That the parliament had some reason to expect the king's firmness of

purpose to give way, in spite of all his haggling, will appear from

the following short review of what had been done. 1. At Newmarket, in

June 1642, he absolutely refused the nineteen propositions tendered to

him by the Lords and Commons. 2. In the treaty of Oxford, March 1643,

he seems to have made no concession, not even promising an amnesty to

those he had already excluded from pardon. 3. In the treaty of

Uxbridge, no mention was made on his side of exclusion from pardon; he

offered to vest the militia for seven years in commissioners jointly

appointed by himself and parliament, so that it should afterwards

return to him, and to limit the jurisdiction of the bishops. 4. In the

winter of 1645, he not only offered to disband his forces, but to let

the militia be vested for seven years in commissioners to be appointed

by the two houses, and afterwards to be settled by bill; also to give

the nomination of officers of state and judges _pro hâc vice_ to the

houses. 5. He went no farther in substance till May 1647; when he

offered the militia for ten years, as well as great limitations of

episcopacy, and the continuance of presbyterian government for three

years; the whole matter to be afterwards settled by bill on the advice

of the assembly of divines, and twenty more of his own nomination. 6.

In his letter from Carisbrook, Nov. 1647, he gave up the militia for

his life. This was in effect to sacrifice almost everything as to

immediate power; but he struggled to save the church lands from

confiscation, which would have rendered it hardly practicable to

restore episcopacy in future. His further concessions in the treaty of

Newport, though very slowly extorted, were comparatively trifling.

What Clarendon thought of the treaty of Newport may be imagined. "You

may easily conclude," he writes to Digby, "how fit a counsellor I am

like to be, when the best that is proposed is that which I _would not

consent unto to preserve the kingdom from ashes_. I can tell you worse

of myself than this; which is, that there may be some reasonable

expedients which possibly might in truth restore and preserve all, in

which I could bear no part."--P. 459. See also p. 351 and 416. I do

not divine what he means by this. But what he could not have approved

was, that the king had no thoughts of dealing sincerely with the

parliament in this treaty, and gave Ormond directions to obey all his

wife's commands, but not to obey any further orders he might send, nor

to be startled at his great concessions respecting Ireland, for they

would come to nothing. Carte's _Papers_, i. 185. See Mr. Brodie's

remarks on this, iv. 143-146. He had agreed to give up the government

of Ireland for twenty years to the parliament. In his answer to the

propositions at Newcastle, sent in May 1647, he had declared that he

would give full satisfaction with respect to Ireland. But he thus

explains himself to the queen: "I have so couched that article that,

if the Irish give me cause, I may interpret it enough to their

advantage. For I only say that I will give them (the two houses) full

satisfaction as to the management of the war, nor do I promise to

continue the war; so that, if I find reason to make a good peace

there, my engagement is at an end. Wherefore make this my

interpretation known to the Irish." _Clar. State Papers._ "What

reliance," says Mr. Laing, from whom I transcribe this passage (which

I cannot find in the book quoted), "could parliament place at the

beginning of the dispute, or at any subsequent period, on the word or

moderation of a prince, whose solemn and written declarations were so

full of equivocation?" _Hist. of Scotland_, iii. 409. It may here be

added that, though Charles had given his parole to Colonel Hammond,

and had the sentinels removed in consequence, he was engaged during

most part of his stay at Carisbrook in schemes for an escape. See Col.

Cooke's "Narrative," printed with Herbert's _Memoirs_; and in Rushw.

Abr. vi. 534. But his enemies were apprised of this intention, and

even of an attempt to escape by removing a bar of his window, as

appears by the letters from the committee of Derby House, Cromwell,

and others, to Col. Hammond, published in 1764.

[364] Clarendon mentions an expression that dropped from Henry Martin

in conversation, not long after the meeting of the parliament: "I do

not think one man wise enough to govern us all." This may doubtless be

taken in a sense perfectly compatible with our limited monarchy. But

Martin's republicanism was soon apparent; he was sent to the Tower in

August 1643, for language reflecting on the king. _Parl. Hist._ 161. A

Mr. Chillingworth had before incurred the same punishment for a like

offence, December 1, 1641. Nalson, ii. 714. Sir Henry Ludlow, father

of the regicide, was also censured on the same account. As the

opposite faction grew stronger, Martin was not only restored to his

seat, but the vote against him was expunged. Vane, I presume, took up

republican principles pretty early; perhaps also Haslerig. With these

exceptions, I know not that we can fix on any individual member of

parliament the charge of an intention to subvert the constitution till

1646 or 1647.

[365] Pamphlets may be found as early as 1643 which breathe this

spirit; but they are certainly rare till 1645 and 1646. Such are

"Plain English," 1643; "The Character of an Anti-malignant," 1645;

"Last Warning to all the Inhabitants of London," 1647.

[366] Charles Louis, elector palatine, elder brother of the Princes

Rupert and Maurice, gave cause to suspect that he was looking towards

the throne. He left the king's quarters where he had been at the

commencement of the war, and retired to Holland; whence he wrote, as

well as his mother, the Queen of Bohemia, to the parliament,

disclaiming and renouncing Prince Rupert, and begging their own

pensions might be paid. He came over to London in August 1644, took

the covenant, and courted the parliament. They showed, however, at

first, a good deal of jealousy of him; and intimated that his affairs

would prosper better by his leaving the kingdom. Whitelock, 101; Rush.

Abr. xv. 359. He did not take this hint, and obtained next year an

allowance of £8000 per annum. _Id._ 145. Lady Ranelagh, in a letter to

Hyde, March 1644, conjuring him by his regard for Lord Falkland's

memory to use all his influence to procure a message from the king for

a treaty, adds: "Methinks what I have informed my sister, and what she

will inform you, of the posture of the prince elector's affairs are in

here, should be a motive to hasten away this message." _Clar. State

Papers_, ii. 167. Clarendon himself, in a letter to Nicholas, Dec. 12,

1646 (where he gives his opinion that the independents look more to a

change of the king and his line than of the monarchy itself, and would

restore the full prerogative of the Crown to one of their own choice),

proceeds in these remarkable words: "And I pray God they have not such

a nose of wax ready for their impression. This it is makes me tremble

more than all their discourses of destroying monarchy; and that

towards this end, they find assistance from those who from their

hearts abhor their confusions." P. 308. These expressions seem more

applicable by far to the elector than to Cromwell. But the former was

not dangerous to the parliament, though it was deemed fit to treat him

with respect. In March 1647, we find a committee of both houses

appointed to receive some intelligence which the prince elector

desired to communicate to the parliament of great importance to the

protestant religion. Whitelock, 241. Nothing farther appears about

this intelligence; which looks as if he was merely afraid of being

forgotten. He left England in 1649, and died in 1680.

[367] Baxter's _Life_, 50. He ascribes the increase of enthusiasm in

the army to the loss of its presbyterian chaplains, who left it for

their benefices, on the reduction of the king's party and the

new-modelling of the troops. The officers then took on them to act as

preachers. _Id._ 54; and Neal, 183. I conceive that the year 1645 is

that to which we must refer the appearance of a republican party in

considerable numbers, though not yet among the House of Commons.

[368] These passed against the royalist members separately, and for

the most part in the first months of the war.

[369] "The best friends of the parliament were not without fears what

the issue of the new elections might be; for though the people durst

not choose such as were open enemies to them, yet probably they would

such as were most likely to be for a peace on any terms, corruptly

preferring the fruition of their estates and sensual enjoyments before

the public interest," etc. Ludlow, i. 168. This is a fair confession

how little the commonwealth party had the support of the nation.

[370] C. Journals; Whitelock, 168. The borough of Southwark had just

before petitioned for a new writ, its member being dead or disabled.

[371] That the House of Commons, in December 1645, entertained no

views of altering the fundamental constitution, appears from some of

their resolutions as to conditions of peace: "That Fairfax should have

an earldom, with £5000 a year; Cromwell and Waller baronies, with half

that estate; Essex, Northumberland, and two more be made dukes;

Manchester and Salisbury marquises, and other peers of their party be

elevated to higher ranks; Haslerig, Stapylton, and Skippon to have

pensions." _Parl. Hist._ 403; Whitelock, 182. These votes do not speak

much for the magnanimity and disinterestedness of that assembly,

though it may suit political romancers to declaim about it.

[372] Commons' Journals, May 4 and 18, 1647. This minority were not,

in general, republican; but were unwilling to increase the irritation

of the army by so strong a vote.

[373] Commons' Journals; Whitelock, 271; _Parl. Hist._ 781. They had

just been exasperated by his evasion of their propositions. _Id._ 778.

By the smallness of the numbers, and the names of the tellers, it

seems as if the presbyterian party had been almost entirely absent;

which may be also inferred from other parts of the Journals. See

October 9, for a long list of absentees. Haslerig and Evelyn, both of

the army faction, told the Ayes, Martin and Sir Peter Wentworth the

Noes. The house had divided the day before on the question for going

into a committee to take this matter into consideration, 84 to 34;

Cromwell and Evelyn telling the majority, Wentworth and Rainsborough

the minority. I suppose it is from some of these divisions that Baron

Maseres has reckoned the republican party in the house not to exceed

thirty.

It was resolved on Nov. 6, 1647, that the King of England, for the

time being, was bound in justice and by the duty of his office, to

give his assent to all such laws as by the Lords and Commons in

parliament shall be adjudged to be for the good of the kingdom, and by

them tendered unto him for his assent. But the previous question was

carried on the following addition: "And in case the laws, so offered

unto him, shall not thereupon be assented unto by him, that

nevertheless they are as valid to all intents and purposes as if his

assent had been thereunto had and obtained, which they do insist upon

as an undoubted right."--Com. Jour.

[374] Ludlow says that Cromwell, "finding the king's friends grow

strong in 1648, began to court the commonwealth's party. The latter

told him he knew how to cajole and give them good words, when he had

occasion to make use of them; whereat, breaking out into a rage, he

said they were a proud sort of people, and only considerable in their

own conceits."--P. 240. Does this look as if he had been reckoned one

of them?

[375] Clarendon says that there were many consultations among the

officers about the best mode of disposing of the king; some were for

deposing him, others for poison or assassination, which, he fancies,

would have been put in practice, if they could have prevailed on

Hammond. But this is not warranted by our better authorities.

It is hard to say at what time the first bold man dared to talk of

bringing the king to justice. But in a letter of Baillie to Alexander

Henderson, May 19, 1646, he says, "If God have hardened him, so far as

I can perceive, this people will strive to have him in their power,

and make an example of him; _I abhor to think what they speak of

execution_!"--ii. 20. Published also in Dalrymple's _Memorials of

Charles I._, p. 166. Proofs may also be brought from pamphlets by

Lilburne and others in 1647, especially towards the end of that year;

and the remonstrance of the Scots parliament, dated Aug. 13, alludes

to such language. Rushw. Abr. vi. 245. Berkley indeed positively

assures us, that the resolution was taken at Windsor in a council of

officers, soon after the king's confinement at Carisbrook; and this

with so much particularity of circumstance that, if we reject his

account, we must set aside the whole of his memoirs at the same time.

Maseres's _Tracts_, i. 383. But it is fully confirmed by an

independent testimony, William Allen, himself one of the council of

officers and adjutant-general of the army, who, in a letter addressed

to Fleetwood, and published in 1659, declares that after much

consultation and prayer at Windsor Castle, in the beginning of 1648,

they had "come to a very clear and joint resolution that it was their

duty to call Charles Stuart, that man of blood, to an account for the

blood he had shed, and mischief he had done to his utmost, against the

Lord's cause and people in these poor nations." This is to be found in

_Somers Tracts_, vi. 499. The only discrepancy, if it is one, between

him and Berkley, is as to the precise time, which the other seems to

place in the end of 1647. But this might be lapse of memory in either

party; nor is it clear, on looking attentively at Berkley's narration,

that he determines the time. Ashburnham says, "For some days before

the king's remove from Hampton Court, there was scarcely a day in

which several alarms were not brought him by and from several

considerable persons, both well affected to him and likely to know

much of what was then in agitation, of the resolution which a violent

party in the army had to take away his life. And that such a design

there was, there were strong insinuations to persuade." See also his

_Narrative_, published in 1830.

[376] _Somers Tracts_, v. 160, 162.

[377] Sept. 11. _Parl. Hist._ 1077; May's "Breviate" in Maseres's

_Tracts_, vol. i. p. 127; Whitelock, 335.

[378] Nov. 17. _Parl. Hist._ 1077; Whitelock, p. 355. A motion, Nov.

30, that the house do now proceed on the remonstrance of the army, was

lost by 125 to 58 (printed, 53 in _Parl. Hist._). Commons' Journals.

So weak was still the republican party. It is indeed remarkable that

this remonstrance itself is rather against the king, than absolutely

against all monarchy; for one of the proposals contained in it is that

kings should be chosen by the people, and have no negative voice.

[379] The division was on the previous question, which was lost by 129

to 83.

[380] No division took place on any of the votes respecting the king's

trial.

[381] Ludlow, i. 267.

[382] Hutchinson, p. 303.

[383] The king's manners were not good. He spoke and behaved to ladies

with indelicacy in public. See Warburton's _Notes on Clarendon_, vii.

629, and a passage in Milton's _Defensio pro populo Anglicano_, quoted

by Harris and Brodie. He once forgot himself so far as to cane Sir

Henry Vane for coming into a room of the palace reserved for persons

of higher rank. Carte's _Ormond_, i. 366, where other instances are

mentioned by that friendly writer. He had in truth none who loved him,

till his misfortunes softened his temper, and excited sympathy.

An anecdote, strongly intimating the violence of Charles's temper, has

been rejected by his advocates. It is said that Burnet, in searching

the Hamilton papers, found that the king, on discovering the

celebrated letter of the Scots covenanting lords to the King of

France, was so incensed that he sent an order to Sir William Balfour,

lieutenant-governor of the Tower, to cut off the head of his prisoner,

Lord Loudon; but that the Marquis of Hamilton, to whom Balfour

immediately communicated this, urged so strongly on the king that the

city would be up in arms on this violence, that with reluctance he

withdrew the warrant. This story is told by Oldmixon, _Hist. of the

Stuarts_, p. 140. It was brought forward on Burnet's authority, and

also on that of the Duke of Hamilton, killed in 1712, by Dr. Birch, no

incompetent judge of historical evidence; it seems confirmed by an

intimation given by Burnet himself in his _Memoirs of the Duke of

Hamilton_, p. 161. It is also mentioned by Scott of Scotstarvet, a

contemporary writer. Harris, p. 350, quotes other authorities, earlier

than the anecdote told by Burnet; and upon the whole, I think the

story deserving credit, and by no means so much to be slighted as the

Oxford editor of Burnet has thought fit to do.

[384] Clement Walker, _Hist. of Independency_, Part II. p. 55.

[385] Clarendon, Collier, and the high church writers in general, are

very proud of the superiority they fancy the king to have obtained in

a long argumentation held at Newcastle with Henderson, a Scots

minister, on church authority and government. This was conducted in

writing, and the papers afterwards published. They may be read in the

King's Works, and in Collier, p. 842. It is more than insinuated that

Henderson died of mortification at his defeat. He certainly had not

the excuse of the philosopher who said he had no shame in yielding to

the master of fifty legions. But those who take the trouble to read

these papers, will probably not think one party so much the stronger

as to shorten the other's days. They show that Charles held those

extravagant tenets about the authority of the church and of the

fathers, which are irreconcilable with protestantism in any country

where it is not established, and are likely to drive it out where it

is so.

[386] The note on this passage, which, on account of its length, was

placed at the end of the volume in the two first editions, is

withdrawn in this, as relating to a matter of literary controversy,

little connected with the general objects of this work. It is needless

to add, that the author entertains not the smallest doubt about the

justness of the arguments he had employed.--_Note to the Third

Edition._

[387] _Parl. Hist._ 349. The council of war more than once, in the

year 1647, declared their intention of preserving the rights of the

peerage. Whitelock, 288, and Sir William Waller's _Vindication_, 192.

[388] Commons' Journal, 13th and 19th May 1646.

[389] Lords' Journals.

[390] Commons' Journals. It had been proposed to continue the House of

Lords as a court of judicature, or as a court of consultation, or in

some way or other to keep it up. The majority, it will be observed,

was not very great; so far was the democratic scheme from being

universal even within the house. Whitelock, 377. Two divisions had

already taken place; one on Jan. 9, when it was carried by thirty-one

to eighteen, that "a message from the Lords should be received;"

Cromwell strongly supporting the motion, and being a teller for it;

and again on Jan. 18, when, the opposite party prevailing, it was

negatived by twenty-five to eighteen, to ask their assent to the vote

of the 4th instant, that the sovereignty resides in the Commons; which

doubtless, if true, could not require the Lords' concurrence.

[391] Whitelock, 396. They voted that Pembroke, as well as Salisbury

and Howard of Escrick, who followed the ignominious example, should be

added to all committees.

[392] Commons' Journals; Whitelock. It had been referred to a

committee of five members, Lisle, Holland, Robinson, Scott, and

Ludlow, to recommend thirty-five for a council of state; to whose

nominations the house agreed, and added their own. Ludlow, i. 288.

They were appointed for a year; but in 1650 the house only left out

two of the former list, besides those who were dead. Whitelock, 441.

In 1651 the change was more considerable. _Id._ 488.

[393] Six judges agreed to hold on their commissions, six refused.

Whitelock, who makes a poor figure at this time on his own showing,

consented to act still as commissioner of the great seal. Those who

remained in office affected to stipulate that the fundamental laws

should not be abolished; and the house passed a vote to this effect.

Whitelock, 378.

[394] Whitelock, 444 _et alibi_. Baxter's _Life_, 64. A committee was

appointed, April 1649, to enquire about ministers who asperse the

proceedings of parliament in their pulpits. Whitelock, 395.

[395] _State Trials_, v. 43. Baxter says that Love's death hurt the

new commonwealth more than would be easily believed, and made it

odious to all the religious party in the land, except the sectaries.

_Life of B._, 67. But "oderint dum metuant" is the device of those who

rule in revolutions. Clarendon speaks, on the contrary, of Love's

execution triumphantly. He had been distinguished by a violent sermon

during the treaty of Uxbridge, for which the parliament, on the

complaint of the king's commissioners, put him in confinement.

Thurloe, i. 65; _State Trials_, 201; though the noble historian, as

usual, represents this otherwise. He also misstates Love's dying

speech.

[396] Whitelock, 516.

[397] The parliament had resolved, 24th July 1650, that Henry Stuart,

son of the late king, and the Lady Elizabeth, daughter of the late

king, be removed forthwith beyond the seas, out of the limits of this

commonwealth. Yet this intention seems to have been soon changed; for

it is resolved, Sept. 11, to give the Duke of Glocester £1500 per

annum for his maintenance, so long as he should behave himself

inoffensively. Whether this proceeded from liberality, or from a vague

idea that they might one day make use of him, is hard to say.

Clarendon mentions the scheme of making the Duke of Glocester king, in

one of his letters (iii. 38, 11th Nov. 1651); but says, "Truly I do

believe that Cromwell might as easily procure himself to be chosen

king as the Duke of Glocester; for, as none of the king's party would

assist the last, so I am persuaded both presbyterians and independents

would have much sooner the former than any of the race of him whom

they have murthered."

[398] _Id._ p. 548. Lord Orrery told Burnet that he had once mentioned

to Cromwell a report that he was to bring in the king, who should

marry his daughter, and observed, that he saw no better expedient.

Cromwell, without expressing any displeasure, said, "the king cannot

forgive his father's blood;" which the other attempted to answer.

Burnet, i. 95. It is certain, however, that such a compromise would

have been dishonourable for one party, and infamous for the other.

[399] Cromwell, in his letter to the parliament, after the battle of

Worcester, called it a _crowning mercy_. This, though a very

intelligible expression, was taken in an invidious sense by the

republicans.

[400] Journals, _passim_.

[401] One of their most scandalous acts was the sale of the Earl of

Craven's estate. He had been out of England during the war, and could

not therefore be reckoned a delinquent. But evidence was offered that

he had seen the king in Holland; and upon this charge, though he

petitioned to be heard, and, as is said, indicted the informer for

perjury, whereof he was convicted, they voted by 33 to 31 that his

lands should be sold; Haslerig, the most savage zealot of the whole

faction, being a teller for the ayes, Vane for the noes. Journals, 6th

March 1651, and 22nd June 1652. _State Trials_, v. 323. On the 20th of

July in the same year, it was referred to a committee to select thirty

delinquents, whose estates should be sold for the use of the navy.

Thus, long after the cessation of hostility, the royalists continued

to stand in jeopardy, not only collectively but personally, from this

arbitrary and vindictive faction. Nor were these qualities displayed

against the royalists alone: one Josiah Primatt, who seems to have

been connected with Lilburne, Wildman, and the levellers, having

presented a petition complaining that Sir Arthur Haslerig had

violently dispossessed him of some collieries, the house, after voting

every part of the petition to be false, adjudged him to pay a fine of

£3000 to the commonwealth, £2000 to Haslerig, and £2000 more to the

commissioners for compositions. Journals, 15th Jan. 1651-2. There had

been a project of erecting an university at Durham, in favour of which

a committee reported (18th June 1651), and for which the chapter lands

would have made a competent endowment. Haslerig, however, got most of

them into his own hands; and thus frustrated, perhaps, a design of

great importance to education and literature in this country. For had

an university once been established, it is just possible, though not

very likely, that the estates would not have reverted, on the king's

restoration, to their former, but much less useful possessors.

[402] Mrs. Hutchinson speaks very favourably of the levellers, as they

appeared about 1647, declaring against the factions of the

presbyterians and independents, and the ambitious views of their

leaders, and especially against the unreasonable privileges claimed by

the houses of parliament collectively and personally. "Indeed, as all

virtues are mediums and have their extremes, there rose up after in

that house a people who endeavoured the levelling of all estates and

qualities, which those sober levellers were never guilty of desiring;

but were men of just and sober principles, of honest and religious

ends, and were therefore hated by all the designing self-interested

men of both factions. Colonel Hutchinson had a great intimacy with

many of these; and so far as they acted according to the just, pious,

and public spirit which they professed, owned them and protected them

as far as he had power. These were they who first began to discover

the ambition of Lieut.-Gen. Cromwell and his idolaters, and to suspect

and dislike it."--P. 285.

[403] Whitelock, 399, 401. The levellers rose in arms at Banbury and

other places; but were soon put down, chiefly through the energy of

Cromwell, and their ringleaders shot.

[404] It was referred to a committee, 29th April 1652, to consider how

a convenient and competent maintenance for a godly and able ministry

may be settled, in lieu of tithes. A proposed addition, that tithes be

paid as before till such maintenance be settled, was carried by 27 to

17.

[405] Journals, 19th Jan. 1652. Hale was the first named on this

commission, and took an active part; but he was associated with some

furious levellers, Desborough, Tomlinson, and Hugh Peters, so that it

is hard to know how far he concurred in the alterations suggested.

Many of them, however, seem to bear marks of his hand. Whitelock, 475,

517, 519, 820, _et alibi_. There had been previously a committee for

the same purpose in 1650. See a list of the acts prepared by them in

_Somers Tracts_, vi. 177; several of them are worthy of attention.

Ludlow indeed blames the commission for slowness; but their delay

seems to have been very justifiable, and their suggestions highly

valuable. It even appears that they drew up a book containing a

regular digest or code, which was ordered to be printed. Journals,

20th Jan. 1653.

[406] A committee was named, 15th May 1649, to take into consideration

the settling of the succession of future parliaments and regulating

their elections. Nothing more appears to have been done till Oct.

11th, when the committee was ordered to meet next day, and so _de die

in diem_, and to give an account thereof to the house on Tuesday come

fortnight; all that came to have voices, but the special care thereof

commended to Sir Henry Vane, Colonel Ludlow, and Mr. Robinson. We find

nothing farther till Jan. 3rd, 1650, when the committee is ordered to

make its report the next Wednesday. This is done accordingly, Jan. 9,

when Sir H. Vane reports the resolutions of the committee, one of

which was, that the number in future parliaments should be 400. This

was carried, after negativing the previous question in a committee of

the whole house. They proceeded several days afterwards on the same

business. See also Ludlow, pp. 313, 435.

[407] Two divisions had taken place, Nov. 14 (the first on the

previous question), on a motion, that it is convenient to declare a

certain time for the continuance of this parliament, 50 to 46, and 49

to 47. On the last division, Cromwell and St. John were tellers for

the ayes.

[408] Whitelock was one of these; and being at that time out of

Cromwell's favour, inveighs much against this destruction of the power

from which he had taken his commission. Pp. 552, 554. St. John appears

to have concurred in the measure. In fact, there had so long been an

end of law that one usurpation might seem as rightful as another. But,

while any House of Commons remained, there was a stock left from which

the ancient constitution might possibly germinate. Mrs. Macauley,

whose lamentations over the Rump did not certainly proceed from this

cause, thus vents her wrath on the English nation: "An acquiescence

thus universal in the insult committed on the guardians of the infant

republic, and the first step towards the usurpation of Cromwell, fixes

an indelible stain on the character of the English, as a people basely

and incorrigibly attached to the sovereignty of individuals, and of

natures too ignoble to endure an empire of equal laws."--Vol. v. p.

112.

[409] Harrison, when Ludlow asked him why he had joined Cromwell to

turn out the parliament, said, he thought Cromwell would own and

favour a set of men who acted on higher principles than those of civil

liberty; and quoted from Daniel "that the saints shall take the

kingdom and possess it." Ludlow argued against him; but what was

argument to such a head? _Mem. of Ludlow_, p. 565. Not many months

after, Cromwell sent his coadjutor to Carisbrook Castle.

[410] Hume speaks of this assembly as chiefly composed of the lowest

mechanics. But this was not the case. Some persons of inferior rank

there were, but a large proportion of the members were men of good

family, or, at least, military distinction, as the list of the names

in the _Parliamentary History_ is sufficient to prove; and Whitelock

remarks, "it was much wondered at by some that these gentlemen, many

of them being persons of fortune and knowledge, would at this summons,

and from those hands, take upon them the supreme authority of this

nation."--P. 559. With respect to this, it may be observed, that those

who have lived in revolutions find it almost necessary, whether their

own interest or those of their country are their aim, to comply with

all changes, and take a greater part in supporting them, than men of

inflexible consciences can approve. No one felt this more than

Whitelock; and his remark in this place is a satire upon all his

conduct. He was at the moment dissatisfied, and out of Cromwell's

favour, but lost no time in regaining it.

[411] Journals, August 19. This was carried by 46 to 38 against

Cromwell's party. Yet Cromwell, two years afterwards, published an

ordinance for regulating and limiting the jurisdiction of chancery;

which offended Whitelock so much that he resigned the great seal, not

having been consulted in framing the regulations. This is a rare

instance in his life; and he vaunts much of his conscience

accordingly, but thankfully accepted the office of commissioner of the

treasury instead. Pp. 621, 625. He does not seem, by his own account,

to have given much satisfaction to suitors in equity (p. 548); yet the

fault may have been theirs, or the system's.

[412] 4th October.

[413] This had been proposed by the commission for amendment of the

law appointed in the long parliament. The great number of dissenters

from the established religion rendered it a very reasonable measure.

[414] Thurloe, i. 369; iii. 132.

[415] Journals, 2nd and 10th Dec. 1653; Whitelock. See the sixth

volume of the _Somers Tracts_, p. 266, for a long and rather able

vindication of this parliament by one of its members. Ludlow also

speaks pretty well of it (p. 471); and says, truly enough, that

Cromwell frightened the lawyers and clergy, by showing what the

parliament meant to do with them, which made them in a hurry to have

it destroyed. See also _Parl. Hist._ 1412, 1414.

[416] See the instrument of government in Whitelock, p. 571; or

_Somers Tracts_, vi. 257. Ludlow says, that some of the officers

opposed this; but Lambert forced it down their throats. P. 276.

Cromwell made good use of this temporary power. The union of Scotland

with England was by one of these ordinances, April 12 (Whitelock,

586); and he imposed an assessment of £120,000 monthly, for three

months, and £90,000 for the next three, instead of £70,000, which had

been paid before (_Id._ 591), besides many other ordinances of a

legislative nature. "I am very glad," says Fleetwood (Feb. 1655,

Thurloe, iii. 183), "to hear his highness has declined the legislative

power, which by the instrument of government, in my opinion, he could

not exercise after this last parliament's meeting." And the parliament

of 1656, at the Protector's desire, confirmed all ordinances made

since the dissolution of the long parliament. Thurloe, vi. 243.

[417] I infer this from the report of a committee of privileges on the

election for Lynn, Oct. 20, 1656. See also Journals, Nov. 26, 1654.

[418] It is remarkable that Clarendon seems to approve this model of a

parliament, saying, "it was then generally looked upon as an

alteration fit to be more warrantably made, and in a better time."

[419] Bordeaux, the French ambassador, says, "some were for Bradshaw

as speaker, but the Protector's party carried it for Lenthall. By this

beginning one may judge what the authority of the lord protector will

be in this parliament. However it was observed that as often as he

spoke in his speech of liberty or religion, the members did seem to

rejoice with acclamations of joy." Thurloe, v. 588. But the election

of Lenthall appears by Guibbon Goddard's Journal, lately published in

the Introduction to Burton's _Diary_, to have been unanimous.

[420] Journals, 14th and 18th Sept.; _Parl. Hist._ 1445, 1459;

Whitelock, 605, etc.; Ludlow, 499; Goddard's Journal, 32.

[421] This division is not recorded in the Journals, in consequence, I

suppose, of its having been resolved in a committee of the whole

house. But it is impossible to doubt the fact, which is referred to

Oct. 19 by a letter of Bourdeaux, the French ambassador (Thurloe, ii.

681), who observes, "Hereby it is easily discerned that the nation is

nowise affected to his family, nor much to himself. Without doubt he

will strengthen his army, and keep that in a good posture." It is also

alluded to by Whitelock, 609. They resolved to keep the militia in the

power of the parliament, and that the Protector's negative should

extend only to such bills as might alter the instrument; and in other

cases, if he did not pass bills within twenty days, they were to

become laws without his consent. Journals, Nov. 10, 1654; Whitelock,

608. This was carried against the court by 109 to 85.

Ludlow insinuates that this parliament did not sit out its legal term

of five months; Cromwell having interpreted the months to be lunar

instead of calendar. Hume has adopted this notion; but it is

groundless, the month in law being always of twenty-eight days, unless

the contrary be expressed. This seems, however, not to have been

generally understood at the time; for Whitelock says that Cromwell's

dissolution of the parliament, because he found them not so pliable to

his purposes as he expected, caused much discontent in them and

others; but that he valued it not, esteeming himself above those

things. P. 618. He gave out that the parliament were concerned in the

conspiracy to bring in the king.

[422] Exiles are seldom scrupulous: we find that Charles was willing

to propose to the States, in return for their acknowledging his title,

"such present and lasting advantages to them by this alliance as may

appear most considerable to that nation and to their posterity, and a

valuable compensation for whatever present advantages the king can

receive by it." _Clarendon State Papers_, iii. 90. These intrigues

would have justly made him odious in England.

[423] Ormond wrote strongly to this effect, after the battle of

Worcester, convinced that nothing but foreign assistance could restore

the king. "Amongst protestants there is none that hath the power, and

amongst the catholics it is visible." Carte's _Letters_, i. 461.

[424] _Clarendon State Papers_, ii. 481 _et sæpe alibi_. The

protestant zeal of Hyde had surely deserted him; and his veracity in

one letter gave way also. See vol. iii. p. 158. But the great

criminality of all these negotiations lay in this, that Charles was by

them soliciting such a measure of foreign aid as would make him at

once the tyrant of England and the vassal of Spain; since no free

parliament, however royalist, was likely to repeal all the laws

against popery. "That which the king will be ready and willing to do,

is to give his consent for the repeal of all the penal laws and

statutes which have been made in the prejudice of catholics, and to

put them into the same condition as his other subjects." Cottington to

Father Bapthorpe. _Id._ 541. These negotiations with Rome were soon

known; and a tract was published by the parliament's authority,

containing the documents. Notwithstanding the delirium of the

restoration, this had made an impression which was not afterwards

effaced.

[425] _Clarendon State Papers_, iii. 181.

[426] "The pope very well knows," says Hyde to Clement, an agent at

the court of Rome, 2nd April 1656, "how far the king is from thoughts

of severity against his catholic subjects; nay, that he doth desire to

put them into the same condition with his other subjects, and that no

man shall suffer in any consideration for being a Roman catholic."

_Id._ 291.

[427] Clarendon's _History of the Rebellion_, b. 14; _State Papers_,

iii. 265, 300, etc. Whitelock observes at this time, "Many sober and

faithful patriots did begin to incline to the king's restoration;" and

hints, that this was his opinion, which excited Cromwell's jealousy of

him. P. 620.

[428] Clarendon's _History_, vii. 129; _State Papers_, iii. 265, etc.

These levellers were very hostile to the interference of Hyde and

Ormond, judging them too inflexibly attached to the ancient

constitution; but this hostility recommended them to others of the

banished king's court who showed the same sentiments.

[429] Pp. 315, 324, 343; Thurloe, i. 360, 510. In the same volume (p.

248) we find even a declaration from the king, dated at Paris, 3rd May

1654, offering £500 per annum to any one who should kill Cromwell, and

pardon to any one who should leave that party, except Bradshaw,

Lenthall, and Haslerig. But this seems unlikely to be authentic:

Charles would not have avowed a design of assassination so openly; and

it is strange that Lenthall and Haslerig, especially the former,

should be thus exempted from pardon, rather than so many regicides.

[430] See what Clarendon says of Ascham's death. _State Papers_, ii.

542. In another place he observes: "It is a worse and a baser thing

that any man should appear in any part beyond sea under the character

of an agent from the rebels, and not have his throat cut." _Id._ iii.

144.

[431] _State Trials_, 518; Thurloe, ii. 416. Some of the malecontent

commonwealth men were also eager to get rid of Cromwell by

assassination; Wildman, Saxby, Titus. Syndercome's story is well

known; he was connected in the conspiracy with those already

mentioned. The famous pamphlet by Titus, "Killing no Murder," was

printed in 1657. _Clarendon State Papers_, 315, 324, 343.

[432] A very reprehensible passage occurs in Clarendon's account of

this transaction (vol. vii. p. 140), where he blames and derides the

insurgents for not putting Chief Justice Rolle and others to death,

which would have been a detestable and useless murder.

[433] Whitelock, 618, 620; Ludlow, 513; Thurloe, iii. 264, and through

more than half the volume, _passim_. In the preceding volume we have

abundant proofs how completely master Cromwell was of the royalist

schemes. The "sealed knot" of the king's friends in London is

mentioned as frequently as we find it in the _Clarendon Papers_ at the

same time.

[434] Thurloe, iii. 371, etc. "Penruddock and Grove," Ludlow says,

"could not have been justly condemned, if they had as sure a

foundation in what they declared for, as what they declared against.

But certainly it can never be esteemed by a wise man to be worth the

scratch of a finger to remove a single person acting by an arbitrary

power, in order to set up another with the same unlimited

authority."--P. 518. This is a just and manly sentiment. Woe to those

who do not recognise it! But is it fair to say that the royalists were

contending to set up an unlimited authority?

[435] They were originally ten, Lambert, Desborough, Whalley, Goffe,

Fleetwood, Skippon, Kelsey, Butler, Worseley, and Berry. Thurloe, iii.

701. Barkstead was afterwards added. "The major-generals," says

Ludlow, "carried things with unheard-of insolence in their several

precincts, decimating to extremity whom they pleased, and interrupting

the proceedings at law upon petitions of those who pretended

themselves aggrieved; threatening such as would not yield a ready

submission to their orders with transportation to Jamaica, or some

other plantations in the West Indies," etc.--P. 559.

[436] Thurloe, vol. iv. _passim_. The unpopularity of Cromwell's

government appears strongly in the letters of this collection.

Duckinfield, a Cheshire gentleman, writes: "Charles Stuart hath 500

friends in these adjacent counties for every one friend to you amongst

them." Vol. iii. 294.

[437] It may be fair towards Cromwell to give his own apology for the

decimation of the royalists, in a declaration, published 1655. "It is

a trouble to us to be still rubbing upon the old sore, disobliging

those whom we hoped time and patience might make friends; but we can

with comfort appeal to God, and dare also to their own consciences,

whether this way of proceeding with them hath been the matter of our

choice, or that which we have sought an occasion for; or whether,

contrary to our own inclinations and the constant course of our

carriage towards them, which hath been to oblige them by kindness to

forsake their former principles, which God hath so often and so

eminently bore witness against, we have not been constrained and

necessitated hereunto, and without the doing whereof we should have

been wanting to our duty to God and these nations.

"That character of difference between them and the rest of the people

which is now put upon them is occasioned by themselves, not by us.

There is nothing they have more industriously laboured in than this;

to keep themselves distinguished from the well-affected of this

nation: To which end they have kept their conversation apart; as if

they would avoid the very beginnings of union, have bred and educated

their children by the sequestered and ejected clergy, and very much

confined their marriages and alliances within their own party, as if

they meant to entail their quarrel, and prevent the means to reconcile

posterity; which with the great pains they take upon all occasions to

lessen and suppress the esteem and honour of the English nation in all

their actions and undertakings abroad, striving withal to make other

nations distinguish their interest from it, gives us ground to judge

that they have separated themselves from the body of the nation; and

therefore we leave it to all mankind to judge whether we ought not to

be timely jealous of that separation, and to proceed so against them

as they may be at the charge of those remedies which are required

against the dangers they have bred."

[438] Ludlow, 528; Clarendon, etc. Clarendon relates the same story,

with additional circumstances of Cromwell's audacious contempt for the

courts of justice, and for the very name of magna charta.

[439] _State Trials_, vi.; Whitelock advised the protector to proceed

according to law against Hewit and Slingsby; "but his highness was too

much in love with the new way."--P. 673.

[440] The late editor of the _State Trials_, v. 935, has introduced a

sort of episodical dissertation on the administration of justice

during the commonwealth, with the view, as far as appears, of setting

Cromwell in a favourable light. For this purpose he quotes several

passages of vague commendation from different authors, and among

others one from Burke, written in haste, to serve an immediate

purpose, and evidently from a very superficial recollection of our

history. It has been said that Cromwell sought out men of character

from the party most opposite to his designs. The proof given is the

appointment of Hale to be a puisné judge. But Hale had not been a

royalist, that is, an adherent of Charles, and had taken the

engagement as well as the covenant. It was no great effort of virtue

to place an eminent lawyer and worthy man on the bench. And it is to

be remembered that Hale fell under the usurper's displeasure for

administering justice with an impartiality that did not suit his

government; and ceased to go the circuit, because the criminal law was

not allowed to have its course.

[441] Thurloe writes to Montague (Carte's _Letters_, ii. 110) that he

cannot give him the reasons for calling this parliament, except in

cipher. He says in the same place of the committal of Ludlow, Vane,

and others, "There was a necessity not only for peace sake to do this,

but to let the nation see those that govern are in good earnest, and

intend not to quit the government wholly into the hands of the

parliament, as some would needs make the world believe."--P. 112. His

first direct allusion to the projected change is in writing to Henry

Cromwell, 9th Dec. 1656. _Thurl. Papers_, v. 194. The influence

exerted by his legates, the major-generals, appears in Thurloe, v. 299

_et post_. But they complained of the elections. _Id._ 302, 341, 371.

[442] Whitelock, 650; _Parl. Hist._ 1486. On a letter to the speaker

from the members who had been refused admittance at the door of the

lobby, Sept. 18, the house ordered the clerk of the commonwealth to

attend next day with all the indentures. The deputy clerk came

accordingly, with an excuse for his principal, and brought the

indentures; but on being asked why the names of certain members were

not returned to the house, answered that he had no certificate of

approbation for them. The house on this sent to inquire of the council

why these members had not been approved. They returned for answer,

that whereas it is ordained by a clause in the instrument of

government that the persons who shall be elected to serve in

parliament shall be such and no other than such as are persons of

known integrity, fearing God, and of good conversation; that the

council, in pursuance of their duty, and according to the trust

reposed in them, have examined the said returns, and have not refused

to approve any who have appeared to them to be persons of integrity,

fearing God, and of good conversation; and those who are not approved,

his highness hath given order to some persons to take care that they

do not come into the house. Upon this answer, an adjournment was

proposed, but lost by 115 to 80: and it being moved that the persons,

who have been returned from the several counties, cities, and boroughs

to serve in this parliament, and have not been approved, be referred

to the council for approbation, and that the house do proceed with the

great affairs of the nation; the question was carried by 125 to 29.

Journals, Sept. 22.

[443] _Clar. State Papers_, iii. 201, etc.

[444] The whole conference that took place at Whitehall, between

Cromwell and the committee of parliament on this subject, was

published by authority, and may be read in the _Somers Tracts_, vi.

349. It is very interesting. The lawyers did not hesitate to support

the proposition, on the ground of the more definite and legal

character of a king's authority. "The king's prerogative," says Glyn,

"is known by law; he (King Charles) did expatiate beyond the duty;

that's the evil of the man: but in Westminster Hall the king's

prerogative was under the courts of justice, and is bounded as well as

any acre of land, or anything a man hath, as much as any controversy

between party and party: and therefore the office being lawful in its

nature, known to the nation, certain in itself, and confined and

regulated by the law, and the other office not being so, that was a

great ground of the reason why the parliament did so much insist upon

this office and title, not as circumstantial, but as essential."--P.

359. See also what Lenthall says (p. 356) against the indefiniteness

of the protector's authority.

Those passages were evidently implied censures of the late course of

government. Cromwell's indistinct and evasive style in his share of

this debate betrays the secret inclinations of his heart. He kept his

ultimate intentions, however, very secret; for Thurloe's professes his

ignorance of them, even in writing to Henry Cromwell. Vol. vi. p. 219

_et post_. This correspondence shows that the prudent secretary was

uneasy at the posture of affairs, and the manifest dissatisfaction of

Fleetwood and Desborough, which had a dangerous influence on others

less bound to the present family; yet he had set his heart on this

mode of settlement, and was much disappointed at his master's ultimate

refusal.

[445] Clarendon's _Hist._ vii. 194. It appears by Clarendon's private

letters that he had expected to see Cromwell assume the title of king

from the year 1654. Vol. iii. pp. 201, 223, 224. If we may trust what

is here called an intercepted letter (p. 328), Mazarin had told

Cromwell that France would enter into a strict league with him, if he

could settle himself in the throne, and make it hereditary; to which

he answered, that he designed shortly to take the crown, restore the

two houses, and govern by the ancient laws. But this may be

apocryphal.

[446] Clar. vii. 203.

[447] Ludlow, p. 581. The major-generals, or at least many of them,

joined the opposition to Cromwell's royalty. _Id._ p. 586; _Clar.

State Papers_, 332.

[448] This appears from the following passage in a curious letter of

Mr. Vincent Gookin to Henry Cromwell, 27th Jan. 1657. "To-morrow the

bill for decimating the cavaliers comes again into debate. It is

debated with much heat by the major-generals, and as hotly almost by

the anti-decimators. I believe the bill will be thrown out of the

house. In my opinion those that speak against the bill have much to

say in point of moral justice and prudence; but that which makes me

fear the passing of the bill is, that thereby his highness's

government will be more founded in force, and more removed from that

natural foundation which the people in parliament are desirous to give

him; supposing that he will become more theirs than now he is, and

will in time find the safety and peace of the nation to be as well

maintained by the laws of the land as by the sword. And truly, sir, if

any others have pretensions to succeed him by their interest in the

army, the more of force upholds his highness living, the greater when

he is dead will be the hopes and advantages for such a one to effect

his aim, who desires to succeed him. Lambert is much for decimations."

Thurloe, vi. 20. He writes again, "I am confident it is judged by some

that the interest of the godly cannot be preserved but by the

dissolution of this, if not all, parliaments; and their endeavours in

it have been plainly discovered to the party most concerned to know

them; which will, I believe, suddenly occasion a reducing of the

government to kingship, to which his highness is not averse. Pierpoint

and St. John have been often, but secretly, at Whitehall, I know, to

advise thereof."--P. 37. Thurloe again to the same Henry Cromwell, on

February 3, that the decimation bill was thrown out by a majority of

forty: "Some gentlemen do think themselves much trampled upon by this

vote, and are extremely sensible thereof; and the truth is, it hath

wrought such a heat in the house, that I fear little will be done for

the future." _Id._ p. 38. No such bill appears, _eo nomine_, in the

journals. But a bill for regulating the militia forces was thrown out,

Jan. 29, by 124 to 88, Col. Cromwell (Oliver's cousin) being a teller

for the majority. Probably there was some clause in this renewing the

decimation of the royalists.

[449] Whitelock, who was consulted by Cromwell on this business, and

took an active part as one of the committee of conference appointed by

the House of Commons, intimates that the project was not really laid

aside. "He was satisfied in his private judgment that it was fit for

him to take upon him the title of king, and matters were prepared in

order thereunto; but afterwards, by solicitation of the commonwealth's

men, and fearing a mutiny and defection of a great part of the army,

in case he should assume that title and office, his mind changed, and

many of the officers of the army gave out great threatenings against

him in case he should do it; he therefore thought it best to attend

some better season and opportunity in this business, and refused it at

this time with great seeming earnestness."--P. 656. The chief advisers

with Cromwell on this occasion, besides Whitelock, were Lord Broghill,

Pierrepont, Thurloe, and Sir Charles Wolseley. Many passages in

Thurloe (vol. vii.) show that Cromwell preserved to the last his views

on royalty.

[450] Whitelock, 657. It had been agreed, in discussing the petition

and advice in parliament, to postpone the first article requesting the

protector to assume the title of king, till the rest of the _charter_

(to use a modern but not inapplicable word) had been gone through. One

of the subsequent articles, fixing the revenue at £1,300,000 per

annum, provides that no part thereof should be raised by a land-tax,

"and this not to be altered without the consent of the _three estates

in parliament_." A division took place, in consequence, no doubt, of

this insidious expression, which was preserved by 97 to 50. Journals,

13th March. The first article was carried, after much debate on March

24, by 123 to 62. It stood thus: "Resolved, That your highness will be

pleased to assume the name, style, 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." On Cromwell's first demurring to the

proposal, it was resolved to adhere to the petition and advice by the

small majority of 78 to 65. This was perhaps a sufficient warning that

he should not proceed.

[451] Journals, 21st June. This oath, which effectually declared the

parliament to be the protector's subjects, was only carried by 63 to

55. Lambert refused it, and was dismissed the army in consequence,

with a pension of £2000 per annum, instead of his pay, £10 a day. So

well did they cater for themselves. Ludlow, 593. Broderick wrote to

Hyde, June 30, 1657, that there was a general tranquillity in England,

all parties seeming satisfied with the compromise; Fleetwood and

Desborough more absolutely Cromwell's friends than before, and Lambert

very silent. _Clar. State Papers_, 349.

[452] Thurloe, vi. 310.

[453] Compare Journals, 11th March with 24th June.

[454] Whitelock, 665. They were to have a judicial power, much like

that of the real House of Lords. Journals, March.

[455] Whitelock; _Parl. Hist._ The former says this was done against

his advice. These debates about the other house are to be traced in

the Journals, and are mentioned by Thurloe, vi. 107, etc.; and Ludlow,

597. Not one of the true peers, except Lord Eure, took his seat in

this house; and Haslerig, who had been nominated merely to weaken his

influence, chose to retain his place in the Commons. The list of these

pretended lords in Thurloe, vi. 668, is not quite the same as that in

Whitelock.

[456] This junto of nine debated how they might be secure against the

cavaliers. One scheme was an oath of abjuration; but this it was

thought they would all take: another was to lay a heavy tax on them:

"a moiety of their estates was spoken of; but this, I suppose, will

not down with all the nine, and least of all will it be swallowed by

the parliament, who will not be persuaded to punish both nocent and

innocent without distinction." 22nd June, Thurloe, vol. vii. p. 198.

And again, p. 269: "I believe we are out of danger of our junto, and I

think also of ever having such another. As I take it, the report was

made to his highness upon Thursday. After much consideration, the

major part voted that succession in the government was indifferent

whether it were by election or hereditary; but afterwards some would

needs add that it was desirable to have it continued elective; that

is, that the chief magistrate should always name his successor; and

that of hereditary avoided; and I fear the word 'desirable' will be

made 'necessary,' if ever it come upon the trial. His highness finding

he can have no advice from those he most expected it from, saith he

will take his own resolutions, and that he can no longer satisfy

himself to sit still, and make himself guilty of the loss of all the

honest party and of the nation itself."

[457] Harris, p. 348, has collected some curious instances of the

servility of crowned heads to Cromwell.

[458] See Clarendon, vii. 297. He saved Nismes from military execution

on account of a riot, wherein the Huguenots seem to have been much to

blame. In the treaty between England and France, 1654, the French, in

agreeing to the secret article about the exclusion of the royalists,

endeavoured to make it reciprocal, that the commissioners of rebels in

France should not be admitted in England. This did not seem very

outrageous--but Cromwell objected that the French protestants would be

thus excluded from imploring the assistance of England, if they were

persecuted; protesting, however, that he was very far from having any

thought to draw them from their obedience, as had been imputed to him,

and that he would arm against them, if they should offer frivolously

and without a cause to disturb the peace of France. Thurloe, iii. 6.

In fact, the French protestants were in the habit of writing to

Thurloe, as this collection testifies, whenever they thought

themselves injured, which happened frequently enough. Cromwell's noble

zeal in behalf of the Vaudois is well known. See this volume of

Thurloe, p. 412, etc. Mazarin and the catholic powers in general

endeavoured to lye down that massacre; but the usurper had too much

protestant spirit to believe them. _Id._ 536.

[459] Ludlow, 607; Thurloe, i. and ii. _passim_.

[460] Mrs. Macauley, who had nothing of compromise or conciliation in

her temper, and breathed the entire spirit of Vane and Ludlow, makes

some vigorous and just animadversions on the favour shown to Cromwell

by some professors of a regard for liberty. The dissenting writers,

such as Neal, and in some measure Harris, were particularly open to

this reproach. He long continued (perhaps the present tense is more

appropriate) to be revered by the independents. One who well knew the

manners he paints, has described the secret idolatry of that sect to

their hero-saint. See Crabbe's _Tale of the Frank Courtship_.

Slingsly Bethell, an exception perhaps to the general politics of this

sect, published in 1667 a tract, entitled "The World's Mistake in

Oliver Cromwell," with the purpose of decrying his policy and

depreciating his genius. Harleian Miscellany, i. 280. But he who goes

about to prove the world mistaken in its estimate of a public

character has always a difficult cause to maintain. Bethell, like Mrs.

Macauley and others, labours to set up the Rump parliament against the

soldier who kicked them; and asserts that Cromwell, having found

£500,000 in ready money, with the value of £700,000 in stores, and the

army in advance of their pay (subject, however, to a debt of near

£500,000); the customs and excise bringing in nearly a million

annually, left a debt which, in Richard's parliament, was given in at

£1,900,000, though he believes this to have been purposely exaggerated

in order to procure supplies. I cannot say how far these sums are

correct; but it is to be kept in mind, that one great resource of the

parliament, confiscation, sequestration, composition, could not be

repeated for ever. Neither of these governments, it will be found on

inquiry, were economical, especially in respect to the emoluments of

those concerned in them.

[461] Whitelock, 674; Ludlow, 611, 624. Lord Fauconberg writes in

cipher to Henry Cromwell, on Aug. 30, that "Thurloe has seemed

resolved to press him in his intervals to such a nomination (of a

successor); but whether out of apprehensions to displease him if

recovering, or others hereafter, if it should not succeed, he has not

yet done it, nor do I believe will." Thurloe, however, announces on

Sept. 4, that "his highness was pleased before his death to declare my

Lord Richard successor. He did it on Monday; and the Lord hath so

ordered it, that the council and army hath received him with all

manner of affection. He is this day proclaimed, and hitherto there

seems great face of peace; the Lord continue it." _Thurloe State

Papers_, vii. 365, 372. Lord Fauconberg afterwards confirms the fact

of Richard's nomination. P. 375; and see 415.

[462] "Many sober men that called his father no better than a

traitorous hypocrite, did begin to think that they owed him [R. C.]

subjection," etc. Baxter, 100.

[463] Hutchinson, 343. She does not name Pierrepont, but I have little

doubt that he is meant.

[464] Richard's conduct is more than once commended in the

correspondence of Thurloe, pp. 491, 497; and in fact he did nothing

amiss during his short administration.

[465] Thurloe, vii. 320 _et post_, _passim_, in letters both from

himself and Lord Fauconberg. Thus, immediately on Richard's accession,

the former writes to Henry Cromwell, "It hath pleased God hitherto to

give his highness your brother a very easy and peaceable entrance upon

his government. There is not a dog that wags his tongue, so great a

calm we are in.... But I must needs acquaint your excellency that

there are some secret murmurings in the army, as if his highness were

not general of the army as his father was," etc. P. 374. Here was the

secret: the officers did not like to fall back under the civil power,

by obeying one who was not a soldier. This soon displayed itself

openly; and Lord Fauconberg thought the game was over as early as

Sept. 28. P. 413. It is to be observed that Fauconberg was secretly a

royalist, and might hope to bring over his brother-in-law.

[466] _Id._ 573.

[467] Lord Fauconberg says, "the commonwealth men in the parliament

were very numerous, and beyond measure bold, but more than doubly

overbalanced by the sober party; so that, though this make their

results slow, we see no great cause as yet to fear."--P. 612. And Dr.

Barwick, a correspondent of Lord Clarendon, tells him the republicans

were the minority, but all speakers, zealous and diligent--it was

likely to end in a titular protector without militia or negative

voice. P. 615.

According to a letter from Allen Broderick to Hyde (_Clar. St. Pap._

iii. 443) there were 47 republicans, from 100 to 140 neuters or

moderates (including many royalists), and 170 court lawyers, or

officers.

[468] Ludlow tells us, that he contrived to sit in the house without

taking the oath, and that some others did the same. P. 619.

[469] Whitelock, _Parl. Hist._ 1530, 1541.

[470] The numbers are differently, but, I suppose, erroneously stated

in Thurloe, vii. 640. It is said, in a pamphlet of the time, that this

clause was introduced to please the cavaliers, who acted with the

court; _Somers Tracts_, vi. 482. Ludlow seems also to think that these

parties were united in this parliament (p. 629); but this seems not

very probable, and is contrary to some things we know. Clarendon had

advised that the royalists should try to get into parliament, and

there to oppose all raising of money, and everything else that might

tend to settle the government. _Clar. State Papers_, 411. This of

course was their true game.

It is said that, Richard pressing the Earl of Northumberland to sit in

the other house, he declined, urging that when the government was such

as his predecessors had served under, he would serve him with his life

and fortune. _Id._ 433.

[471] _Parl. Hist._; Journals, 27 Jan., 14, 18 Feb., 1, 8, 21, 23, 28

March. The names of the tellers in these divisions show the

connections of leading individuals: we find indifferently presbyterian

and republican names for the minority, as Fairfax, Lambert, Nevil,

Haslerig, Townshend, Booth.

[472] There seems reason to believe that Richard would have met with

more support both in the house and among the nation, if he had not

been oppressed by the odium of some of his father's counsellors. A

general indignation was felt at those who had condemned men to death

in illegal tribunals, whom the republicans and cavaliers were

impatient to bring to justice. He was forced also to employ and to

screen from vengeance his wise and experienced secretary Thurloe,

master of all the secret springs that had moved his father's

government, but obnoxious from the share he had taken in illegal and

arbitrary measures. Petitions were presented to the house from several

who had been committed to the Tower upon short written orders, without

any formal warrant, or expressed cause of commitment. In the case of

one of these, Mr. Portman, the house resolved that his apprehension,

imprisonment, and detention in the Tower was illegal and unjust.

Journals, 26 Feb. A still more flagrant tyranny was that frequently

practised by Cromwell of sending persons disaffected to him as slaves

to the West Indies. One Mr. Thomas petitioned the House of Commons,

complaining that he had been thus sold as a slave. A member of the

court side justified it on the score of his being a malignant.

Major-General Browne, a secret royalist, replied that he was

nevertheless an Englishman and free-born. Thurloe had the presumption

to say that he had not thought to live to see the day, when such a

thing as this, so justly and legally done by lawful authority, should

be brought before parliament. Vane replied that he did not think to

have seen the day, when free-born Englishmen should be sold for slaves

by such an arbitrary government. There were, it seems, not less than

fifty gentlemen, sold for slaves at Barbadoes. _Clarendon State

Papers_, p. 447. The royalists had planned to attack Thurloe for some

of these unjustifiable proceedings, which would have greatly

embarrassed the government. _Ibid_, 423, 428. They hoped that Richard

would be better disposed towards the king, if his three advisers, St.

John, Thurloe, and Pierrepont, all implacable to their cause, could be

removed. But they were not strong enough in the house. If Richard,

however, had continued in power, he must probably have sacrificed

Thurloe to public opinion; and the consciousness of this may have led

this minister to advise the dissolution of the parliament, and perhaps

to betray his master, from the suspicion of which he is not free.

It ought to be remarked what an outrageous proof of Cromwell's tyranny

is exhibited in this note. Many writers glide favourably over his

administration, or content themselves with treating it as an

usurpation, which can furnish no precedent, and consequently does not

merit particular notice; but the effect of this generality is, that

the world forms an imperfect notion of the degree of arbitrary power

which he exerted; and I believe there are many who take Charles the

First, and even Charles the Second, for greater violators of the laws

than the protector. Neal and Harris are full of this dishonest

bigotry. Since this note was first printed, the publication of

Burton's _Diary_ has confirmed its truth, which had rashly been called

in question by a passionate and prejudiced reviewer. See Vol. iv. p.

253, etc.

[473] Richard advised with Broghill, Fiennes, Thurloe, and others of

his council, all of whom, except Whitelock, who informs us of this,

were in favour of the dissolution. This caused, he says, much trouble

to honest men; the cavaliers and republicans rejoiced at it; many of

Richard's council were his enemies. P. 177. The army at first intended

to raise money by their own authority; but this was deemed impossible,

and it was resolved to recall the Long Parliament. Lambert and

Haslerig accordingly met Lenthall, who was persuaded to act again as

speaker; though, if Ludlow is right, against his will, being now

connected with the court, and in the pretended House of Lords. The

parliament now consisted of 91 members. _Parl. Hist._ 1547. Harris

quotes a manuscript journal of Montagu, afterwards Earl of Sandwich,

wherein it is said that Richard's great error was to dissolve the

parliament, and that he might have over-ruled the army, if he would

have employed himself, Ingoldsby, Lord Fauconberg, and others, who

were suspected to be for the king. _Life of Charles II._ 194. He

afterwards (p. 203) quotes Calamy's _Life of Howe_ for the assertion

that Richard stood out against his council, with Thurloe alone, that

the parliament should not be dissolved. This is very unlikely.

[474] This was carried against the previous question by 163 to 87.

Journals Abr. III. Some of the protector's friends were alarmed at so

high a vote against the army, which did in fact bring the matter to a

crisis. Thurloe, vii. 659 _et post_.

[475] The army according to Ludlow, had not made up their minds how to

act after the dissolution of the parliament, and some were inclined to

go on with Richard; but the republican party, who had coalesced with

that faction of officers who took their denomination from Wallingford

House, their place of meeting, insisted on the restoration of the old

parliament; though they agreed to make some provision for Richard.

_Memoirs_, pp. 635-646. Accordingly it was voted to give him an income

of £10,000 per annum. Journals, July 16.

[476] Journals, Sept. 23 _et post_; Whitelock, 683; _Parl. Hist._

1562; Thurloe, vii. 703 _et post_. Ludlow's account of this period is

the most interesting part of his _Memoirs_. The chief officers, it

appears from his narrative, were soon disgusted with their republican

allies, and "behaved with all imaginable perverseness and insolence"

in the council of state, whenever they came there, which was but

seldom, scrupling the oath to be true to the commonwealth against

Charles Stuart or any other person. P. 657. He censures, however, the

violence of Haslerig, "a man of a disobliging temper, sour and morose

of temper, liable to be transported with passion, and in whom

liberality seemed to be a vice. Yet to do him justice, I must

acknowledge that I am under no manner of doubt concerning the

rectitude and sincerity of his intentions."--P. 718. Ludlow gave some

offence to the hot-headed republicans by his half compliance with the

army; and much disapproved the proceedings they adopted after their

second restoration in December 1659, against Vane and others. P. 800.

Yet, though nominated on the committee of safety, on the expulsion of

the parliament in October, he never sat on it, as Vane and Whitelock

did.

[477] Journals, and other authorities above cited.

[478] The Rota Club, as it was called, was composed, chiefly at least,

of these dealers in new constitutions, which were debated in due form.

Harrington was one of the most conspicuous.

[479] Thurloe, vi. 579; _Clarendon State Papers_, 391, 395.

[480] Carte's _Letters_, ii. 118. In a letter of Ormond to Hyde about

this time, he seems to have seen into the king's character, and speaks

of him severely: "I fear his immoderate delight in empty, effeminate,

and vulgar conversations, is become an irresistible part of his

nature," etc. _Clarendon State Papers_, iii. 387.

[481] _Clarendon Papers_, 391, 418, 460 _et post_. Townshend, a young

man who seems to have been much looked up to, was not, in fact, a

presbyterian, but is reckoned among them as not being a cavalier,

having come of age since the wars, and his family neutral.

[482] This curious fact appears for the first time, I believe, in the

_Clarendon State Papers_, unless it is anywhere intimated in Carte's

collection of the Ormond letters. In the former collection we find

several allusions to it; the first is in a letter from Rumbold, a

royalist emissary, to Hyde, dated Dec. 2, 1658, p. 421; from which I

collect Lord Fauconberg's share in this intrigue; which is also

confirmed by a letter of Mordaunt to the king, in p. 423. "The Lord

Falconbridge protests that Cromwell is so remiss a person that he

cannot play his own game, much less another man's, and is thereby

discouraged from acting in business, having also many enemies who

oppose his gaining either power or interest in the army or civil

government, because they conceive his principles contrary to theirs.

He says, Thurloe governs Cromwell, and St. John and Pierrepont govern

Thurloe; and therefore is not likely he will think himself in danger

till these tell him so, nor seek a diversion of it but by their

councils." Feb. 10, 1659. These ill-grounded hopes of Richard's

accession to their cause appear in several other letters, and even

Hyde seems to have given in to them. 434, 454, etc. Broderick, another

active emissary of the royalists, fancied that the three

above-mentioned would restore the king if they dared (477); but this

is quite unlikely.

[483] P. 469. This was carried on through Colonel Henry Cromwell, his

cousin. It is said that Richard had not courage to sign the letters to

Monk and his other friends, which he afterwards repented. 491. The

intrigues still went on with him for a little longer. This was in May

1659.

[484] _Clarendon State Papers_, 434, 500 _et post_; Thurloe, vi. 686.

See also an enigmatical letter to Henry Cromwell, 629, which certainly

hints at his union with the king; and Carte's _Letters_, ii. 293.

[485] _Clarendon State Papers_, 552, 556, etc.

[486] Clarendon confesses (_Life_, p. 20) that the cavaliers disliked

this whole intrigue with the presbyterians, which was planned by

Mordaunt, the most active and intelligent agent that the king

possessed in England. The former, doubtless, perceived that by

extending the basis of the coalition, they should lose all chance of

indemnity for their own sufferings: besides which, their timidity and

irresolution are manifest in all the Clarendon correspondence at this

period. See particularly 491, 520.

[487] Willis had done all in his power to obstruct the rising.

Clarendon was very slow in believing this treachery, of which he had

at length conclusive proofs. 552, 562.

[488] _Id._ 514, 530, 536, 543.

[489] _Clarendon Papers_, 425, 427, 458, 462, 475, 526, 579. It is

evident that the catholics had greater hopes from the duke than from

the king, and considered the former as already their own. A remarkable

letter of Morley to Hyde, April 24, 1659, p. 458, shows the suspicions

already entertained of him by the writer in point of religion; and

Hyde is plainly not free from apprehension that he might favour the

scheme of supplanting his brother. The intrigue might have gone a

great way, though we may now think it probable that their alarm

magnified the danger. "Let me tell you," says Sir Antony Ashley Cooper

in a letter to Hyde, "that Wildman is as much an enemy now to the king

as he was before a seeming friend; yet not upon the account of a

commonwealth, for his ambition meets with every day repulses and

affronts from that party; but upon a finer spun design of setting up

the interest of the Duke of York against the king; in which design I

fear you will find confederated the Duke of Bucks, who perhaps may

draw away with him Lord Fairfax, the presbyterians, levellers, and

many catholics. I am apt to think these things are not transacted

without the privity of the queen; and I pray God that they have not an

ill influence upon your affairs in France."--475. Buckingham was

surmised to have been formally reconciled to the church of Rome. 427.

Some supposed that he, with his friend Wildman, were for a republic.

But such men are for nothing but the intrigue of the moment. These

projects of Buckingham to set up the Duke of York are hinted at in a

pamphlet by Shaftesbury or one of his party, written about 1680.

_Somers Tracts_, viii. 342.

[490] Hyde writes to the Duke of Ormond: "I pray inform the king that

Fleetwood makes great professions of being converted, and of a

resolution to serve the king upon the first opportunity." Oct. 11,

1659. Carte's _Letters_, ii. 231. See _Clarendon State Papers_, 551

(Sept. 2) and 577. But it is said afterwards, that he had "not courage

enough to follow the honest thoughts which some time possess him"

(592, Oct. 31), and that Manchester, Popham, and others, tried what

they could do with Fleetwood; but "though they left him with good

resolutions, they were so weak as not to continue longer than the next

temptation."--635 (Dec. 27).

[491] _Id._ 588; Carte's _Letters_, ii. 225.

[492] Lord Hatton, an old royalist, suggested this humiliating

proposition in terms scarcely less so to the heir of Cerdic and

Fergus. "The race is a _very good gentleman's family_, and kings have

condescended to marry subjects. The lady is pretty, of an

extraordinary sweetness of disposition, and very virtuously and

ingenuously disposed; the father is a person, set aside of his unhappy

engagement, of very great parts and noble inclinations."--_Clarendon

State Papers_, 592. Yet, after all, Miss Lambert was hardly more a

mis-alliance than Hortense Mancini, whom Charles had asked for in

vain.

[493] _Biogr. Brit._ art. Monk. The royalists continued to entertain

hopes of him, especially after Oliver's death. _Clarendon Papers_,

iii. 393, 395, 396. In a sensible letter of Colepepper to Hyde, Sept.

20, 1658, he points out Monk as able alone to restore the king, and

not absolutely averse to it, either in his principles or affections;

kept hitherto by the vanity of adhering to his professions, and by his

affection to Cromwell, the latter whereof is dissolved both by the

jealousies he entertained of him, and by his death, etc. _Id._ 412.

[494] Thurloe, vii. 387. Monk wrote about the same time against the

Earl of Argyle, as not a friend to the government. 584. Two years

afterwards he took away his life as being too much so.

[495] If the account of his chaplain, Dr. Price, republished in

Maseres' _Tracts_, vol. ii., be worthy of trust, Monk gave so much

encouragement to his brother, a clergyman, secretly despatched to

Scotland by Sir John Grenvil, his relation, in June 1659, as to have

approved Sir George Booth's insurrection, and to have been on the

point of publishing a declaration in favour of it. P. 718. But this is

flatly in contradiction of what Clarendon asserts, that the general

not only sent away his brother with no hopes, but threatened to hang

him if he came again on such an errand. And, in fact, if anything so

favourable as what Price tells us had occurred, the king could not

fail to have known it. See _Clarendon State Papers_, iii. 543. This

throws some suspicion on Price's subsequent narrative (so far as it

professes to relate the general's intentions); so that I rely far less

on it than on Monk's own behaviour, which seems irreconcilable with

his professions of republican principles. It is, however, an obscure

point of history, which will easily admit of different opinions.

The story told by Locke, on Lord Shaftesbury's authority, that Monk

had agreed with the French ambassador to take on himself the

government, wherein he was to have the support of Mazarin, and that

his wife, having overheard what was going forward, sent notice to

Shaftesbury, who was thus enabled to frustrate the intrigue (Locke's

Works, iii. 456), seems to have been confirmed lately by Mr.

D'Israeli, in an extract from the manuscript memoirs of Sir Thomas

Browne (_Curiosities of Literature_, N. S. vol. ii.), but in terms so

nearly resembling those of Locke, that it seems to be an echo. It is

certain, as we find by Phillips's continuation of Baker's _Chronicle_

(said to be assisted, in this part, by Sir Thomas Clarges, Monk's

brother-in-law), that Bourdeaux, the French ambassador, did make such

overtures to the general, who absolutely refused to enter upon them;

but, as the writer admits, received a visit from the ambassador on

condition that he should propose nothing in relation to public

matters. I quote from Kennet's _Register_, 85. But, according to my

present impression, this is more likely to have been the foundation of

Shaftesbury's story, who might have heard from Mrs. Monk the

circumstance of the visit, and conceived suspicions upon it, which he

afterwards turned into proofs. It was evidently not in Monk's power to

have usurped the government, after he had let the royalist

inclinations of the people show themselves; and he was by no means of

a rash character. He must have taken his resolution when the secluded

members were restored to the house (Feb. 21); and this alleged

intrigue with Mazarin could hardly have been so early.

It may be added that in one of the pamphlets about the time of the

exclusion bill, written by Shaftesbury himself or one of his party

(_Somers Tracts_, viii. 338), he is hinted to have principally brought

about the restoration; "without whose courage and dexterity some men,

the most highly rewarded, had done otherwise than they did." But this

still depends on his veracity.

[496] Whitelock, 690.

[497] The engagement was repeated March 13. This was of itself

tantamount to a declaration in favour of the king; though perhaps the

previous order of March 5, that the solemn league and covenant should

be read in churches, was still more so. Prynne was the first who had

the boldness to speak for the king, declaring his opinion that the

parliament was dissolved by the death of Charles the First; he was

supported by one or two more. _Clar. Papers_, 696; Thurloe, vii. 854;

Carte's _Letters_, ii. 312. Prynne wrote a pamphlet advising the peers

to meet and issue writs for a new parliament, according to the

provisions of the triennial act; which in fact was no bad expedient.

_Somers Tracts_, vi. 534.

A speech of Sir Harbottle Grimston before the close of the parliament,

March 1660, is more explicit for the king's restoration than anything

which I have seen elsewhere; and as I do not know that it has been

printed, I will give an extract from the Harleian MS. 1576.

He urges it as necessary to be done by them, and not left for the next

parliament, who all men believed would restore him. "This is so true

and so well understood, that we all believe that whatsoever our

thoughts are, this will be the opinion of the succeeding parliament,

whose concerns as well as affections will make them active for his

introduction. And I appeal then to your own judgments whether it is

likely that those persons, as to their particular interest more

unconcerned, and probably less knowing in the affairs of the nation,

can or would obtain for any those terms or articles as we are yet in a

capacity to procure both for them and us. I must confess sincerely

that it would be as strange to me as a miracle, did I not know that

God infatuates whom he designs to destroy, that we can see the king's

return so unavoidable, and yet be no more studious of serving him, or

at least ourselves, in the managing of his recall.

"The general, that noble personage to whom under God we do and must

owe all the advantages of our past and future changes, will be as far

from opposing us in the design, as the design is removed from the

disadvantage of the nation. He himself is, I am confident, of the same

opinion; and if he has not yet given notice of it to the house, it is

not that he does not look upon it as the best expedient; but he only

forbears to oppose it, that he might not seem to necessitate us, and

by an over early discovery of his own judgment be thought to take from

us the freedom of ours."

In another place he says, "That the recalling of our king is this only

way (for composure of affairs), is already grown almost as visible as

true; and, were it but confessed of all of whom it is believed, I

should quickly hear from the greatest part of this house what now it

hears alone from me. Had we as little reason to fear as we have too

much, that, if we bring not in the king, he either already is, or

shortly may be, in a capacity of coming in unsent for; methinks the

very knowledge of this right were enough to keep just persons, such as

we would be conceived to be, from being accessary to his longer

absence. We are already, and but justly, reported to have been the

occasion of our prince's banishment; we may then, with reason and

equal truth, for ought I know, be thought to have been the contrivers

of it; unless we endeavour the contrary, by not suffering the mischief

to continue longer which is in our power to remove."

Such passages as these, and the general tenor of public speeches,

sermons, and pamphlets in the spring of 1660, show how little Monk can

be justly said to have restored Charles II.; except so far that he did

not persist in preventing it so long as he might have done.

[498] _Clarendon State Papers_, 711.

[499] _Id._ 696.

[500] _Id._ 678 _et post_. He wrote a letter (Jan. 21) to the gentry

of Devon, who had petitioned the speaker for the re-admission of the

secluded members, objecting to that measure as likely to bring in

monarchy, very judicious, and with an air of sincerity that might

deceive any one; and after the restoration of these secluded members,

he made a speech to them (Feb. 21), strongly against monarchy; and

that so ingenuously, upon such good reasons, so much without invective

or fanaticism, that the professional hypocrites, who were used to

their own tone of imposture, were deceived by his. Cromwell was a mere

bungler to him. See these in Harris's _Charles II._ 296, or _Somers

Tracts_, vi. 551. It cannot be wondered at that the royalists were

exasperated at Monk's behaviour. They published abusive pamphlets

against him in February, from which Kennet, in his _Register_, p. 53,

gives quotations. "Whereas he was the common hopes of all men, he is

now the common hatred of all men, as a traitor more detestable than

Oliver himself, who, though he manacled the citizens' hands, yet never

took away the doors of the city," and so forth. It appears by the

letters of Mordaunt and Broderick to Hyde, and by those of Hyde

himself in the _Clarendon Papers_, that they had no sort of confidence

in Monk till near the end of March; though Barwick, another of his

correspondents, seems to have had more insight into the general's

designs (Thurloe, 852, 860, 870), who had expressed himself to a

friend of the writer, probably Clobery, fully in favour of the king,

before March 19.

[501] Clar. 699, 705; Thurloe, vii. 860, 870.

[502] A correspondent of Ormond writes, March 16: "This night the

fatal long parliament hath dissolved itself. All this appears well;

but I believe we shall not be settled upon our ancient foundations

without a war, for which all prepare vigorously and openly."--Carte's

_Letters_, ii. 513. It appears also from a letter of Massey to Hyde,

that a rising in different counties was intended. Thurloe, 854.

[503] After giving the substance of Monk's speech to the house,

recommending a new parliament, but insisting on commonwealth

principles, Clarendon goes on; "There was no dissimulation in this, in

order to cover and conceal his good intentions to the king; for

without doubt he had not to this hour entertained any purpose or

thought to serve him, but was really of the opinion he expressed in

his paper, that it was a work impossible; and desired nothing but that

he might see a commonwealth established on such a model as Holland

was, where he had been bred, and that himself might enjoy the

authority and place which the Prince of Orange possessed in that

government."

[504] The _Clarendon_ and _Thurloe Papers_ are full of more proofs of

this than can be quoted, and are very amusing to read, as a

perpetually shifting picture of hopes and fears, and conjectures right

or wrong. Pepys's _Diary_ also, in these two months, strikingly shows

the prevailing uncertainty as to Monk's intentions, as well as the

general desire of having the king brought in. It seems plain that, if

he had delayed a very little longer, he would have lost the whole

credit of the restoration. All parties began to crowd in with

addresses to the king in the first part of April, before Monk was

known to have declared himself. Thurloe, among others, was full of his

offers, though evidently anxious to find out whether the king had an

interest with Monk. P. 898. The royalists had long entertained hopes,

from time to time, of this deep politician; but it is certain he never

wished well to their cause, and with St. John and Pierrepont, had been

most zealous, to the last moment that it seemed practicable, against

the restoration. There had been, so late as February 1660, or even

afterwards, a strange plan of setting up again Richard Cromwell,

wherein not only these three, but Montagu, Jones, and others were

thought to be concerned, erroneously no doubt as to Montagu.

_Clarendon State Papers_, 693; Carte's _Letters_, ii. 310, 330. "One

of the greatest reasons they alledged was, that the king's party,

consisting altogether of indigent men, will become powerful by little

and little to force the king, whatever be his own disposition, to

break any engagement he can now make; and, since the nation is bent on

a single person, none will combine all interests so well as Richard."

This made Monk, it is said, jealous of St. John, and he was chosen at

Cambridge to exclude him. In a letter of Thurloe to Downing at the

Hague, April 6, he says, "that many of the presbyterians are alarmed

at the prospect, and thinking how to keep the king out without joining

the sectaries."--vii. 887. This could hardly be achieved but by

setting up Richard. Yet that, as is truly said in one of the letters

quoted, was ridiculous. None were so conspicuous and intrepid on the

king's side as the presbyterian ministers. Reynolds preached before

the lord mayor, Feb. 28, with manifest allusion to the restoration;

Gauden (who may be reckoned on that side, as conforming to it), on the

same day much more explicitly. Kennet's _Register_, 69. Sharp says, in

a letter to a correspondent in Scotland, that he, Ash, and Calamy had

a long conversation with Monk, March 11, "and convinced him a

commonwealth was impracticable, and to our sense sent him off that

sense he hath hitherto maintained, and came from him as being

satisfied of the necessity of dissolving this house, and calling a new

parliament."--_Id._ p. 81. Baxter thinks the presbyterian ministers,

together with Clarges and Morrice, turned Monk's resolution, and

induced him to declare for the king. _Life_, p. 2. This is a very

plausible conjecture, though I incline to think Monk more disposed

that way by his own judgment or his wife's. But she was influenced by

the presbyterian clergy. They evidently deserved of Charles what they

did not meet with.

[505] The royalists began too soon with threatening speeches, which

well nigh frustrated their object. _Id._ 721, 722, 727; Carte's

_Letters_, 318; Thurloe, 887. One Dr. Griffith published a little book

vindicating the late king in his war against the parliament, for which

the ruling party were by no means ripe; and, having justified it

before the council, was committed to the Gate-house early in April.

_Id. ibid._ These imprudences occasioned the king's declaration from

Breda. _Somers Tracts_, vi. 562. Another also was published, April 25,

1660, signed by several peers, knights, divines, etc., of the royalist

party, disclaiming all private passions and resentments. Kennet's

_Register_, 120; Clar. vii. 471. But these public professions were

weak disguises, when belied by their current language. See Baxter,

217. Marchmont Needham, in a tract entitled, "Interest will not lye"

(written in answer to an artful pamphlet ascribed to Fell, afterwards

Bishop of Oxford, and reprinted in Maseres's _Tracts_, "The Interest

of England stated"), endeavoured to alarm all other parties,

especially the presbyterians, with representations of the violence

they had to expect from that of the king. See Harris's _Charles II._

268.

[506] Proofs of the disposition among this party to revive the treaty

of the Isle of Wight occur perpetually in the Thurloe and Clarendon

Papers, and in those published by Carte. The king's agents in England

evidently expected nothing better; and were, generally speaking, much

for his accepting the propositions. "The presbyterian lords," says Sir

Allen Broderic to Hyde, "with many of whom I have spoken, pretend

that, should the king come in upon any such insurrection, abetted by

those of his own party, he would be more absolute than his father was

in the height of his prerogative. Stay therefore, say they, till we

are ready; our numbers so added will abundantly recompense the delay,

rendering what is now extremely doubtful morally certain, and

establishing his throne upon the true basis, liberty and property."

July 16, 1659. _Clar. State Papers_, 527.

[507] Clarendon, _Hist. of Rebellion_, vii. 440; _State Papers_, 705,

729. "There is so insolent a spirit among some of the nobility," says

Clarendon, about the middle of February, "that I really fear it will

turn to an aristocracy; Monk inclining that way too. My opinion is

clear, that the king ought not to part with the church, crown, or

friends' lands, lest he make my lord of Northumberland his equal, nay,

perhaps his superior."--P. 680.

[508] Downing, the minister at the Hague, was one of these. His

overtures to the king were as early as Monk's, at the beginning of

April; he declared his wish to see his majesty restored on good terms,

though many were desirous to make him a doge of Venice. Carte's

_Letters_, ii. 320. See also a remarkable letter of the king to Monk

(dated May 21; but I suspect he used the new style, therefore read May

11), intimating what a service it would be to prevent the imposition

of any terms. Clar. 745. And another from him to Morrice of the same

tenor, May 20 (N. S.), 1660, and hinting that his majesty's friends in

the house had complied with the general in all things, according to

the king's directions, departing from their own sense, and restraining

themselves from pursuing what they thought most for his service.

Thurloe, vii. 912. This perhaps referred to the indemnity and other

provisions then pending in the Commons, or rather to the delay of a

few days before the delivery of Sir John Grenvil's message.

[509] "Monk came this day (about the first week of April) to the

council, and assured them that, notwithstanding all the appearance of

a general desire of kingly government, yet it was in nowise his sense,

and that he would spend the last drop of his blood to maintain the

contrary."--Extract of a letter from Thurloe to Downing. Carte's

_Letters_, ii. 322. "The council of state are utterly ignorant of

Monk's treating with the king; and surely, as the present temper of

the council of state is now, and may possibly be also of the

parliament, by reason of the presbyterian influence upon both, I

should think the first chapman will not be the worst, who perhaps will

not offer so good a rate in conjunction with the company, as may give

to engross the commodity." Clar. 722, April 6. This sentence is a clue

to all the intrigue. It is said soon afterwards (p. 726, April 11)

that the presbyterians were much troubled at the course of the

elections, which made some of the council of state again address

themselves to Monk for his consent to propositions they would send to

the king; but he absolutely refused, and said he would leave all to a

free parliament, as he had promised the nation. Yet, though the

elections went as well as the royalists could reasonably expect, Hyde

was dissatisfied that the king was not restored without the

intervention of the new parliament; and this may have been one reason

of his spleen against Monk. Pp. 726, 731.

[510] A proposed resolution, that those who had been on the king's

side, _or their sons_, should be disabled from voting at elections,

was lost by 93 to 56, the last effort of the expiring Rump. Journals,

13 March. The electors did not think themselves bound by this

arbitrary exclusion of the cavaliers from parliament; several of whom

(though not perhaps a great number within the terms of the resolution)

were returned. Massey, however, having gone down to stand for

Glocester, was put under arrest by order of the council of state.

Thurloe, 887. Clarendon, who was himself not insensible to that kind

of superstition, had fancied that anything done at Glocester by Massey

for the king's service would make a powerful impression on the people.

[511] It is a curious proof of the state of public sentiment that,

though Monk himself wrote a letter to the electors of Bridgenorth,

recommending Thurloe, the cavalier party was so powerful, that his

friends did not even produce the letter, lest it should be treated

with neglect. Thurloe, vii. 895.

[512] "To the king's coming in without conditions may be well imputed

all the errors of his reign." Thus says Burnet. The great political

error, if so it should be termed, of his reign, was a conspiracy with

the king of France, and some wicked advisers at home, to subvert the

religion and liberty of his subjects; and it is difficult to perceive

by what conditions this secret intrigue could have been prevented.

[513] _Clarendon Papers_, p. 729. They resolved to send the articles

of that treaty to the king, leaving out the preface. This was about

the middle of April.

[514] _Life of Clarendon_, p. 10.

[515] "This," says Burnet somewhat invidiously, "was the great service

that Monk did; for as to the restoration itself, the tide ran so

strong, that he only went into it dexterously enough to get much

praise and great rewards."--P. 123.

[516] Grimston was proposed by Pierrepont, and conducted to the chair

by him, Monk, and Hollis. Journals; _Parl. Hist._ The cavaliers

complained that this was done before they came into the house, and

that he was partial. Mordaunt to Hyde, April 27. _Clarendon State

Papers_, 734.

[517] These were the Earls of Manchester, Northumberland, Lincoln,

Denbigh, and Suffolk; Lords Say, Wharton, Hunsdon, Grey, Maynard.

Lords' Journals, April 25.

[518] _Id._ Lords' Journals.

[519] "It was this day (April 27) moved in the House of Commons to

call in the king; but it was deferred till Tuesday next by the king's

friends' consent, and then it is generally believed something will be

done in it. The calling in of the king is now not doubted; but there

is a party among the old secluded members, that would have the treaty

grounded upon the Isle of Wight propositions; and the old lords are

thought generally of that design. But it is believed the House of

Commons will use the king more gently. The general hath been highly

complimented by both houses, and, without doubt, the giving the king

easy or hard conditions dependeth totally upon him; for, if he appear

for the king, the affections of the people are so high for him, that

no other authority can oppose him." H. Coventry to Marquis of Ormond.

Carte's _Letters_, ii. 328. Mordaunt confirms this. Those who moved

for the king were Colonel King and Mr. Finch, both decided cavaliers.

It must have been postponed by the policy of Monk. What could

Clarendon mean by saying (_History of Rebellion_, vii. 478) that "none

had the courage, how loyal soever their wishes were, to mention his

majesty?" This strange way of speaking has misled Hume, who copies it.

The king was as generally talked of as if he were on the throne.

[520] Lords' and Commons' Journals. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 24.

[521] Commons' Journals.

[522] Lords' Journals, May 2. Upon the same day, the house went into

consideration how to settle the militia of this kingdom. A committee

of twelve lords was appointed for this purpose, and the Commons were

requested to appoint a proportionate number to join therein. But no

bill was brought in till after the king's return.