Chapter IV: , VII (9)

ALSO IN:
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 11, sections 153-190 (volume 4)._

_I. Disraeli,
Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I.,
volume 2, chapters 39-40._

{880}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The Grand Army Remonstrance and Pride's Purge.
The Long Parliament cut down to the Rump.

On the 20th of November, 1648, Colonel Ewer and other officers
presented to the house of commons a remonstrance from the Army
against the negotiations and proposed treaty with the king.
This was accompanied by a letter from Fairfax, stating that it
had been voted unanimously in the council of officers, and
entreating for it the consideration of parliament. The
remonstrance recommended an immediate ending of the treaty
conferences at Newport, demanded that the king be brought to
justice, as the capital source of all grievances, and called
upon parliament to enact its own dissolution, with provision
for the electing and convening of future annual or biennial
parliaments. Ten days passed without attention being given to
this army manifesto, the house having twice adjourned its
consideration of the document. On the first of December there
appeared at Newport a party of horse which quietly took
possession of the person of the king, and conveyed him to
Hurst Castle, "a fortress in Hampshire, situated at the
extreme point of a neck of land, which shoots into the sea
towards the isle of Wight." The same day on which this was
done, "the commissioners who had treated with the king at
Newport made their appearance in the two houses of parliament;
and the two following days were occupied by the house of
commons in an earnest debate as to the state of the
negotiation. Vane was one of the principal speakers against
the treaty; and Fiennes, who had hitherto ranked among the
independents, spoke for it. At length, after the house had sat
all night, it was put and carried, at five in the morning of
the 5th, by a majority of 129 to 83, that the king's answers
to the propositions of both houses were a ground for them to
proceed upon, to the settlement of the peace of the kingdom.
On the same day this vote received the concurrence of the
house of lords." Meantime, on the 30th of November, the
council of the army had voted a second declaration more fully
expressive of its views and announcing its intention to draw
near to London, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the
remonstrance. "On the 2d of December Fairfax marched to
London, and quartered his army at Whitehall, St. James's, the
Mews, and the villages near the metropolis. ... On the 5th of
December three officers of the army held a meeting with three
members of parliament, to arrange the plan by which the sound
members might best be separated from those by whom their
measures were thwarted, and might peaceably be put in
possession of the legislative authority. The next morning a
regiment of horse, and another of foot were placed as a guard
upon the two houses, Skippon, who commanded the city-militia,
having agreed with the council of the army to keep back the
guard under his authority which usually performed that duty. A
part of the foot were ranged in the Court of Requests, upon
the stairs, and in the lobby leading to the house of commons.
Colonel Pride was stationed near the door, with a list in his
hand of the persons he was commissioned to arrest; and
sometimes one of the door-keepers, and at others Lord Grey of
Groby, pointed them out to him, as they came up with an
intention of passing into the house. Forty-one members were
thus arrested. ... On the following day more members were
secured, or denied entrance, amounting, with those of the day
before, to about one hundred. At the same time Cromwell took
his seat; and Henry Marten moved that the speaker should
return him thanks for his great and eminent services performed
in the course of the campaign. The day after, the two houses
adjourned to the 12th. During the adjournment many of the
members who had been taken into custody by the military were
liberated. ... Besides those who were absolutely secured, or
shut out from their seats by the power of the army, there were
other members that looked with dislike on the present
proceedings, or that considered parliament as being under
force, and not free in their deliberations, who voluntarily
abstained from being present at their sittings and debates."

_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapters 23-24 (volume 2)._

"The famous Pride's Purge was accomplished. By military force
the Long Parliament was cut down to a fraction of its number,
and the career begins of the mighty 'Rump,' so called in the
coarse wit of the time because it was 'the sitting part.'"

_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 13._

"This name [the Rump] was first given to them by Walker, the
author of the History of Independency, by way of derision, in
allusion to a fowl all devoured but the rump."

_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 1, foot-note._

ALSO IN:
_C. R Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 28._

_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
book 4, chapters 1 and 3 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (JANUARY).
The trial and execution of the King.

"During the month in which Charles had remained at Windsor
[whither he had been brought from Hurst Castle on the 17th of
December], there had been proceedings in Parliament of which
he was imperfectly informed. On the day he arrived there, it
was resolved by the Commons that he should be brought to
trial. On the 2nd of January, 1649, it was voted that, in
making war against the Parliament, he had been guilty of
treason; and a High Court was appointed to try him. One
hundred and fifty commissioners were to compose the Court,--
peers, members of the Commons, aldermen of London. The
ordinance was sent to the Upper House, and was rejected. On
the 6th, a fresh ordinance, declaring that the people being,
after God, the source of all just power, the representatives
of the people are the supreme power in the nation; and that
whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in
Parliament hath the force of a law, and the people are
concluded thereby, though the consent of King or Peers be not
had thereto. Asserting this power, so utterly opposed either
to the ancient constitution of the monarchy, or to the
possible working of a republic, there was no hesitation in
constituting the High Court of Justice in the name of the
Commons alone. The number of members of the Court was now
reduced to 135. They had seven preparatory meetings, at which
only 58 members attended. 'All men,' says Mrs. Hutchinson,
'were left to their free liberty of acting, neither persuaded
nor compelled; and as there were some nominated in the
commission who never sat, and others who sat at first but
durst not hold on, so all the rest might have declined it if
they would, when it is apparent they should have suffered
nothing by so doing.' ... On the 19th of January, major
Harrison appeared ... at Windsor with his troop. There was a
coach with six horses in the court-yard, in which the King
took his seat; and, once more, he entered London, and was
lodged at St. James's palace.
{881}
The next day, the High Court of Justice was opened in
Westminster-hall. ... After the names of the members of the
court had been called, 69 being present, Bradshaw, the
president, ordered the serjeant to bring in the prisoner.
Silently the King sat down in the chair prepared for him. He
moved not his hat, as he looked sternly and contemptuously
around. The sixty-nine rose not from their seats, and remained
covered. ... The clerk reads the charge, and when he is
accused therein of being tyrant and traitor, he laughs in the
face of the Court. 'Though his tongue usually hesitated, yet
it was very free at this time, for he was never discomposed in
mind,' writes Warwick. ... Again and again contending against
the authority of the Court, the King was removed, and the
sitting was adjourned to the 22nd. On that day the same scene
was renewed; and again on the 23rd. A growing sympathy for the
monarch became apparent. The cries of 'Justice, justice,'
which were heard at first, were now mingled with 'God save the
King.' He had refused to plead; but the Court nevertheless
employed the 24th and 25th of January in collecting evidence
to prove the charge of his levying war against the Parliament.
Coke, the solicitor-general, then demanded whether the Court
would proceed to pronouncing sentence; and the members
adjourned to the Painted Chamber. On the 27th the public
sitting was resumed. ... The Court, Bradshaw then stated, had
agreed upon the sentence. Ludlow records that the King'
desired to make one proposition before they proceeded to
sentence; which he earnestly pressing, as that which he
thought would lead to the reconciling of all parties, and to
the peace of the three kingdoms, they permitted him to offer
it; the effect of which was, that he might meet the two Houses
in the Painted Chamber, to whom he doubted not to offer that
which should satisfy and secure all interests.' Ludlow goes on
to say, 'Designing, as I have since been informed, to propose
his own resignation, and the admission of his son to the
throne upon such terms as should have been agreed upon.' The
commissioners retired to deliberate, 'and being satisfied,
upon debate, that nothing but loss of time would be the
consequence of it, they returned into the Court with a
negative to his demand.' Bradshaw then delivered a solemn
speech to the King. ... The clerk was lastly commanded to read
the sentence, that his head should be severed from his body;
'and the commissioners,' says Ludlow, 'testified their
unanimous assent by standing up.' The King attempted to speak;
'but being accounted dead in law, was not permitted.' On the
29th of January, the Court met to sign the sentence of
execution, addressed to 'colonel Francis Hacker, colonel
Huncks, and lieutenant-colonel Phayr, and to every one of
them.' ... There were some attempts to save him. The Dutch
ambassador made vigorous efforts to procure a reprieve, whilst
the French and Spanish ambassadors were inert. The ambassadors
from the States nevertheless persevered; and early in the day
of the 30th obtained some glimmering of hope from Fairfax.
'But we found,' they say in their despatch, 'in front of the
house in which we had just spoken with the general, about 200
horsemen; and we learned, as well as on our way as on reaching
home, that all the streets, passages, and squares of London were
occupied by troops, so that no one could pass, and that the
approaches of the city were covered with cavalry, so as to
prevent anyone from coming in or going out; ... The same day,
between two and three o'clock, the King was taken to a
scaffold covered with black, erected before Whitehall.' To
that scaffold before Whitehall, Charles walked, surrounded by
soldiers, through the leafless avenues of St. James's Park. It
was a bitterly cold morning. ... His purposed address to the
people was delivered only to the hearing of those upon the
scaffold, but its purport was that the people mistook the
nature of government; for people are free under a government,
not by being sharers in it, but by due administration of the
laws of it.' His theory of government was a consistent one. He
had the misfortune not to understand that the time had been
fast passing away for its assertion. The headsman did his
office; and a deep groan went up from the surrounding
multitude."

_Charles Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 4, chapter 7._

"In the death-warrant of 29th January 1649, next after the
President and Lord Grey, stands the name of Oliver Cromwell.
He accepted the responsibility of it, justified, defended it
to his dying day. No man in England was more entirely
answerable for the deed than he, 'I tell you,' he said to
Algernon Sidney, 'we will cut off his head with the crown upon
it.' ... Slowly he had come to know--not only that the man,
Charles Stuart, was incurably treacherous, but that any
settlement of Parliament with the old Feudal Monarchy was
impossible. As the head of the king rolled on the scaffold the
old Feudal Monarchy expired for ever. In January 1649 a great
mark was set in the course of the national life--the Old Rule
behind it, the New Rule before it. Parliamentary government,
the consent of the nation, equality of rights, and equity in
the law--all date from this great New Departure. The Stuarts
indeed returned for one generation, but with the sting of the
Old Monarchy gone, and only to disappear almost without a
blow. The Church of England returned; but not the Church of
Laud or of Charles. The peers returned, but as a meek House of
Lords, with their castles razed, their feudal rights and their
political power extinct. It is said that the regicides killed
Charles I. only to make Charles II. king. It is not so, They
killed the Old Monarchy; and the restored monarch was by no
means its heir, but a royal Stadtholder or Hereditary
President."

_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 7._

"Respecting the death of Charles it has been pronounced by
Fox, that 'it is much to be doubted whether his trial and
execution have not, as much as any other circumstance, served
to raise the character of the English nation in the opinion of
Europe in general.' And he goes on to speak with considerable
favour of the authors of that event. One of the great
authorities of the age having so pronounced, an hundred and
fifty years after the deed, it may be proper to consider for a
little the real merits of the actors, and the act. It is not
easy to imagine a greater criminal than the individual against
whom the sentence was awarded. ... Liberty is one of the
greatest negative advantages that can fall to the lot of a
man; without it we cannot possess any high degree of
happiness, or exercise any considerable virtue. Now Charles,
to a degree which can scarcely be exceeded, conspired against
the liberty of his country, to assert his own authority
without limitation, was the object of all his desires and all
his actions, so far as the public was concerned.
{882}
To accomplish this object he laid aside the use of a
parliament. When he was compelled once more to have recourse
to this assembly, and found it retrograde to his purposes, he
determined to bring up the army, and by that means to put an
end to its sittings. Both in Scotland and England, the scheme
that he formed for setting aside all opposition, was by force
of arms. For that purpose he commenced war against the English
parliament, and continued it by every expedient in his power
for four years. Conquered, and driven out of the field, he did
not for that, for a moment lose sight of his object and his
resolution. He sought in every quarter for the materials of a
new war; and, after an interval of twenty months, and from the
depths of his prison, he found them. To this must be added the
most consummate insincerity and duplicity. He could never be
reconciled; he could never be disarmed; he could never be
convinced. His was a war to the death, and therefore had the
utmost aggravation that can belong to a war against the
liberty of a nation. ... The proper lesson taught by the act
of the thirtieth of January, was that no person, however high
in station, however protected by the prejudices of his
contemporaries, must expect to be criminal against the welfare
of the state and community, without retribution and
punishment. The event however sufficiently proved that the
condemnation and execution of Charles did not answer the
purposes intended by its authors. It did not conciliate the
English nation to republican ideas. It shocked all those
persons in the country who did not adhere to the ruling party.
This was in some degree owing to the decency with which
Charles met his fate. He had always been in manners, formal,
sober and specious. ... The notion was every where prevalent,
that a sovereign could not be called to account, could not be
arraigned at the bar of his subjects. And the violation of
this prejudice, instead of breaking down the wall which
separated him from others, gave to his person a sacredness
which never before appertained to it. Among his own partisans
the death of Charles was treated, and was spoken of, as a sort
of deicide. And it may be admitted for a universal rule, that
the abrupt violation of a deep-rooted maxim and persuasion of
the human mind, produces a reaction, and urges men to hug the
maxim closer than ever. I am afraid, that the day that saw
Charles perish on the scaffold, rendered the restoration of
his family certain."

_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth of England
to the Restoration of Charles II.,
book 2, chapter 26 (volume 2)._

"The situation, complicated enough already, had been still
further complicated by Charles's duplicity. Men who would have
been willing to come to terms with him, despaired of any
constitutional arrangement in which he was to be a factor; and
men who had long been alienated from him were irritated into
active hostility. By these he was regarded with increasing
intensity as the one disturbing force with which no
understanding was possible and no settled order consistent. To
remove him out of the way appeared, even to those who had no
thought of punishing him for past offences, to be the only
possible road to peace for the troubled nation. It seemed that
so long as Charles lived deluded nations and deluded parties
would be stirred up, by promises never intended to be
fulfilled, to fling themselves, as they had flung themselves
in the Second Civil War, against the new order of things which
was struggling to establish itself in England."

_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
1642-1649, chapter 71 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_John Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Henry Marten._

_S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
pages 268-290._

The following is the text of the Act which arraigned the King
and constituted the Court by which he was tried:

"Whereas it is notorious that Charles Stuart, the now king of
England, not content with the many encroachments which his
predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and
freedom, hath had a wicked design totally to subvert the
antient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and
in their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical
government; and that, besides all other evil ways and means to
bring his design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and
sword, levied and maintained a civil war in the land, against
the parliament and kingdom; whereby this country hath been
miserably wasted, the public treasure exhausted, trade
decayed, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other
mischiefs committed; for all which high and treasonable
offences the said Charles Stuart might long since have justly
been brought to exemplary and condign punishment: whereas also
the parliament, well hoping that the restraint and imprisonment
of his person after it had pleased God to deliver him into
their hands, would have quieted the distempers of the kingdom,
did forbear to proceed judicially against him; but found, by
sad experience, that such their remissness served only to
encourage him and his accomplices in the continuance of their
evil practices and in raising new commotions, rebellions, and
invasions: for prevention therefore of the like or greater
inconveniences, and to the end no other chief officer or
magistrate whatsoever may hereafter presume, traiterously and
maliciously, to imagine or contrive the enslaving or
destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for
so doing; be it enacted and ordained by the [Lords] and
commons in Parliament assembled, and it is hereby enacted and
ordained by the authority thereof, That the earls of Kent,
Nottingham, Pembroke, Denbigh, and Mulgrave; the lord Grey of
Warke; lord chief justice Rolle of the king's bench, lord
chief justice St. John of the common Pleas, and lord chief
baron Wylde; the lord Fairfax, lieutenant general Cromwell,
&c. [in all about 150,] shall be, and are hereby appointed and
required to be Commissioners and Judges, for the Hearing,
Trying, and Judging of the said Charles Stuart; and the said
Commissioners, or any 20 or more of them, shall be, and are
hereby authorized and constituted an High Court of Justice, to
meet and sit at such convenient times and place as by the said
commissioners, or the major part, or 20 or more of them, under
their hands and seals, shall be appointed and notified by
public Proclamation in the Great Hall, or Palace Yard of
Westminster; and to adjourn from time to time, and from place
to place, as the said High Court, or the major part thereof,
at meeting, shall hold fit; and to take order for the charging
of him, the said Charles Stuart, with the Crimes and Treasons
above-mentioned, and for receiving his personal Answer
thereunto, and for examination of witnesses upon oath, (which
the court hath hereby authority to administer) or otherwise,
and taking any other Evidence concerning the same; and
thereupon, or in default of such Answer, to proceed to final
Sentence according to justice and the merit of the cause; and
such final Sentence to execute, or cause to be executed,
speedily and impartially.--
{883}
And the said court is hereby and required to chuse and
appoint all such officers, attendants, and other circumstances
as they, or the major part of them, shall in any sort judge
necessary or useful for the orderly and good managing of the
premises; and Thomas lord Fairfax the General, and all
officers and soldiers, under his command, and all officers of
justice, and other well-affected persons, are hereby
authorized and required to be aiding and assisting unto the
said court in the due execution of the trust hereby committed
unto them; provided that this act, and the authority hereby
granted, do continue in force for the space of one month from
the date of the making hereof, and no longer."

_Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
volume 3, pages 1254-1255._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
The Commonwealth established.

"England was now a Republic. The change had been virtually
made on Thursday, January 4, 1648-9, when the Commons passed
their three great Resolutions, declaring

(1) that the People of England were, under God, the original
of all just power in the State,

(2) that the Commons, in Parliament assembled, having been
chosen by the People, and representing the People, possessed
the supreme power in their name, and

(3) that whatever the Commons enacted should have the force of
a law, without needing the consent of either King or House of
Peers.

On Tuesday, the 30th of January, the theory of these
Resolutions became more visibly a fact. On the afternoon of
that day, while the crowd that had seen the execution in front
of Whitehall were still lingering round the scaffold, the
Commons passed an Act 'prohibiting the proclaiming of any
person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions
thereof.' It was thus declared that Kingship in England had
died with Charles. But what of the House of Peers? It was
significant that on the same fatal day the Commons revived
their three theoretical resolutions of the 4th, and ordered
them to be printed. The wretched little rag of a House might
then have known its doom. But it took a week more to convince
them." On the 6th of February it was resolved by the House of
Commons, "'That the House of Peers in Parliament is useless
and dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an Act be
brought in to that purpose.' Next day, February 7, after
another long debate, it was further resolved 'That it hath
been found by experience, and this House doth declare, that
the office of a King in this realm, and to have the power
thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and
dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the
People of this nation, and therefore ought to be abolished,
and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Not till after
some weeks were these Acts deliberately passed after the
customary three readings. The delay, however, was matter of
mere Parliamentary form. Theoretically a Republic since Jan.
4, 1648-9, and visibly a Republic from the day of Charles's
death, England was a Republic absolutely and in every sense
from February 7, 1648-9." For the administration of the
government of the republican Commonwealth, the Commons
resolved, on the 7th of February, that a Council of State be
erected; to consist of not more than forty persons. On the
13th, Instructions to the intended Council of State were
reported and agreed to, "these Instructions conferring almost
plenary powers, but limiting the duration of the Council to
one year." On the 14th and 15th forty-one persons were
appointed to be members of the Council, Fairfax, Cromwell,
Vane, St. John, Whitlocke, Henry Marten, and Colonels
Hutchinson and Ludlow being in the number; nine to constitute
a quorum, and no permanent President to be chosen.

_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 4, book 1, chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume. 10, chapter 5._

_A. Bisset,
Omitted Chapters of History of England,
chapter 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
The Eikon Basilike.

"A book, published with great secrecy, and in very mysterious
circumstances, February 9, 1648-9, exactly ten days after the
late King's death, had done much to increase the Royalist
enthusiasm.

'Eikon Basilike: The True Portraicture of His Sacred Majestie
in his Solitudes and Sufferings.--Romans viii. More than
conquerour, &c.--Bona agere et mala pati Regium est.
MDCXLVIII':
such was the title-page of this volume (of 269 pages of text,
in small octavo), destined by fate, rather than by merit, to
be one of the most famous books of the world. ... The book, so
elaborately prepared and heralded, consists of twenty-eight
successive chapters, purporting to have been written by the
late King, and to be the essence of his spiritual
autobiography in the last years of his life. Each chapter,
with scarcely an exception, begins with a little narrative, or
generally rather with reflections and meditations on some
passage of the King's life the narrative of which is supposed
to be unnecessary, and ends with a prayer in italics
appropriate to the circumstances remembered. ... Save for a
few ... passages ... , the pathos of which lies in the
situation they represent, the Eikon Basilike is a rather dull
performance, in third-rate rhetoric, modulated after the
Liturgy; and without incision, point, or the least shred of
real information as to facts. But O what a reception it had!
Copies of it ran about instantaneously, and were read with
sobs and tears. It was in vain that Parliament, March 16, gave
orders for seizing the book. It was reprinted at once in
various forms, to supply the constant demand--which was not
satisfied, it is said, with less than fifty editions within a
single year; it became a very Bible in English Royalist
households. ... By means of this book, in fact, acting on the
state of sentiment which it fitted, there was established,
within a few weeks after the death of Charles I., that
marvellous worship of his memory, that passionate recollection
of him as the perfect man and the perfect king, the saint, the
martyr, the all but Christ on earth again, which persisted
till the other day as a positive religious cultus of the
English mind, and still lingers in certain quarters."

_D. Masson,
Life and Times of John Milton,
volume 4, book 1, chapter 1._

{884}

"I struggled through the Eikon Basilike yesterday; one of the
paltriest pieces of vapid, shovel-hatted, clear-starched,
immaculate falsity and cant I have ever read. It is to me an
amazement how any mortal could ever have taken that for a
genuine book of King Charles's. Nothing but a surpliced
Pharisee, sitting at his ease afar off, could have got up such
a set of meditations. It got Parson Gauden [John Gauden,
Bishop of Exeter and Worcester, successively, after the
Restoration, and who is believed to have been the author of
the Eikon Basilike] a bishopric."

_T. Carlyle,
History of his Life in London,
by Froude, volume 1, chapter 7, November 26, 1840._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (APRIL-MAY).
Mutiny of the Levellers.

See LEVELLERS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
Cromwell's campaign in Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (JULY).
Charles II. proclaimed King in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
War with the Scots and Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651 (SEPTEMBER).
The Scots and Charles II. overthrown at Worcester.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1653.
The Army and the Rump.

"'Now that the King is dead and his son defeated,' Cromwell
said gravely to the Parliament, 'I think it necessary to come
to a settlement.' But the settlement which had been promised
after Naseby was still as distant as ever after Worcester. The
bill for dissolving the present Parliament, though Cromwell
pressed it in person, was only passed, after bitter
opposition, by a majority of two; and even this success had
been purchased by a compromise which permitted the House to
sit for three years more. Internal affairs were simply at a
dead lock. ... The one remedy for all this was, as the army
saw, the assembly of a new and complete Parliament in place of
the mere 'rump' of the old; but this was the one measure which
the House was resolute to avert. Vane spurred it to a new
activity. ... But it was necessary for Vane's purposes not
only to show the energy of the Parliament, but to free it from
the control of the army. His aim was to raise in the navy a
force devoted to the House, and to eclipse the glories of
Dunbar and Worcester by yet greater triumphs at sea. With this
view the quarrel with Holland had been carefully nursed. ...
The army hardly needed the warning conveyed by the
introduction of a bill for its disbanding to understand the
new policy of the Parliament. ... The army petitioned not only
for reform in Church and State, but for an explicit
declaration that the House would bring its proceedings to a
close. The Petition forced the House to discuss a bill for 'a
New Representative,' but the discussion soon brought out the
resolve of the sitting members to continue as a part of the
coming Parliament without re-election. The officers, irritated
by such a claim, demanded in conference after conference an
immediate dissolution, and the House as resolutely refused. In
ominous words Cromwell supported the demands of the army. 'As
for the members of this Parliament, the army begins to take
them in disgust. I would it did so with less reason.' ... Not
only were the existing members to continue as members of the
New Parliament, depriving the places they represented of their
right of choosing representatives, but they were to constitute
a Committee of Revision, to determine the validity of each
election, and the fitness of the members returned. A
conference took place [April 19, 1653] between the leaders of
the Commons and the officers of the army. ... The conference
was adjourned till the next morning, on an understanding that
no decisive step should be taken; but it had no sooner
reassembled, than the absence of the leading members confirmed
the news that Vane was fast pressing the bill for a new
Representative through the House. 'It is contrary to common
honesty,' Cromwell angrily broke out; and, quitting Whitehall,
he summoned a company of musketeers to follow him as far as
the door of the House of Commons."

_J. R Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 9._

ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 22._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1672.
The Navigation Acts and the American colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672;
also, NAVIGATION LAWS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.
War with the Dutch Republic.

"After the death of William, Prince of Orange, which was
attended with the depression of his party and the triumph of
the Dutch republicans [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650], the
Parliament thought that the time was now favourable for
cementing a closer confederacy with the states. St. John,
chief justice, who was sent over to the Hague, had entertained
the idea of forming a kind of coalition between the two
republics, which would have rendered their interests totally
inseparable; ... but the states, who were unwilling to form a
nearer confederacy with a government whose measures were so
obnoxious, and whose situation seemed so precarious, offered
only to renew 'the former alliances with England; and the
haughty St. John, disgusted with this disappointment, as well
as incensed at many affronts which had been offered him, with
impunity, by the retainers of the Palatine and Orange
families, and indeed by the populace in general, returned into
England and endeavoured to foment a quarrel between the
republics. .... There were several motives which at this time
induced the English Parliament to embrace hostile measures.
Many of the members thought that a foreign war would serve as
a pretence for continuing the same Parliament, and delaying
the new model of a representative, with which the nation had
so long been flattered. Others hoped that the war would
furnish a reason for maintaining, some time longer, that
numerous standing army which was so much complained of. On the
other hand, some, who dreaded the increasing power of
Cromwell, expected that the great expense of naval armaments
would prove a motive for diminishing the military
establishment. To divert the attention of the public from
domestic quarrels towards foreign transactions, seemed, in the
present disposition of men's minds, to be good policy. ... All
these views, enforced by the violent spirit of St. John, who
had great influence over Cromwell, determined the Parliament
to change the purposed alliance into a furious war against the
United Provinces. To cover these hostile intentions, the
Parliament, under pretence of providing for the interests of
commerce, embraced such measures as they knew would give
disgust to the states. They framed the famous act of
navigation, which prohibited all nations from importing into
England in their bottoms any commodity which was not the
growth and manufacture of their own country. ... The minds of
men in both states were every day more irritated against each
other; and it was not long before these humours broke forth
into action."

_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 60 (volume 5)._

{885}

"The negotiations ... were still pending when Blake, meeting
Van Tromp's fleet in the Downs, in vain summoned the Dutch
Admiral to lower his flag. A battle was the consequence, which
led to a declaration of war on the 8th of July (1652). The
maritime success of England was chiefly due to the genius of
Blake, who having hitherto served upon shore, now turned his
whole attention to the navy. A series of bloody fights took
place between the two nations. For some time the fortunes of
the war seemed undecided. Van Tromp, defeated by Blake, had to
yield the command to De Ruyter. De Ruyter in his turn was
displaced to give way again to his greater rival. Van Tromp
was reinstated in command. A victory over Blake off the Naze
(November 28) enabled him to cruise in the Channel with a
broom at his mast-head, implying that he had swept the English
from the seas. But the year 1653 again saw Blake able to fight
a drawn battle of two days' duration between Portland and La
Hogue; while at length, on the 2d and 3d of June, a decisive
engagement was fought off the North Foreland, in which Monk
and Deane, supported by Blake, completely defeated the Dutch
Admiral, who, as a last resource, tried in vain to blow up his
own ship, and then retreated to the Dutch coast, leaving
eleven ships in the hands of the English. In the next month,
another victory on the part of Blake, accompanied by the death
of the great Dutch Admiral, completed the ruin of the naval
power of Holland. The States were driven to treat. In 1654 the
treaty was signed, in which Denmark, the Hanseatic towns, and
the Swiss provinces were included. ... The Dutch acknowledged
the supremacy of the English flag in the British seas; they
consented to the Navigation Act."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, page 701._

ALSO IN:
_W. H. Dixon,
Robert Blake, Admiral and General at Sea,
chapters 6-7._

_D. Hannay,
Admiral Blake,
chapters 6-7._

_J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._

_G. Penn,
Memorials of Sir William Penn,
chapter 4._

_J. Corbett,
Monk,
chapter 7._

_J. Geddes,
History of the Administration of John De Witt,
volume 1, books 4-5._

See, also, NAVIGATION LAWS, ENGLISH: A. D. 1651.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (APRIL).
Cromwell's expulsion of the Rump.

"In plain black clothes and gray worsted stockings, the
Lord-General came in quietly and took his seat [April 20], as
Vane was pressing the House to pass the dissolution Bill
without delay and without the customary forms. He beckoned to
Harrison and told him that the Parliament was ripe for
dissolution, and he must do it. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'the
work is very great and dangerous.'--'You say well,' said the
general, and thereupon sat still for about a quarter of an
hour. Vane sat down, and the Speaker was putting the question
for passing the Bill. Then said Cromwell to Harrison again,
'This is the time; I must do it.' He rose up, put off his hat,
and spoke. Beginning moderately and respectfully, he presently
changed his style, told them of their injustice, delays of
justice, self interest, and other faults; charging them not to
have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have
espoused the corrupt interest of Presbytery and the lawyers,
who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, accusing
them of an intention to perpetuate themselves in power. And
rising into passion, 'as if he were distracted,' he told them
that the Lord had done with them, and had chosen other
instruments for the carrying on His work that were worthy. Sir
Peter Wentworth rose to complain of such language in
Parliament, coming from their own trusted servant. Roused to
fury by the interruption, Cromwell left his seat, clapped on
his hat, walked up and down the floor of the House, stamping
with his feet, and cried out, 'You are no Parliament, I say
you are no Parliament. Come, come, we have had enough of this;
I will put an end to your prating. Call them in!' Twenty or
thirty musketeers under Colonel Worsley marched in onto the
floor of the House. The rest of the guard were placed at the
door and in the lobby. Vane from his place cried out, 'This is
not honest, yea, it is against morality and common honesty.'
Cromwell, who evidently regarded Vane as the breaker of the
supposed agreement, turned on him with a loud voice, crying,
'O Sir Henry Vane, Sir Henry Vane, the Lord deliver me from
Sir Henry Vane.' Then looking upon one of the members, he
said, 'There sits a drunkard;' to another he said, 'Some of
you are unjust, corrupt persons, and scandalous to the
profession of the Gospel.' 'Some are whoremasters,' he said,
looking at Wentworth and Marten. Going up to the table, he
said, 'What shall we do with this Bauble? Here, take it away!'
and gave it to a musketeer. 'Fetch him down,' he cried to
Harrison, pointing to the Speaker. Lenthall sat still, and
refused to come down unless by force. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'I
will lend you my hand,' and putting his hand within his, the
Speaker came down. Algernon Sidney sat still in his place.
'Put him out,' said Cromwell. And Harrison and Worsley put
their hands on his shoulders, and he rose and went out. The
members went out, fifty-three in all, Cromwell still calling
aloud. To Vane he said that he might have prevented this; but
that he was a juggler and had not common honesty. 'It is you,'
he said, as they passed him, 'that have forced me to do this,
for I have sought the Lord night and day, that He would rather
slay me than put me on the doing of this work.' He snatched
the Bill of dissolution from the hand of the clerk, put it
under his cloak, seized on the records, ordered the guard to
clear the House of all members, and to have the door locked,
and went away to Whitehall. Such is one of the most famous
scenes in our history, that which of all other things has most
heavily weighed on the fame of Cromwell. In truth it is a
matter of no small complexity, which neither constitutional
eloquence nor boisterous sarcasm has quite adequately
unravelled. ... In strict constitutional right the House was
no more the Parliament than Cromwell was the king. A House of
Commons, which had executed the king, abolished the Lords,
approved the 'coup d'état' of Pride, and by successive
proscriptions had reduced itself to a few score of extreme
partisans, had no legal title to the name of Parliament. The
junto which held to Vane was not more numerous than the junto
which held to Cromwell; they had far less public support; nor
had their services to the Cause been so great.
{886}
In closing the House, the Lord-General had used his office of
Commander-in-Chief to anticipate one 'coup d'état' by another.
Had he been ten minutes late, Vane would himself have
dissolved the House; snapping a vote which would give his
faction a legal ascendancy. Yet, after all, the fact remains
that Vane and the remnant of the famous Long Parliament had
that 'scintilla juris,' as lawyers call it, that semblance of
legal right, which counts for so much in things political."

_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 10._

ALSO IN:
_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
part 3, chapter 17._

_F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 4 (volume l)._

_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th century,
book 11, chapter 5 (volume 3)._

_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
volume 3, chapters 27-29._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
The Barebones, or Little Parliament.

Six weeks after the expulsion of the Rump, Cromwell, in his
own name, and upon his own authority, as "Captain-General and
Commander-in-Chief," issued (June 6) a summons to one hundred
and forty "persons fearing God and of approved fidelity and
honesty," chosen and "nominated" by himself, with the advice
of his council of officers, requiring them to be and appear at
the Council Chamber of Whitehall on the following fourth day
of July, to take upon themselves "the great charge and trust"
of providing for "the peace, safety, and good government" of
the Commonwealth, and to serve, each, "as a Member for the
county" from which he was called. "Of all the Parties so
summoned, 'only two' did not attend. Disconsolate Bulstrode
says: 'Many of this Assembly being persons of fortune and
knowledge, it was much wondered by some that they would at
this summons, and from such hands, take upon them the Supreme
Authority of this Nation; considering how little right
Cromwell and his Officers had to give it, or those Gentlemen
to take it.' My disconsolate friend, it is a sign that Puritan
England in general accepts this action of Cromwell and his
Officers, and thanks them for it, in such a case of extremity;
saying as audibly as the means permitted: Yea, we did wish it
so. Rather mournful to the disconsolate official mind. ... The
undeniable fact is, these men were, as Whitlocke intimates, a
quite reputable Assembly; got together by anxious
'consultation of the godly Clergy' and chief Puritan lights in
their respective Counties; not without much earnest revision,
and solemn consideration in all kinds, on the part of men
adequate enough for such a work, and desirous enough to do it
well. The List of the Assembly exists; not yet entirely gone
dark for mankind. A fair proportion of them still recognizable
to mankind. Actual Peers one or two: founders of Peerage
Families, two or three, which still exist among us,--Colonel
Edward Montague, Colonel Charles Howard, Anthony Ashley
Cooper. And better than King's Peers, certain Peers of Nature;
whom if not the King and his pasteboard Norroys have had the
luck to make Peers of, the living heart of England has since
raised to the Peerage and means to keep there,--Colonel Robert
Blake the Sea-King, for one. 'Known persons,' I do think; 'of
approved integrity, men fearing God'; and perhaps not entirely
destitute of sense anyone of them! Truly it seems rather a
distinguished Parliament,--even though Mr. Praisegod Barbone,
'the Leather merchant in Fleet-street,' be, as all mortals
must admit, a member of it. The fault, I hope, is forgivable.
Praisegod, though he deals in leather, and has a name which
can be misspelt, one discerns to be the son of pious parents;
to be himself a man of piety, of understanding and
weight,--and even of considerable private capital, my witty
flunkey friends! We will leave Praisegod to do the best he
can, I think. ... In fact, a real Assembly of the Notables in
Puritan England; a Parliament, Parliamentum, or
Speaking-Apparatus for the now dominant Interest in England,
as exact as could well be got,--much more exact, I suppose,
than any ballot-box, free hustings or ale-barrel election
usually yields. Such is the Assembly called the Little
Parliament, and wittily Bare-bone's Parliament; which meets on
the 4th of July. Their witty name survives; but their history
is gone all dark."

_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 7, speech. 1._

The "assembly of godly persons" proved, however, to be quite
an unmanageable body, containing so large a number of erratic
and impracticable reformers that everything substantial among
English institutions was threatened with overthrow at their
hands. After five months of busy session, Cromwell was happily
able to bring about a dissolution of his parliament, by the
action of a majority, surrendering back their powers into his
hands,--which was done on the 10th of December, 1653.

_F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 5 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 23._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (December).
The Establishment and Constitution of the Protectorate.
The Instrument of Government.

"What followed the dissolution of the Little Parliament is
soon told. The Council of Officers having been summoned by
Cromwell as the only power de facto, there were dialogues and
deliberations, ending in the clear conclusion that the method
of headship in a 'Single Person' for his whole life must now
be tried in the Government of the Commonwealth, and that
Cromwell must be that 'Single Person.' The title of King was
actually proposed; but, as there were objections to that,
Protector was chosen as a title familiar in English History
and of venerable associations. Accordingly, Cromwell having
consented, and all preparations having been made, he was, on
Friday, December 16, in a great assembly of civic, judicial
and military dignities, solemnly sworn and installed in the
Chancery Court, Westminster Hall, as Lord Protector of the
Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. There were some
of his adherents hitherto who did not like this new elevation
of their hero, and forsook him in consequence, regarding any
experiment of the Single Person method in Government 'as a
treason to true Republicanism, and Cromwell's assent to it as
unworthy of him. Among these was Harrison. Lambert, on the
other hand, had been the main agent in the change, and took a
conspicuous part in the installation-ceremony. In fact, pretty
generally throughout the country and even among the
Presbyterians, the elevation of Cromwell to some kind of
sovereignty had come to be regarded as an inevitable necessity
of the time, the only possible salvation of the Commonwealth from
the anarchy, or wild and experimental idealism, in matters
civil and religious, which had been the visible drift at last
of the Barebones or Daft Little Parliament. ... The powers and
duties of the Protectorate had been defined, rather elaborately,
in a Constitutional Instrument of forty-two Articles, called
'The Government of the Commonwealth' [more commonly known as
The Instrument of Government] to which Cromwell had sworn
fidelity at his installation."

{887}

_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 4, book 4, chapters 1 and 3._

ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 12, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

_S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
introduction, section 4 and pages 314-324._

_Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
volume 3, pages 1417-1426._

The following is the text Of the Instrument of Government:

The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and
Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging.

I. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth
of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people
assembled in Parliament; the style of which person shall be
the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland,
and Ireland.

II. That the exercise of the chief magistracy and the
administration of the government over the said countries and
dominions, and the people thereof, shall be in the Lord
Protector, assisted with a council, the number whereof shall
not exceed twenty-one, nor be less than thirteen.

III. That all writs, processes, commissions, patents, grants,
and other things, which now run in the name and style of the
keepers of the liberty of England by authority of Parliament,
shall run in the name and style of the Lord Protector, from
whom, for the future, shall be derived all magistracy and
honours in these three nations; and have the power of pardons
(except in case of murders and treason) and benefit of all
forfeitures for the public use; and shall govern the said
countries and dominions in all things by the advice of the
council, and according to these presents and the laws.

IV. That the Lord Protector, the Parliament sitting, shall
dispose and order the militia and forces, both by sea and
land, for the peace and good of the three nations, by consent
of Parliament; and that the Lord Protector, with the advice
and consent of the major part of the council, shall dispose
and order the militia for the ends aforesaid in the intervals
of Parliament."

V. That the Lord Protector, by the advice aforesaid, shall
direct in all things concerning the keeping and holding of a
good correspondency with foreign kings, princes, and states;
and also, with the consent of the major part of the council,
have the power of war and peace.

VI. That the laws shall not be altered, suspended, abrogated,
or repealed, nor any new law made, nor any tax, charge, or
imposition laid upon the people, but by common consent in
Parliament, save only as is expressed in the thirtieth
article.

VII. That there shall be a Parliament summoned to meet at
Westminster upon the third day of September, 1654, and that
successively a Parliament shall be summoned once in every
third year, to be accounted from the dissolution of the
present Parliament.

VIII. That neither the Parliament to be next summoned, nor any
successive Parliaments, shall, during the time of five months,
to be accounted from the day of their first meeting, be
adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, without their own consent.

IX. That as well the next as all other successive Parliaments,
shall be summoned and elected in manner hereafter expressed;
that is to say, the persons to be chosen within England,
Wales, the Isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and the town of
Berwick-upon-Tweed, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall be,
and not exceed, the number of four hundred. The persons to be
chosen within Scotland, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall
be, and not exceed, the number of thirty; and the persons to
be chosen to sit in Parliament for Ireland shall be, and not
exceed, the number of thirty.

X. That the persons to be elected to sit in Parliament from
time to time, for the several counties of England, Wales, the
Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and the town of
Berwick-upon-Tweed, and all places within the same
respectively, shall be according to the proportions and
numbers hereafter expressed: that is to say,