1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia] was over, the struggle
between France and Spain was continued with great animosity,
each country striving to crush her rival and become the first
power in Europe. Both Louis XIV. and Philip IV. of Spain were
bidding for the protector's support. Spain offered the
possession of Calais, when taken from France; France the
possession of Dunkirk when taken from Spain (1655). Cromwell
determined to ally himself with France against Spain. ... It
was in the West Indies that the obstructive policy of Spain
came most into collision with the interests of England. Her
kings based their claims to the possession of two continents
on the bull of Pope Alexander VI., who in 1493 had granted
them all lands they should discover from pole to pole, at the
distance of 100 leagues west from the Azores and Cape Verd
Islands. On the strength of this bull they held that the
discovery of an island gave them the right to the group, the
discovery of a headland the right to a continent. Though this
monstrous claim had quite broken down as far as the North
American continent was concerned, the Spaniards, still
recognizing 'no peace beyond the line,' endeavoured to shut
all Europeans but themselves out of any share in the trade or
colonization of at least the southern half of the New World.
... While war was now proclaimed with Spain, a treaty of peace
was signed between France and England, Louis XIV. agreeing to
banish Charles Stuart and his brothers from French territory
(October 24, 1655). This treaty was afterwards changed into a
league, offensive and defensive (March 23, 1657), Cromwell
undertaking to assist Louis with 6,000 men in besieging
Gravelines, Mardyke, and Dunkirk, on condition of receiving
the two latter towns when reduced by the allied armies. By the
occupation of these towns Cromwell intended to control the
trade of the Channel, to hold the Dutch in check, who were
then but unwilling friends, and to lessen the danger of
invasion from any union of Royalists and Spaniards. The war
opened in the year 1657 [Jamaica, however, had already been
taken from the Spaniards and St. Domingo attacked], with
another triumph by sea." This was Blake's last exploit. He
attacked and destroyed the Spanish bullion fleet, from Mexico,
in the harbor of Santa Cruz, island of Teneriffe, and silenced
the forts which guarded it. The great sea-captain died on his
voyage home, after striking this blow. The next spring "the
siege of Dunkirk was commenced (May, 1658). The Spaniards
tried to relieve the town, but were completely defeated in an
engagement called the Battle of the Dunes from the sand hills
among which it was fought; the defeat was mainly owing to the
courage and discipline of Oliver's troops, who won for
themselves the name of 'the Immortal Six Thousand.' ... Ten
days after the battle Dunkirk surrendered, and the French had
no choice but to give over to the English ambassador the keys
of a town they thought 'unsi bon morceau' ['a good ...'] (June
25)."
_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
book 9, speech 5 and book 10, letters 152-157._
_J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
_J. Waylen,
The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk,
pages 173-272._
_W. H. Dixon,
Robert Blake,
chapters 9-10._
_D. Hannay,
Admiral Blake,
chapter 9-11._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
The fall of the Protectorate and Restoration of the Stuarts.
King Charles II.
When Oliver Cromwell died, on the 3d day of September,
1658--the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar and at
Worcester--his eldest son Richard, whom he had nominated, it
was said, on his death-bed, was proclaimed Protector, and
succeeded him "as quietly as any King had ever been succeeded
by any Prince of Wales. During five months, the administration
of Richard Cromwell went on so tranquilly and regularly that
all Europe believed him to be firmly established on the chair
of state." But Richard had none of his father's genius or
personal power, and the discontents and jealousies which the
former had rigorously suppressed soon tossed the latter from
his unstable throne by their fierce upheaval. He summoned a
new Parliament (January 27, 1659), which recognized and
confirmed his authority, though containing a powerful
opposition, of uncompromising republicans and secret
royalists. But the army, which the great Protector had tamed
to submissive obedience, was now stirred into mischievous
action once more as a political power in the state,
subservient to the ambition of Fleetwood and other commanders.
Richard Cromwell could not make himself the master of his
father's battalions. "He was used by the army as an instrument
for the purpose of dissolving the Parliament [April 22], and
was then contemptuously thrown aside. The officers gratified
their republican allies by declaring that the expulsion of the
Rump had been illegal, and by inviting that assembly to resume
its functions. The old Speaker and a quorum of the old members
came together [May 9] and were proclaimed, amidst the scarcely
stifled derision and execration of the whole nation, the
supreme power in the Commonwealth. It was at the same time
expressly declared that there should be no first magistrate
and no House of Lords. But this state of things could not
last. On the day on which the Long Parliament revived, revived
also its old quarrel with the army. Again the Rump forgot that
it owed its existence to the pleasure of the soldiers, and
began to treat them as subjects. Again the doors of the House
of Commons were closed by military violence [October 13]; and
a provisional government, named by the officers, assumed the
direction of affairs." The troops stationed in Scotland, under
Monk, had not been consulted, however, in these transactions,
and were evidently out of sympathy with their comrades in
England. Monk, who had never meddled with politics before, was
now induced to interfere.
{893}
He refused to acknowledge the military provisional government,
declared himself the champion of the civil power, and marched
into England at the head of his 7,000 veterans. His movement
was everywhere welcomed and encouraged by popular
demonstrations of delight. The army in England lost courage
and lost unity, awed and paralyzed by the public feeling at
last set free. Monk reached London without opposition, and was
the recognized master of the realm. Nobody knew his
intentions--himself, perhaps, as little as any--and it was
not until after a period of protracted suspense that he
declared himself for the convening of a new and free
Parliament, in the place of the Rump--which had again resumed
its sittings--for the settlement of the state. "The result of
the elections was such as might have been expected from the
temper of the nation. The new House of Commons consisted, with
few exceptions, of persons friendly to the royal family. The
Presbyterians formed the majority. ... The new Parliament,
which, having been called without the royal writ, is more
accurately described as a Convention, met at Westminster
[April 26, 1660]. The Lords repaired to the hall, from which
they had, during more than eleven years, been excluded by
force. Both Houses instantly invited the King to return to his
country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A
gallant fleet convoyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent.
When he landed [May 25, 1660], the cliffs of Dover were
covered by thousands of gazers, among whom scarcely one could
be found who was not weeping with delight. The journey to
London was a continued triumph."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1._
The only guarantee with which the careless nation took back
their ejected kings of the faithless race of Stuarts was
embodied in a Declaration which Charles sent over from "Our
Court at Breda" in April, and which was read in Parliament
with an effusive display of respect and thankfulness. In this
Declaration from Breda, "a general amnesty and liberty of
conscience were promised, with such exceptions and limitations
only as the Parliament should think fit to make. All delicate
questions, among others the proprietorship of confiscated
estates, were in like manner referred to the decision of
Parliament, thus leaving the King his liberty while
diminishing his responsibility; and though fully asserting the
ancient rights of the Crown, he announced his intention to
associate the two Houses with himself in all great affairs of
State."
_F. P. Guizot,
History of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration,
book 4 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 2, 1660-61._
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 16 (volume 6)._
_D. Masson,
Life of Milton,
volume 5, book 3._
_J. Corbett,
Monk,
chapter 9-14._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1685.
The Merry Monarch.
"There never were such profligate times in England as under
Charles the Second. Whenever you see his portrait, with his
swarthy ill-looking face and great nose, you may fancy him in
his Court at Whitehall, surrounded by some of the very worst
vagabonds in the kingdom (though they were lords and ladies),
drinking, gambling, indulging in vicious conversation, and
committing every kind of profligate excess. It has been a
fashion to call Charles the Second 'The Merry Monarch.' Let me
try to give you a general idea of some of the merry things
that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman
sat upon his merry throne, in merry England. The first merry
proceeding was--of course--to declare that he was one of the
greatest, the wisest, and the noblest kings that ever shone,
like the blessed sun itself, on this benighted earth. The next
merry and pleasant piece of business was, for the Parliament,
in the humblest manner, to give him one million two hundred
thousand pounds a year, and to settle upon him for life that
old disputed 'tonnage and poundage' which had been so bravely
fought for. Then, General Monk, being made Earl of Albemarle,
and a few other Royalists similarly rewarded, the law went to
work to see what was to be done to those persons (they were
called Regicides) who had been concerned in making a martyr of
the late King. Ten of these were merrily executed; that is to
say, six of the judges, one of the council, Colonel Hacker and
another officer who had commanded the Guards, and Hugh Peters,
a preacher who had preached against the martyr with all his
heart. These executions were so extremely merry, that every
horrible circumstance which Cromwell had abandoned was revived
with appalling cruelty. ... Sir Harry Vane, who had furnished
the evidence against Stratford, and was one of the most
staunch of the Republicans, was also tried, found guilty, and
ordered for execution. ... These merry scenes were succeeded
by another, perhaps even merrier. On the anniversary of the
late King's death, the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Ireton, and
Bradshaw, "Were torn out of their graves in 'Westminster
Abbey, dragged to Tyburn, hanged there on a gallows all day
long, and then beheaded. Imagine the head of Oliver Cromwell
set upon a pole to be stared at by a brutal crowd, not one of
whom would have dared to look the living Oliver in the face
for half a moment! Think, after you have read this reign, what
England was under Oliver Cromwell who was torn out of his
grave, and what it was under this merry monarch who sold it,
like a merry Judas, over and over again. Of course, the
remains of Oliver's wife and daughter were not to be spared,
either, though they had been most excellent women. The base
clergy of that time gave up their bodies, which had been
buried in the Abbey, and--to the eternal disgrace of
England--they were thrown into a pit, together with the
mouldering bones of Pym, and of the brave and bold old Admiral
Blake. ... The whole Court was a great flaunting crowd of
debauched men and shameless women; and Catherine's merry
husband insulted and outraged her in every possible way, until
she consented to receive those worthless creatures as her very
good friends, and to degrade herself by their companionship. A
Mrs. Palmer, whom the King made Lady Castlemaine, and
afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, was one of the most powerful
of the bad women about the Court, and had great influence with
the King nearly all through his reign. Another merry lady
named Moll Davies, a dancer at the theatre, was afterwards her
rival. So was Nell Gwyn, first an orange girl and then an
actress, who really had good in her, and of whom one of the
worst things I know is, that actually she does seem to have
been fond of the King. The first Duke of St. Albans was this
orange girl's child. In like manner the son of a merry
waiting-lady, whom the King created Duchess of Portsmouth,
became the Duke of Richmond.
{894}
Upon the whole it is not so bad a thing to be a commoner. The
Merry Monarch was so exceedingly merry among these merry
ladies, and some equally merry (and equally infamous) lords
and gentlemen, that he soon got through his hundred thousand
pounds, and then, by way of raising a little pocket-money,
made a merry bargain. He sold Dunkirk to the French King for
five millions of livres. When I think of the dignity to which
Oliver Cromwell raised England in the eyes of foreign powers,
and when I think of the manner in which he gained for England
this very Dunkirk, I am much inclined to consider that if the
Merry Monarch had been made to follow his father for this
action, he would have received his just deserts."
_C. Dickens,
Child's History of England,
chapter 35._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
Acquisition of Bombay.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
The Savoy Conference.
"The Restoration had been the joint work of Episcopalian and
Presbyterian; would it be possible to reconcile them on this
question too [i. e., of the settlement of Church government]?
The Presbyterian indeed was willing enough for a compromise,
for he had an uneasy feeling that the ground was slipping from
beneath his feet. Of Charles's intentions he was still in
doubt; but he knew that Clarendon was the sworn friend of the
Church. The Churchman on the other hand was eagerly expecting
the approaching hour of triumph. It soon appeared that as King
and Parliament, so King and Church were inseparable in the
English mind; that indeed the return of the King was the
restoration of the Church even more than it was the
restoration of Parliament. In the face of the present
Presbyterian majority however it was necessary to temporise.
The former incumbents of Church livings were restored, and the
Commons took the Communion according to the rites of the
Church; but in other respects the Presbyterians were carefully
kept in play; Charles taking his part in the elaborate farce
by appointing ten of their leading ministers royal chaplains,
and even attending, their sermons." In October, 1660, Charles
"took the matter more completely into his own hands by issuing
a Declaration. Refusing, on the ground of constraint, to admit
the validity of the oaths imposed upon him in Scotland, by
which he was bound to uphold the Covenant, and not concealing
his preference for the Anglican Church, as 'the best fence God
hath yet raised against popery in the world,' he asserted that
nevertheless, to his own knowledge, the Presbyterians were not
enemies to Episcopacy or a set liturgy, and were opposed to
the alienation of Church revenues. The Declaration then went
on to limit the power of bishops and archdeacons in a degree
sufficient to satisfy many of the leading Presbyterians, one
of whom, Reynolds, accepted a bishopric. Charles then proposed
to choose an equal number of learned divines of both
persuasions to discuss alterations in the liturgy; meanwhile
no one was to be troubled regarding differences of practice.
The majority in the Commons at first welcomed the Declaration,
... and a bill was accordingly introduced by Sir Matthew Hale
to turn the Declaration into a law. But Clarendon at any rate
had no intention of thus baulking the Church of her revenge.
Anticipating Hale's action, he had in the interval been busy
in securing a majority against any compromise. The Declaration
had done its work in gaining time, and when the bill was
brought in it was rejected by 183 to 157 votes. Parliament was
at once (December 24) dissolved. The way was now open for the
riot of the Anglican triumph. Even before the new House met
the mask was thrown off by the issuing of an order to the
justices to restore the full liturgy. The conference indeed
took place in the Savoy Palace. It failed, like the Hampton
Court Conference of James I., because it was intended to fail.
Upon the two important points, the authority of bishops and
the liturgy, the Anglicans would not give way an inch. Both
parties informed the King that, anxious as they were for
agreement, they saw no chance of it. This last attempt at
union having fallen through, the Government had their hands
free; and their intentions were speedily made plain."
_O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 7._
"The Royal Commission [for the Savoy Conference] bore date the
25th of March. It gave the Commissioners authority to review
the Book of Common Prayer, to compare it with the most ancient
Liturgies, to take into consideration all things which it
contained, to consult respecting the exceptions against it,
and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should
afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the
Church unity and peace; the instrument appointed 'the Master's
lodgings in the Savoy' as the place of meeting. ... The
Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April.
... The Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described,
actually passed the House of Commons on the 9th of July, about
a fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of
a Royal Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make
alterations for the satisfaction of tender consciences were,
by this premature act, really treated with mockery, a
circumstance which could not but exceedingly offend and annoy
the Puritan members, and serve to embitter the language of
Baxter as the end of these fruitless sittings approached."
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in English,
volume 3, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_E. Calamy,
Nonconformists' Memorial,
introduction, section 3._
_W. Orme,
Life and Times of Richard Baxter,
chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
The sale of Dunkirk.
"Unable to confine himself within the narrow limits of his
civil list, with his favorites and mistresses, he [Charles
II.] would have sought even in the infernal regions the gold
which his subjects measured out to him with too parsimonious a
hand. ... [He] proposed to sell to France Dunkirk and its
dependencies, which, he said, cost him too much to keep up. He
asked twelve million francs; he fell at last to five millions,
and the treaty was signed October 27, 1662. It was time; the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, informed of the
negotiation, had determined to offer Charles II. whatever he
wished in behalf of their city not to alienate Dunkirk.
Charles dared not retract his word, which would have been, as
D'Estrades told him, to break forever with Louis XIV., and on
the 2d of December Louis joyfully made his entry into his good
city, reconquered by gold instead of the sword."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
translated by M. L. Booth, chapter 4 (volume 1)._
{895}
England: A. D. 1662-1665.
The Act of Uniformity and persecution of the Nonconformists.
The failure of the Savoy Conference "was the conclusion which
had been expected and desired. Charles had already summoned
the Convocation, and to that assembly was assigned the task
which had failed in the hands of the commissioners at the
Savoy. ... The act of uniformity followed [passed by the
Commons July 9, 1661; by the Lords May 8, 1662; receiving the
royal assent May 19, 1662], by which it was enacted that the
revised Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordination of Ministers,
and no other, should be used in all places of public worship;
and that all beneficed clergymen should read the service from
it within a given time, and, at the close, profess in a set
form of words, their 'unfeigned assent and consent to
everything contained and prescribed in it.' ... The act of
uniformity may have been necessary for the restoration of the
church to its former discipline and doctrine; but if such was
the intention of those who framed the declaration from Breda,
they were guilty of infidelity to the king and of fraud to the
people, by putting into his mouth language which, with the aid of
equivocation, they might explain away, and by raising in them
expectations which it was never meant to fulfil."
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter. 4._
"This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who
could not conform, no longer time than till Bartholomewday,
August 24th, 1662, when they were all cast out. ... This was
an action without a precedent: The like to this the Reformed
church, nay the Christian world, never saw before. Historians
relate, with tragical exclamations, that between three and
four score bishops were driven at once into the island of
Sardinia by the African vandals; that 200 ministers were
banished by Ferdinand, king of Bohemia; and that great havock
was, a few years after, made among the ministers of Germany by
the Imperial Interim. But these all together fall short of the
number ejected by the act of uniformity, which was not less
than 2,000. The succeeding hardships of the latter were also
by far the greatest. They were not only silenced, but had no
room left for any sort of usefulness, and were in a manner
buried alive. Far greater tenderness was used towards the
Popish clergy ejected at the Reformation. They were suffered
to live quietly; but these were oppressed to the utmost, and
that even by their brethren who professed the same faith
themselves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into
the wide world without any visible way of subsistence. Not so
much as a poor vicarage, not an obscure chapel, not a school
was left them. Nay, though they offered, as some of them did,
to preach gratis, it must not be allowed them. ... The ejected
ministers continued for ten years in a state of silence and
obscurity. ... The act of uniformity took place August the
24th, 1662. On the 26th of December following, the king
published a Declaration, expressing his purpose to grant some
indulgence or liberty in religion. Some of the Nonconformists
were hereupon much encouraged, and waiting privately on the
king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded
their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but
they refused, lest they should make way for the toleration of
the Papists, whom they understood the king intended to include
in it. ... Instead of indulgence or comprehension, on the 30th
of June, an act against private meetings, called the
Conventicle Act, passed the House of Commons, and soon after
was made a law, viz.: 'That every person above sixteen years
of age, present at any meeting, under pretence of any exercise
of religion, in other manner than is the practice of the
church of England, where there are five persons more than the
household, shall for the first offence, by a justice of peace
be recorded, and sent to gaol three months, till he pay £5,
and for the second offence six months, till he pay £10, and
the third time being convicted by a jury, shall be banished to
some of the American plantations, excepting New England or
Virginia." ... In the year 1665 the plague broke out"--and
the ejected ministers boldly took possession for the time of
the deserted London pulpits. "While God was consuming the
people by this judgment, and the Nonconformists were labouring
to save their souls, the parliament, which sat at Oxford, was
busy in making an act [called the Five Mile Act] to render
their case incomparably harder than it was before, by putting
upon them a certain oath ['that it is not lawful, upon any
pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king,' &c.],
which, if they refused, they must not come (unless upon the
road) within five miles of any city or corporation, any place
that sent burgesses to parliament, any place where they had
been ministers, or had preached after the act of oblivion. ...
When this act came out, those ministers who had any
maintenance of their own, found out some place of residence in
obscure villages, or market-towns, that were not
corporations."
_E. Calamy,
The Nonconformist's Memorial,
introduction, sections 4-6._
ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapters 6-9._
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 6-7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The King's charter to Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1664.
The conquest of New Netherland (New York).
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1664-1665.
The first refractory symptoms in Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1665.
The grant of New Jersey to Carteret and Berkeley.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1665-1666.
War with Holland renewed.
The Dutch fleet in the Thames.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
The Triple Alliance with Holland and Sweden against Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King.
His begging of bribes from Louis XIV.
His betrayal of Holland.
His breaking of the Triple Alliance.