Representing a Nation of Tailors and Cobblers

A Study of Bulstrode Whitelocke´s Journal of the Swedish Embassy, 1653-1654

Rebecca Martin

Magisteruppsats Vårterminen 2007 Institutionen för idé- och lärdomshistoria Uppsala universitet

Rebecca Martin: Representing a Nation of Tailors and Cobblers: A Study of Bulstrode Whitelocke´s ‘Journal of the Swedish Embassy’ 1653-1654. Uppsala universitet: Institutionen för idé-och lärdomshistoria, Magister Uppsats, Vårtermin, 2007.

In November 1653, a vessel arrived in the harbour town of Gothenburg, on the west coast of the Protestant monarchy of Sweden. Aboard the ship was the newly appointed English Ambassador Extraordinary, Bulstrode Whitelocke (1605-1675); jurist, Puritan and avid diary keeper. In his journal, Whitelocke noted down the entirety of what he was to experience during his stay in Sweden. From the heaps of papers he produced over his lifetime, he later edited this particular record under the title Journal of the Swedish Embassy. Spanning between 1653 and 1654, the pages of the journal contains information of the most mundane kind, as well as eye witness accounts of what must be recognised as a very interesting part of European history. More so, it reveals Whitelocke’s views on the political questions of his time, mainly presented through conversations with important actors from Swedish society, such as Queen Christina, Lord High Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna, and the Archbishop of Uppsala, Johannes Canuti Lenaeus. In the eyes of the Swedes, Whitelocke became a representative not only of the new Commonwealth of England, but of the new ideas that had formed the basis of its government. As such, he was often made to explain the conduct of his country men, as well as defend the recent events in England. Thus, through these recorded exchanges, an image of Whitelocke´s representation and of his views regarding the changes in England emerges from the pages. This Masters Thesis will analyse this image, as well as discuss Whitelocke’s political views, both practical and ideological, at the time of his embassy to Sweden. Keywords: Bulstrode Whitelocke 1605-1675, Queen Christina of Sweden 1626-1689, Axel Oxenstierna 1583-1654, Diary, Diplomacy, English Civil War, Seventeenth Century Political Theory.

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 3 Prologue 3 Purpose and Questions 5 Primary Sources and Previous Research 6 Contextual work 6 Editions of the Journal 7 Texts on the embassy 8 Clarifications and Limitations 9

II. CONTEXT 13 Political Theory 13 General tendencies 13 Sweden 14 England 16 Bulstrode Whitelocke 19 The Aims of the Embassy 22

III. THE JOURNAL 25 The Obligation of the State 26 The Power of the People 29 Supremacy of Law 33 Christina and the Commonwealth 36 Representative of the People 38 Puritanism and Diversity 41

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 46 Summary 46 Conclusions 47

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY 52

2

I. INTRODUCTION

Prologue Around noon on the fifteenth of November 1653, an English ship moored close to the port of Gothenburg, a trading town on the west coast of the Protestant monarchy of Sweden. The gentleman presiding over the ship, who had braved the autumnal seas to head the mission, was happy to finally reach his destination. The journey had been eventful, a Dutch ship had been intercepted and seized by the English convoy, and great storms had tossed and rolled the ships and made even the most experienced seamen sick to their stomachs. They had passed the “Pater Noster” cliffs on the coast of Norway, called so because they made the passengers of the mind to say their prayers. They had sailed through waters where it was said monstrous sea creatures dwelled, where witches roamed and other creatures of the wild north were lurking. The gentleman didn’t think it was fitting for him to take these stories seriously. He was after all a man who trusted in his God and furthermore believed himself to be a representative of the most advanced society on earth; the Commonwealth of England. However, he had to admit that he had no inclination to go and investigate their truthfulness. He couldn’t help himself from shuddering at the prospect of the craggy northern shores. He stated in his journal that these views inspired even a man like himself to thoughts of dread and terror. The man was Bulstrode Whitelocke, travelling under the title of Ambassador Extraordinary, and sent to Sweden as a representative of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England. His mission was to treat directly with Queen Christina of Sweden and her ministers. The orders were to establish a trade agreement regarding the Baltic Sea and also to strengthen the ties between two of Europe’s strongest Protestant nations. Whitelocke had been loath to leave England. On two previous occasions he had been named for missions abroad, and on both occasions he had avoided being sent. As royalist agents had murdered both the gentlemen taking his place on these missions abroad, it is perhaps safe to argue that Whitelocke had done well to avoid the appointments. However, this time it had not worked, and therefore Whitelocke found 3 himself gazing at these northern shores with the responsibility of his undertaking resting heavily on his shoulders. It wasn’t in his nature to wallow in self pity. Instead he tried to live his life after the motto he had fashioned for himself by adapting the words of the stoic Epictetus – “Whatever happens is best – if I make it so”. 1 After gathering his retinue around him they said their prayers of thanksgiving for their safe arrival at their sea journey’s end after such a dangerous and arduous expedition. However, the journey was far from over. Due to an outbreak of plague in the nation’s capital, the queen was residing in Uppsala, on the eastern coast, north of Stockholm. A strenuous trek by land across the barren and autumnal Swedish countryside awaited them. During this journey they were to brave scant provisions, dismal lodgings, as well as the sometimes open disdain of those that believed them to represent a nation of commoners rising against their superiors. But for now - at this very moment - they were safe.

Throughout his journey and during his stay in Sweden, Whitelocke recorded his experiences and reflections in his journal. He wrote in third person and reported on meetings of both official and private character. While in Sweden he moved in the highest circles and met with the most illustrious people of the day. In his journal, he recounted the more important conversations verbatim. The journal is a detailed day to day record, spanning a few months between 1653 and 1654, during which the author not only suffered the seizure of power by a commoner in his own country, but witnessed the voluntary descent from the throne by the Queen of Sweden. The conversations laboriously recollected and penned down in the journal, and the opinions and ideas of people that figure within its pages, make it a unique testament of objections and opinions in Sweden on ideas central to Whitelocke’s society. It is also a testimony of Whitelocke’s own thoughts regarding the recent upheaval in England and the ideas that this alteration had built on.

1 The stoic Epictetus had said “Quodcunque evenerit optimum”, which translates as “Whatever happens, happens for the best”. Whitelocke added the second part, which is characteristic to his personal beliefs. Whitelocke had even written a poem on the subject, set to a lute accompaniment see Ruth Spalding, The Improbable Puritan, London (1975), p. 40f 4

Purpose and Questions Over the centuries that span between Whitelocke’s death and the present day, his political and historical work has been studied on several occasions; treated with respectful hands by some and scathing scorn by others. His life has been outlined and statesmen and historians of their own different political and historical climates have passed judgement on his political and personal choices. But many of these judgements have been made on the basis of the majority of Whitelocke’s oeuvre, and on the actions of his whole life. Choices he made late in his life has been compared to earlier statements, or earlier actions to later statements. As will become evident from this study, this way of looking at Whitelocke’s contribution has produced differing perceptions of his character and political standpoints. It would seem that the very longevity of Whitelocke’s career and the turbulent times over which it spanned implies that there must be either some discrepancy in what Whitelocke did to what he wrote, or that the beliefs and actions that are recorded in his work must be in some other way falsifications. It also seems to be a natural outcome of that particular method of analysis. Therefore, although these suspicions will be addressed briefly in the introduction of this study, the author feels confident that more may be gained by focusing specifically on a smaller part of Whitelocke’s work and subsequently on a shorter period of his life. Looked at from this perspective, Whitelocke’s Sweden Journal poses an interesting challenge. Spanning between 1653 and 1654, its pages reveal Whitelocke’s views on the political questions of his time, mainly presented through conversations with the important actors in Swedish society. It would seem plausible that Whitelocke in the eyes of the Swedes would have become a representative not only of the Commonwealth of England, but to the new ideas that formed the basis of this society. The purpose of this study is therefore to shed some light on Whitelocke’s political views, both practical and ideological, at the time of his embassy to Sweden. More specifically the study shall attempt to answer the following questions:

• What kind of state becomes visible through Whitelocke’s representation? • What aspects are perceived as most controversial by the Swedish hosts and how does Whitelocke defend these? 5

• In what way does Whitelocke and those around him react to the news of yet another alteration; the establishment of the Protectorate? • How large a part did Whitelocke’s Puritanism play in his political views and in the Swedish perception of him? • To what extent may we view Whitelocke’s representation as a reflection of his own views, rather than that of Parliament’s, bearing in mind his diplomatic identity?

In looking at Whitelocke’s opinions as presented in his Sweden Journal, an image of his political views anno 1653-54 becomes visible. By thus placing these ideas in their temporal context, it becomes possible to offer another view on Whitelocke as a political character, as well as venturing a theory on how he stayed at the very hub of seventeenth century English politics for such a long time.

Primary sources and Previous Research Contextual work Although the purpose of this study is to look especially at Whitelocke’s own text it seems pertinent to provide the reader with a brief outline to the context. Therefore, in order to provide this study with an insight into the political and intellectual environment of the seventeenth century a number of authors have been consulted. Graham Parry’s The Seventeenth Century. The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature 1603- 1700 (1989), has been enlightening, as has Nils Runeby’s Monarchia Mixta. Maktfördelningsdebatt i Sverige under den tidigare stormaktstiden (1962). Two articles that deserve mentioning here are R.K.W Hinton’s ”English Constitutional Doctrines from the Fifteenth Century to the Seventeenth”, and Corinne Comstock Weston’s “The Theory of Mixed Monarchy Under Charles I and After”, from the English Historical Review (1960). As a guide to contemporary European history in general, D.H Pennington’s Europe in the Seventeenth Century (1989) has been consulted. Christopher Hill’s Upp och nervända världen (1990) and A Nation of Change and Novelty (1990) have also proved useful. Further should be mentioned Sten Lindroth’s Svensk Lärdomshistoria: 6

Stormaktstiden, (1975) and Tore Frängsmyr’s Svensk Idéhistoria: Bildning och vetande under tusen år. Del 1 1000-1809 (2000) Among the biographies that have served as contextual literature Antonia Fraser’s Cromwell – our chief of Men (1975), Gunnar Wetterberg’s Kanslern. Axel Oxenstierna i sin tid, (2002), Sven Stolpe’s Drottning Kristina, (1982), deserve to be mentioned here if nothing else than for their inspirational qualities. This study is greatly indebted to the first biographer who had access to the majority of Whitelocke’s collected papers and who contributed to the discovery of some of them, the English historian Ruth Spalding. Her biography on Whitelocke is called, The Improbable Puritan: A life of Bulstrode Whitelocke 1605-1675 (1975). This is of course only a small cross-section of the contextual literature which has been consulted during the research of this study, the rest which will be easily located in the bibliography.

Editions of Whitelocke’s Sweden Journal Dr Charles Morton, a Librarian of the British Museum, first published Whitelocke’s Journal of the Swedish Embassy in 1772. A century later, a second edition appeared, edited by the staunch Whig, Henry Reeve (1813-1895). Writing his piece a hundred years after Whitelocke’s death, Morton perceived Whitelocke as a great statesman, active in an interesting time of English history.2 Reeve, who was writing a century after Morton, was not convinced of either Whitelocke’s greatness or his statesmanship.3 During the nineteenth century most of Whitelocke’s liberal and constitutional ideas were seen as commonplace and this led to a rather contemptuous reaction to them from both Whigs and Tories.4 However, to Reeve, it was Whitelocke’s account of his Swedish embassy which was worth taking notice of. Its worth lay in the record of the embassy, in “its fidelity as a picture of the manners of the age, and especially of the remarkable persons who figure in its pages.” 5

2 Spalding, (1975), p. 11 3 H.Reeve (ed.), “Introduction”, from Bulstrode Whitelocke, Journal of the Swedish Embassy I, (1885) p. x 4 Spalding (1975), p.250 5 Reeve. p. xlvii 7

Both Morton’s and Reeve’s editions contain some oversights and inaccuracies of transcription.6 In Morton’s edition of Whitelocke’s journal the language had not been altered, i.e. it still retained the orthography of the late seventeenth century. In the new edition the orthography of the late nineteenth century was adopted and furthermore Reeve carried out “some occasional corrections and emendations.”7 Morton’s edition of the journal was translated into Swedish and published in Sweden in 1777 (ed. Johan Edman). This is the only translation that exists but it is censored, as some of its content, especially regarding the Swedish royal family, was deemed inappropriate.8 There are some other versions of Whitelocke’s journal in manuscript form at the British Library. However, due to geographical distance as well as deletions and omissions of the text by worried successors, they will not be used in this study, apart from when they are referred to by another author. Although Whitelocke’s biographer Ruth Spalding edited Whitelocke’s complete personal papers, and published it as his personal “Diary”, this lacks a large amount of the edited and added material present in Reeve’s edition. Therefore, despite Reeve’s personal assessment of Whitelocke’s character, his edition is the most convenient of the three. In consequence, the present study is based on the text as it is found in the second British edition, as edited by Reeve.

Texts on the embassy Previous research on the topic of Whitelocke’s Journal of the Swedish Embassy is limited. The editors of Whitelocke’s journal have provided their own commentary to the text but offer little more than explanations and clarifications in places where they view it as needed. Even though a significant part of Spalding’s biography is dedicated to Whitelocke’s stay in Sweden, she does not look upon this period of his life as more important than any other. Therefore, it follows that neither the embassy to Sweden, nor the journal left from it, is given any deeper analysis than other stages of Whitelocke’s life or documents left from them. There is no English work solely concentrating on Whitelocke’s embassy to Sweden. The small amount of Swedish work available on the

6 Spalding, (1975), p.264 7 Reeve p.x 8 Gunnar Wetterberg, “ Handelsavtalet med England före sin tid”, Svenska Dagbladet ( 28/4 2004) 8 topic is fragmented and does little less than retell and summarise Whitelocke’s mission, using the journal as the source. These essays can mainly be found in anthologies on the subject of historical travels to and in Sweden, or in lectures on Swedish political history.9 During the spring of 2004 a number of articles were published in the Swedish press regarding Whitelocke’s mission, due to the 350 years anniversary of the Anglo-Swedish friendship tract.10 Although both essays and articles are informative and sometimes very amusing it seems a pity that the emphasis has been put on what must ultimately be seen as comical anecdotes from Whitelocke’s stay in Sweden. It would, however, be unfortunate to assume that this is due to the writers having failed to see the hidden depths of the material. To be able to summarise the journal within 20 pages, or indeed in a newspaper article, is an achievement in itself, and must be acknowledged as serving its purpose. However this may be it still leaves the state of research lacking a study which concentrates solely on Whitelocke’s Journal of the Swedish Embassy.

Clarifications and Limitations When using material of this sort, i.e. a historical document in the form of a personal journal, one may expect to meet the objection that one is dealing with highly subjective information. Questions undoubtedly arise on whether the material can be viewed as pertinent to a truly objective study. Can we really trust the author to have remembered an event correctly, or recounted it objectively and accurately? May it not be argued that if the text has been edited by the author retrospectively, it may have been changed to fit better in to a changed political climate? Spalding writes that in checking Whitelocke’s statements against other sources “/…/they have usually proved to be accurate in substance, although he made blunders over dates, figures and other details.” 11 She does not believe that Whitelocke embellished his conversations or exaggerated his importance in the events of his time.

9 See f. ex. Bengt Hildebrand’s ”Ambassadören Bulstrode Whitelockes besök 1653-54” from Främlingar ser på Sverige. Reseberättelser från 400 år, (Stockholm, 1962) or Ellen Fries’s ”Whitelockes beskickning ill Sverige 1653” from Svenska kulturbilder ur 16 och 1700-talens historia. Populära föredrag, (Stockholm, 1901). 10 Amongst these can be noted Wetterberg in Svenska Dagbladet ( 28/4 2004), Lars Ryding’s “Fredsavtal med England gäller ännu efter 350 år”, Svenska Dagbladet (28/3 2004) and Tove Nandorf’s “350 år av svensk-brittisk vänskap värda en skål”, Dagens Nyheter (18/4 2004) 11 Spalding, (1975), p 13 9

She states that, reporting both the honour’s and the snubs against him, he was “/…/ conceited in matters of small importance but assessed himself objectively on larger issues.”12 Spalding’s access to practically all of Whitelocke’s papers makes her seem in a good position to answer the critics regarding the assonance between early and later versions of Whitelocke’s diaries. However, this is by no means undisputed. In a review of Spalding’s edition of Whitelocke’s Diary Oxford Scholar Blair Worden questions the contemporary nature of Whitelocke’s texts, considering that they were, just as his Journal of the Embassy to Sweden, transcripts from earlier texts.13 Spalding admits that Whitelocke has amended some of the entries after the Restoration, in order to accentuate critique against Cromwell, but not to the point were he would misrepresent an episode.14 In this, Worden agrees, and points out the surprisingly small numbers of omissions and revisions of the past. “The compulsion to write seems to have outweighed considerations of caution. There is much in the 'Diary' that neither the King nor Clarendon nor Monck would have been happy to see.”15 To argue that Whitelocke must have amended his texts after the Restoration to stay safe in a changing political climate seems ambiguous. Not only does it seem unlikely to have made any real difference, as Whitelocke clearly was implicated enough anyway by his active role in the government during the Interregnum, but it is equally just as possible that, fearing Cromwell’s spies, these entries were played down at the time they were written. Unlike Spalding, Worden does not completely trust Whitelocke’s powers of recollection.16 However, when using Whitelocke a source, the historian Antonia Fraser argues that although the exact wording of the dialogues presented in his journal may be doubted, as “the most accurate and painstaking diarist can err by a phrase”, the “length and detail” of these make it unlikely that the conversations and their topics are figments of Whitelocke’s imagination. 17 Swedish author Gunnar Wetterberg also argues for the

12 Spalding, (1975), p 13 13 Although, this is by no means undisputed. See Blair Worden’s “Review Article. The ‘Diary’ of Bulstrode Whitelocke”, from the English Historical Review in 1993, passim. 14 Spalding, (1975), p 13 15 Worden, p. 131 16 ibid.,p.125 17 Antonia Fraser, Cromwell- Our Chief of Men, UK 1975, p. 414 10

importance of Whitelocke’s Journal, and makes good use of Whitelocke’s accounts of meetings with Oxenstierna, in his biography over the latter.18 However, there are limitations to how this kind of material may be used to illuminate a time and society such as Whitelocke’s. It is not the intent of this study to attempt to dig up a political or religious doctrine from the pages within the journal of Bulstrode Whitelocke. It would it be impossible in the sense that the material is in journal form, i.e. it could not have been the intention of Whitelocke to construct any such thing. One must presume that it was the intention of Whitelocke to record his daily life; his actions and reactions to the events of his time. He later edited his own texts, but there is no proof that he intended his readership to extend outside his family. In fact he repeatedly insisted that the majority of his works was written for the edification of his children.19 However, even if he did, this would have been as a report on his times, not as an intended political or religious programme. Neither is it the ambition to use his journal to anchor any specific idea in time, to argue that Whitelocke is somehow “anticipating” something which is yet to come. There is no claim that Whitelocke’s thinking was revolutionary in regards to political philosophy or religion. There is nothing that sets him apart or makes him stand out from the society he sprung from; in fact, he is interesting to us because he to a large extent represents ideas typical to that society, at that specific time. Any new concept emergent from the text would be conjured up by the author’s ability to place Whitelocke’s own context in an even wider temporal background and therefore have the enormous advantage of hindsight, as mentioned earlier. However, neither is it the intention to let Whitelocke symbolize his age- he would make a poor representative of such a multifaceted and diverse society. When saying that Whitelocke represents something new, it is in his capacity as ambassador for the new Commonwealth of England, and as a participant in the events of his times, not as a symbol of the new ideas of his era. 20 When dealing with sources from a different era and different nations, one soon encounters the problem of terminology. The term Citizen, and its relation to the word

18 Wetterberg, SvD (28/4 2004), and Kanslern. Axel Oxenstierna i sin tid, Stockholm 2002, p.953 19 Worden, p. 127 20 For a more detailed account, which has been of great influence to this work, see Quentin Skinner, Meaning and context : Quentin Skinner and his critics, (ed. J. Tully), Cambridge 1988, p. 29-67 11

Subject, is an excellent example of this problem. When indeed did the Subject become a Citizen, and what is the difference between these? There is learned literature on the subject which deals with this problem and outlines the development from the one to the other.21 However, it should be understood that the present study defines the Citizen as an individual resident in a nation where it is believed that the power stems from the people, and who have the right – whether direct or through representation - to oppose those in power, if unsatisfied. The Subject, on the other hand, is resident within a monarchy the Prince’s power is seen to stem from the Divine. Further, in seventeenth century England, the New Year was believed to start on the 25th of March. Therefore what we would perceive as January 1st 1654 would have been written as 1653. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, this study has amended all dates to the “new style”. Finally, a few words in regards to the material presented are needed. Whitelocke’s journal spans over more than 600 pages. The data contained within its pages range from day to day information on topics such as the food and drink taken, to descriptions of important historical events or political discussions with great men and women of the time. There is more than enough data in the journal, and angles from which to consider the data, to furnish several different studies. Subsequently, many stories are left untold both with regards to the context and the journal. The author sincerely laments every fascinating and sometimes hilarious sidetrack she has been forced to abandon. Had it not been her firm belief that the specificity of this study is what makes it pertinent, there would certainly have been a larger presence of reindeer, drunken Swedes and glorious misunderstandings within its pages.

21 See f. ex. Conal Condren, The Language of Politics in Seventeenth- Century England, UK 1994 and Janet Coleman (ed.), The Individual in Political Theory and Practice, Oxford 1996. 12

II. THE CONTEXT

Political Theory The seventeenth century witnessed a change from a medieval social structure to a new system. The universal powers that had been giving European society its general structure, at least on a formal and ideological level, were now giving way for a new principle of organisation; the national state.22 However, this was a slow and unbalanced development. Early seventeenth century Europe, perhaps better described as the rather shaky unity of “Christendom”, was far from well defined politically.23 The seventeenth century subject/citizen was answerable to three institutions, namely God and his representatives on earth, the Monarch and his deputies, and the Law.24 Questions were increasingly being raised as to the legitimacy of these claims. On the one hand there were theories regarding the absolute power of Princes, on the other the sovereignty of the people. Between both ends of the spectrum, there was ample room for theories.25 Perhaps because of the difference in starting point, speed of development and end result, political theory of seventeenth century Europe showed both local variations and general tendencies.26 Here both will be dealt with; the general tendencies of political theory will be briefly outlined, and the local variations of the discourse in Sweden and England will be introduced.

General tendencies With the changing structure of Europe, new problems had arisen and subsequently new questions were being formulated. Among the general tendencies of the political discourse can therefore be mentioned theories regarding the concentration of power and the radicalization of ideas on the monarch’s or the people’s constitutional authority.27 The

22 Marie-Louise Rodén & Dick Harrison, Tusen år i Europa, 1600-1800, Lund 2001, p. 43f 23 D. H. Pennington, Seventeenth Century Europe, London 1970, p. 21 24 ibid., p. 176 25 Nils Runeby, Monarchia Mixta. Maktfördelningsdebatt i Sverige under den tidigare stormaktstiden, Uppsala 1962, p. 13 26 ibid. 27 ibid. 13

idea of the Republic emanated from ancient Greece and Rome, but as most seventeenth century European nations were monarchies, it was perhaps not surprising that the ideas dominating the political theory were built up around a monarchical system. Two theories dominated the discourse. The first relied on the principle of consent. In this theory all acts of government require the agreement of the people they will affect. There would be no need to set any limits to the power of government as all the people share in it.28 Another theory relied on the principle of law. In this theory the act of government did not need consent from the people, but governance had to accord against a permanent standard, set up by a body outside the government, and with which it could be compared. This body would usually be the court of law, and the standard set would be termed fundamental law, or natural law.29 “In the kingly states of early modern times the first principle was called mixed monarchy and the second principle absolute monarchy.”30

Sweden The traditional way of looking at the monarchy, as characterised by the “mirror-for- princes” tradition and using ethical or moral arguments for the Prince’s obligation to his people, was prevailing in Sweden during the first part of the seventeenth century.31 The discourse of political theory was built up with the help of the European conceptual apparatus but matured closely linked with the domestic political developments.32 Like most countries during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that were emerging into national states, religion had proved a burning issue. In its reformation Sweden had experienced both birth pangs and growing pains. Reformed in the early decades of the sixteenth century, the Augsburg Confession was formally adopted as creed at the Uppsala Meeting in 1593.33 The Swedish church was developing increasingly towards a more orthodox faith. The King Gustav Adolf was a very pious man, and his Lord High Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna was rather a theological adept.34 Both believed that the state

28 R.W.K. Hinton, ”English Constitutional Doctrines from the Fifteenth Century to the Seventeenth, English Historical Review 1960 p.410 29 ibid. 30 ibid. (my italics) 31 Runeby, p. 204 32 ibid. 33 Tore Frängsmyr, Svensk Idéhistoria: Bildning och vetande under tusen år. Del 1 1000-1809 (2000),p. 48 34 Sten Lindroth, Svensk lärdomshistoria. Stormaktstiden, 1989, p. 80 14

would benefit from a cooperative and strong church. Therefore, during the Riksdag meeting at Örebro 1617 consensus was reached that all religions but the Protestant faith would be banned from Sweden.35 The need for consensus in the Riksdag stemmed from the fact that monarchs of Sweden were bound to a certain division of power. This was reflected in the two instances Råd and Riksdag, which were equipped with distinct, legally founded and traditional competencies.36 In the Riksdag the people were represented through the four Estates; the nobility, clergy, bourgeoisie and peasantry. It has been argued, however, that both Råd and Riksdag were more important in the gaining acceptance for royal decisions than coming up with these.37 This can be held to also be reflected in the fact that nothing was discussed at the Riksdag meetings, save what had been proposed by the monarch. The House of Wasa had created the Riksdag as an instrument for accumulating the political interest of the realm and King Gustav Adolf had been able to make a compromise with the aristocracy which gave this group a strong standing within the political arena.38 During Christina’s minority, the influence of the aristocracy was tangible but was lessened as soon as the young Queen took the reins of her government.39 She gathered around her a group of younger men, whom she tied to her through elevating them into the aristocracy. This way, she would have support against the older generation statesmen, as headed by Oxenstierna.40 Her political convictions, especially in regards to foreign policy, often clashed with those of her Chancellor.41 As a Queen, Christina was open in her opinions of sovereignty. She continued the hard line with her councillors, which was characteristic for her father. However, it has been argued that she probably

35 Despite this there were those who continued to argue for a more open minded approach to the question of faith. A Protestant union was envisaged by some, where the similarities of faith would be the unifying factor, regardless if one adhered to the more orthodox Lutheran view, the Puritan movement or the Calvinist version of the Protestant faith. During the 1640’s, the Scot John Dury and the Czech Johann Amos Comenius both came to Sweden to discuss the possibility of a Protestant union. Comenius had initially been invited to England, but the outbreak of Civil War had prevented the visit to take place. Unfortunately for both, there was not enough support in Sweden for these negotiations to make any lasting impression, and both left without having achieved their aim. See Frängsmyr, p. 148 36 Runeby , p. 420 37 Pennington, p.348 38 Jan Glete, ” Politics in the Age of Christina”, from Marie Louise Rodén (ed.) Politics and Culture in the Age of Christina, Stockholm 1997, p. 24 39 Runeby, p. 420 40 Sven Stolpe, Drottning Kristina, Stockholm 1982, p.109 41 Runeby, p.251 15

wouldn’t have pushed her claim of sovereignty all the way, despite her disregard of her constitutional limitations.42 The arguments regarding division of power were spread among scholars in Sweden as in the rest of Europe. The political theory which was taught at the universities showed that the European ideals were by no means unknown.43 The opposition of the common estates in the Riksdag seem to be an indication that the ideas had a practical impact on the politics of the times. Even though the idea of a division of power met with resistance from both Christina and her Lord High Chancellor Oxenstierna, it still remained a basis for discussion within the learned circles of Sweden.44 During the minority, the opposition within three common estates of the Riksdag had begun to get organised. This was initiated within the clergy and peasantry, but was to be followed by the legally trained bourgeoisie and later by the officers in the army. 45 This opposition showed itself rather dramatically at the Riksdag of 1650, which Queen Christina used to achieve her own agenda.46 The internal struggles of the Riksdag made it weaker and would later clear the path for Karl XI’s claim to autocratic government.47

England In England the pendulum swung from one end to the other. Starting from a tradition of belief in a mixed government, the tendency at the early seventeenth century was towards a more centralised power.48 The Stuarts were firm believers in government by divine right on the unchallengeable basis of the Bible.49 Charles I was protestant, leaning towards the orthodox phalanx, which was headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud. This Laudian Protestantism was characterised by the idea of salvation through obedience to those in power, whether secular or sacerdotal.50 This thought no doubt appealed to Charles in more than one way. Laud’s church was opposed vehemently

42 Runeby, p.422 43 ibid. p.204 44 ibid p. 422 45 Wetterberg (2002), p. 705f and 711 46 Stolpe, p. 178f 47 Wetterberg (2002), p.705f 48 Hinton, p. 423f 49 Graham Parry, The Seventeenth Century. The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature 1603-1700, London 1989, p.214 50 Pennington, p.116 16

by the Puritans. They believed that the Bible was the individual’s guarantee of a direct connection to God, without the mediating powers of the Clergy.51 The puritans were heavily represented in the towns and in the army and it was a religion which was almost inseparable from social and political radicalism.52 It was maintained from the royal side that the participation of Parliament in the affairs of the state was by grace of the King and not a sign of an absolute division of power.53 This made it possible for the King to dismiss or fail to summon Parliament at his will, and to use his royal prerogative to make policy or levy taxes, without Parliament’s consent. The idea of the royal prerogative was fought vehemently in Parliament throughout the Stuart reigns of the early century.54 By the beginning of the 1640’s, the idea of government through three estates; the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, had become widespread.55 It had been set down by the desperate Charles I in his Answer to the Nineteen Propositions, a text issued by the Parliamentarians with the purpose to further limit kingly power and virtually make the two houses; Lords and Commons, masters of the English State.56 In his answer, Charles argued for the joint power between the three estates, albeit strongly in favour of himself and the House of Lords.57 But Charles made it increasingly impossible to envision a functioning state with him at the helm, by his own scheming.58 He never gave up his belief in the divine right. At the very end of his reign he still would not give up his convictions. He stated: “I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it to answer to a new unlawful authority.” 59 Therefore, against what seemingly had been the initial wish of those in power in the House of Commons, the monarchy was no more. “/O/ne estate had devoured the other two and government by king, lords and commons had gone.” 60 Finding themselves at

51 Pennington, p.117 52 ibid., p.119 53 Parry, p.214 54 ibid., p.215 55 Corinne Comstock Weston, “The Theory of Mixed Monarchy Under Charles I and After”, English Historical Review 1960, passim 56 ibid., 428 57 For a definition of Charles’s proposed division of power, see Comstock Weston, p. 429 58 ibid., p. 438 59 As quoted in Parry, p.215 60 Comstock Weston, p. 439 17

one extreme end of the spectrum instead of in the expected middle, the supporters of the new order still believed that Parliament had lawfully inherited the people’s consent to be ruled which had in the past belonged to the king.61 Despite the sectional quality of the Parliament’s representation, the upheaval of the Civil War and Interregnum meant that ideas about a more democratic state were aired and even, to some extent, seriously considered.62 This was largely due to the influence of the army on parliament’s affairs – an army which in its representative qualities showed signs of democratic ideals.63 The republicanism which was subsequently instituted was based on narrow social foundations and the idea of an increased social participation had come to nothing.64 To some this was a betrayal of the trust that had been put in the Parliament’s men.65 But these perceived, just as others in power before them, the need to keep the people happy yet limit their ability for social revolt.66 Despite the seeming settledness of the nation’s rule, the leading agents in Parliament frequently discussed the future of government. As late as 1651, one such meeting revealed the preference among them for a form of mixed government.67 During this meeting Cromwell himself resisted the idea of the return of the Stuarts, but was in favour of “a settlement with somewhat Monarchical power in it.”68 It seems safe to argue that the “settlement” of the kind that he had in mind was exactly what he achieved, through the establishment of the Protectorate in 1653. However that may be, the ideas of a mixed government outlived both the Protectorate and the attempts after the Restoration to centralise the power once more.

61 Fraser, p. 413 62 Parry, p.217 63 For the representation of the rank and file of the New Model Army see f. ex. Parry, p. 216 or Christopher Hill, Upp och nervända världen, Stockholm 1990, p.46-51 64 Parry, p.217 65 Brian Manning, “Puritanism and Democracy” from Donald Pennington and Keith Thomas (eds) Puritans and Revolutionaries. Essays in Seventeenth Century History Presented to Christopher Hill, Oxford 1978, p.159 66 See Christopher Hill, A Nation of Change and Novelty, London 1990, p.53 and Manning p. 159 67 See Comstock Weston p.442 and Spalding, (1975), p.130 68 Comstock Weston, , p. 442 18

Bulstrode Whitelocke Bulstrode Whitelocke was born in 1605 into a home permeated with views that often clashed with those of King and Church.69 His father; James Whitelocke, was a judge and a MP of some acclaim, due to his novel ideas regarding the state and the monarch.70 Following in his footsteps, young Bulstrode studied the Law. In 1626 Whitelocke took a seat in Parliament with the help of his fathers influence. He was called to the bar at the age of twenty-one and began to actively practice as a lawyer due to financial difficulties in 1627. Ten years later, he was a well-respected barrister and as such he was approached in 1636 by a fellow MP, John Hampden, for legal advice in a matter that was to prove central to this stage in pre-Revolutionary England. Ship money tax had been imposed on Hampden’s estate, which was situated far inland. Whitelocke advised Hampden not to pay and this refusal was to “become the subject of the famous test case.”71 Whitelocke was elected a member of the Long Parliament in 1641. Here he quickly established a reputation as a good orator and was selected Chairman of the committee chosen to manage the evidence for the Earl of Strafford’s impeachment. Despite being Charles’s closest man, the Earl of Strafford had been accused of High Treason - one of the most controversial trials in English history.72 At the same time, a bill was passed by which it was made impossible for the King to dismiss the Parliament without its consent. This Bill fell upon Whitelocke to draft. By the time both were signed by the king, Bulstrode Whitelocke, who personally abhorred both the violence and the speed with which the Bills had been carried out, was a famous man.73 There was by now a widening gap between the King and the Parliament. Whitelocke was hanging on to the hope that the changes, which were needed, could be carried out within the existing constitutional framework.74 During the Civil War, Whitelocke took part on the side of the Parliament, but conducted himself in such a way in his dealings

69 Spalding (1975), p.29 70 See f.ex. Hinton p. 425 and John Bruce, “Introduction”, in James Whitelocke’s Liber Famelicus of Sir James Whitelocke.(1858) London 1968, passim 71 Spalding (1975) p 68 72 D. Alan Orr, Treason and the State, Cambridge (2002) p.61 73 Spalding (1975), p 76f 74 ibid. p 82f 19

with the royalists and in the negotiations with the king, that he retained the respect from the cavalier side.75 For the next few years, Cromwell and his adherents used Whitelocke’s legal advice on many occasions. In March 1648 he was appointed one of the three Commissioners of the Great Seal.76 The voices in Parliament, demanding that the King should be put on trial, were growing louder. It was important to have charges brought up against the King in order to be able to defend their actions de jure. A committee of thirty eight were appointed to draw up these charges, among them Whitelocke and his friend and colleague Thomas Widdrington, another renowned lawyer. Both refused to have anything to do with it. “The country’s two most eminent lawyers went hawking , while Cromwell and his supporters made out what case they could for the legality of a trial without precedent”, writes Spalding.77 However, despite refusing to be of service in the trial of the king, Whitelocke took an active part in the planning of the nation’s future. Whitelocke continued to be at the centre of the political dealings in England. In late 1651 he took part in a meeting to discuss the future government of the nation. During this he made clear his preference for a mixed monarchy, a sentiment we have seen he at this time shared with Cromwell.78 In 1652 Cromwell surprised Whitelocke by implying the possibility of England returning to monarchy with Cromwell himself at the helm. Whitelocke seems to have been perplexed by the idea and argued that if the monarchy was to be restored, albeit with limited power, the best candidate for the throne was the late king’s son, Charles.79 Although Whitelocke and Cromwell parted on friendly terms, Whitelocke seems to have felt a shift in Cromwell’s attitude to him at the end of the meeting. Spalding states that although Cromwell continued to seek Whitelocke’s advice on matters of the state, “after that talk the former friendliness was lacking and within six months Whitelocke found himself out of politics.”80 When Cromwell summoned his so- called “Barebones Parliament” in the spring 1653, Whitelocke was passed over. He

75 Spalding (1975),.p.90f 76 i.e. a custodian of the Great Seal, the emblem by which documents could be authorised without the Monarch’s signature. 77 Spalding (1975),.p. 115 78 ibid, p.130f and Comstock Weston p. 442f 79 Reeve, p. xxiv 80 Spalding, (1975), p 133f 20

would soon witness just how far away from the hub of English political life his disagreement with Cromwell would take him. In August 1653 Whitelocke was nominated by Cromwell to be the head of an embassy to Queen Christina of Sweden. Whitelocke tried to get out of it, but did not succeed, despite the fact that his wife was pregnant and left in charge of twelve children. The company set sail in early November 1653. While in Sweden, Whitelocke met frequently with the Queen, both on matters of state and during social engagements. Also, he spent time with many of the city’s scholars and dignitaries. There were very few such occasions on which he was not called upon to explain Parliament’s views or actions, even those he was not necessarily in favour of himself. Whitelocke took great pains at making sure that no other ambassador, sent by a monarchy, took precedence over him in any circumstance. In January 1654, the news of Cromwell’s appointment as Lord Protector reached a bewildered Whitelocke. He hastened to reassure Christina that nothing had changed in regards to the treaty, but the Queen, already informed in the matter, had taken the news as good tidings. This must no doubt have been reassuring to Whitelocke. However, the fact that he had been made to hear the news from a Swedish source and that he had, as early as the day before defended and commended his Commonwealth’s virtue in the company of Chancellor Oxenstierna, must have smarted. Furthermore, the timing of his embassy to Sweden and indeed Cromwell’s appointment can’t have been lost upon him. Especially not since Cromwell’s oath had been taken by the two remaining Commissioners of the Great Seal.81 Whitelocke does not seem the sort of man who took looking foolish easily and especially not at the Swedish court where all eyes were on him, expecting his reaction. Although his presence was objected to by the general public, both because of events in England and because of his puritan beliefs, he was treated with great respect by Queen Christina. Only a few days before he left Sweden, he was present at the meeting of the Estates when Christina formally abdicated her throne. The political negotiations were finally concluded in April 1654 and shortly after, Whitelocke took leave of Sweden and sailed from Stockholm at the end of May.

81 Spalding, (1975), p. 172 21

After Whitelocke’s return to England he continued to be at the service of those in charge of government. When Cromwell died in 1658, it was the beginning of the end of the Protectorate. Whitelocke tried to help Cromwell’s son, who had become the new Protector, and subsequently became his Commissioner of the Great Seal in 1659. However, the Protectorate was doomed and soon lost power. While the military influence grew in Parliament Whitelocke had misgivings about the future. There being nothing else resembling government, Whitelocke decided to go along with it, despite being concerned about the heavy military representation. This way, he hoped to be able to keep its policies within the law.82 However, the political climate was changing and restoration of the monarchy was imminent. As the new Parliament assembled in 1659 Whitelocke started to fear for his life and went into hiding with some royalist friends. It was a dangerous time for anybody, but especially for someone as involved as Whitelocke had been. Finally, with the help of friends, he was included in the act of Oblivion and Pardon, and the reinstated monarch told him not to trouble himself with politics any more. Instead, he should go into the country and spend time with his family.83 Whitelocke took the hint. When it appeared as if the type of government he had most wished for finally was forming, Whitelocke found himself excluded. Although he continued writing and giving legal advice until the very last year of his life, he had drifted into obscurity and died during the late summer 1675, aged seventy.

The Aims of the Embassy A number of embassies were issued within the first two years of Parliament’s rule, of which none where considered successful. Two ambassadors were killed while abroad, one in Holland in 1649 and one in Spain in 1650, both brutally murdered by royalist

82 Spalding (1975),.p. 217 83 ibid. p.228 22

agents.84 Despite this setback, Cromwell had in mind a greater cooperation between the Protestant nations in Europe.85 The embassy to Sweden 1653-1654, had as its official objective to deal with some issues of a more practical kind between the two maritime powers. It was important to resolve some reciprocal trading privileges as well as settle the compensation for the Swedish ships that had suffered English piracy, to establish the fishing rights off the coast of England and Scotland and other issues of the same ilk, which had previously been brought up by Swedish envoys to England. 86 Besides this, it was to establish a closer alliance between the two countries, in order to ensure that the Sound was kept open for trade. The Danes were keeping it closed by force and Whitelocke was instructed to advice Christina and her ministers that England was prepared to offer assistance by power of their fleet, if it should be necessary, to ensure that this was achieved. These were the official and practical objectives given to Whitelocke before he left. An agreement was reached on most of the smaller issues while Whitelocke remained in Sweden, but the greater question of the closer alliance was only partly dealt with. As so often happened, the precise nature and closer particulars of the alliance was left to future negotiations.87 However, as previously mentioned, the official and practical objectives of the embassy do not tell the whole story. It would seem that Cromwell took a personal interest in the Swedish embassy. 88 He had for some time desired a unified Protestant Europe and had worked at the foreign relations with the Netherlands, to no avail.89 Cromwell had to look elsewhere for allies. Sweden, whose former King Gustav Adolf had been the famous protector of the Protestant cause in Europe, seemed the obvious choice. Whether Whitelocke was sounding out the ripeness of the climate for such an alliance, we do not know. John Dury, the Scottish ecumenist, was at first invited to go with Whitelocke to

84 Spalding (1975), p.116f 85 It has been argued that this ”protestant crusade” was the main aim of Cromwell’s foreign policy. See for example Menna Prestwich, “Diplomacy and Trade in the Protectorate”, The Journal of Modern History Vol. 22, No.2 , June 1950, pages 103-121 passim 86 Michael Roberts, Swedish Diplomats at Cromwell’s Court 1655-1656. The missions of Peter Julius Coyet and Christer Bonde, London 1988, p. 7 87 ibid. p. 7f 88 Fraser, p. 444 89 Steven, C.A., Pincus, Protestantism and Patriotism. Ideologies and the Making of English Foreign Policy, 1650-1668, Cambridge 1996, p. 27 23

Sweden as his secretary, but declined the offer due to ill health.90 Whitelocke was not impressed with the religious customs in Sweden, despite the orthodoxy of the Swedish church.91 If he was indeed gathering information regarding a possibility of an ecumenical union, he would not have had much good news to report back. The final and most important objective of the embassy, however, was the acknowledgement of the Commonwealth as a great actor on the European scene. By the acceptance of an ambassador, Sweden would validate the Commonwealth as a lawful power. The treatment of Whitelocke while in Sweden would show the world whether it viewed Parliament as equal to a sovereign monarch.92 All efforts were made to make and maintain the right impression; to show the world that though the monarchy had fallen, the Commonwealth was all that the Kingdom of England had ever been and more as well. Therefore Whitelocke did not accept any slight committed against him and cracked down hard on those officials that would insinuate that he represented a “nation of tailors and cobblers” and not of gentlemen.93 That he achieved this objective, he was at least convinced of himself. At the end of the sojourn in Sweden, he was pleased to announce in an official letter to England that he has been able to change the opinion of the Swedish dignitaries in regards to the quality of the Parliament’s men. “/O/ur enemies report that none but mechanics94 are of our party; but since our being here the Swedes acknowledge the contrary.”95

90 Spalding (1990), p. 81 91 See f. ex. Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 318 p. 379 and 401f 92 William Roosen, “Early Modern Diplomatic Ceremonial: A Systems Approach”, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 52, No. 3. (Sep., 1980) p.455 93 Bulstrode Whitelocke, Journal of the Swedish Embassy II, H.Reeve (ed.), (1885) p.202 94 Used here, and in other places in the text as a synonym for working man, or commoner. 95 Whitelocke, Journal of the Swedish Embassy II, p. 131 24

III. THE JOURNAL

Though there were many new ideas abound within the learned circles of Europe, it was a completely different matter to see some of these put in to action or made to justify changes within a fixed society. As a representative for the newly founded Commonwealth of England, it seems natural that Whitelocke also was seen as a representative for the actions and the ideas behind it. After editing Whitelocke’s journal in the nineteenth century, Reeve described Whitelocke as someone”/…/ who, when challenged, may have asserted the authority of the [new] government but without ever defending the principles from which it had originated.96 Reeve seems determined to depict Whitelocke as an inconsequential politician whose main quality lie in his recording the events and glorious personages of his times. Ruth Spalding, Whitelocke’s twentieth century editor, has spent an enormous effort to piece together all the small pieces of Whitelocke’s life, and she has a differing opinion to Reeve. According to Spalding, Whitelocke was not the cowardly turncoat as Reeve would have him. Instead, she states that his outlook on life was characterised by “a creative welcome to the inevitable”, the best proof of which was in his motto “Whatever happens is best – if I make it so”. 97 It is difficult to understand where Reeve’s opinion of Whitelocke stems from. He presupposes that a person must be radical to be interesting. Seen that way, only those who stood at the breach of what was “new” seem to fill the requirements. Historian Christopher Hill would argue that new ideas often originate with the young, and that this was indeed the case of the English Revolution.98 Although no longer young and never radical in any of his beliefs, Whitelocke’s character was still influenced by the changes that had occurred in England during his lifetime. In fact, as will be seen, the journal itself testifies of the countless times when Whitelocke is forced to not only explain the underlying ideas of the new order, but to defend these against more traditional minds. It is precisely in this capacity his journal becomes so interesting for this study.

96 Reeve, p. xxxvii 97 Spalding, p.40 and 253 98 Hill, (Stockholm 1990), p. 293 25

The Obligation of the State In his introductory speech to Queen Christina, during a formal audience in December 1653, Whitelocke made his first statement as an ambassador from a “princeless nation” to a Royal Court. During this speech, held in English but translated to French by his secretary, Whitelocke drew a parallel between the earlier reign of England’s virgin queen Elizabeth I and the present reign of Christina of Sweden. He stated that the English people had been happy and content during Elizabeth’s reign because she had offered her people the justice and protection they deserved from her. Because she filled her obligation as Prince to her people, she also had their full obedience and affection. He implied that it could have continued the same way for Elizabeth’s successors had it not been for “/…/their own ill government.”99 What had been threatened to be taken away from the English through this ill government was their most treasured belongings, their “/…/ religion and just liberty.”100 As an addition to this he stated that God in his goodness had been “/…/pleased to determine for the Parliament/…/”.101 In this speech, a defence or explanation to the Royal Court of Sweden can be discerned. It was certainly intended to declare and clarify the reasons of Parliament’s actions against an anointed monarch. However, it also implies Whitelocke’s and Parliament’s stand on an important question of the time. It implies that the Monarch, in his capacity as head of state, had an obligation to the people, and that failing to satisfy this obligation, he could – and indeed had been – removed. This opinion, which is by no means uncontroversial, becomes visible in other circumstances when Whitelocke is made to explain what had been done in England. Speaking to the venerable Archbishop of Uppsala, Johannes Canuti Lenaeus, Whitelocke explained how Parliament, in their capacity as representatives of the People, decided “/…/ to admit no more kings, which they thought could never be reconciled to them, and to resolve into a republic, that they might enjoy their just rights and liberties, which had been invaded and wrested from them by their kings.”102 To Lenaeus, this must have been

99 Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 234 100 ibid. p.235 101 ibid. p.235 102 ibid. p.377 26

an interesting conversation. He had as early as 1633-1634 written four dissertations on the subject of the monarchy and the law, under the heading De Jure Regio.103 In these, he had formulated ideas regarding the obligation of a Prince, agreed to the right of a people to fight a foreign tyrant, but seemed undecided regarding domestic tyranny.104 Now, he had a chance to question a representative from a nation where many of the thoughts he had discussed in his writings had been put into action – for better and for worse. Lenaeus made a clear distinction between the theoretical analysis of a form of government and the practical application of the same on real circumstances, unlike the Parliamentarians in England.105 Whitelocke explained that Parliament

/…/ held the rights of a people more to be regarded than anything relating to a particular person; and that it is not the right of a king to govern a people, but the consent of a people that such a king shall govern them; which if he do not according to justice and their law, they hold that the people for whom and for whose good, and for the preservation of whose rights he is entrusted as the supreme office, may, if they please, remove him from that office.106

This touches upon ideas that bring to mind those phrased by Hobbes in Leviathan, published two years previous to Whitelocke’s embassy to Sweden - that the social contract is based on the state’s ability to ensure the safety of its citizens against political anarchy.107 This was by no means a theory which Hobbes picked out of thin air, but rather a refinement of thoughts that were rife in England during the first few years after the end of the Civil War.108 Despite the fact that Parliament declared itself to be ruling as “representatives of the people” through the House of Commons, the reality was that it was representing only the part of the population who agreed with their principles. However, after the war had ended, all of the English population were supposed to adhere to their rule, whatever their original loyalty had been placed. Those in opposition would hardly be persuaded that the new order rested on their consent to it.109 It was inherent in

103 Runeby, p. 212 104 ibid., p. 214 105 ibid., p. 215 106 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.377f (my italics) 107 Although, to Hobbes, “the people” could not rise up against their ruler, the way it had happened in England. Their entire coming together in a state depended on their submission under a ruler. But as individuals it was possible to rise up against a monarch who did not fill his part of the contract. See Richard Tuck’s “Introduction” to Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, (1651), Cambridge 1991, xix- xx 108 Fraser, p. 414 109 ibid. 27

the idea of consent that once it had been contested it could be contested again and again ad infinitum. To rest a claim on such loose foundations only worked for as long as it wasn’t challenged. In England, it became necessary to work out a better explanation and justification of why the people should adhere to the rules of a Commonwealth they may not agree with. The obligation of the state to ensure its citizens safety and best interest began to circulate in the beginning of the 1650’s in the newspapers and political periodicals that were at hand. 110 According to St Paul to the Romans every power in authority ought to be given obedience, as power can only be ordained by God.111 Knowing the importance of religion to those in power in England, the Archbishop pointed out the many precepts of kingship in Holy Scripture. In response to this, Whitelocke argued that the precepts in the Bible did not necessarily only apply to kings, but to all those in power, and that there were equally passages in Samuel where the interpretation of the text could signify arguments against monarchy.112 One must presume that the Archbishop would have been more than able to take this discussion further with Whitelocke, considering the extensive work he had done on the particular subject, but at this time they ventured no further in the discussion. That a jurist and a theologian would endeavor into a discussion regarding these issues, seemingly on equal terms, may seem odd to our twentieth century minds. Nevertheless, this was by no means an anomaly during the Seventeenth century. 113 More so, Archbishop Lenaeus had periodically filled a central role in Swedish politics. 114 Whitelocke pointed out that it had “/…/pleased the Lord to own the Parliament and our Commonwealth in a strange series of His providences, judging on our side in all our appeals to Him in the day of battle/…/”115 It would seem that once again he would use this as a final argument for the righteousness of Parliament’s cause. However, he did not judge monarchy to be neither unlawful, nor ungodly. Rather he believed that Princes “/…/ should be nursing-fathers/…/ to their people and look out for their best interest and

110 Fraser, p. 414f 111 Romans 13. 2-3 112 Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 378 113 Ditlev Tamm, ”Om ret og religion i 1600-talet”, from 1600-talets ansikte, (eds. Sten Åke Nilsson & Margareta Ramsey) Nyhamnsläge 1997, p.112 and 119 114 Runeby, p. 212ff 115 Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 376 28

protection at all times.116 This was a sentiment both jurist and theologian agreed on.117 Charles had been anything but such a father to his people and therefore Whitelocke argued that “/…/the representatives of the people judged the government of a free State to be at that time the best for them.”118 The idea that different forms of government may be conducive to the wellbeing of a nation at different times was not alien to Archbishop Lenaeus.119 However, it is probably safe to argue that he might not have been meaning such an abrupt change as that which had been the case in England.

The Power of the People In Reeves opinion Whitelocke was a politician who”/…/never disguised his preference for the Monarchy/…/” 120 Reeve seems convinced that Whitelocke remained a royalist at heart. Spalding makes no pretence at hiding Whitelocke’s dismay at the execution of King Charles I in 1649. However, Spalding states that once the deed was done and the King had been removed not just from power but from this life, Whitelocke /…/ helped to make the necessary legal adjustments to enable government and the administration of justice to be carried on within the framework of a republic”.121 In her opinion, Whitelocke would have preferred the changes to have taken place within the constitutional framework, in a mixed monarchy.122 At the meeting in December 1651, where Cromwell supported a return to some sort of monarchical system, Whitelocke was in favour of such a scheme. Spalding states that “/h/e and other lawyers favoured mixed monarchical government, which at that date could have implied government by a king and commons rather than by king, lords and commons”.123 Worden, although not always in agreement with Spalding, in this case conceded that “Bulstrode himself was a firm devotee of parliamentary, 'limited', 'regulated', 'mixed', 'Gothic' monarchy, based on 'consent'.124

116 Whitelocke, Journal I, p 379 117 See Runeby, p. 217 118 Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 379 119 Runeby, p. 215 120 Reeve, p.xxxvii 121 Spalding (1975), p. 115 122 ibid., p. 130 123 ibid., p. 130 124 Worden, p. 132 29

That Whitelocke wasn’t against monarchical government is clear from statements in his Journal. During one of their first meetings Oxenstierna queried Whitelocke rather bluntly on whether he held a monarchical government as unlawful. Whitelocke answered that every government which was chosen by the people themselves must be considered lawful, whatever form it might take.125 In the journal he mentioned that he was born under a hereditary monarchy and had nothing against it per se.126 It would have been surprising if he did, considering the fervour with which he attempted to talk Christina out of abdicating her throne, when she confided her designs to him.127 Nevertheless, Whitelocke still argued that the right government for any nation was not necessarily monarchy but the one which the people have deemed to be the best for them.128 This is a fine sentiment indeed, but the statement leaves some question marks. In what way did Whitelocke perceive the people choosing their government? And who were “the people” in this and Whitelocke’s previous statements about the state? Does he mean the abstract “people” who consented to be ruled through the doctrine of consent, or what we have seen to be the actual and divided general public of England? In Reeve’s edition of the journal, the conversation between Oxenstierna and Whitelocke ends here and sheds no more light on the subject. However, Spalding, who has consulted the versions of the journal from the British Library, reports that there was more to it than that. “The Chancellor asked whether, since the abolition of monarchy, the nature of the government was ‘aristocratical’ or ‘democratical’. Whitelocke replied that it was ‘clearly democratical’.129 With this term one must assume that Whitelocke again is referring to choices made by “the people”. However, one must be aware that Whitelocke’s understanding of the word “democratical” differs from ours. Whitelocke’s perception of the word “democratical” would have centred on the fact that English Parlamentarism was a representational rather than an absolute or oligarchic system. The King and the House of Lords had been abolished – therefore the rule was not aristocratical. What was left was the House of Commons – traditionally seen as

125 Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 311 126 ibid. p. 330 127 ibid. p. 350f 128 Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 311 129 Spalding, (1975), p. 171 30

representing “the People” –but in this case “the People” must have meant the landed but untitled gentry. Not quite as democratical as one would have imagined, then. But of course Whitelocke’s standpoint wasn’t even that clear cut. We can get a more comprehensible view of Whitelocke’s perception of the People if we look at his explanation to Chancellor Oxenstierna with regards to the establishment of the Protectorate in England in December 1653. Oxenstierna questioned this last action, saying that it seemed to be “/…/an election by the sword and prevailing party of the nation/…/” and as such had little chance of proving durable.130 This put Whitelocke rather in a quandary. From earlier entries in his journal we see that he was at least at one point harbouring the same doubts.131 However, he had since then received further intelligence on how it had came to pass, and once again seems to pick up the pieces and make the best of a difficult situation. Whitelocke brought Oxenstierna a Latin copy of the new Constitution sent to him from England after the establishment of the Protectorate. “Is the Protector and the people bound to an observation of this instrument?”, asked Oxenstierna. “This is agreed upon” answered Whitelocke, “as to the rule of Government to oblige both the people to obey it and the Protector to govern according to it.”132 Failing the existence of a monarch’s divine right to rule, Oxenstierna wanted to know from where the power came, which was given to Parliament and later the Protector, and by which power the people of England were ordained to obey the law. Whitelocke explained that the power to appoint the Protector came from the representatives of the People; Parliament, which in their turn had relinquished the power to the Protector. This last change, he therefore argued, had been done with the salus populi in mind, in order to avoid the peace to yet again be disturbed. More so, by his understanding of the word, there had been democratic consensus.

/T/o this the officers and soldiers of the armies and navies, the magistrates of London, the principal judges of England, and divers noblemen, gentlemen and persons of quality and faithfulness to the common interest and peace of the nation did assent, and were present in a solemn meeting/…/and the people generally, by their acclamation, testified their agreement thereunto.133

130 Whitelocke, Journal I, p 329 131 ibid, p 321f 132 ibid p.328 133 ibid., p.329 31

This, to Whitelocke, meant that the representatives of all different estates had agreed to it. Officers had been present, as well as representatives of the judges, nobles, gentleman and the merchants of London. The ordinary people, who held no specific position in civil society had been made aware of the change and had not objected. Traditionally, the objection or agreement of the general public would take tangible form through crowds gathering in protests in Westminster or the lighting of bonfires, and therefore be next to impossible to disregard.134 Also, to some extent the ordinary people were represented through the presence of army officers, based on the representational nature of the New Model Army.135 Whitelocke and Oxenstierna had occasion to discuss this matter further after the abdication of the Queen in May 1654, at which point Whitelocke had been allowed to be present at the Riksdag meeting. Whitelocke had been informed that the Riksdag only discussed those points that had first been proposed to them by the Monarch. This troubled him. Oxenstierna explained that this was indeed the case and had been organised so because it was the very

/…/ ground of our quiet and of avoiding factions among us; for where a council consists of seven or eight hundred men, as our Ricksdagh [sic] doth, and they hold themselves to have an equal liberty and power, and are most of them active spirits; if every one amongst them might move and propound what he pleased according to his own fancy, there would never be an end of proposals and debates, and they would break out into several factions and the greater affairs of the kingdom retarded/…/.136

Whitelocke pointed out that, albeit good for the peace of the country, could it not be argued to be a threat to the rights and the liberty of the people? It left the people without a voice, and no chance of their interest being safeguarded, in case it would clash with the wishes of the monarch.137 Oxenstierna did not assent to this. He stated that this could have been a problem, was it not for the fact that the laws regulated the relationship and obligations between the King and the different estates and that “/…/the King can make no law nor alter and repeal any, nor impose any tax, nor compel men to go out of the

134 Hill (Stockholm 1990) p. 19 and (London 1990), p.45 135 For the representation of the New Model Army see f. ex. Parry, p. 216 or Christopher Hill, Upp och nervända världen, Stockholm 1990, p.46-51 (as mentioned on p. 18 of this study) 136 Whitelocke, Journal II, p. 278f 137 ibid, p 279 32

kingdom without the assent of the Ricksdagh [sic].”138 The people did have a voice in the Riksdag, in fact

/…/ every man’s vote and assent is included by the deputies of the Clergy, Boroughs, and Boors, which are respectively elected, and by the chiefs of the Nobility; so that all sorts of People have their share, either in person or by their deputies, in the Supreme council of the kingdom/…/.139

This answer, in one way a reminder of Whitelocke’s concept of representative democracy, sounds reasonable at first. However, Oxenstierna fails to address the one point that Whitelocke had queried – the absence of an arena where these representatives may bring up a question raised by any of those they represented. Oxenstierna simply stated that any other discussions regarding division of power would “/…/but occasion attempts of encroaching of one upon the other and bring trouble and uncertainty to both/…/.” 140 However, Whitelocke was paying attention and returned to his point.

Your laws are founded upon great reason and prudence, and in these and most other main parts and particulars of them, ours are the same in England; but a liberty of proposing anything in our Parliament belongs to every member of it.141

Oxenstierna was not pleased to have been brought back to the same point again. “That hath been a great occasion of all your troubles”, he snapped back, upon which Whitelocke wisely changed the subject.142

Supremacy of Law Another provocative aspect of the changes in England was the question of supremacy of law. To what degree the monarch was bound by the same laws as the citizen, was a question central to the Seventeenth century. The fact that the English had put their King to trial and subsequently executed him was shocking. The general public in Sweden were outraged at the impudence of these English commoners, taking it upon themselves to judge and dispose of a King. On several occasions Whitelocke was forced to deal with

138 Whitelocke, Journal II p. 279f 139 ibid. p. 280 140 ibid. p.281 141 ibid 142 ibid 33 slanderous remarks or behaviours towards him and his retinue.143 An angry mob would often gather at night in the great square outside Whitelocke’s lodgings, with their swords drawn “/…/and yelling. ‘Come out, ye English dogs, ye king-killers, base rouges!’ and the like compliments. ” 144 The journal states that his servants were often attacked when venturing out in the evenings.145 Although obviously an unsavoury affair, this was not a surprising occurrence; the same sort of behaviour had been witnessed by English envoys to other European nations a few years previous. 146 The action was challenged in more sophisticated circles as well. Chancellor Oxenstierna was concerned about the precedence which had now been set in England. Openly and before all the eyes of the world, they had overthrown their King, with no regard as to his rights as their Monarch.

How could your Parliament justify the deposing of your King, nay, the putting him to death, and that by a public trial, he being a king, what faults so ever you could charge him with? /…/ /I/n the face of all princes and of the whole world, proceeded against him as a common criminory person, as a subject rather than as a king, and took away his life in this manner, unwarrantable by any law, divine or human.147

From this statement it would certainly seem that the Chancellor objected to what had been done in England. Conflicting with this, Christopher Potley, an English Colonel resident in Stockholm 1649-1650 148, had overheard Oxenstierna saying to some friends “/…/ when they discoursed about the death of the late king, that as fare as I understand, said hee [Oxenstierna], they put away from them a great tyrant.[sic]”149 It is possible that Oxenstierna was worried about what consequences such actions would have on contemporary Europe. It seems safe to argue that he thought the English a trifle too certain of their own righteousness. In 1652, when in conversation about the Anglo-Dutch

143 See f.ex. Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 200, 202f, 429f 144 ibid.p.437 145 ibid 146 Pincus, p.29f 147 Whitelocke, Journal I, p p.327 148 Potley had previously served in the Swedish army during the thirty years war. He had returned to England and fought in the Civil War, only to be despatched to Sweden and Denmark after King Charles’s trial, to gather intelligence using his former connections with the Scandinavians. See Spalding (1990), p. 272f 149 As quoted in Runeby, p. 372 34

conflict, he had stated that it would be good if the English could be put out a little, to stop them from becoming completely insufferable.150 Considering Whitelocke’s own upbringing and the influence of contemporary thinking on the Whitelocke household, the idea of supremacy of law had not been new or alien to him. However, there is no doubt that Whitelocke had questioned and feared the intentions to try the King for High Treason in 1649, considering his refusal to take any active part in the case against Charles I. In his present circumstance, Whitelocke had no inclination to reveal his thoughts upon the matter to Oxenstierna. Neither was he willing to account for or evaluate the right- or wrongdoings of his countrymen.

I suppose you do not expect from me here, where I am under the protection of a sovereign Queen, or elsewhere, a justification of that proceeding. I had no hand in it, and those who had, by authority of the Parliament, I believe held it more justifiable to proceed in an open trial than by secret means to take his life away. Their reasons and grounds for the action concerneth themselves, and is not my present business; nor is the law the same in all countries in cases of the like nature and example.151

While in Sweden, Whitelocke never attempted to justify the execution of the English King. However, as we have seen, there is little doubt as to whether Whitelocke opposed the action. Therefore, on a personal level, the discomfort with the actual case against Charles, rather than the idea of supremacy of law itself, could be the reason for Whitelocke’s reluctance to reveal his opinions on the matter. Whether this was because he personally opposed the action or because his official capacity as ambassador prevented him to, it was probably a wise move. During Potley’s earlier stay in Sweden he had entered in to such a discussion with Queen Christina. Potley attempted to justify the insurrection in England. “/T/hey niver forsooke their king till the king forsooke them; Neither did they take up arms till the king took up arms against them, and then nature taught them to defend themselves [sic].”152 The Queen, generally with such a jovial inclination towards Cromwell’s England, snapped back at him “I can assure you -- nature niver taught them to cut off their kings head [sic]”.153 Nevertheless, whether or not Whitelocke believed Charles I to be guilty of the charges that had been made against him, is not as important to this enquiry as the fact that

150 Wetterberg (2002), p. 953 151 Whitelocke, Journal I, p p.327 152 As quoted in Runeby, p. 372 153 ibid 35

Whitelocke did believe the King to be subject to the law to the same extent as any other citizen. It is safe to argue that he does not believe in absolutism. “Without limitation in the power of a chief magistrate, it will be hard to distinguish him from a tyrant/…/”, he said in response to Oxenstierna.154

Christina and the Commonwealth To Queen Christina, on the other hand, the idea of “the people” was superfluous – she saw only the influence of one man; Oliver Cromwell. During a private meeting between Whitelocke and the Queen, she likened Cromwell to her ancestor, Gustav I Wasa. From being a private gentleman of noble parentage, he had advanced to the position as Marshal of Sweden, only to be elected for the kingship as a reward for freeing his country from the yoke of the Danes. Christina was convinced the same honour would befall Cromwell – that he would be elected to wear the crown of England. Whitelocke hastened to repudiate this. Impossible, he said. “/E/ngland is resolved into a Commonwealth; and my General hath already sufficient power and greatness as General of all their forces both by sea and land, which may content him.”155 The fact that Whitelocke was so resolute in his repudiation of this idea is surprising. We know that he spoke with Cromwell on a topic very close to this in the summer of 1653.156 The journal also testifies that Whitelocke was surrounded by people who feared the awesome power of the general and who were not afraid to tell Whitelocke so. In conversation with his trusted steward William Cooke, before leaving for Sweden, Whitelocke had asked what Cromwell really could do to him, should he refuse to go to Sweden. “What can he do? what can he not do? [Sic] Do we not all see he does what he list?/…/” was the ominous answer. 157 It seems odd therefore, that Whitelocke would have been so convinced that there were limits to Cromwell’s power and that he was not interested in the crown. In spite of this, it would seem from his journal that Whitelocke really believed the constancy of the government in England to be secured as it stood when he left.

154 Whitelocke, Journal I p.328 155 ibid., p.285 156 See this study, p.21 157 Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 28f 36

Despite Whitelocke’s assurances, Christina was not convinced. “Resolve what you will”, she said,” I believe he resolves to be king; and hardly can any power or greatness be sufficient, when the nature of man is so prone, as in these days, to all ambition.” 158 It seems ironic, that a Queen so intent on leaving her own throne would be so convinced of another’s ambition to ascend one. Christina was determined to prove that the intentions of those in power in England were not at all what they made out to be. She went as far as to saying plainly that she thought the English to be “hypocrites and dissemblers”.159 Anything besmirching the honour of the English being a sore point with Whitelocke, he did not take this very well. When Christina realized she had offended, she explained herself not to mean Whitelocke or indeed Cromwell, but rather that “/…/in England there are many who make profession of more holiness than is in them, hoping for advantage by it.”160 However, Christina only showed admiration for Cromwell himself, which only grew when she, no doubt to her delight, was proved at least partly right when news of the Protectorate reached Sweden in mid-January 1654. In conversation with a humiliated Whitelocke the Queen stated happily that she “[…] had rather have to do with one than with many” and that she now had more respect for both Whitelocke and Cromwell than she did before.161 It would seem that it annoyed the Queen of Sweden that the English persisted in calling themselves a Commonwealth and naming their leader “the Protector” of this Commonwealth. She confided in Whitelocke that the set up of the Protectorate brought her mind to the kind of settlement she believed Oxenstierna would have preferred while she was a minor, an opinion which was later repeated by another courtier.162 She couldn’t understand why the title was Protector, when the power was kingly.163 Twice during Whitelocke’s stay did she return to the question of sacred kingship; whether or not the Protector was to be anointed.164 This was an issue of more importance than one might

158 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.285f 159 ibid. p. 286 160 ibid. 161 ibid., p.314 162 ibid., p.314 and 362. Though the author of this study finds no evidence of such a preferment, rather the opposite. See Runeby, p. 211 163 Whitelocke, Journal I p.318 164 See ibid., p. 310, and Whitelocke, Journal II, p. 10 37

expect, and Whitelocke was at great pains to argue that those ambassadors in Sweden as who represented anointed Kings should not take precedence over him.165 To Christina, it must have been an important issue, as she still entertained the notion to convince Cromwell to be anointed by the Pope in Rome, a year after her abdication from the throne of Sweden.166 To Christina’s mind then, it seems the establishment of the Protectorate took England one step closer to being a monarchy again, this time under the House of Cromwell, as she had previously anticipated. To Christina’s chagrin Whitelocke continued to deny the likelihood of this. “It is the power which makes the title”, he argued, “and not the title the power/…/”167

Representative of the People Up until the news of the Protectorate reached Whitelocke, he seems to have been fairly firm in his convictions regarding the nation and the Government he was representing. As mentioned above, however, he suffered severe misgivings after the establishment of the Protectorate. In Sweden, the news had been received well. Christina had exclaimed pleasure with the new organization and even Oxenstierna, despite at first having doubts to the origins of such a decision, had more faith in the prosperity of the Commonwealth than before.168 Whitelocke seems to have been at least at first devastated and disillusioned at the news from England. His choice of words when discussing Cromwell’s actions speaks for themselves. From the very beginning Cromwell’s assuming of power is described as a “crime”169 Whitelocke mentions “Cromwell’s violent and unjust actions” and his “usurpation “in investing himself with “regal authority”.170 One may wonder whether this was one of the places in the journal where Whitelocke, for whatever reason, may have embellished the language after the Restoration. However, there is no direct evidence that point in that direction. Spalding makes no mention of this passage as being one of those where Whitelocke had “accentuated” his criticism of

165 See Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 107 and 111. 166 Peter Englund, Silvermasken. En kort biografi över drottning Christina, Stockholm 2006, p. 77 167 Whitelocke, Journal I, p 318 168 ibid. p 314 and 334 169 ibid. p 321 170ibid. p 321f 38

Cromwell’s regime. Nevertheless, even if the choice of words had been embellished at a later stage, they are not the sole argument upon which Whitelocke’s standpoint rests. In fact, it is a discussion presented as the result of a dialogue between himself and his household, which represented the intellectual journey from one standpoint to the other. Whitelocke did not have to question whether Cromwell had a right to assume power or not. He was painfully aware that there was no lawful source from which Cromwell’s power could have been derived.171 The question was rather whether continuing to act as an ambassador under this new authority meant that Whitelocke would be taking an active part of the crime itself, whether it was as unlawful as Cromwell’s own actions. This was made further difficult for Whitelocke to stomach as he was very aware that there was an Act of Parliament in effect which stated that to elevate any single person to be chief magistrate in England was high treason. To be acting under the authority of someone who had committed high treason would in the eyes of the law equally be interpreted, if government changed again, just as treasonous.172 Whitelocke, as most other Englishmen over the age of eighteen, had taken the Oath of Engagement in 1649, the promise to be to be faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as it was set up without both King and House of Lords. Now it was feared that to act upon the orders of Cromwell would be in breach of that oath.173 However he turned the arguments in his mind, he seems to have come to the same conclusions: He was sent to Sweden as a representative of Parliament, and thereby of the People, and despite the shift of Power from Parliament to Protector, he still remained a representative of the people - as power in itself must be seen as derived from them. Although Cromwell had broken the law it did not mean that anyone acting under him was acting unlawfully by default. It was Whitelocke’s opinion that “/t/o act unlawful things under a lawful power is less to be justified, than to continue to act honest and lawful things tending to the public good, though under an unlawful power/…/174 Also, if the order which he had sworn his allegiance to no longer existed from the moment that the Protectorate was born, there was no longer anything to be faithful to.

171 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.321 172 ibid., p.322f 173 ibid, p.323 174 ibid., p. 322 39

/I/f a government be altered and another power in possession of it, all private men are bound to submit to the present powers, because they are ordained of God; and a former Government, the object of obedience, ceasing, the obligation to that obedience also ceaseth where the protection ceaseth: the obedience is not required but where the protection is given.175

This, to Spalding, is a very “constitutional” answer to the question.176 She is right in that Whitelocke’s thoughts are here, as always, shaped by his legal mind. However, this reaction by Whitelocke is interesting because it seems to be a mixture between his earlier belief regarding the obligation of the state and a return to traditional thinking regarding submitting to present powers because they are ordained by God. It is less likely that Whitelocke has made a complete about turn and returned to the concept of power as represented by St Paul to the Romans. Rather, this should be interpreted a more casuist approach to a situation in which his hands are more or less tied. To act upon Cromwell’s orders may be perceived at a later stage to endorse his claim to absolute power. On the other hand, Whitelocke was responsible for his retinue of a hundred people, who would, quite literally, be left out in the cold if he was not to comply with the new authority. Not to mention the fact that he felt himself to be a representative for the people of England who would not benefit from the cessation of negotiations on their behalf.

/.../W/hether the head of either people be called King or Queen or Protector, and the nation be called a commonwealth or a kingdom, yet the people’s interest is the same, and of equal force at one time or another.177

Yet again, Whitelocke’s reaction to a sudden change seems to have brought him back to the approach which seems to be characteristic for his life. When once more, God had found it right to reshuffle the cards – it was up to Whitelocke to make the best of it.

175 Whitelocke, Journal I, p 323 176 Spalding (1975), p. 172 177 Whitelocke, Journal I, p) p 331 40

Puritanism and Diversity It would seem that on the occasions when Christina got irritated with Whitelocke’s professions regarding the high minded principles of the English nation, she would quiz him on the more controversial of Puritan beliefs and the religious diversity in England.178 One of the former topics was the Puritan practice of preaching among the laypeople. By this time in England, many aspects of the church’s government were dealt with by laypeople.179 In fact, at one point, Whitelocke told an astounded Archbishop of Uppsala that they “/…/ in England had almost forgot the distinction of clergy and laity, supposing it to have been introduced by the papacy for advancement of their order.”180 Christina had heard that lay preaching was commonly practiced within the army. Whitelocke gave her a good account of how it was thought better for the soldiers in the army to preach and pray together, then to swear, debauch or pillage, as did the enemies. He acknowledged that he would at times preach to his household as the pater familias and that Cromwell and other great generals would do the same. 181 Whitelocke explained to Christina that there was still respect for priests within the Puritan belief, but that they believed that anyone who studied the Holy Scripture diligently, and was able to be of use to others, should be allowed to do so. He stated that there was not written anywhere that this should be forbidden. “/…/I/t is the opinion of many good men with us, that a long cassock with a silk girdle and a great beard do not make a learned or good preacher without gifts of the Spirit of God, and labouring in his vineyard.”182 Christina wanted to know from where the example came – why they thought it should be allowed. Why, from your own father, answered Whitelocke – one may assume with a smug smile. For was it not commonly known that the illustrious Gustav Adolf had preached to his troupes as they landed in Germany to fight for the true religion, and asked for God’s blessing on his endeavor? The very fact that God had seen right to ensure his

178 See f.ex. Whitelocke, Journal I, p. 266, 286 and 317 179 Hill (Stockholm 1990), p.79f 180 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.397 181 ibid. p.247f 182 ibid., p.248 41

success in this undertaking should be a testament of God’s acceptance of this action.183 As we have seen, this was an argument which Whitelocke would use on a number of occasions. He had used it when speaking to Archbishop Lenaeus and he used it again, in conversation with Prince Karl, later to be King Karl XI of Sweden.

/T/he enemies of the Parliament use to reproach them with hypocrisy in their profession of religion and with their preaching to their soldiers; yet that our profession is real doth appear somewhat in this, that the blessing of God hath accompanied our profession and our practice/…/.184

On another occasion Christina asked Whitelocke about the common belief that the Puritans were against dancing and the like pleasures. Whitelocke admitted that there were some among the Puritans that were against dancing and similar pastimes but that this severity was by no means shared by all.185 However, there were restrictions on Whitelocke and his retinue, which were considered too severe by some. They were forbidden to drink healths, even though doing so was the custom of the country they were visiting. This rule was regarded as necessary due to an unfortunate incident a few years earlier when an English envoy in Sweden, unaccustomed with the Swedes’ way of drinking healths, had embarrassed his nation by appearing rather too inebriated.186 This refusal to drink healths – a common custom of the Swedish society- certainly did not help in the relations with Queen Christina’s officials. This was especially seen with outrage by the Swedish Master of Ceremonies. The master argued that Whitelocke should follow the customs of the country in which he was a guest. Whitelocke, however, persevered in his refusal and in the end the matter was settled by Queen Christina.187 Whitelocke was in general shocked with the Swedish negligence of the Lord’s day- in his journal he never fails to mention any conduct unbecoming to the Protestant faith that is performed on Sundays, whether by the general public or by court and dignitaries.188 He brought this subject up with the Queen, as with the chancellor Oxenstierna and the Archbishop of Uppsala.189 It is probable that Whitelocke’s criticism on the matter

183 Whitelocke, Journal I,., p.249 184 Whitelocke, Journal II, p.265 185 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.286f 186 Spalding (1975), p.140 187 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.227 188 ibid., passim 189 ibid., p, 286f, 401f, and 443. 42

became common knowledge. Some townspeople seem to have taken offence and made it a practice to gather outside his residence on Sunday evenings and drink and curse and try to get the English in to a scrap with them.190 Whether these were the same who congregated to demonstrate their contempt at the Parliament’s actions is unknown. But there were often officers of the army present, and Whitelocke’s journal states that it was believed by many that these drunken gatherings were meant to insult Whitelocke and his faith.191 In no way does this seem to have stopped Whitelocke in continuing his quest. In conversation with Prince Karl, close to the end of his stay in Sweden, he once again made a point of telling the prince to do something about the appalling observation of the Lord’s day in Sweden and “/…/ also of that sin of excessive drinking and swearing with which the people are so much infected, and which may cause fear lest the anger of God should go forth against this nation/…/.192 The Prince answered - one must presume with a smile - that he had not heard many soldiers as of yet complain about this fear, but that he would certainly look into it. 193 Queen Christina spoke to Whitelocke at large about the considerable freedom the religious dissenters had in England at this time. Christina was concerned that these Protestant sects being allowed to grow would prove a threat to the peace of the nation. She argued that there was nothing more dangerous to “/…/ the peace of a state than the fostering of such violent incendiaries as these people are; and if they be suffered to grow and spread their opinions uncontrolled, it will be difficult to reduce them to order again.”194 Again, it is ironic that a Queen, who later would renounce the Protestant faith and declare herself a Catholic, showed so little regard for those of dissenting views. However, Whitelocke did not agree with her. First and foremost, it was his opinion that though there may be diversity within the English Protestantism, they all were the same in the fundamentals of their beliefs. More so, he thought that one of the best things which had come out of the change of Government in England was that people had been given a greater liberty in regards to religion than in previous times.195 Christina, as

190 Whitelocke, Journal I p.417, and Whitelocke, Journal II, p. 13 191 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.417 192 Whitelocke, Journal II, p. 267 193 ibid 194 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.267 195 ibid, p.266f 43

mentioned above, represented a state in which the religion had been established by the Crown. That the government of the church was a state matter rather than something ordained by God, Whitelocke was completely in agreement with. However, part of this government was to safeguard against oppression. To Whitelocke there was no oppression worse than religious persecution. He claimed that in England it was “/…/ esteemed the highest tyranny of all others to tyrannize over men’s judgements and consciences.”196 Furthermore he stated that it was believed by many of the English that it was right

/…/ for every one to be left to take care of their own soul, which concerns no one but himself, and that the magistrate ought not to confine or persecute another into his judgement for that which concerns the other only/…/. 197

In Whitelocke’s opinion it was better to leave the sects to their own devices, as these would undoubtedly wither and die by themselves. Persecuting and martyring them would only ensure the public’s continued interest, “/…/ men being apt to take in with a persecuted party/…/.198 According to Whitelocke’s journal, the Queen does not at this time challenge him on this account. Oxenstierna, however, does not completely accept such reasoning when they discuss the same topic. Oxenstierna believed that the religious diversity in England would be the root of their next troubles and told Whitelocke to bid Cromwell to take heed of this before it was too late. This kind of dangerous opinions would not rest, he warned, until they domineered. When Whitelocke repeated his arguments to leave them alone to dwindle by themselves, Oxenstierna did not profess much belief in that course of action. They would have rooted themselves too deep in society to disappear so easily. It was better, he believed, not to give them the chance to do so, by not countenancing them or give them any privileges.199 This was an opinion Oxenstierna shared with Prince Karl. The latter questioned whether the magistracy should not “/…/lead them and constrain them in the right way.”200 Whitelocke answered that it was hard for a magistrate “/…/ imperiously to command and force his brethren to

196 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.267 197 ibid 198 ibid 199 Whitelocke, Journal II, p.117 200 ibid., p. 266 44

worship God after his opinion; and it is not imaginable that he should take more care of men’s souls than they themselves, whose consciences ought to be free.”201 It would seem that Whitelocke’s belief in toleration was deeply rooted. However, there was one faith which Whitelocke considered could not be tolerated – Catholicism. This severity was, perhaps not surprisingly, questioned by Queen Christina. “Methinks that you”, she said, “who stand so much for liberty, should allow it to them, as well as to others, in toleration of them.” 202 Whitelocke’s answer was unwavering in its opinion:

Their principles are held contrary to the peace of the nation, and therefore they are not tolerated the public exercise of those principles. They hold your majesty’s profession and ours to be heretical, and a foreign power to be above you and above our government.203

It would seem therefore, that to Whitelocke there was one condition that this freedom of conscience could be tolerated. Every man in England could be left to worship and believe as he pleased “/…/ so long as the public peace is preserved, to which the law of England hath a strict regard, and whosoever, by his opinion or practice, disturbs that peace, is to be severely punished.”204 To Whitelocke, religion was indeed something between a man and his God. But Man was also part of civil society and everything he did must be according to the ordnances of such a society “/…/ /W/e expect a submission to the civil magistrate, and nothing to be done to the disturbance of our peace.”205

201 Whitelocke, Journal II, p.266 202 Whitelocke, Journal I, p.317 203 ibid., p.317f 204 ibid., p.267 205 ibid., p.318

45

III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary During the seventeenth century European thought was characterized by new theories regarding the origin and composition of the state, which appeared within the forming national states. These theories, developing in answer to practical question, had both general tendencies and local variations. It would be hard to argue that any nation was completely unaffected by these new thoughts, dealing with topics such as the division of power, supremacy of law and the relationship between the state and the individual. Nevertheless, the spreading of these theories did not affect all Europe’s nations to the same degree, or at the same time. In Sweden the political theory of the times was given serious debate within the universities, and some of the arguments were beginning to be voiced within the political arena, albeit without the sought after results. The internal struggles in the Riksdag made it weakened, and in the long run unable to withstand the pressures of a strong monarch. In England, the same theories were used to justify the abolition of the monarchy, as well as trial and execution by an anointed monarch. Despite the less radical intentions of most of Parliament’s men at the outset, one estate ended up swallowing the other two. To many of the European nations, this was shocking conduct indeed. It became important for the new regime in England to be acknowledged and to strengthen its ties with the strong nations of Europe. At this moment, an embassy ventured forth from the new Commonwealth of England to the established monarchy of Sweden. This embassy was headed by Bulstrode Whitelocke, Jurist, Puritan and Ambassador Extraordinary. As a representative for the new Commonwealth of England, in Sweden Whitelocke was also perceived as a representative for the new ideas which formed the basis for this nation’s government.

46

The purpose of this enquiry has been to look specifically at these representations in order to shed some light on Whitelocke’s political views, both practical and ideological, at the time of his embassy to Sweden. Questions have been put to the material regarding Whitelocke’s perception of the state, and how he defended the events in England which had been perceived as most controversial by the Swedes. It has been discussed in what way Whitelocke and those around him reacted to the news of yet another alteration; the establishment of the Protectorate. Whitelocke’s religion, and how large a part it played during his stay in Sweden, has been looked at, as well as to what extent Whitelocke’s representation might be viewed as a reflection of his own views, rather than that of Parliament’s. By looking at these areas, an image has taken shape of Whitelocke’s views on contemporary political theory and its very real applications within the political sphere. . Conclusions It is clear that from the very beginning of his stay in Sweden Whitelocke shows a true belief in government by Consent. To Whitelocke’s legal mind the idea of such a social contract would undoubtedly have made the most sense. But Whitelocke, as others within the political sphere of England in the mid-seventeenth century, also shows a belief that there is more than one side to the contract – that those in power have an obligation to the individual citizen, and that lacking the fulfillment of this, the citizens may remove them. Whitelocke states that the power is ultimately derived from “the People”. He also called his nation’s governance “democratical”. Initially, it was difficult to grasp his understanding of this concept. “The people” seemed to exist in abstract; the individual components of which seemed shrouded in the cloak of history. However, after looking closely at how Whitelocke describes the election of Cromwell as the protector, and bearing in mind the new organisation of government in England, a clearer picture started to evolve. “The People” spoken about, are the actual people of England, but both in their abstract and concrete form. In their abstract capacity, they are represented in the House of Commons and in their concrete form they may, and usually did, make their likes and dislikes known by demonstrating their likes and dislikes in utterly tangible ways, such as manifestations and bonfires. 47

To Whitelocke – this was democratical in two ways. Firstly, because the organisation of government was neither monarchic nor aristocratic, but rather what he believed to be representational. Secondly, because the people’s opinion always was made heard through their own channels, i.e. public manifestations. The State, in Whitelocke’s perception, was one built on public consent, where the power was ultimately derived from the people. From the reactions of the general public, as well as the questions posed by higher society, it seems clear that the most controversial issue that Whitelocke had to defend was the trial and execution of the monarch. Whitelocke’s opinions on the trial and execution of Charles I reflected more upon the charges and verdict of this trial than the actual question of supremacy of law. That Whitelocke’s legal mind saw the monarch as a subject under the law is clear and perhaps not surprising giving his profession and personal background. As we have seen Whitelocke was brought up in a household ripe with such ideas. It is therefore probable that it is the example he does not want to discuss with Oxenstierna, not the concept itself. The reluctance then also reflects Whitelocke’s capacity as ambassador, as it would have been against his instructions to speak ill of England. For Christina and Oxenstierna, it seems clear that the Protectorate came as a natural outcome of the proceedings in England. The objection Christina had to the developments in England was that, ridding themselves of a corrupt monarch, an action which had precedent in both Swedish and European history, the English had failed to put another in the rightful place. Instead the people had established a form of republic, with principles, both political and religious, that may have sounded very righteous, but that were not necessarily what they would appear to be. Oxenstierna was troubled by the inconstancy of the English Government but appears to have more faith in it following the establishment of the Protectorate, a form of Government wagging tongues proposed he himself wanted to establish during Christina’s minority. It is clear, that both Christina and Oxenstierna have more faith in a nation ruled by few, than a nation ruled by many. This leaves Whitelocke’s reactions to the new order. Perhaps Whitelocke believed that, whether or not Cromwell was in want of a crown, it could not be achieved through legal means. Without precedent it might seem impossible to bring about. However, even this argument is lacking slightly considering how speedily charges against the King, with 48

no precedent, had been manufactured in parliament. However, it does seem safe to argue that Whitelocke was genuinely surprised with Cromwell’s new position considering his determined repudiation of such a scheme to the Queen and his arguments for the constancy of English Government to Oxenstierna. It is unlikely he would have put himself in such an embarrassing position by his own choice. Most likely he did not want to believe that such a shift of power would occur in his absence. That he later defended the origins of the Protectorate to Oxenstierna does not contradict this, it was merely, once again, an important aspect of the duty he had been sent to do; to prove to the Swedes, and to Europe, the constancy and stability of the English Government. When privately wrecked with doubts on the subject, Whitelocke made a good case for bringing the assignment to completion. It seems obvious that in Whitelocke’s view, he was a representative for the source of power; the people, first, and for the executive power; the Protector, second. Therefore he chose to do what he believed to be best for his nation and continued to act in their best interest, just as he had done following the trial of the King, and which he would also do after the Restoration. In regards to religion Whitelocke was forced to represent a very diverse spectrum of Protestant views. One of the most controversial by far, was the idea of lay preaching. Whitelocke defended this idea, and played down its controversial nature. He stayed staunch in his belief that knowledge of the Bible did not necessitate the interpretations of the clergy. A man’s conscience was his own affair. Like many others within the Puritan persuasion, he was in favour of at least partial toleration, with one exception – Catholicism. That Whitelocke saw the Catholic faith as more dangerous than the small puritan sects that were gathering followers in England must have had both political and historical reasons. The previous hundred years in England had been ripe with religious tensions as the favour swung from one end to the other. This left an imprint on the society and it seems very unlikely that Whitelocke’s judgement would not have been coloured by his environment. However, and more importantly for Whitelocke, in accepting the papacy, the Catholics would put a foreign power above that of the government. Whitelocke’s reasoning shows proof that he makes a distinction between the religious and the political sphere. The legal part of his mind always dominated. The legal aspects 49 of life were a public concern, but the religious would always be private - and would therefore always have to take the backseat in matters of politics. Nevertheless, this does not mean that faith didn’t play a large role in his everyday life as well as in his personal outlook. Although far from radical in his own religious beliefs, we know that Whitelocke’s restrictive instructions and personal opinions regarding the observance of Sunday worship gave him a reputation for extreme Puritanism in Sweden. This is perhaps not surprising considering the pains he would go to in order to persuade assorted dignitaries to crack down on the laxity of religious observation. Also, it would be hard to imagine that the individualistic streak of Puritanism did not in itself have an impact on Whitelocke’s view of the state and the individual. Evidence of his religious faith is also visible in his discussions. On a number of occasions Whitelocke we have seen that Whitelocke would state that if God had let Parliament be victorious, he must have approved of their cause. He often uses similar such arguments, but generally they are only brought up at the close of the discussion. It seems an argument impossible to argue with, used to quiet a persistent opponent after Whitelocke has already used up all other avenues of persuasion. From the conversations noted down in his Journal of the Swedish Embassy, there is no question whether Whitelocke was influenced by the new ideas of the time. As a representative of the Commonwealth of England, it was Whitelocke’s duty to represent the ideals and actions of the authoritative powers. However, this does not mean that he did not agree with them. When he speaks on certain subjects, his retorts are clear and offered as truths. This is especially the case with issues such as the obligation of the state, the supremacy of law, or on the freedom of conscience. On the other hand, when queried regarding more uncomfortable issues, he offers nondescript answers, or attempt to ease his way out of the conversation. This is visible when he is queried on the king’s actual trial, his opinions on the Protectorate, and to some extent the severity of the Puritan faith. It seems fair to argue that Whitelocke is constantly aware of being a representative for Parliament. However, he is as happiest and speaks with most authority when his personal opinions and those of Parliament are the same. When they differ, he does his best not to let his personal opinions be visible, but offers no convincing arguments.

50

As we have seen, the perceptions of Whitelocke’s character among his previous editors differ on many accounts. Instead of summing up a lifetime of Whitelockian thoughts and actions and passing judgement on them, this study has looked at a smaller part of his work during a shorter period of time. Thus placing the emergent opinions in their temporal context, this study has been able to present Whitelocke’s thoughts and ideas as they were at the time he defended them, during his embassy to the strong monarchy Sweden. Though the journal was edited by Whitelocke at a later date, it seems that the alterations made are marginal. The suspicions regarding its authenticity as a contemporary document are therefore deemed worth keeping in mind, but not to let overshadow the journal´s worth as a historical document. By focusing the study on a concentrated part of Whitelocke´s left papers, one may avoid the difficulties that Whitelocke´s long career has posed to many historians. Without having to evaluate Whitelocke’s early thoughts with his later actions, one sidesteps the problem of whether his allegiance really secretly lay with the royalists, whether he was a coward turncoat, or whether he just failed to be as interesting as some of the more radical parliamentarians. One may instead look at what his political ideals actually were at the time, and how he handled both the success and the failure of their realisation. From his journal it would seem as if his talent to make the best out of every situation life threw at him, was what ultimately made him very useful to those in power. As such, he stayed close to the hub of English political power all through his career. This gives him longevity; a unique perspective, and this is what makes him stand out in an era of radical but often short-lived agitators. This study therefore concludes that the reasoning and actions presented in his Sweden journal show proof of a mindset that seems to have been characteristic for Whitelocke throughout his career, and which more than anything is reflected in his personal motto. He believed that ultimately God would do what was best for Man, but within these parameters it was the individual’s responsibility to make the best of the situation. Whatever happens is best – If I make it so. And this he did.

51

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comstock Weston, Corinne, “The Theory of Mixed Monarchy under Charles I and After”, English Historical Review Vol. 75, No. 296 (Jul., 1960). Condren, Conal, The Language of Politics in Seventeenth- Century England (London 1994). Englund, Peter, Silvermasken. En kort biografi over drottning Kristina (Stockholm 2006). Fraser, Antonia, Cromwell- Our Chief of Men (Frogmore 1975). Fries, Ellen ”Whitelockes beskickning till Sverige 1653” from Svenska kulturbilder ur 16 och 1700-talens historia. Populära föredragStockholm, 1901 Frängsmyr,Tore, Svensk Idéhistoria. Bildning och vetenskap under tusen år I (Stockholm 2000). Glete, Jan,” Politics in the Age of Christina”, in Politics and Culture in the Age of Christina, ed. Marie Louise Rodén (Stockholm 1997). Hildebrand, Bengt ”Ambassadören Bulstrode Whitelockes besök 1653-54”, Främlingar ser på Sverige. Reseberättelser från 400 år (Stockholm, 1962) . Hill, Christopher, A Nation of Change and Novelty ( London 1990). Hill, Christopher, Upp och nervända världen (Stockholm 1990). Hinton, R.W.K., ”English Constitutional Doctrines from the Fifteenth Century to the Seventeenth, English Historical Review, Vol. 75, No. 296 (Jul., 1960). Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (1651) ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge 1991). Lindroth, Sten, Svensk lärdomshistoria. Stormaktstiden, (Stockholm 1989). Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government, (1689) ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge 1988). Manning, Brian , “Puritanism and Democracy” from Puritans and Revolutionaries. Essays in Seventeenth Century History Presented to Christopher Hill, eds Donald Pennington and Keith Thomas (Oxford 1978). Nandorf, Tove “350 år av svensk-brittisk vänskap värda en skål”, Dagens Nyheter (18/4 2004). Orr, D., Alan, Treason and the State, (Cambridge 2002). Parry, Graham The Seventeenth Century. The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature 1603-1700 (London & New York 1989). Pennington, D.H., Seventeenth Century Europe (London 1970). Pincus, Steven, C.A., Protestantism and Patriotism. Ideologies and the Making of English Foreign Policy, 1650-1668 (Cambridge 1996). Prestwhich, Menna, “Diplomacy and Trade in the Protectorate”, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Jun., 1950). Roberts, Michael, Swedish Diplomats at Cromwell’s Court 1655-1656. The missions of Peter Julius Coyet and Christer Bonde (London 1988). Rodén, Marie Louise & Harrison, Dick, Tusen år i Europa, 1600-1800 (Lund 2001). Roosen, William, “Early Modern Diplomatic Ceremonial: A Systems Approach”, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 52, No. 3. (Sep., 1980). Runeby, Nils, Monarchia Mixta. Maktfördelningsdebatt i Sverige under den tidigare Stormaktstiden (Uppsala 1962). Ryding, Lars “Fredsavtal med England gäller ännu efter 350 år”, Svenska Dagbladet (28/3 2004). 52

Seaton, Ethel, Literary Relations of England and Scandinavia (Oxford 1935). Skinner, Quentin, “Menaing and understanding in the history of ideas” from Meaning and context: Quentin Skinner and his critics, ed. J. Tully (Cambridge 1988). Spalding Ruth, Contemporaries of Bulstrode Whitelocke1605-1675 (Oxford 1990). Spalding, Ruth, The Improbable Puritan (London 1975). Stolpe, Sven, Drottning Kristina, Stockholm (1960) (Stockholm1982). Tamm, Ditlev, ”Om ret og religion i 1600-talet”, from 1600-talets ansikte, eds. Sten Åke Nilsson & Margareta Ramsey (Nyhamnsläge 1997). Wetterberg, Gunnar, “ Handelsavtalet med England före sin tid”, Svenska Dagbladet (28/4 2004). Wetterberg, Gunnar, Kanslern. Axel Oxenstierna i sin tid (Stockholm 2002). Whitelocke Bulstrode, Journal of the Swedish Embassy, I & II, ed. H. Reeve (London 1885). Whitelocke, James, Liber Famelicus of Sir James Whitelocke, (1858) ed. John Bruce (London 1968). Worden, Blair, “Review Article. The ‘Diary’ of Bulstrode Whitelocke”, English Historical Review, Vol. 108, No. 426 (Jan., 1993).

The Holy Bible, (Oxford, s.a.)