neighbourhood; and these, with such other individuals as the general deemed
hostile and dangerous to the commonwealth, followed the regalia and records
of their country to the English capital. At Dundee a breach was soon made
in the wall: the defenders shrunk from the charge of the assailants;
and the governor and garrison were massacred.[a] I must leave it to the
imagination of the reader to supply the sufferings of the inhabitants from
the violence, the lust, and the rapacity of their victorious enemy. In
Dundee, on account of its superior strength, many had deposited their most
valuable effects; and all these, with sixty ships and their cargoes in the
harbour, became the reward of the conquerors.[1]
Warned by this awful example, St. Andrews, Aberdeen, and Montrose opened
their gates; the earl of Huntley and Lord Balcarras submitted; the few
remaining fortresses capitulated in succession; and if Argyle, in the midst
of his clan, maintained a precarious and temporary independence, it was not
that he cherished the expectation of evading the yoke, but that he sought
to draw from the parliament the acknowledgment of a debt which he claimed
of the English
[Footnote 1: Heath, 301, 302. Whitelock, 508. Journals, Aug. 27.
Milton's S. Pap. 79. Balfour, iv. 314, 315. "Mounche commaundit all, of
quhatsummeuer sex, to be putt to the edge of the sword. Ther wer 800
inhabitants and souldiers killed, and about 200 women and children. The
plounder and buttie they gatte in the toune, exceided 2 millions and a
halffe" (about £200,000). That, however, the whole garrison was not put to
the sword appears from the mention in the Journals (Sept. 12) of a list of
officers made prisoners, and from Monk's letter to Cromwell. "There was
killed of the enemy about 500, and 200 or thereabouts taken prisoners.
The stubbornness of the people enforced the soldiers to plunder the
town."--Cary's Memorials, ii. 351.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1651 Sept. 1.]
government.[1] To destroy the prospect, by showing the hopelessness of
resistance, the army was successively augmented to the amount of twenty
thousand men;[2] citadels were marked out to be built of stone at Ayr,
Leith, Perth, and Inverness; and a long chain of military stations drawn
across the Highlands served to curb, if it did not tame, the fierce and
indignant spirit of the natives. The parliament declared the lands and
goods of the crown public property, and confiscated the estates of all who
had joined the king or the duke of Hamilton in their invasions of England,
unless they were engaged in trade, and worth no more than five pounds, or
not engaged in trade, and worth only one hundred pounds. All authority
derived from any other source than the parliament of England was
abolished[a] by proclamation; the different sheriffs, and civil officers of
doubtful fidelity, were removed for others attached to the commonwealth; a
yearly tax of one hundred and thirty thousand pounds was imposed in lieu of
free quarters for the support of the army; and English judges, assisted by
three or four natives, were appointed to go the circuits, and to supersede
the courts of session.[3] It was with grief
[Footnote 1: Balfour, iv. 315. Heath, 304, 308, 310, 313. Whitelock, 514,
534, 543.]
[Footnote 2: Journals, Dec. 2, 1652.]
[Footnote 3: Ludlow, 345. Heath, 313, 326. Whitelock, 528, 542. Journals,
Nov. 19. Leicester's Journal, 129. The English judges were astonished at
the spirit of litigation and revenge which the Scots displayed during the
circuit. More than one thousand individuals were accused before them of
adultery, incest, and other offences, which they had been obliged to
confess in the kirk during the last twenty or thirty years. When no other
proof was brought, the charge was dismissed. In like manner sixty persons
were charged with witchcraft. These were also acquitted; for, though they
had confessed the offence, the confession had been drawn from them by
torture. It was usual to tie up the supposed witch by the thumbs, and to
whip her till she confessed; or to put the flame of a candle to the soles
of the feet, between the toes, or to parts of the head, or to make the
accused wear a shirt of hair steeped in vinegar &c.--See Whitelock, 543,
544, 545, 547, 548.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1651. Jan. 22.]
and shame that the Scots yielded to these innovations; though they were
attended with one redeeming benefit, the prevention of that anarchy and
bloodshed which must have followed, had the Cavaliers and Covenanters, with
forces nearly balanced, and passions equally excited, been left to wreck
their vengeance on each other. But they were soon threatened with what in
their eyes was a still greater evil. The parliament resolved to incorporate
the two countries into one commonwealth, without kingly government or the
aristocratical influence of a house of peers. This was thought to fill up
the measure of Scottish misery. There is a pride in the independence of his
country, of which even the peasant is conscious; but in this case not only
national but religious feelings were outraged. With the civil consequences
of an union which would degrade Scotland to the state of a province,
the ministers in their ecclesiastical capacity had no concern; but they
forbade[a] the people to give consent or support to the measure, because it
was contrary to the covenant, and tended "to draw with it a subordination
of the kirk to the state in the things of Christ."[1] The parliamentary
commissioners (they were eight, with St. John and Vane at their head),
secure of the power of the sword, derided the menaces of the kirk. They
convened at Dalkeith the representatives of the counties and burghs,
who were ordered to bring with them full powers to treat and conclude
respecting the incorporation of the two countries. Twenty-eight
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 521. Heath, 307.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. Jan. 21]
out of thirty shires, and forty-four out of fifty-eight burghs, gave
their consent; and the result was a second meeting at Edinburgh, in
which twenty-one deputies were chosen to arrange the conditions with the
parliamentary commissioners at Westminster. There conferences were held,[a]
and many articles discussed; but, before the plan could be amicably
adjusted, the parliament itself, with all its projects, was overturned[b]
by the successful ambition of Cromwell.[1]
4. From the conquest of Ireland and Scotland we may now turn to the
transactions between the commonwealth and foreign powers. The king of
Portugal was the first who provoked its anger, and felt its vengeance. At
an early period in 1649, Prince Rupert, with the fleet which had revolted
from the parliament to the late king, sailed[c] from the Texel, swept the
Irish Channel, and inflicted severe injuries on the English commerce. Vane,
to whose industry had been committed the care of the naval department, made
every exertion to equip a formidable armament, the command of which
was given to three military officers, Blake, Dean, and Popham. Rupert
retired[d] before this superior force to the harbour of Kinsale; the
batteries kept his enemies at bay; and the Irish supplied him with men and
provisions. At length the victories of Cromwell by land admonished him to
quit his asylum; and, with the loss of three ships, he burst[e] through the
blockading squadron, sailed to the coast of Spain, and during the winter
months sought shelter in the waters of the Tagus. In spring, Blake
appeared[f] with eighteen men-of-war at the mouth of the river; to his
request that he
[Footnote 1: Journals, 1652, March 16, 24, 26, April 2, May 14, Sept. 15,
29, Oct. 29, Nov. 23.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1651. Sept. 22.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1651. Oct. 12.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. March.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1649. May.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1649. October.]
[Sidenote f: A.D. 1650. March.]
might be allowed to attack the pirate at his anchorage, he received from
the king of Portugal a peremptory refusal; and, in his attempt to force
his way up the river he was driven back by the fire from the batteries. In
obedience to his instructions, he revenged himself on the Portuguese trade,
and Don John, by way of reprisal, arrested the English merchants, and
took possession of their effects. Alarmed, however, by the losses of his
subjects, he compelled[a] Rupert to quit the Tagus,[1] and despatched[b]
an envoy, named Guimaraes, to solicit an accommodation. Every paper which
passed between this minister and the commissioners was submitted to the
parliament, and by it approved, or modified, or rejected. Guimaraes
subscribed[c] to the preliminaries demanded by the council, that the
English merchants arrested in Portugal should be set at liberty, that they
should receive an indemnification for their losses, and that the king of
Portugal should pay a sum of money towards the charges of the English
fleet; but he protracted the negotiation, by disputing dates and details,
and was haughtily commanded[d] to quit the territory of the commonwealth.
Humbling as it was to Don John, he had no resource; the Conde de Camera was
sent,[e] with the title of ambassador extraordinary; he assented to every
[Footnote 1: Thurloe, i. 134, 142, 155. Heath, 254, 256, 275. Whitelock,
406, 429, 449, 463, 475. Clarendon, iii. 338. Rupert sailed into the
Mediterranean, and maintained himself by piracy, capturing not only English
but Spanish and Genoese ships. All who did not favour him were considered
as enemies. Driven from the Mediterranean by the English, he sailed to the
West Indies, where he inflicted greater losses on the Spanish than the
English trade. Here his brother, Prince Maurice, perished in a storm; and
Rupert, unable to oppose his enemies with any hope of success, returned to
Europe, and anchored in the harbour of Nantes, in March, 1652. He sold his
two men-of-war to Cardinal Mazarin.--Heath, 337. Whitelock, 552. Clarendon,
iii. 513, 520.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. October.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1650. Dec. 17.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1651. April 22.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1651. May 16.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1652. July 7.]
demand; but the progress of the treaty was interrupted by the usurpation
of Cromwell, and another year elapsed before it was[a] concluded. By
it valuable privileges were granted to the English traders; four
commissioners,--two English and two Portuguese, were appointed[b] to settle
all claims against the Portuguese government; and it was agreed[c] that an
English commissary should receive one-half of all the duties paid by the
English merchants in the ports of Portugal, to provide a sufficient fund
for the liquidation of the debt.[1]
5. To Charles I. (nor will it surprise us, if we recollect his treatment
of the Infanta) the court of Spain had always behaved with coldness and
reserve. The ambassador Cardenas continued to reside in London, even
after the king's execution, and was the first foreign minister whom the
parliament honoured with a public audience. He made it his chief object
to cement the friendship between the commonwealth and his own country,
fomented the hostility of the former against Portugal and the United
Provinces, the ancient enemies of Spain, and procured the assent of his
sovereign that an accredited minister from the parliament should be
admitted by the court of Madrid. The individual selected[d] for this office
was Ascham, a man who, by his writings, had rendered himself peculiarly
obnoxious to the royalists. He landed[e] near Cadiz, proceeded under an
escort for his protection to Madrid, and repaired[f] to an inn, till a
suitable residence could be procured. The next day,[g] while he was sitting
at dinner with Riba, a renegado friar, his interpreter,
[Footnote 1: Journals, 1650, Dec. 17; 1651, April 4, 11, 22, May 7, 13, 16;
1652, Sept. 30, Dec. 15; 1653, Jan. 5. Whitelock, 486. Dumont, vi. p. ii.
82.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1653. Jan. 5.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1651. July 10.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1651. July 14.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1650. Jan. 31.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1650. April 3.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1650. May 26.]
[Sidenote g: A.D. 1650. May 27.]
six Englishmen entered the house; four remained below to watch; two burst
into the room, exclaiming, "Welcome, gallants, welcome;" and in a moment
both the ambassador and the interpreter lay on the floor weltering in their
blood. Of the assassins, one, a servant to Cottington and Hyde, the envoys
from Charles, fled to the house of the Venetian ambassador, and escaped;
the other five took refuge in a neighbouring chapel, whence, by the king's
order, they were conducted to the common goal. When the criminal process
was ended, they all received judgment of death. The crime, it was
acknowledged, could not be justified; yet the public feeling was in favour
of the criminals: the people, the clergy, the foreign ambassadors, all
sought to save them from punishment; and, though the right of sanctuary
did not afford protection to murderers, the king was, but with difficulty,
persuaded to send them back to their former asylum. Here, while they
remained within its precincts, they were safe; but the moment they left the
sanctuary, their lives became forfeited to the law. The people supplied
them with provisions, and offered the means of escape. They left Madrid;
the police pursued; Sparkes, a native of Hampshire, was taken about three
miles from the city; and the parliament, unable to obtain more, appeared to
be content with the blood of this single victim.[1]
6. These negotiations ended peaceably; those between the commonwealth and
the United Provinces, though commenced with friendly feelings, led to
hostilities. It might have been expected that the Dutch, mindful of the
glorious struggle for liberty maintained
[Footnote 1: Compare Clarendon, iii. 369, with the Papers in Thurloe, i.
148-153, 202, and Harleian Miscellany, iv. 280.]
by their fathers, and crowned with success by the treaty of Munster, would
have viewed with exultation the triumph of the English republicans. But
William the Second, prince of Orange, had married[a] a daughter of Charles
I.; his views and interests were espoused by the military and the people;
and his adherents possessed the ascendancy in the States General and in all
the provincial states, excepting those of West Friesland and Holland.
As long as he lived, no atonement could be obtained for the murder of
Dorislaus, no audience for Strickland, the resident ambassador, though that
favour was repeatedly granted to Boswell, the envoy of Charles.[1] However,
in November the prince died[b] of the small-pox in his twenty-fourth year;
and a few days later[c] his widow was delivered of a son, William III., the
same who subsequently ascended the throne of England. The infancy of his
successor emboldened the democratical party; they abolished the office of
stadtholder, and recovered the ascendancy in the government. On the news of
this revolution, the council advised that St. John, the chief justice of
the Common Pleas, and Strickland, the former envoy, should be appointed
ambassadors extraordinary to the States General. St. John, with the fate
of Ascham before his eyes, sought to escape this dangerous mission; he
alleged[d] the infirmity of his health and the insalubrity of the climate;
but the parliament derided his timidity, and his petition was dismissed on
a division by a considerable majority.[2]
Among the numerous projects which the English leaders cherished under the
intoxication of success, was that of forming, by the incorporation of the
[Footnote 1: Thurloe, i. 112, 113, 114, 124.]
[Footnote 2: Journals, 1651, Jan. 21, 23, 28.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. Dec. 8.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1650. Nov. 6.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1650. Nov. 14.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1651. Jan. 28.]
United Provinces with the commonwealth, a great and powerful republic,
capable of striking terror into all the crowned heads of Europe. But so
many difficulties were foreseen, so many objections raised, that the
ambassadors received instructions to confine themselves to the more sober
proposal of "a strict and intimate alliance and union, which might give to
each a mutual and intrinsical interest" in the prosperity of the other.
They made their public entry into the Hague[a] with a parade and retinue
becoming the representatives of a powerful nation; but external splendour
did not check the popular feeling, which expressed itself by groans
and hisses, nor intimidate the royalists, who sought every occasion of
insulting "the things called ambassadors."[1] The States had not forgotten
the offensive delay of the parliament to answer their embassy of
intercession for the life of Charles I.; nor did they brook the superiority
which it now assumed, by prescribing a certain term within which the
negotiation should be concluded. Pride was met with equal pride; the
ambassadors were compelled to solicit a prolongation of their powers,[b]
and the treaty began to proceed with greater rapidity. The English
proposed[c] a confederacy for the preservation of the liberties of each
nation against all the enemies
[Footnote 1: Thus they are perpetually called in the correspondence of the
royalists.--Carte's Letters, i. 447, 469; ii. 11. Strickland's servants
were attacked at his door by six cavaliers with drawn swords; an attempt
was made to break into St. John's bedchamber; Edward, son to the queen of
Bohemia, publicly called the ambassadors rogues and dogs; and the young
duke of York accidentally meeting St. John, who refused to give way to
him, snatched the ambassador's hat off his head and threw it in his face,
saying, "Learn, parricide, to respect the brother of your king." "I scorn,"
he replied, "to acknowledge either, you race of vagabonds." The duke
drew his sword, but mischief was prevented by the interference of the
spectators,--New Parl. Hist. iii. 1, 364.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1651. March 10.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1651. April 17.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1651. May 10.]
of either by sea and land, and a renewal of the whole treaty of 1495, with
such modifications as might adapt it to existing times and circumstances.
The States, having demanded in vain an explanation of the proposed
confederacy,[a] presented a counter project;[b] but while the different
articles remained under discussion, the period prefixed by the parliament
expired, and the ambassadors departed. To whom the failure of the
negotiation was owing became a subject of controversy. The Hollanders
blamed the abrupt and supercilious carriage of St. John and his colleague;
the ambassadors charged the States with having purposely created delay,
that they might not commit themselves by a treaty with the commonwealth,
before they had seen the issue of the contest between the king of Scotland
and Oliver Cromwell.[1]
In a short time that contest was decided in the battle of Worcester,
and the States condescended to become petitioners in their turn. Their
ambassadors arrived in England with the intention of resuming the
negotiation where it had been interrupted by the departure of St. John and
his colleague. But circumstances were now changed; success had enlarged
the pretensions of the parliament; and the British, instead of shunning,
courted a trial of strength with the Belgic lion. First, the Dutch
merchantmen were visited under the pretext of searching for munitions of
war, which they were carrying to the enemy; and then, at the representation
of certain merchants, who conceived themselves to have been injured by the
Dutch navy, letters of marque were granted to several individuals, and more
than eighty prizes brought into
[Footnote 1: Thurloe, i. 179, 183, 188-195. Heath, 285-287. Carte's
Letters, i. 464. Leicester's Journal, 107. Parl. History, xx. 496.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1651. June 14.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1651. June 20.]
the English ports.[1] In addition, the navigation act had been passed and
carried into execution,[a] by which it was enacted that no goods, the
produce of Africa, Asia, and America, should be imported into this country
in ships which were not the property of England or its colonies; and that
no produce or manufacture of any part of Europe should be imported,
unless in ships the property of England or of the country of which such
merchandise was the proper growth or manufacture.[2] Hitherto the Dutch
had been the common carriers of Europe; by this act, the offspring of St.
John's resentment, one great and lucrative branch of their commercial
prosperity was lopped off, and the first, but fruitless demand of the
ambassadors was that, if not repealed, it should at least be suspended
during the negotiation.
The Dutch merchants had solicited permission to indemnify themselves by
reprisals; but the States ordered a numerous fleet to be equipped, and
announced to all the neighbouring powers that their object was, not to make
war, but to afford protection to their commerce. By the council of state,
the communication was received as a menace; the English ships of war were
ordered to exact in the narrow seas the same honour to the flag of the
commonwealth as had been formerly paid to that of the king; and the
[Footnote 1: It seems probable that the letters of marque were granted not
against the Dutch, but the French, as had been done for some time, and
that the Dutch vessels were detained under pretence of their having French
property on board. Suivant les pretextes de reprisailles contre les
François et autres.--Dumont, vi. ii. 32.]
[Footnote 2: An exception was made in favour of commodities from the Levant
seas, the West Indies, and the ports of Spain and Portugal, which might be
imported from the usual places of trading, though they were not the growth
of the said places. The penalty was the forfeiture of the ship and cargo,
one moiety to the commonwealth, the other to the informer.--New Parl. Hist.
iii. 1374.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1651. Oct. 9.]
ambassadors were reminded of the claim of indemnification for the losses
sustained by the English in the East Indies, of a free trade from
Middleburgh to Antwerp, and of the tenth herring which was due from the
Dutch fishermen for the permission to exercise their trade in the British
seas.
While the conferences were yet pending, Commodore Young met[a] a fleet of
Dutch merchantmen under convoy in the Channel; and, after a sharp action,
compelled the men-of-war to salute the English flag. A few days later[b]
the celebrated Van Tromp appeared with two-and-forty sail in the Downs. He
had been instructed to keep at a proper distance from the English coast,
neither to provoke nor to shun hostility, and to salute or not according to
his own discretion; but on no account to yield to the newly-claimed right
of search.[1] To Bourne, the English, commander, he apologized for
his arrival, which, he said, was not with any hostile design, but in
consequence of the loss of several anchors and cables on the opposite
coast. The next day[c] he met Blake off the harbour of Dover; an action
took place between the rival commanders; and, when the fleets separated in
the evening, the English cut off two ships of thirty guns, one of which
they took, the other they abandoned, on account of the damage which it had
received.
It was a question of some importance who was the aggressor. By Blake it was
asserted that Van Tromp had gratuitously come to insult the English fleet
in its own roads, and had provoked the engagement by firing the first
broadside. The Dutchman replied that
[Footnote 1: Le Clerc, i. 315. The Dutch seem to have argued that the
salute had formerly been rendered to the king, not to the nation.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. May 12.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1652. May 18.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1652. May 19.]
he was cruising for the protection of trade; that the weather had driven
him on the English coast; that he had no thought of fighting till he
received the fire of Blake's ship; and that, during the action, he had
carefully kept on the defensive, though he might with his great superiority
of force have annihilated the assailants.[1]
The reader will probably think, that those who submitted to solicit the
continuance of peace were not the first to seek the commencement of
hostilities. Immediately after the action at sea, the council ordered the
English commanders to pursue, attack, and destroy all vessels the property
of the United Provinces; and, in the course of a month, more than seventy
sail of merchantmen, besides several men-of-war, were captured, stranded,
or burnt. The Dutch, on the contrary, abstained from reprisals; their
ambassadors thrice assured the council that the battle had happened without
the knowledge, and to the deep regret of the States;[a] and on each
occasion earnestly deprecated the adoption of hasty and violent measures,
which might lead to consequences highly prejudicial to both nations.
They received an answer,[b] which, assuming it as proved that the States
intended to usurp the rights of England on the sea, and to
[Footnote 1: The great argument of the parliament in their declaration is
the following: Tromp came out of his way to meet the English fleet, and
fired on Blake without provocation; the States did not punish him, but
retained him in the command; therefore he acted by their orders, and the
war was begun by them. Each of these assertions was denied on the other
side. Tromp showed the reasons which led him into the track of the English
fleet; and the States asserted, from the evidence before them, that Tromp
had ordered his sails to be lowered, and was employed in getting ready
his boat to compliment the English admiral at the time when he received a
broadside from the impatience of Blake.--Dumont, vi. p. ii. 33. Le Clerc,
i. 315, 317. Basnage, i. 254. Heath, 315-320.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. May 24, 27, June 3.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1652. June 5.]
destroy the navy, the bulwark of those rights, declared that it was the
duty of parliament to seek reparation for the past, and security for the
future.[1]
Soon afterwards Pauw, the grand pensionary, arrived.[a] He repeated with
the most solemn asseverations from his own knowledge the statement of the
ambassadors;[b] proposed that a court of inquiry, consisting of an equal
number of commissioners from each nation, should be appointed, and
exemplary punishment inflicted on the officer who should be found to have
provoked the engagement; and demanded that hostilities should cease, and
the negotiation be resumed. Receiving no other answer than had been already
given to his colleagues, he asked[c] what was meant by "reparation and
security;" and was told by order of parliament, that the English government
expected full compensation for all the charges to which it had been put
by the preparations and attempts of the States, and hoped to meet with
security for the future in an alliance which should render the interests
of both nations consistent with each other. These, it was evident, were
conditions to which the pride of the States would refuse to stoop; Pauw
demanded[d] an audience of leave of the parliament; and all hope of
reconciliation vanished.[2]
If the Dutch had hitherto solicited peace, it was not that they feared the
result of war. The sea was their native element; and the fact of their
maritime superiority had long been openly or tacitly acknowledged by all
the powers of Europe. But they wisely
[Footnote 1: Heath, 320, 321.]
[Footnote 2: Compare the declaration of parliament of July 9 with that of
the States General of July 23, Aug. 2. See also Whitelock, 537; Heath,
315-322; the Journals, June 5, 11, 25, 30; and Le Clerc, i. 318-321.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. June 11.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1652. June 17.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1652. June 25.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1652. June 30.]
judged that no victory by sea could repay them for the losses which they
must sustain from the extinction of their fishing trade, and the suspension
of their commerce.[1] For the commonwealth, on the other hand, it was
fortunate that the depredations of Prince Rupert had turned the attention
of the leaders to naval concerns. Their fleet had been four years in
commission: the officers and men were actuated by the same spirit of civil
liberty and religious enthusiasm which distinguished the land army; Ayscue
had just returned from the reduction of Barbadoes with a powerful squadron;
and fifty additional ships were ordered to be equipped, an object easily
accomplished at a time when any merchantman capable of carrying guns could,
with a few alterations, be converted into a man-of-war.[2] Ayscue with the
smaller division of the fleet remained at home to scour the Channel.[a]
Blake sailed to the north, captured the squadron appointed to protect the
Dutch fishing-vessels, exacted from the busses the duty of every tenth
herring, and sent them home with a prohibition to fish again without a
license from the English government. In the mean while Van Tromp sailed
from the Texel with seventy men-of-war. It was expected in Holland that he
would sweep the English navy from the face of the ocean. His first attempt
was to surprise Ayscue, who was saved by a calm followed by a change of
wind. He then sailed to the north in search of Blake. But
[Footnote 1: The fishery employed in various ways one hundred thousand
persons.--Le Clerc, 321.]
[Footnote 2: From a list of hired merchantmen converted into men-of-war, it
appears that a ship of nine hundred tons burthen made a man-of-war of sixty
guns; one of seven hundred tons, a man-of-war of forty-six; four hundred,
of thirty-four; two hundred, of twenty; one hundred, of ten; sixty, of
eight; and that about five or six men were allowed for each gun.--Journals,
1651, May 29.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. July 19.]
his fleet was dispersed by a storm; five of his frigates fell into the
hands of the English; and on his return he was received with murmurs and
reproaches by the populace. Indignant at a treatment which he had not
deserved, he justified his conduct before the States, and then laid down
his commission.[1]
De Ruyter, a name almost equally illustrious on the ocean, was appointed
his successor. That officer sailed to the mouth of the Channel, took under
his charge a fleet of merchantmen, and on his return was opposed by Ayscue
with nearly an equal force. The English. commander burst through the enemy,
and was followed by nine sail; the rest of the fleet took no share in the
action, and the convoy escaped. The blame rested not with Ayscue, but with
his inferior officers; but the council took the opportunity to lay him
aside, not that they doubted his courage or abilities, but because he was
suspected of a secret leaning to the royal cause. To console him for his
disgrace, he received a present of three hundred pounds, with a grant of
land of the same annual rent in Ireland.[2]
De Witte now joined De Ruyter,[a] and took the command. Blake accepted the
challenge of battle, and night alone separated the combatants. The next
morning the Dutch fled, and were pursued as far as the Goree. Their ships
were in general of smaller dimensions, and drew less water than those of
their adversaries, who dared not follow among the numerous sand-banks with
which the coast is studded.[3]
Blake, supposing that naval operations would be suspended during the
winter, had detached several
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 538, 539, 540, 541. Heath, 322. Le Clerc, i. 321.]
[Footnote 2: Heath, 323. Le Clerc, i. 322.]
[Footnote 3: Ibid. 326. Ludlow, i. 367. Whitelock, 545. Le Clerc, i. 324.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. Sept. 28.]
squadrons to different ports, and was riding in the Downs with thirty-seven
sail, when he was surprised by the appearance[a] of a hostile fleet of
double that number, under the command of Van Tromp, whose wounded pride had
been appeased with a new commission. A mistaken sense of honour induced the
English admiral to engage in the unequal contest. The battle[b] raged from
eleven in the morning till night. The English, though they burnt a large
ship and disabled two others, lost five sail either sunk or taken; and
Blake, under cover of the darkness, ran up the river as far as Leigh. Van
Tromp sought his enemy at Harwich and Yarmouth; returning, he insulted the
coast as he passed; and continued to cruise backwards and forwards from the
North Foreland to the Isle of Wight.[1]
The parliament made every exertion to wipe away this disgrace. The ships
were speedily refitted; two regiments of infantry embarked to serve as
marines; a bounty was offered for volunteers; the wages of the seamen were
raised; provision was made for their families during their absence on
service; a new rate for the division of prize-money was established; and,
in aid of Blake, two officers, whose abilities had been already tried,
Deane and Monk, received the joint command of the fleet. On the other hand,
the Dutch were intoxicated with their success; they announced it to the
world, in prints, poems, and publications; and Van Tromp affixed a broom to
the head of his mast as an emblem of his triumph. He had gone to the Isle
of Rhée to take the homeward-bound trade under his charge, with orders to
resume his station at the mouth of the Thames, and to prevent the egress of
[Footnote 1: Heath, 329. Ludlow, ii. 3. Neuville, iii. 68.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. Nov. 29.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1652. Nov. 30.]
the English. But Blake had already stationed himself with more than seventy
sail across the Channel, opposite the Isle of Portland, to intercept the
return of the enemy. On the 18th of February the Dutch fleet, equal in
number, with three hundred merchantmen under convoy, was discovered[a]
near Cape La Hogue, steering along the coast of France. The action was
maintained with the most desperate obstinacy. The Dutch lost six sail,
either sunk or taken, the English one, but several were disabled, and Blake
himself was severely wounded.
The following morning[b] the enemy were seen opposite Weymouth, drawn up in
the form of a crescent covering the merchantmen. Many attempts were made to
break through the line; and so imminent did the danger appear to the Dutch
admiral, that he made signal for the convoy to shift for themselves. The
battle lasted at intervals through the night; it was renewed with greater
vigour near Boulogne in the morning;[c] till Van Tromp, availing himself of
the shallowness of the coast, pursued his course homeward unmolested by the
pursuit of the enemy. The victory was decidedly with the English; the loss
in men might be equal on both sides; but the Dutch themselves acknowledged
that nine of their men-of-war and twenty-four of the merchant vessels had
been either sunk or captured.[1]
This was the last naval victory achieved under the auspices of the
parliament, which, though it wielded the powers of government with an
energy that surprised
[Footnote 1: Heath, 335. Whitelock, 551. Leicester's Journal, 138. Le
Clerc, i. 328. Basnage, i. 298-301. By the English admirals the loss of the
Dutch was estimated at eleven men-of-war and thirty merchantmen.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1653. Feb. 18.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1653. Feb. 19.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1653. Feb. 20.]
the several nations of Europe, was doomed to bend before the superior
genius or ascendancy of Cromwell. When that adventurer first formed the
design of seizing the supreme authority, is uncertain; it was not till
after the victory at Worcester that he began gradually and cautiously to
unfold his object. He saw himself crowned with the laurels of conquest; he
held the command in chief of a numerous and devoted army; and he dwelt with
his family in a palace formerly the residence of the English monarchs. His
adversaries had long ago pronounced him, in all but name, "a king;" and his
friends were accustomed to address him in language as adulatory as ever
gratified the ears of the most absolute sovereign.[1] His importance was
perpetually forced upon his notice by the praise of his dependants, by the
foreign envoys who paid court to him, and by the royalists who craved
his protection. In such circumstances, it cannot be surprising if the
victorious general indulged the aspirings of ambition; if the stern
republican, however he might hate to see the crown on the brows of another,
felt no repugnance to place it upon his own.
The grandees of the army felt that they no longer possessed the chief sway
in the government. War had called them away to their commands in Scotland
and Ireland; and, during their absence, the conduct of affairs had devolved
on those who, in contradistinction, were denominated the statesmen. Thus,
by the course
[Footnote 1: The general officers conclude their despatches to him thus:
"We humbly lay ourselves with these thoughts, in this emergency, at your
excellency's feet."--Milton's State Papers, 71. The ministers of Newcastle
make "their humble addresses to his godly wisdom," and present "their
humble suits to God and his excellency" (ibid. 82); and the petitioners
from different countries solicit him to mediate for them to the parliament,
"because God has not put the sword in his hand in vain."--Whitelock, 517.]
of events, the servants had grown into masters, and the power of the
senate had obtained the superiority over the power of the sword. Still
the officers in their distant quarters jealously watched, and severely
criticised the conduct of the men at Westminster. With want of vigour in
directing the military and naval resources of the country, they could not
be charged; but it was complained that they neglected the internal economy
of government; that no one of the objects demanded in the "agreement of
the people" had been accomplished; and that, while others sacrificed
their health and their lives in the service of the commonwealth, all the
emoluments and patronage were monopolized by the idle drones who remained
in the capital.[1]
On the return of the lord-general, the council of officers had been
re-established at Whitehall;[a] and their discontent was artfully employed
by Cromwell in furtherance of his own elevation. When he resumed his seat
in the house, he reminded the members of their indifference to two measures
earnestly desired by the country, the act of amnesty and the termination of
the present parliament. Bills for each of these objects had been introduced
as far back as 1649; but, after some progress, both were suffered to sleep
in the several committees; and this backwardness of the "statesmen" was
attributed to their wish to enrich themselves by forfeitures, and to
perpetuate their power by perpetuating the parliament. The influence of
Cromwell revived both questions. An act of oblivion was obtained,[b] which,
with some exceptions, pardoned all offences committed before the battle of
Worcester, and relieved the minds of the royalists from the apprehension
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 549.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1651. Sept. 16.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1652. Feb. 24.]
of additional forfeitures. On the question of the expiration of parliament,
after several warm debates, the period had been fixed[a] for the 3rd of
November, 1654; a distance of three years, which, perhaps, was not the less
pleasing to Cromwell, as it served to show how unwilling his adversaries
were to resign their power. The interval was to be employed in determining
the qualifications of the succeeding parliament.[1]
In the winter, the lord-general called a meeting of officers and members at
the house of the speaker; and it must have excited their surprise, when
he proposed to them to deliberate, whether it were better to establish
a republic, or a mixed form of monarchical government. The officers in
general pronounced in favour of a republic, as the best security for the
liberties of the people; the lawyers pleaded unanimously for a limited
monarchy, as better adapted to the laws, the habits, and the feelings of
Englishmen. With the latter Cromwell agreed, and inquired whom in that case
they would choose for king. It was replied, either Charles Stuart or
the duke of York, provided they would comply with the demands of the
parliament; if they would not, the young duke of Gloucester, who could not
have imbibed the despotic notions of his elder brothers. This was not the
answer which Cromwell sought: he heard it with uneasiness; and, as often as
the subject was resumed, diverted the conversation to some other question.
In conclusion, he gave his opinion, that, "somewhat of a monarchical
government would be most effectual, if it could be established with safety
to the liberties of the people,
[Footnote 1: Journals, 1651, Nov. 4, 14, 15, 18, 27; 1652, Feb. 24.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. Nov. 18.]
as Englishmen and Christians."[1] That the result of the meeting
disappointed his expectations, is evident; but he derived from it this
advantage, that he had ascertained the sentiments of many, whose aid he
might subsequently require. None of the leaders from the opposite party
appear to have been present.[1]
Jealous, however, of his designs, "the statesmen" had begun to fight him
with his own weapons. As the commonwealth had no longer an enemy to contend
with on the land, they proposed[a] a considerable reduction in the number
of the forces, and[b] a proportionate reduction of the taxes raised for
their support. The motion was too reasonable in itself, and too popular
in the country, to be resisted with safety: one-fourth of the army was
disbanded,[c] and the monthly assessment lowered from one hundred and
twenty thousand pounds to ninety thousand pounds. Before the expiration of
six months, the question of a further reduction was brought forward;[d]
but the council of war took the alarm, and a letter from Cromwell to the
speaker[e] induced the house to continue its last vote. In a short time[f]
it was again mentioned; but the next day[g] six officers appeared at the
bar of the house with a petition from the army, which, under pretence of
praying for improvements, tacitly charged the members with the neglect of
their duty. It directed their attention to the propagation of the
gospel, the reform of the law, the removal from office of scandalous and
disaffected persons, the abuses in the excise and the treasury, the arrears
due to the army, the violation of articles granted to the enemy, and the
qualifications of future and successive parliaments. Whitelock remonstrated
with Cromwell on the danger
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 516.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1651. Oct. 2.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1651. Oct. 7.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1651. Dec. 19.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1652. June 5.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1652. June 15.]
[Sidenote f: A.D. 1652. August 12.]
[Sidenote g: A.D. 1652. August 13.]
of permitting armed bodies to assembly and petition. He slighted the
advice.[1]
Soon afterwards[a] the lord-general requested a private and confidential
interview with that lawyer. So violent, he observed, was the discontent
of the army, so imperious the conduct of the parliament, that it would be
impossible to prevent a collision of interests, and the subsequent ruin of
the good cause, unless there were established "some authority so full and
so high" as to be able to check these exorbitances, and to restrain both
the army and the parliament. Whitelock replied, that, for the army,
his excellency had hitherto kept and would continue to keep it in due
subordination; but with respect to the parliament, reliance must be placed
on the good sense and virtue of the majority. To control the supreme power
was legally impossible. All, even Cromwell himself, derived their authority
from it. At these words the lord-general abruptly exclaimed, "What, if a
man should take upon him to be king?" The commissioner answered that the
title would confer no additional benefit on his excellency. By his command
of the army, his ascendancy in the house, and his reputation, both at home
and abroad, he already enjoyed, without the envy of the name, all the power
of a king. When Cromwell insisted that the name would give security to his
followers, and command the respect of the people, Whitelock rejoined, that
it would change the state of the controversy between the parties, and
convert a national into a personal quarrel. His friends had cheerfully
fought with him to establish a republican in place of monarchical
government; would they equally
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 541. Journals, 1651; Dec. 19; 1652, June 15, Aug.
12, 13.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. Nov. 8.]
fight with him in favour of the house of Cromwell against the house of
Stuart?[1] In conclusion, Cromwell conjured him to give his advice without
disguise or qualification, and received this answer, "Make a private
treaty with the son of the late king, and place him on the throne, but on
conditions which shall secure to the nation its rights, and to yourself the
first place beneath the throne." The general coldly observed that a matter
of such importance and difficulty deserved mature consideration. They
separated; and Whitelock soon discovered that he had forfeited his
confidence.[2]
At length Cromwell fixed on a plan to accomplish his purpose by procuring
the dissolution of the parliament, and vesting for a time the sovereign
authority in a council of forty persons, with himself at their head. It was
his wish to effect this quietly by the votes of parliament--his resolution
to effect it by open force, if such votes were refused. Several meetings
were held by the officers and members at the lodgings of the lord-general
in Whitehall. St. John and a few others gave their assent; the rest, under
the guidance
[Footnote 1: Henry, duke of Gloucester, and the princess Elizabeth were in
England at the last king's death. In 1650 the council proposed to send the
one to his brother in Scotland, and the other to her sister in Holland,
allowing to each one thousand pounds per annum, as long as they should
behave inoffensively.--Journals, 1650, July 24, Sept. 11. But Elizabeth
died on Sept. 8 of the same year, and Henry remained under the charge
of Mildmay, governor of Carisbrook Castle, till a short time after this
conference, when Cromwell, as if he looked on the young prince as a rival,
advised his tutor Lovell, to ask permission to convey him to his sister,
the princess of Orange. It was granted, with the sum of five hundred pounds
to defray the expense of the journey.--Leicester's Journal, 103. Heath,
331. Clarendon, iii. 525, 526.]
[Footnote 2: Whitelock, 548-551. Were the minutes of this conversation
committed to paper immediately, or after the Restoration? The credit due to
them depends on this circumstance.]
of Whitelock and Widdrington, declared that the dissolution would be
dangerous, and the establishment of the proposed council unwarrantable.
In the mean time, the house resumed the consideration of the new
representative body, and several qualifications were voted; to all of which
the officers raised objections, but chiefly to the "admission of neuters,"
a project to strengthen the government by the introduction of the
Presbyterian interest.[1] "Never," said Cromwell, "shall any of that
judgment, who have deserted the good cause, be admitted to power." On the
last meeting,[a] held on the 19th of April, all these points were long and
warmly debated. Some of the officers declared that the parliament must be
dissolved "one way or other;" but the general checked their indiscretion
and precipitancy; and the assembly broke up at midnight, with an
understanding that the leading men on each side should resume the subject
in the morning.[2]
At an early hour the conference was recommenced,[b] and after a short time
interrupted, in consequence of the receipt of a notice by the general that
it was the intention of the house to comply with the desires of the army.
This was a mistake: the opposite party, led by Vane, who had discovered the
object of Cromwell,
[Footnote 1: From Ludlow (ii. 435) it appears that by this bill the number
of members for boroughs was reduced, of representatives of counties
increased. The qualification of an elector was the possession for his
own use of an estate real or personal of the value of two hundred
pounds.--Journ. 30th March, 1653. It is however singular that though the
house continued to sit till April 19th--the only entry on the journals
respecting this bill occurs on the 13th--making it a qualification of the
candidates that they should be "persons of known integrity, fearing God,
and not scandalous in their conversation."--Journal, ibid.]
[Footnote 2: Compare Whitelock's narrative of this meeting (p. 554) with
Cromwell's, in Milton's State Papers, 109.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1653 April 19.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1653 April 20.]
had indeed resolved to pass a bill of dissolution, not, however, the bill
proposed by the officers, but their own bill, containing all the obnoxious
provisions; and to pass it that very morning, that it might obtain the
force of law before their adversaries could have time to appeal to the
power of the sword.[1] While Harrison "most sweetly and humbly" conjured
them to pause before they took so important a step, Ingoldsby hastened
to inform the lord-general at Whitehall. His resolution was immediately
formed, and a company of musketeers received orders to accompany him to the
house.
At this eventful moment, big with the most important consequences both to
himself and his country, whatever were the workings of Cromwell's mind, he
had the art to conceal them from the eyes of the beholders. Leaving the
military in the lobby, he entered the house, and composedly seated himself
on one of the outer benches. His dress was a plain suit of black cloth,
with grey worsted stockings. For a while he seemed to listen with interest
to the debate; but, when the speaker was going to put the question, he
whispered to Harrison, "This is the time: I must do it;" and rising, put
off his hat to address the house. At first his language was decorous and
even laudatory. Gradually he became more warm and animated: at last
he assumed all the vehemence of passion, and indulged in personal
vituperation. He charged the members with self-seeking and profaneness;
with the frequent denial of justice, and numerous
[Footnote 1: These particulars may be fairly collected from Whitelock, 554,
compared with the declaration of the officers, and Cromwell's speech to
his parliament. The intention to dissolve themselves is also asserted by
Hazlerig.--Burton's Diary, iii. 98.]
acts of oppression; with idolizing the lawyers, the constant advocates of
tyranny; with neglecting the men who had bled for them in the field, that
they might gain the Presbyterians who had apostatized from the cause;
and with doing all this in order to perpetuate their own power, and to
replenish their own purses. But their time was come; the Lord had disowned
them; he had chosen more worthy instruments to perform his work. Here the
orator was interrupted by Sir Peter Wentworth, who declared that he
never before heard language so unparliamentary, language, too, the more
offensive, because it was addressed to them by their own servant, whom they
had too fondly cherished, and whom, by their unprecedented bounty, they had
made what he was. At these words Cromwell put on his hat, and, springing
from his place, exclaimed, "Come, come, sir, I will put an end to your
prating." For a few seconds, apparently in the most violent agitation, he
paced forward and backward, and then, stamping on the floor, added, "You
are no parliament. I say you are no parliament: bring them in, bring them
in." Instantly the door opened, and Colonel Worseley entered, followed by
more than twenty musketeers. "This," cried Sir Henry Vane, "is not honest.
It is against morality and common honesty." "Sir Henry Vane," replied
Cromwell, "O Sir Henry Vane! The Lord deliver me from Sir Henry Vane! He
might have prevented this. But he is a juggler, and has not common honesty
himself." From Vane he directed his discourse to Whitelock, on whom he
poured a torrent of abuse; then, pointing to Challoner, "There," he
cried, "sits a drunkard;" next, to Marten and Wentworth, "There are two
whoremasters:" and afterwards, selecting different members in succession,
described them as dishonest and corrupt livers, a shame and a scandal to
the profession of the gospel. Suddenly, however, checking himself, he
turned to the guard, and ordered them to clear the house. At these words
Colonel Harrison took the speaker by the hand, and led him from the chair;
Algernon Sidney was next compelled to quit his seat; and the other members,
eighty in number, on the approach of the military, rose and moved towards
the door. Cromwell now resumed his discourse. "It is you," he exclaimed,
"that have forced me to do this. I have sought the Lord both day and night,
that he would rather slay me, than put me on the doing of this work."
Alderman Allen took advantage of these words to observe, that it was not
yet too late to undo what had been done; but Cromwell instantly charged him
with peculation, and gave him into custody. When all were gone, fixing his
eye on the mace, "What," said he, "shall we do with this fool's bauble?
Here, carry it away." Then, taking the act of dissolution from the clerk,
he ordered the doors to be locked, and, accompanied by the military,
returned to Whitehall.
That afternoon the members of the council assembled in their usual place of
meeting. Bradshaw had just taken the chair, when the lord-general entered,
and told them, that if they were there as private individuals, they
were welcome; but, if as the council of state, they must know that the
parliament was dissolved, and with it also the council. "Sir," replied
Bradshaw, with the spirit of an ancient Roman, "we have heard what you did
at the house this morning, and before many hours all England will know it.
But, sir, you are mistaken to think that the parliament is dissolved. No
power under heaven can dissolve them but themselves. Therefore take you
notice of that." After this protest they withdrew.[1]
Thus, by the parricidal hands of its own children, perished the long
parliament, which, under a variety of forms, had, for more than twelve
years, defended and invaded the liberties of the nation. It fell without a
struggle or a groan, unpitied and unregretted. The members slunk away to
their homes, where they sought by submission to purchase the forbearance
of their new master; and their partisans, if partisans they had, reserved
themselves in silence for a day of retribution, which came not before
Cromwell slept in his grave. The royalists congratulated each other on an
event which they deemed a preparatory step to the restoration of the king;
the army and navy, in numerous addresses, declared that they would live or
die, stand or fall, with the lord-general, and in every part of the country
the congregations of the saints magnified the arm of the Lord which had
broken the mighty, that in lieu of the sway of mortal men, "the fifth
monarchy, the reign of Christ, might be established upon earth."[2]
It would, however, be unjust to the memory of those who exercised the
supreme power after the death of the king, not to acknowledge that there
existed among them men capable of wielding with energy the destinies of a
great empire. They governed only four years; yet, under their auspices, the
conquests of Ireland and Scotland were achieved, and a navy was
[Footnote 1: See the several accounts in Whitelock, 554; Ludlow, ii. 19 23;
Leicester's Journal, 139; Hutchinson, 332; Several Proceedings, No. 186,
and Burton's Diary, iii. 98.]
[Footnote 2: Whitelock, 555-558. Milton's State Papers, 90-97. Ellis,
Second Series, iii. 368.]
created, the rival of that of Holland and the terror of the rest of
Europe.[1] But there existed an essential error in their form of
government. Deliberative assemblies are always slow in their proceedings;
yet the pleasure of parliament, as the supreme power, was to be taken
on every subject connected with the foreign relations, or the internal
administration of the country; and hence it happened that, among the
immense variety of questions which came before it, those commanded
immediate attention which were deemed of immediate necessity; while the
others, though often of the highest importance to the national welfare,
were first postponed, then neglected, and ultimately forgotten. To this
habit of procrastination was perhaps owing the extinction of its authority.
It disappointed the hopes of the country, and supplied Cromwell with the
most plausible argument in defence of his conduct.
Of the parliamentary transactions up to this period, the principal have
been noticed in the preceding pages. I shall add a few others which may
be thought worthy the attention of the reader. 1. It was complained that,
since the abolition of the spiritual tribunals, the sins of incest,
adultery, and fornication had been multiplied, in consequence of the
impunity with which they might be committed; and, at the prayer of the
godly, they were made[a] criminal offences, cognizable by the criminal
courts, and punishable, the two first with death, the last with three
months' imprisonment.
[Footnote 1: "We intended," says Scot, "to have gone off with a good
savour, but we stayed to end the Dutch war. We might have brought them to
oneness with us. Their ambassadors did desire a coalition. This we might
have done in four or five months. We never bid fairer for being masters of
the whole world."--Burton's Diary, iii. 112.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. May 16.]
But it was predicted at the time, and experience verified the prediction,
that the severity of the punishment would defeat the purpose of the law. 2.
Scarcely a petition was presented, which did not, among other things, pray
for the reformation of the courts of justice; and the house, after several
long debates, acquiesced[a] in a measure, understood to be only the
forerunner of several others,[b] that the law books should be written, and
law proceedings be conducted in the English language.[1] 3. So enormous
were the charges of the commonwealth, arising from incessant war by sea or
land, that questions of finance continually engaged the attention of the
house. There were four principal sources of revenue; the customs, the
excise, the sale of fee-farm rents,[2] of the lands of the crown, and of
those belonging to the bishops, deans, and chapters, and the sequestration
and forfeiture of the estates of papists and delinquents. The ordinances
for the latter had been passed as early as the year 1643, and in the course
of the seven succeeding years, the harvest had been reaped and gathered.
Still some gleanings might remain; and in 1650, an act was passed[c] for
the better ordering and managing such estates; the former compositions
were subjected to examination; defects and concealments were detected;
and proportionate fines were in numerous cases exacted. In 1651, seventy
individuals, most of them of high rank, all of opulent fortunes, who
had imprudently displayed their attachment to the royal cause, were
condemned[d] to forfeit their property,
[Footnote 1: Journals, May 10, Nov. 22. Whitelock, 478-483.]
[Footnote 2: The clear annual income from the fee-farm rents amounted to
seventy-seven thousand pounds. In Jan. 1651, twenty-five thousand three
hundred pounds of this income had been sold for two hundred and twenty-five
thousand six hundred and fifty pounds.--Journals, Jan. 8.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. Nov. 8.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1650. Nov. 22.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1651. Jan. 22.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1651. July 16.]
both real and personal, for the benefit of the commonwealth. The fatal
march of Charles to Worcester furnished grounds for a new proscription
in 1652. First[a] nine-and-twenty, then[b] six hundred and eighty-two
royalists were selected for punishment. It was enacted that those in the
first class should forfeit their whole property; while to those in the
second, the right of pre-emption was reserved at the rate of one-third part
of the clear value, to be paid within four months.[1]
4. During the late reign, as long as the Presbyterians retained their
ascendancy in parliament, they enforced with all their power uniformity of
worship and doctrine. The clergy of the established church were ejected
from their livings, and the professors of the Catholic faith were condemned
to forfeit two-thirds of their property, or to abjure their religion. Nor
was the proof of recusancy to depend, as formerly, on the slow process of
presentation and conviction; bare suspicion was held a sufficient ground
for the sequestrator to seize his prey; and the complainant was told that
he had the remedy in his own hands, he might take the oath of abjuration.
When the Independents succeeded to the exercise of the supreme power, both
the persecuted parties indulged a hope of more lenient treatment, and both
were disappointed. The Independents, indeed, proclaimed themselves the
champions of religious liberty; they repealed the statutes imposing
penalties for absence from church; and they declared
[Footnote 1: Journals, 1651, July 16; 1652, Aug. 4, Nov. 18. Scobell, 156,
210. If any of the last were papists, and afterwards disposed of their
estates thus redeemed, they were ordered to banish themselves from their
native country, under the penalty of having the laws against popery
executed against them with the utmost severity.--Addit. Act of Nov. 18,
1652.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. August 4.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1652. Nov. 18.]
that men were free to serve God according to the dictates of conscience.
Yet their notions of toleration were very confined: they refused to extend
it either to prelacy or popery, to the service of the church of England, or
of the church of Rome. The ejected clergymen were still excluded from the
pulpit, and the Catholics were still the victims of persecuting statutes.
In 1650, an act was passed[a] offering to the discoverers of priests and
Jesuits, or of their receivers and abettors, the same reward as had been
granted to the apprehenders of highwaymen. Immediately officers and
informers were employed in every direction; the houses of Catholics were
broken open and searched at all hours of the day and night; many clergymen
were apprehended, and several were tried, and received[b] judgment of
death. Of these only one, Peter Wright, chaplain to the marquess of
Winchester, suffered. The leaders shrank from the odium of such sanguinary
exhibitions, and transported the rest of the prisoners to the continent.[1]
But if the zeal of the Independents was more sparing of blood than that of
the Presbyterians, it was not inferior in point of rapacity. The
ordinances for sequestration and forfeiture were executed with unrelenting
severity.[2] It is difficult to say which suffered from them most
cruelly--families with small fortunes who were thus reduced to a state of
penury; or husbandmen, servants, and mechanics, who, on their refusal to
take the oath of abjuration, were deprived
[Footnote 1: Challoner, ii 346. MS. papers in my possession. See note.
(G).]
[Footnote 2: In 1650 the annual rents of Catholics in possession of the
sequestrators were retained at sixty-two thousand and forty-eight pounds
seventeen shillings and threepence three farthings. It should, however, be
observed that thirteen counties were not included.--Journ. Dee. 17.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. Feb. 26.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1651. May. 19.]
of two-thirds of their scanty earnings, even of their household goods and
wearing apparel.[1] The sufferers ventured to solicit[a] from parliament
such indulgence as might be thought "consistent with the public peace and
their comfortable subsistence in their native country." The petition was
read: Sir Henry Vane spoke in its favour; but the house was deaf to the
voice of reason and humanity, and the prayer for relief was indignantly
rejected.[2]
[Footnote 1: In proof I may be allowed to mention one instance of a
Catholic servant maid, an orphan, who, during a servitude of seventeen
years, at seven nobles a year, had saved twenty pounds. The sequestrators,
having discovered with whom she had deposited her money, took two-thirds,
thirteen pounds six shillings and eightpence, for the use of the
commonwealth, and left her the remainder, six pounds thirteen and
fourpence. In March, 1652, she appealed to the commissioners at
Haberdashers' Hall, who replied that they could afford her no relief,
unless she took the oath of abjuration. See this and many other cases in
the "Christian Moderator, or Persecution for Religion,
condemned by the Light of Nature, the Law of God, and Evidence of our own
Principles," p. 77-84. London, 1652.]
[Footnote 2: Journals, 1652, June 30. The petition is in the Christian
Moderator, p. 59.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1652. Jun. 30.]