EPILOGUE
Either as a soldier or as a statesman Cromwell was far greater than any
Englishman of his time, and he was both soldier and statesman in one. We
must look to Cæsar or Napoleon to find a parallel for this union of high
political and military ability in one man. Cromwell was not as great a
man as Cæsar or Napoleon, and he played his part on a smaller stage, but
he “bestrode the narrow world” of Puritan England “like a colossus.”
As a soldier he not only won great victories, but created the instrument
with which he won them. Out of the military chaos which existed when the
war began he organised the force which made Puritanism victorious. The
New Model and the armies of the Republic and the Protectorate were but
his regiment of Ironsides on a larger scale. As in that regiment, the
officers were carefully chosen. If possible, they were gentlemen; if
gentlemen could not be had, plain yeomen or citizens; in any case, “men
patient of wants, faithful and conscientious in their employment.”
Character as well as military skill was requisite. A colonel once
complained that a captain whom Cromwell had appointed to his regiment
was a better preacher than fighter. “Truly,” answered Cromwell, “I think
that he that prays and preaches best will fight best. I know nothing
that will give the like courage and confidence as the knowledge of God
in Christ will. I assure you he is a good man and a good officer.”
Inefficiency, on the other hand, certain heresies which were regarded as
particularly blasphemous, and moral backslidings in general, led at once
to the cashiering of any officer found guilty of them.
Officers, it has been well said, are the soul of an army; and the
efficiency and good conduct which Cromwell required of his, they exacted
from the rank and file. Most of the private soldiers were volunteers,
though there were many pressed men amongst them, and it cannot be said
that all those who fought for Puritanism were saints in any sense of the
word. But regular pay and severe discipline made them in peace the best
conducted soldiers in Europe, and in war an army “who could go anywhere
and do anything.” A common spirit bound men and officers together. It
was their pride that they were not a mere mercenary army, but men who
fought for principles as well as for pay. Cromwell succeeded in
inspiring them not only with implicit confidence in his leadership, but
with something of his own high enthusiasm. He had the power of
influencing masses of men which Napoleon possessed. So he made an army
on which, as Clarendon said, “victory seemed entailed”—“an army whose
order and discipline, whose sobriety and manners, whose courage and
success, made it famous and terrible over the world.”
Cromwell’s victories, however, were due to his own military genius even
more than to the quality of his troops. The most remarkable thing in his
military career is that it began so late. Most successful generals have
been trained to arms from their youth, but Cromwell was forty-three
years old before he heard a shot fired or set a squadron in the field.
How was it, people often ask, that an untrained country gentleman beat
soldiers who had learnt their trade under the most famous captains in
Europe? The answer is that Cromwell had a natural aptitude for war, and
that circumstances were singularly favourable to its rapid and full
development. At the outset of the war he showed an energy, a resolution,
and a judgment which proved his possession of those qualities of
intellect and character which war demands of leaders. The peculiar
nature of the war, the absence of any general direction, and the
disorganisation of the parliamentary forces gave him free scope for the
exercise of these qualities. In the early part of the war each local
leader fought for his own hand, and conducted a little campaign of his
own. Subordinate officers possessed a freedom of action which
subordinates rarely get, and with independence and responsibility good
men ripened fast. At first, Cromwell was matched against opponents as
untrained as himself, till by constant fighting he learnt how to fight.
In a happy phrase Marvell speaks of Cromwell’s “industrious valour.” If
he learnt the lessons of war quicker than other men it was because he
concentrated all his faculties on the task, let no opportunity slip, and
made every experience fruitful.
It was as a leader of cavalry that Cromwell earned his first laurels. In
attack he was sudden and irresistibly vigorous. Like Rupert he loved to
head his charging troopers himself, but in the heat of battle he
controlled them with a firmer hand. When the enemy immediately opposed
to him was broken he turned a vigilant eye on the battle, ready to throw
his victorious squadrons into the scale, either to redress the balance
or to complete the victory. At Marston Moor, as on many another field,
he proved that he possessed that faculty of coming to a prompt and sure
conclusion in sudden emergencies which Napier terms “the sure mark of a
master spirit in war.” When the fate of the battle was once decided he
launched forth his swordsmen in swift and unsparing pursuit. “We had the
execution of them two or three miles” is the grim phrase in which he
describes the conclusion of his fight at Grantham, and after Naseby
Cromwell’s cavalry pursued for twelve miles.
When he rose to command an army, Cromwell’s management of it in battle
was marked by the same characteristics as his handling of his division
of cavalry. In the early battles of the Civil War there was a strong
family likeness: there was an absence of any generalship on either side.
The general-in-chief exhibited his skill by his method of drawing up his
army and his choice of a position; but when the battle began the army
seemed to slip from his control. Each commander of a division acted
independently; there was little co-operation between the different parts
of the army; there was no sign of a directing brain. Cromwell, on the
other hand, directed the movements of his army with the same purposeful
energy with which he controlled his troopers. Its different divisions
had each their definite task assigned to them, and their movements were
so combined that each played its part in carrying out the general plan.
The best example of Cromwell’s tactical skill is the battle of Dunbar.
There, though far inferior in numbers, Cromwell held in check half the
enemy’s army with his artillery and a fraction of his forces, while he
attacked with all his strength the key of the enemy’s position, and
decided the fate of the day by bringing a strong reserve into action at
the crisis of the battle. Whenever the victory was gained it was
utilised to the utmost. At Dunbar the Scots lost thirteen thousand men
out of twenty-two thousand; after Preston less than a third of
Hamilton’s army succeeded in effecting their return to Scotland: after
Worcester, not one troop or one company made good its retreat.
Cromwell’s strategy, compared with that of contemporary generals, was
remarkable for boldness and vigour. It reflected the energy of his
character, but it was originally dictated by political as well as
military considerations. “Without the speedy, vigorous, and effectual
prosecution of the war,” he declared in 1644, the nation would force
Parliament to make peace on any terms. “Lingering proceedings, like
those of soldiers beyond seas to spin out a war,” must be abandoned, or
the cause of Puritanism would be lost. Therefore, instead of imitating
the cautious defensive system popular with professional soldiers, he
adopted a system which promised more decisive results. “Cromwell,” says
a military critic,. “was the first great exponent of the modern method
of war. His was the strategy of Napoleon and Von Moltke, the strategy
which, neglecting fortresses and the means of artificial defence as of
secondary importance, strikes first at the army in the field.”
In his Preston campaign Cromwell had to deal with an invading army more
than twice the strength of his own, which ventured because of that
superiority to advance without sufficient scouting and without
sufficient concentration. He might have thrown himself across Hamilton’s
path and sought to drive him back; he chose instead to fall upon the
flank of the Scots, and thrust his compact little force between them and
Scotland. Thus he separated the different divisions of Hamilton’s army,
drove Hamilton with each blow farther from his supports, and inflicted
on him a crushing defeat instead of a mere repulse. In 1650 and 1651,
Cromwell had a much harder task given him. He had to invade a country
which presented many natural difficulties, and which was defended by an
army larger than his own under the command of a man who was a master of
defensive strategy. All his efforts to make Leslie fight a pitched
battle in the open field completely failed until one mistake gave him
the opportunity which he seized with such promptitude at Dunbar. In the
campaign of 1651, Cromwell found himself brought to a standstill once
more by Leslie’s Fabian tactics. As Leslie gave him no opportunity he
had to make one, and with wise audacity left the way to England open in
order to tempt the Scots into the invasion which proved their
destruction.
In his Irish campaigns Cromwell had an entirely different problem to
solve. The opposing armies were too weak to face him in the field and
too nimble to be brought to bay. The strength of the enemy consisted in
the natural and artificial obstacles with which the country abounded:
fortified cities commanding points of strategic value; mountains and
bogs facilitating guerrilla warfare; an unhealthy climate, a hostile
people, a country so wasted that the invader must draw most of his
supplies from England. Under these conditions the war was a war of
sieges, forays, and laborious marches, but there were no great battles.
Cromwell combined the operations of his army and his fleet so as to
utilise to the full England’s command of the seas. He attacked the
seaports first, and after mastering them secured the strong places which
would give him the control of the rivers, thus gradually tightening his
grasp on the country till its complete subjugation became only a matter
of time.
Opinions may differ as to the comparative merits of these different
campaigns. What remains clear is that Cromwell could adapt his strategy
with unfailing success to the conditions of the theatre in which he
waged war and to the character of the antagonists he had to meet. His
military genius was equal to every duty which fate imposed upon him.
Experts alone can determine Cromwell’s precise place amongst great
generals. Cromwell himself would have held it the highest honour to be
classed with Gustavus Adolphus either as soldier or statesman. Each was
the organiser of the army he led to victory, each an innovator in
war—Gustavus in tactics, Cromwell in strategy. Gustavus was the champion
of European Protestantism as Oliver wished to be, and each while
fighting for his creed contrived to further also the material interests
of his country. But whatever similarity existed between their aims the
position of an hereditary monarch and an usurper are too different for
the parallel to be a complete one. On the other hand, the familiar
comparison of Cromwell with Napoleon is justified rather by the
resemblance between their careers than by any likeness between their
characters. Each was the child of a revolution, brought by military
success to the front rank, and raised by his own act to the highest.
Each, after domestic convulsions, laboured to rebuild the fabric of
civil government, and to found the State on a new basis. But the
revolutions which raised them to power were of a different nature and
demanded different qualities in the two rulers.
Cromwell’s character has been the subject of controversies which have
hardly yet died away. Most contemporaries judged him with great
severity. To Royalists he seemed simply, as Clarendon said, “a brave,
bad man.” Yet while Clarendon condemned he could not refrain from
admiration, for though the usurper “had all the wickedness against which
damnation is pronounced, and for which hell fire is prepared, so he had
some virtues which have caused the memory of some men in all ages to be
celebrated.” Though he was a tyrant he was “not a man of blood,” and he
possessed not only “a wonderful understanding in the natures and humours
of men,” but also “a great spirit, an admirable circumspection and
sagacity, and a most magnanimous resolution.”
The Republicans regarded the Protector as a self-seeking apostate. “In
all his changes,” said Ludlow, “he designed nothing but to advance
himself.” He sacrificed the public cause “to the idol of his own
ambition.” All was going well with the State, a political millennium was
at hand, “and the nation likely to attain in a short time that measure
of happiness which human things are capable of, when by the ambition of
one man the hopes and expectations of all good men were disappointed.”
Baxter, a Presbyterian, though as convinced an opponent of the Protector
as Ludlow, was a more generous critic. According to him, Cromwell was a
good man who fell before a great temptation. He
“meant honestly in the main, and was pious and conscionable in the
main course of his life, till prosperity and success corrupted him.
Then his general religious zeal gave way to ambition, which
increased as successes increased. When his successes had broken down
all considerable opposition then was he in face of his strongest
temptations, which conquered him as he had conquered others.”
But like Milton’s Satan, even after his fall “all his original virtue
was not lost.” As ruler of England “it was his design to do good in the
main, and to promote the interest of God more than any had done before
him.”
Eighteenth-century writers judged Cromwell with the same severity as his
contemporaries. “Cromwell, damned to everlasting fame,” served Pope to
point a moral against the desire of making a name in the world. Voltaire
summed up Cromwell as half knave, half fanatic, and Hume termed him a
hypocritical fanatic. Even as late as 1839, John Forster quoted as
“indisputably true” Landor’s verdict that Cromwell lived a hypocrite and
died a traitor.
Six years later, Carlyle published his collection of _Cromwell’s Letters
and Speeches_, which for every unprejudiced reader effectually dispelled
the theory of Cromwell’s hypocrisy. “Not a man of falsehoods, but a man
of truths,” was Carlyle’s conclusion, and subsequent historians and
biographers have accepted it as sound. It is less easy to answer the
question whether Cromwell was a fanatic or not. Fanaticism, like
orthodoxy, is a word which means one thing to one man and something else
to the next, and to many besides Hume enthusiast and fanatic are
synonymous terms. It is plain, however, that Cromwell was a statesman of
a different order from most. Religious rather than political principles
guided his action, and his political ideals were the direct outcome of
his creed. Not that purely political considerations exercised no
influence on his policy, but that their influence instead of being
paramount was in his case of only secondary importance.
In one of his speeches Cromwell states in very explicit language the
rule which he followed in his public life. “I have been called to
several employments in this nation, and I did endeavour to discharge the
duty of an honest man to God and His people’s interest, and to this
Commonwealth.”
What did these phrases mean? If anyone had asked Cromwell what his duty
to God was in public affairs, he would have answered that it was to do
God’s will. “We all desire,” he said to his brother officers in 1647,
“to lay this as the foundation of all our actions, to do that which is
the will of God.” He urged them to deliberate well before acting, “that
we may see that the things we do have the will of God in them.” For to
act inconsiderately was to incur the risk of acting counter to God’s
design, and so “to be found fighting against God.”
But, in the maze of English politics, how were men to ascertain what
that will was? Some Puritans claimed to have had it directly revealed to
them, and put forward their personal convictions as the dictates of
Heaven. Cromwell never did so. “I cannot say,” he declared in a
prayer-meeting where such revelations had been alleged, “that I have
received anything that I can speak as in the name of the Lord.” He
believed that men might still “be spoken unto by the Spirit of God,” but
when these “divine impressions and divine discoveries” were made
arguments for political action, they must be received with the greatest
caution. For the danger of self-deception was very real. “We are very
apt, all of us,” said he, “to call that Faith, that perhaps may be but
carnal imagination.” Once he warned the Scottish clergy that there was
“a carnal confidence upon misunderstood and misapplied precepts” which
might be termed “spiritual drunkenness.”
For his own part, Cromwell believed in “dispensations” rather than
“revelations.” Since all things which happened in the world were
determined by God’s will, the statesman’s problem was to discover the
hidden purpose which underlay events. When he announced his victory at
Preston he bade Parliament enquire “what the mind of God is in all that
and what our duty is.” “Seek to know what the mind of God is in all that
chain of Providence,” was his counsel to his doubting friend, Colonel
Hammond. With Cromwell, in every political crisis this attempt to
interpret the meaning of events was part of the mental process which
preceded action. As it was difficult to be sure what that meaning was,
he was often slow to make up his mind, preferring to watch events a
little longer and to allow them to develop in order to get more light.
This slowness was not the result of indecision, but a deliberate
suspension of judgment. When his mind was made up there was no
hesitation, no looking back; he struck with the same energy in politics
as in war.
This system of being guided by events had its dangers. Political
inconsistency is generally attributed to dishonesty, and Cromwell’s
inconsistency was open and palpable. One year he was foremost in
pressing for an agreement with the King, another foremost in bringing
him to the block; now all for a republic, now all for a government with
some element of monarchy in it. His changes of policy were so sudden
that even friends found it difficult to excuse them. A pamphleteer, who
believed in the honesty of Cromwell’s motives, lamented his “sudden
engaging for and sudden turning from things,” as arguing inconstancy and
want of foresight. Moreover the effect of this inconsistency was
aggravated by the violent zeal with which Cromwell threw himself into
the execution of each new policy. It was part of his nature, like “the
exceeding fiery temper” mentioned by his steward. “I am often taken,”
said Cromwell in 1647, “for one that goes too fast,” adding that men of
such a kind were disposed to think the dangers in their way rather
imaginary than real, and sometimes to make more haste than good speed.
This piece of self-criticism was just, and it explains some of his
mistakes. The forcible dissolution of the Long Parliament in 1653 would
never have taken place if Cromwell had fully appreciated the dangers
which it would bring upon the Puritan cause.
On the other hand, this failure to look far enough ahead, while it
detracts from Cromwell’s statesmanship, helps to vindicate his
integrity. He was too much taken up with the necessities of the present
to devise a deep-laid scheme for making himself great. He told the
French Ambassador in 1647, with a sort of surprise, that a man never
rose so high as when he did not know where he was going. To his
Parliaments he spoke of himself as having seen nothing in God’s
dispensations long beforehand. “These issues and events,” he said in
1656, “have not been forecast, but were sudden providences in things.”
By this series of unforeseen events, necessitating first one step on his
part and then the next, he had been raised to the post of Protector. “I
did out of necessity undertake that business,” said he, “which place I
undertook, not so much out of a hope of doing any good, as out of a
desire to prevent mischief and evil which I did see was imminent in the
nation.”
Conscious, therefore, that he had not plotted to bring about his own
elevation, Cromwell resented nothing so much as the charge that he had
“made the necessities” to which it was due. For it was not merely an
imputation on his own honesty, but a kind of atheism, as if the world
was governed by the craft of men, not by the wisdom of God. People said,
“It was the cunning of my Lord Protector that hath brought it about,”
when in reality these great revolutions were “God’s revolutions.”
“Whatsoever you may judge men for, however you may say this is cunning,
and politic, and subtle, take heed how you judge His revolutions as the
product of men’s invention.”
Cromwell said this with perfect sincerity. He felt that he was but a
blind instrument in the hands of a higher power. Yet he had shaped the
issue of events with such power and had imposed his interpretation of
their meaning upon them with such decision, that neither contemporaries
nor historians could limit to so little the sphere of his free will.
It was possible to “make too much of outward dispensations,” and
Cromwell owned that perhaps he did so. His system of being guided by
events instead of revelations did not put an end to the possibility of
self-deception, though it made it less likely. “Men,” as Shakespeare
says, “may construe things after their fashion clean from the purpose of
the things themselves.” But if Cromwell sometimes mistook the meaning of
facts he never failed to realise their importance. “If the fact be so,”
he once said, “why should we sport with it?” and the saying is a
characteristic one. He was therefore more practical and less visionary
than other statesmen of his party; more open-minded and better able to
adapt his policy to the changing circumstances and changing needs of the
times. To many contemporary politicians, the exact carrying out of some
cut-and-dried political programme seemed the height of political wisdom.
The Levellers with their Agreement of the People and the Scottish
Presbyterians with their Covenant are typical examples. The persistent
adhesion of the Covenanters to their old formulas, in spite of defeats
and altered conditions, Cromwell regarded as blindness to the teaching
of events. They were blind to God’s great dispensations, he told the
Scottish ministers, out of mere wilfulness, “because the things did not
work forth their platform, and the great God did not come down to their
minds and thoughts.” He would have felt himself guilty of the same fault
if he had obstinately adhered either to a republic or a monarchy under
all circumstances. Forms of government were neither good nor bad in
themselves. Either form might be good: it depended on the condition of
England at the moment, on the temper of the people, on the question
which was more compatible with the welfare of the Cause, which more
answerable to God’s purpose as revealed in events. It was reported that
Cromwell had said that it was lawful to pass through all forms to
accomplish his ends, and if “forms” be taken to mean forms of
government, and “ends” political aims, there can be no doubt that he
thought so. However much he varied his means, his ends remained the
same.
To understand what Cromwell’s political aims were, it is necessary to
enquire what he meant when he spoke of his discharging his duty to “the
interest of the people of God and this Commonwealth.” The order in which
he places them is in itself significant. First, he put the duty to a
section of the English people; last, the duty to the English people in
general. Cromwell was full of patriotic pride. Once, when he was
enumerating to Parliament the dangers which threatened the State, he
wound up by saying that the enumeration should cause no despondency, “as
truly I think it will not; for we are Englishmen: that is one good
fact.” “The English,” he said on another occasion, “are a people that
have been like other nations, sometimes up and sometimes down in our
honour in the world, but never yet so low but we might measure with
other nations.” Several times in his speeches he termed the English “the
best people in the world.” Best, because “having the highest and
clearest profession amongst them of the greatest glory—namely,
religion.” Best, because in the midst of the English people there was as
it were another people, “a people that are to God as the apple of His
eye,” “His peculiar interest,” “the people of God.” “When I say the
people of God,” he explained, “I mean the large comprehension of them
under the several forms of godliness in this nation”; or, in other
words, all sects of Puritans.
To Cromwell the interest of the people of God and the interest of the
nation were two distinct things, but he did not think them
irreconcilable. “He sings sweetly,” said Cromwell, “that sings a song of
reconciliation between these two interests, and it is a pitiful fancy to
think they are inconsistent.” At the same time the liberty of the people
of God was more important than the civil liberty and interest of the
nation, “which is and ought to be subordinate to the more peculiar
interest of God, yet is the next best God hath given men in this world.”
Religious freedom was more important than political freedom. Cromwell
emphatically condemned the politicians who said, “If we could but
exercise wisdom to gain civil liberty, religion would follow.” Such men
were “men of a hesitating spirit,” and “under the bondage of scruples.”
They were little better than the carnal men who cared for none of these
things. They could never “rise to such a spiritual heat” as the Cause
demanded. Yet the truth was that half the Republican party and an
overwhelming majority of the English people held the view which he
condemned.
Cromwell wished to govern constitutionally. No theory of the divine
right of an able man to govern the incapable multitude blinded his eyes
to the fact that self-government was the inheritance and right of the
English people. He accepted in the main the first principle of
democracy, the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, or, as he
phrased it, “that the foundation of supremacy is in the people and to be
by them set down in their representatives.” More than once he declared
that the good of the governed was the supreme end of all governments,
and he claimed that his own government acted “for the good of the
people, and for their interest, and without respect had to any other
interest.” But government for the people did not necessarily mean
government by the people. “That’s the question,” said Cromwell, “what’s
for their good, not what pleases them,” and the history of the
Protectorate was a commentary on this text. Some stable government was
necessary to prevent either a return to anarchy or the restoration of
the Stuarts. Therefore he was determined to maintain his own government,
with the assistance of Parliament if possible, without it if he must. If
it became necessary to suspend for a time the liberties of the subject
or to levy taxes without parliamentary sanction, he was prepared to do
it. In the end the English people would recognise that he had acted for
their good. “Ask them,” said he, “whether they would prefer the having
of their will, though it be their destruction, rather than comply with
things of necessity?” He felt confident the answer would be in his
favour.
[Illustration:
STATUE OF CROMWELL, BY THORNEYCROFT.
ERECTED AT WESTMINSTER IN 1899.
]
England might have acquiesced in this temporary dictatorship in the hope
of a gradual return to constitutional government. What it could not
accept was the permanent limitation of the sovereignty of the people in
the interest of the Puritan minority whom Cromwell termed the people of
God. Yet it was at this object that all the constitutional settlements
of the Protectorate aimed. It was in the interest of this minority that
the Instrument of Government restricted the power of Parliament and made
the Protector the guardian of the constitution. It was in their interest
that the Petition and Advice re-established a House of Lords. That
House, as Thurloe said, was intended “to preserve the good interest
against the uncertainty of the Commons House,” for, as another
Cromwellian confessed “the spirit of the Commons had little affinity
with or respect to the Cause of God.”
Cromwell trusted that the real benefits his government conferred would
reconcile the majority of the nation to the rule of the minority and
“win the people to the interest of Jesus Christ.” Thus the long
hostility between the people and “the people of God” would end at last
in reconciliation.
It was a fallacious hope. Puritanism was spending its strength in the
vain endeavour to make England Puritan by force. The enthusiasm which
had undertaken to transform the world was being conformed to it. A
change was coming over the party which supported the Protector; it had
lost many of the “men of conscience”; it had attracted many of the
time-servers and camp-followers of politics; it was ceasing to be a
party held together by religious interests, and becoming a coalition
held together by material interests and political necessities. Cromwell
once rebuked the Scottish clergy for “meddling with worldly policies and
mixtures of worldly power” to set up that which they called “the kingdom
of Christ,” and warned them that “the Sion promised” would not be built
“with such untempered mortar.” He had fallen into the same error
himself, and the rule of Puritanism was founded on shifting sands. So
the Protector’s institutions perished with him and his work ended in
apparent failure. Yet he had achieved great things. Thanks to his sword
absolute monarchy failed to take root in English soil. Thanks to his
sword Great Britain emerged from the chaos of the civil wars one strong
state instead of three separate and hostile communities. Nor were the
results of his action entirely negative. The ideas which inspired his
policy exerted a lasting influence on the development of the English
state. Thirty years after his death the religious liberty for which he
fought was established by law. The union with Scotland and Ireland,
which the statesmen of the Restoration undid, the statesmen of the
eighteenth century effected. The mastery of the seas he had desired to
gain, and the Greater Britain he had sought to build up became sober
realities. Thus others perfected the work which he had designed and
attempted.
Cromwell remained throughout his life too much the champion of a party
to be accepted as a national hero by later generations, but in serving
his Cause he served his country too. No English ruler did more to shape
the future of the land he governed, none showed more clearly in his acts
the “plain heroic magnitude of mind.”
[Illustration]
INDEX
A
“Agitators,” 158, 166–167, 176, 186
“Agreement of the People,” 177, 183, 236–237
Alablaster, Dr., 17
Anabaptists, 111, 147, 150–151, 360, 437, 465
Antinomianism, 147, 150
Argyle, Marquis of, 204, 276, 287, 293
Arminianism, 16–18, 147, 360
Army of the Commonwealth, corporate feeling in, 247–248;
Levellers’ principles rife in, 248–249;
expenditure on, 435;
reduction of, 415, 437;
character of, under Cromwell, 468–469
Ayscue, Sir George, 309, 315
B
Baillie, Major-General William, 200, 202, 298
Barbadoes, 392, 394, 401, 406
Barnard, Robert, 31–32
Basing House, 132–133
Bastwick, John, 22
Bath, capture of, 132
Baxter, Richard, 147–148, 345, 360, 475
Beard, Dr., 17
Berkeley, Sir William, 392
Berwick, Treaty of, 42
Bethell, Major, 131
Biddle, John, 365–366
Birmingham, Parliamentarians supported by, 71
Blair, Robert, 296
Blake, Admiral Robert, 308, 312, 315, 377–378, 382, 461
Bradock Down battle, 87
Bradshaw, John, 219, 222–223, 307–308, 324, 451
Brandenburg, 385, 387
Brayne, Major-General William, 406
Brentford battle, 82
Bridgwater, capture of, 131
Bristol, 88, 132, 136
Broghill, Lord, 421
Buckingham, Duke of, 13–16
Burnet, Bishop, 297–298, 388
Burton, Henry, 22
Byron, Lord, 103, 105
C
Cæsar, Cromwell compared with, 467
Cambridge, Parliamentarians supported by, 71
Carisbrooke Castle, 184
Carlyle, cited, 260, 476
Catholics, intolerance and persecution of, 10–11, 265, 267–268, 344,
359, 361–362;
establishment of Catholicism in Ireland offered by Charles, 137;
establishment denied, 157;
union with Royalists in Ireland, 255, 261–262;
Duke of Lorraine invited to Ireland by, 263;
conversion of, attempted, 268–271, 274
Cavaliers, _see_ Royalists.
Chancery, Court of, 332
Charles I., Buckingham favoured by, 13–14;
forced loans exacted by, 14–15;
Parliament adjourned by, for eleven years, 17–19;
financial measures of, 20;
foreign policy of, 23–24;
attempt to crush Scots, 41–46;
efforts to save Strafford, 52–53;
resources of, in Civil War, 77–78;
movements during Civil War, 103, 111, 113, 129–130, 133–134, 139,
153;
offers three years’ establishment of Presbyterianism, 154;
removed to Holmby House, 155;
plays off Parliament against Army, 173, 186;
flees to Carisbrooke, 184;
intrigues with Scots, 184, 186;
concludes “The Engagement” with Scots, 188;
makes treaty with Parliamentary Commissioners, 207–208;
brought to Windsor, 216;
indictment, 217;
trial, 220–223;
takes leave of his children, 225–226;
execution, 226–229;
funeral, 230;
revenue of, in 1633, 246
Charles II., proclaimed king in Edinburgh, 276;
reaches Edinburgh, 278;
gains influence in Scotland, 287–288;
advances on England, 289–290;
defeated at Worcester, 291–292;
flees to France, 293;
supported by Spain, 382;
foreign policy of, compared with Cromwell’s, 388;
proclaimed in Virginia, 392;
colonial policy of, compared with Cromwell’s, 408;
offers reward for assassination of Cromwell, 438;
restoration of, 449
Charles Gustavus, King of Sweden, 380–381, 384–387
Chester, Royalists supported by, 71
Christina, Queen of Sweden, 373
Church reform, 332, 337–338, 358–360
Clanricarde, Earl of, 263
Clarendon, Earl of, 388, 454, 474.
_See_ Hyde, Edward.
Claypole, John, 141, 421
Cleveland, John, 356
Clonmel, 262–263
“Clubmen,” 135
Colchester, siege of, 195, 203
Committee of Both Kingdoms, 100, 123–125
Condé, Prince of, 310, 373, 375, 384
Connecticut, 391, 396
Cony, George, 418
Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley, 431
Council of the North, 21–22, _note_ 3
Covenanters, rise of, 41–42
Cowley, Abraham, 356
Crawford, Major-Gen. Laurence, 106, 108, 111, 151
Cromwell, Bridget, 461
Cromwell, Elizabeth (Claypole), 441, 461
Cromwell, Elizabeth (mother of Protector), 460
Cromwell, Elizabeth (wife of Protector), 8, 460–461
Cromwell, Frances, 141, 441
Cromwell, Henry, 3
Cromwell, Henry (son of Protector), 141, 264, 446, 462, 464, 466
Cromwell, Henry (cousin of Protector), 73
Cromwell, Mary, 141, 461
Cromwell, Oliver:
_Historical Sequence of Career_:
Birth and boyhood, 4–5;
Cambridge days, 5–7;
legal studies, 7;
marriage, 7;
elected for Huntingdon, 8;
defies order for adjournment of Parliament, 18;
succeeds Sir Thomas Cromwell at Ely, 28;
emigration contemplated, 37;
work in Long Parliament, 49;
raises regiment of horse, 91;
victories at Grantham, 94;
defeats Colonel Cavendish, 96;
made governor of Isle of Ely, 98;
retreats to Lincoln, 98;
victorious at Winceby, 99;
appointed member of Committee of Both Kingdoms, 100;
appointed Lieut.-General of army of Eastern Association, 100;
Marston Moor, 105–108;
Newbury, 113;
arraigns Manchester in House of Commons, 115;
joins Waller in the west, 119;
successes at Islip and Bampton, 124;
appointed Lieut.-General under Fairfax, 126;
Naseby, 127–129;
Langport, 130–131;
Basing, 132–133;
disperses “Clubmen,” 136;
defeats Wentworth, 137;
thanked and rewarded by Parliament, 139;
removes family from Ely to London, 141;
illness (1647), 159;
interviews with Elector Palatine, 160;
supports Army against Parliament, 163, 212–213;
sanctions the seizure of Charles I., 165;
suspected by Independents, 175, 191;
reconciled to Rainsborough, 190;
campaign in Wales, 194;
campaign against Hamilton, 198–203;
at Charles’s trial, 219;
quells mutiny in the army, 249–250;
appointed Lord Lieutenant and Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, 258;
campaign in Ireland, 258–262;
illness, 261;
return to England, 263;
appointed Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief, 280;
campaign in Scotland, 280–292;
illness, 288;
defeats Charles II. at Worcester, 291–292;
triumphal entry into London, 300;
dissolves Long Parliament, 323;
nominates Parliamentary Assembly of 140 members, 329;
refuses position of king, 337;
installed as Protector, 341;
Chancellor of Oxford (1651–1657), 355;
concludes treaties with Holland, Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal,
372–374;
struggle with Parliament, 410–414;
reduces the army, 415, 437;
summons his second Parliament, 419;
attempted assassination of, 421;
refuses title of king, 422–423, 426;
second time installed as Protector (1657), 426;
financial difficulties, 434–435;
illness and death of, 441–443;
funeral, 444;
corpse dishonoured, 451
_Personal Characteristics_:
Affection for his wife, 8
Appearance, 453–454
Compassion, 453–454
Conciliatory policy, 250–251
Courage, 292, 440
Energy, 469, 471
Enthusiasm, 110, 192, 476, 485
Fatalism, 252
Geniality, 148, 454, 456
Hot temper, 148, 453
Ill-health, 440
Integrity, 474, 477
Large-mindedness, 481, 486
Military ability, 198, 467, 469–473
Moderation and good sense, 181, 353, 367
Opportunism, 191, 478
Recreations, 456–458
Religious views, 35, 36;
doubts, 38–40
Severity of discipline, 197
Simplicity of tastes, 458
Tolerance, 150–153, 168, 205–206, 211, 307, 343, 367–369, 420
Cromwell, Oliver (uncle of Protector), 3, 9, 73
Cromwell, Captain Oliver (son of Protector), 110, 141
Cromwell, Sir Richard, 1–3, 8
Cromwell, Richard (son of Protector), 141, 436, 443, 446, 462–465
Cromwell, Thomas, 1–3, 10
Cropredy Bridge battle, 111
D
Denmark, 238, 371, 374, 387
Derby, Earl of, 291
Dering, Sir Edward, bill of, 56
Desborough, Col. John, 131, 301, 426, 445
Dorislaus, Dr., murder of, 238
Doyley, Col. Edward, 406–407
Drogheda, 259–260
Dunbar, 280–284, 471
Dunkirk, 311, 384
Durham, college founded at, 355–356
E
Eastern Association, 90, 100
Edgehill, 73, 79–80
Education, Cromwell’s care for, 353–357
_Eikon Basilike_, 240
Eliot, Sir John, 14–15, 18, 22, 25
Elizabeth, Princess, Charles’s farewell to, 225–226
Elizabeth, Queen, position of Parliament under, 9, 11
“Engagement, The,” 188
“Engagers,” disabilities of, 205
English nation, Cromwell’s estimate of, 482
Episcopacy, abolition of, advocated, 54
Essex, Earl of, 60, 68, 79–83, 86, 103
Evelyn, John, cited, 449
F
Fairfax, Ferdinando, Lord, 95, 99, 103, 106–107, 111
Fairfax, Sir Thomas, afterwards Lord, movements in Civil War, 95, 98,
103–104, 106, 124, 127–129, 137–138;
appointed General of Parliamentary forces, 118;
characteristics and appearance of, 122;
urges Cromwell’s appointment as Lieutenant-General, 126;
asked to represent soldiers’ grievances to Parliament, 158;
orders rendezvous of whole army, 163;
arrives at Hounslow, 171;
marches against Scots, 193;
siege of Colchester, 195, 203;
executes Lucas and Lisle, 210;
occupies London, 214;
takes no part in trial of Charles, 224;
quells mutiny in army, 249–250;
retires from command, 279–280
Falkland, Lord, 56
Fauconberg, Lord, 433, 461
Fens, Cromwell’s championship of commoners in, 32–34
Fiennes, Nathaniel, 49, 54
Fifth-Monarchy men, 360, 367, 433, 437
Fleet, Charles I. acknowledged by, 194;
under Prince Rupert, 196, 241;
improvement and increase in, 247;
expenditure on, 435
Fleetwood, Colonel, afterwards Lieut.-Gen., Charles, 150, 158, 263,
282, 291, 426, 445
Fleming, Sir Oliver, 455
Forster, John, estimate of Cromwell, 476
Fortescue, Major-General, 402–403
Fox, George, 363–364, 441
France, hostility of, to England, 238–239, 241;
Charles II.’s flight to, 293;
refuses to recognise English republic, 309;
recognises it, 312;
pernicious effect on English youth, 353;
hostilities between England and, 371;
negotiations with, regarding alliance, 375–377;
protects Vaudois, 378;
treaty with, 380, 383;
Acadia taken from, 398;
ceded to, 408
G
Gainsborough, 95, 98–99
Gauden, Dr. John, _Eikon Basilike_ written by, 240
Germany, 238
Gibraltar, Cromwell’s proposal regarding, 381, 382
Gloucester, Duke of, 225, 301
Gloucester, siege of, 88
Goring, Lord, 70, 107, 119, 130–131, 135, 137
Grantham, battle of, 470
Graves, Colonel, 164
Grenville, Sir John, 308
Grenville, Sir Richard, 135
Gustavus Adolphus, 23, 25, 30, 131, 474
H
Hacker, Col. Francis, 226–227
Hale, Matthew, 305
Hallam, cited, 346–347
Hamilton, Marquis, afterwards Duke of, 42, 196–203, 472
Hammond, Col. Robert, 185, 212, 252
Hampden, John, 37, 48, 54, 62 _note_, 81–82, 86–87
Hampton Court, 184–185
Harrington, James, 233, 389, 393, 461
Harrison, Major-Gen. Thomas, 150, 184, 290–291, 318, 323, 328, 415, 437
Haslerig, Sir Arthur, 49, 60, 62 _note_, 321–322, 430–431, 454
Henry VIII., 2–3, 9–10
Hinchinbrook, 4, 9, 165
Holland, ambassadors of, appeal to Parliament on behalf of Charles I.,
224;
sympathy with Charles II., 238, 241;
war between England and, 312–315, 334, 371;
treaty with (1654), 372, 398;
hostilities against, in New England, 394, 396–397
Holland, Lord, 70, 196
Holles, Denzil, 48, 62 _note_, 82
Hooke, William, 397
Hopton, Sir Ralph, 74, 87–88, 103, 137–138
Hotham, Sir John, 65, 94
Huguenots, Cromwell’s interest in, 311
Hull, 65, 75
Hume cited, 476
Huntingdon, 4, 8
Hutchinson, Col. John, 72
Hutchinson, Mrs., 460–463
Hyde, Edward, 56, 64, 66, 243.
_See_ Clarendon, Earl of.
I
Independency, rise of, 11, 144–146;
strong in the army, 147;
Cromwell a type of, 149
Independents, intolerance towards, 152–153;
Cromwell distrusted by, 191;
hostility to Charles, 208 _seq._;
represented among the Triers, 359;
powerless and divided, 449
Ingoldsby, Col. Richard, 224
Ireland, condition of, under Wentworth, 22–23;
rebellion of (1641), 57–60;
Charles’s treaty with rebels in, 137;
Ormond unable to crush rebellion in, 157;
reluctance of soldiers to serve in, 248–249;
national hostility to, 256–257, 262;
Cromwell’s campaigns in, 258–263, 473;
devastation and misery of, 264;
land settlement system of Cromwell, 265–267, 275;
education in, 269;
economic policy of Cromwell in, 271–272;
representation of, in English Parliament, 272–273;
commercial and agricultural ruin of, 274;
Henry Cromwell commander in, 464
Ireton, Major-Gen. Henry, at Naseby, 128;
Cromwell’s daughter married to, 141;
sympathies with Independents, 150;
sent by Parliament to quiet soldiers, 158;
Declaration of the Army formulated by, 168;
Proposals submitted to Charles by, 172–173;
distrusted by Charles, 175;
supports Cromwell in further appeal to Charles, 176;
opposes manhood suffrage, 179;
readiness in debate, 181;
urges Parliament to settle regardless of Charles, 189;
captures Waterford and Limerick, 263;
advises friendly overtures to Scots, 284;
his death, 263;
corpse dishonoured, 451
“Ironside,” origin of title, 109
Islip, 123
J
Jamaica, conquest of, 401–407, 408
James I., 4, 11–13
Jews, Cromwell’s attitude towards, 362–363
Jones, Col. Michael, 256, 258, 261
Juxon, Bishop, 225–228
K
Knighthood fines, 20
L
Lambert, Major-Gen. John, defeats
Langdale and Musgrave, 196;
Hamilton capitulates to, 203;
at Doon Hill, 282–283;
conquers Brown at Inverkeithing, 289;
success of, against Charles II., 290–291;
hostility of, to Long Parliament, 318;
character and political views of, 327–328;
advocates written constitution, 336;
urges Cromwell to take chief power, 337, 340;
resists proposal for Cromwell to accept kingship, 424, 426;
opposes Parliament, 447
Landor cited, 476
Langdale, Sir Marmaduke, 128, 199, 200
Langport, battle of, 130–131
Laud, William, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, 25–27, 35–36, 41,
51
Law reform, 304–305, 332, 347–351
Leicester sacked by Royalists, 125
Leslie, Alexander, afterwards Earl of Leven, 45, 46, 103, 106–107, 110,
134
Leslie, David, 106–108, 134, 280–284, 288–289, 473
Levellers, 184, 244–245, 335, 383, 413
Leverett, Capt. John, 397–398
Lilburn, John, prisoner in the Fleet, 49;
appeals to “supreme authority of the nation,” 146;
Cromwell’s patronage of, 149;
reproaches Cromwell for attitude towards army, 160–161;
attacks Cromwell, 176;
accuses Cromwell of high treason, 191;
Levellers represented by, 245;
return and trial of, 335
Lilburn, Col. Robert, defeats the Earl of Derby, 291
Limerick, siege of, 263
Lincoln, 97–99, 103
Lockhart, Sir William, 383
London, Parliamentarians supported by, 71, 89;
feeling of, against Independents, 159, 170;
unwilling to restore Charles unconditionally, 196;
demands personal treaty with Charles, 207;
occupied by Fairfax, 214;
represented by only one citizen in Commonwealth Parliament, 235;
Presbyterian party strong in, 243;
blames Cromwell’s foreign policy, 387
Lorraine, Duke of, 136
Lostwithiel, 112
Louis XIV., 434
Ludlow, Col., afterwards Lieut.-Gen., Edmund, 160, 190, 230, 250, 263,
303–304, 344, 418–419, 475
M
Maidstone, John, 441, 449, 453
Major-Generals, the, 352, 419–421, 423
Manchester, 71
Manchester, Earl of, military operations of, 98, 103–104;
Cromwell’s influence over, 100;
Cromwell’s influence lost, 111;
dilatoriness of, 111–114;
defends himself against Cromwell in House of Lords, 115
Manly, Sir Richard, 49
Mardyke, 383–384
Marston Moor, 104–108
Marten, Harry, 49, 174, 218, 219, 237
Marvell, Andrew, 310, 356, 387, 443, 462, 469
Maryland, 394
Massachusetts, 319, 395–397, 404–405
Maynard, 116
Mazarin, Cardinal, 310, 311, 362
Milton, John, 233, 240, 245, 307, 356, 366
Moltke, Von, 472
Monk, General George, 256, 282–283, 290, 293–294, 297, 315, 334, 414,
446–448
Montrose, Marquis of, 134, 241, 278–279
N
Nantwich, 103
Napoleon, Cromwell compared with, 346–347, 467, 474
Naseby, 127–129, 151, 470
Navy, _see_ Fleet
Naylor, James, 365, 420
Neile, Dr., Bishop of Winchester, 17
New Haven (New England), 390, 396, 405
Newark, 95, 139
Newbury, battle of, 112–113
Newcastle, Duke of, 98, 103
Newcastle Propositions, 153, 174
Newdigate, Judge, 417–418
Newmarket, 165–166
Nottingham, 68, 75
O
O’Neill, Hugh, 262
O’Neill, Owen, _see_ Roe, Owen.
Ormond, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 102, 157, 255, 258, 263
Overton, Major-General, 415, 437
Oxenstiern, 409
Oxford (town), Parliamentarians supported by, 71;
Charles I. established at, 81;
Queen joins Charles at, 87, 88;
left by Charles and threatened by Parliament, 103;
besieged by Fairfax, 124, 138;
surrender, 139;
artillery at, seized by army, 163
Oxford (University), 71, 78, 355–356, 463
P
Pack, Alderman, 422–423
Palatine, Elector, 160
Parliament, position of, under Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, 9;
under James I., 12–13
Parliament, Long, unlimited powers of, after abolition of monarchy,
233–234;
non-representative character of, 235;
Scottish envoys expelled by, 276;
settlement of Scotland arranged by, 294;
illegal confiscations of, 315;
forcible dissolution of, 323;
restoration of (1659), 446–447
Penn, Admiral William, 377, 400, 402
Penruddock, Colonel John, 415
Pepys, Samuel, 388, 451
Peters, Hugh, 300, 450
Petition and Advice, the, 424–427, 430–431
Petition of Right, 16
Philip IV. of Spain, 382
Pignerol, Treaty of, 378
Plymouth (Devon), 77
Plymouth (New England), 391, 396
Poland, 380–381, 384–385
Portugal, 370, 374
Poyer, Colonel, 193, 194
Poyntz, Major-General, 134, 169, 170
Prelacy, 361
Presbyterianism, rise of, 11;
growth of, in England, 143–145;
Charles offers to grant establishment of, for three years, 154
Presbyterians, Charles’s offers refused by, 251;
Royalists distrusted by, 243;
terms imposed on Charles II. by, 277–278;
division among, 286;
represented among the Triers, 359
Preston, 199–200, 471, 472
Pride, Colonel, 214–215, 251, 283
Prynne, William, 22
Puritanism, rise of, 10–11;
Strafford’s opinion of, 27;
lectureships, 35–36;
outlook in 1638, 40;
Cromwell’s national policy regarding, 485
Pym, John, 47–48, 51–52, 60, 62 _note_, 89
Q
Quakers, 363–364
Quin, James, 457
R
Rainsborough, Colonel, 174, 178–179, 190
Rathmines, 259
Reading, 86, 89, 103
Remonstrants and Resolutioners, 286–287, 295
Reynolds, Sir John, 383
Rhode Island, 394–395
Rich, Robert, 441, 462
Rinuccini (Papal Nuncio), 255
Roe, Owen, 256, 258, 262
Rogers, John, 367
Rolle, Chief-Justice, 418
Roundway Down battle, 88
Rouse, John, 339
Royalists, helpless condition of, after king’s execution, 241–242;
Presbyterians distrusted by, 243–244;
amnesty granted to, 303;
Anglicanism of, winked at, 361;
take refuge in Barbadoes and Virginia, 392;
arming, 413;
rising of, a failure, 415;
additional taxes imposed on, 416–417
Rudyard, 49, 51
“Rump” Parliament, 447
Rupert, Prince, Charles’s confidence in, 80;
relieves siege of York, 104;
at Marston Moor, 104–106;
retreat to Lancashire, 108;
appreciation of Cromwell, 109;
capitulates at Bristol to Fairfax, 132;
urges Charles to make peace, 135;
protected from “Clubmen,” 136;
equips fleet in Dutch waters, 238;
seizes prizes on the high seas, 241;
with squadron in harbour of Munster, 256;
defeated by Blake, 308
Russell, Sir John, 462
Russia, 238
S
Say, Lord, 37, 70, 219
Scotland, Cromwell’s settlement of, 296–297;
representation of, in English Parliament, 295–296;
heavy taxation in, 298–299;
insurrection in, 334
Scots, Parliamentary Party assisted by, 102;
Cromwell opposed by, 115–116;
Charles’s negotiations with, 140;
Charles abandoned by, 155;
Charles’s intrigues with, 184, 186;
England invaded by (1648), 194;
Charles II. proclaimed by, 276
Sedgwick, Major Robert, 397–398, 403, 406
Seekers, the, 150
Self-Denying Ordinance, 118
Sexby, Lieutenant-Colonel, 438
Sherborne, 132
Ship-money, 20–21, 40, 44, 45, 53
Sidney, Algernon, 217–218
Sindercombe, Miles, 421
Skippon, Major-General Philip, 112, 113, 123, 128, 158
Solemn League and Covenant 102, 143
Spain, feeling of, towards England, 239–240;
friendly towards Commonwealth, 309;
captures Dunkirk, 312;
negotiation with, regarding alliance, 375–376;
war declared by, 380;
war with, 381–382;
supports Charles II., 382;
hostilities against, in West Indies, 398–403;
war with West Indies, 406–408;
treasure-ships captured by Stayner, 420;
peace with, 435
Spenser, Peregrine, 267
St. John, Oliver, 44, 48, 161, 284, 312
St. Kitts, 401, 406
Stapleton, Sir Philip, 83
Star Chamber, 21 and _note_, 22 _note_
Stayner, Captain Richard, 382, 420
Steward, Sir Thomas, 8, 28, 37
Steward, William, 4
Strachan, Major, 279, 286
Strafford, Earl of, _see_ Wentworth.
Stratton battle, 87
Strickland, Walter, mission to The Hague, 312
Strode, William, 48, 54, 62 _note_
Sweden, 238, 373, 380–381, 385–387
T
Thorpe, Judge, 418
Thurloe, John, 423, 456
Tithes, 357–358
“Triers,” 358–360
Tromp, Admiral, 314–315
Turenne, Marshal, 383
U
Ussher, Archbishop, 356
Uttoxeter, capitulation at, 203
V
Vane, Sir Henry, religious views of, 49;
abolition of Episcopacy advocated by, 54;
Lilburn’s reference to, 161;
supports Cromwell in further appeal to Charles, 176;
Milton’s opinion of, 245, 307;
complains of obstructiveness of Long Parliament, 303;
action on bill for a new representative, 321, 324;
opposes state interference with Church, 366;
refuses to recognise Cromwell’s government, 418–419;
executed, 450
Vaudois, 378–379
Venables, General Robert, 400–402
Virginia, 390, 392, 394
Voltaire, 476
W
Wales, represented by only three members of Parliament, 235
Waller, Edmund, 345, 356, 379, 422
Waller, Sir William, 74, 88, 103, 111, 113, 119
Walton, Colonel Valentine, 109–111
Warrington, capitulation at, 202
Warwick, Earl of, 37, 70, 76, 247
Warwick, Sir Philip, 33, 49, 455, 461
Waterford, 261, 263
Wentworth, Sir Thomas, afterwards Earl of Strafford, 22–23, 27, 44–45,
51–53
West Indies, 376–377, 380, 415
Wexford, 259–260
Whalley, Colonel Edward, 97, 122, 165, 184
Wharton, Lord, 251
Whitelocke, Bulstrode, 300, 317–318, 373, 409, 417, 456
Wildman, Major John, 176, 415
William II., 238
William III., 435
Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, 35
Willoughby, Lord, 95, 392
Winceby, 99
Winslow, Edward, 400, 402
Worcester, 79, 103, 291–292, 471
Y
York, 71, 103, 104
[Illustration]
_A Selection from the Catalogue of_
G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
❧
Complete Catalogue sent on application
[Illustration]
Heroes of the Nations
A Series of biographical studies of the lives and work of a number of
representative historical characters about whom have gathered the great
traditions of the Nations to which they belonged, and who have been
accepted, in many instances, as types of the several National ideals.
With the life of each typical character will be presented a picture of
the National conditions surrounding him during his career.
The narratives are the work of writers who are recognised authorities on
their several subjects, and, while thoroughly trustworthy as history,
will present picturesque and dramatic “stories” of the Men and of the
events connected with them.
To the Life of each “Hero” will be given one duodecimo volume,
handsomely printed in large type, provided with maps and adequately
illustrated according to the special requirements of the several
subjects.
_For full list of volumes see next page._
[Illustration]
The Story of the Nations
In the story form the current of each National life is distinctly
indicated, and its picturesque and noteworthy periods and episodes are
presented for the reader in their philosophical relation to each other
as well as to universal history.
It is the plan of the writers of the different volumes to enter into the
real life of the peoples, and to bring them before the reader as they
actually lived, labored, and struggled—as they studied and wrote, and as
they amused themselves. In carrying out this plan, the myths, with which
the history of all lands begins, are not overlooked, though they are
carefully distinguished from the actual history, so far as the labors of
the accepted historical authorities have resulted in definite
conclusions.
The subjects of the different volumes have been planned to cover
connecting and, as far as possible, consecutive epochs or periods, so
that the set when completed will present in a comprehensive narrative
the chief events in the great STORY OF THE NATIONS; but it is, of
course, not always practicable to issue the several volumes in their
chronological order.
_For list of volumes see next page._
THE STORY OF THE NATIONS
GREECE. Prof. Jas. A. Harrison.
ROME. Arthur Gilman.
THE JEWS. Prof. James K. Hosmer.
CHALDEA. Z. A. Ragozin.
GERMANY. S. Baring-Gould.
NORWAY. Hjalmar H. Boyesen.
SPAIN. Rev. E. E. and Susan Hale.
HUNGARY. Prof. A. Vámbéry.
CARTHAGE. Prof. Alfred J. Church.
THE SARACENS. Arthur Gilman.
THE MOORS IN SPAIN. Stanley Lane-Poole.
THE NORMANS. Sarah Orne Jewett.
PERSIA. S. G. W. Benjamin.
ANCIENT EGYPT. Prof. Geo. Rawlinson.
ALEXANDER’S EMPIRE. Prof. J. P. Mahaffy.
ASSYRIA. Z. A. Ragozin.
THE GOTHS. Henry Bradley.
IRELAND. Hon. Emily Lawless.
TURKEY. Stanley Lane-Poole.
MEDIA, BABYLON, AND PERSIA. Z. A. Ragozin.
MEDIÆVAL FRANCE. Prof. Gustave Masson.
HOLLAND. Prof. J. Thorold Rogers.
MEXICO. Susan Hale.
PHŒNICIA, George Rawlinson.
THE HANSA TOWNS. Helen Zimmern.
EARLY BRITAIN. Prof. Alfred J. Church.
THE BARBARY CORSAIRS. Stanley Lane-Poole.
RUSSIA. W. R. Morfill.
THE JEWS UNDER ROME. W. D. Morrison.
SCOTLAND. John Mackintosh.
SWITZERLAND. R. Stead and Mrs. A. Hug.
PORTUGAL. H. Morse-Stephens.
THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE. C. W. C. Oman.
SICILY. E. A. Freeman.
THE TUSCAN REPUBLICS. Bella Duffy.
POLAND. W. R. Morfill.
PARTHIA. Geo. Rawlinson.
JAPAN. David Murray.
THE CHRISTIAN RECOVERY OF SPAIN. H. E. Watts.
AUSTRALASIA. Greville Tregarthen.
SOUTHERN AFRICA. Geo. M. Theal.
VENICE. Alethea Weil.
THE CRUSADES. T. S. Archer and C. L. Kingsford.
VEDIC INDIA. Z. A. Ragozin.
BOHEMIA. C. E. Maurice.
CANADA. J. G. Bourinot.
THE BALKAN STATES. William Miller.
BRITISH RULE IN INDIA. R. W. Frazer.
MODERN FRANCE. André Le Bon.
THE BRITISH EMPIRE. Alfred T. Story. Two vols.
THE FRANKS. Lewis Sergeant.
THE WEST INDIES. Amos K. Fiske.
THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. Justin McCarthy, M.P. Two vols.
AUSTRIA. Sidney Whitman.
CHINA. Robt. K. Douglass.
MODERN SPAIN. Major Martin A. S. Hume.
MODERN ITALY. Pietro Orsi.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. Helen A. Smith. Two vols.
WALES AND CORNWALL. Owen M. Edwards. Net ¥1.35.
MEDIÆVAL ROME. Wm. Miller.
THE PAPAL MONARCHY. Wm. Barry.
MEDIÆVAL INDIA. Stanley Lane-Poole.
BUDDHIST INDIA. T. W. Rhys-Davids.
THE SOUTH AMERICAN REPUBLICS. Thomas C. Dawson. Two vols.
PARLIAMENTARY ENGLAND. Edward Jenks.
MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND. Mary Bateson.
THE UNITED STATES. Edward Earle Sparks. Two vols.
ENGLAND, THE COMING OF PARLIAMENT. L. Cecil Jane.
GREECE—EARLIEST TIMES—A.D. 14. E. S. Shuckburgh.
ROMAN EMPIRE. B.C. 29–A.D. 476. N. Stuart Jones.
HEROES OF THE NATIONS
NELSON. By W. Clark Russell.
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS. By C. R. L. Fletcher.
PERICLES. By Evelyn Abbott.
THEODORIC THE GOTH. By Thomas Hodgkin.
SIR PHILIP SIDNEY. By H. R. Fox-Bourne.
JULIUS CÆSAR. By W. Warde Fowler.
WYCLIF. By Lewis Sergeant.
NAPOLEON. By W. O’Connor Morris.
HENRY OF NAVARRE. By P. F. Willert.
CICERO. By J. L. Strachan-Davidson.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By Noah Brooks.
PRINCE HENRY (OF PORTUGAL) THE NAVIGATOR. By C. R. Beazley.
JULIAN THE PHILOSOPHER. By Alice Gardner.
LOUIS XIV. By Arthur Hassall.
CHARLES XII. By R. Nisbet Bain.
LORENZO DE’ MEDICI. By Edward Armstrong.
JEANNE D’ARC. By Mrs. Oliphant.
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS. By Washington Irving.
ROBERT THE BRUCE. By Sir Herbert Maxwell.
HANNIBAL. By W. O’Connor Morris.
ULYSSES S. GRANT. By William Conant Church.
ROBERT E. LEE. By Henry Alexander White.
THE CID CAMPEADOR. By H. Butler Clarke.
SALADIN. By Stanley Lane Poole.
BISMARCK. By J. W. Headlam.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT. By Benjamin I. Wheeler.
CHARLEMAGNE. By H. W. C. Davis.
OLIVER CROMWELL. By Charles Firth.
RICHELIEU. By James B. Perkins.
DANIEL O’CONNELL. By Robert Dunlop.
SAINT LOUIS (Louis IX. of France). By Frederick Perry.
LORD CHATHAM. By Walford Davis Green.
OWEN GLYNDWR. By Arthur G. Bradley.
HENRY V. By Charles L. Kingsford.
EDWARD I. By Edward Jenks.
AUGUSTUS CÆSAR. By J. B. Firth.
FREDERICK THE GREAT. By W. F. Reddaway.
WELLINGTON. By W. O’Connor Morris.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. By J. B. Firth.
MOHAMMED. By D. S. Margoliouth.
CHARLES THE BOLD. By Ruth Putnam.
WASHINGTON. By J. A. Harrison.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR. By F. B. Stanton.
FERNANDO CORTÈS. By F. A. MacNutt.
WILLIAM THE SILENT. By Ruth Putnam.
BLÜCHER. By Ernest F. Henderson.
Other volumes in preparation are:
MARLBOROUGH. By C. T. Atkinson.
MOLTKE. By James Wardell.
ALFRED THE GREAT. By Bertha Lees.
GREGORY VII. By F. Urquhart.
JUDAS MACCABÆUS. By Israel Abrahams.
FREDERICK II. By A. L. Smith.
New York—G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, PUBLISHERS—London
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Changed “the horse, There” to “the horse. There” on p. 123.
2. Silently corrected typographical errors.
3. Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed.
4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.