The History of England (B)
By John Lingard

Presented by

Public Domain Books

Chapter VIII.

Richard Cromwell Protector–Parliament Called–Dissolved–Military Government–Long Parliament Restored–Expelled Again–Reinstated–Monk In London–Re-Admission Of Secluded Members–Long Parliament Dissolved–The Convention Parliament–Restoration Of Charles II.

By his wife, Elizabeth Bourchier, Cromwell left two sons, Richard and Henry. There was a remarkable contrast in the opening career of these young men. During the civil war, Richard lived in the Temple, frequented the company of the Cavaliers, and spent his time in gaiety and debauchery. Henry repaired to his father’s quarters, and so rapid was his promotion, that at the age of twenty he held the commission of captain in the regiment of guards belonging to Fairfax, the lord-general. After the establishment of the commonwealth, Richard married, and, retiring to the house of his father-in-law, at Hursley in Hampshire, devoted himself to the usual pursuits of a country gentleman. Henry accompanied his father in the reduction of Ireland, which country he afterwards governed, first with the rank of major-general, afterwards with that of lord-deputy. It was not till the second year of the protectorate that Cromwell seemed to recollect that he had an elder son. He made him a lord of trade, then chancellor of the university of Oxford, and lastly a member of the new house of peers. As these honours were far inferior to those which he lavished on other persons connected with his family, it was inferred that he entertained a mean opinion of Richard’s abilities. A more probable conclusion is, that he feared to alarm the jealousy of his officers, and carefully abstained from doing that which might confirm the general suspicion, that he designed to make the protectorship hereditary in his family.[1]

The moment he expired, the council assembled, and the result of their deliberation was an order to proclaim Richard Cromwell protector, on the ground that he had been declared by his late highness his successor in that dignity.[2] Not a murmur of opposition was heard; the ceremony was performed in all places after the usual manner of announcing the accession of a new sovereign; and addresses of condolence and congratulation poured in from the army and

[Footnote 1: “The Lord knows my desire was for Harry and his brother to have lived private lives in the country, and Harry knows this very well; and how difficultly I was persuaded to give him his commission for Ireland."–Letter to Fleetwood, 22nd June, 1655.]

[Footnote 2: There appears good reason to doubt this assertion. Thurloe indeed (vii. 372) informs Henry Cromwell that his father named Richard to succeed on the preceding Monday. But his letter was written after the proclamation of Richard, and its contents are irreconcilable with the letters written before it. We have one from Lord Falconberg, dated on Monday, saying that no nomination had been made, and that Thurloe had promised to suggest it, but probably would not perform his promise (ibid. 365); and another from Thurloe himself to Henry Cromwell, stating the same thing as to the nomination.–Ibid. 364. It may perhaps be said that Richard was named on the Monday after the letters were written; but there is a second letter from Thurloe, dated on the Tuesday, stating that the protector was still incapable of public business, and that matters would, he feared, remain till the death of his highness in the same state as he described them in his letter of Monday.–Ibid. 366. It was afterwards said that the nomination took place on the night before the protector’s death, in the presence of four of the council (Falconberg in Thurloe, 375, and Barwick, ibid. 415); but the latter adds that many doubt whether it ever took place at all.]

navy, from one hundred congregational churches, and from the boroughs, cities, and counties. It seemed as if free-born Britons had been converted into a nation of slaves. These compositions were drawn up in the highest strain of adulation, adorned with forced allusions from Scripture, and with all the extravagance of Oriental hyperbole. “Their sun was set, but no night had followed. They had lost the nursing father, by whose hand the yoke of bondage had been broken from the necks and consciences of the godly. Providence by one sad stroke had taken away the breath from their nostrils, and smitten the head from their shoulders; but had given them in return the noblest branch of that renowned stock, a prince distinguished by the lovely composition of his person, but still more by the eminent qualities of his mind. The late protector had been a Moses to lead God’s people out of the land of Egypt; his son would be a Joshua to conduct them into a more full possession of truth and righteousness. Elijah had been taken into heaven: Elisha remained on earth, the inheritor of his mantle and his spirit!"[1]

The royalists, who had persuaded themselves that the whole fabric of the protectorial power would fall in pieces on the death of Cromwell, beheld with amazement the general acquiescence in the succession, of Richard; and the foreign princes, who had deemed it prudent to solicit the friendship of the father, now

[Footnote 1: The Scottish ministers in Edinburgh, instead of joining in these addresses, prayed on the following Sunday, “that the Lord would be merciful to the exiled, and those that were in captivity, and cause them to return with sheaves of joy; that he would deliver all his people from the yoke of Pharaoh, and task-masters of Egypt, and that he would cut off their oppressors, and hasten the time of their deliverance."–Thurloe, vii. 416.]

hastened to offer their congratulations to his son. Yet, fair and tranquil as the prospect appeared, an experienced eye might easily detect the elements of an approaching storm. Meetings were clandestinely held by the officers;[a] doubts were whispered of the nomination of Richard by his father; and an opinion was encouraged among the military that, as the commonwealth was the work of the army, so the chief office in the commonwealth belonged to the commander of the army. On this account the protectorship had been bestowed on Cromwell; but his son was one who had never drawn his sword in the cause; and to suffer the supreme power to devolve on him was to disgrace, to disinherit, the men who had suffered so severely, and bled so profusely, in the contest.

These complaints had probably been suggested, they were certainly fomented, by Fleetwood and his friends, the colonels Cooper, Berry, and Sydenham. Fleetwood was brave in the field, but irresolute in council; eager for the acquisition of power, but continually checked by scruples of conscience; attached by principle to republicanism, but ready to acquiesce in every change, under the pretence of submission to the decrees of Providence. Cromwell, who knew the man, had raised him to the second command in the army, and fed his ambition with distant and delusive hopes of succeeding to the supreme magistracy. The protector died, and Fleetwood, instead of acting, hesitated, prayed, and consulted; the propitious moment was suffered to pass by; he assented to the opinion of the council in favour of Richard; and then, repenting of his weakness, sought to indemnify himself for the loss by confining the

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1658. Sept. 14.]

authority of the protector to the civil administration, and procuring for himself the sole, uncontrolled command of the army. Under the late government, the meetings of military officers had been discountenanced and forbidden; now they were encouraged to meet and consult; and, in a body of more than two hundred individuals, they presented to Richard a petition, by which they demanded that no officer should be deprived, but by sentence of a court-martial, and that the chief command of the forces, and the disposal of commissions, should be conferred on some person whose past services had proved his attachment to the cause. There were not wanting those who advised the protector to extinguish the hopes of the factious at once by arresting and imprisoning the chiefs; but more moderate counsels prevailed, and in a firm but conciliatory speech,[a] the composition of Secretary Thurloe, he replied that, to gratify their wishes, he had appointed his relative, Fleetwood, lieutenant-general of all the forces; but that to divest himself of the chief command, and of the right of giving or resuming commissions, would be to act in defiance of the “petition and advice,” the instrument by which he held the supreme authority. For a short time they appeared satisfied; but the chief officers continued to hold meetings in the chapel at St. James’s, ostensibly for the purpose of prayer, but in reality for the convenience of deliberation. Fresh jealousies were excited; it was said that another commander (Henry Cromwell was meant) would be placed above Fleetwood; Thurloe, Pierrepoint, and St. John were denounced as evil counsellors; and it became evident to all attentive observers that the two parties must soon come into collision. The protector could depend on the armies

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1658. Oct. 14.]

in Ireland and Scotland. In Ireland, his brother Henry governed without an opponent; in Scotland, Monk, by his judicious separation of the troops, and his vigilance in the enforcement of discipline, had deprived the discontented of the means of holding meetings and of corresponding with each other. In England he was assured of the services of eight colonels, and therefore, as it was erroneously supposed, of their respective regiments, forming one half of the regular force. But his opponents were masters of the other half, constituted the majority in the council, and daily augmented their numbers by the accession of men who secretly leaned to republican principles, or sought to make an interest in that party which they considered the more likely to prevail in the approaching struggle.[1]

From the notice of these intrigues the public attention was withdrawn by the obsequies of the late protector. It was resolved that they should exceed in magnificence those of any former sovereign, and with that view they were conducted according to the ceremonial observed at the interment of Philip II. of Spain. Somerset House was selected for the first part of the exhibition. The spectators, having passed through three rooms hung with black cloth, were admitted[a] into the funereal chamber; where, surrounded with wax-lights, was seen an effigy of Cromwell clothed in royal robes, and lying on a bed of state,

[Footnote 1: For these particulars, see the letters in Thurloe, vii. 386, 406, 413, 415, 424, 426, 427, 428, 447. 450, 452, 453, 454, 463, 490, 491, 492, 493, 495, 496, 497, 498, 500, 510, 511. So great was the jealousy between the parties, that Richard and his brother Henry dared not correspond by letter. “I doubt not all the letters will be opened, which come either to or from your highness, which can be suspected to contain business” (454). For the principle now professed by the Levellers, see note (I).]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1658. Sept. 26.]

which covered, or was supposed to cover, the coffin. On each side lay different parts of his armour: in one hand was placed the sceptre, in the other the globe; and behind the head an imperial crown rested on a cushion in a chair of state. But, in defiance of every precaution it became necessary to inter the body before the appointed day; and the coffin was secretly deposited at night in a vault at the west end of the middle aisle of Westminster Abbey, under a gorgeous cenotaph which had recently been erected. The effigy was now removed to a more spacious chamber; it rose from a recumbent to an erect posture; and stood before the spectators not only with the emblems of royalty in its hands, but with the crown upon its head. For eight weeks this pageant was exhibited to the public. As the day appointed for the funeral obsequies approached, rumours of an intended insurrection during the ceremony were circulated; but guards from the most trusty regiments lined the streets; the procession consisting of the principal persons in the city and army, the officers of state, the foreign ambassadors, and the members of the protector’s family, passed[a] along without interruption; and the effigy, which in lieu of the corpse was borne on a car, was placed, with due solemnity, in the cenotaph already mentioned. Thus did fortune sport with the ambitious prospects of Cromwell. The honours of royalty which she refused to him during his life, she lavished on his remains after death; and then, in the course of a few months, resuming her gifts, exchanged the crown for a halter, and the royal monument in the abbey for an ignominious grave at Tyburn.[1]

[Footnote 1: Thurloe, vi. 528, 529. Carrington apud Noble, i. 360-369. The charge for black cloth alone on this occasion was six thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine pounds, six shillings, and fivepence,–Biblioth. Stow. ii. 448. I do not notice the childish stories about stealing of the protector’s body.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1658. Nov. 23.]

Before the reader proceeds to the more important transactions at home, he may take a rapid view of the relations existing between England and foreign states. The war which had so long raged between the rival crowns of France and Spain was hastening to its termination; to Louis the aid of England appeared no longer a matter of consequence; and the auxiliary treaty between the two countries, which had been renewed from year to year, was suffered to expire at the appointed[a] time. But in the north of Europe there was much to claim the attention of the new protector; for the king of Sweden, after a short peace, had again unsheathed the sword against his enemy, the king of Denmark. The commercial interests of the maritime states were deeply involved in the issue of this contest; both England and Holland prepared to aid their respective allies; and a Dutch squadron joined the Danish, while an English division, under the command of Ayscue, sailed to the assistance of the Swedish monarch. The severity of the winter forced Ayscue to return; but as soon as the navigation of the Sound was open, two powerful fleets were despatched to the Baltic, one by the protector, the other by the States; and to Montague, the English admiral, was intrusted the delicate and difficult commission, not only of watching the proceedings of the Dutch, but also of compelling them to observe peace towards the Swedes, without giving them occasion to commence hostilities against himself. In this he was successful; but no offer of mediation could reconcile the contending

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1658. August.]

monarchs; and we shall find Montague still cruising in the Baltic at the time when Richard, from whom he derived his commission, will be forced to abdicate the protectorial dignity.[1]

In a few days after the funeral of his father, to the surprise of the public, the protector summoned[a] a parliament. How, it was asked, could Richard hope to control such an assembly, when the genius and authority of Oliver had proved unequal to the attempt? The difficulty was acknowledged; but the arrears of the army, the exhaustion of the treasury, and the necessity of seeking support against the designs of the officers, compelled him to hazard the experiment, and he flattered himself with the hope of success, by avoiding the rock on which, in the opinion of his advisers, the policy of his father had split. Oliver had adopted the plan of representation prepared by the long parliament before its dissolution, a plan which, by disfranchising the lesser boroughs, and multiplying the members of the counties, had rendered the elections more independent of the government: Richard, under the pretence of a boon to the nation, reverted to the ancient system; and, if we may credit the calculation of his opponents, no fewer than one hundred and sixty members were returned from the boroughs by the interest of the court and its supporters. But to adopt the same plan in the conquered countries of Scotland and Ireland would have been dangerous; thirty representatives were therefore summoned from each; and, as the elections were conducted under the eyes of the

[Footnote 1: Burton’s Diary, iii. 576. Thurloe, vol. vii. passim. Carte’s Letters, ii. 157-182, Londorp, viii. 635, 708. Dumont, vi. 244, 252, 260.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1658. Nov. 30.]

commanders of the forces, the members, with one solitary exception, proved themselves the obsequious servants of government.[1]

It was, however, taken as no favourable omen, that when the protector, at the opening of parliament, commanded the attendance of the Commons in the House of Lords, nearly one-half of the members refused[a] to obey. They were unwilling to sanction by their presence the existence of an authority, the legality of which they intended to dispute; or to admit the superior rank of the new peers, the representatives of the protector, over themselves, the representatives of the people. As soon as the lower house was constituted, it divided itself into three distinct parties. 1. The protectorists formed about one-half of the members. They had received instructions to adhere inviolably to the provisions of the “humble petition and advice,” and to consider the government by a single person, with the aid of two houses, as the unalterable basis of the constitution. 2. The republicans, who did not amount to fifty, but compensated for deficiency in number by their energy and eloquence. Vane, Hazlerig, Lambert, Ludlow, Nevil, Bradshaw, and Scot, were ready debaters, skilled in the forms of the house, and always on the watch to take advantage of the want of knowledge or of experience on the part of their adversaries. With them voted Fairfax, who, after a long retirement, appeared once more on the stage. He constantly sat by the side, and echoed the opinions of Hazlerig; and, so artfully did he act his part, so firmly did he attach their confidence, that, though a royalist at heart, he was designed by them

[Footnote 1: Thurloe, vii. 541, 550. Ludlow, ii. 170. Bethel, Brief Narrative, 340. England’s Confusion (p. 4), London, 1659.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Jan. 27]

for the office of lord-general, in the event of the expulsion or the abdication of Richard. 3. The “moderates or neuters” held in number the medium between the protectorists and republicans. Of these, some wavered between the two parties; but many were concealed Cavaliers, who, in obedience to the command of Charles, had obtained seats in the house, or young men who, without any fixed political principles, suffered themselves to be guided by the suggestions of the Cavaliers. To the latter, Hyde had sent instructions that they should embarrass the plans of the protector, by denouncing to the house the illegal acts committed under the late administration; by impeaching Thurloe and the principal officers of state; by fomenting the dissension between the courtiers and the republicans; and by throwing their weight into the scale, sometimes in favour of one, sometimes of the other party, as might appear most conducive to the interests of the royal exile.[1]

The Lords, aware of the insecure footing on which they stood, were careful not to provoke the hostility of the Commons. They sent no messages; they passed no bills; but exchanging matters of state for questions of religion, contrived to spend their time in discussing the form of a national catechism, the sinfulness of theatrical entertainments, and the papal corruptions supposed to exist in the Book of Common

[Footnote 1: Thurloe, i. 766; vii. 562, 604, 605, 609, 615, 616. Clarend. Pap. iii. 423, 424, 425, 428, 432, 434, 436. There were forty-seven republicans; from one hundred to one hundred and forty counterfeit republicans and neuters, seventy-two lawyers, and above one hundred placemen.–Ibid. 440. They began with a day of fasting and humiliation within the house, and four ministers, with praying and preaching, occupied them from nine till six.–Burton’s Diary and Journals, Feb. 4.]

Prayer.[1] In the lower house, the first subject which called forth the strength of the different parties was a bill which, under the pretence of recognizing Richard Cromwell for the rightful successor to his father, would have pledged the parliament to an acquiescence in the existing form of government.[a] The men of republican principles instantly took the alarm. To Richard personally they made no objection; they respected his private character, and wished well to the prosperity of his family; but where, they asked, was the proof that the provisions of the “humble petition and advice” had been observed? where the deed of nomination by his father? where the witnesses to the signature?–Then what was the “humble petition and advice” itself? An instrument of no force in a matter of such high concernment, and passed by a very small majority in a house, out of which one hundred members lawfully chosen, had been unlawfully excluded. Lastly, what right had the Commons to admit a negative voice, either in another house or in a single person? Such a voice was destructive of the sovereignty of the people exercised by their representatives. The people had sent them to parliament with power to make laws for the national welfare, but not to annihilate the first and most valuable right of their constituents. Each day the debate grew more animated and personal; charges were made and recriminations followed: the republicans enumerated the acts of misrule and oppression under the government of the late protector; the courtiers balanced the account with similar instances from the proceedings of their adversaries during the sway of the long parliament; the orators, amidst the

[Footnote 1: Thurloe, 559, 609, 615.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Feb. 1.]

multitude of subjects incidentally introduced, lost sight of the original question; and the speaker, after a debate of eight days, declared that he was bewildered in a labyrinth of confusion, out of which he could discover no issue. Weariness at last induced the combatants to listen to a compromise,[a] that the recognition of Richard as protector should form part of a future bill, but that at the same time, his prerogative should be so limited as to secure the liberties of the people. Each party expressed its satisfaction. The republicans had still the field open for the advocacy of their favourite doctrines; the protectorists had advanced a step, and trusted that it would lead them to the acquisition of greater advantages.[1]

From the office of protector, the members proceeded to inquire into the constitution and powers of the other house; and this question, as it was intimately connected with the former, was debated with equal warmth and pertinacity. The opposition appealed to the “engagement,” which many of the members had subscribed; contended that the right of calling a second house had been personal to the late protector, and did not descend to his successors; urged the folly of yielding a negative voice on their proceedings to a body of counsellors of their own creation; and pretended to foretel that a protector with a yearly income of one million three hundred thousand pounds, and a house of lords selected by himself, must inevitably become, in the course of a few years, master of the liberties of the people. When, at the end of nine days, the speaker was going to put the question, Sir

[Footnote 1: Journals, Feb. 1, 14. Thurloe, 603, 609, 610, 615, 617. Clar. Pap. iii. 424, 426, 429. In Burton’s Diary the debate occupies almost two hundred pages (iii. 87-287).]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Feb 14.]

Richard Temple, a concealed royalist, demanded that the sixty members from Scotland and Ireland, all in the interest of the court, should withdraw.[a] It was, he said, doubtful, from the illegality of their election, whether they had any right to sit at all; it was certain that, as the representatives of other nations, they could not claim to vote on a question of such high importance to the people of England. Thus another bone of contention was thrown between the parties; eleven days were consumed before the Scottish and Irish members could obtain permission to vote,[b] and then five more expired before the question respecting the other house was determined.[c] The new lords had little reason to be gratified with the result. They were acknowledged, indeed, as a house of parliament for the present; but there was no admission of their claim of the peerage, or of a negative voice, or of a right to sit in subsequent parliaments. The Commons consented “to transact business with them” (a new phrase of undefined meaning), pending the parliament, but with a saving of the rights of the ancient peers, who had been faithful to the cause; and, in addition, a few days later,[d] they resolved that, in the transaction of business, no superiority should be admitted in the other house, nor message received from it, unless brought by the members themselves.[1]

In these instances, the recognition of the protector, and of the two houses, the royalists, with some exceptions, had voted in favour of the court, under the impression that such a form of government was

[Footnote 1: Journals, Feb. 18, March 28, April 5, 6, 8. Thurloe, 615, 626, 633, 636, 640, 647, Clar. Pap. iii. 429, 432. Burton’s Diary, iii. 317-369, 403-424, 510-594; iv. 7-41, 46-147, 163-243, 293, 351, 375.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. March 10.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. March 23.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1659. March 28.] [Sidenote d: A.D. 1659. April 8.]

one step towards the restoration of the king. But on all other questions, whenever there was a prospect of throwing impediments in the way of the ministry, or of inflaming the discontent of the people, they zealously lent their aid to the republican party. It was proved that, while the revenue had been doubled, the expenditure had grown in a greater proportion; complaints were made of oppression, waste, embezzlement, and tyranny in the collection of the excise: the inhumanity of selling obnoxious individuals for slaves to the West India planters was severely reprobated;[1] instances of extortion were daily announced to the house by the committee of grievances; an impeachment was ordered against Boteler, accused of oppression in his office of major-general; and another threatened against Thurloe for illegal conduct in his capacity of secretary of state. But, while these proceedings awakened the hopes and gratified the resentments of the people, they at the same time spread alarm through the army; every man conscious of having abused the power of the sword began to tremble for his own safety; and an unusual ferment, the sure presage of military violence, was observable at the head-quarters of the several regiments.

[Footnote 1: Clar. Pap. iii. 429, 432. Thurloe, 647. Burton’s Diary, iii. 448; iv. 255, 263, 301, 403, 429. One petition stated that seventy persons who had been apprehended on account of the Salisbury rising, after a year’s imprisonment, had been sold at Barbadoes for “1550 pounds’ weight of sugar a-piece, more or less, according to their working faculties.” Among them were divines, officers, and gentlemen, who were represented as “grinding at the mills, attending at the furnaces, and digging in that scorching island, being bought and sold still from one planter to another, or attached as horses or beasts for the debts of their masters, being whipped at the whipping-posts as rogues at their masters’ pleasure, and sleeping in sties worse than hogs in England."–Ibid. 256. See also Thurloe, i. 745.]

Hitherto the general officers had been divided between Whitehall and Wallingford House, the residences of Richard and of Fleetwood. At Whitehall, the Lord Falconberg, brother-in-law to the protector, Charles Howard, whom Oliver had created a viscount,[1] Ingoldsby, Whalley, Goffe, and a few others, formed a military council for the purpose of maintaining the ascendancy of Richard in the army. At Wallingford House, Fleetwood and his friends consulted how they might deprive him of the command, and reduce him to the situation of a civil magistrate; but now a third and more numerous council appeared at St. James’s, consisting of most of the inferior officers, and guided by the secret intrigues of Lambert, who, holding no commission himself, abstained from sitting among them, and by the open influence of Desborough, a bold and reckless man, who began to despise the weak and wavering conduct of Fleetwood. Here originated the plan of a general council of officers,[a] which was followed by the adoption of “the humble representation and petition,” an instrument composed in language too moderate to give reasonable cause of offence, but intended to suggest much more than it was thought prudent to express. It made no allusion to the disputed claim of the protector, or the subjects of strife between the two houses; but it complained bitterly of the contempt into which the good old cause had sunk, of the threats held out, and the prosecutions instituted, against the patriots who had distinguished themselves in its support, and of the privations to which the military were reduced

[Footnote 1: Viscount Howard, of Morpeth, July 20, 1657, afterwards created Baron Dacre, Viscount Howard of Morpeth and earl of Carlisle, by Charles II., 30 April, 1661.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. April 6.]

by a system that kept their pay so many months in arrear. In conclusion, it prayed for the redress of these grievances, and stated the attachment of the subscribers to the cause for which they had bled, and their readiness to stand by the protector and parliament in its defence.[1] This paper, with six hundred signatures, was presented to Richard, who received it with an air of cheerfulness, and forwarded it to the lower house. There it was read, laid on the table, and scornfully neglected. But the military leaders treated the house with equal scorn; having obtained the consent of the protector, they established a permanent council of general officers; and then, instead of fulfilling the expectations with which they had lulled his jealousy, successively voted, that the common cause was in danger, that the command of the army ought to be vested in a person possessing its confidence, and that every officer should be called upon to testify his approbation of the death of Charles I., and of the subsequent proceedings of the military; a measure levelled against the meeting at Whitehall, of which the members were charged with a secret leaning to the cause of royalty.[2] This was sufficiently alarming; but, in addition, the officers of the trained bands signified their adhesion to the “representation” of the army; and more than six hundred privates of the regiment formerly commanded by Colonel Pride published their determination to stand by their officers in the maintenance “of the old cause."[3] The

[Footnote 1: “The Humble Representation and Petition, printed by H. Hills, 1659."–Thurloe, 659.]

[Footnote 2: Thurloe, 662. Ludlow, ii. 174.]

[Footnote 3: The Humble Representation and Petition of Field Officers, &c. of the Trained Bands. London, 1659. Burton’s Diary, iv. 388, note.]

friends of the protector saw that it was time to act with energy; and, by their influence in the lower house, carried the following votes:[a] that no military meetings should be held without the joint consent of the protector and the parliament, and that every officer should forfeit his commission who would not promise, under his signature, never to disturb the sitting, or infringe the freedom of parliament. These votes met, indeed, with a violent opposition in the “other house,” in which many of the members had been chosen from the military; but the courtiers, anxious to secure the victory, proposed another and declaratory vote in the Commons,[b] that the command of the army was vested in the three estates, to be exercised by the protector. By the officers this motion was considered as an open declaration of war: they instantly met; and Desborough, in their name, informed Richard that the crisis was at last come; the parliament must be dissolved, either by the civil authority, or by the power of the sword. He might make his election. If he chose the first, the army would provide for his dignity and support; if he did not, he would be abandoned to his fate, and fall friendless and unpitied.[1]

The protector called a council of his confidential advisers. Whitelock opposed the dissolution, on the ground that a grant of money might yet appease the discontent of the military. Thurloe, Broghill, Fiennes, and Wolseley maintained, on the contrary, that the dissension between the parliament and the army was irreconcilable; and that on the first shock between them, the Cavaliers would rise simultaneously in the

[Footnote 1: Thurloe, 555, 557, 558, 662. Burton’s Diary, iv. 448-463, 472-480. Ludlow ii. 176, 178.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. April 18.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. April 21.]

cause of Charles Stuart. A commission was accordingly signed by Richard, and the usher of the black rod repeatedly summoned the Commons to attend in the other house.[a] But true to their former vote of receiving no message brought by inferior officers, they refused to obey; some members proposed to declare it treason to put force on the representatives of the nation, others to pronounce all proceedings void whenever a portion of the members should be excluded by violence; at last they adjourned for three days, and accompanied the speaker to his carriage in the face of the soldiery assembled at the door. These proceedings, however, did not prevent Fiennes, the head commissioner, from dissolving the parliament; and the important intelligence was communicated to the three nations by proclamation in the same afternoon.[1]

Whether the consequences of this measure, so fatal to the interests of Richard, were foreseen by his advisers, may be doubted. It appears that Thurloe had for several days been negotiating both with the republican and the military leaders. He had tempted some of the former with the offer of place and emolument, to strengthen the party of the protector; to the latter he had proposed that Richard, in imitation of his father on one occasion, should raise money for the payment of the army by the power of the sword, and without the aid of parliament.[2] But these intrigues were now at an end; by the dissolution Richard had signed his own deposition; though he continued to reside at Whitehall, the government fell into abeyance; even the officers, who had hitherto frequented

[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 677. England’s Confusion, 9. Clarendon Papers, 451, 456. Ludlow, ii. 174. Merc. Pol. 564.]

[Footnote 2: Thurloe, 659, 661.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. April 22.]

his court, abandoned him, some to appease, by their attendance at Wallingford House, the resentment of their adversaries, the others, to provide, by their absence, for their own safety. If the supreme authority resided any where, it was with Fleetwood, who now held the nominal command of the army; but he and his associates were controlled both by the meeting of officers at St. James’s, and by the consultations of the republican party in the city; and therefore contented themselves with depriving the friends of Richard of their commissions, and with giving their regiments to the men who had been cashiered by his father.[1] Unable to agree on any form of government among themselves, they sought to come to an understanding with the republican leaders. These demanded the restoration of the long parliament, on the ground that, as its interruption by Cromwell had been illegal, it was still the supreme authority in the nation; and the officers, unwilling to forfeit the privileges of their new peerage, insisted on the reproduction of the other house, as a co-ordinate authority, under the less objectionable name of a senate. But the country was now in a state of anarchy; the intentions of the armies in Scotland and Ireland remained uncertain; and the royalists, both Presbyterians and Cavaliers, were exerting themselves to improve the general confusion to the advantage of the exiled king. As a last resource, the officers, by an instrument in which they regretted their past errors and backsliding, invited[a] the members of the long parliament to resume the trust of

[Footnote 1: See the Humble Remonstrance from four hundred Non-commissioned Officers and Privates of Major-general Goffe’s Regiment (so called) of Foot. London, 1659.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. May 6.]

which they had been unrighteously deprived. With some difficulty, two-and-forty were privately collected in the Painted Chamber; Lenthall, the former speaker, after much entreaty, put himself at their head,[a] and the whole body passed into the house through two lines of officers, some of whom were the very individuals by whom, six years before, they had been ignominiously expelled.[1]

The reader will recollect that, on a former occasion, in the year 1648, the Presbyterian members of the long parliament had been excluded by the army. Of these, one hundred and ninety-four were still alive, eighty of whom actually resided in the capital. That they had as good a right to resume their seats as the members who had been expelled by Cromwell could hardly be doubted; but they were royalists, still adhering to the principles which they professed during the treaty in the Isle of Wight, and from their number, had they been admitted, would have instantly outvoted the advocates of republicanism. They assembled in Westminster Hall;[b] and a deputation of fourteen, with Sir George Booth, Prynne, and Annesley at their head, proceeded to the house. The doors were closed in their faces; a company of soldiers, the keepers, as they were sarcastically called, of the liberties of England, filled the lobby; and a resolution was passed that no former member, who had not subscribed the engagement, should sit till further order of parliament.[c] The attempt, however, though it failed of success, produced its effect. It served to countenance a belief that the sitting members were mere tools of the military, and supplied the royalists with the means of masking their

[Footnote 1: Ludlow, 179-186. Whitelock, 677. England’s Confusion, 9.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. May 7.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. May 7.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1659. May 9.]

real designs under the popular pretence of vindicating the freedom of parliament.[1]

By gradual additions, the house at last amounted to seventy members, who, while they were ridiculed by their adversaries with the appellation of the “Rump,” constituted themselves the supreme authority in the three kingdoms. They appointed, first, a committee of safety, and then a council of state, notified to the foreign ministers their restoration to power, and, to satisfy the people, promised by a printed declaration[a] to establish a form of government, which should secure civil and religious liberty without a single person, or kingship, or house of lords. The farce of addresses was renewed; the “children of Zion,” the asserters of the good old cause, clamorously displayed their joy; and Heaven was fatigued with prayers for the prosperity and permanence of the new government.[2]

That government at first depended for its existence on the good-will of the military in the neighbourhood of London; gradually it obtained[b] promises of support from the forces at a distance. 1. Monk, with his

[Footnote 1: Journ. May 9. Loyalty Banished, 3. England’s Confusion, 12. On the 9th, Prynne found his way into the house, and maintained his right against his opponents till dinner-time. After dinner he returned, but was excluded by the military. He was careful, however, to inform the public of the particulars, and moreover undertook to prove that the long parliament expired at the death of the king; 1. On the authority of the doctrine laid down in the law books; 2. Because all writs of summons abate by the king’s death in parliament; 3. Because the parliament is called by a king regnant, and is his, the king regnant’s, parliament, and deliberates on hisbusiness; 4. Because the parliament is a corporation, consisting of king, lords, and commons, and if one of the three be extinct, the body corporate no longer exists.–See Loyalty Banished, and a true and perfect Narrative of what was done and spoken by and between Mr. Prynne, &c., 1650.]

[Footnote 2: See the Declarations of the Army and the Parliament in the Journals, May 7.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. May 13.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. May 17.]

officers, wrote to the speaker, congratulating him and his colleagues on their restoration to power, and hypocritically thanking them for their condescension in taking up so heavy a burthen; but, at the same time, reminding them of the services of Oliver Cromwell, and of the debt of gratitude which the nation owed to his family.[1] 2. Lockhart hastened to tender the services of the regiments in Flanders, and received in return a renewal of his credentials as ambassador, with a commission to attend the conferences between the ministers of France and Spain at Fuentarabia. 3. Montague followed with a letter from the fleet; but his professions of attachment were received with distrust. To balance his influence with the seamen, Lawson received the command of a squadron destined to cruise in the Channel; and, to watch his conduct in the Baltic, three commissioners, with Algernon Sydney at their head, were joined with him in his mission to the two northern courts.[2] 4. There still remained the army in Ireland. From Henry Cromwell, a soldier possessing the affections of the military, and believed to inherit the abilities of his father, an obstinate, and perhaps successful, resistance was anticipated. But he wanted decision. Three parties had presented themselves to his choice; to earn, by the promptitude of his acquiescence, the gratitude of the new government; or to maintain by arms the right of his deposed brother; or to declare, as he was strongly solicited to declare, in favour of Charles Stuart. Much time was lost in consultation; at length the thirst of resentment, with the lure of reward, determined him

[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 678.]

[Footnote 2: Thurloe, 669, 670. Ludlow, ii. 199. Journals, May 7, 9, 18, 26, 31.]

to unfurl the royal standard;[1] then the arrival of letters from England threw him back into his former state of irresolution; and, while he thus wavered from project to project, some of his officers ventured to profess their attachment to the commonwealth, the privates betrayed a disinclination to separate their cause from that of their comrades in England, and Sir Hardress Waller, in the interest of the parliament, surprised the castle of Dublin.[a] The last stroke reduced Henry at once to the condition of a suppliant; he signified his submission by a letter to the speaker, obeyed the commands of the house to appear before the council,[b] and, having explained to them the state of Ireland, was graciously permitted to retire into the obscurity of private life. The civil administration of the island devolved on five commissioners, and the command of the army was given to Ludlow,[c] with the rank of lieutenant-general of the horse.[2]

But the republican leaders soon discovered that they had not been called to repose on a bed of roses.[d] The officers at Wallingford House began to dictate to the men whom they had made their nominal masters, and forwarded to them fifteen demands, under the modest title of “the things which they had on their minds,” when they restored the long parliament.[3] The house took them successively into consideration. A committee was appointed to report the form of government the best calculated to secure the liberties of the people; the duration of the existing parliament was

[Footnote 1: Carte’s Letters, ii. 242. Clar. Pap. 500, 501, 516.]

[Footnote 2: Thurloe, vii. 683, 684. Journals, June 14, 27, July 4, 17. Henry Cromwell resided on his estate of Swinney Abbey, near Sohan, in Cambridgeshire, till his death in 1674.–Noble, i. 227.]

[Footnote 3: See the Humble Petition and Address of the Officers, printed by Henry Hills, 1659.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. June 15.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. July 6.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1659. July 18.] [Sidenote d: A.D. 1659. May 15.]

limited to twelve months; freedom of worship was extended to all believers in the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Trinity, with the usual exception of prelatists and papists; and an act of oblivion, after many debates, was passed, but so encumbered with provisoes and exceptions, that it served rather to irritate than appease.[1] The officers had requested[a] that lands of inheritance, to the annual value of ten thousand pounds, should be settled on Richard Cromwell, and a yearly pension of eight thousand pounds on her “highness dowager,” his mother. But it was observed in the house that, though Richard exercised no authority, he continued to occupy the state apartments at Whitehall; and a suspicion existed that he was kept there as an object of terror, to intimate to the members that the same power could again set him up, which had so recently brought him down. By repeated messages, he was ordered to retire; and, on his promise to obey, the parliament granted him the privilege of freedom from arrest during six months; transferred his private debts, amounting to twenty-nine thousand six hundred and forty pounds, to the account of the nation, gave him two thousand pounds as a relief to his present necessities, and voted that a yearly income of ten thousand pounds should be settled on him and his heirs, a grant easily made on paper, but never carried into execution.[2]

[Footnote 1: Declaration of General Council of Officers, 27th of October, p. 5. For the different forms of government suggested by different projectors, see Ludlow, ii. 206.]

[Footnote 2: Journals, May 16, 25, July 4, 12, 16.–Ludlow (ii. 198) makes the present twenty thousand pounds; but the sum of two thousand pounds is written at length in the Journals; May 25. While he was at Whitehall, he entertained proposals from the royalists, consented to accept a title and twenty thousand pounds a year, and designed to escape to the fleet under Montague, but was too strictly watched to effect his purpose.–Clar. Pap. iii. 475, 477, 478.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1659. July 12.]

But the principal source of disquietude still remained. Among the fifteen articles presented to the house, the twelfth appeared, not in the shape of a request, but of a declaration, that the officers unanimously owned Fleetwood as “commander-in-chief of the land forces in England.” It was the point for which they had contended under Richard; and Ludlow, Vane, and Salloway earnestly implored their colleagues to connive at what it was evidently dangerous to oppose. But the lessons of prudence were thrown away on the rigid republicanism of Hazlerig, Sydney, Neville, and their associates, who contended that to be silent was to acknowledge in the council of officers an authority independent of the parliament. They undertook to remodel the constitution of the army. The office of lord-general was abolished; no intermediate rank between the lieutenant-general and the colonels was admitted; Fleetwood was named lieutenant-general, with the chief command in England and Scotland, but limited in its duration to a short period, revocable at pleasure, and deprived of several of those powers which had hitherto been annexed to it. All military commissions were revoked, and an order was made that a committee of nine members should recommend the persons to be officers in each regiment; that their respective merits should be canvassed in the house; and that those who had passed this ordeal should receive their commissions at the table from the hand of the speaker. The object of this arrangement was plain: to make void the declaration of the military, to weed out men of doubtful fidelity, and to render the others dependent for their situations on the pleasure of the house. Fleetwood, with his adherents, resolved never to submit to the degradation, while the privates amused themselves with ridiculing the age and infirmities of him whom they called their new lord-general, the speaker Lenthall; but Hazlerig prevailed on Colonel Hacker, with his officers, to conform; their example gradually drew others; and, at length, the most discontented, though with shame and reluctance, condescended to go through this humbling ceremony. The republicans congratulated each other on their victory; they had only accelerated their defeat.[1]

Ever since the death of Oliver, the exiled king had watched with intense interest the course of events in England; and each day added a new stimulus to his hopes of a favourable issue. The unsettled state of the nation, the dissensions among his enemies, the flattering representations of his friends, and the offers of co-operation from men who had hitherto opposed his claims, persuaded him that the day of his restoration was at hand. That the opportunity might not be forfeited by his own backwardness, he announced[a] to the leaders of the royalists his intention of coming to England, and of hazarding his life in the company of his faithful subjects. There was scarcely a county in which the majority of the nobility and gentry did not engage to rally round his standard; the first day of August was fixed for the general rising; and it was determined[b] in the council at Brussels that Charles should repair in disguise to the coast of Bretagne, where he might procure a passage into Wales or Cornwall; that the duke of York, with six hundred veterans furnished by the prince of Condé, should attempt to land from Boulogne on the coast of Kent; and that the duke of Gloucester should follow

[Footnote 1: Journals, passim. Ludlow, ii. 197. Declaration of Officers, 6. Thurloe, 679. Clarend. Hist. iii. 665.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. June 4.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. July.]

from Ostend with the royal army of four thousand men under the Marshal Marsin. Unfortunately his concerns in England had been hitherto conducted by a council called “the Knot,” at the head of which was Sir Richard Willis. Willis, the reader is aware, was a traitor; but it was only of late that the eyes of Charles had been opened to his perfidy by Morland, the secretary of Thurloe, who, to make his own peace, sent to the court at Bruges some of the original communications in the writing of Willis. This discovery astonished and perplexed the king. To make public the conduct of the traitor was to provoke him to farther disclosures: to conceal it, was to connive at the destruction of his friends, and the ruin of his own prospects. He first instructed his correspondents to be reserved in their communications with “the Knot;"[a] he then ordered Willis to meet him on a certain day at Calais;[b] and, when this order was disregarded, openly forbade the royalists to give to the traitor information, or to follow his advice.[1]

But these precautions came too late. After the deposition of the protector, Willis had continued to communicate with Thurloe, who with the intelligence

[Footnote 1: Clar. Pap. iii. 514, 517, 518, 520, 524, 526, 529, 531, 535, 536. Willis maintained his innocence, and found many to believe him. Echard (p. 729) has published a letter with Morland’s signature, in which he is made to say that he never sent any of the letters of Willis to the king, nor even so much as knew his name; whence Harris (ii. 215) infers that the whole charge is false. That, however, it was true, no one can doubt who will examine the proofs in the Clarendon Papers (iii. 518, 526, 529, 533, 535, 536, 542, 549, 556, 558, 562, 563, 574, 583, 585), and in Carte’s Collection of Letters (ii. 220, 256, 284). Indeed, the letter from Willis of the 9th of May, 1660, soliciting the king’s pardon, leaves no room for doubt.–Clar. Pap. 643. That Morland was the informer, and, consequently, the letter in Echard is a forgery, is also evident from the reward which he received at the restoration, and from his own admission to Pepys.–See Pepys, i. 79, 82, 133, 8vo. See also “Life of James II.” 370.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. July 18.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. August 7.]

which he thus obtained, was enabled to purchase the forbearance of his former opponents. At an early period in July, the council was in possession of the plan of the royalists. Reinforcements were immediately demanded from the armies in Flanders and Ireland; directions were issued for a levy of fourteen regiments of one thousand men each;[a] measures were taken for calling out the militia; numerous arrests were made in the city and every part of the country; and the known Cavaliers were compelled to leave the metropolis, and to produce security for their peaceable behaviour. These proceedings seemed to justify Willis in representing the attempt as hopeless; and, at his persuasion, “the Knot” by circular letters forbade the rising, two days before the appointed time.[b] The royalists were thus thrown into irremediable confusion. Many remained quiet at their homes; many assembled in arms, and dispersed on account of the absence of their associates; in some counties the leaders were intercepted in their way to the place of rendezvous; in others as soon as they met, they were surrounded or charged by a superior force. In Cheshire alone was the royal standard successfully unfurled by Sir George Booth, a person of considerable influence in the county, and a recent convert to the cause of the Stuarts. In the letter which he circulated, he was careful to make no mention of the king, but called on the people to defend their rights against the tyranny of an insolent soldiery and a pretended parliament.[c] “Let the nation freely choose its representatives, and those representatives as freely sit without awe or force of soldiery.” This was all that he sought: in the determination of such an assembly, whatever that determination might be, both he and

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. August 13.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. August 29.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1659. August 2.]

his friends would cheerfully acquiesce.[1] It was in effect a rising on the Presbyterian interest; and the proceedings were in a great measure controlled by a committee of minister, who scornfully rejected the aid of the Catholics, and received with jealousy Sir Thomas Middleton, though a known Presbyterian, because he openly avowed himself a royalist.

At Chester, the parliamentary garrison retired into the castle, and the insurgents took possession of the city. Each day brought to them a new accession of strength; and their apparent success taught them to augur equally well of the expected attempts of their confederates throughout the kingdom. But the unwelcome truth could not long be concealed; and when they learned that they stood alone, that every other rising had been either prevented or instantly suppressed, and that Lambert was hastening against them with four regiments of cavalry and three of foot, their confidence was exchanged for despair; every gentleman who had risked his life in the attempt claimed a right to give his advice; and their counsels, from fear, inexperience, and misinformation, became fluctuating and contradictory.[a] After much hesitation, they resolved to proceed to Nantwich and defend the passage of the Weever; but so rapid had been the march of the enemy, who sent forward part of the infantry on horseback, that the advance was already arrived in the neighbourhood; and, while the royalists lay unsuspicious of danger in the town, Lambert forced the passage of the river at Winnington.[b] In haste, they filed out of Nantwich into the nearest fields; but here they found that most of their ammunition was still at Chester;[c] and, on the suggestion that the position was

[Footnote 1: Parl. Hist. xxiii. 107.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. August 16.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. August 18.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1659. August 19.]

unfavourable, hastened to take possession of a neighbouring eminence. Colonel Morgan, with his troop, attempted to keep the enemy in check; he fell, with thirty men; and the rest of the insurgents, at the approach of their adversaries, turned their backs and fled. Three hundred were made prisoners in the pursuit, and few of the leaders had the good fortune to escape. The earl of Derby, who had raised men in Lancashire to join the royalists, was taken in the disguise of a servant. Booth, dressed as a female, and riding on a pillion, took[a] the direct road for London, but betrayed himself at Newton Pagnell by his awkwardness in alighting from the horse. Middleton, who was eighty years old, fled to Chirk Castle; and, after a defence of a few days, capitulated,[b] on condition that he should have two months to make his peace with the parliament.[1]

The news of this disaster reached the duke of York at Boulogne, fortunately on the very evening on which he was to have embarked with his men. Charles received it at Rochelle, whither he had been compelled to proceed in search of a vessel to convey him to Wales. Abandoning the hopeless project, he instantly continued his journey to the congress at Fuentarabia, with the delusive expectation that, on the conclusion of peace between the two crowns, he should obtain a supply of money, and perhaps still more substantial aid, from a personal interview with the ministers, Cardinal Mazarin and Don Louis de Haro.[2] Montague, who had but recently become a proselyte to the royal cause,

[Footnote 1: Clar. Hist. iii. 672-675. Clar. Pap. iii. 673, 674. Ludlow, ii. 223. Whitelock, 683. Carte’s Letters, 194, 202. Lambert’s Letter, printed for Thomas Neucombe, 1659.]

[Footnote 2: Both promised to aid him secretly, but not in such manner as to give offence to the ruling party in England.–Clar. Pap. iii. 642.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. August.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. August 24.]

was drawn by his zeal into the most imminent danger. As soon as he heard of the insurrection, he brought back the fleet from the Sound, in defiance of his brother commissioners, with the intention of blockading the mouth of the Thames, and of facilitating the transportation of troops. On his arrival he learned the failure of his hopes; but boldly faced the danger, appeared before the council, and assigned the want of provisions as the cause of his return. They heard him with distrust; but it was deemed prudent to dissemble, and he received permission to withdraw.[1]

To reward Lambert for this complete, though almost bloodless, victory, the parliament[a] voted him the sum of one thousand pounds, which he immediately distributed among his officers. But while they recompensed his services, they were not the less jealous of his ambition. They remembered how instrumental he had been in raising Cromwell to the protectorate; they knew his influence in the army; and they feared his control over the timid, wavering mind of Fleetwood, whom he appeared to govern in the same manner as Cromwell had governed Fairfax. It had been hoped that his absence on the late expedition would afford them leisure to gain the officers remaining in the capital; but the unexpected rapidity of his success had defeated their policy; and, in a short time, the intrigue which had been interrupted by the insurrection was resumed. While Lambert hastened back to the capital, his army followed by slow marches; and at Derby the officers subscribed[b] a petition, which had been clandestinely forwarded to them from Wallingford House. In it they complained that adequate rewards were not conferred on the deserving; and

[Footnote 1: Journals, Sept. 16. Clar. Pap. iii. 551. Carte’s Letters, ii. 210, 236. Pepys’ Memoirs, i. 157.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. August 22.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. Sept. 14.]

demanded that the office of commander-in-chief should be given to Fleetwood without limitation of time, and the rank of major-general to their victorious leader; that no officer should be deprived of his commission without the judgment of a court-martial; and that the government should be settled in a house of representatives and a permanent senate. Hazlerig, a man of stern republican principles, and of a temper hasty, morose, and ungovernable, obtained a sight of this paper, denounced[a] it as an attempt to subvert the parliament, and moved that Lambert, its author, should be sent to the Tower; but his violence was checked by the declaration of Fleetwood, that Lambert knew nothing of its origin; and the house contented itself with ordering all copies of the obnoxious petition to be delivered up, and with resolving[b] that “to augment the number of general officers was needless, chargeable, and dangerous."[1] From that moment a breach was inevitable. The house, to gratify the soldiers, had advanced their daily pay; and with the view of discharging their arrears, had raised[c] the monthly assessment from thirty-five thousand pounds to one hundred thousand pounds.[2] But the military leaders were not to be diverted from their purpose. Meetings were daily and nightly held at Wallingford House; and another petition with two hundred and thirty signatures was presented by Desborough, accompanied by all the field-officers in the metropolis; In most points it was similar to the former; but it contained a demand that, whosoever should afterwards “groundlessly and causelessly inform the house against their servants, thereby creating jealousies, and casting scandalous imputations upon them, should be

[Footnote 1: Journ., Aug. 23, Sept. 22, 23. Ludlow, ii. 223, 227, 233, 244.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid., May 31, Aug. 18, Sept. 1]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Sept. 22.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. Sept. 23.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1659. Oct. 5.]

brought to examination, justice, and condign punishment.” This was a sufficient intimation to Hazlerig and his party to provide for their own safety. Three regiments, through the medium of their officers, had already made the tender of their services for the protection of the house; Monk, from Scotland, and Ludlow, from Ireland, wrote that their respective armies were animated with similar sentiments; and a vote was passed and ordered to be published,[a] declaring it to be treason to levy money on the people without the previous consent of parliament, a measure which, as all the existing taxes were to expire on the first day of the ensuing year, made the military dependent for their future subsistence on the pleasure of the party. Hazlerig, thus fortified, deemed himself a match for his adversaries; the next morning he boldly threw down the gauntlet;[b] by one vote, Lambert, Desborough, six colonels, and one major, were deprived of their Commissions for having subscribed the copy of the petition sent to Colonel Okey; and, by a second, Fleetwood was dismissed from his office of commander-in-chief, and made president of a board of seven members established for the government of the army. Aware, however, that he might expect resistance, the republican chieftain called his friends around him during the night; and, at the dawn of day, it was discovered that he had taken military possession of King-street and the Palace-yard with two regiments of foot and four troops of horse, who protested aloud that they would live and die with the parliament.[1][c]

[Footnote 1: Journals, Sept. 28, Oct. 5, 10, 11, 12. Ludlow, ii. 229, 247. Carte’s Letters, ii, 246. Thurloe, vii. 755. Declaration of General Council of Officers, 9-16. True Narrative of the Proceedings in Parliament, Council of State, &c., published by special order, 1659. Printed by John Redmayne.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Oct 11.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. Oct 12.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1659. Oct 13.]

Lambert mustered about three thousand men. His first care was to intercept the access of members to the house, and to prevent the egress of the militia from the city. He then marched to Westminster. Meeting the speaker, who was attended by his guard, he ordered the officer on duty to dismount, gave the command to Major Creed, one of those who had been deprived of their commissions by the preceding vote, and scornfully directed him to conduct the “lord-general” to Whitehall, whence he was permitted to return to his own house. In Westminster, the two parties faced each other; but the ardour of the privates did not correspond with that of the leaders; and, having so often fought in the same ranks, they showed no disposition to imbrue their hands in each other’s blood. In the mean time the council of state assembled: on the one side Lambert and Desborough, on the other Hazlerig and Morley, appeared to support their pretensions; much time was spent in complaint and recrimination, much in hopeless attempts to reconcile the parties; but the cause of the military continued to make converts; the advocates of the “rump,” aware that to resist was fruitless, consented to yield; and it was stipulated that the house should cease to sit, that the council of officers should provide for the public peace, arrange a new form of government, and submit it to the approbation of a new parliament. An order, that the forces on both sides should retire to their respective quarters, was gladly obeyed; the men mixed together as friends and brothers, and reciprocally promised never more to draw the sword against each other.[1]

[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 685. Journals, Oct. 13. Clar. Pap. iii. 581, 590. Ludlow, ii. 247-251. Ludlow’s account differs considerably from that by Whitelock. But the former was in Ireland, the latter present at the council.]

Thus a second time the supreme authority devolved on the meeting of officers at Wallingford House. They immediately established their favourite plan for the government of the army. The office of commander-in-chief, in its plenitude of power, was restored to Fleetwood; the rank of major-general of the forces in Great Britain was given to Lambert; and all those officers who refused to subscribe a new engagement, were removed from their commands. At the same time they annulled by their supreme authority all proceedings in parliament on the 10th, 11th, and 12th of October, vindicated their own conduct in a publication with the title of “The Army’s Plea,"[1] vested the provisional exercise of the civil authority in a committee of safety of twenty-three members, and denounced the penalties of treason against all who should refuse to obey its orders, or should venture to levy forces without its permission. An attempt was even made to replace Richard Cromwell in the protectorial dignity;[a] for this purpose he came from Hampshire to London, escorted by three troops of horse; but his supporters in the meeting were out-voted by a small majority, and he retired to Hampton Court.[2]

[Footnote 1: See Declaration of the General Council of Officers, 17. The Army’s Plea for its Present Practice, printed by Henry Hills, printer to the army, 1659, is in many parts powerfully written. The principal argument is, that as the parliament, though bound by the solemn league and covenant to defend the king’s person, honour, and dignity, did not afterwards scruple to arraign, condemn, and execute him because he had broken his trust; so the army, though they had engaged to be true and faithful to the parliament, might lawfully rise against it, when they found that it did not preserve the just rights and liberties of the people. This condition was implied in the engagement; otherwise the making of the engagement would have been a sin, and the keeping thereof would have been a sin also, and so an adding of sin to sin.]

[Footnote 2: Whitelock, 685, 686. Ludlow, ii. 250, 286, 287. Clar. Pap. 591. At the restoration, Richard, to escape from his creditors, fled to the continent; and, after an expatriation of almost twenty years, returned to England to the neighbourhood of Cheshunt, where he died in 1713, at the age of eighty-six.–Noble, i. 228.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Oct 26.]

Of all the changes which had surprised and perplexed the nation since the death of the last king, none had been received with such general disapprobation as the present. It was not that men lamented the removal of the Rump; but they feared the capricious and arbitrary rule of the army; and, when they contrasted their unsettled state with the tranquillity formerly enjoyed under the monarchy, many were not backward in the expression of their wishes for the restoration of the ancient line of their princes. The royalists laboured to improve this favourable disposition; yet their efforts might have been fruitless, had the military been united among themselves. But among the officers there were several who had already made their peace with Charles by the promise of their services, and many who secretly retained a strong attachment to Hazlerig and his party in opposition to Lambert. In Ireland, Barrow, who had been sent as their representative from Wallingford House, found the army so divided and wavering, that each faction alternately obtained a short and precarious superiority; and in Scotland, Cobbet, who arrived there on a similar mission, was, with seventeen other officers who approved of his proposals, imprisoned by order of Monk.[1]

From this moment the conduct of Monk will claim a considerable share of the reader’s attention. Ever since the march of Cromwell in pursuit of the king to Worcester he had commanded in Scotland; where, instead of concerning himself with the intrigues and parties in England, he appeared to have no other occupation

[Footnote 1: Ludlow, ii. 237, 252, 259, 262, 300. Clar. Pap. iii. 591. Carte’s Letters, 266.]

than the duties of his place, to preserve the discipline of his army, and enforce the obedience of the Scots. His despatches to Cromwell from Scotland form a striking contrast with those from the other officers of the time. There is in them no parade of piety, no flattery of the protector, no solicitation for favours. They are short, dry, and uninteresting, confined entirely to matters of business, and those only of indispensable necessity. In effect, the distinctive characteristic of the man was an impenetrable secrecy.[1] Whatever were his predilections or opinions, his wishes or designs, he kept them locked up within his own breast. He had no confidant, nor did he ever permit himself to be surprised into an unguarded avowal. Hence all parties, royalists, protectorists, and republicans, claimed him for their own, though that claim was grounded on their hopes, not on his conduct. Charles had been induced to make to him repeatedly the most tempting offers, which were supported by the solicitations of his wife and his domestic chaplain; Monk listened to them without displeasure, though he never unbosomed himself to the agents or to his chaplain so far as to put himself in their power. Cromwell had obtained some information of these intrigues; but, unable to discover any real ground of suspicion, he contented himself with putting Monk on his guard by a bantering postscript to one of his letters. “Tis said,” he added, “there is a cunning fellow in Scotland,

[Footnote 1: “His natural taciturnity was such, that most of his friends, who thought they knew him best, looked upon George Monk to have no other craft in him than that of a plain soldier, who would obey the parliament’s orders, and see that his own were obeyed."–Price, Mystery and Method of his Majesty’s happy Restoration, in Select Tracts relating to the Civil Wars in England, published by Baron Maseres, ii. 700.]

called George Monk, who lies in wait there to serve Charles Stuart; pray use your diligence to take him and send him up to me."[1] After the fall of the protector Richard, he became an object of greater distrust. To undermine his power, Fleetwood ordered two regiments of horse attached to the Scottish army to return to England; and the republicans, when the military commissions were issued by the speaker, removed a great number of his officers, and supplied their places with creatures of their own. Monk felt these affronts: discontent urged him to seek revenge; and, when he understood that Booth was at the head of a considerable force, he dictated a letter to the speaker, complaining of the proceedings of parliament, and declaring that, as they had abandoned the real principles of the old cause, they must not expect the support of his army. His object was to animate the insurgents and embarrass their adversaries; but, on the very morning on which the letter was to be submitted for signature to his principal officers, the news of Lambert’s victory arrived;[a] the dangerous instrument was instantly destroyed, and the secret most religiously kept by the few who had been privy to the intention of the general.[2]

To this abortive attempt Monk, notwithstanding his wariness, had been stimulated by his brother, a clergyman of Cornwall, who visited him with a message from Sir John Grenville by commission from Charles Stuart. After the failure of Booth, the general dismissed him with a letter of congratulation to the parliament, but without any answer to Grenville, and under an oath to keep secret whatever he had learnt

[Footnote 1: Price, 712.]

[Footnote 2: Id. 711, 716, 721.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. August 23.]

respecting the past, or the intended projects of his brother.[1] But the moment that Monk heard of the expulsion of the members,[a] and of the superior rank conferred on Lambert, he determined to appear openly as the patron of the vanquished, under the alluring, though ambiguous, title of “asserter of the ancient laws and liberties of the country.” Accordingly, he secured with trusty garrisons the castle of Edinburgh and the citadel of Leith,[b] sent a strong detachment to occupy Berwick, and took the necessary measures to raise and discipline a numerous force of cavalry. At Leith was held a general council of officers; they approved of his object, engaged to stand by him, and announced their determination, by letters directed to Lenthall, the speaker, to the council at Wallingford House, and to the commanders of the fleet in the Downs, and of the army in Ireland. It excited, however, no small surprise, that the general, while he thus professed to espouse the defence of the parliament, cashiered all the officers introduced by the parliament into his army, and restored all those who had been expelled. The more discerning began to suspect his real intentions;[2] but Hazlerig and his party were too

[Footnote 1: All that Grenville could learn from the messenger was, that his brother regretted the failure of Booth, and would oppose the arbitrary attempts of the military in England; an answer which, though favourable as far as it went, still left the king in uncertainty as to his real intentions.–Clar. Pap. iii. 618.]

[Footnote 2: Ludlow, ii. 269. Whitelock, 686, 689, 691. Price, 736, 743. Skinner, 106-109. Monk loudly asserted the contrary. “I do call God to witness,” he says in the letter to the speaker, Oct. 20, “that the asserting of a commonwealth is the only intent of my heart."–True Narrative, 28. When Price remonstrated with him, he replied: “You see who are about me and write these things. I must not show any dislike of them. I perceive they are jealous enough of me already."–Price, 746. The fact probably was, that Monk was neither royalist nor republican: that he sought only his own interest, and had determined to watch every turn of affairs, and to declare at last in favour of that party which appeared most likely to obtain the superiority.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Oct. 17.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. Oct. 18.]

elated to dwell on the circumstance, and, under the promise of his support, began to organize the means of resistance against their military oppressors.

Monk soon discovered that he was embarked in a most hazardous undertaking. The answers to his letters disapproved of his conduct; and the knowledge of these answers kindled among his followers a spirit of disaffection which led to numerous desertions. From the general of an army obedient to his commands, he had dwindled into the leader of a volunteer force, which it was necessary to coax and persuade. Two councils were formed, one of the colonels of the longest standing, the other of all the commissioned officers. The first perused the public despatches received by the general, and wrote the answers, which were signed by him as the chairman; the other was consulted on all measures respecting the conduct of the army, and confirmed or rejected the opinion of the colonels by the majority of voices. But if Monk was controlled by this arrangement, it served to screen him from suspicion. The measures adopted were taken as the result of the general will.

To the men at Wallingford House it became of the first importance to win by intimidation, or to reduce by force, this formidable opponent. Lambert marched against him from London at the head of seven thousand men; but the mind of the major-general was distracted by doubts and suspicions; and, before his departure, he exacted a solemn promise from Fleetwood to agree to no accommodation, either with the king, or with Hazlerig, till he had previously received the advice and concurrence of Lambert himself.[1] To Monk delay was as necessary as expedition was desirable to his opponents. In point of numbers and experience the force under his command was no match for that led by Lambert, but his magazines and treasury were amply supplied, while his adversary possessed not money enough to keep his army together for more than a few weeks. Before the major-general reached Newcastle, he met three deputies from Monk on their way to treat with the council in the capital. As no arguments could induce them to open the negotiation with him, he allowed them to proceed, and impatiently awaited the result. After much discussion, an agreement was concluded in London; but Monk, instead of ratifying it with his signature, discovered,[a] or pretended to discover, in it much that was obscure or ambiguous, or contrary to the instructions received by the deputies; his council agreed with him in opinion; and a second negotiation was opened with Lambert at Newcastle, to obtain from him an explanation of the meaning of the officers in the metropolis. Thus delay was added to delay; and Monk improved the time to dismiss even the privates whose sentiments were suspected, and to fill up the vacancies in the regiments of infantry by levies among the Scots. At the same time he called a convention of the Scottish estates at Berwick, of two representatives from each county and one from each borough, recommended to them the peace of the country during his absence, and obtained from them the grant of a year’s arrears of their taxes, amounting to sixty thousand pounds, in

[Footnote 1: See the Conferences of Ludlow and Whitelock with Fleetwood, Ludlow, ii. 277; Whitelock, 690.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Nov. 19.]

addition to the excise and customs. He then fixed his head-quarters at Coldstream.[1]

In the mean while the detention of Lambert in the north by the artifices of Monk had given occasion to many important events in the south. Within the city several encounters had taken place between the military and the apprentices;[2] a free parliament had become the general cry; and the citizens exhorted each other to pay no taxes imposed by any other authority. Lawson, though he wavered at first, declared against the army, and advanced with his squadron up the river as far as Gravesend. Hazlerig and Morley were admitted into Portsmouth by the governor, were joined by the force sent against them by Fleetwood, and marched towards London, that they might open a communication with the fleet in the river. Alarm produced in the committee of safety the most contradictory councils. A voice ventured to suggest the restoration of Charles Stuart; but it was replied that their offences against the family of Stuart were of too black a dye to be forgiven; that the king might be lavish of promises now that he stood in need of their services; but that the vengeance of parliament would absolve him from the obligation, when the monarchy should once be established. The final resolution was to call a new parliament against the 24th of January, and to appoint twenty-one conservators of the public peace during the interval. But they

[Footnote 1: Price, 741-744. Whitelock, 688, 699. Ludlow, 269, 271, 273. Skinner, 161, 164.]

[Footnote 2: The posts occupied by the army within the city were, “St. Paul’s Church, the Royall Exchange, Peeter-house in Aldersgate-street, and Bernet’s Castle, Gresham Coledge, Sion Coledge. Without London, were the Musses, Sumersett-house, Whitehall, St. James’s, Scotland-yeard."–MS. Diary by Thomas Rugge.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Dec. 8.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. Dec. 17.]

reckoned on an authority which they no longer possessed. The fidelity of the common soldiers had been shaken by the letters of Monk, and the declaration of Lawson. Putting themselves under the command of the officers who had been lately dismissed, they mustered[a] in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, marched before the house of Lenthall in Chancery Lame, and saluted him with three volleys of musketry as the representative of the parliament and lord-general of the army. Desborough, abandoned by his regiment, fled in despair towards Lambert; and Fleetwood, who for some days had done nothing but weep and pray, and complain that “the Lord had spit in his face," tamely endeavoured to disarm by submission the resentment of his adversaries. He sought the speaker, fell on his knees before him, and surrendered his commission.[1]

Thus the Rump was again triumphant. The members, with Lenthall at their head, resumed[b] possession of the house amidst the loud acclamations of the soldiery. Their first care was to establish a committee for the government of the army, and to order the regiments in the north to separate and march to their respective quarters. Of those among their colleagues who had supported the late committee of safety, they excused some, and punished others by suspension, or exclusion, or imprisonment: orders were sent to Lambert, and the most active of his associates, to withdraw from the army to their homes, and then instructions were given to the magistrates to take them into custody. A council of state was appointed, and into the oath to be taken by the

[Footnote 1: Ludlow, 268, 276, 282, 287, 289, 290, 296, 298. Whitelock, 689, 690, 691. Clar. Pap. 625, 629, 636, 641, 647.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1659. Dec. 24.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1659. Dec. 26.]

members was introduced a new and most comprehensive abjuration of kingship and the family of Stuart. All officers commissioned during the interruption by any other authority than that of Monk were broken; the army was entirely remodelled; and the time of the house was daily occupied by the continued introduction of officers to receive their commissions in person from the hand of the speaker.[1]

In the mean while, Monk, to subdue or disperse the army of Lambert, had raised up a new and formidable enemy in his rear. Lord Fairfax was become a convert to the cause of monarchy; to him the numerous royalists in Yorkshire looked up as leader; and he, on the solemn assurance of Monk that he would join him within twelve days or perish in the attempt, undertook to call together his friends, and to surprise the city of York. On the first day of the new year,[a] each performed his promise. The gates of York were thrown open to Fairfax by the Cavaliers confined within its walls;[2] and Monk, with his army, crossed the Tweed on his march against the advanced posts of the enemy. Thus the flame of civil war was again kindled in the north; within two days it was extinguished. The messenger from parliament ordered Lambert’s forces to withdraw to their respective quarters. Dispirited by the defection of the military in the south, they dared not disobey: at Northallerton the officers bade adieu with tears to their general; and Lambert retired in privacy to a house which he possessed in the county. Still, though the weather was

[Footnote 1: Journals, Dec. 26, Jan. 31.]

[Footnote 2: That the rising under Fairfax was in reality a rising of royalists, and prompted by the promises of Monk, is plain from the narrative of Monkton, in the Lansdowne MSS. No. 988, f. 320, 334. See also Price, 748.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. Jan. 1.]

severe, though the roads were deeply covered with snow, Monk continued[a] his march; and, at York, spent five days in consultation with Fairfax; but to the advice of that nobleman, that he should remain there, assume the command of their united forces, and proclaim the king, he replied that, in the present temper of his officers, it would prove a dangerous, a pernicious, experiment. On the arrival of what he had long expected, an invitation to Westminster, he resumed his march, and Fairfax, having received the thanks of the parliament, disbanded[b] his insurrectionary force.[1]

At York, the general had caned[c] an officer who charged him with the design of restoring the kingly government; at Nottingham, he prevented with difficulty the officers from signing an engagement to obey the parliament in all things “except the bringing in of Charles Stuart;” and at Leicester, he was compelled to suffer[d] a letter to be written in his name to the petitioners from Devonshire, stating his opinion that the monarchy could not be re-established, representing the danger of recalling the members excluded in 1648, and inculcating the duty of obedience to the parliament as it was then constituted.[2] Here he was met by two of the most active members, Scot and Robinson, who had been commissioned to accompany him during his journey, under the pretence of doing him honour, but, in reality, to sound his disposition, and to act as spies on his conduct. He received them with respect as the representatives of the sovereign authority; and so flattered were they by his attentions, so duped by his wariness, that they could not see through the veil which he spread over his intentions.

[Footnote 1: Price, 749-753. Skinner, 196, 200, 205. Journals, Jan. 6.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid. 754. Kennet’s Register, 32.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. Jan. 12.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1660. Jan. 16.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1660. Jan. 19.] [Sidenote d: A.D. 1660. Jan. 23.]

As he advanced, he received at every stage addresses from boroughs, cities, and counties, praying him to restore the excluded members, and to procure a free and a full parliament. With much affectation of humility, Monk referred the deputies to the two delegates of the supreme power, who haughtily rebuked them for their officiousness, while the friends of Monk laboured to keep alive their hopes by remote hints and obscure predictions.[1]

To lull the jealousy of the parliament, Monk had taken with him from York no more than five thousand men, a force considerably inferior to that which was quartered in London and Westminster. But from St. Alban’s he wrote[a] to the speaker, requesting that five of the regiments in the capital might be removed before his arrival, alleging the danger of quarrels and seduction, if his troops were allowed to mix with those who had been so recently engaged in rebellion. The order was instantly made; but the men refused[b] to obey. Why, they asked, were they to leave their quarters for the accommodation of strangers? Why were they to be sent from the capital, while their pay was several weeks in arrear? The royalists laboured to inflame the mutineers, and Lambert was on the watch, prepared to place himself at their head; but the distribution of a sum of money appeased their murmurs; they consented to march; and the next morning[c] the general entered at the head of his army, and proceeded to the quarters assigned to him at Whitehall.[2]

Soon after his arrival, he was invited to attend and

[Footnote 1: Price, 754. Merc. Polit. No. 604. Philips, 595. Journals, Jan. 16.]

[Footnote 2: Price, 755, 757, 758. Jour. Jan. 30. Skinner, 219-221. Philips, 594, 595, 596. Clar. Pap. iii. 666, 668. Pepys, i. 19, 21.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. Jan. 28.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1660. Feb. 2.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1660. Feb. 3.]

receive the thanks of the house. A chair had been placed for him within the bar: he stood uncovered behind it; and, in reply[a] to the speaker, extenuated his own services, related the answers which he had given to the addresses, warned the parliament against a multiplicity of oaths and engagements, prayed them not to give any share of power to the Cavaliers or fanatics, and recommended to their care the settlement of Ireland and the administration of justice in Scotland. If there was much in this speech to please, there was also much that gave offence. Scot observed that the servant had already learned to give directions to his masters.[1]

As a member of the council of state, he was summoned to abjure the house of Stuart, according to the late order of parliament. He demurred. Seven of the counsellors, he observed, had not yet abjured, and he wished to know their reasons, for the satisfaction of his own conscience. Experience had shown that such oaths were violated as easily as they were taken, and to him it appeared an offence against Providence to swear never to acquiesce in that which Providence might possibly ordain. He had given the strongest proofs of his devotion to parliament: if these were not sufficient, let them try him again; he was ready to give more.[2]

[Footnote 1: Journals, Feb. 6. New Parl. Hist. iii. 1575. Philips, 597. Price, 759. The Lord-general Monk, his Speech. Printed by J. Macock, 1660.]

[Footnote 2: Gumble, 228. Price, 759, 760. Philips, 595. About this time, a parcel of letters to the king, written by different persons in different ciphers, and intrusted to the care of a Mr. Leonard, was intercepted by Lockhart at Dunkirk, and sent by him to the council. When the writers were first told that the letters had been deciphered, they laughed at the information as of a thing impracticable; but were soon undeceived by the decipherer, who sent to them by the son of the bishop of Ely copies of their letters in cipher, with a correct interlineary explanation of each. They were astonished and alarmed; and, to save themselves from the consequences of the discovery, purchased of him two of the original letters at the price of three hundred pounds.–Compare Barwick’s Life, 171, and App. 402, 412, 415, 422, with the correspondence on the subject in the Clarendon Papers, iii. 668, 681, 696, 700, 715. After this, all letters of importance were conveyed through the hands of Mrs. Mary Knatchbull, the abbess of the English convent in Gand.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. Feb. 6.]

The sincerity of this declaration was soon put to the test. The loyal party in the city, especially among the moderate Presbyterians, had long been on the increase. At the last elections the common council had been filled with members of a new character; and the declaration which they issued demanded “a full and free parliament, according to the ancient and fundamental laws of the land.” Of the assembly sitting in Westminster, as it contained no representative from the city, no notice was taken; the taxes which it had imposed were not paid; and the common council, as if it had been an independent authority, received and answered addresses from the neighbouring counties. This contumacy, in the opinion of the parliamentary leaders, called for prompt and exemplary punishment; and it was artfully suggested that, by making Monk the minister of their vengeance, they would open a wide breach between him and their opponents. Two hours after midnight he received[a] an order to march into the city, to arrest eleven of the principal citizens, to remove the posts and chains which had lately been fixed in the streets, and to destroy the portcullises and the gates. After a moment’s hesitation, he resolved to obey, rather than hazard the loss of his commission. The citizens received him with groans and hisses; the soldiers murmured; the officers tendered their resignations. He merely replied that his orders left nothing to his discretion; but the reply was made with a sternness of

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. Feb. 9.]

tone, and a gloominess of countenance, which showed, and probably was intended to show, that he acted with reluctance and with self-reproach.[1]

As soon as the posts and chains were removed, Monk suggested, in a letter to the speaker, that enough had been done to subdue the refractory spirit of the citizens. But the parliamentary leaders were not satisfied: they voted that he should execute his former orders; and the demolition of the gates and portcullises was effected. The soldiers loudly proclaimed their discontent: the general, mortified and ashamed, though he had been instructed to quarter them in the city, led them back to Whitehall.[2] There, on the review of these proceedings, he thought that he discovered proofs of a design, first to commit him with the citizens, and then to discard him entirely. For the house, while he was so ungraciously employed, had received, with a show of favour, a petition from the celebrated Praise-God Barebone, praying that no man might sit in parliament, or hold any public office, who refused to abjure the pretensions of Charles Stuart, or of any other single person. Now this was the very case of the general, and his suspicions were confirmed by the reasoning of his confidential advisers. With their aid, a letter to the speaker was prepared[a] the same evening, and approved the next morning by the council of officers. In it the latter were made to complain that they had been rendered the instruments of personal resentment against the citizens, and to require that by the following Friday every vacancy in the house should be filled up, preparatory to its

[Footnote 1: Journ. Feb. 9. Price, 761. Ludlow, ii. 336. Clar. Pap. iii. 674, 691. Gumble, 236. Skinner, 231-237.]

[Footnote 2: Journ. Feb. 9. Philips, 599.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. Feb. 10.]

subsequent dissolution and the calling of a new parliament. Without waiting for an answer, Monk marched back into Finsbury Fields: at his request, a common council (that body had recently been dissolved by a vote of the parliament) was summoned; and the citizens heard from the mouth of the general that he, who yesterday had come among them as an enemy by the orders of others, was come that day as a friend by his own choice; and that his object was to unite his fortune with theirs, and by their assistance to obtain a full and free parliament for the nation. This speech was received with the loudest acclamations. The bells were tolled; the soldiers were feasted; bonfires were lighted; and among the frolics of the night was “the roasting of the rump,” a practical joke which long lived in the traditions of the city. Scot and Robinson, who had been sent to lead back the general to Whitehall, slunk away in secrecy, that they might escape the indignation of the populace.[1]

At Westminster, the parliamentary leaders affected a calmness and intrepidity which they did not feel. Of the insult offered to their authority they took no notice; but, as an admonition to Monk, they brought in a bill[a] to appoint his rival, Fleetwood, commander-in-chief in England and Scotland. The intervention of the Sunday allowed more sober counsels to prevail.

[Footnote 1: Price, 765-768. Clar. Pap. iii. 681, 692, 714. Ludlow, 337. Gumble, 249. Skinner, 237-243. Old Parl. Hist. xxii. 94. Pepys, i. 24, 25. “At Strand-bridge I could at one time tell thirty-one fires; in King-street, seven or eight, and all along burning, and roasting, and drinking for rumps; there being rumps tied upon sticks, and carried up and down. The butchers at the May-pole in the Strand rang a peal with their knives, when they were going to sacrifice their rump. On Ludgate-hill there was one turning of the spit that had a rump tied to it, and another basting of it. Indeed it was past imagination."–Ibid. 28.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. Feb. 11.]

They solicited the general to return to Whitehall; they completed the bill for the qualifications of candidates and electors; and, on the day fixed by the letter of the officers, ordered[a] writs to be issued for the filling up of the vacancies in the representation. This measure had been forced upon them; yet they had the ingenuity to make it subservient to their own interest, by inserting a provision in the act, that no man should choose or be chosen, who had not already bound himself to support a republican form of government. But immediately the members excluded in 1648 brought forward their claim to sit, and Monk assumed the appearance of the most perfect indifference between the parties. At his invitation, nine of the leaders on each side argued the question before him and his officers; and the result was, that the latter expressed their willingness to support the secluded members, on condition that they should pledge themselves to settle the government of the army, to raise money to pay the arrears, to issue writs for a new parliament to sit on the 20th of April, and to dissolve themselves before that period. The general returned[b] to Whitehall; the secluded members attended his summons; and, after a long speech, declaratory of his persuasion that a republican form of government and a moderate presbyterian kirk were necessary to secure and perpetuate the tranquillity of the nation, he advised them to go and resume their seats. Accompanied by a great number of officers, they walked to the house; the guard, under the command of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, opened to let them pass; and no opposition was made by the speaker or the members.[1] Hazlerig, however, and the

[Footnote 1: Journals, Feb. 11, 13, 15, 17, 21. Price, 768-773. Ludlow, ii. 345, 351, 353. Skinner, 256-264. Clar. Pap. 663, 682, 688. Gumble, 260, 263. Philips, 600. The number of secluded members then living was one hundred and ninety-four, of members sitting or allowed to sit by the orders of the house, eighty-nine.–"A Declaration of the True State of the Matter of Fact,” 57.]

[Sideline a: A.D. 1660. Feb. 17.] [Sideline b: A.D. 1660. Feb. 21.]

more devoted of his adherents, rose and withdrew–a fortunate secession for the royalists; otherwise, with the addition of those among the restored members who adhered to a commonwealth, the republicans might on many questions have still commanded a majority.[1]

To the Cavaliers, the conduct of Monk on this occasion proved a source of the most distressing perplexity. On the one hand, by introducing the secluded members he had greatly advanced the cause of royalty. For though Holles, Pierpoint, Popham, and their friends still professed the doctrines which they had maintained during the treaty in the Isle of Wight, though they manifested the same hatred of popery and prelacy, though they still inculcated the necessity of limiting the prerogative in the choice of the officers of state and in the command of the army, yet they were royalists by principle, and had, several of them, made the most solemn promises to the exiled king of labouring strenuously for his restoration. On the other hand, that Monk at the very time when he gave the law without control, should declare so loudly in favour of a republican government and a presbyterian kirk, could not fail to alarm both Charles and his abettors.[2] Neither was this the only instance: to all, Cavaliers or republicans, who approached him to discover his intentions, he uniformly professed the same sentiments, occasionally confirming his professions with oaths and imprecations. To explain this inconsistency between

[Footnote 1: Hutchinson, 362.]

[Footnote 2: Clar. Hist. iii. 720, 721, 723, 724; Papers, ii. 698.]

the tendency of his actions and the purport of his language, we are told by those whom he admitted to his private counsels, that it was forced upon him by the necessity of his situation; that, without it, he must have forfeited the confidence of the army, which believed its safety and interest to be intimately linked with the existence of the commonwealth. According to Ludlow, the best soldier and statesman in the opposite party, Monk had in view an additional object, to deceive the suspicions and divert the vigilance of his adversaries; and so successfully had he imposed on the credulity of many (Hazlerig himself was of the number), that, in defiance of every warning, they blindly trusted to his sincerity, till their eyes were opened by the introduction of the secluded members.[1]

In parliament the Presbyterian party now ruled without opposition. They annulled[a] all votes relative to their own expulsion from the house in 1648; they selected a new council of state, in which the most influential members were royalists; they appointed Monk commander-in-chief of the forces in the three kingdoms, and joint commander of the fleet with Admiral Montague; they granted him the sum of twenty thousand pounds in lieu of the palace at Hampton Court, settled on him by the republican party; they discharged[b] from confinement, and freed from the penalty of sequestration, Sir George Booth and his associates, a great number of Cavaliers, and the Scottish lords taken after the battle at Worcester; they restored the common council, borrowed sixty thousand pounds for the immediate pay of the army,

[Footnote 1: Price, 773. Ludlow, 349, 355. Clar. Pap. iii. 678, 697, 703, 711.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. Feb. 21.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1660. March.]

declared the Presbyterian confession of faith to be that of the church of England, ordered copies of the solemn league and covenant to be hung up in all churches, offered rewards for the apprehension of Catholic priests, urged the execution of the laws against Catholic recusants, and fixed the 15th of March for their own dissolution, the 25th of April for the meeting of a new parliament.[1]

Here, however, a serious difficulty arose. The House of Commons (according to the doctrine of the secluded members, it could be nothing more) was but a single branch of the legislature. By what right could it pretend to summon a parliament? Ought not the House of Lords, the peers who had been excluded in 1649, to concur? Or rather, to proceed according to law, ought not the king either to appoint a commission to hold a parliament, as was usually done in Ireland, or to name a guardian invested with such power, as was the practice formerly, when our monarchs occasionally resided in France? But, on this point, Monk was inflexible. He placed guards at the door of the House of Lords to prevent the entrance of the peers; and he refused to listen to any expedient which might imply an acknowledgment of the royal authority. To the arguments urged by others, he replied,[a] that the parliament according to law determined by the death of Charles I.; that the present house could justify its sitting on no other ground but that of necessity, which did not apply to the House of Lords; and that it was in vain to expect the submission of the army to a parliament called by royal authority. The military had, with reluctance, consented to the restoration of

[Footnote 1: Journals, passim.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. March 3.]

the secluded members; and to ask more of them at present was to hazard all the advantages which had hitherto been obtained.[1]

Encouraged by the downfall of the republicans, the royalists throughout the country expressed their sentiments without restraint. In some places Charles was proclaimed by the populace; several ministers openly prayed for him in the churches: the common council, in their address, declared themselves not averse to his restoration; and the house itself was induced to repeal[a] the celebrated engagement in favour of a commonwealth, without a single person or a house of peers, and to embody under trusty officers the militia of the city and the counties, as a counterpoise to the republican interest in the army. The judges of the late king, and the purchasers of forfeited property, began to tremble. They first tempted the ambition of the lord-general with the offer of the sovereign authority.[2] Rejected by him, they appealed to the military; they represented the loss of their arrears,

[Footnote 1: Clar. Pap. iii. 704. Ludlow, 364, 365. Price, 773.]

[Footnote 2: Gumble, 270. Two offers of assistance were made to the general, on the supposition that he might aspire to the supreme power; one from the republicans, which I have mentioned, another from Bordeaux, the French ambassador, in the name of Cardinal Mazarin. On one of these offers he was questioned by Sir Anthony Ashley Copper in the council of state. If we may believe Clarges, one of his secret advisers, it was respecting the former which Clarges mentioned to Cooper. With respect to the offer from Bordeaux, he tells us that it was made through Clarges himself, and scornfully rejected by Monk, who nevertheless consented to receive a visit from Bordeaux, on condition that the subject should not be mentioned.–Philips, 602, 604. Locke, on the contrary, asserts that Monk accepted the offer of the French minister; that his wife, through loyalty to the king, betrayed the secret; and that Cooper put to the general such searching questions that he was confused, and, in proof of his fidelity, took away the commissions of several officers of whom the council was jealous.–Memoirs of Shaftesbury, in Kennet’s Register, 86. Locke, ix, 279. See note (K).]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. March 10.]

and of the property which they had acquired, as the infallible consequences of the restoration of the royal exile; and they so far wrought on the fears of the officers, that an engagement to oppose all attempts to set up a single person was presented[a] to Monk for his signature, with a request that he would solicit the concurrence of the parliament. A second council of officers was held the next morning;[b] the general urged the inexpediency of troubling the house with new questions, when it was on the point of dissolving itself; and by the address and influence of his friends, though with considerable difficulty, he procured the suppression of the obnoxious paper. In a short time he ordered the several officers to join their respective regiments, appointed a commission to inspect and reform the different corps, expelled all the officers whose sentiments he had reason to distrust, and then demanded and obtained from the army an engagement to abstain from all interference in matters of state, and to submit all things to the authority of the new parliament.[1]

Nineteen years and a half had now elapsed since the long parliament first assembled–years of revolution and bloodshed, during which the nation had made the trial of almost every form of government, to return at last to that form from which it had previously departed. On the 16th of March, one day later than was originally fixed, its existence, which had been illegally prolonged since the death of Charles I., was terminated[c] by its own act.[2] The reader is already acquainted with its history. For the glorious stand

[Footnote 1: Philips, 603, 606. Price, 781. Kennet’s Reg. 113. Thurloe, vii. 852, 859, 870. Pepys, i. 43. Skinner, 279-284.]

[Footnote 2: Journals, March 16.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. March 14.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1660. March 15.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1660. March 16.]

which it made against the encroachments of the crown, it deserves both admiration and gratitude; its subsequent proceedings assumed a more ambiguous character; ultimately they led to anarchy and military despotism. But, whatever were its merits or demerits, of both posterity has reaped the benefit. To the first, we are indebted for many of the rights which we now enjoy; by the second, we are warned of the evils which result from political changes effected by violence, and in opposition to the habits and predilections of the people.

Monk had now spent more than two months in England, and still his intentions were covered with a veil of mystery, which no ingenuity, either of the royalists or of the republicans, could penetrate. Sir John Grenville, with whom the reader is already acquainted, paid frequent visits to him at St. James’s; but the object of the Cavalier was suspected, and his attempts[a] to obtain a private interview were defeated by the caution of the general. After the dissolution, Morrice, the confidential friend of both, brought them together, and Grenville delivered to Monk a most flattering letter from the king. He received and perused it with respect. This was, he observed, the first occasion on which he could express with safety his devotion to the royal cause; but he was still surrounded with men of hostile or doubtful sentiments; the most profound secrecy was still necessary; Grenville might confer in private with Morrice, and must consent to be himself the bearer of the general’s answer. The heads of that answer were reduced to writing. In it Monk prayed the king to send him a conciliatory letter, which, at the proper season, he might lay before the parliament; for himself he asked

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. March 10.]

nothing; he would not name, as he was desired, his reward; it was not for him to strike a bargain with his sovereign; but, if he might express his opinion, he advised Charles to promise a general or nearly general pardon, liberty of conscience, the confirmation of the national sales, and the payment of the arrears due to the army. As soon as this paper had been, read, he threw it into the fire, and bade Grenville rely on his memory for its contents.[1]

By Charles at Brussels the messenger was received as an angel from heaven. The doubts which had so long tormented his mind were suddenly removed; the crown, contrary to expectation, was offered[a] without previous conditions; and nothing more was required than that he should aid with his pen the efforts of the general; but when he communicated the glad tidings to Ormond, Hyde, and Nicholas, these counsellors discovered that the advice, suggested by Monk, was derogatory to the interests of the throne and the personal character of the monarch, and composed a royal declaration which, while it professed to make to the nation the promises recommended by Monk, in reality neutralized their effect, by subjecting them to such limitations as might afterwards be imposed by the wisdom of parliament. This paper was enclosed[b] within a letter to the speaker of the House of Commons; another letter was addressed to the House of Lords; a third to Monk and the army; a fourth to Montague and the navy; and a fifth to the lord mayor and the city. To the general, open copies were transmitted, that he might deliver or destroy the originals

[Footnote 1: Clar. Hist. iii. 734-736. Price, 785. Philips, 605. Clar. Pap. iii. 706, 711. From the last authorities it is plain that Mordaunt was intrusted with the secret as well as Grenville–also a Mr. Herne, probably a fictitious name.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. March 26.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1660. April 2.]

as he thought fit. Notwithstanding the alterations made at Brussels, he professed himself satisfied with the declaration, and ordered[a] Grenville to keep the papers in his custody, till the proper season should arrive.[1]

In the mean while, the writs for the new parliament had been issued; and, as there was no court to influence, no interference of the military to control the elections, the result may be fairly taken to express the sense of the country. The republicans, the Cavaliers, the Presbyterians, all made every effort in their power to procure the return of members of congenial sentiments. Of the three parties, the last was beyond comparison the most powerful, had not division paralyzed its influence. The more rigid Presbyterians, though they opposed the advocates of the commonwealth because they were sectaries, equally deprecated the return of the king, because they feared the restoration of episcopacy. A much greater number, who still adhered with constancy to the solemn league and covenant, deemed themselves bound by it to replace the king on the throne, but under the limitations proposed during the treaty in the Isle of Wight. Others, and these the most active and influential, saw no danger to be feared from a moderate episcopacy; and, anxious to obtain honours and preferment, laboured

[Footnote 1: Clar. iii. 737-740, 742-751. Price, 790. Monk had been assured, probably by the French ambassador, that the Spaniards intended to detain the king at Brussels as a hostage for the restoration of Jamaica and Dunkirk. On this account he insisted that the king should leave the Spanish territory, and Charles, having informed the governor of his intention to visit Breda, left Brussels about two hours, if Clarendon be correct, before an order was issued for his detention. The several letters, though written and signed at Brussels, were dated from Breda, and given to Grenville the moment the king placed his foot on the Dutch territory.–Clar. 740.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. April 10.]

by the fervour of their present loyalty to deserve the forgiveness of their past transgressions. These joined with the Cavaliers; their united efforts bore down all opposition; and, in most places, their adversaries either shrunk from the contest, or were rejected by overwhelming majorities.[1]

But the republicans sought for aid in another direction. Their emissaries penetrated into the quarters of the military, where they lamented the approaching ruin of the good old cause, regretted that so many sacrifices had been made, so much blood had been shed in vain, and again insinuated to the officers, that they would forfeit the lands which they had purchased, to the privates, that they would be disbanded and lose their arrears.[2] A spirit of discontent began to spread through several corps, and a great number of officers repaired to the metropolis. But Monk, though he still professed himself a friend to republican government, now ventured to assume a bolder tone. The militia of the city, amounting to fourteen thousand men, was already embodied under his command; he had in his pocket a commission from Charles, appointing him lord-general over all the military in the three kingdoms; and he had resolved, should circumstances compel him to throw off the mask, to proclaim the king, and to summon every faithful subject to repair to the royal standard. He first ordered[a] the officers to return to their posts; he then directed the promise of submission to the new parliament to be tendered to

[Footnote 1: Thurloe, vii, 866, 887. Price, 787. Carte’s Letters, ii. 326. Clar. Pap. iii. 705, 714, 726, 730, 731, 733. It appears that many of the royalists were much too active. “When the complaint was made to Monk, he turned it off with a jest, that as there is a fanatic party on the one side, so there is a frantic party on the other” (721, 722).]

[Footnote 2: Thurloe, vii. 870.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. April 9.]

the privates, and every man who refused to make it was immediately discharged.[1] At the same time, the friends of the commonwealth resolved to oppose Lambert, once the idol of the soldiery, to Monk. Lambert, indeed, was a prisoner in the Tower, confined by order of the council, because he had refused to give security for his peaceable behaviour; but, with the aid of a rope, he descended[a] from the window of his bed-chamber, was received by eight watermen in a barge, and found a secure asylum in the city. The citizens, however, were too loyal to listen to the suggestions of the party; he left his concealment, hastened[b] into Warwickshire, solicited, but in vain, the co-operation of Ludlow, collected from the discontented regiments six troops of horse and some companies of foot, and expected in a few days to see himself at the head of a formidable force. But Ingoldsby, who, of a regicide, was become a royalist, met him[c] near Daventry with an equal number; a troop of Lambert’s men under the command of the younger Hazlerig, passed over to his opponents; and the others, when he gave the word to charge, pointed their pistols to the ground. The unfortunate commander immediately turned and fled; Ingoldsby followed; the ploughed land gave the advantage to the stronger horse; the fugitive was overtaken, and, after an ineffectual effort to awaken the pity of his former comrade, submitted to his fate. He was conducted[d] back to the Tower, at the time when the trained bands, the volunteers, and the auxiliaries raised in the city, passed in review before the general in Hyde Park. The auxiliaries drank the king’s health on their knees; Lambert was at the moment driven under Tyburn

[Footnote 1: Clar. Pap. iii. 715.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. April 11.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1660. April 13.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1660. April 21.] [Sidenote d: A.D. 1660. April 24.]

and the spectators hailed with shouts and exclamations the disgrace of the prisoner.[1]

The Convention parliament (so it was called, because it had not been legally summoned) met[a] on the appointed day, the 25th of April. The Presbyterians, by artful management, placed Sir Harbottle Grimstone, one of their party, in the chair; but the Cavaliers, with their adherents, formed a powerful majority, and the new speaker, instead of undertaking to stem, had the prudence to go along with, the stream. Monk sat as representative of Devonshire, his native county.

To neutralize the influence of the Cavaliers among the Commons, the Presbyterian peers who sat in 1648, assembled in the House of Lords, and chose the earl of Manchester for their speaker. But what right had they exclusively to constitute a house of parliament? They had not been summoned in the usual manner by writ; they could not sit as a part of the long parliament, which was now at least defunct; and, if they founded their pretensions on their birthright, as consiliarii nati, other peers were in possession of the same privilege. The question was propounded to the lord-general, who replied that he had no authority to determine the claims of any individual. Encouraged by this answer, a few of the excluded peers attempted to take their seats, and met with no opposition; the example was imitated by others, and in a few days the Presbyterian lords did not amount to more than one-fifth of the house. Still, however, to avoid cavil, the peers who sat in the king’s parliament at Oxford, as well as those whose patents bore date after the

[Footnote 1: Kennet’s Reg. 120. Price, 792, 794. Ludlow, 379. Philips, 607. Clar. Pap. iii. 735.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. April 25.]

commencement of the civil war, abstained for the present from demanding admission.[1]

Monk continued to dissemble. By his direction Grenville applied to a member, who was entering the council-chamber, for an opportunity of speaking to the lord-general. Monk came to the door, received from him a letter, and, recognizing on the seal the royal arms, commanded the guards to take care that the bearer did not depart. In a few minutes Grenville was called in, interrogated by the president as to the manner in which he became possessed of the letter, and ordered to be taken into custody. “That is unnecessary,” said Monk; “I find that he is my near kinsman, and I will be security for his appearance.”

The ice was now[a] broken. Grenville was treated not as a prisoner, but a confidential servant of the sovereign. He delivered to the two houses the letters addressed to them, and received in return a vote of thanks, with a present of five hundred pounds. The letter for the army was read by Monk to his officers, that for the navy by Montague to the captains under his command, and that for the city by the lord mayor to the common council in the Guildhall. Each of these bodies voted an address of thanks and congratulation to the king.

The paper which accompanied the letters to the two houses,–1. granted a free and general pardon to all persons, excepting such as might afterwards be excepted by parliament; ordaining that every division of party should cease, and inviting all who were the subjects of the same sovereign to live in union and harmony; 2. it declared a liberty to tender consciences, and that no man should be disquieted or called in

[Footnote 1: Lords’ Journ. xi. 4, 5, 6.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. May 1.]

question for differences of opinion in matters of religion which did not disturb the peace of the kingdom, and promised moreover the royal assent to such acts of parliament as should be offered for the full granting of that indulgence: 3. it alluded to the actions at law to which the actual possessors of estates purchased by them or granted to them during the revolution might be liable, and purposed to leave the settlement of all such differences to the wisdom of parliament, which could best provide for the just satisfaction of the parties concerned: lastly, it promised to liquidate the arrears of the army under General Monk, and to retain the officers and men in the royal service upon the same pay and conditions which they actually enjoyed. This was the celebrated declaration from Breda, the royal charter on the faith of which Charles was permitted to ascend the throne of his fathers.[1]

Encouraged by the bursts of loyalty with which the king’s letters and declaration had been received, his agents made it their great object to procure his return to England before limitations could be put on the prerogative. From the Lords, so numerous were the Cavaliers in the upper house, no opposition could be feared; and the temper already displayed by the Commons was calculated to satisfy the wishes of the most ardent champions of royalty. The two houses voted, that by the ancient and fundamental laws of the realm the government was and ought to be by king, lords, and commons; they invited Charles to come and receive the crown to which he was born; and, to relieve his more urgent necessities, they sent him a present of fifty thousand pounds, with ten thousand pounds for his brother the duke of York, and five

[Footnote 1: Lords’ Journ. xi. 7, 10.]

thousand pounds for the duke of Gloucester. They ordered the arms and symbols of the commonwealth to be effaced, the name of the king to be introduced into the public worship, and his succession to be proclaimed as having commenced from the day of his father’s death.[1] Hale, the celebrated lawyer, ventured, with Prynne, to call[a] upon the House of Commons to pause in their enthusiasm, and attend to the interests of the nation. The first moved the appointment of a committee to inquire what propositions had been offered by the long parliament, and what concessions had been made by the last king in 1648; the latter urged the favourable opportunity of coming to a mutual and permanent understanding on all those claims which had been hitherto subjects of controversy between the two houses and the crown. But Monk rose, and strongly objected to an inquiry which might revive the fears and jealousies, the animosities and bloodshed, of the years that were past. Let the king return while all was peace and harmony. He would come alone; he could bring no army with him; he would be as much at their mercy in Westminster as in Breda. Limitations, if limitations were necessary, might be prepared in the interval, and offered to him after his arrival. At the conclusion of this speech, the house resounded with the acclamations of the Cavaliers; and the advocates of the inquiry, awed by the authority of the general and the clamour of their opponents, deemed it prudent to desist.[2]

Charles was as eager to accept, as the houses had been to vote, the address of invitation. From Breda he had gone to the Hague, where the States, anxious to atone for their former neglect, entertained him with

[Footnote 1: Journals of both houses.]

[Footnote 2: Burnet, i. 88. Ludlow, iii. 8, 9.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. May 7.]

unusual magnificence. The fleet, under Montague,[1] had anchored in the Bay of Scheveling; and Charles, as soon as the weather permitted, set sail[a] for Dover, where Monk, at the head of the nobility and gentry from the neighbouring counties, waited to receive the new sovereign. Every eye was fixed on their meeting;[b] and the cheerful, though dignified, condescension of the king, and the dutiful, respectful homage of the general, provoked the applause of the spectators. Charles embraced him as his benefactor, bade him walk by his side, and took him into the royal carriage. From Dover to the capital the king’s progress bore the appearance of a triumphal procession. The roads were covered with crowds of people anxious to testify their loyalty, while they gratified their curiosity. On Blackheath he was received[c] by the army in battle array, and greeted with acclamations as he passed through the ranks; in St. George’s Fields the lord mayor and aldermen invited him to partake of a splendid collation in a tent prepared for the purpose; from London Bridge to Whitehall the houses were hung with tapestry, and the streets lined by the trained bands, the regulars, and the officers who had served under Charles I. The king was preceded by troops of horsemen, to the amount of three thousand persons, in splendid dresses, attended by trumpeters and footmen; then came the lord mayor, carrying the naked sword, after him the lord-general and the duke of Buckingham, and lastly the king himself, riding between his two brothers. The cavalcade was closed by the general’s life-guard, five regiments

[Footnote 1: Montague had long been in correspondence with the king, and disapproved of the dissimulation of Monk, so far as to call him in private a “thick-sculled fool;” but thought it necessary to flatter him, as he could hinder the business.–Pepys, i. 69.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. May 23.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1660. May 25.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1660. May 29.]

of horse, and two troops of noblemen and gentlemen. At Whitehall Charles dismissed the lord mayor, and received in succession the two houses, whose speakers addressed him in strains of the most impassioned loyalty, and were answered by him with protestations of attachment to the interests and liberties of his subjects. It was late in the evening before the ceremonies of this important day were concluded; when Charles observed to some of his confidants “It must sorely have been my fault that I did not come before; for I have met with no one to-day who did not protest that he always wished for my restoration."[1]

That the re-establishment of royalty was a blessing to the country will hardly be denied. It presented the best, perhaps the only, means of restoring public tranquillity amidst the confusion and distrust, the animosities and hatreds, the parties and interests, which had been generated by the events of the civil war, and by a rapid succession of opposite and ephemeral governments. To Monk belongs the merit of having, by his foresight and caution, effected this desirable object without bloodshed or violence; but to his dispraise it must also be recorded, that he effected it without any previous stipulation on the part of the exiled monarch. Never had so fair an opportunity been offered of establishing a compact between the sovereign and the people, of determining, by mutual consent, the legal rights of the crown, and of securing from future encroachment the freedom of the people. That Charles would have consented to such conditions,

[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 702. Kennet’s Reg. 163. Clarendon’s Hist. iii. 772. Clarendon’s Life by Himself, Continuation, p. 7, 8. Evelyn’s Diary, ii. 148.]

we have sufficient evidence; but, when the measure was proposed, the lord-general declared himself its most determined opponent. It may have been, that his cautious mind figured to itself danger in delay; it is more probable that he sought to give additional value to his services in the eyes of the new sovereign. But, whatever were the motives of his conduct, the result was, that the king ascended the throne unfettered with conditions, and thence inferred that he was entitled to all the powers claimed by his father at the commencement of the civil war. In a few years the consequence became manifest. It was found that, by the negligence or perfidy of Monk, a door had been left open to the recurrence of dissension between the crown and the people; and that very circumstance which Charles had hailed as the consummation of his good fortune, served only to prepare the way for a second revolution, which ended in the permanent exclusion of his family from the government of these kingdoms.



NOTE A, p. 117.

Nothing more clearly shows the readiness of Charles to engage in intrigue, and the subtleties and falsehood to which he could occasionally descend, than the history of Glamorgan’s mission to Ireland. In this note I purpose to lay before the reader the substance of the several documents relating to the transaction.

On the 1st of April, 1644, the king gave to him, by the name of Edward Somerset, alias Plantagenet, Lord Herbert, Baron Beaufort, &c., a commission under the great seal, appointing him commander-in-chief of three armies of Englishmen, Irishmen, and foreigners; authorizing him to raise moneys on the securities of the royal wardships, customs, woods, &c.; furnishing him with patents of nobility from the title of marquis to that of baronet, to be filled up with names at his discretion; promising to give the Princess Elizabeth to his son Plantagenet in marriage with a dower of three hundred thousand pounds, a sum which did not much exceed what Herbert and his father had already spent in the king’s service, and in addition to confer on Herbert himself the title of duke of Somerset, with the George and blue ribbon.–From the Nuncio’s Memoirs in Birch’s Inquiry, p. 22.

This commission was granted in consequence of an understanding with the deputies from the confederate Catholics, who were then at Oxford, and its object is fully explained by Herbert himself in a letter to Clarendon, to be laid before Charles II., and dated June 11, 1660. “For his majesty’s better information, through your favour, and by the channel of your lordship’s understanding things rightly, give me leave to acquaint you with one chief key, wherewith to open the secret passages between his late majesty and myself, in order to his service; which was no other than a real exposing of myself to any expense or difficulty, rather than his just design should not take place; or, in taking effect, that his honour should suffer; an effect, you may justly say, relishing more of a passionate and blind affection to his majesty’s service, than of discretion and care of myself. This made me take a resolution that he should have seemed angry with me at my return out of Ireland, until I had brought him into a posture and power to own his commands, to make good his instructions, and to reward my faithfulness and zeal therein.

“Your lordship may well wonder, and the king too, at the amplitude of my commission. But when you have understood the height of his majesty’s design, you will soon be satisfied that nothing less could have made me capable to effect it; being that one army of ten thousand men was to have come out of Ireland through North Wales; another of a like number, at least, under my command in chief, have expected my return in South Wales, which Sir Henry Gage was to have commanded as lieutenant-general; and a third should have consisted of a matter of six thousand men, two thousand of which were to have been Liegois, commanded by Sir Francis Edmonds, two thousand Lorrainers, to have been commanded by Colonel Browne, and two thousand of such French, English, Scots, and Irish, as could be drawn out of Flanders and Holland. And the six thousand were to have been, by the prince of Orange’s assistance, in the associated counties; and the governor of Lyne, cousin german to Major Bacon, major of my own regiment, was to have delivered the town unto them.

“The maintenance of this army of foreigners was to have come from the pope, and such Catholick princes as he, should have drawn into it, having engaged to afford and procure thirty thousand pounds a month; out of which the foreign army was first to be provided for, and the remainder to be divided among the other armies. And for this purpose had I power to treat with the pope and Catholick princes with particular advantages promised to Catholicks for the quiet enjoying their religion, without the penalties which the statutes in force had power to inflict upon them. And my instructions for this purpose, and my powers to treat and conclude thereupon, were signed by the king under his pocket signet, with blanks for me to put in the names of pope or princes, to the end the king might have a starting-hole to deny the having given me such commissions, if excepted against by his own subjects; leaving me as it were at stake, who for his majesty’s sake was willing to undergo it, trusting to his word alone."–Clarendon Papers, ii. 201, 202.

But his departure was delayed by Ormond’s objections to the conditions of peace; and the king, to relieve himself from the difficulty, proposed to Herbert to proceed to Ireland, and grant privately to the Catholics those concessions which the lord-lieutenant hesitated to make, on condition of receiving in return an army of ten thousand men for the royal service. In consequence, on the 27th of December, Charles announced to Ormond that Herbert was going to Ireland under an engagement to further the peace.–Carte, ii. App. p. 5.

1645, January 2nd. Glamorgan (he was now honoured with the title of earl of Glamorgan) received these instructions. “First you may ingage y’r estate, interest and creditt that we will most really and punctually performe any our promises to the Irish, and as it is necessary to conclude a peace suddainely, soe whatsoever shall be consented unto by our lieutenant the marquis of Ormond. We will dye a thousand deaths rather than disannull or break it; and if vpon necessity any thing to be condescended unto, and yet the lord marquis not willing to be seene therein, as not fitt for us at the present publickely to owne, doe you endeavour to supply the same."–Century of Inventions by Mr. Partington, original letters and official papers, xxxv. Then follows a promise to perform any promise made by him to Ormond or others, &c.

January 6. He received a commission to levy any number of men in Ireland and other parts beyond the sea, with power to appoint officers, receive the king’s rents, &c.–Birch, p. 18, from the Nuncio’s Memoirs, fol. 713.

January 12. He received another warrant of a most extraordinary description, which I shall transcribe from a MS. copy in my possession, attested with the earl’s signature, and probably the very same which he gave to Ormond after his arrest and imprisonment.

“Charles Rex

“Charles by the grace of God king of England Scotland France and Ireland Defender of the Fayth, &c. To our Right trusty and Right well beloved Cossin Edward Earle of Glamorgan greetinge. Whereas wee haue had sufficient and ample testimony of y’r approued wisdome and fideliti. Soe great is the confidence we repose in yo’w as that whatsoeuer yo’w shall perform as warranted only under our signe manuall pockett signett or private marke or even by woorde of mouthe w’thout further cerimonii, wee doo in the worde of a kinge and a cristian promis to make good to all intents and purposes as effectually as if your authoriti from us had binne under our great seale of England w’th this advantage that wee shall esteem our self farr the moore obliged to yo’w for y’r gallantry in not standing upon such nice tearms to doe us service w’h we shall God willing rewarde. And althoughe yo’w exceed what law can warrant or any power of ours reach unto, as not knowinge what yo’w may have need of, yet it being for our service, wee oblige ourself not only to give yo’w our pardon, but to mantayne the same w’th all our might and power, and though, either by accident yo’w loose or by any other occasion yo’w shall deem necessary to deposit any of our warrants and so wante them at yo’r returne, wee faythfully promise to make them good at your returne, and to supply any thinge wheerin they shall be founde defective, it not being convenient for us at this time to dispute upon them, for of what wee haue heer sett downe yo’w may rest confident, if theer be fayth or truth in man; proceed theerfor cheerfully, spedelj, and bouldly, and for your so doinge this shal be yo’r sufficient warrant. Given at our Court at Oxford under our signe manuall and privat signet this 12 of January 1644.


  “To our Right trustj and Right well beloved cosin
  Edward Earle of Glamorgan."
  Indorsed, “The Earle of Glamorgan’s further authoritj.”

Feb. 12. Glamorgan had left Oxford, and was raising money in Wales, when Charles sent him other despatches, and with them a letter desiring him to hasten to Ireland. In it he acknowledges the danger of the undertaking, that Glamorgan had already spent above a million of crowns in his service, and that he was bound in gratitude to take care of him next to his own wife and children. “What I can further thinke at this point is to send y’w the blue ribben, and a warrant for the title of duke of Somerset, both w’ch accept and make vse of at your discretion, and if you should deferre y’e publishing of either for a whyle to avoyde envye, and my being importuned by others, yet I promise yo’r antiquitie for y’e one and your pattent for the other shall bear date with the warrants."–Century of Inventions, p. xxxiv. On the 18th of August, 1660, the marquess of Hertford complained that this patent was injurious to him, as he claimed the tide of Somerset. Glamorgan, then marquess of Worcester, readily surrendered it on the 3rd of September, and his son was created duke of Beaufort.

On March 12, the king wrote to him the following letter:–


“I wonder you are not yet gone for Ireland; but since you have stayed all this time, I hope these will ouertake you, whereby you will the more see the great trust and confidence I repose in your integrity, of which I have had soe long and so good experience; commanding yow to deale with all ingenuity and freedome with our lieutenant of Ireland the marquess of Ormond, and on the word of a king and a Christian I will make good any thing which our lieutenant shall be induced unto upon your persuasion; and if you find it fitting, you may privately shew him these, which I intend not as obligatory to him, but to myselfe, and for both your encouragements and warrantise, in whom I repose my cheefest hopes, not having in all my kingdomes two such subjects; whose endeauours joining, I am confident to be soone drawen out of the mire I am now enforced to wallow in."–Century of Inventions, xxxviii.

What were the writings meant by the word ’these” which Glamorgan might show to Ormond if he thought fitting? Probably the following warranty dated at Oxford on the same day.

“Charles R.

“Charles by the Grace of God King of England Scotland France and Ireland Defender of the Fayth &c. To our right trusty and right welbeloved Cosin Edward earle of Glamorgan Greeting. We reposing great and espitiall trust, and confidence in y’r approved wisdome, and fidelity doe by these (as firmely as under our great seale to all intents and purposes) Authorise and give you power to treate and conclude w’th the Confederat Romaine Catholikes in our Kingdom of Ireland, if vpon necessity any thing be to be condescended vnto wherein our Lieutenant can not so well be seene in as not fitt for vs at the present publikely to owne, and therefore we charge you to proceede according to this our warrant w’th all possible secresie, and for whatsoever you shall engage your selfe, vpon such valuable considerations as you in y’r iudgement shall deeme fitt, we promise in the word of a King and a Christian to ratifie and performe the same, that shall be graunted by you, and vnder your hand and seale, the sayd confederat Catholikes having by theyr supplyes testified theyre zeale to our service, and this shall be in eache particular to you a sufficient warrant. Given at our Court at Oxford, under our signett and Royall signature the twelfe day of Marche in the twentieth year of our Raigne 1644.

To our Right Trusty and right welbeloved Cosin,

Edward Earle of Glamorgan.”

Some writers have attempted to dispute the authenticity of this warrant, because though it was inserted verbatim in Glamorgan’s treaty with the confederates, he did not produce it at the requisition of the council at Dublin, under the excuse that he had deposited it with the Catholics at Kilkenny. But that this was the truth, appears from the Nuncio’s Memoirs: “a sua majestate mandatum habuit, cujus originate regiâ manu subscriptum Glamorganae comes deposuit apud confoederatos Catholicos,” (fol. 1292, apud Birch, 215); and if better authority be required, I have in my possession the original warrant itself, with the king’s signature and private seal, bearing the arms of the three kingdoms, a crown above, and C.R. on the sides, and indorsed in the same handwriting with the body of the warrant, “The Earle of Glamorgan’s espetiall warrant for Ireland.” Of this original the above is a correct copy.

April 30. The king having heard that Rinuccini had been appointed nuncio, and was on his way to Ireland, sent to Glamorgan a letter for that prelate and another for the pope. The contents of the second are unknown; the first is copied in the Nuncio’s Memoirs, “Nous ne doubtons point, que les choses n’yront bien, et que les bonnes intentions commencés par effect du dernier pape ne s’accomplisseront par celuys icy, et par vos moyens, en notre royaume d’Irelande et de Angleterre."–Birch 28. He then requests the nuncio to join with Glamorgan, and promises to accomplish on the return of the latter, whatever they shall have resolved together.–Ibid.

The king, on his return to Oxford, after the disastrous campaign of 1645, still placed his principal reliance on the mission of Glamorgan; and, to induce the court of Rome to listen to the proposals of that envoy, wrote, with his own hand, the two following letters, of which the originals still exist in the Archivio Vaticano, one to the pope himself, the other to Cardinal Spada, requesting of both to give credit to Glamorgan or his messenger, and engaging the royal word to fulfil whatever should be agreed upon by Glamorgan, in the name of his sovereign:–

“Beatissime Pater,

“Tot tantaque testimonia fidelitatis et affectus consanguinei nostri comitis Glamorganiae jamdudum accepimus, eamque in illo fiduciam merito reponimus, ut Sanctitas Vestra ei fidem merito praebere possit in quacumque re, de qua per se vel per alium nostro nomine cum Sanctitate Vestra tractaturus sit. Quaecumque vero ab ipso certo statuta fuerint, ea munire et confirmare pollicemur. In cujus testimonium brevissimas has scripsimus, manu et sigillo nostro munitas, qui nihil (potius) habemus in votis, quam ut fevore vestro in eum statum redigamur, quo palam profiteamur nos.

“Sanctitatis Vestrae

“Humilimum et obedientissimum servum,

  “Apud Curiam nostram,             CHARLES R.
  Oxoniae, Oct. 20, 1645.”


“Beatissimo Patri Innocentio decimo Pontifici Maximo.”

“Eminentissime Domine, Pauca scripsimus Beatissimo Patri, de fide adhibenda consanguineo nostro comiti Glamorganiae, et cuilibet ab eo delegato, quem ut Eminentia vestra pariter omni favore prosequatur, rogamus; certoque credat nos ratum habituros quicquid a praedicte comite, vel suo delegato, cum Sanctissimo Patre vel Eminentia vestra transactum fuerit.

“Eminentiae Vestrae,

  “Apud Curiam nostram,        Fidelisimus Amicus,
  Oxoniae, Oct. 20, 1645.”               CHARLES R.


“Eminentissimo Domino et Consanguineo nostro, Dño Cardinali Spada.”

After the discovery of the whole proceeding, the king, on January 29th, 1646, sent a message to the two houses in England, in which he declares (with what truth the reader may judge) that Glamorgan had a commission to raise men, and “to that purpose only;” that he had no commission to treat of any thing else without the privity and directions of Ormond; that he had never sent any information of his having made any treaty with the Catholics, and that he (the king) disavowed him in his proceedings, and had ordered the Irish council to proceed against him by due course of law.–Charles’s Works, 555.

Two days later, January 31, having acknowledged to the council at Dublin that he had informed Glamorgan of the secret instructions given to Ormond, and desired him to use his influence with the Catholics to persuade them to moderate their demands, he proceeds: “To this end (and with the strictest limitations that we could enjoin him, merely to those particulars concerning which we had given you secret instructions, as also even in that to do nothing but by your especial directions) it is possible we might have thought fit to have given unto the said earl of Glamorgan such a credential as might give him credit with the Roman Catholics, in case you should find occasion to make use of him, either as a farther assurance unto them of what you should privately promise, or in case you should judge it necessary to manage those matters for their greater confidence apart by him, of whom, in regard of his religion and interest, they might be less jealous. This is all, and the very bottom of what we might have possibly entrusted unto the said earl of Glamorgan in this affair."–Carte’s Ormond, iii. 446. How this declaration is to be reconciled with the last, I know not.

With this letter to the council he sent two others. One was addressed to Ormond, asserting on the word of a Christian that he never intended Glamorgan to treat of any thing without Ormond’s knowledge and approbation, as he was always diffident of the earl’s judgment, but at the same time commanding him to suspend the execution of any sentence which might be pronounced against that nobleman.–Carte, ii. App. p. 12. The second, dated Feb. 3, was to Glamorgan himself, in these words:–


I must clearly tell you, both you and I have been abused in this business; for you have been drawn to consent to conditions much beyond your instructions, and your treaty had been divulged to all the world. If you had advised with my lord lieutenant, as you promised me, all this had been helped. But we must look forward. Wherefore, in a word, I have commanded as much favour to be shewn to you as may possibly stand with my service or safety; and if you will yet trust my advice–which I have commanded Digby to give you freely–I will bring you so off that you may still be useful to me, and I shall be able to recompence you for your affection; if not, I cannot tell what to say. But I will not doubt your compliance in this, since it so highly concerns the good of all my crowns, my own particular, and to make me have still means to shew myself

Your most assured Friend,

CHARLES R. Oxford, Feb. 3, 1645-6.” Warner, 360.

In this letter Charles, in his own defence, pretends to blame Glamorgan; probably as a blind to Ormond and Digby, through whom it was sent. Soon afterwards, on February 28th, he despatched Sir J. Winter to him with full instructions, and the following consolatory epistle:–


I am confident that this honest trusty bearer will give you good satisfaction why I have not in euerie thing done as you desired, the wante of confidence in you being so farre from being y’e cause thereof, that I am euery day more and more confirmed in the trust that I have of you, for beleeve me, it is not in the power of any to make you suffer in my opinion by ill offices; but of this and diuers other things I have given so full instructions that I will saye no more, but that I am

Yor most assured constant Friend,

Charles R.”

Century of Inventions, xxxix.

April 5th he wrote to him again.


I have no time, nor do you expect that I shall make unnecessary repetitions to you. Wherefore, referring you to Digby for business, this is only to give you assurance of my constant friendship to you: which, considering the general defection of common honesty, is in a sort requisite. Howbeit, I know you cannot but be confident of my making good all instructions and promises to you and the nuncio.

Your most assured constant Friend,

Charles R.”

Warner, 373.

On the following day the king sent him another short letter.


As I doubt not but you have too much courage to be dismayed or discouraged at the usage you have had, so I assure you that my estimation of you is nothing diminished by it, but rather begets in me a desire of revenge and reparation to us both; for in this I hold myself equally interested with you. Wherefore, not doubting of your accustomed care and industry in my service, I assure you of the continuance of my favour and protection to you, and that in deeds more than words, I shall shew myself to be

Your most assured constant Friend,

Charles R.”

Warner, 374.

If after the perusal of these documents any doubt can remain of the authenticity of Glamorgan’s commission, it must be done away by the following passage from Clarendon’s correspondence with secretary Nicholas. Speaking of his intended history, he says, “I must tell you, I care not how little I say in that business of Ireland, since those strange powers and instructions given to your favourite Glamorgan, which appears to me so inexcusable to justice, piety, and prudence. And I fear there is very much in that transaction of Ireland, both before and since, that you and I were never thought wise enough to be advised with in. Oh, Mr. Secretary, those stratagems have given me more sad hours than all the misfortunes in war which have befallen the king, and look like the effects of God’s anger towards us."–Clarendon Papers, ii. 337.

It appears that the king, even after he had been delivered by the Scots to the parliament, still hoped to derive benefit from the exertions of Glamorgan. About the beginning of June, 1647, Sir John Somerset, the brother of that nobleman, arrived in Rome with a letter from Charles to Innocent X. The letter is not probably in existence; but the answer of the pontiff shows that the king had solicited pecuniary assistance, and, as an inducement, had held out some hint of a disposition on his part to admit the papal supremacy and the Catholic creed. Less than this cannot be inferred from the language of Innocent. Literae illae praecipuam tuam alacritatem ac propensionem ad obediendum Deo in nobis, qui ejus vices gerimus, luculenter declarant ... a majestate tua enixe poscimus, ut quod velle coepit, mox et facto perficiat ... ut aliquo id aggrediaris argumento, quo te te ad Catholicam fidem recepisse intelligamus. Undoubtedly Charles was making the same experiment with the pontiff which he had just made with his Presbyterian subjects; and as, to propitiate them, he had undertaken to study the Presbyterian doctrines, so he hoped to draw money from Innocent by professing an inclination in favour of the Catholic creed. But the attempt failed. The answer was, indeed, complimentary: it expressed the joy of the pontiff at the perusal of his letter, and exhorted him to persevere in the inquiry till he should come to the discovery of the truth; but it disposed of his request, as Urban had previously disposed of a similar request, by stating that it was inconsistent with the duty of the pope to spend the treasures of his church in the support of any but Catholic princes. This answer is dated 29th June, 1647.

NOTE B, p. 136.

1. The ordinances had distinguished two classes of delinquents, the one religious, the other political. The first comprised all Catholic recusants, all persons whomsoever, who, having attained the age of twenty-one, should refuse to abjure upon oath the doctrines peculiar to the Catholic creed. These were reputed papists, and had been made to forfeit two-thirds of their real and personal estates, which were seized for the benefit of the kingdom by the commissioners of sequestration appointed in each particular county. The second comprehended all persons who were known to have fought against the parliament, or to have aided the royal party with money, men, provisions, advice, or information; and of these the whole estates, both real and personal, had been sequestrated, with the sole exception of one-fifth allotted for the support of their wives and children, if the latter were educated in the Protestant religion.–Elsynge’s Ordinances. 3, 22, et seq.

2. These sequestrated estates not only furnished a yearly income, but also a ready supply on every sudden emergency. Thus when Colonel Harvey refused to march till his regiment had received the arrears of its pay, amounting to three thousand pounds, an ordinance was immediately passed to raise the money by the sale of woods belonging to Lord Petre, in the county of Essex.–Journals, vi, 519. When a complaint was made of a scarcity of timber for the repairs of the navy, the two houses authorized certain shipwrights to fell two thousand five hundred oak trees on the estates of delinquents in Kent and Essex.–Ibid, 520. When the Scots demanded a month’s pay for their army, the committee at Goldsmiths’ Hall procured the money by offering for sale such property of delinquents as they judged expedient, the lands at eight, the houses at six years’ purchase.–Journals of Commons, June 10, 24, 1644.

3. But the difficulty of procuring ready money by sales induced the commissioners to look out for some other expedient; and when the sum of fifteen thousand pounds was wanted to put the army of Fairfax in motion, it was raised without delay by offering to delinquents the restoration of their sequestrated estates, on the immediate payment of a certain fine.–Commons’ Journals, Sept. 13, 1644. The success of this experiment encouraged them to hold out a similar indulgence to such persons as were willing to quit the royal party, provided they were not Catholics, and would take the oath of abjuration of the Catholic doctrine.–Ibid. March 6, August 12, 1645; May 4, June 26, Sept. 3, 1646. Afterwards, on the termination of the war, the great majority of the royalists were admitted to make their compositions with the committee. Of the fines required, the greater number amounted to one-tenth, many to one-sixth, and a few to one-third of the whole property, both real and personal, of the delinquents.–(See the Journals of both houses for the years 1647, 1648.)

NOTE C, p. 241.

On the day after the king’s execution appeared a work, entitled [Greek: EIKON BASILIKAe], or the Portraicture of his Sacred Majesty in “his Solitude and Sufferings.” It professed to be written by Charles himself; a faithful exposition of his own thoughts on the principal events of his reign, accompanied with such pious effusions as the recollection suggested to his mind. It was calculated to create a deep sensation in favour of the royal sufferer, and is said to have passed through fifty editions in the course of the first year. During the commonwealth, Milton made a feeble attempt to disprove the king’s claim to the composition of the book: after the restoration, Dr. Gauden, a clergyman of Bocking, in Essex, came forward and declared himself the real author. But he advanced his pretensions with secrecy, and received as the price of his silence, first the bishopric of Exeter, and afterwards, when he complained of the poverty of that see, the richer bishopric of Worcester.

After the death of Gauden his pretensions began to transpire, and became the subject of an interesting controversy between his friends and the admirers of Charles. But many documents have been published since, which were then unknown, particularly the letters of

Gauden to the earl of Clarendon (Clarendon Papers, iii. App. xxvi.-xxxi., xcv.), and others from him to the earl of Bristol (Maty’s Review, ii. 253. Clarendon Papers, iii. App. xcvi.; and Mr. Todd, Memoirs of Bishop Walton, i. 138). These have so firmly established Gauden’s claim, that, whoever denies it must be prepared to pronounce that prelate an impostor, to believe that the bishops Morley and Duppa gave false evidence in his favour, and, to explain how it happened, that those, the most interested to maintain the right of the king, namely Charles II., his brother the duke of York, and the two earls of Clarendon and Bristol, yielded to the deception. These difficulties, however, have not appalled Dr. Wordsworth, who in a recent publication of more than four hundred pages, entitled, “Who wrote[Greek: EIKON BASILIKAe]” has collected with patient industry every particle of evidence which can bear upon the subject; and after a most minute and laborious investigation, has concluded by adjudging the work to the king, and pronouncing the bishop an impudent impostor. Still my incredulity is not subdued. There is much in the[Greek: EIKON BASILIKAe] itself which forbids me to believe that Charles was the real author, though the latter, whoever he were, may have occasionally consulted and copied the royal papers; and the claim of Gauden appears too firmly established to be shaken by the imperfect and conjectural improbabilities which have hitherto been produced against it.

NOTE D, p. 276.

The Massacres at Drogheda and Wexford.

I. Drogheda was taken by storm on the 11th of September, 1649. Cromwell, on his return to Dublin, despatched two official accounts of his success, one to Bradshaw, president of the council of state; a second to Lenthall, the speaker of parliament. They were dated on the 16th and 17th of September; which probably ought to have been the 17th and 18th, for he repeatedly makes such mistakes in numbering the days of that month. These two documents on several accounts deserve the attention of the reader.

I. Both mention a massacre, but with this difference, that whereas the earlier seems to confine it to the men in arms against the commonwealth, the second towards the end notices, incidentally as it were, the additional slaughter of a thousand of the townspeople in the church of St. Peter. In the first, Cromwell, as if he doubted how the shedding of so much blood would be taken, appears to shift the origin of the massacre from himself to the soldiery, who considered the refusal of quarter as a matter of course, after the summons which had been sent into the town on the preceding day; but in the next despatch he assumes a bolder tone, and takes upon himself all the blame or merit of the proceeding. “Our men were ordered by meto put them all to the sword."–"I forbade them to spare any that were in arms.” In the first, to reconcile the council to the slaughter, he pronounces it a “marvellous great mercy;” for the enemy had lost by it their best officers and prime soldiers: in the next he openly betrays his own misgivings, acknowledging that “such actions cannot but work remorse and regret without sufficient grounds,” and alleging as sufficient grounds in the present case–1. that it was a righteous judgment of God on barbarous wretches who had imbued their hands in so much innocent blood; and 2. that it would tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future.

2. Now the insinuation conveyed in the first of these reasons, that the major part of the garrison had been engaged in the outbreak of the rebellion and its accompanying horrors, was in all probability a falsehood; for the major part of the garrison was not composed of native soldiers, but of Englishmen serving under the marquess of Ormond, the king’s lord lieutenant. This is plain from the evidence of persons who cannot be supposed ignorant of the fact; the evidence of the royalist Clarendon (History, vol. iii. part i. p. 323), and of the republican Ludlow, who soon afterwards was made general of the horse, and became Cromwell’s deputy in the government of the island (Ludlow, Memoirs, i. 301). But, however groundless the insinuation might be, it served Cromwell’s purpose; it would array in his favour the fanaticism of the more godly of his party.

For the massacre of the townspeople in the church he offers a similar apology, equally calculated to interest the feelings of the saints. “They had had the insolence on the last Lord’s day to thrust out the Protestants, and to have the mass said there.” Now this remark plainly includes a paralogism. The persons who had ordered the mass to be said there on the 9th of September were undoubtedly the civil or military authorities in the town. Theirs was the guilt, if guilt it were, and theirs should have been the punishment. Yet his argument supposes that the unarmed individuals whose blood was shed there on the 12th, were the very persons who had set up the mass on the 9th.

3. We know not how far this second massacre was originated or encouraged by Cromwell. It is well known that in the sack of towns it is not always in the power of the commander to restrain the fury of the assailants, who abuse the license of victory to gratify the most brutal of their passions. But here we have no reason to suppose that Cromwell made any effort to save the lives of the unarmed and the innocent. Both the commander and his men had a common religious duty to perform. They were come, in his own language, “to ask an account of the innocent blood which had been shed,"–to “do execution on the enemies of God’s cause.” Hence, in the case of a resisting city, they included the old man, the female, and the child in the same category with the armed combatant, and consigned all to the same fate.

4. Of the proceedings of the victors during that night we are ignorant; but it does not suggest a very favourable notion of their forbearance, that in the following morning the great church of St. Peter’s was filled with crowds of townspeople of both sexes, and of every age and condition. The majority of the women and children sought protection within the body of the church; a select party of females, belonging to the first families in the town, procured access to the crypts under the choir, which seemed to offer more favourable chances of concealment and safety. But the sacred edifice afforded no asylum to either. The carnage began within the church at an early hour; and, when it was completed, the bloodhounds tracked their prey into the vaults beneath the pavement. Among the men who thus descended into these subterranean recesses, was Thomas Wood, at that time a subaltern, afterwards a captain in Ingoldsby’s regiment. He found there, according to his own narrative, “the flower and choicest of the women and ladies belonging to the town, amongst whom a most handsome virgin, arrayed in costly and gorgeous apparel, kneeled down to him with tears and prayers to save her life; and being strucken with a profound pitie, he took her under his arme, and went with her out of the church with intentions to put her over the works to shift for herself; but a soldier perceiving his intention, he ran his sword up her belly or fundament. Whereupon Mr. Wood, seeing her gasping, took away her money, jewels, &c., and flung her down over the works.” (See the Life of Anthony a Wood, p. xx., in the edition by Bliss, of 1813. Thomas was the brother of Anthony, the Oxford historian.) “He told them also that 3,000 at least, besides some women and children, were, after the assailants had taken part, and afterwards all the towne, put to the sword on the 11th and 12th of September, 1649. He told them that when they were to make their way up to the lofts and galleries of the church, and up to the tower, where the enemy had fled, each of the assailants would take up a child, and use as a buckler of defence, when they ascended the steps, to keep themselves from being shot or brained."–Wood, ibid. These anecdotes, from the mouth of one who was an eyewitness of, probably a participator in, the horrors of that day, will enable the reader to form an adequate notion of the thirst for blood which stimulated the soldiery, and of the cruelties which they exercised on their defenceless victims.

5. The terms of indignation, and abhorrence in which the sack of Drogheda was described by the royalists of that period are well known. I shall add here another testimony; not that it affords more important information, but because I am not aware that it has ever met the eye of more recent historians; the testimony of Bruodin, an Irish friar, of great eminence and authority in the Franciscan order. “Quinque diebus continuis haec laniena (qua, nullo habito locorum, sexus, religionis aut aetatis discrimine, juvenes et virgines lactantes aeque ac senio confecti barbarorum gladiis ubique trucidati sunt) duravit. Quatuor milia Catholicorum virorum (ut de infinita multitudine religiosorum, foeminarum, puerorum, puellarum et infantium nihil dicam) in civitate gladius impiorum rebellium illa expugnatione devoravit."–Propugnaculum Cathol. Veritatis, lib. iv. c. 14, p. 678.

6. Here another question occurs. How did Cromwell obtain possession of Drogheda? for there appears in his despatches a studied evasion of the particulars necessary to give a clear view of the transaction. The narrative is so confused that it provokes a suspicion of cunning and concealment on the part of the writer. The royalists affirmed that the place was won through promises of quarter which were afterwards perfidiously violated, and their assertion is supported by the testimony of Ormond in an official letter written from the neighbourhood to Lord Byron. “Cromwell,” he says, “having been twice beaten from the breach, carried it the third time, all his officers and soldiers promising quarter to such as would lay down their arms, and performing it as long as any place held out, which encouraged others to yield; but when they had all once in their power, and feared no hurt that could be done them, then the word no quarter went round, and the soldiers were, many of them, forced against their wills to kill their prisoners. The governor and all his officers were killed in cold blood, except some few of least consideration that escaped by miracle."–Sept. 29, Carte’s Letters, ii. 412. It is possible, though not very probable, that Ormond suffered himself to be misled by false information. It should, however, be observed, that there is nothing in his account positively contradicted by Cromwell’s despatch. Cromwell had, not forbidden the granting of quarter before the storm. It was afterwards, “in the heat of the action,” that he issued this order. But at what part of the action? On what account? What had happened to provoke him to issue it? He tells us that within the breach the garrison had thrown up three entrenchments; two of which were soon carried, but the third, that on the Mill-Mount, was exceedingly strong, having a good graft, and strongly palisaded. For additional particulars we must have recourse to other authority, from which we learn that within this work was posted a body of picked soldiers with every thing requisite for a vigorous defence, so that it could not have been taken by force without the loss of some hundreds of men on the part of the assailants. It so happened, however, that the latter entered it without opposition, and “Colonel Axtell, with some twelve of his men, went up to the top of the mount, and demanded of the governor the surrender of it, who was very stubborn, speaking very big words, but at length was persuaded to go into the windmill at the top of the mount, and as many more of the chiefest of them as it could contain, where they were disarmed, and afterwards all slain."–Perfect Diurnal from Oct. 1 to Oct. 8. Now Cromwell in his despatch says “The governor, Sir Arthur Ashton, and divers considerable officers, being there (on the Mill-Mount), our men, getting up to them, were ordered by me to put them all to the sword.” In my opinion this passage affords a strong corroboration of the charge made by Ormond. If the reader compare it with the passage already quoted from the Diurnal, he will find it difficult to suppress a suspicion that Axtell and his men had obtained a footing on the Mill-Mount through the offer of quarter; and that this was the reason why Cromwell, when he knew that they had obtained possession, issued an order forbidding the granting of quarter on any account. The consequence was, that the governor and his officers went into the mill, and were there disarmed, and afterwards all slain. The other prisoners were treated in the same manner as their officers.

7. Ormond adds, in the same letter, that the sack of the town lasted during five days, meaning, probably, from September 11 to September 15, or 16, inclusively. The same is asserted by most of the royalists. But how could that be, when the storm began on the 11th, and the army marched from Drogheda on the 15th? The question may perhaps be solved by a circumstance accidentally mentioned by Dr. Bates, that on the departure of the army, several individuals who had hitherto succeeded in concealing themselves, crept out of their hiding-places, but did not elude the vigilance of the garrison, by whom they were put to the sword.–Bates’s Rise and Progress, part ii. p. 27.

II. 1. It did not require many days to transmit intelligence from Dublin to the government; for the admiralty had contracted with a Captain Rich, that for the monthly sum of twenty-two pounds he should constantly have two swift-sailing vessels, stationed, one at Holyhead, the other at Dublin, ready to put to sea on the arrival of despatches for the service of the state.–Lords’ Journ. ix. 617. From an accidental entry in Whitelock, it would appear that the letters from Cromwell reached London on the 27th of September; on the 28th, parliament, without any cause assigned in the Journals, was adjourned to October 2nd, and on that day the official account of the massacre at Drogheda was made public. At the same time an order was obtained from the parliament, that “a letter should be written to the lord lieutenant of Ireland, to be communicated to the officers there, that the house doth approve of the execution done at Drogheda both as an act of justice to them and mercy to others, who may be warned by it" (Journals, vi. 301), which are the very reasons alleged by Cromwell in his despatch. His conduct was now sanctioned by the highest authority; and from that moment the saints in the army rejoiced to indulge the yearnings of their zeal for the cause of God, by shedding the blood of the Irish enemy. Nor had they long to wait for the opportunity. On the 1st of October he arrived in the neighbourhood of Wexford; on the 9th he opened a cannonade on the castle, which completely commanded the town. On the 11th, Synnot, the military governor, offered to capitulate; four commissioners, one of whom was Stafford, the captain of the castle, waited on Cromwell to arrange the terms. He was dissatisfied with their demands, pronounced them “abominable,” and detained them till he had prepared his answer. By that answer he granted life and liberty to the soldiers; life, but not liberty, to the commissioned officers, and freedom from pillage to the inhabitants, subject, however, to the decision of parliament with respect to their real property. He required an immediate acceptance of these terms, and the delivery to him of six hostages within an hour.–(Compare the letter of October 16 in the King’s Pamphlets, No. 442, with the document published by Mr. Carlyle, ii. 79, which appears to me nothing more than a rough and incorrect draft of an intended answer.) But Stafford was a traitor. In the interval, being “fairly treated,” he accepted, without communication with the governor, the terms granted by Cromwell, and opened the gates of the fortress to the enemy. From the castle they scaled an undefended wall in the vicinity, and poured into the town. A paper containing the terms was now delivered to the other three commissioners; but “their commissioners this while not having hearts to put themselves into the town again with out offer."–Ibid. Letter of October 16. Thus Synnot and the other authorities remained in ignorance of Cromwell’s decision.

2. At the first alarm the garrison and burghers assembled in the market-place, to which they were accompanied or followed by crowds of old men, women, and children. For a while the progress of the enemy was retarded by barricades of cables. At the entrance of the market-place they met with a “stiff resistance,” as it is called by Cromwell. The action lasted about an hour; but the assailants receiving continual reinforcements, obtained at last fell possession of the place, and put to the sword every human being found upon it. The governor and the mayor perished with the rest.

3. But how could these bloody proceedings be reconciled with the terms of capitulation which had been already granted? If we may believe Cromwell’s official account, a matchless specimen of craft and mystification, he was not to blame that they had been broken. He was perfectly innocent of all that had happened. Could he not then have ordered his men to keep within the castle, or have recalled them when they forced an entrance into the town? Undoubtedly he might; but the pious man was unwilling to put himself in opposition to God. “His study had been to preserve the place from plunder, that it might be of more use to the commonwealth and the army." But he saw “that God would not have have it so.” The events which so quickly followed each other, were to him a proof that God in his righteous judgment had doomed the town and its defendants to destruction; on which account he “thought it not good, nor just, to restrain off the soldiers from their right of pillage, nor from doing of execution on the enemy."–Letter of 16th of October. He concludes his despatch to the government with these words:–"Thus it has pleased God to give into your hands this other mercy, for which, as for all, we pray God may have all the glory. Indeed, your instruments are poor and weak. and can do nothing but through believing, and that is the gift of God also."–Cary’s Memorials, ii. 180. Did then the fanatic believe that perfidy and cruelty were gifts of God? for at Wexford he could not plead, as at Drogheda, that his summons had been contemptuously rejected. It had been accepted, and he had himself dictated the terms of capitulation. Was he not obliged to carry them into execution, even if, as was pretended in defiance of all probability, his men had taken possession of the castle, and forced an entrance into the town without his knowledge or connivance? Would any honest man have released himself from such obligation under the flimsy pretext that it would be acting against the will of God to recall the soldiers and prevent them from doing execution on the enemy?

4. Cromwell’s ministers of the divine will performed their part at Wexford, as they had done at Drogheda, doing execution, not on the armed combatants only, but on the women and children also. Of these helpless victims many had congregated round the great cross. It was a natural consequence in such an emergency. Hitherto they had been accustomed to kneel at the foot of that cross in prayer, now, with life itself at stake, they would instinctively press towards it to escape from the swords of the enemy. But, as far an regards the atrocity of the thing, it makes little difference on what particular spot they were murdered. You cannot relieve the memory of Cromwell from the odium of such murder, but by proving, what it is impossible to prove, that at Wexford the women and children were specially excepted out of the general massacre.

5. I have already copied Bruodin’s description of the sack of Drogheda; here I may transcribe his account of the sack of Wexford. “Ipse strategus regicidarum terrestri itinere Dublinium praetergressus, Wexfordiam (modicam quidem, et maritimam, munitam et opulentam civitatem) versus castra movet, occupatoque insperate, proditione cujusdam perfidi ducis castro, quod moenibus imminebat, in civitatem irruit: opposuere se viriliter aggressori praesidiarii simul cum civibus, pugnatumque est ardentissime per unius horae spatium inter partes in foro, sed impari congressu, nam cives fere omnes una cum militibus, sine status, sexus, aut aetatis discrimine, Cromweli gladius absumpsit."–Bruodin, Propag. 1. iv. c. 14, p. 679. The following is a more valuable document, from the “humble petition of the ancient natives of the town of Wexford,” to Charles II., July 4, 1660. “Yet soe it is, may it please your Majestie, that after all the resistance they could make, the said usurper, having a great armie by sea and land before the said toune, did on the 9th of October, 1649, soe powerfully assault them, that he entered the toune, and put man, woman, and child, to a very few, to the sword, where among the rest the governor lost his life, and others of the soldiers and inhabitants to the number of 1,500 persons."–Gale’s Corporation System in Ireland, App. p. cxxvi.

6. My object in these remarks has been to enable the reader to form a correct notion of the manner in which Cromwell conducted the war in Ireland. They will give little satisfaction to the worshippers of the hero. But his character is not a mere matter of taste or sympathy. It is a question of historic inquiry. Much indeed has been written to vindicate him from the imputation of cruelty at Drogheda and Wexford; but of the arguments hitherto adduced in his defence, it will be no presumption to affirm that there is not one among them which can bear the test of dispassionate investigation.

NOTE E, p. 338.

The following pensions were afterwards granted to different persons instrumental in facilitating the king’s escape. Unless it be mentioned otherwise, the pension is for life:–

  To Jane Lane (Lady Fisher) . . . . . . . . . 1000
  Thomas Lane, the father . . . . . . . . .  500
  Charles Gifford, Esq. . . . . . . . . . .  300
  Francis Mansell, Esq. . . . . . . . . . .  200
  Thomas Whitgrave, Esq.  . . . . . . . . .  200
  Catharine Gunter, for 21 years  . . . . .  200
  Joan Harford  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   50
  Eleanor Sampson . . . . . . . . . . . . .   50
  Francis Reynolds  . . . . . . . . . . . .  200
  John and Anne Rogers, and heirs male  . .  100
  Anne Bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   30
  Sir Thomas Wyndham, and heirs, for ever .  600
  William Ellesdun, during pleasure . . . .  100
  Robert Swan, during the king’s life . . .   80
  Lady Anne Wyadham . . . . . . . . . . . .  400
  Juliana Hest  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   30

Clarendon Corres. i. 656.

NOTE F, p. 358.

The Act for the Settlement of Ireland.

Whereas the parliament of England after expense of much blood and treasure for suppression of the horrid rebellion in Ireland have by the good hand of God vpon their vndertakings brought that affaire to such an issue as that a totall reducm’t and settlement of that nation may with Gods blessing be speedily effected. To the end therefore that the people of that nation may knowe that it is not the intention of the Parliament to extirpat that wholl nation, but that mercie and pardon both as to life and estate may bee extended to all husbandmen, plowmen, labourers, artificers, and others of the inferior sort, in manner as is heereafter declared, they submitting themselves to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England and liveing peaceably and obediently vnder their governement, and that others alsoe of a higher ranke and quality may knowe the Parliament’s intention concerning them according to the respective demerits and considerations under which they fall, Bee it enacted and declared by this present Parliament and by the authority of the same, That all and every person and persons of the Irish nation comprehended in any of the following Qualifications shal bee lyable vnto the penalties and forfeitures herein mentioned and contained or bee made capable of the mercy and pardon therein extended respectively according as is heereafter expressed and declared, that is to saye,

1. That all and every person and persons who at any time before the tenth day of November, 1642, being the time of the sitting of the first generall assembly at Kilkenny in Ireland have contrived, advised, counselled, or promoted the Rebellion, murthers, massacres, done or committed in Ireland w’ch began in the year 1641, or have at any time before the said tenth day of November 1642 by bearing armes or contributing men, armes, horses, plate, money, victuall or other furniture or habilliments of warre (other then such w’ch they shall make to appeare to haue been taken from them by meere force & violence) ayded, assisted, promoted, prosecuted or abetted the said rebellion murthers or massacres, be excepted from pardon of life and estate.

2. That all and every person & persons who at any time before the first day of May 1643, did sitt or vote, in the said first generall

assembly, or in the first pretended counsell comonly called the supreame councell of the confederate Catholiques in Ireland or were imployed as secretaries or cheife clearke, to be exempted from pardon for life and estate.

3. That all and every Jesuitt preist and other person or persons who have receaved orders from the Pope or Sea of Rome, or any authoritie from the same, that have any wayes contrived, advised, counselled, promoted, continued, countenanced, ayded, assisted or abetted, or at any time hereafter shall any wayes contriue, advise, councell, promote, continue, countenance, ayde, assist or abett the Rebellion or warre in Ireland, or any the murthers, or massacres, robberies, or violences, comitted against ye Protestants, English, or others there, be excepted from pardon for life and estate.

4. That James Butler earl of Ormond, James Talbot earl of Castelhaven, Ullick Bourke earl of Clanricarde, Christopher Plunket earl of Fingal, James Dillon earl of Roscommon, Richard Nugent earl of Westmeath, Moragh O’Brian baron of Inchiquin, Donogh M’Carthy viscount Muskerry, Richard Butler viscount Mountgarrett, Theobald Taaffe viscount Taaffe of Corren, Rock viscount Fermoy, Montgomery viscount Montgomery of Ards, Magennis viscount of Iveagh, Fleming baron of Slane, Dempsey viscount Glanmaleere, Birmingham baron of Athenry, Oliver Plunket baron of Lowth, Robert Barnwell baron of Trymletstoune, Myles Bourke viscount Mayo, Connor Magwyre baron of Enniskillen, Nicholas Preston viscount Gormanstowne, Nicholas Nettervill, viscount Nettervill of Lowth, John Bramhall late Bishop of Derry, (with eighty-one baronets, knights and gentlemen mentioned by name) be excepted from pardon of life and estate.

5. That all and every person & persons (both principalls and accessories) who since the first day of October 1641 have or shall kill, slay or otherwise destroy any person or persons in Ireland w’ch at ye time of their being soe killed, slaine or destroyed were not publiquely enterteined, and mainteyned in armes as officers or private souldiers for and on behalfe of the English against ye Irish, and all and every person and persons (both principals and accessories) who since the said first day of October 1641 have killed slayne or otherwise destroyed any person or persons entertained and mainteyned as officers or private souldiers for and on behalfe of the English, against the Irish (the said persons soe killing, slaying or otherwise destroying, not being then publiquely enterteyned and mainteyned in armes as officer or private souldier vnder the comand and pay of ye Irish against the English) be excepted from pardon for life and estate.

6. That all and every person & persons in Ireland that are in armes or otherwise in hostilitie against ye Parliam’t of ye Commonwealth of England, and shall not wthin eight and twenty dayes after publicacon hereof by ye deputy gen’ll of Ireland, and ye comission’rs for the Parliam’t, lay downs armes & submitt to ye power and authoritie of ye said Parliam’t & commonwealth as ye same is now established, be excepted from pardon for life and estate.

7. That all other person & persons (not being comprehended in any of ye former Qualifications,) who have borne comaund in the warre of Ireland against the Parliam’t of England or their forces, as generall, leift’ts generall, major gen’ll, commissary generall, colonell, Gouerno’rs of any garrison, Castle or Forte, or who have been imployed as receaver gen’ll or Treasurer of the whole Nation, or any prouince thereof, Comissarie gen’ll of musters, or prouissions, Marshall generall or marshall of any province, advocate to ye army, secretary to ye councell of warre, or to any generall of the army, or of any the seuerall prouinces, in order to the carrying on the warre, against the parliam’t or their forces, be banished dureing the pleasure of the parliam’t of ye Com’wealth of England, and their estates forfeited & disposed of as followeth, (viz.) That two third partes of their respective estates, be had taken & disposed of for the vse & benefitt of the said Com’wealth, and that ye other third parte of their said respective estates, or other lands to ye proporcon & value thereof (to bee assigned in such places in Ireland as the Parliam’t in order to ye more effectual settlem’ of ye peace of this Nation shall thinke fitt to appoint for that purpose,) be respectiuely had taken and enioyed by ye wifes and children of the said persons respectively.

8. That ye deputy gen’ll and comission’rs of parliam’t have power to declare, That such person or persons as they shall judge capeable of ye parliam’ts mercie (not being comprehended in any of ye former qualifications) who have borne armes against the Parliam’t of England or their forces, and have layd downe armes, or within eight & twenty dayes after publicacon hereof by ye deputy gen’ll of Ireland and ye Comissioners for ye parliam’t, shall lay downe armes & submit to ye power & authoritie of ye said parliam’t & com’wealth as ye same is now established, (by promising & ingaging to be true to ye same) shal be pardoned for their liues, but shall forfeit their estates, to the said comonwealth to be disposed of as followeth (viz.) Two third partes thereof (in three equall partes to bee diuided) for the vse benefitt & aduantage of ye said ComOnwealth, and ye other third parte of the said respective states, or other lands to ye proporcon or value thereof) to bee assigned in such places in Ireland as the parliam’t in order to ye more effectual settlement of the peace of the Nation shall thinke fitt to appoint for that purpose (bee enioyed by ye said persons their heires or assigns respectively) provided, That in case the deputy gen’ll Comission’rs or either of them, shall see cause to give any shorter time than twenty-eight dayes, vnto any person or persons in armes, or any Guarrison, Castle, or Forte, in hostilitie against the Parliam’t & shall giue notice to such person or persons in armes or in any Guarrison, Castle or Forte, That all and every such person & persons who shall not wthin such time as shal be sett downe in such notice surrender such Guarrison, Castle, or Forte to ye parliam’t, and lay downe armes, shall haue noe advantage of ye time formerly limited in this Qualificacon.

9. That all and every person & persons who have recided in Ireland at any time from the first day of October 1641, to ye first of March 1650, and haue not beene in actuall service of ye parliam’t at any time from ye first of August 1649, to the said first of March 1650, or have not otherwise manifested their constant good affections to the interest of ye Comonwealth of England (the said Persons not being comprehended in any of the former Qualificacons) shall forfeit their estates in Ireland to the said Comonwealth to be disposed of as followeth, (viz.), one third parte thereof for the vse, benefitt, and advantage of the said Comonwealth, and the other two third partes of their respective estates, or other lands to the proporcon or value thereof (to bee assigned in such places in Ireland, as ye Parliam’t for ye more effectual settlement of ye peace of the Nation shall thinke fitt to appoint for that purpose) bee enioyed by such person or persons their heires or assigns respectively.

10. That all and every person & persons (haueing noe reall estate in Ireland nor personall Estate to the value of ten pounds,) that shall lay downe armes, and submitt to the power and Authoritie of the Parliament by the time limited in the former Qualificacon, & shall take & subscribe the engagem’t to be true and faithfull to the Comonwealth of England as the same is now established, within such time and in such manner, as the deputy Generall & commission’rs for the Parliam’t shall appoint and direct, such persons (not being excepted from pardon nor adiuged for banishm’t by any of the former Qualificacons) shal be pardoned for life & estate, for any act or thing by them done in prosecution of the warre.

11. That all estates declared by the Qualificacons concerning rebells or delinquents in Ireland to be forfeited shal be construed, adiuged & taken to all intents and purposes to extend to ye forfeitures of all estates tayle, and also of all rights & titles thereunto which since the fiue and twentith of March 1639, have beene or shal be in such rebells or delinquents, or any other in trust for them or any of them, or their or any of their vses, w’th all reversions & remainders thereupon in any other person or persons whatsoever.

And also to the forfeiture of all estates limitted, appointed, conveyed, settled, or vested in any person or persons declared by the said Qualificacons to be rebells or delinquents with all reversions or remainders of such estates, conueyed, uested, limitted, declared or appointed to any the heires, children, issues, or others of the blood, name, or kindred of such rebells or delinquents, w’ch estate or estates remainders or reuersions since the 25th of March 1639 have beene or shal be in such rebells or delinquents, or in any their heires, children, issues or others of the blood, name, or kindred of such rebells or delinquents.

And to all estates graunted, limitted, appointed or conueyed by any such rebells or delinquents vnto any their heires, children, issue, w’th all the reversions and remainders thereupon, in any other person of the name, blood or kindred of such rebells or delinquents, provided that this shall not extend to make voyd the estates of any English Protestants, who haue constantly adhered to the parliam’t w’ch were by them purchased for valuable consideracon before ye 23rd of October 1641, or vpon like valuable consideracon mortgaged to them before ye tyme or to any person or persons in trust for them for satisfaction of debts owing to them.

NOTE G, p. 396.

I have not been able to ascertain the number of Catholic clergymen who were executed or banished for their religion under Charles I., and under the commonwealth. But I possess an original document, authenticated by the signatures of the parties concerned, which contains the names and fate of such Catholic priests as were apprehended and prosecuted in London between the end of 1640 and the summer of 1651 by four individuals, who had formed themselves into a kind of joint-stock company for that laudable purpose, and who solicited from the council some reward for their services. It should, however, be remembered that there were many others engaged in the same pursuit, and consequently many other victims besides those who are here enumerated.

“The names of such Jesuits and Romish priests as have been apprehended and prosecuted by Capt James Wadsworth, Francis Newton, Thomas Mayo, and Robert de Luke, messengers, at our proper charge; whereof some have been condemned; some executed, and some reprieved since the beginning of the parliament (3 Nov. 1640); the like having not been done by any others since the reformation of religion in this nation:–

William Waller, als. Slaughter, als. Walker, executed at Tyburne.

Cuthbert Clapton, condemned, reprieved and pardoned.

Bartholomew Row, executed at Tyburne.

Thomas Reynolds, executed at Tyburne.

Edward Morgan, executed at Tyburne.

Thomas Sanderson, als. Hammond, executed at Tyburne.

Henry Heath, alias Pall Magdelen, executed at Tyburne.

Francis Quashet, dyed in Newgate after judgment.

Arthur Bell, executed at Tyburne.

Ralph Corbey, executed at Tyburne.

John Duchet, executed at Tyburne.

John Hamond, als. Jackson, condemned, reprieved by the king, and died in Newgate.

Walter Coleman, condemned and died in Newgate,

Edmond Cannon, condemned and died in Newgate.

John Wigmore, als. Turner, condemned, reprieved by the king, and is in custodie in Newgate.

Andrew Ffryer, alias Herne, als. Richmond, condemned and died in Newgate.

Augustian Abbot, als. Rivers, condemned, reprieved by the king, and died in Newgate.

John Goodman, condemned and died in Newgate.

Peter Welford, condemned and died in Newgate.

Thomas Bullaker, executed at Tyburne.

Robert Robinson, indicted and proved, and made an escape out of the King’s Bench.

James Brown, condemned and died in Newgate.

Henry Morse, executed at Tyburne.

Thomas Worseley, alias Harvey, indicted and proved, and reprieved by the Spanish ambassador and others.

Charles Chanie (Cheney) als. Tomson, indicted and proved, and begged by the Spanish ambassador, and since taken by command of the councell of state, and is now in Newgate.

Andrew White, indicted, proved, reprieved before judgment, and banished.

Richard Copley, condemned and banished.

Richard Worthington, found guiltie and banished.

Edmond Cole, Peter Wright, and William Morgan, indicted, proved, and sent beyond sea.

Philip Morgan, executed at Tyburne.

Edmond Ensher, als. Arrow, indicted, condemned, reprieved by the parliament and banished.

Thomas Budd, als. Peto, als. Gray, condemned, reprieved by the lord mayor of London, and others, justices, and since retaken by order of the councell of state, and is now in Newgate.

George Baker, als. Macham, indicted, proved guiltie, and now in Newgate.

Peter Beale, als. Wright, executed at Tyburne.

George Sage, indicted by us, and found guiltie, and since is dead.

James Wadsworth.

Francis Newton.

Thomas Mayo.

Robert de Luke.”

This catalogue tells a fearful but instructive tale; inasmuch as it shows how wantonly men can sport with the lives of their fellow-men, if it suit the purpose of a great political party. The patriots, to enlist in their favour the religious prejudices of the people, represented the king as the patron of popery, because he sent the priests into banishment, instead of delivering them to the knife of the executioner. Hence, when they became lords of the ascendant, they were bound to make proof of their orthodoxy; and almost every execution mentioned above took place by their order in 1642, or 1643. After that time they began to listen to the voice of humanity, and adopted the very expedient which they had so clamorously condemned. They banished, instead of hanging and quartering.

NOTE H, p. 493.

Revenue of the Protector. When the parliament, in 1654, undertook to settle an annual sum on the protector, Oliver Cromwell, the following, according to the statement of the sub-committee, was the amount of the revenue in the three kingdoms:–

  Excise and customs in England . . . . . . . . . . . £80,000
  Excise and customs in Scotland  . . . . . . . . . .  10,000
  Excise and customs in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . .  20,000
  Monthly assessments in England (at 60,0001.)  . . . 720,000
  Monthly assessments in Ireland (at 8,0001.) . . . .  96,000
  Monthly assessments in Scotland (at 8,0001.)  . . .  96,000
  Crown revenue in Guernsey and Jersey  . . . . . . .   2,000
  Crown revenue in Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9,000
  Estates of papists and delinquents in England . . .  60,000
  Estates of papists and delinquents in Scotland  . .  30,000
  Rent of houses belonging to the crown . . . . . . .   1,250
  Post-office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10,000
  Exchequer revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20,000
  Probate of wills  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10,000
  Coinage of tin  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,000
  Wine licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10,000
  Forest of Dean  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4,000
  Fines on alienations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20,000

[From the original report in the collection of Thomas Lloyd, Esq.]

NOTE I, p. 558.

Principles of the Levellers.

The following statement of the principles maintained by the Levellers is extracted from one of their publications, which appeared soon after the death of Cromwell, entitled “The Leveller; or, The Principles and Maxims concerning Government and Religion, which are asserted by those that are commonly called Levellers, 1659.”

Principles of Government.

1. The government of England ought to be by laws, and not by men; that is, the laws ought to judge of all offences and offenders, and all punishments and penalties to be inflicted upon criminals; nor ought the pleasure of his highness and his council to make whom they please offenders, and punish and imprison whom they please, and during pleasure.

2. All laws, levies of moneys, war and peace, ought be made by the people’s deputies in parliament, to be chosen by them successively at certain periods. Therefore there should be no negative of a monarch, because he will frequently by that means consult his own interest or that of his family, to the prejudice of the people. But it would be well if the deputies of the people were divided into two bodies, one of which should propose the laws, and the other adopt or reject them.

3. All persons, without a single exception, should be subject to the law.

4. The people ought to be formed into such a military posture by and under the parliament, that they may be able to compel every man to obey the law, and defend the country from foreigners. A mercenary (standing) army is dangerous to liberty, and therefore should not be admitted.

Principles of Religion. 1. The assent of the understanding cannot be compelled. Therefore no man can compel another to be of the true religion.

2. Worship follows from the doctrines admitted by the understanding. No man therefore can bind another to adopt any particular form of worship.

3. Works of righteousness and mercy are part of the worship of God, and so far fall under the civil magistrate, that he ought to restrain men from irreligion, that is, injustice, faith-breaking, oppression, and all other evil works that are plainly evil.

4. Nothing is more destructive to true religion than quarrels about religion, and the use of punishments to compel one man to believe as another.

NOTE K, p. 608.

That Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper was deeply engaged in the intrigues of this busy time is sufficiently manifest. He appears to have held himself out to every party as a friend, and to have finally attached himself to the royalists, when he saw that the royal cause was likely to triumph. Charles acknowledged his services in the patent by which he was created Lord Ashley, mentioning in particular “his prudent and seasonable advice with General Monk in order to the king’s restoration."–Dugd. ii. 481. From this passage we may infer that Cooper was one of Monk’s confidential advisers; but his admirers have gone much farther, attributing to him the whole merit of the restoration, and representing the lord-general as a mere puppet in the hands of their hero. In proof they refer to the story told by Locke (iii. 471),–a story which cannot easily be reconciled with the more credible and unpretending narrative of Clarges, in Baker’s Chronicle, p. 602, edit. 1730. But that the reader may form his own judgment, I shall subjoin the chief heads of each in parallel columns.


1. Scot, Hazlerig, and others sought and obtained a private interview with Monk at Whitehall; and Clarges, from their previous conversation with himself, had no doubt that their object was to offer the government of the kingdom to the general.

2. The council of state was sitting in another room; and Clarges, sending for Sir A.A. Cooper, communicated his suspicion to him.

3. After some consultation it was agreed that, as soon as Monk, having dismissed Scot and Hazlerig, should enter the council-room, Cooper should move that the clerks be ordered to withdraw.

4. When this was done, Cooper said that he had received notice of a dangerous design; that some seditious persons had made “indecent proposals" to the general; and of such proposals he desired that the council might have a full discovery.

5. Monk, unwilling to expose them, replied that there was very little danger in the case; that some persons had, indeed, been with him to be resolved in scruples respecting the present transactions in parliament; but that he had sent them away well satisfied (p. 602).

6. Bordeaux offered to Monk through Clarges the aid of Mazarin, whether it were his object to restore the king, or to assume the government himself. Monk refused; but consented to receive a visit of civility from the ambassador, on condition that politics should not be introduced (p. 604).


1. Bordeaux, the French ambassador, visited Monk one evening, and Mrs. Monk, who had secreted herself behind the hangings, heard him offer the aid of Mazarin to her husband, if he was willing to take the government on himself, which offer the general accepted.

2. Mrs. Monk sent her brother Clarges to communicate the discovery of her husband’s ambitious design to Sir A.A. Cooper.

3. Cooper caused a council to be called, and, when they were met, moved that the clerks should withdraw, because he had matter of consequence to communicate.

4. He then charged Monk, “not openly, but by insinuation, that he was playing false with them, so that the rest of the council perceived there was something in it, though they knew not what was meant.”

5. Monk replied that he was willing to satisfy them that he was true to his principles. Then, said Ashley, replace certain officers of suspicious character by others of known fidelity. This was done on the spot; the command of the army by the change was virtually taken from Monk; and he was compelled to declare for Charles Stuart

It may be thought that Locke’s narrative derives confirmation from another version of the same story in the Life of Lord Shaftesbury, lately edited by Mr. Cooke, with the following variations. Bordeaux is made to accompany the republicans; the greater part of the night is spent in consultation, and Monk not only consents to assume the government, but resolves to arrest in the morning Cooper and several other influential individuals (p. 233-235). But that life cannot be considered as an authority; for the documents from which it is said to have been compiled are neither quoted nor described by its author, nor have ever been seen by its present editor.

End of Vol. VIII.


Chapter V.  •  Chapter VI.  •  Chapter VII.  •  Chapter VIII.  •