CHAPTER VII.
Second Protectorate Parliament.
England could not exist long without Parliaments. The Major-Generals had become intolerable. Sir Harry Vane and others, in their call for another of the old constitutional assemblies of the land, only expressed the deeply-seated desire of the nation. The Protector, therefore, made a further attempt to govern in the ancient fashion; and for that end writs were sealed and sent out in the month of July. After the corn had been garnered, while still the reaper's sickle in some parts was flashing amidst the wheat, the country was astir with elections, and citizens and yeomen were rushing to the poll. Cromwell and his supporters looked on with no little apprehension, finding so much of disaffection to the Protectorate. Cavaliers and Presbyterians could not be trusted. Anabaptists and Republicans, too, were objects of fear. When the elections were over, the following letter, which explains itself, was written to the Protector:—[126]
1656, August.
"May it please your Highness,—After the election was over at Maidstone, many of the Commissioners for securing the peace of the county met, and upon consideration had of affairs (having seen such a sad spirit appearing in the county against what good soever your Highness and those under your commands have endeavoured to do, most of the Cavaliers falling in with the Presbyterians against all those persons that owned your Highness and present Government; and finding in the generality of the county such a bitter spirit against Swordsmen, Decimators, Courtiers, &c., as did appear in the field at the time of election, the most of those that are chosen to sit in the ensuing Parliament being of the same spirit,) were full of fears what the consequence of this meeting might be; and would have wrote to your Highness at present, but that there was not a full meeting, and therefore referred it to me to give your Highness an account of what was upon their hearts;—which was that if there was not a restraint upon them, they had cause to fear they would put all into blood and confusion, their party giving out they would down with the Major-Generals, and Decimators, and the new militia, so that they do apprehend it good for your Highness to consider beforehand what is fit to be done. And therefore they think it necessary to appoint some persons that shall have commissions dormant to some gentlemen, that the honest party may know to whom to repair, and to that end, at their next meeting, shall present you with names accordingly. They think a recognition, as it may be penned, may keep some that are most dangerous out, and better that they be kept out at first, than afterwards your Highness be forced to turn them out. They think it will be your wisdom not to suffer them to meddle with the instrument of Government, but all that go into the House be engaged to own it as it is, and not to meddle with altering any part of it, without your Highness's consent. As also not to meddle with what hath been done out of necessity by your Highness and Council, in order to the peace and safety of the nation. Their hearts are with your Highness to stand by you with their lives and fortunes, they finding such a perverseness in the spirits of those that are chosen, that, without resolution of spirit in your Highness and Council to maintain the interests of God's people (which is to be preferred before a thousand Parliaments) against all opposition whatsoever, we shall return again to our Egyptian taskmasters. And therefore do earnestly beg that the Lord would direct your heart what to do in this juncture of affairs. And if Parliaments will not do it, then to take such to your assistance as will stand by you in that work, which God hath begun, and will yet undoubtedly own and carry on, maugre all His enemies; and we judge it better to persist in the work of the Lord than now we have put our hands to the plough to look back. And although the murmurings and discontents of God's people, together with all our unsuitable walkings under those precious enjoyments we have from the Lord, may provoke Him to leave us to be overcome by our enemies, and cause us to hang our harps upon the willows, and cause the enemy to call for one of the songs of Sion in a strange land; yet, if the Lord shall take pleasure in us, He will cause His face to shine upon us, and carry us well through the seas of blood that are threatened against us, and the waste howling wilderness of our straits and difficulties, and at length bring us to that blessed haven of reformation, endeavoured by us, and cause all our troubles and disquiet to end in a happy rest and peace—when all His people shall be one, and His name one in all your dominions, which is and shall be the daily prayers of, my Lord, your Highness's most humble and obedient servant to his power,
"Thos. Kelsey.
"Chatham, 26th August, 1656."
1656, September.
This advice was adopted, and between one and two hundred of the persons returned were refused their seats because of their disaffection to the Protectorate Government.
Cromwell's Speech.
The second Protectorate Parliament met on the 17th of September, 1656. Sir Harry Vane, now a prisoner, had been proposed in three places, but had been elected in none. Haselrig had succeeded in securing his return, but for a time he did not take his seat. After Dr. Owen had preached at Westminster Abbey from the words in Isaiah xiv. 32—"What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation? That the Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it,"—adjourning to the Painted Chamber, Cromwell stood up, took off his hat, and discoursed characteristically upon the Spaniards and Papists, and the Cavaliers—upon the late rising—the levellers and the Fifth Monarchy men—and also upon the Major-Generals. Then he turned to the subject of religion. His practice since the last Parliament, he said, had been to grant liberty to all who continued quiet and peaceable. He was against such liberty of conscience as might be repugnant to this. Let Baptists, Independents, and Presbyterians be countenanced as long as they were thankful to God, and made use of their liberty—not to interfere with others, but "to enjoy their own consciences." Men who believed in free justification by the blood of Jesus, and lived upon the grace of God, claimed freedom as a debt due to God and to Christ; and God would require it, if such Christians did not enjoy what they claimed. But his Highness declared he would not suffer one Christian to trample on the heels of another, or to revile, reproach, or provoke him. He prayed that God would give hearts and spirits to keep things equal, for striving after which he had "some boxes on the ear." Even Presbyterians, at last, were beginning to see the justice of his course, and petitions from them in certain counties shewed how they did but desire liberty, and would "not strain themselves beyond their own line." The Protector touched on another topic. For his own part, he should think himself very treacherous if he took away tithes till he could see the legislative power settle the maintenance of ministers in another way. To destroy tithes was to cut ministers' throats. Tithes, or some other public maintenance, formed "the root of visible profession." He had also a word of favour for his Commission of Triers and "Expurgators." They had a great esteem for learning; but "neither Mr. Parson, nor Doctor in the University, hath been reckoned stamp enough by those that made these approbations." Grace must go with and sanctify learning. He believed, he said, that God had "a very great seed" in the youth then in the Universities, who, instead of studying books only, studied their own hearts. "It was never so upon the thriving hand" as at that day. Touching upon religion generally, the speaker added that the Cavalier interest had been one of disorder and wickedness; that fifteen or seventeen years before it had been a shame to be a Christian. A badge then was put upon the holy profession. But a blessed change had come, and now—since people esteemed it a shame to be bold in sin and profaneness—God would bless them.[127]
The second Protectorate Parliament walked in the steps of the first, as it regarded the suppression of error and of fanaticism by legal penalties. The month of December saw the new senators at Westminster plunging into discussions upon the case of James Naylor.
Case of James Naylor.
Lord President Laurence[128] and a few others were disposed to interpret the views of this notorious person as merely the extravagances of a mystical temperament; but most of the members, horror-stricken at his conduct, pronounced it utterly intolerable, and declared that it deserved the severest chastisement from the magistrate. Mr. Samuel Bedford[129] expressed his joy at finding that so many had adopted such an opinion; for the nation's eyes were fixed upon them to see what they would do for the cause of God; and he would not have them lay down the business unfinished, but sit day and night until it was perfected. Lord Lambert[130]—after alluding to the unhappy man as having been unblameable in life, and a member of "a very sweet society of an Independent Church"—intimated his own readiness to punish the accused, should he be proved guilty of blasphemy; only, not being hurried away by passion, like some honourable members, he wished the subject to be referred to a committee, that nothing might be done irregularly and in haste. Major Edward Desborough,[131] though he did not speak with a view of mitigating Naylor's offence, pointed out the fact that the people who encouraged him and paid him homage were, in one sense, worse than he. Some members would immediately have sent this delinquent to the gallows; and at length the poor man actually was doomed to be repeatedly whipped, set in the pillory, branded with red-hot irons, and kept in prison with hard labour during the pleasure of Parliament.[132] Even the Lord Protector said he would not tolerate such offenders in his dominions.
1656, December.
At the time when this debate was carried on—touching as it did the question whether Government has a right to take cognizance of purely religious offences—the Protector wrote two very significant letters, which are here introduced in further illustration of his religious policy. One was addressed to the municipal authorities of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, with reference to some fears which the Independents, who were the predominant party in the town, had expressed, in consequence of his Highness's encouragement of the Presbyterians in that neighbourhood. After an explanation of the circumstance, he proceeds:—
Cromwell's Letters.
"I, or rather the Lord, require of you that you walk in all peaceableness and gentleness, inoffensiveness, truth, and love towards them, as becomes the servants and Churches of Christ—knowing well that Jesus Christ, of whose diocese both they and you are, expects it; who, when He comes to gather His people and to make Himself 'a name and praise amongst all the people of the earth,' He 'will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out, and will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.' And such 'lame ones' and 'driven-out ones' were not the Independents only, and Presbyterians, a few years since, by the Popish and prelatical party in these nations; but such are and have been the Protestants in all lands, persecuted and faring alike with you, in all the reformed Churches. And therefore, knowing your charity to be as large as all the flock of Christ who are of the same hope and faith of the Gospel with you, I thought fit to commend these few words to you, being well assured it is written in your heart, so to do with this, that I shall stand by you in the maintaining of all your just privileges to the uttermost."[133] The Christian spirit which breathes through this epistle commands our sympathy and admiration. Every line testifies to that gentle love for all the true disciples of Jesus Christ—which grew like a tender flower, which gushed like a limpid stream, for the refreshment of his friends, out of the depths of a strong and rugged nature such as made Cromwell a terror to his enemies.
The other noticeable letter despatched from his Highness's Cabinet about the same time, was intended for no other hands than those of the renowned Cardinal Mazarin, the prime minister of France—in answer to his Eminence's request for the toleration of Catholics in England.
1656, December.
"The obligations, and many instances of affection," says Cromwell, "which I have received from your Eminency, do engage me to make returns suitable to your merits. But although I have this set home upon my spirit, I may not (shall I tell you I cannot?) at this juncture of time, and as the face of my affairs now stands, answer to your call for toleration (of Catholics here). I say I cannot, as to a public declaration of my sense in that point; although I believe that under my Government your Eminency, in the behalf of Catholics, has less reason for complaint as to rigour upon men's consciences than under the Parliament. For I have of some, and those very many, had compassion, making a difference. Truly I have (and I may speak it with cheerfulness in the presence of God, who is a witness within me to the truth of what I affirm) made a difference; and, as Jude speaks, 'plucked many out of the fire'—the raging fire of persecution, which did tyrannize over their consciences, and encroached by an arbitrariness of power upon their estates. And herein it is my purpose, as soon as I can remove impediments, and some weights that press me down, to make a farther progress, and discharge my promise to your Eminency in relation to that."[134] Cromwell did what many rulers do. Without having an intolerant law repealed, he relaxed its execution. The time was not ripe for perfect religious liberty. Cromwell understood its broad principles better than Mazarin; but it was not given to the Protector, as it has been to his posterity, to see the entire breadth of their practical application. The letter shews some respect for the consciences of Catholics; but it indicates, in the way of conceding liberty to that class of religionists, difficulties over which at the time the writer had no control. Evidently he was prepared to advance rather than recede in his liberal treatment of a class of persons who, by the common consent of almost all Protestants, were excluded from the enjoyment of the political privileges of citizenship.
Extempore Preaching.
In those days of tardy intercourse with the Continent, this last letter had scarcely reached its destination when the gossips of London were all astir with reports relative to Cromwell's escape from a great personal danger. A story gained circulation, to the effect, that a hole had been cut in the backdoor of Whitehall chapel, and that a basket of pitch, tar, and gunpowder had been placed there, with a lighted match hung over it, in order to blow up both the palace and the Protector. A resolution of the Parliament to keep a day of thanksgiving followed the discovery of this design—known in history as Sindercombe's plot—whereupon a curious debate ensued upon the question, as to who should preach the sermon for improving the event. Alderman Foot, member for the city of London, proposed that Dr. Reynolds should perform the office; when exceptions were taken to the "low voice" of that eminent Presbyterian Divine. The same complaint was urged with regard to Mr. Caryl, the Independent. "It is strange we should not hear as well now as we did fourteen years ago," observed Lord Strickland—one of his Highness's Council, and member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne—to which Mr. Robinson, who represented Yorkshire, added the remark—"Ministers tell us our faults. It is fit we should tell them theirs. Their reading of sermons makes their voice lower. I doubt we are going to the episcopal way of reading prayers, too." Another member moved that Mr. Matthew Mead, minister of Stepney, might be selected as one of the preachers: and he expressed an earnest hope that charity might be more manifest on the occasion than it had been when a fast was last observed by the Houses, for then "nothing was given at the door to the poor." From observations advanced in the course of this amusing debate, it appears that reading discourses had begun to be somewhat fashionable amongst the English pulpit orators of the Puritan period; it was, however, otherwise in Scotland, memoriter delivery being the practice there; and hence, Lord Cochrane of Dundonald, who sat for Aire and Renfrew, suggested his fellow-countryman, Mr. Galaspy, of the Scotch kirk, as a minister peculiarly fitted to edify the House by his ministrations, because he was not accustomed to read his discourses. The honourable member raised a laugh by saying "something of an evil man who read his sermons."[135]
1657, March.
The New Constitution.
In the month of March, there were debates in the House respecting the new Magna Charta of England, contained in the document first called, "The humble Address and Remonstrance of the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses now assembled in Parliament;" but afterwards still more modestly entitled, "The humble Petition and Advice."[136] A blank had been left for the name of the chief magistrate. Was it to be the title of King or Protector? Major-General Ludlow called this new programme of the Commonwealth a shoe fitted to the foot of a monarch; yet it might be worn, he said, and walked in, by one bearing a less pretentious appellation. For weeks there were, on this weighty question, discussions in St. Stephen's, with conferences and speeches at Whitehall, ending, as every one knows, in Cromwell's refusal of the English Crown.[137] That unique episode in our national history does not come within the scope of our narrative, but the Petition and Advice, in which the proposal of kingship appeared, requires consideration under its ecclesiastical and religious aspects. The framers of the new Charter had their eye upon the Instrument of December, 1653. Like the Constitution it was to supersede, it disqualified Papists for political rule, and for all exercise of the franchise. Members of Parliament and of the Council of State were still required to be men of integrity, fearing God. All acts and orders for the abolition of Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, and for the sale of cathedral property, were distinctly confirmed in both schemes of government; and, as a fundamental principle in each, it was laid down that the Christian religion, as contained in the Scriptures, should be held forth as the public profession of the country. But, on comparing the long Article, number xi., in the Humble Petition, with the corresponding Articles of 1653, numbered xxxv., xxxvi., and xxxvii.,[138] we discover some not altogether unimportant differences. The Article xxxv. of the first Instrument speaks of a contemplated provision for ministerial maintenance, less subject to scruple and contention, and more certain than the present—meaning tithes. Not a word appears on this subject in No. xi. of the Petition. A Confession of Faith to be agreed upon by his Highness and the Parliament is desired in the Petition and Advice, but nothing of the kind had been mentioned in the Articles. Moreover, in the Petition and Advice it is distinctly said:—"That none may be suffered or permitted by opprobrious words, or writing maliciously or contemptuously to revile or reproach the Confession of Faith to be agreed upon as aforesaid"—a provision to which nothing similar can be found in the Articles. Also, in the earlier case, liberty was conceded to all persons who professed faith in God by Jesus Christ, so that they did not abuse their freedom to the injury of others; but in the later scheme of government, an enumeration is attempted of primary articles of belief necessary to be held as a condition of toleration. Freedom is limited to those who "profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, His eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, God, co-equal with the Father and the Son, one God blessed for ever; and do acknowledge the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the revealed will and word of God; and shall in other things differ in doctrine, worship, or discipline from the public profession held forth." The determination to draw a broad and distinct line between clergy and laity—which was expressed in the resolutions of the first Protectorate Parliament, when the Articles of 1653 came under discussion—is decidedly taken up by this second Parliament, and incorporated in their Advice.
1657, May.
Cromwell's Speech.
This comparison of the two Charters indicates a revived spirit of ecclesiastical conservatism at the period when the second of them was prepared, and seems to point to a strong Presbyterian element in this second Protectorate Parliament. The exclusion of members with republican predilections from seats in St. Stephen's left the Presbyterians more at liberty to carry out their own plan of religious policy; and it is a fact, that at the same time, they derived encouragement from the conciliatory conduct then, and for some little while before, manifested toward them by the Lord Protector. Cromwell accepted the Petition and Advice, "hugely taken," as he says, with the word "settlement—both with the thing and the notion"—it being the haven into which he had long sought, in a night of storms, to bring the vessel of Church and State. But, in a speech on the 21st of April, he could not help animadverting on debates in Parliament respecting the civil disqualification of public preachers. "I must say to you," he observed, "in behalf of our army—in the next place to their fighting—they have been very good 'preachers,' and I should be sorry they should be excluded from serving the Commonwealth because they have been accustomed to 'preach' to their troops, companies, and regiments—which I think has been one of the blessings upon them, to the carrying on of the great work. I think you do not mean so 'that they should be excluded' but I tender it to you, that if you think fit there may be a consideration had of it. There may be some of us, it may be, who have been a little guilty of that, (the Lord Protector no doubt here thought of himself), who would be loth to be excluded from sitting in Parliament 'on account of it!'"[139]
1657, April.
Cromwell, in the same speech, could not but cast a glance of approval at the proceedings of the Commission of Triers, of whom, however, the Advice says nothing. "We have settled very much of the business of the ministry," observes his Highness. "If I have anything to rejoice in before the Lord in this world, as having done any good or service, it is this;" "there hath not been such a service to England since the Christian religion was perfect in England!" "We did not trust upon doing what we did virtute Instituti, as if these Triers were jure Divino, but as a civil good. We knew not, and know not better, how to keep the ministry good, and to augment it in goodness, than by putting such men to be Triers: men of known integrity and piety, orthodox men, and faithful." Then—with a decided nod of favour in reference to that part of the petition—he looked at No. xi. on the document, which he held in his hand—where it was written that those ministers who should agree in doctrine, though not in discipline, with the public profession, should be eligible for trust and promotion in the ecclesiastical establishment of England. After glancing obliquely at strifes of opinion—with frowns of displeasure such as we can imagine overcasting his huge eyebrows—he afterwards turned with radiant smiles to recognize so much as existed of his own comprehensive church in this new settlement of affairs. "Here are three sorts of godly men whom you are to take care for, whom you have provided for in your settlement. And how could you put the selection upon the Presbyterians, without, by possibility, excluding all those Anabaptists, all those Independents? And so now you have put it into this way, that though a man be of any of those three judgments, if he have the root of the matter in him, he may be admitted."[140]
Comprehensiveness of Cromwell's Views.
The provisions for a more minute Confession of faith had received special notice from the Protector at one of the earlier interviews which he had with a committee of Parliament, respecting the knotty points of their advice. He said they had been zealous for the two greatest concernments God hath in the world—religion and liberty. "To give them all due and just liberty, and to assert the truth of God:" this was the point. "And as to the liberty of men professing godliness, you have done that which was never done before. And I pray it may not fall upon the people of God as a fault in them, in any sort of them, if they do not put such a value upon this that is now done as never was put on anything since Christ's time, for such a catholic interest of the people of God." Then touching on the subject of civil liberty, the Protector added: "Upon these two interests, if God shall account me worthy, I shall live and die."[141]
1657.
It need scarcely be remarked, that contemplated in the light of the nineteenth century, the restriction of what is called religious toleration within such bounds as were specified in the new Articles of Government must appear very partial and narrow. But judged according to previous legislation—compared with the Presbyterian polity of ten years before; with the prelatical persecutions of Charles, James, and Elizabeth's reign; with the papal cruelties of Queen Mary; and with the capricious despotism of Henry VIII.—the measure of liberty now conceded must be pronounced to be very liberal. Also, when compared with other European countries at the same period, or just before, England under Cromwell is seen to immense advantage; for Spain, Portugal, and Italy prohibited all forms of religion except the Roman Catholic; in France and in Germany the Protestant churches fought rather for their own existence than for any principles of freedom applicable to differing sects; Holland enforced the decrees of the Synod of Dort;[142] Denmark, Sweden,[143] and Norway allowed nothing but a rigid Lutheranism: and Geneva was intolerantly Calvinistic. Moreover, as in point of liberty outside the Establishment the Protectorate proceeded far beyond contemporary European powers, so also did the comprehensiveness of Cromwell's establishment surpass every other which existed in his day. One class of Protestant Christians only had been aforetime in England, or was at this time abroad, allowed by the State incorporation and support; but the Protector conceded these privileges to Presbyterians, to Independents, and to Baptists, in common. In several cases also he winked at the occupancy of parish pulpits even by Episcopal clergymen.
Liberal Opinions.
Of toleration and of comprehension there was very much more than there had been in England, or than could be found at the same time elsewhere; but both toleration and comprehension had respect to different forms of polity, worship, and discipline, rather than to different phases of doctrinal sentiment. Liberty was conceded to various parties so long as they were orthodox and evangelical. But when teachers lapsed into what Puritans believed to be error, when they lost their sympathy in what Puritans believed to be Christian experience, they became at once objects of suspicion and dislike to the Government, and ran the risk of being deprived and silenced. There was freedom of speech, if not State support, for all who were esteemed true and faithful servants of Christ, in spite of their peculiar principles and usages. But toleration belonged to them only as saints, not as subjects. Liberty was counted a religious privilege, not a social right. The grounds of toleration rested upon by Government, however they might appear in the speculations of individual thinkers, were not of the same breadth and of the same strength as they are in the present day. But if there was less of liberty than some admirers of the Commonwealth imagine, there was vastly more of order in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs than those who dislike Cromwell and his Government are disposed to admit. What has been already advanced in these pages serves to shew that things were not left to be shaped by chance; that a definite system of policy was framed; that there was a defined establishment based on law; that liberty was fenced round by distinct lines; and we may now remark, in conclusion, on this subject, that Council books, and other documents in the State Paper Office, prove that the ecclesiastical and other departments of the State, throughout an imagined reign of confusion, were really administered with singular and unprecedented regularity.
1657, April.
Before the business of the Petition and Advice had brought to a close, there were certain other matters been settled by Parliament. Upon a resolution coming before the House to approve of the ordinance of March the 30th, 1653, which appointed Commissioners for approbation of public preachers, with the proviso that those nominated in the intervals of Parliament should be sanctioned by Parliament, Mr. Bodurda, member for Beaumaris, claimed that a minister finding himself aggrieved should "have the benefit of the law;" and went on to say that it was mischievous to entrust commissioners with the power of determining in such cases, without affording any legal remedy for injustice. Sir John Reynolds, an Irish member, replied, that to adopt this suggestion would be to pluck up by the roots a design which had proved itself already a good tree by the fruits which it had borne. Delinquents, he urged, might claim as their inheritance what they had forfeited, and obtain a writ of quare impedit; whereupon the new ecclesiastical polity would fall to the ground. The Ordinance for ejecting ministers came also under consideration the very same day, when some members, as might be expected, complained of irregularity, injustice, and extravagance, chargeable upon the Commissioners. On the other hand, it was contended that though many irreligious Clergymen had been expelled, there were more who desired to be so. Some Counties had not passed through any expurgation. Hence it was "resolved that the Ordinances for the ejection of scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters" should remain in force for three years, unless the Parliament should take further notice of the subject in the mean time.[144]
Tithes.
Upon a debate in the month of May, respecting the administration of oaths to recusants, with a view to their detection, sentiments found expression far above the current opinion of those days. It was against the laws of Englishmen to impose such oaths on Roman Catholics—said Captain Baines, member for Appleby. Colonel Briscoe—who had been returned for Cumberland—maintained the same opinion, adding that such an imposition was a revival of the ex officio oath; that it was inconsistent with the liberty of conscience which then existed, and which, according to the Lord Protector, had never existed before since Christ's time; and that it would fall most heavily upon conscientious persons, whereas to others it would only be like "drinking another glass of sack." In the course of this same discussion, complaints were uttered, to the effect that Papists increased, and that it was difficult to get a jury to convict them: after which Mr. Butler, member for Poole, declared that in one or two parishes they had multiplied "one hundred in a year;" and he thought he might say that he himself had convicted some hundreds.[145]
The old difficulty, how to make people pay their tithes—not yet overcome by all the legislation on the subject in the years 1647 and 1648—presented itself to this Parliament. Cromwell's Council books afford numerous instances of ministerial complaints respecting arrears of income. Orders promptly made are recorded; but subsequent complaints indicate how the execution of these orders must have been resisted. For example, it was directed, in 1654, that an augmentation of the chapelry of Brentford, Middlesex, by a charge on the tithes of the Rectory of Ashwell, in Hertfordshire, up to that time paid in corn, should be paid in money; and the Lord Protector recommended that the income should be increased to £100 per annum. The same augmentation became afterwards charged on other Rectories; and, in the year 1657, his Highness and the Rector of Hanwell (Brentford being in Hanwell parish), appointed Abriel Borfett to the Brentford chapelry. Yet, after all these repeated arrangements, petitions for payment of arrears abundantly prove the difficulty which existed in the way of enforcing the claim.[146]
1657, June.
On the 1st of June, 1657, Sir William Strickland, member for Yorkshire, moved the first reading of a new tithe Bill; and, upon Whitelocke's objecting to a clause in it authorizing ministers or their agents to enter men's houses to enforce payment, as a thing never granted even in times of Popery—no man having ever heard of a distress for tithes—the mover replied that he was afraid some persons had a design, by bringing disgrace on the system, to dishonour the Gospel; that there were men who would leap over hedge and ditch, and over the whole decalogue, and then scruple about tithes, and never willingly pay them; that some severity was needful to preserve Church revenues; and that the same principle which endangered one kind of property imperilled all the rest.[147]
Catechising.
The Presbyterians were zealous in catechising their children. The Provincial Assembly of London had passed a series of resolutions on the subject in 1655,[148] and now an attempt was made to legislate upon the subject; but when a Bill for this purpose was introduced on the 9th June, 1657, Major-General Desborough moved that it be "left behind," since it would "discontent many godly persons and make them mourn." Others spoke in the same strain, but Mr. Vincent, member for Truro, and Colonel Briscoe, begged on their knees, that the House "would not forbear the Bill," in which earnest and impassioned plea they were supported by so large a majority of Presbyterian members that, on a division, the yeas were 82, and the noes but 7. "So," as the Journals record, "it was resolved that the Bill for catechising be now carried up." It was carried up with several other bills: whereupon the Speaker made a short speech to his Highness "relating to the slowness of great bodies moving, and how our fruits were like that of the harvest, not all ripe at a time, but everything in its season; and how he hoped that this was but the vintage to the autumn the Parliament was preparing, and that it was not with their productions as with Rebecca's births, where one had another by the heel, but that their generation of laws was like that of natural generation, and that his Highness was the sun in the firmament of this Commonwealth, and he must give the ultimate life and breath to our laws."
1657, June.
Thirty-eight of the Bills received the Protectoral assent, but the thirty-ninth, the Bill for catechising, met with a strange fate. After a little pause, his Highness, looking at the parchment before him, said, "I am desirous to advise of this Bill." Hence the Bill dropped. This being done, the House returned about two o'clock to report proceedings, when Mr. Bampfield, member for Exeter, standing by the table, declared "that his Highness never did himself such an injury as he had done that day." Mr. Scobell, the clerk, told Mr. Bampfield he ought not to talk so, but the stiff Presbyterian declared "he would say it anywhere."[149]
1657, June.
The same Mr. Bampfield made a report on the 11th of June "from the Grand Committee for Religion," when a sub-committee was empowered to send for godly and learned ministers and laymen to consult respecting a better version of the Psalms. And, at the same time, upon its appearing that the Scriptures had been grossly misprinted, it was ordered that 7,900 copies, printed in 1653, should be seized to prevent their sale or their dispersal; and that John Field, the printer, should be required to get in such books as were of this impression: and also attend the House to give an account touching the misprinting of the said Bibles.[150]
Debates on Sabbath Observance.
The Sabbath question also came under debate this same summer month. Too many penal laws, in the opinion of Colonel Holland, who represented Lancashire, had already been enacted for enforcing the observance of the day. The last Bill, he said, had been passed on a Saturday, and the consequence was, that the next morning, he could not get to church by land or by water, without violating the Act. The honourable member's own waterman, after conveying him to hear a sermon at Somerset House, became subject to a fine, and the honourable member's own boat was seized as a security for payment. A debate ensued as to the right of searching houses to find delinquents, when Mr. Godfrey, member for Kent, moved that such right should be exercised only in taverns, tobacco-shops, and alehouses. Mr. Vincent, and Colonel Chadwick—the latter then a representative for Nottingham—thought that this restriction would defeat the purpose in view, as the principal breaches of the law were committed in private habitations. Lord Whitelocke, on a division, carried an amendment to the effect that entry should only be demanded, but not forcibly accomplished. The Bill enumerated such offenders as, on Sundays, idly and profanely sat by their gate, or door, or elsewhere, or walked in churchyards. He urged that all these words ought to be left out; and Mr. Godfrey suggesting that idle loungers thus described would plead that they were meditating upon holy things, urged the omission of the terms "profane and idle sitting," and especially the word "elsewhere." Major-General Whalley objected that, if people at Nottingham, for example, might not sit by the entrance of their rock houses on a Sunday, they would be deprived of every breath of air. Mr. Bordura considered that as some people had no accommodation for sitting, words should be subjoined prohibiting them from "leaning or standing at doors." In reply to Colonel Briscoe, who said he would not have laws too rigid, Major Burton—member for Great Yarmouth—declared he would as soon drop the Bill altogether as leave out the disputed clause. Then rose Mr. West—who represented Cambridgeshire—saying they would not leave out the word "elsewhere," for there might be profaneness in sitting under a tree, or in an arbour, or in Gray's Inn Walks. The stringent clause was thrown out on a division of 37 against 35. Colonel Holland expressed himself as not satisfied in reference to the time when the Lord's Day should be considered to begin; and added, that some godly people were in doubt as to the institution altogether; and that, whereas once he himself would have gone to six or seven sermons a-day, now he would do no such thing. He thought he could as well serve God at home. He was for keeping the Sabbath as much as any man, believing that though there was no precept enforcing it, every one by nature was tied to its observance. Amidst cries of "question," the debate continued "so late that a candle was called in, and after a while the Bill was agreed to pass, and ordered to be engrossed."[151]
Sabbath Observance.
This animated conversation in the old House of Commons—which we have thought it worth while to report, even at inconvenient length—reflects the various opinions, both strict and lax, which were then held relative to the question of Sunday observance. Yet, after all, perhaps, the report scarcely conveys to us exactly what the speakers meant. Some of them really might intend by their extravagant statements and ridiculous method of argument only to meet their opponents' reasoning with a reductio ad absurdum, although the steady, plodding diarist who took the notes from which we have drawn up our summary did not seem to see the matter in that light.
1657, June.
The Act, as it appears in Scobell, prohibited travelling, entertainment at inns, every kind of trading, and all dancing and singing, and other amusement, inclusive even of walking during Divine service. Moreover, if people did not attend church or chapel where the true worship of God was celebrated, they were to pay for each instance of neglect two shillings and sixpence, which sum, after the payment of informers, was to be appropriated for the benefit of the poor.[152]
Cromwell's Second Installation.
At the close of the first session of the second Parliament, there was enacted, on Friday, the 26th of June, 1657, a gorgeous ceremony, equivalent to the coronation of the Puritan king. Purple robes, sceptre, and sword, a chair of state—no other than the regal one of Scotland, brought out of Westminster Abbey—and a brilliant array of officers, judges, civic dignitaries, and the like, gave regal pomp to the occasion.[153] The scene was exhibited under a magnificent canopy of state in Westminster Hall, whose oaken rafters had so often echoed with the music and revelry of Plantagenet and Tudor feastings; and where, in 1653, Cromwell had first been installed Protector, with less state splendour than on this second occasion, and without the addition of any sacred rites.[154] Religious worship, however, became associated with the present solemnity, and there also appeared religious symbolism in a form which passed quite beyond the common circle of Puritan ideas. The Speaker of the House of Commons referred to Alexander, and Aristotle, to Moses, and Homer, to David, and Solomon, and to "the noble Lord Talbot, in Henry the Sixth's time," in order to shew what appropriate spiritual lessons were suggested by the robes, the sceptre, the sword, and the Bible. Richly-gilt and embossed, the Holy Book was—with the regalia—laid upon a table covered with pink-coloured Genoa velvet fringed with gold. "His Highness," dressed in a costly mantle lined with ermine, and girt with a sword of great value, stood—says a contemporary record—"looking up unto the throne of the Most High, who is Prince of princes, and in whom is all his confidence; Mr. Manton, by prayer, recommended his Highness, the Parliament, the Council, his Highness's forces by sea and land, the whole Government, and people of these three nations, to the blessing and protection of God Almighty. After this, the people giving several great shouts, and the trumpets sounding, his Highness sat down in the chair of state, holding the sceptre in his hand."[155] Heralds; Garter, and Norroy, King-at-Arms; his Highness's Gentlemen; men of the Long Robe; the Judges; Commissioners of all sorts; Robert, Earl of Warwick, bareheaded, with the sword of the Commonwealth; the Lord Mayor, with the City sword; Privy Counsellors and Generals took part in the ceremony—whilst on seats, built scaffold-wise, sat the Members of Parliament; and below them, the Judges and the Aldermen of London.
1658, January.
When the ceremony had ended, the Protector—having saluted the foreign ambassadors—entered his state coach, together with the Earl of Warwick, Lord Richard Cromwell, his son, and Bulstrode, Lord Whitelocke, who sat with him on one side; and Lord Viscount Lisle and General Montague on the other: Lord Claypole led the horse of honour caparisoned with the richest trappings. At night there were great rejoicings.
Re-assembling of Parliament.
Parliament reassembled January the 20th, 1658. Lord Commissioner Fiennes made a speech that day before his Highness, in which he entered at large upon the subject of toleration and charity. He spoke quaintly of the Rock:—"A spirit of imposing upon men's consciences, where God leaves them a latitude;" and of the Quicksand:—"An abominable licentiousness to profess and practise any sort of detestable opinions and principles." The object of the Petition and Advice was to steer a middle course between the two. He strongly inveighed against bigotry, and maintained that the right way was the golden mean, even God's way. God, when he came to Elijah, was not in the whirlwind, the earthquake, or the fire; but in the small still voice. So with men's religious profession. "It must," said his Lordship, "be a small and still voice, enough to hold forth a certain and distinct sound, but not to make so great a noise as to drown all other voices besides. It is good, it is useful, to hold forth a certain confession of the truth; but not so as thereby to exclude all those that cannot come up to it in all points, from the privileges which belong to them as Christians, much less, which belong to them as men."[156] The members who had been excluded were now admitted, after having taken the oath according to the "Petition and Advice." They were extremely republican in their ideas, and were inveterate enemies to the Protector: their influence with their own party outside had been increased by their recent conduct, which was regarded as proving their strong attachment to "the good old cause." At the same time some of Cromwell's warmest friends were removed to the other House, which had been constituted so as to resemble somewhat the ancient House of Peers. The effect of this new state of things upon the two parties existing among the Commons became immediately apparent.
1658, January.
After the new oath had been administered to all the ministers—a business which it took some hours for six commissioners to accomplish—the Commons, preceded by their mace-bearer, as of old, marched up to the House of Lords, where his Highness the Protector, in kingly state, received them, and then proceeded to address the united assembly as "My Lords and Gentlemen."—"You have now a godly ministry," said his Highness, "you have a knowing ministry; such an one as, without vanity be it spoken, the world has not, men knowing the things of God, and able to search into the things of God, by that only which can fathom those things in some measure."[157]
Debates.
Soon after Cromwell's opening speech, a debate arose about the "maintenance of a godly ministry"—by which words the Lord Protector on the one hand, and on the other, many who sat in this Parliament, would not mean quite the same thing. In the estimation of certain members, scarcely any revenues remained for the Clergy, notwithstanding all the provision which had been made for them of late years. Forty or fifty petitions lay on the table, asking for aid to support the preaching of the Gospel; but there existed no available sources of relief. In Lancashire it was affirmed that there were parishes, nineteen miles square, containing two thousand Protestant communicants, besides as many Papists—which parishes greatly needed subdivision, whilst the ministers equally needed increased means of support. How to maintain the clergy was the question in hand; but, according to a habit common in public assemblies, the debate soon veered round to another point, and presently the House was found struggling with the enquiry, Should there be another Convocation or Assembly of Divines? One member battled both points at once—contending there was no need of any further assembly; and that before they raised additional money for religious purposes they ought to pay their civil debts. A second speaker observed that there had been already an Assembly, which had settled foundations, but it had been dissolved, and to call another would be very expensive—whilst persons fit to compose it would be found very scarce. But, exclaimed a third, though what the late Assembly resolved had been put in print, it had not been put in practice, and there needed a new authority of the same kind, to gather out the weeds from amidst the corn. The ordination of ministers and some outward form of unity were also of great importance, which could be obtained only by another ecclesiastical Convocation. A fourth condemned the proposal altogether, inasmuch as the former assembly had sat long, had cost much, and had effected little. With such differences of opinion that question was speedily waived. Complaints respecting the marriage law and the insecurity of registration next came upon the carpet; and the non-residence of leading men in the universities was attacked by the introduction of a Bill for its prevention; but soon a subject arose before the House which swallowed up all other subjects of debate. Cromwell's batch of Peers proved the rock on which the second Protectorate Parliament went to pieces.[158] Sir Arthur Haselrig—who took his seat with the Commons, although nominated one of the new Peers—appears prominently in the final Republican broil, occasioned by the attempt to give to the Commonwealth somewhat of the aristocratic aspect of a kingdom. And here, it is affecting to recollect the change which eighteen years had effected in reference to men as well as measures. Of the patriots who took the lead at the opening of the Long Parliament, John Pym slept under the pavement of Westminster Abbey; John Hampden was at rest in the village church which bore his name; Brooke, years before, had ended his career at Lichfield; Dering, after his changeful course, had been gathered to his fathers; Vane and Marten were in retirement; others had disappeared; and now, of all the most busy actors on the stage in 1640, there remained before the public view only Oliver Cromwell, with Haselrig, the "hare-brained" in hot opposition, and Nathaniel Fiennes—more wise in council than valiant in war—fighting out this last political battle at the side of the Protector, his old friend.
1658, January.
His Highness's speeches on the 25th of January and 4th of February were filled with patriotism and wisdom, and with manifest touches of pathos, in harmony with such pensive memories of this mortal state of existence as have been just indicated; and in keeping, too, with such a foresight of the end soon to follow, as we now are able to exercise. They are the last two of those memorable orations which, after being long neglected, are now beginning to be studied and understood.
In the former of these speeches, the brave and noble ruler of England—burdened not so much with the infirmities of years as with the cares of government, worn out not by old age, but by years of toil and anxiety, of counsel, and of war—spoke of what was most dear to his heart, of the Protestant interest abroad, and the Protestant interest at home; for Cromwell was a Protestant to the backbone. Papists had been England's enemies from Queen Elizabeth's reign downwards, and as enemies to their country they were treated by the Protector.[159] And besides Papists, others in his estimation threatened the interests of the Commonwealth.
Cromwell's Last Speeches.
Just at this juncture, the Republicans, in their opposition to the new settlement, were bent upon upsetting everything. Foundation stones just laid were being rudely torn up, and the whole fabric was fast falling to pieces. Indeed some sectaries pleaded, in a certain foolish book, quoted but not named, for "an orderly confusion." "Orderly confusion!" exclaimed his Highness. "Men have wonderfully lost their consciences and their wits. I speak of men going about who cannot tell what they would have, yet are willing to kindle coals to disturb others." Fifth Monarchy men, also, were now hastening in the same direction as the Royalists. Whilst they wanted to set up a republic, they were in fact playing the game of the King of Scots. "It were a happy thing," said the old man, wearied out with the war of opinion, "if the nation would be content with rule. 'Content with rule' if it were but in civil things, and with those that would rule worst; because misrule is better than no rule, and an ill government, a bad government is better than none! Neither is this all, but we have an appetite to variety, to be not only making wounds, 'but widening those already made.' As if you should see one making wounds in a man's side, and eager only to be groping and grovelling with his fingers in those wounds! This is what such men would be at; this is the spirit of those who would trample on men's liberties in spiritual respects. They will be making wounds, and rending and tearing and making them wider than they were. Is not this the case? Doth there want anything—I speak not of sects in an ill sense, but the nation is hugely made up of them—and what is the want that prevents these things from being done to the uttermost, but that men have more anger than strength? They have not power to attain their ends. 'There wants nothing else.' And I beseech you judge what such a company of men of these sects are doing, while they are contesting one with another! They are contesting in the midst of a generation of men (a malignant Episcopal party, I mean) contesting in the midst of these all united. What must be the issue of such a thing as this?"[160]
1658, February.
Then, on the 4th of February, came those last words which wound up all—last words which Englishmen are now studying with deep earnestness, and with increasing insight—"And if this be the end of your sitting and this be your carriage, I think it high time that an end be put to your sitting, and I do dissolve this Parliament. And let God be judge between you and me."
"Believe me," said Hartlib, Milton's friend; "believe me it was of such necessity, that if their session had continued but two or three days longer, all had been in blood, both in city and country, upon Charles Stuart's account."[161]
Council of State.
Ecclesiastical legislation for England, under Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate, ended with the dissolution of Parliament. Of course there were no more Acts; nor were there any more Ordinances, respecting Church affairs. But the same sleepless vigilance and unwearied activity as before, were shewn by the Protector in relation to religious as well as other subjects. The ponderous Order Book for 1658—in which may be traced the proceedings of Government from day to day—bears witness to the large amount of ecclesiastical business transacted by his Highness and his counsellors. They determined upon the supply of destitute parishes, chapelries, and outlying populations; the settlement of questions about tithes, church leases, and rights of presentation; the union of parishes; the augmentation of incomes, and various grants to public preachers.[162] There also occur orders to make collections for the repair of a church at South Oxendon, struck by lightning; and of another at Egbaston, damaged in the wars. It is curious to meet with a petition of the members of the Congregational Church, at Warwick, complaining that a constable had indicted Mr. Whitehead, a member, for not attending the parish church, and had demanded fines for absence; whereupon it was ordered that a letter should be written to the Justices, to let them know, that if the case were as it had been represented, the Council was much dissatisfied therewith, as an abridgment of that liberty which the law allowed. More curious still is it to meet with a complaint of reproachful and provoking language having been used at church by a Commonwealth's man against a Royalist, who is described as being "under obligation, with great penalties, to his Highness for keeping the peace, and good bearing of himself to his Highness." It is most curious of all, to find a petition from Anastatius Cominus—a Bishop of the Greek Church, under the patriarch of Alexandria—on behalf of himself and others, referred to the Committee for approbation of public preachers.[163]
1658.
How favourably these entries in the old parchment-bound folio—written in a firm, bold, legible hand, characteristic of the men whose proceedings they chronicle—contrast with the records of the Protectorate Parliament! Whilst the latter were spending their time upon bigoted efforts to curtail the religious liberties of the people; the Council of State, with the actual sovereign of England at its head, was employing an effective influence to check the career and to mitigate the mischiefs of intolerance. And as this supreme executive body tempered the narrow policy of parties, it also repressed the misguided zeal of individuals. How significant is that expression of displeasure at the attempted abridgment of freedom which had been made in a miserably sectarian spirit by some who, professing to maintain justice and charity, to say the very least, ought to have known better.
