkshire (ib. 661) On 26 Jan. he was ordered to Holmby in Northamptonshire, and on 13 Feb. a proclamation was issued for his arrest on the charge that he was lurking privately in London, and had provoke the mutiny which took place on 2 Feb. (Commons' Journals, vii. 806, 823; Mercurius Politicus, 9-16 Feb. 1660). On 5 March Lambert appeared before the council of state and endeavored to vindicate himself. He hoped to be permitted to raise a few soldiers and enter the Swedish service. The council ordered him to give security to the extent of 20,000l. for peaceable behaviour, and as he professed inability to do so committed him to the Tower (Commons' Journals, vii. 857, 864; Clarendon State Papers, iii, 695).
The evident approach of the Restoration alarmed the republicans, and many were ready to reconcile themselves with Lambert in order to employ him against Monck (Ludlow, p. 865). On 10 April he escaped from the Tower, sent his emissaries throughout the country, and appointed a rendezvous his followers for Edgehill. He succeeded collecting about six troops of horse aand a number of officers, when Colonel Ingoldsby and Colonel Streeter came upon him near Coventry (22 April). But for a well-grounded distrust of his aims, a larger number of Republicans would have flocked to his standard. As it was, his soldiers declined to fight, Lambert himself, after an unsuccessful attempt at flight, was overtaken by Ingoldsby, prayed in vain to be allowed to escape, and was brought a prisoner to London (Kennett, Register, pp. 114-21; Baker, p. 721; Ludlow, pp. 873, 877; Guizot, ii. 411, The shouting crowds which received him there reminded Lambert of the crowds which had cheered himself and Cromwell when they set forth against the Scots. 'Do trust to that,' Cromwell had said; 'these very persons would shout as much if you and I were going to be hanged.' Lambert told Ingoldsby 'that he looked on himself as in a fair way to that, and began to think Cromwell prophesied' (Burnet, Own Time, ed. 1833, i. 155).
But though Lambert had been politically more harmful than most of his associates, he had taken no part in the king's trial, and so escaped with comparitively light punishment. The commons included him among the twenty culprits who were to be excepted from the Act of Indemnity for punishment not extending to life (16 June 1660). The lords voted he should be wholly exempted from the act (1 Aug.) A compromise was finally arrived at by which the two houses excepted Lambert, but agreed to petition that if he was attainted the death penalty might be remitted (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 443, 472). Lambert himself petitioned for pardon, declaring that he was satisfied with the present government, and resolved to spend the rest of his days in peace (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1660–1, pp. 8, 175). In October 1661 he was removed from the Tower to Guernsey, where he was allowed to take a house for himself and his family (ib. 1661–2, pp. 118, 276). On 1 July 1661 the House of Commons, more unforgiving than the Convention parliament had been, ordered that Lambert, having been excepted from the Act of Indemnity, should be proceeded against according to law. In answer to their repeated requests the he reluctantly ordered him to be brought from Guernsey to the Tower (Commons Journals, viii. 287, 317, 342, 368; Lister, Life of Clarendon, ii. 118; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1661–2, p. 329). On 2 June 1 Lambert was arraigned in the court of king's bench for high treason in levying war against the king. His behaviour was discreet and submissive; he endeavoured to extenuate but not to justify his offences, and when sentence had been pronounced the lord chief justice announced that the king was pleased to respite his execution (State Trials, vi. 133, 156; The Kingdom's Intelligenceer, 9–18 June 1662). Lambert was then sent back to Guernsey where Lord Hatton, the governor, was empowered to give him ‘such liberty and indulgence within the precincts of the island as will consist with the liberty of his person’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1661–2, p. 555). This he attributed in a grateful letter to the intervention of Clarendon, to whom he praised Hatton's ‘candid and friendly deportment’ (Lister, Life of Claredon, iii. 310; cf. Hatton, Correspondance, i. 35, 38). In 1664 he was again closely confined for a time, and in 1666, a plot for his escape having been discovered, Hatton was instructed to shoot his prisoner if the French effected s lending (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1663–4 pp. 508, 514, 1665–6 pp. 480, 522; Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. iv. 90). The clandestine marriage of Mary Lambert with the governor's son, Charles Hutton, further strained Lambert's relations with the governor, and in 1667 he was removed to the island of St. Nicholas in Plymouth Sound (ib.) There he was visited in 1673 by Miles Halhead, a quaker, who came to charge him with permitting the persecution of that sect in the time of his power (Notes and Queries, 1st ser. vi. 103). Rumour, however, had persistently accused Lambert of favouring the catholics, and Oates in 1678 asserted that he was engaged in the popish plot, ‘but by that time,' adds Burnet, ‘he had lost his memory and sense' (Own Time, ed. 1833, ii. 159; cf. Carte, Original Letters,, ii. 225). He died a prisoner in the winter of 1683 (Notes and Queries, lst ser. iv. 339).
Among his own party Lambert was known as ‘honest John Lambert.' To the royalists he was a generous opponent, and showed much kindness to his prisoners in 1659. Mrs. Hutchinson mentions his taste for gardening; he is credited with introducing the Guernsey lily into England, and Flatman describes him in his satirical romance as ‘the Knight of the Golden Tulip’ (Don Juan Lamberto, or a Comical History of our late Times, ed. 1664, p. 2; Life of Colonel Hutchinson, ii. 205; Notes and Queries, 1st ser. vii. 459). He was fond of art, too, bought 'divers rare pictures' which had belonged to Charles I, and is said himself to have painted flowers, and even a portrait of Cromwell (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 189; Notes and Quries, 2nd ser. iii. 410). As a soldier he was distinguished by great personal courage, and was a better general that his rivals, Harrison and Fleetwood. He was a good speaker, but rash, unstable, and shortsighted in his politcal action. Contemporaries attributed ambition to the influence of his wife, whose pride is often alluded to (Life of Colonel Hutchinson, ii. 189). She and her husband were satirised in Tatham's play ‘The Rump,’ and in Mrs. Behn’s ‘The Roundheads, or the Good Old Cause.’
A portrait of Lambert by Robert Welker, formerly in the possession of the Earl of Hardwicke, is now in the National Portrait Gallery, London, Other portraits belong to Sir Matthew Wilson and Lord Ribblesdale. A list of engraved portraits of Lambert is given in the Catalogue of the Sutherland collection (i. 578). The best known is that in Houbraken’s ‘Heads of Illustrious Persons of Great Britain,’ 1743.
Lambert left ten children. At the Restoration he lost the lands he had purchased at Wimbledon and at Hatfield Chase, but his ancestral estates were granted by Charles II to Lord Bellasis in trust for Mrs. Lambert (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1661–2 p. 478, 1663–4 pp. 30, 41, 166). These were inherited by his eldest son, John Lambert of Calton described by his friend Thoresby as a great scholar and virtuoso, and 'a most exact limner' (Diary, i. 131). He died in 1701, and the Lambert property passed to his daughter Frances, the wife of Sir John Middleton of Belsay Cadlle. Northumberland (Whitaker, p. 256). Lambert's second daughter mamed Captain John Blackwell, who was appointed in 1688 governor of Pennsylvania (Massachusetts Historical Colletions, iii. i. 61; Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, v. 207).
[Authhorities are chited in the text. The best life of Lambert is that contained in Whitaker's History of Craven, ed. Morant. See also Noble's House of Cromwell, ed. 1787, i. 336. Autograph letters of Lambert are among the Tanner and Rawlinson MSS. in the Bodleian library.]