THE LIFE OF JOHN MILTON
Narrated in Connexion with the Political, Ecclesiastical, and Literary
History of His Time
by
DAVID MASSON, M.A., LL.D.,
Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature in the University of
Edinburgh
VOLUME V
1654-1660
London:
MacMillan and Co.
1877
CONTENTS.
BOOK I.
SEPTEMBER 1654-JUNE 1657.
HISTORY:--OLIVER'S FIRST PROTECTORATE CONTINUED.
BIOGRAPHY:--MILTON'S LIFE AND SECRETARYSHIP THROUGH THE FIRST
PROTECTORATE CONTINUED.
CHAP.
I. SECTION I. Oliver and his First Parliament: Sept. 3, 1654-Jan.
22, 1654-5.--Meeting of the First Parliament of the Protectorate:
Its Composition: Anti-Oliverians numerous in it: Their Four Days'
Debate in challenge of Cromwell's Powers: Debate stopped by Cromwell:
His Speech in the Painted Chamber: Secession of some from the
Parliament: Acquiescence of the rest by Adoption of _The
Recognition_: Spirit and Proceedings of the Parliament still
mainly Anti-Oliverian: Their Four Months' Work in Revision of the
Protectoral Constitution: Chief Debates in those Four Months:
Question of the Protector's Negatives: Other Incidental Work of the
Parliament: Question of Religious Toleration and of the Suppression
of Heresies and Blasphemies: Committee and Sub-Committee on this
Subject: Baxter's Participation: Tendency to a Limited Toleration
only, and Vote against the Protector's Prerogative of more: Case of
John Biddle, the Socinian.--Insufficiency now of our former Synopsis
of English Sects and Heresies: New Sects and Denominations: The
Fifth-Monarchy Men: The Ranters: The Muggletonians and other Stray
Fanatics: Bochmenists and other Mystics: The Quakers or Friends:
Account of George Fox, and Sketch of the History of the Quakers to
the year 1654.--Policy of the Parliament with their Bill for a New
Constitution: Parliament outwitted by Cromwell and dissolved: No
Result.
CHAP.
I. SECTION II. Between the Parliaments, or the Time of Arbitrariness:
Jan. 22, 1654-55--Sept. 17, 1656.--Avowed "Arbitrariness" of this
Stage of the Protectorate, and Reasons for it.--First Meeting of
Cromwell and his Council after the Dissolution: Major-General Overton
in Custody: Other Arrests: Suppression of a wide Republican
Conspiracy and of Royalist Risings in Yorkshire and the West: Revenue
Ordinance and Mr. Cony's Opposition at Law: Deference of Foreign
Governments: Blake in the Mediterranean: Massacre of the Piedmontese
Protestants: Details of the Story and of Cromwell's Proceedings in
consequence: Penn in the Spanish West Indies: His Repulse from
Hispaniola and Landing in Jamaica: Declaration of War with Spain and
Alliance with France: Scheme of the Government of England by
Major-Generals: List of them and Summary of their Police-System:
Decimation Tax on the Royalists, and other Measures _in
terrorem_: Consolidation of the London Newspaper Press:
Proceedings of the Commission of Ejectors and of the Commission of
Triers: View of Cromwell's Established Church of England, with
Enumeration of its various Components: Extent of Toleration outside
the Established Church: The Protector's Treatment of the Roman
Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Anti-Trinitarians, the Quakers, and
the Jews: State of the English Universities and Schools under the
Protectorate: Cromwell's Patronage of Learning: List of English Men
of Letters alive in 1656, and Account of their Diverse Relations to
Cromwell: Poetical Panegyrics on him and his Protectorate.--New
Arrangements for the Government of Scotland: Lord Broghill's
Presidency there for Cromwell: General State of the Country:
Continued Struggle between the Resolutioners and the Protesters for
Kirk-Supremacy: Independency and Quakerism in Scotland: More Extreme
Anomalies there: Story of "Jock of Broad Scotland": Brisk Intercourse
between Scotland and London: Mission of Mr. James Sharp.--Ireland
from 1654 to 1656.--Glimpse of the Colonies.
CHAP.
I. SECTION III. Oliver and the First Session of his Second
Parliament: Sept. 17, 1656-June 26, 1657.--Second Parliament of the
Protectorate called: Vane's _Healing Question_ and another
Anti-Oliverian Pamphlet: Precautions and Arrests: Meeting of the
Parliament: Its Composition: Summary of Cromwell's Opening Speech:
Exclusion of Ninety-three Anti-Oliverian Members: Decidedly Oliverian
Temper of the rest: Question of the Excluded Members: Their Protest:
Summary of the Proceedings of the Parliament for Five Months (Sept.
1656-Feb. 1656-7): Administration of Cromwell and his Council during
those Months: Approaches to Disagreement between Cromwell and the
Parliament in the _Case of James Nayler_ and on the Question of
Continuation of the Militia by Major-Generals: No Rupture.--The
Soxby-Sindercombe Plot.--Sir Christopher Pack's Motion for a New
Constitution (Feb. 23, 1656-7): Its Issue in the _Petition and
Advice_ and Offer of the Crown to Cromwell: Division of Public
Opinion on the Kingship Question: Opposition among the Army Officers:
Cromwell's Neutral Attitude: His Reception of the Offer: His long
Hesitations and several Speeches over the Affair: His Final Refusal
(May 8, 1657): Ludlow's Story of the Cause.--Harrison and the Fifth
Monarchy Men: Venner's Outbreak at Mile-End-Green.--Proposed New
Constitution of the _Petition and Advice_ retained in the form
of a Continued Protectorate: Supplements to the _Petition and
Advice_: Bills assented to by the Protector, June 9: Votes for the
Spanish War.--Treaty Offensive and Defensive with France against
Spain: Dispatch of English Auxiliary Army, under Reynolds, for
Service in Flanders: Blake's Action in Santa Cruz Bay.--"_Killing
no Murder_": _Additional and Explanatory Petition and
Advice_: Abstract of the Articles of the New Constitution as
arranged by the two Documents: Cromwell's completed Assent to the New
Constitution, and his Assent to other Bills. June 26, 1657:
Inauguration of the Second Protectorate that day: Close of the First
Session of the Second Parliament.
CHAP.
II. Milton's Life and Secretaryship through the First Protectorate
continued: September 1654-June 1657.--SECTION I.: From September 1654
to January 1654-5, or Through Oliver's First Parliament.--Ulac's
Hague Edition of Milton's _Defensio Secunda_, with the _Fides
Publica_ of Morus annexed: Preface by Dr. Crantzius to the
Reprint: Ulac's own Preface of Self-Defence: Account of Morus's
_Fides Publica_, with Extracts: His Citation of Testimonies to
his Character: Testimony of Diodati of Geneva: Abrupt Ending of the
Book at this Point, with Ulac's Explanation of the
Cause.--Particulars of the Arrest and Imprisonment of Milton's Friend
Overton.--Three more Latin State-Letters by Milton for Oliver (Nos.
XLIX.-LI.): No State-Letters by Milton for the next Three Months:
Milton then busy on a Reply to the _Fides Publica_ of Morus.
CHAP.
II. SECTION II.: From January 1654-5 to September 1656, or Through
the Period of Arbitrariness.--Letter to Milton from Leo de Aitzema:
Milton's Reply: Letter to Ezekiel Spanheim at Geneva: Milton's
Genovese Recollections and Acquaintances: Two more of Milton's Latin
State-Letters (Nos. LII., LIII.): Small Amount of Milton's
Despatch-Writing for Cromwell hitherto.--Reduction of Official
Salaries, and Proposal to Reduce Milton's to £150 a Year: Actual
Commutation of his £288 a Year at Pleasure into £200 for Life: Orders
of the Protector and Council relating to the Piedmontese Massacre,
May 1655: Sudden Demand on Milton's Pen in that Business: His Letter
of Remonstrance from the Protector to the Duke of Savoy, with Ten
other Letters to Foreign States and Princes on the same Subject (Nos.
LIV.-LXIV.): His Sonnet on the Subject.--Publication of the
_Supplementum_ to More's _Fides Publica_: Account of the
_Supplementum_, with Extracts: Milton's Answer to the _Fides
Publica_ and the _Supplementum_ together in his _Pro Se
Defensio_, Aug. 1655: Account of that Book, with Specimens:
Milton's Disbelief in Morus's Denials of the Authorship of the
_Regii Sanguinis Clamor_: His Reasons, and his Reassertions of
the Charge in a Modified Form: His Notices of Dr. Crantzius and Ulac:
His Renewed Onslaughts on Morus: His Repetition of the Bontia
Accusation and others: His Examination of Morus's Printed
Testimonials: Ferocity of the Book to the last: Its Effects on
Morus.--Question of the Real Authorship of the _Regii Sanguinis
Clamor_ and of the Amount of Morus's Concern in it: The Du Moulin
Family: Dr. Peter Du Moulin the Younger the Real Author of the
_Regii Sanguinis Clamor_, but Morus the Active Editor and the
Writer of the Dedicatory Epistle: Du Moulin's own Account of the
whole Affair: His close Contact with Milton all the while, and Dread
of being found out.--Calm in Milton's Life after the Cessation of the
Morus-Salmasius Controversy: Home-Life in Petty France: Dabblings of
the Two Nephews in Literature: John Phillips's _Satyr against
Hypocrites_: Frequent Visitors at Petty France: Marvell, Needham,
Cyriack Skinner, &c.: The Viscountess Ranelagh, Mr. Richard Jones,
and the Boyle Connexion: Dr. Peter Du Moulin in that Connexion:
Milton's Private Sonnet on his Blindness, his Two Sonnets to Cyriack
Skinner, and his Sonnet to young Lawrence: Explanation of these Four
Sonnets.--_Scriptum Domini Protectoris contra Hispanos_:
Thirteen more Latin State-Letters of Milton for the Protector (Nos.
LXV.-LXXVII.), with Special Account of Count Bundt and the Swedish
Embassy in London: Count Bundt and Mr. Milton.--Increase of Light
Literature in London: Erotic Publications: John Phillips in Trouble
for such: Edward Phillips's London Edition of the Poems of Drummond
of Hawthornden: Milton's Cognisance of the same.--Henry Oldenburg
and Mr. Richard Jones at Oxford: Letters of Milton to Jones and
Oldenburg.--Thirteen more State-Letters of the Milton Series (Nos.
LXXVIII.-XC.): Importance of some of them.
CHAP.
II. SECTION III.: From September 1656 to June 1657, or Through the
First Session of Oliver's Second Parliament.--Another Letter from
Milton to Mr. Richard Jones: Departure of Lady Ranelagh for Ireland:
Letter from Milton to Peter Heimbach: Milton's Second Marriage: His
Second Wife, Katharine Woodcock: Letter to Emeric Bigot: Milton's
Library and the Byzantine Historians: M. Stoupe: Ten more
State-Letters by Milton for the Protector (Nos. XCI.-C.): Morland,
Meadows, Durie, Lockhart, and other Diplomatists of the Protector,
back in London: More Embassies and Dispatches over Land and Sea:
Milton Standing and Waiting: His Thoughts about the Protectorate
generally.
BOOK II.
JUNE 1657-SEPTEMBER 1658
HISTORY:--OLIVER'S SECOND PROTECTORATE.
BIOGRAPHY:--MILTON'S LIFE AND SECRETARYSHIP THROUGH THE SECOND
PROTECTORATE.
CHAP.
I. Oliver's Second Protectorate: June 26, 1657-Sept. 3, 1658.--Regal
Forms and Ceremonial of the Second Protectorate: The Protector's
Family: The Privy Council: Retirement of Lambert: Death of Admiral
Blake: The French Alliance and Successes in Flanders: Siege and
Capture of Mardike: Other Foreign Relations of the Protectorate:
Special Envoys to Denmark, Sweden, and the United Provinces: Aims of
Cromwell's Diplomacy in Northern and Eastern Europe: Progress of his
English Church-Establishment: Controversy between John Goodwill and
Marchamont Needham: The Protector and the Quakers: Death of John
Lilburne: Death of Sexby: Marriage of the Duke of Buckingham to Mary
Fairfax: Marriages of Cromwell's Two Youngest Daughters: Preparations
for another Session of the Parliament: Writs for the Other House:
List of Cromwell's Peers.--Reassembling of the Parliament. Jan. 20,
1667-8: Cromwell's Opening Speech, with the Supplement by Fiennes:
Anti-Oliverian Spirit of the Commons: Their Opposition to the Other
House: Cromwell's Speech of Remonstrance: Perseverance of the Commons
in their Opposition: Cromwell's Last Speech and Dissolution of the
Parliament, Feb. 4, 1657-8.--State of the Government after the
Dissolution: The Dangers, and Cromwell's Dealings with them: His
Light Dealings with the Disaffected Commonwealth's Men: Threatened
Spanish Invasion from Flanders, and Ramifications of the Royalist
Conspiracy at Home: Arrests of Royalists, and Execution of Slingsby
and Hewit: The Conspiracy crushed: Death of Robert Rich: The Earl of
Warwick's Letter to Cromwell, and his Death: More Successes in
Flanders: Siege and Capture of Dunkirk: Splendid Exchanges of
Compliments between Cromwell and Louis XIV.: New Interference in
behalf of the Piedmontese Protestants, and Project of a Protestant
Council _De Propaganda Fide_: Prospects of the Church
Establishment: Desire of the Independents for a Confession of Faith:
Attendant Difficulties: Cromwell's Policy in the Affairs of the
Scottish Kirk: His Design for the Evangelization and Civilization of
the Highlands: His Grants to the Universities of Edinburgh and
Glasgow: His Council in Scotland: Monk at Dalkeith: Cromwell's
Intentions in the Cases of Biddle and James Nayler: Proposed New Act
for Restriction of the Press: Firmness and Grandeur of the
Protectorate in July 1658: Cromwell's Baronetcies and Knighthoods:
Willingness to call another Parliament: Death of Lady Claypole:
Cromwell's Illness and Last Days, with the Last Acts and Incidents of
his Protectorship.
CHAP.
II. Milton's Life and Secretaryship through the Second Protectorate.
--Milton still in Office: Letter to Mr. Henry de Brass, with Milton's
Opinion of Sallust: Letters to Young Ranelagh and Henry Oldenburg at
Saumur: Morus in New Circumstances: Eleven more State-Letters of
Milton for the Protector (Nos. CI.-CXI.): Andrew Marvell brought in
as Assistant Foreign Secretary at last (Sept. 1657): John Dryden now
also in the Protector's Employment: Birth of Milton's Daughter by his
Second Wife: Six more State-Letters of Milton (Nos. CXII.-CXVII.):
Another Letter to Mr. Henry de Brass, and another to Peter Heimbach:
Comment on the latter: Deaths of Milton's Second Wife and her Child:
His two Nephews, Edward and John Phillips, at this date: Milton's
last Sixteen State-Letters for Oliver Cromwell (Nos.
CXVIII.-CXXXIII), including Two to Charles Gustavus of Sweden, Two on
a New Alarm of a Persecution of the Piedmontese Protestants, and
Several to Louis XIV. and Cardinal Mazarin: Importance of this last
Group of the State-Letters, and Review of the whole Series of
Milton's Performances for Cromwell: Last Diplomatic Incidents of the
Protectorate, and Andrew Marvell in connexion with them: Incidents of
Milton's Literary Life in this Period: Young Güntzer's
_Dissertatio_ and Young Kock's Phalæcians: Milton's Edition of
Raleigh's Cabinet Council: Resumption of the old Design of Paradise
Lost and actual Commencement of the Poem: Change from the Dramatic
Form to the Epic: Sonnet in Memory of his Deceased Wife.
BOOK III.
SEPTEMBER 1658--MAY 1660.
HISTORY:--THE PROTECTORATE OF RICHARD CROMWELL, THE ANARCHY,
MONK'S MARCH AND DICTATORSHIP, AND THE RESTORATION.
RICHARD'S PROTECTORATE: SEPT. 3, 1658--MAY 25, 1659.
THE ANARCHY:--
STAGE I.:--THE RESTORED RUMP: MAY 25, 1659--OCT. 13, 1659.
STAGE II.:--THE WALLINGFORD-HOUSE GOVERNMENT: OCT. 13,
1659--DEC. 26, 1659.
STAGE III.:--SECOND RESTORATION OF THE RUMP, WITH MONK'S
MARCH FROM SCOTLAND: DEC. 26, 1659--FEB. 21, 1859-60.
MONK'S DICTATORSHIP, THE RESTORED LONG PARLIAMENT, AND THE
RESTORATION.
BIOGRAPHY:--MILTON'S LIFE AND SECRETARYSHIP THROUGH RICHARD'S
PROTECTORATE, THE ANARCHY, AND MONK'S DICTATORSHIP.
CHAP.
I. FIRST SECTION. The Protectorate of Richard Cromwell: Sept. 3,
1858--May 25, 1659.--Proclamation of Richard: Hearty Response from
the Country and from Foreign Powers: Funeral of the late Protector:
Resolution for a New Parliament.--Difficulties in Prospect: List of
the most Conspicuous Props and Assessors of the New Protectorate:
Monk's Advice to Richard: Union of the Cromwellians against Charles
Stuart: Their Split among themselves into the Court or Dynastic Party
and the Army or Wallingford-House Party: Chiefs of the Two Parties:
Richard's Preference for the Court Party, and his Speech to the Army
Officers: Backing of the Army Party towards Republicanism or
Anti-Oliverianism: Henry Cromwell's Letter of Rebuke to Fleetwood:
Differences of the Two Parties as to Foreign Policy: The French
Alliance and the War with Spain: Relations to the King of
Sweden.--Meeting of Richard's Parliament (Jan. 27, 1658-9): The Two
Houses: Eminent Members of the Commons: Richard's Opening Speech:
Thurloe the Leader for Government in the Commons: Recognition of the
Protectorship and of the Other House, and General Triumph of the
Government Party: Miscellaneous Proceedings of the
Parliament.--Dissatisfaction of the Army Party: Their Closer
Connexion with the Republicans: New Convention of Officers at
Wallingford-House: Desborough's Speech; The Convention forbidden by
the Parliament and dissolved by Richard: Whitehall surrounded by the
Army, and Richard compelled to dissolve the Parliament.--Responsible
Position of Fleetwood, Desborough, Lambert, and the other Army
Chiefs: Bankrupt State of the Finances: Necessity for some kind of
Parliament: Phrenzy for "The Good Old Cause" and Demand for the
Restoration of the Rump: Acquiescence of the Army Chiefs: Lenthall's
Objections: First Fortnight of the Restored Rump: Lingering of
Richard in Whitehall: His Enforced Abdication.
CHAP.
I. SECOND SECTION. The Anarchy, Stage I.: or The Restored Rump: May
25, 1659-Oct. 13, 1659.--Number of the Restored Rumpers and List of
them: Council of State of the Restored Rump: Anomalous Character and
Position of the New Government: Momentary Chance of a Civil War
between the Cromwellians and the Rumpers: Chance averted by the
Acquiescence of the Leading Cromwellians: Behaviour of Richard
Cromwell, Monk, Henry Cromwell, Lockhart, and Thurloe, individually:
Baulked Cromwellianism becomes Potential Royalism: Energetic
Proceedings of the Restored Rump: Their Ecclesiastical Policy and
their Foreign Policy: Treaty between France and Spain: Lockhart at
the Scene of the Negotiations as Ambassador for the Rump: Remodelling
and Reofficering of the Army, Navy, and Militia: Confederacy of Old
and New Royalists for a Simultaneous Rising: Actual Rising under Sir
George Booth in Cheshire: Lambert sent to quell the Insurrection:
Peculiar Intrigues round Monk at Dalkeith: Sir George Booth's
Insurrection crushed: Exultation of the Rump and Action taken against
the Chief Insurgents and their Associates: Question of the future
Constitution of the Commonwealth: Chaos of Opinions and Proposals:
James Harrington and his Political Theories: The Harrington or Rota
Club: Discontents in the Army: Petition, and Proposals of the
Officers of Lambert's Brigade: Severe Notice of the same by the Rump:
Petition and Proposals of the General Council of Officers: Resolute
Answers of the Rump: Lambert, Desborough, and Seven other Officers,
cashiered: Lambert's Retaliation and Stoppage of the Parliament.
CHAP.
I. SECOND SECTION (continued). The Anarchy, Stage II.: or The
Wallingford-House Interregnum: Oct. 13, 1659-Dec. 26, 1659.--The
Wallingford-House Government: Its _Committee of Safety_:
Behaviour of Ludlow and other Leading Republicans: Death of
Bradshaw.--Army--Arrangements of the New Government: Fleetwood,
Lambert, and Desborough, the Military Chiefs: Declared Championship
of the Rump by Monk in Scotland: Negotiations opened with Monk, and
Lambert sent north to oppose him: Monk's Mock Treaty with Lambert and
the Wallingford-House Government through Commissioners in London: His
Preparations meanwhile in Scotland: His Advance from Edinburgh to
Berwick: Monk's Army and Lambert's.--Foreign Relations of the
Wallingford-House Government: Treaty between France and Spain:
Lockhart: Charles II. at Fontarabia: Gradual Improvement of his
Chances in England.--Discussions of the Wallingford-House Government
as to the future Constitution of the Commonwealth: The Vane Party and
the Whitlocke Party in these Discussions: Johnstone of Warriston, the
Harringtonians, and Ludlow: Attempted Conclusions.--Monk at
Coldstream: Universal Whirl of Opinion in favour of him and the
Rump: Utter Discredit of the Wallingford-House Rule in London:
Vacillation and Collapse of Fleetwood: The Rump Restored a second
time.
CHAP.
I. SECOND SECTION (continued). The Anarchy, Stage III.: or Second
Restoration of the Rump, with Monk's March from Scotland: Dec. 26,
1659-Feb. 21, 1659.--The Rump after its Second Restoration: New
Council of State: Penalties on Vane, Lambert, Desborough, and the
other Chiefs of the Wallingford-House Interregnum: Case of Ludlow:
New Army Remodelling: Abatement of Republican Fervency among the
Rumpers: Dispersion of Lambert's Force in the North: Monk's March
from Scotland: Stages and Incidents of the March: His Halt at St.
Alban's and Message thence to the Rump: His Nearer View of the
Situation: His Entry into London, Feb. 3, 1659-60: His Ambiguous
Speech to the Rump, Feb. 6: His Popularity in London: Pamphlets and
Letters during his March and on his Arrival: Prynne's pamphlets on
behalf of the Secluded Members: Tumult in the City: Tumult suppressed
by Monk as Servant of the Rump: His Popularity gone: Blunder
retrieved by Monk's Reconciliation with the City and Declaration
against the Rump: _Roasting of the Rump in London_, Feb. 11,
1659-60: Monk Master of the City and of the Rump too; Consultations
with the Secluded Members: Bill of the Rump for Enlarging itself by
New Elections; Bill set aside by the Reseating of the Secluded
Members: Reconstitution of the Long Parliament under Monk's
Dictatorship.
CHAP.
I. THIRD SECTION. Monk's Dictatorship, the Restored Long Parliament,
and the Drift to the Restoration: Feb. 21, 1659-60--April 25,
1660.--The Restored Long Parliament: New Council of State: Active Men
of the Parliament: Prynne, Arthur Annesley, and William Morrice:
Miscellaneous Proceedings of the Parliament: Release of old Royalist
Prisoners: Lambert committed to the Tower: Rewards and Honours for
Monk: "Old George" in the City: Revival of the Solemn League and
Covenant, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and all the Apparatus
of a Strict Presbyterian Church-Establishment: Cautious Measures for
a Political Settlement: The Real Question evaded and handed over to
another Parliament: Calling of the Convention Parliament and
Arrangements for the Same: Difficulty about a House of Lords: How
obviated: Last Day of the Long Parliament, March 16, 1659-60: Scene
in the House.--Monk and the Council of State left in charge: Annesley
the Managing Colleague of Monk: New Militia Act carried out:
Discontents among Monk's Officers and Soldiers: The Restoration of
Charles still very dubious: Other Hopes and Proposals for the moment:
The Kingship privately offered to Monk by the Republicans: Offer
declined: Bursting of the Popular Torrent of Royalism at last, and
Enthusiastic Demands for the Recall of Charles: Elections to the
Convention Parliament going on meanwhile: Haste of hundreds to be
foremost in bidding Charles welcome: Admiral Montague and his Fleet
in the Thames: Direct Communications at last between Monk and
Charles: Greenville the Go-between: Removal of Charles and his Court
from Brussels to Breda: Greenville sent back from Breda with a
Commission for Monk and Six other Documents.--Broken-spiritedness of
the Republican Leaders, but formidable Residue of Republicanism in
the Army: Monk's Measures for Paralysing the same: Successful Device
of Charges; Montague's Fleet in Motion: Escape of Lambert from the
Tower: His Rendezvous in Northamptonshire: Gathering of a Wreck of
the Republicans round him: Dick Ingoldsby sent to crush him: The
Encounter near Daventry, April 22, 1660, and Recapture of Lambert:
Great Review of the London Militia, April 24, the day before the
Meeting of the Convention Parliament: Impatient longing for Charles:
Monk still impenetrable, and the Documents from Breda reserved.
CHAP.
II. FIRST SECTION. Milton's Life and Secretaryship through Richard's
Protectorate: Sept. 1658-May 1659.--Milton and Marvell still in the
Latin Secretaryship: Milton's first Five State-Letters for Richard
(Nos. CXXXIII.-CXXXVII.): New Edition of Milton's _Defensio
Prima_: Remarkable Postscript to that Edition: Six more
State-Letters for Richard (Nos. CXXXVIII.-CXLIII.): Milton's
Relations to the Conflict of Parties round Richard and in Richard's
Parliament: His probable Career but for his Blindness: His continued
Cromwellianism in Politics, but with stronger private Reserves,
especially on the Question of an Established Church: His Reputation
that of a man of the Court-Party among the Protectoratists: His
_Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes_: Account of
the Treatise, with Extracts: The Treatise more than a Plea for
Religious Toleration: Church-Disestablishment the Fundamental Idea:
The Treatise addressed to Richard's Parliament, and chiefly to Vane
and the Republicans there: No Effect from it: Milton's Four last
State-Letters for Richard (Nos. CXLIV.-CXLVII.): His Private Epistle
to Jean Labadie, with Account of that Person: Milton in the month
between Richard's Dissolution of his Parliament and his formal
Abdication: His Two State-Letters for the Restored Rump (Nos.
CXLVIII.-CXLIX.)
CHAP.
II. SECOND SECTION. Milton's Life and Secretaryship through the
Anarchy: May 1659--Feb. 1659-60.--_First Stage of the Anarchy, or
The Restored Rump_ (May--Oct. 1659):--Feelings and Position of
Milton in the new State of Things: His Satisfaction on the whole, and
the Reasons for it: Letter of Moses Wall to Milton: Renewed Agitation
against Tithes and Church Establishment: Votes on that Subject in the
Rump: Milton's _Considerations touching the Likeliest Means to
remove Hirelings out of the Church_: Account of the Pamphlet, with
Extracts: Its thorough-going Voluntaryism: Church-Disestablishment
demanded absolutely, without Compensation for Vested Interests: The
Appeal fruitless, and the Subject ignored by the Rump: Dispersion of
that Body by Lambert.--_Second Stage of the Anarchy, or The
Wallingford-House Interruption_ (Oct.-Dec. 1659):--Milton's
Thoughts on Lambert's coup d'etat in his _Letter to a Friend
concerning the Ruptures of the Commonwealth_: The Letter in the
main against Lambert and in Defence of the Rump: Its extraordinary
practical Proposal of a Government by two Permanent Central Bodies:
The Proposal compared with the actual Administration by the
_Committee of Safety_ and the Wallingford-House Council of
Officers: Milton still nominally in the Latin Secretaryship: Money
Warrant of Oct. 25, 1659, relating to Milton, Marvell, and
Eighty-four other Officials: No Trace of actual Service by Milton for
the new _Committee of Safety_: His Meditations through the
Treaty between the Wallingford-House Government and Monk in Scotland:
His Meditations through the Committee-Discussions as to the future
Model of Government; His Interest in this as now the Paramount
Question, and his Cognisance of the Models of Harrirgton and the Rota
Club: Whitlocke's new Constitution disappointing to Milton: Two more
Letters to Oldenburg and Young Ranelagh: Gossip from abroad in
connection with these Letters: Morns again, and the Council of French
Protestants at Londun: End of the Wallingford-House
Interruption.--_Third Stage of ike Anarchy, or The Second
Restoration of the Rump_ (Dec. 1659-Feb. 1659-60):--Milton's
Despondency at this Period: Abatement of his Faith in the Rump: His
Thoughts during the March of Monk from Scotland and after Monk's
Arrival in London: His Study of Monk near at hand and Mistrust of the
Omens: His Interest for a while in the Question of the
Preconstitution of the new Parliament promised by the Rump: His
Anxiety that it should be a Republican Parliament by mere
Self-enlargement of the Rump: His Preparation of a new Republican
Pamphlet: The Publication postponed by Monk's sudden Defection from
the Rump, the Roasting of the Rump in the City, and the Restoration
of the Secluded Members to their places in the Parliament: Milton's
Despondency complete.
CHAP.
II. THIRD SECTION. Milton through Monk's Dictatorship: Feb.
1659-60--May 1660.--First Edition of Milton's _Ready and Easy Way
to Establish a Free Commonwealth_: Account of the Pamphlet, with
Extracts: Vehement Republicanism of the Pamphlet, with its Prophetic
Warnings: Peculiar Central Idea of the Pamphlet, viz. the Project of
a Grand Council or Parliament to sit in Perpetuity, with a Council of
State for its Executive: Passages expounding this Idea: Additional
Suggestion of Local and County Councils or Committees: Daring
Peroration of the Pamphlet: Milton's Recapitulation of the Substance
of it in a short Private Letter to Monk entitled _Present Means and
Brief Delineation of a Free Commonwealth_: Wide Circulation of
Milton's Pamphlet: The Response by Monk and the Parliament of the
Secluded Members in their Proceedings of the next fortnight:
Dissolution of the Parliament after Arrangements for its Successor:
Royalist Squib predicting Milton's speedy Acquaintance with the
Hangman at Tyburn: Another Squib against Milton, called _The
Censure of the Rota upon Mr. Milton's Book_: Specimens of this
Burlesque: Republican Appeal to Monk, called _Plain English_:
Reply to the same, with another attack on Milton: Popular Torrent of
Royalism during the forty days of Interval between the Parliament of
the Secluded Members and the Convention Parliament (March 16,
1659-60--April 25, 1660): Caution of Monk and the Council of State:
Dr. Matthew Griffith and his Royalist Sermon, _The Fear of God and
the King_: Griffith imprisoned for his Sermon, but forward
Republicans checked or punished at the same time: Needham discharged
from his Editorship and Milton from his Secretaryship: Resoluteness
of Milton in his Republicanism: His _Brief Notes on Dr. Griffith's
Sermon_: Second Edition of his _Ready and Easy Way to Establish
a Free Commonwealth_: Remarkable Additions and Enlargements in
this Edition: Specimens of these: Milton and Lambert the last
Republicans in the field: Roger L'Estrange's Pamphlet against Milton,
called _No Blind Guides_: Larger Attack on Milton by G. S.,
called _The Dignity of Kingship Asserted_: Quotations from that
Book; Meeting of the Convention Parliament, April 25, 1660: Delivery
by Greenville of the Six Royal Letters from Breda, April 28-May 1,
and Votes of both Houses for the Recall of Charles: Incidents of the
following Week: Mad impatience over the Three Kingdoms for the King's
Return: He and his Court at the Hague, preparing for the Voyage home:
Panic among the surviving Regicides and other prominent Republicans:
Flight of Needham to Holland and Absconding of Milton from his house
in Petty France: Last Sight of Milton in that house.
* * * * *
BOOK I.
SEPTEMBER 1654--JUNE 1657.
HISTORY:--OLIVER'S FIRST PROTECTORATE CONTINUED.
BIOGRAPHY:--MILTON'S LIFE AND SECRETARYSHIP THROUGH THE FIRST
PROTECTORATE CONTINUED.
THE LIFE OF JOHN MILTON,
WITH THE
HISTORY OF HIS TIME.
* * * * *
CHAPTER I.
OLIVER'S FIRST PROTECTORATE CONTINUED: SEPT. 3, 1654-JUNE 26, 1657.
Oliver's First Protectorate extended over three years and six months
in all, or from December 16, 1653 to June 26, 1657. The first nine
months of it, as far as to September 1654, have been already
sketched; and what remains divides itself very distinctly into three
Sections, as follows:--
Section I:--_From Sept._ 3, 1654 _to Jan._ 22, 1654-5. This
Section, comprehending four months and a half, may be entitled OLIVER
AND HIS FIRST PARLIAMENT.
Section II:--_From Jan._ 22, 1654-5 _to Sept._ 17, 1656.
This Section, comprehending twenty months, may be entitled BETWEEN
THE PARLIAMENTS, OR THE TIME OF ARBITRARINESS.
Section III:--_From Sept._ 17, 1656 _to June_ 26, 1657.
This Section, comprehending nine months, may be entitled OLIVER AND
THE FIRST SESSION OF HIS SECOND PARLIAMENT.
We map out the present chapter accordingly.
SECTION I.
OLIVER AND HIS FIRST PARLIAMENT:
SEPT, 3, 1654-JAN. 22, 1654-5.
MEETING OF THE FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE PROTECTORATE: ITS
COMPOSITION: ANTI-OLIVERIANS NUMEROUS IN IT: THEIR FOUR DAYS' DEBATE
IN CHALLENGE OF CROMWELL'S POWERS: DEBATE STOPPED BY CROMWELL: HIS
SPEECH IN THE PAINTED CHAMBER: SECESSION OF SOME FROM THE PARLIAMENT:
ACQUIESCENCE OF THE REST BY ADOPTION OF _THE RECOGNITION_:
SPIRIT AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARLIAMENT STILL MAINLY
ANTI-OLIVERIAN: THEIR FOUR MONTHS' WORK IN REVISION OF THE
PROTECTORAL CONSTITUTION: CHIEF DEBATES IN THOSE FOUR MONTHS:
QUESTION OF THE PROTECTOR'S NEGATIVES: OTHER INCIDENTAL WORK OF THE
PARLIAMENT: QUESTION OF RELIGIOUS TOLERATION AND OF THE SUPPRESSION
OF HERESIES AND BLASPHEMIES: COMMITTEE AND SUB-COMMITTEE ON THIS
SUBJECT: BAXTER'S PARTICIPATION: TENDENCY TO A LIMITED TOLERATION
ONLY, AND VOTE AGAINST THE PROTECTOR'S PREROGATIVE OF MORE: CASE OF
JOHN RIDDLE, THE SOCINIAN.--INSUFFICIENCY NOW OF OUR FORMER SYNOPSIS
OF ENGLISH SECTS AND HERESIES: NEW SECTS AND DENOMINATIONS: THE
FIFTH-MONARCHY MEN: THE RANTERS: THE MUGGLETONIANS AND OTHER STRAY
FANATICS: BOEHMENISTS AND OTHER MYSTICS: THE QUAKERS OR FRIENDS:
ACCOUNT OF GEORGE FOX, AND SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE QUAKERS TO
THE YEAR 1654.--POLICY OF THE PARLIAMENT WITH THEIR BILL FOR A NEW
CONSTITUTION: PARLIAMENT OUTWITTED BY CROMWELL AND DISSOLVED: NO
RESULT.
Before the 3rd of September, 1654, the day fixed by the
Constitutional Instrument for the meeting of the First Parliament of
the Protectorate, the 460 newly elected members, or the major part of
them, had flocked to Westminster. They were a gathering of the most
representative men of all the three nations that could be regarded as
in any sense adherents of the Commonwealth. All the Council of State,
except the Earl of Mulgrave and Lord Lisle, had been returned, some
of them by two or three different constituencies. Secretary Thurloe
had been returned; Cromwell's two sons, Richard and Henry, had been
returned, Henry as member for Cambridge University; several gentlemen
holding posts in his Highness's household had been returned. Of the
old English peers, there had been returned the Earl of Salisbury, the
Earl of Stamford, and Lord Dacres; and of the titular nobility there
were Lord Herbert, Lord Eure, Lord Grey of Groby, and the great
Fairfax. Among men of Parliamentary fame already were ex-Speaker
Lenthall, Whitlocke, Sir Walter Earle, Dennis Bond, Sir Henry Vane
_Senior_, Sir Arthur Hasilrig, Thomas Scott, William Ashurst,
Sir James Harrington, John Carew, Robert Wallop, and Sir Thomas
Widdrington; and of Army or Navy men, of former Parliamentary
experience or not, there were Colonels Whalley, Robert Lilburne,
Barkstead, Harvey, Stapley, Purefoy, Admiral Blake, and
ex-Major-General Harrison. Some of these had been returned by two
constituencies. Bradshaw was a member, with two of the Judges, Hale
and Thorpe, and ex-Judge Glynne. Lawyers besides were not wanting;
and Dr. Owen, though a divine, represented Oxford University. One
missed chiefly, among old names, those of Sir Henry Vane
_Junior_, Henry Marten, Selden, Algernon Sidney, and Ludlow; but
there were many new faces. Among the thirty members sent from
Scotland were the Earl of Linlithgow, Sir Alexander Wedderburn,
Colonel William Lockhart, the Laird of Swinton, and the English
Colonels Okey and Read. Ireland had also returned military Englishmen
in Major-General Hardress Waller, Colonels Hewson, Sadler, Axtell,
Venables, and Jephson, with Lord Broghill, Sir Charles Coote, Sir
John Temple, Sir Robert King, and others, describable as Irish or
Anglo-Irish.[1]
[Footnote 1: Complete list gives in Parl. Hist, III. 1428-1433.]
The 3rd of September, selected as Cromwell's "Fortunate Day,"
chancing to be a Sunday, the Parliament had only a brief meeting with
him that day, in the Painted Chamber, after service in the Abbey, and
his opening speech was deferred till next day, On Monday,
accordingly, it was duly given, but not till after another sermon in
the Abbey, preached by Thomas Goodwin, in which Cromwell found much
that he liked. It was a political sermon, on "Israel's bringing-out
of Egypt, through a Wilderness, by many signs and wonders, towards a
Place of Rest,"--Egypt interpreted as old Prelacy and the Stuart role
in England, the Wilderness as all the intermediate course of the
English Revolution, and the Place of Rest as the Protectorate or what
it might lead to. Goodwill seems to have described with special
reprobation that latest part of the Wilderness in which the cry had
arisen for sheer Levelling in the State and sheer Voluntaryism in the
Church; and Cromwell, starting in that key himself, addressed the
Parliament, with noble earnestness, in what would now be called a
highly "conservative" speech. Glancing back to the Barebones
Parliament and beyond, he sketched, the proceedings of himself and
the Council and the great successes of the Commonwealth during the
intervening eight months and a half, and hopefully committed to the
Parliament the further charge of Order and Settlement throughout the
three nations, Then he withdrew. That same day they chose Lenthall
for their Speaker, and Scobell for their Clerk.[1]
[Footnote 1: Cromwell's Second Speech (Carlyle, III. 16-37); Commons
Journals of dates.]
Cromwell's hopes were blasted. The political division of the
population of the British Islands was now into OLIVERIANS, REPUBLICAN
IRRECONCILABLES, PRESBYTERIANS, and STUARTISTS, the two last
denominations hardly separable by any clear line, Now, in this new
Parliament, though there were many staunch Oliverians, and no avowed
Stuartists, the Republican Irreconcilables and the Presbyterians
together formed a majority. They needed only to coalesce, and the
Parliament called by Oliver's own writs would be an Anti-Oliverian
Parliament. And this is what happened.
No sooner was the House constituted, with about 320 members present
out of the total 460, than it proposed for its first business what
was called "The Matter of the Government"; by which was meant a
review of that document of forty-two Articles, called the
_Government of the Commonwealth_, which was the constitutional
basis of the Protectorate. On Thursday, Sept. 7, accordingly, they
addressed themselves to the vital question of the whole document as
propounded in the first of the Articles. "Whether the House shall
approve that the Government shall be in one Single Person and a
Parliament": such was the debate that day in Grand Committee, after a
division on the previous question whether they should go into
Committee. On this previous question 136 had voted _No_, with
Sir Charles Wolseley and Mr. Strickland (two of the Council of State)
for their tellers, but 141 had voted _Yea_, with Bradshaw and
Colonel Birch for their tellers. In other words, it had been carried
by a majority of five that it fell within the province of the House
to determine whether the Single-Person element in the Government of
the Commonwealth, already introduced somehow as a matter of fact,
should be continued. On this subject the House debated through the
rest of that sitting, and the whole of the next, and the next, and
the next,--i.e. till Monday, Sept 11. Bradshaw, Hasilrig, and Scott
took the lead for the Republicans, not that they hoped to unseat
Cromwell, but that they wanted to assert the paramount authority of
Parliament, and convert the existing Protectorship into a derivative
from the House then sitting. Lawrence, Wolseley, Strickland, and
others of the Council of State, describable as the ministerial
members, maintained the existing constitution of the Protectorate,
and pointed out the dangers that would arise from plucking up a good
practical basis for mere reasons of theory. Matthew Hale interposed
at last with a middle motion, substantially embodying the Republican
view, but affirming the Protectorship at once, and reserving
qualification. All in all, there was great excitement, much
confusion, and an outbreak from some members of very violent language
about Cromwell.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates: Parl. Hist. III. 1445;
Godwin, IV. 116-125.]
What might have been the issue had a vote come on can only be
guessed. Things were not allowed to go that length. On Tuesday, Sept,
12, the members, going to the House, found the doors locked, soldiers
in and around Westminster Hall, and a summons from the Lord Protector
to meet him again in the Painted Chamber. Having assembled there,
they listened to Cromwell's "Third Speech." It is one of the most
powerful of all his speeches. It began with a long review of his life
in general and the steps by which he had recently been brought to the
Protectorship. It proceeded then to a recitation of what he called
"the witnesses" to his Government, or proofs of its validity--the
Witness _above_, or God's manifest Providence in leading him to
where he was; the Witness _within_, or his own consciousness of
integrity; and the Witnesses _without_, or testimonies of
confidence he had received from the Army, the Judges, the City of
London, other cities, counties and boroughs, and public bodies of all
sorts. "I believe," he said, "that, if the learnedest men in this
nation were called to show a precedent, equally clear, of a
Government so many ways approved of, they would not in all their
search, find it." Then, coming to the point, he asked what right the
present Parliament had to come after all those witnesses and
challenge his authority. Had they not been elected under writs issued
by him, in which writs it was expressly inserted, by regulation of
Article XII. of the Constitutional Instrument of the Protectorate,
"That the persons elected shall not have power to alter the
Government as it is hereby settled in one Single Person and a
Parliament"? On this point he was very emphatic. "That _your_
judgments, who are persons sent from all parts of the nation under
the notion of approving this Government--for _you_ to disown or
not to own it; for _you_ to act with Parliamentary authority
especially in the disowning of it, contrary to the very fundamental
things, yea against the very root of this Establishment; to sit and
not own the Authority by which you sit:--is that which I believe
astonisheth more men than myself." A revision of the Constitution of
the Protectorate in _circumstantials_ he would not object to,
but the _fundamentals_ must be left untouched. And let those
hearing him be under no mistake as to his own resolution. "The wilful
throwing away of this Government, such as it is, so owned of God, so
approved by men, so witnessed to in the fundamentals of it as was
mentioned above, were a thing which,--and in reference not to
_my_ good, but to the good of these Nations and Posterity,--I
can sooner be willing to be rolled into my grave, and buried with
infamy, than I can give my consent unto." He had therefore called
them now that they might come to an understanding. There was a
written parchment in the lobby of the Parliament House to which he
requested the signatures of such as might see fit. The doors of the
Parliament House would then be open for all such, to proceed
thenceforth as a free Parliament in all things, subject to the single
condition expressed in that parchment. "You have an absolute
Legislative Power in all things that can possibly concern the good
and interest of the public; and I think you may make these Nations
happy by this settlement." With so much great work before them, with
the three nations looking on in hope, with foreign nations looking on
with wonder or worse feelings, had they not a great
responsibility?[1]
[Footnote 1: Carlyle's Cromwell, III. 37-61.]
Bradshaw, Hasilrig, and others, would not sign the document offered
them, which was a brief engagement "to be true and faithful to the
Lord Protector and the Commonwealth," and not to propose alteration
of the Government as "settled in a single Person and a Parliament."
The Parliament, therefore, lost these leaders; but within an hour
"The Recognition," as it came to be called, was signed by a hundred
members, and the number was raised to 140 before the day was over,
and ultimately to about 300. And so, with this goodly number, the
House went on. But the Anti-Oliverian leaven was still strong in it.
This appeared even in the immediate dealings of the House with the
Recognition itself. They first (Sept, 14) declared that it should not
be construed to comprehend the whole Constitutional Instrument of the
Protectorate, but only the main principle of the first Article; and
then (Sept. 18) they converted the Recognition into a resolution of
their own, requiring all members to sign it, Next, in order to get
rid of the stumbling-block of the First Article altogether, they
resolved (Sept. 19) that the Supreme Legislative authority was and
did reside in "One Person and the People assembled in Parliament,"
and also (Sept. 20) that Oliver Cromwell was and should he Lord
Protector for life, and that there should be Triennial Parliaments.
Thus free to advance through the rest of the Forty-two Articles at
their leisure, they made that thenceforward almost their sole work.
Through the rest of September, the whole of October, and part of
November, the business went on in Committee, with the result of a new
and more detailed Constitution of the whole Government in sixty
Articles instead of the Forty-two. A Bill for enacting this
Constitution, passed the first reading on the 22nd of December, and
the second on the 23rd; it then went back into Committee for
amendments; and in January 1654-5 the House was debating these
amendments and others.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates given and of Nov. 7, and
Godwin, IV, 130-132.]
In the long course of the total debate perhaps the most interesting
divisions had been one in Committee on October 16, and one in the
House on November 10. In the first the question was whether the
Protectorship should be hereditary, and it had been carried by 200
votes to 60 that it should _not_. This was not strictly an
Anti-Oliverian demonstration; for, though Lambert was the mover for a
hereditary Protectorship in Cromwell's family, many of the undoubted
Oliverians voted in the majority, nor does there seem to be any proof
that Lambert had acted by direct authority from Cromwell. More
distinctly an Anti-Oliverian vote had been that of Nov. 10, which was
on a question of deep interest to Cromwell: viz. the amount of his
prerogative in the form of a negative on Bills trenching on
fundamentals. In his last speech he had himself indicated these
"fundamentals," which ought to be safe against attack even by
Parliament--one of them being Liberty of Conscience, another the
Control of the Militia as belonging to the Protector _in
conjunction with_ the Parliament, and a third the provision, that
every Parliament should sit but for a fixed period. In all other
matters he was content with a negative for twenty days only; but on
bills trenching on these fundamentals he required a negative
absolutely. The question had come to the vote in a very subtle form.
The motion of the Opposition was that Bills should become Law without
the Protector's consent after twenty days, "provided that such Bills
contain nothing in them contrary to such matters wherein the
Parliament shall think fit to give a negative to the Lord Protector,"
while the amendment of the Oliverians or Court-party altered the
wording into "wherein the Single Person and the Parliament shall
declare a negative to be in the Single Person," thus giving Cromwell
himself, and not the Parliament only, a right of deciding where a
negative should lie. On this question the Oliverians were beaten by
109 votes to 85, and the decision would probably have caused a
rupture had not the Opposition conceded a good deal when they went on
to settle the matters wherein Parliament _would_ grant the
Protector a negative.[1]
[Footnote 1: Journals of dates and Godwin, IV. 134-139.]
As we have said, almost the sole occupation of the Parliament was
this revision of the flooring on which itself and the Protectorate
stood. They did, however, some little pieces of work besides. They
undertook a revision of the Ordinances that had been passed by the
Protector and his Council, and also of the Acts of the Barebones
Parliament; and they proposed Bills of their own to supersede some of
these,--especially a new Bill for the Ejection of Scandalous
Ministers, and a new Bill for Reform of the Court of Chancery. But of
all the incidental work undertaken by this Parliament none seems to
have been undertaken with so much gusto as that which consisted in
efforts for the suppression of Heresy and Blasphemy. Here was the
natural outcome of the Presbyterianism with which the Parliament was
charged, and here also the Parliament was very vexatious to the soul
of the Lord-Protector.
After all, this portion of the work of the Parliament can hardly be
called incidental. It was part and parcel of their main work of
revising the Constitution, and it was inter-wrought with the question
of Cromwell's negatives. Article XXXVII. of the original Instrument
of the Protectorate had guaranteed liberty of worship and of
preaching outside the Established Church to "such as profess faith in
Jesus Christ," and Cromwell, in his last speech, had noted this as
one of the "fundamentals" he was bound to preserve. How did the
Parliament meet the difficulty? Very ingeniously. They said that the
phrase "such as profess faith in Jesus Christ" was a vague phrase,
requiring definition; and, the whole House having formed itself into
a Committee for Religion, and this Committee having appointed a
working sub-Committee of about fourteen, the sub-Committee was
empowered to take steps for coming to a definition. Naturally enough,
in such a matter, the sub-Committee wanted clerical advice; and, each
member of the sub-Committee having nominated one divine, there was a
small Westminster Assembly over again to illuminate Parliament on the
dark subject. Dr. Owen and Dr. Goodwin were there, with Nye, Sidrach
Simpson, Stephen Marshall, Mr. Vines, Mr. Manton, and others. Mr.
Richard Baxter had the honour of being one, having been asked to
undertake the duty by Lord Breghill, when the venerable ex-Primate
Usher had declined it; and it is from Baxter that we have the fullest
account of the proceedings. When he came to town from Kidderminster,
he found the rest of the divines already busy in drawing up a list of
"fundamentals of faith," the profession of which was to be the
necessary title to the toleration promised. Knowing "how ticklish a
business the enumeration of fundamentals was," Baxter tried, he says,
to stop that method, and suggested that acceptance of the Creed, the
Lord's P[r]ayer, and the Decalogue would be a sufficient test. This
did not please the others; Baxter almost lost his character for
orthodoxy by his proposal; Dr. Owen, in particular, forgetful of his
own past, was now bull-mad for the "fundamentals." They were drawn
out at last, either sixteen or twenty of them in all, and handed to
Parliament through the sub-Committee. Thus illuminated, Parliament,
after a debate extending over six days (Dec. 4-15, 1654), discharged
its mind fully on the Toleration Question. They resolved that there
should certainly be a toleration for tender consciences outside the
Established Church, but that it should not extend to "Atheism,
Blasphemy, damnable Heresies to be particularly enumerated by this
Parliament, Popery, Prelacy, Licentiousness or Profaneness," nor yet
to "such as shall preach, print, or avowedly maintain anything
contrary to the fundamental principles of Doctrine held forth in the
public profession,"--said "fundamental principles" being the
"fundamentals" of Dr. Owen and his friends, so far as the House
should see fit to pass them. They were already in print, with the
Scriptural proofs, for the use of members, and the first of them
_was_ passed the same day. It was "That the Holy Scripture is
that rule of knowing God, and living unto Him, which whoso does not
believe cannot be saved." The others would come in time. Meanwhile it
was involved in the Resolution of the House that the Protector
himself should have no veto on any Bills for restraining or punishing
Atheists, Blasphemers, damnable Heretics, Papists, Prelatists, or
deniers of any of the forthcoming Christian fundamentals.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of days given; Neal, IV. 97-100;
Baxter's Life, 197-205. On this visit to town, Baxter had the
honour to preach before Cromwell, having never done so till then,
"save once long before when Cromwell was an inferior man among
other auditors." He had also the honour of two long interviews with
Cromwell, the first with one or two others present, the second in
full Council. They seem to have been reciprocally disagreeable. On
both occasions, according to Baxter, Cromwell talked enormously
for the most part "slowly" and "tediously" to Baxter's taste, but
with passionate outbreaks against the Parliament. On the second
occasion the topic was Liberty of Conscience, and what was being
done in the Subcommittee and by the Divines on the subject. Baxter
ventured to hint that he had put his views on paper and that it
might save time if his Highness would read them. "He received the
paper after, but I scarce believe that he ever read it; for I saw
that what he learned must be from himself--being more disposed to
speak many hours than to hear one, and little heeding what another
said when he had spoken himself." Cromwell had made up his mind
about Baxter long ago (Vol. III. p. 386), but had apparently now
given him another trial, on the faith of his reputed liberality on
the Toleration question. But Baxter did not gain upon him.]
As if to show how much in earnest they were on this whole subject,
the House had at that moment the notorious Anti-Trinitarian John
Biddle in their custody. Since 1644, when he was a schoolmaster in
Gloucester, this mild man had been in prison again and again for his
opinions, and the wonder was that the Presbyterians had not succeeded
in bringing him to the scaffold in 1648 under their tremendous
Ordinance of that year. His Socinian books were then known over
England and even on the Continent, and he would certainly have been
the first capital victim under the Ordinance if the Presbyterians had
continued in power. At large since 1651, he had been living rather
quietly in London, earning his subsistence as a Greek reader for the
press, but also preaching regularly on Sundays to a small Socinian
congregation. In accordance with the general policy of the Government
since Cromwell had become master, he had been left unmolested. The
orthodox had been on the watch, however, and another Socinian book of
Biddle's, called _A Two-fold Catechism_, published in 1654, had
given them the opportunity they wanted. For this book Biddle had been
arrested on the 12th of December, and he had been brought before the
House on his knees and committed to prison on the 13th. The views
which the House were then formulating on the Limits of Toleration in
the abstract may be said therefore to have been illustrated over Mr.
Biddle's body in the concrete. His case came up again on the 15th of
January, when the House, after hearing with horror some extracts from
his books, ordered them to be burnt by the hangman, and at the same
time instructed a Committee to prepare a Bill for punishing him. The
punishment, if the Presbyterians could succeed in falling back on
their Parliamentary Ordinance of May 1648, was to be death.[1]
[Footnote 1: Wood's Ath. III. 593-598; Commons Journals of dates.]
It was really of very great consequence to the Commonwealth of the
Protectorate what theory of Toleration should be adopted into its
Constitution, whether the Parliament's or Cromwell's. For the ferment
of religious and irreligious speculation of all kinds in the three
nations was now something prodigious, and there were widely diffused
denominations of dissent and heresy that had not been in existence
ten years before, when the Long Parliament and the Westminster
Assembly first discussed the Toleration Question. Our synopsis of the
English sects and Heresies of 1644 (Vol. III. 143-159) is not,
indeed, wholly out of date for 1654, but it would require extensions
and modifications to adjust it accurately to the latter year. There
had been the natural flux and reflux of ideas during the intervening
decade, the waning of some sects and singularities that had no deep
root, the interblending of others, and new bursts in the teeming
chaos. _Atheists_, Sceptics_, _Mortalists_ or _Materialists_,
_Anti-Scripturists_, _Anti-Trinitarians_ or _Socinians_, _Arians_,
_Anti-Sabbatarians_, _Seekers_, and _Divorcers_ or _Miltonists_: all
these terms were still in the vocabulary of the orthodox, describing
persons or bodies of persons of whose opinions the Civil Magistrate
was bound to take account. Sects, on the other hand, that had been on
the black list ten years ago had now been admitted to respectability.
_Baptists_ or _Anabaptists_, _Antinomians, _Brownists_, nay even
INDEPENDENTS generally, had been regarded in 1644 as dark and
dangerous schismatics; but now, save in the private colloquies or
controversial tracts of Presbyterians, no feeling of horror attached
to those names. INDEPENDENTS, indeed, were now the Lords of the
Commonwealth, and _Anabaptists_ and _Antinomians_ were in high
places, so that the most orthodox Presbyterians found themselves side
by side with them in private gatherings and committees. In the
Established Church of the Protectorate there was to be a
comprehension of Presbyterians, Independents, and such Baptists and
other really Evangelical Sectaries as might be willing; and,
accordingly, the question of mere Toleration outside the Established
Church no longer concerned the Evangelical sects lying immediately
beyond ordinary Independency. If, from objection to the principle of
an Establishment, they chose to remain outside, they would have
toleration there as a matter of course. To make up, however, for this
removal of so many of the old Sectaries from all practical interest
in the question on their own account, there were new religious
denominations of such strange ways and tendencies, such unknown
relations to anything hitherto recognised as Orthodoxy or as Heresy,
that the poor Civil Magistrate, or even the coolest Abstract
Tolerationist, in contemplating them, might well be puzzled. The
following is a list of the chief of these new Sects that had sprung
up since 1644:--
FIFTH-MONARCHY MEN:--At first sight this does not appear a new sect,
but merely a continuation of the old MILLENARIES or CHILIASTS (Vol.
III, pp. 152-153), who believed that the Personal Reign of Christ on
Earth for a thousand years was approaching. The change of name,
however, indicates greater precision in the belief, and also greater
intensity. According to the wild system of Universal Chronology then
in vogue, the past History of the World, on this side of the Flood,
had consisted of four great successive Empires or Monarchies--the
Assyrian, which ended B.C. 531; the Persian, which ended B.C. 331;
the Macedonian, or Greek Empire of Alexander, which was made to
stretch to B.C. 44; and the Roman, which had begun B.C. 44, with the
Accession of Augustus Cæsar, and which had included, though people
might not see how, all that had happened on the Earth since then. But
this last Monarchy was tottering, and a Fifth Universal Monarchy was
at hand. It was that foreshadowed in Rev. xx.: "And I saw an Angel
come down from Heaven, having the key of the Bottomless Pit and a
great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the Dragon, that great
serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand
years, and cast him into the Bottomless Pit, and shut him up, and set
a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the
thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed
a little season. And I saw Thrones, and they sat upon them, and
judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were
beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the worship of God, and
which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had
received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the
dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." This
prophecy was the property of all Christians, and might receive
different interpretations. The literal interpretation, favoured by
some theologians, was that, at some date fast approaching, Christ
would reappear visibly on Earth, accompanied by the re-embodied souls
of dead saints and martyrs, while the rest of the dead slept on, and
that in the glorious reign of Righteousness and the subjugation of
all Evil thus begun for a thousand years men then living, or the true
saints among them, might partake. This interpretation, though scouted
by the more rational theologians, had seized on many of the more
fervid English Independents and Sectaries, so that they had begun to
see, in the great events of their own time and land, the dazzling
edge of the near Millennium. The doctrine had caught the souls of
Harrison and other men of action, hitherto classed as Anabaptists or
Seekers. Now, so far there was no harm in it, nor could any of the
orthodox who rejected it for themselves dare to treat it as one of
the heresies to be restrained by the Civil Magistrate. Evidently,
however, there was a root of danger. What if the Fifth-Monarchy men
should make it part of their faith that the saints could accelerate
the Fifth Monarchy, and that it was their duty to do so? Then their
tenet might have strange practical effects upon English politics.
Already, in the time of the Barebones Parliament, there had been
warnings of this, the Fifth-Monarchy men there, or outside the
Parliament, having distinguished themselves by an ultra-Republicanism
which verged on Communism, and also by their zeal for pure
Voluntaryism in Religion and the abolition of a paid Ministry and all
express Church machinery. The fact had not escaped Cromwell, and in
his speech at the opening of the present Parliament he had taken
notice of it. In that very speech he had singled out for remark "the
mistaken notion of the Fifth Monarchy." It was a notion, he admitted,
held by many good and sincere men; nay it was a notion he honoured
and could find a high meaning in. "But for men, on this principle, to
betitle themselves that they are the only men to rule kingdoms,
govern nations, and give laws to people, and determine of property
and liberty and everything else,--upon such a pretension as this:
truly they had need to give clear manifestations of God's presence
with them, before wise men will receive or submit to their
conclusions." If they were notions only, he added, they were best
left alone; for "notions will hurt none but those who have them."
But, when the notions were turned into practice, and proposals were
made for abrogation of Property and Magistracy to smooth the way for
the Fifth Monarchy, then one must remember Jude's precept as to the
mode of dealing with the errors of good men. "Of some have
compassion," Jude had said, "making a difference; others save with
fear, pulling them out of the fire."[1]
[Footnote 1: Hearne's _Ductor Historicus_, 1714 (for the old
doctrine of the Four Monarchies); Thomason Pamphlets; Carlyle's
Cromwell, III. 24-27.--The Fifth Monarchy notion was by no means an
upstart oddity of thought among the English Puritans of the
seventeenth century. It was a tradition of the most scholarly thought
of mediæval theologians as to the duration and final collapse of the
existing Cosmos; and it may be traced in the older imaginative
literature of various European nations. Thus the Scottish Sir David
Lindsay's long poem entitled _Monarchy, or Ane Dialogue betwix
Experience and one Courtier of the Miserable Estate of the World_,
the date of which is 1553, is a moralized sketch of the whole
previous history of the world, according to the then accepted
doctrine of the Four past Secular Monarchies, with a glance around at
the Europe of Lindsay's own time as already certainly in the dregs of
"The Latter Days," and an anticipation, as if with assured personal
belief, of a glorious Fifth Monarchy, or miraculous reconstitution of
the whole Universe into a new Heaven and Earth, to begin probably
about the year 2000.]
RANTERS:--"These made it their business," says Baxter, "to set up the
Light of Nature under the name of _Christ in Man_, and to
dishonour and cry down the Church, the Scripture, and the present
Ministry, and our worship and ordinances; and called men to hearken
to Christ within them. But withal they conjoined a cursed doctrine
of Libertinism, which brought them to all abominable filthiness of
life. They taught, as the FAMILISTS, (see Vol. III. p. 152), that God
regardeth not the actions of the outward man, but of the heart, and
that to the pure all things are pure ... I have seen myself letters
written from Abington, where among both soldiers and people this
contagion did then prevail, full of horrid oaths and curses and
blasphemy, not fit to be repeated by the tongue or pen of man; and
this all uttered as the effect of knowledge and a part of their
Religion, in a fanatic strain, and fathered on the Spirit of God."
The Ranters, in fact, seem to have been ANTINOMIANS (see Vol. III.
151-152) run mad, with touches from FAMILISM and SEEKERISM greatly
vulgarized. Of no sect do we hear more in the pamphlets and
newspapers between 1650 and 1655, though there are traces of them of
earlier date. The pamphlets about them generally take the form of
professed accounts of some of their meetings, with reports of their
profane discourses and the indecencies with which they were
accompanied. There are illustrative wood-cuts in some of the
pamphlets; and, on the whole, I fancy that some low printers and
booksellers made a trade on the public curiosity about the Ranters,
getting up pretended accounts of their meetings as a pretext for
prurient publications. There is plenty of testimony, however, besides
Baxter's word, that there was a real sect of the name pretty widely
spread in low neighbourhoods in towns, and holding meetings. Among
Ranters named in the pamphlets I have noticed a T. Shakespeare. "The
horrid villainies of the sect," says Baxter, "did not only speedily
extinguish it, but also did as much as ever anything did to disgrace
all sectaries, and to restore the credit of the ministry and the
sober unanimous Christians;" and this, or the transfusion of
Ranterism into equivalent phrenzies with other names, may account
for the fact that after a while the pamphlets about the Ranters cease
or become rare. Clearly, in the main, the regulation of such a sect,
so long as it did last, was a matter of police; and the only question
is whether there were any tenets mixed up with Ranterism, or held by
some roughly called Ranters, that were capable of being dissociated,
and that were in fact in some cases dissociated, from offences
against public decency. Exact data are deficient, and there were
probably varieties of Ranters theologically. Pantheism, or the
essential identity of God with the universe, and his indwelling in
every creature, angelic, human, brute, or inorganic, seems to have
been the belief of most Ranters that could manage to rise to a
metaphysics--with which belief was conjoined also a rejection of all
essential distinction between good and evil, and a rejection of all
Scripture as mere dead letter; but from a so-called "Carol of the
Ranters" I infer that Atheism, or at least Mortalism or Materialism
(see Vol. III. p. 156-157), had found refuge among some of the
varieties. Thus:--
"They prate of God! Believe it, fellow-creature,
There's no such bugbear: all was made by Nature.
We know all came of nothing, and shall pass
Into the same condition once it was
By Nature's power, and that they grossly lie
That say there's hope of immortality.
Let them but tell us what a soul is: then
We shall adhere to these mad brainsick men."[1]
[Footnote 1: Baxter's Life, 76-77; and Thomason Pamphlets
_passim_. The pamphlet last quoted is in Vol. 485 (old
numbering). I have also used a quotation from another pamphlet in
Barclay's _Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the
Commonwealth_ (1876), pp. 417-418.]
STRAY FANATICS: THE MUGGLETONIANS:--Sometimes confounded with the
Ranters, but really distinguishable, were some crazed men, whose
crazes had taken a religious turn, and whose extravagances became
contagious.--Such was a John Robins, first heard of about 1650, when
he went about, sometimes as God Almighty, sometimes as Adam raised
from the dead, with the power of raising others from the dead. He had
raised Cain and Judas, and other personages of Scripture, forgiving
their sins and blessing them; which personages, changed in character,
but remembering their former selves quite well, went about in
Robins's company and were seen and talked with by various people. He
could work miracles, and in dark rooms would exhibit himself
surrounded with angels, and fiery serpents, and shining lights, or
riding in the air. He had been sent to Bridewell, and his
supernatural powers had left him.--One heard next, in 1652, of two
associates, called John Reeve and Ludovick Muggleton, who professed
to be "the two last Spiritual Witnesses (Rev. xi.) and alone true
Prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, God alone blessed to all
eternity." They believed in a real man-shaped God, existing from all
eternity, who had come upon earth as Jesus Christ, leaving Moses and
Elijah to represent him in Heaven--also in the mortality of the soul
till the resurrection of the body; and their chief commission was to
denounce and curse all false prophets, and all who did not believe in
Reeves and Muggleton. They visited Robins in Bridewell and told
_him_ to stop his preaching under pain of eternal damnation; but
they favoured some eminent Presbyterian and Independent ministers of
London with letters to the same effect. They dated their letters
"from Great Trinity Lane, at a Chandler's shop, against one Mr.
Millis, a brown baker, near Bow Lane End;" and the editor of
_Mercurius Politicus_, who had received one of their letters so
dated, had the curiosity to go to see them, with some friends of his,
in the end of August 1653. He found them "at the top of an old house
in a cockloft," and made a paragraph of them thus:--"They are said to
be a couple of tailors: but only one of them works, and that is
Muggleton; the other, they say, writes prophecies. We found two women
there whom they had convinced; whom we questioning, they said they
believed all. Besides there was an old country plain man of Essex,
who said he had been with them twice before; and, being asked whether
he were of the same opinion and did believe them, he answered, Truly
he could not tell what to say, but he was come to have some discourse
with them in private." Two mouths after this interview (Oct. 1653),
they were brought before the Lord Mayor and Recorder for their
letters to ministers, and sentenced to six months of imprisonment
each. But they were to be farther heard of in the world. Muggleton
indeed to as late as 1698, when he died at the age of ninety, leaving
a sect called THE MUGGLETONIANS, who are perhaps not extinct
yet.--Among those who attached themselves to Reeves and Muggleton was
a Thomas Tany, who called himself also "Theauro John," and professed
to be the Lord's High Priest. They would have nothing to do with him,
and put him on their excommunicated list. Whether because this preyed
on the poor man's mind or not, he was found in the lobby of the
Parliament House on Saturday, Dec. 30. 1654, with a drawn sword,
slashing at members, and knocking for admittance. The House, who were
then in the midst of their debate on the proper Limits of Toleration,
ordered him to be brought to the bar:--"Where," say the journals,
"being demanded by Mr. Speaker what his name was, answered'
_Theeror John_'; being asked why he came hither, saith, He fired
his tent, and the people were ready to stone him because he burnt the
Bible--which he acknowledgeth he did. Saith it is letters, not life.
And he drew his sword because the man jostled him at the door. Saith
he burnt the Bible because the people say it is the Word of God, and
it is not; it deceived _him_. And saith he burnt the sword and
pistols and Bibles because they are the Gods of England. He did it
not of himself; and, being asked who bid him do it, saith God.' And
thereupon was commanded to withdraw." He was sent into custody
immediately.--Stray fanatics like Robins, Reeves, Muggleton, and
Theauro John, seem to have been not uncommon through England.[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV. 313-317; Mercurius Politicus, No. 167 (Aug.
18-25, 1653); Commons Journals, Dec. 30, 1654; Barclay's _Religious
Societies_, pp. 421-422.]
BOEHMENISTS AND OTHER MYSTICS:--Of the German Mystic Jacob Boehme
(1575-1624) there had been a _Life_ in English since 1644, with
a catalogue of his writings, and since then translations of some of
the writings themselves had appeared at intervals, mostly from the
shop of one publisher, Humphrey Blunden. The interest in "the
Teutonical Philosopher" thus excited had at length taken form in a
small sect of professed BOEHMENISTS, propounding the doctrine of the
Light of Nature, i.e. of a mystic intuitional revelation in the soul
itself of all true knowledge of divine and human things. Of this sect
Baxter says that they were "fewer in number," and seemed "to have
attained to greater meekness and conquest of passions," than the
other sects. The chief of them was Dr. Pordage, Rector of Bradfield,
in Berks, with his family. They held "visible and sensible communion
with angels" in the Rectory, on the very walls and windows of which
there appeared miraculous pictures and symbols; and the Doctor
himself, besides alarming people with such strange phrases as "the
fiery deity of Christ dwelling in the soul and mixing itself with our
flesh," was clearly unorthodox on many particular
points.[1]--Boehme's system included a mystical physics or cosmology
as well as a metaphysics or theosophy, and some of his English
followers seem to have allied themselves with the famous Astrologer
William Lilly, whose prophetic Almanacks, under the title of
_Merlinus Anglicus_, had been appearing annually since 1644. But
indeed all sorts of men were in contact with this quack or
quack-mystic. He had been consulted by Charles I as to the probable
issue of events; he had been consulted and feed by partisans of the
other side: his Almanacks, with their hieroglyphics and political
predictions, had a boundless popularity, and were bringing him a good
income; he was the chief in his day of those fortune-telling and
spirit-auguring celebrities who hover all their lives between high
society and Bridewell. As he had adhered to the Parliamentarians and
made the stars speak for their cause, he had hitherto been pretty
safe; but the leading Presbyterian and Independent ministers, as we
have seen (ante IV, p. 392), had recently called upon Parliament to
put down his bastard science. Gataker had attacked "that grand
impostor Mr. William Lilly" in an express publication.[2]--Is it in a
spirit of mischief that Baxter names THE VANISTS, or disciples of Sir
Henry Vane the younger, as one of the recognised sects of this time?
That great Republican leader, it was known, with all his deep
practical astuteness and the perfect clearness and shrewdness of his
speeches and business-letters, carried in his head a mystic
Metaphysics of his own which he found it hard to express. It was a
something unique, including ideas from the Antinomians, the
Anabaptists, and the Seekers, he had been so much among, with
something also of the Fifth-Monarchy notion, and with the theory of
absolute Voluntaryism in Religion, but all these amalgamated with new
ingredients. Burnet tells us that, though he had taken pains to find
out Vane's meaning in his own books, he could never reach it, and
that, as many others had the same experience, it might be reasonable
to conclude that Vane had purposely kept back the key to his system.
Friends of Vane had told Burnet, however, that "he leaned to Origen's
notion of a universal salvation of all, both of devils and the
damned, and to the doctrine of pre-existence." Even when Cromwell
and Vane had been close friends, calling each other "Fountain" and
"Heron" in their private letters. Vane had been in possession of
such peculiar lights, or of others, beyond Cromwell's apprehension.
"Brother Fountain can guess at his brother's meaning," he had written
to Cromwell in Scotland August 2, 1651, with reference to some
troublesome on-goings in the Council of State during Cromwell's
absence, begging him not to believe ill-natured reports about
"Brother Heron" in connexion with them, and adding, "Be assured he
answers your heart's desire in all things, except he be esteemed even
by you in principles too high to fathom; which one day, I am
persuaded, will not be so thought by you, when, by increasing with
the increasings of God, you shall be brought to that sight and
enjoyment of God in Christ which passes knowledge." If this to
Cromwell, what to others? Three years had passed, and Vane was now in
compulsory retirement. His _Retired Man's Meditations_ had not
yet been published. Such Vanists, therefore, as there were in 1654
must have imbibed their knowledge of them from Sir Henry's
conversation or indirectly. Among these Baxter mentions Peter Sterry,
one of Cromwell's favourite preachers, and afterwards known as a
mystic on his own account. Of Sterry's preaching, already notoriously
obscure, Sir Benjamin Rudyard had said that "it was too high for this
world and too low for the other," and Baxter puns on the association
of Vane and Sterry, asking whether _Vanity_ and _Sterility_
had ever been more happily conjoined. But the sect of the VANISTS
existed perhaps mainly in Baxter's fancy.[3]
[Footnote 1: Stationers' Registers from 1644 to 1654; Baxter, 77-78;
Neal, IV. 112-113.]
[Footnote 2: Engl. Cycl. Art. _Lilly_; Stationers' Registers of
date June 10, 1653 (Gataker's Tract) and of other dates (Lilly's
Almanacks).]
[Footnote 3: Baxter, 74-76; Milton Papers by Nickolls, 78-79;
Wood's Ath. III, 578 et seq. and IV. 136-138.]
QUAKERS OR FRIENDS:--Who can think of the appearance of this sect in
English History without doing what the sect itself would forbid, and
reverently raising the hat? And yet in 1654 this was the very sect of
sects. It was about the Quakers that there had begun to be the most
violent excitement among the guardians of social order throughout the
British Islands.--It was then six or seven years since they had first
been heard of in any distinct way, and four since they had received
the name QUAKERS. A Derbyshire Justice of the Peace, it is said,
first invented that name for them, because they seemed to be fond of
the text Jer. v. 22, and had offended him by addressing it to himself
and a brother magistrate: "Fear ye not me? saith the Lord; will ye
not tremble at my presence?" But Robert Barclay's account of the
origin of the name in his _Apology for the Quakers_ (1675) is
probably more correct, though not inconsistent. He says it arose from
the fact that, in the early meetings of "The Children of the Light,"
as they first called themselves, violent physical agitations were not
unfrequent, and conversions were often signalized by that
accompaniment. There was often an "inward travail" in some one
present; "and from this inward travail, while the darkness seeks to
obscure the light, and the light breaks through the darkness, which
it will always do if the soul gives not its strength to the
darkness, there will be such a painful travail found in the soul that
will even work upon the outward man, so that often-times, through the
working thereof, the body will be greatly shaken, and many groans and
sighs and tears, even as the pangs of a woman in travail, will lay
hold of it: yea, and this not only as to one, but ... sometimes the
power of God will break forth into a whole meeting, and there will be
such an inward travail, while each is seeking to overcome the evil in
themselves, that by the strong contrary workings of these opposite
powers, like the going of two contrary tides, every individual will
be strongly exercised as in a day of battle, and thereby trembling
and a motion of body will be upon most, if not upon all, which, as
the power of Truth prevails, will from pangs and groans end with a
sweet sound of thanksgiving and praise. And from this the name of
_Quakers_, i.e. _Tremblers_, was first reproachfully cast
upon us; which though it be none of our choosing, yet in this respect
we are not ashamed of it, but have rather reason to rejoice
therefore, even that we are sensible of this power that hath
oftentimes laid hold of our adversaries, and made them yield to us,
and join with us, and confess to the Truth, before they had any
distinct and discursive knowledge of our doctrines."--The Quakers,
then, according to this eminent Apologist for them, _had_, from
the first, definite doctrines, which might be distinctly and
discursively known. What were they? They hardly amounted to any
express revolution of existing Theology. In no essential respect did
any of their recognised representatives impugn any of the doctrines
of Christianity as professed by other fervid Evangelical sects. The
Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the natural sinfulness of men,
propitiation by Christ alone, sanctification by the Holy Spirit, the
inspiration and authority of the Scriptures--in these, and in other
cardinal tenets, they were at one with the main body of their
contemporary Christians. Though it was customary for a time to
confound them with the Ranters, they themselves repudiated the
connexion, and opposed the Ranters and their libertinism wherever
they met them. Wherein then lay the distinctive peculiarity of the
Quakers? It has been usual to say that it consisted in their doctrine
of the universality of the gift of the Spirit, and of the constant
inner light, and motion, and teaching of the Spirit in the soul of
each individual believer. This is not sufficient. That doctrine they
shared substantially with various other sects,--certainly with the
Boehmenists and other Continental Mystics, not to speak of the
English Antinomians and Seekers. Nay, in their first great practical
application of the doctrine they had been largely anticipated. If the
inner motion or manifestation of the Spirit in each mind, in
interpretation of the Bible or over and above the Bible, is the sole
true teaching of the Gospel, and if the manifestation cometh as the
Spirit listeth, and cannot be commanded, a regular Ministry of the
Word by a so-called Clergy is an absurdity, and a hired Ministry an
abomination! So said the Quakers. In reaching this conclusion,
however, they had only added themselves to masses of people, known as
Brownists, Seekers, and Anabaptists, who had already, by the same
route or by others, advanced to the standing-ground of absolute
Voluntaryism. What did distinguish the early Quakers seems to have
been, in the first place, the thorough form of their apprehension of
that doctrine of the Inner Light, or Immediate Revelation of the
Spirit, which they held in common with other sects, and, in the
second place, their courage and tenacity in carrying out the
practical inferences from that doctrine in every sentence of their
own speech and every hour of their own conduct. As to the form in
which they held the doctrine itself Barclay will be again our best
authority. "The testimony of the Spirit," he says, "is that alone by
which the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can only be,
revealed; who, as by the moving of his own Spirit he converted the
Chaos of this world into that wonderful Order wherein it was in the
beginning, and created Man a living Soul to rule and govern it, so by
the same Spirit he hath manifested himself all along unto the sons of
men, both Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles: which revelations of
God by the Spirit, whether by outward voices and appearances, dreams,
or inward objective manifestations in the heart, were of old the
formal object of their faith and remain yet so to be,--since the
object of the Saints' faith is the same in all ages, though set forth
under divers administrations." This Inner Light of the Spirit,
seizing men and women at all times and places, and illuminating them
in the knowledge of God, was, Barclay elsewhere explains, something
altogether supernatural, something totally distinct from natural
Reason. "That Man, as he is a rational creature, hath Reason as a
natural faculty of his soul, we deny not; for this is a property
natural and essential to him, by which he can know and learn many
arts and sciences, beyond what any other animal can do by the mere
animal principle. Neither do we deny that by this rational principle
Man may apprehend in his brain, and in the notion, a knowledge of God
and spiritual things; yet, that not being the right organ, ... it
cannot profit him towards salvation, but rather hindereth." And what
of the use and value of the Scriptures? "From these revelations of
the Spirit of God to the saints have proceeded the Scriptures of
Truth, which contain (1) A faithful historical account of the actings
of God's people in divers ages, with many singular and remarkable
providences attending them; (2) A prophetical account of several
things, whereof some are already past and some yet to come; (3) A
full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrine of
Christ ... Nevertheless, because they are only a declaration of the
fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be
esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and Knowledge, nor yet the
adequate primary rule of faith and manners. Nevertheless, as that
which giveth a true and faithful testimony of the first foundation,
they are and may be esteemed a secondary rule, subordinate to the
Spirit, from which they have all their excellency and certainty." So
much for the _form_ of the central principle of Early Quakerism,
so far as it can be expressed logically. But it was in the resolute
application of the principle in practice that the Early Quakers made
themselves conspicuous. They were not Speculative Voluntaries,
waiting for the abolition of the National Church, and paying tithes
meanwhile. They were Separatists who would at once and in every way
assert their Separatism. They would pay no tithes; they called every
church "a steeple-house"; and they regarded every parson as the hired
performer in one of the steeple-houses. Then, in their own meetings
for mutual edification and worship, all their customs were in
accordance with their main principle. They had no fixed articles of
congregational creed, no prescribed forms of prayer, no ordinance of
baptism or of sacramental communion, no religious ceremony in
sanction of marriage, and no paid or appointed preachers. The
ministry was to be as the spirit moved; all equally might speak or be
silent, poor as well as rich, unlearned as well as learned, women as
well as men; if special teachers did spring up amongst them, it
should not be professionally, or to earn a salary. Yet, with all this
liberty among themselves, what unanimity in the moral purport of
their teachings! Their restless dissatisfaction with the Established
Church and with all known varieties of Dissent, their passion for a
full reception of Christ at the fountain-head, their searchings of
the Scriptures, their private raptures and meditations, their prayers
and consultations in public, had resulted in a simple re-issue of the
Christianity of the Sermon on the Mount. Quakerism, in its kernel,
was but the revived Christian morality of meekness, piety,
benevolence, purity, truthfulness, peacefulness, and passivity. There
were to be no oaths: Yea or Nay was to be enough. There were to be no
ceremonies of honour or courtesy-titles among men: the hat was to be
taken off to no one, and all were to be addressed in the singular, as
_Thou_ and _Thee_. War and physical violence were unlawful,
and therefore all fighting and the trade of a soldier. Injuries to
oneself were to be borne with patience, but there was to be the most
active energy in relieving the sufferings of others, and in seeking
out suffering where it lurked. The sick and those in prison were to
be visited, the insane and the outcast; and the wrongs and cruelties
of law, whether in death-sentences for mere offences against
property, or in brutal methods of prison-treatment, were to be
exposed and condemned. For the rest, the Friends were to walk
industriously and domestically through the world, honest in their
dealings, wearing a plain Puritan garb, and avoiding all vanities and
gaieties.--Had it been possible for such a sect to come into
existence by mere natural growth, or the unconcerted association of
like-minded persons in all parts of the country at once, even then,
one can see, there would have been irritation between it and the rest
of the community. The refusal to pay tithes, the refusal of oaths in
Courts of Law or anywhere else, the objection to war and to the trade
of a soldier, the _Theeing_ and _Thouing_ of all
indiscriminately, the keeping of the hat on in any presence, would
have occasioned constant feud between any little nucleus of Quakers
and the society round about it. But the sect had not formed itself by
any such quiet process of simultaneous grouping among people who had
somehow imbibed its tenets. It had come into being, and in fact had
shaped its tenets and become aware of them, through a previous
fervour of itinerant Propagandism such as had hardly been known since
the first Apostles and Christian missionaries had walked among the
heathen. The first Quaker, the man in whose dreamings by himself,
aided by scanty readings, the principles of the sect had been
evolved, and in whose conduct by himself for a year or two the sect
had practically originated, was the good, blunt, obstinate,
opaque-brained, ecstatic, Leicestershire shoemaker, George Fox, the
Boehme of England. From the year 1646, when he was two and twenty
years of age, the life of Fox had been an incessant tramp through the
towns and villages of the Midlands and the North, with preachings in
barns, in inns, in market-places, outside courts of justice, and
often inside the steeple-houses themselves, by way of interruption of
the regular ministers, or correction of their doctrine after the
hours of regular service. Extraordinary excitements had attended him
everywhere, paroxysms of delight in him with tears and tremblings,
outbreaks of rage against him with hootings and stonings. Again and
again he had been brought before justices and magistrates, to whose
presence indeed he naturally tended of his own accord for the purpose
of lecturing them on their duties, and to whom he was always writing
Biblical letters. He had been beaten and put in the stocks; he had
been in Derby jail and in several other prisons, charged with riot or
blasphemy; and in these prisons he had found work to his mind and had
sometimes converted his jailors. And so, by the year 1654, "the man
with the leather breeches," as he was called, had become a celebrity
throughout England, with scattered converts and adherents everywhere,
but voted a pest and terror by the public authorities, the regular
steeple-house clergy whether Presbyterian or Independent, and the
appointed preachers of all the old sects. By this time, however, he
was by no means the sole preacher of Quakerism. Every now and then
from among his converts there had started up one fitted to assist him
in the work of itinerant propagandism, and the number of such had
increased in 1654 to about sixty in all. Richard Farnsworth, James
Nayler, William Dewsbury, Thomas Aldam, John Audland, Francis
Howgill, Edward Burrough, Thomas Taylor, John Camm, Richard
Hubberthorn, Miles Halhead, James Parnel, Thomas Briggs, Robert
Widders, George Whitehead, Thomas Holmes, James Lancaster, Alexander
Parker, William Caton, and John Stubbs, of the one sex, with
Elizabeth Hooton, Anna Downer, Elizabeth Heavens, Elizabeth Fletcher,
Barbara Blaugden, Catherine Evans, and Sarah Cheevers, of the other
sex, were among the chief of these early Quaker preachers after Fox.
They had carried the doctrines into every part of England, and also
into Scotland and Ireland; some of them had even been moved to go to
the Continent. Wherever they went there was the same disturbance
round them as round Fox himself, and they had the same hard
treatment--imprisonment, duckings, whippings. It is necessary that
the reader should remember that in 1654 Quakerism was still in this
first stage of its diffusion by a vehement propagandism carried on by
some sixty itinerant preachers at war with established habits and
customs, and had not settled down into mere individual Quietism, with
associations of those who had been converted to its principles, and
could be content with their own local meetings. In the chief centres,
indeed, there were now fixed meetings for the resident Quakers, the
main meeting place for London being the Bull and Mouth in St.
Martin's-le-Grand; but Fox and most of his coadjutors were still
wandering about the country.--There was already an extensive
literature of Quakerism, consisting of printed letters and tracts by
Fox himself, Farnsworth, Nayler, Dewsbury, Howgill, and others, and
of invectives against the Quakers and their principles by
Presbyterians and Independents; and some of the letters of the
Quakers had been directly addressed to Cromwell. There had also, some
time in 1654, been one interview between the Lord Protector and Fox.
Colonel Hacker, having arrested Fox in Leicestershire, had sent him
up to London. Brought to Whitehall, one morning early, when the Lord
Protector was dressing, he had said, on entering, "Peace be on this
House!" and had then discoursed to the Protector at some length, the
Protector kindly listening, occasionally putting a question, and
several times acknowledging a remark of George's by saying it was
"very good," and "the truth." At parting, the Protector had taken
hold of his hand, and, with tears in his eyes, said "Come again to my
house! If thou and I were but an hour of the day together, we should
be nearer one to another. I wish no more harm to thee than I do to my
own soul." Outside, the captain on guard, informing George that he
was free, had wanted him, by the Protector's orders, to stay and dine
with the household; but George had stoutly declined.[1]
[Footnote 1: Sewel's _History of the People called Quakers_ (ed.
1834), I, I--136; Rules and Discipline of the Society of Friends
(1834), _Introduction_; Baxter, 77; Neal, IV. 31-41; Pamphlets
in Thomason Collection; Robert Barclay's _Apology for the
Quakers_ (ed. 1765), pp. 4, 48, 118, 309-310. This last is a
really able and impressive book--far the most reasoned exposition
even yet, I believe, of the principles of early Quakerism. Though
not written till twenty years after our present date, it was the
first accurate and articulate expression, I believe, of the
principles that had really, though rather confusedly, pervaded the
Quaker teachings and writings at that date.--There are many particles
of information about the early Quakers, and about other contemporary
English sects, in _The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the
Commonwealth_, published in 1878, the posthumous work of a second
Robert Barclay, two hundred years after the first. But the book,
though laborious, is very chaotic, and shows hardly any knowledge of
the time of which it mainly treats.]
Such were the more recent sects and heresies for which, as well as
for those older and more familiar, the First Parliament of the
Protectorate had been, with the help of Dr. Owen and his
brother-divines, preparing a strait-jacket. Of that Parliament,
however, and of all its belongings, the Commonwealth was to be rid
sooner than had been expected.
It had been the astute policy of the Parliament to concentrate all
their attention upon the new Constitution for the Protectorate, and
to neglect and postpone other business until the Bill of the
Constitution had been pushed through and presented to Cromwell for
his assent. In particular they had postponed, as much as possible,
all supplies for Army and Navy and for carrying on the Government. By
this, as they thought, they retained Cromwell in their grasp. By the
instrument under which they had been called, he could not dissolve
them till they had sat five months,--which, by ordinary counting from
Sept. 3, 1654, made them safe till Feb. 3, 1654-5. But, if they could
contrive that it should be Cromwell's interest not to dissolve them
then, there was no reason why they should not sit on a good while
longer, perhaps even till near Oct. 1656, the time they had
themselves fixed for the meeting of the next Parliament. To postpone
supplies, therefore, till after the general Bill of the Constitution
in all its sixty Articles should have received Cromwell's assent, to
wrap up present supplies and the hope of future supplies as much as
possible in the Bill itself, was the plan of the Anti-Oliverians. The
Bill, it will be remembered, had passed the second reading on Dec.
23, had then gone into Committee for amendments, and had come back to
the House with these amendments. On the 10th of January, 1654-5, when
the Bill was almost ready to be engrossed, it was moved by the
Oliverians that there should be a conference about it with the
Protector; but the motion was lost by 107 votes to 95. Among various
subsequent divisions was one on the 16th on the question whether the
Bill should become Law even if the Lord Protector should refuse his
assent, and the Anti-Oliverians negatived the putting of the question
by eighty-six votes to fifty-five. The next day, after another
division, it was resolved thus: "That this Bill entitled _An Act
Declaring and Settling the Government of the Commonwealth_, &c.,
be engrossed in order to its presentment to the Lord Protector for
his consideration and assent," and that, if "the Lord Protector and
the Parliament shall not agree thereunto and to every Article
thereof, then the Bill shall be void and of none effect." Cromwell
having thus been shut up to accept all or none, the Bill passed the
third and conclusive reading on Friday, Jan. 19. Then all depended on
Cromwell, who would have twenty days to make up his mind. He had made
up his mind already, and did not mean to wait for the parchment. The
Bill included provisions striking, as he conceived, at the root of
his Protectorate, e.g. one for depriving him and the Council of State
of that power of interim legislation which they had hitherto
exercised with so much effect, and others withholding the negative he
thought his due on future Bills affecting fundamentals. He was,
besides, wholly disgusted with the spirit and conduct of the
Parliament. Accordingly, having bethought himself that, in the
payment of the soldiers and sailors, a month was construed as
twenty-eight days only, he let the Saturday and Sunday after the
third reading of the Bill pass quietly by, and then, on Monday the
22nd, having summoned the House to meet him in the Painted Chamber,
addressed them in what counts as the Fourth of his Speeches, told
them their time was up that day, and dissolved them. Their
Constitutional Bill of Sixty Articles disappeared with them; and they
had not, in all the five months, sent up a single Bill to Cromwell
for his assent.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates; Godwin, IV. 148-157; Carlyle,
III. 70-95.]
SECTION II.
BETWEEN THE PARLIAMENTS, OR THE TIME OF ARBITRARINESS: JAN. 22,
1654-55--SEPT. 17, 1656.
AVOWED "ARBITRARINESS" OF THIS STAGE OF THE PROTECTORATE, AND REASONS
FOR IT.--FIRST MEETING OF CROMWELL AND HIS COUNCIL AFTER THE
DISSOLUTION: MAJOR-GENERAL OVERTON IN CUSTODY: OTHER ARRESTS:
SUPPRESSION OF A WIDE REPUBLICAN CONSPIRACY AND OF ROYALIST RISINGS
IN YORKSHIRE AND THE WEST: REVENUE ORDINANCE AND MR. CONY'S
OPPOSITION AT LAW: DEFERENCE OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS: BLAKE IN THE
MEDITERRANEAN: MASSACRE OF THE PIEDMONTESE PROTESTANTS: DETAILS OF
THE STORY AND OF CROMWELL'S PROCEEDINGS IN CONSEQUENCE: PENN IN THE
SPANISH WEST INDIES: HIS REPULSE FROM HISPANIOLA AND LANDING IN
JAMAICA: DECLARATION OF WAR WITH SPAIN AND ALLIANCE WITH FRANCE:
SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND BY MAJOR-GENERALS: LIST OF THEM
AND SUMMARY OF THEIR POLICE-SYSTEM: DECIMATION TAX ON THE ROYALISTS,
AND OTHER MEASURES _IN TERROREM_: CONSOLIDATION OF THE LONDON
NEWSPAPER PRESS: PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION OF EJECTORS AND OF THE
COMMISSION OF TRIERS: VIEW OF CROMWELL'S ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF
ENGLAND, WITH ENUMERATION OF ITS VARIOUS COMPONENTS: EXTENT OF
TOLERATION OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH: THE PROTECTOR'S TREATMENT
OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS, THE EPISCOPALIANS, THE ANTI-TRINITARIANS, THE
QUAKERS, AND THE JEWS: STATE OF THE ENGLISH UNIVERSITIES AND SCHOOLS
UNDER THE PROTECTORATE: CROMWELL'S PATRONAGE OF LEARNING: LIST OF
ENGLISH MEN OF LETTERS ALIVE IN 1656, AND ACCOUNT OF THEIR DIVERSE
RELATIONS TO CROMWELL: POETICAL PANEGYRICS ON HIM AND HIS
PROTECTORATE.--NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND: LORD
BROGHILL'S PRESIDENCY THERE FOR CROMWELL: GENERAL STATE OF THE
COUNTRY: CONTINUED STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE RESOLUTIONERS AND THE
PROTESTERS FOR KIRK-SUPREMACY: INDEPENDENCY AND QUAKERISM IN
SCOTLAND: MORE EXTREME ANOMALIES THERE: STORY OF "JOCK OF BROAD
SCOTLAND": BRISK INTERCOURSE BETWEEN SCOTLAND AND LONDON: MISSION OF
MR. JAMES SHARP.--IRELAND FROM 1654 TO 1656.--GLIMPSE OF THE
COLONIES.
This long stretch of twenty months was to be another period of the
government of the Commonwealth by the Lord Protector and the Council
of State on their own responsibility and without a Parliament. In the
circumstances in which the late Parliament had left them, without
supplies and without a single concluded and authoritative enactment,
they could only fall back on the original Instrument of the
Protectorate, amending its defects by their own ingenuity as
exigencies occurred, with a suggestion now and then snatched, for the
sake of quasi-Parliamentary countenance, from the wreck of the late
Constitutional Bill. Hence a character of "arbitrariness" in
Cromwell's government throughout this period greater perhaps than in
any other of his whole Protectorate. For that, however, he was
prepared. At the first meeting of the Council after the Dissolution
of Parliament (Tuesday, Jan. 23, 1654-5) there were present, I find,
His Highness himself, and thirteen out of the eighteen Councillors,
viz.: Lord President Lawrence, the Earl of Mulgrave, Viscount Lisle,
Lambert, Desborough, Fiennes, Montague, Sydenham, Strickland, Sir
Charles Wolseley, Skippon, Jones, and Rous; and it was then "ordered
by his Highness and the Council that Friday next be set apart for
their seeking of God, and that Mr. Lockyer, Mr. Caryl, Mr. Denn, and
Mr. Sterry, be desired then to give their assistance." In entering on
the new period of their Government, the Protector and the Council
thought a day of special prayer very fitting.[1]
[Footnote 1 Council Order Book of date.--Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper,
having shown Anti-Oliverian tendencies in the late Parliament, did
not reappear in the Council after the Dissolution, and had
virtually ceased to be a member. Colonel Mackworth had died Dec.
26, 1654. The three other members not present at the meeting of
Jan. 23, 1664-5 were Fleetwood, Sir Gilbert Pickering, and Richard
Mayor. Fleetwood was in Ireland; Pickering's absence was
accidental, and he was in his place very regularly afterwards;
Mayor did not attend steadily.]
In the Dissolution Speech Cromwell, rebuking the Parliament for their
inattention to what he considered their real duty, had compared them
to a tree under the shadow of which there had been a too thriving
growth of other vegetation. Interpreting the parable, he had
explained to them that there was at that moment a new and very
complex conspiracy against the Commonwealth, that the Levellers at
home had been in correspondence with the Cavaliers abroad, that their
plans were laid and their manifestos ready, that commissioners from
Charles Stuart had arrived and stores of arms and money had been
collected, and also (worst of all) that there had been tamperings
with the Army by Commonwealth men of higher note than the mere
Levellers. He did not believe, he said, that any then in Parliament
were in the Cavalier interest in the connexion, but he was not sure
that they were all perfectly clear of the connexion on all its sides.
At all events, he knew that their policy of starving the Army had
given the enemy their best opportunity. Fortunately, he had already
some of the chief home-conspirators in custody, and the Cavalier part
of the plot might explode when it liked.[1]
[Footnote 1: Speech IV (Carlyle, III 75-81.)]
The chief of those in custody when Cromwell spoke was the Republican
Major-General Overton. He had been under suspicion before, as we have
seen, but had cleared himself sufficiently to Cromwell, and had been
sent back to Scotland as second in command to Monk (Sept. 1654).
Since then, however, he had relapsed into the Anti-Oliverian mood,
and had become, it was believed, the head of the numerous
Anti-Oliverians or Republicans in Monk's Army, The proposal was to
seize Monk, make Overton the commander-in-chief, and march into
England, But, information having been received in time, there had
been the necessary arrests of the guilty officers (Dec. 1654). Most
of them had been kept in Edinburgh to be dealt with by Monk; but the
chiefs had been sent at once to London, and among them Overton, whose
arrest had taken place at Aberdeen. He was committed to the Tower
Jan. 16, 1654-5. The clue having thus been furnished, further
investigation had disclosed more. In concert with the Anti-Oliverian
movement in the Army of Scotland, and depending on that movement for
help, there had been plottings in England, in which Harrison, Colonel
Okey, Colonel Alured, Colonel Sexby, Adjutant-General Allen, Admiral
Lawson, Major John Wildman, Lord Grey of Groby, Carew, and even
Bradshaw, Hasilrig, and Henry Marten, were, or were said to be, more
or less involved. The aim seems to have been a combination of the
Anabaptist Levellers with the more eminent Republicans,--the
Levellers, or some of them, quite willing to combine also with the
Royalists, and indeed in confidential negotiation with them. How the
scheme, or medley of schemes, would have turned out in the working,
was never to be known. It was frustrated by the arrest, in January
and February, of most of the suspected. The most important arrest was
that of Major Wildman, the undoubted chief of the Levelling section
of the conspiracy. When arrested in Wiltshire, he was found in the
act of dictating a "Declaration of the Free and Well-affected People
of England now in arms against the tyrant Oliver Cromwell, Esq." He
was imprisoned in Chepstow Castle. Sexby, the most active man after
Wildman in the Levelling or Anabaptist section of the conspiracy,
escaped and went abroad. Adjutant-General Allen, and others less
deeply implicated, were dismissed from their posts in the Army.
Harrison was confined in the Isle of Portland, Carew in St. Mawes, in
Cornwall, and Lord Grey of Groby in Windsor Castle. None of all the
Republicans, higher or lower, it was remarked, suffered any
punishment beyond such seclusion or dismissal from the service.
Clemency on that side was always Cromwell's policy.[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV. 158-165; Carlyle, III. 66-70 and 98-99;
Whitlocke, IV. 182-188 (Wildman's Proclamation); Life of Robert
Blair, 319.]
Much sharper was Cromwell's method of dealing with the attempted
invasion and insurrection of the Royalists independently. Hopes had
risen high at the Court of the Stuarts, and the preparations had been
extensive. Charles himself had gone to Middleburg, with the Marquis
of Ormond and others, to be ready for a landing in England; Hull had
been thought of as the likeliest landing-place; commissioned pioneers
of the enterprise were already moving about in various English
counties. Of all this Thurloe had procured sufficient intelligence
through his foreign spies, and the precautions of the Protector and
Council had been commensurate. The projected Overton revolt in
Scotland and the Wildman-Sexby plot in England having been brought to
nothing, the Royalists had to act for themselves. Two abortive
risings in March, 1654-5, exhausted their energy. One was in
Yorkshire, where Sir Henry Slingsby and Sir Richard Malevrier
appeared in arms, but were immediately suppressed. The other was in
the West, and was more serious. On the night of Sunday, the 11th of
March, a body of 200 Cavaliers, headed by Sir Joseph Wagstaff, one of
Charles's emissaries from abroad, took possession of the city of
Salisbury, The assizes were to be held in the city the next day, and
Chief Justice Rolle, Judge Nicholas, and the High Sheriff, had
arrived and were in their beds. They were seized; and next morning
Wagstaff issued orders for hanging them, but was stopped in the act
by the remonstrances of Colonel John Penruddock and others. From
Salisbury, finding no encouragement among the citizens, the
insurgents moved westward till they reached South Molton in
Devonshire, where they were overtaken on the night of Wednesday,
March 14, by Captain Unton Crook. There was a brief street-fight,
ending in the defeat of the Royalists, and the capture of Penruddock
and about fifty more. Wagstaff escaped. Of the contemporary
insurgents in the north there had meanwhile escaped Malevrier and
also Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, who had come from abroad to head the
Royalist insurrection generally, had gone to the north, but had not
awaited the actual upshot. He lay concealed in London for a time,
and got to Cologne at last. In the trials which ensued those who
suffered capitally were Penruddock, beheaded at Exeter, a Captain
Hugh Grove and several others at other places in the West, and two or
three at York. Many of the inferior culprits, capitally convicted,
had their lives spared, but were sent in servitude to Barbadoes.[1]
[Footnote 1: Clarendon, 824-827; Whitlocke, IV. 188; Godwin, IV.
167-169; Carlyle, III. 99-100.]
Revenue had been one of the first cares of the Protector and Council
in resuming power after the Dissolution. By a former ordinance of
theirs of June 1654 (Vol. IV. p. 562), the assessment for the Army
and Navy had been renewed for three months at the rate of £120,000
per month, and for the next three months at the lowered rate of
£90,000 per month. This ordinance had expired at Christmas 1654; and,
though the Parliament had then passed a Bill for extending the
assessment for three months more at £60,000 per month, the Bill had
never been presented to Cromwell for his assent. On the 8th of
February, 1654-5, therefore, a new Ordinance by his Highness and
Council fixed the assessment for a certain term at £60,000 per month.
This acceptance of the reduction proposed by the Parliament gave
general satisfaction; and there is evidence that at this time
Cromwell and the Council let themselves be driven to various shifts
of economy rather than overstrain their power of ordinance-making in
the unpopular particular of supplies. But, indeed, it was on the
question of the validity of this power generally, all-essential as it
was, that they encountered their greatest difficulties. A merchant
named Cony did more to wreck the Protectorate by a suit at law than
did the Cavaliers by their armed insurrection. Having refused to pay
custom duty because it was levied only by an ordinance of the Lord
Protector and Council of March, 1654, and not by authority of
Parliament, he had been fined £500 by the Commissioners of Customs,
and had been committed to prison for non-payment. On a motion for a
writ of _habeas corpus_ his case came on for trial in May 1655.
Maynard and two other eminent lawyers who were his counsel pleaded so
effectively that they were committed to the Tower for what was
called language destructive to the Government. Cony himself then went
on with the pleading, and so sturdily that Chief Justice Rolle was
non-plussed, and had to confess as much to Cromwell. It was only by
delay, and then by some private management of Cony, that a decision
was avoided which would have enabled the whole population legally to
defy every taxing ordinance of the Protectorate. Similarly the
Ordinance of August 1654 for regulating the Court of Chancery, and
even the Ordinance of Treason under which the late insurgents had
been tried, had brought the Protectorate into collision with the
consciences of Lawyers and Judges. There were such remonstrances to
Cromwell on the subject that he had to re-arrange the whole Bench. He
removed Rolle and two other Judges, appointing Glynne and Steele in
their stead, and he deprived Whitlocke and Widdrington of their
Commissionerships of the Great Seal, compensating them after a while
by Commissionerships of the Treasury. For all this "arbitrariness"
Cromwell avowed, in the simplest and most downright manner, the plea
of absolute necessity. The very existence of his Protectorate was at
peril; and that meant, he declared, the existence of the
Commonwealth.[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV. 174-183; Whitlocke, through April, May,
June, and July, 1655.]
For such "arbitrariness" in some of the Protector's home-proceedings
there was, most people allowed, a splendid atonement in the marvels
of his foreign policy. Never had there been on the throne of England
a sovereign more bent upon making England the champion-nation of the
world. The deference, the sycophancy, of foreign princes and
potentates to him, and the proofs of the same in letters and
embassies, and in presents of hawks and horses, had become a theme
for jests and caricatures among foreigners themselves. Parliaments
might come and go in Westminster; but there sat Cromwell, immoveable
through all, the impersonation of the British Islands. His
dissolution of the late Parliament, and his easy suppression of the
subsequent tumult, had but increased the respect for him abroad.
Whether he would finally declare himself for Spain or for France was
still the momentous question. The Marquis of Leyda, Spanish Governor
of Dunkirk, had come to London to assist Cardenas in the negotiations
for Spain; but Mazarin was indefatigable in his offers, through M. de
Bordeaux and otherwise.[1]
[Footnote 1: Council Order Books _passim_; Guizot, II. 203.]
While the Parliament was still sitting, Cromwell had sent out two
fleets, one under the command of Blake (Oct. 1654), the other under
that of Penn (Dec. 1654). There was the utmost secrecy as to the
destination and objects of both, but the mystery did not last long
about Blake's. He had received instructions to go into the
Mediterranean, make calls there on all powers against which the
Commonwealth had claims, and bring them to account. Blake fulfilled
his mission with his usual precision and success. His first call of
any importance was on the Grand Duke of Tuscany, formerly so much in
the good graces of the Commonwealth (Vol. IV. pp. 483-485), but whom
Cromwell, after looking more into matters, had found culpable.
Blake's demands were for heavy money-damages on account of English
ships taken by Prince Rupert in 1650, and sold in Tuscan ports, and
also on account of English ships ordered out of Leghorn harbour in
March 1653, so that they fell into the hands of the Dutch. There was
the utmost consternation among the Tuscans, and the alarm extended
even to Rome, inasmuch as some of Rupert's prizes had been sold in
the Papal States. A disembarcation of the English heretics and even
their march to Rome did not seem impossible; and Tuscans and Romans
were greatly relieved when the Grand Duke paid £60,000 and the Pope
20,000 pistoles (£14,000), and Blake retired. His next call was at
Tunis, where there were accounts with the Dey. That Mussulman having
pointed to his forts, and dared Blake to do his worst, there was a
tremendous bombardment on the 3rd of April, 1655, reducing the forts
to ruins, followed by the burning of the Dey's entire war-squadron of
nine ships. This sufficed not only for Tunis, but also for Tripoli
and Algiers. All the Moorish powers of the African coast gave up
their English captives, and engaged that there should be no more
piracy upon English vessels. Malta, Venice, Toulon, Marseilles, and
various Spanish ports were then visited for one reason or another;
and in the autumn of 1655 Blake was still in the Mediterranean for
ulterior purposes, understood between him and Cromwell.[1]
[Footnote 1: Guizot, II. 186-198, with, documents in Appendix;
Godwin, IV. 187-188; Whitlocke. IV., 206-207.]
While Blake was in the Mediterranean, one Italian potentate did a
sudden act of infamy, which resounded through Europe, and for which
Cromwell would fain have clutched him by the throat in his own inland
capital. This was Carlo Emanuele II., Duke of Savoy and Prince of
Piedmont.
In the territories of this young prince, in the Piedmontese valleys
of Luserna, Perosa, and San Martino, on the east side of the Cottian
Alps, lived the remarkable people known as the Vaudois or Waldenses.
From time immemorial these obscure mountaineers, speaking a peculiar
Romance tongue of their own, had kept themselves distinct from the
Church of Rome, maintaining doctrines and forms of worship of such a
kind that, after the Lutheran Reformation, they were regarded as
primitive Protestants who had never swerved from the truth through
the darkest ages, and could therefore be adopted with acclamation
into the general Reformed communion. The Reformation, indeed; had
penetrated into their valleys, rendering them more polemical for
their faith, and more fierce against the Church of Rome, than they
had been before. They had experienced persecutions through their
whole history, and especially after the Reformation; but, on the
whole, the two last Dukes of Savoy, and also Christine, daughter of
Henry IV. of France, and Duchess-Regent through the minority of her
son, the present Duke, had protected them in their privileges, even
while extirpating Protestantism in the rest of the Piedmontese
dominions. Latterly, however, there had been a passion at Turin and
at Rome for their conversion to the Catholic faith, and priests had
been traversing their valleys for the purpose. The murder of one such
priest, and some open insults to the Catholic worship, about
Christmas 1654, are said to have occasioned what followed.
On the 25th of January, 1654-5, an edict was issued, under the
authority of the Duke of Savoy, "commanding and enjoining every head
of a family, with its members, of the pretended Reformed Religion, of
what rank, degree, or condition soever, none excepted, inhabiting and
possessing estates in the places of Luserna, Lucernetta, San
Giovanni, La Torre, Bubbiana, and Fenile, Campiglione,
Briccherassio, and San Secondo, within three days, to withdraw and
depart, and be, with their families, withdrawn, out of the said
places, and transported into the places and limits marked out for
toleration by his Royal Highness during his good pleasure, namely
Bobbio, Villaro, Angrogna, Rorata, and the County of Bonetti, under
pain of death and confiscation of goods and houses, unless they gave
evidence within twenty days of having become Catholics." Furthermore
it was commanded that in every one even of the tolerated places there
should be regular celebration of the Holy Mass, and that there should
be no interference therewith, nor any dissuasion of any one from
turning a Catholic, also on pain of death. All the places named are
in the Valley of Luserna, and the object was a wholesale shifting of
the Protestants of that valley out of nine of its communes and their
concentration into five higher up. In vain were there remonstrances
at Turin from those immediately concerned. On the 17th of April,
1655, the Marquis di Pianezza entered the doomed region with a body
of troops, mainly Piedmontese, but with French and Irish among them.
There was resistance, fighting, burning, pillaging, flight to the
mountains, and chasing and murdering for eight days, Saturday, April
24, being the climax. The names of about three hundred of those
murdered individually are on record, with the ways of the deaths of
many of them. Women were ripped open, or carried about impaled on
spikes; men, women, and children, were flung from precipices, hacked,
tortured, roasted alive; the heads of some of the dead were boiled
and the brains eaten; there are forty printed pages, and twenty-six
ghastly engravings, by way of Protestant tradition of the ascertained
variety of the devilry. The massacre was chiefly in the Valley of
Luserna, but extended also into the other two valleys. The fugitives
were huddled in crowds high among the mountains, moaning and
starving; and not a few, women and infants especially, perished amid
the snows. On the 27th of April some of the remaining Protestant
pastors and others, gathered together somewhere, addressed a circular
letter to Protestants outside the Valleys, stating the hard case of
the survivors. "Our beautiful and flourishing churches," they said,
"are utterly lost, and that without remedy, unless God Almighty work
miracles for us. Their time is come, and our measure is full. O have
pity upon the desolations of Jerusalem, and be grieved for the
afflictions of poor Joseph! Shew the real effects of your
compassions, and let your bowels yearn for so many thousands of poor
souls who are reduced to a morsel of bread for following the Lamb
whithersoever he goes."[1]
[Footnote 1: Morland's History of the Evangelical Churches of the
Valleys of Piedmont, with a Relation of the Massacre (1658),
287-428; Guizot, II. 213-215.]
There was a shudder of abhorrence through Protestant Europe, but no
one was so much roused as Cromwell. In the interval between the Duke
of Savoy's edict and the Massacre he had been desirous that the
Vaudois should publicly appeal to him rather than to the Swiss; and,
when the news of the Massacre reached England, he avowed that it came
"as near his heart as if his own nearest and dearest had been
concerned." On Thursday the 17th of May, and for many days more, the
business of the Savoy Protestants was the chief occupation of the
Council. Letters, all in Milton's Latin, but signed by the Lord
Protector in his own name, were despatched (May 25) to the Duke of
Savoy himself, to the French King, to the States General of the
United Provinces, to the Protestant Swiss Cantons, to the King of
Sweden, to the King of Denmark, and to Ragotski, Prince of
Transylvania. A day of humiliation was appointed for the Cities of
London and Westminster, and another for all England. A Committee was
appointed, consisting of all the Councillors, with Sir Christopher
Pack and other eminent citizens, and also some ministers, to organize
a general collection of money throughout England and Wales in behalf
of the suffering Vaudois. The collection, as arranged June 1, was to
take the form of a house-to-house visitation by the ministers and
churchwardens in every city, town, and parish on a particular Lord's
day, for the receipt of whatever sum each householder might freely
give, every such sum to be noted in presence of the donor, and the
aggregates, parish by parish, or city by city, to be remitted to the
treasurers in London, who were to enter them duly in a general
register. The subscription, which lagged for a time in some
districts, produced at length a total of £38,097 7_s._
3_d._--equal to about £137,000 now. Of this sum £2000 (equal to
about £7500 now) was Cromwell's own contribution, while London and
Westminster contributed £9384 6_s._ 11_d._, and the various
counties sums of various magnitudes, according to their size, wealth,
and zeal, from Devonshire at the head, with £1965 0_s._
3_d._, Yorkshire next, with £1786 14_s._ 5_d._, and
Essex next, with £1512 17_s._ 7_d._, down to Merionethshire
yielding £3 0_s._ 1_d._ from her eight parishes, and
Radnorshire £1 14_s._ 4_d._ from her seven. Cromwell's own
donation of £2000 went at once to Geneva for immediate use; and
£10,000 followed on the 10th of July, as the first instalment of the
general subscription. There were similar subscriptions, it ought to
be added, in other Protestant countries.[1]
[Footnote 1: Letter from Thurloe to Pell at Geneva (Vaughan's
Protectorate, I. 158-159); Council Order Books, May 17, 18, 22, 23,
25, June 1 and July 8, 1655; Morland, 562-596. Morland gives an
interesting abstract of the Treasurer's Accounts of the Collection;
but the original accounts in a large folio book, entitled
_Committee for Piedmont_ &c., are in the Record Office. The
counties are arranged there alphabetically and the parishes
alphabetically under each county, with the sums which the
_parishes_ individually subscribed. Some parishes seem wholly
to have neglected the subscription, and there are blanks opposite
their names.]
At the time of the massacre Cromwell had two agents in Switzerland,
viz. Mr. JOHN PELL (Vol. IV. p. 449) and the ubiquitous JOHN DURIE.
They had been sent abroad early in 1654, to cultivate the friendly
intercourse already begun between the Evangelical Cantons and the
Commonwealth, and also to watch the progress of a struggle which had
just broken out between the Popish Cantons of the Confederacy and the
Evangelical Cantons. As the Evangelical Cantons were also astir
about the Vaudois, whose cause was so closely connected with their
own, the services of Pell and Durie were now available for that
business. Cromwell, however, had thought an express Commissioner
necessary, with instructions to negotiate directly with the Duke of
Savoy, and had selected for the purpose Mr, SAMUEL MORLAND, an able
and ingenious man, about thirty years of age, who had been with
Whitlocke in his Swedish Embassy, and had been taken into the Council
office on his return as assistant to Thurloe. On the 26th of May
Morland left London, carrying with him the letters addressed to Louis
XIV. and the Duke of Savoy. He was at La Fère in France on the 1st of
June, treating with the French King and Mazarin, and was able to
despatch thence a letter from the French King to Cromwell, expressing
willingness to do all that could be done for the Vaudois, and
explaining that he had already conveyed his views on the subject to
the Duke of Savoy. Thence Morland continued his journey to Rivoli,
near Turin, where he arrived on the 21st of June. He was received
most politely, was entertained and driven about both at Rivoli and at
Turin itself, and was admitted to a formal audience on or about the
24th. He there made a speech in Latin to the Duke, the Duchess-mother
being also present, and delivered Cromwell's letter, The speech was a
very bold one. He spared no detail of horror in his picture of the
massacre as he had authentically ascertained it, and added, "Were all
the Neros of all times and ages alive again (I would be understood to
say it with out any offence to your Highness, inasmuch as we believe
that none of these things was done by any fault of yours), they would
be ashamed at finding that they had contrived nothing that was not
even mild and humane in comparison. Meanwhile angels are
horrorstruck, mortals amazed!" The Duchess-mother, replying for her
son, could hardly avoid hinting that Mr. Morland had been rather
rude. She was, nevertheless, profuse in expressions of respect for
the Lord Protector, who had no doubt received very exaggerated
representations of what had happened, but at whose request she was
sure her son would willingly pardon his rebellious subjects and
restore them to their privileges. During the rest of Morland's stay
in Turin or its neighbourhood the object of the Duke's counsellors,
and also of the French minister, was to furnish him with what they
called a more correct account of the facts, and induce him to convey
to Cromwell a gentler view of the whole affair. Morland kept his own
counsel; but, having had a second audience, and received the Duke's
submissive but guarded answer to Cromwell, and also several other
papers, he left Turin on the 19th of July and proceeded, according to
his instructions, to Geneva.[1]
[Footnote 1: Morland, 563-583; and Letters between Pell and Thurloe
given in _Vaughan's Protectorate_.]
Meanwhile Cromwell, dissatisfied with the coolness of the French King
and Mazarin, and also with the shuffling and timidity of the Swiss
Cantons, had been taking the affair more and more into his own hands.
He had despatched, late in July, another Commissioner, Mr. GEORGE
DOWNING, to meet Morland at Geneva, help Morland to infuse some
energy into the Cantons, and then proceed with him to Turin to bring
matters to a definite issue. He had been inquiring also about the
fittest place for landing an invading force against the Duke, and had
thought of Nice or Villafranca. Blake's presence in the Mediterranean
was not forgotten. All which being known to Mazarin, that wily
statesman saw that no time was to be lost. While Mr. Downing was
still only on his way to Geneva through France, Mazarin had
instructed M. Servien, the French minister at Turin, to insist, in
the French King's name, on an immediate settlement of the Vaudois
business. The result was a _Patente di Gratia e Perdono_, or
"Patent of Grace and Pardon," granted by Charles Emanuel to the
Vaudois Protestants, Aug. 19, in terms of a Treaty at Pignerol, in
which the French Minister appeared as the real mediating party and
certain Envoys from the Swiss Cantons as more or less assenting. As
the Patent substantially retracted the Persecuting Edict and restored
the Vaudois to all their former privileges, nothing more was to be
done. Cromwell, it is true, did not conceal that he was disappointed.
He had looked forward to a Treaty at Turin in which his own envoys,
Morland and Downing, and D'Ommeren, as envoy from the United
Provinces, would have taken the leading part, and he somewhat
resented Mazarin's too rapid interference and the too easy compliance
of the envoys of the Cantons. The Treaty of Pignerol contained
conditions that might occasion farther trouble. Still, as things
were, he thought it best to acquiesce. Downing, who had arrived at
Geneva early in September, was at once recalled, leaving Morland and
Pell still there, to superintend the distribution of the English
subscription-money among the poor Vaudois, instalment after
instalment, as they arrived. The charitable work was to detain
Morland in Geneva or its neighbourhood for more than a year, nor was
the great business of the Piedmontese Protestants to be wholly out of
Cromwell's mind to the day of his death.[1]
[Footnote 1: Morland, 605-673; Guigot, II. 220-225; Council Order
Book, July 17.]
Just at the date of the happy, though not perfect, conclusion of the
Piedmontese business, came almost the only chagrin ever experienced
by Cromwell in the shape of the failure of an enterprise. It was now
some months since he had made up his mind in private to a rupture
with Spain, intending that the fact should be first announced to the
world in the actions of the fleet which he had sent with sealed
orders to the West Indies under Penn's command. The instructions to
Penn and to General Robert Venables, who went with him as commander
of the troops, were nothing less, indeed, than that they should
strike some shattering blow at that dominion of Spain in the New
World which was at once her pride and the source of her wealth. It
might be in one of her great West-India Islands, St. Domingo, Cuba,
or Porto Rico, or it might be at Cartagena on the South-American
mainland, where the treasures of Peru were amassed, for annual
conveyance across the Atlantic. Much discretion was left to Penn and
Venables, but on the whole St. Domingo, then called Hispaniola, was
indicated for a beginning. Blake's presence in the Mediterranean with
the other fleet had been timed for an assault on Spain at home when
the news should arrive of the disaster to her colonies.[1]
[Footnote 1: Guizot, II. 184-186; Godwin, IV. 180-194.]
Penn and Venables together were not equal to one Blake. They opened
their sealed instructions at Barbadoes, one of the two or three small
Islands of the West-Indies then possessed by the English, and, after
counsel and preparation, proceeded to Hispaniola. The fleet now
consisted of about sixty vessels, and there were about 9000 soldiers
on board, some of them veterans, but most of them recruits of bad
quality. They were off St. Domingo, the capital of the Island, on the
14th of April, 1655, and from that moment there was misunderstanding
and blundering. Penn, Venables, and the Chief Commissioner who had
been sent out with them, differed as to the proper landing point; the
wrong landing point was chosen for the main body; the men fell ill
and mutinied; the Spaniards, who might have been surprised at first
by a direct assault on St. Domingo, resisted bravely, and poured shot
among the troops from ambuscade. Two attempts to get into St. Domingo
were both foiled with heavy loss, including the death of
Major-General Heane and others of the best officers. The mortality
from climate and bad food being also great, the enterprise on
Hispaniola was then abandoned; but, dreading a return to England with
nothing accomplished, Penn and Venables bethought themselves of
Jamaica. Here, where they arrived May 10, they were rather more
fortunate. The Spaniards, utterly unforewarned, deserted the coast,
and fled inland. There was no difficulty, therefore, in taking
nominal possession of the chief town, though even that was done in a
bungling manner. Then, leaving the Island in charge of a portion of
the troops, under Major-General Fortescue, with Vice-Admiral Goodson
to sail about it with a protecting squadron, Penn hastened back to
England, Venables quickly following him. They arrived in London,
within a few days of each other, early in September, and were at once
committed to the Tower for having returned without orders. The news
of the failure of their enterprise had preceded them, and Cromwell
was profoundly angry. A bilious illness which he had about this time
was attributed by the French ambassador Bordeaux to his brooding over
the West-Indian mischance. He was soon himself again, however, and
Penn and Venables had nothing to fear. They were released after a
few weeks. After all, Jamaica was better than nothing.[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV. 195-203; Carlyle, III. 122-123; Guizot,
II. 226-231; Letters of Cromwell to Vice-Admiral Goodson and
Major-General Fortescue (Carlyle, III. 126-132).]
One result of the West Indian expedition was that the long-delayed
alliance with France was now a settled affair. Cardenas had his
pass-ports sent him, and on the 22nd of October, 1655, he left
England. The Court of Madrid had already recalled him, laid an
embargo on all English property in Spain, and conferred a Marquisate
and pension on the Governor of Hispaniola. On the 24th of October the
Treaty of Peace and Commerce between Cromwell and Louis XIV. was
finally signed; and within a few days afterwards there was out in
London an elaborate document entitled "_Scriptum Domini
Protectoris, ex consensu atque sententia Concilii sui editum, in quo
hujus Reipublica causa contra Hispanos justa esse demonstratur_"
("The Lord-Protector's Manifesto, published with the consent and
advice of his Council, in which the justice of the Cause of this
Commonwealth against the Spaniards is demonstrated"). Now,
accordingly, the Commonwealth entered on a new era of her history.
Cromwell and Mazarin were to be fast friends, and the Stuarts were to
have no help or countenance any more from the French crown; while, on
the other hand, there was to be war to the death between the
Commonwealth and Spain, war in the new world and war in the old, and
Spain was thus naturally to adopt the cause of Charles II., and
employ exiled English Royalism everywhere as one of her agencies,--Of
the consciousness of the Lord-Protector and the Council of this
increased complexity of the foreign relations of the Commonwealth in
consequence of the rupture with Spain there is a curious incidental
illustration. "That several volumes of the book called _The New
Atlas_ be bought for the use of the Council, and that the Globe
heretofore standing in the Council Chamber be again brought thither,"
had been one of the Council's instructions to Thurloe at their
meeting of Oct. 2. Thenceforth, doubtless, both the Globe and the
Atlas were to be much in request.--More important, however, than such
fixed apparatus in the Council Room was the moving instrumentality of
envoys and diplomatists in the chief European cities and capitals.
Above all, an able ambassador in Paris was now an absolute necessity.
Nor was the fit man wanting. Among the former Royalists of the
Presbyterian section that had become reconciled to the Commonwealth,
and attached to the Protector by strong personal loyalty, was the
Scottish WILLIAM LOCKHART, member for Lanarkshire in the late
Parliament. He had been trained to arms in France in his youth, and
had since then served as a Colonel among the Scots. In this capacity
he had been in Hamilton's Army of the Engagement, defeated by
Cromwell at Preston, and in David Leslie's subsequent Army for
Charles II., defeated at Dunbar. Having received some insults from
Charles, of such a kind that he had declared that "no King on earth
should use him in that manner," he had snapped his connexion with the
Stuarts before the Battle of Worcester; and for some time after that
battle he had lived moodily in Scotland, meditating a return to
France for military employment. A visit to London and an interview
with Cromwell had retained his talents for the service of the
Protectorate, and his affection for that service had been confirmed
by his marriage, in 1654, with Robina Sewster, the orphan niece of
the Protector. Altogether Cromwell had judged him to be the very man
to represent the Protectorate at Paris, and be even a match for
Mazarin. He was now thirty-four years of age. He was nominated to the
embassy in December 1655; but he did not go to his post till the
following April.--Hardly a less important appointment was that, in
January 1655-6, of young Edward Montague to be one of the Admirals of
the Fleet. Blake, who had been cruising off Cadiz, and on whom there
was the chief dependence for action against the Spaniards at sea, had
felt the responsibility too great, and had applied for a colleague.
Penn, being in disgrace, was out of the question; and Montague, then
a member of the Protector's Council, was chosen. He had been one of
Cromwell's favourites and disciples since the days of Marston Moor
and Naseby, when, though hardly out of his teens, he had
distinguished himself highly as a Parliamentary Colonel. Henceforth
the sea was to be his chief element; and, as Admiral or General at
sea, he was to become very famous.[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV, 214-217 and 298-300; Guizot, II. 231-234;
Thomason copy of the Declaration against Spain, dated Nov. 9, 1655;
Council Order Books, Oct. 2, 1655; Article on Lockhart in Chambers's
Biographical Dictionary of Scotsmen; Carlyle, III. 309-310.]
It was just about this time of change and extension in the foreign
relations of the Commonwealth that the people of England and Wales
became aware that they were, and had been for some time, under an
entirely new system of home-government, called _Government by
Major-Generals_.
The difficulties of the home-government of the Protectorate were
great and peculiar. The power of the Lord-Protector and his Council
to pass ordinances had been called in question. Judges and lawyers
were not only pretty unanimous in the opinion that resistance to
payment of imposts not enacted by Parliamentary authority might be
made good at law, and that the Ordinance for Chancery Reform was also
legally invalid; they doubted even whether, in strict law, there
could be proceedings for the preservation of the public peace, by
courts and magistrates, under any Council ordinance about crimes and
treasons. All this Cromwell had been meditating. How was revenue to
be raised? How were Royalist and Anabaptist plottings to be
suppressed? How were police regulations about public manners and
morals to be enforced? How was the will of the Central Government at
Whitehall, in any matter whatsoever, to be transmitted to any spot in
the community and made really operative? Meditating these questions,
Cromwell, as he expressed it afterwards, "did find out a little poor
invention": "I say," he repeated, "there was a little thing
invented."[1] The little invention consisted in a formal
identification of the Protector's Chief Magistracy with his Headship
of the Army. He had resolved to map out England and Wales into
districts, and to plant in each district a trusty officer, with the
title of Major-General, who should be nominally in command of the
militia of that district, but should be really also the executive
there for the Central Government in all things. A beginning had been
made in the business as early as May 1655, when Desborough was
appointed Major-General of the Militia in the six southwestern
counties; and the districts had been all marked out and the
Major-Generals chosen in August. But there had been very great
secrecy about the scheme; and not till the 31st of October was there
official announcement of the new organization. Only about mid-winter,
1655-6, did people fully realise what it meant. The Major-Generalcies
then stood thus:--
[Footnote 1: Speech V. (Carlyle, III. 176).]
Person. District.
1. MAJOR-GENERAL PHILIP SKIPPON. _London._
2. MAJOR-GENERAL JOHN BARKSTEAD. _Westminster and Middlesex._
3. MAJOR-GENERAL THOMAS KELSEY. _Kent and Surrey._
4. MAJOR-GENERAL WILLIAM GOFFE. _Sussex, Hants, and Berks._
5. FLEETWOOD (with MAJOR-GENERAL _Oxford, Bucks, Herts,_
HEZEKIAH HAYNES as his deputy). _Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex,_
_and Cambridge._
6. MAJOR-GENERAL EDWARD WHALLEY. _Lincoln, Notts, Derby,_
_Warwick, and Leicester._
7. MAJOR-GENERAL WILLIAM BUTLER. _Northampton, Bedford,_
_Hunts, and Rutland._
8. MAJOR-GENERAL CHARLES WORSLEY _Chester, Lancaster, and_
(succeeded by MAJOR-GENERAL _Stafford._
TOBIAS BRIDGES).
9. LAMBERT (with MAJOR-GENERAL _York, Durham, Cumberland_
ROBERT TILBURNE and MAJOR-GENERAL _Westmorland,_
CHARLES HOWARD as his deputies). _and Northumberland._
10. MAJOR-GENERAL JOHN DESBOROUGH. _Gloucester, Wilts, Dorset,_
_Somerset, Devon, and_
_Cornwall._
11. MAJOR-GENERAL JAMES BERRY. _Worcester, Hereford, Salop,_
_and North Wales._
12. MAJOR-GENERAL DAWKINS. _Monmouthshire and_
_South Wales._[1]
[Footnote 1: Council Order Books, as digested by Godwin, IV. 228-229.]
The powers intrusted to these Major-Generals and to their subordinate
officers in the several counties were all but universal. They were to
patrol the counties with horse and foot, but especially with horse.
They were to guard against robberies and tumults and to bring
criminals to punishment. They were to take charge of the public
morals, and see the laws put in force against drunkenness, blasphemy,
plays and interludes, profanation of the Lord's Day, and
disorderliness generally. They were to keep a register of all
disaffected persons, remove arms from their houses, note their
changes of residence, and take security for the good behaviour of
themselves, their families, and servants. All travellers and
strangers were bound to appear before them, and give an account of
themselves and their business. They were to arrest vagabonds and
persons with no visible means of living. Above all, they were to see
to the execution of a certain very severe and far-reaching measure
which the Protector and the Council had determined to adopt in
consequence of the late Royalist insurrection and conspiracy.
Either from information that had been received, or merely _in
terrorem_, there had, during the past summer and autumn, been
numerous arrests of persons of rank and wealth that had hitherto been
allowed to live quietly in their country mansions, on the
understanding that, though Royalists, they had ceased to be such, in
any active sense. The Marquis of Hertford, the Earl of Lindsey, the
Earl of Newport, the Earl of Northampton, the Earl of Rivers, the
Earl of Peterborough, Viscount Falkland, and Lords Lovelace, St.
John, Petre, Coventry, Maynard, Lucas, and Willoughby of Parham, with
a great many commoners of distinction, had been thus arrested. There
was a general consternation among the peaceful Royalists throughout
the country. It looked as if their peacefulness was to be of no
avail, as if the Act of Oblivion of Feb. 1651-2 was to be a dead
letter, as if Cromwell had suddenly changed his policy of universal
conciliation. In reality, Cromwell had no intention of reversing his
policy of universal conciliation; but he wanted to teach the lesson
that Royalist insurrections and conspiracies would fall heavily on
the Royalists themselves, and he wanted particularly, at that
moment, to make the Royalists pay the expenses of the police kept up
on their account. Under cover of the consternation caused by the
numerous arrests, he introduced, in fact, a _Decimation_ upon
the Royalists, i.e. an income tax of ten per cent, upon all Royalists
possessing estates in land of £100 a year and upwards or personal
property worth £1500. It was to be the main business of the
Major-Generals to assess this tax within their bounds, and to collect
it strictly and swiftly. It is astonishing with what ease they
succeeded. It seems to have been even a relief to the Royalists to
know definitely what their principles were to cost them, and to have
arrest or the dread of it commuted into a fixed money payment. As
soon as the tax was fairly in operation, all or most of those who had
been arrested were liberated, and subsequent arrests by the
Major-Generals themselves were only of vagabonds or suspicious
persons. The only appeal from the Major-Generals was to his Highness
himself and the Council.[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, 223-242; Carlyle, III. 101.]
What with the vigilance of the Major-Generals in their districts,
what with the edicts of the Protector and the Council for the
direction of the Major-Generals, the public order now kept over all
England and Wales was wonderfully strict. At no time since the
beginning of the Commonwealth had there been so much of that general
decorum of external behaviour which Cromwell liked to see.
Cock-fights, dancing at fairs, and other such amusements, were under
ban. Indecent publications that had flourished long in the guise of
weekly pamphlets disappeared; and books of the same sort were more
closely looked after than they had been. But what shall we say about
this Order, affecting the newspaper press especially:--"_Wednesday,
5th Sept._, 1655--At the Council at Whitehall, Ordered by his
Highness the Lord Protector and the Council, That no person whatever
do presume to publish in print any matter of public news or
intelligence without leave of the Secretary of State"? The effect of
the order was that not only the indecent publications purporting to
be newspapers were suppressed, but also a considerable number of
newspapers proper, insomuch that the London newspaper press was
reduced thenceforth to two weekly prints, authorized by Thurloe, viz.
Needham's _Mercurius Politicus_, published on Thursdays, and
_The Public Intelligencer_, a more recent adventure, published
on Mondays. Just after the order, I note, the _Mercurius
Politicus_ enlarged its size somewhat, to match with the _Public
Intelligencer_, and in the first number of the new size
(Sept. 22-Oct. 4, 1655) the Editor speaks with great approbation of the
Order of Council "silencing the many pamphlets that have hitherto
presumed to come abroad." Needham seems now to have assumed the
editorship of both papers; and after the twenty-third number of the
_Intelligencer_ (March 3-10, 1655-6) the publisher of it, as
well as of the _Mercurius Politicus_, was Thomas Newcome. The
newspaper press of the Protectorate was thus pretty well consolidated
by Mr. Thurloe. There were two papers only, under one management, or
rather there was a single bi-weekly newspaper with alternative
names.[1]
[Footnote 1: Council Order Books of 1655 and 1658 _passim; Merc.
Pol._ and _Public Intelligencer_ of dates given.]
It was part of the duty of the Major-Generals to assist, so far as
might still be necessary, in the execution of the Ordinance of Aug.
1654 for the ejection of scandalous and insufficient ministers and
schoolmasters (Vol. IV. p. 564 and p. 571), The County _Committees of
Ejectors_ under that Ordinance had already performed their
disagreeable work in part, but were still busy. On the whole, though
they turned out many, they seem not to have abused their powers. "I
must needs say," is Baxter's testimony, "that in all the counties
where I was acquainted, six to one at least, if not many more, that
were sequestered by the Committees were, by the oaths of witnesses,
proved insufficient or scandalous, or both--especially guilty of
drunkenness or swearing,--and those that, being able godly preachers,
were cast out for the war alone, as for their opinions' sake, were
comparatively very few. This, I know, will displease that party; but
this is true." Baxter admits, indeed, that there were cases in which
the Committees were swayed too much by mere political feeling, and
ejected men from their pulpits whom it would have been better to
retain. Other authorities assert the same more strongly, but rather
fail in the proof. The most notorious instance produced of a blunder
on the part of any of the Committees was in Berkshire. The Rector of
Childrey in this county was the learned orientalist Pocock, who had
lost his Professorship of Hebrew in the University of Oxford for
refusing the engagement to the Commonwealth, but still held the
Arabic lectureship there, because there was no one else who knew
Arabic sufficiently. Not liking his look, or not seeing what
Orientalism had to do with the Gospel, the rude Berkshire Committee
were on the point of turning him out of his Rectory, when Dr. Owen
interfered manfully and prevented the scandal. About the same time,
it is said, Thomas Fuller was in some trepidation about his living of
Waltham Abbey, in Essex, but acquitted himself before the Committee
handsomely.[1]
[Footnote 1: Baxter, 74; Wood's Ath. IV. 319; Godwin, IV. 40-41.]
Distinct from the County Committees of Ejectors, and forming the
other great constitutional power in Cromwell's Church-Establishment,
was the Central or London _Committee of the Thirty-eight Triers_
(Vol. IV. p. 571). It was their duty to examine "all candidates for
the public ministry," i.e. all persons presented to livings by the
patrons of the same, and pass only those that were fit. Baxter's
report of the work of these Triers, as done either by themselves in
conclave, or by Sub-commissioners for them in the counties, is the
more remarkable because he disowned the authority under which the
Triers acted and was in controversy with most of them. "Though their
authority was null," he says, "and though some few over-busy and
over-rigid Independents among them, were too severe against all that
were Arminians, and too particular in inquiring after evidences of
sanctification in those whom they examined, and somewhat too lax in
their admission of unlearned and erroneous men that favoured
Antinomianism or Anabaptism, yet, to give them their due, they did
abundance of good to the Church. They saved many a congregation from
ignorant, ungodly, drunken teachers. That sort of men that intended
no more in the ministry than to say a sermon as readers say their
common prayers, and so patch up a few good words together to talk the
people asleep with on Sunday, and all the rest of the week go with
them to the ale-house and harden them in sin; and that sort of
ministers that either preached against a holy life, or preached as
men that never were acquainted with it; all those that used the
ministry but as a common trade to live by, and were never likely to
convert a soul:--all these they usually rejected, and in their stead
admitted of any that were able serious preachers, and lived a godly
life, of what tolerable opinion soever they were. So that, though
they were many of them somewhat partial for the Independents,
Separatists, Fifth Monarchy men, and Anabaptists, and against the
Prelatists and Arminians, yet so great was the benefit above the hurt
which they brought to the Church that many thousands of souls blessed
God for the faithful ministers whom they let in." Royalist writers
after the Restoration give, of course, a different picture.
"Ignorant, bold, canting fellows," they say, "laics, mechanics, and
pedlars," were brought into the Church by Cromwell's Triers. One may,
in the main, trust Baxter.[1]
[Footnote 1: Baxter, 72; Noal, IV. 102-109.]
Cromwell's Established Church of England and Wales may now be imaged
with tolerable accuracy. It contained two patches of completed
Presbyterian organization, one in London and the other in Lancashire.
The system of Presbyteries or Classes, with half-yearly Provincial
Assemblies, which had been set up by the Long Parliament in these two
districts, remained undisturbed. Both in London and in Lancashire,
however, the system was in a languid state; and for the rest of the
country, and indeed for non-Presbyterians in London and Lancashire
too, the Church or Public Ministry was practically on the principle
of the Independency of Congregations. Each parish had, or was to
have, its regular minister, recognised by the State, and the
association of ministers among themselves for consultation or mutual
criticism was very much left to chance and discretion. Ministers and
deacons, however, did draw up Agreements and form voluntary
Associations in various counties, holding monthly or other periodical
meetings; and, as it was the rule in such associations not to meddle
with matters of Civil Government, they were countenanced by the
Protectorate. Baxter tells us much of the Association in
Worcestershire which he had helped to form in 1653, and adds that
similar associations sprang up afterwards in Cumberland and
Westmorland, Wilts, Dorset, Somersetshire, Hampshire, and Essex.
These Associations are to be conceived as imperfect substitutes for
the regular Presbyterian organization, and most of the ministers
belonging to them were eclectics or quasi-Presbyterians, like Baxter
himself, making the most of untoward circumstances, while the
stricter Presbyterians, who sighed for the perfect model, held aloof.
Perhaps the majority of the State-clergy all over the country
consisted of these two classes of Presbyterians baulked of their full
Presbyterianism,--the _Rigid Presbyterians_, who would accept
nothing short of the system as exemplified in London and Lancashire,
and the _Eclectics_ or _Quasi-Presbyterians_ grouped in
voluntary Associations. But among the State-clergy collectively there
were several other varieties. There were many of the old
_Church-of-England Rectors and Vicars_, still Prelatic in
sentiment, and, though obliged to disuse the Book of Common Prayer,
maintaining some sweet remnant of Anglicanism. Some of these, not of
the High Church school, did not scruple to join the
quasi-Presbyterian Associations that were liberal enough to admit
them; but most found more liberty in keeping by themselves. Then
there were the Independents proper, drawn from all those various
Evangelical Sects, however named separately, whose principle of
Independency stopped short of absolute Voluntaryism, and therefore
did not prevent them from belonging to a State-Church. The more
moderate of these Independents might easily enough, in consistency
with their theory of Congregationalism, join the quasi-Presbyterian
Associations, and some of them did so; but not very many. The
majority of them were simply ministers of the State-Church, in charge
of individual parishes and congregations, and consulting each other,
if at all, only in informal ways. Among the Independent Sectaries of
all sorts thus officiating individually in the State-Church, the
difficulty, as far as one can see, must have been chiefly, or solely,
with the _Baptists_. How could preachers who rejected the rite
of Infant Baptism, maintained the necessity of the rebaptism of
adults, and thought dipping the proper form of the rite, be ministers
of parishes, or be included in any way among the State-clergy? That
such ministers did hold livings in Cromwell's Established Church is a
fact. Mr. John Tombes, the chief of the Anti-Pædobaptists, and
himself one of Cromwell's Triers, retained the vicarage of Leominster
in Herefordshire, with the parsonage of Boss in the same county, and
a living at Bewdley in Worcestershire; and there are other instances.
Baxter's language already quoted implies nothing less, indeed, than
that Anti-Pædobaptists in considerable numbers were presented to
Church-livings by the patrons and passed by the Triers; and he
elsewhere signifies that he did not himself greatly object to this.
"Let there be no withdrawing," he says, "from the ministry and church
of that place [i.e. a parish of mixed Pædobaptists and
Anti-Pædobaptists] upon the mere ground of Baptism. If the minister
be an Anabaptist, let not us withdraw from him on that ground; and,
if he be a Pædobaptist, let not _them_ withdraw from _us_."
He even suggests that the pastor of a church might openly record his
opinion on the Baptism subject, if it were contrary to that of the
majority of the members, and then proceed in his pastorate all the
same, and that, on the other hand, private members might publicly
enter their dissent from their pastor's opinion, and yet abide with
him lovingly and obediently in all other things. How far, and in how
many places, this method of leaving Pædo-baptism an open question was
actually in operation in the Established Church of the Protectorate,
and whether Infant Baptism thus fell into complete abeyance in some
parishes where Anabaptists of eminence were settled, or whether the
Pædobaptist parishioners in such eases quietly avoided that result by
having their children baptized by other ministers, are points of some
obscurity. On the whole, the difficulty can have been felt but
exceptionally and here and there, for it was obviated on the great
scale by the fact that most of the real Anabaptists, preachers and
people alike, were Voluntaries, disowning the State-Church
altogether, and meeting only in separate congregations. Even for
such, however, in localities where they were pretty numerous, there
seems to have been a desire to make some provision. Thus on March 13,
1655-56, it was ordered by His Highness and the Council "that it be
referred to General Desborough, Major-General for the County of
Devon, to take care that the Church under the form of Baptism at
Exeter have such one of the public meeting-places assigned to them
for their place of worship as is best in repair, and may with most
conveniency be spared and set apart for that use." The Exeter
Baptists may have thought it not inconsistent with their principles
to accept so much of State favour. Not the public buildings, so much
as the Tithes and Lay Patronage with which they were connected, were
the abominations of the State-Church in the eyes of the Anabaptist
Voluntaries. For let it not be forgotten that Cromwell's ardent
passion for a Church-Establishment under his Protectorate had come
more and more to involve, in his reasonings, the preservation of the
Tithe-system and the continuance of lay Patronage. The legal patrons
of livings retained their right of nominating to vacancies; the
Triers only checked that right by examination of nominees and the
rejection of the unfit. Cromwell himself combined in his own person,
to a most extraordinary extent, the functions both of Patron and
Trier. "It is observable that, his Highness having near one half of
the livings in England, one way or other, in his own immediate
disposal by presentation, he seldom bestoweth one of them upon any
man whom himself doth not first examine and make trial of in person,
save only that, at such times as his great affairs happen to be more
urgent than ordinary, he useth to appoint some other to do it in his
behalf; which is so rare an example of piety that the like is not to
be found in the stories of Princes." We have not exaggerated, it will
be seen, Cromwell's personal anxiety about his Established Church.
That, indeed, is farther proved, in a very interesting manner, by
certain entries in the Order Books of his Council which become more
and more frequent in this middle section of his Protectorate. They
refer to "augmentations of ministers' stipends." Thus, in December
1655, there is an order for the augmentation of the stipends of
seventy-five ministers in different counties, all in one batch; and
succeeding entries in 1656 show the steady progress of the same work
by repeated orders for other augmentations, batch after batch.
Clearly Cromwell had resolved that there should be a systematic
increase of the salaries of the parochial clergy all over England,
beginning with those who needed it most. The details of the business
were managed by that body of "Trustees for maintenance of ministers"
which had been appointed by Ordinance in Sept. 1654 (Vol. IV. p.
564); but the final Orders for Augmentations came from the Protector
and Council, and there was no part of his work in which the Protector
seemed to have more pleasure.[1]
[Footnote 1: Baxter, 96-97 and 180-188; Wood's Ath. III. 1083;
Council Order Books of dates; Neal, IV. Chap. 3; Marchamont Needham's
Book against John Goodwin, entitled _The Great Accuser Cast
Down_, published in July 1657. The information about Cromwell's
practice in his patronage of livings is from the last. The book was
dedicated to Cromwell.]
But what of that Toleration of Dissent from the Established Church
which he professed to be equally dear to him? That Cromwell was
faithful still to the principle of Liberty of Conscience, to the
fullest extent of his past professions, there can be no doubt. It may
be more doubtful whether his past professions pledged him to a theory
of Toleration as absolute as that which had been advocated eleven or
twelve years before by Roger Williams and John Goodwin, and then
adopted by the Army Independents generally, and which was still
upheld by the main body of the Anabaptists. The evidence, however,
rather favours the idea that he had already been in sympathy even
with this extreme theory of Toleration, and so that now, though he
had bitterly disappointed his old Anabaptist associates by declaring
himself for the Civil Magistrate's Authority in matters of Religion,
he still cherished the extreme theory of Toleration as it might be
applied round about his Established Church. In his heart, I believe,
he was for persecuting nobody whatsoever, troubling nobody
whatsoever, for mere religious heresy, even of the kinds he himself
most abhorred. But, though this might be his private ideal, his
difficulties publicly and practically were enormous. The other
unlimited Tolerationists in England were Anabaptists and the like,
detesting his Established Church as incompatible with true
Toleration, and in league for battering it down. Through the rest of
the community there was but little voice for Toleration. The frantic
and idiotic stringency of the Presbyterians of 1644-6 was now,
indeed, rather out of fashion, and a certain mild babble about a
Limited Toleration was common in the public mouth. But the old leaven
was at work in many quarters; occasional pamphlets from the
Presbyterian camp still wailed lamentably about "the effects of the
present Toleration, especially as to the increase of Blasphemy and
Damnable Errors;" and some Presbyterian booksellers had recently
published _A Second Beacon Fired_, in which they insidiously
tried to work upon the Lord Protector's new Conservative and
State-Church instincts; by denouncing the books of some leading
Anabaptists and other heretics, hostile to his Government, and humbly
adjuring him to "do what might be expected from Christian
magistrates" in such flagrant cases. In the late Parliament there had
been much of this Presbyterian spirit, and it had been proved
abundantly that the Protector's idea of Toleration would have been
voted down by the national representatives. Then what a harassing
definition of proper Christian Toleration had come even from
Cromwell's favourite Independents, Messrs. Owen and the rest, with
their twenty fundamentals! Add the difficulties arising from the
nature of some of the current heresies themselves, as tending
directly to the defamation of his government, the subversion of laws
and institutions, and the disturbance of the peace.[1]
[Footnote 1: Various Thomason Pamphlets of 1654-1656. The _Second
Beacon Fired_ was published in Oct. 1654 by six London
booksellers--Luke Fawne, John Rothwell, Samuel Gellibrand, Thomas
Underhill, Joshua Kirton, and Nathaniel Webb. Two of them, Rothwell
and Underhill, had published for Milton in former days. The heretics
chiefly denounced are Biddle, Dell, Farnworth, Norwood, Braine, John
Webster, and Feake. John Goodwin replied to the booksellers in _A
fresh Discovery of the High Presbyterian Spirit, or the Quenching of
"The Second Beacon Fired_," published in Jan. 1654-5, and so
found himself in a new quarrel. There was a reply called _An
Apology for the Six Booksellers_.]
A very fair amount of Liberty of the Press, though not to newspapers,
nor to publications clearly immoral, seems to have been allowed by
Cromwell. Through 1655 and 1656 there were books and pamphlets of the
most various kinds, and advocating the most various opinions. There
were Episcopalian books and Anabaptist books, arguments for Tithes
and arguments against Tithes, Fifth Monarchy tracts, Quaker Tracts
and Anti-Quaker Tracts, in extraordinary profusion. Prynne would
publish one day _The Quakers unmasked and clearly detected to be
but the spawn of Romish frogs, Jesuits and Franciscan Friars, sent
from Rome to seduce the intoxicated giddy-headed English nation_,
and George Fox would print the next day _The Unmasking and
Discovery of Antichrist, with all the False Prophets, by the true
light which comes from Christ Jesus_. Nor, of course, was there,
any interference with the religious meetings of any of the ordinary
Puritan sects, Baptists or whatever else, that chose to form
separatist congregations. Even those who so far passed the bounds
that they were called Ranters or Fanatics were quite safe in their
own conventicles; and altogether one has to conclude that much that
went by the still worse names of Blasphemy, Atheism, Infidelity, and
Anti-Christianism, had as quiet a life under the Protectorate as in
any later time. Practically, all that is of interest in the enquiry
as to the amount of Religious Toleration under Cromwell's Government
lies in what is known of his dealings with five denominations of
Dissenters from his Established Church--the Papists, the
Episcopalians, the Socinians or Anti-Trinitarians, the Quakers, and
the Jews.
(1) _The Papists._ Papists might be Papists under Cromwell's
government in the sense that there was no positive compulsion on them
to abjure their creed and profess another. The question, however, is
as to open liberty of Roman Catholic worship. This question had
passed through Cromwell's mind, and the results of his ruminations
upon it appear most succinctly in one of his letters to Mazarin.
After the Treaty made with France, the Cardinal very naturally
pressed the subject of a toleration for Catholics in England, the
rather as Cromwell was always so energetic for a toleration of
Protestants in Catholic countries. "Although I have this set home to
my spirit," Cromwell wrote in reply, "I may not (shall I tell you I
_cannot_?) at this juncture of time, and as the face of my
affairs now stands, answer your call for Toleration. I say _I
cannot_, as to a public declaration of my sense in that point;
although I believe that under my government your Eminency, in behalf
of Catholics, has less reason for complaint, as to rigour on men's
consciences, than under the Parliament. For I have of some, and those
very many, had compassion; making a difference. Truly I have (and I
may speak it with cheerfulness in the presence of God, who is a
witness within me to the truth of what I affirm) made a difference;
and, as Jude speaks, 'plucked many out of the fire,'--the raging fire
of persecution, which did tyrannise over their consciences, and
encroached by an arbitrariness of power upon their estates. And
herein it is my purpose, as soon as I can remove impediments, and
some weights that press me down, to make a farther progress, and
discharge my promise to your Eminency in relation to that."[1]
[Footnote 1: Carlyle, III. 202-203. The letter is dated Dec. 26,
1656.]
(2) _The Episcopalians._ The question under this heading is not
about those moderate Episcopalian divines who had conformed so far as
to retain their rectories and vicarages in the Established Church,
but about those Episcopalians of stronger principle, whether High
Church and Arminian or not, who had been ejected from their former
livings, or were trying to maintain themselves by some kind of
private practice of their clerical profession in various parts of
England. Against these, just at the time when the Major-Generalcies
were coming into full operation, there did issue one fell Ordinance.
It was published Nov. 24, 1655, under the title of _An Ordinance
for Securing the Peace of the Commonwealth_, and it ordered that
after Jan. 1, 1655-6 no persons should keep in their houses as
chaplains or tutors any of the ejected clergy, and also that none of
the ejected should teach in schools, preach publicly or privately,
celebrate baptism or marriage, or use the Book of Common Prayer,
under pain of being prosecuted. The Ordinance seems to have been
issued merely as part and parcel of that almost ostentatious menace
of severities against the Royalists by which Cromwell sought at that
particular time to terrify them into submission and prevent farther
plottings. At all events, it was announced in the Ordinance itself
that there would be great delicacy in the application of it, so as to
favour such of the ejected as deserved tender treatment; and, in
fact, it was never applied or executed at all. No one was prosecuted
under it; and, though it was not recalled, it was understood that it
was suspended by the pleasure of his Highness, and that chaplains,
teachers, and preachers, of the Episcopal persuasion, might go on as
before, and reckon on all the toleration accorded to other
Dissenters. On this footing they did go on, ex-Bishops and future
Bishops among them, with increasing security; and gradually the
notion got abroad that the Protector began to have even a kindly
feeling for the "good old Church." Many Royalist authorities concur
to that effect. "The Protector," says one, "indulged the use of the
Common-Prayer in families and in private conventicles; and, though
the condition of the Church of England was but melancholy, yet it
cannot be denied that they had a great deal more favour and
indulgence than under the Parliament." Burnet, on the authority of
Dr. Wilkins, afterwards Bishop Wilkins, who was the second husband of
Cromwell's youngest sister, adds a more startling statement. "Dr.
Wilkins told me," says Burnet, "he (Cromwell) often said to him
(Wilkins) no temporal government could have a sure support without a
national church that adhered to it, and he thought England was
capable of no constitution but Episcopacy; to which he told me he did
not doubt but Cromwell would have turned." Wilkins probably liked to
think this after he himself had turned; but it is hardly credible in
the form in which Burnet has expressed it. Yet Cromwell, in that
temper of conservatism, or desire of a settled order in all things,
which more and more grew upon him after he had assumed the
Protectorate, had undoubtedly the old Episcopalian clergy in view as
a body to be conciliated, and employed as a counterpoise to the
Anabaptists. He cannot but have been aware, too, of the spontaneous
movements in some of the quasi-Presbyterian Associations of the
clergy for a reunion as far as possible with the more moderate
Episcopalians, as distinct from the High-Church Prelatists or
Laudians. Among others, Baxter was extremely zealous for such a
project; and his accounts of his correspondence about it with
ex-Bishop Brownrigg in 1655, and his conversations about it at the
same time with ex-Primate Usher, are very curious and interesting.
Baxter and many more were quite willing that there should be a
restored Episcopacy after Usher's own celebrated model: i.e. an
Episcopacy not professing to be _jure divino_, but only for
ecclesiastical conveniency,--the Bishops to be permanent Presidents
of clusters of the clergy, and to be fitted into an otherwise
Presbyterian system of Classes and Provincial Synods. They were
willing, moreover, in the interest of such a scheme, to reconsider
the old questions of a Liturgy, kneeling at the Sacrament, and other
matters of Anglican ceremonial. Enough all this to rouse the angry
souls of _Smectymnuus_, Milton, and the other Root-and-Branch
Anti-Prelatists who had led the English Revolution. But, as times
change, men change, and it is not impossible that Cromwell, the first
real mover of the Root-and-Branch Bill of 1641, may now, fifteen
years later, have looked speculatively sometimes at the old trunk in
the timberyard. It is certain that he treated with profound respect
the man whose advice about any remodelling of Episcopacy would have
been the most authoritative generally. Ex-Primate Usher had lived in
London through the Commonwealth and the Protectorate with the highest
honour, pensioned at the rate of £400 a year, and holding also the
preachership to the Society of Lincoln's Inn. Cromwell had shown him
every attention, and had consulted him on several occasions. He had
retired to Reigate a short time before his death, which happened on
the 21st of March, 1655-6. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, a sum
of £200 having been voted for his funeral by the Protector and
Council. Eight months after his death there was published from his
manuscript, by his friend and former chaplain, Dr. Nicholas Bernard,
that famous _Reduction of Episcopacy into the form of Synodical
Government_ which had got about surreptitiously in 1641 (Vol. II.
229-230), and which was then regarded, and has been regarded ever
since, as the most feasible model of a Low-Church Episcopacy adapted
to Presbyterian forms.[1]
[Footnote 1: Neal, IV. 135-137 and 101-2; Burnet (ed. 1823) I. 110;
Baxter, 172-178 and 206; Thomason Catalogue, Nov. 25, 1656
(date of publication of Usher's _Reduction_); Wood's Fasti, I. 446.]
(3) _Anti-Trinitarians._ The crucial test of Cromwell's
Toleration policy as regarded this class of heretics, and indeed as
regarded all heresies of the higher order, was the case of poor Mr.
John Biddle. The dissolution of the late Parliament had been so far
fortunate for him that the prosecution begun against him by that
Parliament under the old Blasphemy Ordinance of 1648 had been stopped
and he had been set at liberty (March 1655). But it was only to get
into fresh trouble. The orthodox in London were determined that he
should not be at large, and it was reported to the Council on the 3rd
of July that on the preceding Thursday, June 28, "in the new
meeting-house at Paul's, commonly called Captain Chillingdon's church
meeting-place, John Biddle did then and there, in presence of about
500 persons, maintain, some hours together, in a dispute, that Jesus
Christ was not the Almighty or most High God, and hath undertaken to
proceed in the game dispute the next Thursday." Cromwell himself was
present at this meeting of the Council, with Lawrence, Lambert, the
Earl of Mulgrave, Skippon, Rous, Sydenham, Pickering, Montague,
Fiennes, Viscount Lisle, Wolseley, and Strickland. What were they to
do? They ordered the Lord Mayor to stop the intended meeting, and all
such meetings in future, and to arrest Biddle if necessary; and they
referred the affair for farther enquiry to Skippon and Rous. The
affair, it seems, could not possibly be hushed up; Biddle was
committed to Poultry Compter, and then to Newgate, and his trial came
on at the Old Bailey, again under the Blasphemy Ordinance of 1648.
Having, with difficulty, been allowed counsel, he put in legal
objections, and the trial was adjourned till next term. Meanwhile
London was greatly agitated. The Presbyterians and the orthodox
generally were eager for Biddle's conviction; but a very considerable
number of persons, including not only Biddle's own followers and
free-thinkers of other sorts, but also some Independent and Baptist
ministers, whose orthodoxy was beyond suspicion, bestirred themselves
in his behalf. Pamphlets appeared in that interest, one entitled
_The Spirit of Persecution again broken loose against Mr. John
Biddle_, and a numerously signed petition was addressed to
Cromwell, requesting his merciful interference. The Petition, as we
learn from _Mercurius Politicus_, was very badly managed. "The
persons who presented a petition some few days since to his Highness
on the behalf of Biddle," says that paper under date Sept. 28, "came
this day in expectation of an answer. They had access, and divers
godly ministers were present. And, the Petition being read in the
hearing of divers of those under whose countenance it was presented,
many of them disowned it, as being altered both in the matter and
title of it since they signed it, and so looked upon it as a forged
thing, wherein both his Highness and they were greatly abused, and
desired that the original which they signed might be produced; which
Mr. Ives and some others of the contrivers and presenters of it were
not able to do, nor had they anything to say in excuse of so foul a
miscarriage. Whereupon they were dismissed, his Highness having
opened to them the evil of such a practice [tampering with petitions
after they had been signed], as also how inconsistent it was for
_them_, who professed to be members of the Churches of Christ
and to worship him with the worship due to God, to give any
countenance to one who reproached themselves and all the Christian
Churches in the world as being guilty of idolatry: showing that, if
it be true which Mr. Biddle holds, to wit that our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ is but a creature, then all those who worship him with
the worship due to God are idolaters. His Highness showed moreover
that the maintainers of this opinion of Mr. Biddle's are guilty of
great blasphemy against Christ, who is God equal with the Father; and
he referred it to them to consider whether any who loved the Lord
Jesus Christ in sincerity could give any countenance to such a person
as he is." But, while the petitioners were thus dismissed with a
severe lecture, Cromwell had made up his mind to save Mr. Biddle. On
the 5th of October it was resolved by the Council that he should be
removed to the Isle of Scilly and there shut up; and Cromwell's
warrant to that effect was at once issued. In no other way could the
trial have been quashed, and it was the kindest thing that could have
been done for Biddle in the circumstances. He lived comfortably
enough in his seclusion in the distant Island for the next two years
and a half, receiving an allowance of a hundred crowns _per
annum_ from Cromwell, and employing his leisure in the deep study
of the Apocalypse and the preparation of a treatise against the
Doctrine of the Fifth Monarchy.[1]
[Footnote 1: Council Order Books, July 3 and Oct. 5, 1655; _Merc.
Pol._ Sept. 27-Oct. 4, 1655; Wood's Ath. III. 599-601; Thomason
Catalogue (Tracts for and against Biddle).]
(4) _The Quakers._ There was immense difficulty with this new
sect--from the fact, as has been already explained, that they had not
settled down into mere local groups of individuals, asking toleration
for themselves, but were still in open war with all other sects, all
other forms of ministry, and prosecuting the war everywhere by
itinerant propagandism. George Fox himself and the best of his
followers seem by this time indeed to have given up the method of
actually interrupting the regular service in the steeple-houses in
order to preach Quakerism; but they were constantly tending to the
steeple-houses for the purpose of prophesying there, as was the
custom in country-places, after the regular service was over. Thus,
as well as by their conflicts with parsons of every sect wherever
they met them, and their rebukings of iniquity on highways and in
market-places, not to speak of their obstinate refusals to pay tithes
in their own parishes, they were continually getting into the hands
of justices of the peace and the assize-judges. Take as one example
of their treatment in superior courts the appearance of William
Dewsbury and other Quakers before Judge Atkins at Northampton after
they had been half a year in Northampton jail.--Seeing them at the
bar with their hats on, the Judge told the jailor he had a good mind
to fine him ten pounds for bringing prisoners into the Court in that
fashion, and ordered the hats to be removed by the jailor's man.
Then, after some preliminary parley, "What is thy name?" said the
Judge to Dewsbury, who had made himself spokesman for all. "Unknown
to the World," said Dewsbury. "Let us hear what that name is that the
World knows not," said the Judge goodhumouredly. "It is," quoth
Dewsbury, "known in the light, and none can know it but he that hath
it; but the name the world knows me by is William Dewsbury." Then to
the question of the Judge, "What countryman art thou?" the reply was,
"Of the Land of Canaan." The Judge remarked that Canaan was far off.
"Nay," answered Dewsbury, "for all that dwell in God are in the holy
city, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from Heaven, where the soul
is in rest, and enjoys the love of God in Jesus Christ, in whom the
union is with the Father of Light." The Judge admitted that to be
very true, but asked Dewsbury whether, being an Englishman, he was
ashamed of that more prosaic fact. "Nay," said Dewsbury, "I am free
to declare that my natural birth was in Yorkshire, nine miles from
York towards Hull." The Judge then said, "You pretend to be
extraordinary men, and to have an extraordinary knowledge of God."
Dewsbury replied, "We witness the work of regeneration to be an
extraordinary work, wrought in us by the Spirit of God." The
conversation then turned on their preaching itinerancy, and
abstinence from all ordinary callings, the Judge remarking that even
the Apostles had worked with their hands. Dewsbury admitted that some
of the Apostles had been fishermen, and Paul a tent-maker, but
asserted that, "when they were called to the ministry of Christ, they
left their callings to follow Christ whither he led them by his
Spirit," and that he and his fellow-prisoners had but done the same.
The end of the colloquy was that the Judge, with every wish to be
lenient, could not make up his mind to discharge the prisoners. "I
see by your carriage," he said, "that what my brother Hale did at the
last assizes, in requiring bond for your good behaviour, he might
justly do it, for you are against magistrates and ministers"; and
they were remitted to Northampton jail accordingly.--If judges like
Hale and Atkins had to act thus, one may imagine how the poor Quakers
fared in the hands of inferior and rougher functionaries. Fines and
imprisonment for vagrancy, contempt of court, or non-payment of
tithes, were the ordinary discipline for all; but there were cases
here and there of whipping by the hangman, and other more ferocious
cruelties. For among the Quakers themselves there were varieties of
milder and wilder, less provoking and more provoking. The Quakerism
of men like Fox and Dewsbury was, at worst, but an obdurate and
irritating eccentricity, in comparison, for example, with the
Quakerism run mad of James Nayler. This enthusiast, once
quarter-master in a horse troop under Lambert, and regarded as "a man
of excellent natural parts," had for three or four years kept himself
within bounds, and been known only as one of the most eminent
preachers of the ordinary Gospel of the Quakers and a prolific writer
of Quaker tracts. But, having come to London in 1655, he had been
unbalanced by the adulation of some Quaker women, with a Martha
Simmons for their chief. "Fear and doubting then entered him," say
the Quaker records, "so that he came to be clouded in his
understanding, bewildered, and at a loss in his judgment, and became
estranged from his best friends, because they did not approve his
conduct." In other words, he became stark mad, and set up for
himself, as "The Everlasting Son, the Prince of Peace, the Fairest
among Ten Thousand, the Altogether Lovely." In this capacity he went
into the West of England early in 1656, the admiring women following
him, and chaunting his praises with every variety of epithet from the
Song of Solomon, till he was clapped up in Exeter jail. Nor was
Nayler the only madman among the Quakers about this time. A kind of
epidemic of madness seems to have broken out in the sect, or among
those reputed to belong to it. "One while," says Baxter, "divers of
them went naked through divers chief towns and cities of the land, as
a prophetical act: some of them have famished and drowned themselves
in melancholy;" and he adds, more especially, as his own experience
in Kidderminster, "I seldom preached a lecture, but going and coming
I was railed at by a Quaker in the market-place in the way, and
frequently in the congregation bawled at by the names of Hireling,
Deceiver, False Prophet, Dog, and such like language." The
Protector's own chapel in Whitehall was not safe. On April 13, 1656,
"being the Lord's day," says the _Public Intelligencer_ for that
week, "a certain Quaker came into the chapel in sermon time, and in a
very audacious manner disturbed the preacher, so that he was fain to
be silent a while, till the fellow was taken away. His Highness,
being present, did after sermon give order for the sending him to a
justice of peace, to be dealt with according to law."--Naturally, the
whole sect suffered for these indecencies and extravagances of some
of its members, and the very name _Quakerism_ became a synonym
for all that was intolerable. The belief had got abroad, moreover,
that "subtle and dangerous heads," Jesuits and others, had begun to
"creep in among them," to turn Quakerism to political account, and
"drive on designs of disturbance." Altogether the Protector and
Council were sorely tried. Their policy seems, on the whole, to have
been to let Quakerism run its course of public obloquy, and get into
jail, or even to the whipping-post _ad libitum_, for offences
against the peace, but at the same time to instruct the
Major-Generals privately to be as discreet as possible, making
differences between the sorts of Quakers, and especially letting none
of them come to harm for their mere beliefs. "Making a difference,"
as by the injunction in Jude's epistle, was, as we know, Cromwell's
own great rule in all cases where complete toleration was impossible,
and he does not seem to have been able to do more for the Quakers. He
had not, however, forgotten his interview with their chief, and may
have been interested in knowing more especially what had become of
_him_.--Fox, after much wandering in the West without serious
mishap, had fallen among Philistines in Cornwall early in 1656, and
had been arrested, with two companions, for spreading papers and for
general vagrancy and contumacy. He had been in Launceston prison for
some weeks, when Chief Justice Glynne came to hold the assizes in
those parts. There had been the usual encounter between the Judge and
the Quakers on the eternal question of the hats. "Where had they hats
at all, from Moses to Daniel?" said the Chief Justice, rather rashly,
meaning to laugh at the notion that Scripture could be brought to
bear on the question in any way whatever. "Thou mayest read in the
third of Daniel," said Fox, "that the three children were cast into
the fiery furnace, by Nebuchadnezzar's command, with their coats,
their hose, and _their hats on_." Glynne, though he had lost his
joke, and though Fox put him further out of temper by distributing
among the jurymen a paper against swearing, did not behave badly on
the whole, and the issue was the simple recommitment of Fox and his
friends to Launceston prison. There, however, as they would not any
longer pay the jailor the seven shillings a week he demanded for the
board of each, they were put into the most horrible hole in the place
and treated abominably. They were in this predicament when Cromwell
heard of them. "While G. Fox was still in prison, one of his friends
went to Oliver Cromwell, and offered himself, body for body, to lie
in prison in his stead, if he would take him and let G. Fox go at
liberty. But Cromwell said he could not do it, for it was contrary to
law; and, turning to those of his Council, 'Which of you,' quoth he,
'would do as much for me if I were in the same condition?'" An order
was sent by Cromwell to the Governor of Pendennis Castle to enquire
meantime into the treatment of the Launceston prisoners, and their
release followed after a little while. It was noted also, in proof of
his personal kindness towards the Quakers, that, though he received
letters from some of them violently abusive of himself and his
government, he never showed any anger on that account.[1]
[Footnote 1: Sewel's History of the Quakers (ed. 1834) I. 137-173;
Baxter, 77 and 180; _Public Intelligencer_ of April 14-21,
1656; Council Order Book, Feb. 6, 1655-6.]
(5)_The Jews._ A very interesting incident of Cromwell's
Protectorate was his attempt to obtain an open toleration for the
Jews in England. Since the year 1290, when they had been banished in
a body out of the kingdom under Edward I., there had been only
isolated and furtive instances of visits to England or residence in
England by persons of the proscribed race. Of late, however, a
certain Manasseh Ben Israel, an able and earnest Portuguese Jew,
settled in Amsterdam as a physician, had conceived the idea that, in
the new age of liberty and other great things in England, there might
be a permission for the Jews to return and live and trade freely. He
had opened negotiations by letter, first with the Rump and then with
the Barebones Parliament, but had at length come over to London to
deal directly with the Protector. "_To his Highness the Lord
Protector, &c. the Humble Addresses of Manasseh Ben Israel, Divine
and Doctor of Physic, in behalf of the Jewish Nation_," were in
print on the 5th of November, 1655; and they were formally before the
Council on the 13th, his Highness present in person. The petition was
for a general protection of such Jews as might come to reside in
England, with liberty of trade, freedom for their worship, the
possession of a Jewish synagogue and a Jewish cemetery in London, and
a revocation of all statutes contrary to such privileges. Cromwell
was thoroughly in favour of the proposal and let the fact be known;
but, as it was necessary to proceed with caution, the matter was
referred to a conference between the Council and twenty-eight persons
outside of it, fourteen of whom were clergymen (Owen, Thomas Goodwin,
Nye, Cudworth, Hugh Peters, Sterry, &c.), and the rest lawyers (St.
John, Glynne, Steele, &c.), or city merchants (Lord Mayor Dethicke,
Aldermen Pack and Tichbourne, &c.) There were four meetings of this
Conference at Whitehall in December, Cromwell himself taking part. "I
never heard a man speak so well," says an auditor of his speech at
one of the meetings. On the whole, however, the Conference could not
agree with his Highness. Some of the city-men objected, on commercial
grounds, to the admission of the Jews; and the clergy were against it
almost to a man, partly on the authority of Scripture texts, partly
from fear of the effects of the importation into London of the new
sect of Judaism. The Conference was discontinued; and, though the
good Rabbi lingered on in London till April 1656, nothing could be
done. Prejudice in the religious world was too strong. Nevertheless
the Protector found means of giving effect to his own views. Not only
did he mark his respect for Manasseh Ben Israel by a pension of £100
a year, to be paid him in Amsterdam; he admitted so many Jews, one by
one, by private dispensation, that there was soon a little colony of
them in London, with a synagogue to suit, and a piece of ground at
Stepney leased for a cemetery. In effect, the readmission of the Jews
into England dates from Cromwell's Protectorate.[1]
[Footnote 1: _Merc. Pol._ Nov. 1-8, 1655; Council Order Book,
Nov. 13; Godwin, IV. 243-251; Carlyle, III. 136, note. Prynne opposed
the Readmission of the Jews in a pamphlet, in two parts, called _A
Short Demurrer to the Jews' long discontinued Remitter_ (March
1656); and Durie published, in the form of a letter to Hartlib, _A
Case of Conscience: whether it be lawful to admit Jews into a
Christian Commonwealth_ (June 27, 1656). I have not seen Durie's
letter; but Mr. Crossley (_Worthington's Diary_, I. 83, note)
reports it as moderately favourable to the Jewish claim. The letter
is dated, he says, from Cassel, Jan. 8, 1655-6.]
Although making no great pretensions to learning himself, Cromwell
seems to have taken especial pleasure in that part of his powers and
privileges which gave him an influence on the literature and
education of the country. Here, in fact, he but carried out in a
special department that general notion of the Civil Magistrate's
powers and duties which had led him to declare himself so strongly
for the preservation and extension of an Established Church. The more
thorough-going champions of Voluntaryism in that day, Anabaptists
and others, had begun, as we have seen, to agitate not only for the
abolition of a national Church or State-paid clergy of any kind, but
also for the abolition of the Universities, the public schools, and
all endowments for science or learning. But, if Cromwell had so
signally disowned and condemned the system of sheer Voluntaryism in
Religion, it was not to be expected that the more peculiar and
exceptional Voluntaryism which challenged even State Endowments for
education should find any countenance from _his_ Protectorate.
Nor did it.
The two English Universities had been sufficiently Puritanized long
before Cromwell's accession to the supreme power--Cambridge in
1644-5, under the Chancellorship of the Earl of Manchester (III.
92-6), and Oxford in 1647-8, under the Chancellorship of the Earl of
Pembroke (IV. 51-52). The Earl of Manchester, who had been living in
complete retirement from public affairs since the establishment of
the Commonwealth, still retained the nominal dignity of the Cambridge
Chancellorship; but Cromwell had already for five years been
Chancellor of the University of Oxford himself, having been elected
to the office in January 1650-1, after the Earl of Pembroke's death.
His interest in University matters had been naturally sustained by
this official connexion with Oxford, and had shown itself in various
ways before his Protectorate; but his Protectorate added fresh powers
to those of his mere Chancellorship for Oxford, and brought his
native University of Cambridge also within his grasp. He availed
himself of his powers largely and punctually in the affairs of both,
and was applauded in both as the steady defender of their honours and
privileges.--To rectify what might still be amiss in them, or too
much after the mere Presbyterian standard of Puritanism, he had
appointed, by ordinance of September 2, 1654, (Vol. IV. p. 565), a
new body of Visitors for each, to inquire into abuses, determine
disputes, &c. The result was that the two Universities were now in
better and quieter working order than they had been since the first
stormy interruption of their old routine by the Civil War. Each
reckoned a number of really able and efficient men among its heads of
colleges, and in its staff of professors and tutors. In Oxford there
was Dr. John Owen, head of Christ Church, and all but permanently
Vice-Chancellor of the University, with Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Dr. John
Wilkins, Dr. Robert Harris, Dr. Thankful Owen, Dr. John Conant, Dr.
Jonathan Goddard, and others, as heads of other Colleges, and Dr.
Henry Wilkinson, Dr. Lewis Du Moulin, Dr. Pocock, and the
mathematicians Dr. Seth Ward and Dr. John Wallis among the
Professors. Cambridge boasted of such men as Dr. Ralph Cudworth, Dr.
Benjamin Whichcote, Dr. John Worthington, Dr. John Lightfoot, Dr.
Lazarus Seaman, Dr. John Arrowsmith, Dr. Anthony Tuckney, Dr. Henry
More, and others now less remembered. And under the discipline and
teaching of such chiefs there was growing up in both Universities a
generation of young men as well grounded in all the older sorts of
learning as any generation of their predecessors, with the benefit
also of newer lights, as was to be proved by the names and
appearances of many of them in English history to the end of the
century. Even Clarendon admits as much. It was a wonder to him to
find, in the subsequent days of his own Chancellorship of the
University of Oxford, that the "several tyrannical governments
mutually succeeding each other" through so many previous years had
not so affected the place but that it still "yielded a harvest of
extraordinary good and sound knowledge in all parts of learning." He
attributed this to the inherent virtues of the academic soil itself,
which could choke bad seeds, cherish the good, and even defy
barrenness by finding its own seeds; but it may be more reasonable to
suppose that the superintendence of the Universities under the
"tyrannical governments," and especially under Cromwell's as the
latest of them, had not been barbaric.--The University Commissioners,
it may be added, had authority to inspect Westminster School, Eton,
Winchester, and Merchant Taylors'. But, indeed, there seems hardly to
have been a foundation for learning anywhere in England that was not,
in one way or another, brought under Cromwell's eye. In his inquiries
after moneys that might still be recoverable out of the wreck of the
old ecclesiastical revenues one can see that, next to the increase
and better sustenance of his Established Ministry, additions to the
endowed scholastic machinery of the country were always in his mind.
It is clear indeed that one of those characteristics of conservatism
by which Cromwell intended that his government should be
distinguished from the preceding Governments of the Revolution was
greater care of the surviving educational institutions of England and
Wales, with the resuscitation of some that had fallen into decay. The
money-difficulties were great, and less could be accomplished than he
desired; but, apart from what may have been done for the refreshment
of the older foundations, it is memorable that Cromwell was able to
give effect to at least one very considerable design of English
University extension. A College in Durham, expressly for the benefit
of the North of England, with a Provostship, four Professorships, and
tutorships and fellowships to match, was one of the creations of the
Protectorate.[1]
[Footnote 1: Wood's Fasti Oxon. from 1654 onwards; Orme's Life of
John Owen, 175-187; Clarendon, 623; Godwin, IV. 102-104 and 595;
Neal, IV. 121-123; with references to Worthington's Diary by
Crossley, and Cattermole's _Literature of the Church of
England_.]
While it was chiefly through the organized means afforded by the
Universities and Colleges that Cromwell did what he could for the
encouragement of learning, his relations to the learned men
individually that were living in the time of his Protectorate were
always at least courteous, and in some instances peculiarly
friendly.
Usher being dead (March 21, 1655-6), and also the great Selden (Nov.
20, 1654) and the venerable and learned Gataker (July 27, 1654), the
following were the Englishmen of greatest literary celebrity already,
or of greatest coming note in English literary history, who were
alive at the midpoint of Oliver's Protectorate, and could and did
then range themselves (for we exclude those of insufficient age) as
his adherents on the whole, his subjects by mere compulsion, or his
implacable and exiled enemies. We divide the list into groups
according to that classification, as calculated for the year 1656;
but the names within each group are arranged in the order of
seniority:[1]--
[Footnote 1: There may be errors and omissions in the list; but,
having taken some pains, I will risk it as it stands.]
ADHERENTS MORE OR LESS CORDIAL.
George Wither (_ætat_ 68).
John Goodwin (_ætat_ 63).
Edmund Calamy (_ætat_ 56).
Thomas Goodwin (_ætat_ 56).
John Lightfoot (_ætat_ 54).
Edmund Waller (_ætat_ 51).
John Rushworth (_ætat_ 49).
Milton (_ætat_ 48).
Benjamin Whichcote (_ætat_ 46).
James Harrington (_ætat_ 45).
Henry More (_ætat_ 42).
John Wilkins (_ætat_ 42).
John Owen (_ætat_ 40).
John Wallis (_ætat_ 40).
Ralph Cudworth (_ætat_ 39).
Algernon Sidney (_ætat_ 39).
Marchamont Needham (_ætat_ 36).
Andrew Marvell (_ætat_ 36).
Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill (_ætat_ 35).
William Petty (_ætat_ 33).
Thomas Stanley (_ætat_ 31).
John Aubrey (_ætat_ 30).
Robert Boyle (_ætat_ 29).
John Bunyan (_ætat_ 28).
Sir William Temple (_ætat_ 27).
John Tillotson (_ætat_ 26).
John Howe (_ætat_ 26).
Edward Phillips (_ætat_ 26).
John Phillips (_ætat_ 25).
John Dryden (_ætat_ 25).
Henry Stubbe (_ætat_ 25).
John Locke (_ætat_ 24).
Samuel Pepys (_ætat_ 24).
Edward Stillingfleet (_ætat_ 21).
SUBJECTS BY COMPULSION.
Ex-Bishop Hall (died Sept. 8, 1656, _ætat_ 82).
John Hales (died May 19, 1656, _ætat_ 72).
Robert Sanderson (_ætat_ 69).
Thomas Hobbes (_ætat_ 68).
Robert Herrick (_ætat_ 65).
John Hacket (_ætat_ 64).
Izaak Walton (_ætat_ 63).
James Shirley (_ætat_ 62).
James Howell (_ætat_ 62).
Gilbert Sheldon (_ætat_ 58).
William Prynne (_ætat_ 56).
Brian Walton (_ætat_ 56).
Peter Heylin (_ætat_ 56).
Jasper Mayne (_ætat_ 52).
Thomas Fuller (_ætat_ 52).
Edward Pocock (_ætat_ 52).
Sir William Davenant (_ætat_ 51).
Thomas Browne of Norwich (_ætat_ 51).
William Dugdale (_ætat_ 51).
Henry Hammond (_ætat_ 51).
Richard Fanshawe (_ætat_ 48).
Aston Cockayne (_ætat_ 48).
Samuel Butler (_ætat_ 44).
Jeremy Taylor (_ætat_ 43).
John Cleveland (_ætat_ 43).
John Pearson (_ætat_ 43).
John Birkenhead (_ætat_ 41).
John Denham (_ætat_ 41).
Richard Baxter (_ætat_ 41).
Roger L'Estrange (_ætat_ 40).
Abraham Cowley (_ætat_ 38).
John Evelyn (_ætat_ 36).
Isaac Barrow (_ætat_ 26).
Anthony Wood (_ætat_ 25).
Robert South (_ætat_ 23).
ACTIVE ENEMIES IN EXILE.
John Bramhall (_ætat_ 63).
George Morley (_ætat_ 58).
John Earle (_ætat_ 55).
Sir Kenelm Digby (_ætat_ 53).
Sir Edward Hyde (_ætat_ 48).
Thomas Killigrew (_ætat_ 45).
George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (_ætat_ 29).
The relations of Cromwell to such persons varied, of course, with
their attitudes towards himself and his government.
The theologian among his adherents to whom he seems to have been
drawn by the strongest elective affinity was Dr. John Owen. "Sir, you
are a person I must be acquainted with," he had said to Owen in
Fairfax's garden; laying his hand on his shoulder, one day in April
1649, just after he had first heard Owen preach;[1] and so, from
being merely minister of Coggeshall in Essex, Owen had become
Cromwell's friend and chaplain in Ireland, and had still, through his
subsequent promotions, ending with the Deanery of Christ Church and
the Vice-Chancellorship of Oxford, been much about Cromwell and much
trusted by him. Perhaps the only difference now between them was that
Owen's theory of Toleration was less broad than Cromwell's. Next to
Owen among the divines of the Commonwealth, the Protector seems to
have retained his liking for Dr. Thomas Goodwin, and for such other
fervid or Evangelical Independents as Caryl, Sterry, Hugh Peters, and
Nicholas Lockyer, with a gradual tendency to John Howe, the youngest
of his chaplains. For the veteran free-lance and Arminian John
Goodwin, a keen critic now of Cromwell's Commission of Triers and of
other parts of his Church-policy, his liking must have been less; but
Goodwin's merits were fairly appreciated, and he had at least perfect
liberty to conduct his congregation as he pleased and to publish his
pamphlets. So, on the other hand, eminent Presbyterian divines like
Calamy, accommodated amply in Cromwell's Established Church, had all
freedom and respect.--As to his dealings with non-clerical men of
letters friendly to his government, we know a good deal already.
Milton, of whose relations to the Protectorate we shall have to speak
more at large, was his Latin Secretary; Needham was his journalist;
Marvell was in his private employment and was looking for something
more public. Still younger men were growing up, in the Universities
or just out of them, regarding the Protectorate as now the settled
order of things, in which they must pass their future lives.
Cudworth, recently promoted from the mastership of Clare College,
Cambridge, to that of Milton's old College of Christ's, had been
asked by the Protector to recommend to him any very promising young
Cambridge men he might discover;[2] and, doubtless, there had been a
similar request to Owen of Oxford. Dryden, still at Cambridge, though
now twenty-five years of age, and already, by his father's death, a
small Northamptonshire squire of £40 a year, was looking forward, we
shall find, as his family connexions with the Parliamentarians and
the Commonwealth made natural, to a life in London under the great
Protector's shadow.
[Footnote 1: Orme's Life of Owen (1820), p. 113.]
[Footnote 2: Life of Cudworth, as cited by Godwin, IV. 596.]
All that could be expected by divines and scholars ranking in our
second category, i.e. as subjects of the Protectorate by mere
compulsion, and known to be strongly disaffected to it, was
protection and safety on condition of remaining quiet. This they did
receive. For a month or two, indeed, after the terrible ordinance of
Nov. 24, 1655, threatening the expulsion of the ejected Anglican
clergy from the family-chaplaincies, schoolmasterships, and
tutorships, in which so many of them had found refuge, and forbidding
them to preach anywhere or use the Book of Common Prayer, there had
been a flutter of consternation among the poor dispersed clerics.
That Ordinance, however, as we saw, had merely been _in
terrorem_ at a particular moment, and had remained a dead letter.
The admirable John Hales, it is true, did resign a chaplaincy which
he held near Eton rather than bring the good lady who sheltered him
into trouble; and by his death soon afterwards England lost a man of
whom the Protector must have had as kindly thoughts as of any of the
old Anglicans. That case was exceptional. Ex-Bishop Hall, in the end
of his much-battered life, lived quietly near Norwich, remembering
his past losses and sequestrations under the Long Parliament rather
than suffering anything more of the kind. Peter Heylin was in similar
circumstances in Oxfordshire, and by no means bashful. Jeremy Taylor
alternated between the Earl of Carbery's seat, called "the Golden
Grove," in Caernarvonshire, near which he taught a school, and the
society of his friend John Evelyn, in London or at Sayes Court in
Surrey,--tending on the whole to London, where he resumed preaching,
and, after a brief arrest and some little questioning, was left
unmolested. Hammond was mainly at Sir John Packington's in
Worcestershire; Sanderson and Fuller were actually in parochial
livings, the one in Lincolnshire, the other in Essex; and Pocock was
in a Professorship. Sorely vexed as such men were, and poorer in the
world's goods than they had been, this was the time of the greatest
literary productiveness of some of them. Old Bishop Hall had not
ceased to write, but was to leave trifles of his last days to be
published after the Restoration as "Shakings of the Olive Tree"; and
works, or tracts and sermons, by Sanderson, Heylin, Hammond, Fuller,
and Jeremy Taylor, some of them of a highly Episcopal tenor, were
among the publications of the Protectorate. Fuller's _Church
History of Britain_, one of the best and most lightsome books in
our language, was published in 1655-6. Brian Walton's great Polyglott
had not yet been carried farther than the third volume; but the
Protector had continued to that scholar the material furtherance in
his arduous work which had been yielded first by the Rump Government,
apparently on some solicitation by Milton (Vol. IV. pp. 446, 447);
and the work, when it did appear complete in six volumes folio, in
1657, was to contain handsome acknowledgment by Walton of this
generosity. Of the incessant literary activity of the Presbyterian
Baxter through the Protectorate we need say nothing. It is more
remarkable that there was no interruption of William Prynne's
interminable series of pamphlets on all sorts of public questions,
and often violently against the Government. For the rest, where were
the Herricks, the Shirleys, the Clevelands, and the other old
Royalist wits and satirists of the lighter sort? Keeping schools,
most of them, or living with friends in the country, and now and then
sending out, as before, some light thing in print. Samuel Butler, a
secretary or the like in private families, was yet unknown to fame,
but was taking notes and sure to print them some day; and the two
most placid and imperturbable men in all England were Browne of
Norwich and Izaak Walton. Browne, all his best known writings
published long ago, but appearing in new editions, was contented now
with attending his patients; and, when Izaak Walton was not in his
house in Clerkenwell (to which neighbourhood he seems to have removed
after giving up his shop in Chancery Lane), he was away on some
fishing ramble. His _Complete Angler, or The Contemplative Man's
Recreation_ had appeared in May 1653, and a second edition of it
was just out.[1]
[Footnote 1: Details in this paragraph are from various sources: e.g.
Wood's; 'Ath. and Fasti and Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy under
the several names, Cattermole's _Literature of the Church of
England_, Lowndes's Bibliographer's Manual by Bohn, and the
Thomason Catalogue of Pamphlets. See also, for Jeremy Taylor,
Evelyn's _Diary and Correspondence_, about date 1855-6. Evelyn
was greatly concerned about Cromwell's ordinance for suppressing
preaching and schoolmastering by the Anglican clergy, and about its
probable results for Taylor in particular. See one of his letters to
Taylor (pp. 593-4, ed. 1870).]
The number of wits and men of letters still hostile to the
Protectorate to such a degree that they would undergo the hardships
of exile rather than live in England was, it will have been observed,
comparatively small. This arose from the fact that some who had been
in exile at the death of Charles I, or even afterwards in the train
of Charles II., had reluctantly lost faith in the possibility of a
restoration of the Stuarts, and had returned to England, to join
themselves with those whom we have classed generally as Cromwell's
"subjects by compulsion." Leading cases were those of Hobbes, Sir
William Davenant, and Abraham Cowley; with which, for convenience,
may be associated that of the satirist Cleveland, though _he_
had never gone into exile, but had remained in England, taking the
risks.--HOBBES, who had been in Paris since 1641, to be out of the
bustle of the English confusions, but who had come into central
connexion with the Stuart cause there by his appointment in 1646 to
be tutor to young Charles, had been obliged to leave that connexion,
ostensibly at least, in 1651 or 1652. The occasion is said to have
been the publication of his _Leviathan_. That famous book of
1651, like its two predecessors of 1650, _Human Nature_ and
_De Corpore Politico_, he had found it convenient to publish in
London, where the Commonwealth authorities do not seem to have made
the least objection. But by this time Hobbes's infidelity, or
Atheism, or Hobbism, or whatever it was, had become a dreadful
notoriety in the world; and, when Hobbes presented a fine copy of his
great book to Charles II., that pious young prince had been
instructed by the Royalist divines about him that it would not do to
countenance either Mr. Hobbes or his books any longer. Charles
retained privately all his own real regard for his old tutor, and
Hobbes perfectly understood that; but the hint had been taken. Back
in England at last, and permitted to live in the house of his old
pupil and patron, the Earl of Devonshire, where his only annoyance
was the society of the Earl's chaplain, Jasper Mayne, he had found
the Protectorate comfortable enough for all his purposes, and had
been publishing new books under it, including his pungent
disputations with ex-Bishop Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity and
with Wallis of Oxford on Mathematics.[1]--Hobbes's friend DAVENANT
had for some time been less lucky. _His_ return to England had
been involuntary. He had been captured at sea in 1650 on his way to
Virginia (Vol. IV. p. 193), had been a prisoner in the Isle of Wight
and in the Tower and in danger of trial for his life, and had been
released only by strong intercession in his favour, in which Milton
is thought to have helped. This result, however, had reconciled him,
and Davenant too had become one of the subjects of the Protectorate.
Nay he had struck out an ingenious mode of livelihood for himself
under Cromwell, somewhat in his old line of business. "At that time,"
says Wood, "tragedies and comedies being esteemed very scandalous by
the Presbyterians, and therefore by them silenced, he contrived a way
to set up an Italian Opera, to be performed by declamations and
music; and, that they might be performed with all decency,
seemliness, and without rudeness and profaneness, John Maynard,
serjeant-at-law, and several sufficient citizens, were engagers. This
Italian Opera began in Rutland House in Charter-house yard, May 23,
1656, and was afterwards transferred to the Cockpit in Drury Lane."
Cromwell's own fondness for music may have prompted him to this
relaxation, in Davenants favour, of the old theatre-closing Ordinance
of September 1642. At all events, money was coming in for Davenant,
and he was not very unhappy.[2]--The Satirist JOHN CLEVELAND, as we
have said, had never gone into exile. This was the more remarkable
because, through the Civil War, he had adhered to the King's cause
most tenaciously, not only in official employment for it, but also
serving it by the circulation of squibs and satires very offensive to
the Parliamentarians, and to the Scots in particular. Through the
Commonwealth, however, and also into the Protectorate, he _had_
lived on in England, in obscurity and with risks, latterly somewhere
in or about Norfolk, as tutor or quasi-tutor to a gentleman, on £30 a
year. By ill luck, in Nov. 1655, just when the police of the
Major-Generals was coming into operation, he had been apprehended, on
his way to Newark, by the vigilance of Major-General Haynes, and
committed to prison in Yarmouth, There seems to have been no definite
charge, other than that he was "the poet Cleveland" and was a
questionable kind of vagrant. He had been in prison for some months
when it occurred to him to address a letter to the Protector himself.
"May it please your Highness," it began, "Rulers within the circle of
their government have a claim to that which is said of the Deity:
they have their centre everywhere and their circumference nowhere, It
is in this confidence that I address your Highness, as knowing no
place in the nation is so remote as not to share in the ubiquity of
your care, no prison so close as to shut me up from the partaking of
your influence." After explaining that he had been and still was a
Royalist, but that he had taken no active part in affairs for about
ten years, he concludes, in a clever vein of compliment, thus: "If you
graciously please to extend indulgence to your suppliant in taking me
out of this withering durance, you will find mercy will establish you
more than power, though all the days of your life were as pregnant
with victories as your twice-auspicious Third of September." The
appeal to Cromwell's magnanimity was successful. Cleveland was
released, came to London, and lived by his wits there till his death
in May 1658.[3]--A much later returner from among the Royalist
exiles than either Hobbes or Davenant was the poet COWLEY. His return
was late in 1655 or early in 1656, and seems to have been attended
with some mystery. He had been for years at Paris or St. Germains, in
the household of Lord Jermyn, acting as secretary to his Lordship and
to Queen Henrietta Maria, deciphering the secret letters that came to
them, and therefore at the very heart of the intrigues for Charles
II. Yet, after a temporary imprisonment, security in £1000 had been
accepted in his behalf, and he had been allowed to remain in London.
The story afterwards by his Royalist friends was that he had come
over, by understanding with Jermyn and the ex-Queen, to watch affairs
in their interest and send them intelligence, and that, the better to
disguise the design, he pretended compliance with the existing
powers, meaning to obtain the degree of M.D. from Oxford, and set up
cautiously as a medical practitioner. It is very unlikely that such a
dangerous game could have been safely tried under eyes like
Thurloe's; and the fact seems to be that Cowley was honestly tired of
exile and willing to comply, in a manly way, for the sake of life
once more at home. One of his first acts after his return was to
publish his Collected Poems in a volume of four parts. They appeared,
on or about April 1656, from the shop of Humphrey Moseley, the
publisher of Milton's Poems ten years before, and still always
dealing, as then, in the finer literature. In a preface to the book
Cowley distinctly avowed his intention to accept the inevitable,
treat the controversy as at length determined against the Stuarts by
the unaccountable will of God, and no longer persist in the
ridiculous business of weaving laurels for the conquered. He
announced at the same time that he had not only excluded from the
volume all his pieces of this last kind, but had even burnt the
manuscripts. In a copy of the book presented by him to the Bodleian
Library at Oxford there is a "Pindarique Ode" in his own hand, dated
June 26, 1656, breathing the same sentiment. The book is supposed to
be addressing the great Library; and, after congratulating itself on
being admitted into such a glorious company without deserts of its
own, but by mere predestination, it is made to say:--
[Footnote 1: Wood's Ath. III. 1207-1212, and 972.]
[Footnote 2: Wood's Ath. III. 805-806. In Davenant's works (pp.
341-359 of folio edition of 1673) will be found, by those who are
curious, a copy of _"The First Day's Entertainment at Rutland House
by Declamations and Musick: after the manner of the Ancients."_ It
strikes one as very proper and very heavy, but it may have been a
godsend to the Londoners after their long deprivation of theatrical
entertainments. The music was partly by Henry Lawes.]
[Footnote 3: _Cromwelliana_, 154; Wood's Fasti, I. 499; Godwin,
IV. 240-241. There is a MS. copy of Cleveland's letter among the
Thomason large quartos. It is dated "Oct. 1657;" but that, I imagine,
is an error.]
"Ah! that my author had been tied, like me,
To such a place and such a company,
Instead of several countries, several men,
And business which the Muses hate!"[1]
[Footnote 1: Wood's Fasti, II. 209-213; Johnson's Lives of the Poets,
with Cunningham's Notes (1854), I. 7-12. Cowley did receive the M.D.
degree at Oxford, Dec. 2, 1657, and did remain in England through the
rest of Cromwell's Protectorate; and, though the Royalists welcomed
him back after Cromwell's death, his compliance was to be remembered
against him.]
As the Muses were returning to England in full number, and ceasing to
be so Stuartist as they had been, it was natural that there should be
express celebrations of the Protectorate in their name. There had
been dedications of books to Cromwell, and applauses of him in prose
and verse, from the time of his first great successes as a
Parliamentary General; and such things had been increasing since,
till they defied enumeration. In the Protectorate they swarmed.
Matchless still among the tributes in verse was Milton's single
Sonnet of May 1652, "_Cromwell, our chief of men_," and Milton
had written no more to or about Cromwell in the metrical form since
the Protectorate had begun, but had contented himself with adding to
his former prose tributes in various pamphlets that most splendid and
subtle one of all which flames through several pages of his
_Defensio Secunda_. It is Milton now, almost alone, that we
remember as Cromwell's laureate; but among the sub-laureates there
were some by no means insignificant. Old George Wither, though his
marvellous metrical fluency had now lapsed into doggrel and senility,
had done his best by sending forth, in 1654-5, from some kind of
military superintendentship he held in the county of Surrey (Wood
calls it distinctly a Major-Generalship at last, but that is surely
an exaggeration), two Oliverian poems, one called _The Protector: A
Poem briefly illustrating the Supereminency of that Dignity,_ the
other _A Rapture occasioned by the late miraculous Deliverance of
his Highness the Lord Protector from a desperate danger_.[1] In
stronger and more compact style, though still rather rough, Andrew
Marvell, in the same year, had added to his former praises of
Cromwell a poem of 400 lines, published in a broad-sheet, with the
title _The First Anniversary of the Government under his Highness
the Lord Protector_. It began:--
[Footnote 1: Wood's Ath. III. 762-772.]
"Like the vain curlings of the watery maze
Which in smooth streams a sinking weight does raise,
So man, declining always, disappears
In the weak circles of increasing years,
And his short tumults of themselves compose,
While flowing Time above his head does close.
Cromwell alone with greater vigour runs,
Sun-like, the stages of succeeding suns;
And still the day which he doth next restore
Is the just wonder of the day before.
Cromwell alone doth with new lustre spring,
And shines the jewel of the yearly ring;
'Tis he the force of scattered Time contracts,
And in one year the work of ages acts."[1]
[Footnote 1: Marvell's Works, edited by Dr. Grosart, I. 169-170.]
But the most far-blazoned eulogy at the time, and the smoothest to
read now, was one in forty-seven stanzas, which appeared May 31,
1655, with the title _A Panegyric to my Lord Protector of the
present greatness and joint interest of his Highness and this Nation,
by E. W., Esq._ The author was Edmund Waller, still under a cloud
for his old transgression, but recovering himself gradually by his
wealth, his plausibility and fine manners, and his powers of
versifying. Here are four of the stanzas:--
"Your drooping country, torn by civil hate,
Restored by you, is made a glorious state,
The seat of Empire, where the Irish come,
And the unwilling Scots, to fetch their doom.
"The sea's our own; and now all nations greet,
With bending sails, each vessel of our fleet;
Your power extends as far as winds can blow,
Or swelling sails upon the globe may go.
"Heaven, that hath placed this Island to give law
To balance Europe and its states to awe,
In this conjunction doth on Britain smile,--
The greatest Leader and the greatest Isle ....
"Had you some ages past this race of glory
Run, with amazement we should read your story;
But living virtue, all achievements past,
Meets envy still to grapple with at last."[1]
[Footnote 1: Waller's Poems: date of this from Thomason's Catalogue.]
Waller's verses, if nothing else, would suggest that we ought to know
something more, at this point, of the state of Scotland, Ireland, and
even the Colonies, under Cromwell's Protectorate.
SCOTLAND.
After August 1654, when the Glencairn-Middleton insurrection had been
suppressed (Vol. IV, p. 532), the administration of Scotland had been
again for some time wholly in the hands of Monk, as the
Commander-in-chief there, with assistance from the four resident
English Judges and minor officials. Cromwell and his Council in
London, however, had been thinking of a more regular method for the
Government of Scotland; and, at length, in the end of July 1655, the
following was the arrangement:
I. CIVIL ESTABLISHMENT.
COUNCIL, SITTING IN EDINBURGH.
_President of Council_ (£2000 a year): Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill.
General Monk.
Major-General Charles Howard.
Colonel Adrian Scroope.
Colonel Cooper.
Colonel Nathaniel Whetham.
Colonel William Lockhart (soon afterwards Sir William, and Ambassador to
France).
John Swinton, Laird of Swinton (afterwards Sir John).
Samuel Desborough, Esq. (brother of the Regicide).
_Chief Clerk to the Council_ (£300 a year): Emanuel Downing.
SUPREME COMMISSIONERS OF JUSTICE (in lieu of the Old Scotch Court of
Session):--This was a body of Seven Judges; four of whom were
English--George Smith, Edward Moseley, William Lawrence, and Henry
Goodyere (the last two in the places of two of the original four of
1652),--but three of them native Scots, accustomed to Scottish law
and practice. These native Judges had been added for some time
already, and there had been, and were to be, changes of the persons;
but one hears most of Lockhart, Swinton, Sir James Learmont,
Alexander Pearson, and Andrew Ker. At hand, and helping much, though
no longer now the great man he had been in Scotland, was Sir
Archibald Johnstone of Warriston.
STATE OFFICERS:--Most of the state-offices of the old Scottish
constitution were still kept up, but were held, of course, by the new
Councillors and Judges. The _Keepership of the Great Seal_ was
given to Desborough; the _Signet_ or _Privy Seal_, with the
fees of the old _Secretaryship_, to Lockhart; the _Clerk
Registership_ to Judge Smith; &c.
TRUSTEES OF FORFEITED AND SEQUESTRATED ESTATES:--Under this name, by
the Ordinance of April 12, 1654 (Vol. IV. pp. 561-562), there was a
body of seven persons, about half of them English, looking after the
rents and revenues of those numerous Scottish nobles and lairds the
punishment of whom, for past delinquency, by total or partial seizing
of their estates, had been one of the necessary incidents of the
Conquest (Vol. IV. pp. 559-561).
II. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, General George Monk (head-quarters Dalkeith),
with Major-General Howard, Colonels Cooper, Scroope, and Whetham, and
other Colonels and inferior officers, under him. The total force of
horse and foot in Scotland may have been about 7000 or 8000. It was
distributed over the country in forts and garrisons, the chief being
those of Edinburgh, Leith, Glasgow, Stirling, Dundee, Perth,
Aberdeen, Dunnottar, Burntisland, Linlithgow, Dumbarton, Ayr,
Dunstaffnage, and Inverness. Everywhere the English soldiers acted as
a police, and their officers superseded, or were conjoined with, the
native magistrates and sheriffs in the local courts.[1]
[Footnote 1: Council Order Books of the English Council July 26, 1655,
containing letter from "Oliver P." to Monk, announcing the new
establishment; _Perfect Proceedings_, No. 307, publishing for
the Londoners, under date July 27, the names of his Highness's new
Council for Scotland; Baillie's Letters, III. 249-250; Godwin, IV.
462-3.]
Under this government Scotland was now very tranquil and tolerably
prosperous. True, almost all the old poppy-heads or thistle-heads,
the native nobles and notables, were gone. Those of them who had been
taken at Worcester, or had been sent out of Scotland as prisoners
about the same time by Monk, were still, for the most part, in
durance in England; others were in foreign exile; the few that
remained in Scotland, such as Argyle, Loudoun, Lothian, the Marquis
of Douglas, and his son Angus, were out of sight in their
country-houses, utterly broken by private debts or fines and
forfeitures, and in very low esteem. Then, among many Scots of good
status throughout the community, there were complaints and
grumblings on account of the taxes for the support of the English
Army, or on account of loss of posts and chances by the admission of
Englishmen to the same, or by the promotion of such other Scots as
the English saw fit to favour, Incidents of this kind, much noted at
the time, had been the ejection of some Professors from the
Universities by the English Visitors in 1653, and the appointments
by the same visitors of men of their own choice to University
posts--e.g. Mr. Robert Leighton, minister of Newbattle, to the
Principalship of Edinburgh University, and Mr. Patrick Gillespie to
that of the University of Glasgow. But even Baillie, whose complaints
on such grounds had been bitter in 1654, and to whom the appointment
of Gillespie to the Glasgow Principal-ship had been a particular
private grievance, was in better spirits before 1656. Glasgow, he
then reports, was flourishing. "Through God's mercy, our town, in its
proportion, thrives above all the land. The Word of God is well loved
and regarded; albeit not as it ought and we desire, yet in no town of
our land better. Our people has much more trade in comparison than
any other: their buildings increase strangely both for number and
fairness." Burnet's account is that the whole country partook of this
growing prosperity, which he attributes to the excellent police of
the English, the trading they introduced, and the money they put in
circulation. "A man may ride over all Scotland with a switch in his
hand and a hundred pounds in his pocket, which he could not have done
these five hundred years," was Mr. Samuel Desborough's summary
account afterwards of the state of the country which he had helped to
administer under the Protectorate; and Cromwell's own reference to
the subject is even more interesting and precise. Acknowledging that
the Scots had suffered much, and were in fact "a very ruined nation,"
yet what had befallen them had introduced, he hinted, a very
desirable change in the constitution of Scottish society. It had
enfranchised and encouraged the middle and lower classes. "The
_meaner_ sort in Scotland," he said, "love us well, and are
likely to come into as thriving a condition as when they were under
their own great lords, who made them work for their living no better
than the peasants of France;" and "The _middle_ sort of people,"
he added, "do grow up there into such a substance as makes their
lives comfortable, if not better than they were before." Of course,
in neither of these classes, any more than from among the
dispossessed nobles and lairds, can the sentiment of Scottish
nationality and the pain of its abolition have been extinct. Yet one
notices, towards the end of 1656, a soothing even in that respect.
The Scots, all but universally, by that time, had acquired the habit
of speaking deferentially of "His Highness" or "His Highness the Lord
Protector"; correspondence with Charles II. had entirely ceased; the
Edinburgh barristers had returned to the bar; and the Scottish
clergy, pretty generally, left off praying for Charles publicly. Lord
Broghill's admirable management had helped much to this
reconciliation. "If men of my Lord Broghill's parts and temper be
long among us," wrote Baillie, "they will make the present Government
more beloved than some men wish. From our public praying for the King
Broghill's courtesies, more than his threats, brought off our leading
men." Baillie himself had yielded that point at last.[1]
[Footnote 1: Baillie, III. 236-321 (including letters to Spang, July
19, 1654, Dec. 31, 1655, and Sept. 1, 1656); Burnet (ed. 1823), I.
104-105; Chambers's Domestic Annals of Scotland, II. 249; Carlyle,
III. 342-3 (Cromwell's Speech XVII.).]
Raging yet among the Scottish clergy, and dividing the Scottish
community so far as the clergy had influence, was the controversy
between the _Resolutioners_ and the _Remonstrants_ or
_Protesters_ (Vol. IV. pp. 201-214, 281-284, 288-289, and 361).
By a law of political life, every community, at every time, must have
_some_ polarizing controversy; and this was Scotland's through
the whole period of her absorption in the English Commonwealth and
Protectorate. The Protesters were the Whigs, and the Resolutioners
the Tories, of Scotland through that time; and the strife between the
parties was all the fiercer because, Scottish autonomy being lost, it
was the only native strife left for Scotsmen, and they were battened
down to it, as an indulgence among themselves, by a larger and
unconcerned rule overhead. General Assemblies of the Kirk being no
longer allowed, it had to be conducted in Provincial Synods and
Presbyteries only, or in sermons and pamphlets of mutual reproach.
The exasperation was great; Church-censures and threats of such
passed and repassed; all attempts at agreement failed; the best
friends were parted. Leaders among the majority, or Resolutioner
clergy, were Mr. Robert Douglas of Edinburgh, who had preached the
coronation sermon of Charles II. at Scone, Mr. James Sharp of Crail
(these two back for some time from the imprisonment in London to
which Monk had sent them in 1651: Vol. IV. 296), Mr. James Wood of
St. Andrews, old Mr. David Dickson, now Professor of Divinity in
Edinburgh, and our perpetual friend Baillie. The minority, or
Protesters, were led by such ministers as Mr. James Guthrie of
Stirling, their first oracle, Mr. Patrick Giliespie of Glasgow
University, Mr. John Livingston of Ancram, Mr, Samuel Rutherford of
St. Andrews, and Mr. Andrew Cant of Aberdeen; with whom, as their
best lay head, was Johnstone of Warriston. Peace-makers, such as Mr.
Robert Blair of St. Andrews and Mr. James Durham of Glasgow,
negociated between the two sides; and Mr. Robert Leighton, in his
Edinburgh Principalship, looked on with saintly and philosophic
indifference. He hoped that, while so many brethren "preached to the
times," one brother might be allowed "to preach on eternity" and that
the differences on earth would "make heaven the sweeter." In fact,
however, the controversy was not merely a theoretical one. Not only
was it involved whether the two last General Assemblies, of 1651 and
1652, swayed as they had been by the Resolutioners, should be
recognised and their acts held valid, and what should be the spirit
and constitution of the Kirk in future: present interests were also
involved. It had been to the Protesters that Cromwell had turned with
greatest liking and hope, both on political grounds and from
spiritual sympathy, when he was fighting in Scotland; and, since the
beginning of his Protectorate, _they_ had been most in favour.
Early in 1654 three of their number, Mr. Patrick Gillespie, Mr. John
Livingston, and Mr. John Menzies, had been summoned to London to
advise the Protector; they had been there two or three months; and
the effects of their advice had been visible in an ordinance about
vacant Kirk-livings very favourable to the Protesters, and generally
in a continued inclination towards the Protesters in the proceedings
of the English Government in Scotland. The ministers and others
ejected by Cromwell's visitors had been mostly of the Resolutioner
species; and one of Baillie's complaints is that Protesters, whether
fit or not, were put into vacant livings by the English, and that
only Scotsmen of that colour were conjoined with the English in the
executive and the judicatories. Till 1656 all this had been very
natural. The dregs of Stuartism, and consequent antipathy to the
Protectorate, had persisted till then most visibly among the
Resolutioners.[1]
[Footnote 1: Baillie, _ut supra_; Life of Robert Blair, 313
_et seq._; Wodrow's Introduction to his _History_ (1721);
Beattie's _Church of Scotland during the Commonwealth_ (1842),
Chap. III.]
Though the Protesters were originally what we have called
super-ultra-Presbyterians, it was not surprising that some of them
had moved into Independency. There certainly were some Independents
among the Scottish parish clergy at this time, especially about
Aberdeen; and the Independents apart from the National Church had
become numerous. But mere Independency now, or even Anabaptism, was
nothing very shocking in Scotland; it was the increase of newer
sectaries that alarmed the clergy. Quakerism had found its way into
Scotland; so that there were now, we are told by a contemporary,
"great numbers of that damnable sect of the Quakers, who, being
deluded by Satan, drew away many to their profession, both men and
women." As in England, Quaker preachers went about disturbing the
regular service in churches, or denouncing every form of ministry but
their own to open-air congregations, and often with physical
convulsions and fits of insane phrenzy. The Church-courts and the
civil authorities were much exercised by the innovation, and had
begun action against the sect, the rather because many of the common
people, in their weariness of the strife among their own clergy,
"resetted" the Quaker preachers and said they "got as much good of
them as of anybody else."[1]
[Footnote 1: The quotations are from Chambers's _Dom. Annals of
Scotland_, II. 232-234.]
Not an importation like Quakerism, but of ineradicable native growth,
was the crime of witchcraft; and, though that crime was known in
England too, and occupied English law-courts, Scotland maintained her
fearful superiority in witch-trials and witch-burnings. "There is
much witchery up and down our land," wrote Baillie: "the English be
but too sparing to try it, but some they execute." Against crimes of
other orders the English judges were willing enough to act; and
nothing is more startling to one who is new to such facts than to
find how much of their business, in pious and Presbyterian Scotland,
consisted in trials of cases of hideous and abnormal sexualism. But,
indeed, very strange _isms_ of quite another sort, and of which mere
modern theory would have pronounced the Scotland of that time
incapable, lurked underneath all the piety, all the preaching, all
the exercise of Presbyterian discipline, all the seeming distribution
of the population universally into Resolutioners and Protesters, with
interspersed Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and other vehement
Christians. Bead, from the Scottish correspondence of Needham's
_Mercurius Politicus_, in the number for June 26-July 3, 1656, the
following account of one of the cases that had come before Judge
Smith and Judge Lawrence in their Dumfriesshire circuit of the
previous May:--
"Alexander Agnew, commonly called Jock of Broad Scotland,"
[apparently an itinerant beggar, or Edie Ochiltree, of
Dumfriesshire] was tried on this indictment.--"_First_, the said
Alexander, being desired to go to church, answered 'Hang God: God
was hanged long since; what had _he_ to do with God? he had nothing
to do with God'. _Secondly_, He answered he was nothing in God's
common; God gave him nothing, and he was no more obliged to God
than to the Devil; and God was very greedy. _Thirdly_, When he was
desired to seek anything in God's name, he said he would never seek
anything for God's sake, and that it was neither God nor the Devil
that gave the fruits of the land: the wives of the country gave
_him_ his meat. _Fourthly_, Being asked how many persons were in
the Godhead, answered there was only one person in the Godhead, who
made all; but, for Christ, he was not God, because he was made, and
came into the world after it was made, and died as other men, being
nothing but a mere man. _Sixthly_, He declared that he knew not
whether God or the Devil had the greater power; but he thought the
Devil had the greatest; and 'When I die,' said he, 'let God and the
Devil strive for my soul, and let him that is strongest take it.'
_Seventhly_, He denied there was a Holy Ghost, or knew there was a
Spirit, and denied he was a sinner or needed mercy. _Eighthly_, He
denied he was a sinner, and [said] that he scorned to seek God's
mercy. _Ninthly_, He ordinarily mocked all exercise of God's
worship and convocation in His name, in derision saying 'Pray you
to your God, and I will pray to mine when I think time.' And, when
he was desired by some to give thanks for his meat, he said, 'Take
a sackful of prayers to the mill, and shill them, and grind them,
and take your breakfast off them.' To others he said, 'I will give
you a twopence, and [if ye] pray until a boll of meal and one stone
of butter fall down from heaven through the house-rigging to you.'
To others, when bread and cheese was given him, and was laid on the
ground by him, he said, 'If I leave this, I will [shall] long cry
to God before he give it me again.' To others he said, 'Take a
bannock, and break it in two, and lay down one half thereof, and ye
will long-pray to God before he put the other half to it again.'
_Tenthly_, Being posed whether or not he knew God or Christ, he
answered he had never had any profession, nor never would--he had
never had any religion, nor never would: also that there was no God
nor Christ, and that he never received anything from God, but from
Nature, which he said ever reigned and ever would, and that to
speak of Gods and their persons was an idle thing, and that he
would never name such names, for he had shaken his cap of such
things long since. And he denied that a man has a soul, or that
there is a Heaven or a Hell, or that the Scriptures are the Word of
God. Concerning Christ, he said that he heard of such, a man; but,
for the second person of the Trinity, he had been the second person
of the Trinity if the ministers had not put him in prison, and that
he was no more obliged to God nor the Devil.--And these aforesaid
blasphemies are not rarely or seldom uttered by him, but frequently
and ordinarily in several places where he resorted, to the
entangling, deluding, and seducing of the common people. Through
the committing of which blasphemies, he hath contravened the tenor
of the laws and acts of Parliament, and incurred the pain of death
mentioned therein; which ought to be inflicted upon him with all
rigour, in manner specified in the indictment.--Which indictment
being put to the knowledge of an assize, the said Alexander Agnew,
called Jock of Broad Scotland, was by the said assize, all in one
voice, by the mouth of William Carlyle, late bailie of Dumfries,
their chancellor, found guilty of the said crimes of blasphemy
mentioned in his indictment; for which the commissioners ordained
him, upon Wednesday, 21 May, 1656, betwixt two and four hours in
the afternoon, to be taken to the ordinary place of execution for
the Burgh of Dumfries, and there to be hanged on a gibbet while
[till] he be dead, and all his moveable goods to be escheat."
The intercourse between Scotland and London, both by letters and by
journeys to and fro, was now very brisk.[1] Not only were Lauderdale,
Eglinton, Marischal, David Leslie, and a number of the other
distinguished Scottish prisoners of 1651, still detained in London,
in more or less strict custody, with their wives and retainers near
them; but many Scots whose proper residence was in Scotland were
coming to London, on visits of some length, for their own or for
public business. Among these, late in 1655, was Lockhart,--to be
converted, as we know, into the Protector's ambassador to the Court
of France. The eccentric ex-Judge Scot of Scotstarvet had already
been in London, petitioning for the remission or reduction of his
fine of £1500 for former delinquency, and succeeding completely at
last, "in consideration of the pains he hath taken and the service he
hath done to the Commonwealth." The Earl of Lothian was in London,
painfully prosecuting petitions for the recovery of certain lost
family-properties. But the most remarkable apparition was that of the
Marquis of Argyle. He came to London in September, 1655, and he seems
to have remained there for a long while. What had brought him up was
also a suit with the Protector and the Council for reparation of some
portions of his lost fortunes and for favour generally; but he seems
to have gone about a good deal, visiting various people. "Came to
visit me." says Evelyn, the naturalist and virtuoso of Sayes Court,
in his diary, under date May 28, 1656, "the old Marquis of Argyle.
Lord Lothian, and some other Scotch noblemen, all strangers to me.
_Note_: The Marquis took the turtle-doves in the aviary for
owls." It had been his characteristic mistake through life.[2]
[Footnote 1: In the London _Public Intelligencer_ for April
12-19, 1658, among other advertisements of stage-coaches starting
from "the George Inn, without Aldersgate," is one of a fortnightly
stage-coach for Edinburgh, the fare £4. Something of the sort may
have been running already.]
[Footnote 2: Council Order Books of the Protectorate through 1655
and 1656; _Mere. Pol._ for Sept. 27-Oct. 4, 1655; Evelyn's
_Diary_ (ed. 1870), p. 248. In the Council Order Books, under
date Sept. 11, 1656, is minuted an order that, in terms of an Act of
the Estates of Scotland of March 16, 1649, the Marquis of Argyle
shall, from and after Nov. 10, 1657, have half the excise of wines
and strong waters in Scotland, but not exceeding £3000 in any one
year, until he is satisfied of a debt of £145,400 Scots due to him by
Scotland on public grounds.]
Any influence which the Marquis could now have with the Protector in
matters of Scottish Government must have been small; but it was
understood that, such as it was, it would be on the side of the Kirk
party of the Protesters. And this had become of some consequence. In
and through 1656, if not earlier, it had become obvious that the
inclinations of the Protector to that party had been considerably
shaken. The change was attributed partly to Lord President Broghill.
Almost from his first coming to Scotland, this nobleman had found it
desirable to win over the Resolutioners. "The President Broghill,"
says Baillie, "is reported by all to be a man exceeding wise and
moderate, and by profession a Presbyterian: he has gained more on the
affections of the people than all the English that ever were among
us. He has been very civil to Mr. Douglas and Mr. Dickson, and is
very intime with Mr. James Sharp. By this means we [the
Resolutioners] have an equal hearing in all we have ado with the
Council. Yet their way is exceeding longsome, and all must be done
first at London." So far as Broghill's communications with London
might serve, the Resolutioners, therefore, might count on him as
their friend. And by this time he had reasons to show. Had he not
succeeded, where the stern Monk had failed, in inducing the
Resolutioner clergy to give up public praying for King Charles and
otherwise to conform; and was it not on this ground that Monk was
believed still to befriend the Protesters? But perhaps it hardly
needed Broghill's representations to induce Cromwell to reconsider
his Scottish policy in regard to the Kirk. That same Conservatism
which had been gaining on him in the English department of his
Protectorate, leading him rather to discourage extreme men while
tolerating them, had begun to affect his views of Kirk parties in
Scotland. The Resolutioners were numerically the larger party: if
they would be reconciled, might they not be his most massive support
in North Britain? It is possible that the institution of the new
Scottish Council under Broghill's Presidency may have been the result
of such thoughts, and that Broghill thus only took a course indicated
for him by Cromwell. At all events, various relaxations of former
orders, about admission to vacant livings and the like, had already
been made in favour of the Resolutioners; and, in and from 1656, it
was noted that extreme men in Scotland too were not to his Highness's
taste, and that, contrary to what might have been expected from his
former relations to Scottish Presbyterianism, his aim now was to
rebuild a good and solid Established Church in Scotland mainly on the
native Presbyterian principle, though under control, and to leave
extravagant spirits, including even those too forward for
Independency among the Scots, to the mere benefits of an outside
toleration. It was not his way to proceed hurriedly, however; and, as
the Protesters were religiously the men most to his liking, and must
by all means be kept within the Kirk, an agreement between them and
the Resolutioners was a political necessity. To this end he had
again, more than once recently, requested some of the leaders of both
parties to come to London for consultation, as Gillespie, Livingston,
and Menzies, for the Protesters, had done before. Appeals to the
Civil Power in ecclesiastical matters being against the Presbyterian
theory which the parties professed in common, that suggestion had not
been taken, notwithstanding the precedent, and the parties had
persisted in their war of mutual invective in Scotland, each getting
what it could by private dealings with the Council there,--the
Resolutioners through Broghill and the Protesters through Monk. But
that could not last for ever; and, in August 1656, strict
Presbyterian theory had been so far waived by both parties that both
had resolved on direct appeal to his Highness in London. The
Resolutioners had the start. They had picked out as their fittest
single emissary Mr. James Sharp of Crail, then forty-three years of
age, already well acquainted with London by his former compulsory
stay there, and with the advantage now of intimacy with Broghill. His
Instructions, signed by three of the leading Resolutioners, were
ready on the 23rd of August. They were substantially that he should
clear the Resolutioners with the Protector from the
misrepresentations of the Protesters, paint the Protesters in return
as mainly hot young spirits and disturbers, and obtain from his
Highness a restoration of Presbyterian use and wont through the whole
Kirk, with preponderance to the Resolutioners, though not with a
General Assembly till times were more quiet. _Per contra_, the
Protesters had drawn out certain propositions to be submitted to
Cromwell. They asked for a Commission for the plantation of kirks, to
be appointed by his authority and to consist of those he might think
fit, to administer the revenues of the Kirk according to the Acts of
Assemblies and the laws of the land prior to 1651, the fatal year of
the "Resolutions." They asked also for a Commission of Visitation,
one half to be elected by the Resolutioners and one half by the
Protesters, to have the power of "planting and purging" in parishes
and of composing differences in Synods and Presbyteries. For urging
these propositions a deputation to Cromwell had been thought of, and
actually appointed. As it was postponed, however, Sharp was to be in
London first by himself. Hence some importance for the Protesters in
any counterweight there might be in Argyle's presence there already.
[1]
[Footnote 1: Baillie, Letters to Spang, in 1655 and 1656, as already
cited, with III. 568-573 for Instructions to Sharp and Propositions
of the Protesters; Life of Robert Blair, 325-329.]
No one was more anxious for the success of Mr. Sharp's mission than
the good Baillie of Glasgow University, now in his fifty-fifth year,
a widower for three years, but about to marry again, and known as one
of the stoutest Resolutioners and Anti-Protesters since that
controversy had begun. He had had his discomforts and losses in the
University under the new Principalship of Mr. Patrick Gillespie; but
had been busy with his lectures and books, and the correspondence of
which he was so fond. Among his letters of 1654-5, besides those to
Spang, are two hearty ones to his old friend Lauderdale in his London
captivity, one or two to London Presbyterian ministers, and an
interesting one to Thomas Fuller, regretting that they had not been
sooner acquainted, and saying he had "fallen in love" with Fuller's
books and was longing for his _Church History_. This was not the
only sign of Baillie's mellower temper by this time towards the
Anglicans. He was inquiring much about Brian Walton, whose name had
not been so much as heard of when Baillie was in London, and whose
Polyglott seemed now to him the book of the age. Baxter, on the other
hand, was an Ishmaelite, a man to be put down. All these matters,
however, had been absorbed at length in Baillie's interest in Mr.
Sharp's mission. He was to write to his old London friends, Rous,
Calamy, and Ashe, urging them to help Mr. Sharp to the utmost, and he
was to correspond with Sharp himself. "I pray God help you and guide
you; you had need of a long spoon [in supping with a certain
personage]: trust no words nor faces, for all men are liars," is the
memorable ending of the first letter that Sharp in London was to
receive from Baillie.[1]
[Footnote 1: Baillie, III. 234-335; with Mr. Laing's Life of
Baillie.]
IRELAND.
There had been little of novelty in Ireland for some time after the
proclamation of the Protectorate (Vol. IV. p. 551). Fleetwood, with
the full title of "Lord Deputy" since Sept. 1654, had conducted the
Government, as well as he could, with a Council of assessors,
consisting, after that date, of Miles Corbet, Robert Goodwin, Colonel
Matthew Tomlinson, and Colonel Robert Hammond. This last, so brought
into the Protector's service after long retirement, died at Dublin in
July 1655. Ludlow still kept aloof, disowning the Protectorate,
though remaining in Ireland with his old military commission. Left
very much to themselves, Fleetwood and his Council had carried out,
as far as possible, the Acts for the Settlement of the country passed
or proposed by the Rump in 1652, but not pushing too severely the
great business which the Rump had schemed out, of a general and
gradual cooping up of the Roman Catholics within the single province
of Connaught. In the nature of things, that business, or indeed any
actual prevention of the exercise of the Catholic Religion wherever
Roman Catholics abounded, was impracticable. It was enough, in the
Lord Protector's view, that the land lay quiet, the Roman Catholics
and their faithful priests not stirring too publicly, the English
soldiery keeping all under sufficient pressure, and English and
Scottish colonization shooting in here and there, with Protestant
preaching and Protestant farming in its track. On the whole,
Fleetwood's Lord-Deputyship, if not eventful, was far from unpopular.
[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV. 447-449.]
It had occurred to Cromwell, however, that more could be done in
Ireland, and that his son-in-law Fleetwood was perhaps not
sufficiently energetic, or sufficiently Oliverian, for the purpose.
Accordingly, about the same time that Fleetwood had been raised to
the Lord-Deputyship, Cromwell's second son, Henry, had been appointed
Major-General of the Irish Army. The good impression he had made in
his former mission to Ireland (Vol. IV. p. 551) justified the
appointment. Not till the middle of 1655, however, did he arrive in
Ireland. His reception then was enthusiastic, and was followed by the
sudden recall of Fleetwood to London, professedly for a visit only,
but really not to return. The title of Lord-Deputy of Ireland was
still to be Fleetwood's for the full term of his original
appointment; but he was to be occupied by the duties of his English
Major-Generalship and his membership of Oliver's Council at home, and
the actual government of Ireland was thenceforth in the hands of
Henry Cromwell. The young Governor, whose wife had accompanied him,
held a kind of Court in Dublin, with Fleetwood's Councillors about
him, or others in their stead, and a number of new Judges. The
diverse tempers of these advisers, among whom were some Anabaptists
or Anti-Oliverians, and his own doubts as to some of the instructions
that reached him from his father, made his position a very difficult
one; but, though very anxious and sensitive, he managed admirably. In
particular, it was observed that, in matters of religion, he had all
his father's liberality. It was "against his conscience," he said,
"to bear hard upon any merely on account of a different judgment." He
conciliated the Presbyterian clergy in a remarkable manner; the
Royalists liked him; he would not quarrel with the Anabaptists; and
he was as moderate as possible towards the Roman Catholics.[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV. 449-458; _Milton Papers_ by Nickolls,
187-138; Carlyle, III. 108-109, and 133-140 (Letters from Cromwell to
his son Harry).]
One of Henry Cromwell's difficulties would have been Ludlow, had that
uncompromising Republican remained in Ireland. From that he was
relieved. In January 1655 Fleetwood had been ordered by the Protector
to make Ludlow give up his commission; and, as Ludlow questioned the
legality of the demand, he had arranged with Fleetwood to go and
settle the matter with the Protector himself. The Protector seeming
to prefer that Ludlow should stay where he was, and having sent
orders to that effect, Fleetwood was himself In England, and Henry
Cromwell was in his place in Dublin, and still there seemed no chance
of leave for Ludlow to cross the Channel. At length, without distinct
leave, but trusting to a written engagement Fleetwood had given him,
he ventured on the passage; and on Dec. 12, 1655, after the
experience of a most stormy sea, he had that of a more stormy
interview with the Protector and some of his Council at Whitehall.
Cromwell rated him roundly for his past behaviour generally and for
his return without leave, and demanded his _parole_ of
submission to the established Government for the future. Some kind of
_parole_ Ludlow was willing to give, declaring that he saw no
immediate chance of a subversion of the Government and knew of no
design for that end, but refusing to tie his hands "if Providence
_should_ offer an occasion." With that Cromwell, who had begun
to "carry himself more calmly" towards the end of the interview, was
obliged to be content. He became quite civil to Ludlow, saying he
"wished him as well as he did any of his Council," and desiring him
to make "choice of some place to live in where he might have good
air." Ludlow retired into Essex[1].
[Footnote 1: Ludlow's Memoirs, 481-557; Carlyle, III. 136.]
THE COLONIES.
With the exception of a factory of the London East India Company,
which had been established at _Surat_ on the west coast of
Hindostan in 1612, and a settlement on the _Gambia_ on the
western coast of Africa, dating from 1631, all the considerable
Colonies of England in 1656 were American:--I. NEW ENGLAND. The four
chief New England Colonies, _Plymouth_, _Massachusetts_,
_Connecticut_, and _New Haven_, confederated since 1643,
together with the outlying Plantations of _Providence_ and
_Rhode-Island_, &c., still belonged politically to the
mother-country; and through Cromwell's Protectorate, as before, the
connexion had been signified by references of various subjects to the
Home-Government, discussions of these by that Government, and orders
and advices transmitted in return. In the main, however, the Colonies
remained independent, each with its annually elected Governor, and
the Confederacy with its annually elected Board of Commissioners
besides; and, while professing high admiration of Cromwell and
approval generally of his rule, they were not troubled with questions
of rule seriously affecting their own interests. The war with the
Dutch did for some time involve them in inconveniences with their
Dutch neighbours; but their dissensions were chiefly with each other,
or domestically within each colony. The harsh proceedings in
Massachusetts and elsewhere against Baptists and other Sectaries gave
some colour to Roger Williams's assertion that, in the matter of
religious toleration, New England was becoming old while Old England
was becoming new; and, as soon as Quakerism had broken out in New
England and Quakers had appeared there (1656), it became evident that
there would be even less mercy for that sect in New England than on
the other side of the Atlantic. Nevertheless, with their zealous
Puritanism, their energy and industry, and the abilities of their
Bradfords, Bradstreets, Winslows, Winthrops, Standishes, Endicotts,
Hayneses, Hopkinses, Newmans, Williamses, and other prominent
governors or assistant-governors, the Confederacy and the Plantations
went on prosperously towards their ultimate, though yet unforeseen,
destiny in the formation of the United States. Cromwell, indeed, had
a scheme which would have stopped that issue. He had a scheme for
fetching all the Puritans of New England back and planting them
splendidly in Ireland. Communications on the subject had passed as
early as 1651, when Ireland had been just reconquered; but naturally
without effect. The New Englanders were not then too numerous perhaps
to have been transported to Ireland bodily; but, as one of their
historians says, "they had taken root." Their increase, however, for
more than a century thenceforward was to be mainly within themselves,
for new arrivals from England had become scarce.[1] II. OTHER
COLONIES AND SETTLEMENTS IN NORTH AMERICA. These too went on very
much at their own will, though not quite unnoticed. _Virginia_,
dating from 1608, and _Maryland_, dating from 1634, continued to
be the favourite colonies for Royalist settlers, Anglican or Roman
Catholic; but there had been recent additions of English Puritans,
and of transported Scottish prisoners of war, to the population of
Virginia, and the connexions with the mother-country had remained
unbroken. There were commercial regulations about both Colonies by
the English Council, and grants of passes to them. Canada and the
other regions about the St. Lawrence, the possession of which had
been contested by the English and the French in the reign of Charles
I, had lapsed long ago into the hands of the French; but Major
Sedgwick had wrested back for Cromwell, in 1654, the peninsula then
called _Acadie_, but now _Nova Scotia_, being part of the
territory that had been granted under that name by Charles to his
Scottish Secretary, the Earl of Stirling, and had been colonised by
Scots, to some extent, from 1625 onwards. Off the mainland,
Newfoundland, which had contained an English fishing population for
at least twenty years, was not neglected; and, beyond the bounds of
any of the North-American Colonies or Plantations that were
definitely named and recognised, there may have been stragglers
knowing themselves to be subjects of the Protectorate.[2] III. THE
WEST INDIES. The _Bermudas_ or _Summer Islands_ had been
English since 1612, and had now a considerable population of opulent
settlers, attracted by their beauty and the salubrity of the climate;
_Barbadoes_, English since 1605, and with a population of more
than 50,000, had been a refuge of Royalists, but had been taken for
the Commonwealth in 1652, and had been much used of late for the
reception of banished prisoners; such other Islands of the Lesser
Antilles as _Antigua_, _Nevis_, _Montserrat_, and the
_Virgin Islands_, together with _The Bahamas_, to the north
of Cuba, had been colonised in the late reign; and _Jamaica_ had
been Cromwell's own conquest from the Spaniards, by Penn's blunder,
in 1655. The war with Spain had given new importance to those West
India possessions of the Protectorate. They had become war-stations
for ships, with considerable armed forces on some of them; and some
of Cromwell's best officers had been sent out, or were to be sent
out, to command in them. Of them all Jamaica was Cromwell's pet
island. He had resolved to keep it and do his best with it. The
charge of it had been given to a commission consisting of Admiral
Goodson, Major-General Fortescue, Major-General Sedgwick (the
recaptor of Nova Scotia from the French), and Daniel Serle, Governor
of Barbadoes; and Fortescue and Sedgwick, and others in succession,
were to die at their posts there. To have the rich island colonised
at once with the right material was the Protector's great anxiety;
and his first thoughts on that subject, as soon as he had learnt that
the Island was his, had issued in a most serious modification of his
former offer to the New Englanders. As they had refused to come back
and colonise Ireland, would they not accept Jamaica? "He did
apprehend the people of New England had as clear a call to transport
themselves thence to Jamaica as they had had from England to New
England, in order to the bettering of their outward condition;"
besides which, their removal thither would have a "tendency to the
overthrow of the Man of Sin." They should be transported free of
cost; they should have lands rent-free for seven years, and after
that at a penny an acre; they should be free from customs, excise,
or any tax for four years; they should have the most liberal
constitution that could be framed: only his Highness would keep the
right of appointing the successive Governors and their Assistants.
The answer of the Massachusetts people, when it did arrive, was
evasive. They spoke of the reported unhealthiness of Jamaica, and
they assured Ms Highness of their admiration, their gratitude, and
their prayers. The answer had not been received at the date we have
reached (Sept. 1656), and the Protector still cherished his idea. As
it proved, the New Englanders were to remain New Englanders, and
Jamaica was to be colonised slowly and with less select material.[3]
[Footnote 1: Palfrey's Hist. of New England, II. 304-415, and
especially 388-390.]
[Footnote 2: Various minutes in Council Order Books from 1649
onwards; Carlyle, III, Appendix, 442-443.]
[Footnote 3: Mills's _Colonial Constitutions_ (1856), 124-133,
Introd. XXXIV. et seq.; Carlyle, III. 124-133; Palfrey's _New
England_, II. 390-393.]
SECTION III.
OLIVER AND THE FIRST SESSION OP HIS SECOND PARLIAMENT: SEPT. 17,
1656-JUNE 26, 1657.
SECOND PARLIAMENT OF THE PROTECTORATE CALLED: VANE'S _HEALING
QUESTION_ AND ANOTHER ANTI-OLIVERIAN PAMPHLET: PRECAUTIONS AND
ARRESTS: MEETING OF THE PARLIAMENT: ITS COMPOSITION: SUMMARY OF
CROMWELL'S OPENING SPEECH: EXCLUSION OF NINETY-THREE ANTI-OLIVERIAN
MEMBERS: DECIDEDLY OLIVERIAN TEMPER OF THE REST: QUESTION OF THE
EXCLUDED MEMBERS: THEIR PROTEST: SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
PARLIAMENT FOR FIVE MONTHS (SEPT. 1656-FEB. 1656-7): ADMINISTRATION
OF CROMWELL AND HIS COUNCIL DURING THOSE MONTHS: APPROACHES TO
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN CROMWELL AND THE PARLIAMENT IN THE CASE OF JAMES
NAYLER AND ON THE QUESTION OF CONTINUATION OF THE MILITIA BY
MAJOR-GENERALS: NO RUPTURE.--THE SEXBY-SINDERCOMBE PLOT.--SIR
CHRISTOPHER PACK'S MOTION FOR A NEW CONSTITUTION (FEB. 23, 1656-7):
ITS ISSUE IN THE _PETITION AND ADVICE_ AND OFFER OF THE CROWN TO
CROMWELL: DIVISION OF PUBLIC OPINION ON THE KINGSHIP QUESTION:
OPPOSITION AMONG THE ARMY OFFICERS: CROMWELL'S NEUTRAL ATTITUDE: HIS
RECEPTION OF THE OFFER: HIS LONG HESITATIONS AND SEVERAL SPEECHES
OVER THE AFFAIR: HIS FINAL REFUSAL (MAY 8, 1657): LUDLOW'S STORY OF
THE CAUSE.--HARRISON AND THE FIFTH-MONARCHY MEN: VENNER'S OUTBREAK AT
MILE-END-GREEN.--PROPOSED NEW CONSTITUTION OF THE _PETITION AND
ADVICE_ RETAINED IN THE FORM OF A CONTINUED PROTECTORATE:
SUPPLEMENTS TO THE _PETITION AND ADVICE_: BILLS ASSENTED TO BY
THE PROTECTOR, JUNE 9: VOTES FOR THE SPANISH WAR,--TREATY OFFENSIVE
AND DEFENSIVE WITH FRANCE AGAINST SPAIN: DISPATCH OF ENGLISH
AUXILIARY ARMY, UNDER REYNOLDS, FOR SERVICE IN FLANDERS: BLAKE'S
ACTION IN SANTA CRUZ BAY.--_"KILLING--NO MURDER"_: ADDITIONAL
AND EXPLANATORY PETITION AND ADVICE: ABSTRACT OF THE ARTICLES OP THE
NEW CONSTITUTION AS ARRANGED BY THE TWO DOCUMENTS: CROMWELL'S
COMPLETED ASSENT TO THE NEW CONSTITUTION, AND HIS ASSENT TO OTHER
BILLS, JUNE 26, 1657: INAUGURATION OF THE SECOND PROTECTORATE THAT
DAY: CLOSE OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE SECOND PARLIAMENT.
Willing to relieve his government, if possible, from the character of
"arbitrariness" it had so long borne, Cromwell had at last resolved
on calling another Parliament. The matter had been secretly
deliberated in Council in May and June 1656, and the writs were out
on July 10. There had ensued, throughout England, Scotland, and
Ireland, a great bustle of elections, the Major-Generals in England
and the Councils in Scotland and Ireland exerting themselves to
secure the return of Oliverians, and the Protector and his Council by
no means easy as to the result. Two recent Republican pamphlets had
caused agitation. One, which had been called forth by a Proclamation
of a General East a month or two before, was by Sir Henry Vane, and
was entitled _A Healing Question Propounded and Resolved._ It
was temperate enough, approving of the government in some respects,
and even suggesting the continuance of some kind of sovereignty in a
single person, but containing censures of the "great interruption" of
popular liberties, and appeals to the people to do their part. The
other and later pamphlet (Aug. 1), directly intended to bear on the
Elections, was called _England's Remembrancer,_ and was
virtually a call on all to use their votes so as to return a
Parliament that should unseat Oliver. The author of this second
pamphlet evaded detection; but Vane was brought to task for his. He
was summoned to London from his seat of Belleau in Lincolnshire,
July 29; by an order of Aug. 21 he was required to give security in
£5000 that he would do nothing "to prejudice the present government";
and, on his refusal, there issued a warrant, signed by Henry
Lawrence, as President of the Council, for his committal to King
Charles's old prison, Carisbrooke Castle in the Isle of Wight. About
the same time, precautions were taken with Bradshaw, Harrison,
Ludlow, Lawson, Rich, Okey, Alured, and others. Bradshaw was
suspended for a week or two from his Chief-Justiceship of Chester;
Harrison was sent to Pendennis Castle in Cornwall; Rich to Windsor;
security in £5000 was exacted from Ludlow, or rather arranged for him
by Cromwell; and the others were variously under guard. Nor did
leading royalists escape. Just before the meeting of the Parliament,
a dozen of them, including Lord Willoughly of Parham and Sir John
Ashburnham, were sent to the Tower. The Republican Overton was still
there. All this new "arbitrariness" for the moment was for the
purpose of sufficiently tuning the Parliament.[1]
[Footnote 1: Council Order Books through July, Aug. and Sept. 1656;
Godwin, IV. 261-277; Ludlow, 568-573; Catalogue of Thomason
Pamphlets.]
It met on Wednesday, Sept. 17, when the first business was
attendance, with the Protector, in the Abbey Church, to hear a sermon
from Dr. Owen. Among the 400 members returned from England and Wales
were the Protector's eldest son, Richard Cromwell (for Cambridge
University), Lord President Lawrence and at least twelve other
members of the Council (Fleetwood, Lambert, Desborough, Skippon,
Jones, Montague, Sydenham, Pickering, Wolseley, Rous, Strickland, and
Nathaniel Fiennes), with Mr. Secretary Thurloe, Admiral Blake, and
most of the Major-Generals not of the Council (Howard, Berry,
Whalley, Haynes, Butler, Barkstead, Goffe, Kelsey, and Lilburne).
Other members, of miscellaneous note and various antecedents, were
Whitlocke, Ingoldsby, Scott, Dennis Bond, Maynard, Prideaux, Glynne,
Sir Harbottle Grimston, the Earl of Salisbury, Sir Arthur Hasilrig,
Sir Anthony Irby, Alderman Sir Christopher Pack, Lord Claypole, Sir
Thomas Widdrington, Ex-Speaker Lenthall, Richard Norton, Pride (now
Sir Thomas), and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper,--this last long an
absentee from the Council, Of the thirty members returned from the
shires, burghs, or groups of such, in Scotland; about half were
Englishmen: e.g. President Lord Broghill for Edinburgh, Samuel
Desborough for Midlothian, Judge Smith for Dumfriesshire, the
physician Dr. Thomas Clarges (Monk's brother-in-law) for Ross,
Sutherland, and Cromarty, Colonel Nathaniel Whetham for St. Andrews,
&c.; while among the native Scots returned were Ambassador Lockhart,
Swinton, the Earl of Tweeddale, and Colonel David Barclay. Ireland
had returned, among _her_ thirty (who were nearly all
Englishmen), Sir Hardress Waller, Major-General Jephson, Sir Charles
Coote, and several Colonels.[1]--Not a few of the chief members had
been returned by more than one constituency: e.g. Lord Broghill, for
Cork as well as for Edinburgh. Several of those returned cannot have
been expected to give attendance, at least at first. Thus, Admirals
Blake and Montague were away with their fleets, off Spain and
Portugal. But Broghill did come up from Scotland to attend, and
Swinton and most of the other members of the Scottish Council with
him, leaving Monk once more in his familiar charge. Ambassador
Lockhart also had come over, or was coming.
[Footnote 1: List of the members returned for the Second Parliament
of the Protectorate in _Part. Hist._ III. 1479-1484.]
There were two rather important interventions between Dr. Owen's
opening sermon to the Parliament and their settling down to
business.
One was the Lord Protector's opening speech in the Painted Chamber,
now numbered as Speech V, of the Cromwell series. It was very long,
of extremely gnarled structure, but full of matter. The pervading
topic was the war with Spain. This was justified, with approving
references to the published Latin Declaration of Oct. 1655 on the
subject, entitled _Scriptum Domini Protectoris, &c._
(Milton's?), and with vehement expressions of his Highness's personal
abhorrence of Spain and her policy. He represented her and her
allies and dependents as the anti-English and anti-Christian Hydra of
the world, while France, though Roman Catholic too, stood apart from
all the other Catholic powers in not being under the Pope's lash and
so able to be fair and reasonable. He urged the most energetic
prosecution of the war that had been begun. But with the Spanish war
he connected the dangers to England from the Royalist risings and
conspiracies of the last two years, announcing moreover that he had
now full intelligence of a compact between Spain and Charles II., a
force of 7000 or 8000 Spaniards ready at Bruges in consequence, and
other forces promised by Popish princes, clients of Spain. There were
English agents of the alliance at work, he said, and one miscreant in
particular who had been an Anabaptist Colonel; and, necessarily, all
schemes and conspiracies against the present government would drift
into the Hispano-Stuartist interest. He acquitted some of the
opponents of his government, calling themselves "Commonwealth's men"
and "Fifth Monarchy men," from any intention of that conjunction; but
so it would happen. His arrests of some such had been necessary for
the public safety. He knew his system of Major-Generalships was much
criticised, and thought arbitrary; but that had been necessary too,
and a most useful invention. He had called this Parliament with a
hope of united constitutional action with them for the future, and
would recommend, in the domestic programme, under the general head of
"Reformation," certain great matters to their care. There was the
Sustentation of the Church and the Universities; there was
Reformation of Manners; and there was the still needed Reformation of
the Laws. On the Church-question he avowed, more strongly than ever
before, his desire to uphold and perpetuate an Established Church.
"For my part," he said, "I should think I were very treacherous if I
took away Tithes, till I see the Legislative Power settle maintenance
to Ministers another way." He knew that some of the ministers
themselves would prefer some other form of State-provision; but, on
the whole, believing that some distinct State-maintenance of the
Clergy, whether by tithes or otherwise, was "the root of visible
profession." he adjured the Parliament not to swerve from that. He
expounded also his principle of comprehending Presbyterians,
Independents, Baptists, and all earnest Evangelical men amicably in
the Established Church, with small concern about their differences
from each, other, and expressed his especial satisfaction that the
Presbyterians had at length come round to this view, and given up
much of their old Anti-Toleration tenet. "I confess I look at that
as the blessedest thing which hath been since the adventuring upon
this government." Towards the end of the speech there was just a hint
that he stood on his Protectorship for life, and regarded that as a
fundamental, not to be called in question. "I say, Look up to God:
have peace among yourselves. Know assuredly that, if I have an
interest, I am by the voice of the People the Supreme Magistrate,
and, it may be, do know somewhat that might satisfy my conscience, if
I stood in doubt. But it is a union, really it is a union, between
you and me; and, both of us united in faith and love to Jesus Christ,
and to His peculiar Interest in the world,-_that_ must ground
this work. And in that, if I have any peculiar interest which is
personal to myself, which is not subservient to the public end, it
were not an extravagant thing for me to curse myself, because I know
God will curse me if I have." After quoting the 85th Psalm, he
dismissed them to choose their Speaker.[1]
[Footnote 1: Speech V.; Carlyle, III. 159-196.]
Then, however, there was the second intervention. It was in the lobby
of the House. Some persons, acting for the Clerk of the Commonwealth
in Chancery, stood there, with tickets certifying that such and such
members had been duly returned and also "_approved by his
Highness's Council";_ the doors of the House were guarded by
soldiers; and none but those for whom the tickets had been made out
were allowed to enter. About ninety-three found themselves thus
excluded; among whom, were Hasilrig, Scott, Irby, Sir Harbottle
Grimston, the Earl of Salisbury, Maynard, four of the six members
for the city of London, and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. The residue,
who had received tickets, proceeded to constitute the House, and
unanimously elected Sir Thomas Widdrington, Sergeant at Law and one
of the Commissioners of the Treasury, for their Speaker. Almost the
only other business that day was to thank Dr. Owen for his sermon,
and order it to be printed.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals, Sept. 17, 1656; and Parl. Hist. III.
1484-1487.]
The next day there was read in the House a letter to the Speaker,
signed by a number of the excluded, informing him of the fact and
desiring to be admitted. Through that and the two following sittings,
an inquiry into the circumstances of the exclusion formed part of the
proceedings. The Clerk of the Commonwealth in Chancery, being
required to attend, did at last present himself, and explained that
he had but obeyed orders. He had received a letter from Mr. Jessop,
the Clerk of the Council, ordering him to deliver tickets only to
such of the persons elected as should be certified to him as approved
by the Council; and he had acted accordingly. With some reluctance,
he produced the letter; and the House then resolved to ask the
Council for their reasons for excluding so many members. These were
given, on the 20th, by Fiennes for the Council. They were to the
effect that Article XXI. of the constituting Instrument of the
Protectorate, called _The Government of the Commonwealth_ (Vol.
IV. pp. 542-544), required the Clerk of the Commonwealth in Chancery,
for the first three Parliaments of the Protectorate, to report to the
Council what persons had been returned, and empowered the Council to
admit those duly qualified and to exclude others, and also that, by
another clause in the same Instrument (Art. XVII.), it was required
that the persons elected should be "of known integrity, fearing God,
and of good conversation." All which being undeniable, it was
resolved by the House, after debate, Sept. 22, by a majority of 125
to twenty-nine, to refer the excluded to the Council itself for any
farther satisfaction they wanted, and meanwhile "to proceed with the
great affairs of the nation." The House, _without_ the excluded,
it will be seen, was decidedly Oliverian in the main. The excluded,
or some of them, took their revenge by printing and distributing a
Protest or Remonstrance addressed to the Nation, with the names of
all the ninety-three attached, those of Hasilrig and Scott first. It
was a document of extreme vehemence, denouncing the Protector as an
armed tyrant and all who had abetted him in his last act as capital
enemies to the Commonwealth, and disowning beforehand, as null and
void, all that the truncated Parliament might do. Cromwell took no
notice whatever of this Remonstrance. By one more stroke of
"arbitrariness," bolder than any before, but allowed, he might plead,
by the Instrument of his Protectorate, he had fashioned for himself a
Second Parliament, likely to be more to his mind than his First.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals, Sept, 18-22, 1656; Whitlocke, IV.
274-280 (where the Remonstrance of the Excluded is given in full);
Ludlow, 579-580.]
So it proved. Some of the excluded having been admitted after all,
and new elections having been made in cases where members had been
returned by two or more constituencies, the House went on for the
first five months (Sept. 1656-Feb. 1656-7) with a pretty steady
working attendance of about 220 at the maximum--which implies that,
besides the excluded, there must have been a large number of
absentees or very lax attenders. During these five months a large
amount of miscellaneous business was done, with occasional divisions,
but no vital disagreement within the House, or between it and the
Protector. There was an Act for renouncing and disavowing Charles II,
over again, and an Act for the safety of the Lord Protector's person
and government, both made law, by Cromwell's assent, Oct. 27. There
was a vote of approbation of the war with Spain, with votes of means
for carrying it on. There were Bills, more formal than before, for
adjusting and completing the incorporation of Scotland and Ireland
with the Commonwealth. There were Committees of all sorts for
maturing these and other Bills. Among the grand Committees was one
for Religion. There were votes of reward to various persons for past
services. The better observance of the Lord's Day was one of the
subjects of discussion. Amid the minor or more private business one
notes a great many _naturalizings_ of foreigners resident in
England, or of persons of English descent born abroad or otherwise
requiring to be naturalized. Theodore Haak and his family, Dr. Lewis
Du Moulin, a number of Lawrences and Carews, and a daughter of the
poet Waller, are among the scores included in such Naturalization
Bills. Through all this, hardly a week, of course, without an order
to Dr. Owen, Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Caryl, Nye, Sterry, Manton, or some
other leading divine, to preach a special sermon, with thanks after
for his "great pains," and generally a request that the sermon should
be printed. On the whole, Speaker Widdrington had no light post.
Indeed, in January 1656-7, the House, perceiving him to be very ill
and weak, insisted on his taking leave of absence, and appointed
Whitlocke as his substitute. Whitlocke acted as pro-Speaker, he tells
us, from January 27 to Feb. 18, with great acceptance and rapid
despatch of business. On the last of these days, however,
Widdrington, though at the risk of his life, reappeared and resumed
duty. A fee of £5, it seems, was due to the Speaker from every person
naturalized by bill, and all such fees would have gone to Whitlocke
had Widdrington remained absent. The loss to Whitlocke was made up
handsomely by the House in a vote of £2000, besides repayment of £500
he had expended over his allowance in his Swedish embassy, and thanks
for his many eminent services.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals over period and for dates named;
Whitlocke, IV. 280-286.]
About a fortnight after the Parliament had met (Oct. 2), there had
come splendid news from Blake and Montague. A Spanish fleet from the
West Indies, with the ex-Viceroy of Peru and his family on board, and
a vast treasure of silver, had been attacked in Cadiz bay by six
English frigates under the command of Captain Stayner. Two of the
ships had been taken, two burnt and sunk (the ex-Viceroy, his wife,
and eldest daughter, perishing most tragically in the flames), and
there had been a great capture of silver. The rejoicing in London was
great, and it was renewed a month afterwards by the actual arrival
of the silver from Portsmouth, a long train of waggon-loads through
the open streets, on its way to the Mint, Admiral Montague himself
had come with it. He was in the House Nov. 4, welcomed with thanks
and applauses to his place for a while among the legislators.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates given, and Godwin, IV,
300-303.]
Legislative work being back in the hands of a Parliament, the
Protector and his Council had confined themselves meanwhile to
matters of administration, war, and diplomacy. Vane had been released
from his imprisonment in the Isle of Wight by order of Council, Dec.
11, and permitted to return to Lincolnshire; and there had been other
relaxations of the severities attending the opening of the
Parliament. There had been an order of Council (Oct. 2) for the
release of imprisoned Quakers at Exeter, Dorchester, Colchester, and
other places, with instructions to the Major-Generals in the
respective districts to see the order carried out and the fines of
the poor people discharged. The business of the Piedmontese
Protestants still occupied the Council, and there were letters to
various foreign powers. Of new diplomatic arrangements of the
Protector about this time, and through the whole session of the
Parliament, account will be more conveniently taken hereafter; but
Ambassador Lockhart's temporary presence in London, and his frequent
colloquies with the Protector over French affairs, Spanish affairs,
the movements of Charles II abroad, a rumoured dissension between
Charles II. and his brother the Duke of York, and Mazarin's astute
intimacy with all, are worthy of remark even now. It was on Dec. 10,
1656, that Lockhart received from his Highness the honour of
knighthood at Whitehall; and on Feb. 3, 1656-7, it was settled by his
Highness and the Council that Lockhart's allowance thenceforward in
his Embassy should be £100 a week, i.e, about £18,000 a year in
present value. Lockhart's real post being in Paris, his attendance in
Parliament can have been but brief. His fellow-Scotsman, Swinton of
Swinton, also gave but brief attendance. The Protector had taken the
opportunity of Swinton's visit to London to show him special
attention, and to promote in the Council certain very substantial
recognitions of his adhesion to the Commonwealth when other Scots
abhorred it, and of his good services in Scotland to it and the
Protectorate since. But, as his proper place was in Edinburgh, it was
ordered, Dec. 25, 1656, that he, and his fellow-members of the
Scottish Council, Major-General Charles Howard and Colonel Adrian
Scroope, should return thither. This was the more necessary because
Lord Broghill did not mean to return to Scotland, the air of which
did not suit him, but preferred employment for the future either in
England or in his native Ireland. Broghill's Presidency in Scotland
had now, indeed, virtually ceased, and the administration there, with
the difficult steering between the Resolutioners and the Protesters
of the Kirk, had been left to Monk and the rest. Nay, as we know, the
hearing of that vital Scottish question had been transferred to
London. Sharp, who had come to London in Broghill's train as agent
for the Resolutioners, "presently got access to the Protector" and
"was well liked of and accepted." But the Marquis of Argyle had
weight enough yet to stop any concession to him till the other party
had been heard. Accordingly, in October, 1656, a Mr. James Simson,
minister of Airth, had been sent up by the Protesters, to be
followed, more effectively, in January, by Mr. James Guthrie himself,
Principal Gillespie of Glasgow, and three elders, of whom one was
Warriston. There had been a conference and debate between Sharp and
these Protesters before Cromwell, three of his Council being present,
and Owen, Lockyer, Manton, and Ashe attending as representative
English divines; but his Highness had not yet made up his mind. The
rumour in Scotland was that Sharp was likely to succeed, and that he
had driven Warriston and Gillespie very hard in the Conference, and
contrived, in particular, to make Warriston, in self-defence, betray
some awkward secrets. One finds, however, that Principal Gillespie
was invited to preach twice before the Parliament, and thanked for
his sermons, and that he had influence enough to move in the Council
a suit in the interests of the University of Glasgow. Though Sharp,
as Baillie advised him, was "supping with a long spoon," Cromwell
had probably taken estimate of him.[1]
[Footnote 1: Council Order Books of dates given, and of others (e.g.
Nov. 4 and Dec. 2, 1656, and Jan. 12 and Feb. 12, 1656-7); _Merc.
Pol._ No. 340 (Dec. 11-18, 1656); Life of Robert Blair, 329-331;
Baillie, III. 328-341.]
One matter In which there had been an approach to disagreement
between the Parliament and the Protector was the famous _Case of
James Nayler;_--Quakerism and its extravagancies were irritating
the sober part of the nation unspeakably, and this maddest of all the
Quakers, on account of the outrageous "blasphemies" of his recent
Song-of-Simon procession through the west of England--repeated at
Bristol after his release from Exeter jail--had been selected by
Parliament for an example. On the 31st of October, 1856, a large
committee was appointed on his case; and on the 5th of December,
Nayler and others having been brought prisoners to London meanwhile,
the report of the Committee was made, and there began a debate on the
case, which was protracted through ten sittings, Nayler himself
brought once or twice to the bar. It was easily resolved that he had
been "guilty of horrid blasphemy" and was a "grand impostor and great
seducer of the people": the difficult question was as to his
punishment. On the 16th of December it was carried but by ninety-six
votes to eighty-two that it should _not_ be death, and, after
some faint farther argument on the side of mercy, this was the
sentence: "That James Nayler be set on the pillory, with his head in
the pillory, in the New Palace, Westminster, during the space of two
hours, on Thursday next, and shall be whipped by the hangman through
the streets from Westminster to the Old Exchange, London, there
likewise to be set on the pillory, with his head in the pillory, for
the space of two hours, between the hours of eleven and one on
Saturday next--in each of the said places wearing a paper containing
an inscription of his crimes: and that at the Old Exchange his tongue
shall be bored through with a hot iron; and that he be there also
stigmatized in the forehead with the letter B: And that he be
afterwards sent to Bristol, and conveyed into and through the said
city on a horse bare-ridged, with his face backwards, and there also
publicly whipped the next market-day after he comes thither: And that
from thence he be committed to prison in Bridewell, London, and there
restrained from the society of all people, and kept to hard labour,
till he be released by Parliament, and during that time be debarred
from the use of pen, ink, and paper, and have no relief but what he
earns by his daily labour." Though petitions for clemency had already
been presented to Parliament by some very orthodox people, the first
part of this atrocious sentence was duly executed Dec. 18. Then came
more earnest petitions both to Parliament and the Protector, with the
effect of a respite of the next part from the 20th to the 27th;
between which dates this letter from the Protector was read in the
House: "O.P. Right Trusty and Well-beloved, We greet you well. Having
taken notice of a judgment lately given by yourselves against one
James Nayler, Although we detest and abhor the giving or occasioning
the least countenance to persons of such opinions and practices, or
who are guilty of the crimes commonly imputed to the said person:
Yet, We, being intrusted in the present Government on behalf of the
People of these Nations, and _not knowing how far such Proceeding,
entered into wholly without Us, may extend in the consequence of
it_, Do desire that the House will let Us know the grounds and
reasons whereupon they have proceeded." Two things are here to be
perceived. One is that Cromwell did not approve of the course taken
with Nayler. The other, and more important, is that he regarded this
action of the House, without his consent, as an intrenchment on that
part of his prerogative which concerned Toleration. He thought
himself, by the constitution of his Protectorate, entrusted with a
certain guardianship of this principle, even against Parliament; and
he did not know how far Nayler's case might be made a precedent for
religious persecutions. What may have been the exact reply to
Cromwell from the House we do not know; but the House was not in a
mood to spare Nayler. He had not satisfied the clergymen sent to
confer with him. Accordingly, on the 27th, a motion to respite him
for another week having been lost by 113 to 59, the second part of
his punishment was inflicted to the letter; after which he was
removed to Bristol to receive the rest. All that one can say is that,
though Cromwell was far from pleased with the business, and even
thought it a horrible one, he did not feel that he could at that time
make it the occasion of an actual quarrel with the Parliament.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates; Carlyle III, 213-215; Sewel's
_History of the People called Quakers_ (ed. 1834) I. 179-207.]
Another matter in which a disagreement might have been feared between
Cromwell and his Parliament was that of _The
Major-Generalships._ This "invention" of Cromwell's for the police
of England and Wales generally, and specially for the collection of
the Decimation or Militia Tax from the Royalists, had been so
successful that he had congratulated himself on It in his opening
speech to the Parliament. He, doubtless, desired that Parliament
should adopt and continue it. On the 7th of January, 1656-7,
accordingly, there was read for the first time "a Bill for the
continuing and assessing of a Tax for the paying and maintaining of
the Militia forces in England and Wales," i.e. for prolonging
Cromwell's Decimation Tax of 1655, and virtually the whole machinery
of the Major-Generalships. That there would be serious opposition in
the House had been foreseen since Dec. 25, when there had been two
divisions on the question of leave to bring in the Bill, and leave
had been obtained only by eighty-eight votes to sixty-three. Among
the opponents were Whitlocke and the other lawyers, all those indeed
who wanted to terminate the time of "arbitrariness," and objected to
a tax now on old political delinquents as contrary to the
Parliamentary Act of Oblivion of Feb. 1651-2. On the other hand, the
Bill was strongly supported by Lambert. Fiennes, Lisle, Pickering,
Sydenham, other members of Council, and the Major-Generals
themselves. It was, in fact, a Government Bill, Nevertheless, after a
protracted debate of six days, the second reading of the Bill was
negatived Jan. 29 by 121 to 78, and the Bill absolutely rejected by
124 to 88. Cromwell himself had helped to bring about this result.
Much as he liked his "invention," he had perceived, in the course of
the debate, that it must be given up; and he had given hints to that
effect. The House, in short, had understood that they were left to
their own free will. And so the Major-Generalships disappeared, the
police of the country reverted to the ordinary magistracy, and
Cromwell was to trust to Parliament for necessary supplies in more
regular ways.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates; Godwin, IV. 327-331.]
What drew the Parliament and the Protector more closely together
about this time was the explosion of a new plot against the
Protector's life. At the centre of the plot was that "wretched
creature, an apostate from religion and all honesty," of whom
Cromwell had spoken in his opening speech as going between Charles
II. and the King of Spain, and negotiating for a Spanish invasion of
England. In other words, he was Edward Sexby, once a stout trooper
and agitator in the Parliamentarian army (Vol. III. p. 534),
afterwards Captain and even Colonel in the same, but since then one
of the fiercest Anabaptist malcontents. He had been in the Wildman
plot of Feb. 1654-5, but had then escaped abroad; and since then his
occupation had been as described by Cromwell,--now in Flanders, now
in Madrid, shuttling alliance between Spain and the Stuarts. But,
though a Spanish invasion of England to restore the Stuarts was his
great game, an assassination of Cromwell anyhow, whether without a
Spanish invasion or in anticipation of it, was nearest to his heart.
Actually he had been in London just before the meeting of the
Parliament, trying to arrange for such "fiddling things"--so Cromwell
had called them--as shooting him in the Park or blowing him up in his
chamber at Whitehall. Before Thurloe had traces of him, he had again
decamped to Flanders; but he had left a substitute in Miles
Sindercombe, an old leveller and mutineer of 1647, but since then a
quarter-master in Monk's Army in Scotland, and dismissed for his
complicity in the Overton project. Sexby had left Sindercombe £1600;
and with this money Sindercombe had been again tampering with
Cromwell's guard, taking a house at Hammersmith convenient for shots
at Cromwell's coach when he drove to Hampton Court, and buying
gunpowder and combustibles for a nearer attempt in Whitehall. He had
been, seen in the Chapel at Whitehall on the evening of January 8,
and that night the sentinel on duty smelt fire just in time to
extinguish a slow-match that was to explode a mass of blazing
chemicals at midnight. All Whitehall having been roused, the
Protector with the rest, information led at once to Sindercombe. He
was arrested in his lodging, and sent to the Tower; and, his trial
having followed, Feb. 9, he was convicted on evidence given by
accomplices, and doomed to execution on the 14th. In the night
preceding he was found dead in his bed, having poisoned himself. He
had left intimation that he was under no concern about his immortal
soul, having passed out of any form of religion recognising such an
entity, and become a Materialist or Soul-sleeper. Meanwhile his plot
had raised a ferment of new loyalty round the Protector. On the 19th
of January, when Thurloe made a formal disclosure to the House of all
the particulars of the plot, a general thanksgiving throughout
England, Scotland, and Ireland, was ordered, and it was resolved that
the whole House should wait upon his Highness "to congratulate with
his Highness on this great mercy and deliverance." The interview was
on January the 23rd, in the Banqueting House in Whitehall, when
Speaker Widdrington made the address for the House, and Cromwell
replied in a most affectionate speech (_Speech_ VI.). The
thanksgiving was on Feb. 20; on which day Principal Gillespie of
Glasgow and Mr. Warren had the honour of preaching the special
sermons before the House in St. Margaret's, Westminster. The day was
wound up by a noble dinner in Whitehall, to which the whole House had
been invited by the Protector, followed by a concert, vocal and
instrumental, in the part of the Palace called the Cockpit.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates given, and of Feb. 18;
Carlyle, III. 204-211; Godwin, IV. 331-333; _Merc. Pol._ No.
349 (Feb. 12-19, 1656-7); Whitlocke, IV. 286; Parl. Hist. III. 1490.]
Three days after the great dinner in Whitehall, i.e. on Monday, Feb.
23, 1656-7, there was an incident in the House which turned all the
future proceedings of this Second Parliament of the Protectorate into
a new channel. It is thus entered in the Journals:--
" ... Sir Christopher Pack [Ex-Mayor of London, knighted by
Cromwell, Sept. 25, 1655, and now one of the members for the City]
presented a Paper to the House, declaring it was somewhat come to
his hand tending to the Settlement of the Nation and of Liberty and
Property, and prayed it might be received and read; and, it being
much controverted whether the same should be read without farther
opening [preliminary explanation] thereof, the Question being
propounded _That this Paper, offered by Sir Christopher Pack, be
further opened by him before it is read,_ and the Question being
put _That this Question be now put,_ it passed in the Negative. The
Question being propounded _That this Paper, offered by Sir
Christopher Pack, be now read,_ and the Question being put _That
that Question be now put,_ the House was divided. The Noes went
forth:--Colonel Sydenham, Mr. Robinson, Tellers for the Noes--with
the Noes 54; Sir Charles Wolseley, Colonel Fitzjames, Tellers for
the Yeas--with the Yeas 144. So it passed in the Affirmative. And,
the main Question being put, it was Resolved _That this Paper,
offered by Sir Christopher Pack, be now read._ The said Paper was
read accordingly, and was entitled 'The Humble Address and
Remonstrance of the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, now assembled
in the Parliament of this Commonwealth.'"[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of date.]
The debate on the Paper was protracted to the evening "a candle"
having been ordered in for the purpose; and it was then adjourned to
the next day. In fact, for the next four months, or through the whole
remainder of the session, the House was to continue the debate, or
questions arising out of it, and to do little else. For, on the 24th
of February, it was resolved by a majority of 100 to 44 (Lambert and
Strickland tellers for the _Minority_) that the paper should be
taken up and discussed in its successive parts, "beginning at the
first Article after the Preamble;" and, though an attempt was made
next day to throw the subject into Grand Committee, that was defeated
by 118 to 63. In evidence of the momentousness of the occasion, a
whole Parliamentary day was set apart for "seeking the Lord" upon it,
with prayers and sermons by Dr. Owen and others; and, when the House
met again after that ceremonial (Feb. 28), it was resolved that no
vote passed on any part of the Paper should be binding till all
should be completed.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates.]
Sir Christopher Pack's paper of Feb. 23, 1656-7, entitled _The
Humble Address and Remonstrance, &c._, was nothing less than a
proposed address by Parliament to the Protector, asking him to concur
with the Parliament in a total recast of the existing Constitution.
It had been privately considered and prepared by several persons, and
Whitlocke had been requested to introduce it, "Not liking--several
things in it," he had declined to do so; but, Sir Christopher having
volunteered, Whitlocke, Broghill, Glynne and others, were to back
him. Indeed, all the Oliverians were to back him. Or, rather, there
was to grow out of the business, according as the Oliverians were
more hearty or less hearty in their cooperation, a new distinction of
that body into _Thorough Oliverians_ and _Distressed
Oliverians_ or _Contrariants_. Why this should have been the
case will appear if we quote the First Article of the proposed
Address after the Preamble. It ran thus: "That your Highness will be
pleased to assume the name, style, title, dignity, and office of KING
of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the respective Dominions and
Territories thereunto belonging, and exercise thereof, to hold and
enjoy the same, with the rights and privileges and prerogatives
justly, legally, and rightfully, belonging thereunto: That your
Highness will be pleased, during your life-time, to appoint and
declare the person who shall, immediately after your death, succeed
you in the Government of these Nations." The rest of the Address was
to correspond. Thus Article II. proposed a return to the system of
two Houses of Parliament, and generally the tenor was towards royal
institutions. On the other hand, the regality proposed was to be
strictly constitutional. There was to be an end to all arbitrary
power. There were to be free and full Parliaments once in three years
at farthest; there was to be no violent interference in future with
the process of Parliament, no exclusion of any persons that had been
duly returned by the constituencies; and his Highness and Council
were not to make ordinances by their own authority, but all laws, and
changes or abrogations of laws, were to be by Act of Parliament.
Oliver was to be King, if he chose, and a King with very large
powers; but he was to keep within Statute.[1]
[Footnote 1: Whitlocke, IV. 286 and 289; Commons Journals of March
2, 3, and 24, 1656-7, and March 25, 1657 (whence I have recovered
the original wording of Article I. of the Address).]
On March 2 and 3 the First Article of the Address was debated, with
the result that it was agreed to _postpone_ any vote on the
first and most important part of the Article, offering Oliver the
Kingship, but with the passing of the second part, offering him,
whether it should be as King or not, the power of nominating his
successor. A motion for postponing the vote on this part also was
lost by 120 to 63. Then, on the 5th, Article II., proposing
Parliaments of _two Houses_, was discussed, and adopted without a
division; after which there were discussions and adoptions of the
remaining proposals, day after day, with occasional divisions about
the wording, till March 24. On that day, the House, their survey of
the document being tolerably complete, went back on the
_postponed_ clause of the First Article, involving the
all-important question of the offer of the Kingship. Through two
sittings that day, and again on March 25 (New Year's Day, 1657),
there was a very anxious and earnest debate with closed doors, the
opposition trying to stave off the final vote by two motions for
adjournment. These having failed, the final vote was taken (March
25); when, by a majority of 123 to 62, the Kingship clause was
carried in this amended form: "That your Highness will be pleased to
assume the name, style, title, dignity, and office of King of
England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the respective Dominions and
Territories thereunto belonging, and to exercise the same according
to the laws of these Nations." Then, it seemed, all was over, except
verbal revision of the entire address. Next day (March 26) it was
referred to a Committee, with Chief Justice Glynne for Chairman, to
perform this--i.e. to "consider of the title, preamble, and
conclusion, and read over the whole, and consider the coherence, and
make it perfect." All which having been done that same day, and the
House having given some last touches, the document was ready to be
engrossed for presentation to Cromwell. By recommendation of the
Committee, the title had been changed from _Address and
Remonstrance_ into _Petition and Advice_.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates, and between March 5 and March
25.]
Of course, the great proposal in Parliament had been rumoured through
the land, notwithstanding the instructed reticence or mysterious
vagueness of the London newspapers; and, in the interval between the
introduction of Sir Christopher Pack's paper and the conversion of
the same into the _Petition and Advice_, with the distinct offer
of Kingship in its forefront, there had been wide discussion of the
affair, with much division of opinion. Against the Kingship, even
horrified by the proposal of it, were most of those Army-men who had
hitherto been Oliverians, and had helped to found the Protectorate.
Lambert, Fleetwood, and Desborough, were at the head of this military
opposition, which included nearly all the other ex-Major-Generals,
and the bulk of the Colonels and inferior officers. One of their
motives was dread of the consequences to themselves from a subversion
of the system under which they had been acting and a return to a
Constitutional and Royal system in which Cromwell and they might have
to part company. This, and a theoretical Republicanism still
lingering in their minds, tended, in the present emergency, almost to
a reunion between them and the old or Anti-Oliverian Republicans. It
had been some of the Oliverian Army-men in Parliament, at all events,
that had first resisted Pack's motion. Ludlow's story is that they
very nearly laid violent hands on Pack when he produced his paper;
and the divisions in the Commons Journals exhibit Lambert and various
Colonels, with Strickland, as among the chief obstructors of the
_Petition and Advice_ in its passage through the House.
Strickland, it will be remembered, was an eminent member of the
Protector's own Council; and, as far as one can gather, several
others of that body, besides Lambert, Fleetwood, Desborough, and
Strickland--perhaps half of the whole number of those now habitually
attending the Council--were opposed to the Kingship. On the other
hand, the more enthusiastic Oliverians of the Council, those most
attached to Cromwell personally, e.g. Sir Charles Wolseley, appear to
have been acquiescent, or even zealous for the Kingship; and there
were at least some military Oliverians, out of the Council, of the
same mind. In the final vote of March 25, carrying the offer of
Kingship, the tellers for the majority were Sir John Reynolds
(Tipperary and Waterford), and Major-General Charles Howard
(Cumberland), while those for the minority were Major-General Butler
(Northamptonshire), and Colonel Salmon (Dumfries Burghs).
Undoubtedly, however, the chief managers of the _Petition and
Advice_ in the House from the first had been Whitlocke, Glynne,
and others of the lawyers, with Lord Broghill. The lawyers had been
long anxious for a constitutional Kingship: nothing else, they
thought, could restore the proper machinery of Law and State, and
make things safe. Accordingly, out of doors, in the whole civilian
class, and largely also among the more conservative citizens, the
idea of Oliver's Kingship was far from unwelcome. The Presbyterians
generally, it is believed, were very favourable to it, their
dispositions towards Cromwell having changed greatly of late; nor of
the old Presbyterian Royalists were all averse. There were Royalists
now who were not Stuartists, who wanted a king on grounds of general
principle and expediency, but were not resolute that he should be
Charles II. only. The real combination of elements against Oliver's
Kingship consisted, therefore, of the unyielding old Royalists of the
Stuart adhesion, regarding the elevation of the usurping "brewer" to
the throne as abomination upon abomination, the Army Oliverians or
Lambert and Fleetwood men, interested in the preservation of the
existing Protectorate, and the passionate Republicans and Levellers,
who had not yet condoned even the Protectorate, and whom the
prospect of King and House of Lords over again, with all their
belongings, made positively frantic.
How far Cromwell had been aware beforehand of such a project as that
of Sir Christopher Pack's paper may be a question. That he had let it
be known for some time that he was not disinclined to a revision and
enlargement of the constitution of the original Protectorate may be
fairly assumed; but that he had concocted Pack's project and arranged
for bringing it on (which is Ludlow's representation, and, of course,
that of all the Histories) is very unlikely. The project, as in
Pack's paper, and as agreed upon by Whitlocke, Glynne, and other
lawyers and Parliament men, was by no means, in all its parts, such a
project as Cromwell himself would have originated. To the Kingship he
may have had no objection, and we have his own word afterwards that
he favoured the idea of a Second House of Parliament; but there were
accompanying provisions not so satisfactory. What he had hitherto
valued in his Protectorate was the place and scope given to his own
supreme personality, his power to judge what was best and to carry it
through as he could, unhampered by those popular suffrages and
Parliamentary checks and privileges which he held to be mere
euphemisms for ruin and mutual throat-cutting all through the British
Islands in their then state of distraction; and it must therefore
have been a serious consideration with him how far, in the public
interests, or for his own comfort, he could put himself in new
shackles for the mere name of King. What, for example, of the
proposed restitution of the ninety-and-odd excluded members to the
present Parliament? How could he get on after that? In short, there
was so much in Pack's paper suggestive of new and difficult questions
as to the futurity of Cromwell, his real influence in affairs, if he
exchanged the Protectorship for Kingship, that the paper, or the
exact project it embodied, cannot have been of Cromwell's devising.
There are subsequent events in proof of the fact.
On the 27th of February, the fourth day after the introduction of
Pack's paper, and the very day of the Fast appointed by the House
prior to consideration of it in detail, Cromwell had been waited on
by a hundred officers, headed by the alarmed Major-Generals,
imploring him not to allow the thing to go farther. His reply was
that, though he then specifically heard of the whole project for the
first time, he could by no means share their instantaneous alarm.
Kingship was nothing in itself, at best "a mere feather in a man's
hat"; but it need be no bugbear, and at least ought to be no new
thing to _them_. Had they not offered it to him at the
institution of the Protectorate, though the title of Protector had
been then preferred? Under that title he had been often a mere drudge
of the Army, constrained to things not to his own liking. For the
rest, were there not reasons for amending, in other respects, the
constitution of the Protectorate? Had it not broken down in several
matters, and were there not deficiencies in it? If there had been a
Second House of Parliament, for example, would there have been that
indiscreet decision in the case of James Nayler, a decision that
might extend farther than Nayler, and leave no man safe?--Thus, with
the distinct information that Cromwell would not interfere with
Pack's project in its course through the House, had the Officers been
dismissed. It was probably in consequence of their remonstrance with
Cromwell, however, that the vote on the Kingship clause of the First
Article had been postponed from the 2nd of March to the 25th. The
delay had been useful. Though Lambert, Fleetwood, Desborough, and the
mass of the military men, still remained "contrariants," not a few of
them had been shaken by Cromwell's arguments, or at least by his
judgment. If _he_, whom it was their habit to trust, was
prepared to take the Kingship, and saw reasons for it, why should
they stand out? So, before the vote did come on, Major-Generals
Berry, Goffe, and Whalley, with others, had ceased to oppose, and the
Kingship clause, reserved to the last, as the keystone of the
otherwise completed arch, had been carried, as we have seen, by
two-thirds of the House.[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV. 349-353; Carlyle, III. 217.]
It was on Tuesday, March 31, in the Banqueting House in Whitehall,
that Speaker Widdrington, attended by the whole House, and by all the
high State-officers, formally presented to Cromwell, after a long
speech, the _Petition and Advice_, engrossed on vellum. The
understanding, by vote of the House, was that his Highness must
accept the whole, and that otherwise no part would be binding.
Cromwell's answer, in language very calm and somewhat sad
(_Speech_ VII.), was one of thanks, with a request for time to
consider. On the 3rd of April, a Committee of the House, appointed by
his request, waited on him for farther answer. It was still one of
thanks: e.g. "I should be very brutish did I not acknowledge the
exceeding high honour and respect you have had for me in this Paper";
but it was in effect a refusal, on the ground that, being shut up to
accept all or none, he could not see his way to accept (_Speech_
VIII.). Notwithstanding this answer, which could hardly be construed
as final, the House next day resolved, after two divisions, to adhere
to their _Petition and Advice_, and to make new application to
the Protector. On the previous question the division was
seventy-seven to sixty-five, Major-Generals Howard and Jephson
telling for the majority, and Major-General Whalley and Colonel
Talbot for the minority; on the main question there was a majority of
seventy-eight, with Admiral Montague and Sir John Hobart for tellers,
against sixty-five, told by General Desborough and Colonel Hewson. A
Committee having then prepared a brief paper representing to his
Highness the serious obligation he was under in such a matter, there
was a second Conference of the whole House with his Highness (April
8). His reply to Widdrington then (_Speech_ IX.) did not
withdraw his former refusal, but signified willingness to receive
farther information and counsel. To give such information and
counsel, and In fact to reason out the matter thoroughly with
Cromwell, the House then appointed a large Committee of
_ninety-nine_, composed in the main, one must fancy, of members
who were now eager for the Kingship, or at least had ceased to
object. Whitlocke, Broghill, Glynne, Fiennes, Lenthall, Lord
Commissioner Lisle, Sir Charles Wolseley, and Thurloe, were to be the
most active members of this Committee; but it included also Admiral
Montague, Generals Howard, Jephson, Whalley, Pack, Goffe, and Berry,
with Sydenham, Rous, the Scotch Earl of Tweeddale, the Lord Provost
of Edinburgh, the poet Waller, and even Strickland. The Committee was
appointed April 9, and the House was to await the issue.[1]
[Footnote 1: Carlyle, III. 218-228 (with Cromwell's _Speeches_
VII., VIII., and IX.); Commons Journals of dates.]
It seemed as if it would never be reached. The Conferences of the
Committee with Cromwell between April 11 to May 8, their reasonings
with him to induce him to accept the Kingship, his reasonings in
reply in the four speeches now numbered X.-XIII. of the Cromwell
series, his doubts, delays, avoidances of several meetings, and
constant adjournments of his final answer, make a story of great
interest in the study of Cromwell's character, not without remarkable
flashes of light on past transactions, and on Cromwell's theory of
his Protectorship and of Government in general. Speech XIII., in
particular, which is by far the longest, and which was addressed to
the Committee on April 21, is full of instruction. Having in his
previous speeches dealt chiefly with the subject of the Kingship, and
stated such various objections to the kingly title as the bad
associations with it, the blasting as if for ever which it had
received from God's Providence in England, and the antipathy to it of
many good men, he here took up the rest of the _Petition and
Advice_. Approving, on the whole, of the spirit and contents of
the document, and especially of the apparent rejection in it of that
notion of perpetually-sitting Single-House Parliaments which he
considered the most fatal fallacy in politics, and persistence in
which by the Rump had left him no option but to dissolve that body
forcibly and assume the Dictatorship, he yet found serious defects in
some of the Articles, and want of precision on this point and that.
His criticisms of this kind were masterly examples of his breadth of
thought, his foresight, and his practical sagacity, and made an
immediate impression. For, at this stage of the proceedings, the
belief being that he would ultimately accept the Kingship, the House,
whose sittings had been little more than nominal during the great
Whitehall Conferences, applied itself vigorously, by deliberations in
Committee and exchanges of papers with the Protector, to such
amendments of the _Petition and Advice_ as he had indicated. On
April 30 sufficient intimation of such amendments was ready, and the
former Committee of Ninety-nine were required to let his Highness
know the same and ask him to appoint a time for his positive answer.
For another week, notwithstanding two appointments for the purpose,
all was still in suspense. During that week we are to suppose
Cromwell either in perplexed solitary meditation, or shut up in those
confidential meetings with a few of the most zealous promoters of the
Kingship which Whitlocke describes. "The Protector," says Whitlocke,
"often advised about this and other great businesses with the Lord
Broghill, Pierrepoint, myself, Sir Charles Wolseley and Thurloe, and
would be shut up three or four hours together in private discourse,
and none were admitted to come in to him. He would sometimes be very
cheerful with us, and, laying aside his greatness, he would be
exceeding familiar with us, and by way of diversion would make verses
with us, and every one must try his fancy. He commonly called for
tobacco, pipes, and a candle, and would now and then take tobacco
himself: then he would fall again to his serious and great business."
At length, on Friday, May 8, the Parliament, assembled once more in
the Banqueting House, did receive their positive answer. It was in a
brief speech (Speech _XIV._) ending "I cannot undertake this
Government with the title of King; and that is mine Answer to this
great and weighty business."[1]
[Footnote 1: Carlyle, III. 280-301 (with Speeches X.--XIV.); Commons
Journals of dates; Whitlocke, IV. 289-290.]
The story in Ludlow is that to the last moment Cromwell had meant to
accept, and that his sudden and unexpected refusal was occasioned by
a bold stroke of the Army-men. Having invited himself to dine at
Desborough's, says Ludlow, he had taken Fleetwood with him, and had
begun "to droll with them about monarchy," and ask them why sensible
men like them should make so much of the affair, and refuse to please
the children by permitting them to have "their rattle." Fleetwood and
Desborough still remaining grave, he had called them "a couple of
scrupulous fellows," and left them. Next day (May 6) he had sent a
message to the House to meet him in the Painted Chamber next morning;
and, casually encountering Desborough again, he had told Desborough
what he intended. That same day Desborough had told Pride, whereupon
that resolute colonel had surprised Desborongh by saying he would
prevent it still. Going to Dr. Owen on the instant, Pride had made
him draft an Officers' Petition to the House. It was to the effect
that the petitioners, having "hazarded their lives against monarchy,"
and being "still ready to do so," observed with pain the "great
endeavours to bring the nation again under their old servitude," and
begged the House not to allow a title to be pressed upon their
General which would be destructive to himself and the Commonwealth.
To this petition Pride had obtained the signatures of two Colonels,
seven Lieutenant-Colonels, eight Majors, and sixteen Captains, not
members of the House; and Cromwell, learning what was in progress,
had sent for Fleetwood, and scolded him for allowing such a thing,
the rather as Fleetwood must know "his resolution not to accept the
crown without the consent of the Army." The appointment with the
House in the Painted Chamber for the 7th was changed, however, into
that in the Banqueting House on the 8th, the latter place, as the
more familiar, being fitter for the negative answer he now meant to
give.--Ludlow's story, though he cites Desborough as his chief
informant, is not perfectly credible in all its details; but the
Commons Journals do show that the meeting originally appointed by
Cromwell on the 6th for the Painted Chamber on the 7th was put off to
the 8th, and then held in the Banqueting House, and also that there
was an Officers' Petition in the interim. It was brought to the doors
of the House, by "divers officers of the Army," on the 8th, just as
the House was adjourning to the Banqueting House; and the Journals
only record that the officers were admitted, and that, a Colonel
Mason having presented the Petition in their name and his own, they
withdrew. The rest is guess; but two main facts cannot be doubted.
One is that Cromwell's great, if not sole, reason at last for
refusing the Crown was his knowledge of the persistent opposition of
a great number of the Army men. The other is that he remembered
afterwards who had been the chief _Contrariants_.[1]
[Footnote 1: Ludlow, 586-591; Commons Journals of dates. There had
been public pamphlets against the Kingship: e.g. one by Samuel
Chidley, addressed to the Parliament, and called "Reasons against
choosing the Protector to be King."]
While the great question of the Kingship had been in progress there
had been a detection of a conspiracy of the Fifth-Monarchy Men.
Ever since the abortive ending of the Barebones Parliament these
enthusiasts had been recognisable as a class of enemies of the
Protectorate distinct from the ordinary and cooler Republicans. While
Vane and Bradshaw might represent the Republicans or Commonwealth's
men generally, the head of the Fifth-Monarchy Republicans was
Harrison. The Harrisonian Republic, the impassioned dream of this
really great-hearted soldier, was the coming Reign of Christ on
Earth, and the trampling down, in anticipation of that reign, of all
dignities, institutions, ministries, and magistracies, that might be
inconsistent with it. In the Barebones Parliament, where the
Fifth-Monarchy Men had been numerous, and where Harrison had led
them, they had gone far, as we know, in conjunction with the
Anabaptists, in a practical attempt to convert Cromwell's interim
Dictatorship, with Cromwell's assent or acquiescence, into a
beginning of the great new era. They had voted down Tithes,
Church-Establishments, and all their connexions, and only the
steadiness of Rons, Sydenham, and the other sober spirits, in making
that vote the occasion of a resurrender of all power into Cromwell's
hands, had prevented the consequences. And so, Cromwell's
Protectorate having come in where Harrison wanted to keep a vacuum
for the Fifth Monarchy, and that Protectorate having not only
conserved Tithes and an Established Church, but professed them to be
parts of its very basis, Harrison had abjured Cromwell for ever.
"Those who had been to me as the apple of my eye," said Harrison
afterwards, "when they had turned aside, said to me, Sit thou on my
right hand; but I loathed it." Through the Protectorate, accordingly,
Harrison, dismissed from the Army, had been living as a suspected
person, with great powers of harm; and, three or four times, when
there were Republican risings, or threatenings of such, it had been
thought necessary to question him, or put him under temporary arrest.
The last occasion had been just before the opening of the present
Parliament, when he was arrested with Vane, Rich, and others, and had
the distinction of being sent as far off as Pendennis Castle in
Cornwall, while Vane was sent only to the Isle of Wight, and Rich
only to Windsor. The imprisonments, however, being merely
precautionary, had been but short; and, at the time of the proposal
of the Kingship to Cromwell, Harrison, as well as the others, was
again at liberty.
That Harrison had ever practically implicated himself in any attempt
to upset the Protectorate by force hardly appears from the evidence.
He was an experienced soldier, and, with all his fervid notions of a
Fifth Monarchy, too massive a man to stir without calculation. All
that can be said is that he was an avowed enemy of Cromwell's rule,
that he was looked up to by all the Fifth-Monarchy Republicans, and
that he held himself free to act should there be fit opportunity. But
there were Harrisonians of a lower grade than Harrison. Especially in
London, since the winter of 1655, there had been a kind of society of
Fifth-Monarchy Men, holding small meetings in five places, only one
man in each meeting knowing who belonged to the others, but the five
connecting links forming a central Committee for management and
propagandism. It must have been from this Committee, I suppose, that
there emanated, in Sept. 1656, a pamphlet called "_The Banner of
Truth displayed, or a Testimony for Christ and against Antichrist:
being the substance of several consultations holden and kept by a
certain number of Christians who are waiting for the visible
appearance of Christ's Kingdom in and over the World, and residing in
and about the City of London_." Probably as yet these humble
Fifth-Monarchy Men had not gone beyond private aspirations. At all
events, Thurloe, though aware of their existence, had not thought
them worth notice. But Sindercombe's Plot of Feb. 1656-7, and the
subsequent proposal of the Kingship for Cromwell, had excited them
prodigiously, and they had been longing for action, and looking about
for leaders. Harrison was their chief hope, and they had applied to
him, but also to other Republicans who were not specially
Fifth-Monarchy Men, such as Rich, Lawson, and Okey. What
encouragement they had or thought they had from such men one does not
know; but they had fixed Thursday, April 9, the very day of the
appointment of the great Committee of Ninety-nine to deal with
Cromwell about the Kingship, for an experimental rendezvous and
standard-raising on Mile-End-Green. This being known to Thurloe, a
horse-troop or two finished the affair by the capture of about twenty
of them at Shoreditch, ready to ride to Mile-End-Green, and also by
the capture at Mile-End-Green itself of their intended standard, some
arms, and a quantity of Fifth-Monarchy books and manifestos. Five or
six of the captured, among whom was Thomas Venner, a wine-cooper, the
real soul of the conspiracy, were imprisoned in the Tower, and the
rest elsewhere; but, in accordance with Cromwell's lenient custom in
such cases, there was no trial, or other public notice of the affair,
beyond a report about it by Thurloe to the House (April 11).
Harrison, however, was again arrested, with Rich, Lawson, and Major
Danvers; and amongst those taken was a Mr. Arthur Squib, who had been
in the Barebones Parliament, and one of Harrison's chief followers
there. Squib's connexion with Venner in the present wretched
conspiracy seems to have been much closer than Harrison's.[1]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV. 372-375; Carlyle, III. 228-229; Thomason
Catalogue of Pamphlets; Commons Journals, April 11, 1657; Thurloe, I.
289.]
Cromwell had used the Venner outbreak to point a moral in one or two
of his speeches on the Kingship Question. The standard taken at
Mile-End-Green bore a Red Lion couchant, with the motto _Who shall
rouse him up?;_ and among the tracts or manifestos taken was one
called _A Standard set up, whereunto the true Seed and Saints of
the Most High may be gathered together for the lamb, against the
Beast and the False Prophet_. It was a fierce diatribe against
Cromwell, with a scheme for the government of the Commonwealth on
Fifth-Monarchy principles after his overthrow. The supreme authority
was to be the Lord Jesus Christ; but there was to be an annually
elected Sanhedrim or Supreme Council to represent Him, and to
administer Biblical Law, and no other, with inferior elected judges
for towns and counties. The Bible being the sole Law, a formal
Legislature would be unnecessary; and all other magistracy besides
the Sanhedrim and the Judgeships was to be abolished, and also, of
course, all State ministry of Religion. Now, to Cromwell, who had
read the Tract, all this furnished excellent illustration of the kind
he wanted. Always frankly admitting that it might be said he had
"griped at the government of the nations without a legal assent," he
had never ceased to declare that this had been a sheer necessity for
the nations themselves. But the _Standard set up_ of the
Fifth-Monarchy insurgents of Mile-End-Green had enabled him to return
to the topic with reference specifically to the Barebones Parliament
and the transition thence to the Protectorate. That wild pamphlet, he
had told his auditors, in Speech XII. (April 20), was by one who had
been "a leading person" in the Barebones Parliament (Harrison or
Squib?); and in Speech XIII. (April 21) he had dwelt on the fact
again more at large, revealing a story, as he said, of his "own
weakness and folly." The Barebones Parliament had been one of his own
choosing; he had filled it with "men of our own judgment, who had
fought in the wars, and were all of a piece upon that account." This
he had done in his "simplicity," expecting the best results. But, as
it had happened, there was a band of men in that Parliament driving
even then for nothing but the principles of this wretched
Fifth-Monarchy manifesto, the abolition of Church and Magistracy, and
a trial of a fantastic government by the Law of Moses. Major-General
Harrison and Mr. Squib had been the leaders of this band, with the
Anabaptist minister Mr. Feak as their confidant out of doors; and
what they did from day to day in the Parliament had been concocted in
private meetings in Mr. Squib's house. "This was so _de facto:_
I know it to be true." Had he not done well in accepting the
Protectorate at such a moment, and so saving the Commonwealth from
the delirium of which they had just seen a new spurt at
Mile-End-Green?[1]
[Footnote 1: I have taken the account of the _Standard Set Up_
from Godwin, IV. 375-378, not having seen it myself. The passages
in Cromwell's speeches referring to it will be found in Carlyle,
III, 260, and 276-277.]
After the Protector's refusal of the Kingship the House proceeded to
adjust the new constitution they had prepared in the _Petition and
Advice_ to that unavoidable fact. Not much was necessary. It was
only necessary to re-shape the key-stone, by removing the word "King"
from the first clause of the First Article and retaining the word
"Protector": all the rest would hold good. Accordingly, after some
days of debate, it was finally agreed, May 22, that the former first
clause of the First Article should be cancelled, and this
substituted: "That your Highness will be pleased, by and under the
name and style of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England,
Scotland, and Ireland, and the Dominions and Territories thereunto
belonging, to hold and exercise the office of Chief Magistrate of
these Nations, and to govern according to this _Petition and
Advice_ in all things therein contained, and in all other things
according to the Laws of these Nations, and not otherwise." The
remaining clause of the First Article, empowering Cromwell to appoint
his immediate successor, was left untouched, as well as all the
subsequent Articles. To the whole of the _Petition and Advice_,
so arranged, Cromwell solemnly gave his assent in the Painted
Chamber, May 25, addressing the House in a short speech, in which he
expressed his thorough confidence in them in respect to those
explanations or modifications of the document which they had promised
in order to meet the objections he had taken the liberty of making.
He did not doubt there would be "a perfecting of those things."[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates. The speech of Cromwell in
assenting to the _Petition and Advice_, May 25, 1657, had been
accidentally omitted in the earlier editions of Carlyle's
_Cromwell;_ but it was given in the Appendix to the edition of
1657. It may stand as Speech XIV*. in the numbering.]
The "perfecting of those things" occupied a good deal of time. What
was necessary was to cast the resolutions already come to in
supplement to the _Petition and Advice_, or those that might yet
suggest themselves, into a valid legal form; and it was agreed, June
4, that, except in as far as it might be well to pass express Bills
on specific matters, the best way would be to frame and submit to his
Highness a _Humble Additional and Explanatory Petition and
Advice_. The due framing of this, and the preparation of the
necessary Bills, were to be work for three weeks more.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of date, and afterwards.]
Meanwhile, in evidence that the Session of the Parliament up to this
point, notwithstanding the great business of the _Petition and
Advice_ and the Kingship question, had by no means been barren in
legislation, the House had gathered up all the Bills already passed,
but not yet assented to, for presentation to his Highness in a body.
On the 9th of June thirty-eight such Bills, "some of the public, and
the others of a more private, concernment," were presented to his
Highness by the whole House, assembled in the Painted Chamber, the
Speaker, "after a short and pithy speech," offering them as some
grapes preceding the full vintage, and his Highness ratifying all by
his assent.--Among these was one very comprehensive Act with this
preamble: "Whereas, since the 20th of April, 1653, in the great
exigences and necessities of these nations, divers Acts and
Ordinances have been made without the consent of the People assembled
in Parliament--which is not according to the fundamental laws of the
nations and the rights of the People, and is not for the future to be
drawn into example--yet, the actings thereupon tending to the
settlement of the estates of several persons and families and the
peace and quiet of the nations: Be it enacted by his Highness the
Lord Protector and this present Parliament," &c. What is enacted is
that about a hundred Acts and Ordinances, all duly enumerated, out
of those made by the Barebones Parliament in 1653 or by Oliver and
his Council after the establishment of the Protectorate in Dec. 1656,
together with all acts and ordinances of the same touching customs
and excise, shall by this Act be confirmed and made good, either
wholly and absolutely (which is the case with nearly all) or with
specified modifications--"all other Acts and Ordinances, and every
branch and clause therein contained, not confirmed by these presents,
which have been made or passed between the 20th day of April 1653 and
the 17th day of September 1656" to be absolutely null and void. In
other words, the House had been revising long and carefully the Acts
of the Barebones Parliament and the arbitrary Ordinances of Oliver
and his Council from Dec. 1653 onwards, with a view to adopt all that
might stand and to give them new constitutional sanction. Among the
Acts of the Barebones Parliament so confirmed and continued was their
famous Act for the forms and ceremonial of Marriage and for the
Registration of Births and Burials (Vol. IV. p. 511), except only the
clause therein declaring any other marriages than as these prescribed
to be illegal. Of Cromwell's own Ordinances from Dec. 1653 onwards
all were preserved that, I suppose, he really cared for. Thus, of his
_eighty-two_ first public Ordinances, passed between Dec. 1653
and the meeting of his First Parliament Sept. 3, 1654,
_thirty-six_ were expressly confirmed; which, as most of the
rest were Excise or Customs Ordinances or Orders for temporary
occasion, means that substantially all his legislation on his
entering on the Protectorate was to remain in force. More
particularly, I may note that Nos. 7, 16, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 50, 54,
58, 60, 66, 67, 69, 71, 81, and 82, in our List of his first
eighty-two Public Ordinances (Vol. IV. pp. 558-565) were among those
confirmed. These included his Ordinances against Cockfights and
Duels, his Ordinance for Reform of the Court of Chancery, his various
Ordinances for the incorporation and management of Scotland, and his
various Church-Establishment Ordinances for England and Wales, with
his two commissions of Triers and Ejectors. Among contemporary
ordinances of his also confirmed, over and above those in the main
list of Eighty-two, were that for setting up Lectures in Scotland,
that in favour of Glasgow University, and that for the better support
of the Universities of Scotland--this last, however, limited to the
Universities alone by the omission of what related to "the
encouragement of public preachers" (Vol. IV. p. 565: footnote). The
most noticeable Ordinances of Cromwell's _not_ confirmed are
those relating to Treasons--No. 8 in the List of Eighty-two, and its
appendages Nos. 12 and 49. Altogether, the Parliament had handsomely
cleared Cromwell in respect of his Interim Dictatorship and what was
past of his Protectorate, and he had every reason to be satisfied.
But, besides this all-comprehensive Act of retrospection, several of
the other Acts presented for his assent at the same time must have
been very much to his mind.--There was an Act for settling lands in
Scotland upon General Monk, with similar Acts for settling lands in
Ireland on Fleetwood, Dr. Owen, Sir Hardress Waller, and other
persons of desert; there were several Naturalization Bills in favour
of a great number of foreigners and English aliens; there was "An Act
for limiting and settling the prices of Wines"; and there was "An Act
against Vagrants, and wandering, idle, dissolute Persons." Most
welcome to Cromwell, and drawing from him a few words of special
acknowledgment after his assent to all the Bills (_Speech XV._),
were "Two Bills for an Assessment towards the defraying of the charge
of the Spanish war and other occasions of the Commonwealth." One was
for £60,000 a month from England for the three months ending June 24;
the other for an assessment of £20,000 from Ireland for the same
three months. These were instalments of a lump sum of £400,000, which
the House had voted as long ago as Jan. 30, 1656-7, for the carrying
on of the Spanish war, and the remainder of which was to be raised in
other ways. The House had already before it a general Bill for the
continued assessment of England, Scotland, and Ireland, for Army and
Navy purposes, beyond the period specified; but that Bill had not
yet passed.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates; Scobell's Acts and Ordinances
of 1656, given in mass in his book, Part II. p. 371 et seq. See
especially there, pp. 389-395.]
Army and Navy purposes, and the carrying on of the Spanish War:
these, through all the bustle of the Kingship question, had still
been the deepest things in Cromwell's mind. His alliance with France,
settled so far by the Treaty of Peace and Commerce dated Oct. 24,
1655, but much imperilled since by Mazarin's dexterity in evasion and
his occasional oscillations towards Spain, had at length, by
Lockhart's exertions, been converted into a great Treaty "offensive
and defensive," signed at Paris, March 23rd, 1656-7, and ratified by
Louis XIV. April 30, and by Cromwell himself May 4, 1657. By this
treaty it was provided that there should be joint action against
Spain, by sea and land, for the reduction and capture of Gravelines,
Mardyke, and Dunkirk, the three coast-towns of Spanish Flanders
adjoining the French territories on the north-east. Gravelines, if
taken, was to belong to France ultimately, but, if taken first, was
to be held by the English till Mardyke and Dunkirk were taken--which
two towns were to belong permanently to England, only with
stipulation of inviolability of Roman Catholic worship for the
inhabitants, and of no further English encroachments on Flanders. For
the joint-enterprise France was to supply 20,000 men, and Cromwell an
auxiliary army of 6000 foot (half at the expense of France), besides
a fleet for coast-service. A secret article of the Treaty was that
neither power should make separate peace with the Spanish Crown for
the space of one year from the date of the Treaty.[1]--Cromwell had
lost no time in fulfilling his part of the engagement. To command the
auxiliary English army in Flanders he had selected Sir John Reynolds,
who had served ably heretofore in Ireland, and was now, as we have
seen, member for Tipperary and Waterford in the present Parliament,
and a strong Oliverian. His commission was dated April 25; and by
May 14 he and his 6000 English foot had all been landed at Boulogne.
They were thought the most splendid body of soldiers in Europe, and
were admired and complimented by Louis XIV., who went purposely, with
Lockhart, to review them. The promised fleet of cooperation was to be
under the command of young Admiral Montague, who was still, however,
detained in England.[2]--Meanwhile Blake, in his wider command off
the coasts of Spain itself, or wherever in the Atlantic there could
be a dash at the Spaniard, had added one more to the series of his
naval exploits. To intercept a rich Spanish fleet from Mexico, he had
gone to the Canary Isles; he had found the fleet there, sixteen ships
in all, impregnably ensconced, as it was thought, in the fortified
bay of Santa Cruz in Teneriffe; and, after a council of war, in which
it was agreed that, though the ships could not be taken, they might
be destroyed, he had ventured that tremendous feat April 20, with the
most extraordinary success. He had emerged from Santa Cruz Bay, after
eleven hours of connonading and fighting, all but undamaged himself,
but leaving not a ship of the Spanish fleet extant, and every fort in
ruins. Not till May 28 did the news reach London; but on that day
Thurloe presented a narrative of the glorious action to the House,
who forthwith ordered a special thanksgiving, and a jewel worth £500
to Blake. On the 10th of June the jewel was sent, with a letter of
honour from the Protector, and instructions to leave fourteen of his
ships off Cadiz, and return home himself with the rest of his
fleet.[3]
[Footnote 1: Godwin, IV. 540-542. But see Guizot's _Cromwell and
the English Commonwealth_, II. 377 (Engl. Transl. 1854), with
Latin Text of the Treaty itself in Appendix to same volume.]
[Footnote 2: Godwin, IV. 542-543; Commons Journals of May 5, 1657
(leave to Reynolds to go on the service).]
[Footnote 3: Commons Journals, May 28 and 29, 1657; Godwin, IV.
418-420; Carlyle, III. 264 and 304-305.]
"_Killing no Murder: briefly discoursed, in Three Questions, by
William Allen:_" such was the title of a pamphlet in secret
circulation in London in June, 1657, and still of some celebrity. It
began with a letter "To His Highness, Oliver Cromwell," in this
strain: "To your Highness justly belongs the honour of dying for the
people; and it cannot choose but be an unspeakable consolation to you
in the last moments of your life to consider with how much benefit to
the world you are likely to leave it ... To hasten this great good is
the chief end of my writing this paper." There follows, accordingly,
a letter to those officers and soldiers of the army who remember
their engagements, urging them to assassinate Cromwell. "We wish we
had rather endured thee, O Charles," it says, "than have been
condemned to this mean tyrant, not that we desire any kind of
slavery, but that the quality of the master sometimes graces the
condition of the slave." Sindercombe is spoken of as "a brave man,"
of as "great a mind" as any of the old Romans. At the end there is
this postscript: "Courteous reader, expect another sheet or two of
paper on this subject, if I escape the Tyrant's hands, although he
gets in the interim the crown upon his head, which he hath underhand
put his confederates on to petition his acceptance thereof." This
would imply that, though not in circulation till June, the pamphlet
had been written while the Kingship question was in suspense, i.e,
before May 8. The name "William Allen" on the title-page was, of
course, assumed. The pamphlet, hardly any one now doubts, was by
Edward Sexby, the Stuartist arch-conspirator, then moving between
England and the continent, and known to have been the real principal
of Sindercombe's plot. Actually, when the pamphlet appeared, the
desperate man was again in England, despite Thurloe's police. The
pamphlet was greedily sought after, and much talked of. The sale was,
of course, dangerous. A copy could not be had under five
shillings.[1]
[Footnote 1: Copy of _Killing no Murder_ (first edition, much
rarer than a second and enlarged edition of 1659) among the Thomason
Pamphlets, with the date "June 1657" marked on it: Wood's Ath. IV.
624-5; Godwin, IV. 388-390 (where the pamphlet is assumed to have
been out "early in May"); Carlyle, III, 67. After the Restoration,
Sexby being then dead, the pamphlet was claimed by another.--An
answer to _Killing no Murder_, under the title _Killing is
Murder_, appeared Sept. 21, 1657. It was by a Michael Hawke, of
the Middle Temple.]
People were still talking of _Killing no Murder_ when the First
Protectorate came to a close. We have now only to take account of the
circumstances of that event, and of the differences there were to be,
constitutionally, between the First Protectorate and the Second.
On the 25th of June, 1657, all the details of the _Humble
Additional and Explanatory Petition and Advice_ having been at
length settled by the House, that supplement to the original
_Petition and Advice_ was also ready for his Highness's assent.
The two documents together, to be known comprehensively as _The
Petition and Advice_, were to supersede the more military
Instrument, called _The Government of the Commonwealth_, to
which Cromwell had sworn in Dec. 1653, at his first installation, and
were to be the charter of his new and constitutionalized
Protectorate. The Articles of this new Constitution were seventeen in
all, and deserve some attention:--Article I., as we know, confirmed
Cromwell's Protectorship and empowered him to choose his
successor.--Article II. provided for the calling of Parliaments of
Two Houses once in three years at furthest.--Article III. stipulated
for all Parliamentary privileges and the non-exclusion of any of the
duly elected members except by judgment of the House of which they
might be members.--Article IV., which was much the longest,
determined the classes of persons who should be disqualified from
being elected or voting in elections. _Universally_, all Roman
Catholics were to be excluded, and all who had abetted the Irish
Rebellion. Farther, in _England_, were to be excluded all who
had been engaged in any war against Parliament since Jan. I, 1641-2,
unless they had afterwards given "signal testimony" of their good
affections, and all who, since the establishment of the Protectorate,
had been engaged in any plot or insurrection against _it_. In
_Scotland_ were to be excluded all who had been in arms against
the Parliament of England or against that of Scotland before April 1,
1648 (old _Malignants_ and _Montrosists_), except such as
had afterwards given "signal testimony," &c., and also all who, since
April 1, 1648, had been in arms against the English Parliament or the
Commonwealth (the _Hamiltonians_ of 1648, and the _Scottish
Royalists of all varieties_ who had fought for Charles II. in
1650-51), except such as had since March 1, 1651-2, "lived
peaceably"--but with the supplementary proviso, required by his
Highness, that, while "having lived peaceably" since Worcester would
suffice for the miscellaneous Royalists of 1650-51, who were indeed
nearly the whole population of Scotland, the less pardonable
_Hamiltonians_ of 1648 would have to pass much stricter tests.
In _Ireland_, though Protestants generally were to be qualified,
there was to be like caution in admitting such as, though faithful
before March 1, 1649-50, had afterwards opposed the Commonwealth or
the Protector. These disqualifications affected both voting and
eligibility; but eligibility was restricted still farther. Ineligible
were to be all atheistic persons, scoffers at Religion, unbelievers
in the divine authority of the Bible, or other execrable heretics,
all profaners of the Lord's Day, all habitual drunkards or swearers,
and all who had married Roman Catholics or allowed their children to
marry such. For the rest, all persons of the voting sex, over the age
of twenty-one, and "of known integrity, fearing God, and of good
conversation," were to be eligible. One farther exception had been
made in the original _Petition and Advice_; to wit, all in holy
orders, all ministers or public preachers. "There may be some of us,
it may be, who have been a little guilty of that, who would be loath
to be excluded from sitting in Parliament," Cromwell had said
laughingly while commenting on this clause; and it had accordingly
been defined as excluding only regular pastors of congregations. He
had procured an important modification of another clause of the same
Article. It had been proposed that the business of examining who had
been duly elected, and the power of suspending members till the House
itself should decide, should be vested in a body of forty-one
commissioners to be appointed by Parliament; but, Cromwell having
pointed out that this would be a clumsy process, and that the
commissioners themselves might be "uncertain persons," and might
"keep out good men," it was agreed that the judgment of the House
itself, with a fine of £1000 on every unqualified person that might
take his seat, would fully answer the purpose.--Article V. related to
the Second House of Parliament, called simply "the other House." It
was to consist of not more than seventy nor fewer than forty persons,
qualified as by the last Article, to be nominated by the Protector
and approved by the Commons House, twenty-one to be a quorum, and no
proxies allowed. Vacancies were to be filled up by nominations by the
Protector, approved by the House itself. The powers of the House were
also defined. They were to try no criminal cases whatsoever, unless
on an impeachment sent up from the Commons, and only certain
specified kinds of civil cases. All their final determinations were
to be by the House itself, and not by delegates or
Committees.--Article VI. ruled that all other particulars concerning
"the calling and holding of Parliaments" should be by law and
statute, and that there should be no legislation, or suspension, or
abrogation of law, but by Act of Parliament.--Article VII. guaranteed
a yearly revenue of £1,300,000, whereof £1,000,000 to be for the Army
and Navy, and the remaining £300,000 for the support of the
Government, the sums not to be altered without the consent of
Parliament, and no part of them to be raised by a land-tax. There
might also be "temporary supplies" over and above, to be voted by the
Commons; but on no account was his Highness to impose any tax, or
require any contribution, by his own authority. By Cromwell's request
it was added that his expenditure of the Army and Navy money should
be with the advice of his Council, and that accounts should be
rendered to Parliament.--Article VIII. settled that his Highness's
Privy Council should consist of not more than twenty-one persons,
seven a quorum, to be approved by both Houses, and to be irremovable
but by the consent of Parliament, though in the intervals of
Parliament any of them might be suspended by the Protector. It was
asked that the Government should always be with the advice of the
Council, and stipulated that, after Cromwell's death, all
appointments to the Commandership-in-chief, or to Generalships at
land or sea, should be by the future Protectors with consent of the
Council.--Article IX. required that the Lord Chancellor, or Lord
Keeper, or Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal, the Lord Treasurer
or Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, the Judges, and all the great
State-officers in England, Scotland, or Ireland, should, in cases of
future appointment by the Protector and his Council, be approved by
Parliament.--Article X. congratulated the Protector on his
Established Church, and begged him to punish, according to law, all
open revilers of the same.--Article XI. related to Religion and
Toleration. The Protestant Faith, as contained in the Old and New
Testaments, and as yet to be formulated in a Confession of Faith to
be agreed upon between his Highness and the Parliament, was to be the
professed public Religion, and to be universally respected as such;
but all believers in the Trinity and in the divine authority of the
Scriptures, though they might dissent otherwise in doctrine, worship,
or discipline from the Established Church, were to be protected in
the exercise of their own religion and worship,--this liberty not to
extend to Popery, Prelacy, or the countenancing of blasphemous
publications. Ministers and Preachers agreeing in "matters of faith"
with "the public profession," though differing in "matters of worship
and discipline," were not to be excluded from the Established Church
by that difference, but might have "the public maintenance appointed
for the ministry" and promotion and employment in the Church
according to their abilities. None but those whose difference
extended to matters of faith need remain outside the Established
Church. Dissenters from the Established Church, if sufficiently right
in the faith, were to have equal admission with others to all civil
trusts and appointments, subject only to any disqualification for
civil office attached to the ministerial profession. His Highness was
requested to agree to the repeal of all laws inconsistent with these
provisions.--Article XII. required that all past Acts for
disestablishing or disendowing the old Prelatic Church, and
appropriating the revenues of the same, should hold good.--Article
XIII. required that Old Malignants, and other such classes of persons
as those disqualified for Parliament in Article IV., should be
excluded also from other public trusts.--Article XIV. stipulated that
nothing in the _Petition and Advice_ should be construed as
implying the dissolution of the present Parliament before such time
as his Highness should independently think fit.--Article XV. provided
that the _Petition and Advice_ should not be construed as
repealing or annulling any Laws or Ordinances already in force, not
distinctly incompatible with itself.--Article XVI. protected in a
similar way all writs, commissions, grants, law-processes, &c.,
issued and in operation already, even though the wording should seem
a little past date.--Article XVII. and Last requested his Highness to
be pleased to take an oath of office. A form of such oath appeared in
the _Additional Petition and Advice_, with another form of oath
for his Highness's Councillors in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and
a third for the members of either House of Parliament. This last,
besides a promise to uphold and promote the true Protestant Religion,
contained a special promise of fidelity to the Lord Protector and his
Government. Farther, by the same _Additional Petition and
Advice_, the Lord Protector was requested and empowered to issue
writs calling qualified persons to the other House in convenient time
before the next session of Parliament, and such persons were
empowered to meet and constitute the other House at the time and
place appointed without requiring farther approbation from the
present Single House.[1]
[Footnote 1: The original Petition and Advice is given in full in
Scobell (378-383), Whitlocke (IV. 292-301), and in Parl. Hist.
(III. 1502-1511); the Additional Petition and Advice in Scobell
450-452, and Whitlocke, IV. 306-310. But see also Cromwell's Speech
XIII. with Mr. Carlyle's elucidations (Carlyle, III. 279 et seq.)]
Friday, June 26, 1657, was the last day of the present Single House,
and a day of high ceremonial in London. The House, having met as
usual in the morning, and transacted some overstanding business, rose
about two o'clock to meet his Highness in the Painted Chamber. There,
with the words "The Lord Protector doth consent," the _Additional
Petition and Advice_, and therefore the whole new Constitution of
the Protectorate, as just described, became law, and assent was given
also to a number of Bills that had passed the House since the 9th.
Among these was an "Act for convicting, discovering, and repressing
of Popish Recusants," an "Act for the Better Observation of the
Lord's Day," and an "Act for punishing such persons as live at high
rates and have no visible estate, profession, or calling, answerable
thereto." There were also two Money Bills for temporary supplies:
viz. one for raising £15,000 from Scotland, to go along with the
£180,000 from England, and the £20,000 from Ireland, voted for the
three months just ended, and another general and prospective one,
assessing England at £35,000 a month, Scotland at £6000 a month, and
Ireland at £9000 a month, for the next three years. All these assents
having been received, there was an adjournment to Westminster Hall
for the solemn installation of his Highness in his Second
Protectorate.--The Hall had been magnificently prepared, and
contained a vast assemblage. The members of the House, the Judges in
their robes, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen in their robes, and other
dignitaries, were ranged in the midst round, a canopied chair of
state. It was the royal chair of Scotland, with the mystic
coronation-stone underneath it, brought for the purpose from the
Abbey. In front of the chair was a table, covered with pink-coloured
Geneva velvet fringed with gold; and on the table lay a large Bible,
a sword, the sceptre, and a robe of purple velvet, lined with ermine.
His Highness, having entered, attended by his Council, the great
state officers, his son Richard, the French Ambassador, the Dutch
Ambassador, and "divers of the nobility and other persons of great
quality," stood, beside the chair under the canopy. The Speaker,
assisted by the Earl of Warwick, Whitlocke, and others, then attired
his Highness in the purple velvet robe; after which he delivered to
him the richly-gilt Bible, girt him with the sword, and put the gold
sceptre into his hand. His Highness then swore the oath of office,
administered to him by the Speaker, After that, the Speaker addressed
him in a well-turned speech. "You have no new name," he said, "but a
new date now added to the old name: the 16th of December is now
changed into the 26th of June." He explained that the robe, the
Bible, the sword, and the sceptre were presents to his Highness from
the Parliament, and dwelt poetically on the significance of each.
"What a comely and glorious sight," he concluded, "it is to behold a
Lord Protector in a purple robe, with a sceptre in his hand, a sword
of justice girt about him, and his eyes fixed upon the Bible! Long
may you prosperously enjoy them all, to your own comfort, and the
comfort of the people of these three Nations!" His Highness still
standing, Mr. Manton offered up a prayer. Then, the assemblage giving
several great shouts, and the trumpets sounding, his Highness sat
down in the chair, still holding the sceptre. Then a herald stood up
aloft, and signalled for three trumpet-blasts, at the end of which,
by authority of Parliament, he proclaimed the Protector. There were
new trumpet-blasts, loud hurrahs through the Hall, and cries of "God
save the Lord Protector." Once more there was proclamation, and once
more a burst of applauses. Then, all being ended, his Highness, with
his robe borne up by several young persons of rank, passed with his
retinue from the Hall by the great gate, where his coach was in
waiting. And so, with the Earl of Warwick seated opposite to him in
the coach, his son Richard and Whitlocke on one side, and Viscount
Lisle and Admiral Montague on the other, he was driven through the
crowd to Whitehall, surrounded by his life-guards, and followed by
the Lord Mayor and other dignitaries in their coaches.--There was a
brief sitting of the House after the Installation. It was agreed to
recommend to his Highness to "encourage Christian endeavours for
uniting the Protestant Churches abroad," and also to recommend to him
to take some effectual course "for reforming the government of the
Inns of Court, and likewise for placing of godly and able ministers
there"; and it was ordered that the Acts passed by the House should
be printed collectively, and that every member should have a copy.
Then, according to one of the Acts to which his Highness had that day
assented, the House adjourned itself for seven months, i.e. to Jan.
20, 1657-8.[1]
[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of June 26, 1657; Parl. Hist. III.
1514-1518 (Reprint of the authorized contemporary account of the
Installation-Ceremony, which had a frontispiece by Hollar);
Whitlocke, IV. 303-305; Guizot's Cromwell, II. 337-339 (where some of
the particulars of the Installation seem to be from French
eye-witnesses).]
CHAPTER II.
MILTON'S LIFE AND SECRETARYSHIP THROUGH THE FIRST PROTECTORATE
CONTINUED: SEPTEMBER 1654--JUNE 1657.
For more than reasons of mere mechanical symmetry, it will be well to
divide this Chapter of Milton's Biography into Sections corresponding
with those of Oliver's Continued Protectorate in the preceding
Chapter.
SECTION I: FROM SEPTEMBER 1654 TO JANUARY 1654-5, OR THROUGH OLIVER'S
FIRST PARLIAMENT.
ULAC'S HAGUE EDITION OF MILTON'S _DEFENSIO SECUNDA_, WITH THE
_FIDES PUBLICA_ OF MORUS ANNEXED: PREFACE BY DR. CRANTZIUS TO
THE REPRINT: ULAC'S OWN PREFACE OF SELF-DEFENCE: ACCOUNT OF MORUS'S
_FIDES PUBLICA_, WITH EXTRACTS: HIS CITATION OF TESTIMONIES TO
HIS CHARACTER: TESTIMONY OF DIODATI OF GENEVA: ABRUPT ENDING OF THE
BOOK AT THIS POINT, WITH ULAC'S EXPLANATION OF THE
CAUSE.--PARTICULARS OF THE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF MILTON'S
FRIEND OVERTON.--THREE MORE LATIN STATE-LETTERS BY MILTON FOR OLIVER
(NOS. XLIX.--LI.): NO STATE-LETTERS BY MILTON FOR THE NEXT THREE
MONTHS: MILTON THEN BUSY ON A REPLY TO THE _FIDES PUBLICA_ OF
MORUS.
In October 1654 there was out at the Hague, from Ulac's press, a
volume in two parts, with this title: "_Joannis Miltoni Defensio
Secunda pro Populo Anglicano contra infamem Libellum, cujus titulus
'Regii Sanguinis Clamor adversus Parricidas Anglicanos.' Accessit
Alexandri Mori, Ecclesiastæ, Sacrarumque Litterarum Professoris,
Fides Publica contra calumnias Joannis Miltoni, Scurræ. Hagæ-Comitum,
ex Typographia Adriani Ulac_, MDCLIV." ("John Milton's Second
Defence for the English People in reply to an infamous Book entitled
'Cry of the King's Blood against the English Parricides.' To which is
added A Public Testimony of Alexander Morus, Churchman, and Professor
of Sacred Literature, in reply to the Calumnies of John Milton,
Buffoon. Printed at the Hague by Adrian Ulac, 1654.") The reprint of
Milton's _Defensio Secunda_ fills 128 pages of the volume;
More's appended _Fides Publica_, or Public Testimony, in reply,
is in larger type and fills 129 pages separately numbered. Morus,
after all, it will be seen, had been obliged to acquiesce in Ulac's
arrangement (Vol. IV. p. 634). Instead of trying vainly any longer to
suppress Milton's book on the Continent, he had exerted himself to
the utmost in preparing a Reply to it, to go forth with that reprint
of it for the foreign market which Ulac had been pushing through the
press and would not keep back.
Although Milton complains that Ulac's edition of his book for the
foreign market was not only a piracy, but also slovenly in itself,
with printer's errors vitiating the sense and arrangement in some
cases,[1] it was substantially a reprint of the original. Its
interest for us, therefore, lies wholly in the preliminary matter.
This consists of a short Preface headed "_Lectori_" ("To the
Reader") and signed "GEORGIUS CRANTZIUS, _S.S. Theol. D._," and
a longer statement headed "_Typographus pro Se-ipso_" ("The
Printer in his own behalf") and signed "A. ULACQ."
[Footnote 1: Pro Se Def. (1655).]
The Rev. Dr. Crantzius, who does not give his exact address, writes
in an authoritative clerical manner. Though in bad health, he says,
he cannot refrain from penning a few lines, to say how much he is
shocked at the length to which personalities in controversy are
going. He really thinks Governments ought to interfere to put such
things down. Readers will find in the following book of Milton's a
lamentable specimen. He knows nothing of Milton himself; but Milton's
writings show him to be a man of a most damnable disposition, and
Salmasius had once shown him (Dr. Crantzius) an English book of
Milton's propounding the blasphemy "that the doctrine of the Gospel,
and of our Lord Jesus Christ, concerning Divorce is devilish." Dr.
Crantzius had known Salmasius very well; and O what a man _he_
was! Nothing amiss in him, except perhaps a hasty temper, and too
great subjection to a peculiar connubial fate! There was a posthumous
book of Salmasius against Milton; and, should it ever appear, Milton
would feel that even the dead could bite. Dr. Crantzius had seen a
portion of it; and, "Good Heavens! what a blackguard is Milton, if
Salmasius may be trusted." Dr. Crantzius had known Morus both at
Geneva and in Holland. He was certainly a man often at feud with
enemies and rivals, and giving them too great opportunities by his
irascibility and freedom of speech. But he was a man of high
aspirations; and the late Rev. Dr. Spanheim had once told Dr.
Crantzius that Morus's only fault was that he was _altier_, as
the French say, i.e. haughty. As for Milton's special accusations
against Morus, Dr. Crantzius knew them for a certainty to be false.
Even after the Bontia scandal had got abroad and the lawsuit of Morus
with the Salmasian household was running its course, Dr. Crantzius
had heard Salmasius, who was not in the habit of praising people,
speak highly of Morus. Salmasius had admitted at the same time that
his wife had injured Morus, though he could not afford to destroy his
"domestic peace" by opposing her in the matter. On the Bontia affair
specifically, Salmasius's express words, not only to Dr. Crantzius,
but to others whom he names, had been, "If Morus is guilty, then I am
the pimp, and my wife the procuress." As to the sequel of the case
Dr. Crantzius is ignorant; and he furnishes Ulac with this preface to
the Book only in the interests of truth. But what a quarrelsome
fellow Milton must be, who had not kept his hands off even the
"innocent printer"!
The "innocent printer's" own preface to the Reprint shows him to have
been a very shrewd person indeed. He keeps his temper better than any
of them. Two years had elapsed., he says, since he printed the
_Regii Sanguinis Clamor_. Who the real author of the book was he
did not even yet know. All he knew was that some one, who wanted to
be anonymous, had sent the manuscript to Salmasius, and that, after
some delay and hesitation, he had obliged Salmasius by putting the
book to press. Ulac then relates the circumstances, already known to
us, of his correspondence with Hartlib about the book, and his offers
to Milton, through Hartlib, to publish any reply Milton might make.
He had been surprised at the long delay of this reply, and also at
the extraordinary ignorance of business shown by Milton and his
friends in their resentment of _his_ part in the matter. It was
for a tradesman to be neutral in his dealings; he had relations with
both the Parliamentarians and the Royalists, and would publish for
either side; and, as to his lending his name to the Dedicatory
Preface to Charles II., everybody knew that printers did such things
every day. However, here now is Mr. Milton's _Defensio Secunda_
in an edition for the foreign market, printed with the same good will
as if Milton had himself given the commission. It contains, he finds,
a most unjustifiable attack on M. Morus, with abuse also of
Salmasius, who is now in his grave; but that is other people's
business, not Ulac's. He cannot pass, however, the defamation of
himself inserted in Milton's book.--Ulac then quotes the substance of
Milton's account of him as once a swindler and bankrupt in London,
then the same in Paris, &c. (Vol. IV. p. 588). This information, Ulac
has little doubt, Milton has received from a particular London
bookseller, whom Ulac believes also to have been the real publisher
of Milton's book, though Newcome's name appears on it. It is all a
tissue of lies, however, and Ulac will meet it by a sketch of his own
life since he first dealt in books. This takes him twenty-six years
back. It was at that time that, being in Holland, which is his native
country, and having till then not been in trade at all, he received
from England a copy of the _Arithmetica Logarithmica_ of the
famous mathematician Henry Briggs [published 1624]. Greatly
enamoured with this work and with the whole new science of
Logarithms, and observing that Briggs had given the Logarithms for
numbers only from 1 to 20,000, and then from 90,000 to 100,000, he
had set himself to fill up the gap by finding the Logarithms for
numbers from 20,000 to 90,000, and had had the satisfaction, in an
incredibly short space of time, of bringing out the result [in an
extended edition of Briggs's book published at Gouda, 1628]. Briggs
and the English mathematicians were highly gratified, and Ulac was
asked to publish also Briggs's _Trigonometria Britannica_. This
also he had done [at Gouda in 1633, Briggs having died in 1630, and
left the work in charge of his friend Henry Gellibrand]; after which
he had engaged in the heavy labour of converting into Logarithms the
Sines and Tangents to a Radius of 10,000,000,000 given in the _Opus
Palatinum_, and had issued the same under the title
_Trigonometria Artificialis_. These labours of Ulac's were not
unknown to the mathematical world; and it was somewhat surprising
that Milton had not heard of them, especially as, in his sketch of
his own life in the _Defensio Secunda_, he professed his
interest in Mathematics, and spoke of his visits to London from
Horton for the purpose of picking up any novelties in that science.
At any rate, it was zeal for the dissemination of the mathematical
books above-mentioned that had turned Ulac into a printer and
bookseller. In that capacity he certainly had been in London, trading
in books generally, and he had been in difficulties there, though not
of a kind discreditable to himself. After he had been some years in
London, trading peaceably, some London booksellers, jealous for their
monopoly, had conspired against him, and tried to obtain an order
from Archbishop Laud for the confiscation of his whole stock in
trade. Through the kind offices of Dr. Juxon, Bishop of London, this
had been prevented, and he had been empowered to sell off his
existing stock. Nay, a little while afterwards, he had had a
prospect, through the Royal Printers, of a full trading licence from
the Archbishop, on condition of his buying from them copies of two
heavy works they had printed by the Archbishop's desire--viz.
_Theophylact on St. Paul's Epistles_ and the _Catena of the
Greek Fathers on Job_. He had actually obtained such a licence for
two years, and had hopes of its renewal, when the Civil War broke
out. On that account only, and not in any disgrace, as Milton said,
he had, after having been about ten years in all in London,
transferred himself to Paris.[1] He had been there about six years,
dealing honestly, and publishing important theological and other
books, the titles of some of which he gives; but here also he had
been the victim of trade jealousy. He had found it impossible to get
on in Paris, though it was utterly false that he dared not now show
his face there. He _had_ shown his face there, since he had
returned to his native Holland and made the Hague his head-quarters;
and he could show his face there again without any inconvenience.
Meanwhile he was in the Hague, comfortable enough; and his character
there might easily be ascertained.--To return to Milton's present
book. Though Ulac had reprinted it, he had done so in doubt whether,
now that there was peace between the United Provinces and the
Protector, such irritating books between the two nations ought not to
be mutually suppressed. His own leanings had always been rather to
the English Parliamentarians than to the Royalists, and hence he had
been disposed to think well of Milton. Though he cannot think so well
of him now, he will not retaliate by any abuse of Milton. "If Milton
is acknowledged in his own country to be a good man, let him be glad
of it; but I hear that many Englishmen who know him are of another
opinion. I would decide nothing on mere rumour; nay, if I had
ascertained anything scandalous about him with positive certainty, I
should think it better to hold my tongue than to blazon it about
publicly." How strange, however, that Milton had fallen foul of Morus
at such a violent rate! Had he not been told two years ago, through
Hartlib, that Morus was not the author of the book for which he made
him suffer? It was the more inexcusable inasmuch as in the _Joannis
Philippi, Angli, Responsio ad Apologiam Anonymi Cujusdam_--which
work Milton had superintended, if he had not written it--there had
been the same mistake of attributing a work to the wrong person. It
would be for Morus himself, however, to take cognisance of that.
[Footnote 1: Long ago, foreseeing the interest I should have in ULAC,
I made notes in the State-Paper Office of some documents appertaining
to him when he was a Bookseller in London. They do not quite
correspond with Ulac's account of his reasons for leaving London. The
documents, here arranged in what seems to be their chronological
order, are as follows:--(1) Petition of Ulac, undated, to Sir John
Lambe, Dean of the Arches, that he would intercede with Laud in
Ulac's favour. His two years' licence for importing hooks is now
almost expired; but many of the Greek books he had bought from the
Royal Printers are still on his hands unsold, besides the whole
impression of a _Vita Christi_ which he had also bought from
them after the London stationers would not look at it. It would be a
great thing for him therefore to have his licence extended for a
time; and, if this favour is obtained from his Grace, he promises to
do all he can for the importation of learned Greek and Latin books of
the kind his Grace likes. (2) Humble Petition to Laud by Richard
Whittaker, Humphrey Robinson, George Thomason, and other London
Booksellers, dated April 15, 1640, representing to his Grace that,
contrary to decree in Star-Chamber, "one Adrian Ulacke, a Hollander,
hath now lately imported and landed at the Custom House divers bales
or packs of books, printed beyond seas, with purpose to vent them in
this kingdom," and praying for the attachment of the said bales and
the apprehension of Ulac. (3) Of the same date, Laud's order, or
suggestion to the Lord Treasurer to join him in an order, to attach
the goods in the Custom House accordingly. (4) Humble Petition of
Ulac to Juxon, Bishop of London, of date April 1640, explaining the
transaction for which he is in trouble. He had gone to Paris "upon
the 5th of Dec. last," and had there sold a great many copies of
_Theophylact on Paul's Epistles_, the _Catena Patrum Græcorum
in Jobum_, Bishop Montague's _De Vita Christi_, _Spelman's
British Councils_, &c., at the same time buying a number of books
to be imported into England. Although these last had been sent off
from Paris before January, "yet, by want of ships and winds, they
could come no sooner"--i.e. not till after the 13th of April, 1640,
when his two years' licence for importing had expired. He humbly
beseeches Juxon that he may be allowed to "receive and dispose of the
said books so sent freely without any trouble." (5) A note of Laud's,
written by his secretary, but signed by himself, as follows:--"Had
not the Petitioner offended in a high matter against the State in
transporting bullion of the kingdom, I should have been willing to
have given time as is here [i.e. in the last document] expressed.
However, I desire Sir John Lambe to consider of his Petition, and do
further therein as he shall find to be just and fitting, unless he
find that the sentence in the Star-Chamber hath disabled him.--W.
CANT. _Apr._ 21, 1640." (6) Humble Petition, undated, of Ulac,
now "prisoner in the Fleet," to Sir John Lambe. The prisoner "was, the
24th of May last, censured by the Lords in the High Court of
Star-Chamber in £1000 to his Majesty and imprisonment." He is in very
great straits, owing above £500 to his Majesty's Printers for books,
"much hindered by the deadness of trading," and by the return of many
books on his hands. He is "a stranger, without any friends," and
unless the fine of £1000 is mitigated "to a very low rate," he will
be in "utter ruin and misery." He therefore prays Lambe's good word
with Laud.--My only doubt is whether the document I have put here as
No. 6, ought not to _precede_ the others: i.e. whether Ulac's
offence in the matter of the "bullion," with his fine and
imprisonment, was not an affair of older date than his importation of
books after time in April 1640, though then remembered against him.
All the documents were together in the same bundle in the S. P. 0.
when I examined them, and the published Calendars have not yet
overtaken them.]
And now for More's own _Fides Publica_ or Public Testimony for
Himself. It is a most painful book on the whole. Gradually it
impresses you with considerable respect for the ability of the
author, and especially for his skill both in logical and pathetic
pleading; and throughout you cannot but pity him, and remember that
he was placed in about the most terrible position that a human being,
and especially a clergyman of wide celebrity, could occupy--placed
there too by what would now be called an act of literary savagery,
outraging all the modern proprieties of personal controversy. Still
the impression left finally is not satisfactory. It is but fair,
however, that he should speak for himself. The book opens thus:--
"If I could acknowledge as true of me any of those things which
you, by a wild and unbridled licence, have not only attributed to
me, but have even, to your eternal disgrace, dared to publish, I
should be angry with you to a greater degree than I am, you most
foolish Milton: for let that be your not unfitting, though mild,
designation in the outset, while that of liar and others will
fashion themselves out of the sequel. But, as the charges are such
that there is no one of those to whom I am a little more closely
known, however unfavourable to me, but could convict them of
falsehood from beginning to end, I might afford, strong in the sole
consciousness of my rectitude, to despise them, and perhaps this is
what I ought to do. Still, with a mind as calm as a sense of the
indignity of the occasion will permit, I have resolved to
expostulate with you. Yet I confess myself to be somewhat moved;
not by anger, but by another feeling. I am sorry, let me tell you,
for your own case, and shall be sorry until you prove penitent, and
this whether it is from sheer mental derangement that you have
assailed with mad and impotent fury a man who had done you no harm,
and who was, as you cannot deny, entirely unknown to you, or
whether you have let out the empty house of your ears, as those
good masters of yours say, to foul whisperings going about, and,
with your ears, put your hand and pen too, for I know not what
wages, but certainly little honourable, at the disposal of other
people's malicious humour. Choose which you please. I pray God
Almighty to be merciful to you, and I beg Him also in my own behalf
that, as I proceed to the just defence of my reputation, He may
suggest to me a true and modest oration, utterly free from all
lying and obscenity,--that is, very unlike yours."
On the point of the authorship of the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_
Morus is emphatic enough. He declares over and over again that
_he_ was not the author, and he declares that Milton knew this
perfectly well,--might have known it for two years, but had beyond
all doubt known it before he had published the _Defensio
Secunda_. We shall bring together the passages that refer to this
subject:--
I neither wrote it, nor ever pretended to have done so,--this I
here solemnly declare, and make God my witness,--nor did I
contribute anything to the writing of it.... The real author is
alive and well, unknown to me by face, but very well known to
several good men, on the strength of whose joint knowledge of the
fact I challenge with righteous detestation the public lie which
wriggles everywhere through your whole book.... Let the author
answer for himself: I neither take up his quarrel, nor thrust my
sickle into his corn.... But I wish the anonymous author would come
forth some time or other openly in his own name.... What then would
Milton think? He might have reason to fame and detest the light of
life, being manifestly convicted of lying before the world. He
might say, indeed, "I had not thought of it: I have been under a
mistake" ... But what if I prove by clear evidence that you knew
well enough already that the author of this book was another
person, not I? ... [Morus then goes on to say that Milton might
have learnt the fact in various ways, even from a comparison of the
style of the book with that of Morus's acknowledged writings; but
he lays stress chiefly on the information actually sent to Milton
in 1652 by Ulac, and on the subsequent communications to him,
through Durie and the Dutch Ambassador Nieuport, before the
_Defensio Secunda_ had left the press] ... Will you hear a
word of truth? You had certainly learnt the fact, and cannot for
two whole years have been ignorant of it. But, as you perceived it
would not suit your convenience to vent your spleen against an
anonymous opponent, that is a nobody, and some definite person must
be pitched upon as an adversary to bear your rage expressly, no one
else seemed to you more opportune than I as an object of calumny,
whether because you heard that I had many enemies, though (what
proves their savageness) without any cause, who would hold up both
thumbs in applause of your jocosities, or because you knew that, by
the arts of a Juno, I was involved in a lawsuit, more troublesome
in reality than dangerous, and you did not believe that I should
be, as I have been, the winner before all the tribunals.... Your
book once written, Morus must of necessity stand for your opponent,
or Milton, the Defender of the People, would have done nothing in
two years! He would have lost all the laborious compilation of his
days and nights, all his punnings upon my name, all his sarcasms on
my sacred office and profession.... For, if you had taken out of
your book all the reproaches thrown at me, how little would there
have been, certainly not more than a few pages, remaining for your
"People"! What fine things would have perished, what flowery, I had
almost said Floralian, expressions! What would have become of your
"gardens of Alcinous and Adonis," of your little story about
"Hortensius"; what of the "syca_more_," what of "Pyramus and
Thisbe," what of the "Mulberry tree"? [All these are phrases in
Milton's book, introduced whenever he refers circumstantially to
the naughty particulars of the scandals against Morus, whether in
Geneva or in Leyden. The name _Morus_, which means "mulberry
tree" and "fool" in Latin and Greek, and may be taken also for
"Moor" or "Ethiop," and in still other meanings, had yielded to the
Dutch wits, as well as to Milton, no end of metaphors and punning
etymologies in their squibs against the poor man] ... The real
author of the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_ neither lives among the
Dutch,--is not "stabled" among them, to use your own
expression--nor has he, I believe, anything in common with them ...
Vehemently and almost tragically you complain that I have upbraided
you with your blindness. I can positively affirm that I did not
know till I read it in your own book that you had lost your
eyesight. For, if anything occurred to me that might seem to look
that way, I referred to the mind [Note this sentence: the Latin is
"_Nam, si quid fortè se dabat quod eò spectare videretur, ad
animum referebam_"] ... Could I then upbraid you with blindness
who did not know that you were blind,--with personal deformity who
believed you even good-looking, chiefly in consequence of having
seen the rather neat likeness of you prefixed to your Poems
[Marshall's ludicrous botch of 1645 which Milton had disowned] ...
Nor did I know any more that you had written on Divorce. I have
never read that book of yours; I have never seen it ... I will have
done with this subject. That book is not mine. I have published,
and shall yet publish, other books, not one letter of which shall
you, while I am alive and aware of it, attack with impunity. Some
_Sermons_ of mine are in men's hands; my books _On Grace and
Free Will_ are to be had; there are in print my _Exercitations
on the Holy Scripture, or on the Cause of God_, which I know
have passed into England, so that you have no excuse,--as well as
my _Apology for Calvin_, dedicated to the illustrious Usher of
Armagh, your countryman, my very great friend, whose highly
honourable opinion of me, if the golden old man would permit, I
would put against a thousand Miltons. With God's help others will
appear, some of which, as but partly finished, I am keeping back,
while others are ready for issue. [A list of some of these,
including _Orationes Argumenti Sacri, cum Poematiis_: the list
closed with a statement that he has mentioned only his Latin works,
and not his French Sermons].
Every now and then there is a passage of retaliation on Milton. Here
are two specimens:
MILTON'S OWN CHARACTER AND REPUTATION:--"Do not think, obscurely
though you live, that, because you have had the first innings in
this game in the art of slander, you therefore stand aloft beyond
the reach of darts. You have not the ring of Gyges to make you
invisible. Your virtues are taken note of. You are not such a
person, my friend, that Fame should fear to tell lies even about
_you_; and, unless Fame lies, there is not a meaner or more
worthless man going, and nothing is clearer than that you estimate
by your own morals the characters of other people. But I hope Fame
lies in this. For who could hear without the greatest pain--what I
for my part hardly, nay not to the extent of hardly, bring my mind
to credit--that there is a man living among Christians who, being
himself a concrete of every form of outrageous iniquity, could so
censure others?"
MILTON'S PRODIGIOUS SELF-ESTEEM:--"All which has so elated you that
you would be reckoned next after the very first man in England, and
sometimes put yourself higher than the supreme Cromwell himself;
whom you name familiarly, without giving him any title of rank,
whom you lecture under the guise of praising him, to whom you
dictate laws, assign boundaries to his rights, prescribe duties,
suggest counsels, and even hold out threats if he shall not behave
accordingly. You grant him arms and rule; you claim genius and the
gown for yourself. '_He only is to be called great_,' you say,
'_who has either done great things_'--Cromwell, to
wit!---'_or teaches great things_'--Milton on Divorce, to
wit!--'_or writes of them worthily_'--the same twice-great
Milton, I suppose, in his Defence of the English People!"
How does Morus proceed in the main business of clearing his own
character from Milton's charges? His plan was to produce a dated and
authenticated series of testimonials from others, extending over the
period of his life which had been attacked, and to interweave these
with explanations and an autobiographic memoir. He has reached the
eightieth page of his book before he properly begins this enterprise.
He gives first a testimonial from the Genevan Church, dated Jan. 25,
1648, and signed by seventeen ministers, of whom Diodati is one; then
another from the Genevan Senate or Town Council, dated Jan. 26, 1648;
then two more, one from the Church again, and one from the Senate
again, both dated April 1648; then, among others, a special
testimonial from Diodati, in the form of a long letter to Salmasius,
dated "Geneva, 9th May, 1648." Diodati's testimonial, which is given
both in French and in Latin, is the most interesting in itself, and
will represent the others. "As to his morals," says Diodati, writing
of Morus to Salmasius, "I can speak from intimate knowledge, and do
so with, strict conscientiousness. His natural disposition is good
and without deceit or reservation, frank and noble, such as ought to
put him in very harmonious relations with all persons of honour and
virtue, of whatsoever condition,--quick and very sensible to
indignities, but easily coming to himself again: not one to provoke
others, but yet one who has terrible spurs for his own defence. I
have hardly seen any who have done themselves credit by attacking
him. _Conscia virtus_, and you may add what belongs to the
_genus irritabile vatum_, make him well armed against his
assailants. For the rest, piety, honesty, temperance, freedom from
all avarice or meanness, are found in him in a degree suitable to his
profession."
Suddenly, just when we have read this, and seen Morus self-described
as far as to the year 1648, when he was about to leave Geneva for
Holland, the book comes to a dead stop. Diodati's letter ends on page
129; and when we turn over the leaf we find a Latin note from Ulac,
headed "_The Printer to the Reader_" and expressed as follows:--
"Our labours towards finishing this Treatise had come to this
point, when lo! M. Morus, who had been staying for some time here
at the Hague with the intention of completing it, called away by I
know not what occasion to France, and with a favourable wind
hastening his journey, was prevented from bringing all to an end,
and so gratifying with every possible speed the desire of many
curious persons to read both Treatises at once, Milton's and
More's. What to do I was for some days uncertain; but some
gentlemen, not of small condition, at length persuaded me that I
should not defer longer the publication of what of his I had
already in print,--alleging that the remaining and still wanting
testimonies of eminent men, and of the Senates and Churches of
Middleburg, Amsterdam, &c., given for the vindication of M. Morus,
and which were here to have been subjoined, might be afterwards
printed separately when they reached me. Wishing to comply with
their request, and my own inclination too, I now therefore do
publish, Reader, what I am confident will please your curiosity, if
not in full measure, at least a good deal. Let whosoever desires to
see the sequel expect it as soon as possible."
Was there ever such an unfortunate as Morus? Everything everywhere
seems to go wrong with him. Here, at the Hague, having absented
himself from Amsterdam for the purpose, he has been writing his
Defence of Himself against Milton, doing it cleverly and in a way
likely to make some impression, when, suddenly, for some reason
unknown even to his printer, he is obliged to break off for a journey
into France, just as he was approaching the heart of his subject. Had
he absconded? This seems actually to have been the construction,
abroad. "Morus is gone into France," writes a Hague correspondent of
Thurloe, Nov. 3, 1654; "it is believed that he has a calling, _et
quidem a Castris_, and that he will not return to Amsterdam. They
love well his renown and learning, but not his conversation; for they
do not desire that he should come to visit the daughters of condition
as he was used to do. He promised Ulac to finish his Apology; but he
went away without taking his leave of him: so that you see that Ulac
hath finished abrupt." Morus, as we shall find, did finish the book;
but the _Fides Publica_, as it was first circulated in Holland
towards the end of 1654, and as it first reached Milton, was the book
abruptly broken off as above, at page 130, with the testimonials and
the autobiography coming no farther down than the year 1648, when
Morus had not yet left Geneva.
In January, 1654-5, when Milton had read Morus's _Fides Publica_
in its imperfect state, and was considering in what form he should
reply to it, his thoughts on the subject must have been interrupted
by the new misfortune of his friend Overton. What that was has
already been explained generally (ante pp. 32-33); but the details of
the incident belong to Milton's biography.
Overton's former misunderstanding with the Protector having been made
up, he had been sent back to Scotland, as we saw, in September, 1654,
to be Major-General there under Monk, and pledged to be faithful in
his trust until he should himself give the Protector notice of his
desire to withdraw from it. For a month or two, accordingly, all had
gone well, Monk in the main charge of Scotland, with his
head-quarters at Dalkeith, near Edinburgh, and Overton in special
charge of the North of Scotland, with his head-quarters at Aberdeen.
Meanwhile, as Oliver's First Parliament had been incessantly opposing
him, questioning his Protectorship, and labouring to subvert it, the
anti-Oliverian temper had again been strongly roused throughout the
country, and not least among the officers and soldiers of the army in
Scotland. There had been meetings and consultations among them, and
secret correspondence with scattered Republicans in England and with
some of the Parliamentary Oppositionists, till at length, if
Thurloe's informations were true, the design was nothing less than to
depose Monk, put Overton in supreme command, and march into England
under an anti-Oliverian banner. The Levellers, on the one side, and
the Royalists, on the other, were to be drawn into the movement, if
indeed there had not been actual communications already with agents
of Charles II. It may be a question how far Overton himself was a
party to the design; but it is certain that he had relapsed into his
former anti-Oliverian humour, and was very uneasy in his post at
Aberdeen. "I bless the Lord," he writes mysteriously from that town,
Dec. 26, in answer to a letter of condolence from some friend--"I
bless the Lord I do remember you and yours (by whom I am much
remembered) so far as I am able in everything. I know right well you
and others do it much for me; and, pray, dear Sir, do it still. Heave
me up upon the wings of your prayers to Him who is a God hearing
prayers and granting requests. Entreat Him to enable me to stand to
his Truth; which I shall not do if He deject or forsake me." This
letter, as well as several letters _to_ Overton, had been
intercepted by Monk's vigilance; and hardly had it been written when
Overton was arrested by Monk's orders, and brought to Leith. At Leith
his papers were searched, and there was found in his letter-case
this copy of verses in his own hand:--
"A Protector! What's that? 'Tis a stately thing
That confesseth itself but the ape of a King;
A tragical Cæsar acted by a clown,
Or a brass farthing stamped with a kind of crown;
A bauble that shines, a loud cry without wool;
Not Perillus nor Phalaris, but the bull;
The echo of Monarchy till it come;
The butt-end of a barrel in the shape of a drum;
A counterfeit piece that woodenly shows;
A golden effigies with a copper nose;
The fantastic shadow of a sovereign head;
The arms-royal reversed, and disloyal instead;
In fine, he is one we may Protector call,--
From whom the King of Kings protect us all!"
With this piece of doggrel, the intercepted letters, and the other
informations, Overton was shipped off by Monk from Leith to London on
the 4th of January, 1654-5; and on the 16th of that month he was
committed to the Tower. Thence the next day he wrote a long letter to
a private friend, in which he enumerates the charges against him, and
replies to them one by one. He denies that he has broken trust with
the Protector; he denies that he is a Leveller; and, what pleases us
best of all, he denies the authorship of the doggrel lines just
quoted. His exact words about these may be given. "But, say some, you
made a copy of scandalous verses upon the Lord Protector, whereby his
Highness and divers others were offended and displeased ... I must
acknowledge I copied a paper of verses called _The Character of a
Protector_; but I did neither compose them, nor (to the best of my
remembrance) show them to any after I had writ them forth. They were
taken out of my letter-case at Leith, where they had been a long time
by me, neglected and forgotten. I had them from a friend, who wished
my Lord [Cromwell] well, and who told me that his Lordship had seen
them, and, I believe, laughed at them, as, to my knowledge, he hath
done at papers and pamphlets of more personal and particular import
and abuse." It is really a relief to know that Overton, who is still
credited with these lines by Godwin, Guizot, and others, was not the
author of them, and this not because of their peculiar political
import, but because of their utter vulgarity. How else could we have
retained our faith in Milton's character of Overton--"you, Overton,
bound to me these many years past in a friendship of more than
brotherly closeness and affection, both by the similarity of our
tastes, and the sweetness of your manners"? Still to have copied and
kept such lines implied some sympathy with their political meaning;
and, Thurloe's investigations having made it credible otherwise that
Overton was implicated, more than he would admit, in the design of a
general rising against the Protector's Government, there was an end
to the promising career of Milton's friend under the Protectorate. He
remained from that time a close prisoner while Oliver lived. On the
3rd of July, 1656, I find, his wife, "Mrs. Anne Overton," had liberty
from the Council "to abide with her husband in the Tower, if she
shall so think fit."[1]
[Footnote 1: Thurloe, III. 75-77, and 110-112; Council Order Book,
July 3, 1656. Godwin, whose accuracy can very seldom be impeached,
had not turned to the last-cited pages of Thurloe; and hence he
leaves the doggrel lines as indubitably Overton's own (_Hist. of
Commonwealth_, IV. 163). Guizot and others simply follow Godwin
in this, as in most things else.--That Overton's disaffection was
very serious indeed, and that Cromwell had had good reason for his
suspicions of him even on the former occasion, appears from the fact
that among the Clarendon Papers in the Bodleian there is a draft, in
Hyde's hand, of a letter, dated April 1654, either actually sent, or
meant to be sent, by Charles II. to Overton. The substance of the
letter, as in Mr. Macray's abstract of it for the Calendar of the
Clarendon Papers (II. 344), is as follows:--"_The King to Col.
Ov[erton]._ Has received such information of his affection that he
does not doubt it, and believes that he abhors those who, after all
their pretences for the public, do now manifest that they have
wholly intended to satisfy their own ambition. He has it in his
power to redeem what he has heretofore done amiss; and the King is
very willing to receive such a service as may make him a principal
instrument of his restoration, for which whatsoever he or his family
shall wish they shall receive, and what he shall promise to any of
his friends who may concur with him shall be made good." If this
letter was among those found among Overton's papers at Leith (which
is not very likely), little wonder that Cromwell would not trust
him at large a second time.]
At the date of Overton's imprisonment the Protector was making up his
mind to dismiss his troublesome First Parliament after his four
months and a half of experience of its temper; and six days after
that date he did dismiss it, to its own surprise, before it had sent
him up a single Bill. How many Latin letters had Overton's friend
Milton written for the Protector in his official capacity during the
four months and a half of that troublesome Parliament? So far as the
records show, only three. They were as follows:--
(XLIX.) "To THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS LORD, LUIS MENDEZ DE HARO,"
_Sept._ 4, 1654:[1]--The Spanish Prime Minister, Luis de Haro,
had recently, in the Protector's apparent indecision between the
Spanish alliance and the French alliance, resolved to try to secure
him for Spain by sending over a new Ambassador, to supersede
Cardenas, or to co-operate with him. He had announced the same in
letters to Cromwell; who now thanks him, professes his desire to be
in friendship with Spain, and promises every attention to the new
Ambassador when he may arrive, Cromwell pays a compliment to the
minister himself. "To have your affection and approbation," he
says, "who by your worth and prudence have acquired such authority
with the King of Spain that you preside, with a mind to match, over
the greatest affairs of that kingdom, ought truly to be a pleasure
to me corresponding with my apprehension of the honour I shall have
from the good opinion of a man of excellence." Milton is dexterous
in wording his documents.
[Footnote 1: No. 29 in Skinner Transcript (where exact date is
given); No. 47 in Printed Collection and in Phillips (where month
only is given).]
(L.) TO THE CONSULS AND SENATE OF THE CITY OF BREMEN, _Oct.
25_, 1654:--There has come to be a conflict between the City of
Bremen and the new King of Sweden, arising from military designs of
that King on the southern shores of the North Sea and the Baltic,
Bremen is in great straits; and the authorities have represented
this to Cromwell through their agent, Milton's friend, Henry
Oldenburg, and have requested Cromwell's good offices with the
Swedish King. Cromwell answers that he has done what they want. He
has great respect for Bremen as a thoroughly Protestant city, and
he regrets that there should he a quarrel between it and the
powerful Protestant Kingdom of Sweden, having no stronger desire
than that "the whole Protestant denomination should at length
coalesce in one by fraternal agreement and concord."
(LI.) To CHARLES X., KING OF SWEDEN, _Oct._ 28, 1654:--As
announced to the Bremeners in the last letter, Cromwell did write
on their behalf to the Swedish King. He had hoped that the great
Peace of Munster or Westphalia (1648) had left all continental
Protestants united, and he regrets to hear that a dispute between
Sweden and the Bremeners has arisen out of that Treaty. How
dreadful that Protestant Swedes and Protestant Bremeners, once in
league against the common foe, should now be slaughtering each
other! Can nothing be done? Could not advantage be taken of the
present truce? He will himself do anything in his power to bring
about a permanent reconciliation.
These three letters, it will be observed, belong to the first two
months of that cramped and exasperated condition in which Oliver
found himself when he had his First Parliament by his side; and there
is not a single preserved letter of Milton for Oliver between Oct.
26, 1654, the date of the last of the three, and Jan. 22, 1654-5, the
date of the sudden dissolution of the Parliament. The reason of this
idleness of Milton, in his Secretaryship during those three months,
leaving all the work to Meadows, must have been, I believe, that he
was then engaged on a Reply to More's _Fides Publica_ in the
imperfect state in which it had just come forth. All along, as we
have seen, the Literary Defence of the Commonwealth on every occasion
of importance had been regarded as the special charge of Milton in
his Secretaryship, to which routine duty must give way; and, as his
_Defensio Secunda_ in reply to the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_
had been, like several of his preceding writings, a task performed by
him on actual commission from the Rump Government, though not
finished till the Protectorate had begun, Oliver and his Council may
have thought it but fair that another pamphlet of the same series in
reply to the _Fides Publica_ of Morus should count also to the
credit of Milton's official services, even though it must necessarily
be more a pamphlet of mere personal concern than any of its
predecessors. But, indeed, by this time, Mr. Milton was a privileged
man, who might regulate matters very much for himself, and drop in on
Thurloe and Meadows at the office only when he liked.