Henry Cromwell was ill and despondent during the months following his father’s death. He knew in his heart that the system could not long outlive the man, and Thurloe, whose judgment was not warped by fanaticism, could give him little comfort. ‘The funeral,’ he wrote, ‘of his late Highness was solemnised this day with very great honour; but alas! it was his funeral.’ When the Lord Lieutenant’s commission came over it was found to contain no clause authorising him to leave Ireland or to appoint a Deputy, and as if he felt Restoration in the air he looked to Charles I. for a precedent, and sent over his letter to Strafford as a model. He had, he wrote, been sentenced by his enemies to an honourable banishment. Thurloe professed that the omission was a mere oversight, but Fauconberg said bluntly that his brother-in-law’s presence in London was desired by no one. ‘They that hate you fear you too, and, therefore, oppose it, they that love you have apprehensions neither Ireland nor Henry Cromwell are secure if separated.’ And Richard was of the same opinion. Moreover, he could hardly be spared until the elections were over, and writs for the new Parliament arrived about the middle of December. It had been decided that thirty members should be sent from Ireland and the same from Scotland by constituencies grouped upon Oliver’s plan. The English members were to be returned by the old counties and boroughs, giving up the late Protector’s attempt at parliamentary reform, but the Upper House was left as he had devised it, and separate writs for it were sent to the Lord Lieutenant, to Lord Chancellor Steele, and to Lord Broghill. Petty was returned for West Loo, Coote for Galway and Mayo, and Vincent Gookin for Bandon and Kinsale. Broghill thought a Parliament necessary, but was not sanguine, and foresaw opposition from the army.[291]
Parliament of 1659.
Opinions of Irish members.
The notice for the elections was so short that many or most of the Irish members could not reach London in time for the opening of Parliament; but this made little difference, for the House of Commons was occupied at first in the discussion of the Protector’s title, the constitution of the ‘other House,’ and the status of the Scotch members. Parliament met on January 27, and it was not till March 23 that it was debated whether the members for Ireland should continue to serve. In the meantime they were allowed to speak and, apparently, to vote. Major Ashton, who represented Meath and Louth, preferred a separate legislature, partly on the ground that Ireland should have no share in governing England. Arthur Annesley, who sat for the city of Dublin, was of the same opinion—mainly, because Ireland would be overtaxed by an assembly where she was always in a minority. At the moment, he said, Ireland very unfairly paid 9000l. a month while Scotland paid only 6000l., and his prayer was ‘that they might have some to hear their grievances in their own nation, seeing they cannot have them heard here.’ Sir Thomas Stanley, member for Tipperary and Waterford, said he spoke not for Ireland, but for the English in Ireland. ‘Language, habit, laws, interest being in every respect the same in kind,’ he was in favour of the Union, for free-born Englishmen beyond the channel had a natural right to representation in the sovereign Parliament. A hundred and fifty-six voted for the retention of the Irish members, and a hundred and six against, Thurloe being one of the tellers for the majority. After this the Parliament had but one short month of life, during which Irish affairs seem to have been but little discussed, except in the matter of Petty and his proceedings.[292]
Petty and Sankey.
Petty’s great enemy was Sir Hierome Sankey, who had had a varied career. At Cambridge, where he was a candidate for Holy Orders, he was more noted for proficiency in athletic games than for study, and soon rose in the army when he took the Parliamentary side at the beginning of the Civil War. He became in turns a Presbyterian, an Independent, and at last an Anabaptist. He migrated to Oxford, where he became Fellow of All Souls, and was one of the proctors when Fairfax and Cromwell were made Doctors of Civil Law in 1649. He sat in the Parliament of 1654 for Tipperary and Waterford, and in that of 1656 for Marlborough. Henry Cromwell knighted him, and in Richard’s Parliament he represented Woodstock. On March 24 he charged Petty with various kinds of corruption, but without giving particulars, and in the accused man’s absence. Maynard, who was himself an Adventurer in Ireland and who touched on his own experience in the Strafford trial, fixed upon this want of particulars, and he was not without support. The most that Sankey could do was to sign six articles, all of the most general character; and these were sent to Petty in Ireland, with orders to attend in his place that day month. The summons did not reach him until April 3, so that he had only seventeen days to make his preparations and travel from Dublin to London. He had some reason to complain of the short time allowed him.[293]
Petty’s defence.
His revenge.
On April 21 Petty attended as directed, and spoke at length in answer to the articles. His speech was dignified and moderate, and made a very good impression on the House. The first charge was that he had received great bribes. To this he answered that as clerk of the Council he had never taken anything but the bare salary, and that as secretary to Henry Cromwell he had been a pecuniary loser, not exacting even the customary fees, ‘merely upon the account of preserving his Excellency’s honour clear, and myself clear from the least appearance of this evil.’ The burden of proof evidently lay upon the accuser. The second charge was that he had been a wholesale purchaser of debentures, contrary to the Act of Satisfaction, forcing people to sell as a condition for having their lands set out to them. To this Petty replied that he had many colleagues and was well watched, so that he could not use coercion if he had wished; that the debentures bought by him were under 7000l. in value, and that he had got them from brokers, who profited by the transaction. The third article charged him with the fraudulent acquisition of much money and land, to which he answered that the only public payment to him was by contract; that the 17,000l. which the survey cost was well and hardly earned; and that the soldiers had paid half of it themselves. As to land, he had no more than a fair consideration for what was owed him. The fourth charge was a general one of foul and unwarrantable practices, on which he was content to challenge the production of a single instance. The fifth and sixth articles accused Petty and his colleagues of malversation generally, and was scarcely worth answering, since they did not fall particularly on him. He abstained from recrimination in debate, but took ample revenge by publishing a report of Sankey’s reply, which begins thus: ‘Mr. Speaker, you have heard here a long, starched, studied speech; I say a starched, studied piece. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of rhetoric; I say a great deal of rhetoric. But I will prove my charge; I will make it good, Mr. Speaker, from the front to the rear—front, flank, and rear; Mr. Speaker, that I will,’ and so forth. No real evidence of any kind was adduced, or even mentioned, and the business was referred to the Lord Lieutenant and Council of Ireland. Richard’s Parliament was dissolved the next day, and we are justified in believing his brother’s oft-repeated assertion that Dr. Petty was a very honest man.[294]
Dissolution of Parliament, April 22.