Chapter I: First Section (1)

THE PROTECTORATE OF RICHARD CROMWELL: SEPT. 3, 1658--MAY 25, 1659.

PROCLAMATION OF RICHARD: HEARTY RESPONSE FROM THE COUNTRY AND FROM FOREIGN POWERS: FUNERAL OF THE LATE PROTECTOR: RESOLUTION FOR A NEW PARLIAMENT.--DIFFICULTIES IN PROSPECT: LIST OF THE MOST CONSPICUOUS PROPS AND ASSESSORS OF THE NEW PROTECTORATE: MONK'S ADVICES TO RICHARD: UNION OF THE CROMWELLIANS AGAINST CHARLES STUART: THEIR SPLIT AMONG THEMSELVES INTO THE COURT OR DYNASTIC PARTY AND THE ARMY OR WALLINGFORD-HOUSE PARTY: CHIEFS OF THE TWO PARTIES: RICHARD'S PREFERENCE FOR THE COURT PARTY, AND HIS SPEECH TO THE ARMY OFFICERS: BACKING OF THE ARMY PARTY TOWARDS REPUBLICANISM OR ANTI-OLIVERIANISM: HENRY CROMWELL'S LETTER OF REBUKE TO FLEETWOOD: DIFFERENCES OF THE TWO PARTIES AS TO FOREIGN POLICY: THE FRENCH ALLIANCE AND THE WAR WITH SPAIN: RELATIONS TO THE KING OF SWEDEN.--MEETING OF RICHARD'S PARLIAMENT (JAN. 27, 1658-9): THE TWO HOUSES: EMINENT MEMBERS OF THE COMMONS: RICHARD'S OPENING SPEECH: THURLOE THE LEADER FOR GOVERNMENT IN THE COMMONS: RECOGNITION OF THE PROTECTORSHIP AND OF THE OTHER HOUSE, AND GENERAL TRIUMPH OF THE GOVERNMENT PARTY: MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARLIAMENT.--DISSATISFACTION OF THE ARMY PARTY: THEIR CLOSER CONNEXION WITH THE REPUBLICANS: NEW CONVENTION OF OFFICERS AT WALLINGFORD-HOUSE: DESBOROUGH'S SPEECH: THE CONTENTION FORBIDDEN BY THE PARLIAMENT AND DISSOLVED BY RICHARD: WHITEHALL SURROUNDED BY THE ARMY, AND RICHARD COMPELLED TO DISSOLVE THE PARLIAMENT.--RESPONSIBLE POSITION OF FLEETWOOD, DESBOROUGH, LAMBERT, AND THE OTHER ARMY CHIEFS: BANKRUPT STATE OF THE FINANCES: NECESSITY FOR SOME KIND OF PARLIAMENT: PHRENZY FOR "THE GOOD OLD CAUSE" AND DEMAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE RUMP: ACQUIESCENCE OF THE ARMY CHIEFS: LENTHALL'S OBJECTIONS: FIRST FORTNIGHT OF THE RESTORED RUMP; LINGERING OF RICHARD IN WHITEHALL: HIS ENFORCED ABDICATION.

OLIVER was dead, and Richard was Protector. He had been nominated, in some indistinct way, by his father on his death-bed; and, though there was missing a certain sealed nomination paper, of much earlier date, in which it was believed that Fleetwood was the man, it was the interest of all parties about Whitehall at the moment, Fleetwood himself included, to accept the death-bed nomination. That having been settled through the night following Oliver's death, Richard was proclaimed in various places in London and Westminster on the morning of September 4, amid great concourses, with firing of cannon, and acclamations of "_God save His Highness Richard Lord Protector!_" It was at once intimated that the Government was to proceed without interruption, and that all holding his late Highness's commissions, civil or military, were to continue in their appointments.

Over the country generally, and through the Continent, the news of Oliver's death and the news that Richard had succeeded him ran simultaneously. For some time there was much anxiety at Whitehall as to the response. From all quarters, however, it was reassuring. Addresses of loyal adhesion to the new Protector poured in from towns, counties, regiments, and churches of all denominations; the proclamations in London and Westminster were repeated in Edinburgh, Dublin, and everywhere else; the Armies in England, Scotland, and Ireland were alike satisfied; the Navy was cordial; from Lockhart, as Governor of Dunkirk, and from the English Army in Flanders, there were votes of confidence; and, in return for the formal intimation made to all foreign diplomatists in London of the death of the late Protector and the accession of his son, there came mingled condolences on the one event and congratulations on the other from all the friendly powers. Richard himself, hitherto regarded as a mere country-gentleman of simple and jolly tastes, seemed to suit his new position better than had been expected. In audiences with deputations and with foreign ambassadors he acquitted himself modestly and respectably; and, as he had his father's Council still about him, with Thurloe keeping all business in hand in spite of an inopportune illness, affairs went on apparently in a satisfactory course.--A matter which interested the public for some time was the funeral of the late Protector. His body had been embalmed, and conveyed to Somerset House, there to lie in open state, amid banners, escutcheons, black velvet draperies and all the sombre gorgeousness that could be devised from a study of the greatest royal funerals on record, including a superb effigy of his Highness, robed in purple, ermined, sceptred, and diademed, to represent the life; and not till the 23rd of November was there an end to these ghastly splendours by a great procession from Somerset House to Westminster Abbey to deposit the effigy in the chapel of Henry VII., where the body itself had already been privately interred.--A week after this disappearance of the last remains of Oliver (Nov. 29, 1658) it was resolved in Council to call a Parliament. This, in fact, was but carrying out the intention formed in the late Protectorate; but, while the cause that had mainly made another Parliament desirable to Oliver was still excruciatingly in force,--to wit, the exhaustion of funds,--it was considered fitting moreover that Richard's accession should as soon as possible pass the ordeal of Parliamentary approval. Thursday, Jan. 27, 1658-9, was the day fixed for the meeting of the Parliament. Through the intervening weeks, while all the constituencies were busy with the canvassing and the elections, the procedure of Richard and his Council at Whitehall seemed still regular and judicious. There was due correspondence with foreign powers, and there was no interruption of the home-administration. The Protector kept court as his father had done, and conferred knighthoods and other honours, which were thankfully accepted. Sermons were dedicated to him as "the thrice illustrious Richard, Lord Protector." In short, nearly five months of his Protectorship passed away without any tumult or manifest opposition.[1]

[Footnote 1: _Merc. Pol._, from Sept. 1658 to Jan. 1658-9, as quoted in _Cromwelliana_, 178-181; Thurloe, VII. 383-384, _et seq._ as far as 541; Whitlocke, IV. 335-339; Phillips (i.e. continuation of Baker's Chronicle by Milton's nephew, Edward Phillips), ed. 1679, pp. 635-639; _Peplum Olivarii_, a funeral sermon on Oliver, dated Nov. 17, 1658, among Thomason Pamphlets.--Knights of Richard's dubbing in the first five months of his Protectorate were--General Morgan (Nov. 26), Captain Beke (Dee. 6), and Colonel Hugh Bethel (Dee. 26). There may have been others.]

Appearances, however, were very deceptive. The death of Cromwell had, of course, agitated the whole world of exiled Royalism, raising sunk hopes, and stimulating Charles himself, the Queen-Mother, Hyde, Ormond, Colepepper, and the other refugees over the Continent, to doubled activity of intrigue and correspondence. And, though that immediate excitement had passed, and had even been succeeded by a kind of wondering disappointment among the exiles at the perfect calm attending Richard's accession, it was evident that the chances of Charles were immensely greater under Richard than they had been while Oliver lived. For one thing, would the relations of Louis XIV. and Mazarin to Richard's Government remain the same as they had been to Oliver's? There was no disturbance of these relations as yet. The English auxiliaries in Flanders were still shoulder to shoulder with Turenne and his Frenchmen, sharing with them such new successes as the capture of Ypres, accomplished mainly by the valour of the brave Morgan. But who knew what might be passing in the mind of the crafty Cardinal? Then what of the Dutch? In the streets of Amsterdam the populace, on receipt of the news of Cromwell's death, had gone about shouting "The Devil is dead"; the alliance between the English Commonwealth and the United Provinces had recently been on strain almost to snapping; what if, on the new opportunity, the policy of the States-General should veer openly towards the Stuart interest? All this was in the calculations of Hyde and his fellow-exiles, and it was their main disappointment that the quiet acceptance and seeming stability of the new Protectorate at home prevented the spring against it of such foreign possibilities. "I hope this young man will not inherit his father's fortune," wrote Hyde in the fifth month after Richard's accession, "but that some confusion will fall out which must make open a door for us." The speculation was more likely than even Hyde then knew. Underneath the great apparent calm at home the beginnings of a confusion at the very centre were already at work.[1]

[Footnote 1: Thurloe, VII. 405 and 414; Guizot's _Richard Cromwell and the Restoration_ (English edition of 1856), I. 6-11.]

It will be well at this point to have before us a list of the most conspicuous props and assessors of the new Protectorate. The name _Oliverians_ being out of date now, they may be called _The Cromwellians_. We shall arrange them in groups:--

I. THE COUNCIL.

Lord President Lawrence.
Lord Lieutenant-General Fleetwood (his Highness's brother-in-law).
Lord Major-General Desborough (his Highness's uncle-in-law).
Lord Sydenham (Colonel).
Lord Pickering (_Chamberlain of the Household_).
Lord Strickland.
Lord Skippon.
Lord Fiennes (_one of the Commissioners of the Great Seal_).
Lord Viscount Lisle.
Lord Admiral Montague.
Lord Wolseley.
Lord Philip Jones (_Comptroller of the Household_).
Mr. Secretary Thurloe.[1]

[Footnote 1: On comparing this list of Richard's Council with the list of the Council in Oliver's Second Protectorate (ante p. 308) two names will be missed--those of the EARL of MULGRAVE and old FRANCIS ROUS. The Earl of Mulgrave had died Aug. 28, 1658, five days before Cromwell himself. The venerable Rous only just survived. He died Jan. 7, 1658-9, and is hardly to be counted in the present list. Richard's father-in-law, RICHARD MAYOR, though still alive and nominally in the Council, had retired from active life.]

II. NEAR ADVISERS, NOT OF THE COUNCIL.

Lord Viscount Falconbridge (his Highness's brother-in-law).
Lord Viscount Howard (Colonel).
Lord Richard Ingoldsby (Colonel).
Lord Whitlocke (still a much respected Cromwellian, and conjoined
with Fiennes and Lisle in the Commission of the Great Seal,
Jan. 22, 1658-9).
Lord Commissioner John Lisle.
Lord Chief Justice Glynne.
Lord Chief Justice St. John.
William Pierrepoint.
Sir Edmund Prideaux (_Attorney General_).
Sir William Bills (_Solicitor General_).
Sir Oliver Fleming (_Master of the Ceremonies_).
Sir Richard Chiverton (_Lord Mayor of London_).
Dr. John Wilkins (his Highness's uncle-in-law).
Dr. John Owen.
Dr. Thomas Goodwin.

III. CHIEF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ARMY IN OR NEAR LONDON:--Fleetwood and Desborough, besides being Councillors, were the real heads of the Army; and Skippon, Sydenham, and Montague, though of the Council too, with Viscount Howard and Ingoldsby, among the near advisers out of the Council, might also rank as Army-chiefs. But, in addition to these, there were many distinguished officers, tied to the Cromwellian dynasty, as it might seem, by their antecedents. Among these were Edward Whalley, William Goffe, Robert Lilburne, Sir John Barkstead, James Berry, Thomas Kelsay, William Butler, Tobias Bridges, Sir Thomas Pride, Sir John Hewson, Thomas Cooper, John Jones, and John Clerk. These were now usually designated, in their military capacity, as merely _Colonels;_ but the first eight had been among Cromwell's "Major-Generals," three of the thirteen had their knighthoods from him, and nine of the thirteen (Whalley, Goffe, Barkstead. Berry, Pride, Hewson, Cooper, Jones, and Clerk) had been among his Parliamentary "Lords."--We have mentioned but the chiefs of the Army, called "the Army Grandees;" but, since Richard's accession, and by his consent or summons, Army-officers of all grades had flocked to London to form a kind of military Parliament round Fleetwood and Desborough, and to assist in launching the new Protectorate. They held weekly meetings, sometimes to the number of 200 or more, in Fleetwood's residence of WALLINGFORD HOUSE, close to Whitehall Palace; and, as at these meetings, as well as at the smaller meetings of "the Army Grandees" in the same place, all matters were discussed, WALLINGFORD HOUSE was, for the time, a more important seat of deliberation than the Council-Room itself. There were also more secret meetings in Desborongh's house.

IV. WEIGHTY CROMWELLIANS AWAY FROM LONDON. (1) GENERAL GEORGE MONK, _Commander-in-Chief in Scotland;_ with whom may be associated such members of the Scottish Council as Samuel Desborough, Colonel Adrian Scroope, Colonel Nathaniel Whetham, and Swinton of Swinton. (2) LORD HENRY CROMWELL, _Lord Deputy of Ireland_ hitherto, but now, by his brother's commission, _Lord Lieutenant of Ireland_ (Sept. 1658); with whom may be associated such of the Irish Council or military staff as Chancellor Steele, Chief Justice Pepys, Colonel Sir Hardress Waller, Colonel Sir Matthew Tomlinson, Colonel William Purefoy, Colonel Jerome Zanchy, and Sir Francis Russell. Also in Ireland at this time, and nominally in retirement, but a Cromwellian of the highest magnitude, was LORD BROGHILL. (3) Abroad the most important Cromwellian by far was SIR WILLIAM LOCKHART, _Lord Ambassador to France, General, and Governor of Dunkirk;_ with whom may be remembered George Downing, Resident in the United Provinces, and Meadows and Jephson, Envoys to the Scandinavian powers. Lockhart managed to be in England on a brief visit in December 1658.

These fifty or sixty persons, one may say, were the men on whom it mainly depended, in the first months of Richard's Protectorate, whether that Protectorate should succeed or should founder. It has been customary, in general retrospects of the time, to represent some of them as already tired of the Commonwealth in any possible form, and scheming afar off for the restoration of the Stuarts. This, however, is quite a misconstruction.--Monk, who is chiefly suspected, and who did now, from his separate station in the north, watch events in an independent manner, had certainly as yet no thought of the kind imagined. He had sent Richard a paper of advices showing a real desire to assist him at the outset. He advised him, substantially, to persevere in the later or very conservative policy of his father, but with certain differences or additions, which would be now easy. He ought, said Monk, at once to secure the affections of the great Presbyterian body, by attaching to himself privately some of the most eminent Presbyterian divines, and by publicly calling an Assembly of Divines, in which Moderate Presbyterians and Moderate Independents together might agree on a standard of orthodoxy, and so stop the blasphemy and profaneness "too frequent in many places by the great extent of Toleration." Then, when a Parliament should meet, he ought to bring a number of the most prudent and trustworthy of the old nobility and the wealthy country gentry into the House of Lords. For retrenchment of expense the chief means would be a reduction of the Armies in England, Scotland, and Ireland, by throwing two regiments everywhere into one, and so getting rid of unnecessary officers; nor let his Highness think this advice too bold, for Monk could assure him "There is not an officer in the Army, upon any discontent, that has interest enough to draw two men after him, if he be out of place." On the other hand, the Navy ought to be strengthened, and many of the ships re-officered[1]--Such were Monk's advices; and, whatever may be thought of their value, they were certainly given in good faith. And so with those others to whom, from their subsequent conduct, similar suspicions have been attached. At our present date there was no ground for these suspicions. To some in the list, either ranking among the actual Regicides or otherwise deeply involved in the transactions of the late reign and their immediate consequences, the idea of a Restoration of the Stuarts may have been more horrible, on personal grounds, than it need have been to others, conscious only of later participation and lighter responsibility; but not a man in the list yet dreamt of going over to the Royalist cause. The dissensions were as to the manner and extent of their adhesion to Richard, and the policy to be recommended to him or forced upon him.

[Footnote 1: Thurloe, VII. 387-388.]

Cromwell's death having removed the one vast personal ascendency that had so long kept all in obedience, jealousies and selfish interests had sprung up, and were wrangling round his successor. From certain mysterious letters in cipher from Falconbridge to Henry Cromwell it appears that the wrangle had begun even round Cromwell's death-bed, "Z. [Cromwell] is now beyond all possibility of recovery" Falconbridge had written on Tuesday, Aug. 31: "I long to hear from A. [Henry Cromwell] what his intentions are. If I may know, I'll make the game here as fair as may be; and, if I may have commission from A., I can make sure of Lord Lockhart and those with him." One might imagine from this that Falconbridge would have liked to secure the succession for Henry; but it rather appears that what he wanted was to counteract a cabal against the interests of the family generally, which he had reported as then going on among the officers. Certain it is that, after Richard had been proclaimed and Henry had most loyally and affectionately put all his services at the disposal of his elder brother, Falconbridge continued in cipher letters to inform Henry of the proceedings of the same cabal. Gradually, in these letters and in other documents, we come to a clear view of the main fact. It was that the wrangle of jealousies and personal interests round the new Protector had taken shape in a distinct division of his adherents and supporters into two parties. First there was what may be called the _Court Party_ or _Dynastic Party,_ represented by Falconbridge himself, and by Admiral Montague, Fiennes, Philip Jones, Thurloe, and others in the Council, with Howard, Whitlocke, and Ingoldsby, out of the Council, and with the assured backing of Henry Cromwell, Broghill, and Lockhart, if not also of Monk. What they desired was to make Richard's Protectorate an avowed continuation of his father's, with the same forms, the same powers, and the permanence of the _Petition and Advice_ as the instrument of the Protectoral Constitution in every particular. In opposition to this party was the _Army Party,_ or _Wallingford-House Party,_ led by Fleetwood and Desborough, with a following of others in the Council and of the Army-officers almost in mass. While maintaining the Protectorate in name, they were for such modifications of the Protectoral Constitution as might consist with the fact that the chief magistrate was now no longer Oliver, but the feeble and unmilitary Richard. In especial, they were for limiting the Protectorship by taking from Richard the control of the Army, and re-assuming it for the Army itself in the name of the Commonwealth. It was their proposal, more precisely, that Fleetwood should be Commander-in-chief independently, and so a kind of military co-ordinate with the Protector.[1]

[Footnote 1: Falconbridge's Letters (deciphered) in Thurloe, VII. 365-366 et seq., with other Letters in Thurloe and Letters of the French Ambassador, M. de Bordeaux, chiefly to Mazarin, appended to Guizot's _Richard Cromwell and the Restoration,_ I. 231 _et seq._]

For nearly five months there had been this tug of parties at Whitehall round poor Richard. Naturally, all his own sympathies were with the Dynastic Party; and he had made this apparent. He had proposed to bring Falconbridge and Broghill, perhaps also Whitlocke, into the Council; and, when he found that the Army party would not consent, he had declined to bring in Whalley, Goffe, Berry, and Cooper, proposed by that party in preference. In the matter of the limitation of his Protectorship by the surrender of his headship of the Army he had been even more firm. The matter having come before him formally by petition from the Council of Officers, after having been pressed upon him again and again by Fleetwood and Desborough in private, he had, in a conference with all the officers then in town (Oct, 14). Fleetwood at their head, explained his sentiments fully. The speech was written for him by Thurloe. After some gentle preliminaries, with dutiful references to his father, it came to the main subject. "I am sure it may be said of me," said Richard, "that not for my wisdom, my parts, my experience, my holiness, hath God chosen me before others: there are many here amongst you who excel me in all these things: but God hath done herein as it pleased Him, and the nation, by His providence, hath put things this way. Being then thus trusted, I shall make a conscience, I hope, in the execution of this trust; which I see not how I should do if I should part with any part of the trust which is committed to me unto any others, though they may be better men than myself." He then instanced the two things which he understood to be demanded of him by the Army. "For instance," he said, "if I should trust it to any one person or more to fill up the vacancies of the Army otherwise than it is in the _Petition and Advice_--which directs that the commanders-in-chief of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the other field-officers, should be from time to time supplied by me, with the consent of the Council, leaving all other commissioned officers only to my disposal--I should therein break my trust and do otherwise than the Parliament intended. It may as well be asked of me that I would commit it to some other persons to supply the vacancies in the Council, in the Lords' House, and all other magistracies. I leave it to any reasonable man to imagine whether this be a thing in my power to do.... There hath also been some discourse about a Commander-in-chief. You know how that stands in the _Petition_ and _Advice_, which I must make my rule in my government, and shall through the blessing of God stick close to that. I am not obliged to make _any_ Commander-in-chief: that is left to my own liberty, as it was in my father's; only, if I will make any, it must be done by the consent of the Council. And by the Commander-in-chief can be meant no other than the person who _under me_ commands the whole Army, call him what you will--'Field-Marshal,' 'Commander-in-chief,' 'Major-General,' or 'Lieutenant-General.' ... Commander-in-chief is the genus; the others are the species. And, though I am not obliged to have any such person besides myself to command all the forces, yet I _have_ made one: that is, I have made my brother Fleetwood Lieutenant-General of all the Army, and so by consequence commander-in-chief [_under me_]; and I am sure I can do nothing that will give him more influence in the Army than that title will give him, unless I should make him General [_instead of me_]; and I have told you the reasons why I cannot do that." Altogether, the speech, and the modesty with which it was delivered, produced very considerable effect for the moment upon the officers. Whalley, Goffe, Berry, and others are understood to have shown more sympathy with Richard in consequence; there was respect for his firmness among people generally when it came to be known; and, though the meetings at Wallingford House and Desborough's house were continued, action was deferred. One effect, however, had been to rouse the dormant Anti-Cromwellianism of the Army-men, and to bring out, more than Fleetwood and Desborough intended, that leaven of pure Republicanism, or affection for the "good old cause" of 1648-1653, which had not ceased, through all the submission to the Protectorate, to lurk in the regiments in combination with Anabaptistry, Fifth-Monarchism, and other extreme forms of religious Independency. In the meetings round Fleetwood and Desborough there had been reflections on the late Protector's memory far from respectful. Henry Cromwell in Ireland had heard of this; and among many interesting letters of his to various correspondents on the difficulties of his brother's opening Protectorate, all showing a proud and fine sensitiveness, with some flash of his father's intellect, there is one (Oct. 20) of rebuke to his brother-in-law Fleetwood on account of _his_ conjunction with the malcontents, "Pray give me leave to expostulate with you. How came those 200 or 300 officers together? ... If they were called, was it with his Highness's privity? If they met without leave in so great a number, were they told their error? I shall not meddle with the matter of their petition, though some things in it do unhandsomely reflect not only on this present, but his late, Highness, I wish with all my heart you were Commander-in-chief of all the forces in the three nations; but I had rather have it done by his Highness's especial grace and mere motion than put upon you in a tumultuary soldierly way. But, dear brother, I must tell you (and I cannot do it without tears) I hear that dirt was thrown upon his late Highness at that great meeting. They were exhorted to stand up for that 'good old cause which had long lain asleep,' &c. I thought my dear father had pursued it to the last. He died like a servant of God, and prayed for those that desired to trample upon his dust, for _they_ also were God's people. O dear brother! ... whither do these things tend? Surely God hath a controversy with us. What a hurly-burly is there made! A hundred Independent ministers called together" [the Savoy Synod of the Congregationalists, with Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Nye, Caryl, and others, at their head, convoked Sept. 29, 1658, for framing a Confession of Faith, by permission from the late Protector: see ante p. 844]. "a Council, as you call it, of 200 or 300 officers of a judgment! Remember what has always befallen imposing spirits. Will not the loins of an imposing Independent or Anabaptist be as heavy as the loins of an imposing Prelate or Presbyter? And is it a dangerous error that dominion is founded on grace when it is held by the Church of Rome, and a sound principle when it is held by the Fifth Monarchy? ... O dear brother, my spirit is sorely oppressed with the consideration of the miserable estate of the innocent people of these three poor nations. What have these sheep done that _their_ blood should be the price of _our_ lust and ambition? Let me beg of you to remember how his late Highness loved you, how he honoured you with the highest trust in the world by leaving the sword in your hand which must defend or destroy us; and his declaring his Highness his successor shows that he left it there to preserve _him_ and _his_ reputation. O brother, use it to curb extravagant spirits and busybodies; but let not the nations be governed by it. Let us take heed of arbitrary power. Let us be governed by the known laws of the land, and let all things be kept in their proper channels; and let the Army be so governed that the world may never hear of them unless there be occasion to fight. And truly, brother, you must pardon me if I say God and man may require this duty at your hand, and lay all miscarriages in the Army, in point of discipline, at _your_ door." Fleetwood could answer this (Nov. 9) but very lamely: "I do wonder what I have done to deserve such a severe letter from you," &c. Fleetwood was really a good-hearted gentleman, meaning no desperate harm to Richard or his Protectorate, though desiring the Commandership-in-chief for himself, and perhaps (who knows domestic secrets?) a co-equality of public status for his wife, Lady Bridget, with the Lady-Protectress Dorothy. In fact, however, Lieutenant-General Fleetwood and Major-General Desborough between them had let loose forces that were to defy their own management. Meanwhile, the phenomenon observable in the weeks preceding the meeting of the Parliament which Richard had called was that of a violent division already among the councillors and assessors of the Protectorate. There was the _Court Party_ or _Dynastic Party,_ taking their stand on the _Petition and Advice,_ and advocating a strictly conservative and constitutional procedure, in the terms of that document, on the lines laid down by Oliver. There was also the _Army Party_ or _Wallingford-House Party,_ led by Fleetwood and Desborough, with an immediate retinue of Cromwellian ex-Major-Generals and Colonels purposely in London, and a more shadowy tail of majors, captains, and inferior officers, coiled away among the regiments.[1]

[Footnote 1: Thurloe, VII. 447-449, 454-455, and 498; Phillips, 639; Guizot, I. 13-19, with Letters of M. de Bordeaux appended to the volume.]

More than questions of home-administration was involved in this division of parties. It involved also the future foreign policy of the Protectorate. The desire of Richard himself and of the Court Party was to prosecute the foreign policy which Oliver had so strenuously begun. Now, the great bequests from the late Protectorate in the matter of foreign policy had been two: (1)_The War with Spain, in alliance with France._ The Treaty Offensive and Defensive with France against Spain, originally formed by Cromwell March 23, 1656-7, and renewed March 28, 1658, was to expire on March 28, 1659. Was it to be then again renewed? If not, how was the war with Spain to be farther conducted, and what was to become of Dunkirk, Mardike, and other English conquests and interests in Flanders? Mazarin was really anxious on this topic. The alliance with England had been immensely advantageous for France; and could it not be continued? In frequent letters, since Cromwell's death, to M. de Bordeaux, the French Ambassador in London, Mazarin had pressed for information on this point. The substance of the Ambassador's replies had been that the new Protector and his Council, especially Mr. Secretary Thurloe, were too much engrossed with home-difficulties to be very explicit with him, but that he had reason to believe a loan from France of £50,000 would aid the natural inclinations of the Court-party to continue the alliance. This was more than Mazarin would risk on the chance, though he was willing to act on the suggestion of the ambassador that a present of Barbary horses should be sent to Lord Falconbridge, or a jewel to Lady Falconbridge, to keep _them_ in good-humour. There can be no doubt that Falconbridge, Thurloe, Lockhart, and the Court Party generally, did hope to preserve the close friendship with France and the hold acquired by England on Flanders. Lockhart particularly had at heart the hard, half-starved condition of his poor Dunkirk garrison and the other forces in Flanders. On the other hand, there were signs that public feeling might desert the Court Party in their desire to carry on Oliver's joint-enterprise with France against the Spaniards. Dunkirk and Mardike were precious possessions; but might it not be better for trade to make peace with Spain, even if Jamaica should have to be given back and there should have to be other sacrifices? This idea had diffused itself, it appears, pretty widely among the pure Commonwealth's men, and was in favour with some of the Wallingford-House party. Why be always at war with Spain? True, she was Roman Catholic, and the more the pity; but what did that concern England? Was there not enough to do at home?[1] (2) _Assistance to the King of Sweden_. A great surprise to all Europe just before Cromwell's death had been, as we know, the sudden rupture of the Peace of Roeskilde between Sweden and Denmark, with the reinvasion of Zealand by Charles Gustavus, and his march on Copenhagen (ante p. 396). Had Cromwell lived, there is no doubt that, with whatever regret at the new rupture, he would have stood by his heroic brother of Sweden. For was not the Swedish King still, as before, the one real man of mark in the whole world of the Baltic, the hope of that league of Protestant championship on the Continent which Cromwell had laboured for; and was he not now standing at bay against a most ugly and unnatural combination of enemies? Not only were John Casimir and his Roman Catholic Poles, and the Emperor Leopold and his Roman Catholic Austrians, and Protestant Brandenburg and some other German States, all in eager alliance with the Danes for the opportunity of another rush against _him_; the Dutch too were abetting the Danes for their own commercial interests? Actually this was the state of things which Richard's Government had to consider. Charles Gustavus was still besieging Copenhagen; a Dutch fleet, under Admiral Opdam, had gone to the Baltic to relieve the Danes (Oct. 1658): was Cromwell's grand alliance with the Swede, were the prospects of the Protestant League, were English interests in the Baltic, to be of no account? Applications for help had been made by the Swedish King; Mazarin, through the French ambassador, had been urging assistance to Sweden; the inclinations of Richard, Thurloe, and the rest, were all that way. Here again, however, the perplexity of home-affairs, the want of money, the refusal of Mazarin himself to lend even £50,000, were pleaded in excuse. All that could be done at first was to further the despatch to the Baltic of Sir George Ayscough, an able English Admiral who had for some years been too much in the background, but of whom the Swedish Count Bundt had conceived a high opinion during his embassy to England in 1655-6, and who had consequently been invited by the Swedish King to enter his service, bringing with him as many English officers and seamen as he could. This volunteer expedition of Ayscough Richard and his Council did at once countenance. Nay, when news came (Nov. 8) of a great defeat of Opdam's Dutch fleet by the Swedish Admiral Wrangel, the disposition to help the Swede became stronger. On the 13th of that month a special envoy from the Swedish King, who had been in London for some weeks, took his departure with some satisfaction; and within a few days Vice-Admiral Lawson and his fleet of some twenty or twenty-one ships in the Downs had orders to sail for the Sound, for mediation at least, but for the support of Charles Gustavus if necessary. The fleet did put to sea, but with hesitations to the last and the report that it was "wind-bound."[2]

[Footnote 1: Letters between Mazarin and M. de Bordeaux in Guizot, I. 231-286, and II. 441-450; Thurloe, VII. 466-467.]

[Footnote 2: Letters between Mazarin and M. de Bordeaux last cited, with. Guizot, I. 23-26; Thurloe, VII. 412, 509, 529; Whitlocke for Sept., Oct., Nov., and Dec. 1658, also for Aug. 1656; Phillips, 638.]

"Wind-bound" was the exact description of the state of Richard's Government itself. All depended on what should blow from the Parliament that had been called. In the writs for the elections to the Commons there had been a very remarkable retrogression from the practice of Oliver for his two Parliaments. For those two Parliaments there had been adopted the reformed electoral system agreed upon by the Long Parliament, reducing the total number of members for England and Wales to about 400, instead of the 500 or more of the ancient system, and allocating the 400 among constituencies rearranged so as to give a vast proportion of the representation to the counties, while reducing that of the burghs generally and disfranchising many small old burghs altogether. The _Petition and Advice_ having left this matter of the number of seats and their distribution open for farther consideration, Richard and his Council had been advised by the lawyers that it would be more "according to law" and therefore more safe and more agreeable to the spirit and letter of the _Petition and Advice_, to abandon the late temporary method, though sanctioned by the Long Parliament, and revert to the ancient use and wont. Writs had been issued, therefore, for the return of over 500 members from England and Wales by the old time-honoured constituencies, besides additions from Scotland and Ireland. Thus, whereas, for the last two Protectoral Parliaments, some of the larger English counties had returned as many as six, eight, nine, or twelve members each, all were now reduced alike to two, the large number of seats so set free, together with the extra hundred, going back among the burghs, and reincluding those that had been disfranchised. London also was reduced from six seats to four. It seems amazing now that this vast retrogression should have been so quietly accepted. It seems even to have been popular; and, at all events, it roused no commotion. It had been recommended by the lawyers, and it was expected to turn out favourable to the Government.[1]

[Footnote 1: Ludlow, 615-619; and compare the List of Members of this Parliament of Richard (_Part. Hist._ III. 1530-1537) with the lists of Oliver's two Parliaments _(Part. Hist._ 1428-1433, and 1479-1484).]

On Thursday, Jan. 27, 1658-9, the two Houses assembled in Westminster. In the Upper House, where Lord Commissioner Fiennes occupied the woolsack, were as many of Cromwell's sixty-three "Lords" (ante pp. 323-324) as had chosen to come. All the Council, except Thurloe, being in this House, and the others having been, for the most part, carefully selected Cromwellians, it might have been expected that Government would be strong in the House. As it included, however, Fleetwood, Desborough, and all the chief Colonels of the Wallingford-House party, it is believed that in such attendances as there were (never more than forty perhaps) that party may have been stronger than the Court party. But it was the composition of the Commons House that was really of consequence, and here appearances promised well for Richard. The total number of the members, by the returns, was 558, of whom 482 were from English counties and burghs, 25 from Wales, 30 from Ireland, and only 21 from Scotland. Some fifty of the total number were resolute pure Republicans, among whom may be noted Bradshaw (Cheshire), Vane (Whitchurch in Hants), Scott (Wycombe), Hasilrig (Leicester), Ludlow (Hindon), Henry Neville (Reading), Okey (Bedfordshire), and Weaver (Stamford); and there was a considerable sprinkling of Anti-Cromwellians of other colours besides, including Lord Fairfax (Yorkshire), Lambert (Pontefract), Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper (Wilts), and Major-General Browne (London). But Thurloe was there to represent the Government in chief (returned by Cambridge University, but by several other places also); and he could count about a hundred sure English adherents on the benches; among whom were Sir Edmund Prideaux (Saltash), Sir William Ellis (Grantham), together with his own subordinate in the Council-office, William Jessop (Stafford), and Milton's assistant in the Foreign Secretaryship, Andrew Marvell (Hull). There were not a few Army-officers of the Wallingford-House party; but, on the whole, this element did not seem to be particularly strong in the House. Among the members for Scottish constituencies were the Marquis of Argyle (Aberdeenshire), Samuel Desborough (Midlothian), the Earl of Tweeddale (East Lothian), Colonel Adrian Scroope (Linlithgow group of Burghs), Swinton of Swinton (Haddingtonshire), Colonel Whetham (St. Andrews, &c.), and Monk's brother-in-law, Dr. Thomas Clarges (Aberdeen, Banff, and Cullen). Ireland had returned, among her thirty, Sir Hardress Waller (Kerry, &c.), Sir Jerome Zanchy (Tipperary and Waterford), Sir Charles Coote (Galway and Mayo), and two Ingoldsbys. The Scottish and Irish representatives were, almost to a man, Government nominees. Altogether, Thurloe's anxiety must have been about the yet unknown mass of 300 or so, some scores of them lawyers, others country-gentlemen, and many of them young, that formed the neutral stuff to be yet operated upon. Among these, in spite of the oath of fidelity to the Lord Protector, there were indubitably not a few who were Stuartists at heart; but most wavered between Republicanism and the Protectorate, and it was hopeful for Thurloe in this respect that so much of the mass was Presbyterian. Ludlow, who did not at first take his seat, tells us that he at last contrived to do so furtively without being sworn, and seems to hint that Vane did the same. There was negligence on the part of the doorkeepers, or they were confused by the multitude of strange faces; for a stray London madman, named King, sat in the House for some time, in the belief that, as one of that name had been elected for some place, he might possibly be the person.[1]

[Footnote 1: List in _Parl. Hist._ III. 1530-1537; Ludlow, 619 et seq.]

Richard's opening speech was in a good strain. It assumed loyalty to the memory of his father and to the _Petition and Advice_, and recommended immediate attention to the arrears of the Army and to other money-exigencies, with zealous prosecution of the war with Spain, and consideration of what might be done for the King of Sweden, the cause of European Protestantism, and English interests in the Baltic. The speech was delivered in the Lords, only a few of the Commons attending. They were busy with swearing in their members, and with the election of a Speaker. Mr. Chaloner Chute, a lawyer, one of the members for Middlesex, was unanimously chosen; but, short as the session was to be, the House was to have three Speakers in succession. Mr. Chute acted till March 9, when his health broke down, and Sir Lislebone Long, one of the members for Wells, was appointed his substitute. Sir Lislebone died only seven days afterwards (March 16), and Mr. Thomas Bampfield, one, of the members for Exeter, succeeded him. Chute having died also, Bampfield became full Speaker. April 15, 1659.[1]

[Footnote 1: _Parl. Hist._ III. 1537-1540, and Commons Journals of dates.]

A day or two having been spent in preliminary business, and the House presenting the spectacle, long unknown in Westminster, of no fewer than between 300 and 400 members in daily attendance, Thurloe, on the 1st of February, boldly threw down the gage by bringing in a bill for recognising Richard's right and title to be Lord Protector. Hasilrig and the Republicans were taken by surprise, and could only protest that the motion was unseasonable and that other matters ought to have precedence. The bill having been read the first time that day, Thurloe consented that the second reading should be deferred to the 7th. On that day, accordingly, there began a debate which lasted for seven successive days, and was a full trial of strength between the Government and the Republicans. Hasilrig, Neville, Scott, Vane, Ludlow, and others, exerted themselves to the utmost, Hasilrig leading, and making one speech three hours long. It was evident, however, that the Republicans knew themselves to be but a minority, and used the debate only for re-opening the question of a Republic. They did not attack the direct proposal of the Bill; on the contrary they vied with the Cromwellians in language of respect for Richard. "I confess I do love the person of the Lord Protector; I never saw nor heard either fraud or guile in him." said Hasilrig. "I would not hazard a hair of his present Highness's head," said Scott; "if you think of a Single Person, I would have him sooner than any man alive." They did not want, they said, to pull down the Protectorate; they only objected to Thurloe's high-handed method for committing the House to a foregone conclusion. But Thurloe beat. On Monday the 14th, the question having been finally put "that it be part of this Bill to recognise and declare his Highness Richard, Lord Protector, to be the undoubted Lord Protector and Chief Magistrate," it was carried by 191 votes to 168 to retain the words "recognise and," and so to accept Richard's accession as valid already. On a proposal to leave out the word "undoubted" Thurloe did not think a division worth while, but made the concession. He did oppose a resolution, suddenly brought forward, to the effect that the vote just passed should not be binding until the House should have settled the clauses farther defining the powers of the Lord Protector; but that resolution, having caught the fancy of the House, passed with his single dissent. On the whole, he had succeeded in his first great battle with the Republicans.--Nor was he less successful in the second. The Protectorship having been voted, it was Thurloe's policy to push next the question of the recognition of the Other House, whereas the Republicans desired to avoid that question as long as possible, so as to keep the Other House a mere nonentity, while the Commons proceeded, as the substantial and sovereign House, to define the powers of the Protector. On the 18th of February, the Republicans, having challenged a settlement of this difference by moving that the question of the negative voice of the Protector in passing laws should have precedence of the question of the Other House, were beaten overwhelmingly by 217 votes to 86; and then for more than a month the question of the Other House was the all-engrossing one. It involved other questions, some of them apparently independent. Thus, on the 8th of March, the debate took a curiously significant turn. Indignant at the very notion that there should be anything in England calling itself "The House of Lords," the Republican speakers had played on this supposed horror with every variety of sarcasm, sneering at the existing "Other House," with its shabby equipment of old colonels and other originally mean persons. If there was to be a House of Lords, Hasilrig and others now said imprudently, why should it not be a real one, why should not the old nobility, so many of them honourable men, resume their places? "Why not?" was the instant retort from some independent members, with the instant applause of many in the House. Hasilrig saw his mistake, of which Thurloe did not fail to take advantage. "The old Peers," said Thurloe, "are not excluded by the _Petition and Advice_: divers are called,--others may be"; and the occasion was taken to pass a resolution expressly reserving for such of the old peers as had been faithful the privilege of being summoned to the Other House, should the issue of the debate be in favour of the existence of that institution. The divisions on this incidental resolution were the largest recorded in the Journals of the House--the previous question for putting the resolution being carried by 203 to 184, and the resolution itself by 195 to 188. Though the majority was but small, the gain to the Court Party was precious, because on an unexpected point. But the Republicans had done themselves no good by their style in the main discussion, A miscellaneous assembly always resents the ungenerous, and the sneers at the existing composition of the Other House had seemed ungenerous. "They have gone through wet and dry, hot and cold, fire and water; they are the best officers of the best army in the world; their swords are made of what Hercules's club was made of": such were the terms in which one speaker defended the military veterans of the Other House; and they were received with cheers. Nor did the next step of the Republicans improve their position. Having observed what a considerable proportion of Thurloe's majorities consisted of the members from Scotland and Ireland, Cromwellians nearly to a man, they tried to sweep these from the House in anticipation of future votes. First, they raised the question about the Scottish members, contending that their presence in an English Parliament was unconstitutional, that the _de facto_ incorporation of Scotland with the Commonwealth had never been legally consummated, &c. On this subject, the House having first negatived the proposal that the Scottish members should withdraw during the debate, it was decided, March 21, by a majority of 211 (Thurloe one of the tellers) to 120 (Vane one of the tellers), "That the members returned for Scotland shall continue to sit as members during this present Parliament," A like vote, March 23, retained the Irish members. The Republicans had again lost character by this piece of tactics. Not only was it offensive to Scotland and Ireland; but to many disinterested English members it seemed a mean attempt to depreciate, for a mere party purpose, those great achievements of recent years which had made the British Islands, as if by miracle, one body-politic at last. On the 28th of March the principal debate came to an end in this two-claused Resolution: "That this House will transact with the persons now sitting in the Other House, as an House of Parliament, during the present Parliament; and that it is not hereby intended to exclude such Peers as have been faithful to the Parliament from their privilege of being duly summoned to be members of that House." The final division was 198 to 125; but there had been a preceding division on the question whether the words "when they shall be approved by this House" should be inserted after the word "Parliament" in the first clause. This very ingenious amendment of the Anti-Cromwellians had been rejected by 183 votes to 146, the tellers for the Cromwellian majority being the Marquis of Argyle and Thurloe, and for the minority Lord Fairfax and Lord Lambert.--Thus, at the end of the second month of the Parliament, the victory was clearly with Thurloe and the Government. The Protectorship had been recognised; and the Other House also had been recognised, rather grudgingly indeed, and not by the desired name of "The House of Lords," but with a proviso that seemed to put that and more within reach. It had also been ascertained in general that, in a House of Commons larger than had been seen in Westminster for many years, Richard's Government was stronger, on vital questions, than the Republicans and all other Anti-Cromwellians together. For there had been discussions affecting the foreign policy of the Protectorate, and in these the Republicans and Anti-Cromwellians had been equally beaten. It had been, carried, for example, on Thurloe's representation, to persevere in the despatch of a strong fleet to the Baltic in the interest of the Swedish King; and such a fleet, now under Admiral Montague's command, had actually sailed before the end of March. It was in the Sound early in April.[1]

[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates, and Guizot, I. 46-72 (where the extracts from speeches are from _Burton's Diary_); also Commons Journals of Feb. 21 and 24; and Thurloe, VII. 636-637 and 644-645.]

In minor matters the House had shown some independence. On the 23rd of February they had ordered the release of the Duke of Buckingham from the imprisonment to which he had been committed by Oliver, accepting the Duke's own word of honour, and Fairfax's bail of £20,000, that he would not abet the enemies of the Commonwealth. So, on the 16th of March, they had released Milton's friend, the Republican Major-General Overton, from his four years' imprisonment, declaring Cromwell's mere warrant for the same to have been insufficient and illegal. This was a most popular act, and the liberated Overton was received in London with enthusiastic ovations. Other political prisoners of the late Protectorate were similarly released, and, on the whole, the majority of the House, though with all reverence for Oliver's memory, were ready to take any occasion for signifying that his more "arbitrary" acts must be debited to himself only. There were also distinct evidences of a disposition in the House, due to the massive representation of the Presbyterians in it, to question the late Protector's liking for unlimited religions toleration. They approved heartily, it appears, of his Established Church, and even of its breadth as including Presbyterians and Independents; but, like preceding Parliaments, they were for a more rigorous care for Church-orthodoxy, and more severe dealings with "heresies and blasphemies." Quakers, Anti-Trinitarians, and Jews were especially threatened. Here, indeed, the House meant rather to indicate its good-will to the Protectorate than the reverse; for, though. Richard and Henry Cromwell inherited their father's religious liberality, and others of the Cromwellians agreed with them, not a few were disposed, like Monk, to make a compact with the Presbyterians for heresy-hunting part of the very programme of Richard's Protectorate. The Toleration tenet, indeed, was perhaps more peculiarly a tenet of the Republicans than of any other political party, and not without strong reasons of a personal kind, people said, on the part of some of them. Had not Mr. Henry Neville, for example, been heard to say that he was more affected by some parts of Cicero than by anything in the Bible? If heathenism like that infected the Republican opposition, what could any plain honest Christian do but support the Protectorate?[1]

[Footnote 1: Commons Journals of dates given, and of Feb. 26 and April 2; Guizot, I. 103-104.]

April 1659 was the third month of the Parliament. About a hundred of the members hitherto in attendance had then withdrawn, and the attendances had sunk to between 150 and 270. This was the more ominous because the struggle had now ceased to be one between the Protector's Government and the Opposition, and had become one between the Court Party and the Army or Wallingford-House Party for the farther use of Thurloe's victories.