[5] The physical results of intermarriage with the object of
concentrating property, are very apparent in many of the older _Bonde_
families in Norway.
[6] It would not be right to allow this observation to pass without
mentioning, even at the cost of destroying so fascinating a picture of
pastoral felicity, that the hard-working dairy-maids of Norway are never
accompanied by their sweethearts to the soeters, where, except from
Saturday night until Monday morning, when the young men find time to
visit them, they lead the most solitary lives, and are busy all day in
milking cows and goats and making butter and cheese.
[7] In 1833 the total production of spirits in the rural districts
amounted to about 3-1/2 gallons per head of the population. The
demoralization that resulted from its increase necessitated the
enactment of restrictive measures, and at last, in 1848, the small
stills were purchased by the State, and private distillation was
prohibited. As in Great Britain, the vice of drunkeness is now
decreasing in Norway, owing partly to the reduced means of the
population, but chiefly to the influence of education and of temperance
societies.
[8] The average proportion of 1851-52 was 9.32 per cent. There is a
difference of only 1 per cent, between the rates of illegitimacy in
rural and urban districts, to the disadvantage of the latter.
[9] 'The French Constitution of 1791 is one of the principal sources of
the Fundamental Law of Norway. The suspensive veto has been derived from
it.'--O. I. Broch.
[10] At the end of 1882, the total population was estimated at
1,922,500, or a decrease 3900 as compared with 1881, when the increase
was only 1000 from the year preceding.
[11] In 1880, the average rate of wages for labourers engaged by the
year in agricultural districts was 8l. 10s. per annum, and that of daily
labour, without food, 1s. 9d. per diem; the corresponding rates in towns
having been 11l. 6s. 8d. and 2s.
[12] Our readers must, however, bear in mind that we are dealing only
with the rural economy of Norway, and that the facts we shall submit on
that subject affect but slightly the general financial condition of a
country which continues to derive its earnings mainly from the supply of
timber, fish, wood-pulp, ice, &c., to foreign countries, and from its
extensive carrying trade in sailing vessels and steamers. The prosperity
of the towns is influenced chiefly by the state of trade in the rest of
Europe, while being (to the extent of 122 out of 128) situated on the
seaboard, their successful development reacts but little on the
prosperity of the inland agricultural districts.
[13] In the 'Tables of Landed Property,' published in 1880, the holdings
(in 1865) are classified as follows:--
Properties under 5 acres 34,224 or 15.5 per cent.
" between 5 and 12-1/2 acres 42,984 " 32.1 "
" " 12-1/2 and 50 " 48,575 " 36.2 "
" above 50 acres 8,208 " 6.2 "
[14] The italics our own. The author states that it is the custom among
the peasants of Norway that when the eldest son or the daughter of the
house (when there is no son), marries, the parents surrender the
property, but retain a right of subsistence upon it. This, he shows,
explains the existence of the large number of detached dwellings on the
same estate, for very often cottages have to be built for the
accommodation of persons who have a right to subsistence, which is not,
however, limited to a dwelling-house, but frequently includes the
usufruct of a small plot of land and, almost always fodder for a certain
number of cows and goats. See also p. 386.
[15] The eldest of kin having allodial right.
[16] Between 1871 and 1875 Norway imported about 46 per cent. of the
cereals required for home consumption, in addition to pork, butter, and
other articles of food.
[17] From statistics recently published, it appears that between 1881
and 1883 the price of land, estimated on actual sales, has shown a
tendency to rise in the Provinces which have a coast line, populated by
fisherman, &c., and to fall in most of the inland, more purely
agricultural districts.
[18] Dr. Broch shows that in 1875, which was an average year for crops,
the production of cereals and potatoes (reduced to the value of barley)
was 3125 hectol. per 1000 inhabitants in Norway; whereas the average
crops in France yielded 7400 hectol. per 1000 of the population.
[19] In 1884 a motion to that effect was made in the Swedish Rigsdag by
a peasant proprietor. At present the duty on cereals imported into
Norway is merely nominal, averaging about 2-1/2 per cent. _ad valorem_.
[20] From special causes, the number of persons relieved in 1881 and
1882 was exceptionally high in Ireland. In 1879 it was 7-1/2 per cent.,
and in 1883 about 8 per cent. of the population.
[21] Hereditary nobility is already abolished. Under a law passed in
1821, all titles of nobility become extinct in the persons of those who
were born before 1822.
[22] _I. e._ dovecot.
[23] Lady Verney's 'Cottier-owners, Little Takes and Peasant
Proprietors,' published last year, is replete with facts drawn from
actual life, showing that small peasant-proprietorship is proving
ruinous on the Continent, even where the system has grown up naturally.
[24] In No. 302, April 1881.
[25] It is certainly remarkable to find that Australian tallow, Indian
linseed, and German barley are being imported at St. Petersburg, whence
those articles were, in the days of large landed properties, extensively
exported. The Minister of Finance, following the example of Prince
Bismarck, attempts to check this competition with the staple products of
the small landed proprietors by imposing protective duties.
[26] Rs. 846,068,368, at the exchange of 32d., current when the great
bulk of the expropriations were effected.
[27] In provinces of Russia Proper alone, the landed proprietors
(exclusive of the ex-serfs) have mortgaged their estates in various land
and other banks to the extent of 30-3/4 per cent. of their aggregate
acreage, the total remaining debt on such lands being about 49 millions
sterling at the present reduced value of the rouble, or 65 millions
sterling at the rate of exchange adopted in estimating the indebtedness
of the peasantry.
[28] At the same rate of exchange.
[29] This tax had previously given to the Imperial Treasury a sum of
about 5-1/2 millions sterling, at the depreciated rate of exchange. It
was assessed at rates that varied in the different Provinces between 2s.
7d. and 4s. 4d. per head of the male registered population, or 'per
soul.'
Art. V.--_A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, Esq.;
Secretary, First to the Council of State, and afterwards to the Two
Protectors, Oliver and Richard Cromwell._ In Seven Volumes, containing
authentic Memorials of the English affairs from the year 1638 to the
Restoration of King Charles II. Vol. III. London, 1742.
The character of Oliver Cromwell might, for our part, have rested
undisturbed among the 'old, unhappy, far off things' of history, had it
been our intention to fight over again, on the old lines, the contention
whether he was a hero or a knave. On the contrary, towards the solution
of that question a method, as yet untried, has been adopted. Instead of
attempting a review of Cromwell's whole career, to gain an idea of what
manner of man he was, a single train of events, in which his hand was
visible throughout, has been subjected to some degree of scrutiny. A
man's words and deeds, although arising only on one occasion, may supply
an effectual test of his real self. There could, for instance, be hardly
any doubt regarding the leading bias of his disposition, if a supremely
able ruler, that he may procure his safety, consents to--
'play one scene
Of excellent dissembling, and let it look
Like perfect honour.'
These lines disclose our case. With prescient genius Shakspeare has
described the part that Cromwell took in an event which occurred under
his Protectorate, the so-called Insurrection of March 1655; and in our
examination into the secret history of that occurrence lies the test
that we have applied to Cromwell's character.
The revelation that we are attempting is not, however, free from
inherent difficulty. In these days of literature made easy, the products
of close research are not readily acceptable. To open up a new vista in
history, much has to be cut down, much put into new order; and the
reader must unavoidably share in the labours of the writer. And though
some curiosity may be aroused by the discovery of that which has
remained hidden, for over two centuries; still, to gratify that
curiosity, many an ingrained idea must be laid aside. Difficult as it
may seem to many, Cromwell at the outset must be regarded not as 'our
heroic One,' but as a man who sold himself to falsehood, that he might
'ride in gilt coaches, escorted by the flunkeyisms, and most sweet
voices.' Nor to appreciate the secret of our character-test, can the
assertion of any historian, from Clarendon down to Carlyle's last
imitator, be credited, that 'a universal rising of Royalists combined
with Anabaptists' broke out in March 1655. On the contrary, it must be
accepted as a preliminary condition in this investigation that England
was, at that time, in a state of immovable tranquillity, and that any
insurrectionary movement during the year 1655 sprang from a far-reaching
design, which Cromwell practised alike on friends, neutrals, and
enemies.
That this was the case has hitherto escaped notice. Every historian, who
has taken part in the Cromwelliad, regards that revolt as 'a very tragic
reality;' they all agree, that it was 'prevented from breaking into a
dangerous flame by vigilance, prompt action, and by necessary severity.'
That this event might be regarded in a very different light was an idea
far from every one of them. Proof, however, goes before disproof. The
historians should have their say first; and our readers must endure, for
a few moments, what may be termed the received version of the
Insurrection of March 1655.
According to Godwin, 'A general rising was meditated about the beginning
of March 1655, by the Royalist party in various parts of
England,--Yorkshire, Shropshire, Nottinghamshire, Devon and Wilts,' and
also in North Wales. 'Wilmot, about this time created Earl of Rochester,
came over to England' to head the enterprise, 'accompanied by Sir J.
Wagstaff. Charles II., who had spent the winter at Cologne, now came
privately to Middleburg in Holland, that he might be ready to pass over
to England, if the condition of affairs authorized such a measure. The
activity of Cromwell and his assistants speedily defeated these
multiplied intrigues. It does not appear that hostilities anywhere were
actually commenced, except in Yorkshire and the West of England.'
As historians persist that on Marston Moor, the scene of the
'hostilities' in Yorkshire, an actual affray occurred,--Carlyle throws
in 'a few shots fired';--we must turn to the 'Perfect Proceedings' News
Letter, of March 1655, for a truer description of that event:--
'York. The 8th of March instant, there was a meeting
appointed by the Malignants in Yorkshire to surprise York
City. To that end a party was to come on the west side of
the City, where Sir Richard Malliverer, with divers others,
was on their March. About 100 horse came with a cart load of
arms and ammunition to Hessey (i. e. Marston) Moor. And at
the wynd-mill upon the Moor there came some intelligence,
that a party, that sh'd' have come on the other side of the
City, was not ready that night. And more company failing,
which they expected to meet them that night upon the Moor
they suddenly and disorderly retreated; some Pistols was
scattered and found next morning, and a led horse, with a
velvet saddle, left in Skipbrig Lane, which was found next
day.'
In Wiltshire, however, the Royalists effected a brief revolt, an
incident which the following quotation from Carlyle will readily recall
to mind:--
'Sunday, March 11th, 1655, in the City of Salisbury, about
midnight, there occurs a thing worth noting. Salisbury was
awakened from its slumbers by a real advent of Cavaliers.
Sir John Wagstaff, "a jolly knight" of those parts, once a
Royalist Colonel: he, with Squire, or Major Penruddock, "a
gentleman of fair fortune," Squire, or Major Grove, and
about two hundred others, did actually rendezvous in arms
about the Big Steeple, that Sunday night, and ring a loud
alarm in those parts. It was Assize time; the Judges had
arrived the day before. Wagstaff seizes the Judges in their
beds, seizes the High Sheriff, and otherwise makes night
hideous;--proposes on the morrow to hang the Judges, as a
useful warning; but is overruled by Penruddock and the rest.
He orders the High Sheriff to proclaim King Charles; High
Sheriff will not, not though you hang him; Town-crier will
not, not even though you hang him. The Insurrection does not
spread in Salisbury, it would seem. The Insurrection quits
Salisbury on Monday night, marches with all speed towards
Cornwall, hoping for better luck there. Marches;--but
Captain Unton Crook marches also in the rear of it; marches
swiftly, fiercely; overtakes it at South Molton in
Devonshire, "on Wednesday about ten at night," and there, in
a few minutes, put an end to it. We took Penruddock, Grove,
and long lists of others; Wagstaff unluckily escaped ... and
this Royalist conflagration, which should have blazed all
over England, is entirely damped out. Indeed so prompt and
complete is the extinction, thankless people begin to say
there had never been anything considerable to extinguish.
Had they stood in the middle of it,--had they seen the
nocturnal rendezvous at Marston Moor, seen what Shrewsbury,
what Rufford Abbey, what North Wales in general, would have
grown to on the morrow,--in that case, thinks the Lord
Protector, not without some indignation, they had
known!--Carlyle's 'Cromwell,' vol. iv. pp. 129, 130.
If Carlyle had been more heedful he might have taken the hint furnished
by those 'thankless people.' Men are not usually thankless if preserved
from a real and obvious danger. Carlyle, however, thought that he knew
more about those transactions than the men who might have witnessed
them; and so we will accept his somewhat incautious invitation, and our
readers, if they choose to do so, shall perceive, perhaps, 'not without
some indignation,' what the Lord Protector 'had known' about the
insurrection of March 1655; they shall, to a certain extent at least,
regard that event from his point of view. And to enable them to do so
as promptly as possible, they may be at once informed, that the
Protector himself admitted the Earl of Rochester, Sir John Wagstaff, and
their associates into England, in order that they might, in his behalf,
play the part of the conspirator. The circumstance being appreciated,
the Protector's position becomes quite clear. It is obvious that he
wished his subjects to believe, in common with his historians, that
England was, during the opening months of 1655, 'from end to end of it,
ripe for an explosion.'
Taking then for granted, upon Cromwell's own showing, that he wanted an
insurrection, the assistance toward that end on which he could rely, and
the obstacles that stood in his way, must be considered. The assistance
which Cromwell had at hand, lay in the little band of courtiers who hung
in penury, and vexation of heart, round Charles II. Wanderers on the
Continent, in total ignorance of English opinion, acutely sensible of
their own discomfort, raging against their great Tormentor, the King's
'over sea' counsellors were, by irritation and by 'zeal, made so blind,'
that they were 'soon persuaded of good success' in any possible attempt
to overthrow the Protector.[30] The chief hindrance to Cromwell's
projected insurrection was his palpable prosperity. It was notorious
during the winter and spring of the year 1655, that he had appeased
discontent among his soldiery; had quieted, in prison, Harrison,
Wildman, and the leaders of the Anabaptists; that the Levellers were
reduced to inaction; and that therefore the Royalists were powerless.
And for this reason. Every Englishman, even the most 'Wildrake' among
the Cavaliers, knew full well, that they, unassisted, could not for a
moment stand before Cromwell's armies; and they knew equally well, that
if the King landed on our shores, at the head of a foreign army, all
England would meet him with passionate resistance. Even at the best, the
most confident Royalists knew that a young man, nurtured by a popish
mother, and amidst papists, would not be readily accepted as our King.
But one chance, therefore, remained to the Royalists, both at home and
abroad: and that was the possibility that Anabaptist fanaticism and army
discontent might unite together against the Protector. If that could be
reckoned on, and if a rising of the Royalists, all over England, could
be timed so as to explode, when the Levellers broke into action, that
would offer a chance indeed, especially if some of the mutineers could
be won over to the King. That chance was, at this season, wholly denied
to the Royalists. The King's most trusted English advisers, the Council
styled 'The Sealed Knot,' repeatedly warned him during January 1655,
that 'since no rising of the Army is to be hoped for, any rising of the
King's party would only be to their destruction.'[31]
To a person who desired to stimulate an insurrection against the
Protector the course was therefore clear. He must act on the impatient
credulity of those who shared in their King's exile. Far from the scene
of action, they might be persuaded that the Anabaptists and the
discontented soldiers had leagued together, and that the warnings of the
'Sealed Knot' might be set at naught. Charles was thus acted upon. As
the wicked King of Israel was lured on to his destruction by the cry of
false prophets bidding him to go up and prosper, the King was persuaded
to disregard his best counsellors, to believe that 30,000 Royalists were
armed and ready to join in an organized revolt, so skilfully planned
that it would break out, at one moment, all over England, with the
co-operation of the Levellers, and of a portion of Cromwell's army.
Charles was also assured, that if he would but fix the day, the
insurrection would immediately take place.
The King was hard to persuade; young as he was, his sagacity was not
wanting. He long remained incredulous: he did not believe the
'expresses' which reached him 'every day' from England: he felt sure
that those zealous emissaries were deceived. More messengers accordingly
crossed the water: they were confident that 'the rising would be
general, and many places seized upon, and some declare for the King
which were in the hands of the army, for they still pretended, and did
believe, "that a part of the army would declare against Cromwell, at
least, though not for the King."'
Those messengers, however, would promise nothing, if Charles did not,
when the Earl of Rochester and his associates started for England,
approve the reality of the plot, by stationing himself on the sea coast,
that he might 'quickly put himself into the head of the Army, which
would be ready to receive him.' And he was warned that this was his last
chance, and that 'if he neglected that opportunity,' his followers would
desert him, as one hopelessly apathetic. Besides these threats, the
persons, who dispatched those messengers from England, resorted to other
means to force Charles into the enterprise. They appointed the day for
the outbreak: he was not able 'to send orders to contradict it:' so he
felt constrained, 'with little noise,' to quit Cologne for Middleburg,
to await there the summons to England.
Whilst Charles was being thus cajoled, the bright anticipations of his
companions were suddenly saddened. In the midst of their preparations,
Cromwell arrested several noted Royalists in London: it was obvious that
he had discovered 'the design.' But that dark cloud had its silver
lining; it was even converted into an augury of success. The
conspirators at Cologne were 'cheered by letters' from their colleagues
in England, assuring them 'that none of their particular friends at the
intended sea-ports were known.'
Clarendon, and his associates, little knew how much was known by
Cromwell. He afterwards repeated in public, almost word for word, 'all
those particulars' which these 'expresses' 'communicated in confidence'
to the Royal Court 'to let them know in how happy condition the King's
affairs were in England;' he was forewarned of the very day when Charles
would 'with little noise' quit Cologne for Middleburg 'ten days before
he did stir;' and if so, even Clarendon would have perceived, that the
Protector felt quite assured about the safety of his sea-ports.[32]
That the project proved in the end, as Charles expected at the
beginning, a weak and improbable attempt, Clarendon admits, and that
they had been befooled; but he maintained, to the end, that those
messengers were 'very honest men, and sent by those who were such.'
Clarendon's opinion is not so indisputable, but that it may be
questioned. The utter failure of the promises that those messengers held
out, might have aroused his doubt as to their good faith. Who was it
then that instructed those false prophets? So improbable were the
expectations which they urged upon Charles, that it is impossible to
credit any true Royalist with the creation of those false hopes: to
dispel them, the King's wisest English advisers did their utmost. Those
encouragements then must have been the counsels of false friends. And
who could be, as we shall prove, a warmer, or a falser friend to the
enterprise of March 1655, than Cromwell?
Even without direct proof of Cromwell's guilty complicity in that
attempt, it is brought home to him by a variety of antecedent
circumstances. He knew precisely how to spread the only lure that could
ensnare the King; for the counsels of the 'Sealed Knot' were no secret
to Cromwell. He was aware that the King had, in consequence, written,
4th Jan. 1655, to Mr. Roles, 'his loving friend,' and probably also the
Protector's friend, in a tone of utter despair.[33] And who could set
against the King a stream of systematic false encouragement, sufficient
to dispel his just despair, except Cromwell, who had all the secret
agents at home and abroad at his command? or who would undertake so
difficult a task as the creation of such an elaborate scheme of
deception, but one who was anxious that the outbreak should take place?
And we know that such was his wish.
In every way this is apparent. Even though no actual assistance be
given, still complete foreknowledge of a coming mischief, unfollowed by
corresponding precautions, implies a sanction. And this form of sanction
Cromwell gave to the Insurrection. In a tone of triumphant cunning he
assured his Parliament, during the ensuing year, that he had possessed
'full intelligence of' the conspiracy; though, with characteristic
craft, he concealed the most effectual informant 'of these things,' the
clerk who wrote out the despatches in the King's closet; and poor
Manning, 'as he was dead,' was credited with the discovery; although his
term of espial was not commenced soon enough to supply that 'full
intelligence,' of which his employer boasted.[34]
Cromwell could even have informed his corps of informers, of the course
that the coming movement would pursue. Two months before they began to
reflect back to him an account of his own design, Cromwell's detection
office in Whitehall contained a report from a supposed Leveller, who had
passed from Essex to Cornwall, and then from Cornwall to Scotland, that
a rumour was afloat, that the republicans in the army who were 'resolved
to stand by their first principles, in opposition to the Government,'
had banded together, under noted leaders, and had chosen the very places
afterwards selected by the Royalists, namely, Salisbury Plain and
Marston Moor for the rendezvous where they might show their strength.
Other informers reported to Cromwell that the Royalists in London, and
in Northumberland, hoped, that if they appeared in arms, they would be
able to 'make use of a good part of the army;' and similar evidence
warned the Government that a man claiming to be a Royalist had been at
work, during February, journeying to and fro between Gloucestershire and
Wiltshire, tempting Royalists to join with him in an insurrection,
because 'the design was first put on foot by the Levellers, who were to
be aiding and assisting the Cavaliers.'[35]
This information reached Cromwell in ample time for action. A word from
him to his agents abroad, a hint to the editors of the News Letters, or
a proclamation, would have dispersed those mischievious rumours, and
would have reduced Charles to inaction. Although he knew that Charles
based his sole hope of success upon an Anabaptist revolt, and a mutiny
in the army, Cromwell did nothing of the kind. Not that he failed to
secure himself by some ostensible precautions. 'It having pleased God to
make some further notable discovery to Us of the Conspiracy, and the
particular Persons engaged therein,' Cromwell arrested some Royalists,
shortly before the outbreak, but, as we know on the best authority, he
touched none of those 'engaged therein.' He secured London: he moved
troops from Ireland to Liverpool, and may thereby have disconcerted the
Lancashire Cavaliers; but he did not forewarn the Customs House officers
at Dover, or guard that port; just as he, subsequently, somehow failed
to station soldiers near those obvious points of danger, Marston Moor
and Salisbury Plain.[36] 'Oliver, Protector,' evidently 'understood his
Protectorship moderately well, and what Plots and Hydra-Coils were
inseparable from it.'
Cromwell thus assisting us, we had before us the relative positions of
all engaged in the Insurrection, during the last weeks of February 1655.
Charles was on the Dutch coast awaiting a possible summons to England;
to that end he had despatched the expedition, composed of the Earl of
Rochester, Sir John Wagstaff, Major Armourer, Mr. O'Neale, and their
companions, about fourteen in number; and Cromwell was watching them,
and was preparing for their reception at Dover, not soldiers, but the
friendly assistance of his servant, Mr. Day, the Clerk of the Passage.
In true Cavalier fashion the Earl of Rochester and his comrades
approached our shores, with ostentatious contempt of danger. They came
not in a small party, dropping over one by one, selecting different and
out-of-the-way spots for landing, but almost in a body, in quick
succession, they alighted at Dover. That was the most public port they
could have chosen; and being courtier Cavaliers, long resident abroad,
they were, in dress and look, marked men, and most unfitted to play the
part they chose, of traders resident in France or Holland. Their
selection of Dover was not, however, so ill-advised as it seemed, for
they also reckoned on the help of Mr. Day, the Clerk of the Passage.
Thus in appearance, at least, the conspirators did everything they could
to get themselves into trouble. And, as might be anticipated, Major
Armourer, alias 'Mr. Wright,' and his man 'Morris,' that is to say, Mr.
O'Neale, the first of that company to set foot in Dover, were
immediately arrested. Armourer was imprisoned in the Castle, and O'Neale
in the Sergeant's house. Their detention, however, was of but brief
duration. Armourer at once sought for help through Mr. Day's agency; but
one greater than the Clerk interposed; and after about three days
captivity, Mr. Wright, together with some other captured suspects, was
released by the Dover Port Commissioners 'on receipt of a Commission
from H.H.' the Protector.[37]
That Commission from His Highness was no ordinary proceeding. By it
Cromwell disturbed order and discipline in the chief entrance-gate to
England, and drove the Port Commissioners into direct collision with the
officers of Dover Castle. Captain Wilson, the Deputy-Lieutenant, who had
charge over the Castle prisoners, was, as shown by his letters, a
straightforward servant of the Protector. Such a serious interference
with his duties, as the release of one of his own prisoners, disturbed
him; and the more so, as it was authorized by the Protector himself.
Accordingly he wrote to Thurloe, greatly troubled, to free himself from
any connection with so untoward an event as the escape of Mr. Wright,
who,--of all the men that Wilson 'had secured'--was the very one with
whom he was most unsatisfied.' Thurloe also felt that it was an awkward
affair; and to avert suspicion from his Master and himself, he reverted
to a mean trick, the causeless accusation of an innocent man. He
reproved Wilson for neglecting to warn Whitehall of the detention of
such a noted suspect as Mr. Wright; although Thurloe was in no ignorance
of that event, and knew all about the prisoner. For besides the
knowledge which he shared with Cromwell, of the near advent of the Earl
of Rochester and his associates, Thurloe held a letter signed 'N.
Wright,' dated 'Dover Castell, 14th February,' to Sir R. Stone, a
supposed friend, who, forwarding it to Thurloe, informed him that Morris
therein mentioned was a 'gentleman to the Princess Royal;' whilst it
was evidently presupposed by Stone, that the Secretary would know who it
was 'that writ' the enclosed letter; as, indeed, is proved by Thurloe's
indorsement, '_Nicholas Armourer to Sir Robert Stone_.' And
again, within seven days after Armourer's release, a similar
'cross-providence' occurred. A Mr. Broughton, evidently another
Royalist, was taken out of Captain Wilson's custody, much to his
surprise and vexation, and set free by the Mayor of Dover.
The release of one or two prisoners under a Commission from H.H. the
Protector does not, however, prove that he purposely admitted into
England that gang of conspirators. But even that can be proved. Thurloe
and Cromwell knew on the best authority that the Royalists regarded Mr.
Day as their ally; for Armourer, in that letter, mentions 'Mr. Robert
Day, Clarke of the Passage' as a man ready to do him service. Yet
Cromwell, knowing that Armourer and O'Neale were the precursors of even
more dangerous associates, who would also resort to Mr. Day, retained
him in his post; and in spite of prompt and repeated warnings from the
Continent, that Day was a traitor, he acted as Clerk of the Passage
until, during the following July, he had seen safe back across the
Channel the conspirators whom he had admitted in March. And as if the
more fully to trick the Royalists, Day was permitted by the Protector to
intervene actively in their behalf. The Clerk of the Passage obtained,
by his personal undertaking for Armourer's good conduct, the requisite
pass inward, and certified that he was, in truth, a merchant from
Rotterdam.[38]
It follows from the assistance which the Protector gave to Armourer,
that his man 'Morris' was restored to his master, and that the Earl of
Rochester, after repeated detention and examination, was set free. And
again Cromwell reappears as the patron of the conspiracy. According to
information imparted to the King by Cromwell's nephew, Colonel William
Cromwell, 'my Lord of Rochester was known to Cromwell to be in England
as soon as he landed,' and was met by pretended agents from the army,
Rochester's friends 'in show,' but the Protector's 'really,' who, to
make the Earl 'have the greater confidence' in the enterprise, gave him
false offers of co-operation, and assurances that Cromwell's soldiers
were ripe for mutiny.[39] And facts confirm Colonel Cromwell's words.
Immediately after his final escape from the custody of Captain Wilson,
the Earl of Rochester 'found Mr. Morton, who carries on their trade
there, ready to come, with some account of his business.'[40] If Morton
had been a true Royalist, in momentary fear for himself, and for the
success of an insurrection that was to overthrow the Protector, would he
have risked a meeting with the Earl of Dover, in a place where he had
been twice arrested, instead of awaiting his arrival in the security of
London? Such a strange course arouses strong suspicion that Morton was
the Protector's emissary referred to by Col. Cromwell; and assuredly a
Mr. Morton is mentioned to Thurloe, by one of his continental agents, as
a friend, and fellow sham-Royalist, who might assist him in enticing
some of the King's retinue into projects, such as the 'murther of H. H.
the Protector.'[41]
Nor was Mr. Morton the only agent busy in doing all he could 'to ripen
the design of a general rising.' During January and February, 1655,
messengers passed to and fro through the Northern and Western districts
of England to prepare the way for the Earl of Rochester and his
associates, who spread abroad rumours that the 'Levellers were to be
aiding and abetting the Cavaliers,' and that on the 8th of March, a
general rising would take place. Two men can be traced who thus prepared
Wiltshire for insurrection, one of whom was the chief instigator of
Wagstaff's rising at Salisbury.
Both of them were obscure men, not known in that part of England. An
unnamed emissary came from Yorkshire, passing through London, to
Dorsetshire, taking, on the way, the house, near Lewes, of Col. Bishop,
a Leveller, one of the Wildman faction.[42] The other, Mr. Douthwaite,
reached Wiltshire from Somersetshire. This circumstance, of itself,
aroused suspicion; and he was asked why, if the revolt, as he asserted,
was to be throughout all England, he did not choose Somersetshire,
instead of Wiltshire, for the scene of action. The reason he gave for
that choice had in it a strong dash of unreality. His motive was, he
declared, because 'if he did any mischief, or killed anybody,' he
preferred to do mischief 'among strangers, where he was not known.' So
unsatisfactory was his demeanour, that a recruit, whom he endeavoured to
cajole, refused to join the conspiracy, declaring that 'he was confident
this was a plot of my Lord Protector's own devising, and that he had
some of his own agents in it.' And as, during that winter, the
Dorsetshire Cavaliers had 'whispered that the plot' then 'so loudly
talked on at Court, is nothing but a trick of the great Oliver's,' this
idea seems to have been prevalent in the West of England. Some such
whisper, undoubtedly, had a marked influence on the Wiltshire revolt.
Not a single landowner of importance went out with Wagstaff. Though he
had been told off by the King expressly for that service, no Royalist of
eminent position answered the King's call. They, also, doubtless
suspected Douthwaite, an unknown, low-class stranger, who took upon
himself to summon them to arms against the Protector. And Douthwaite was
undoubtedly the chief instigator of that attempt, 'the very principal
verb' in the affair: a very capable witness, Major Butler, so described
him. In itself this was a suspicious circumstance. And another reason
may be urged for deeming that Cromwell, and not the King, was served by
Douthwaite. Like a shady witness, he proved too much. Antedating the
event by at least three weeks, he asserted in February, that Charles had
left Cologne for the Dutch coast, 'for an opportunity to sail for
England.' This was a startling piece of news, and most arousing to a
hearty Royalist: and the King did take that step on the 4th of March.
But it is noteworthy that a foreknowledge of the King's movements, which
was undoubtedly possessed by Cromwell and Thurloe in London, should have
been so speedily communicated to Douthwaite, in the depths of
Somersetshire.[43]
Whilst England was thus being prepared for the coming insurrection, the
Earl of Rochester went to London, where, although soldiers were
stationed at the ends of the streets, and extra precautions taken
against the Royalists, 'he consulted,' as Clarendon observes, 'with
great freedom with the King's friends.' Nor were he and his comrades
hindered from traversing England, and passing on into Wiltshire and
Yorkshire, that they might head the intended rendezvous of the Royalists
on Salisbury Plain and Marston Moor; the very places, it should be
remembered, that rumour had designated for a gathering of the Levellers.
Cromwell was powerless: he dared not touch the men he had passed into
England: the object for which he had admitted them must be fulfilled,
even to the end.
That the end, which Cromwell desired, followed the lines indicated by
his master hand, might be anticipated. But he could not allow the
project to become too real; a necessity that rather stood in his way.
His power of creating the semblance of an actual insurrection was
limited. Of the 'hidden works,' all over England, which he attributed
to the Royalists, but one mine actually exploded, one nearly went off,
and the rest remained dormant. The tameness of that shadowy meeting on
Marston Moor evidently caused Cromwell much vexation. As his dupes
refused to exhibit themselves, and as not a soldier was near at hand,
paragraphs in the News Letters, 'some pistols scattered' on the heath,
and 'a led horse, with a velvet saddle,' were all the proofs that
Cromwell could show that aught had happened on Marston Moor, during the
night of the 8th of March. Nor could he solemnize the event, as he
desired, by the appearance on the scaffold of a single Yorkshireman.
He sent, for that purpose, to York as Judges, Baron Thorpe, Mr. Justice
Newdigate, and Mr. Serjeant Hutton; but they refused to obey his
bidding. They declined to try upon a capital charge the men that had
been arrested by the Protector's informers, not in arms nor on
horseback, nor even on the highway, but in their own houses. The judges
were doubtful 'whether in point of law,' a possible midnight ride could
be declared by them 'to be treason.' It was in vain that Colonel
Lilbourne used 'diligence' to 'pick up such as are right,' to serve on
the jury. The judges even left York altogether, objecting that due
notice, under which they could try that 'great affair,' had not been
given.
Pressure was renewed upon Newdigate and Hutton; they were despatched
back to York, to undertake the trial of the Marston Moor prisoners.
Cromwell's law officer, however, found them at Doncaster, on their
return to London, and in a very contrary state of mind. They again
refused to act; and they based their refusal on an objection, which
affected not those prisoners alone, but all Cromwell's prisoners. They
asserted, evidently reckoning on Baron Thorpe's concurrence, that they
could not, as judges, put in force the Ordinance, by which Cromwell had
adapted the Statute Law of England to meet the crime of high treason
against himself, because it was of no validity! They thus anticipated,
in the most unpleasant way, Mr. Coney's refusal to pay taxes imposed,
not by an Act of Parliament, but by an 'Ordinance.' Cromwell was forced
to yield; the Yorkshiremen preserved their lives, but not their liberty
or their estates; and almost immediately, 'Judges Thorpe and Newdigate
were put out of their places, for not observing the Protector's pleasure
in all his commands.'[44]
Cromwell's 'pleasure' was, however, served by Mr. Serjeant Glyn and Mr.
Recorder Steele, and by the jurymen, 'such as were right,' over whom
they presided, in the trial of the Salisbury insurgents. Those poor
dupes pleaded what may be termed, Baron Thorpe's plea. They argued that
their indictment was not founded on an Act of Parliament, and that
'there can be no treason by an Ordinance.' They urged that a sentence
pronounced by the Serjeant and the Recorder, who were mere 'pleaders,
servants to the Lord Protector,' would be illegal; and they asserted
their right to be tried by Baron Thorpe, 'a sworn judge.' The prisoners,
who could not be convicted of high treason, were condemned to death as
horse stealers. They vainly pleaded, that to requisition a horse for a
warlike enterprise was not felony, and that 'the country knew we did not
intend to steal,' but acted 'as the soldiers did now at London, and
elsewhere, who came against us.'[45] About fourteen of those poor
fellows were put to death, with Grove and Penruddock; and seventy were
sold into West Indian slavery. Accordingly Cromwell was able, as Thurloe
exulted, to prove 'that the Plot was real,' as 'the persons were real,'
who, in consequence, lost their lives, or were condemned to lifelong
misery.
Thus Cromwell, by a deliberate course of fraud, compassed the death of
men, who might otherwise have lived void of offence against his
government. He next proceeded to delude all his subjects by means of the
sham conspiracy by which he had ensnared his victims on to the scaffold.
This development in Cromwell's course of deception brings us back to the
ordinary path of history. Every historical text-book mentions that
Cromwell, within a few months after the Insurrection of March 1655,
subjected England to the authority, almost unlimited, of twelve
Major-Generals. To each one a separate province was allotted, with power
to imprison, fine, or sell as slaves, all that he might select. The
Major-Generals also were directed by Cromwell to pay themselves, and the
soldiers under them, by the levy of a tax of ten per cent. on the
incomes of all but the poorest Royalists, which he imposed for that
purpose. As historians have believed in the reality of the Insurrection
of March 1655, they hold that Cromwell, therefore, 'found himself
compelled to divide England into districts, over which he set
Major-Generals,' and to inflict upon the Royalists the tax, 'known by
the name of the Decimation.' Yet, curiously enough, these hearty
believers in Cromwell have ignored that solemn confirmation of their
opinion, which he addressed to his subjects, namely, the 'Declaration of
his Highness, by the advice of his Council, showing the Reasons of their
Proceedings for Securing the Peace of the Commonwealth, upon occasion
of the late Insurrection and Rebellion,--October 31, 1655.'
Than this document, no more admirable illustration could be given of the
manner in which Cromwell carried on his Protectorate. By that
'Declaration' he engrafts into his policy the deception he had practised
on the Royalists, and adapts it to the benefit of the whole nation, by a
description of the pious uses to which it could be applied. And for our
purposes this document is especially convenient, for, whilst it proves
what Cromwell wished his people to believe about the Insurrection, it
enables us to disprove throughout the statements that he makes. But
before we can reach that portion of our disclosure, the operative
clauses of the 'Declaration' must be dealt with. It commences with a
justificatory recital of the misdeeds of the Royalists. As God, Cromwell
argues, 'by His gracious dispensation,' had 'subjected' the Royalists
'to the power of those whom they had designed to enslave and ruin,' 'the
Parliament's party' might, Cromwell asserts, have 'extirpated those men,
with designs of possessing their Estates and Fortunes.' Their
conquerors, however, refrained themselves, 'it having pleased God in his
providence, so to order things;' and the Royalists were allowed to live
and 'enjoy their freedom, and have equal protection in their persons and
estates, with the rest of the Nation.' But what return, the Protector
declares, has been made by the Malignants for the lenity thus extended
to them? 'The actings of that party' proves that 'neither the
dispensations of God, nor kindness of men, would work upon them;' that
'they were implacable in their malice and revenge'; and he cites 'the
late Insurrection and Rebellion,' 'as the greatest and most dangerous'
of all 'their hidden works of darkness.'
The Protector therefore announces, that as 'he knows by experience, that
nothing but the Sword will restrain the late King's party from blood and
violence,'--'We do now not only find Ourselves satisfied, but obliged in
duty, both towards God and this Nation, to proceed upon other grounds
than formerly,'--and that, to secure 'the Peace of this Commonwealth, We
have been necessitated to erect a new and standing Militia of Horse, in
all the Counties of England, under such Pay as might be a fitting
encouragement to the officers and soldiers. And We, therefore, have
thought fit, to lay the burthen of Maintaining those forces, upon those
who have been engaged in the late Wars against the State.' And Cromwell
declares, in conclusion, that 'We can with comfort appeal to God,
whether this way of proceeding with 'the Royalists' hath been the matter
of Our Choice, or that which We have sought occasion for; or whether
contrary to Our own inclinations, We have not been constrained and
necessitated hereunto, and without the doing whereof, We should have
been wanting to Our Duty to God and these Nations.'
Such words uttered by a man who, with utmost fervour, has claimed for
himself, that 'I have learned too much of God, to dally with Him, and to
make bold with Him in these things,' ought surely to be believed; and if
there be any one who is still unconvinced that Cromwell, of his own
'choice,' enticed the Earl of Rochester and his associates across the
Channel, and admitted them into England, that they might constrain and
necessitate him to appoint those Major-Generals, 'we can with comfort
appeal' to that 'Declaration' and ask such a believer in Cromwell to
follow us in a comparison between what he really did, with what he
declared he did, 'for securing the Peace of the Commonwealth upon the
occasion of the late Insurrection.'
In order that his subjects might appreciate the skill and vigilance, by
which the 'contrivements' of the 'cruel and bloody enemy had been
thwarted, Cromwell commenced the account of his execution of his duty as
England's Protecter by a general description of the projects of the
Royalists in March 1655. He asserted that they intended to surprise and
seize London, and all the principal ports and cities throughout England,
and that they reckoned on the support of more than 30,000 armed men.
This description of the projects and resources of the Royalists may be
at once, and contemptuously set aside: it was founded upon lies supplied
by such men as Manning, the spy, or Bamfield, the informer. Cromwell's
words were contradicted by the abortive and petty nature of the
insurrection, by the obvious refusal of all England to join in the
enterprise, and by the conduct of the Protector himself. For he would
not have placed England at the mercy of the Earl of Rochester and his
companions, had he thought that they could call 30,000 men to arms, or
that every important town from London to York, was in danger. Having
thus dealt out fiction by wholesale, and ascribed the overthrow of that
'great and general design' to 'The Lord,' Cromwell proceeds, according
to this method, to show how that was accomplished.