OF CROMWELLIAN ENGLAND by Gilbert Farthing

THE COUNTRY-CITY "ALLIANCE"

OF CROMWELLIAN ENGLAND

1658 - 1660

Gilbert Farthing B.A., University of London, 1950.

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of

HISTORY

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard.

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

April 1962 s

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of

British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives.

It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. ABSTRACT ii

This thesis originated in an attempt to explain the Restoration of Charles II. If the Puritan Revolution had been, as it was portrayed in school history lessons, a successful revolt of "the people" against a tyrant, why was the iyyant's libidinous son joyfully welcomed-.; less than twenty years after the revolt?

From reading the two major works of the past century which had specifically dealt with this period — Guizot and Davies — it emerged that "the people" had very little to do with the Revolution, and still less with the Restoration. Guizot's emphasis on the part played by

General Monk obviously arose from the author's tendency to narrate events rather than probe for causes. Davies, completing the long ser• ies of works begun by Gardiner and continued by Firth, was also largely concerned with narration. From his work, however, it became reasonably clear that the strings which controlled Monk's actions were pulled by a comparatively small group of men. Interestingly, almost all these men (as Monk himself realised) had at one time or another been bitterly opposed to the regime of Charles I. Most had participated in the Civil

War on Parliament's side, and one at least had signed the warrant for

Charles1s execution.

Further reading confirmed the idea that the engineers of the

Restoration were a small elite. They appeared to include three inter• woven but reasonably distinct groups: country landowners, City finan• ciers and merchants, and a group of professional men (mostly lawyers) who functioned as a kind of link. Subsequent research was directed to the task of identifying these groups, examining their procedures, and iii

seeking to explain their actions and aims, with particular reference

to the years 1658-1660. The materials used were necessarily confined

to printed books, and (on account of cost) largely to those sources

available in the Library at the University of British Columbia. With•

in those limits the investigation has been as thorough as possible.

The plan of the thesis is in part chronological, but the main

emphasis is on more general factors. The Table of Contents (on page

iv) gives a reasonably clear picture of the line followed. Since the

investigation was concerned largely with the aims and procedures of

the elite, there are few conclusions in the syllogistic or allegedly

scientific sense. One general conclusion is that aims were primarily based on the supposition that the status of an elite depends on an

ostentatious display of material wealth, and hence on great differences

in material possessions. This, more than intrinsic unkindness or

stupidity, made it necessary to ensure that the lower classes were kept ignorant and poor; and the procedures of the elite were therefore

directed mainly to this end. Another general conclusion is that these procedures were eminently successful. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Introduction. page 1.

Chapter 2. The Second Session of Cromwell's Second Parliament. page 23.

Chapter 3. Land. page 39.

Chapter 4. Money. page 54.

Chapter 5. London. Page 70.

Chapter 6. Richard's Parliament. page 90.

Chapter 7. Professions and the Law. page 107.

Chapter 8. Control of the Lower Classes. page 122.

Chapter 9. General Monk. page 136.

Chapter 10. •Strange Interlude. page 144.

Chapter 11. Convention Parliament. page 163.

Chapter 12. Conclusion. page 182.

Appendix 1, Members of Parliament, 1658-1660. page 193.

Appendix 2. Wages and Prices. page 237.

Appendix 3. Personnel of the Country-City Alliance. page 239.

Bibliography. page 249. CHAPTER I 1

INTRODUCTION

For a great many Englishmen and Scotsmen the spring of 1660

was a time of wild celebration over the return to England of the

Stuart monarch, Charles II. Most of the witnesses who at the time set

down their impressions stressed the sense of relief experienced in al• most all sections of a population which had seen maypoles and theatres

destroyed by zealots, and had even been forbidden to celebrate Christ- masI Astute observers such as Pepys noticed in passing that a good

deal of the jubilation was adroitly assisted by an open-handed distri- Z bution of liquor. Archibald Johnston of Wariston, a Republican 3

doomed to execution, was one among the few who deplored the turn of events. "At the tyme of the bonfyres their was great ryot, excesse,

extravagancy, superfluity, vanity, naughtinesse, profanetye, drinking of healths; the Lord be merciful to us."

On Charles's birthday, 29 May, there was a great procession through the City of London. The wealthy merchant and speculator,

Richard Brown, rode in front. Hundreds of gentlemen in rich clothes and members of the city companies wearing gold chains followed him to

Whitehall, "where Monk was invested with the garter and sworn of the privy-council, and sir Anthony Ashley Cooper was also made a privy- S

councillor."

Brown and Cooper and Monk had all fought on the Parliamentary side during the Civil Wars, though apparently none had ceased to give general support to the idea of monarchy. More remarkable still, the machinery for Charles's restoration had been set in motion by the last 6 actions of the Long Parliament, a body of men described by Monk as Y

"the same that brought the King to the block."

Writing of this period from the comparative vantage point of the

1720's, John Oldmixon probably underestimated the underlying effects of Royalist irreconcilability; but he was justified in ascribing to the "Loyal Party" a minor share in the actual work of restoration,

"after Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Mr. Annesly, Admiral Montague,

General Monk, and other Presbyterians had done the Business. The

Loyal Party had not a Town, a Castle, nor Fort, nor Ship to deliver him, nor Troop of Horse nor Company of Foot." It was true also that the colonels of the Parliamentary army, a3 listed by Oldmixon, included many from "the most noble and opulent Families in England"; and that those who survived the Interregnum almost all supported the return of the Stuart monarch.

Subsequent historians showed little interest in this apparent volte-face of the victorious Parliamentarians. Where they recognised it at all, they commonly ascribed it to anarchy following the death of Oliver Cromwell, and/or reaction against the severe moral code of the Puritans. Of course, both anarchy and reaction played some part in bringing about the restoration of Charles II. The implication that economic or political affairs were so far beyond the control of the

Parliamentarians as to constitute genuine anarchy is, however, mis• leading. So is the implication that between 1640 and 1660 there was any serious change of view among the Parliamentarians.

The desire of the wealthy for an obigarchy cloaked by constitutional 3 monarchy remained constant. The political experimentation of the

Interregnum, which in spite of difficulties was almost always in practice directly or indirectly controlled by the wealthy, encouraged the emergence of many ideas which ultimately contributed to the system of responsible Parlaimentary government.' This period witnessed the development, in the absence of the king, of a cadre of paid agents owing their allegiance primarily to ministers or to Parliament itself - the beginnings of a permanent Civil Service. It showed too the need for an instrument of coercion permanently at the disposal of the oligarchy, and pointed to a solution in the.form of a regular army officered by professionals drawn from the less affluent branches of wealthy families.

The anarchy of 1658 - 1660 was carefully controlled so as to encourage reaction among the lower classes, many of whom continued to harbour dangerous ideas about individual rights and privileges. The

Restoration was tangible evidence of the political failure of groups seeking to improve the status of the poorer classes. It meant a firm assumption of political control by the rich, which went far towards completing the oligarchic aims of the original Parliamentary party.

Recent studies of such groups as Levellers, Diggers and Saints

show that democratic and libertarian theories had a powerful in• fluence during the years 1647 to 1654, with particular strength in the armed forces. The establishment of oligarchic government in

England, rather than military dictatorship or theocracy or even democ• racy, did not in those years seem a foregone conclusion. However, 4 this period of political activity by the lower classes was contempo• raneous with a period of vigorous economic activity by the landowners, financiers and professional men who had engineered the Civil War. The democrats were vocal, but the oligarchs were picking up the pro• fits; and it seems clear in retrospect that verbal opposition was at any rate preferable to economic competition. When the period of easy gains ended the wealthy had little difficulty in asserting their political superiority.

Another commonly-expressed opinion is that which ascribes the re- establishment of the Stuart monarchy to the weakness of Richard Cromwell, combined with an alleged monarchical tradition among the 13 people. Trevelyan suggested that Englishmen were vitally interested in the whole feudal-style hierarchy, that the monarchy was a logical outcome of "the Englishman's proverbial 'love of a lord'." These views are justified by the evidence, though with the proviso that both the monarchical tradition and the weak character of Richard Cromwell were largely creations of the propaganda machinery established after 1654. There has been and will be much speculation as to whether Oliver Cromwell, had he lived longer, would have established a new. dynasty; and it is reasonable to suppose that had he done so, the historical picture of Richard would have been different. From the point of view of this thesis the most.important element in the situa• tion is the recognition that from 1654 Oliver Cromwell was increas• ingly at the economic mercy of the Parliamentarians. He could not have changed the political, economic and social triumph of the wealthy. 5 The period from 1658 to 1660 witnessed the publication of numerous — Workf printed works on almost all aspects of government\w©*>k8- by John

Evelyn, William Prynne, George Wither, Thomas Hobbes, James Harring- ton, John Milton, and many others. It.saw the phenomenal rise and fall of the Rota Club, possibly the most famous debating society of all time. The period has, however, attracted comparatively little attention from later historians - much less than the struggle lead• ing to the Civil Wars, the wars themselves, or the Cromwell era. The most recent general work on the period - "The Restoration of Charles

II" by Godfrey Davies - is a more or less chronological narrative, with an interlude discussing the relative importance of affairs out• side England. The work of the historian Guizot, published in 1856, follows a similar plan, though naturally it is less voluminously documented. The present thesis subordinates the chronological relation of events to an examination of the groups, and a few of the individuals, concerned with the development of constitutional monarchism during the confused period from January 1658 to May 1660.

Much recent scholarship has been devoted to discussion about the economic status of the landowning gentry, before and during the

Interregnum; and one book has examined the schemes and attitudes of

London capitalists in relation to the outbreak of the Civil Wars.

Other works have examined the sub-groups which were represented in the Long Parliament. A competent analysis of this literature appears in Hill's "Puritanism and Revolution", a collection of essays which gives many pages to discussion of the land question. 6

Land was almost certainly the main basis of wealth in the British

Isles throughout the seventeenth century, though other possessions were increasingly recognised. Francis Cradocke published in 1661 his

"Wealth Discovered", one of many contemporary pamphlets urging the establishment of banks. In it he argued that "the security of Lands may pass and be held value or credit with any other species whatso- 18 ever." The eagerness of many commercial and financial magnates to buy land was a subject for approving comment as late as 1681; when

Philopatris claimed that trading merchants, shopkeepers, artificers, clothiers and other manufacturers are too "intent upon what makes for their peculiar Gain or Loss , until they leave off their Trades, and being Rich, by the purchase of Lands, become of the same common

Interest with most of their Country-men."

The comparatively new but vital element in seventeenth-century landowning was the practice of improvement, which usually implied the division and enclosure of lands once worked in common. The process was complicated by developments in the legal interpretation of leases, conveyances, fines and rents. Many of the old feudal nobility had adapted themselves more or less to the spirit of the times, but by

1640 the characteristic landowner in the Commons was likely to be connected with a family advanced fairly recently to the ranks of the wealthy, often as a result of shrewd speculation by a merchant or a Zo professional lawyer.

Men like Sir George Booth, though they might be rather rustic, knew what they wanted. They were cunning and persevering in the 7

achievement of their wants. Their aims included the avoidance of

restrictions on enclosure; the maintenance of high rents and low

wages; and freedom from feudal dues, high taxation, arbitrary confis•

cations or similar distress.

It was customary for members of the landed gentry to increase

their wealth through trade and speculation, and to assess their

possessions in terms of money. Some idea as to what constituted

wealth among them may be gathered from information as to the total

value of various estates, to the rentals received from others, and to

the amounts of money borrowed or invested by members of the landed

interest. Dring's "Catalogue of the Lords, Knights and Gentlemen

that have compounded for their Estates", published in 1655, shows

that compositions of more than £ 1000 were quite common. zi

Dring's Catalogue - "but an Index to a greater volume"-

contains about 140 pages of names listed opposite amounts of money.

It is not clear whether the amounts shown represent total values or

composition fines; but even if the former be the case, it is clear that there were many estates worth thousands of pounds at a time 4 when an agricultural labourer's weekly wage was about eight shillings

— twenty-one pounds a year if he worked all fifty-two weeks. An

estate worth ^5000 was equivalent to a workman's wages over a period

of nearly two-hundred-and-fifty years. Translated into present-day

terms, and using a conservative estimate of eighty dollars as a work• man's weekly wage, Sir Henry Bellingham would be a millionaire.

A fair number of the men in Dring's catalogue are assessed at 8 amounts of less than ^3, and some at ^1 or less^* This strongly suggests that the figures given refer to actual fines rather than estate values; in which case they might represent anything from two years purchase to more than half the estate. In most cases an estate would be worth at least four times as much as the assessed composition fine, if one may judge from the Parliamentary order of 4 September,

1648: "That the Persons that have been in the late Insurrections in

Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Essex, whose Fines and Compositions are not already disposed of, be admitted to Composition at Goldsmiths

Hall, at a full Fourth Part of their Estates, unless any of them be is already under some higher Qualifications." If the rental of

Bellingham's estate was worth more than ^1000 a year, his wealth would still rank far below that of Anthony Ashley Cooper, whose rental was over ^£7000 a year. ZY

Some of the opulent Parliamentary colonels listed by Oldmixon , provide further evidence as to what constituted wealth, by the amounts which they subscribed in the grab for Irish lands. Denzil Holies

( ^1000?), John Hampden (^1000), Sir Mathew Boynton (^=1000), Sir

William Brereton (^3250), Alexander Popham ( ^1000, including inheritance from his father), were but a few of the gentry who had Zi' large amounts of capital available for investment."

Money interests presented a less simple front than the landowners.

There were many merchants, including members of the great trading and livery companies. There were others, also including members of the great companies, whose interests and schemes went deeper -— men such 9 to as Thomas Violet and Martin Noel. By the nature of their invest• ments the moneymen were likely to be periodically, even in some cases chronically, in competition with one another. Their outlook was directly and indirectly affected by the rise and fall of similar interests abroad. It is therefore necessary to qualify any statement of their aims by emphasising the likelihood of flexibility and devi• ation in individual cases. With this proviso it may be said that they were generally opposed to measures which hampered the taking of pro• fit and in favour of measures which seemed to encourage it. They wanted low wages, freedom from regulations involving the fixing of prices or the movement of bullion, and government protection against unfair competition from the Dutch or from interlopers. They bitterly opposed royal patents of monopoly awarded to court favourites. On the question of customs and excise taxes their outlook was delicately balanced between the disadvantages which might accrue from interfer• ence with trade and the advantages to be derived from farming the taxes. Reasonable impositions could be allowed for in the prices charged to customers, a most acceptable solution when the ultimate consumers were members of the indigenous lower classes; but even in the domestic market sudden and prohibitive increases in price might 3o damage trade or provoke destructive riots.

Socially the moneymen were probably inferior to landowners, but about their wealth and influence there is no doubt. Among the City magnates who subscribed for Irish lands were Gregory Clement

( ^5000), the Royalist Sir Nicholas Crisp ( ^3700?), Isaac Penning- 10 ton (at least ^1000), and Richard Brown ( ^600) f And these amounts are quite small in comparison with the ^65,260 which Alder• man Edward Baekwell lent the government between August 1658 and March

1659J or with the ;£ 130,000 which Baekwell and Thomas Viner paid for the loot captured in Sir Richard Stayner's attack on the Spanish 33

West India fleet, 8 September I656.

When, in 1672, Charles II's government suspended cash payments to bankers by the Exchequer of Receipt — the "Stop" of the Exchequer —

Baekwell's interest was more than ^200,000} yet it was exceeded by the claim of Sir Robert Viner (Thomas's nephew). Of course, much of this money had been deposited with Baekwell and Viner by merchants and landowners who had excess capital, but the amounts handled prove that trade as well as agriculture might be the basis of a large personal fortune. Further evidence of the wealth enjoyed by moneymen may be found in the list of Parliamentary obligations reported to the Convention Parliament by Colonel Birch, 29 December 1660. Among the creditors were: Alderman Thomas Atkins ( ^1489), Alderman John

Langham ( ^5310), Alderman Thomas Foot ( ^1437), Alderman Thomas

Cullum ( ^1354), and Sir Richard Brown ( ^2063).^

The worldly possessions of merchants, brokers, scriveners and goldsmiths might include land, cash, houses, ships and cargoes.

Money lent at interest might officially yield from six to eight percent, unofficially much more. A large coasting vessel, which might be owned by one man or by several in partnership, was worth two or three thousand pounds, and a bulk cargo of wool or coal might have 11 had an average value of two to four-hundred pounds/^ A single ship• per in Newcastle-on-Tyne might export almost 20,000 tons of coal a year, with a retail value in London varying from about ten shillings to as much as four pounds a ton. In 1657 Gabriel Keate bequeathed

^750 to the Grocers' Company; and in 1661 William Robinson left to the same company, "after his wife's decease ... all his lands, tene• ments, and hereditaments, with the appurtenances, situate in Grub- street, London." The income from this property raised ^55 per annum, increasing to ^75 in the early nineteenth century. Many similar bequests testify to the charity of dead liverymen and (by implication) the wealth of living ones.

Land and money were the two main divisions of interest within the wealthy minority which triumphed at the Restoration; but almost equally important was a third interest, which may be called power.

Representatives of this interest were usually also interested in land and/or money. They were distinguished from their colleagues by a clear desire to engage directly in the business of government, some in the enforcement of law, and some in the most secret offices of the executive. Among those who were not qualified lawyers, many were members of other emergent professions such as accountancy and medi• cine. Their common interest lay in the actual exercise of political power, mainly through the manipulation of the legislature. Because they needed the machinery of Parliament, even those who were not themselves rich found it expedient to support the welfare of the wealthy and to suppress as effectively as possible the aspirations of 12 the poorer classes.

Most of these wielders of power were comparatively wealthy, some

(such as Anthony Ashley Cooper) extremely so. Those who were not rich almost invariably made strong efforts to improve their finan• cial status. John Thurloe, with an annual salary of ^600 and numer• ous opportunities for making something extra, became a wealthy landowner. George Downing certainly profited by his labours as ambassador at the Hague; and Sir William Lockhart's salary, as ambassador to

France, was one hundred pounds a week. Judges and commissioners often earned salaries of ^1000 a year, plus expenses; and Bulstrode

Whitelock claimed "that the benefit of my practice was more than the salary of this office." He should perhaps have followed the example of his fellow lawyer, Sir Thomas Widdrington, who strikingly succeeded in combining profit with honour: "...as speaker of the house, thirty- five pounds a week, which is one-thousand, eight-hundred, and twenty- nine pounds per annum; as commissioner of the treasury, one-thousand pounds per annum; in all, two-thousand, eight-hundred, and twenty- nine pounds per annum; and hath besides, for every private act, five pounds, and for every stranger that is naturalised, or made a free denison; and hath gotten for that already, as is supposed, near one- thousand five hundred pounds; he is recorder of York."

Before the Puritan Revolution there were obvious differences of outlook between the country rich and the City rich. The gulf was not so wide as to prevent many crossings, as is clear from the patterns of intermarriage and of speculation, but it was nevertheless real. Landowners objected to the centralisation of trade and law in London, and asked why a mass of money should be "drawn from the veins into the ulcers of the kingdom." When the Civil.War broke out many land• owners joined the Royalist party even against their own apparent interests and inclinations. Very few of the City magnates were pre• pared to place their affection for monarchy before their desire to remain at the economic centre of the kingdom.

After the Restoration the gap between country and City again widened, though not sufficiently to cause another civil war. Parlia• ment squared up as Court and Country parties, Tories and Whigs; and landowners shed few tears over the discomfiture of some moneymen in the Stop of the Exchequer and in the government's Quo Warranto pro• ceedings against the City of London, January 1682 to October 1683

During the Interregnum spokesmen.for the ambitious lower classes attacked the privileges of landowners, moneymen and lawyers. Small farmers and agricultural workers attacked enclosures, while townsmen demanded the repeal of restrictive work-laws and sought a more equit• able share in the profits of trade. A pamphleteer, possibly William

Walwyn, argued that King and Parliament had only one quarrel — So

"namely, whose slaves the people shall be." In the Putney Debates,

29 October 1647, Colonel Thomas Rainborow said: "I doe thinke that the poorest man in England is nott att all bound in a stricte sence to that Governement that hee hath not had a voice to putt himself under...", a clear demand for political democracy. John Lilburne and John Wildman, Gerrard Winstanley, Thomas Harrison, and Thomas 14 Venner were a few of the many spokesman who were demanding every kind of freedom for the lower classes: abolition of tithes, simplification of the law, honesty in collection of taxes, publication of a national balance sheet, investigation of pluralities and exorbitant salaries, and of course the just payment of the common soldiers who fought the Parliament's battles. Agitators in the armed forces, fanatics in the Barebones Assembly, and anonymous mob-leaders in the City fanned the flames of discontent, and struck fear into the hearts of the wealthy. It was in the face of this dangerous agitation that the need for a working alliance among all sections of the rich became crystallised. There was a gradual closing of the ranks during the period of Common• wealth and Protectorate, when some notable successes were achieved. For even between 1648 and 1658, in spite of the powerful demands of the militant lower classes, and in spite of efforts by Cromwell and others to improve however slightly the lives and liberties of small tradesmen, tenant farmers and soldiers, in practice the privileges of the wealthy were extended rather than curtailed.

During I656 and 1657 a number of significant events showed clearly the direction which the Revolution was taking. On 19 December I656 Whalley's "Bill for Improvement of Waste-Grounds, and Regulating of

Commons and Commonable Lands, and preventing Depopulations" received

S3 its first reading; and was rejected without a division. It was the last comprehensive attempt by government to check enclosure. Two months later the London alderman, Christopher Pack, presented in parliament a remonstrance asking Cromwell to accept the title of 15 ss

king; and in April 1657 one of the Lord Chief Justices — either

Oliver St. John or John Glynne — asserted in committee that monarchy

was the best and the legal form of government. "The name of KING is si a Name known by the Law." In May the Lord Protector assented to the sr

Humble Petition and Advice, which in its second article set up Parl•

iaments consisting of two Houses.

The year 1657 witnessed also a settlement of the problems of the

East India Company. After three years of officially-condoned inter•

loping, the Company threatened to sell its forts and stations in

India, and was granted a new monopoly-charter. In a compromise which

admitted some wealthy ex-competitors to office in the Company, Maurice Thomson became Governor and Martin Noel (among others) was appointed SS a "committee."

Another important victory for the wealthy was the swift and

effective action by which Cromwell silenced John Lambert, who had Sq

once been widely regarded as the Protector's likely successor.

Lambert's pedigree placed him among the wealthier Yorkshire gentry,

but in the interest of political ambition he had shown great sympathy

and magnanimity towards the lower classes. He had built up a great

personal popularity among the ranks and inferior officers in the army.

Had the lower classes succeeded in a new rebellion, Lambert might well

have been set forth as their champion. On 13 July 1657, after Lam• bert had opposed the Humble Petition, Cromwell wrote: "Sir, I have

sent this bearer, Mr. Wm. Jessop, to you for your commission as major-

general, as also your other commissions, to whom I desire you to 16 deliver them enclosed and sealed up in a paper. Your loving friend,

Oliver, P."

During 1657 much of the burden of taxation was shifted from land to consumer goods. The Humble Petition, in article 7> offered Crom• well a regular annual revenue of 4^1,300,000, "and no part thereof to be raised by a land tax." After an unsuccessful attempt by some members to abolish altogether the assessment on land, it was reduced from ,^80,000 to ^50,000 per annum. At the same time as the Pro• tector assented to this reduction, he also gave his consent to "an additional Act for the better Improvement and Advancing the Receipts of the Excise, and new Impost." Many of the gentlemen who in Par liar ment helped to impose the excise were able to improve their popularity at the local level by encouraging those who refused to pay.

By the end of 1657 the rich in both country and City had gained most of the objectives for which, in the 1640fs, they had fought. At the second session of Cromwell's Second Parliament, which met in Jan• uary 1658 complete with a newly-appointed House of Lords, the country-

City alliance made a brief appearance as the major economic and polit• ical force in the state. Cromwell, still able to rely on his military prestige (at any rate up to a point), refused to be browbeaten and dissolved Parliament; but achieved little beyond proving his inability to rule alone.

It is against this historical and bibliographical ground that

"The Country-City Alliance, 1658 - 1660" has been considered in the preparation of this thesis. Starting from Oldmixon's observation 17 6s about Cooper, Annesley, Montagu, Monk "and other Presbyterians", an

attempt has been made to consider the actions and understand the motives

of all the Parliamentary groups who contributed to the Restoration,

with particular emphasis on landowners and City financiers. The main

conclusion reached is that the motives which prompted the Restoration

were primarily social, though the methods used involved economics and

politics. The form of government was a renewal of the old form in•

volving King, Lords and Commons, not because the landowners and finan•

ciers had suddenly developed a nostalgic feeling for customary law,

but because hereditary monarchy fitted best into a general pattern of

hereditary privilege. The king was polished on the buffer of ceremony,

and took on a lustre resembling divinity, at any rate to those who 1

stood far enough away. The Commons continued in its 1640 role, to

represent the wealthy in government and to ensure the perpetuation of wealth and privilege through appropriate legislation. The Lords con•

tributed directly to the establishment of a hierarchical social order,

and also acted as a buffer against the possibility of the lower classes

gaining actual control of the Commons or the king.

Economically the Restoration was, in spite of Hill's offhand dis• missal of the cliche, an assertion of "liberty for wicked capitalists

to grind the faces of the poor." There is hardly any basis for dis•

puting the fact that the ruling class after 1660 consisted essentially

of capitalists, or that by the standards laid down in the New Testa•

ment most members of the ruling class were rather obviously wicked.

Face-grinding rarely has reached greater heights of efficiency than in 18 the century following the Restoration. It is, however, maintained in this thesis that the motives underlying the assertion of face-grinding liberties were primarily social, and even to a great extent feudal, rather than purely economic.

The Restoration maintained and increased the political, economic and social status of "the squire and his relations", most of whom were not Presbyterians, and some of whom were usually Anglican parsons.

In view of Oldmixon's reference to Presbyterians, it might be assumed that the Parliamentary group suffered an important defeat in the battle of religions. A careful appraisal of the religious convictions of the four mentioned by Oldmixon suggests, however, that this defeat caused them little if any discomfort. Annesley had built up. a fortune in

Irish lands, and was a fully-qualified lawyer. He was also connected with the East India trade through association with the financier Sir

Paul Pindar. In 1667 he was involved in a mysterious deal with Sir ye

George Carteret, from which he emerged as Treasurer of the Navy. His

Presbyterianism did not prevent him from enjoying the fruits of econom• ic and social victory, which also included promotion to the Lords as y/

Earl of Anglesey. Cooper and Montagu both received similar promotions

(to Shaftesbury and Sandwich). Both became important figures in the various councils and committees for Plantations, and were interested in (among other ventures) the Cardigan Mines, the Guinea Company, and the Company of Merchant Adventurers. Monk became Duke of Albemarle, and suitable promotions were arranged for many of his relations, in- Y3 eluding a bishopric for his brother Nicholas. These examples illustrate 19

the general attitude of the makers of the Restoration towards religion,

that it could serve a useful social purpose but was otherwise compara•

tively unimportant. The Catholicism of the Duke of York and the

suspected Catholicism of Charles II were therefore not a serious

obstaclej and the attitude of Charles, who at various times cheerfully

embraced the Covenant and the Prayer Book as well as Father Huddle-

stone, was a recommendation rather than a disqualification. The

Restoration was a victory not only for wealth and privilege, but also

for cynicism.

NOTES

1. Commons Journals, vi, 5l6-(27 Dec. 1650). 2. Pepys, i, 51. (11 Feb. 1660). 3. Buchanan, "History of Scotland" (1827), iv, 511-512. 4. Johnston of Wariston, iii, 183. (14 May 1660). (and see Ludlow, ii, 2?5i Burnet (1883), p. 60) 5. Whitelock (1853), iv, 415-416. 6. Commons Journals,-vii, 867-880. Thurloe, vii, 826 and 867. 7. Ludlow, ii, 237i 8. 01dmixoh:(1727), p. xxvii. 9. Oldmixon, p. 114-115• The names he listed were: the Earl of Essex; Lord Fielding, the Earl of Stamford, Lord Hastings, Lord Roberts, Lord Wharton, Lord Kimbolton, Lord Brook, Lord St. John, the Earl of Peterborough; the Earl of Bedford, Lord Willoughby, Lord Rochford, Colonel Hbllis', Colonel Hampden, Colonel Goodwin, Sir Henry Cholmley, Lord Fairfax, Sir Philip Stapylton, Sir Mathew Boynton, Sir Thomas Middleton, Sir William Brereton, Colonel Ludlow, Colonel Popham,Sir Edward Harley, Sir Ed. Huhgerford, etc. 10. See (for example) Montague, "The Political History of England", vii, 483 et seq,.; where the chapter dealing with the period 1658-1660 is headed "Anarchy and Reaction". 11. Yule, "Independents in the English Civil War", p. 78. Hexter, "Reign of King Pym", p. 204. 12. In Bibliography, see works"by Bernstein, Haller, Frank, Sabine, Solt,Petegorsky. 13. In Bibliography, see works by Buchan, Green, Hallam, Davies, Bryant. 14. Trevelyari, "English Social History", p. 252. 15. See Gerould, "Sources of English History, 1603-1689", esp. pp. 306-344. 16. Blitzer, "An Immortal Commonwealth", is a recent work which contains information about the Rota and its founder, Sir James Harrington. - 17. Hill, "Puritanism and Revolution", pp. 3-31. 18. Richards, "Early History of Banking", pp. 99-100. 19. Somers Tracts (1748), iv, 34-35. 20. Brunton and Pennington, pp. 3,90 (and note). 21. Dring, in the dedication to "those Noble persons that are concerned." In the first eight pages, which contain about two-hundred names altogether, there are included: Sir Henry Audley ( ^1600), Henry Ashford ( J^llpO), John Ackland (1777). Sir Francis Anderson id 1200), Sir Henry Anderson ( ^1730), Edw. Algmer ( j£1900), Edward Ashton ( ^2000), Sir Benjamin Aaloff ( j£l242), Sir Edward Alfordi £ 1503), Robert Arden ( .£1676), John Arundell ( ^2002). Sir Thomas Bendish ( ^1000), Sir John Baker ( ;^3000), Sir John Butler ( -£2000), Sir John Burlace ( ^3500), Robert Boles ( ^1500), Thomas Broughton ( ^3200), John Beilet ( -=1005), John Bellasis ( ^2019). Sir Thomas Bludder ( ^1537), Sir Thomas Bridges (,£1000), Sir William Botteler ( ^3011), Sir Peter Ball (.2^1250), Sir Henry Berkley (j^L275), Sir Maurice Berckly (£ 1372), Sir William Button ( ^2380), John Banks ( ^1974), and Sir Henry Belling- ham (^5526). 1 22. Rogers,, v, 827. 23. Henry Barlow, of Webs, Somerset (15th page of Dring's list), was assessed at only six shillings and eight- pence. 24. Hill, "Puritanism and Revolution", p. I64. 25. Commons Journals; vi; 5. (4 Sept. I648). 26. D.N.B. (1937-38), iv, 1036. The source of the information is given as the Shaftesbury Papers in the Public Record Office. 27. See note 9. 28. MacCormack; Irish Historical Studies, x, 39-58. 29. For Violet, see D.N.B., xx, 374. For Noel; see Appendix 3 of this thesis. 30. Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate", ii, 246-248. Nef, "Rise of British Coal Industry", ii, 295-296. 31. ScCormack, as note 28. 32« Richards, "Early History of Banking", p.32. 33. D.N.B (1937-38), i, 794. . Clowes, "Royal Navy", ii, 213-214. 34. Richards, as note 32, pp. 65-78. 35. Richards, pp. 83-84. 36. Commons Journals, viii, 237-244,(29 Dec. 1660). 37. Commons Journals, v, 146-147. . Richards, as note 32, p. 20 (note 2) and p. 13. 38. Willan, "English Coasting Trade", pp. 36-37. 39. Willan, pp. 7 and 56-57. 40. Willan, pp. 35 and 57. Gardamer, "Comm. and Prot.", ii, 248. (A London chaldron, was about 26 cwt., according to Willan, p. xiii). 41. Herbert, "History of Twelve Great Livery Companies", i, 362 and 358. 42. Hobman, "Cromwell's Master Spy", pp. 14, 23, 183. 43. Thurloe, vii, 121 and 380. 44. It was not paid regularly. Thurloe, vii, 681. 45. Inderwick, "Interregnum", pp. 158, 207. 46. Whitelock, "Memorials", ii, 524. 47* "A Narrative of the Late Parliament, etc.", Harleian Miscellany (1810), vi, 461. 48. Trevor-Roper, article in "Encounter" No. 77, P.5. 49* Sharpe, "London and the Kingdom", ii, 476-505. 50. "The Bloody Project", quoted in Haller, "Leveller Tracts", p. 15. 51. Clarke Papers, i, 301. 52. See Chapter 8 of this thesis. 53. Commons Journals, vii, 470. 54. James, "Social Policy During Puritan Revolution", pp. 120-121. 55. C.H. Firth, article in Eng. Hist. Review, xvii (1902), p. 429 et seq. Conmons Journals, vii, 496,(23 Feb. 1657). 56. "Monarchy Asserted to be etc.", Somers Tracts (1750), vii (second series iii), p. 123 (and pp. 113-174). 57* Gardiner, "Constitutional Documents of Puritan Revolution" (1899), pp. 447-459. 58. Mukherjee, "Rise and Fall of East India Company", p. 74. Court Minutes of East India Company, v, 197. (Dec. 1657). 59. Ludlow, i, 400. 60. D.N.B. (1937-38), xi, 452-459. Ashley, "Cromwell's Generals", p. 99 et seq. 61. H.M.C. 3rd Report (Ffolkes MSS), p.247. 62. Gardiner, as note 57, p. 453. 63. Commons Journals, vii, 577. Firth, "Last Years of Protectorate", ii, 260-262. 64. Firth, as note 63, ii, 263 quotes many examples taken from the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic. See also Thurloe, vii, 240-242 and 662. 65. See note 8. 66. Hill, as note 17, p. 5. 67. Trevelyan, "English Social History", p. 252. 68. D.N.B., i, 473-475. ' 69. Feiling, "British Foreign Policy", p. 109. 70. Pepys, vi, 370 et seq (June 1667). 71. D.N.B., asnote 68. 72. ' Harris, "Life of Edward Montagu", ii, 205-236. L.F. Brown, "First Earl of Shaftesbury", pp. 128-149. 73. Warner, "Hero of the Restoration", p. 233. ' 74. Burnet, "History of His Own Time", pp. 38, 61, 392. ' Scott, "Travels of the King", p. 475. Pepys, ''Diary", 1, 150 (25 May 1660). CHAPTER 2 23

THE SECOND SESSION OF CROMWELL'S SECOND PARLIAMENT

The meeting of Parliament on 20 January, 1658 marked the inception, after many years of restless experimentation, of a system of government which approached the form of limited monarchy envisaged in the Nineteen Propositions of 1642. These propositions, which were largely the work of John Pym, assumed the continuation of hereditary kingship and a bicameral Parliament; but made it quite clear that ultimate sovereignty was to reside in Parliament, and particularly in the elected House. They implied that the king must grow less because

Parliament must grow greater.^

Many of the Nineteen Propositions were occasioned by matters of temporary importance. The items having permanent validity demanded 3 Parliamentary control of appointments to high political office; un- restricted freedom of Parliamentary A£ debate; Parliamentary acqui- 6 escence in foreign policy, and in the education of royal children; strict execution of laws against Catholic recusants; and Parliamen• tary participation in the control and disposition of the armed forces/ The propositions were sent to the king at York in June 1642, and their 8 rejection made civil war inevitable.

By giving his consent to the Humble Petition and Advice Cromwell specifically agreed to three of the five major demands made by parlia- 9 ment in 1642. He partially agreed to Parliamentary participation in 10 control of the armed forces. Foreign policy was not specifically mentioned in the Humble Petition, but the Protector assented to a general clause: "That the ancient and undoubted liberties and privi- 24

leges of Parliament (which are the birthright and inheritance of the

people, and wherein every man is interested) be preserved and main- // tained." 12, After a brief and tactful speech from Cromwell, the session of 1658 listened to a long address delivered by Commissioner Fiennes. The commissioner's speech opened with a significant reference to the "signal and remarkable Providence, That we see this Day, in this Place, /3 a chief Magistrate, and Two Houses of Parliament." Later, after many references to the supernatural, Fiennes appealed for moderation and co-operation in a sustained metaphor admirably calculated to appeal

to the beneficiaries of enclosure. He compared the work ahead with the planting of a new hedge to fence-in 3aws and liberties; suggested the incorporation of all plants, both old and new, that would take to the fresh ground; and included some slighting references to beasts who tread fences down. During the next two weeks there seemed some likelihood that a constitutional settlement would be reached along lines acceptable both to the Parliamentarians and to the personal followers whom Cromwell had attracted. That it was not reached was largely due to Cromwell's suspicion that many members of the Commons favoured the legally- defensible claim of Charles Stuart to the throne. In his angry speech of dissolution he accused members of "listing of persons, by commis• sion of Charles Stuart, to join with any Insurrection that may be

made." In a letter addressed to one of his captains of militia he referred to "such men as are not satisfied with the foundation we stand upon."

Before considering the apparent goals and actual discussions

which were brought forth by this brief but important session, some•

thing should be said about the origins and development of Cromwell's

Second Parliament.

According to the Instrument of Governmentthe constitution which governed procedure when this Parliament was summoned in the

summer of I656 — this was an extraordinary Parliament, called because

the "necessities of the State" required it. The main reasons for

Cromwell's haste were the impending breakdown of the domestic economy

and the urgent need of supplies for the Spanish war. The military

dictatorship of the major-generals had failed to produce the revenue needed to support a large army, a large navy, and anaaggressive for• eign policy; and had further alienated the sympathies of many landowners and moneymen.

The provisions of the Instrument of Government allowed for a

Parliament of 460 members, of whom 400 were elected in England, 30 in

Scotland, and 30 in Ireland. The Scottish and Irish members were virtually chosen by the army commanders in the areas concerned, and were in effect almost all government nominees. In England the number of borough members had been sharply reduced, and borough elections were confined to the larger cities and towns. The only boroughs per• mitted to return two members were: Exeter, Plymouth, Colchester,

Gloucester, Canterbury, Leicester, Norwich, King's Lynn, Great Yar• mouth, Nottingham, Shrewsbury, Bristol, Taunton, Ipswich, Bury St. 26

Edmunds, Coventry, New Sarum, Worcester, York, Westminster, and South- Zo wark. The preponderance of commercial ports and centres of the

clothing industry is obvious.

Most small boroughs were either abolished or reduced to one member. The number of county seats was increased threefold, and part•

ially offset the loss of decayed boroughs. The general effect of the new system was to increase the influence of the government over elections, to increase the relative importance of rich landowners in the counties, and to increase the relative importance of the wealthier towns. It is clear that the government hoped to exercise some control over county elections through the power of the major-generals, and 22, equally clear that the hope was often dashed. "Here is a new Major

Generall come downe, his name is Bridges, & I heere, labours to have a great influence upon elections Its thought he will misse of his ayme however. There is like to be strong & stout canvassinge. The sheriff & justices at the last sessions pitched on 4, to which they will unanimously adhere. Sir Wm. Brereton he stands on his owne leggs 23

& labours might and maine...... " Honours in this particular contest seem to have been shared. Brereton was not elected, but his nephew

Sir George Booth was.

Article 21 of the Instrument of Government made it necessary for an elected member to receive the approval of the Protector's Council before taking his seat; and in 1656 a large number of members were kept out. The names of ninety-eight who were allegedly victims of zs exclusion were listed by the diarist Bulstrode Whitelock. They 2?

included John Birch, Alexander Popham, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Richard

Brown, Harbottle Grimstone, Edward Harley, Henry Hungerford, William

Morrice, and apparently Richard Grenville (who is almost certainly the

Greenhill of Whitelock's list).

A few of the names given by Whitelock are probably erroneously included, since they also figure in the list of 120 "kinglings" print- zt, ed in "A Narrative of the Late Parliament." This latter group of 120 included many place-men and seventeen of the men whom Cromwell subse- zy quently promoted to the Lords.

Those who were kept out in I656 were far from contrite. They arranged for the publication of a remonstrance, in which they asserted that Cromwell was openly assuming a "power to pack an assembly of his confidents, parasites, and confederates, and to call them a parliament."

They accused him of having "assumed an absolute, arbitrary sovereignty,

(as if he came down for the throne of God)." They spoke of "the most evident danger of the utter subversion of religion, liberty, right, and Zf property".

The last phrase best sums up the nature of their struggle in general and their quarrel with Cromwell in particular. However half• heartedly, he had always retained some sympathy for the aspirations of the lower middle classes, and had fairly consistently tried to extend to them a fuller enjoyment of freedom in religion, liberty, right, and property. Under his dictatorship religious toleration had flourished

Zq as never before. There is evidence to show that the wages of labour• ing men, reckoned in terms of purchasing power, reached a peak about 28

1655J and the attempt to de-monopolise the East India trade has

31 already been mentioned. Though his political understanding showed him the indispensability of support from the wealthy, he continued to betray signs of sympathy for the less well-to-do. When in 1657 he refused the title of king, he remembered the rank-and-file. "I cannot think that God would bless me in the undertaking of anything that 3z> would justly and with cause, grieve them." In 1654, when a number of elected members had refused to subscribe to the Instrument of Government, Cromwell had said "that he was not angry, that so few men went into the parliament; for I had rather they would stay without: one, that is within, may do more harm, than ten that 33 are without." It is indicative of the course taken by events that in

1657, in spite of his emotional attachment to the russet-coated Iron• sides, he thought it more important to conciliate the opposition.

Perhaps his opinion was influenced by the fact that even in the screened House there were constant demands, supported by a substantial minority, for admission of the excluded members. By accepting Article

3 of the Humble Petition he bound himself to admit, in any subsequent session, any elected member who was willing to swear an oath of loyal• ty to himself.

The House of Commons whose members heard Fiennes *s speech on 20

January 1658 was therefore like no House which had sat during the nine years since Pride's Purge. It was far different, in its temper and in its actual personnel, from the House which had made an accommodation with Cromwell in the session of 1656-57. 29

Most of the members whose names were associated, with the remon- 3S

strance subscribed, to the oath of loyalty. Some did so with much mental reservation — the republican Sir Arthur Haselrig said: "I will be faithful to my Lord Protector s person. I will murder no Man."

The strength of the opposition was thus potentially some 90 members more than it had been in the first session; whereas the strength.of the government had decreased by 33 because of promotions to the new House of Lords. These 33 were, moreover, among the staunchest supporters of the government.

Reckoned numerically, the change in, the Commons since 16$6 was most significant. In the first session, with some 90 members excluded, the total of admitted members had been about 360j and of these 60 had been virtually appointed by the government in Scotland and Ireland, while 125 of the English members had been place-men. The government had thus been assured of 185 votes out of 360 possible; not a great majority but a reasonably safe one. The Commons in 1658 had about 415 admitted members, among whom only 150 or so were definite government

supporters. The issue of writs to fill the vacancies created by appointments to the Lords needed Parliamentary approval, as the law 3/ apparently then stood; but could in any case increase the number of members by only 40.

The House in 1658 contained representatives of every political platform except malignant Royalism. Cromwell's supporters were to a

great extent his confederates and camp-followers, but there were a number of magnates who appeared to regard the Protector as the man most 30 likely to secure their privileges on firm constitutional ground. 3f

Among such men still in the Commons were a few landowners, a good many commercial figures (including Alderman Thomas Foot), and a compara• tively large number of lawyers (including Edmund Prideaux, Sir Thomas

Widdrington, and the Brothers Bacon).

The opposition was divided. Sir Arthur Haselrig and Thomas Scot led a small but highly vociferous group of republicans. Wielding more permanent influence were some of the unrepentant victims of Pride's

Purge — such men as John Birch, John Bulkley, Harbottle Grimstone,

Edward Harley, Henry Hungerford, William Morrice, Sir John Northcote, and Sir John Young. Altogether the Commons in 1658 contained 100 members who had sat in the Long Parliament, of whom 58 had also sat in the Rump. Of the 392 English members elected in 1656, 214 had surnames which also appear in the roll of the Long Parliament; a fact which strongly suggests, though it does not prove, a high degree of,family relationship. It can hardly be doubted that for many of the members the session of 1658 represented a firm opportunity for harking back to the days of wealth triumphant in 1647.

The resolutions made by this House of Commons, as recorded in the

Journal, do not suggest that it was fundamentally opposed to the idea of a constitutional.Cromwellian monarchy, though its most influential members almost certainly preferred the better legal claim of Charles

Stuart. Much time was devoted to harmless local issues, to mainten• ance of ministers, university non-residence, the repair of highways, the fish trade, and the registration of births, deaths and marriages. 31

A petition from Lord Craven was heard, and arrangements were made to give him a further hearing in the presence of the purchasers of his confiscated estate. This might have been construed as a challenge to the government, but Craven's counsel offered some convincing evidence to support his client's allegation of mistreatment.

The most important issues, if the aims of the Parliamentary party were to be achieved, were the subjugation of the army as an indepen• dent political force, and full practical control of the functions of both Houses of Parliament. Both these purposes would be served by delaying supply, so that the armed forces could not be paid, and by questioning the composition and the status of the new House of Lords.

Both tactics were adopted.

Major spokesman for the militant Parliamentary group was the re• publican Haselrig, a somewhat surprising fact when it is considered that the most important members of the group were inflexible monarch• ists and enemies of Haselrig. True, Haselrig was the only man present who had been one of the famous Five Members in 1642. (Pym, Hampden and

Stroud were dead; Holies was sequestered). True, also, that by 1658

Haselrig was extremely rich and a great landowner; but his wealth was largely a product of selfishness during the Interregnum, and he was persona non grata among the more-established families. Clarendon described him as having been in 1642 a person of low "account and esteem." However, Haselrig spoke for all when he demanded the ascend• ancy of the civil voice over the military, and asserted the ultimate right of the Commons (when fairly close to unanimity) to decide govern• ment policy. 32

The attack on Cromwell's Lords was delivered, through three super•

ficially-unimportant resolutions. On 22 January, after receiving a

» request from the Lords to join in "an humble Address to his Highness",

the Commons resolved (by 75 votes to 51) "That this House will send an 44

Answer by Messengers of their own". On 29 January the Commons (by 84

votes to 78) resolved to consider in Grand Committee, "Ihat Answer

they will return to the Message brought from the Other House". And

on 3 February (by 93 votes to 87) it was resolved to go into Grand

Committee in order to debate "the Appellation of the Other House".

Though it may be true that a rose by any other name willsmell as

sweet, this argument about status had constitutional implications.

The Parliamentary party wanted a House of Lords, but one which should

stand as a bulwark against government interference in behalf of dis•

possessed copyholders or ill-paid workmen. Such a House would necess•

arily be recruited from wealthy landowners, with a sprinkling of pro•

fessional men and a few rusticated financiers; and in spite of Crom•

well's efforts to please, his Other House was not in the main thus

recruited.

The new House of Lords was not rich. Some of the wealthiest

nominees refused to sit, including five former peers who apparently

feared to jeopardise their hereditary claims by accepting nomination

for life. Some who accepted nomination were impeccable candidates from

the point of view of the established wealthy classes —- among them

being Charles Viscount Howard, Philip Lisle, Edward Montagu, Sir Francis

Russell, John Glynne, Sir Charles Wolseley, and Sir Richard Onslow. 33

Many of the new Lords, however, were comparatively poor and of humble

birth. Commentators were concerned about the reliance of many Lords

upon their official salaries, which would make it politically danger•

ous for them to have any veto over legislation passed in the Commons.

A general view was expressed in words recorded by Thomas Burton: "They ¥7 have not interest, not the forty-thousandth part of England."

About one-third of the Cromwellian Lords were closely related to

the Protector, a matter which was tactfully skimmed over in the Com• mons, but vehemently attacked outside. John Claypole, Cromwell's son-

in-law, was mocked in an effectively-written pamphlet. Having, it was

said, "so long time had a negative voice over his wife, Spring-Garden,

the ducks, deer, horses, and asses in James's Park, is the better

skilled how to exercise it again in the other house, over the good people of these nations, without any gainsaying or dispute." The same writer called Charles Fleetwood, another of Cromwell's sons-in- law, "one of good principles, had he kept them."

Of the greatest immediate importance to critics of the Other

House was the fact that about half the men who accepted their appoint• ments were directly connected with the armed forces. As Major Beake tactlessly said, "He that has a regiment of foot to command in the army, So he is as good a balance as any I know, and can do more."

The last major stronghold of the Independents was in the army, particularly among the inferior officers and the long-service members of the rank and file. The actions of senior officers, even Pride and

Hewson, suggest that they would have welcomed an opportunity of join- 34 s/ ing the landowners and moneymen. But they were never given the chance. Even Charles Fleetwood, whose politics were so moderate that sz he refused to have any part in the trial of Charles I, and advised , S3

Cromwell against dissolution in 1658, could not win the respect of the Parliamentary party. His religious sympathies were derided, and he was described by Clarendon as "a weak man, but very popular with all the praying part of the army". To complete the political domi• nance of the rich the Independents had to be brought under control, and in 1658 it was clear that this involved the submission of the military to the civil authority. So long as the new Lords represented primarily the interest of the armed forces, it would be possible for a military leader (such as Cromwell or John Lambert) to block measures ss aimed at reducing by legislation the power of the Chief Officer.

Such a House was bound to remain unacceptable to supporters of Parlia• mentary sovereignty.

Though the new Lords, and through them the armed forces, bore the brunt of Haselrig's attack, the Commons in this short session passed one other important resolution which brought home to the Protector his state of dependence on Parliament. On 28 January it was voted (by 92 votes to 84) "That no private Business be taken into Consideration by SC this House for One Month." In its context this decision meant that the discussion of public issues — the "grievances of the people" — s/ would take precedence over any vote of supply. The government, des• perate for money, would have to cool its heels for at least a month.

The embittered Haselrig saw, apparently more clearly than most members, 35 the probability of forceful action by Cromwell. "It may be questioned whether we shall sit a fortnight."

It could be argued that Cromwell's hasty dissolution of Parliament was unwise. The government must have expected that any Commons which represented the major taxpayers would certainly seek to reduce the armed forces and destroy the power of the army grandees. It must have been reasonably obvious that a delay in supply would illustrate

Parliament's ability and determination to exercise control of the government through control of expenditurej and would almost certainly be used as a tactical weapon. In spite of the government's financial plight, and in spite of a Royalist rebellion brewing in some parts of the country, it should have been clear that dissolution would solve no problems. The enemies who (three years later) applauded Scot's execu• tion and allowed Haselrig to rot in the Tower, could hardly have main• tained for long their dubious political situation. With almost half the Commons already on its side, and with the new Lords to prevent disastrous legislation from being passed, the government could have afforded to wait a while and buy a little more-support by making io further concessions to wealth.

On the other hand, it could be argued that Cromwell's military success and his continuing role of Chief Officer made it impossible for the Parliamentarians to trust him. But if this was the case all attempts to re-establish Parliamentary institutions by peaceful means were doomed to failure. He should have made major concessions to the lower classes and used the weight of numbers to complete, in a new war, the establishment of democracy. By his actual course of action

Cromwell failed to get the money which his government so desperately needed, and emphasised the Tightness of the opposition policy (from their own point of view) of attacking the grandees. At the same time, by resorting to what was in effect a forcible dissolution, he demon• strated his control of the army and his fundamental unsuitability to the role of constitutional monarch. He compelled the non-republicans to give serious consideration to alternative possibilities, among whom the most obvious was Charles Stuart.

NOTES

1. Gardiner, "Constitutional Documents of Puritan Revolution" (1899), PP. 249-254. 2. See Gardiner, "History of England, 1603-1642" (1884), x, 196-197. Hexter, "Reign of King Pym", pp. 203-204. 3. Articles 1 and 3. 4. Article 2. 5. Articles 4 and 5. 6. Articles 6 and 7. 7. Articles 9, 15 and 16. 8. See Wingfield-Stratford, "King Charles and King Pym, p. 294. 9. See Articles 8,9, and 11 of the Humble Petition. 10. Last paragraph of Article 8. 11. Article 3. 12. Commons Journals, vii, 579-580. 13. ibid., vii, 582. 14. ibid., vii, 585. 15. Carlyle, "Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell", iii, 192. 16. Ashley, "Greatness of Cromwell", pp. 350-351. 17. Gardiner, "Constitutional Documents of Puritan Revolu• tion" (1899), PP. 405-417. 18. Instrument of Govt., Article 23. 19. Ashley, "Cromwell's Generals", pp. 162-165. 20. Instrument of Govt., Article 10. 37

21. In Devon and Cornwall, e.g., 21 boroughs were wiped out: Bodmin, Bossinney, Callington, Camelford, Fowey, Gram- pound, Helston, Liskeard, Lostwithiel, Mitchell, New• port, St. Germans, St. Ives, St. Mawes, Saltash, Treg- ony, Ashburton, Berealston, Okehampton, Plympton Earl, and Tavistock. Information derived from a comparison between the Instrument of Govt. (Article 10) and the list given by Brunton and Pennington, "Members of the Long Parliament", pp. 200-224. 22. Thurloe, v, 296-297. 23. Letter from Dr. Wm. Denton, dated 15 August 1659, print• ed in Verney Memoirs, iii, 283. The four members act• ually chosen for Cheshire were Sir George Booth, Thomas Marbury, Richard Legh, and Maj. Peter Brooke. (Parliamentary History, xxi, 4 (edition of 1763)). 24. D.N.B., ii, 1179-1180. Unlike Booth, Brereton had sat'in the Rump. (Brunton and Pennington, pp. 227-228). 25. Whitelock, iv, 280. See Appendix 1 of this thesis, where a W is added beside the names listed by Whitelock. A slightly shorter list (7 omissions) is printed in "A Narrative of the Late Parliament", see note 26. 26. Harleian Miscellany, vi, 473-475. 27. Whitelock, Ingoldsby, Russell, Howard, Montagu, Roberts, Pack, Lenthall, Fiennes, Wolseley, Lis"$e, Onslow, Philip Jones, Claypole, Glynne, Lockhart, and Broghil. 28. Whitelock, iv, 274-280. 29. See R.S. Paul, "The Lord Protector", pp. 254-257 and 324- 328. Abbott, "Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell", iii, 586. - 30. See Appendix 2 of this thesis. 31. Chapter 1, page Sggfc'^. 32. Carlyle, as note 15, iii, 67. 33. Thurloe, ii, 715. 34. Firth, "Last Years of Protectorate", i, 13-20. Among the sponsors of such demands were Sir John Hobart, Colonel William Purefoy, Thomas Bampfield, Major Peter Brooke, Lambert Godfrey, Alexander Thistlethwaite, and Sir George Booth. 35. Ranke, "History of England", iii, 194. Commons Journals, vii, pp. 578 - 592 mentions about 30 who were appointed to committeesj and others are men• tioned by Burton in his Diary. 36. Burton, ii, 346. 37. Because the qualifications of any new members would, be decided by a commission to be set up by Act of Parlia• ment, as indicated in Article 4 of the Humble Petition. 38. e.g."Edmund Dunch, Richard Carter, Sir Francis Norris. 39. See Appendix 1 of this thesis, where "kinglings" are indicated. 38

40. Comparison between Brunton and Pennington's list (pp. 226- 245) and the Old Parliamentary History (xxi, 3-24). 41. See Appendix 1 of this thesis. 42. Commons Journals, vii, 578-592. 43. Clarendon, History, Bk. iv, para. 192. (Macry edn., i, , 506). 44. Commons Journals, vii, 581. 45. ibid., vii, 589. 46. ibid., vii, 591. 47. Burton, ii, 390. 48. "A Second Narrative of the Late Parliament, etc.", in Harleian Miscellany, vi, 495 (482-508). 49. ibid., vi, 490. 50. Burton, ii, 416. 51. Army officers grabbed land wherever they could. (See article by Chesney in "Transactions of Royal Historical Society", 4th series, xv (1932), esp. pp. 193-194). Pride became a member of the Common Council in the City, and served on various committees. (See Sharpe, "London and the Kingdom", ii, 319). 52. Ashley, "Cromwell's Generals", p. 182. 53. Ludlow, ii, 33. 54. Clarendon, History, BK. XVI, para. 80 (Macray edn., vi, 144). 55. A term apparently used by Cromwell in reference to him• self. (See Carlyle. "Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell", iii, 109). 56. Commons Journals, vii, 589. 57. See R.S. Paul, "The Lord Protector", p. 377 and note. 58. Burton, ii, 375. 59. N.b. the votes mentioned on pp. 32 and 34 of this thesis. 60. E.g. stricter enforcement of wage statutes, overtures for peace with Spain (or war against the Netherlands), reorganisation of the militia, sacrificial victimisation of unpopular major-generals, increased persecution of religious sects. 61. i.e. an angry speech concluding with an immediate dissolution, 4 February 1658. (Commons Journals, vii, 592j Carlyle, as note 55, iii, 187-192). CHAPTER 3 39 LAND

Questions connected with the ownership and the use of land were of major importance in the Parliamentary revolution of the seven• teenth century. During the previous two-hundred years a number of new

/ landowning families had been founded, often by merchants and lawyers.

Some of the older families had adapted to changing conditions; and there had been a fusion of new practices with old principles. The open- field system had become outmoded, and feudal ideas about service had given place to new ideas rooted in the profit motive; but profitable behaviour was often justified by hazy notions derived from feudalism.

Enclosure grew out of the idea of caste and the consequent practice of separating the lord of the manor's land from that of his inferiors r- enclosure of the demesne. As the economic advantages of enclosure gradually became obvious the expropriation of common lands was under- 3 4- taken. In some cases former serfs seem to have improved their status, and numbers of merchants and .lawyers bought into the landowning class•

The great majority of serfs suffered distress or displacement, and became part of an advancing tide of pauperism. But "as touchyng the multytude of beggarys, hyt arguth no poverty, but rather much idulnes and yl pollycy; for hyt ys theyr owne cause and neclygence that they so begge."

The maintenance of high rents and low wages was also connected with this idea of allegedly inbred superiority and inferiority. A gentleman was a natural leader. At the time of the Civil Wars it was still possible to emphasise one's higher status by leading an army 40 into battle; and some great landowners did. Advances in military

science, however, made war almost as dangerous for the leaders as for

the led; and it became customary for generals to lead from the rear.

Clement Walker accused Lord Fairfax of driving the foot soldiers into

battle with his cavalry, an accusation which George Wither rejected as

a "barbarous falsehood," It was characteristic only of the Royalist

gentry, said Wither, "to run away being well horst, and leave them

(the common soldiers) to the fury of our Soldier." A safer way of

emphasising superior status was to possess political power and great

material wealth, and this became relatively more important than

prowess in battle. High rent's and low wages helped to impress a

proper sense of inferiority on the lower classes.

In matters of buying and selling land an important principle of

chivalry was invoked, namely that it is not honourable to steal from a

gentleman (though of course it is permissible to threaten and cheat

and if necessary take by force when dealing with the lower classes).

This principle helped to preserve the estates of most Royalists during

the Interregnum, when Parliamentary landowners showed much reticence 7

about buying the estates of proclaimed delinquents.

Eighteen months passed between the execution of the king and the

Rump's decision to sell forfeited estates. When the first Act was

passed, 16 July 1651, it was at the demand of moneymen who refused to

lend any more money without adequate security. The Act contained a

specific statement that "the Parliament do finde it necessary to raise

a considerable sum of Money", and borrowed ^250,000 "upon the a Security of the Lands of the said Tray tors." 2 Two subsequent similar

Acts, dated 4 August 1652 and 18 November 1652, listed many more victims, and aimed to raise ^200,000 and ^600,000 respectively.

The Act of November, listing several hundred names, permitted the persons concerned to compound "after the Rate of two Sixths", to be paid half within sixty days and the remainder within six months after official survey.^ Under the circumstances it is not surprising that, when delinquents' lands changed hands, the new owners were often 10 Londoners and officers. In many cases, however, the Land was bought in by its original owner, assisted by agents and sometimes by the II commissioners acting for the government.K

Though there were certainly some exceptions, as a general rule

Parliamentary landowners refrained from embarrassing their Royalist neighbours and relatives. They largely confined their speculations to IZ. Crown and Church lands and to drainage projects which distressed only 13 low-class fen dwellers. The record of John Evelyn's travels during the Interregnum contains no reference to the ruin of Royalist proprietors nor to any changes of ownership, though he does mention the IS demolition of Pontefract Castle by "the Rebels." Of 106 Royalist members of the Long Parliament who survived the Restoration, 48 re• turned to the Commons and U sat as Peers. Others were prevented from sitting either by extreme old age or by promotion to lucrative legal posts.

Some Royalists did suffer great hardship as a result of the struggle. A few who had been heavily in debt before the Civil Wars 42

were caught short by sudden demands for repayment, but they would

almost certainly have become bankrupt in any case. Others, like John

Wenlock, were comparatively poor or lacking in influence; and apparent•

ly underwent such extreme hardships as having to work in order to keep

from starving. Some men borrowed heavily in order to pay fines, and were compelled to sell parts of their estates after the Restoration in

order to pay off their debts.

Parliamentarian families often improved their power and prestige.

Their continued and increased prosperity is largely embodied in the history of the later seventeenth andthe eighteenth centuries. The hierarchy in Parliament, the Church, the army and the professions is heavily studded with such names as Booth, Boscawen, Burgoyne, Court- enay, Darcy, Eliot, Newdigate, and Wyvill (to mention only a few). On the other hand, the upstarts failed almost to a man to found families of gentry; and the few exceptions to this rule were wealthy repre• sentatives of other groups, such as the merchant-financier Thomas

Cullum. The political and economic aspirations of the lower classes were virtually annihilated.

Another feudal principle which carried over into the new economy was that of primogeniture. No great family would long enjoy its privileges unless the estate could pass from father to eldest son at least as rich as it had been, and preferably richer. This need justi• fied opposition to high taxation, as also resistance to the payment of such dues as ship money and wardship fees. Questions connected with the careersiofiyounger sons also arose from the continued application 43 of this principle. The resulting problems had. much to do with the development among landed proprietors of new attitudes towards trade, colonies, the armed forces, the Church, and the professions.

This persistence of an underlying acceptance of at any rate some feudal ideas helps to account for the inconsistent behaviour of many landowners during the struggle with the Crown. It explains why men like Lord Falkland and Sir Edmund Verney fought for the king, choosing

"rather to lose my Life (which I am sure I shall do) to preserve and defend those Things, which are against my Conscience to preserve and Zi defend." It largely accounts for the attitude of the Earl of

Manchester and the members excluded at Pride's Purge. "If we beat the

King^ninety and nine times, yet he is king still, and so will his ZZ posterity be after him." It provides one reason for the contempt and horror of the lower classes which was characteristic of the wealthy — the fear that the poor might "set up for themselves, to the utter ruin of all the nobility and gentry of the kingdome."

The perseveration of feudal principles did not extend to those aspects of feudalism which involved obligation or duty on the part of great landowners. Feudal demands by the Crown, wards/hip and purvey• ance were abolished early in the struggle, and their abolition was confirmed at the Restoration. The demands of lesser tenants for abolition of arbitrary fines, heriots and the like were not, however, successful. Lesser tenures remained subject to what Lord Keeper 25

Guilford termed "grievous abuses". Obligations to tenants, which

(particularly in the remoter areas) had often stressed low rents in 44 return for expectations of military support, went by the board. "Let no man's love, friendship or favour compel thee or draw thee to forgo thy profits", advised Sir John Oglander. And the heavy demands of assessments and compositions provided ample excuse for Royalist gentlemen to emulate more enterprising landlords by putting the

-2/ squeeze on tenants.. '

Undoubtedly the development of a cash-minded landowning class had been in progress long before the Civil Wars. A continuing battle of articles between R.H. Tawney and H.R. Trevor-Roper is concerned with the question as to which groups were rising and which declining.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of this contest, it is clear that money was coming to have an increasing importance for all landowners. The disposal of great quantities of Church and Crown land, at prices commensurate with the risk of eventually having to hand it back, emphasised the value of ready money. Speculations in Ireland, 'and in such ventures as buying soldiers' debentures at ridiculously low 3o rates, were as profitable for landowners as for merchants or army officers. Such opportunities, reinforced by unusual demands for taxes, helped landowners to recognise the importance of men like Martin Noel and Thomas Cullum. For their part, many of the moneymen (including

Cullum, and possibly Noel) came to appreciate the economic and social importance of land-ownership. This mutual recognition of interdepend• ence, accelerated by the events of 1640 - 1660, was the mainspring of the oligarchy which grew out of the country-City alliance.

The war and the Parliamentary victory created some conditions 45 which helped to bring landowners and moneymen closer together. As

often in war, there were improvements in transportation both by land

and sea, as may be inferred from the rapid movements of armies and the

large numbers of travellers who made sea journeys. In the Worcester

campaign of 1651 a large Scots army moved from Stirling to the Mersey

between 31 July and 16 August, a distance of some two-hundred miles by 31 the most direct route through the Lake District. In 1659, to defeat Booth's rising, Lambert moved from London to Nantwich (about 150 3Z miles) in ten days, collecting troops on the way. Booth, after his defeat, reached Newport Pagnell in eight days (about 100 miles from 33

the scene of battle, Northwich). Monk's march to the south in

January 1660, a comparatively leisurely movement with many receptions

en route, covered the 160 miles between York and St. Albans in twelve

days. The previous November his commissioners had gone from Edin•

burgh to London, nearly four-hundred miles, in eight days; and had 3S used part of one day for a conference with Lambert at York.

War and the practice of privateering brought some hazards to sea-

travel, but the seaworthiness of ships was apparently good, since few 36 drownings are reported among the many government officials and 37

Royalist gentlemen who made frequent trips to and from Europe. Even the Atlantic Ocean became less hazardous, as increasing numbers of men undertook trips both to and from the West Indies, the New England 3f 3f colonies, and Newfoundland. The growth of coffee-houses and the ¥<>

Bade use of tobacco are evidence of increasing horizons in world trade. In Europe groups of English and Scottish merchants maintained continuous contact with the home country.^'

Domestic travel was also reasonably easy, in spite of some difficulties over passes. The wanderings of Charles Stuart after his

defeat at Worcester suggest that regulations were.not very strictly 4Z applied to well-dressed travellers attended by servants. Many contemporary diaries, including Evelyn's, include accounts of consid• erable journeys completed; and George Fox, in his long pilgrimage, seems to have encountered difficulties of every possible kind except 43 in the matter of getting from one place to another. . Though in bad weather the condition of roads left much room for improvement, some travellers praised "the pleasantesse of the waies and the weather, and 44 the good humour of our coachman and his horses." Though government was never able to satisfy the demand for better highways, many Acts and Ordinances testify to its attempts, including the comprehensive 4s

Ordinance of 31 March 1654• Every improved road or 3hip brought country and City closer together, and compelled even the most rustic landowners to recognise the growing importance of trade and money in - their efforts to keep up with the pack socially. . . Before the Civil Wars began many landowners had taken houses in 4*> or near London. An increasing interest in exotic luxury goods, and difficulties in paying assessments and fines, led many more to invest- igate the possibilities of a younger son in the City. And of course the need for scriveners' and goldsmiths' services continued and in-» 4# creased. Many factors thus operated to bring countrymen in closer contact with the City, and even Royalist gentlemen flocked to London, whence they were from time to time banished by order of the government. ' The dismantling of castles and strongpoints influenced build• ing procedures and furnishings, in the direction of comfort and convenience; so that it was all but impossible for landed proprietors to avoid becoming more sophisticated. It could plausibly be argued that the most important revolution in the seventeenth century was in the way of life of the landed gentry.

The events of the Revolution induced landowners, both Royalist and Parliamentarian, to recognise that status in the changed condition of the world could best be emphasised by the manifestations of wealth.

They were interested in making money because it had become the major means, in some cases the only means, of getting those luxuries — great houses, exotic foods, racing stables, wines, silks and velvets, So plate, theatre boxes, sessions at spas, yachts, seats in Parliament, and the like — which after 1660 became the distinguishing marks of a gentleman. They were not misers interested in money for its own sake, and they continued to look askance at scriveners and brokers whose Si interest in money was simply acquisitive. Men such as Haselitig and i) Sz.

John Ireton> who seemed to grab merely for the sake of grabbing,dis• gusted them; and were regarded as little or no better than the lower classes. Army officers were generally regarded with distaste on the basis of allegations as to their cupidity, it being advanced as a telling point in favour of General Monk "that most of his officers are post-nati to the spoyles both of the church and crown; for there the S3 shoe pincheth most." During the Interregnum closer contact with 48

moneymen, particularly in the City, brought home to gentlemen of all

political colours the realisation that the organisation of the great..

companies had retained much of the trappings of feudalism. The money-

men too had a hierarchy which was interested more in status than in mere possession, and members of this group were prepared to meet land•

owners more than half-way in the matter of political arrangements for

the prolongation of the feudal myth that superiority is inborn.

Selective survivals of feudalism were common to almost all land•

owning gentry, whether they belonged to ancient families or to compar•

atively new ones, and whether they were Parliamentarians or Royalists.

The logical outcome of their attitude, from the political point of

view, was monarchy controlled by its obligations to themselves.- With

a handful of exceptions, among whom Edmund Ludlow and Sir Henry Vane,

were probably the most outstanding, the country members of the Parlia• mentary party were convinced monarchists. When the Revolution seemed

to threaten monarchy as an institution the great majority of them with- S#

drew their support, even in some cases jeopardising their estates.

Extreme opposition, involving loss of estates, was, however, rare.

Some of the Parliamentary gentlemen, though not expelled in Pride's -

Purge, absented themselves from the Rump. Thomas, Lord Fairfax, after

considerable hesitation resigned his office as commander-in-chief and

retired to Nunappleton. There he occupied himself with his library,

his garden and his stud, and enjoyed the social round in the company SS

of his friends and relations. Generally speaking, the practical con•

cern of landowners for the maintenance and improvement of their estates 49

remained constant throughout the Interregnum. They accepted the Pro•

tectorate with.varying degrees of reservation beeause Cromwell did

protect their estates. They defeated persistent efforts by copy•

holders, small yeomen and tenants to combat rack-renting and the spread

of enclosures; in Parliament by a voting majority, and in the field by

police action.

A few of the representatives in Parliament of the great land• owning families were related to Cromwell, as were many of the not- s7

quite-so great. Others were "kinglings". Among the supporters of a

Cromwellian monarchy were Sir Edward Herbert, Charles Viscount Howard,

Sir Richard Onslow, and Sir Francis Russell. It is likely that most

of them resembled Onslow, outwardly a Cromwellian, but one who (as

Cromwell himself once asserted in an angry"'outburst) "had Charles

Stuart in his belly". Even if Cromwell had accepted the title of

king, and had browbeaten the army into submission, he could hardly

have fulfilled the requirements of the landowners. His success as a

general, his active participation in government, and the lingering

suspicion that he had some sympathy towards the religious, economic

and political aspirations of the lower classes all acted against him.

Neither the Barebones assembly nor the major-generals could easily be

forgotten or wholly forgiven.

The Interregnum strengthened and confirmed the political ideal of

the gentry, and led to a much wider recognition of the need for co-op•

eration with those who could assist in attainment of that ideal, but

there was no fundamental change. They still wanted practical control of the government through control of Parliament and the law, and they

still wanted to preserve the feudal outward trappings of monarchy.

George Wither was bitter but close to the mark when hesaid that they wanted a king "set up to hawk, hunt, bowle, and play at Tennis, whilst the Parliament managed the great and publike affairs." Charles I had not fitted this description, nor did Cromwell; but reports from Brussels

gave encouragement to the view that Charles II might.

NOTES

1. For examples see Brunton and Pennington, "Members of the Long Parliament", pp. 58 (Soame), 92 (North), 100-102 (Hobart), 119 (Leman), 126 (Clotworthy), and 156-158 (Holies). 2. See ibid., pp. 72-73 (Barnardiston), 89-90 (Bedingfield), 149-150 (Button), 155-156 (Digby). For Digby's ped• igree see R.T. Petersson, "Sir Kenelm Digby", pp. 17 and 328. 3. See Lipson, "Economic History of England" (1929), i, 119- 120. 4. Savine, article in Eng. Hist. Rev., xvii, 781. (cases of Y. Hamond and W. Blacche). 5. Starkey, "Dialogue" (about 1538) between Cardinal Pole and Thomas Lupset, (Early English Text Society edn.), pp. 89-90. 6. Wither, "Respublica Anglicana" (1883 edn.), p. 8. 7. Hill, "Puritanism and Revolution", pp. 180-181. 8. The said traitors were: sir John Stowelf George Duke of Buckingham, John Earl of Bristol, George Lord Digby* William Earl of Newcastle, sir William Widdringtonf sir Philip Musgrave,R sir Marmaduke Langdale, sir Richard Greenvile, sir Francis Doddington, sir John Culpepperf sir John Byron, Edward Earl of Worcester, sir John Winter, Matthew Boynton, sir Lewis Dives, Thomas Leyison, James Earl of Derby, John Marquess of Winchester, sir Ralph Hoptonf sir George Ratcliff, Francis Lord Cotting- tpn, sir Edward Harbert* sir Edward Hidef Richard Lane, Robert Long, Thomas Tilsley, James Earl of Castlehaven, 51

Philip Cartaret, John Bodvile, Peter Pudsey, James Bunch, sir Edward Nicholas, sir Marmaduke Roydon, John Stowel, Edward Stowel, Marmaduke Langdale, Thomas Earl of Cleveland, Thomas Lord Wentworth^ Charles Townley, sir Percy Harbert, sir George Benion, sir Henry Slings- by,* sir Francis Howard, William Kains, sir Thomas Haggerston, sir Andrew Coggan, John Robinson, sir Rich• ard Tempest, sir Thomas Riddle, sir John Marlow, Edward Grey, David Jenkin, Henry Lord Wilmotf Philip Earl of Chesterfield, John Denham, sir Robert Hatton^ sir Thomas Riddle the younger, sir John Somerset, Roger Bodenham, sir.Henry Beddingfield, Thomas Beckwith, Henry Percyf Christopher Lewkenor^ Rowland Aire, John Gifford, James Duke of Hamilton, William Hamilton, John Earl of Lauderdale, sir Arthur Aston, and Cutbert Morley. ("Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum", ii, 520-521). It is clear that this first list dealt mainly with real "malignants." The 15 marked had been Royalist M.P.'s., including eight county members. 9. Firth and Rait, "Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum", ii, 520-545 (16 July 1651), 591-598 (4 August 1652), and 623-652 (18 November 1652). For an illuminating explanation of "doubling", see Commons Journals, v, 146-147* 10. Hill, as note 7, p. 180, cites tables compiled by S.I. Arkhangelsky in "Agrarnoye Zakonodatelstvo Velikoy Angliyskoy Revolyutsii", (Moscow-Leningrad, 1935 and 1940). 11. Thirsk, "Sales of Royalist Land During the Interregnum", Economic History Review, 2nd series, v, 192-195. Hardatre, "Royalists During the Puritan Revolution", pp. 63 and 66 (cites C.S.P. Domestic 1648-1649, p.48). 12. Hill, as note 7, pp. 180-181. Tatham, "Sale of Episcopal Lands, etc.", English Histor• ical Review, xxiii (1908), 101-102. 13. Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate", ii, 64-65. Ashley, "John Wildman", pp. 79-81. 14. Trevelyan, "English Social History", p. 244. 15,. John Evelyn, Diary, 17 August 1654. 16. Brunton and Pennington, p. 16. 17. Firth, "Royalists Under the Protectorate", English His• torical Review, Iii (1937), 639-640. (Firth's refer• ence to James Wenlock is apparently an error, unless two Wenlocks presented Humble Declarations to Charles II. See Hardajfcre, as note 11, pp. 33, 65, 83, 106, 152). 18. Thirsk, as note 11, p. 205. See also Chesney, "Trans• ference of Lands, etc.", Transactions Royal Historical Society, 4th series, xv (1932), 209-210. 52-

19. Brunton and Pennington, p. 184. 20. See Appendix 3 of this thesis. 21. Clarendon, Life (edn. of 1759), i. 135-136. 22. Gardiner, "History of Great Civil War", ii, 59. (cites . S.P.Dom., diii, 56, ix). 23. H.M.C., 13th Report, Appendix, Part 1 (Portland MSS),p.87. 24. Firth and Rait, as note 9, ii, 1043 and 1057. Commons Journals, vii, 209 and 225. 25. North, "Lives of the Norths", (6d. Jessop), i, 31. 26. ed. F. Bamford, "A Royalist's Notebook", p. 247. (quoted by Hill, as note 7, pp. 168-169). 27. H.M.C., 15th Report, Appendix, Part 7 (Somerset MSS.), p. 87. The inhabitants of Maiden Bradley, Wilts., complained that Edward Seymour was squeezing them "for satisfaction of the first payment of his composition with the Parliament." 28. See "Economic History Review", xi (1941) and 2nd series vii (1954) for Tawneyj supplement to Ec. H. R. (1953) and "Encounter", no. 77 (I960) for Trevor-Rbper. 29. See Chapter 1 of this thesis. 30. Firth "Last Tears of the Protectorate", ii, 141. Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate",, i, 85. 31. Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate", ii, 34-36. 32. Clarke Papers, iv, 38. Davies, "Restoration of Charles II",pl39. 33. »Davies, as note 32,-p. 140. Clarke Papers, iv, 47. 34. Corbett, "Monk", pp. 154-157. 35. Clarke Papers, iv, 96-99 and 109-110. . Whitelock, "Memorials", iv, 374. 36. e.g. Buistrode IVhitelock, George Downing, William Jephson. 37. e.g. Sir Ralph Verney, John Mordaunt, the Duke of Ormonde. 38. Clowes, "Royal Navy", ii. 203. • • Gorges, "Story of a Family, etc.", p. 131. 39. Ellis, "Penny Universities", pp. 18-42. 40. Evelyn's Diary, 22 October 1658. - 41.. "Scots in-Poland" (Scottish Historical Soc, 1915), pp. 12-19. -Whitelock, iv. 119. The Thurloe Papers contain many letters from overseas merchants and agents. 42.. ed. Hughes, "Boscobel Tracts", pp. 160 et seq., and 261. 43..Parkes, "Travel in England in the 17th Century", pp. 272- 275. 44. Verney, Memoirs, iii, 56. (June 1653). 45. Firth and Rait, as note 9, ii, 86I-869. See also ibid, iii, 24 and 65. 46. Some examples are given by Pearl, "London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution", pp. 41-42. 47. Verney, Memoirs, iii, 366. . Clarendon, History, XV, 88. (Macray, vi, 57). 48. Richards, "Early History of Banking, etc.", pp. 15-18 and 37-39. 49. Firth and Rait, as note 9, ii, 349-354, 503 and 1304-1305. 50. Williamson, "The English Channel", pp. 248-249. 51. "an absurd, bold man, brought up by Mr. Pimm": Clarendon, History, III, 128.(Macray, i, 300). 52. "one of their (the army's) confidents": Ludlow, ii, 121. 53. John Barwick to Sir Edward Hyde: Thurloe, vii, 861. (19. March 1659). 54. Denzil Holies, for example, was, impeached and his estates were sequestered. (D.N.B., ix, 1058). 55. Markham, "Life of the Great Lord Fairfax", pp. 353-368. 56. James/ "Social Policy, etc", pp. 117-128. Ashley, "John Wildman", pp. 79-81. Firth and Rait, "Acts and Ordinances, etc.", ii, 899-902. Musgrave, "A True Representation, etc.", cited by Davies, "Early Stuarts, 1603-1660", p. 281. 57. See Weyman, "Oliver Cromwell's Kinsfolk", in English Hist. Rev. vi (1891), 48-60. 58. Vulliamy, "The Onslow Family, 1528-1874", p. 18. 59. Wither, "Respublica Anglicana", p. 42. 54

CHAPTER 4

MONEY

Each successive government during the Interregnum tottered to

destruction as it failed to settle its money problems, which always

included the arrears of pay of the armed forces. Till about 1654 the

Commonwealth was kept fairly solvent by such devices as doubling and / the distribution of debentures against conquered and confiscated lands.

After 1654 the supply of land was never sufficient to come near meeting the demand. Revolts and conspiracies occasionally made it possible to add a few names to lists of delinquents and malignants, but the pro•

ceeds were severely limited by the fact that "men of condition" refused to get seriously involved. After f/orcester only two plots reached the stage of.armed resistance in England, and only one during Cromwell's lifetime; and this one, Penruddock's rising, was a pathetic farce fought mainly bjf drunks and small farmers.

The financial plight of government became ever more serious.

Within two weeks of the dissolution of Cromwell's second Parliament,

Henry Cromwell wrote from Ireland to Secretary Thurloe: "I believe your streights are great, and will be greater, unless the Lord help; If- but really ours are not tollerable...." His letter was one of many contained in the Thurloe Papers which indicate that the situation in all three kingdoms was desperate, and becoming more so.

A satisfactory solution to the complicated problem depended on two factors, both of which were known in 1658. One was the reduction of expenditure by the central government, the other an extension of 55

credit. The first was incompatible with the continued existence of a large armyj the other could hardly be effectively used unless and until it had the firm support of investors. Gnceethe central government had begun to build up,debts (for whatever reasons), it could solve its pro• blems only by the use of force or by convincing major taxpayers that its interests were theirs.

The period of the Interregnum did not produce a satisfactory sol• ution to the financial problems of government, mainly because the rich in both country and City resisted paying for an army which (at any rate while Cromwell was in command) seemed to provide a constant threat of military dictatorship in the interest of the lower classes. It now seems obvious that Cromwell's concern for the welfare of the lower classes was almost entirely confined to words, yet it is also not hard to understand how many of his contemporaries were misled as to his in• tentions. From time to time he had favoured men like Harrison and

Lambert, who were evidently prepared to countenance a redistribution of wealth, supported by the power of the army.

While Cromwell prevented revolutionary change in the number and quality of direct taxpayers, and while many actual taxpayers resisted payment except on terms which Cromwell would not accept, a condition of stalemate existed. There could be no satisfactory solution to the government's financial problems. There were, however, significant developments in general economic theory and practice, in the attitude of the privileged classes towards money, and in their understanding of its use. In spite of.evidence proving some use of credit notes and bills of exchange, it is clear that in the l640fs men commonly identified money with specie or bullion. Many examples of this are given in

Ruding's "Annals of the Coinage", an interesting work by a writer whose economic viewpoint was much closer to the seventeenth century than is a. 6 that of post-industrilisation authors. It is clear that individuals and corporations stored plate not so much for its beauty (except in a few instances) as with a view to its ultimate conversion into corn.

Samuel Butler ascribed the military successes of the "saints" to the fact that they coined "piss-pots, bowls and flaggons / Int1 officers 7 of horse and dragoons." When the Scottish treaty was paid off in g

1647 actual coin had to be carried to the north in thirty-six carts.

When Henry Ireton compared land and money during the Putney Debates, he apparently thought of money as precious metal. He also put in succinct form one of the main grounds for landowners1 distrust of moneymen: "If (aiman) hath mony, his monie is as good in another place as heerej hee hath nothing that doth locally fixe him to this Q

Kingedome." The ownership of land might be concealed, and often wasj but land itself could not, like bullion, be hidden or sent abroad.

By 1658 there had been a revolutionary change of outlook which had begun to permeate the body of magnates throughout the country, though the process was not yet complete. William Potter, in his "Key of Wealth" (1650) advocated quickening "the revolution of money and to credit" by the proliferation of promissory notes. Henry Robinson, in "Certain Proposals" (1652), wrote: "...above all other Engines or 57: Instruments, the greatest pre-eminence is due unto a Banck....it is // the Elixir or Philosophers Stone...." Among other theorists who

/Z contributed to the lively discussion were John Benbrigge, Sir ; a '¥ Balthazar Gerber, and. Samuel Lambe. The last referred, specifically to "imaginary money."

Many goldsmiths in London founded, banks where they took deposits, made loans, and arranged investments. Following the lead of Edward

Backwell, they issued goldsmiths' notes which were in effect&paper currency, and so inaugurated the deliberate inflation which later was to draw out the satirical criticism of Alexander Pope:

"Blest paper-creditI last and best supply 1 That lends Corruption lighter wings to fly. I .. •»• Pregnant with thousands flits the Scrap unseen, And silent sells a King, or buys a Queen." '7

Though a high proportion of the depositors in such banks were City men, there were also some important provincial customers. When Sir

Robert Viner was embarrassed by the Stop of the Exchequer in 1672, two of his most important creditors were the Rt. Hon. Henry Sidney and Dr.

Samuel Parker (Archdeacon of Canterbury).

During the Interregnum conditions favoured the settlement of divergent interests as between moneylenders and merchants. Some idea of the gulf that once divided these groups may be gathered from char• acters created by Thomas Dekker, whose sympathetic treatment of the merchant Lord Mayor, Simon Eyre, ^contrasts vividly with his scathing zo condemnation of brokers and moneymongers. Even before the Civil Wars, however, the commonly-accepted definition of usury had been modified so as to include only the lending of money at extortionate rates of

Zl interest; and ideas about what was permissible became very elastic 22,

in the grab for debentures and government contracts. Though penny- pinching continued out of favour among the longer-established rich, the criterion for social acceptance was modified to include even moneylenders, so long as they emulated Simon Eyre in splashing rather Z3 than hoarding. Men like Baekwell and Thomas Cullum successfully combined moneylending with commercial operations, and ultimately with landed proprietorship. Moneymen of all kinds drew together in such 24 ventures as tax-farming an d the hawking of tokens, zs which painlessly removed from the pockets of the poor such few pence as might have reached there.

The growth of permanent joint-stock companies in connection with long-haul trade helped to close the gap between adventuring and usury which, because of the persistence of medieval tradition, lingered in z£> the merchant mind. Better still, for country-City relations, the companies brought in landowners and gave them a permanent and direct 27 interest in the well-being of trade. Families like the Herberts ' and the Barnardistons were early sponsors of the East India trade, and paved the way for such men as Arthur Annesley, Denzil Holies, Anthony zo

Ashley Cooper, and William Morrice. The companies involved in

American colonisation were particularly attractive to Parliamentarian landowners, whose plans were based partly upon economic grounds and 3o . partly upon religious scruples. (In cases of serious conflict, economic grounds came first. Tobacco was a major crop, though some 59 adventurers expressed strong opposition to "the noxious weed,").

London's importance as a financial entrepot increased greatly as a result of the increasing influence of money, as the established magnates skilfully adapted to a changing commercial pattern. As the relative importance of long-haul trade was stimulated by colonisation and an increasing demand for exotic luxuries, the western outports increased their relative status as centres of trade, while the eastern outports declined. There was, however, a considerable increase in the

32> actual volume of coastal trade between London and the eastern outports, 33 which was based largely on coal and corn. At the same time London 34 trade with southern and western ports also increased^ and the City financiers retained control of the long-haul trade by retaining administrative and financial control of the trading and colonising 35 companies. Ships and colonists might leave from Plymouth or Bristol. Tobacco and sugar might pour into Bristol 3t> and Liverpool,37' and in time of trouble (as in 1665) "several ingenious men" might emigrate from London to Liverpool. The headquarters of the great companies remained in London, or (as in the case of the Merchant Adventurers) 3

The outports and inland boroughs had local moneymen who traded in goods, allowed credit, and in many cases lent money at interest. In places at great distances from London their function as local bankers and financiers was of particularly great importance. A provincial magnate who as early as the sixteenth century profitably combined banking with a law practice was George Hutcheson of Glasgow; and 60

after the Restoration it was still possible for the Smiths of Notting-

ham to become bankers. Generally, however, moneymen in the smaller

centres were entrepreneurs, providing goods for the export trades and

helping to maintain the circulation of money between London and the

provinces. Many of them dealt mainly or entirely in cloth, and were

dependent on London financiers for supplies of cash. The moneymen

who aspired to high importance in their field migrated to the City, as #3 #4. did Thomas Atkins from Norwich and Edward Colston from Bristol.

The great moneymen of the City had numerous business connections

through whom they exercised influence in the larger provincial boroughs.

One feature of the lower-class bid for power, during, the Interregnum,

was a more or less concerted attack on these local magnates. At New-

caatle-on-Tyne, for example, small colliery operators tried persist-

ently to limit the influence of the hostmen. On the Welsh border

similar efforts were made against the Shrewsbury Drapers' Company.

In the commercial and financial struggle, as in the agricultural, the

lower classes were defeated; but not without having come so close to

victory as to scare their superiors into solidarity.

Landowners dreaded democracy because it threatened their privi•

leged status by the probable redistribution of their estates. Mer•

chants and financiers had the same fear, and for reasons which were

basically the same. The establishment of limited Parliamentary

government was essential to landowners, for whom a selective Parliament

*as the.traditional instrument for asserting and maintaining their

superiority. It was just as essential to moneymen, many of whom had 61 invested heavily in a Parliamentary victory,/ and would lose both status and money if Parliament should be overthrown or controlled by the poor. From the Leveller agitation in 1647 to the Instrument of

Government in late 1653 the threat of democracy intermittently reached heights of severity. During these dangerous times moneymen were the first to recognise Cromwell's importance and potential value.

The philosopher Hobbes characterised the nature of Cromwell's relationship with the City rich in a famous dictum: "The Obligation of

Subjects to the Soveraign, is understood to last as long, and no St longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them."

The power which Cromwell wielded was his control of the armed forces, a rather precarious control based partly on his success as a general, partly on his emotional insight into the minds of common soldiers, partly (and increasingly) on the promotion to high rank of his numer• ous relations. All three bases were assuredly distasteful to the establishment,' but so -long as his power was used to protect property and advance trade the situation was bearable. In the City Cromwell was periodically wined and dined by groups of moneymen, who provided S/ Sg, him with gifts of plate ..and financed his military adventures m. return for the organisation of convoys at sea and the prevention of pillage on land. The demand for protection was by no means confined to the City, though there is evidence that those who paid most promptly S3 usually got the best service.

This accommodation between Cromwell and some of the most influen• tial groups of moneymen was far from a love-match. The more 62

recalcitrant rich (including Richard. Brown) refused, him any co•

operation at all. Only Robert Tichborne and. John Ireton became suffi•

ciently involved with him to suffer severe penalties at the Restoration.

Both had committed the same crime as Haselrig, that of grabbing too

greedily and too openly. Cromwell on his part interfered unduly with

the organization of the Common Council, and achieved a temporary SUC• KS'

cess in limiting the power of the Court of Aldermen. He had, how•

ever, made some important friends — Edward Backwell, Thomas Viner,

Martin Noel were three outstanding examples — and had shown by his

re-establishment of communications with Sir Thomas Adams and Sir John

Langham that a permanent understanding might be possible.

Merchants and financiers sat in the Long Parliament and in all

Parliaments of the Interregnum. They frequently represented seaports

and market-towns. London had from four to s*x members, and always had some of its citizens elected for other constituencies. In the

Long Parliament Rowland Wilson, Francis Allen, Thomas Atkins, Richard

Brown, and Gregory Clement were among the Londoners thus elected; and

in I656 Martin Noel, Thomas Clarges and John Fowke were elected in provincial or Scottish/Irish constituencies. ^ The list of members for

I656, as printed in the Old Parliamentary History, specifically men•

tions Cambridge, Plymouth, Totnes, Durham, Nottingham, and York as 60 having elected aldermen or merchants; and other members (including

Robert Aldworth of Bristol) were also moneymen. Members for the City

in I656 were Thomas Foot, Christopher Pack, Thomas Adams, Richard 6/ Brown, Theophilus Biddulph, and a John Jones. 63

By the middle of the seventeenth century, moreover, some at least of the country families had become so immersed in commerce that estate management was for them a secondary (though still important) consider- 6Z ation. Some City aldermen had obtained a footing in the country by generous marriage contracts. According to Sir James Harrington: "An alderman makes not his daughter a countess till he has given her

20,000." Even when such conversions and alliances are taken into account, however, it is clear that in Parliaments of this period the moneyed magnates were under-represented in relation to their wealth and to the numbers of the lower classes whom they exploited. Their representatives were spokesmen who exerted much influence, but could never command a voting majority for any proposition which offended most of the landowners.

By 1658 the moneymen had achieved many of the aims which had underpinned their strong support of the Parliamentary party. The movement of bullion was comparatively easy. The royal patents of monopoly had been effectively destroyed, and interlopers much weak• ened. The government had provided vigorous, if not always well-dir• ected, protection against foreign competition. An aggressive naval 6£ policy had helped to open up new trades and territories. The inter• ests of the moneymen had even forced a war against the Dutch, in spite 66 of Cromwell's ideas about a Protestant alliance. In concert with the landowners, moneymen had largely won the struggle to keep wages down and prices up.

On the other hand the unreasonable weight of customs and excise 64 taxes had borne heavily on trade, had caused some dangerous rioting, and had in the end made it difficult or impossible to extract a profit from farming the taxes. 7 The government's increasing burden of debt made each successive venture more risky. The failure of Crom• well's conquests to inaugurate an immediate era of commercial prosperity, exemplified by the costly adventure in Jamaica, brought home to landowners the connection between trade and their own prosperity. One of Anthony Ashley Cooper's most important tasks after the Restoration was to induce settlers to go to the Indies in spite of the terrible 57 mortality rate for which the islands had become notorious. In 1659 petitions from the City against the deadness of trade were supported by similar complaints from Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincoln, Shropshire, rz

Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Devon, Kent, Warwickshire, and Cheshire.

The Interregnum had shown that moneymen had important contribu• tions to offer in the basic problems of restraining arbitrary acts by the government, and of keeping the lower classes subservient. By with• holding or concealing supplies of specie they could control any govern• ment which adhered to conventional methods of taxation and expenditure, and could at the same time exercise an influence over prices which brought profit to themselves and depression to the poor. Accusations 73 of deliberate hoarding were made in 1639 and 1667, and could doubt• less have been substantiated in the period 1658-1660, had there been less understanding between country and City groups. For, in spite of assertions that bankruptcies were rampant and ready money almost un- obtainable, large sums could be raised for approved purposes — 65

^14,000 to pay Lambert's troops in August 1659, and over^100,000 to welcome Charles's return in 1660. If there had been a real scarcity of money, it would surely have been reflected in low wages and low prices, but in fact both wages and prices remained high. The years

1658 to 1662 were disastrous for wage-earners not because actual wages yy fell, but because prices (especially of wheat) rose steeply.

The possibility of a Stuart restoration was less attractive to moneymen than to landowners because their political situation was, on the whole, harder to defend. They could point to few of their number who had fought on behalf of Charles I. They had invested large sums yr in public lands, as well as through private purchases. An influential

City group, including Sir Thomas Viner and Sir Christopher Pack, had given strong support to Cromwell j and some were deeply involved in his policy of aggression overseas. On the other hand, many of them also io had a substantial investment in Parliament, and could not view with equanimity any serious breach in the continuity of that institution.

A Cromwellian monarchy, severely limited by Parliament, might have saved both lands and loans for the Pack-Viner group in the City and tl for similar investors in the provinces. For prosperity to continue, however, the cost of government would need to be drastically reduced; and this meant, in effect, aniadvantagedus settlement with the Spanish and demobilisation of the army. A Royalist invasion, supported by

Spanish troops, was to be avoided at all costs, since it would rule out both settlement and demobilisation. A carefully-managed domestic coup might have been more effective, but might if mismanaged let loose 66 the ambitions of the lower classes. In an extremely delicate and com• plicated situation most of the moneyed magnates agreed with Cromwell on at least one point — "misrule is better than no rule; and an ill fl

Government, a bad one, is better than none!" The dissolution of 1658 was unfortunate but not yet disastrous. Moneymen had well-stocked larders and, in spite of depression, well-"larded" stockings. They could afford to wait.

NOTES

1. Chesney, "Transference of Lands, etc.", in Transactions of Royal Historical Society, 4th series, xv, 206-207. 2. Underdown, "Royalist Conspiracy in England", p. 157 (and passim). 3. Underdown, op. cit., pp. 127-158. 4. Thurloe, vi, 810. 5. Thomas Harrison, a Fifth Monarchist, played a prominent role in the army and in the Barebones Parliament. John Lambert was long regarded as Cromwell's "understudy." (See D.N.B., ix, 41-44 and xi, 452-459, also Gardiner's "Commonwealth and Protectorate", index,iv, 309 and 317- 318). 6. Ruding, "Annals of the Coinage of Britain" (2nd edn., 1819) iii, 156-311. For a specific example, see p. 209. 7. Butler, "Hudibras", part 1, canto 2, lines 561-576. 8. Belloc, "Charles the First", p. 312. 9. Firth and Rait, "Acts and Ordinances, etc.", i, 412, 430 and 44Sj ii, 895 and 1178. 10. Potter, "Key of Wealth", as cited by Richards, "Early History of Banking", pp. 96-97. See also Horsefield, "British Monetary Experiments", p. 94. 11. Robinson, "Certain Proposals, etc.", extracts printed in Shaw's "Writers on English Monetary History, 1626-1730", pp. 75-82. 12. Horsefield, as note 10,.p. 279. Richards, as note 10, p. 95. 13. Horsefield, as note 10, p. 279. Richards, as note 10, pp. 95-96. 14. Horsefield, as note 10, p. 279. Richards, as note 10, pp. 98-99* 15. Richards, as note 10, p. 24 et seq. 16. D.N.B., i, 793-795. See also Appendix 3 of this thesis. 17. '.*Pope, Epistle to Allen Lord Bathurst, lines 39-48. (in "Moral Essays"). 18. Richards, as note 1G, pp. 83-84. Henry Sidney was the brother (and political enemy) of Algernon Sidney. See Ewald, "Life and Times of Alger• non Sidney", ii, 139-140. Dr. Samuel Parker's "History of his own Time" is mentioned in Chapter 8 of this thesis. A note in the 1883.edition of Burnet's History says that Parker "was a despicable man ... he would not let probity or conscience be in the way of worldly pre• ferment." (op. cit. p. 176). 19. Dekker, "Shoemakers* Holiday", passim. 20. Dekker, "Gull's Hornbook", (1904 edn.), p. 21. Dekker, "English Villanies", as cited by Richards (as note 10), pp. 17-18. 21. Cunningham, "Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times", (1912), Part 1, p. 154. Cunningham cites the Act of 1624. 22. Rushworth, vi (vol. 4, pt. 1), 569. ("Seventhly, etc.'!). Milton, "Character of the Long Parliament", in "Works", (Columbia edn., 1938), xviii, 248-250. 23. See Appendix.3 of this.thesis. 24. Firth and Rait, as note 9, ii, 1268-1269. Commons Journals, vii, 577. It is interesting to note that members of the Parliamentary Committee were forbidden to become farmers or partners, "directly or indirectly"; but the question "That a Proviso, touching the East-India Company, shall be read", was defeated without a division. 25. Thornbury, "Old and New London", i, 514. 26. See Chapter 5 of this thesis. 27. Court Minutes, East India Co., iv, 27. Brunton and Pennington, p. 26 etc. 28. Court Minutes, East India Co., iv, 91 and 340 etc. Brunton and Pennington, pp. 69-74. 29. Court Minutes, East India Co., vi, 169 etc. 3Q.^Newton, "Colonising Activities of English Puritans", p. I47. (See ibid. p. 59 for names of shareholders in the Providence Co.). 31. Newton, op. cit., p. 147 (citing "Archaeologia Americana", 111,82). 32. Willan, "English Coasting Trade", pp. 203-207. 33. ibid., pp. lil-145. 34. ibid., pp. 203-207 and 146-188. 35. ed. McGrath, "Merchants and Merchandise in Seventeenth Century Bristol", pp. 280-281. and xx. 36. Edwards, "Bristol", p. 25. McGrath, op. cit., p. xxi. 37. Baines, "History of Liverpool", p.. 327. 38. ibid., p. 323. 68

39• Heaton, "Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries" pp. 165-167. 40. Eyre-Todd, "History of Glasgow", ii, 236-237 and front• ispiece. 41. Richards, as note 10, p. 41 (and footnote). 42. Lipson, "Woollen and Worsted Industries", p. 53. 43. Brunton and Pennington, p. 60 . Pearl , 11 London, 44. McGrath, as note 35, PP. xxii and 131. 45. Nef, "Rise of British Coal Industry", ii, 130-133. 46. Mendenhall, "Shrewsbury Drapers, etc.", pp. 207^-209 and 221. 47. For striking evidence as to how heavy this investment was, see Commons Journals, viii, 237-244. 48. "The Case of the Annie Truly Stated, etc." was published 15 October 1647. It is printed in Haller, "Leveller Tracts, 1647-1653", pp. 64-87. 49. Gardiner, "Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolu• tion", pp..405-417. 50. Hobbes, "Leviathan", Chapter 21. 51. Sharpe, "London and the Kingdom", ii, 312-313 and 347-348. 52. Richards, as note 10, pp. 38 and 210. 53. Willan, as note 32, pp. 26-27 (and sources there cited). Heaton, as note 39, p. 16?, quotes from the correspondence of Adam Baines, M.P. for Leeds. (See Appendix 1). 54. Yule, "Independents in the Civil War", p. 121. Ramsey, "Henry Ireton", pp. 47 and 206. 55. Sharpe, as note 51, ii, 303-309, 334-338 and 350-352. 56. Pearl, as note 43* pp. 292-293 and 321-323. 57. e.g. Robert Ellison, member for Newcastle-on-Tyne in the Long Parliament and in 1660, was Sheriff in 1644. (Bourne, "History of Newcastle, etc." (1736), p. 232.). Bristol throughout the seventeenth century always elected at least one merchant, and sometimes two. (McGrath, as note 35, p. xxvi;. 58. Brunton and Pennington, pp. 59-60. 59. Old Parliamentary History, xxi, 14,20 and 21. 60. O.P.H., xxi, 3-23. 61. O.P.H., xxi, 10. The John Jones elected apparently was not the Protector's brother-in-law — he was returned for the county of Merioneth. 62. Brunton and Pennington offer as examples Sir John Melton, of Newcastle-onTyne; the Barnardistons, of Suffolk; and the Moores, of Liverpool. ("Members of the Long Parl• iament", p. 5). 63. Harrington, "Oceana" (edn. 1901), p. 271. 64. The export of bullion was prohibited by Act of Parliament, 23 Sept. 1648. Thereafter government policy concen• trated on the encouragement of import. (See Firth and Rait, as note 9, iii, 21). The schemes of Thomas Violet, would-be controller of exports of bullion, had no success. (Shaw, as note 11, pp. 83-85j and D.N.B., xx_, 65. Clowes, "Royal Navy", ii, 94-116. 66. Buchan, '.'Oliver Cromwell", pp. 413-414. 67. See Chapter 8 of this thesis. 68. Thurloe, vii, 240-242. 69. Burton, iv, 394-397 and 416-420. 70. Carlyle, "Letters and. Speeches, etc", ii, 475-47B. 71. L.F. Brown, "First Earl of Shaftesbury", pp. 133-134. 72. James, "Social Policy, etc.", pp. 75-76. 73. Pearl, as note 43, p. 96 (cites B.M. Add MSS.) Brown, as note 71, p. 144 (sources given on p. 321). 74. Burton, iv, 365 and 385-386. 75* Commons Journals, vii, 764. ibid., viii, 10. 76. Rogers, "History of Agruculture and Prices, etc.", v, 272-273, 402-403, 474, 563, 668-669, 827 etc. . Beveridge, "Prices and Wages in England", i, 708-709. (The commodity which suffered an outstanding drop in price was hops; and this might have been connected with brewers* refusal to brew because of the excise on beer). 77. Rogers, op. cit., v, 212-216. 78. Chesney, as note 1, pp. 194-207. "Mystery of the Good Old Cause", printed in Hansard's . Parliamentary History (1808), iii, 1591-1612. 79. Martin Noel, for example, was one of many who had inter• ests in the Tfest Indies. Others, including Edward Back- well, were victualling military and naval forces. (See Appendix 3 of this thesis). 80. See note 47. 81. As for example, Sir William Brereton and Sir William Allanson. (See Brunton and Pennington, pp. 63aand 66; "Mystery of the Good Old Cause", as note 78, pp. 1592- 1594). 82. Carlyle, as note 70, iii, 175. CHAPTER 5 70

LONDON

"The city of London", said..Clarendon, "had too great a hand in driving the King from thence not to appear equally zealous for his return thither." Without putting it too bluntly, he clearly inferred that the City's demonstration of joy at the Restoration was based on expediency rather than on the triumph of a principle. In fact the citizens of London, rich and poor, played a major role in the actual work of restoration the rich with money and the poor with alcoholic Z cheers. The influence of the City was, however, much more profound than Clarendon's bald statement would imply. The apparent change of heart to which he drew attention had much to do with the outcome of a ferocious struggle for power within the City itself. The success of the established rich in that contest set the stage for their success throughout the nation.

London's geographical and historical background enhanced its importance as an entrepot of both trade and finance. It was about equidistant from the outports of Newcastle in the north-east and Ply• mouth in the south-west. It was on deep tidal water, but many miles inland, and therefore better protected than most seaports against sur• prise attack by enemy naval forces. By seventeenth-century standards it was easily accessible by land from the main cloth-producing areas of Wessex and East Anglia. It was at the doorstep of Parliament. It was the site of the Mint and of the major law-courts, and it was the home of the Goldsmith' Company.

The traditional situation of the Mint in London became a matter of 71 great importance in the seventeenth century. With the growth of long- haul trades to the East Indies, Africa and the plantations, there had. 3 to be a shift of emphasis to the west-coast ports. The import and distribution of wines, spices, exotic beverages, fine fabrics, sugar, and tobacco gave new importance to Bristol and Liverpool; yet London companies virtually controlled these trades. Not only the great livery companies, but also the most important of the joint-stock companies set up their headquarters in the City and obtained much of their capital there. The Guinea Company, the East India Company, and the various colonisation groups were increased (or replaced) after the 7 2

Restoration by the Royal Africa Company and the Hudson's Bay Company*

One of the reasons why the City was able to profit so greatly from a turn of events which appeared to favour the western outports was its retention of financial control through the Mint and the goldsmiths.

Credit schemes such as goldsmiths' notes depended on a reserve of treasure, which meant in effect a stock of bullion. This in turn, except in times when a war against Spain led to the capture of booty, had to be maintained and increased almost entirely as a result of overseas trade. There was a direct connection which enabled dealers in money to exert a strong influence over patterns of trade. So long as Cromwell kept order and had harmonious relations with City magnates,

London could hope to retain its supremacy as a financial and commer• cial entrepot, though there were many problems to be faced.

One such problem was the rivalry of merchants in the outports, particularly Bristol. The solution attempted in this case was alliance, 72 occasionally varied by attempts at monopoly. During the reign of Charles I, tobacco and soap monopolies strucK directly at Bristol; yet about the same time two prominent Bristol merchants, James Oliver and Richard Wickham were described in their wills as servants of the. East India Company.^ In 1650 the Company offered shares in its joint- stock to thirteen seaport towns, including Bristol, but apparently received no subscriptions. London merchants made private arrangements IZ /3 with Bristol men, and sometimes entered into partnership with them. The East India Company arranged with Bristol men to meet and escort the homecoming fleet in 1652; and in 1657 it was agreed that Bristol, Plymouth, Dartmouth and Hull should be recognised as "ports for enter- /s ing and shipping of foreign coin and bullion." Between 1600 and 1630 six merchant apprentices (out of a total of 377 entered in the Bristol Apprentice Books) were listed as having fathers resident in London, or Westminster. Bristol magnates who became prominent City men included Edward Colston and Jonathan Blackwell. Long after the Restoration, whepanyn, slave-tradin there were occasionag was officialll complainty monopolises about dBril«ft by the& Royainterlopersl Africa; buComt - OA " Edward Colston,was a member of the Company. The problem of the west• ern outports was thus largely solved by the City retaining monopoly control of long-haul trade, while admitting influential western mer• chants to a share of the profits. The eastern outports were less dangerous as potential rivals.

• T Zo Some overseas trade continued out of Newcastle, Hull, and other ports.

In 1671 the corporation of Yarmouth elegantly entertained Charles II and the Duke of York at a cost of one thousand pounds. "They present• ed the king with four golden herrings and a chain, value two hundred Zl and fifty pounds." At that time, however, the town was apparently heavily in debt and unable to raise money for the repair of its haven 22 25 and piers. The decline of the Cinque Ports and of such places as 24

Lowestoft and King's Lynn was hastened if not caused by the develop• ment of long-haul trade. Such foreign trade as continued was largely under the jurisdiction of such companies as the Eastland Merchants and zs

Merchant Adventurers, which were in practice controlled by City mag• nates. For many eastern outports the coastal trade became of major 26 importance, and much of this too was with London. Another problem concerned interlopers in the City itself, among 27 ZT them such men as Thomas Andrews and Maurice Thompson. The story of

Thompson's relations with the East India Company is a complicated one, and reveals the tensions within the company. In 1654, after having been concerned with both the company and its rivals — the Endymion

Porter-William Courteen group — Thompson led a revolt of merchants who wanted to trade individually on their own accounts.^ For almost 3o three years the trade was more or less open, but the problem was solved in 1657 by making Maurice Thompson Governor of the newly-chartered 31 company. It is possibly significant that at the same time Martin - Noel was first elected a "committee." Another of Thompson's support- 3z ers was Moses Goodyear, who had close business connections with the 33

Bristol merchant John Stone. This example of intercommunication sug• gests the complexity of the City's financial empire. The solution of 74 the interloper problem by admitting the strongest to partnership gave rise to an interesting aftermath in 1660, when Thomas Skinner's case proved that interloping was not always thus rewarded.

There was some inter-company strife. The great livery companies, with their feudal traditions, lagged behind the overseas trading ccm- 3S panies in opposition to such impositions as tonnage and poundage. Members of the older companies often opposed the commercial ambitions 3*> of men like the Earl of Warwick and Lord Saye and Sele. The East

India Company was often criticised because it exported bullion and be• cause its ships in eastern waters did not contribute much to naval de• fence; also because the East India trade used capital that might have been used in developing domestic resourcesj while exercising little beneficial effect as a direct outlet for English industrial products.

Some alleged that the amounts of bullion exported were in excess of 3f those officially sanctioned, and the company itself was in this re• spect apparently cheated by some of its employees. "Much dispute arises concerning Mr. Knipe....and information is given that he took © out a great sum of gold as private trade and that the trade in coral on the Malabar Coast, which he was sent out chiefly to prosecute, has 3CJ since lessened."

Strife among individual livery companies may be sensed in an assertion made by a member of the grand committee on excise in January 1657: "The merchants have been oppressed , the vintners have got the lf-o riches." A list of Lord Mayors between 1647 — when Sir John Warner was elected under duress — to 1661 shows five Grocers, two Skinners, 75 43 44 one Mercer, one Draper, one Goldsmith, one Merchant Tailor (who was, #4> 47 42 however, disqualified), one Haberdasher, one Clothworker, and two 44 members of minor companies. The Draper, the Goldsmith and the Cloth- worker, and perhaps the Haberdasher, were supporters of the Cromwell regime. The Grocers and possibly the Skinners were over-represented in relation to their comparative status; and it is interesting to note So that they were leaders in the grab for Irish lands. They also hast• ened to get right with the new regime at the Restoration, when the

Grocers extended membership to Charles II, General Monk, the Duke of Si York, and Heneage Finch. The Skinners, on 4 April 1660, "nobly enter- SZ. .53 tained" General Monk (as did most of the other great companies; and set up the king's arms in their Hall in place of the arms of fj&rlia-

S4 SS ment. They admitted Anthony Ashley Cooper to membership; and he be• came a close friend of the magnate Sir Thomas Pilkington, a Skinner who subsequently played an important part in the strife prece^ding the Quo Warranto of 1682.

Though disagreements among the various companies and within them were not uncommon, much of the action in such disputes was in the nat• ure of sparring. The contests sometimes had an appearance of rough• ness, but rarely was there any intention to deliver a knock-out blow.

Even the East India Company, beset from many sides, always included prominent liverymen among its "committees"; and one historian of the company has pointed out that the Cromwell era, with all its vicissi• tudes, nevertheless paved the way for the company's extensive trade throughout the Orient. In the City mutual interests were more 76 important to the magnates than rivalries.

The truly fierce battle in the City, as in the country, was be• tween the established rich and the ambitious poor, with effective con-. trol of the famed London mob as one the major prizes fought for. Dur• ing the period leading up to the Civil Wars petitions from the City often came so conveniently for John Pym, Parliamentary leader, that So collusion may be suspected. ' One such petition, presented in the Com• mons on 11 December 1641, had "some 15000 names sett to it soe it was about three quarters of a yard in breadth and 24 yards in length and then the said Mr. Fouke proceeded and further shewed that they had gott many thousand hands more to it but that they founde many obstruc- 60 tions and much opposition from the Lord Maior and others." Some idea of the continuing solidarity of the London mob may be gathered from Rushworth's account of the closing of all shops in 1643 "till Glocester 61 be reileved"; from Whitelock's detailed description of the funeral 62, of the mutineer Lockier in 1653J and indirectly from Cromwell's de• nunciation of "a despicable, contemptible generation of men as they 63 are." 6¥ is A few magnates, including Isaac Pennington, Robert Tichborne, 66 67 6T John Ireton, Thomas Andrews,' and John Fowke, were prepared to come > to terms with lower-class agitation and seek to use it in their own interests. Other characters, even less reputable in social status, used the mob as something like a personal army; as did John Lilburne in 1649 and 1653The popular assembly, Common Hall, sought to ex• tend its influence as against the Common Council and the Court of 77 7o Yi Aldermen. The latter body, most exclusive of City councils, lost some rz of its influence in Common Council, but re-asserted its strength as a 73

result of Honk's actions in February 1660. In the meantime the

governments of the Interregnum had oftenainterfered with the freedom

of the Court of Aldermen, deposing and disabling some men (such as

Richard Brown and Abraham Reynardson) and influencing the promotion rs

to office of others. Such unwanted figures as Thomas Pride and John

Lilburne had managed to get elected to Common Council, though Lilburne's

election was declared invalid by statute in the Commons. The City

had even been compelled to submit to the regime of major-general

Phillip Skippon and his zealous deputy, John Barkstead, who endeavour•

ed to suppress bear-baiting, cock-fighting and wrestling.^

For the wealthy, whether in finance or commerce, the difficulties

of the Interregnum were offset by some notable gains. Edward Baekwell

and Sir Thomas Viner were outstanding beneficiaries of the rise of

capitalism; and a special report dated 1652, addressed from Amsterdam to Sir Robert Stone in London, strongly suggested that other goldsmiths 7g

were thriving. Rich merchants gained at the expense of small men,

particularly through the application of the Navigation Act of 1651, which aimed at "the increase of the shipping and encouragement of the

navigation of this nation." Ln practice the Act, when enforced,

favoured merchants who were also shipowners; and struck hardest at those men engaged in the exchange of bulky commodities with ports in northern and eastern Europe. Many of these shippers of bulk goods So depended on the cheapness of Dutch vessels; and Yarmouth men must 78 have been among the heaviest losers, since their export trade in fish

(specifically mentioned in the Act) obviously depended on the use of fl

"strangers bottoms." In seeking, at the behest of London mercantile

interests, to harass the Dutch, the makers of the Navigation Acts

struck a shrewd blow at small men, especially those in the eastern outports. At the Restoration the Act of 1651 was re-written in terms

even more advantageous to shipowners, changing "welfare and safety"

in the preamble to "wealth, safety and strength", and making the ban on foreign bottoms applicable to all exports instead of specifically to salt fish. In strengthened form it became an enduring memento of the Interregnum.

The City further contributed to the decline of many small outports through its control of Trinity House, which asserted strong influence after the breats-up of the Cromwell regime. General Monk was made an

"elder brother" on 24 March 1659, and became Master in 1660. A list of subsequent Masters, up to 1672, includes such interested men as the

Earl of Sandwich (Edward Montagu), Sir William Batten, Sir George

Carteret, Captain Edward Crisp, Sir William Perm, Colonel Thomas S3

Middleton, and Sir Thomas Allen.

All these struggles and gains of the Civil Wars and the Interreg• num were, in the City as in the country, overshadowed by the mighty and successful efforts of groups with established wealth and status to retain their privileged position against a tremendous upsurge of ambition among the lower classes. Nowhere was the spirit of the com• mon people more persistently turbulent than in London; so the taming of the London mob was ah essential prerequisite to stable oligarchy.

The fierce and passionate fury of the lower classes in the City

and its immediate suburbs was almost unbelievable. The splendid per•

formance of the London Trained Bands at Turnham Green (where there

was no battle) and at the first battle of Newbury may have been some-

what coloured by romance, ^though there is little doubt that on each

occasion the Londoners were largely responsible for Royalist with•

drawal. Later, in July 1644, many deserted: others mutictnously

attacked Richard Brown, wounding him in the

William Waller that they would not stir "one foot further, except it fS

. be home." During the years that followed London was in constant

turmoil. In I646 there were mass demonstrations against the arrest

of John Lilburne and Richard Overton. Lilburne's release was de•

manded in April 1649 by hundreds of scolding women,^and his subse•

quent acquittal was almost certainly influenced by a menacing mob which "made the Judges for fear turne pale, and hange down their ft

heads."

IShitelock' s "Memorials" contain many references to the spirit of

unrest which seemed always to be just beneath the surface calm of the

City, always ready to erupt. In. October 1653 there was a riot of

tumultuous seamen which lasted for two days, in which one man was ft

killed and "divers were wounded." About a month later came the ex-

traordinary affair of the Portugal ambassador's brother. In January

1655 a Quaker "being examined by a committee why he drew his sword,

and hurt divers at the Parliament door, answered that he was inspired 80 by the Holy Spirit to kill every man that sat in the house." In April q2, 1657 there was a Fifth Monarchy plot, and in June I658 Sir Henry Slingsby and Dr. Hewitt were beheaded at Tower Hill following yet another London-centred plot. On 11 February 1659 "Mr. Fussel, an attorney|.wa s shot in the head with a brace of bullets from the other side of the street, as he sat in his chamber, and died presently; who 93 did it was not known." Other incidents reported by other writers confirm Whitelock's portrayal of seething turbulence. On 8 February 1654, after Cromwell had dined with liverymen at Grocers' Hall, his coach was the target of a large stone hurled from a window. The stone missed, and the tju. culprit was not caught. In 1659 the French ambassador, Bordeaux, wrote to Cardinal Mazarin about an incident which took place on 7 October, when Quakers had the impudence to interrupt a sermon preached at the Guildhall to members of Parliament and of the army. "Le maire de Londres fut oblige de les faire chasser." After the Restoration there was a last flicker of wildness in January 1661, when Thomas Ven- ner and a comparatively small band of Fifth Monarchists brought death and terror to the City for three or four days. This persistent atmosphere of actual or impending violence was not confined to London, but was most pronounced there. It was not always directed at the established ruling class, but its tendency up to 1653 was undoubtedly in that direction. It reached a high point about the time of John Lilburne's last trial, when three regiments of foot and one of horse were sent to overawe "6000 men at least, who, 81 it is thought, would never have suffered his condemnation to have 97 passed without the loss of some of their lives." The display of force did not deter "six or seven hundred men at his trial with swords, pistolls, bills, daggers, and other instruments, that in case they had 9* not cleared him, they would have employed in his defence." His acquittal was again the signal for a hugfe outburst of rejoicing in which (significantly) the soldiers joined. The supreme achievement of the City magnates was the transformation of Lilburne's mob into the monarchist rabble of 1659.

The question as to how this change was brought about is intriguing.

A great amount of relevant evidence must surely be hidden in the arch• ives at Guildhall, particularly as to the secret activities of such men as Richard Brown and Thomas Bludworth. In the absence of detailed information about individuals, it is still possible to find evidence which shows or strongly suggests some of the tactics used. One method certainly effective was infiltration of the ranks of the apprentices too by younger sons of great landowners. "I doe know Icrds sones which must be apprintices", wrote Jack Verney in June 1657, "and theire elder brother is worth 5 thousand pounds a yearej as for example my /oi

Lord Cossellton." This kind of apprenticeship may often have come about as a result of financial embarrassment;-but, whatever the cause, it undoubtedly influenced a group of young men who customarily took the lead in mob activities.

Another method was the spreading of rumours, using taverns and the newly popularised coffee-houses. One pamphleteer described the new 82

drink as: "Syrop of Soot and Essence of old shoes loz.

Dashed with Diurnals and the Booke of News."

Though there seems to be no definite proof that the monarchist group

made use of professional rumour-mongers, the known careers of such /OS

men as John Wildman and Samuel Morland suggest a strong possibility.

Sometimes the rumours were so nearly prophetic as to indicate the like•

lihood of organised bait-casting, as for instance that which reached

George Downing in the Netherlands as early as 27 September 1658:

"...that his now hyghness was poysoned, and the lord Henry and gen. /OS Moncke stood upon their own termes." Shortages and high prices were shrewdly exploited in gossip and /o6 in written material passed from hand to hand. The more senseless ">7

aspects of bureaucratic interference provided useful material for propaganda both in speech and print — for, in spite of censorship,

all kinds of anti-government pamphlets and broadsides were published.

William Prynne was almost perpetually occupied in his self-appointed

role as pamphleteer: John Evelyn contributed to Royalist pamphlet IO(j literature as well as writing a diary: and in 1657 an author whose identity is still uncertain published "Killing No Murder", a plea for no

Cromwell's assassination wittily dedicated to Cromwell himself. It was noted by Thomas Mabbott, in a newsletter composed shortly after the overthrow of Richard Cromwell, that Westminster Hall was "filled /// with papers" demanding the recall of the Long Parliament.

It may be that the most successful tactic of:.all in the struggle

to keep the poor subdued was the re-organization of charity, in ::::-fi 83 112. connection with a national policy of sustained underemployment.

There were apparently opportunities for combining personal profit with //3 a condescending show of generosity; which probably helps to explain

John Fowke's interest in Christ's Hospital and the resistance to schemes which would have used the proceeds from confiscated estates to foster industrial employment. The deliberate degradation of the poor reached its zenith in the days of the Whig Oligarchy, when (for example) those in receipt of relief had to wear a badge; and at last culmin- //7 ated in the notorious Speenhamland system. ' It is not possible, on such evidence as is available, to assert categorically that the idea of such degradation was consciously worked out by City magnates in the

1650's; but a condition of lower-class intractability must have helped to show the value of the idea, while financial instability and depressed tradlearnee madd thee ipracticat a practical importancl possibilitye of avoidin. Theg wealthiesthe poor t ratcitizene by livins alsgo in suburbs or by "unequal laying of the assessmentsessn , the rich men being underrated and the poorer men. overrated.'«."9

The later years of the Interregnum were filled with complaints tzo about shortages and the decay of trade. "I am from day to day most extreamly perplexed and troubled with the cries of poor English people seamen, whose ships are taken and brought into the harbours of this state, and there the goods unladen and sold", wrote George Downing from tzi the Hague in October 1658. About ten years later, during the serious depression associated with the Second Dutch War, a pamphleteer named

Cromwell as "the original cause of the low condition that we are now IZZ

(in relation to trade) reduced into."j and specifically blamed his

"indiscreet neglecting of trade, and choosing war, when he was in

peace."

The scarcity of reliable trade figures for this period makes it

difficult to assess the actual situation, which was probably exagger•

ated by Royalists and soon-to-be- Royalists. Specific information

given by J.U. Nef shows that exports of coal from Newcastle and Sunder•

land between 1658 and 1660 were higher than ever before, and very much izy higher than during the Second Butch War. Complaints were probably

aggravated because of unusually cold weather, and perhaps through the

deliberate machinations of men such as Richard Brown. The historian of the Shrewsbury Drapers concluded that "the trade seems to have entered an era of modest prosperity" during the later years of the

Interregnum.

Whether the crisis was primarily manufactured or was mainly the fault of the Spanish War, there is no doubt that most of the lower classes in the City accepted the version which blamed the anti-Stuart groups who supported the war. After presentation of the Humble Peti• tion and Advice all complaints were aired against the background of demands for free elections and a free Parliament. Men like Thomas

Viner, Thomas Allen, John Langham, John Robinson, and Thomas Blud- worth regained control of the London mob at the same time as they unobtrusively cemented bonds between the liveries and the joint-stock

companies.

The struggle of the aldermen — a status group with its origins 85 deeply buried in feudal notions of privilege — paralleled the struggle of the country landowners, and emphasised the likenesses between the two groups. The rich in country and City could afford to smile in their sleeves at the despairing cry of John Milton as he realised that the masses were preparing "basely and besottedly to run their necks again into the yoke which they have broken, and prostrateaall the fruits of thir vctorie for naught at the feet of the vanquishd."

NOTES

1. Clarendon, History, XVI, 240 (Macray ed. vi, 230). 2. Evelyn's Diary, 29 May 1660. ^WW, //, JZ7S. 3. ed. McGrath, "Merchants and Merchandise, etc.", pp. 236 et seq. Pepys, Diary, 10 December 1664 (Wheatley edn., iv, 283). Baine§ "History of Liverpool", pp. 332-335. 4. ed. Donnan, "Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America", i, 126-133. 5. ed. Sainsbury, "Court Minutes, etc.", iv and v, passim. 6. Newton, "Colonising Activities of English Puritans", passim. 7. Donnan, as note 4, i, 156 et seq. 8. Bryce, "Remarkable History of the Hudson's Bay Company", pp. 1-19. 9. Edwards, "Bristol", p. 25. 10. McGrath, as note 3, pp. 51 and 104. 11. Sainsbury, as note 5, iv, 30. 12. Willan, "English Coasting Trade, 1600-1750", p. 50. McGrath, as note 3, p. 242., 13. McGrath, as note 3, pp. 218-219. 14. Sainsbury, as note 5, iv, 179. 15. ibid., v, 148. 16. McGrath, as note 3, pp. 275-276. 17. ibid., pp. 131 and 119. 18. Donnan, as note 4> i, 267 footnote. 19. McGrath, as note 3, p. 131. 20. Heaton, "Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries", p. 249. 21. Parkin, "History of Norfolk", xi, 398. 22. ibid, xi, 273-274. 23. Baines, "Historic Hastings", pp. 203-204. Rouse, "Old Towns of England", pp. 80-85. 24. Victoria County History of Suffolk, ii, 238. Trevelyan, "English Social History", p. 287. 25. Heaton; as note 2Q, pp. 162-165. 26. Willan, as note 12, pp. 111-145. 27. Pearl, "London and the Outbreak, etc.", pp. 309-311. 28. Sainsbury, as note 5, many references in vols, iii-vii. 29. Willson, "Ledger and Sword", i, 263-264. (Also references as note 28.). 30. Mukherjee, "Rise and Fall of East India Company", p. 74. 31. See Chapter 1 of this thesis, note 58. 32. Sainsbury, as note 5, iv, 340. 33. McGrath, as note 3, pp. 242 and 114 footnote. 34. Willson, as note 29, i, 275-276. 35. Pearl, as note 27, pp. 77-78. 36. Pearl, as note 27, p. 92. 37.. Cunningham, "Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modem Times", Part 1, pp. 258-264. 38. Thomas Violet's "Proposition, etc.", from S.P.D. (Interre• gnum) ,xvi, no. 97, printed In Shaw, "Writers on English Monetary History", pp. 83-85. 39. Sainsbury, as note 5, iii, 76. 40. Skeel, "The Canary Company", in Eng. Hist. Rev., xxxi v . (1916), 531. % 41. John Warner (1647), Thomas Foot (1649),. John Kendrick (1651), Thomas Allen (1659), and Johri Frederick (1661). Frederick had been "translated" from the Barber-Surgeons. 42. Robert Tichborne (1656), Richard-Chiverton (1657). 43. John Dethick (1655). 44. Christopher Pack (1654). 45. Thomas Viner (1653). 46. Abraham Reynardson (1648). 47. John Fowke (1652). 48. John Ireton (1658). 49. Thomas Andrews (Leatherseller, 1650); Richard Brown (Wood- monger, 1660). 50. Herbert, "Twelve Great Livery Companies", i, 224 footnote. 51. Herbert, as note 50, i, 331. 52. Hazlitt, "Livery Companies of the City of London", p. 262. 53. Rugge's Duirnalj as quoted in Pepys, Diary (Wheatley edn.) i, 102 footnote. 54. Pepys, Diary, 11 April-1660. (Wheatley edn. i, 102). 55. Brown, "First Earl of Shaftesbury", p. 292. 56. Ogg, "England in the Reign of Charles II", ii, 636-637. (and see Chapter 1 of this thesis, note 49). 57. See results of elections, as.(for example) Sainsbury, as note 5, iii, 31-32, 91, 153, 210, 276 and 332. 58. Wilbur, "East India Company", p. 128. 59. Hexter, "Reign of King Pym", pp. 17 and 95. (The value of Hexter's work is somewhat clouded by a glaring in• accuracy. He says, on p. 6, that Haselrig died "a traitor's death on the block"; and repeats the error on p. 78). 60. D'Ewes, Journal, (ed. Coates), p. 271. 61. Rushworth, v (vol. 3, pt. 2), 291-292. 62. Whitelock, iii, 24. 63. Abbott, "Letters and. Speeches of Oliver Cromwell", ii, 41-42. 64. Pearl, as note 27> pp. 176-184 etc. 65. Yule, "Independents in the Civil War", p. 121. 66. ibid., p. 104 67. Pearl, as note 27, pp. 309-3H. 68. ibid., pp. 316-320. 69. Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate", i, 165-169 and ii, 295-300. 70. Pearl, as note 27, pp. 50-53 et seq. 71. ibid., pp. 59-62. 72. Sharpe, "London and the Kingdom", ii, 304-305 and 333-336. 73. ibid., ii, 366-371. 74. ibid., ii, 308 and 319. 75. See notes 42, 44, 45, 48. Sharpe, as note 72, ii, 354. 76. Sharpe, as note 72, ii, 319. Commons Journals, vi, 337-338. 77. Ashley, "Cromwell's Generals", pp. 157-159. 78. Richards, "Early History of Banking", pp. 209-210 and 37. 79. Firth and Rait, "Acts and Ordinances, etc.", ii, 559-562. 80. Barbour, "Dutch and English Merchant Shipping, etc.", in Economic Hist. Rev., ii (1929-1930), 261-290. 81. H.M.C. 8th Report, Appendix (Trinity House MSS), pp. 246- 247. 82. For Act of 1651, see note 79 above. For Act of 1660 see "English Historical Documents", viii (1660-1714), 533- 537. The increased control of exports, in article 6 of the new Act, included "fish, victual, wares, goods, com• modities or things of what kind or nature soever the same shall be." Both Acts specifically excluded bullion. 83. H.M.C. 8th Report, as note 81, pp. 248-255. (In 1672 a Sir Richard Brown became Master, but he was not con• nected with the man of the same name who has been fre• quently mentioned in this thesis). 84. Burne and Young, "The Great Civil War", pp. 32-33, 105, 240. 85. Sharpe, as note 72, ii, 207. 86. Petegorsky, "Left-Wing Democracy in the English Civil War", p. 89. 87. Inderwick, "Interregnum", pp. 275-276. 88. Frank, "Levellers", p. 221 (cites Walker's "Triall of, etc."). 89. Whitelock, iv, 44-45. 90. ibid., iv, 49-50, 114-115 and 120. 91. ibid, iv, 163. 88

92. ibid.;, iv; 302.. 93. ibid., iv, 340. 94. Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate", iii, 12. 95. Document printed by Guizot in "Histoire du Protectorat de Richard Cromwell", ii,492. 96. Hutchings, "London Town", i, 136. (The story is briefly told in many other books. There is-a possibility that the .rising was fostered by provocateurs at the insti• gation of a group including Monk and Richard Brown. If this was so, its fury was presumably unexpected. More than forty persons were killed, and Venner with some cf his followers was executed)• 97. Thurloe, i, 435 and 441. 98. ibid., i, 442. 99. Frank,.as note 88, p. 239 (cites Cal. CI. St. Papers and . Mercurius Politicus). 100. Sharpe, as note 72, ii, 352. . Clarendon, History, XV, 88 (Macray edn., vi, 57). 101. Verny, Memoirs, iii, 366. 102. Ellis,:"Penny Universities", p. 51. 103. Ashley, "John Wildman", passim. D.N.B.. (1937-38), xxi, 232-236. 104. D.N.B., xiii, 965-970. 105. Thurloe, vii, 390. 106. James, "Social Policy, etc.", p. 74. H.M.C. 5th Report, Appendix (Duke of Sutherland's MSS.), pp. 164-166. 107. Ashley, "Cromwell's Generals", pp. 163-164. 108. Kirby,-"William,Prynne", passim,, esp. pp. 194-206. 109. Evelyn, Diary, 7 November 1659 and 17 Feb. - 5 April 1660.- 110. Firth, "Killing No Murder", in Eng. Hist. Rev., xvii (1902), pp. 308-311. Harleian Miscellany, ix, 284-307. 111. Clarke Papers, iv, 3. • - 112. James, as note 106, pp. 249, 254, 255, 272, 279-282, and 295-302. " Coleman, "Labour in English Economy, etc.", in Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd series, viii, 280-295* Brett-James, "Growth of Stuart London", p. 212. 113. Richards, as note-78; pp. 106-107. 114. Pearl, as note 27, p. 320. 115. James, as note 106, p. 279. 116. ed. Webb, "Records of St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield", ii, 401. 117. Trevelyan, "English Social History", p. 469. 118. Pearl, as note 27, p. 42. 119. Whitelock, iii, 12. 120. Burton, iv, 363-365. Scott,-"Joint-Stock Companies", i, 259-262. Davies, "Restoration", 94. 121. Thurloe, vii, 429. 122. "The World's Mistake in Oliver Cromwell", in Harleian Miscellany, vi, 348. 123. ibid., vi, 352. It is not without interest, that this pamphlet was written to counter "the undeserved appro- . bation, and applause, that Cromwell's memory seems to have with his adherents." 124. Nef, "Rise of the British Coal Industry", table opposite ii, 380. 125. Mendenhall, "Shrewsbury Drapers, etc.", p.. 209. 126. Milton,"Readie and Easie Way", in "Works" (Columbia edn., 1932), vi, 123. 90 CHAPTER 6 RICHARD'S PARLIAMENT The dissolution of Cromwell's Second. Parliament was followed, by a period of organised passive resistance during which the wealthy took the lead in a countrywide campaign to harass and hinder the gov• ernment. City men resisted the tax imposed under the New Buildings

Act/ apparently by simply not paying it, so that the yield was only Z 40,000 pounds instead of an estimated 300,000. In the country there was widespread opposition to the excise, and the farmers claimed that 3 all possible means were used to dispute the laws. A group of London moneymen including Martin Noel, Alderman Dethwieke and Alderman Fred• as' ricke, drew back from an offer to purchase farm of the customs, ap• parently because the rates were too high/ When the government tried to collect the high rates through commissioners merchants apparently 7 stopped trading to avoid paying the impost. Cromwell's a^ressive foreign policy began to crumble as he was unable to pay the subsidies demanded by the king of Sweden. Sir Philip Meadowe wrote to Thurloe in June 1658: "...concerning a promised sup- tie ply of money to be advanced to his maj ...very necessary in this 8 conjuncture and without which my negociation wil avail nothing." At a home Prynne's pamphlets, including "King Richard the Third Revived",7 were passed around. One of the Protector's supporters wished "there was an end of plots, which spoil trade and make men fearful of dealing

....I have observed this three years each spring we have had one or more of these plots." Even the weather seemed to be against the gov• ernment as the long hard winter of 1657-1658 raised prices and held I 91 back spring planting.* In June Evelyn reported "an extraordinary IZ storme of haile and raine, cold season as winter"; and a 58-foot 13 whale was killed at Greenwich. In September Captain Langley wrote from Leith, telling of "constant grat raines, which makes sad times and sights to in the feilds." The consequent shortages did much to increase disaffection among the lower classes.

By the end of April I658 Cromwell was telling the Swedish ambas• sadors that he had definitely decided on the calling of a new Parlia- 15 ment. Instead of doing so, he retreated to Hampton Court in splendid isolation. "He will take his owne resolutions", wrote Thurloe to Henry It, lj

Cromwell on 13 July. Then, suddenly, he was dead; and financial chaos was aggravated by a political crisis over the succession.

According to the terms of the Instrument of Government the Pro• tector's Council, "being thirteen at least present", should have - IS elected a successor; but the Humble Petition and Advice had required 19

Cromwell, during his lifetime, "to appoint and declare the person."

At the time of his fatal illness Cromwell had apparently appointed a successor, but had not named him. The paper, addressed to Secretary

Thurloe, was never found. Largely on Thurloe's authority the Council accepted a nomination allegedly made by the dying man by word of mouth ZO — Cromwell's elder son, Richard. Nineteen officers and only ten civilians signed the proclamation of the new Lord Protector, the army being thus assigned a place in government which seemed almost to create

Zl a fourth estate. Among the nineteen officers, however, there were a few who sided with the party in favour of civil supremacy, so in 92 practice the de facto government was almost exactly divided into two

equal and opposite factions. Out of their heated deliberations came

the decision to call a Parliament of 27 January 1659. "Some debate

there was, wheither Ireland and Scotland should send members unto itj and with much to do that question was resolved in the affirmative

I must needs say, I like not the aspect of things, and my feares are greater than my hopes", wrote Thurloe to Henry Cromwell, 30 November zz 1658.

According to the terms of the Humble Petition and Advice the pro• posed Parliament had to be called in such a way that "the Laws and 23 Statutes of the Land be observed." The hasty dissolution of February

1658 had not allowed time for further definition, and the changes of the previous twenty years made it impossible to be specific as to which laws and statutes were meant. In the event, Scotland and Ire• land each returned thirty members in accordance with the Instrument of

Government, whereas in England writs were sent out to the counties and boroughs as for the election of the Long Parliament in 1640.

So far as the country-City alliance was concerned, the question was largely an academic one. Richard's government desperately needed money, and was unlikely to find any source of supply other than a

Parliament consisting largely of magnates. Thurloe's influence in the elections had to be directed mainly against Republican extremists such as Robert Wallop and Sir Henry Vane, both of whom were elected in spite of great endeavours by the Court. Some success attended the government's efforts, however, if one may judge from the fact that 93

only 34 of those who had signed the remonstrance of 1656 were returned 25

as members. The Parliamentary old guard were as anti-republican as

the Cromwellians, but their leaders viewed with some approval the re•

turn of a few trouble-makers. Richard Brown and his cabal of City

Parliament-men met Charles II*s agent, Edward Massey, and told him •

their main hope was to "accoumpt with the Republick Party and pres Zb

them on to interrupt Mr. 824 in his course." If Richard was suffi•

ciently harassed he might abdicate, handing over the reins of govern• ment to a Parliament consisting largely of monarchists, including 50

"kinglings" who had been re-elected (as well as those now promoted to the Lords). On the other hand he might, with the support of such men as Thurloe, Monk and Montagu, destroy the Republicans and overcome opposition in the army; in which case the Parliamentarians would not be irrevocably committed to opposing a Cromwellian monarchy.

Because Scotland and Ireland again returned 30 members each, while England returned to the old allotment of 460, Richard's House of

Commons was large according to contemporary standards. Of about 415 members who had been admitted in 1658, just a half (207) were re• elected in 1659. Among the members — about 310 in all — who had not had a place in Cromwell's Second Parliament, 55 had been members of the Long Parliament, including even (apparently) three Royalists.

Thomas Burton, the most important contemporary authority for this ZQ Parliament, reported speeches by 229 different members. Among them were Arthur Annesley, Sir George Booth, Richard Brown, Serjeant Wild, 30 Francis Gerrard, and 56 other members of the Long Parliament. This 94 proportion of more than one in four bears a close resemblance to the proportion of Long Parliament men elected to Cromwell's Second. Parlia• ment, Allowing for the thinning of the ranks by death, disability and promotion, it again represents quite a high degree of continuity; and

confirms the general idea of continuity drawn from a comparison be• tween 1659 and 1658. It is significant also that new members showed a marked tendency to belong to the proper families, maiden speeches having come from (among others) a Baldwin, a Bampfield, a Barnham, a 31

Boscawen, and a Buller.

A contemporary effort to enumerate the results of the election in party terms was that made by the Royalist Allan Broderick; "47 true patriots of liberty, 23 of them highly exasperated at the present gov• ernment, 24 of milder spirits. Counterfeit, commonwealth-men and such neuters as usually occur, from 100 to 140 (as the House fills), court lawyers 72 certain, with many contingent officers of state and army

100 and odd; many double elections not supplied, many absent from de-. 3Z sign, many on their necessary occasions." Another Royalist, John Barwick, remar&sd that the new House of Commons contained 150 lawyers; and that this could effectively block the normal arrangements for hold-

33 ing assizes.

As in 1658, the most important issueswwere the subjugation of the army as an independent political force, and full practical control of the functions of both Houses of Parliament. As in 1658, both these purposes would be served by delaying supply and questioning the status 3lf- and composition of the Lords. Cromwell's death had, however, 95 materially altered the situation with regard to the army. Because

Richard was not effectively in command the problem had become more urgent, but it had also become less formidable. The attacfr no longer needed to be veiled, but could be brutally direct.

It culminated in the removal of Major-General Boteler out of the

Commission of the Peace, and the appointment of a committee "to draw up an Impeachment against Major-General Boteler; and to consider of a

Course, how to proceed judicially against him, and against other Delin- 35 quents." The committee consisted of three Parliamentary legal officers and fifty-three members. Thirty of the fifty-three subsequently sat in the Convention Parliament, as against 149 of the other 450 or so 31 members; which seems to suggest that the committee was heavily weight• ed in favour of the orthodox Parliamentary view, though it should be added that some of its anti-militarists were strong Republicans. It is reasonably certain that the emphasis on judicial proceedings owed something to the presence of so many lawyers.

Politically, the choice of BottLer as a potential victim was a master-stroke. Boteler was not only most unpopular among the Royalists, but had taken a leading part in crushing the Levellers at Burford in 37 May 1649. This and his zealous campaigns against drinking, profanity 38 and the like made him particularly objectionable to the lower classes.

The army leaders, on the other hand, could not afford to desert Boteler.

By naming him as a delinquent, and indicating that here were others to follow, the House had thrown down a challenge which compelled John

Desborough and his colleagues either to submit or to fight for a highly 96

unpopular cause.

Two days later a Council of Officers at Wallingford House "agreed to declare against Charles Stewart and his interests, and for the Pro• tectors and the Parliaments to protect all such as have been ingaged

in his death." ' This effort to protect the regicides shows clearly

enough that the officers had little doubt about which way the consti• tutional wind was blowing, since the one event which regicides had to fear was a Stuart restoration. They may well have feared, some kind, of agreement between Parliament and the Protector, by which Richard would voluntarily resign in favour of Charles. Such a fear would not be un• reasonable in view of the sentiments popularly ascribed to Richard —

"this man having never had any hand in the war (but supposed to be for the King)." ^°

The Commons replied with two resolutions which virtually compelled

Richard to choose his masters: first, "That, during the Sitting of the

Parliament, there shall be no General Council or Meeting of the Officers of the Army, without the Direction, Leave, and Authority of his High• ness the Lord Protector, and both Houses of Parliament"; and secondly,

"That no Person shall have or continue any Command or Trust in any of the Armies or Navies of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or any of the

Dominions or Territories thereto belonging, who shall refuse to sub• scribe, That he will not disturb nor interrupt the free Meetings in

Parliament of any of the Members of either House of Parliament, or their Freedom in their Debates and Counsels." Accompanied by a pro• mise to consider the next morning — after nearly three months1 delay 97

— "How the Arrears of the Armies and Navies may be speedily satisfied"fz the two resolutions were nevertheless a demand for the unconditional submission to Parliament of the army leaders. They were so regarded by the latter when on the same afternoon (18 April 1659) Richard ordered them to return to their respective commands.

There is evidence that the Commons passed these resolutions with a full understanding of the opposition which they were likely to pro• voke in the Lords and in the army. They sent John Stephens to desire the concurrence of the Other House, and set up a committee to recommend some effectual way of securing the nation against "dangerous Persons, resorting of late to the City of London, and Parts adjacent." That they also expected to win their point may be conjectured from the fact that they proceeded next morning to discuss the fish trade and the

Countess of Worcester.

The contemptuous attitude of this House of Commons towards the military is well illustrated by an incident involving Major-General

Packer. The House was informed that Packer, one of its members, had been in some way insulted by Sir Henry Wroth. Packer himself was most conciliatory and eager to "pass by" the whole affair, but the House

insisted on an explanation from Sir Henryf When the latter appeared at the Bar of the House he cheerfully confessed to having been in• volved in a brawl with Packer and a Captain. Gladman. He had alone disarmed both these gallant officers, though himself admittedly "in drink." He was discharged on bond, but the diarist Burton felt sure that the matter would "fall asleep in the chair." The matter was 98 almost certainly pressed to its absurd conclusion in order to deride

Packer, who was subsequently turned out of the House on the ground that his election was invalid. The House could hardly have found a better way of demonstrating the landed gentry's contempt for upstart officers, unless it was to harp continually on "their dependence upon the single person and the public purse."

Richard's order of 18 April resulted in a desperate last-ditch

coup by the army leaders, in which they won the support of the rank- and-file by pointing out what was likely to happen if Parliament managed to reorganise the militia and trained bands "as in former times."

After a lengthy meeting with Fleetwood and Desborough, Richard signed so a commission to dissolve both Houses. The Lords and the Protectorate party in the Commons accepted the order for dissolution, leaving a handful of Republicans to dispute it. While other members walked out, the diehards refused admission to Black Rod and adjourned the House 5/

"until Monday Morning next, at Eight of the Clock."

When Richard under duress dissolved his Parliament it had sat for three months without completing the passage of a single Act. It had done much, however, to clarify the political position of a House of

Commons comparatively freely elected. In particular it had defeated the Republicans on every issue that came to a vote. Sir Arthur Hase• lrig acted as a teller ten times, and was ten times on the losing side;

Henry Nevil, seven times a teller, was a seven-time loser; Thomas Scott

(once), Sir Henry Vane (twice), and John Lambert (five times) suffered similar defeats, in spite of occasional support from such unlikely 99 SZ S3 allies as Lord. Falkland and Sir George Booth. Apparently the crypto-

Royalists were mainly concerned with trying to hurt the government without increasing the power of the Republicans^ Just once, on an issue of shelving debate about recognition of the Other House, Lam• bert came within two votes of victory, losing by 186 to 185 in a very crowded House.5"5"

Though a great amount of time was wasted in fruitless argument, this Parliament served a useful purpose in bringing to light the terms upon which the gentry were prepared to settle. The temper of the Com• mons is often seen in remarks noted by Burton during debate. Colonel

John Birch, once a victim of Pride's Purge, announced: "I ventured as far as any man: 1. To bring delinquents to punishment. 2. To have the military in the hands that we approved of. 3. The Council to be by us approved of. 4. Our estates not to be taken, nor persons imprisoned, without our consents; but the negative voice was never our case. Thus 56 far I went, and no farther." 57 , \ Birch, a merchant turned landowner, was supported by (among others; Anthony Ashley Cooper, a landowner turned merchant. Cooper must have struck numerous chords when on 7 March he said: "I have sat sixteen years here ^ventured my life, and bought lands, and my friends and interest have done so. I always hoped, whenever you came to settlement, you would confirm all those sales." The emphasis was no long• er on the technical sovereignty of Parliament — the monarch might re• tain a negative voice/' What was now of paramount importance was a satisfactory land settlement, supported by actual control of 100 legislation and of the power to enforce it. Cromwell's death had re• moved the main obstacle in the way of this last objective, and. had. made it possible to attack the upstart officers with a good, chance of success, particularly if a suitable general could be found. The pro• posed impeachment of Major-General Boteler was a bold initial step in a well-marked direction.

The importance attached to this line of attack is confirmed by the way in which this Commons confined, its contempt and. ill-will almost exclusively to the army. Apart from a few unkind references to mono• polisers and excise-farmers it did nothing to disturb the confidence of those whose profits came mainly from commerce or finance. Some of its members looked askance at Martin Noel's dealing in prisoners, sending them to Barbados and there selling them "for one thousand five hundred and.fifty pound weight of sugar a-piece, more or less, accord• ing to their working faculties." But the House accepted Noel's expla• nation that the work was "not so hard as is represented to you", and

Barbados was "a place as grateful to you for trade as any part of the world." It also appointed a committee to consider a long-standing debt of more than 9000 pounds owed to Richard Brown, "to report their 63

Opinion to the House, how the same may be speedily satisfied."

In one interesting resolution this House of Commons accepted the constitutional validity of the Other House, with the proviso 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 Mem- 6& bers of that House." Had they continued their sittings, and had they managed to push this resolution through the Other House and have it

embodied in an Act, it would have ensured the mastery of the Lordsv

by men of suitable wealth and influence. It would have provided a

guarantee against any future monarch using the Lords to block impor•

tant legislation; and it would have assured them of a permanent con•

stitutional safeguard against any misguided attempt in a future House

of Commons to alleviate the lot of the lower classes. Incidentally,

this House must have regarded with approval the advice offered to

Richard by General Monk, that "it may be fitt to summon the most pru•

dent of the old lords" and to promote William Pierrepont, Sir George

Booth, Sir John Hobart, Richard Hampden, Edward Baynton, Alexander

Popham, and Robert Rolle.

Even the re-installation of Bishops in the Lords may have been foreshadowed in the vigor with which this House attacked the sects, 66 especially the Quakers. The divines now in the ascendant were such men as Edward Reynolds (later Bishop of Norwich) and Edmund Calamy,

67 who later refused the Bishopric of Coventry and Lichfield. '

It is significant that the Republicans themselves were, at least in some cases, prepared to accept as inevitable a constitutional mon• archy and a House of Lords. Haselrig, for example, spoke to this 68 effect on 9 March; and Scott thought that if there had to be a mon- 6q arch, Richard was the best choice. Colonel Hutchinson was advised that "there was nothing desirable in a prince which might not have been hoped for in him, but a great spirit and a just title; the first of which sometimes doth more hurt than good in a sovereign; the latter 102

would have been supplied by the people's deserved approbation." ^°

Surely whatever hopes Richard may have had for a long and prosperous

reign were entirely dependent on his maintaining friendly relations

with Parliament and the City magnates. By signing the order for a

dissolution, at the dictate of army officers, he staked his political

future on a military dictatorship.

If Richard had conclusively shown support for Parliamentary gov*

ernment he might perhaps have retained his nominal status. The great majority of the Commons recognised the need for a figurehead to hallow with authority their claims to social and economic privilege; to give a nationalistic flavour to their search for power and profits in mil• itary and nav.al adventures; and to provide an emotional rallying-point

(in time of trouble) for the lower classes who actually endured most of the *distress occasioned by wars and unsuccessful gambling in trade and finance. With a well-conceived and ably-executed propaganda cam• paign the magnates might easily have created the illusion that Richard had a touch of the divinity that is supposed to hedge a king. There might have been certain advantages in having a monarch whose very title was a Parliamentary creation.

Under the circumstances it is hardly surprising that Richard made

57 a poor choice. He had a reputation for backing losers. More in• triguing is the question as to why the members in Parliament allowed him to act in this way. Edward Montagu later wrote: "...that Parlia• ment had much of the interest of the Nation in it, and though the Rump should have got into the saddle, yet that Parliament's interest would 103 72, have procured it to meet again in despite of all opposition...." In the light of subsequent events it seems likely that Parliament's pas• sivity was intended to divide the army, offering Richard a chance to call on the services of Monk and perhaps of Henry Cromwell against the

Wallingford House faction. Members may also have been influenced by the impending treaty between France and Spain, which would work to the political advantage of Charles Stuart and to the disadvantage of the

Protectorate.

The support which Fleetwood and Desborough were able to win from the rank-and-file was not likely to last long unless they could raise money to pay the troops; and this could be done only by force or with the assistance of Parliament. Since the latter appeared to be out of the question the magnates' most urgent task was to prevent a seizure of power by the inferior officers; and in these circumstances the man to beat or buy was neither Fleetwood nor Desborough, but John Lambert.

This is an important point to remember in attempting an explanation of the events of the following months. So long as Lambert could be re• strained, the general confusion would increase the general desire for peace at any price. On 2 May John Barwick summarised the situation in a letter to Hyde: "Heretofore the intruder entered allways upon a full treasury; now the publick debts are above two millions sterling, besides their own divisions and the generall discontents, both in the city, and now carryed all over England by the dissolved parliament-men. The pro• tector's servants at Whitehall remove their goods into the city, for fear of plunder; and both they and the generality of the city begin to wish his majesty were in England."

NOTES

1. Firth and Rait, "Acts and Ordinances, etc.", ii, 1223- 1234. 2. Firth, "Last Years of the Protectorate", ii, 261-262. Other evidence (quoted in Brett-James, "Growth of Stuart London", p. 124) indicates that ^20,000 was collected out of jg 75,000 levied. 3. Davies, "Restoration", p. 71. 4. John Dethick, Mercer, was Lord Mayor in 1655. 5. John Frederick, Barber-Surgeon and (later) Grocer, was Lord Mayor in 1661. 6. Firth, as note 2, ii, 262-263. Clarke Papers; iii, 114. 7. Clarke Papers, iii, 175 and 178. 8. printed in Eng. Hist. Rev., vii (1892), 737. 9. Kirby, "William Prynne", p.-117. 10. H.M.C. 6th Report, Appendix, p. 443 (ffarington MSS). 11. Thurloe, vii, 2. 12. Evelyn's Diary, 2 June 1658. 13. Evelyn's Diary, 3 June 1658. 14. Thurloe, vii, 404. 15. Firth, as note 2, ii, 232. 16: Thurloe, vii, 269. 17. 3 September I658. 18. Gardiner, "Constitutional Documents, etc." p. 415. 19. ibid;, pp. 448-449. 20. Firth, as note 2, ii; 302-307, Thurloe, vii, 372. 21. Fleetwood; Sydenham, Montagu, Desborough, Jones, Skippon, Whalley, Goffe, and eleven others. (See Davies, as note 3, pp. 4-5JL 22. Thurloe,'vii, 541. 23. Gardiner, as note 18, p. 452. 24. Ludlow, ii, 50-52. 25. See note 25, Chapter 2. 26. Nicholas Papers (ed. Warner), iv, 75. 27. See note 39, Chapter 2. 28. See Appendix 1 of this thesis. The three apparent Royal• ists were John Glanville, John Griffith and Robert Hunt. 29. Burton, iv £lnde*). 30. Brunton and Pennington, pp. 225-245. 31. "Members of Parliament" (Hansard, 1878), Index to Part 1, pp. 19,22,48 and 67. D.N.B. (1937-1938); i, 950-960, 1021-1023, 1183-1184; ii, 876-882; iii, 246-250. 105

32. Davies, "Election'of Richard Cromwell's Parliament", in Eng. Hist. Rev., Ixiii (1948), 500. 33. Thurloe, vii, 616. 34. See Chapter 2 of-this-thesis, pp. 30-31. 35. Commons Journals, vii, 636-637. 36. See Appendix 1 of this thesis. 37. Hardacre, "William Boteler", in Huntington Library Quart• erly; xi (1947), 1-11. 38. Ashley, "Cromwell's Generals", p. I63. 39. Clarke Papers, iii, 189-190. 40. "Reliquiae Baxterianae" (ed. I696), p. 100 — cited in footnote by Davies, "Restoration", pp. 15-16. 41. Commons Journals, vii, 641. The first resolution was contested, and the motion "That this Question be now put" passed easily by 163 votes to 87. The actual re• solutions were then passed without a division. 42. ibid., vii, 641. ' 43. Ramsey, "Richard-Cromwell", p. 85. 44. Commons Journals, vii, 641-642. 45. ibid., vii, 642. > 46. Commons Journals, vii, 6o6.and 610. Burton, iv; 2-7. 47. Burton, iv, 249 and 299. 48. Burton, iv, 31. ' 49. "Fast and Loose", a pamphlet cited in Davies, "Restoration", p. 83 note.- 50. Clarke Papers, iii, 192-193. 51. Commons Journals; vii; 644. 52. Commons Journals; vii; 639. 53. Commons Journals, vii, 621. 54. Hardacre, "Royalists During the Puritan Revolution", pp. . 132-133. , Underdown, "Royalist Conspiracy, etc.", p. 240. 55. Commons Journals, vii, 611. For other votes see ibid., vii, 593-644. 56. Burton; iv; 61-62. 57. D.N.B., ii, 524-526. 58. See Appendix 3 of this thesis. 59. This was a politician's interpretation. See Brunton and Pennington, p. 22. 60. Burton, iv, 52. 61. This technical point was of importance to the Republicans. See Ludlow, ii, 54-55. 62. Burton,, iv, 256-259. 63. Commons Journals; vii, 621. 64. Commons Journals, vii, 621. 65. See Brunton and Pennington, pp. 9-10, 100-103, 48-49, 133- 135. According to Whitelock (Memorials, iv, 313-314), Pierrepont, Hobart and Popham had been summoned as Lords in 1658.- Noble's list (Memoirs of ... Protectorate-House, etc.", i, 370-371), includes Richard Hampden too. 106

66. Commons Journals, vii, 640. Thurloe^ vii, 527. • L.F. Brown, "Baptists and Fifth Monarchy Men", pp. 171-175. Braithwaite, "Beginnings of Quakerism", pp. 452-456. 67. Baxter's Autobiography (Everyman edn. abridged from "Rel• iquiae Baxterianae"), pp. 155-157. 68. Burton, iv, 309-310. (and see ibid., iv, 77). 69. Ramsey, "Richard Cromwell", pp. 76-77. 70* Hutchinson, Memoirs, pp. 377-378. 71. Abbott, "Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell", ii, 425. • 72. Journal of the Earl-of Sandwich, p. 70. 73. Bordeaux to Mazarin,-7 March 1659. (Guizot, "Histojtie du Protectorat, etc.", i, 324). 74. Thurloe, vii, 667. CHAPTER 7 107

PROFESSIONS-AMD THE LAW

An interesting feature of the country-City alliance was the

emergence into positions of importance of men from a growing profes•

sional group. The law had long acted in cooperation with the wealthy,

and (in spite of Laad and the fanatics) a fair number of clergymen in

the seventeenth century adopted a professional attitude whereby eco• nomic security and the prospect of preferment took precedence over points of doctrine. William Morrice was the son of a well-paid Doc•

tor of Divinity, ' and Monk's brother Nicholas was an Anglican minister who enjoyed the rectory of Kilkhampton through the influence of his Z cousin Sir John Grenville. There were many Anglicans who, like Mr.

Tanner of Swainswick, took the Covenant and Negative Oath and gave 3 security for good behaviour. Two-thirds of the old beneficed clergy 4 remained in their cures, and the Vicar of Bray became a legend.

Among the medical men who became prominent at this time were Sir S 6 John Frederick, the Barber-Surgeon; Dr. Thomas Clarges and Dr. / William Petty, two vitally-important undercover men in the alliance; 9

and Thomas Sydenham, the brother of Colonel William Sydenham. In

1653 appeared the first English translation of William Harvey's "Ana-

tomieal exercises...concerning the motion of the heart and blood."

Harvey died in 1657, and his funeral was attended by a large number of

Fellows of the College of Physicians, in spite of the fact that it took place on the same day as Cromwell's second inauguration as Lord 10 , Protector. Elected to Richards Parliament were at least four Doctors 108

of Medicine: John Bathurst (Richmond), Roger Bosworth (Hereford City),

Thomas Slater (Cambridge University), and William Stene (Thetford)

The political influence of John Locke at a somewhat later date is wide- /Z

ly known. The relationship among organised religion, medicine, law,

and politics at this time seemsto merit further studyj and so does the

implication that science would join religion and law to serve the in• terests of the wealthy.

Still, the most important group were the lawyers, whose mighty number in Richard;': s Parliament was a significant token of the defeat

of those forces which had once championed the cause of the ambitious poor. For throughout the period Of war and instability the lower

classes had consistently attacked lawyers and the law.

In 1645 a bitter pamphlet castigated the men of the Long Robe as

"crumenae-mulcta natio, loquacula turba", and complained that they

"will intrude themselves into the Chairs of all Committees, where

(being accustomed to take fees) they will underhand protect Delin- quents, and their cancelled estates with Tricks and Devices." The IV 15

Heads of the Proposals in 1647, the army's petition in 1652, and petitions presented to the Rump in 1659 all demanded legal reforms, particularly that legal processes should be made simpler and cheaper.

Some of the politically-minded landowners gave lip-service to these demands, notably Anthony Ashley Cooper. Only one serious attempt was made to implement reforms,•srahd that was by the Barebones fanatics

in 1653. The matter was talked out in committee by the Cromwellian ie group; and judges who had watched in exasperation were instrumental 109 in setting up a "supreme authority not liable to the changes and fluctuations of a Parliament, from whom they could receive their com- 14 missions as judges, in whose name writs, and processes might run."

The Barebones Parliament, political highpoint in the struggle of the 2o lower classes, contained not a single practising lawyer — a striking contrast to the 150 who sat in Richard',s Parliament.

So far as the lower classes were concerned, the law was connected 2/ with feudalism and the Norman Yoke. John Hare, in I648, wrote of "that general and inbred hatred which still dwells in our common people against both our laws and lawyers" Norman innovations should be re• tracted; "so far are the said innovations from being any part of our legitimate laws, though our wild lawyers so repute them while we spurn at English proclamations, we submit to Norman laws; and...not• withstanding all our great victories and triumphs, we do still remain, as much as ever, under the title and in the quality of a conquered nation."' Though sympathetic juries persistently acquitted John Lil- zy burne, he was almost equally persistently kept in prison. That the law somehow worked to the disadvantage of the poor was generally rec• ognised, and many agitators believed that great changes in the social and economic fabric could be achieved through legislation. . "The poor and oppressed pay for all", wrote John Warr, and demanded that the channel of the law should be cleared so as to compensate the people zs

"for all their sufferings, losses, and blood."

One propagandist, the Digger Gerard Winstanley, saw clearly that law was a reflection of social inequality rather than a cause; and his 110

group made some effort to organise social and. economic reforms within

the compass of the existing law. ("For the Parliament promised, if we

would pay taxes, and give free quarter, and. adventure our lives against

Charles and his party, whom they called the common enemy, they would.

make us a free people. These three things being all done by us, as

well as by themselves, we claim this our bargain by the Law of Con-

tract from them"). Diggers, however, in opposing the enclosure of

commons and in advocating communal ownership, struck at the roots of

the social system which the law was designed to protect. They did not 27

last long. '

Supremacy of the Common Law, as against the royal prerogative,

was largely achieved before the outbreak of war in 1642> and was con•

firmed by the victory of Parliament. Ignoring the significance of Sir

Edward Coke and his supporters, pamphleteers such as Hare and Warr ex•

aggerated the association between law and feudalism. In fact many

feudal survivals and revivals were swept away in Parliament's triumph,

and something close to equality before the law was established. The

lower classes' continued distrust of lawyers and the law was, however,

justified insofar as the changes which had taken place had been made

at the instigation of lawyers and in the interest of privilege.

For the wealthy equality before the law had a definitely limited meaning. Statute law was made in Parliament by themselves, or at least

with their consent, and was administered at the local level by Com• missions of the Peace consisting of themselves. Professional judges

dealt with serious criminal cases at periodic intervals, travelling on Ill

circuit and receiving salaries from the central government as well as

local fees and perquisites. During the Interregnum there was a marked

increase in the relative importance of salaries paid to judges, which IS the latter repaid in the quality of service given to the Commonwealth.

While it may be straining a point to suggest that Parliament at this timei.yinstituted the practice of buying the services of judges, it can hardly be doubted that the cash nexus did begin to play ant.important role in the administration of justice. The salaries and commissions Zq Jo paid to such men as Edmund Prideaux 'and Sir Thomas Widdrington are

evidence of the importance attached to contentment among leaders of the legal profession.

Lawyers derived considerable benefit from the sales of land occa•

sioned by the wars, through speculative buying and through acting as 3/ agents for landowners' and merchants' purchases. Some lawyers acted 3Z for Royalists who re-bought confiscated estates. Commerce also had mutual interests with the lawyers, notably in the interpretation of regulations introduced by statute, custom, or royal prerogative. Anal• ysis of relevant cases in Coke's "Reports" and "Institutes" has led to the conclusion that "the rise of economic liberalism depended not only on the survival of the common law but also (judging by what appears in 33

Coke) on the peculiar way in which the courts interpreted that law."

The main effect of legal changes in the seventeenth century was in line with the social changes which made it necessary to assert status 3? through material possessions rather than prowess in battle. Registrars and Recorders made an excellent living from fees, fines, 112 36 and the sale of minor offices and licences. Establishment of a

system of district registries for wills and deeds, and of a general 36 . , registry of marriages, births and burials, increased the duties (and

fees) of lawyers besides helping to protect estates and other property.

As much as or even more than landowners and moneymen, lawyers had to

avoid anarchy in order to remain prosperous. They saw, as their lower-

class critics saw, that their prestige depended not only on the main•

tenance of a rich body of potential clients, but also on the superior•

ity myths associated with the Norman Conquest and feudalism. There 37 were very few republican lawyers, even the""stern democrat" St. John

opining "that the government of this nation, without something of mon•

archical power, will be very difficult to be so settled as not to 3?

shake the foundation of our laws."

Clearly and articulately the great majority of lawyers on the

Parliamentary side limited their opposition to embrace only the alleg•

edly unconstitutional and illegal nature of Charles I's prerogative

courts and taxation devices. They pointedly refrained from attacking the monarchy- itself, and the plans made for Charles's trial dispensed with legality as they understood it. The trial aroused the active opposition of many lawyers and legally-trained politicians, including

(for example) Nathaniel Fiennesf^ John Selden,^"john Glynne,'*'7 Harbot- Vz 43 tie Grimstone, John Maynard, and William Prynne. The politician

Sir William Waller spoke for many when he called for "the re-establish• ment of a monarchy circumscribed and entrenched, and as I may say, VS fortified with good laws." 113 Even those lawyers, such as Bulstrode Whitelock and Oliver St.John, who continued to sit in the Rump after the execution of the king/ rer- fused to countenance the High Court of Justice which was set up for ¥7 the trial.' After refusals by St. John, Chief Justice Henry Rolle, and Lord Chief Baron John filylde, the obscure John Bradshaw was appointed to preside over the court. Bradshaw made a considerable show of reluctance to accept the honour, being (it was alleged) "afraid of some tumult...; and therefore, besides other defence, he had a thick So big-crowned beaver hat, lined with plated steel, to ward off blows."

Apparently Bradshaw accepted in the conviction that the Rump was a legally-constituted Parliament with statutory power to set up such a court; for in 1653, when the Rump was expelled, he is reported to have Si said: "If this be no Parliament, then am I the king's murderer." Acts I passed by the Rump in 1649 and 1650 indicate that there was widespread Sz, indignation among justiceI s and lawyers throughout the country. Many of the great estates of the seventeenth century had been J S3 founded (or rescued) through profits made in the legal profession.

Many practising lawyers also owned estates of considerable value, and most were to a greater or less extent "men of independent fortune."**^

The great majority were nevertheless in business rather for the cash ! returns than from ah abstract interest in jurisprudence; and these re• turns came from two main sources —• official salaries and perquisites, and payment for services rendered to private individuals. The contin• ued prosperity of lawyers therefore depended on stable government and the existence of litigious magnates.

Almost all members of the legal profession, in common with great 114 landowners and supporters of privilege in commerce, viewed monarchy as

a valuable instrument for the preservation of stability. Their pre•

occupation with the office of a king, and even with the title, was made strikingly clear in the meeting between Cromwell and the Parlia• mentary Committee which offered him the crown, 11 April 1657. Six of the eight speakers were prominent lawyers, and all spoke along similar lines. Lord ..Commissioner Whitelock said: "It was thought, that the

Title which is known by the Law of England for many Ages, many hun•

dreds of Years together received, and the Laws fitted to it, and that to the Law, that it might be of more Certainty and clear Establishment, and more conformable to the Laws of the Nation; that that Title should SS be that of King, rather than that other of Protector." For a similar reason, said the Master of the Rolls, it had earlier been decided not to re-name Parliament, calling it the Representative of the People — S6

"it might change the very Course, Ground and Reason of Parliament."

There was, from a purely logical (or mercenary) point of view, no valid reason why a Parliamentary Republic, or a Protectorate, or even

a self-perpetuating assembly should not be able to preserve and extend

political and economic privileges. The concern of lawyers with con•

cepts derived from the class structure of feudalism paralleled similar s/ concern among landowners and (though to a less extent) among members St?

of the City companies. Both in their capacity as lawyers and in their

capacity as agents and spokesmen for landed and moneyed magnates, mem• bers of the legal profession viewed economic and political power as means to the preservation of social status. They cheerfully joined in 115 repressing and exploiting the lower classes, not because they were mis• ers, but because they were (beneath the skin) feudal retainers.

Because they were unable or unwilling (in almost all cases) to embrace the idea of stable government in the republician and/or demo• cratic form, lawyers were monarchists. A few, such as Edward Hyde, sq (,o

Heneage Finch, and George Parry, were Stuart Royalists. Most were more concerned with monarchy as an institution than with any particular family's claim, though undoubtedly they preferred legitimacy in the traditional sense. When the unlooked-for boldness of the lower classes, particularly in the army, seemed to threaten privilege itself, lawyers were among the first to turn their attention to Cromwell as a potential monarch. In a conference after the battle of Worcester, monarchical arguments were advanced by Bulstrode Whitelock and Sir Thomas Widdring- 61 ton as well as Oliver St. John; and Whitelock reported that "the law• yers were generally for a mixed monarchical government, and many were for the duke of Gloucester to be made king." The contribution of jud- 63 ges toward setting up the Protectorate has already been mentioned; and yet further evidence of the characteristic legal attitude is to be found in the support which Cromwell received after 1657 from prominent lawyers 69 who had been in opposition, notably Glynne and Maynard. ' The long life of Maynard, admirably summarised by Inderwick, illustrates the devotion of a typical lawyer ;to the cause of order and the service of the ruling class. "He was born under Queen Elizabeth in 1602. He took his Oxford degree under King James in 1620. He was called to the bar under King

Charles I in 1625. He was made a Serjeant-at-Law by Cromwell in 1654, and Protector's Serjeant in May 1658, Solicitor-General by Richard in

September 1658, was knighted by King Charles II in 1660, was appointed 116 '

King's Ancient Serjeant by King James II in 1685, and Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal by King William III in 1689. He was in nearly every

Parliament that sat from 1625, when he was M.P. for Chippenham, to 1690, when he was M.P. for Plymouth, and he was retained on one side or the other in every important case. He was a staunch Presbyterian by con• viction and by party ties, and, having never swerved from his religion or his party, he earned a well-deserved respect. He lived till 9th

October 1690, and'left behind ham a large fortune and a great reputation."

Cromwell recognised the political importance of professional lawyers as agents and spokesmen for the landed, and moneyed interests. His at• tempts to win their support, on the whole reasonably successful, included promotion to the Other House for Whitelock, St. John, Glynne, William & 67 6? to Lenthal, Henry Lawrence/ and William Steele. Yifiddrington and Prideauxr/ accepted rich legal posts, and Maynard prosecuted in the trials of Sir To

Henry Slingsby and Dr. Hewitt. This association between the Pro• tectorate and the law was, however, strictly a marriage of convenience.

It meant that almost all lawyers were prepared to support a regime which protected them and their clients against threats to property and pri• vilege. It did not mean that they had a vested interest in the

Protectorate as an institution or in a Cromwellian dynasty, though it suggested that the building of such an interest would be possible.

The protection of property and privilege was closely tied to the protection of Common Law, which'had arisen from the determination of landowners and merchants to dissociate "potestas" (the royal power) 117 from "proprietas" (ownership)^ As status came to depend more on economic strength than on military prowess, Common Law became an in• creasingly potent weapon against commercial interlopers, usurers and the like, but above all against the unfair taxation of land and against claims asserted by members of the lower classes. The complexity of

Common Law often made it possible for a manorial lord to dispute the customary rights of tenants and copyholders, and to press his argu• ment in the courts to a point where his adversaries could no longer afford to oppose him. Lawyers profited greatly from the services which they rendered in such disputes. "It is a miserable thing", said one of them in a moment of unusual sympathy, "to observe how sharpers that now are commonly court-keepers pinch the poor copyholders in their fees. Small tenements and pieces of land that have been men's inher• itances for divers generations, to say nothing of the fines, are de- voured by fees."

Charles I had threatened the operation of the Common Law through such devices as ship-money and through packing the prerogative courts.

One of the.earliest resolutions of the Long Parliament was : "That the

Court of Star-chamber (while it stood as a Court) had no power to ex- 73 amine Freehold or Inheritance." Events after that date showed, how• ever, that danger might threaten from other directions, even from Par• liament itself. A supreme House of Commons, chosen or packed by a misguided de facto government, might defeat the purpose^ of the Com• mon Law by enacting and enforcing Statute Law. When the Rump, after the execution of the king, raised the assessment on land to 90,000 118 yji 7s pounds a month, and later to 120,000 pounds, lawyers devised legal ways of delaying or evading payment. In April 1652, Colonel Downes reporting on the army accounts spoke of 100,000 pounds "which cannot be relied upon to be received within the 13 Months, if at all." It is probably significant that a leading role in resistance to the Rump was taken by William Erynne, who steadfastly refused to support the rr

Protectorate.

The large number of lawyers in Richard's Parliament was partly coincidental and partly due to the large total number of members (in• cluding a full complement from England and Wales as well as the Scot• tish and Irish members). In comparison with the Long Parliament, how- re ever, the percentage of lawyers doubled; and such an increase could hardly be ascribed to coincidence or chance. It meant rather that electors were determined to avoid a clash between Common Law and Stat• ute Law. In one sense it was a triumph for the legal profession — a kind of expression of faith by landowners and moneymen; and a virtual admission that, in spite of grumbling about their legal expenses, they recognised the value of the services which they bought. Above all, however, it provided the wealthy with political insurance. For in 1659 the presence of Maynard and about 150 others of similar mould made it virtually certain that there would be no attempts in that Parliament to alter the law in favour of the underprivileged. NOTES

1. D.N.B., xiii, 944. 2. Warner, "Hero of the Restoration", pp. 130-131 119 3. Harda&re, "Royalists During the Puritan Revolution", p. 48. 4. Bo'sher, "Making of the Restfration Settlement", p. 27. 5. See Chapter 5 of this thesis, note 41. 6. Aubrey, Brief Lives (ed. Clark), ii 76. 7. Aubrey, as note 6, ii, 139-150. 8. Thomas was the author of a number of medical works, including- "Thomae Sydenham Methodus Curandi Febres, etc.". See Payne, "Thomas Sydenham", p. 116-and passim. 9. Royal- College of Physicians, "William Harvey", p. 23. 10. Power,"William Harvey", p. 168. 11. Old Parliamentary History, xxi, 258, 251, 247 and 253. 12. L.F. Brown, "First Earl of Shaftesbury", see index p. 345. 13. "Some Advertisements, etc.", Somers Tracts!., i, 32-38. 14. Gardiner, "Constitutional Documents, etc.", pp. 324-325. 15. Inderwick, "Interregnum", p. 211. 16. Davies, "Restoration", pp. 92-93. 17. Commons Journals, vii, 284 and 304. 18. L.F. Brown, as note 12, p. 55. 19. Inderwick, as note 15, pp. 212-213. 20. Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate", pp. 291 and 302. 21. Hill, "Puritanism and Revolution", pp. 50-122. 22. Hare, "England's Proper and only way ... or The Norman Yoke Once More Uncased", in Harleian Miscellany, vi, 178. 23. ibid., vi. 176. 24. D.N.B., xi, 1122-1129. Frank, "Levellers", pp. 16, 60, 85, 152-153, 229, and 240. 25. Warr, "Corruption and Deficiency of the Laws, etc.", in Harleian-Miscellany, vi, 212-225. 26. Winstanley, "A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of England", in Works (ed. Sabine), p. 276. 27. Petegorsky, "Left-Wing Democracy in the English Civil War", pp. 234-235 and passim. 28. Inderwick, as note 15, pp. 206-207 and 233-234. 29. ibid., 235-237. 30. Inderwick, as note 15, pp. 229 and 207. "A Narrative of the Late Parliament, etc.", in Harleian Miscellany, vi, 46I. 31. Chesney, "Transference of Lands, etc.", in Trans. R. Hist. Soc, 4th series xv (1952), 193-194. 32; Ashley, "John Wildman", pp. 72-73. 32. Thirsk, "Sales of Royalist Land, etc.", in Econ. Hist. Rev.; 2nd series, jfcv, 196. 33. Wagner, "Coke and the Rise of Economic Liberalism", in Econ. Hist. Rev., vi (1935-1936), 30-44. 34. See Chapter 3, note 6. 35. Campbell, "Lives of the Chief Justices", ii, 66-67 and 113. 36. Inderwick, as note 15, pp. 182-183. 37. Campbell, as note 35, ii, H2. 38. Whitelock, iii, 373 (10 December 1651). See also Somers Tracts, 2, iii (vol. vii in complete series), 123, where monarchical arguments are advanced (1657) by the 120 Lord Chief Justice, either Oliver St. John or John Glynne. This pamphlet, "Monarchy Asserted, etc." should not be confused with a pamphlet of the same title written by Matthew Wren. (Blitzer, "An Immortal Commonwealth", p.52. 39. Gardiner, "History of the Great Civil War", iv, 265,. 40. Stratford, "King Charles the Martyr", p. 249. 41. Paul, "Lord Protector", p. 101, note 4. 42. Gardiner, as note 39, iv, 217. 43• As note 41. 44. Kirby, "William Prynne", pp. 95~96. 45. Waller, "Vindication, etc.", p. 301, as cited by Under- down, "Royalist Conspiracy, etc.", p. 4. 46. Brunton and Pennington, pp. 241 and 245. 31?. 47. Whitelock, iiy 487. ' Stratford, as note 40, pp. 3H and 3tg.. 48. Gardiner, as note 39,•iv, 288. 49. Campbell, as note 35, ii, 121-122. 50. Kennett, as cited by Campbell, as note 35, ii, 122-123. 51. Buchan, "Oliver Cromwell", p. 309. 52. Firth and Rait (eds.), "Acts and. Ordinances, etc.", ii, 6, 241, and 357-358. 53. Brunton and Pennington, p. 180. 54. Inderwick, as note 15, p. 245 (and list on pp. 246-248). 55* "Monarchy Asserted, etc.", in Somers Tracts, as note 38, 2, iii,. 113-130.-(Whitelock's argument, pp. 119-120). 56. "Monarchy Asserted, etc.", as note 38, 121-122. 57. See Chapter 3 of this thesis. 58. See Chapter-5 of this thesis. 59. .D.N.B., vii, 8-11. '60. Old Parliamentary History, ix, 22. Parry, elected for St. Mawes (Cornwall) in 1646, was disabled in 1643j as, at various times, were 32 other lawyers. (See Brunton and Pennington, p. 5). In view of the attention drawn early in this chapter to the medical profession, some interest attaches to-Samuel Turner, M.D., member for Shaftesbury (Dorset), who was also disabled in 1643. 61. See note 38. 62. Whitelock, iii, 374- 63. See note 19. 64. See notes 41'and 43. ' D.N.B., viii, 15-18j and'xiii, 157-161. 65.Inderwick, as note 15, pp. 239-240. 66. D.N.B., xi, 934-939. 67. D.N.B., xi, 697-699. 68. D.N.B., xviii, 1025-1026. 69. See notes 30 and 29. 70. Firth, "Last Years of the Protectorate", ii, 76-80. 71. Plucknett, "Concise History of the Common Law", p. 37. 72. North, "Lives of the Norths", (ed. Jessopp), i, 31. 73. Commons Journals, ii, 272. (26 August 1641). 74. Commons Journals, vi, 176. 75. Commons Journals, vi, 564. 76. Commons Journals, vii, 128. 77. Prynne,."A Seasonable, Legal! and Historical! Vindication, etc.", cited in Kirby, "William Prynne", pp. 104-105. 78. From U+% to 29%. See Chapter 6, note 33; and Brunton and Pennington, pp. 2-5 and 25-26. 79. Newcastle, "life of William Cavendish, etc." (ed. Firth), p. 81. CHAPTER 8 122

CONTROL OF THE LOWER CLASSES

Fear and horror of lower-class rebellion were never far from the thoughts of landowners, moneymen or lawyers. Sir John Hotham's opinion^was widely supported among members of the ruling class, and was frequently expressed in contemporary literature. The lawyer White- lock described how in 1653 "the servants rose against their masters.... most ingratefully and disingeniously, as well as rashly and imprud• ently...; and now they took what they designed, all power into their 2 own hands." The Presbyterian minister Xachary Crofton, a vigorous propagandist for a free parliament, published a collection of sermons in 1659, in which he spoke of "treason, rebellion, regicide, perfidy, perjury, pride, hyprocisy and violence...sad and sinful revolutions... violation of laws, invasion of interests, destruction of liberties... and unparalleled wickedness and confusion in church and state: ...all 3 this declared as a mark of God's favour." The landowner-theologian- politician William Morrice, accepting his seals of office in 1660, still feared that "the ill humours in the army and nation...are not if purged out." He was partly correct in his judgement, though at that time there was no chance of a successful revolution by the ill-humoured.

The lower classes had, on the whole, supported Parliament during the Civil Wars; yet, until the formation of the New Model, mutiny, des- 5 ertion, and indiscipline had dogged every step of the local levies.

There was probably a good deal of truth in Hobbes's assertion that "if the King had had money, he might have had soldiers enough in England.

For there were very few of the common people that cared much for either 123

of the causes, but would have taken any side for pay or plunder."^ The

whole truth, however, about the motives which influenced the lower

classes would include many other considerations beyond pay and plunder.

Particularly it would embrace demands for personal freedom in religion,

for representative political institutions, for an equitable re-arrange•

ment of the legal code, and for a fair share of the nation's material

wealth. During the Interregnum all these demands had, from time to

time, been within the grasp of the common people; and the whole social

order had been threatened. The years from 1649 to I656 had, from the

ruling-class point of view, been full of danger; but landowners, money-

men and lawyers had together devised effective ways of overcoming their

perils. By 1658 the ambitions of the lower classes were largely under

control, and plans to complete their suppression were firmly under

weigh.

Politically the common people enjoyed major victories in the ex•

ecution of the king and in the summoning of the Barebones Parliament. 7

Both events produced a spate of denunciations, and the slain king be•

came the subject of a masterly propaganda campaign which changed him

from a tyrant to a saintly martyr. "0 deal not with them as blood•

thirsty and deceitful men", he was reported to have said, "but overcome

their cruelty with Thy compassion and my charity. And when Thou mak-

est inquisition for my blood, 0 sprinkle their polluted, yet penitent,

souls with the Blood of Thy Son, that Thy destroying angel may pass

over them." There is no doubt that this kind of propaganda was high•

ly successful among the mob, particularly during the first optimistic 124 months of the.Restoration, when the most dangerous regicides were con•

demned and executed.

The selected victims in 1660 were Thomas Harrison, John Carew,

John Coke, Thomas Scott, Hugh Peters, Gregory Clements, John Jones,

Daniel Axtell, Francis Hacker, and Adrian Scrope. Seven were men of obscure origin7 who had aspired to leadership in fields reserved to

the establishment — politics, law, religion, the army. The worst of

all was Harrison, who had almost succeeded in every one of these four

areas. For him the Lord Chief Baron (Sit* SsaSSew Bridgman) kept the most exquisite penalty: "You shall be hanged by the neck, and being

alive shall be cut down, and your privy members to be cut off, your en•

trails to be taken out of your body, and (you living) the same to be burnt before your eyes, and your head to be cut off, your body to be

divided into four quarters, and head and quarters to be disposed of at the pleasure of the king's majesty, and the Lord have mercy upon your soul." The victims who spoke on the execution ladder echoed on var•

ious ways the words of Hacker: "I have nothing lies upon my conscience 7/ as guilt whereof I am now condemned." Though probably spoken in jest,

some words used during Harrison's trial suggest that not far below the

surface there still lurked considerable fear of sympathy among the masses. "This man hath the plague all over himj it is pity that any /&

should stand near him, for he will infect them."

After 1653 "the political gains of the lower classes — abolition of the monarchy, the Lords and the bishops among them — were gradually but surely whittled away, partly by landowners who asserted their cus- /3 125 tomary privileges at a local level; partly by lawyers who convinced

Cromwell and many of his officers about the dangers of anarchy; and partly by City' merchants and financiers who mingled flattery and veiled threats at Grocers' Hall banquets.

Common people also made important economic gains during the first years of the 'Interregnum. Soldiers were often paid with debentures which appeared to offer them a chance of becoming small landowners.

The Barebones Parliament sought to adjust the law in favour of small men, and even attacked the question of tithes. Wage-labourers were accused of taking advantage of the shortage of skilled help, "Their wages being advanced/to such extraordinary heights that they are likely ' 16 ere long to bee masters-and their masters servants." This assertion, though exaggerated along the usual lines, is to some extent supported by statistics compiled by J. Thorold Rogers.

Rogers calculated the average price of a quarter of wheat and the average weekly wage of an agricultural labourer.' His figures show the remarkable gains in purchasing power made between I648 and 1654, followed by a steady deterioration to 1658, a slight rise to 1660, and a swift drop in 1661. From a labourer's point of view, the best time was the harvest year 1654-1655, when the average weekly wage (7 shill• ings and 7 pence-halfpenny) was 35$ of the average price of a quarter of wheat (21 shillings and 8 pence). In 1648-1649 and again in 1661-

1662 the relationship was only 11$. In 1641 Ralph Josselin hired a maid (Sarah Browne) for thirty-eight shillings per annum: in I658 Susan

Hadley received•forty shillings and "4 paire of shoesfl: in 1660 Grace

Newton was to have fifty shillings.According to 126

Rogers's wheat prices, Sarah was best paid and Susan worst; and this confirms the expectation derived from Rogers's wage tables. Unfortu• nately Josselin does not mention the cost of a maid in 1654, though a diary entry for 1 September that year does suggest that he had servant problems ^°

By 1658 the economic gains of the lower classes had suffered the same fate as their political gains. With the help of Cromwell, the- establishment had talked out the various schemes for legal reform, ex• cept in those aspects which were beneficial to themselves. Tithes continued to support a substantial ministry, most of the incumbents 2/ remaining in their livings in spite of difficulties. The debentures issued to soldiers rarely turned them into landowners, but proved a Z2j successful device for cheating them of a good part of their pay.

Moreover, much of the debentured land was bought by army officers, who found at the Restoration that they too had been cheated; for they had used their own pay to keep soldiers from penury, so that in the long run the upkeep of the army cost the establishment - little or nothing.

Though this policy may not have been deliberate in the beginning, its. beautiful simplicity was abundantly clear by 1659; and its operation could only have been upset by a successful army coup, an event rendered unlikely as a result of distrust which the debenture traffic had bred.

It can hardly be doubted that the deadness of trade at this time, if inconvenient to merchants, was an invaluable depressant of wages. Con- Z3 trol of the lower orders through the organisation of charity became practical, though not put on a firm statutory basis till after the 127

Restoration.

The new feature of charitable works was not increased charity, but increased efficiency in organisation. The Elizabethan Poor Law"^ had been harsh enough, but had not associated relief of the destitute with a calculated scheme to keep them dependent. Under its provisions it had been possible for determined and knowledgeable poor men to draw assistance from several uncoordinated sources. Poor people might choose to live in parishes Miere commons and wastes were still available or zs where there were "the most woods for them to burn or destroy." The

Act of 1662 removed these "defects in the law'^by compelling the lower classes to remain in their own parishes (except at harvest time), or to be deprived of relief. Any who sought alms while on the move were classified as sturdy beggars, and were liable on conviction to be transported to the plantations, "there to "be disposed of in the usual way.... As in later centuries, control of charitable funds was not without its potential advantages. By 1694 the London Orphans' Fund had been so far mismanaged as to reduce the civic authorities to a state approaching bankruptcy.

Many members of the lower classes earned reputations as capable military and naval officers during the Civil Wars and the Interregnum.

Popular conceptions of Cromwell's russet-coated captains, singing psalms as they rode into battle, need to be balanced by such consider• ations as (for example) the names of men who actually commanded regi• ments in the New Model* A' list of the colonels of foot, for instance, might almost be taken as part of a social register: Fairfax, Skippon, 128

Waller, Hammond, Harley, Montagu, Lloyd, Pickering, Fortescue, Ingolds- zq

by. 1 The exigencies of war, on the other hand, raised up such men as

Ashfield, Salmon, Pride, Kelsey, Hewson, and Cobbet; and the king's

virtual refusal to compromise with gentlemen thrust upstarts into pos•

itions of prominence. A major reason for the failure of Cromwell's

major-generals in.1656 was the fact that most of them were self-made

men of comparatively humble origins.^0 With such reservations as have

been suggested, it may reasonably be asserted that lower-class ambi•

tions were more nearly realised in military matters than in economics

or politics. From the point of view of the establishment the army (and

to a less extent the navy) constituted a serious problem.

This point of view was not shared with the common people, among

whom the popularity of the soldiers varied considerably. Though unpaid 31 troops living at free quarter caused much complaint, particularly 3Z when they also carried out anti-sin measures, the Commonwealth forces 33

were noted for their orderly behaviour. When the men were properly

' paid, "it happens that everywhere the people welcome them with open 34

hands, and call them protectors, liberators, good pleasant guests."

Under the circumstances, deliberately to keep the pay of the armed

forces in arrears was potentially dangerous to established order, but

had obvious political advantages if not carried too far. Resultant

inconveniences among the civilian population were aggravated through 3S

a masterly whispering campaign which was carried on against the com•

mon soldiers, claiming that they "were unwilling to return to an in•

dustrious life, into a compliance with any design, in order to get a 129

living."^

The problem of the army, still .unsolved in 1659, was closely con• nected with, the problem, of religious sects. There was a good deal of

psalm-singing in the New Model/^ and the demand for political repre•

sentation was supported by demands for freedom in worship. During the

Interregnum these latter demands were largely met, probably through a

conscious policy of granting the least hazardous concessions when it would have been political suicide to grant none at all. Religious ecstasy was safer than political agitation or claims to social equality.

The noble theorist, Sir James Harrington, suggested that religious freedom might conveniently be granted to the lower classes on a perm• anent basis They could then be compelled to send their children to school, so that a. new generation of law-abiding second-class citizens would arise, conditioned to find a relish m obedience and religious satisfaction in ministers appointed by the universities. A certain amount of toleration was ultimately assured by the Act of 1689, but the provisions of that Act point to some of the reasons why limited recognition of dissent was not seriously considered in 1658-1660.

In 1689 the Toleration Act provided "that nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt any-rr-sper sons.. .from paying of tithes or 43 other parochial duties." It demanded acceptance of the Thirty-nine

Articles, except for numbers 34,35,and 36, and a part of 20j which re• lated to homilies, church traditions, consecration of bishops, and decreed ceremonies. Groups opposed to infant baptism were excused 44 also from the appropriate part of number 2?. All dissenters were 130 required to declare fidelity to the monarch and belief in the divine 45 inspiration of the Bible. By 1689 these provisions were in the nature of concessions, but in 1659 they would barely have recognised all the freedoms which congregations actually practised. In 1659 the major issues were those two which the Toleration Act specifically refused to tolerate: freedom from tithes and freedom to oppose any earthly mon- 46 arch. Quakers in 1659 petitioned against tithes, and were supported 47 by all classes of Independents, Baptists and Fifth Monarchists. The last-named group were particularly militant, owning allegiance to no

4? monarch but King Jesus. Their battle-cries were texts from the more violent parts of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekielj^and they attempted armed revolts in 1657 and 1661 under the leadership of Thomas Venner.

During the later years of the Protectorate the influence of the extreme sects in the army had been unostentatiously reduced, partic- S/ ularly by Monk in Scotland and Henry Cromwell in Ireland. Though many extremists remained among the ranks and the lower officers, the question of pay became relatively more important as time passed; and late in 1659 Monk was able to dismiss many anabaptists, and yet (by paying his men) retain the allegiance of the great majority of his S3 force. If this test of strength.— pay against religious independ• ence — was not premeditated by Thomas Clarges and the City magnates who consistently supported Monk, it was at any rate prophetic. The problem of religious fanaticism would be solved by disbanding the army.

Demobilised soldiers would become civilian poor, to be treated the same as all the others. 131

As the restoration of the Stuart monarchy became more and more

certain, ideas like Harrington's became almost ludicrous. The question

which took shape was not primarily whether the government would organise

religion as an instrument of propaganda and control, but rather what

form the organization would take. A superficial observer, noticing the

apparent strength of Presbyterianism in London, in Scotland, and among

the Parliamentarian gentry; might have concluded that Restoration Eng• land would be Presbyterian. One correspondent, however, informed Hyde S# that Monk's Presbyterianism was "to serve his own ends"; and if the main question was to be effective control, there was much to be said for Anglicanism, with its feudal-style hierarchy and its appropriate

attitudes on social questions.

In the event of the bishops returning with the king it would be

essential to avoid the promotion of men concerned primarily with rel• igion. Fortunately the Interregnum had discovered a number of Pres• byterian divines who were more interested in promotion for themselves than in promotion of the Covenant, men of the world who recognised the SS failure in England of the Presbyterian classis. The moderate Pres• byterian shaded off into the moderate Episcopalian as Edward Reynolds Sb became Bishop of Norwich and James Sharp was appointed Archbishop of

St. Andrews."^ On Sga visit to London, made in February l660A. with the connivance of Monk, Sharp found that a readiness for "accommodation" ar 1 was common among influential English Presbyterians,

More important was the evidence which had been accumulating, dur•

ing hard times, of a changed spirit among influential members of the 132

Anglican clergy., The dangers of a new Land receded into the background with the emergence of such admirable characters (from the point of view of the wealthy) as Gilbert Sheldon. Before his elevation to the bis• hopric of London, Sheldon "retrieved thevestate of the family (which was in a manner spent by his elder brother) in behalf of the children of the deceas'd; after he was rais'd to the Episcopal Throne, in which he sate seventeen years, he spent seventy three thousand pounds in works of Munificence and Charity; and yet was so wonderfully prudent in the conduct of his affairs, that after he laid out so much he left 60 great possessions, and a large quantity of money to his heirs." To retrieve estates, to spend lavishly, and yet to leave a large fortune to one's heirs were the marks of a successful gentleman. Sam• uel Parker, who admired these qualities in Sheldon, was himself another of the new-style ecclesia\sties; and was indeed so zealous as to arouse the antagonism of some of his rivals in the race for promotion. Under the influence of gentlemanly bishops the Church could become a retreat for younger sons and hard-up cousins, providing them with status and a regular income in return for their services as propagandists and spies among the lower classes. Archbishop Tillotson could establish 63 a "Gospel of Moral Rectitude", and the parson could help, the squire to keep the. lower classes subservient. As the great philanthropist 64 William Wilberforce put it: "Christianity reminds the lesser orders that their more lowly path has been allotted to them by the hand of

God; that it is their part faithfully to discharge its duties and con- 6s tentedly to bear its inconveniences." 133

In 1659 and 1660 the eighteenth-century parson was unborn^ but the country-City alliance was (so to speak) in an advanced state of pregnancy with this and other offspring. When the lawyer Matthew Hale suggested in the Convention Parliament that the Covenant should be made a condition of Charles's return, his motion was unceremoniously thrown out. The odds favouring the, re-establishment of the .Church of

England, under new management, rose sharply as Anglicans proved their ability to fit snugly into the general scheme, and Presbyterians proved their ability to become Anglicans. The pattern of control began to assume a definite shape, with places for Parliament, the law, money, the press, the Church; but still no definite place for that vitally- important instrument of government, the army.

NOTES

1. See Chapter 2, note 23. 2. Whitelock, iv, 6. 3. Crofton, "Felix Scelus, Querela Piorum, etc.", cited in Dodd "Troubles in a City Parish", Eng. Hist. Rev., x (1895), 50. (After the Restoration Crofton was committ• ed on a charge of treason, and imprisoned for more than a year. He then worked as a cheese factor, and ulti• mately returned to the pulpit with the support of Sir Samuel Starling, Lord Mayor elected in 1669).

4f. Clarendon MSS., lxxii, 22, cited in Coate, "William Mor- rice and the Restoration, etc.", Eng. Hist. Rev., xxxiii (1918), 372-373. 5. Forteseue, "History of the British Army", i, 207-208. 6. Hobbs, "Behemoth", in Works (ed. Molesworth, 1840), vi, 166. 7. Godwin, "History of the Commonwealth", iii, 583-587. 8. "Eikon Basilike", allegedly written by Charles I, (ed. Phillimore, 1879), p. 258. 9. See accounts in D.N.B. The three exceptions were Carew (a Fifth Monarchist who persistently refused to escape); Hacker (whose body was not quartered, but given to his Royalist relations); and Scrope (of whom Bridgman said that he was "not such a person as some of the rest", but who was hanged on the evidence of Richard Brown). 10. ed. Hargraves, "State Trials" (1776), ii, 324. (The same sentence was pronounced, on Harrison's companions, but only Harrison is reported as having endured the full rigour of the sentence} 11. ibid., ii, 416. 12. ibid., ii, 322. The speaker was Sir Edward Turner. 13. James, "Social Policy, etc", pp. 95-97. 14. See Chapter 7 of this thesis. 15. Sharpe, "London and the Kingdom", ii, 347-354* 16. Pseudonismus, "A Vindication, etc.", cited in James, as note 13, p. 177. 17. Rogers, "History of Agriculture and Prices in England", • v, 825-828. 18. Statistics and percentages for the years 1641 to 1661 are shown in Appendix 2 of this thesis. 19. Ralph Josselin's Diary, pp. 12, 126 and 136. 20. Josselin's Diary, p. 108.- ("God good in preserving An in a milke bowle, and Jane from swouning who let her fall in"). 21. See Chapter 7, note4>- 22. Chesney, "Transference of Lands, etc.", in Trans. R.H.S., 4th series, xv, 193-194. Winstanley, "A New-Years Gift, etc.", in Works (ed. Sabine), pp. 363-364. 23. See Chapter 5, note IIZ. 24. Tawney and Power (eds.), "Tudor Economic Documents", ii, 346-362, and iii, 444-458. 25. Poor Law Amendment Act, 1662, printed in "English Histor• ical Documents", viii,.464. 26. ibid., viii, 464. 27. ibid., viii, 465. See also Chapter 6, note £.2- 28. Richards, "Early History of Banking, etc.", p. 106. 29. Sprigge, "Anglia Rediviva", pp* 327-329. 30. Ashley, "Cromwell's Generals", p. 160. 31. Abbott,."Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell", iii, 593. 32. Ashley, as note 30, p. 163. 33. Ranke, "History of England", iii, 145. Forteseue, "History of the British Army", i, 282-287. 34. "An account, etc." (1655), in Dresden Archives; cited by Ranke, as note 33, iii, 145. 35. See Chapter 5, notes 102-105. 36. Ludlow, ii, 138. 37. At Dunbar the troops sang the 117th Psalm before butch• ering the fleeing Scots. (Buchan, "Oliver Cromwell", PP. 378-379). 38. Petegorsky, "Left-Wing Democracy in the English Civil War", pp. 229-240. 39. Harrington, "Oceana", p. 245. 40. ibid., pp. 345-347. 41. ibid., pp. 243-245. 42. "English Historical Documents", viii, 400-403. 43. Toleration Act, Article 4. 44. ibid., Articles 6 and 7. 45.. ibid., Article,,.10. 46. Commons Journal, vii, 683. 47. L.F. Brown, "Baptists and Fifth.Monarchy Men", p. 43. 48. Thornbury, "Old and New London", i, 370-371. 49* e.g. Isaiah 61, v. 14-l6j Jeremiah 51, v. 20;,E«ekiel 9, v. 5-6. 50. Firth, "Last Years of the Protectorate",!, 207-219. Reresby, "Memoirs and Travels" (ed. Ivatt), p. 143. 51. See Chapter 9 of this thesis. 52. L.F. Brown, as note 47, PP. 136-170. 53. Warner, "Hero of the Restoration", pp. 139-141. Davies, "Restoration", pp. 162-164 and 176,, 54. John Barwick to Hyde, Clarendon State Papers, iii, 698. 55. Tawney, "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" (Pelican edn.,), p. 169. 56. See Chapter 6, note 67, 57. Trevelyan, "History of England", pp. 478 and 720, Willcock, "A Scots Earl", pp. 112-114. 58. ed. W. Stephen, "Consultations of the Ministers of Edin• burgh, etc.", ii,. (1657-1660), pp. 112-114. 59. ibid., ii, pp, xl - xli. 60. Parker, "History of His Own Time" (trans. Newlin), pp. 53-54. 61. Burnet, "History of His Own Time", pp. 176, 445 and 468. 62. John Tillotson was appointed Dean of Canterbury in 1672, Dean of St. Pauls in 1689, and Archbishop of Canter• bury in 1691. He died in 1694. 63. Trevelyan, "English Social History", p. 357. , 64. Father of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce.. (Ashwell, "Life of Bishop Wilberforce", i, 1-4). 65. William Wilberforce, "Practical View of the System of Christianity", p. 314; cited in Demant, "Religion and the Decline of Capitalism", p. 51. 66. Burnet, as note 61, p. 58 and note. CHAPTER 9 136

GENERAL MONK

By,1658 one major obstacle stood in the way of the country-

City alliance -~ the army. In the second session of Cromwell's Second

Parliament, when the Commons attacked the Lords they were concerned almost entirely with attempting to limit the power of the army. In

Richard's Parliament the Commons made a direct attack against the army Z as an independent political force. But in April 1659 the obstacle was still there.

The problem was not merely organisational, in the sense that it could not be solved by manipulation of the constitution and the law.

The legal and constitutional position of the armed forces could easily be defined by Parliament, and was in the years immediately after the

Restoration. Such a definition would, however, have had no practical meaning unless-the armed forces were effectively disposed according to the dictates of Parliament. Oliver Cromwell, in the capacity of Lord

Protector, showed in I658 that he was not willing to acquiesce in an arrangement which would bring the armed forces completely under Parli• amentary control. Richard in 1659 showed that he was either unwilling or unable to effect the submission of the military to the civil power.

During these difficult months it became increasingly clear that there were two possible courses of action which appeared to offer acceptable solutions.

0 One such course was the re-assumption of military command by the

Parliamentarian gentry. This idea was at the root of Sir George Booth's revolt in August 1659, a revolt which degenerated into something closely 137 3 resembling farce. The other course, which solved the problem, was to gain the allegiance of some influential military figure or group who could rely on the obedience of a large number of lower officers and other ranks. Assuming the services of such an agent the Commonwealth's standing army, suitably reduced in size and influence, might well re• main as a permanent safeguard against lower-class turbulence.

The obvious way of recruiting an agent was, in the spirit of times, by purchase; and the price would undoubtedly be high. The right man or group would probably want a good deal of money, and almost certainly an important share in the administration. If such a man or group could be found, the City was in a position to supply the money while the landowners in Parliament could offer political prestige. Men such as Samuel Pepys, Thomas Clarges, William Petty, George Downing, Andrew

Marvell, John Wildman, and Henry Muddiman saw which way the ship of state was drifting. All of them were recruited during this period to the service of the country-City alliance, and all played some part in the Restoration. None among them could bring a large part of the army into line; and among men who appeared highly influential in the army, few were candidates for the position of Parliamentary agent on terms acceptable to Parliament and the City. The two most likely recruits were John Lambert and George Monk, with the odds heavily in favour of the latter. In the event Monk easily proved his superiority, and be• came the supreme agent in the work of recalling Charles II,

Honours bestowed on George Monk for his contribution to the Res• toration raised him to great public eminence and cast reflected lustre 138

upon an early career which might otherwise have been regarded as com•

paratively dull and unimportant. So far as the English polity was

concerned. Monk was almost a nonentity until December 1657, when Crom•

well was desperately searching for safe and suitable men to promote to

the Other House. Monk coolly acknowledged, the honour, and politely

declined to,attend, "...but truly I thinke the condition of this

country, and his highnesse's affaires heere are such, that I cannot

well be spared." ^ In July 1658X he was approached, not for the first r

time, by Royalist agents. He told Secretary Thurloe of the approach

and sent him a copy of the letter he had received, with an explanation

as to why he had kept the original -—•"because I would trye, whether I

could finde out the partie from whence itt came, by comparing it with other letters."- In view of Thurloe's reputation as a master of in• telligence, the explanation seems rather suspicious.

In September 1658 Monk sent his important letter of advice to 9

Richard, "in the hand-writing of Dr. Tho; Clarges." He pointed out the advantages of relying on the old Parliamentarian families, made suggestions for retrenchment in the charges of the army and navy, and added a few well-chosen smears about men "of no estates, and as little

interest, that are captains of ships, whoe, I feare, if his highnes 10 should have warr....they may be apt to betray or sell them." The letter, accompanied by a word-of-mouth message which Monk was too se- //

cretive to commit to paper, arose from a mission carried out by Clarges

at the request of the Council. To outward appearance Thomas Clarges was merely an apothecary, and 139

(according to Aubrey) the son of a blacksmith and "one of the five IZ woemen barbers." Besides being Monk's brother-in-law, however, he

was associated with Dr.. William Petty, and apparently shared the in- 13

terest of Petty and other City men in Irish land speculation. Mutual

interest in Ireland would be likely to bring him into contact with

Richard Brown and other,speculatorsj and his election to Parliament l¥ IS -

for Westminster in 1660 and for Southwark in 1666 are evidence of

his close connection with financial interests in general.

Monk himself had connections in the City. Though his extreme

caution in correspondence makes it difficult to trace these connections

in detail, there is a fair amount of indirect evidence to show their

general nature. That they were highly unacceptable to the sects is

evident from letters among the Clarke Papers. Monk1s reference on 29

November 1659 to "the fanaticall and selfe seeking party", evoked the

letter of 13 December signed by representatives of the congregations in

London. , "Wee would be sorry on your account that the bloud of the

Saints of God, and of all that hath bin ingaged in our common cause,

should with soe much collor bee laid at your doore, as it wilbee if 17 things continue in the present posture a few dayes longer." ti

In view of Monk's constant communication with Thurloe, it can

hardly be doubted .that there was a connection with Thurloe's partner '9 and brother-in-law, the financier Martin Noel. According to one authority Monk's friends in the City succeeded in getting information Zo to him before the arrival of official messengers; and it seems rea- '\ Zl sonable to assume that Thurloe's interest in the Post Office was here 140 made use of. There are some suggestions in the Thurloe Papers, in con• nection with alleged embezzlement by one Bilton, that the City was in- ZZ, strumental in supplying money for Monk and his troops; and there is one piece of direct evidence in a letter sent to Hyde by John Barwick.

"It is thought he would shew himself more sensible than he does of

Fleetwood's being placed over him, if.it were not for a great banck of 23 money he hath here, which they know of, and in whos hand it is,"

In September 1658 Thomas Clarges found Monk "weary of the uncer• tain condition in which he found himself and the nation inthralled by 24 the overruling tyranny of the soldiers" — a strange attitude to have expressed so soon after Cromwell's death. Monk subsequently neglected ZS to supply reinforcements for Lambert's campaign against Booth; dis• sociated himself from the Derby Petition which followed Lambert's 2L victory; and, in the quarrel which developed between the English officers and the Rump, declared for Parliament. "I am resolved", he wrote, "by the grace and assistance of God, as a true Englishman, to stand to and assert the liberty and authority of Parliament." The

French ambassador informed Cardinal Mazarin: "...sa derniere lettre parle bien de repandre jusqu' a lacerniere goutte de son sang pour le / / * / 29 Parlement, mais sans designer si c'est celui qui a ete casse." 2Q Monk was related to the Grenvi1J.es, ' and also to William Morrice, who at the Restoration was appointed one of the two Secretaries of 3o State. Morrice in 1659 may have acted as go-between in the important discussions which Monk had with Anthony Ashley Cooper (himself an 32 associate of Martin Noel). As the Recruiter member for Devon, Morrice 141 was probably in league with William Prynne and other secluded members 33 of the Long Parliament. Monk's brother Nicholas was an Anglican clergyman and a Stuart 3iL

Royalist.T Within his immediate family circle Monk could thus point to men with knowledge and experience of land, money, the medical pro• fession, and the Church; and because of these connections he was ac• ceptable in a general way to almost all sub-groups in the country-City alliance. The law was missing — a factor which may help to account 35 for the mutual suspicion that existed between Monk and the lawyer Hyde

— but this omission was insignificant beside the major qualification which Monk possessed, command of an army.

"Covenants without the sword are but words", wrote Hobbes. Events during the Interregnum had emphasised the point. The complete sub• jugation of the lower classes depended on the army's obedience — the men obeying their officers, and the officers obeying laws and orders stemming from Parliament. The establishment had to find an agent who would submit to the authority of Parliament, and had the power to make the lower ranks do so. Monk, or someone like him, was essential to their plans; and preferably Monk.

"As soon as Cromwell was dead, he was generally looked upon as a man more inclined to the King than any other in authority.... He had no fumes of religion which turned his head, nor any credit with, or 37 dependence upon, any who were swayed by those trances." ' Also he was 3t

"a gentleman of a very good extraction", and "had shewed more kindness to, and used more familiarity with, such persons who were most 142 notorious for affection to the King, as finding them a more direct and 34 punctual people than the rest." ' Clarendon might have added that Monk was a professional soldier with a straightforward price; that he had commanded and propagandised his troops for a long time; and that the

English soldiers in Scotland were eager to return home.

NOTES

1. See Chapter 2 of this thesis, notes 42-50 and accompany• ing text. (pp. 30-33) 2. See Chapter 5, pp. 94-95 3. See Chapter 10, pp. lif-j -JSI. 4. All those mentioned are in D.N.B. except Muddiman, for whom see: Muddiman, "King's Journalist", passim esp. pp. 1-122. 5. Thurloe, vi, 686. 6. Thurloe, vi, 741. 7. Corbett, "Monk", pp. 108-111. 8. Thurloe, vii, 232-233. 9. Thurloe, vii, 387. 10. Thurloe, vii, 387-388. 11.. The message concerned "some perticular persons." (Thurloe, vii,388). 12. Aubrey, "Brief Lives", ii, 173. 13. D.N.B., iv, 398. Aubrey, "Brief Lives", ii, 142. . 14. Old Parliamentary History, xxii, 216. 15. D.N.B., iv, 398. 16. Clarke Papersj iv, 152. 17. ibid., iv, 185. 18. Thurloe Papers, vii, 579, 583, 584, 600, 607, 613, 614, and passim. 19. Yule, "Independents in the Civil War", p. 111. 20. Clarke Papers, iv, 127 footnote. 21. Firth, "Thurloe and the Post Office", in Eng. Hist. Rev., xiii (1898), 527-533. 22. Thurloe Papers, vii, 194 and 224. 23. ibid., vii, 687. 24. Baker's Chronicle, p. 654 cited in Davies, "Restoration", p. 20. This part of the Chronicle may have been written by Clarges himself (see D.N.B., iv, 399). 25. Ludlow, ii, 112. (See Chapter 10 of this thesis). 26. Clarke Papers, iv, 58-59. 27. Clarke Papers, iv, 66-67 footnote. 28. Bordeaux Correspondence, in Guizot, "Histoire du Protec• torate etc.", ii, 278. 29. Griffith - Davies, "Honest George Monck", pp. 174 and 76. 30. See Chapter 8, note 4. 31. L.F. Brown, "First Earl of Shaftesbury", pp. 89-90. 32. ibid., p. 130. 33. Old Parliamentary History, xxi, 372-375. 34. See Chapter 7, note 2. 35. Clarendon, "History", XVI, 98-100 (Macray, vi, 154-156). 36. Hobbes, "Leviathan", Chapter 17. (Waller edn.,. p. 115). 37. Clarendon, "History", XVI, 98 (Macray, vi, 154). 38. ibid., XVI, 96 (Macray, vi, 152). 39. ibid., XVI, 103 (Macray, vi, 157). CHAPTER 10 144

STRANGE INTERLUDE

In April 1659 a large majority of the members of Richard's

Parliament quietly accepted a dissolution which was quite obviously signed under duress. Richard was not permitted.to be present at the reading of the dissolution; a contrast to his father, who invariably explained his action in person. The Parliamentarians need not have 3 acquiesced, any more than they had needed to let Haselrig and the

Republicans do so much talking during the session. Yet such was their respect for the law that they left only a few of Haselrig's supporters locked in the House to dispute the order. They abandoned the nations to anarchy and/or military rule.

The next few months were packed with incident. Within a few days the army leaders found themselves obliged to have some sort of Parlia- ment, and on 7 May the Rump was back in office. By 27 May a Royalist correspondent reported: "Tumble downe Dick hath kissed the tayle and subscribed to theire soueraignetyes. Some reports that his brother

Henry likewise^ bowed downe to ye calfe after some reluctances and en- deavors to ye contrary." Richard remained in London till July, when he retired into Hampshire, "having no money within his purse nor without it a friend." In August Sir George Booth's rising was easily de• feated, but by October "the late principal Officers of the Army, whose

Commissions were vacated, drew up Forces in and about Westminster... Y interrupted the Members from coming to the House." On 20 October 8

Monk resolved to assert the liberty and authority of Parliament, and by 26 December the Rump was again sitting. But throughout the nation 145 the slogan was now "a free Parliament."

There was certainly an element of anarchy in the situation — so much so that Bordeaux on one occasion informed Mazarin: "II n'y a point Q

encore de gouvernement en Angleterre." This anarchy, however, was so

harmless to property and prestige as to arouse the thought that it

could have been deliberately engineered. If this was so, it would help

to explain the placid acceptance of dissolution. In the circumstances

prevailing in April 1659, no political move offered less possible dan•

gers or more possible advantages.

In the early days of May much depended on the behaviour of Charles

Fleetwood, the official leader of the army coup. The old Parliamentar•

ian party gambled to some extent on his ability to influence the decis• ions of the Council of Officers against any attempt to use naked force, a gamble which was heavily in their favour, since the officers would not expect Fleetwood to succeed where Cromwell had failed. On 5 May

"the army had thoughts of raising money without a parliament, but upon 10 advice they durst not adventure upon it." Fleetwood could hardly re•

call Richard's Parliament without the certainty of losing his command,

and probably his head; and his reputation could hardly have survived the ridicule if he had pressured Richard into sending out writs for a new Parliament, a few days after forcing him to dissolve the previous

one. A nominated Parliament would have no more success than the army

itself in raising money. The Republican.party survivors of the Rump were busily canvassing their legality, but if they were legal the

Protectorate was illegal. Richard could not then be used as a figure- 146 head. An astute politician might easily have foreseen, in the April coup, the recall of the Rump and the deposition of the Protector.

The height of Cromwell's popularity had been reached in April

1653, when he put an end to the sittings of the Rump.'' Six years later the enemies of the Rump forced Fleetwood into a situation where recall of that maligned body seemed the least bad among several very poor possibilities. There was little or no chance that the Rump would be able to solve the financial problems left by-the Protectorate: there was every chance that the members would harass the army leaders and IZ demand their submission to the civil authority. The recall of the

Rump would again bring into prominence the question of the secluded members, and would enable diehards such as William Prynne to assume 13 the role of belligerent martyrs. It would keep Charles and Hyde in suspense. It would give regicides like Thomas Scott and Edmund Ludlow a fine opportunity for putting their heads into a noose, and would by contrast accentuate the monarchical sentiments of such men as Sir George

Booth and Richard Brown. Those who were not regicides, but were against monarchy, would set themselves up as scapegoats if and when it became expedient to return at least some of the confiscated lands. Haselrig, who had purchased great tracts of Church property in Durham, was a perfect prospective sacrifice.

In practice the recall of the Rump brought unforeseen advantages to the Parliamentarian monarchists. The House proved unable or unwill• ing to impose a censorship on pamphlets, and gave the supporters, of a free Parliament a magnificent opportunity to issue propaganda against 147 alleged subversion, and in favour of a much-whitewashed Charles II.

It is difficult to believe that John Evelyn himself was completely sincere in his character of Charles — "His person so lovely, so ami• able and graceful!...so meek, gentle, and sweet of Behaviour; so firm, constant, and obliging in his Friendships....but above all, so firmly and irremoveably fixed, to the profession of the true Protestant Rel- igion." Many other equally fictitious works appeared, and this period in general saw important developments in the art of propaganda, par• ticularly in the technique of the. big lie.. A large minority of Rumpers were socially as prejudiced as the secluded members, and seem to have worked with the country-City alliance rather than against it in cir• culating this kind of rubbish. In the confused political situation false brothers were numerous — as is hilariously evidenced by the li adventures of Sir Richard Willis and Samuel Morland. The presence of a country^Gity cell within the Rump itself would help to explain the

House's vacillating policy on news and censorship, which led to the demotion of Marchamont Nedham in May 1659 and his reinstatement in '7

August. Tne assumption of a secret cabal is surely essential to any convincing explanation of the strange series of incidents leading to

Sir George Booth's rising in August 1659.

Sir George Booth was an excluded member of the Long Parliament, and a former supporter of Cromwell, one of the men who had done much to ensure Parliament's victory in the first civil war. As an adherent of the group associated with Presbyterianism and wealth, Booth must have realised that the one eventuality which his party could least 148 welcome was an armed Royalist revolt. If successful the diehard Cav• aliers would seize all they could; if unsuccessful, a lower-class rev• olution would again break out. Either way the great Parliamentarian landowners stood to lose. If the king was to return, he must do so without another war. There is no doubt that Booth and many other f!ar- iq liamentary leaders had been in communication with Charles, ' but they had not become Cavaliers.

Booth's sphere of influence was in Cheshire and south Lancashire.

He was county representative for one or other of these two counties in Zo 21 the Long Parliament, in Cromwell's Second Parliament, in Richard's za 23 Parliament, and in the Convention Parliament. This area was the home 2U of a rapidly-growing cotton industry, which would necessarily have had economic ties with the City, particularly with the Levant Company ZS and the plantations. There can hardly be any doubt that Martin Noel and his friends were vitally interested in south Lancashire, and it is known that Richard Brown was in some way connected with Booth's re- Zl bellion. So were other City magnates, such as Alderman John Robinson, who housed John Mordaunt after the collapse of the rising in Kent and

27 Surrey; and whom Edmund Ludlow later associated with Brown and Monk in an accusation that they had acted as provacateurs in a plot based on protests about the sale of Dunkirk in 1662.

The south Lancashire area was the most powerful stronghold of the

Presbyterian classis, virtually the only part of England where this 2q institution achieved any great success. At a time when the secluded

Presbyterians were in the forefront of opposition to the Rump, strong 149

Presbyterian interest in any area must have made it politically sus• pect. When political and economic factors pointed in the same dir• ection, and when rebellion was known to be brewing, it would have been logical for the Rump to have taken the most severe precautions possi• ble in this area. Yet, at a time when the energy of the House was devoted almost entirely to the prevention of an insurrection, this was 3o the one area in which no special precautions were taken. The obvious conclusion ;is that some at least of the Rumpers were prepared to let

Booth proceed, because they hoped to see him destroy Lambert and the resistance of the English army.

The "moderate" Rumpers, if this conclusion is justified, connived at Booth's rising. They permitted it to take place, as an isolated performance, in the hope that Lambert's unpaid and unenthusiastic • soldiery might silently steal away rather than fight Booth's dupes.

This is what actually happened in Lambert's subsequent contest with

Monk. At Northwich, however, Booth's men broke first, having "suffered

(as usual) the brunt of the wounds and fatalities. Booth and his gentlemen escaped, and though some were later captured, none suffered 31 anything worse than a token imprisonment,

Lambert's swift and complete victory brought forth a supply of the specie which was alleged at this time to be so desperately short, 3Z

A further supply was hurried to Monk in Scotland, as it became clear that control of the army rested between him and Lambert, The latter, upon receiving money from the Rump* paid his troops and gave them 1000 pounds of his own reward. Purveyors of booze and other comforts for 150 the troops reaped a welcome harvest, and there was evidence of popular support for Lambert among men who were still not fully conditioned,

Mr. Larke of Plymouth wrote on 23 August to the Council of State: "The good tydings of the routinge Sir Geo. Boothe glads.many heer, but most 33 great ones trobled att. it." But the fact that Booth had been able to raise a sizable force had .shown that at least some anti-Rump, and anti- military propaganda was having the desired effect.

Booth's rising also served as a vehicle for a comparatively new propaganda technique, the issue of separate manifestoes aimed at various potential support-groups.^ The main appeal in this instance was to magnates, stressing in rather obviously class-conscious terms the demand.for a free. Parliament, supporting the known laws, liberties, 3Jf and. properties of the good people of the nation. At the same time, however, Booth addressed a particular appeal to the lower classes in the City, not merely offering freedom and equality in vague general terms, but listing such specific reforms as annual elections, a suc• cession of Parliaments, abolition of the excise, and even protection 3S and restitution of commons. The "citizens and freemen" to whom this manifesto was directed apparently realised that Booth had no intention of implementing such reforms, and did not flock to join his standard.

Though subsequent experience proved the value of the big lie, this occasion demonstrated the ineffectiveness of obvious specific lies, and helped to determine the nature of future propaganda — generalised slogans appealing to liberty, freedom, rights. Monk (or his writers)

3k> , x were masters in this technique, asserting (for example) "the freedome 151

and priviledges of the present parliament, the libertyes and rights.of

our native country, the protection and priviledge of the people of God, 3/ and the government of these nations by a free state and Commonwealth." ' 32

The failure of Booth's "Cheshire lyes." was followed by a masterly

stepping-up of the free-Parliament theme j one of the first examples of

a truly modern political platform, combining a meaningless but emotion•

ally-charged appeal to the underprivileged with a cynical determination

to maintain' and extend the advantages of a small elite.

During this convenient interlude of controlled confusion, the work

of completing the Parliamentary revolution was carried on in country

and City. In London the mob of apprentices was reported to be "very 3q

• apt for commotions", Dut important manoeuvres were also .taking place

in Common Council and the Court of Aldermen. Three brief entries in

Whitelock's diary during September tell a significant story:

"2 Sept. 1659. Order for Ireton to continue Lord Mayor for another

year.. 24 Sept. 1659» A petition from London, in some things not pleasing. 28 Sept. 1659. Left to the City of London to choose their mayor 40 fa

and officers." The victory of the liveries was not yet absolute, but

the implication of the Rump's resolution — "notwithstanding the

former Vote of this House" — was acknowledgement of the privileges

of the Court of Aldermen. The Mayor chosen was Thomas Allen, a Grocer

who had been a sheriff during the mayoralty of Christopher Pack in

1654. A certain rapport between the Grocers and Monk myjfbe suggested

in the light of subsequent events; and the probability is enhanced by 152 the clrcvimstance that Allen, upon his election, at once entered into 4S communication with Honesty George. In November Josiah Bermers in• formed Mr. John Hobart of Norwich that "two soldyers, one in Lumber- streete, the other in Chancery Lane, were allmost killed for assisting to leavy taxes, though layd by Parliament." The culmination of the successful propagandisation of the London mob came!in December, when apprentices ran in the streets crying out for a free Parliament.^'

In the country the Parliamentarian monarchists virtually seized control over most local government, resisted the Rump's attempt to ¥9 reorganise the local militia, and "in several! counties associate So against taxes if not appoynted by Parliament." When the Rump tried to sequester the estates of some of Booth's supporters, the commission• er/ ers were everywhere resisted. One sequestrator was forcibly removed, sz and told:•"Now, you rogue, now Monck is a-coming." Landowners such S3 as Thomas Fairfax prepared more or less openly to support Monk, and in early December there was'Va great meeting of several gentlemen of quality at York." .

The Rump continued to sit until the middle of October, unable to exert any real authority except with the consent of the landowning gentry and the City magnates. As Monk's pivotal position became ever clearer various groups hastened to establish contact with him: the

Royalistsf^he gentry^ the City f inanciersf^ the congregations'^ the army leadersand the Rump itself/" The Royalist agent Barwick wrote to Hyde on 14 October: "My negotiation for Scotland is still on foot, and I hope may produce some good....j but I had reason to fear the danger of interfering, when another way was set on foot...." All 153 parties seem to have realised that the Rump must either submit to the army or call in the assistance of ^onk. The evidence suggests that the magnates were sure of Monk's allegiance, and equally sure that the

Rump would not submit to the army. By doing nothing they compelled the Rump to act against Lambert; and thus in the unlikely (but not im• possible) event of Lambert proving victorious over Monk they would not completely have committed themselves against the winner.

The size of the majority makes it seem likely that the moderate group in the Rump was in a commanding position on 12 October, when the

House revoked the commissions of John Lambert, John Desborough, James

Berry, Thomas Kelsey, Richard Ashfield, Ralph Cobbet, Richard Creed,

William Packer, and William Barrow. In spite of the fact that some

Republicans recognised their lack of friends outside the army, only 15 6Z votes were cast against the motion. The composition of the Council of State which was formed on 17 October suggests that Bulstrode White- lock, Sir Henry Vane, Sir James Harrington, Johnston of Wariston, and 63

Richard Salwey had the confidence of the army leaders, but it cannot be assumed that all of them voted for Lambert on 12 October. White- lock, the lawyer, was suggesting to Charles Fleetwood two months later 6# that safety lay in making terms with the king; and there xs evidence is to show that Lambert himself was in communication with the Royalists.

As in April, the struggle tended to resolve itself into a last-ditch effort by those who had most to fear from Charles's return — regicides, and a handful of politicians who were irrevocably compromised by their 66 past words or deeds. •1-54

During the night of 12-13 October Haselrig and other Parliamentar• ians drew up regiments commanded by their supporters, and barricaded the palace yards against retaliation by- Lambert. Like Prynne's attempt to sit in the House, and like Sir George Booth's rising, this measure had an air of unreality •— more like a rehearsal than a genuine call to arms. The events of the next day produced no action, but a proof < of what many wise Parliamentarians almost certainly suspected. "Both partyes eshuned the talking of the first blood, and the sojours wer 68 unwilling to yoke one with another." On 3 November a London corres• pondent wrote to a member of Monk's staff about the troops under Lam• bert's command. "I mett with many of them with their knapsacks on ,. their backs, and 6 or 8 in a company. I said aloud, 'These honnest souldjours does not looke as if they would hurt Generall Monck.' They stood still,and laughed, and answered, 'Noe, Sir, you may sweare it.' 6q They will never bee got to fight, I am confident." 7 On 29 November Josiah Berners wrote: "The soldyers generally say they will not fight, 7o but will make a ring for their officers to fight in."

Pacifism among the soldiers had its effect on Monk's forces too, and many of his officers and non-commissioned officers deserted or were dismissed. This probably mattered little to the Parliamentary group, who were still in a position to cheer Lambert if that should prove nec• essary. On 9 November Lady Humbie, who had come from York to Gradoun on horseback,, told Andrew Hay that "my L. Lambert was likelie to cary 73 anything he pleased in the army and so in the State." About this time the astute Fairfax probably voiced a common ambiguity, when he told 155

General Morgan: "If General Monk has any other design than to restore

Parliaments to their ancient freedom, and settle the nation upon its ancient government, I will oppose him; but otherwise I will heartily join with him." Since Lambert could easily claim that dissolution of the single-chamber Rump was an initial step towards a free Parliament,

Fairfax was hardly burning his boats by making such a statement.

Of course, by supplying Monk with funds and sedulously spreading rs the word that Lambert had no money, the City magnates encouraged both troops and civilians to support Monk — the troops for pay and the civilians to avoid having to give free quarter. This policy was suc• cessful, but Lambert's personal popularity might have upset calculations based on the logic of greed. It is usually assumed that Monk's hesita• tions were due to his own shrewdness, backed by advice from London; but some consideration should probably be given to the suggestion that he could do nothing else because he did not know who his allies were or what they had planned. Their policy could become clear only when the soldiers had chosen.

Once that choice was made the machinery in country and City went into action with a precision that pointed to careful pre-arrangement.

In London Thomas Clarges and his new-found assistant Henry Muddiman began publication of the Parliamentary Intelligencer and Mercurius 7(> Publicus. "The scene of affairs here is much Watered in one week", Clarges wrote to Monk's chaplain Thomas Grumble, "...for I have been YY a great printer since I came hither." In the country local magnates openly organised a pseudo-militia, and greeted Monk at every town 156 between Coldstream and St. Albans with demands for a free Parliament.

Monk, still uncertain about what was, happening, remained neutral in public, but apparently encouraged his officers to make lavish promises.7

When Monk's* army arrived in London, forcing the departure of the troops previously there, the restoration of monarchy was a virtual certainty.

Yet even at this late hour the organisers of the movement kept Monk in doubt, and Charles and Hyde on tenterhooks, wondering whether the new do monarch might not be Richard Cromwell or even George Monk.

By this time it would probably have been difficult for the. country-

City alliance to pursue a policy not approved by Monk, but it might- not have been impossible. A letter dated 19 March 1660, written by .

Colonel Robert Whitley, expressed the opinion: "...he hath not soe ye - command of them but that they can make choice of another more proper tl for theire .purposes." And Hyde, who admittedly did not like Monk, later wrote that' "he was instrumental in bringing those mighty things to pass, which he had neither wisdom to foresee,, nor courage to attempt, nor understanding to contrive."

On 6 February, three days after his arrival in the capital, Monk made a speech in the House, having first lined the route from White• hall to Westminster with troops. -He- tactfully hinted that a free Par- laiment, or readmission of the secluded members, would be pleasing to the country magnatesj a settlement of the estates of adventurers in,

Ireland would please the City (and some of the army)... , According to

Whitelock, "part of his speech troubled and amused some of his masters of the parliament." Apparently it encouraged the Common Council of 157

the.City, for two days later that body entertained, a petition that no more taxes should be paid "until the authority thereof may be derived. SS

from a full and free Parliament." That the City magnates, in even

considering such a petition, were in close touch with groups of land•

owners elsewhere can hardly be doubted, since the Yorkshire declaration

of 10 February included the same threat. A leading signatory of the

Yorkshire document was Thomas Lord Fairfax, who had certainly collab- orated closely with Monk. The Council of State suspected collaboration between the City and the General — "the City would not have thus bold•

ly remonstrated, had not Monke given them some secret Encouragement."

The Council ordered Monk to arrest eleven City men, among whom the most important were Richard Ford and Thomas Bludworth; and also to

take away the posts and chains of the City's defences, unhinge the

gates and wedge the portcullises. The Rump confirmed the orderand

Monk carried it out. Significantly, his senior officers "ran wholly

into Discontent, and offered up their .Commissions to the General"/ though the soldiers carried out their task in a spirit of cynical qi

amusement. Monk convinced the City that he was. still in effective

command of his troops, and with not too much delicacy emphasised the overriding authority of Parliament in matters of taxation. Having made this important point, Monk told the Rump that execution of the order had been "something grievous to us", accused the members of plotting again with notorious offenders such as Lambert, complained that they were condoning "that Tenderness of Conscience which will not scruple

at Treachery itself", and demanded the immediate filling-up of the 158

House. On 21 February, with Monk's assistance, the secluded members

took control of the Commons.

During these complicated but well-directed manoe'vres, members of

the alliance missed few opportunities of advancing their cause Or their

arguments. They used their money wisely to buy support where it was, 93

needed. Sir Gilbert Gerrard sued Colonel Alured for having forcibly

prevented him from taking his seat in Parliament; and John Hewson, •

after suppressing an apprentices' riot in December 1659, found a ver-

diet of murder recorded against him by a London jury/ During this

period the alliance also secured or confirmed the services of many q& ay «j» important agents: Andrew Marvell, Samuel Pepys/ Samuel Morland, Henry Muddimanf^ and George Downing^ as well as Monk). They apparent- 101

ly bought off Secretary Thurloe, who was said to possess a black book which would hang many who passed, as Cavaliers. They organised K>3 resistance groups. ;. While shortages grew and prices rose, they kept /OtA

wages stable. And everywhere and continually they shouted the slogan

— a free Parliament. The coup of 21 February was almost an. anti•

climax, with a touch of farce added when Sir William Waller fell over

Prynne's sword.,0S

On 22 February arrangements were made for a newly-elected Par-

liament to meet on 25 April. The same day, "the city returned thanks 107

to the house...and the house.sent to borrow money of them" .— a fine

example of the alliance at work. In some three weeks of swift activity

the secluded members expunged various votes, out of the Journals, in•

cluding that of 5 December 1648, which had preceded the trial of Charles 159

I. They organised the militia around themselves and their friends, 7 but mollified Monk with a high rank and twenty-thousand pounds. These and similar duties attended to, they passed an Act for their own dis-

/// * solution. "Now", wrote Pepys, "they begin to talk loud of the King."

NOTES

1. It was read by Lord Keeper Fiennes. (Davies, "Restoration", p. 84). 2. Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate",, ii, 262-263 and iii, 249-252. Firth, "Last Years of the Protectorate", ii, 36-41. 3. See Chapter 6, note 72. 4. Commons Journals, vii,. 644. 5. Nicholas Papers, iv, 148. 6. Ramsey, "Richard Cromwell", p. 100. 7. Commons Journals, vii, 797. 8. See Chapter 9, notes 27 and 28. 9. Bordeaux Correspondence, in Guizot, "Histoire du Pro- tectorat, etc.", ii, 269. 10. Whitelock, i±, 343-344. 11. Gardiner, as note 2, ii, .265. Buchan> "Oliver Cromwell", p. 423. 12. Commons Journals, vii, 673-688. 13. Kirby, "William Prynne", pp. 121-126i 14. D.N.B., ix, 745. 15. Evelyn, "The Late News or Message, etc.", cited in Davies, "Restoration", p. 316. 16. Rollings, "Thomas Barret: A Study in the Secret History of the Interregnum", in Eng. Hist. Rev. xliii (1928), 33-65 Underdown, "Sir Richard Willys and Secretary Thurloe", in Eng. Hist. RevJ lxix (1954), 373-387. 17. Muddiman, "King's Journalist", pp. 45 and 66. Commons Journals, vii, 652 and 758. 18. Markham, "Life of Fairfax", pp. 129.rl31. Brunton and Pennington, p. 26. 19. Underdown, "Royalist Conspiracy, etc.", p. 236. 20. Brunton and Pennington, p. 227. 21. Old Parliamentary History, xxi, 4. 22. ibid., xxi, 251. 23. ibid., xxii, 211. , 24. Chapman, "Lancashire Cotton Industry", pp. 1-8. Wadsworth.and Mann, "Cotton Trade and Industrial Lan• cashire ", pp. 14-53• 160

25. As for note 24; and Davies, "Early Stuarts", pp. 288 and 338. 26. Underdown, as note 19, pp. 232 and 279-280. Davies, "Restoration", p. 128. 27. Davies, "Restoration",-pp. 138-139. 28. Ludlow, ii, 341 and 489-491. 29. Tawney. "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" (Pelican edn.), p. 169. 30. Davies, "Restoration", p. 134. 31. Underdown, as note 19, p. 286. Davies, as note 30, p. 141 footnote 96, suggests that the Rump's leniency may have been due to a common dislike of Oliver Cromwell. It seems more likely that the politicoes on both sides would be more concerned with the live problem of Lambert. 32. Davies, as note 30, p. 176.

Griffith-Davies, "Honest George Monck", ;.p. 187.-- ..• 33. Clarke Papers, iv, 291. 34. Davies, as note 30, pp. 135-136. 35* ibid., p. 136. 36. Clarke Papers, iv, 70 and 114. 37. "Declaration intended at Coldstream", in Clarke Papers, iv, 233. (Refers to an earlier declaration in October 1659). 38. "The New Litany*!, cited in Davies, "Restoration", p. 137, footnote 76. 39. William Rumbold to Hyde, cited in Underdown, as note 19, p. 280. 40. Whitelock, iv, 3l>0 a^cL 3(,Z,. 41. The Mayor had to be approved by Parliament. See Commons Journals> vii* 647 and 788. 42. Commons Journals, vii, 773 and 788. 43. Besant, "The City", pp. 458, 461 and 468. 44. See Chapter 5, note 51. 45. Muddiman, as note 17, p. 67. In 1653 Colonel Rich, a. Rumper and *a supporter of Lambert, had displaced an Alderman Allen from the lucrative" post of treasury -:\ inspector; but this was Francis Allen, the Goldsmith • and financier who sat in the Long Parliament for^Go.cker- mouth. (Clarke Papers, iii, 6; Brunton and Pennington, pp." 59-60). It has not been possible to establish any connection between the two magnates, though Mudd• iman names Thomas Allen as one of the 1659 Rump's most intrepid opponents. 46. Clarke Papers, iv, 301. - 47. Sharpe, "London-and the Kingdom", ii, 358. 48. Underdown, as note 19, p. 288. 49. Commons Journals, vii, 728 and 772. Thurloe, vii, 770. 50. Clarke Papers, iv, 301. 51. Underdown, as note 19, p. 288. 161

52. As note 51j and Hardacre, "Royalists During the. Puritan Revolution", p. 136. . 53. Markham, as note 18, p. 375-380. ,- . 54. H.M.C.. 5th Report, Appendix, p. 193. (Sutherland MSS). 55. Scott, "Travels of the King", pp. 448-450. 56.. See notes 52 and 53. 57. Clarke. Papers, iv, 94. See also note 45. 58. Clarke Papers, iv, 121-124, 151-154, etc. 59. Clarke. Papers, iv, 57-58, 63-64, 67-68, 70-74 etc. 60. Commons Journals, vii, 680 and 799. 61. Thurloe, vii, 764 and 685-686. 62. Commons Journals, vii, 796. 63. Wariston's Diary, iii, 146, Whitelock, iv, 366. 64. Whitelock iv, 381. 65. "A Declaration from his Majesty, etc.", dated 14 October 1659, -in Somers Tracts, i, 160-164. 66See Chapter 6, note 39. 67. Wariston's Diary, iii,. 144v - 68. As note 67. . 69. Clarke Papers, iv, 92. 70. ibid., iv, 300. 71. Clarke Papers, iv, 160-161. "

72. Davies,t"Restoration", p. I63. 73. Hay of Craignethan1 s Diary,, p. 185. 74. Markham, "Life of Fairfax", p. 377. 75., The Committee of Safety took money from the Navy office.. to pay Lambert's soldiers something before they set out. This was robbing Peter to pay Paul, and merely alienated the sailors. By December, Portsmouth and "10 or 12 good frigotts" had,declared for Parliament. (Clarke Papers, iv, 102 and 186). 76. Muddiman, "The King's Journalist", pp. 86-87. 77. H.M.C. 15th Report, Appendix Pt.,48 (Leyborne^Popham MSS.), . P. 137. 78,, Corbett, "Monk", pp. 154-156. 79. ibid., pp. 156-157. 80. Lister, "Life of Clarendon", p. 488. Davies, "Restoration", p. 295. 81. Nicholas Papers, iv, 196-197. ' 82. Clarendon, "History", XVI, 115. (Macray, vi, I64). 83. Old Parliamentary History, xxii, 88-90. 84. Whitelock, iv, 394. 85. Corporation Records, as cited in Davies, "Restoration", : , p. 278. According to the Old Parliamentary History, xxii, 108, Common Council "declared that they would pay no .more.taxes"; but this seems to have been only a rum- mour. (See Pepys, i, 16 and 46). In 1660 rumor may have been as effective, as an actual vote. 86. Davies, "Restoration", p. 286. Whitelock, iv, 396. . 162

87. Brian Fairfax, "Iter Boreale", in Fairfax Memorials, (ed. Bell, 1849), ii, 151-171. 88. Dr. Price, cited in Old Parliamentary History, xxii, 108, 89. Commons Journals,,vii, 837.. 90. Dr. Price, as note 88, O.P.H., xxii, 109., 91. ibid., xxii, 109. . 92. Monk's letter of 11 February, printed in,Old Parliamentary History, xxii, pp. 98-103. 93. Pepys, i, 51., . • . 94. Kirby, "William Prynne", p. 130. 95. Davies, "Restoration", p.. 182.footnote 69. H.M.C. 15th Report, Appendix 48 (Leyborne-Popham MSS.), , 181. . 96. Marvell had connections in the country (Fairfax) and in the City (William Petty). See Markham, "Life of Fair• fax", pp. 367-368; Muddiman, as note 76, p. 90. 97. Pepy's connections with the Montagu family are well known, ; .. . He also worked for Downing. See Bryant, "Pepys: the Man in the Making", pp. 31-48. 98. Nicholas Papers, iv, 257-261. 99. Muddiman, as note 76, pp. 1-122, esp. p. 85. 100. Bryant, "King Charles II", pp. 48 and 316. 101. Thurloe, vii, .897-898. 102..Davies, "Restoration", p. 349. Hobman, "Cromwell's Master Spy", pp. 175-176. 103.See notes 48-54. 104. See Chapter 8 of this thesis. 105. Aubrey, "Brief Lives", ii, 175. 106. Commons Journals, vii, 848. 107. Whitelock, iv, 399. 108. Commons Journals, vii, 848. 109. ibid., vii, 850,856, 860, 862-863, 868, 869-871, and 873. 110. ibid., vii, 879. 111. ibid., 880. 112. Pepys, i, 86. CHAPTER 11 163

CONVENTION PARLIAMENT

In spite of the loud talk of the king the writs for the new

Parliament were sent out in the name.of the Keepers of the Liberties / of England. Unrepentant Royalists were disqualified from membership Z in the new House of Commons, but a resolution which would have dis- , 3 abled them from voting was defeated by. 93 votes to 56. Before dis• solution of the Long Parliament, on 16 March, a proviso was inserted into the Bill specifically denying any intention to infringe upon the

"ancient native right" of the Parliamentary Peers.

Both among the Parliamentarians and among the Royalists there were diehards who did not want to make concessions, but in the stream of advice which now poured across the sea to Hyde and Charles were some very broad hints. "That your majestie. give commande to your friends in England, that they should not vaunt, as if all was theire owne, and that they will call all others to an account; and the same injunction laid upon your friends with you; for should they doe thus, it would turne to your extreeme prejudice." This advice was anony- 6 mous; but Monk, Barwick, Massey and others also advised caution. Sir

William Killigrew noted the increasing number of requests prepared and presented by would-be courtiers for recognition, compensation or re• ward. " 'Tis not your three kingedoms," he wrote, "that will aford y halfe enough places or imployments for them all.1*'

Few doubted the general conclusions expressed in a letter dated

23 March. "The militia being put into new hands, and a new parliament to be in April, invites me to tell you, that our just cause hath now a 164 far more chearful countenance than ev.er...... 1 find, that endeavours are using by the officers of the army, and others, to persuade the general to declare against admitting of his majesty, which yet is pre-

8 vented by the care and persuasions of some prudent, vigilant persons.''

Monk saw the need for a suitable declaration by the king before the • elections, and suggested (by word of mouth through his cousin Gren—• ville) a general amnesty, the confirmation of land-titles, and support 9 for liberty of conscience.

There is little doubt that Charles would have been willing to promise many concessions. In October he had apparently offered to compromise with Lambert, whose victory over Booth had made him seem to many the most considerable person in the army. Charles, or his advis• ers, then promised a general pardon (with seven exceptions), demobili• sation after payment of arrears, abolition of the excise and all- illegal taxation, compensation to purchasers of Crown and Church lands, a free

Parliament followed by triennial Parliaments, and liberty of conscience 10 to Protestants. In 1660 the political genius of Hyde formulated the

Declaration of. Breda, which agreed to the restraints of a Parliamentary constitution, but placed the onus for settlement of economic and religious problems on Parliament. *'

Hyde also made accurate estimates as to the importance of religion to Presbyterians both clerical and lay. "The King doth not look that the Presbyterians shall serve him for nothing," he told Barwick; sug• gesting assurances of preferment in the Church for flexible ministers.

Of Sir William Waller he wrote: "Many think...that he more adheres to 165 the passion and rigour of the Presbyterians than he hath seemed to do ll

....My Lord Mordaunt will easily discover what place will oblige him."

In England Monk philosophically agreed to present numerous requests to

Charles upon his return, and in due course kept his word.;1, assuring the king (through William Morrice) that he had presented them "without any 13

Imaginations that the King would accept them." While Monk compiled his lists of Parliamentarians, Arthur Annesley and others .persuaded him of the need to work in harmony with constitutionalists among the 14- returning exiles: Hyde, Ormonde and Nicholas in particular. The preliminaries attended to, elections took place in counties IS and boroughs almost exactly as for Richard's Parliament, but this time

Scotland and Ireland were not.represented. This confirmation of a re• turn to the old constituencies gave recognition to the political im• portance of many ports and clothing towns, but its main effect was to perpetuate the system of rotten boroughs, whereby some landed pro• prietors were able to secure the election of .relatives or agents. At the same time the virtual establishment of the old constituencies on a permanent basis put an end to the practice of packing the Commons by selecting the boroughs which received writs. In 1661 the Pensionary Parliament took in almost exactly the same constituencies as the Con- lt> vention, and during its long tenure of office all ideas of electoral '7 reform were allowed to wither away. The abolition of Scottish and

Irish representation ruled out the use of such constituencies as con• trolled places for royal nominees.

The gentlemanly reminder to Charles that things had changed since 166

1640 precluded the election of diehard malignants, at any rate in

.19 theory. Presumably the most diehard of all had followed Charles into exile, which may account for the rigid application at home of the let• ter of the law. For only tbte^Royalist ex-members of the Long Parlia• ment managed to get elected; and one election, that of Richard Weston tq at Weobley, was declared void. • On the other hand the ban did not exclude sons and near relatives of the malignants, and many were 20 elected. Zl

At the local level monarchism almost everywhere asserted itself.

On 25 February a Captain Richardson humbly made bold to acquaint Monk with a passage which happened in Durham. "About seven of the clock several bonfires were made and people gathering very fast together into the market place, and at one tavern, where several Cavaliers were drinking, sack and beer were sent forth to the multitude, and some of my soldiers were desired by the gentlemen to drink the King's health.

At length some of the rabble began to cry for a King and a free Par• liament, and in that humour were going- to ring their bells, which being intimated unto me by my officers and many of my soldiers, I went to the Mayor of the town and desired to know what meant' that concourse of people arid bonfires and ranting at that time of night in the town.

He told me he knew not, neither was it in his power to quell them; the ZZ truth is he is an Anabaptist, and they do condemn him on that score." zi

Two days later Robert Ellison, Sheriff of Newcastle, complained to

Monk about the unhandsome behaviour of Richardson's soldiers, who handled some of the crowd roughly; and only because "the people cried 167 out once or twice 'God save my Lord Monk and the Parliament'." The strategy of the country-City alliance may here be seen, as it were, in miniature — the circus technique, the propaganda slogan, the distrib• ution of booze,.the smear against Anabaptists, the righteous indig• nation against rude soldiers, and the deliberate falsification of news.

The Convention was, as might have been expected, Royalist. It is important to remember, however, that it was also Parliamentarian. As in 1658 and 1659 there were many direct links with the Long Parlia• ment. Among the members were many who had played a significant role in the original revolution and would continue to wield considerable political influence under the restored monarchy: Arthur Annesley,

Richard Brown, George Booth, John Birch, Harbottle Grimstone, Denzil

Holies, Richard Ingoldsby, William Morrice, William Prynne, Thomas

Widdrington, and of course the indestructible John Maynard. Other members enjoyed the same Parliamentary longevity, but were content to exercise their influence through votes and decisions which brought them prosperity without notoriety. Such men rarely receive mention in general histories, though many of them bore knightly titles: Sir Ralph

Ashton (for example), Sir Francis Drake, Sir William Fenwick, Sir John

Holland, Sir Anthony Irby, Sir Norton Knatchbull, Sir William Lewis,

ZS Sir John Northcote, and Sir John Barrington. ,, Zh ,

Of some 500 members returned in 1660, 265 bore the same surnames as men who had sat in the Long Parliament. More than 160 of these had either personally sat in the Long Parliament or had a father or brother sitting for the same or a nearby constituency. About 35 were Royalists 168 or close relations of Royalists. In some of the other cases identity of surname does not imply a family relationship, though usually it does. Many relationships, on the other hand, are concealed through differences in surname. Monk's ties with Grenville, Morrice and Clarges

It provide one example of such relationships; and another vast complex included Cromwells, Hampdens, Knightleys, Trevors, Barringtons, Ger- rards, Mashams, Bourchiers, Everards, Pyes, Hammonds, Wallers, Lukes,

Salweys, Whalleys,. Bunches, and many others.^ The Knightleys in turn were connected by various marriages to Barnardistons, Armines, Cranes, Belasyses, Wodehouses, Montagus, Bacons, Bedingfields, Pottses, Park- Jo ers, and Gurdons.

The sense of Parliamentary continuity is even more outstanding, if

Cromwell's Second Parliament and Richard's Parliament are taken into account. Only 115 of the members: elected to the Convention had sur• names which appeared in none of the three previous Parliaments mention• ed; and these 115 included many whose namesakes had appeared in numer• ous earlier Parliaments: Ashburnham, Bernard, Bromley, Caesar, Calver- 3i ley, Courtney, Darcy, Elliot, Newdigate, Paston, Wyvil, (among others). 3Z They also included Lord Bruce, Viscount Buckley, Lancelot Leke, Lord. Mandevil, Lord Richardson of Cramond, William Penn, and George Monk. 33

The Convention was essentially a gathering of the elite.

Before Parliament assembled, it was reasonably clear that the Com• mons would be strongly Royalist, but even more strongly Parliamentar• ian: the Lords would be Royalist\, and the degree to which it would support the Commons was in some doubt. Hereditary privileges had greater significance for Peers, not one of whom had condoned the exe• cution of Charles I. Legally there was no barrier — unless the terms of recall so stipulated — to the sitting of Royalist Lords, whether their titles were old or recent. In theory Charles could pack the

Lords.

In practice the Commons had demonstrated again and again that they would work harmoniously with an upper chamber which represented great landed wealth. During the tenure of the Convention a comprom• ise would have to be achieved, whereby the most reactionary of the old

Peers would get back their land and some of their influence; not be• cause the Commons wanted to show generosity to malignants, but to stave off the use of force by the highly aggressive Cavaliers. For a Cav• alier reaction might easily afford the lower classes further opportun• ities of threatening the status quo. In due course the resentment of the old Lords would be diplomatically cjpided into a passionate (and harmless) defence of the Anglican Church.

It would be advisable to act quickly in recalling the king, be• cause with the end of the Franco-Spanish war, intervention by one or other of the two powerful foreign governments was an ever-increasing possibility. And such foolishness might easily enhance the status of common soldiers and of men like'Lambert. It would also be necessary to look forward to a comparatively short existence for the Convention, a body not completely representative of all the privileged classes.

The Parliament of 1660, more than most, would need to concentrate on essentials. These considerations must be kept in mind in an assessment 170 of its achievements.

The first Bill presented in the Commons, on 26-April, was for the punishment of vagrants "and wandering idle dissolute persons." It was a prelude to the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1662, which made it im• possible for a destitute person to get relief outside his own parish,

"provided always that all such persons who think themselves aggrieved.

may appeal to the justices of the peace of the said county at 35 their next quarter-sessions." The general function of charity was vaguely but effectively defined in a series of measures which applied. 36 particularly to maimed, soldiers, enjoining collections on their behalf, and instructing the Committee to "take the best Care they can, that upon the Parties receiving the Proportions assigned them, ....be sent 3/ home to the several Places where they last dwelt." Ainint that char• ity may benefit the collectors as well as the recipients appears in the restoration of Dr. Mathew Nicholas, "a very reverend and worthy 39 Divine", to the rents and profits of a hospital near Salisbury. While crocodile tears were shed over the "continual increase of 34 the poor", the Commons ensured a glut of labour by permitting dis• charged soldiers to practise trades to which they had not been apprent- iced. This measure obviously infringed customary rights of city cor• porations; but, like the Corporation Act which followed in l£6l, it increased .the relative importance of such exclusive bodies as the Lon- U-l don Court of Aldermen. Such measures were firmly supported by men like Sir Thomas Bludworth, who gave a broad interpretation to Charles's promise of "extraordinary kindness for our native city in particular; 171 which we shall manifest on all occasions." Many of the City magnates were prepared, in any case, to make some concessions in the interest

4t3 of a peaceful Restoration, especially when (like Thomas Cullum) they had debtors among both Royalists and Parliamentarians. They assumed

that Charles would not be able to ignore the interests of those who 44t paid his fare home and kept his most pressing creditors at bay. Sub- 4S

sequent deals, such as the sale of Dunkirk, added to their prestige

and fortune. Even the Stop of the Exchequer and the Quo Warranto pro•

ceedings of later years did little or no permanent damage, though admittedly a nuisance.

The Convention placated commercial interests generally by efforts to improve internal communications, setting up a Post Office and under- 47 taking the maintenance of roads and bridges. Peace with Spain was proclaimed.^ A Committee for Plantations was established,^and became a permanent feature of government. The Tobacco Act forbade the harvest- ing of tobacco in England or Ireland. The Navigation Act of 1651 was St

confirmed, even strengthened.

Of course the landowners did not forget their own interests, though it was obvious that the return of the king and of a national

Church would mean some regurgitation of undigested estates. Much of the time of the Convention was occupied in trying to reach a land set• tlement which would maintain the wealth and influence of the great Par• liamentary landowners without goading the diehard Royalists into a re- SZ sumption of the Civil War. Among the definite decisions reached was S3 the need to enforce the return of Crown and Church lands, at least 172 some of which were in the possession of grandees, republicans, and similar expendables. Where Parliamentarians in the in-group possessed such estates, as many did, they gave them up with varying degrees of

cheerfulness. Sir Thomas Wroth set a fine example of patriotic duty,

saying that "as to his own case, whatever he had bought, he did freely give back again, though he had paid 18 years purchase for them."^The stalwart Prynne said "that no compensation should be made to those who SS St. had bought the King's Lands"; and Sir Thomas Meres (a neighbor of Sir

Anthony Irby)^" desired the House not to have a greater care of the se king than they had of the church,"

There is some reason to doubt the authenticity of at least a part of Wroth's statement, since almostxother evidence suggests that a more usual figure was ten years purchase for cash, or thirteen for satis• faction of debt. The lowness of many unracked rents, the speculative buying of debentures, doubling and similar devices, all contributed to an actual reduction in purchase prices; and men who had held public Sq lands for a few years "had already paid themselves," Often they had stripped the land of timber and any other assets which could be quickly 60 realised. Only where buildings had been erected or genuine improve• ments made did the purchasers stand to incur heavy loss; and it is significant that Prynne wanted to make special allowances in such cases

Charles and his government were often disposed to show leniency and understanding; and holders of Crown lands seem generally to have fared 63 better than those who had bought Church lands. The most conspicuous losers in the whole complicated shuffle were undoubtedly tenants and 173 (,ti men who had purchased small holdings.

Confiscated private estates were returned to their owners; but the complexity of the situation made it virtually impossible to legis• late general principles for the settlement of disputes arising out of private sales. The problem was referred to rather vaguely in the Act of Indemnity and in the Act for Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings, which had the practical effect of confirming possessions acquired by private contract. Some Royalists complained that they had been un• fairly treated, but some others had bought advantageously in spite of the hard times. Sir John Bramston had "lived without any imploye more than mannageing that estate conferred on me by me father, and i7 some small part acquired by my own Industrie." The acquisitive habits of the upper classes in general had developed, even before the Civil

Wars, an uncompromising toughness in their attitude to disputes about ownership of land; and the Restoration did not alter the general prin• ciples of social and economic inequality. The only way around the law's delay was by Private Bill, which few but the most powerful could achieve.^

Where no internal disputes were involved the Convention moved rap• idly. Numerous resolutions show that the profitable work of reclam• ation in the.Fens went ahead.^ With some provisoes Parliament confirmed Yo leases made by Colleges and Hospitals, which included investments so desirable that Sir Thomas Cotton (for example) offered considerable

"satisfaction" in order to get "restored to his former Right."^ The significance of the landowning majority in Parliament was shown indir- 174

ectly but effectively by the methods used for raising taxation, par•

ticularly for the taxes voted, in place of the king's profits from wards

and. liveries. Whereas the profits had been derived, almost exclusively

from the rich, the compensatory tax was a permanent excise, spreading the burden over all consumers. Similarly the money for paying off demobilized soldiers and sailors was raised not by an assessment on Y3 property, but by a poll tax.

In spite of its Royalism, the Convention emphasised the sovereignty of Parliament in at least two of its actions: the Act legalising its own existence, and the impeachment of William Drake. The offence which provoked Drake's impeachment was sedition, in that he was alleged to have published "a certain, false, wicked, malicious and seditious Pamphlet" to prove that the Long Parliament had not been legally dis- 75 solved. The Lords apprehended Drake, had the impeachment read, and heard his confession. He was committed for trial in the King's Bench, 76

"where what further was done with this honest Citizen we know not."

Of greatest immediate importance among the Convention's achieve• ments was a massive demobilization. It may be gathered from the Lord

Chancellor's requiem speech of 12 September, that the demand for de- 77 mobilization was stronger in Parliament than at court. After much

fulsome praise of their prowess, Clarendon said: "They. who, whilst

an army lived like good husbandmen in the country, and good citizens

in the city, will now become really such." And to that the country and the City magnates might well have said amen, with reservations. The

City and the lawyers were probably more in sympathy with Clarendon's 175

expressions of regret than were the landowners, whose sense of personal

superiority gave them confidence in their ability to sway the common herd in the militia. Richard Brown and his associates in the City almost certainly felt less self-confidence. They did not forget the mutinies of the train^in^the 1640's. "Such men are only fit for Yq a gallows here and hell hereafter", 'wrote Sir William Waller.

Brown had no illusions about his popularity with the masses, and kept judiciously out of the way of Venner's fanatics in January 1661, when the train bands again proved rather pacific. How far Brown and his friends were responsible for provoking this rebellion is a question which merits further study. At all events the outcome was in line with

ideas generally associated with the Monk-Clarges group: a small but permanent professional army, consisting largely of Monk's own regiments.

This "coincidence", in combination with the important governmental posts held by Montagu, Ashley Cooper, and Monk himself, ensured balance in the country-City alliance. In 1661 anS, over-zealous Parliament of Cav• aliers might have threatened the balance and aroused the disastrous passions of the lower classes.

With minor exceptions, the list of the Convention's positive achievements is now complete; but something should be said about the significance of the things that the Convention did not do. For sign• ificant it is that this short-lived Parliament studiously placed re• ligion and foreign affairs well after such matters as land tenure, trade, and iron control over the poorer classes. The conclusion that religion and foreign policy were comparatively unimportant to the 176 magnates at this time is partly justified, but is too superficial to be advanced as a complete explanation of their neglect. They un• doubtedly recognised the place of both religion and foreign policy in the maintenance of social and economic privilege.

Serious and prolonged attention to foreign affairs was not a practical possibility in the conditions prevailing in 1660. Economic interest continued to point to a vigorous anti-Dutch programme, but the depression (engineered to suit the needs of domestic policy) made immediate action on such a programme unprofitable. There were encour• aging signs that the loyalty of lower-deck sailors was easy to buy — 91 beer and skittles was the price, plus payment of arrears — but the

Commonwealth navy had to be given a little time to settle to its new masters. The end of the Franco-Spanish war, the delicate position of investments in Dunkirk, and the possibilities now inherent in a dip• lomatic royal marriage were other factors supporting caution. No fut• ure Parliament of Cavaliers could seriously alter, the general basis of foreign policy, since the prosperity and status of all parties depended largely on the fruits of commercial exploitation^ There was wisdom, and little danger, in pushing the matter temporarily into the back• ground.

The case with religion was similar in many respects. There was no serious difference of opinion among the magnates about the general function of the Church — its purpose was the maintenance of order and obedience among the lower classes. The Convention, however, was wise enough to understand the dangers of trying to impose a rigid system so 177

long as the army was still a potential refuge of the sects. During

1660 the religious efforts of Parliament were confined almost exclus•

ively, to settling ministers, that is, maintaining incumbents in their offices pending a final settlement of the ecclesiastical administration. Care was taken to exclude Papists and recusants from official £3 toleration, and a special order demanded action by the Lord Mayor

against seditious preaching in London.. The establishment of a Church of England was assumed, to be "furnished with a religious, learned, fs sober, modest, and prudent Clergy." Charles's Declaration in favour of moderate toleration was debated and rejected on 28 November. Though the debate was warm, at least one member pointed out "that the cere• monies of the Church were not of that great weight, as to embroil us again in a new war." ' , '

Here was the crux of the matter. An established Church there would be, and once the army was under control toleration would go by

the board. There would.be bishops, with or without Presbyterianism.

The details could safely be left to occupy the windy attention of the

Cavaliers in the next Parliamentj and the great majority of orthodox ministers could sagely be relied upon to put their livings before abstruse questions of administration.

The Convention re-established the Stuart monarchy, and remained in office long enough to pay off the army and establish the ultimate sove• reignty of Parliament. When it was dissolved, in December 1660, Charles offered a quiet warning to any diehards who might hope to re-open ©Id wounds. "I do impute the good Disposition and Security we are all in, 178 to the happy Act of Indemnity and Oblivion You may be sure, I will hot only observe it religiously and inviolably Myself, but also exact

the Observation of it from others. And, if any Person should ever have the boldness to attempt to persuade Me to the contrary, he will find

such an Acceptation from Me, as He would have who should persuade Me to burn Magna Charta, cancel all the old Laws, and to erect a new

Government after Mine own Invention and Appetite."

NOTES

1. Parliamentary Intelligencer, March 12-19, 1660, (cited in Kirby, "William Prynne", p. 136) 2. Commons Journals, vii, 874. 3. ibid., vii, 874. 4. ibid., vii, 880. 5. Thurloe, vii, 873. 6. Thurloe, vii, many examples between pages 852 and 890. Corbett, "Monk", pp. 181-183. 7. Thurloe, vii, 889. 8. ibid., vii, 867. 9. Corbett, as note 6, p.. 183. 10. Somers Tracts, i, 160-164. 11. The Declaration of Breda, dated 14 April 1660, is printed in Clarendon, "History", XVI, 193-197 (Macray, vi, 206- 207); also in English Historical Documents, viii, 57-58. The latter is taken from the House of Lords Journals(xi, 7-8). 12. Davies, "Restoration", p. 309 (cites Clarendon State Papers). 13. Clarendon, "Life", ii, 11-12. 14. Scott, "Travels of the King", p. 468. 15. The lists in the Old Parliamentary History, vols, xxi and xxii, show three differences. Saltash and Wisbech are listed only in 1659, Clitheroe only in 1660. The changes do not appear to be significant — Saltash, e.g., was Edmund Prideaux's constituency (and John Buller's), though Wisbech in 1659 returned Thurloe. In 1659 both Buller and Thurloe chose alternative seats. 16. There were two or three changes; e.g. Saltash returned, Amersham disappeared. Wycombe changed its name to Chipping. (Cobbett's Parliamentary History, iv, 194-200). 179

17. Cobbett's Parliamentary History, iv, 1079-1086 and 1298- 1303. 18. See note 2. 19. Old Parliamentary History, xxii, 215. Brunton and Pennington, 244. Ts&cRoyalist who apparently evaded the ban was Sir John Hotham (see O.P.H., xxii, 224; B. and P., p. 234.) A*otkes uJas Sa.n*ue\ Sandys. 20. See Appendix 1 of this thesis. Lancelot Leke, chosen for Middlesex with Sir William Waller, was a son of the delinquent Earl of Scarsdale. (Davies, "Restoration", p. 322). 21. Hardacre, "Royalists During the Puritan Revolution", pp. 139-140. 22. H.M.C. 15th Report, Appendix 48 (Leyborne-Popham MSS) P. 159. 23. -That is, if his election in 1644 was still valid! (See Bourne, "History of Newcastle", pp. 232 and 239). 24. Leyborhe-Popham MSS. as note 22, pp. 161-162. 25. Ashton and Northcote are mentioned in Gardiner's "History of the Great Civil War" for their part in the actual fighting. Otherwise Gardiner ("Commonwealth and Pro• tectorate"), Firth ("Last Years of the Protectorate"), and Davies ("Restoration") do not mention any of the men named. 26. Including somei/who were disqualified from sitting. See Appendix 1 of this thesis. 27. Comparison: Old Parliamentary History, xxii, 210-225, with Brunton and Pennington, pp. 200-245. 28. See Chapter 9 of this thesis. 29. Weyman, "Oliver Cromwell's Kinsfolk", in Eng. Hist. Rev., vi (1891), 48-60. 30. Brunton and Pennington, pp. 69-70. 31. Hansard, (printer), "Members of Parliament, 1213-1702", Index to Part 1; compared with Appendix 1 of this thesis. 32. Son of the delinquent Earl of Scarsdale. (Davies, "Res• toration", pp. 321-322). Leke (among others) is not included in the Hansard list, possibly because the of- fical return was lost or damaged. 33. There were also a few nonentities, possibly nominees in Royalist boroughs (?). Very few families started a Parliamentary tradition through election to the Con• vention, though the Bramstons of Essex apparently did succeed in doing so. But Sir John Bramston had been "elected" to the Long Parliament in 1640, for the bor• ough of Bodmin; his father was Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench (1635); his mother was the daughter of Sir Thomas Moundeford, M.D., and grand-daughter of the Norfolk gentleman Sir Edward Moundeford. (D.N.B., ii, 1116-1119; "Autobiography of Sir John Bramston", pp. xvii, 160, etc.). 180

34. Commons Journals, viii, 2. 35. Poor Law Amendment Act, 1662: Article 2. There is little evidence that this significant legal right was widely invoked by the destitute. 36. Commons Journals, viii, 16. 37. ibid., viii, 122. (See also 46.48,66,147-148, and 204). 38. ibid., viii, 69. (See also 141). 39. Poor Law Amendment Act, 1662. (English Historical Doc• uments, viii, 464). 40. Commons Journals, viii, 155 and 159. 41. Sharpe, "London and the Kingdom", ii, 394-398. 42. Charles R. to the Lord Mayor, etc., Breda, 14 April 1660. (Clarendon, "History", XVI, 203 — Macray, vi, 210). 43. See Appendix 3 of this thesis. 44. Pepys, i, 120. 45. Clark, "Edward Baekwell As a Royal Agent", in Economic Hist. Rev., ix (1938), 45-55. 46. Post Office Act, 1660. (Eng. Hist. Docs., viii, 475-476). 47. Commons Journals, viii, 183. 48. Felling, "British Foreign Policy", p. 36. 49. Brown, "First Earl of Shaftesbury", pp. 128-149. 50. English Historical Documents, viii, 537-538. 51. ibid., viii, 533-537. (See also Chapter 5 of this thesis). 52. Commons Journals, viii, 11,25,86,112,152,168,178, etc. 53. Ogg, "England in the Reign of Charles II", i, 162-163. 54. Cobbett's Parliamentary History, iv, 80-81 55. ibid., iv, 81. 56. Member for Lincoln City in 1660, also in 1659. 57. Brunton and Pennington, p. 71, Sir Anthony's enduring hold on the seat for Boston might prompt a more face• tious author to compare him with Mr. John L. Sullivan, 58. Cobbett, as note 54, iv, 81. 59. Sir Thomas Meres, as for note 58. 60. Hill, "Puritanism and Revolution", p. 155. 61. As for note 55. 62. See Nicholas Papers, iv, 207-208. 63. Stoughton, "Ecclesiastical History of England", iii,(i.e. "Restoration", vol. i), 95-96. 64. Hill, as note 60, p. 188. James, "Social Policy, etc.", pp. 128-130. 65. Ogg, as note 53, i, 161-163. 66. See Chapter 3 of this thesis. 67. Bramston, "Autobiography", p. 2. 68. Commons Journals, viii, 138,157,159,161, etc. 69. Commons Journals, viii, 149-150,157,163,164,186,195. 70. Commons Journals, viii, 218-219, 227 (and many other re• ferences). 71. ibid., viii, 219. 72. Act abolishing feudal tenures and imposing hereditary Excise, 1660. (English Historical Documents, viii, 300- 304). 181

73. Act imposing poll tax, 1660. (English Hist. Doc, viii, 313-316). 74,. English Historical Documents, viii, 153. 75. Commons Journals, viii, 198. 76. Old Parliamentary History, xxiii, 41. 77. Old Parliamentary History, xxii, 485-487. 78. ibid., xxii, 487. 79. Burne and Young, "TheiGreat Civil War", p. 152. 80. Besant, "London in the Time of the Stuarts", pp. 77-80. 81. Pepys, i, 108, 112 etc. 82. Commons Journals, viii, 19,33,47,73,104,106,120,129,131, 140,144,145,147,148,161-163, 164-165, etc. 83. ibid., viii, 44 and 48. 84. ibid., viii, 38. 85. ibid., viii, 113. 86. ibid., viii, 194. 87. Old Parliamentary History, xxiii, 27-31. CHAPTER 12 182

CONCLUSION

No specific terms were imposed on Charles at his return, though there is abundant evidence to suggest that he would have agreed, to very restrictive terms in order to regain the throne. To some ob•

servers it appeared as If Charles had won a triumph almost miraculous.

"It was the Lords doing", wrote John Evelyn, "et mirabile in oculis nostris." At a later date, when he was writing his history, Clarendon also.ascribed the event to "the merciful hand of God." Even the de• feated republicans and regicides often echoed the general sentiment of surprise. "Indeed", said Lucy Hutchinson, "it was a wonder on that day to see the mutability of some, and the hypocrisy of others, and the servile flattery of all."

There was an element of personal victory for Charles in the

Restoration, and also an element of surprise; but to view the event as a God-given triumph for monarchy, would be to ignore its most salient features. John Evelyn was either naive or a master of the Big Lie; for there were few among Charles's supporters who did not know that he was far from "firm, constant and obliging in his Friendships", and still farther from being "firmly and irremovably fixed to the profession of the true Protestant religion." And Clarendon, while he may have seen the hand of God in 1660, had obviously during 1659 bad much more faith in the hands of Clobery, Monk, Ashley Cooper, Montagu,

Annesley, Brown, Booth, and their kind. He knew that the Restoration was the work of men, and of which men.

On a number of grounds it would have been inexpedient to impose a 183 written agreement on Charles, not the least of such grounds being the opposition to written constitutional documents which had arisen during the Interregnum. The whole idea of limiting powers of government by contractual obligation had an unpleasant lower-class flavour; and its introduction in 1660 would probably have had a most adverse effect on the caste myth. This consideration also explains the various genu• flections and similar contortions which Lucy Hutchinson branded as hypocrisy and servile flattery. Of course they were hypocritical few had any illusions about where Charles's divine potency was concen• trated but the situation demanded such hypocrisy. The ruling class, needing Charles as a popular figurehead, would not publicly treat him as a shiftless, lazy libertine and/or a convert to Catho• licism. The apparent servile flattery was (as it still is) a circus act for the benefit of the stupid masses, a part of the feudal trap• pings in which constitutional monarchy has ever since been dressed in order to propagate the caste myth.

Another consideration of expediency was the need for avoiding delay, though the actions of the alliance since 1658 had not been particularly hurried, nor particularly friendly to Charles. The need for despatch became greater as the successive elimination of Oliver and Richard ruled out any. possibility of a Cromwell dynasty. As Charles emerged as the only really practical figurehead it became necessary to avoid precipitate action by the lunatic-fringe groups of the right, the Bourbons abroad or the malignants at home. For either eventuality could have led to but one result: the re-opening of armed hostilities 184 and, in consequence, the awful threat of re-aroused passion among the lower classes.

An attempt to agree upon specific terms for the Restoration would, probably have opened cracks in the country-City alliance itself, with the stauncher Presbyterians forced into a position not unlike that of the more moderate sects. They would have been defending the thesis'" that religion has intrinsic importance, above and beyond its function of applying moral pressures and spiritual promises to the herd. While the army remained in existence it was inexpedient to risk even the re• mote possibility of sparking further religious controversy; and all groups condoned, if they could not support, the cavalier dismissal of

Matthew Hale's attempt to draw this red-herring through the Convention.

Honk himself explained that "there were many incendiaries still on the watch, trying where they could first raise the flame."

Terms were not only inexpedient, but unnecessary. Charles in his travels had become skilful at projecting the myth of hereditary super• iority, while leaving the details of policy and intrigue in the hands of his ministers. He had learned to rely on the moderate constitution• alists rather than the hard-drinking, hard-swearing rowdies among his fellow-exiles. The Parliamentarians could easily reach understanding with men like Clarendon, who up to the time of the Grand Remonstrance 6 had been one of themselves. The Declaration of Breda, and Charle's 7 dissolution speech in December 1660, showed that he knew the. right things to say. His actions were founded on a shrewd and cynical deter• mination to maintain the rewards of his position, reckoned largely in 185 terms of pleasure and entertainment; and when rivalries within the establishment compelled him to show preferences he was found to have a remarkable flair for choosing winners. Though a skilful bargainer in his own interest, he persistently clung to the principle that his in• terest could not ultimately be opposed to the interests of the elite as expressed in Parliament. The events of his reign confirmed the good judgment of those who in 1660 saw that his character made the imposition of terms unnecessary.

His sponsors did not restrict the aura of divine selection, holy suffering, and all-embracing love of the people which clever propaganda had pasted to the earthy figure of Charles. They recognised his good qualities, and paid him a good salary., retaining for themselves the actual control of those commercial and financial operations which made his salary possible. It is important to remember that even the Stop of the Exchequer and the Quo Warrants proceedings against the City g gave the government no added source of revenue. The permanent rev• enue which replaced old feudal dues was an excise, and like all con• sumer taxation was directly affected by the prevailing conditions of commercial prosperity. And the bases of commercial and financial con• trol, with which Charles made no attempt to interfere, were the Navig• ation Act and the establishment of a six percent rate of interest.

The king was made nominal head of all the armed forces, with power to call out the militia. However, the First Militia Act provided that the forces should be exercised, ordered and managed "as the same now 9 is actually exercised, ordered and managed." ' The Second Militia Act 186 gave officers "full power and authority to call together all such per• sons....and in case of insurrection, rebellion or invasion them to to lead, conduct and employ, or cause to-be led, conducted and employed." Property qualifications ensured the appointment to positions of com- ll mand of men with superior social status. The standing army, destined to become more important than the militia, was never completely dis• banded. By the first week of January 1661 all the unreliable elements had gone, leaving only Monk's own foot regiment and some hand-picked troops of horse-guards. The timely rising of Fifth Monarchists in the

City now provided justification for keeping a small permanent force ll

"for the security of the King's person." The next few weeks saw the foundation of the Coldstream and Grenadier Guards, shortly followed by the Life-Guards, the Blues, the Royal Scots, and the Buffs. -Officered by sons of the gentry,.these regiments became instruments for the ac• quisition of territory abroad and the defence of property at home, as well as vehicles for ostentatious demonstrations of social superiority.

The moneymen were not neglected in this operation, which was financed through a paymaster-general's office, described by Forteseue as "a system of corruption and waste which is almost incredible." Even the linear tactics adopted in training the army were designed to rule out any exercise of thought or initiative by the common soldiers, who .were expected (in the words of Frederick the Great) to fear their officers more than they did the enemy. Similar developments occurred in the navy, where officers chosen for their "integrity and general (but un- 15 practie'd) knowledge" gradually evolved methods based on formal tactics 187 and harsh discipline.

The establishment retained absolute control of legal process, and law became ever more concerned with the preservation of privilege and less concerned with justice. The lawyers themselves effected a series of procedural reforms the primary object of which was not the relief of litigants but the attraction of business from one court to another.-•

Complications were deliberately devised in laws dealing with real pro-

jg perty, and the final result was to make legal process expensive for the rich but virtually impossible for the poor. At the same time a harsh criminal code was directed against the lower classes, who might too easily find themselves without redress at the mercy of a Bloody iq Assize. ' Entry to the practice of law remained almost exclusively the prerogative of sons of the gentry — the main weakness of the English ZO Bench, said Potter "might be a certain inbreeding." The same class - consolidated its hold on other professions such as medicine and banking, Zl and even to a large extent on the practice of the fine arts. :

The Church too was re-moulded to serve as a vehicle of propaganda and control, and also a source of income for impecunious younger sons. ZZ

Bishops were re-admitted, after long debate, to the House of Lords, but on the understanding that they would now be primarily career men, such as Sheldon and Parker. Ecclesiastical courts were re-established, but the Court of High Commission was specifically excluded from the 23 reeestablishment. Actual control of ecclesiastical policy was vested in a High Court of Delegates, which the lay members in practice domin- Z# ated. Tithes were retained, and open nepotism in the distribution of 188 livings soon led to the era of the hard-riding, hard-drinking parson.Z5

The machinery of administration came into the hands of such men as Anthong Ashley Cooper, William Morrice and Edward Nicholas, sup• ported by a team of lower-echelon executives who to some extent re• sembled administrative civil servants. Almost all of these executives had given proof of their willingness to serve the country-City alliance.

Some were directly bound to elite families, as (for example) Samuel

Pepys was to the Montagus and Andrew Marvell to the Fairfaxes. ' Others gave their services primarily for pay and plunder, among them George 2% ZQ So Dowming, Samuel Morland 'and Henry Muddiman. Still others, like 3/ 32

William Petty and Thomas Clarges, performed their duties in a kind of political twilight, receiving their rewards often in roundabout ways. Among the most important among the administrators were men like

Muddiman and Roger L'Estrange, who wrote the official newsbooks and news-letters which alone were permitted to appear. As Surveyor of the Presses L'Estrange was responsible for the suppression of seditious 33 pamphlets. Under pressure of censorship authors such as John Milton and John Bunyan were persecuted, while the court encouraged a new style of drama characterised by the work of William Wycherley and George

Etherege•

Trade, finance, conquest, the army and the navy, law,- the pro• fessions, the Church, public administration and public information, literature and the arts — all came under the control of a small elite aJI founded on possessions in goods and in land. And above^the elite as• sumed tight control over Parliament, and through it successfully 189 maintained an overriding power over all the other instruments of con•

trol. At the Restoration the House of Lords was virtually reconstituted

by new creations,1 some of them from the old Royalist gang, but includ•

ing also Monk, Cooper, Montagu, Annesley, Holies, and Booth. In due

course ownership of great possessions.became a kind of stepping-stone

to a barony or earldom* the Duttons and the Hobarts being among those

translated. Throughout the eighteenth century membership of the House

of Commons was effectively restricted to the upper classes and/or their

nominees.

The Restoration was a victory for the Stuart monarchy, and a

triumph for both the bishops and the lawyers. It was even more a.vic•

tory for the moneymen of the City, for land itself became a means of

raising money. Landowners adopted almost universally the practice of

extracting from their lands the highest possible economic return, by

charging the highest possible economic rents to working farmers. The

speculative purchase of lands became part of the system, aid involved landowners in finance whether they wanted to be so involved or not. •

The revolution in their material demands —foreign wines and luxuries, visits to the spas, the London "season", and the gentlemanly pursuits

of hunting and gambling — compelled them to interest themselves in other kinds of wealth, to acknowledge their dependence on trade and bankers, and so to increase the influence and even the status of men who manipulated the less concrete forms of wealth.

Charles could hardly have returned to his father's throne without

the realistic assistance of the City magnates, yet it was the country 190 group in the alliance which took control of government at the Restor-, ation. When in later years the interests of the two groups appeared to diverge it was almost invariably the City group which succumbed; and moneyed magnates in general acknowledged the superior status of the landowners by seeking to become squires. In tlhe long run the poor• er classes were kept in subjection by economic pressures, but the successful application of such pressures was made easy by the triumph of a feudal myth. The landowners gave the oligarchy its ultimate weapon, the effective dissemination of a belief that rulers are born.

They were the dominant partners in the alliance, and it was for their purposes primarily that the monarchy was re-established.

During the century which followed the Restoration no significant departure from the practice of constitutional monarchy was permitted by those who had won power. Not one of the parliamentary rights acknow• ledged by Charles I was again seriously disputed, and none of the ad• vantages gained in the Civil Wars was surrendered. The lower classes were kept firmly in their station, as Parliaments concerned themselves largely with refinement and improvement of the privileges of wealth.

In those Parliaments the rich, and above all the landowning rich, asserted in both Upper and Lower Houses "a pretentious self-conscious• ness, such as had not been seen in England since the barons1 Parlia- ment." Well they might, for occasionally in name and always in fact they had made themselves the feudal barons of a new age; and they have ever since governed England in their own interest. NOTES

1. Evelyn's Diary, 29 May 1660. 2. Clarendon, "History", XVI, 247 (Macray, vi, 234). 3. Hutchinson, "Memoirs of Colonel'Hutchinson", p. 402. 4. Evelyn, "The Late News or Message from Bruxels Unmasked", cited in Davies, "Restoration", p. 316. 5. Burnet, "History of His Own Time", p..58. 6. See Chapter 11, note 11. 7. See Chapter 11, note 88. 8. The Stop of the Exchequer suspended repayment of principle on loans subscribed mainly by citizens of London. (Rich• ards, "Early History of Banking", pp. 58-86). The Quo Warranto proceedings arose out of a quarrel about ele• ctions in the City, in which there was apparently some collusion between the government and the Court of Alder• men against a rival group in Common Hall. (Sharpe, "London and the Kingdom", ii, 473-505). 9. English Historical Documents, viii, 793. 10. ibid., viii, 794. 11. ibid., viii, 787-795. 12. Fortescue, "History of the British Army", i, 291-297. 13. ibid., i, 312. 14. Preston, Wise and Werner, "Men in Arms", pp. 135-137. 15. Pepys, "Memoires of the Royal Navy", cited in Chatterton, "Story of the British Navy", p. 220. 16. Chatterton, as note 15, pp. 219-220. 17. Elucknett, "Concise History of the Common Law", pp. 386- " 387. 18. ibid., p. 398. 19. Macaulay, "History of England, i, 502-516. 20. Kiralfy, "Potter's Historical Introduction to English Law", p. 86. . " . •21. See Chapter 7 of this thesis. Pursuit of the family his• tories of members of the country-City alliance, in the Dictionary of National Biography, shows that many became society painters. John Greenhill is one example. Rey• nolds, Gainsborough and Romney all had their origins among the lower echelons of the establishment. Kneller married into the Cawley family, and Lely's son into the Knatchbulls. The Fairfaxes seemed to favour physicians and divines, the Booths actors,, An interesting modern parallel may be seen in the group of society photo• graphers . 22. Lords' Journals, xi, 330-333. 23. Stoughton, "Ecclesiastical History, etc.", iv, 199. 24. ibid., iv, 200. 25. Turberville, "English Men and Manners in the Eighteenth Century", pp. 287-304. Schlatter, "Social Ideas of Religious Leaders, 1660-1688" pp. 106-157. 26. Dictionary of National Biography, xv, 805-811. 27. D.N.B. (1909), xiii, 1209-1217. 28. D.N.B., v, 1304-1306. 29. D.N.B., xiii, 965-970. 30. Muddiman, "King's Journalist", passim. 31. D.N.B., xv, 999-1004. 32i D.N.B., iv, 398-399. 33. Muddiman, as note 30, pp. 150-151. D.N.B., xi, 997-1007. 34. Gneist, "Constitutional History of England", p. 585. APPENDIX 1 193 MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, I658-I66O

This is an alphabetical list of Members of Parliament, grouped under surnames. A similar surname usually, though not always, indi• cates a close family relationship. The list includes members of Crom• well's Second Parliament (Cr 2.), of Richard's Parliament (Rhd.), and of the Convention Parliament (Cnv.), as listed in the Old Parliamen• tary History. It also includes, from Brunton and Pennington's list (see Bibliography), ONLY those members of the Long Parliament (Lng.) whose surnames appear in one or more of the three later Parliaments. Brunton and Pennington's list, also alphabetical, shows which men were Rumpers.

A capital J before a name indicates a definite connection with the law or with jurisprudence, a capital C indicates a definite con• nection with commerce or finance. (The absence of either letter does not necessarily imply that the member had no such connection; further research would almost certainly disclose many more).

In the columns indicating the four Parliaments a small x means that the person concerned was a member for an English or Welsh con• stituency. A capital W means that the person was elected for such a constituency, but was listed by Whitelock as having been excluded (see Chapter 2). A capital K means that the person concerned (sitting for an English or Welsh constituency) was listed as a "kingling", i.e. a supporter of the projected Cromwellian monarchy. A question mark (?) indicates that the member was on both lists (In these cases one list presumably erred). 194

A capital S shows that the member sat for a Scottish constituency,

an I for an Irish constituency. Such members listed as kinglings have

a K as well.

A capital L stands for a Cromwellian Lord.

A capital D indicates that for some reason (e.g. double return,

expulsion, void election) the member did not take or did not retain the

S6cL"fc(»

A capital R means that the member was disqualified as a Royalist.

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

ABBOT, Daniel I George (i) x George (ii) x

ACTON, Edward x Walter x

C ADAMS, Thomas W

ALDWORTH, Richard x C Robert K x x

ALEBY, Roger x

C ALSOP, Timothy x x

ALURED, John x Matthew x

ANDREWS, Phineas x Robert x C Theophilus x

ANLABY, John x x

J ANNESLEY, Arthur x ii I x

ARCHER, Anthony x John x Thomas x x ARGYLE, Marquis of

ARTHINGTON, Henry

ASCOUGH, Edward

ASH, James John Samuel

ASHBURNHAM, Denny

ASHTON, John Ralph (i) Ralph (ii) William

ATKINS, Edward Robert Thomas

AUDLEY, Lewis

AUNGIER, Francis Lord

BAB3UT0N, Jathew

BACON, Francis Nathaniel Thomas

BAGOT, Edward Hervey

BAINES, Adam

BAKER, James John

BALDWIN, Charles John Samuel

BAMPF3ELD, Coplestone John Thomas BANKS, John Ralph William

BARCLAY, David

BARKER, Abel John

BARK3TEAD, John

BARNARD, John

BARNARDISTON, Nathaniel Thomas

BARNHAM, Francis Robert William

BARRBJGTON, John (i) John (ii) Robert Thomas

BARTON, John

BATHURST, John

BAYLES, Thomas

BAYNTON, Edward (i) Edward (ii)

BEAKE, Alexander John Richard Robert

BEALE, Richard

BEAUMONT, Thomas

BECK, Gabriel

BEDFORD, Samuel

BEDINGFIELD, Anthony Henry 197

Lng. Cr2, Rhd. Cnv.

BENCE, Alexander x John x Squire x

BENNET, Gervase x x John Robert X X Thomas R

BENTLEY, Jeremy W

BERESFORD, Tristram IK

BERKELEY, George x

BERNARD, John x

BERRY, James

BETHEL, Henry x Hugh x x Slingsby

BIDDULPH, Michael

Theophilus

BIGG, Walter X x BINDLOSS, Robert K X X BINGHAM, John X W X X BIRCH, John X ¥

Thomas X

BISCOE, John X X

BISHE, Edward X

BLACKMORE, (Alderman)

BLACKWELL, John X BLAGRAVE, Daniel X John BLAKE, Alexander x X X Edward X Robert x 198

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

BLANEY, Richard I

BLISSET, Joseph x

BLOYS, William W

BLUDWORTH, Thomas (i) R Thomas (ii) x

BODURDA, Griffith K x x John R

BOLD, Arthur x

BOND, Dennis x K Elias x John x Samuel x x

BOON, Thomas x x

BOOTH, George x x x x

BOREMAN, Thomas x

BORLACE, John R William x x

BOSCAWEN, Charles x Edward x x Hugh x xx

B0S10RTH, Roger x x

BOTELER, Edward x William (i) x William (ii) x

BOUGHTON, Richard Thomas x

BOURCHIER, John x Barring

BOWERMAN, Thomas K

BOWES, Thomas W

BOWMAN, Seymour x BOWYER,- John (i) John (ii) Thomas William (i) William (ii)

BOYS, John

BRADDEN, William

BRADSHAIGH, Roger

BRADSHAW, Edward John

BRAMSTON, John

BRAND, Joseph

BRAYMES, Arnold

BRERETON, William (i) William (ii)

BRETT, Henry John

BRE?ffiR, Andrew

BREWSTER, Francis Robert

BRIDGE, Tobias

BRIDGES, John

BRISCOE, William

BRISTOW, Thomas

BRODERICK, Allan

BROGHIL, Roger Lord

BROMFIELD, Henry

BROMLEY, Henry BROOKE, John Peter Robert

BROUGHTON, Andrew

BROWN, George John Richard (i) Richard (ii) Samuel (i) Samuel (ii)

BRUCE, Robert Lord

BRUNKER, William

BUCKLAND, John

BUCKLEY, Robert Viscount

. BUCKLEY, John

BULL, Henry

BULLER, Anthony Francis George John Richard

BULSTRODE, John

BURGOYNE, John Roger

BURTON, Thomas William

BUSBRIDGE, John

BUTTON, John

BUXTON, John

BYNE, John

BYSSE, John 201

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

CAESAR, Henry X

CALMADY, Josias X

CALVERLEY, William X CAPEL, Arthur R Henry

CARENT, William x

CAREW, Alexander R James John x x Thomas x

CAREY, Edward x Henry Viscount Falkland x % x

CARTER, John K X X Richard K

CARTWRIGHT, William x

CASTLE, Robert x

CAVENDISH, Charles R Henry

CAWLEY, William (i) x William (ii) x D

C CEELEY, Christopher x John x x . Peter x D Thomas x x x

J CHADWICK, James x

CHALONER, James x

Thomas x x

CHAPLIN, Thomas x D x x J CHARLTON, Job or John Robert x 202

Lngo . Cr2. Rhd. Cnv,

CHASE, Thomas x

CHEEK, Edward x Thomas x

CHEYNE, Charles William x

CHILD, John x Josiah X

CHOLMLEY, Henry x X Hugh R Thomas x

CHOWN, Henry

CHURCH, Bernard x

CHUTE, Chaloner (i) W x Chaloner (ii) x

CLAPHAM, Christopher X X

C CLARGES, Thomas S S x

C CLARK, John x .x

Samuel x W CLAVERING, James

CLAYPOLE, John K L X X J CLAYTON, John x Thomas x CLIFFORD, Thomas X

CLIFTON, Clifford Edward Lord x Gervase R

CLOBERY, John

CLUDD, Edward x

COBB, Richard x

COBINS, James Lng.

COCHRAN, William Lord

COKER, Robert

COLE, Thomas

COLES, William COLLEFORD, Robert

COLLIN&S, John

William

CONNOCK, John

CONYERS, Tristram COOKE or COKE, Charles George Edward Henry R John x Robert x Thomas R William

COOPER, Anthony Ashley D George James Thomas

COOTE, Charles Thomas

COPE, Anthony

COPLESTONE, John

COPPING, Jeremy

COROTALLIS, Charles Frederick R

COTTON, William

COURTHOPE, George

COURTNEY, William

COVENTRY, John R Thomas 204

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

COX, Alban D

CRAISTER, Thomas x

CREW, John X Thomas X

CROFTS, Henry- John x J CROKE, Richard K x Robert R Unton x

CROMPTON, Thomas x x X

CROMWELL, Henry (of Ramsey) K X Oliver Richard, x L

CROUCH, Thomas X

CRYNES, Elisha D

DACRES, Thomas (i) x Thomas (ii) X X X C DALTON, John X

DANBY, James • X Thomas R

DANIEL, Jeffrey

DARCY, Conyers X James X

DARLEY,. Henry x W W Richard X

DAVIES, John

J DAVY, James X

DAWDESWELL, Richard X

DAWKINS, Roland x

DAWNAY, John 205

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Gnv.

DEERING, Edward (i) R Edward (ii) x

DE LA NOT, Peter K

DELAVALL, Ralph x Robert x

DELVES, Nicholas X x

DENDY, Edward X

DENN, Vincent

DENNIS, Nicholas

DESBOROUGH, John x L Samuel S S

DEVEREUX, Walter (i) Walter (ii)

'DEWEY, James x x

DICKENSON, Thomas X X

DILLINGTON, Robert X

DIKE, Thomas

DITTON, Humphrey

DIXWELL, John x X

DODDERIDGE, John X W

DORMER, John X X

DOUGLAS, Alexander SK

DOWNING, George K X

DOYLY, John X William W X X

K X DRAKE, Francis (i) X Francis (ii) X X John X William 206

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

C DRURY, William x

DUCKENFIELD, John I

DUCKET, William X X

DUNCH, Edmund x K Hungerford x John K X DUNCOMBE, George K John x DUNSTER, Henry x EARNELY, John x EDGAR, Thomas x EDWARDS, Humphrey x Richard x x William x

EGI0CKE, John x

ELLIOT, John x

J ELLIS, William x x x D

C ELLISON, Robert x X

ENYS, Samuel X

ERLE, Thomas x Walter x X X

EURE, George Lord x L Sampson R

EVELYN, George x Gilbert X John (i) x X John (ii) x X

EVERARD, Richard X

EVERLAND, Robert X Lng,

EVERSFIELD, Edward Thomas

EYRE, Giles J Henry William x

FAGGE, John x

FAIRFAX, Ferdinando Lord x Thomas Lord D

FALKLAND, (see CAREY)

FARRINGTON, John

FELTON, Henry

FEN TON, Maurice

FENWICK, George x John x Robert

William x

FERRERS, John

FIELDER, John x FIENNES, Francis (alias CLIFTON) James x John x J Nathaniel (i) x 'Nathaniel (ii)

J FINCH, Heneage

John x

FISHER, William

FITCH, Thomas

FITZGERALD, Wentworth (Earl of Kildare) C FITZ-JAMES, Henry John Thomas 208

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

FLEETWOOD, Charles x x L George x Miles (i) x Miles (ii) K x

FOLEY, Thomas x

C FOOT, Thomas K

C FORTH, Hugh x D

FOTHERGILL, John x X

POWELL, Edmund or Edward (i) X Edmund or D Edward (ii) X X x John X

FOWKE, Francis C John IK

FOWLE, Robert X

FOX, John • X Thomas X x

FOXWIST, William X

FREDERICK, X

FREEMAN, Edward X William X

GALLOP, Roger

GAPE, Thomas X

C GELDART, John x

GELL, John W X Thomas

GERRARD, Francis X X Gilbert (i) X X Gilbert (ii) X

, Thomas x X X

GIBBON, Robert X Thomas X 209

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

GIBBS, William W .

GIBSON, Alexander s

J GILES, Edmund x

GILL, Edward x

GLANVLLLE, John (i) R* x J John (ii) x William R

J GLYNN, John x K L x William x x

J GODDARD, Guybon x x

J GODEREY, Lambert x x

G0D0LPHIN, Francis (i) R Francis (ii) x x Sidney R

GOFFE, Robert x William x L

G00DRICK, Francis x x (Maj. Gen.) x

GOODWIN, Arthur x John x ? x x Ralph R

Robert x x

GOOKIN, Vincent IK I

GORE, John W GORGES, John K I Theobald R Thomas x x x

GORING, George R Henry x

GOTT, Samuel x W x x

GOULD, James x Nicholas x

^•Expelled 1645. 210

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

GREENWOOD, Hunt x

GRENVLLLE, Be vii R Richard W x

GRESHAM, Marmaduke

GREY, Henry Lord x John X Thomas Lord x

GRIFFITH, John (i) R John (ii) R*

GRIMSTONE, Harbottle (i) x Harbottle (ii) x W X

GROSVENOR, Edward K x

GROVE, Thomas x x x

GULSTON, Richard x

GURDQN, Brampton x J ohn x X

GWYNN, George x X

HACKER, Francis K

HALE, John W X Matthew X X

HALES, Edward R Robert X

HALL, Charles W Thomas x

HALSEY, William IK

HAMPDEN, John x Richard L William X

HARE, Ralph W

^Expelled 1642. 211

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

HARLEY, Edward x W X Robert (i) x Robert (ii) x x

HARRINGTON, James x John xx x

HARRISON, John R Thomas x x D

HARVEY, Daniel ' x Edmund or Edward x W D John (i) x John (ii) x

HASELRIG, Arthur x W x

HASSEL, Samuel X

HATCHER, John x Thomas x x x x

HATSELL, Henry x x

HAVKINS, John x

HAWKSWORTH, Jos. x x

HAXLEY, James x

HAY, Herbert x

William x x x x

J HAYES, James x

HAYNES, Hezekiah x HEBLETHWAYT, Thomas (i) R Thomas (ii) x

HEELEY, James x

HELE, John x x x Thomas R

HENLEY, Henry x x 212

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

HERBERT, Edward (i) R Edward (ii) K Henry (i) R Henry (ii) Lord X X James X X X John X X Philip (i) Lord X Philip (ii) Earl* X . Richard R William (i) R William (ii) R

HERLE, Edward X X Thomas X X

HERVEY, Francis X X

HEWLEY, John X D

HEWSON, John W L

HICKMAN, William X

HIDE, William K

HIGGONS, Thomas X

HIGHLAND, Samuel X

HILDESLEY, John X X X

HILL, Richard X Roger X X

HINSON, William (alias .-• P01ELL) X

HOBART, John (i) X John (ii) X John (iii) W X

HOBY, Peregrine X X X

HOLLAND, Cornelius X John X X Richard X

#Earl of Pembroke. HOLIES, Denzil Francis Gervase

HOLMAN, Philip

HOLT, Thomas

HONEYWOOD, Robert Thomas

HOOKE, Humphrey John

HOOPER, Edward

HOPKINS, Edward Richard

HORNER, George

HORSEMAN, Edward

HOSKINS, Bennet Edmund

HOTHAM, John (i) John (ii)

HOUGHTON, Gilbert Lord Richard

HOWARD, Charles Edward Lord George Philip Robert Thomas William

HOWE, George Grubham John Grubham Richard Grubham

HUGHES, Thomas William

HULTON, William

HUMPHRYS, John HUNGERFORD, Anthony Edward (i) Edward (ii) Giles Henry

HUNT, Robert Thomas

HUSSEY, Charles Thomas (i) Thomas (ii)

HUTCHINSON, John Richard Thomas

INGE, William

BFGOLDSBY, Francis Henry Richard

IRBY, Anthony

IRELAND, Gilbert

JACKSON, Joseph

JAMES, Roger William

JENNINGS, Edmund or Edward John Jonathan Richard

JENKLNSON, Robert

JENKYN, John

JEPHSON, William

JESSOP, William

JOHNSON, Abraham

JOLLIFEE, John 215.

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

JONES, Arthur R J Edmund x C John (i) W X John (ii) x x Philip x K L Richard x Samuel. W x Theophilus IK I Thomas x X J William X

JUXON, Thomas X

KEELING, Edward X

KELSEY, Thomas X

KENDALL, John X

KENRICK, William X

KER, Andrew S William S

KIFFEN, William x

KILLIGREW, Henry Peter

KING,.Edward Ralph I Richard X Robert I Thomas

KNATCHBULL, John x Norton x

KNIGHT, John x Ralph x

KNIGHTLEY, Richard

KNOLLYS, Francis (i) X Francis (ii) X Thomas X

LAGOE, Walden X

LAMBERT, John X D LAMPEN, John

LANGHAM, James John

LASCELLES, Francis Thomas

LAUNCE, James

LAWLEY, Francis

LAWRENCE, Henry (i) Henry (ii) William

LAWSON, Wilfrid (i) Wilfrid (ii)

LECHMERE, Nicholas

LEE, Henry John Richard (i) Richard (ii) Thomas

LEGH or LEIGH, Edward George John Peter (i) Peter (ii) Richard

LEKE, Lancelot

LE NEVE, Edward

LENTHAL, John William

LEWIS, Evan James Lewis Richard William (i) William (ii)

LLLBURN, Robert Thomas 217

Lng, Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

LISLE, John K L William x x

LISTER, Christopher x Martin x Thomas x W William (i) x William (ii) x

LITTLETON, Edward R Thomas R Tim x

LITTON, Rowland W X William x

LIVESEY, Gabriel Michael

LLOYD, Andrew w Charles X Francis R Griffith X John

LOBB, Richard

LOCKHART, George S John SK S William SK L

LOFTUS, Dudley . I

LONG, Lislebone x K x Richard R Robert W X Walter

LORT, Sampson X

LOVE, Nicholas x X

LOWRIE, John X X

LOWTHER, John X William X

LUCKYN, Capel X 218

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

LUCY, Foulk x Richard (i) x K Richard (ii) Thomas x ? x x LUDLOW, Edmund x Henry x William x D X X LUKE, Oliver x Samuel x X

LUTTRELL, Alexander x Francis X x

MACDOWEL, James S S

C MACKWORTH, Humphrey X X C Thomas x X X

MALLER, Michael X

MANDEVIL, Robert Lord X

MANLEY, John X X Thomas

MANSEL, Bussey X Edward X

MANNERS, Thomas X

MANSFIELD, Viscount - see Charles and Henry CAVENDISH.

MANSHAM, John X

X MANWAR3NG, Thomas

MARBURY, Thomas X

J MARGETS, Thomas X X

MARKHAM, Henry , SK I

MARKLAND, Robert X

MARRIOT, Richard X

C MARSHAL, Robert X MARTIN, Christopher Gabriel Henry Nicholas

MARVELL, Andrew

MARWOOD, George

MASKBLINE, Nevil

MASON, Benjamin

MASSEY, Edward

MASTER, Thomas

J MATTHEWS, Joachim

C MAYNARD, Christopher John (i) J John (ii) John (iii)

MEREDITH, Nicholas Richard

MERES, Thomas

MERRICK, Edmund John

MERRY, Thomas

C MIDDLETON, Peter Thomas (i) Thomas (ii) Thomas (iii)

MILBORN, William

MILDMAY, Carew Henry

J MILLS, John

MITCHELL, William 220

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

MITFORD, Robert x

MONK, George L x

MONSON, John x

MONTAGU, Edward (i) x Edward (ii) x George x K L x Sidney R

MOODY, Miles x Samuel x MOORE, John x Poynings x Richard x Samuel W x Thomas (i) x Thomas (ii) x X

MORGAN, Anthony IK I David x X X William x W x x MORLEY, Herbert x W x x MORRICE, William x MOYLE, John x Walter x W x x

MURRAY, Archibald S

MUSSENDEN, Francis x

MY&8$,Thomas W x

NANFAN, John X

NEAST, William X

NEVILLE, Edward x X X Henry x X

NEWBURGH, Thomas I

J NEWDIGATE, Richard X 221

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

NEWTON, John x

NICHOLAS, John x x Robert x X

NICHOLL, Anthony x D (died)

NOEL, Baptist R Martin K x Thomas x

NORDEN, John

NORRIS, Francis K

NORTH, Dudley x x Henry W x Roger x

NCRTHCOTEi John X W

NORTON, Gregory X Henry X X Richard X Simon X

NORWICH, John x

NOSWORTHY, Edward x

NUTLEY, James X X OAKELEY, William X

OGLANDER, William X

OKEY, John

OLDFIELD, William D

ONSLOW, Arthur X X Henry X Richard K L X

ORME, Humphrey X

X OWEN, Arthur X Henry IK Hugh D Lewid X 222

Lng. Cr2, Rhd. Cnv.

OXBURGH, Laurence x

OXENDEN, Henry x

PACK, Christopher K

PACKER, Robert William D

PALMER, Geoffrey R John x Roger (i) R Roger (ii) x

PARKE, Robert

PARKER, George John x Philip X Thomas x

PARKHURST, Robert X x

PARSONS, Laurence X

PASTON, Robert X

PAYLER, George

PEART, Origen X

PECKHAM, Henry W X

PEDLEY, Nicholas X

PELHAM, Henry (i) X Henry (ii) John X Peregrine X Thomas X

PENN, William

PERROT, Herbert X

PETT or PETIT, Peter X X

PETTI, Edmund X William

PEYTO, Edward PHILIPS, Edward Erasmus James William

PICKERING, Gilbert Henry

PIERCE, Henry

PIERPOINT, Francis William

PIGGOT, Gervase Richard

PITT, Edward George James

PLEYDELL, John

William

POCHEN, Thomas

POLE, German POOL, Edward Nevil William

POPHAM, Alexander (i) Alexander (ii) Edward Francis

PORTER, Endymion Henry

POTTS, John

POVEY, Thomas

POWELL, Henry Richard (see also William HINSON) PRICE, Charles Herbert Hugh John (i) John (ii) William

PRIDE, Thomas

PRIDEAUX, Edmund (i) Edmund (ii)

PROBY, Thomas

PRYNNE, William

PULLER or PULTER, Isaac

PUREFOY, William

PURSELL, John

PURY, Thomas (i) • Thomas (ii)

PYE, Robert

PYM, Alexander N Charles John

QUARLES, William

RADCLIFFE, Richard

RAINSFORD, Richard

RALEIGH, Carew

RAMSAY, Andrew

RAMSDEN, John

RANT, Thomas

RATCLIFF, John

RAVENSCROFT, Hall 225

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

RAWDEN, George I

RAYMOND, Oliver W

REDDING, Nathaniel x

REDMAN, Daniel I I

REEVE, George x

REYNELL, Thomas x x

REYNOLDS, John IK Robert x 1 x D

RHODES, Edward S S Godfrey SK

RICH, Charles x x Nathaniel x Robert Lord R Thomas x

RICHARDSON (CRAMOND), Thomas

RICHBELL, Robert

C RIDGE, Jonathan

RIGBY, Alexander x x D

RIVERS, James x Nisei x Thomas W

RIVET, Francis x x

ROBERTS, Henry x William K L

ROBINSON, John (i) x John (ii) x Lulce x x D D Metcalf x Thomas x

ROGERS, Hugh x Nathan x Richard R Wroth x x 226 Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv. ROLLE, Francis x x - John (i) x John (ii) x Robert x x Samuel

ROSSITER, Edward x

ROUSE, Anthony x Francis X John X Robert Thomas K X

RUSHWQRTH, John X X

RUSSELL, Francis x K L John R William Lord R William (ii) X

ST. AUBYN, John X

ST. JOHN, Beauchamp Francis x x. D Hen. X Oliver L Walter X x D

ST. NICHOLAS, Thomas W X

SADLER, John X I I Thomas ? SALISBURY, William Earl of X SALMON, Edward. SALWAY, Edward X Humphrey x Richard X

SANDERS, Thomas X

SANDYS, Samuel R Thomas x William R

SANKEY, Jerome x x

SAUNDERS, Thomas W X 227

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv. •

SAUNDERSON, George x

SAVILE, George x William (i) R William (ii)

SCAWEN, Robert

' SCILLY - see CEELEY

SCOTT, Thomas (i) x Thomas (ii) W D X x 3C0TT0M, Edward x SCROPE, Adrian S

SEARLE, George X Samuel x

SELLIARD, John W

SEYMOUR, Edward R Francis R Henry John

J SEYS, Evan X

SHAFTOE, Mark X

SHAPCOTE, Robert x SHATTERDEN, Daniel W

SHAW, John x

SHERARD, Philip X

SHERWIN, Richard X

SHIELD, William x X

SHIRLEY, Anthony X X

SHUTTLEWCRTH, Richard (i) x Richard (ii) X 228

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

SICKLEMORE, John W x

C SINGLETON3 Laurence . x

SKEFFLNGTON, John I

Richard x x SKIPPON, Philip x X SKIFWITH, Thomas X SLATER, Thomas

SLEIGH, Samuel 0 SMITH, Anthony K J George S Henry x Hugh John R Philip x Thomas (i) R Thomas (ii) R Thomas (iii) K Walter R William R

SMITHSON, George X

SNEAD, William x

SOTHERTON, Thomas W

SOUTHBY, John W Richard. X

SPARK, Arthur x

SPELMAN, John x x

SPENCER, Charles Lord de le X Edward x Robert X X Thomas X SPRINGATE, Herbert x X SPRY, Arthur 229

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

STANDISH, Richard x D Thomas x

STANHOPE, Arthur ' Ferdinand R John W William R

STANLEY, Thomas I C William (i) X X X William (ii) X

STAPLES, Alexander

STAPLETON, Brian x Henry x John X Philip X Robert X

STAPLEY, Anthony X John X

STARKEY, George X

J STEDMAN, James X

STENE, William X

STEPHENS, Edward X C James K X X John X X X ' Nathaniel X William X

J STEVENS, Robert

STEWARD, John Robert

STEWART, Robert

STOCKDALE,.Thomas William X

C STONE, John K 230

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Gnv.

ST0NEH0USE, George R

John x

STRANGFORD, Philip Lord x

STREET, Thomas x x STRICKLAND, Robert R Thomas x Walter x x L William x x L

STRODE, William (i) x

William (ii) x x

STURGES, Thomas x D

' STYLE, Thomas W x

SWALE, Solomon x

SWANTON, John x

SWINFEN, John x x x

J SWINTON, John S S

SYDENHAM, Ralph R William x x L TALBOT, George S John x Thomas S x

TEMPEST, Henry W

TEMPLE, Dudley x James x John (i) x John (ii) x Peter (i) x Peter (ii) x Richard x x Thomas x

TERRICK, Samuel x x

TERRILL, Thomas x

THELWALL, Simon x K THISTLETHWAITE, Alexander

THOMAS, Edmund Edward Esay John Mark William (i) William (ii)

THOMPSON, George John

G William

THORNTON, Isaac

TH0ROUGHGO0D, John

J THORP, Francis THROCKMORTON, Baynham Clement

THURBARNE, James

THUELAND, Edward

THURLOE, John

THYNN, James .John Thomas

TIGH, Richard

C TIMBS, Richard

TOLHURSF, Jeremy

C TOLL, Thomas

TOLSON, Richard

TOOKER, Edward

TOPHAM, Christopher

TOWNSHMD, Horatio 232

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

TRAYIE, James I

TfiEDENHAM,¥illiam x x

TREGONIELL, John x

TRELAWNEY, John x Robert R Samuel x TRENCHARD, John x x x Thomas x

TREVOR, John (i) X K x John (ii) X K x Thomas X

TROTT, John

TRWffiULL, William

TUFTON, Humphrey- John

TULSE, Henry (i) Henry (ii) X x

J TURNER, Edward W X x Samuel R J William X

TWEEDALE, Earl of SK S

J TWTSDEN, Thomas

TWISTLETON, George K

J TYRELL, Thomas

UPTON, Arthur x John (i) John (ii) K X

VANE, Henry (i) X Henry (ii) X

VAUGHAN, Charles X . Edward X Henry R John R Lng.

VERNON, Henry

VLLLLERS, Robert (alias DANVERS)

VINCENT, John Walter C William

WAGSTAFFE, Richard

WAKERING, Dionysius

WALCOT, Humphrey

WALL, Daniel

WALLER, Edmund R Hardress J Thomas x Walter William x

WALLOP, Henry x Robert x

WALPOLE, Edward

WALTERS, George Robert

C WARING, Edmund or Edward

C WARNER, Francis

WASTFALLBJG, Herbert

C WATERHOUSE, Nathaniel

WATSON, Daniel

WEAVER, Edmund x John x Richard x Robert

WEDDERBURN, Alexander

WELBY, William 234

Lng.- Cr2.. . Rhd... Cnv..

WEEDEN, Ralph x

WELTHAM, Henry x

WEMYS, John SK

WENDY, Thomas x

WENMAN, Thomas x

WEST, Edmund x Richard x Robert K William x x

WESTBROOK, John x x

WESTLAKE, Thomas x

WESTON, Benjamin x x Henry x Nicholas R • Richard R D

WHALLEY, Edward x L J ' Henry S John x Peniston W

WHARTON, Thomas x x

WHEELER, William x x

WHETHAM, Nathaniel S S

WHICHCOTE, Christopher x

WHITAKER, Henry x Lawrence x William x

C WHITE, Francis x John (i) x John (ii) R Thomas x x William x

WHITEHEAD, Henry x Richard x x 235

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

WHITELOCK, Bulstrode x K L . James x William x

WHITEWAY, John x x

WHITGRAVE, Thomas K x

WHITMORE, Thomas R x x William x WIDDRLNGTON, Thomas (i) x x x Thomas (ii) x

William R

WIGHTWICK, Samuel " x

WILD, William x

WILLIAMS, Charles x Henry x x x Robert K x Trevor x WILLIS,. Thomas x x

WLLLOUGHBY, Francis x

William x

WILTON, Robert K

WINCH, Humphrey x

WLNGFIELD, Francis x

WBITHORPE, Stephen S WISE, Edward x x Thomas x

WITTEWRONG, John W

WOLSELEY, Charles K L x Robert SK

WOOD, Richard x Robert K D

WOODHOTSE, Philip W x Thomas x 236

Lng. Cr2. Rhd. Cnv.

YOOLLEY, William: W

WORSLEY, Henry x x

WRAY, Christopher x John x

William x x x x

WRIGHT, Henry x WROTH, John x Peter x Thomas x K x x

WYLDE, Edmund x George x John x x

WYNDHAM, Edward R William x x x

WYVIL, Christopher x x

YALDEN, William x

YELVERTON, Christopher x Henry x

YOUNG, John x W x Philip x x Walter x x x APPENDIX 2 237 WAGES AND PRICES Year Prices Wages as % of P. (harvest to harvest). 36s. 2jgd. 6s.8^d. 18 1641 - 1642 1642 1643 35s.2id. 6s.9 d. 19

1643 1644 33s.8^d. 6s.9 d. 20

1644 1645 34s llid. 6s,10gd. 20

1645 1646 34s 9|d. 7s.6 d. 22

1646 1647 51s lOfcd. 7s.2 d. 14

1647 1648 62s 6 d. 6s.ll£d. 11

1648 1649 67s 10£d. 7s.4 d. 11

1649 1650 65s 6 d. 8s.5fd. 13

1650 1651 55s 4 d. 7s.ll£d. 14

1651 1652 48s 10 d. 7s.5 d. ^

1652 1653 33s.l0|d. 7s.8id. "23

1653 1654 25s.l0|d. 7s.6 d. 29

1654 1655 21s.8 d. 7s.7-|d. 35

1655 1656 33s.2£d. 8s .l^d. 24

I656 1657 37s .l^-d. 8s.O$d. 22 -3. 1657 1658 46s.5jd. 7s.9^d. 17

1658 1659 57s .lo$Ti. Ss.Ofd. 14

1659 1660 52s.1 d. 8s.3 d. 16

1660 1661 51s. 7$d. 8s.7gd. 17

1661 1662 70s.9^d. 8s.ofd. 11

The figures shown in columns 2 and 3 are taken from tables worked out by J. Thorold Rogers, "History of Agriculture and Prices in Eng• land", v, 826-827. Column 2 shows the average price (harvest to 238 harvest) of a quarter of wheat. Column 3 shows the average weekly wage of an agricultural labourer. Column 4 (the only original work in this Appendix) shows the relationship expressed, as a percentage. It was worked out by converting all amounts to farthings before carrying out the necessary calculations. All percentages are expressed to the nearest whole number. APPENDIX 3 239

PERSONNEL OF THE COUNTRY-CITY ALLIANCE

Many of the men who made up the country-City alliance have been mentioned in the text, some many times and at considerable length.

The great ones, and many of the lesser ones, are noticed in the Dic• tionary of National Biography; and though the accounts in the D.N.B. are generally more concerned with such things as battles and political office than with economic and social aspirations and influence, a reasonably clear picture emerges of such men as George Booth, Anthony

Ashley Cooper, Thomas Fairfax, Denzil Holies, William Morrice, William

Prynne, Arthur^ Annesley, and Thomas Widdrington. In many cases the

D.N.B. also notices some of their ancestors and/or descendants; and much interesting information may be derived from these accounts, as for instance the fact that it is one of Booth's direct descendants whose name figures prominently on some gin-bottles.

In some cases biographies of the better-known figures are avail• able. Some of those mentioned in the text are of Cooper, Fairfax,

Prynne; and also George Monk and Edward Montagu.

The City magnates are less adequately dealt with in the D.N.B., though reasonable pictures are drawn of Edward Baekwell, Richard Brown,

Thomas Cullum and Thomas Viner (among others). Even these men are, however, rather less fully discussed than members of the great country families•

Figures not so well-known are often described in some detail in sources other than the D.N.B. The Dutton and Hobart families, for example, are discussed in Brunton and Pennington's "Members of the Long 240

Parliament." The scrivener Humphrey Shalcrosse is the subject of an

interesting article by Max Beloff in the English Historical Review,

vol. 54 (1939), PP. 19-33. Baekwell is mentioned at some length in

Richards's "Early History of Banking", and is also the subject of an

article by D.N. Clark in the Economic History Review, vol. 9 (1938),

pp. 45-55. The Camden Society performed a most useful service in re• printing the autobiography of the Essex magnate, Sir John Bramston,

(London, 1845).

In a few. cases it seemed important to include some biographical

information about men who played significant roles in the country-City

alliance, but who are inadequately dealt with in the D.N.B., or not

dealt with at all. To cover all the men whose names appear in the

text of this thesis would involve writing another large book; but the

few brief biographies which follow are intended as samples of what is yet to be achieved by looking at the country-City alliance through the

individuals who composed it.

Richard Brown (see D.N.B.) led the parade through London on 29

May, 1660. Later the same year he was elected Lord Mayor, an unusual honour for a Woodmonger.

Brown was not primarily a landowner, though his interest in Par• liament was sparked at least in part by an interest in Irish lands.

He invested at least 600 pounds in the City's speculation around Col- eraine and Londonderry^ He must have suffered heavy loss when the

Court of Star Chamber (in 1635) condemned the City to forfeit its

Irish estates and pay a heavy fine. This loss did not prevent him from 241

lending large sums to Parliament for the prosecution of the Civil War.

His Parliamentary sympathies were apparently stimulated early in the war by Royalist expropriation of the Newcastle coal mines, upon which 3 the fortunes of Woodmongers were mainly built.

In 1644 a serious attempt was made by the Royalists to get Brown to desert the Parliamentary cause. He replied that he and Parliament had "no other ends but the Kings and Kingdomes Good." Later, as one of the Parliamentary commissioners with the king at Holmby, he made a token ¥

resistance against seizure of the king's person by Cornet Joyce. He

strongly opposed Cromwell and the army, and served five years in prison

during the Commonwealth period.

Brown's Parliamentary career may have owed a good deal to the fact that he was not a member of one of the Twelve Great Livery Com• panies. But for the unusual conditions of the time, he would have had little or no chance of attaining high office in the City. Even in

1660 he accepted office as Lord Mayor after Sir Abraham Reynardson had declined.5' He possibly accepted a seat in Parliament as a next-best when, in 1645, he was first elected as a Recruiter for Wycombe (Buck•

inghamshire), replacing Sir Edmund Verney. Locally his family was apparently well established, a Thomas Brown having served as bailiff for the borough of Chipping Wycombe in the reign of Henry VI, at a 6 time when a John. Hampden was Mayor.

In 1648, deriving some benefit from the unsettled nature of pol•

itics in the City, as well as in the country, he served as sheriff.

The City, in spite of his imprisonment (or because of it) re• turned him as one of its members in 1656, 1659 and 1660. He received 242

compensation from Parliament for his misfortunes, and was knighted by.

Charles II. He survived the Plague and the Fire^when he gave ^4 to

some men who had rescued at risk of their lives a chest containing 1 7

£10,000'. His general unpopularity with the masses may have stemmed

partly from his meanness!

That he was extremely unpopular among the lower classes can hard-

ly be doubted. In 1644 some of his troops wounded him in the face,

and in 1661 he was a much-sought potential victim of the Fifth Mon-

archists. He seems to have managed to retreat at last into compara•

tive obscurity. The Brown family did not become one with the great,

but his daughter Elizabeth was married in 1677 to Thomas Leigh, Lord io

Leigh of Stoneleigh.

Thomas Cullum (see D.N.B.) was a London Draper who, starting with

comparatively modest advantages, built up a flourishing business as

dyer, cloth merchant, moneylender, real estate speculator, excise far•

mer, and (at last) landed proprietor. He showed considerable talent

for investing in the right people and the right enterprises, marrying // into a group which included the Crisps and the Reynardsons. His ven- II tures included stock in the East India Company, and many houses and li warehouses in the City» IV In 1656 Cullum bought Hawsted and Hardwick, two manors in Suffolk, in which county his family had long been established as reasonably IS well-to-do yeomen or lesser gentry. His services at the Restoration were rewarded with a baronetcy, but about a year later he paid a heavy

"fine" (i.e. bribe) to smooth over some difficulties in connection with 16 the excise. 243

His children and grandchildren married well with his assistance, forming alliances with Throckmortons, Norths/^ and Berkeleys. Later descendants included clergymen and doctors. The Cullums continued to enjoy a modest prosperity, and the baronetcy, till 1831, when the eighth baronet died without an heir.

Martin Noel was a London scrivener. So widespread and varied were his activities that it may plausibly be suggested that for many years he was the most influential individual in England. Yet so self- effacing was he that few histories give him more than a passing re• ference, and many (including the Dictionary of National Biography) do no mention him at all.

In the Court Minutes of the East India Company Noel is frequently IQ mentioned as a dealer in cotton goods and in munitions. In 1657, when Maurice Thompson became Govenor of the East India Company, Noel Zo was elected a "committee." A James Noell also mentioned in the Court Minutes, who was a factor in India, was apparently Martin Noel's broth• er er; and it is not unreasonable to assume that the Matthew Noell who 2Z was at Bombay in 1662 may also have been a relation. Martin Noel was a business associate of Maurice Thompson, and also of Thompson's part- 23 ner Samuel Moyer. Moyer was sufficiently important to be named to the Council of State in May 1653, and this is one of the few links

24 connecting Noel with Cromwell. ZS

Noel was John Thurloe's brother-in-law, and almost certainly had a share in the profits of the Post Office. One of his duties was the provision of funds for ambassadorial and other services abroad. In

September 1658 George Downing charged a bill for ^500 "upon Mr. Noell" 244 and in February 1659 Samuel Morland borrowed money from the same source.^

During Richard's brief reign Noel's activities in Barbados called forth

some awkward questions in Parliament, but his explanations were accepted.

As a result of Noel's interest in colonies (and that of Thomas

Povey) the Select Committee for Trade and Foreign Plantations was xq formed in 1657. In the domestic sphere Noel was a prominent tax- J 3o farmer, paying at least ^87,000 for the privilege in 1658. He was also referred to as "ye great Salt Master of England" by Richard Crom- 3/ well, who called him "our very good friend Martin Noell." Some of

Thurloe's spies were less complimentary, and complained about "Mr.

Nowell's creatures" making a monopoly in salt. "Be assured, Sir, that 3Z, farmers of this nature will bee the ruine of all trades but their, owne." Richard Cromwell's letter makes it clear that Noel was also interested 33 in Irish lands.

In 1656 Noel was returned to Parliament for Stafford, and was therefore on hand to support the Humble Petition and Advice presented by his fellow tax-farmer, Christopher Pack. He again represented

Stafford in Richard's Parliament. His services were apparently as use• ful to the restored king as they had been to Cromwell, and he was rewarded with a knighthood. He died of the Plague in 1665, and his wife 35

(presumably Thurloe's sister) died from grief a few days later. Pepys wrote: "It seems nobody can make anything of his estate, whether he be dead worth anything or no, he having dealt in so many things, pub- lique and private, as nobody can understand whereabouts his estate is, 245 36 which is the fate of these great dealers at everything."

Edmund Thomas was one of Cromwell's Lords, and that appears to be his major contribution to the history of his time, though he had. been

37 elected to serve Glamorganshire in both of Cromwell's Parliaments.

Both in 1654 and in I656 he was a rather obvious second-fiddle to Philip

Jones. He was not listed as a "kingling." All that Mark Noble had to say about him was recorded in four short lines: "...a gentleman of ancient descent in Glamorganshire, where he possessed a good estate from his ancestors...." Contemporary diarists mention his promotion, and Whitelock has two vague references to a Mr. Thomas (almost cer• tainly a different one). Most of Edmund Thomas's achievements, how• ever, lie buried in the local history of Wenvoe, Glamorganshire.

The Thomases were an old Welsh family, complete with castle, who had intermarried with English county families. Edmund was the great• ly* grandson of Jevan Harpway of Herefordshire; and Elizabeth Thomas (his Uo eventual heir) was married to the regicide Edmund Ludlow. After Lud• low's death she gave proof of the land-hunger which was characteristic of such families.- "There is an estate of between 2 and 3,000 li. per annum fallen lately, besides a great personal estate, to the widow and relict of Major General Ludlow, who dyed in Switzerland; and there being one Mr. Thomas, a young man of about 30 years of age, a leif-' tenant in the King's army, who pretended clayme to some part of the estate, she hath lately marryed him, shee being 62 yeares of age."

Her previous marriage had taken place when she was about 18 and Ludlow was 47 • 246

The estate apparently came to Elizabeth and her husband, John

Thomas, because Edmund's only son had died in 1693 unmarried and under age. ^ Edmund Thomas himself died in 1677, aged 44,* which means that he was only 21 when elected to Parliament in 1654, and only 25 when he became a Cromwellian Lord. He had, however, done a fine job of build• ing up his estate by extensive purchases of land in Glamorgan and

Monmouthshire. A William Thomas, apparently an uncle of John Thomas and possibly Edmund's brother or cousin, married in 1673 Mary, the daughter of Lord Wharton.

The post-Restoration success of the Whartons is told in the Dic• tionary of National Biography.^ In a quieter way the Thomases were just as successful. In 1701 Elizabeth Thomas — Lady Thomas since

December 1694, when John was created a baronet — leftj^20 to the poor 47 of Wenvoe parish. When John died in 1704, without issue, the baronetcy passed to his brother Edmund; and this Sir Edmund in 1721 left j£40 40 to the poor. Thereafter the Thomases did not look backhand in 1805 So one of them was present at the Battle of Trafalgar. This descendant, Si

Frederick Jennings Thomas,attained the rank of rear-admiral, and thus at last became sufficiently famous to ensure the presence of a Wenvoe

Thomas in the Dictionary of National Biography.

NOTES

1. MacOormack "Irish adventurers and the English Civil War", in Irish Historical Studies, x (1956-57), 21-58. 2. Commons Journals, viii, 237-244. 3. Bourne, "History of Newcastle", p. 231. 4. Rushworth, "Historical Collections", 3, ii, 808-816; and 4, i, 516. 5. Sharpe, "London and the Kingdom", ii, 384. 6. H.M.C. 5th Repwrt, Appendix 1 (Borough of High Wycombe MSS), p. 563. 7. Bell, "Great Fire of London", p. 104. 8. Burne and Young, "Great Civil War", p. 152. 9. Besant, "London in the Time of the Stuarts", p. 80. 10. Victoria County History, Buckinghamshire, iv, 374. 11. Simpson, "Thomas Cullum, Draper", in Economic Hist. Rev., New Series xi (1058-59), 21. 12. ed. Sainsbury, "Court Minutes of East India Company", iii, 229. 13. Simpson, as note 11, p. 28. 14. ibid., p. 32. 15. ibid., p. 19. 16. ibid., p. 26 and footnote 8. Cullum's account book noted: "paid into the Exchequer to buy my peace and (Col. John) Birch 2200." 17. Gentleman's Magazine Library, English Topography, Part XI, pp. 270-271. 18. Dictionary of National Biography, v, 282-284. 19. See indexes to volumes iii, iv, v, vi and vii (1647-1664). 20. ed..Sainsbury, "Court Minutes" (as note 12), v, 176. 21. ibid., vi, 129. 22. Foster, "English Factories in India, 1661-1664", pp. 106 and 132. 23. "Court Minutes", as note 12, iv, 340. 24. Godwin, "History of the Commonwealth", iii, 514. 25. Yule, "Independents in the Civil War", p. 111. 26. Thurloe, vii, 380. 27. Thurloe, vii, 624. 28. See Chapter 6, note 62. 29. Newton, "Colonising Activities, etc", pp. 325-326. 30. Nef, "Rise of the British Coal Industry", ii, 299. Commons Journals, vii, 627-628. 31. Ramsey, "Richard Cromwell", pp. 20-21 (cites Lansdowne MSS). 32. Timothy Langley to Secretary Thurloe, from Leith. (Thurloe, vii, 554). 33. As note 31. See also Thurloe, vii, 630-631. 34. "Court Minutes", as note 12, vi, 332. 35. Pepys, Diary, v, 91 and 102. 36. ibid., v, 102. For further fragmentary evidence of Noel's extraordinary versatility see Whitelock, iii, 106; and Thurloe, vii, 681. 37. Old Parliamentary History, xx, 305 and xxi, 19. 38. Noble, "Memoirs of the Protectorate House, etc.", i, 422. 39. Dictionary of Welsh Biography, p. 936. 40. Ludlow, "Memoirs", introduction p. xvii. 41. H.M.C. 5th Report, Appendix p. 385 (Coffin MSS). 248

42. D. of-W.B., as note 39, p. .936. 43. ibid., p. 936. 44« ibid., p. 936. 45. D.N.B., xx, 1320. 46. D.N.B., xx, 1312-1333. 47. Lewis, Topographical Dictionary of Wales, ii, 429. 48. D. of W.B., as note 39, p. 936. 49. Lewis, as note 47, ii, 429. 50. B. of W.B., as note 39, p. 937. 51. ibid., p. 937. 52. D.N.B., xix, 660-661. BIBLIOGRAPHY 249

*An asterisk denotes that the entry refers to a contemporary or near-contemporary work. All works listed were available in the Library of the University of British Columbia, EXCEPT those by BURTON, KHAN, MACKENZIE, NOBLE, RUDING, and WITHER.

*ABBOTT, Wilber Cortez (editor): "The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell"; Harvard University Press; Cambridge, 1937 (vol. 1), 1939 (vol. 2), and 1945 (vol.3).

*Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (See FIRTH).

American Historical Review. (See HEXTER).

ASHLEY, Maurice: "Cromwell's Generals"; Jonathan Cape; London, 1954.

ASHLEY, Maurice: "The Greatness of Oliver Cromwell"; Hodder and Stough- ton; London 1957.

ASHLEY, Maurice: "John Wildman"; Jonathan Cape; London, 1947.

ASHWELL, A.R.: "Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D.", Vol. 1; John Murray; London, 1880.

*-AUBREY, John: "Brief Lives, chiefly of Contemporaries, set down by John Aubrey, between the Years 1669 and 1696", (editor Andrew Clark); Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1898 (2 vols.).

BAINES, J. Manwaring: "Historic Hastings"; F.J. Parsons; Hastings, 1955.

BAINES, Thomas: "History of the Commerce and Town of Liverpool"; Long• man, Brown, Green, and Longmans; London, 1852.

BARBOUR, Violet: "Dutch and English Merchant Shipping in the Sevens teenth Century", in Economic History Review, volume 2 (1929-1930), pages 261-290.

^BAXTER, Richard: "Autobiography of Richard Baxter, being The Reliquiae Baxterianae Abridged from the folio (1696)"; J.M. Dent (Everyman); London, 1931.

-«BELL, Robert (editor): "Memorials of the Civil War" (Fairfax Corres• pondence); Richard Bentley; London, 1849 (2 vols.).

BELL, Yfalter George: "The Great Fire of London in 1666"; Bodley Head; London, 1951.

BELLOC, Hilaire: "Charles the First, King of England": Cassell; Lon• don, 1933. 250

BELOFF, Max: "Humphrey Shalcrosse and the Great Civil War", in English Historical Review, volume 54 (1939), pages 686-695.

BERENS, Lewis H. : "The Digger Movement in the Days of the Commonwealth"; Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent; London, 1906.

BERNSTEIN, Edward: "Cromwell and Communism"; George Allen and Unwin; London, 1930.

EESANT, Walter: "London in the Time of the Stuarts"; Adam and. Charles Black; London, 1903.

BESANT, Walter: "London City"; Adam and. Charles Black; London, 1910.

BEVERIDGE, William: "Prices and Wages in England from the Twelfth to the Nineteenth Century", Vol. 1; Longmans, Green; London, 1939.

*BIRCH, Thomas: (See THURLOE).

BLITZER, Charles: "An Immortal Commonwealth"; Yale University Press; New Haven, I960.

*The Bloody Project. (See "Leveller Tracts")*

•"•BORDEAUX, Antoine de: Correspondence, published in Guizot's "Histoire de Richard Cromwell et du Re'tablissement des Stuart."

*Boscobel Tracts. (See HUGHES).

BOSHER, Robert S.: "The Making of the Restoration Settlement"; Dacre Press; London, 1951.

*B0TELER; Nathaniel: "Boteler's Dialogues"; Navy Records Society, Lon• don, 1929.

BOURNE, Henry: "The History of Newcastle upon Tyne"; John White; New• castle, 1736.

BRAITHWAITE, William C: "The Beginnings of Quakerism"; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1955.

^BRAMSTON, John: "The Autobiography of Sir John Bramston, K.B."; Cam• den Society; London, 1845.

BRETT-JAMES, Norman G.: "The Growth of Stuart London"; George Allen and Unwin; London, 1935.

BROWN, Louise Fargo: "The First Earl of Shaftesbury"; D. Appleton- Century; New York, 1933. 251

BROWN, Louise Fargo: "The Political Activities of the Baptists and Fifth Monarchy Men"; American Historical Association; Washington, 1912.

BROWNE, James: "A History of• the Highlands and of the Highland Clans"; A. Fullarton; Edinburgh, 1856 (vol 2), and 1857 (vol. l).

BRUNTON, D. and PENNINGTON, D.H.: "Members of the Long Parliament"; George Allen and Unwin; London, 1954.

BRYANT, Arthur: "King Charles II"; Longmans, Green; London, 1931.

BRYANT, Arthur: "Samuel Pepys. The Man in the Making"; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1933.

BRYCE, George: "The Remarkable History of the Hudson's Bay Gompany"; William Briggs; Toronto, 1910.

BUCHAN, John: "Oliver Cromwell"; Hodder and Stoughton; London, 1934.

BUCHANAN, George: "The History of Scotland" (translated by James Ark- man), Vol. 4; Blackie, Fullarton; Glasgow, 1827.

BURGHCLERE, Lady Winifred: "Strafford"; Maemillan; London, 1931.

BURNE, Alfred H. and YOUNG, Peter: "The Great Civil-War. A Military History of the First Civil War, 1642-1646"; Eyre and Spottis- woode; London, 1959.

*BURNET, Gilbert: "Burnet's History of His Own Time"; Reeves and Turner; London, I883.

•^BURTON, Thomas: "Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq." (editor John Towill Rutt); Colburn; London, 1828.

*BUTLER, Samuel: "Hudibras"; Alexander Donaldson; Edinburgh, 1775.

^Caldwell Papers: (Selections from the Family Papers Preserved at Caldwell, Part First, 1496-1853); Maitland Club; Glasgow, 1854.

-^Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1660-1661: (editor M.A.E. Green); Longman, Green, Longnan and Roberts; London, I860.

CALLENDER, Geoffrey and HINSLEY, F.H.:. "The Naval Side of British History, 1485-1945"; Christophers; London, 1952 (reprinted 1954).

Cambridge Modern History. (See SHAW). 252

#CAMPANELLA, Thomas: "City of the Sun"; Colonial (in "Ideal Common• wealths"); New York, 1901.

CAMPBELL, John Lord: "Lives of the Chief Justices of England", Vol. 2; John Murray; London, 1874.

CAMPBELL, John Lord: "Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England", Vol. 4; John Murray; London, 1868.

ttCARLYLE, Thomas: "The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, with Elucidations" (editor S.C.Lomas); Methuen; London, 1904 (3 vol• umes) .

* The Case of the Armie. (See "Leveller Tracts").

CHAPMAN, Sydney J.:"The Lancashire Cotton Industry"; Manchester University Press; Manchester, 1904.

CHATTERTON, E. Keble: "The Story of the British Navy"; Mills and Boon; London, 1911.

CHESNEY, H. Egerton: "The Transference of Lands in England, 1640-1660", in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th Series, volume XV (1932), pages 181-210.

-"CLARENDON, Edward Earl of: "The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England" (editor W. Dunn Macray); Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1888 (6 volumes).

^CLARENDON, Edward Earl of: "The Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon, Written by Himself"; Clarendon Print-House; Oxford, 1759 (3 volumes).

^CLARENDON, Edward Earl of: Selections (editor G. Huehns); Oxford University Press (World's Classics); London, 1955 (reprinted 1956)).

CLARENDON. (See also LISTER, OLDMIXON, W0RMALD).

CLARK, Dorothy K.: "Edward Backwell as a Royal Agent", in Economic History Review, vol. 9 (1938), pages 45-55.

J/(Clarke Papers: (Selections from the Papers of William Clarke, editor C.H.Firth); Camden Society and Longmans, Green; London, 1891 (vol.l), 1894 (vol.2), 1899 (vol. 3), and 1901 (vol.4).

CLOWES, Wm. Laird: "The Royal Navy", Vol.2; Sampson Low, Marston; London, 1898.

COATE, Mary: "William Morice and the Restoration of CharlesII", in English Historical Review, vol. 33 (1918), pages 367-377.

*COATES, Willson H. (See D'EWES). 253

COBBETT, William: "Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England"; Hansard; London, various dates, n.b. esp. 1808 (vol.4) and 1809 (vol.5)»

•^COFFIN MSS. (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 5th Report). ,

COLEMAN, D.C.: "Labour in the English Economy of the Seventeenth Cen• tury", in Economic History Review, 2nd Series, volume 8 (1955-1956J), pages 280-295.

^Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh, 1652-57: (editor, William Stephen); Scottish History Society; Edinburgh, 1921.

CORBETT, Julian: "Monk"; Maemillan; London, 1889.

^CROMWELL, Oliver. (See ABBOTT, CARLYLE. For biographies, see ASHLEY, BUCK AN, PAUL,- PICTON) .

CUNNINGHAM, W.: "The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times", Parti (The Mercantile System); Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1912 and1925 editions appear to be identical.

DAVIES, Godfrey: "The Early Stuarts, 1603-1660"; Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1959.

DAVIES, Godfrey: "The Restoration of Charles II"; Huntington Library; San Marino, 1955.

DAVIES, Godfrey: "The .Election of Richard Cromwell's Parliament, 1658-9", in English Historical Review, volume 63 (1948), pages 488-501.

DAVIES, Godfrey: "The General Election of 1660", in Huntington Library Quarterly, volume 15 (1951-1952), pages 211-235.

DAVIES, Godfrey. (See "Leveller Tracts").

DAVIES, J.D. Griffith. (See GRIFFITH DAVIES).

-"'•Declaration of Breda. (See House of Lords Journals, volume 11, 1660-1666, pages 7-8).

* A Declaration from his Majesty the King of Scots: in S0MERS TRACTS, volume 1 (1748), pages 160-164.

*DBKKER, Thomas: "The Gull's Hornbook" (editor, R.B.McKerrow); De la More Press; London, 1904.

•^DEKKER, Thomas: "The Shoemakers' Holiday", in Dramatic Works (editor Fredson Bowers), volume 1; Cambridge'University Press; Cambridge, 1953. 254

DEMANT, V.A.: "Religion and the Decline of Capitalism"; Charles Scrib- ner's Sons; New York, 1952.

*D,EWES, Simonds: "The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes" (editor Willson Havelock Coates); Yale University Press; New Haven, 1942.

Dictionary of National Biography: unless otherwise stated in notes, the edition used has been that of 1937-1938; Oxford University Press (22 volumes).

Dictionary of Welsh Biography; Honourable Society of Cwmmrodorion and R.H. Blackwell; Oxford, 1959.

DODD, J.A.: "Troubles in a City Parish under the Protectorate", in English Historical Review, volume 10 (1895), pages 41-54.

^DONNAN, Elizabeth (editor): "Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America", Vol. 1; Carnegie Institution of Washington; Washington, 1930.

*DRING, Thomas (publisher): "A Catalogue of the Lords, Knights, and Gentlemen that have compounded for their Estates"; London, 1655.

*East India Company: Calendar of the Court Minutes, volumes 2-7 (editor, Ethel Bruce Sainsbury); Clarendon Press; Oxford, various dates from 1909 to 1925.

Economic History Review. (See BARBOUR, CLARK, COLEMAN, SIMPSON, TAWNEY, THIRSK, WAGNER).

EDWARDS, Tudor: "Bristol"; Batsford; London, 1951.

*Eikon Basilike: (editor Catherine Mary Phillimore); James Parker; Oxford and London, 1879.

ELLIS, Aytoun: "The Penny Universities"; Seeker and Warburg; London, 1956.

Encyclopedia Britannica.

Encounter. (See TREVOR-ROPER).

^English Historical Documents, Vol. 8, 1660-1714(editor Andrew Brown• ing); Eyre and Spottiswoode; London, 1953.

English Historical Review. (See BELOFF, COATE, DAVIES, DODD, FIRTH, HOLLBIGS, Killing No Murder, MEADOWE, PROTHERO, SAVLNE, SAYE AND SELE, SKEEL, TATHAM, UNDERDOWN, WEYMAN, WILLIAMS).

EWALD, Alex, Charles: "The Life and Times of the Hon. Algernon Sidney, 1622-1683"; Tinsley Brothers; London, 1873 (2 vols.). 255

•^EVELYN, John: "The Diary of John Evelyn"; many editions, among which .

the•most comprehensive onevavailable was that edited by E.S. de Beer, published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1955 (6 volumes).

EYRE-TODD, George: "History of Glasgow"* Vol. 2; Jackson, Wylie; Glas• gow, 1931.

-"-FAIRFAX,' Brian: "Iter Boreale", printed in "Memorials of the Civil War", volume 2. (See BELL).

^Fairfax Correspondence. (See BELL. For biographies of Thomas Lord Fairfax, see GIBB, MARKHAMJ..

FEILING, Keith: "British Foreign Policy, 1660-1672"; Maemillan; London, 1930.

*FFARINGT0N MSS. (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 6th Report).

#FF0LKES MSS. (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 3rd Report):

#FIRTH, C.H. and RAIT, R.S. (collectors and editors): "Acts and Or• dinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660"; His Majesty's Stationery Office; London, 1911.(3 volumes).

FIRTH, C.H.: "Cromwell and the Crown", in English Historical Review, volume 17 (1902),. pages 429-442.

FIRTH, Charles Harding: "The Last Years of the Erotectorate, I656-I658"; Longmans, Green; London, 1909 (2 volumes).

FIRTH, C.H. "The Royalists Under the Protectorate", in English Histor• ical Review, volume 52 (1937). pages 634-648.

FIRTH, C.H.: "Thurloe and the Post Office", in English Historical Re• view, volume 13 (1898), pages 527-533.

FIRTH, C.H. (See "Killing Ho Murder", LUDLOW, NEWCASTLE).

FORTESCUE, John W.: "The Empire and the Army"; Cassell; London, 1928 (reprinted 1930).

FORTESCUE, John W.: "A History of the British Army", Vol. 1; Maemillan; London, 1910.

FOSTER, William: "The English Factories in India", vols. 10 and 11; Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1921 (vol. 10) and 1923 (vol. 11).

FRANK, Joseph: "The Levellers"; Harvard University Press; Cambridge, 1955. 256

GARDINER, Samuel R: "History of England, 1603-1642", esp. vols. 9 and 10; Longmans, Green; London, 1884. > •

GARDINER, Samuel R.: "History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649"; Long• mans, Green; London, 1893 (4 volumes).

GARDINER, Samuel Rawson: "History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1656"; Longmans, Green; London, 1903 (4 volumes).

*GARDINER, Samuel Rawson (editor): "The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 1625-1660"; Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1899 (2nd edition).

° The Gentleman's Magazine Library, English Topography, Part XI; (editor F.A..Milne); Elliot Stock; London, 1899.

GIBB, Mi A.: "The Lord General. A Life of Thomas Fairfax"; Lindsay Drummond; London, 1938.

GNEIST, Rudolph: "History of the English Constitution" (translator P.A. Ashworth); William Clowes; London, 1891.

GODWIN, William: "History of the Commonwealth of England"; Henry Col- burn; London, 1824-1828 (4 volumes).

G00CH, G.P.: "Political Thought in England from Bacon to Halifax"; Thornton Butterworth; London, 1915 (reprinted 1937).

GORGES, Raymond: "The Story of a Family Through Eleven Centuries, being a History of the Family of Gorges"; privately printed; Boston, 1944.

GREEN, John Richard: "A Short History of the English People", Vol. 3; Macmillan; London, 1903.

GRIFFITH DAVIES, J.D.: "Honest George Monck"; Bodley Head; London, 1936.

GUIZOT, M.: "Histoire du Protectorat de Richard Cromwell et du Retab- lissement des Stuart"; Didier; Paris, 1856 (2 volumes).

HALLAM, Henry: "The Constitutional History of England", vols. 2 and 3; John Murray; London, 1829.

HALLER, William. (See "Leveller Tracts").

HANSARD, Henry (printer): "Members of Parliament, 1213-1702"; House of Commons; London, 1878 (2 volumes, one of which is an Inde*) . 257

HANSARD, Henry (printer): "Members of Parliament, Part II"; House of Commonsj London, 1878. (Index reprinted by Shoe String Press, 1961, from original dated 1891).

HARDACRE,.Paul H.: "The Royalists During the Puritan Revolution"; Mar- tinus Nijhoff; The Hague, 1956.

HARDACRE, Paul H.: "William Boteler: A Cromwellian Oligarch", in Hunt• ington Library Quarterly, volume 11 (1947-48), pages 1-U.

*HARE, Jo.: "England's Proper and Only Way", in Harleian Miscellany, vol. 6, pages 175-181.

*HARGRAVE, Francis. (See "State Trials").

•^Harleian Mixcellany: 12 volumes, printed for Robert Dutton; London, 1808-1811. (See HARE, Killing No Murder, Narrative, Second Narr• ative, WARR, World's Mistake).

-^HARRINGTON, James: "Oceana"; Colonial (in "Ideal Commonwealths"); New York, 1901.

HARRIS, F.R.: "The Life of Edward Mountagu, K.G., First Earl of Sand• wich"; John Murray; London, 1912 (2 volumes).

*-HAY, Andrew: "The Diary of Andrew Hay of Craignethan, 1659-1660" (editor Alexander George Reid); Scottish History Society; Edin• burgh, 1901.

HAZLITT, W. Carew: "The Livery Companies of the City of London"; Swan Sonnenschein; London, 1892.

*Heads of the Proposals. (See GARDINER, Const. Docs., p. 316).

HEATON, Herbert: "The Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries"; Clar• endon Press; Oxford, 1920.

HERBERT, William: "The History of the-Twelve Great Livery Companies of London"; William Herbert; London, 1836 (vol. 2.) and 1837 (vol.1).

HEXTER, J.H.: "The Problem of ihe Presbyterian Independents"; in Amer• ican Historical Review, volume 44 (1938-1939), pages 29-49.

HEXTER, J.H.: "The Reign of King Pym"; Harvard University Press; Cam• bridge, 1941.

*High Wycombe MSS. (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 5th Report).

HILL, Christopher: "Puritanism and Revolution"; Seeker and Warburg; London, 1958. 258

HBJSLEY, F.H. (See CALLENDER).

•^Historical Manuscripts Commission: 3rd Report; Ffolkes MSS., pages 247-248. 4th Report;.House of Lords MSS., pages 1-170. 5th Report; Sutherland MSS., pages 135-214. Coffin MSS., pages 370-386. • High "Wycombe MSS., pages 554-565. 6th Report; Ffarington MSS., pages 426-448. 8th Report; Trinity House MSS., pages 235-262. 10th•Report, Part 6; Braye MSS., pages 104-252. 13th Report, Part 1; Portland MSS. 15th Report, Part 7; Somerset MSS., pages 1-151. 15th Report, part 48; Leyborne-Popham MSS.

*H0BBES, Thomas: "Behemoth", in English Works (editor William Moles- worth), volume 6, pages 161-418; John Bohn; London, 1840.

*H0BBES, Thomas: "Leviathan" (editor A.R.Waller); Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1904. (Many other editions, including vol. 3 of English Works, Bohn edition, 1839).

H0BMAN, D.L.: "Cromwell's Master Spy. A Study of John Thurloe"; Chapman and Hall; London, 1961.

H0LLINGS, Marjory: "Thomas Barret: A Study in the Secret History of the Interregnum", in English Historical Review, volume 43 (1928), pages 33-65.

HORSEFIELD, J.Keith: "British Monetary Experiments, 1650-1710"; G.Bell and University of London; London, I960.

-*House of Lords MSS. (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 4th Report).

*House of Lords Journals, (See Journals).

•K-HUGHES, J. (editor): "The Boscobel Tracts"; William Blackwood; Edinburgh and London, 1857.

^Humble Petition and Advice. (See GARDINER, Const. Docs., p. 447).

Huntington Library Quarterly. (See DAVIES, HARDACRE).

HUTCHINGS, W.W.: "London Town, Past and Present"; Cassell; London, 1909 (2 volumes).

-^-HUTCHINSON, Lucy: "Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson"; George Bell; London, 1892.

*HTDE, Edward. (See CLARENDON). 259

*Icon Basilike. (See "Eikon Basilike"). .

INDERWICKj F.A.: "The Interregnum, 1648-1660"; Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington; London, 1891.

•""Instrument of Government. (See GARDINER, Const. Docs., p. 405).

Irish Historical Studies. (See MACCORMACK).

JAMES, Margaret: "Social Problems and Policy During the Puritan Rev• olution, 1640-1660"; George Routledge; London, 1930.

JAMES, Norman Brett. (See BRETT-JAMES).

JESSOP, Augustus. (See NORTH).

*J0HNST0N, Archibald. (See WARISTON).

-*J0SSELIN, Ralph: "The Diary of the Rev. Ralph Josselin, 1616-1683" (editor E.Hockliffe); Royal Historical Society; London, 1908.

^Journals of the House of Commons: esp. vols. 2-8; reprinted'by order of the House, 1803-1813. ,

•^Journals of the House of Lords: esp. vols. 10 and 11; no dates given on title-pages.

KHAN, Shafaat-Ahmad: "East India Trade in the Seventeenth Century"; Oxford, 1923.

•''-Killing No Murder: in Harleian Miscellany, volume 9, pages 284-307.

"Killing No Murder" (authorship discussed), in English Historical Review, volume 17 (1902), pages 308-311. Article is signed by C.H. FIRTH.

KIRALFY, A.K.R. (See POTTER).

KIRBY, Ethyn Williams: "William Prynne. A Study in Puritanism"; Harvard University Press; Cambridge, 1931.

LAING, Malcolm: "The History of Scotland"; Mawman; London, 1804. (4 volumes).

^•Leveller Tracts, 1647-1653: HALLER and DAVIES, editors; Columbia University Press; New York, 1944. (See "Bloody Project", "Case of the Armie").

LEWIS, Samuel: "A Topographical Dictionary of Wales"; Lewis; London, 1844. (2 volumes). 260

*LEYB0RNE-P0PHAM MSS.: (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 15th Report, Part 48).

LIPSON, E.: "The Economic History of England", Volume 1; Adam and Charles Black; London, many editions.

LIPSON, E.: "The History of the Woolfen and Worsted Industries"; Adam and Charles Black; London, 1921.

LISTER, T.H.: "Life and Administration of Edward Earl of Clarendon"; Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longmans; London, 1837-1838. (3 volumes).

LOFTIE, ?J.J.: "A History of London"; Edward Stanford; London, 1884. • (2 volumes).

-"-LUDLOW, Edmund: "The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow" (editor C.H. FIRTH); Condon Press; Oxford, 1894. (2 volumes).

MacCORMACK, J.R.: "The Irish adventurers and the English civil war", in Irish Historical Studies, volume 10 (1956-57), pages 21-58.

MACKENZIE, Kenneth: "The English Parliament"; Penguin; Harmondsworth, 1959.

*MACRAY, W. Dunn. (See CLARENDON).

MANN, Julia de Lacy. (See WADSWORTH).

MARKHAM, Clements R.: "A Life of the Great Lord Fairfax"; Macmillan; London, 1870.

-"-McGRATH, Patrick (editor): "Merchants and Merchandise in Seventeenth- Century Bristol"; Bristol Record Society; Bristol, 1955.

-*MEAD0?ffi, Philip: Letters to Secretary Thurloe (editor Edward Jenks), in English Historical Review, volume 7 (1892), pages 729-742.

Members of Parliament. (See HANSARD).

MENDENHALL, T.C.: "The Shrewsbury Drapers and the Welsh Wool Trade in the XVI and XVII Centuries"; Oxford University Press and Geoffrey Gumberlege; London, 1953.

#MILT0N, John: "Character of the Long.Parliament11, in Works, volume 18, pages 248-255; Columbia University Press; New York, 1938.

#MILT0N, John : "Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio Secunda", in Works, volume 8; Columbia University Press; New York, 1933. 261

-;5MILTON, J;ohn: "The Readie and Easie Way to Establish a Free Common• wealth", in Works, volume 6, pages 109-149; Columbia University Press; New York, 1932.

•»MOLESW0RTH, William. (See HOBBES).

•^Monarchy Asserted to be the best, most ancient, and legal Form of Government: in SOMERS TRACTS, volume 7 (2nd series, vol. 3), pages 113-174.

•frMONK, George: "Declaration Intended at Coldstream", in Clarke Papers, vol. 4, p. 233. (For biographies of Monk, see CORBETT, GRIFFITH* DAVIES, WARNER).

^MONTAGU, Edward: "The Journal of Edward Montagu, First Earl of Sand• wich" (editor R.C. Anderson); Navy Records Society; London, 1929. (For a biography of Montagu, see HARRIS).

MUDDBIAN, J.G.: "The King's Journalist, 1659-1689", Bodley Head; Lon• don, 1923.

MUKHERJEE, Ramkrishna: "The Rise and Fall of the East India Company"; Veb Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften; Berlin, 1958.

^Mystery of the Good Old Cause: printed in Hansard's "Parliamentary History" (see COBBETT), volume 3.

-*A Narrative of the Late Parliament (So Called): in Harleian Miscell• any, vol. 6, pages 456-481.

National Debt. (See WIMPEY).

NEF, J.U.: "The Rise of the British Coal Industry"; George Routledge; London, 1932. (2 volumes).

^NEWCASTLE, Margaret Duchess of: "The Life of William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle" (editor C.H. Firth); George Routledge; London, (2nd edition, no date on title-page).

*WEWLIN, Thomas, (see PARKER).

NEWTON, Arthur Percival: "The Colonising Activities of the English Puritans"; Yale University Press; New Haven, 1914.

-^-NICHOLAS, Edward: "The Nicholas Papers" (editor George F. Warner); Camden Society and Royal Historical Society; London, 1886 (vol. 1), 1892 (vol. 2), 1897 (vol. 3), and 1920 (vol. 4).

^Nineteen Propositions. (See GARDINER, Const. Docs. p. 249). 262

NOBLE, Mark: "Memoirs of the Protectorate House of Cromwell"; Birmingham, 1784 (2 volumes).

NORTH, Roger: "Lives of the Norths" (editor Augustus Jessopp); George Bell; London, 1890. (3 volumes).

OGG, David: "England in the Reign of Charles II"; Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1934. (2 volumes).

•^OLDMIXON, John: "Clarendon and Whitlock Compar'd"; J. Pemberton; Lon• don, 1727.

Old Parliamentary History. (See "Parliamentary").

. *PARKER, Samuel: "Bishop Parker's History of His Own Time" (translator Thomas Newlin); Charles Rivington; London, 1727.

PARKES, Joan: "Travel in England in the Seventeenth Century"; Oxford University Press and Humphrey Milford; London, 1925.

PARKIN, Charles: "An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk", vols. 6-11; William Miller; London, 1807-1810.

Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England, vols. 20-24; Tonson, Millar, and Sandby; Loncbn, I762-I763.

PAUL, Robert S.: "The Lord Protector"; Lutterworth Press; London, 1955.

PAYNE, Joseph Frank: "Thomas Sydenham"; T Fisher Unwin; London, 1900.

PEARL, Valerie: "London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution"; Oxford University Press; London, 1961.

PENNINGTON, D.H. (See BRUNTON).

*PEPYS, Samuel: "The Diary of Samuel Pepys" (editor Henry B. Wheatley); George Bell; London, 1904-1905 (8 volumes).

PETEGORSKY, David W.: "Left-Wing Democracy in the English Civil War"; Victor Gollanez; London, 1940.

PETERSS0N, R.T.: "Sir Kenelm Digby"; Harvard University Press; Cam• bridge, 1956.

PICT0N, J. Allanson: "Oliver Cromwell: The Man and His Mission"; Cas- sell; London, 1883.

PLUCKNETT, Theodore F.T.: "A Concise History of the Common Law"; Butterworth; London, 1956. 263

*POPE, Alexander: "Moral Essays. Epistle to Allen Lord Bathurst", in Works, volume 3, p. 145; J. and P. Knapton; London, 1751.

-"-PORTLAND MSS. (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 13th Report, Part 1).

POTTER, H.: "Potter's Historical Introduction to English Law and its Institutions" (re-written by A.K.R. Kiralfy); Sweet and Maxwell; London, 1958.

POWER, D'Arcy: "William Harvey"; T. Fisher Unwin; London, 1897.

.POWER, Eileen. (See TAWNEY).

PRESTON, Richard A., WISE, Sydney F., and WERNER, Herman 0.: "Men in Arms"; Atlantic Press; London, 1956.

PROTHERO, G.W.: "Gneist on the English Constitution", in English Historical Review, volume 3 (1888), pages 1-33.

^Putney Debates. (See Clarke Papers, volume 1, p. 226 et seq.).

*RAIT, R.S. (See FIRTH)

RAMSEY, Robert W.: "Henry Ireton"; Longmans, Green; London 1949.

RAMSEY, Robert W.:'"Richard Cromwell, Protector of England"; Longmans, Green; London, 1935.

RANKE, Leopold von: "A History of England", volume 3; Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1875.

•KRERESBY, John: "The Memoirs and Travels of Sir John Reresby" (editor Albert Ivatt); Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner; London, 1904.

RICHARDS, R.D.: "The Early History of Banking in England"; Frank Cass; London, 1958.

RICHMOND, Herbert: "The Navy as an Instrument of Policy, 1558-1727" (editor E.A. Hughes); Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1953*

•KROBINSON, Henry: "Certain Proposalls". (See SHAW, "Writers on English Monetary History.").

ROGERS, James E. Thorold: "A History of Agriculture and Prices in England", volumes 5 and 6; Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1887.

ROUSE, Clive: "The Old Towns of England"; B.T. Batsford; London, 1936.

Royal College of Physicians: "William Harvey, 1578-1657"; London, 1957. 264

RUDBJG, R.: "Annals of the Coinage of Britian"; 2nd edition, London, 1819..

•?*Rump: or an Exact Collection of the Choycest Poems and Songs Relating to the Late Times; Henry Brome and Henry Marsh; London, 1662 (reprinted 1874). (2 volumes).

*RUSHWDRTH, John: "Historical Collections"; various publishers; Lon• don, 1659-1701. ( 8 volumes).

SABINE, George H.: "A History of Political Theory"; George G. Harrap; London, 1937.

*SABIME, George H. (See WBJSTANLEY).

^SAINSBURY, Ethel Bruce. (See "East India Company").

St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield. (See WEBB).

*SANDWICH, Earl of. (See MONTAGU).

SAVBJE, Alexander: Review of Petrushevsky's "Vozstanie Uota Tailera", in English Historical Review, volume 17 (1902).pages 780-782.

*SAYE and SELE, Lord: Letter to Lord Wharton, printed in English Historical Review, volume 10 (1895), pages 106-107.

SCHLATTER, Richard,Bugler: "The Social Ideas of Religious Leaders, 1660-1688"; Oxford University Press and Humphrey Milford; London, 1940.

---Scots in Poland ("Papers Relating to the Scots in Poland, 1576-1793"): (editor A. Frances Steuart); Scottish History Society; Edinburgh, 1915.

SCOTT, Eva: "The Travels of the King"; Archibald Constable; London, 1907.

SCOTT, William Robert: "The Constitution and Finance of English, Scott• ish and Irish Joint-Stock Companies to 1720", vols. 1 and 2; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1910 (volume 2) and 1912 (volume 1).

*A Second Narrative of the Late Parliament (So Called): in Harleian . Miscellany, volume 6, pages 482-508.

SHARPE, Reginald R.: "London and the Kingdom"; Longmans, Green; London, 1894-1895. (3 volumes).

SHAW, W.A. : "The Commonwealth and the Protectorate, 1649-1659"; Chapter 15 in Cambridge Modern History, pages 434-458; Cambridge, 1906. 265

*SHAW, Wm.A.: "Writers on English Monetary History, 1626-1730"; Clement Wilson; London, I896.

STMPKINSOM, C.H.: "Thomas Harrison"; J.M. Dent; London, 1905.

SIMPSON, A.: "Thomas Cullum, Draper, 1587-1664", in Economic History Review, 2nd series, Volume 11 (1958-59), pages 19-34.

SEEEL, Caroline A.J.: "The Canary ..Company", in English Historical Review, Volume 31 (1916), pages 529-544.

-''-Slave Trade. (See DONNAN) .

SOLT, Leo F.: "Saints in Arms"; Stanford University Press; Stanford, 1959.

*Some Advertisements for the new Election of Burgesses for the House of Commons, Anno 1645: in SOMERS TRACTS, Volume 1, pages 32-38.

ISOMERS, Lord: "A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts, etc., Revised by Eminent Hands"; 4 volumes in 1st collection, followed by 2nd, 3rd and 4th collections, each of 4 volumes, the complete set being numbered 1 to 16; F. Cogan; London, 1748-1751.

^-SOMERSET MSS. (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 15th Report, Part 7). .•

•H-SPRIGGE, Joshua: "Anglia Rediviva"; John Partridge; London, 1647. (facsimile edition, Gainsville, I960).

*STARKEY, Thomas: "England in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth. A Dialogue between Cardinal Pole and Thomas Lupset, Lecturer in Rhetoric at Oxford"; (editor J.M.Cowper); Early English Text Society; London, 1878.

-"-State Trials: "A Complete Collection of State Trials", editor Francis Hargrave, volume 2; Bathurst; London, 1776.

^STEPHEN, William. (See "Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh").

ST0UGHT0N, John: "Ecclesiastical History of England", volumes 3 and 4 (Restoration 1 and 2); Hodder and Stoughton; London, 1870.

STRATFORD, Esme Wingfield: "Charles King of England, 1600-1637"; Hollis and Carter; London, 1949.

STRATFORD, Esme Wingfield: "King Charles the Martyr, 1643-1649"; Hollis and Carter; London, 1950.

STRATFORD, Esme Wingfield: "King Charles and King Pym, 1637-1643"; Hollis and Carter; London, 1949. 266

STRATFORD, Esme Wingfield : "The Squire and his Relations"; Cassell; London, 1956.

•SUTHERLAND MSS. (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 5th Report).

TATHAM, G.B.: "The Sale of Episcopal Lands During the Civil Wars and Commonwealth", in English Historical Review, Volume 23 (1908), pages 91-108.

TAWNEY, Richard Henry: "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism"; Penguin; Harmondsworth, 1942.

TAWNEY, Richard Henry: "The Rise of the Gentry, 1558-1640", in Economic History Review, Volume 11 (1941), pages 1-38.

TAWNEY, Richard Henry: "The Rise of the Gentry; A Postscript", in Economic History Review, 2nd series, Volume 7 (1954-55), pages 91-97.

•TAWNEY, R.H. and POWER, Eileen: "Tudor Economic Documents"; Longmans, Green; London, 1924 (reprinted 1935). (3 volumes).

THIRSK, Joan: "The Sales of Royalist Land During the Interregnum", in Economic History Review, Volume 5 (1952-1953), pages 188-207.

THORNBURY, Walter: "Old and New London"; Cassell; London, no date. (6 volumes, of which only vols. 1 and 2 are by Thornbury, the remainder by Edward Waiford).

TH0R0LD ROGERS, James E. (See ROGERS).

•THURLOE, John: "A Collection of State Papers of John Thurloe, Esq."

(editor Thomas Birch); Thomas Woodward; London, 1742. (7 volumes).

TODD, George Eyre. (See EYRE-TODD).

Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. (See CHESNEY). •A Treatise, Wherein is Demonstrated, etc.: by "Philopatras", in SOMERS TRACTS, Volume 4, pages 34-62.

TREVELYAN, George Macaulay: "English Social History"; Longmans, Green; London, 1943.

TREVELYAN, George Macaulay: "History of England"; Longmans, Green; London, 1934. (other editions from 1926).

TREVOR-ROPER, Hugh Redwald: "Three Foreigners and the Philosophy of the English Revolution", in Encounter, volume 14 (i960), No. 77, pages 3-20. 267

•Trinity House MSS. (See Historical Manuscripts Commission, 8th Report).

•TUCKER, Thomas: "Reportsby Thomas Tucker upon the Settlement of the Revenues of Excise and Customs in Scotland, A.D. MDCLVI": Bannan- tyne Club; Edinburgh, 1825.

TURBERVILLE, A.S.: "English Men and Manners in the Eighteenth Century"; Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1926.

UNDERDOWN, David: "Royalist Conspiracy in England, 1649-1660"; Yale University Press; New Haven, I960.

UNDERDOWN, D.E.:"Sir Richard Willys and Secretary Thurloe", in English Historical Review, Volume 69 (1954), pages 373-387.

UNWIN,'George: "Industrial Organisation in the Sixteenth and Seven• teenth Centuries"; Cass; London, 1957.

VAGTS, Alfred; "A History of Militarism"; Meridian Books; New York, 1959.

•VERNEY, Margaret M.: "Memoirs of the Verney Family"; Longmans, Green; London, 1892-1899. (4 volumes).

Victoria Histories of the Counties of England: Buckinghamshire, volume 4; London, 1927. Durham, volume 2; London, no date. Suffolk, volume 2; London, 1907.

•VIOLET, Thomas. (See SHAW, "Writers, etc.").

VULLIAMY, C.E.: "The Onslow Family, 1528-1874"; Chapman and Hall; London, 1953.

WADSWORTH, Alfred P. and MANN, Julia de Lacy: "The Cotton Trade and Industrial Lancashire, 1600-1780"; Manchester University Press; Manchester, 1931.

WAGNER, Donald 0.: "Coke and the Rise of Economic Liberalism", in Economic History Review, Volume 6 (1935-1936), pages 30-44.

•WARIST0N, Archibald Johnston of: "Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston"; Volume 3 (1655-1660); Scottish History Society; Edin• burgh, 1940.

•WARNER, George F. (See NICHOLAS).

WARNER, Oliver: "Hero of the Restoration"; Jarrolds; London, 1936.. 268

*WARR, John: "The Corruption and Deficiency of the Laws of England, Soberly Discovered", in Harleian Miscellany, Volume 6, pages 212- 225.

WEBB, E.A.: "The Records of St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield"; Oxford University Press and Humphrey Milfordj London, 1921. (2 volumes).

WERNER, Herman 0. (See PRESTON).

WEYMAN, Stanley J.: "Oliver Cromwell's Kinsfolk", in English Historical Review, Volume 6 (1891), pages 48-60.

•^WHEATLEY, Henry B. (See PEPYS).

^WHITELOCK, Bulstrode: "Memorials of the English Affairs"; Oxford University Press; Oxford, 1853. (4 volumes).

WILBUR, Margaret Eyer: "The East India Company"; Richard R. Smith, New York, 1945.

WILLAN, T.S.: "The English Coasting Trade, 1600-1750"; Manchester University Press; Manchester, 1938.

WILLIAMS, J.B.: "The Newsbooks and Letters of News of the Restoration", in English Historical Review, Volume 23 (1908), pages 252-276.

WILLIAMSON, James A.: "The English Channel. A History"; Collins; Lon• don, 1959.

WILLCOCK, John: "A Scots Earl in Covenanting Times"; Andrew Elliot; Edinburgh, 1907.

WILLSON, Beckles: "Ledger and Sword", Volume 1; Longmans, Green; Lon• don, 1903.

WIMPEY, Jos.: "The Challenge; or, Patriotism Put to the Test", extracts printed in "A Select Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts and Other Publications on the National Debt and Sinking Fund"; Lord Overstone (for distribution amongst his friends); London, 1857.

WINGFIELD-STRATFORD. (See STRATFORD).

•^WBISTANLEY, Gerrard: "The Works of Gerrard Winstanley"'(editor George H. Sabine); Cornell University Press; Ithaca, 1941.

WISE, Sydney F. (See PRESTON).

MOTHER, George: "Respublica Anglicana"; Manchester, 1833.

-»-The World's Mistake in Oliver Cromwell: in Harleian Miscellany, Volume 7, pages 347-360. 269

WORMALD, B.H.G.: "Clarendon. Politics, History and Religion, 1640-1660"; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1951.

YOUNG, Peter. (See BURNE).

YULE, George: "The Independents in the English Civil War"; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1958.

About 70 other- works are referred to in the text as having been

cited, by secondary authorities. They are not listed in this biblio-

- graphy because they were not available for cross-checking. Where such

works are referred, to, the secondary origin of each particular ref•

erence is given in detail in the appropriate note.