Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King: Reactions to Oliver Cromwell's Power 9780773588127

Table of contents :
Cover
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1 Oliver Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Arguments of the Kingship Committee
2 The Absence of Kingship in Printed Propaganda
3 Mercurius Politicus: A Newsbook’s Account of the Kingship Crisis
4 Cromwellian Writers: Marchamont Nedham, John Milton, and Michael Hawke
5 Cromwellian Poets: Edmund Waller, Andrew Marvell, George Wither, and John Lineall
6 Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists: A Split in the Royalist Movement
7 Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power
8 James Harrington’s Oceana and Its Relation to the Protectorate
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

P e rc e p t i o n s o f a M o n a rchy without a King

25124_Woodford.indb 1

12-12-17 1:05 PM

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King Reactions to Oliver Cromwell’s Power b e njam i n woodford

McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Ithaca

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2013 ISBN 978-0-7735-4109-2 Legal deposit second quarter 2013 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. McGill-Queen’s University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the inancial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund for our publishing activities.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Woodford, Benjamin, 1984– Perceptions of a monarchy without a king: reactions to Oliver Cromwell’s power / Benjamin Woodford. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7735-4109-2 1. Cromwell, Oliver, 1599-1658. 2. Great Britain – History – Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1660 – Sources. 3. Great Britain – Politics and government – 1642-1660 – Sources. 4. Press – Great Britain – History – 17th century. 5. Heads of state – Great Britain – Biography. I. Title. DA427.W66 2013

941.06'4092

C2012-906821-7

This book was typeset by Interscript in 10.5/13 Sabon.

Contents

Acknowledgments Introduction

vii 3

1 Oliver Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Arguments of the Kingship Committee 20 2 The Absence of Kingship in Printed Propaganda

41

3 Mercurius Politicus: A Newsbook’s Account of the Kingship Crisis 55 4 Cromwellian Writers: Marchamont Nedham, John Milton, and Michael Hawke 68 5 Cromwellian Poets: Edmund Waller, Andrew Marvell, George Wither, and John Lineall 89 6 Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists: A Split in the Royalist Movement 113 7 Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

132

8 James Harrington’s Oceana and Its Relation to the Protectorate 164 Conclusion Notes

187

Bibliography Index

180

213

237

Acknowledgments

This book is based on my doctoral thesis, which grew out of research I conducted during my years as an undergraduate and master’s student. Consequently, my academic debts go back many years, and I am deeply thankful to everyone who has supported me. My interest in Oliver Cromwell began during my undergraduate studies at Dalhousie University where, under the tutelage of Professor Krista Kesselring, I produced an honours thesis on Cromwell’s relations with Parliament. As a master’s student, I worked with Professor Jeff Collins at Queen’s University and further developed my understanding of Cromwell’s career. To both these scholars, who shaped my knowledge of seventeenth-century England, I owe a great deal. I have had the good fortune of being able to work with Professor Collins again, this time as a post-doctoral researcher. Always eager to debate the issues of the 1650s, he read the entire draft of my manuscript and provided me with valuable feedback. My discussions with him have been essential in my development as a historian. One of my greatest debts is to my PhD supervisor, Professor John Morrill at Cambridge University. Words cannot express my appreciation for the advice, guidance, and support he has given me over the years. During the many meetings that we have had in his ofice, he has shared his wealth of knowledge and experience with me, enhancing my understanding of both my research and the practice of history in general. His detailed comments on drafts of both individual chapters and my entire PhD thesis have been invaluable. He also read several chapters of my book manuscript, again providing me with helpful feedback.

viii

Acknowledgments

Other academics have also aided in the development of this book. My two thesis examiners, David Smith and Jason Peacey, provided both useful advice and questions that inspired further research and ideas. Their comments have helped to give the book its current shape. Informal conversations with Blair Worden (Royal Holloway, University of London) and Laura Knoppers (Pennsylvania State University) have also been helpful. I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to present several portions of this book at workshops, where I received much advice and encouragement from fellow students and academics. At the Cambridge Early Modern History Workshop, I twice presented papers and received valuable feedback from my fellow early modernists, Mel Harrington, Hunter Powell, Joel Halcomb, Miranda Malins, Eoin Devlin, Lucy Underwood, Richard Blakemore, Mark Perry, and Alex Doering de Rio. At a workshop in Nottingham on the speeches of Oliver Cromwell, I was fortunate to be able to present my indings to the editorial board responsible for preparing a new edition of Cromwell’s letters and speeches. All members of the board were supportive and encouraging, and I am grateful to have been given this opportunity. Since I was based in Cambridge for three years, my research did not demand a signiicant amount of travel; however, I did need to use manuscripts at both the British Library in London and the Bodleian Library in Oxford. The staffs at both institutions were very helpful to me in my efforts to ind the manuscripts I needed. At the Cambridge University Library, I was a regular user of the manuscripts and rare books room, and I am grateful for all the assistance I received from the library staff. Throughout the process of producing this book, I have been aided by the staff at McGill-Queen’s University Press. Don Akenson and Joan Harcourt have both guided me through the process and provided me with much encouragement, for which I am deeply grateful. I would like to thank the Parliamentary History Yearbook Trust for giving me permission to reprint sections of my article “Printing Oliver Cromwell’s Speeches: The Making of a Split Personality,” originally published in Parliamentary History (31, pt. 2 [2012]: 152–68; http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-0206.2012.00309.x/ pdf), in this book. Financially, I am grateful for the funding I have received from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This institution has been very generous in providing the funds necessary for

Acknowledgments

ix

my research as both a graduate student and a post-doctoral researcher. Additionally, this book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences. My family has also supported me inancially throughout all my studies (both undergraduate and graduate). Without their assistance, encouragement, and support, this book would not have been possible. In the writing of a book, one experiences many moments of doubt and worry. I have been fortunate to have my loving wife, Raquel, by my side during all these moments. She has comforted and encouraged me when I needed it most, and without her love, support, and understanding, this book would not have not seen the light of day. I am forever in her debt.

P e rc e p t ion s of a Mon a rc hy withou t a K in g

Introduction

On 31 March 1657 the second Protectoral Parliament presented Oliver Cromwell with the Humble Petition and Advice, a new constitution for the British Isles. The most famous and controversial element of the Humble Petition was the offer of the crown to Cromwell. Such an event was unprecedented in English history. Cromwell had not one drop of royal blood in him, yet he was presented with the opportunity to become king. Despite his un-royal origins, Cromwell had ruled Great Britain as lord protector for over three years prior to the offer of the crown. His personal domination over the nation became clear in April 1653, when he dissolved the Rump Parliament – the assembly that had voted to execute Charles I – at musket-point. After this forced dissolution, no one could doubt that Cromwell was the master of Great Britain. Cromwell, however, did not assume the role of head of state immediately, preferring instead, in collaboration with several of his closest allies, to draw up a list of godly men who would rule the nation. The men on the list became the Nominated Assembly (nicknamed the Barebones Parliament), which, after sitting for ive months, dissolved itself and resigned its power to Cromwell. Backed by the support of the army and the newly written constitution, the Instrument of Government, Cromwell was installed as lord protector on 12 December 1653. In the beginning, his power was limited by a constitution and a council. As the years went by, however, it appeared arbitrary and limitless. After becoming frustrated with the irst Protectoral Parliament, he dissolved it and established a form of military government known as the rule of the major-generals. Constant criticisms of this regime forced Cromwell to call another

4

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Parliament. This second Protectoral Parliament presented the lord protector with the offer of the crown. Cromwell’s second Protectoral Parliament encountered numerous crises that led to the kingship proposal. The irst occurred in October 1656, when the Quaker James Naylor rode into Bristol on a donkey imitating Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. This act outraged the conservative members of Parliament; some mps even demanded that Naylor be stoned as a blasphemer. A ten-day debate ensued in Parliament between those who advocated leniency and those who desired a death sentence. In the end, Parliament elected not to execute Naylor, but he was pilloried and whipped twice, his tongue was bored, and he was sentenced to life in prison. The debate surrounding Naylor highlighted the insuficiencies in the current constitution. Many mps, and even the lord protector himself, questioned if Parliament had the authority to judge cases of blasphemy, fearing that conservative sentiments in the House of Commons might lead to wide-scale persecution. These concerns increased the number of mps who were willing to alter or replace the Instrument of Government.1 The Militia Bill of December 1656 produced further tension. On Christmas Day 1656, Major-General John Desborough introduced a bill in the House of Commons that would make the decimation tax (a tax levied on royalists) permanent. Since the major-generals were the ones who collected the decimation tax, its permanency would cement their rule. Desborough likely hoped that, by presenting the bill to the sparsely populated House on Christmas (most mps had gone home to spend Christmas with their families), he and his parliamentary allies would encounter little opposition.2 Much to Desborough’s surprise, the conservative mps who were present were able to stall the bill. Desborough was permitted to proceed with the bill by a narrow vote, but when the bill was discussed again in January, it met with stiff opposition and was inally defeated on 29 January 1657.3 While Parliament was debating the Militia Bill, the actions of Cromwell’s enemies were pushing the issue of the lord protector’s succession to the forefront. On 8 January 1657 Miles Sindercombe and several other conspirators attempted to assassinate Cromwell. Sindercombe had been a soldier and an army agitator with a history of radical action. When he went into exile on the continent, he met Edward Sexby, a former Leveller who despised Cromwell and desired to overthrow the Protectorate. Sexby supplied Sindercombe with

Introduction

5

weapons and money and sent him back to England to assassinate Cromwell. After much plotting, Sindercombe and his fellow conspirators decided to set ire to Whitehall Palace with a special incendiary device. One of the members of the conspiracy, however, betrayed the others, and Secretary of State John Thurloe was able to foil the plot. Although a failure, Sindercombe’s actions revealed the fragility of the regime. Cromwell’s death was a possibility, and without a clear system of succession the Protectorate would likely die with him. The stresses brought on by the Naylor crisis, the Militia Bill, and assassination attempts destroyed any semblance of unity among the members of the second Protectoral Parliament. The mps were divided over whether or not to abandon the Instrument of Government, which had been the cornerstone of Protectoral government. Cromwell himself began to believe that it was time to amend the constitution. Exactly when Cromwell adopted this belief is unknown, but by 28 February 1657 he was ready to look for new solutions to old problems. On this day, he told a group of army oficers: “It is time to come to settlement, and lay aside arbitrary proceedings so unacceptable to the nation. And by the proceedings of this Parliament you see they stand in need of a check or balancing power … for the case of James Naylor might happen to be your own case.”4 Parliament’s dissatisfaction with the major-generals coupled with fears of religious persecution at the hands of conservative mps convinced Cromwell that changes to the constitution were necessary. Cromwell’s comments on 28 February 1657 may have been motivated by the presentation of a new constitution to Parliament on 23 February. Sir Christopher Packe was the mp who presented the Remonstrance (later renamed the Humble Petition and Advice) to Parliament, but the document itself was probably a collaborative effort written by Lord Broghill and his allies.5 Although the purpose of the Remonstrance was to restore the traditional powers of a king, its description of the monarch’s powers was sparse. The authors of the Remonstrance likely assumed that Cromwell would interact with Parliament in the same manner as earlier kings.6 Unlike the Instrument of Government, the Remonstrance reduced the Council of State to the role of an advisory body, whose members the king could dismiss at will.7 The vague description of Parliament suggests a return to royal prerogative powers in order to reassert monarchical dominance over the institution.8 The religious provisions of the Remonstrance also placed additional power in the hands of the new

6

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

king. Blasphemy was forbidden, but enforcing this law was left to the king, and without his support the law was useless. The king also had the power to determine the shape of the national church.9 These were the constitutional changes irst proposed in Parliament, but the Remonstrance would face much debate and revision before it was presented to Cromwell. Despite opposition from army mps, Parliament continued to discuss the Remonstrance, and on 31 March 1657 the second Protectoral Parliament formally presented the Humble Petition and Advice to Cromwell. As Patrick Little and David Smith have noted, the Humble Petition that Cromwell saw was not the same as the Remonstrance that Packe had introduced in February. The debates in Parliament had resulted in several signiicant changes to the document. The Humble Petition partly restored the Council to its role of balancing the power of the head of state, while also asserting Parliament’s authority over the Council.10 The religious articles of the Humble Petition relect Presbyterian inluence during the parliamentary debates, since liberty of conscience was more restrictive in the Petition than it was in the Remonstrance. Article eleven in the Humble Petition, however, was not as severe as the Presbyterians desired. In this article, religious liberty was granted to those who believed in the Trinity (which excluded some of the extreme sects like Quakers). Written by Lord Broghill and his allies, the article represented a compromise that was designed to satisfy both mps and Cromwell.11 With these changes to the Remonstrance, Parliament was ready to offer a new constitution to Cromwell, one that included the crown of Great Britain. Questions regarding hereditary succession had been raised in Cromwell’s parliaments before, but the second Protectoral Parliament’s Humble Petition and Advice was the irst document to incorporate Cromwellian kingship into a new constitution. Upon being presented with the Humble Petition, Cromwell thanked the mps for their efforts and stated that he needed time to consider the new constitution. When the lord protector seemed reluctant to accept the royal title, Parliament established a committee to meet with Cromwell and attempt to persuade him. The committee spent weeks arguing with Cromwell over the beneits of kingship, but the lord protector could not be convinced. On 8 May 1657 he formally rejected the Humble Petition and the crown. Frustrated with Cromwell’s decision, yet still determined to pass a constitution that would limit the power of the army, the conservative mps redrafted the Humble

Introduction

7

Petition with the title lord protector instead of king, and again offered it to Cromwell. Cromwell accepted the revised Humble Petition on 25 May 1657, putting an end to the kingship crisis. Although he declined Parliament’s royal offer, in the later years of the Protectorate, Cromwell adopted regal ceremony and style while keeping his original title. The lord protector resided in Whitehall and set up a household that was modelled after the king’s and even included several former royal servants.12 Royal symbols and ceremony became common sights. A new seal was created during the Protectorate, which followed the traditional practice of having the monarch’s – or in this case the lord protector’s – face on it with a Latin inscription. This design was in stark contrast to the seal under the Commonwealth, which displayed an assembly of men and an inscription in English.13 Perhaps the most regal aspect of Cromwell’s rule was his second installation as lord protector. The diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, commissioner of the Great Seal, contains a detailed description of this event. On 26 June 1657 Whitelocke wrote: His H[ighnes]s standing under the Cloth of State, the Speaker[,] in the Name of Parlem[en]t[,] presented to him I. a robe of purple Velvet lined with / Ermine … then he delivered to him the Bible richly guilt & bossed, after that, the Speaker girt the sword about his H[ighnes]s & delivered to his hand the Scepter of Massy gould … After this, the people gave several great shouts, & the Trumpets sounding, the Prot[ecto]r sate in the Chayr of State holding the Scepter in his hand, on his right side satte the Amb[assadou]r of France, on the left side the Ambassador of the United Provinces, neer to his H[ighnes]s stood his son Richard …14 Such practices linked Cromwell to former English monarchs. Following Cromwell’s death, his eldest son did succeed him, but Richard Cromwell followed his father as lord protector, not as king. Although Cromwell’s regime appeared and functioned as a monarchy, it remained a Protectorate in name. The importance of the kingship crisis has not escaped historians, but the print culture surrounding it has. Much of the current historiography of the kingship crisis is either biographical or focuses on parliamentary politics, attempting to determine precisely what Cromwell’s religious and political convictions were and how they

8

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

led to his rejection of the royal title. Early studies focused on the army and its role in convincing Cromwell to refuse the crown.15 This analysis rests heavily on the observations of foreign diplomats living in England, who stressed the inluence that military grandees exerted over Cromwell. Consequently, it has not stood the test of time and a broader range of sources has permitted later historians to develop a fuller view of the complexities of the kingship crisis. Most modern historians argue that the question of kingship was answered by Cromwell and Cromwell alone.16 Their focus is Cromwell’s personal religious beliefs and how they inluenced his decision. They describe Cromwell, a devout Puritan, spending weeks attempting to determine God’s will.17 Cromwell’s speeches listing all the events of the Civil War were an attempt by him to connect kingship with God’s providence.18 Indeed, divine providence is a key component of recent explanations for Cromwell’s refusal of the crown. The language of providence, according to Blair Worden, was a natural way of speaking for Puritans.19 For one who believed in the power of providence, the greatest danger was failing to recognize divine dispensations, since such a failure could provoke God’s wrath.20 The military disaster of the Western Design,21 according to Worden, shocked Cromwell and forced him into a period of selfexamination in order to determine why God had undermined his military expedition.22 Such meditation led him to the conclusion that God had destroyed kingship.23 This interpretation, with its focus on Cromwell’s belief in providence, has value, but it is only half the story of Cromwellian kingship. What all these studies fail to acknowledge is that Cromwell was not the only one pondering kingship. Countless pamphlets on kingship were produced during the Protectorate, and no study of the kingship crisis can be complete without an analysis of them. The preceding discussion should not suggest that historians have completely neglected print culture related to Cromwell and the kingship crisis. Studies of that nature do exist, but they are narrow and fail to consider the diversity of Protectoral print culture and its connection with Cromwellian kingship. Focusing on literary sources, Blair Worden, Laura Lunger Knoppers, and Edward Holberton all analyze the most famous poets and writers who commented upon Cromwell and his government.24 Other historians connect print culture to the politics of the Cromwellian Protectorate. Patrick Little reveals Secretary of State John Thurloe’s role in manipulating the

Introduction

9

press in order to gain supporters for Cromwellian kingship.25 Jason Peacey and Jason McElligott have explored the government’s efforts to control the press, arguing that Cromwell’s government had the potential to suppress any publication but elected to use this power sparingly, censoring only the most dangerous books.26 The other side of a state-dominated press is propaganda, which Kevin Sharpe has addressed. Sharpe discusses the different types of propaganda available to Cromwell, including oficial proclamations regarding the government, the lord protector’s speeches, and declarations inviting the nation to fast.27 All of these studies contribute to our understanding of the Protectorate, but none of them link the diverse print culture of the 1650s to the kingship question. Instead, they focus on speciic aspects of printing or only a small group of writers. What the historiography lacks is a study that includes a broad range of printed sources and places them in the context of the kingship question. This book seeks to ill this hole by exploring how Cromwellian kingship and print culture interacted with each other. ✻

Kingship pamphlets were part of a print culture that had been transformed in the early 1640s. With the outbreak of civil war and the collapse of censorship, the number of printed titles exploded. The year 1641 witnessed a 140 per cent increase in the number of tracts printed, and 1642 saw a 98 per cent increase over 1641.28 This expansion in print prompted other developments, particularly in the spread of printed news. Shorthand permitted “reporters” to copy down speeches at trials or on the scaffold word for word, and later print them. The introduction of “separates” (speeches or proceedings in Parliament that were published separately) resulted in information appearing in print quicker.29 These years also witnessed the birth of newsbooks, small publications that, by the opening years of the Civil War, were printed every week and reported domestic as well as foreign news. According to Joad Raymond, the appearance of the irst English newsbooks was caused by more than just the collapse of censorship. The Irish rebellion was crucial to the appearance of newsbooks since the English people desired regular updates from Ireland.30 These early newspapers were a collaborative effort and cannot be attributed to any one author; many people played a role in their publication.31 With

10

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

such an increase in printed material, both the print and political worlds of Britain were bound to be transformed. The breakdown of censorship in 1642 increased the number of political texts being published, but it is a mistake to understand the print culture of the English Revolution merely in terms of quantity. The ways in which printed texts interacted with each other and the political world were also transformed. In the Civil War years, printed texts responded to earlier texts, invited readers to compare texts, and encouraged readers to make a judgment on the conlict between king and Parliament, and later between different factions in Parliament.32 Never before had printed material interacted with the public in this manner. The emerging pamphlet culture imposed what David Zaret labels “a dialogic order on the conlict.”33 Each text supported a particular position, providing arguments for it while discrediting writings that espoused a contrary opinion. New radical groups were also able to use printed pamphlets to reach a large audience with their revolutionary message. For radicals, the pamphlet was “a voice, an incorporeal performance, an imaginative gesture never reducible to a simple statement, and able to extend the eficacy of communication beyond the boundaries of the parish or congregation.”34 The impact of this explosion of printed literature was not conined to the educated elite; texts were circulated and read aloud in public places.35 Such developments would continue to affect England into the 1650s as the question of Cromwellian kingship rose to the forefront. The Protectorate responded to the expansion of print with new censorship laws. These laws built on existing legislation from the Rump but were sharpened to it the needs of the Protectorate. On 21 July 1653 the Nominated Assembly “ordered that no person or printer was to print or publish any Acts, Orders, or proceedings of Parliament, ‘unless the same be irst licensed under the Hand of the Clerk of the Parliament to be printed by such a person.’”36 This act enabled the regime to control the printing of government proceedings, ensuring that no one could put a negative spin on the actions of Parliament. On 22 November 1653 the Nominated Assembly passed an “Act for establishing a High Court of Justice with, amongst the Acts annexed, an Act declaring what offences shall be adjudged treason, including ‘the writing, printing, or openly declaring that the government by parliament without a King is tyrannical, usurped, or unlawful, and that the Commons are not the supreme authority.’”37

Introduction

11

The target of this act was the royalists, since they were the only pamphlet writers who claimed that government without a king was unlawful. The act was essentially a reiteration of the laws during the Rump, but it is noteworthy in that it deines printing as treasonous and thereby reveals how delicate the subject of kingship was in 1653. With the creation of the Protectorate, the government passed additional laws. Cromwell and his parliaments attempted to control both the content of pamphlets and who was permitted to print. On 14 December 1654 “it was voted that there should be no printing nor preaching against such fundamentals [referring to the four fundamentals that Cromwell outlined in his speech on 12 September 1654, speciically, government by a single person and Parliament, parliaments should not make themselves perpetual, liberty of conscience, and control of the militia] as shall be agreed upon by the Lord Protector and Parliament.”38 Cromwell was rarely able to cooperate with the irst Protectorate Parliament; the mps sought to prevent anyone from printing negative comments concerning the few issues on which they and Cromwell agreed. One of the most important printing regulations during the Protectorate was passed on 5 February 1655, when the Council ordered that no one except Henry Hills could print or reprint any part of Cromwell’s speech dissolving the irst Protectoral Parliament.39 This order had a clear strategic purpose. Cromwell’s decision to dissolve the irst Protectoral Parliament after ive lunar months rather than ive calendar months was controversial. In his dissolution speech, he attempted to justify his action. From Cromwell’s perspective, the public needed to have access to his speech in order to understand why the irst Protectoral Parliament had to end. In the wrong hands, however, this speech could be edited or altered in order to portray Cromwell in a negative light. By restricting the printing of this speech to Henry Hills, the regime ensured that its version of the speech was the only one that the public would ever see. With the end of the irst Protectoral Parliament and the beginning of the regime of the major-generals, Cromwell further strengthened the printing laws. The lord protector instructed Colonel John Barkstead, lieutenant of the Tower, Alderman John Dethick, and George Foxcroft to determine what all master printers in London thought of the present government; to discover who used unlicensed printing presses and destroy their type materials; to ind out if all London printers had entered the necessary bonds, so as to ensure

12

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

that no one printed without authorization from the Council; and to halt and destroy all scandalous books. If they encountered any resistance, they had permission to break open any locks and call army oficers for support.40 These orders provided Barkstead, Dethick, and Foxcroft with considerable power. The failure of the irst Protectoral Parliament and concerns regarding the regime’s enemies prompted this enhancement of the censorship laws. In addition to passing new laws, the Protectorate took steps to ensure that everyone was aware of the printing regulations. In 1655 a pamphlet entitled Orders of His Highness the Lord Protector appeared. The pamphlet listed the responsibilities of Barkstead, Dethick, and Foxcroft41 along with the punishments for those who broke the new laws. If Barkstead, Dethick, and Foxcroft did discover any illegal printing, they were to arrest those responsible, place them in Bridewell, and seize and destroy the presses involved; the detainees could not leave Bridewell until they had experienced all corporal and pecuniary punishments as outlined in the law.42 The details of these punishments lie in an ordinance of September 1647, which stated that the writer of an unlicensed pamphlet would receive a ine of forty shillings or forty days in prison, the printer would receive a ine of twenty shillings or twenty days’ imprisonment, the bookseller would receive a ine of ten shillings or ten days’ imprisonment, and the hawker would lose all his books and be whipped as a common rogue.43 Cromwell’s printing regulations essentially restated previous printing laws, but with greater powers of search and seizure for state oficials. With such stringent censorship laws, the Protectorate was capable of conducting thorough investigations into the printing of seditious pamphlets. The most impressive example of censorship during the Cromwellian Protectorate was unquestionably the seizure of the pamphlet Killing Noe Murder. Published in Holland in 1657, Killing Noe Murder advocated the assassination of Cromwell. The threat this pamphlet posed was recognized by all members of the Protectorate; for example, Samuel Morland, an assistant to Secretary of State Thurloe, referred to it as “the most dangerous pamphlet lately thrown about the streets that ever has been printed in these times.”44 Two groups of state oficials discovered large numbers of the pamphlet, and both were quick to respond. A group of soldiers from the Tower were searching houses for “uncustomed” goods – imported goods for which the taxes had not been paid – when they came

Introduction

13

across the pamphlet; they responded by investigating and arresting the man who delivered the pamphlets. Similarly, an excise oficer noticed a woman who appeared to have uncustomed goods. He approached the woman only to realize that she was holding the pamphlet Killing Noe Murder. Immediately detecting the danger of the pamphlet, the excise oficer initiated his own investigation which led to a further arrest. Between the efforts of the soldiers and the excise oficer, the government seized 2,200 copies of the pamphlet Killing Noe Murder.45 Such a feat might sound impressive, but it was not a common occurrence. While censorship during the Protectorate had the potential to be powerful, the government chose to exercise that power sparingly. Historians tend to agree that, when analyzing Protectoral censorship, one should not count the instances of censorship in order to determine the effectiveness of the regime. Protectoral censorship focused on quality over quantity, banning only the most dangerous pamphlets.46 Although there are impressive examples of censorship during the Protectorate, these few cases do not demonstrate a repressive culture of censorship.47 Protectoral censorship “was less concerned to stile all oppositional tracts and treatises, but merely those which were, strictly speaking, seditious, in the sense of promoting unrest, advocating uprisings, and inciting rebellion or assassination, as well as perhaps as promoting heresy.”48 In such an environment, writers could produce pamphlets on the controversial topic of Cromwellian monarchical power, but they had to be cautious; if their criticisms became too obvious, they risked judicial punishment. ✻

With a censorship regime that was not consistently repressive, the question of Cromwellian kingship was prominent in 1650s print culture. Given the monarchical appearance of the Protectorate, it is unsurprising that the people of England began to ponder the nature of Cromwell’s power and the possibility of the lord protector becoming king. Everyone from foreign ambassadors to Quakers had an opinion on the subject, many of which were printed. Pamphlets ranged from open endorsement to outright condemnation. Although printed works may not have inluenced Cromwell’s decision to reject kingship, they did affect government policy and involved the entire nation in one of the most important political debates of the decade.

14

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

The kingship pamphlets expressed a range of opinions on the nature of Cromwell’s monarchical power. Some argued that the lord protector already was a de facto king, while others urged him to avoid taking any further steps in the direction of kingship. Their writing styles were equally contrasting, with some authors using direct language and others being more guarded. The Protectorate reacted differently to each kingship pamphlet, electing to censor some, ignore others, and endorse a few. The only thing that unites the kingship pamphlets is the topic of Cromwell’s monarchical power. Although they comprise the most public reactions to Cromwell’s monarchical power, printed pamphlets were not the only medium through which writers expressed their thoughts. For those authors deemed enemies of the regime, manuscript writing was sometimes the preferred method of discussion. The private letters and manuscript poems of royalists contain much speculation on the nature of Cromwell’s government. Reactions from within the regime were also sometimes too controversial to print. Even the lord protector’s own kingship speeches never appeared in print until 1660. Like the printed pamphlets, each of these manuscripts expressed on opinion on the monarchical nature of Cromwell’s position in government. Why did so many authors interpret Cromwell in this light? Perhaps the concept of Cromwell as lord protector was dificult to understand and writers viewed him as a king by default. Previous lord protectors in English history had ruled in the name of kings who were still too young to assume governing duties, such as Protector Gloucester during Henry VI’s minority and Protector Somerset during Edward VI’s minority. Cromwell, however, was different from these men, sharing only their title. Without any precedent, both English and foreign writers could comprehend Cromwell’s position in government only in monarchical terms. Seeing Cromwell as a monarch (who was about to be king) simpliied matters by presenting Cromwell in familiar terms. Although the perception that Cromwellian kingship was imminent was common among many writers, the background of each writer differed. Some held positions in the government as civil servants while others sought to entice the government to employ them through their writings. Still others were complete outsiders, either being labelled enemies of the regime or choosing to distance themselves from the political scene. Their allegiances prior to the Protectorate also varied, ranging from supporting Charles I, to

Introduction

15

backing Parliament, to neutrality. The only element that connects all these writers is their interest in the growth of Cromwell’s monarchical power. ✻

This book seeks to accomplish two objectives. The irst is to explore different reactions to the growth of Cromwellian monarchical power, both inside and outside government. Many of these reactions were public, appearing as they did in printed pamphlets. A few reactions, however, including those of Cromwell himself, lie primarily in manuscripts and were kept private until after the collapse of the Protectorate. These reactions were diverse; even within the Protectorate there was a range of opinions concerning Cromwell, and some Protectoral employees had more in common with outsiders than with their fellow employees. The variety of attitudes toward Cromwellian kingship illustrates the broader ideological trends in the English Revolution. Republicanism, religious radicalism, and conservatism were all active intellectual movements during the revolutionary decades, and individuals from each movement commented on Cromwellian kingship. Examining the reactions to Cromwellian kingship can, therefore, reveal how different revolutionary strands of thought reacted to a speciic political crisis. The second objective is to demonstrate that the question of Cromwellian kingship was not conined to the lord protector, his closest advisers, and Parliament. It was a public issue that was constantly debated in the print world. The government did not publicize the offer of the crown, but Cromwell’s semi-regal actions were enough to create speculation. When analyzing the kingship question, then, we must not view it as an event that occurred only behind the closed doors of Parliament; it spilled out onto the streets where writers were eager to comment and criticize. At this point, it is necessary to deine one key term that will appear throughout the book: monarchical power. When I use this term, I am referring to Cromwell’s position in government. The Protectorate was governed by a single person – Cromwell – and Parliament. Monarchical power has nothing to do with Cromwell’s title; it expresses the dominance that he held over the rest of the government. Also, in referring to Cromwell’s title, I employ two terms, the kingship crisis and the kingship question. The kingship crisis is

16

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

simple to deine. It is the offer of the crown to Cromwell in the spring of 1657 and the debates that ensued. The kingship question has a longer history, dating back to before the regicide.49 Beginning in the late 1640s, royalist pamphlets claimed that Cromwell desired the crown and that the entire Civil War was driven by Cromwell’s ambition.50 After Charles I was executed, the possibility of returning to some form of kingly rule always remained. Support for the regicide did not necessarily mean opposition to kingship. One could seek the death of Charles I and still hope that one of his sons would take the crown and maintain the Stuart house.51 Cromwell was one such person who believed that Charles I’s execution did not mean an end to monarchy. During a conference at the house of William Lenthall, the speaker of the House, in September 1651, Cromwell and other political igures are alleged to have debated the future of the English government. During the discussion, Cromwell argued, “If it may be done with safety, and preservation of our rights, both as Englishmen and as Christians, that a settlement with somewhat of monarchical power in it would be very effectual.”52 Although Charles I was dead, Cromwell still believed that a government with some monarchical element was the best constitutional option. Not only did Cromwell think that monarchical government suited England, he also may have considered himself a candidate for the royal title as early as 1652. According to Whitelocke, Cromwell, in 1652, proposed the question to him: “What if a Man should take upon him to be King?”53 After asking this question, he listed advantages of kingship: “And surely the power of a king is so great and high, and so universally understood and reverenced by the people of this nation, that the title of it might not only indemnify, in a great measure, those that act under it, but likewise be of great use and advantage in such times as these, to curb the insolences of those whom the present powers cannot control, or at least are the persons themselves who are thus insolent.”54 In this conversation, Cromwell complained about the inadequacies of the Rump and attempted to demonstrate to Whitelocke that the nation would be better off with a king. Whitelocke was not convinced by Cromwell’s arguments and he warned Cromwell of the risks involved with such a step. When Cromwell realized that Whitelocke could not be persuaded, he parted company with him, “seeming, by his countenance and carriage, displeased with what had been said.”55 Whitelocke’s account must

Introduction

17

be read with a careful eye, but this story does connect Cromwell to the crown in 1652. Between royalist pamphlets and his own comments, Cromwell and the title of king were linked years before the offer of the crown in 1657. The bulk of the sources used in this study are printed pamphlets from the 1650s.56 Although these sources are not new to historians, some of them have received minimal attention. Writers such as John Lineall, Michael Hawke, John Hall of Richmond, and Mary Howgill make few appearances in the historiography of the Protectorate. The more famous authors, such as John Milton, Marchamont Nedham, and James Harrington, have volumes devoted to them; however, their work is rarely analyzed as a part of a diverse print culture. By considering a wide range of printed works, I will situate familiar sources within the broad context of print culture, while also highlighting the importance of pamphlets that are marginalized. Chapters 1 through 5 focus on reactions to the growth of Cromwellian monarchical power from within the Protectorate. The irst of these internal reactions, examined in chapter 1, is that of the lord protector himself and the members of the kingship committee. Cromwell’s thoughts regarding his own power lie in his speeches, which are part of a debate over kingship between the lord protector and the men who offered him the crown. The kingship committee responded to Cromwell’s speeches, providing their own justiications for kingship. Chapter 2 turns to another form of internal reaction, printed propaganda. The creation of both oficial declarations and printed editions of Cromwell’s speeches were sponsored by the government and distributed to the reading public. The one issue that Protectoral propaganda did not address, however, was the possibility of Cromwell becoming king. Rather than attempt to promote the case for kingship in print, the government chose to remain silent on the subject. Related to printed propaganda is Mercurius Politicus, the oficial newsbook of the Protectorate, discussed in chapter 3. The editor of Politicus, Marchamont Nedham, received much of his information from contacts in the Protectorate. As with oficial declarations and printed editions of Cromwell’s speeches, Politicus made little mention of the actual kingship crisis and downplayed the intensity of the kingship debates. Chapters 4 and 5 address the reactions of the most diverse group within the Protectorate, Cromwellian writers. Although these men

18

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

all were employed by the Protectorate, their opinions on Cromwell’s power differed. While some of them criticized Cromwell’s monarchical position, others praised him in monarchical terms. Several of these writers – namely, Marchamont Nedham and John Milton – are part of the republican movement that emerged in the 1640s and 1650s. I have broken these writers into two subgroups – the prose writers and the poets – discussed in chapters 4 and 5 respectively. The prose writers include Marchamont Nedham, John Milton, and Michael Hawke, while the poets are Edmund Waller, Andrew Marvell, George Wither, and John Lineall. The book next discusses reactions to the growth of Cromwell’s monarchical power outside the government. I begin, in chapter 6, with Cromwellian monarchists and Stuart loyalists. The former – I use the term “Cromwellian monarchists” to refer to anyone who believed that Cromwell should wear the crown – believed that a return to monarchical government was the only way to end political instability in Britain. In their opinion, Cromwell’s acceptance of the crown was a natural step for a man who already held a semi-monarchical position. Cromwellian monarchists presented a challenge to Stuart loyalists, since they offered the nation a monarchical solution without a Stuart king. The military strength of the Protectorate meant that Stuart loyalists could do little during Cromwell’s years in power other than speculate on the lord protector’s actions and satirize him in poetic manuscripts. Whether they advocated Cromwellian kingship or considered the lord protector a usurper, this group represents the most conservative reaction to Cromwell’s power. The next external faction, examined in chapter 7, is the religious radicals who appeared in England in the 1640s and 1650s. These men and women – several sectarian writers were women – opposed the possibility of Cromwellian kingship. Sectarian pamphleteers held a diverse set of religious beliefs – Quakerism, Fifth Monarchism, and others – but they were united on the question of kingship. They argued against kingship on religious grounds, claiming that God had destroyed the ofice of king. Sectarian pamphlets were written in a powerful, direct manner, leaving no ambiguity as to the author’s message. This writing style put the authors at risk of judicial punishment, since their criticisms were both relentless and prominent. The inal external reaction, studied in chapter 8, lies in the work of the political philosopher James Harrington, another republican. Harrington’s major political work was Oceana, which drew parallels

Introduction

19

between England and the ictional island of Oceana. In Oceana, Harrington expressed his concern regarding monarchical power. Even though he was an outsider, Harrington’s critique of the lord protector’s power and his writing style has more in common with the republican Cromwellian writers than the monarchists or sects. Harrington, Nedham, and Milton had different positions in government, but they all had the same fear of Cromwellian monarchy. An analysis of all of these writings makes it evident that there was no consistent reaction to Cromwellian monarchy either inside or outside government, and that Cromwell’s power was a topic of interest across the nation, not just within Parliament. In the Conclusion, Cromwell’s own comments on kingship will be connected to the broader print culture, revealing that lord protector’s opinions were not unique; they were analogous to those of the most vocal political and religious factions in the nation. The kingship question was one of the most important issues of the 1650s, but it cannot be properly understood unless one considers the print culture that surrounded it.

1 Oliver Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Arguments of the Kingship Committee The key reaction to the growth of Cromwell’s monarchical power is that of the lord protector himself. As mentioned in the Introduction, Cromwell’s comments in the late 1640s and early 1650s reveal his preference for monarchical government. His conversation with Whitelocke in 1652 – assuming that Whitelocke recorded it accurately – suggests personal ambition for the crown. Yet, if Cromwell did have royal designs in 1652, he did not act on them. He did not become king in April 1653 when he dissolved the Rump, nor did he in December 1653 when he and the army oficers erected the Protectorate. Kingship was certainly an option, particularly in December 1653, but Cromwell preferred to reign under the title of lord protector. As his position became more entrenched and his rule became more autocratic, however, a faction (known as the kingship party) within the government desired Cromwell to assume the royal title. Its formal offer of the crown demanded a formal response from the lord protector, which took the form of eight speeches and one discussion, collectively termed the kingship speeches. Within these speeches lies Cromwell’s reaction to his own monarchical power. The kingship party, for its part, responded to Cromwell’s speeches, revealing its own thoughts on monarchy. These speeches and debates contain the reactions of the two highest levels of government: the lord protector and the kingship party. ✻

Many members of the kingship party had been moderate parliamentarians during the Civil War. For them, Cromwellian kingship

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

21

represented a return to traditional government and stability. In the Civil War, Sir Richard Onslow had been the dominant igure among Surrey’s parliamentarians, and he was responsible for Surrey’s conciliatory policies toward royalists. Because of these policies, political rivals in Surrey accused him of betraying Parliament’s cause.1 Men like Onslow who were neither regicidal republicans nor royalists were the type of men attracted to Cromwellian kingship. Similarly, Nathaniel Fiennes and Lord Chief Justice John Glynne were both prominent members of the Middle Party (parliamentarians who hoped to reach a settlement with the king) during the Civil War and attempted to negotiate with the king after the war. Pride’s Purge2 saw them fall out of favour, but they returned to the political scene during the Protectorate. Fiennes became one of the keepers of the Great Seal and Glynne was promoted to chief justice of the Upper Bench.3 The Protectorate embodied the Middle Party’s ideas of balance in government. Cromwell’s rise offered these former Middle Party members another chance at achieving their vision of political settlement. Political connections in Scotland and Ireland also brought mps into the kingship party. One of the key organizers of the offer of the crown was Lord Broghill, a member of a wealthy Protestant family in Ireland. Broghill fought the Irish rebels throughout the 1640s. After the regicide in 1649, he was persuaded to support the revolutionary regime in London.4 During the Protectorate, Cromwell favoured Broghill, and in 1655 he appointed him lord president of the Council in Scotland. Owing to his experiences in Ireland and Scotland, Broghill began to support the political union of England, Scotland, and Ireland. His attempts at a union bill in the second Protectoral Parliament failed, but kingship provided him with another opportunity. If Cromwell were crowned king of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the crowns of all three nations would be united.5 Additionally, Broghill, like many members of the kingship party, felt a deep sense of loyalty toward Cromwell. Broghill’s own belief in providence adapted well to the popular idea that Cromwell’s rise to power was an act of divine intervention.6 All these factors combined to render Cromwellian kingship an ideal outcome for Broghill. In order to create a new constitution with kingship, the various groups within the House of Commons, such as Presbyterians and lawyers, needed to be persuaded to work together. Broghill was crucial in dealings with these groups.7 His personal network included

22

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Cromwellian courtiers, country gentry, and mps from Scotland and Ireland.8 Yet, although he had an impressive circle, Broghill needed to gain the support of additional mps if he wanted to accomplish his objectives in Parliament. The key issues of the second Protectoral Parliament provided Broghill with the opportunity to manage his allies. In the debate over the militia bill, Broghill and his supporters were able to defeat the army faction, led by Major-General John Lambert, and end the rule of the major-generals.9 Similarly, the inal shape of the Humble Petition and Advice owes much to the work of Broghill and his friends.10 Through his personal network and his ability to manage Parliament, Broghill ensured that mps did not ignore the question of Cromwellian kingship. Broghill’s position in Parliament was based primarily on his ability to mobilize his supporters in Scotland and Ireland. In order to further his kingship project, Broghill used his skill at electioneering to return like-minded Scottish and Irish mps to the Protectoral Parliaments.11 His efforts enabled William Jephson and Vincent Gookin (as well as many others) to win seats; both men supported Cromwellian kingship. Jephson had been an enemy of Broghill’s during the Irish rebellion,12 but his hopes for a bipartisan solution between king and Parliament in the 1640s rendered him a natural supporter of kingship and a natural ally of Broghill’s in the 1650s. Jephson, like several of Broghill’s allies, pushed the issue of kingship to the forefront before the actual offer of the crown. On 28 October 1656 he raised the issue of hereditary succession in Parliament.13 Although the mps elected not to debate the issue in October, Jephson’s actions did create awareness of the problem of succession. Gookin had also been a parliamentarian during the Civil War, and in late 1649 he returned to Ireland and helped persuade the Munster Protestants to reject the royalists and support Cromwell. He became politically inluential in the 1650s and used his power to further his Irish interests; these actions brought him into Broghill’s camp. Throughout the second Protectoral Parliament, Gookin was a key ally of Broghill’s, supporting his assault on the militia bill and his constitutional reforms.14 Recruiting mps to aid him in his constitutional struggles was essential for Broghill’s success. His inluence in Scotland and Ireland provided him with the means to accomplish his objectives. Political connections were just one method by which mps could be brought into the kingship party. Marriage was another. Sir Charles Wolseley, the son of a royalist, may appear to be an unlikely supporter

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

23

of Cromwell, but his marriage linked him to several Cromwellians. He married the youngest daughter of William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, a leading member of the Middle Party in the Civil War and father of Nathaniel Fiennes. Through these connections, Wolseley obtained a seat in the Nominated Assembly and later played a key role in the coup that dissolved the Assembly and created the Protectorate. He was a member of the Council of State during the Protectorate and, according to Whitelocke, one of Cromwell’s closest conidants.15 Wolseley’s marriage permitted him to become a member of Cromwell’s inner circle, despite his father’s royalist convictions. For some members of the kingship party, their decision to support Cromwellian kingship represented a reversal of their earlier position. Sir John Lisle, later Lord Lisle, was a commissioner at Charles I’s trial. He took a leading role in the trial, advising the president of the court on legal matters and helping to draw up the sentence.16 Despite his republicanism, Lisle had no reservations about serving the lord protector and supporting Cromwellian kingship. Another shift in allegiance can be seen in Bulstrode Whiteloke. As mentioned in the Introduction, Cromwell, in 1652, presented Whitelocke with the question: “What if a man should take it upon him to be king?” Whitelocke’s response, “I think that remedy would be worse than the disease,” was less than enthusiastic.17 He went on to justify his position, arguing that if Cromwell became king, “the question will be no more whether our government shall be by a monarch, or by a Free State, but whether Cromwell or Stuart shall be our king and monarch … all those who were for a Commonwealth (and they are a very great and considerable party) having their hopes therein frustrated, will desert you.”18 How could Whitelocke abandon this position and become a leading member of the kingship party in 1657? The political situation had changed since 1652, and Whitelocke may have viewed King Oliver as little different from Protector Cromwell, except that the title of king was part of the ancient constitution.19 In 1652 Cromwell’s dominance over the political nation was not yet absolute. He was still a general in the army rather than a head of state. By 1657, Cromwell was the leader of Britain, and kingship promised an orderly and bloodless transition of power upon his death. It was the hope of a smooth succession that most attracted Whitelocke, a man who abhorred violence and bloodshed, to Cromwellian kingship.

24

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Throughout his political career, Whitelocke disapproved of and attempted to avoid the violent upheavals that plagued England. He was reluctant to enter the Civil War on the side of Parliament, agreeing to support the militia ordinance only because several leading parliamentarians convinced him “that they did this not to promote any warre, or prejudice to the King, butt for their just defence against Evill Counsellors.”20 As the war began and “the House of Commons being in debate about the raysing of an Army, naming a Generall, & oficers under him, Wh[itelocke] spate against it for the present, told them of the miseries of Civill warre, & moved to send once more Propositions of peace to the King.”21 Whitelocke was not only hesitant to side with Parliament, he was adverse to civil war completely. Later, in 1648, Whitelocke was invited to sit on the committee that would draw up charges against Charles I, but he refused to attend both the committee and the trial. On the day of the regicide, his journal reads: “Wh[itelocke] went not to the house[.] Butt stayed all day att home, troubled att the death of the King this day, & praying to God to keep his judgements from us.”22 Whitelocke’s distaste for violent alterations in government is further illustrated by his comments at the Rump’s dissolution. On 20 April 1653 he wrote: “Thus was this great Parlem[en]t[,] w[hi]ch had done so great things, of whom many were wise, just, couragious, & faithfull men, yet at this time wholly routed, by those whom they had created, maintained, & authorised, who could not justify anything they had done, nor any drop of blood they shed but by their authority.”23 Whitelocke had witnessed multiple forceful alterations in government during his lifetime, and he had no desire to see another. In 1657 the best hope to avoid such violence appeared to be Cromwellian kingship. These were some of the politicians who supported Cromwellian kingship. They had a range of reasons for desiring Cromwell to accept the crown, many of them relating to political stability. In their view, without hereditary succession, Major-General Lambert would succeed Cromwell and secure the power of the army over Parliament. In a letter to Henry Cromwell, Oliver’s son, dated 6 April 1657, William Jephson noted the power and inluence which the army oficers stood to lose if Cromwell accepted the Humble Petition. He wrote: “I doubt there is something more in their view who are so zealous against this petition. I suspect Lambert may thinke it not for his advantage that 432. [unknown code] may apointeing [probably a mistake in recording the code] and that the army and oficers may

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

25

looke upon all agreement betwixt the Protector and 439. [perhaps parliament] as daungerous to their interest.”24 Lambert and the other army oficers saw the Humble Petition as an attempt by a group of mps to marginalize their role in politics. In addition to limiting the inluence of the army, the title of king was a familiar one with deined limits. If Cromwell were to become king, he would be less likely to exercise unchecked and arbitrary power. Establishing a clear line of succession would also prevent political instability after the lord protector’s death. In a debate with MajorGeneral James Berry, John Bridges, an mp who represented the counties of Sligo, Leitrim, and Roscommon in the second Protectoral Parliament, argued this point. Bridges wrote to Berry: “Where every man in the nation hath a like right to the government by the death of the Lord Protector (as by the present constitution hee hath) itt may not reasonably bee doubted, but upon every change there wilbee a competition; especially whilst there is an entire army in each nation, under the conduct of (it may bee) of person of different interests, besides severall other persons of courage and high command.”25 Bridges foresaw a chaotic environment following Cromwell’s death, as rival factions fought for control. Bridges warned that in this situation “where will hee [one faction] inde any more likely to give him reliefe against this present adversary, or afford him more honourable terms, then the heire of the Stuart’s lyne?”26 By not securing the succession in Cromwell’s family, Parliament was leaving the door open for the Stuarts. The only way to prevent a Stuart restoration, according to the kingship party, was for Cromwell to wear the crown. ✻

Cromwell’s and the kingship party’s reactions to kingship lie in a series of speeches and debates. Unfortunately, these sources are fraught with problems and complexities that must be addressed if they are to be of any use. Thomas Carlyle once wrote that Cromwell’s speeches have “more of Oliver than in most of the history books about him.”27 That may be true, but what exactly did Cromwell say in his speeches? The question is not as simple as it appears. Today a historian can easily obtain a printed edition of Cromwell’s speeches – the editions of Thomas Carlyle, W.C. Abbott, and Ivan Roots (who based his edition on the work of C.L. Stainer) are all readily available. The easy accessibility of Cromwell’s words, however, is not as

26

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

positive as one might think. Part of the problem is that Carlyle, Abbott, and Roots either arbitrarily prefer one version of each speech over other manuscripts or produce an unexplained hybrid version. In each printed edition of the speeches, the editor selected one account to reproduce. In Carlyle’s Oliver Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches, which was re-edited and upgraded by S.C. Lomas (the work is henceforth referred to here as Carlyle-Lomas), every difference, no matter how small, between the versions of the speeches is listed in footnotes; however, Lomas provides little commentary concerning their signiicance. Abbott merely tells his readers to refer to Carlyle-Lomas in order to discover the variations in the speeches. In his appendix, Roots does provide a list of the alternate texts of Cromwell’s speeches, but offers no discussion of them. Roots’s work reproduces C.L. Stainer’s edition of Cromwell’s speeches, published in 1901 but no longer in print (and rare).28 Stainer offers some of the best commentary on the original sources of Cromwell’s speeches, and his conclusion is pessimistic. “On the whole,” Stainer wrote, “the general conclusion must be that the original reports of these speeches are missing, that many circumstances doubtless conspired to make them dificult to decipher, and that there is no very great reason to suppose that our translations or copies of them are necessarily accurate.”29 What does survive of Cromwell’s speeches? Some speeches appear in the newsbook Mercurius Politicus in summarized form, while the government ordered verbatim copies of the speeches to the irst Protectoral Parliament to be printed. Most of the speeches exist in manuscript form, but these manuscripts, as Stainer points out, are likely copies of originals. No two versions of any particular speech are identical. Small but important differences exist and have the potential to alter the meaning of the speech. How historians view Cromwell can, consequently, change depending on which account of the speech they read. The Carlyle-Lomas edition notes every variation, but Lomas is content to attribute them to copying errors. In some cases, the recorder can inluence the content of a speech. Some individuals desired Cromwell to be viewed as a conservative country gentleman rather than a religious fanatic; the wording of Cromwell’s speeches occasionally relects this desire. No analysis of the kingship crisis can be complete without a thorough examination of these speeches, and no understanding of these speeches is possible without examining the original sources.

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

27

The earliest surviving versions of the kingship crisis speeches lie in manuscripts collections and one Restoration pamphlet. The Clarke, Carte, and Ashmole manuscripts in Oxford and the Additional, Lansdowne, and Harley manuscripts in the British Library each contain at least one of Cromwell’s kingship speeches. The regimesponsored weekly newsbook Mercurius Politicus printed the main points of the speeches on 31 March, 8 April, and 25 May 1657. The Thurloe State Papers and the House of Commons Journal also have versions of several kingship speeches and the pamphlet Monarchy Asserted (published in 1660) contains nearly all the kingship speeches. Historians must acknowledge the differences between each source in order to better understand Cromwell’s words. Two examples from the kingship speeches will illustrate both the complexities of the sources and the danger of relying on current editions of Cromwell’s speeches. The irst example comes from three versions of Cromwell’s speech to Parliament on 3 April 1657, found in the Clarke and Carte manuscripts as well as Additional Manuscript 6125 in the British Library (referred to as the Ayscough manuscript in previous editions of Cromwell’s speeches).30 For this speech, the Carlyle-Lomas edition uses Additional Manuscript 6125, the Stainer edition relies on the Carte manuscript, and the Abbott edition merely states that the editor “follows no one source more closely than another.”31 Two of the editions of Cromwell’s speeches use different manuscripts of the 3 April speech, and the third combines in unexplained ways the various manuscripts into one amalgamated version. This situation is a problem for historians, since their interpretations will vary according to the edition used. The 3 April speech was Cromwell’s second kingship speech. In it, he told Parliament that he could not accept the royal title and he requested that the mps not ask him his reasons. I have added italics to the speeches to draw attention to key words and phrases. When discussing civil liberties, Cromwell, in Additional Manuscript 6125, says: “If anyone whatsoever thinke the interest of Christians and the interest of the nation inconsistent, I wish my soul may never enter into their secrets.”32 The interesting word is “Christians.” In the Carte33 and Clarke34 versions, Cromwell says “people of God.”35 The two terms may have different implications. The term “people of God” refers to an exclusive group. They were Cromwell’s “saints,” Puritans who held beliefs similar to his. The core of God’s people lay in the army, but God’s people also included “all who were serious

28

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

seekers after religious truth and faith however poor, however mistaken at times they stumbled on their spiritual path.”36 God’s people included some sects (like Baptists) but not others (like Quakers). It is impossible to determine exactly who Cromwell meant by the “people of God,” but he did not include all Christians – certainly not Anglicans and Catholics. If Cromwell did say “people of God,” he may have been trying to decrease the tension between the mps (who represented the public interest) and the sects (who represented the people of God). If it is dificult to determine whom Cromwell meant by “the people of God,” then the word “Christians” is equally challenging. Cromwell used the word Christian many times in his speeches, but with two distinct meanings. Sometimes he was referring broadly to all Christians, while other times the word carried a meaning identical to that of “people of God.” Two examples will illustrate the point. On 17 September 1656 Cromwell told the second Protectoral Parliament: “With this State [Spain] you are engaged, and it is a great and powerful State, though I may say that also with all other States, with all other Christian States, you are at peace.”37 When Cromwell said “Christian States,” he was referring broadly to Christian Europe as against the Muslims of the Turkish Empire and North Africa. Interestingly, the phrase “all other Christian States” implied that Spain, too, was a Christian state. Later in the same speech, however, Cromwell used the word Christian in a different sense. He said: “In my conscience it was a shame to be a Christian within these ifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years in this nation.”38 In this instance, “Christian” meant evangelical Protestant, someone who felt marginalized during the rule of Archbishop William Laud. Both uses of the word “Christian” appear throughout Cromwell’s speeches, which at times renders it dificult to discern his meaning. In the end, historians are stuck with three manuscripts, two different versions of a key line, and no printed edition that effectively addresses this problem. This example is particularly problematic since both meanings of “Christian” may relect Cromwell’s intent. A universal appeal to all Christians its with his personality, but so does an effort to ease tensions between Parliament and the people of God. The issue of which manuscript, if any, accurately relects what he said on 3 April remains unresolved. The second example has even larger implications. It relates to one of Cromwell’s reasons for refusing the crown, which he outlined in

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

29

his speech on 13 April 1657. This speech lies in both the Ashmole manuscript (whose provenance is unknown39) and the pamphlet Monarchy Asserted. Printed in 1660, Monarchy Asserted contains the speeches delivered by both Cromwell and members of the kingship committee who met with him in April 1657. This committee was established after Cromwell expressed reservations regarding the crown. Its purpose was to learn Cromwell’s reasons and persuade him to change his mind. The pamphlet was published anonymously; nonetheless, historians tend to believe that the author was either Bulstrode Whitelocke or Nathaniel Fiennes, both of whom were members of the committee.40 In his Memorials, Whitelocke did refer to Monarchy Asserted. He wrote: “When the committee attended his highness, I spake to him upon the point of the title king, giving reasons why he should accept of that title: the protector urged his against it; and I replied. The whole debate is in print.”41 Whitelocke wrote nothing more about the kingship debates in Memorials. One must be cautious in reading any of Whitelocke’s writings, since he wrote Memorials years after the events he was describing and could have altered his account to suit the political circumstances of the Restoration; however, his reference to Monarchy Asserted is still noteworthy. Although he did not claim authorship of the pamphlet, the fact that he provided so little information about the kingship debates and referred his readers to Monarchy Asserted suggests that he approved of the content of that pamphlet. He may have endorsed Monarchy Asserted because he wrote it, or because someone else wrote it but based the pamphlet on Whitelocke’s notes. According to Thomas Burton’s diary, Whitelocke, discussing the meetings on kingship, stated: “I told you I had no report in writing, but only some notes for my own memory, and I hope you will approve it.”42 It is conceivable that Whitelocke gave these notes to a pamphlet writer who then produced Monarchy Asserted. The evidence is too weak to identify deinitively the author of Monarchy Asserted, but whoever he was, he must either have been a member of the committee on kingship or had access to a committee member’s notes. Prior to Monarchy Asserted’s publication, Cromwell’s speeches to the committee had not been published. Mercurius Politicus often mentioned that Cromwell was meeting with the committee, but no details were ever provided. Monarchy Asserted marks the irst occasion when verbatim copies of Cromwell’s kingship speeches were printed and made available to the reading public. The pamphlet is

30

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

based on notes taken when Cromwell spoke in 1657. Why would the pamphlet’s author wait three years before publishing it? It is possible that the author of Monarchy Asserted prepared the text during the kingship crisis with the intention of publishing it after Cromwell accepted the crown as a means of justifying kingship. When Cromwell rejected the crown, publication was delayed until England was once again ruled by a king. The year 1660 would have been the ideal time for this pamphlet, whose full title was Monarchy Asserted to Be the Best, Most Ancient and Legall Form of Government, to be published. Although the exact moment of Monarchy Asserted’s publication is unknown, the Restoration was either looming or had already happened. Consequently, praising monarchical government was a wise course of action. One must also remember that the pamphlet contains more than just Cromwell’s words; it also gives the speeches of the committee members endorsing kingship. These speeches reveal the committee members to be loyal to the ofice of king, a necessary position for political survival in the Restoration. The author, be it Whitelocke or Fiennes or another committee member, produced Monarchy Asserted with the aim of improving his standing in Restoration England. Although the committee was offering the crown to Cromwell – a man whom the Stuarts considered to be a usurper – its arguments applied to kingship in general. Monarchy Asserted aligned the committee members with monarchical government, while at the same time distancing them from the republican rule that briely returned in 1659. Additionally, as we will see, the author edited Cromwell’s words in order to emphasize the traditional elements of the Protectorate rather than the religious fanaticism associated with the revolution. Compared to the Ashmole manuscript, the Cromwell of Monarchy Asserted appears conservative and monarchical.43 The author’s objective was to demonstrate that the values of the Protectorate, or at least those of the committee members, were similar to those of the Restoration. S.C. Lomas refers to Monarchy Asserted as “the worst text of the Protector’s speeches that we have.”44 She considers the variations of the text to be nothing more than misprints and errors, noting that in some cases the wording of Monarchy Asserted is incomprehensible.45 Perhaps some of the variations are the result of copying errors, but there is reason to doubt that every difference is a simple mistake. Monarchy Asserted varies from the other sources in a

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

31

consistent manner, always depicting Cromwell as a traditional king of England. Many of the differences between Monarchy Asserted and the manuscripts make perfect sense when one remembers the circumstances in which the author wrote the pamphlet. I am not suggesting that Whitelocke or Fiennes deliberately altered the text of Cromwell’s speeches to suit their needs. Historians cannot with any degree of certainty determine which, if any, version is accurate. It is simply not surprising that in Monarchy Asserted Cromwell’s conservative side dominates. The religious climate of the Restoration may account for the use, or lack of use, of the word providence in Monarchy Asserted. Throughout his political career, Cromwell both invoked providence to sanction his rule and lectured Parliament on providence’s impact on his soul.46 As mentioned in the Introduction, many historians assert that Cromwell’s belief in providence was a crucial part of his decision to refuse the crown.47 For Puritans like Cromwell, the doctrine of providence was not irrational or random; on the contrary, it formed a pattern.48 Determining the pattern of providence was an obsession for Cromwell, one that dominated his political career. The question is: What did Cromwell say regarding providence and the question of kingship? When discussing this issue, historians always quote from Cromwell’s speech on 13 April 1657; however, they quote one key line as it appears in the Ashmole manuscript. According to the Ashmole manuscript, Cromwell said: “Truly the providence of God hath laid aside this title providentially.”49 This line is quoted in countless studies of Cromwell, but an alternative version exists. In Monarchy Asserted, Cromwell said: “Truly the prudence of God hath laid aside this title providentially.”50 Was it the “providence” or “prudence” of God that destroyed kingship? The word providence has a religious tone, while the word prudence has a practical one. If Cromwell did use the word providence twice in the same sentence, as he does in the Ashmole manuscript, the focus of the sentence is religion. Cromwell’s religious beliefs were not in line with mainstream ideas in the Restoration, and the statement “the providence of God hath laid aside this title providentially” appeared in Fifth Monarchist and Quaker writings.51 Although the repressive religious legislation of the Restoration was passed after Monarchy Asserted appeared in print, the author may have anticipated the religiously conservative nature of the times. He surely knew that Fifth Monarchists and

32

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Quakers would not be tolerated. Perhaps the author of Monarchy Asserted thought it was repetitive to use the word providence twice, or perhaps he did not want Cromwell to seem to be a religious fanatic and inserted a conservative-sounding word like prudence. Or perhaps Monarchy Asserted has the accurate information and the Ashmole manuscript was copied erroneously. As in all cases, it is not possible to know for certain which, if any, version of the line is correct. Since two possibilities exist, historians must be cautious in using that line as a piece of evidence. How, then, should one use Cromwell’s speeches? My approach is to cite the speeches as they appear in the Stainer edition (which, although lawed, is the best edition available), include the original source that Stainer used as well as his editorial notes, and list any signiicant variations in the endnotes. With this method, I can take into account the differences in the sources without being bogged down with every variation. These variations are signiicant, but they must not be overemphasized. There are many lines in Cromwell’s kingship speeches that appear in all versions and reveal both his conservative and radical side. What historians need to remember is that, when citing Cromwell’s speeches, they must acknowledge the original source since that source can affect the meaning of the speech. ✻

With the problem of the sources addressed, it is time to turn to one of the key questions of this book: What was Cromwell’s own reaction to his semi-monarchical position and the offer of the crown? In his kingship speeches, Cromwell not only outlines his reasons for refusing the crown, he also reveals his thoughts on his position in government. The irst of Cromwell’s kingship speeches was delivered on 31 March 1657, when Parliament presented him with the Humble Petition and Advice, and the last was on 25 May, when he accepted the Humble Petition with the title of lord protector. In total, he made nine speeches on the topic of kingship, one of which (on 11 April) was an exchange between the lord protector and the kingship committee. Some of these speeches were made directly to Parliament, while the speeches on 13, 20, and 21 April were delivered only before the kingship committee. Ninety-nine men sat on this committee, including Lord Chief Justice Glynn, Master of Rolls William Lenthall, Colonel Philip Jones, Sir Richard Onslow, Nathaniel Fiennes, Lord

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

33

Broghill, Bulstrode Whitelocke, Sir Charles Wolseley, and Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal Lisle.52 Within these speeches lie Cromwell’s own thoughts on kingship, his reasons for ultimately refusing the crown, and an oratorical map of how his thoughts and reasons developed over the course of the kingship crisis. The irst point to establish is how Cromwell justiied his decision to reject the crown. Cromwell’s own conservatism rendered him naturally inclined toward kingship, but he listed three reasons that compelled him to refuse the crown. His precise wording was: “It [kingship] is not a title, though so interwoven with the laws, that makes the law to have its free passage and do its ofice without interruption as we think, but that if a Parliament shall determine that another name shall run through the laws, I believe that it may run with as free a passage as this”;53 “But if that I know, as indeed I do, that very generally good men do not swallow this title … yet I must say that it is my duty and my conscience to beg of you, that there may be no hard thing put upon me, things I mean hard to them, that they cannot swallow”;54 “Truly the providence of God has laid aside this title providentially. De facto it is laid aside and this not by sudden humour or passion, but it has been the issue of great deliberation as ever was in a nation.”55 Cromwell did not articulate any of these reasons until 13 April. Initially, he had been defensive about discussing the subject with Parliament. On 3 April, when Cromwell delivered his second kingship speech, he promised not to ask the mps for their reasons for offering the crown, and he hoped they would extend him the same courtesy. He said: “As I should reckon it a very great presumption should I ask you the reason of your doing any one thing in this paper … so you will not take it unkindly if I ask you this addition of the Parliament’s favour, love and indulgence towards me, [that]56 it be taken in tender part if I give such an answer, as I ind in my heart to give in [this business],57 without urging many reasons for it.”58 Cromwell did not want to accept the crown, but he was vague about his reasons. He said only that he was “unable for such a trust and charge,” and that he had “not been able to ind it my duty to God and [to]59 you to undertake this charge under that title.”60 These comments did not satisfy the mps who were committed to Cromwellian kingship. Despite his request on 3 April, Cromwell was willing, by 8 April, to discuss his hesitation about kingship with the committee. He told Parliament: “I am ready to render a reason of my apprehension,

34

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

which happily may be overswayed by better apprehension.”61 Part of the explanation for Cromwell’s sudden willingness to discuss kingship was the forum now available to him. His next three speeches on the offer of the crown were made to the kingship committee. He refused to speak to the entire House of Commons, yet he was willing to speak to a separate committee. Cromwell had known many of the men on the committee for years – Nathaniel Fiennes had been one of Cromwell’s allies in the House of Commons in the 1640s, and Whitelocke noted in 1657 that Cromwell would have private discourse with him, Lord Broghill, and Sir Charles Wolseley for hours62 – and perhaps he hoped that they would better understand his reasons. Whatever his motivation for agreeing to discuss kingship with the committee, these speeches offer historians insight into Cromwell’s thoughts on kingship and government. Before the committee on 20 April, Cromwell elucidated his role in government: “I have not desired, I have no title to the government of these nations, but what was taken up in a case of necessity, and temporary, to supply the present emergency.”63 In Cromwell’s mind, his position was never meant to be permanent. His title of lord protector and his leadership were responses to circumstances of the time; once those circumstances changed, he would no longer be needed. The title of king, however, was a permanent ofice that Cromwell would hold until his death. Accepting it would force him to rethink completely his actions, and this prospect made him uncomfortable. Cromwell’s other remarks on 20 April reveal his understanding of the duties of a lord protector. He told the committee: “It hath pleased God that I have been instrumental to keep the peace of the nation to this day, and to keep it under a title that some [say]64 signiies but a keeping it to another’s use.”65 The title of lord protector suggested that Cromwell was merely holding the nation together until another individual or assembly was ready to assume the role of head of state. Cromwell was willing to surrender his power to another institution, but he refused to do so until certain conditions were satisied. He announced to the members of the committee: “If the wisdom of this Parliament should have found a way to settle the interests of this nation, upon the foundations of justice and truth and liberty to the people of God, and [to the] concernments of men as Englishmen, I would have lain down66 at their feet, or any body’s feet else, that this might have run such a current.”67 Cromwell’s remarks were not

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

35

designed to clear himself of the charge of personal ambition – he was, after all, speaking to a group of men who were encouraging him to become king. Instead, Cromwell was explaining his role in government and how it differed from that of a king. As lord protector, he oversaw the general running of the nation until Parliament had worked out a settlement worthy of the people of God and Englishmen; ruling Britain as a king for the remainder of his life was not part of his job description. In the 20 April speech, Cromwell also demonstrated awareness of the committee’s anxieties concerning the continuation of the title of lord protector, and attempted to ease them. He admitted that “the evil spirits of men may easily obtrude upon a man, that he would have a name that the law knows not, and that is boundless, and is that under which a man exercises more arbitrariness,” but he was also convinced that the will of Parliament “would bound it [Cromwell’s title] and limit it suficiently.”68 The Instrument of Government had attempted to balance the powers of protector, Council, and Parliament, and Cromwell was in that sense a limited ruler; however, the Instrument could not deal with all eventualities, and as any number of events in 1654–56 (the creation of the majorgenerals’ government, the imprisonment of political dissidents without recourse to habeas corpus, the Naylor case) showed, the protector and Protectoral institutions had discretionary powers far beyond anything claimed by kings. In his speech, Cromwell sought to convince the committee members that they could enact as many limits on the title lord protector as they desired, and thus prevent it from becoming an arbitrary position. Cromwell viewed the ofice of lord protector as a creation of Parliament, and believed that parliamentary regulations were suficient to control it. Cromwell’s speeches also make plain his view that the question of kingship was deeply personal. For Cromwell, whether or not to accept the crown was a matter between God and himself. After being presented with the Humble Petition, he proclaimed: “And should I give any resolution in this suddenly, without seeking to have an answer put into my heart, and so into my mouth, by him that hath been my God and my guide hitherto, it would give you very little cause of comfort in such a choice, as you have made in such a business as this is.”69 Answering the Humble Petition was impossible for Cromwell until he had consulted God through prayer. Cromwell’s irst duty was to God. He could not undertake any

36

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

action unless he believed that it was part of God’s plan. All other factors were secondary. In the later kingship speeches, Cromwell further developed the idea that kingship was a private matter. On 20 April he insisted that “it can be no man’s duty, nor obligation, but it is between God and himself, if he be conscious of his own inirmities, disabilities, and weaknesses.”70 Being conscious of his own inirmities, Cromwell only listened to God on the issue of kingship. The logic behind this belief is simple. Since Cromwell, in his own estimation, was incapable of holding the ofice of king, the only entity that could give him the strength for such a burden was God. Parliament’s encouragement could not provide Cromwell with the ability to be king, only God could. On 8 May, when Cromwell deinitively rejected the crown, he again referred to the highly personal nature of the issue. In his opinion, “no private judgment is to lie in the balance with the judgment of Parliament. But, in things that respect particular persons, every man that is to give an account to God of his actions, he must, in some measure, be able to prove his own work, and to have an approbation in his own conscience of that, that he is to do, or to forbear.”71 The offer of the crown was a personal dilemma, and since Cromwell one day would have to give an account of all his decisions to God, God’s opinion was the only one of consequence. These comments may have been motivated by the printed pamphlets concerning kingship. If Cromwell was aware of these pamphlets – his efforts to arrest sectarian writers suggests that he at least knew of their existence – he may have been angered that certain citizens were attempting to sway him as he meditated on the private matter of kingship.72 When Cromwell referred to the arguments that the committee made in favour of kingship, he noted their focus on the law. One of the principal claims of Whitelocke, Fiennes, and the other members of the committee was that kingship was necessary for the laws of England to function. Cromwell acknowledged that “all those arguments [in favour of kingship] that are founded in the law are for it; because it hath been said it doth agree with the law, the law knows the ofice, the law knows the people know it, and the people are likelier to receive satisfaction that way.”73 Yet, while Cromwell viewed the pro-kingship arguments as being based on law, he was not convinced. In the early years of the Protectorate, legal reform had been a crucial part of Cromwell’s agenda. On 4 September 1654 he outlined

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

37

to the irst Protectoral Parliament his objectives. One of his hopes was “to reform the laws … and for that end, it hath called together persons, without relection of as great ability and as great integrity as are in these nations, to consider how the laws might be made plain and short, and less changeable to the people, how to lessen the expense for the good of the nation.”74 But, despite his concern for the law, the kingship committee’s legal arguments did not persuade Cromwell to accept the crown, partly because he believed that the laws of England functioned perfectly well without a king. Additionally, Cromwell viewed his arguments against kingship as being of a higher order than the law. He was more concerned about offending the people of God and God himself than altering the English constitution (something he had already done several times). Cromwell was unwilling to risk his own salvation to preserve a traditional government ofice. The members of committee took the wrong approach when they tried to convince Cromwell to accept the crown. They argued in terms that he respected, not in ones that he feared. ✻

The speeches made throughout April 1657 by Whitelocke and the other members of the kingship committee reveal how the committee presented the case for kingship to Cromwell. In the opinion of the committee members, the logical response to Cromwell’s growing monarchical power was to crown the lord protector. Their chief argument in favour of kingship was that the laws of England were better suited to having a king as head of state than a lord protector. Whitelocke expressed this view when he said: “It was thought that the title which is known by the Law of England for many ages, many hundreds of years together received, and the Law itted to it, and that to the Law, that it might be of more certainty and clear establishment, and more conformable to the laws of the nation, that the title should be that of King, rather than that other of Protector.”75 These sentiments were echoed by Lord Chief Justice Glynne and Master of Rolls William Lenthal, the latter asserting that “the word king hath such essential reference to the Law, that it never looks to the person, to make that the ground of the essence; but if it had been the name the law was satisied, and therefore it never examined the right of the person, how he became invested with the power, but de facto whether he were or no.”76 For Whitelocke, Lenthal, and the

38

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

rest of the kingship party, the only title that it the laws of England and was appropriate for the English head of state was king. In the words of Sir Richard Onslow, “every ofice ought to have am name adequate to the said ofice, and no other name than King can be suitable and comprehensive enough to contain in it the common good of all intents and purposes.”77 Tradition was also a key argument employed by the kingship committee. The title of king brought with it a long history of stability. Lord Chief Justice Glynne argued that “those certainties, and securities that accompanie that title [king] are incident by the ancient laws and customes of the Nations, and that which the other ofice [Lord Protector] can have, are inductive, and given him de novo from this Parliament, as their ancient inheritance, that can claim but by a new title of purchase.”78 Similarly, Broghill noted the ancient wisdom that had created the ofice of king. It was a mistake, according to Broghill, “to cast off an ofice that has been some hundred yeers a pruning and itting for the good of the people, to establish that has been but newly known, were to think our selves wiser in one day then our Forefathers have been ever since the irst erecting of Kingship.”79 This line of argument was well chosen, since Cromwell was, as mentioned earlier, a man of tradition, but it could not sway the lord protector. Not only did the committee list the beneits of kingship, its members also responded to Cromwell’s reasons for not accepting the crown. Cromwell refused the crown because he thought that the laws of England did not require a king, the godly opposed the royal title, and providence had destroyed kingship. Colonel Jones, Sir Richard Onslow, and Lord Broghill all responded directly to Cromwell’s assertions that godly men were against the royal title and that providence had struck down the ofice of king. Jones claimed that, once the public was aware of the contents of the Humble Petition, godly people would support it. He also argued that “the laying aside of a thing de facto, which though indeed it be an Act of providence, yet it cannot be construed, that the intendment of that providence is inally to lay it aside, never to be reassumed again.”80 Onslow adopted a similar stance, noting that no title would satisfy every man, and “we ought not to limit providence, nor can we bound it with a no further.”81 Broghill’s arguments were more aggressive. He pointed out that one could easily interpret the dissolution of the Rump as providence laying aside the institution of

Cromwell’s Kingship Speeches and the Kingship Committee

39

Parliament. He also informed Cromwell that, by refusing the crown, he was offending the good men in Parliament.82 In terms of Cromwell’s claim that God had destroyed the title of king, Broghill could not believe that “if that ofice were blasted by the hand of God, that the Parliament would advise and petition you to take it up.”83 The men on this committee were loyal to Cromwell, but they did not share his scruples about kingship. For them, political stability could be achieved only with a monarch, and Cromwell’s comments did little to convince them otherwise. The kingship party must have thought that its arguments were having an effect on Cromwell, since there was a widespread assumption that the lord protector was about to accept the crown. On 14 April 1657 Vincent Gookin wrote to Henry Cromwell (who was in Ireland at the time): “Now I conceive the conclusion is soe natural from those consessions that I cannot believe his Highness would grant soe much if hee intended to refuse the title.”84 Similarly, on 27  April 1657, Francis Russell, an mp in both Protectoral Parliaments, wrote to Henry, his son-in-law: “Your father beginnes to come out of the cloudes, and it appears to us that he will take the kingly power upon him.”85 Another more interesting letter to Henry Cromwell was written by Major-General Edward Whalley on 14 April 1657. Whalley wrote: “I believe yf the parliament continue to adhere to theyr former vote of kingship, his Highness will rather accept of that title then either revert to the instrument of government, which is now become very odious, or leave us in confusion, which inevitably we shall runne into yf he refuses.”86 Whalley’s comments are more surprising than those of Gookin and Russell because he was a major-general who initially opposed Cromwellian kingship. However, his statement here and the remarks of John Reynolds (an Irish mp in both Protectoral Parliaments) that “honest Whaley and Goffe were moderate opposers, almost indifferent [to the prospect of Cromwellian kingship]”87 suggest that he became reconciled to kingship. Despite Cromwell’s repeated assertions that he would remain a lord protector, the kingship party believed that it was merely a matter of time before he accepted the royal title. Even after Cromwell’s rejection of the crown, speculation about kingship continued among members of the Protectorate. On 16 June 1657 William Swift – secretary of Sir William Lockhart, a diplomat who reported to Secretary of State Thurloe – wrote to Whitelocke: “When a house of Lords come to sitt, there will be newe encasing88

40

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

in the parliament about the Title, and further addresses made to h[is] h[highness] to change the name of protector for that of king.”89 Cromwell was clear in his speeches that his conscience forbade him from taking the crown, yet Swift still believed that he might change his mind. The establishment of a second house of Parliament undoubtedly played a role in convincing Swift. With that development, the Protectorate began to appear more akin to the ancient constitution; all it lacked was a king. Cromwell’s refusal notwithstanding, it seemed likely that the kingship party would renew the offer of the crown. ✻

Cromwell himself never sought to put into print his views on kingship, but his words must be analyzed in order to understand the events of 1657. His speeches explain why a man who was politically conservative turned down the opportunity to resurrect a traditional ofice. The multiple versions of each kingship speech render any analysis of the speeches dificult. The differences in each version often relect the hand of transcribers and sometimes they can alter the image of Cromwell that appears in the speeches. Yet, despite these problems, a few conclusions can be drawn. Cromwell was more comfortable providing the reasons for his refusal of the crown to the committee than to the entire Parliament. He viewed the ofice of lord protector as distinct from the ofice of king, and, in his opinion, it was no easy matter to switch from one to the other. On the question of kingship, Cromwell preferred to heed his own and God’s council and adhere to divine law, rather than listen to Parliament’s council and adhere to England’s law. As will be demonstrated in later chapters, many of these ideas appeared in one form or another in print culture. Certain Cromwellian writers agreed with the lord protector that the laws of England did not require a king. The issue of whether or not Lord Protector Cromwell was already a king was raised by the monarchists. The sects emphasized God’s judgment on the title of king. Whether or not Cromwell actually read any of the printed works relating to the kingship crisis is unknown; nevertheless, the points he made regarding kingship found representation in the broader print culture.

2 The Absence of Kingship in Printed Propaganda

Within the Protectorate, the most public reactions to Cromwell’s monarchical power were in printed propaganda. The content of printed propaganda was controlled (for the most part) by the government and represented the opinions of certain factions. One might assume that, when analyzing the relationship between print and politics, propaganda commissioned by the government is a straightforward subject. Protectoral propaganda, however, is not a simple story of the government employing writers to praise Cromwell in print. The motivations and objectives of the government need to be considered, along with the circumstances in which the propaganda was produced. This chapter will focus on two types of printed propaganda: proclamations that addressed changes in government and printed editions of Cromwell’s speeches.1 The purpose is to determine how the government responded in print to various crises, particularly to the question of Cromwellian kingship. Before turning to speciic examples of printed propaganda, it is necessary to explore the importance of propaganda in early modern England. The word propaganda had a different meaning in early modern England than it does today. As deined by the Oxford English Dictionary, propaganda is: “An organization, scheme, or movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine, practice, etc.”2 Another deinition listed in the dictionary is: “The systematic dissemination of information, especially in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view.”3 In the seventeenth century, however, people knew the word propaganda only in connection with the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, or Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, founded in

42

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

1622 by the Roman Catholic Church to spread Counter-Reformation doctrine.4 At the risk of being anachronistic, therefore, this study uses the word propaganda in its modern sense, since tracts printed by the Protectorate promoted a speciic image of the government and often relied on misleading or incomplete information to do so. ✻

The use of printed propaganda was common among the governments of the Civil War and Interregnum. The Rump Parliament hired writers and printers to produce pamphlets that espoused particular doctrines and political messages. The most famous instance of this practice was when the Rump hired John Milton to write Eikonoclastes in response to the royalist tract Eikon Basilike, and the most effective was when the Rump sought to destroy John Lilburne in print. After the experience with Lilburne, the Rump extended payments to writers beyond the printing costs, enforced tighter regulations against Leveller printing, and was ruthless as it employed spies to monitor Lilburne while he was in exile. All these developments made the propaganda machine more institutionalized and professional.5 Cromwell and the members of the Protectorate, then, inherited an established system of propaganda; however, they also inherited a deeply divided nation. If Cromwell and his allies were to have any hope of gaining the approval of the English people, they would have to use printed propaganda. When the government elected to print a piece of propaganda, it assigned the task to one of its loyal printers. The man whom the Protectorate employed the most was Henry Hills. During the Civil War, Hills had served under Thomas Harrison, who made him a printing apprentice so that he might better serve the cause. By the summer of 1647, he was printer for the New Model Army. Although he continued printing for the army in 1649 and appears to have been made printer for the Council of State, he also printed at least two editions of Eikon Basilike and Leveller tracts. He joined the Baptist church of William Kifin in 1650 and printed numerous Baptist pamphlets from 1652 to 1661. Through his connection with Cromwell, Hills was able to obtain a monopoly on the printing of bibles. His close relationship with the lord protector was illustrated when he walked in Cromwell’s cortège.6 Although Hills was the dominant printer during the Protectorate, he was not the only one hired by the regime. The men who printed

The Absence of Kingship in Printed Propaganda

43

for the Protectorate were a diverse group who came from a variety of backgrounds. Even former royalists were recruited as printers. William Dugard – who printed Milton’s First Defence in 1651, A Declaration of Oliver Cromwell, Captain General of All the Forces of This Commonwealth in 1653, and other works with Henry Hills – was a royalist in the 1640s. His printing of Salmasius’s Defensio Regia resulted in the seizure of his presses and his imprisonment in Newgate. After a month he was released, thanks to the intervention of his friends John Milton and Sir James Harrington who persuaded Dugard to use his printing skills to serve the Commonwealth.7 Similarly, Thomas Newcombe – the man who printed Mercurius Politicus along with countless oficial pamphlets and endorsements of the Protectorate, including the work of Edmund Waller and Andrew Marvell – was also connected with Cromwell’s enemies in the late 1640s. In 1649 Newcombe was briely imprisoned for printing Lilburne’s Outcry of the Young Men and Apprentices of London, but afterwards he loyally printed for the regimes of the Interregnum.8 Enemies of the Protectorate identiied Newcombe as one of its chief printers. The pamphlet The London Printers Lamentations or the Press Opprest and Overprest linked him with Hills, and described the two printers as propping up Cromwell’s tyranny.9 While Dugard and Newcombe had questionable pasts, other Protectoral printers were associated with radical printing after their service to the state had ended. Giles Calvert was printer for the Council during the Nominated Assembly and then became the Quakers’ primary printer. Thomas Brewster, who served as printer for the Council with Hills and Calvert during the Nominated Assembly, was subsequently associated with the publication of two republican works, Sir Henry Vane’s A Healing Question and Marchamont Nedham’s The Excellencie of a Free-State. Even Dugard printed the anti-Trinitarian tract Racovian Catechism in 1652, all copies of which were ordered to be seized and burnt.10 This heterogeneous group of printers demonstrates that the Protectorate was indifferent toward the republican and sectarian afiliations of its printers. As long as they worked loyally for the regime and were skilled at their trade, the government continued to assign them work. The task of allocating printers for speciic jobs fell to Secretary of State John Thurloe. Thurloe rose to prominence in the Civil War, during which he was attached to mp Oliver St John. As Cromwell’s power increased, so did Thurloe’s. On 29 March 1652 Thurloe was

44

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

appointed secretary to the Council, and on 8 July 1653 he was given direction of the intelligence service. Mutual respect bonded the lord protector and his secretary of state, as both men remained loyal to each other throughout the 1650s. When Thurloe was ill in 1658, Francesco Giavarina, a Venetian resident in England, noted: “His Highness is not a little distressed, for he loves the minister [Thurloe] dearly and trusts him more than anyone else, the more so because if it was necessary to ind a substitute it would not be easy to come across one possessing his qualiications, who is equally devoted to his Highness.”11 Cromwell appreciated Thurloe’s work, but no public recognition of his operations was recorded, except when the House of Commons voted its gratitude for his discovery of Sindercombe’s plot.12 Perhaps Cromwell desired to draw as little attention as possible to the actions of his head of intelligence. Thurloe had been assigning printers to speciic jobs since the early days of the Nominated Assembly. On 11 May 1653 “Thurloe was to consider whether Giles Calvert, Ibbitson, Hills, or Brewster was most itted to be printer for the Council.”13 The mention of Hills’s name here is unsurprising, since he was a printer for the New Model Army and would later become the oficial printer of the Protectorate. Robert Ibbitson was also an obvious candidate for the role of oficial printer. He had been a printer of army documents since 1647 and had printed much literature in the Commonwealth period, including the parliamentary newsbook Perfect Occurrances, which ran from 1647 to 1649.14 Brewster was a less obvious choice. He did print an oficial proclamation regarding the end of the Nominated Assembly, but, as mentioned above, he would also be associated with the publication of the republican tracts A Healing Question and The Excellencie of a Free-State; however, these works did not appear until 1656 and The Excellencie was at least oficially an endorsement of the Protectorate. The real surprise is Calvert, who later did printing for the Quakers. In 1654 he published 47 per cent of all Quaker titles and several Quakers trusted him with forwarding their letters.15 Prior to 1653, he had done some radical printing. The government believed that he published Lawrence Clarkson’s blasphemous book A Single Eye all Light, No Darkness, but the Rump took no action against him.16 Apparently, this blotch on Calvert’s record was not enough to concern Thurloe, however, since Calvert did serve the Council as printer, but only until August 1653.17 His association with Quakers also began in 1653, and it may have played a role in his short stay. In any

The Absence of Kingship in Printed Propaganda

45

case, what is clear is that all the men mentioned above had experience in the printing trade, and in May 1653 they were all respectable candidates for the position of government printer. The two key questions regarding Protectoral propaganda are how and when such propaganda was produced. The most common event that triggered the printing of propaganda was an alteration in government. The structure of government rapidly changed in the 1650s. Each time a government failed, a new one replaced it, and in each new government Cromwell’s position changed. After Cromwell expelled the members of the Rump, the nation was governed by the lord general and an interim council until the Nominated Assembly was ready to sit; after the Nominated Assembly voluntarily dissolved itself, Cromwell was installed as lord protector. These developments brought with them new rules for governing and increased monarchical power for Cromwell. Both the Nominated Assembly and the Protectorate were unprecedented forms of government. In order to keep the population up to date on all the constitutional developments, Cromwell and his allies produced pamphlets outlining how one government came to replace the other and how the new one differed from the old one. Often in the voice of Cromwell himself,18 these proclamations presented an image of government which Cromwell and his allies deemed appropriate for the public. Such a policy not only kept the population informed about the politics of Westminster, it also presented each change in government sympathetically, so as to garner support for the regime. Given the many political problems of the 1650s, printed declarations were the ideal means for presenting Cromwell’s case to the nation.19 The irst major alteration that Cromwell brought about was the expulsion of the Rump in April 1653. The Rump was not a popular regime and Cromwell himself supposedly said: “We did not hear a dog bark at their going.”20 Yet the Rump’s dissolution did bring a degree of uncertainty. In order to address any concerns, Cromwell and his allies published the pamphlet A Declaration of Oliver Cromwell, Captain General of All the Forces of This Commonwealth on 30 April, printed by William Dugard. This tract informed its readers that, until a new assembly was established, a Council of State was going to rule the country. It promised that “no oppression or wrong bee don to the people; so a strict Account will bee required of all such as shall do any thing to indanger the Publick Peace, and Quiet, upon any pretence whatsoever.”21 Such a pamphlet reassured

46

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

a concerned population that Cromwell – the man who had expelled the Rump at musket-point – was not going to rule as a tyrant. Additionally, Cromwell and his allies issued, on 22 April, A Declaration of the Lord General and his Councel of Oficers; Shewing the Grounds and Reasons for the Dissolution of the Late Parliament, printed by Henry Hills and Thomas Brewster. As the title suggests, this tract offers a justiication for Cromwell’s decision to forcibly dissolve the Rump. According to it, the army leaders came to realize that “this Parliament, through the corruption of some, the jealousie of others, the non-attendance and negligence of many, would never answer those ends which God, his People, and the whole Nation expected from them.”22 Despite this realization, the army leaders continued to meet with representatives of the Rump in the hope of inding a solution to the problems in government. When the Rump convened early on 20 April and attempted to rush through several bills, Cromwell and the army found that they “have been necessitated, though with much reluctancy, to put an end to this Parliament.”23 This version of the events portrayed the army as doing everything possible to avoid a violent clash with the Rump. The emphasis on necessity was designed to clear Cromwell of charges of ambition; his actions were driven by a desire to save the nation, not personal aggrandizement. Even though the Rump was broadly disliked, Cromwell still felt compelled to inform the English people why he had chosen to end it. Several months later, on 12 December 1653, Cromwell was in a similar position. A majority of the members of the Nominated Assembly had dissolved the body, and Cromwell was elevated to lord protector under the new constitution, the Instrument of Government. Some printed works questioned the legitimacy of the Protectorate. In his pamphlet Certaine Queries Propounded, the Fifth Monarchist John Spittlehouse24 asked: “Whether it be not exceedingly necessary to make diligent enquiry what persons they were, who drew up the Instrument … And if it appear to be from an usurped power of their owne or others, then Whether the said persons be not guilty of High Treason against the Common-wealth, by inslaving it the Government of one single person.”25 Similarly, the anonymous pamphlet The Protector (So Called) in Part Unveiled portrayed the dissolution of the Nominated Assembly as a premeditated act. The pamphlet argued that “the so suddain coming forth of which Instrument, declares plainly, that it was not a new thing, but

The Absence of Kingship in Printed Propaganda

47

that which was thought of, contrived, and appointed some time before those Friends (before mentioned) [the members of Nominated Assembly] were turn’d out of the House.”26 With opinions such as these present, the government had to provide the public with an explanation of what had happened on 12 December. The pamphlet A Declaration Concerning the Government of the Three Nations was printed on 21 December for this purpose. Its printed was Robert Wood, who printed or helped to print countless newsbooks and, as noted below, would later be arrested for printing an unauthorized version of the Instrument of Government. A Declaration Concerning the Government listed few details about the events of 12 December, stating only: “The late Parliament having upon their Dissolution delivered up their Power and Authorities, which they received from his Excellency at their irst sitting by a Writing under their Hands and Seals.”27 Although brief, this statement stresses that the Nominated Assembly had received its authority to govern from Cromwell, and now it was returning that authority to him. Cromwell, in this version, was simply abiding by the wishes of the members of the Nominated Assembly. The real focus of A Declaration Concerning the Government is the ceremony at Cromwell’s installation as lord protector and the glory that his rule would bring to England. After naming everyone present at the installation and summarizing Cromwell’s oath, the pamphlet proclaimed: “So that now this Common-wealth is become the Wonder and Emulation of Europe; nay, of the whole World: since that the Lord Protector is resolved to defend and maintain our National Rights, Lawes, Liberties, and Privileges, against all sorts of persons whatsoever that shall dare to attempt the violation or extirpation thereof.”28 The pamphlet presented Cromwell as a hero, and questioned why anyone would disapprove of his regime. These arguments were published only nine days after the dissolution of the Nominated Assembly for the sole intent of garnering support for the young Protectoral government. In addition to producing A Declaration Concerning the Government, state oficials printed the Instrument of Government, the foundation of the Protectorate, for the public to read. Printing England’s irst written constitution was beneicial since it educated the nation on the new rules of government. Before it could be printed, however, someone had to ensure that it was ready for the public’s eyes. That someone was Secretary of State John Thurloe. Thurloe received

48

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

orders regarding the Instrument of Government shortly after the Protectorate was established. On 20 December 1653 “Thurloe was speedily to perfect the Instrument entitled ‘The Government of the Commonwealth,’ that it might be ready for enrolling.”29 The Protectorate also sought to ensure that only one version of the Instrument was printed. On 23 December 1653 “Edward Dendy, the Serjeant-atarms, was to search Robert Wood’s house, or elsewhere, for an abstract of the Instrument settling the government of the Commonwealth, seize all the copies found, break the presses used for it, apprehend the owners, the printers and persons employed, and bring them before the Council.”30 Within the Instrument were the rules for governing the nation; if an inaccurate edition of the Instrument was printed and distributed across England, people might become confused about the Protectorate. A more serious concern was that the printing of a deliberately distorted version of the Instrument, one that viliied Cromwell and the army oficers, would endanger the new regime. Despite the best efforts of A Declaration Concerning the Government and the printed edition of the Instrument of Government, the popularity of the Protectorate was low in 1656. The dissolution of the irst Protectoral Parliament coupled with the rule of the majorgenerals caused Cromwell’s regime to appear arbitrary. With the aid of printed propaganda, Cromwell and his allies attempted to address the regime’s unpopularity during the middle years of the Protectorate. Between the inauguration of the Protectorate and the year 1656, government propaganda was never silent, as the lord protector printed declarations relating to issues other than the structure of government. In March and May 1655, Cromwell produced declarations that both invited people to fast and defended his foreign policy against Spain.31 The pamphlet A Declaration of His Highness, by the Advice of his Council, Shewing the Reasons of Their Proceeding for Securing the Peace of the Commonwealth also appeared in 1655. In this tract, the government defended its policy of punishing royalists in the aftermath of Penruddock’sRising.32 The pamphlet provided the reading public with details regarding both the events surrounding Penruddock’s Rising and general royalist correspondence and plotting.33 These declarations were not part of Cromwell’s campaign to explain changes in government, but they do further illustrate the Protectorate’s ability to utilize printed propaganda.

The Absence of Kingship in Printed Propaganda

49

Yet, while the Protectorate was capable of producing effective propaganda, no oficial declaration on Cromwellian kingship appeared. This was part of a trend. Generally, the later years of the Protectorate witnessed fewer government declarations than before. Perhaps Cromwell made an earnest effort to persuade people to accept his rule in 1653, but by late 1656 he was distracted by foreign wars and reconciled to the fact that his government was unpopular.34 On the topic of kingship, the government-inluenced newsbook Mercurius Politicus (discussed in the next chapter) did project a royal image of Cromwell, and numerous pamphlets were in favour of Cromwellian kingship (see chapter 6); but there was no oficial justiication for offering the crown to Cromwell. Oficial declarations about government structure were produced only after major changes, not before; they explained past changes in government, not future ones. There was no need to defend an event that had not yet happened. If Cromwell had accepted the crown, a declaration justifying the return to monarchical government might have followed. ✻

For the Protectorate, printing Cromwell’s speeches was a doubleedged sword. By reading Cromwell’s words, people learned Cromwell’s reasoning for his controversial acts – such as the dissolution of Parliament or the establishment of the major-generals’ regime – and they might sympathize with the lord protector. On the other hand, releasing Cromwell’s speeches to the reading public provided the regime’s enemies with the opportunity to use Cromwell’s own words against him. This looming threat caused the government to be cautious in releasing Cromwell’s speeches. The Council did not order every one of the lord protector’s speeches to be printed, since some were too risky for public consumption. Among the speeches that were printed, a pattern emerges. Generally, Cromwell’s early speeches – that is, those to the Nominated Assembly and to the irst Protectoral Parliament – were printed, while the later ones were not. Why was the Protectorate keen to publicize Cromwell’s early speeches? To answer this question, one must begin by examining the exact date on which Cromwell’s speeches were printed. His irst two speeches to the irst Protectoral Parliament, on 4 and 12 September

50

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

1654, were not printed immediately after he delivered them. Initially, the newsbooks covered the 4 September speech. On 7 September, Mercurius Politicus offered its account of the speech; this account became the accepted version, as other newsbooks, such as The Perfect Diurnall and The Weekly Intelligencer, copied Politicus word for word.35 There also appeared two pamphlets containing a summarized version of the speech, one printed by George Freeman and the other printed by Robert Wood, both of which essentially copied Politicus. Where the two pamphlets differed was in their description of what happened after the speech. While Freeman’s pamphlet ends with Cromwell’s closing remarks on 4 September, Wood’s tract continues and provides a summary of the 12 September speech.36 The date of Freeman’s pamphlet is unknown (it was presumably before 12 September), but George Thomason dates Wood’s version 13 September.37 Wood must have had a contact in the government who relayed the events of 12 September quickly to him. The summary of the 12 September speech is so brief that it likely came from a source who was reporting from memory. At the conclusion of the 12 September speech, Cromwell obliged all the mps to sign a document recognizing the validity of the Instrument of Government. This requirement angered many mps, who would have been happy to leak the story to a printer. Printing a summary of the 12 September speech in this fashion was risky, but Wood had a history of controversial printing – his house had been searched for an unauthorized edition of the Instrument of Government – and the threat of censorship did not deter him. Wood, Freeman, and Politicus printed only summaries of Cromwell’s speeches. Both the 4 and 12 September speeches had to wait until 26 September to receive an extensive treatment in print. On this date, a pamphlet that contained verbatim copies of both the 4 and 12 September speeches appeared, printed by Thomas Ratcliffe and Edward Mottershed. The two men had been partners since 1646 and their initials appear on many pamphlets produced in the 1640s and 1650s.38 In 1664 Mottershead had trouble with the print authorities, being arrested at the instance of the Stationers’ Company for the illegal printing of law books, but during the Protectorate both he and Ratcliffe appear to have operated without harassment from the Stationers’ Company or government.39 Given that the Ratcliffe/Mottershed pamphlet is the only verbatim version of the two speeches, it is possible that the government saw the need to leak

The Absence of Kingship in Printed Propaganda

51

the content of the speeches in order to ensure accurate reporting of Cromwell’s words. In its early years, the Protectorate was adopting a policy of transparency designed to keep the public informed. Such a policy was crucial at the beginning of the Protectorate, when Cromwell’s speeches to the irst Protectoral Parliament justiied his position of power. A more peculiar case is Cromwell’s speech to the Nominated Assembly. Cromwell delivered this speech on 4 July 1653, yet it did not appear in print until 13 October 1654. Why would the Protectorate wait so long before making Cromwell’s words to the Nominated Assembly public? And why would it choose October 1654 as the time to print Cromwell’s full speech? The answer may lie with the close proximity this publication had to the printing of Cromwell’s other speeches. Cromwell and his advisers may have thought it pertinent to reveal the contents of Cromwell’s speech to the Nominated Assembly in order to demonstrate that the lord protector had nothing to hide. In the early stages of the Protectorate, many details of the new government were made available to the public. The entire text of the Instrument of Government was printed, both in Mercurius Politicus40 and in a separate pamphlet. Politicus also contained the proclamation that declared Cromwell to be lord protector and the oath he took.41 This policy of governmental transparency may have prompted the publication in October 1654 of Cromwell’s speech to the Nominated Assembly in the hope that openness would foster more support for the Protectorate. The danger of this policy was revealed shortly after the speeches of 4 July and 4 and 12 September entered public discourse. After reading these speeches, Fifth Monarchist John Spittlehouse published a response entitled An Answer to One Part of the Lord Protector’s Speech in which he used isolated lines from Cromwell’s speeches on 4 July and 4 September to vilify the lord protector. For the speech to the Nominated Assembly, Spittlehouse quoted directly from the pamphlet The Lord General Cromwell’s Speech Delivered in the Council-Chamber, upon the 4 of July, 1653 and even provided the page numbers from which he was quoting. He handled the speech to the irst Protectoral Parliament differently, relying on two printed versions of the 4 September speech. One was entitled The Speech of His Highnesse the Lord Protector to the Parliament in the Painted Chamber at Westminster, on Munday Last, Being the Fourth of this Instant September, printed by Freeman; the other was His

52

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Highnesse the Lord Protector’s Speeches in the Painted Chamber, the One on Monday the 4th of September; the Other on Tuesday the 12th of September, printed by Ratcliffe and Mottershed. When quoting the 4 September speech, Spittlehouse never provided a page number and generally followed the text of the Ratcliffe/Mottershed version; however, there were a few occasions when he merged the two texts. An example of this blending occurred when Cromwell discussed the Fifth Monarchy men. The Ratcliffe/Mottershed version reads: “But I say, there are others more reined, many honest people, whose hearts are sincere, and the evil that hath deceived them is the mistaken Notion of ifth Monarchy.”42 Spittlehouse’s pamphlet, however, reports Cromwell as saying: “But, I say, there are others more reined; many honest people whose hearts are sincere, many of them belonging to God: and this is the mistaken notion of the fifth monarchy.”43 The phrase “many of them belonging to God” did not appear in Ratcliffe/Mottershed version, but it was in the Freeman version, which stated: “But there was another thing that deceived many well meaning people, whose hearts are sincere, and such (as he was perswaded) belong to God, and that is the Fifth Monarchie.”44 Although Spittlehouse primarily relied on the Ratcliffe/Mottershed version, he borrowed phrases from other pamphlets if it suited his purpose. Spittlehouse’s use of printed editions of Cromwell’s speeches did not go unnoticed by the Protectoral authorities. On 19 October 1654 Spittlehouse’s pamphlet An Answer to One Part of the Lord Protector’s Speech was “sent to the Attorney-General, who is to proceed against them [Spittlehouse and his publisher Livewell Chapman45] according to the law, give account to the council of his opinion, and meanwhile the sergeant-at-arms is to retain them in custody.”46 While in custody, Spittlehouse petitioned Cromwell, but to no avail. The attorney general and the rest of the government took Spittlehouse’s writing seriously, since it had the potential to shape the public’s perception of the lord protector. Cromwell’s inal speech to the irst Protectoral Parliament, in which he announced its dissolution, was the last of the lord protector’s speeches to be printed verbatim. The motives for printing this speech are clear. Cromwell’s decision to dissolve the irst Protectoral Parliament after ive lunar months rather than ive calendar months was controversial and had the potential to anger the

The Absence of Kingship in Printed Propaganda

53

public. By printing this speech, Cromwell informed the public of his reasons for the dissolution in the hope of gaining some support. A newsletter sent to William Clarke in Scotland suggests that Cromwell took a personal interest in the printing. It states: “His Highness nott having time to peruse his speech and correct itt for the presse is the reason why itt is not yet published.”47 The printing of the speech was entrusted to Henry Hills, and the inal page of the printed version ordered that no one except Hills could print or reprint any part it. In addition to the oficial version, Robert Wood printed the pamphlet A Declaration of His Highness the Lord Protector, upon His Actual Dissolution of the Parliament of England, which summarized the dissolution speech. Thomason dates this tract 31 January, ive days before the Council ordered that no one other than Henry Hills could print Cromwell’s speech.48 As with the 12  September speech, Wood might have received his information from a contact within Parliament. The appearance of Wood’s pamphlet likely startled the government and prompted it to limit the printing of such a sensitive speech. Cromwell’s words needed to be controlled, especially when he discussed controversial issues, such as dissolving Parliament. After Cromwell dissolved the irst Protectoral Parliament, his speeches never appeared in print verbatim. Summaries of later speeches were in Mercurius Politicus, but none were printed in a separate pamphlet. Part of the reason for not printing the later speeches was undoubtedly Spittlehouse’s misuse of the printed versions of the early speeches. Consequently, the kingship speeches never appear in full in print, only as passing references in Mercurius Politicus, and then in 1660 in the pamphlet Monarchy Asserted. The Protectorate’s strategy of transparency had failed. The information it provided in print became ammunition for its enemies. Cromwell’s kingship speeches, with their sectarian tone, would have been easy targets for Fifth Monarchists and royalists alike. This possibility ensured that Cromwell’s comments on kingship would never be publicly revealed during the lord protector’s lifetime. ✻ Although the Protectorate was capable of producing printed propaganda, it chose to remain silent on the speciic issue of kingship, while at the same time defending Cromwell’s position of power

54

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

within the government. Oficial justiications were never released because Cromwell never became king. The kingship speeches did not appear in print because they had a sectarian tone. Ironically, the men who actually offered the crown to Cromwell contributed little to the printed debate over kingship. Their objective was to keep the kingship crisis out of the public discourse until after Cromwell accepted the crown. Since he rejected the crown, they did not make an effort to publish anything on the kingship question during the Protectorate. The kingship party’s side of the story would not appear in print until the Restoration, when the political situation prompted the publication of Monarchy Asserted.

3 Mercurius Politicus: A Newsbook’s Account of the Kingship Crisis In cases where the government issued a pamphlet that contained the words of one of Cromwell’s speeches, one can easily determine the Protectorate’s message. Since the Council of State and the lord protector himself supplied the words for the speech, a writer was not needed, only a printer. With Mercurius Politicus and its editor Marchamont Nedham, the situation is not as simple. Politicus was a newsbook, which, like all publications of the kind, had certain key features. According to Joad Raymond, “a newspaper is formally deined by seriality, precise periodicity, physical continuity, consecutive numbering and a stable title.”1 Prior to the Civil War, no printed news items had all of these features. In the late sixteenth century, there was printed news in England, but it was irregular, appeared only when a signiicant event occurred, and tended to focus on foreign news.2 When the Civil War began, the reading public noticed a decline in the quality of reporting, as newsbooks switched from cautious objectivity to partisan politicization.3 With the establishment of the Protectorate, printed news – this was restricted to Politicus – continued to be partisan, but not always for the same party. Although pro-Protectorate in nature, Politicus contained more than just the opinions of Thurloe, Cromwell, and other senior members of the Protectorate. ✻

Since Politicus was a state-sponsored newsbook, either Thurloe or someone in his ofice both supplied Nedham with information and read Politicus in order to ensure that it contained no seditious

56

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

material. There was a connection between Thurloe’s ofice and Politicus, but how closely did Thurloe and his staff work with Nedham? The new printing regulations certainly beneited Politicus. In the fall of 1654, Parliament ordered that the reporting of its activities was to be conined to papers that held a licence, and Politicus was the only paper to receive such a licence.4 The popularity of Nedham’s paper stemmed in part from the international contacts he maintained. He was able to include stories from as far away as Turkey and China and he offered detailed reporting on the Piedmontese massacre.5 Once Thurloe began to monitor the mail, Nedham’s competitors were cut off from foreign information and went out of business; Nedham responded by increasing the price of advertisements in his paper.6 All of these facts suggest that the Protectorate desired Politicus to succeed, but they do not prove that Thurloe personally monitored the content of Politicus. Contemporaries certainly viewed Thurloe as controlling Politicus. A letter dated 9 October 1655 from William Dugdale, a royalist who had been at court at Oxford during the Civil War, to John Langley, headmaster of St Paul’s school, reads: “It seems our superiors are not pleased that so much of these matters [the failure of the Western Design] should be communicated by the press; for they have restrained all pamphlets but Politicus, which is to be viewed by the Secretary of State.”7 When Dugdale wrote that Politicus was “viewed” by the secretary of state, he meant that Thurloe read and approved of everything in Politicus before it was printed. Several individuals wrote to Thurloe complaining about the content of Politicus. For example, on 3 March 1654 Whitelocke wrote to Thurloe: “I am sorry that so much of our letters from us all are printed, especially of discourse between the Queene and me, they have here the weekly diurnalls, and are not well pleased with them.”8 Similarly, on 6 November 1655, John Dury – a former royalist who, during the Protectorate, held the post of deputy keeper (under Whitelocke) of what had been the king’s library at St James’s Palace – exclaimed in a letter to Thurloe: “I desire that Mercurius Politicus may not characterize me when hee makes extracts; as hee hath done in his issues of Thursday Octob. 11 to Thursday October 18 1655 in these pages 5689 & 5690, & 5691. Where the circumstantial matters point me so out, that I may suffer thereby hereafter.”9 Dury’s case is noteworthy since he provides the exact page numbers that

Mercurius Politicus

57

offended him. The decision of these men to write to Thurloe suggests that they believed that he was responsible for Politicus. Historians have also been eager to link Thurloe and Nedham. Philip Aubrey states that Thurloe, through his elaborate connection of informants, supplied Nedham with information for both Mercurius Politicus and the Publick Intelligencer – Nedham’s second newsbook, which irst appeared in 1655 and basically repeated the news in Politicus but was sold on a different day.10 Joseph Frank goes even further, suggesting that “Nedham frequently touched base with Thurloe.”11 This image of Thurloe and Nedham meeting on a regular basis is too simplistic and requires a re-examination. Although the detail in Politicus suggests that Nedham did have a contact within the Protectorate, there is little evidence that he frequently met with Thurloe. Within the Thurloe State Papers, there are few references to either Nedham or Politicus. Only one letter from Samuel Morland, Thurloe’s assistant, to Thurloe suggests any kind of agreement between the two men. In the letter, Morland complained that “for the moytie of the newes-book profitts, your lordshipp was so favourablie pleased to order mee, to receive Mr. Nedham, hee has so artiicially delayed the payment thereof (sometimes pleading poverty, and that your lordship lay too hard upon him, contrary to your promise, sometimes promising mee fayre and disappoynting mee) that hee is now in arrears with mee at least 280 l. and has lately told mee plainly, that hee will pay mee no more.”12 This is the most detailed account of Nedham’s relationship with Thurloe, and it is dificult to determine the nature of the relationship from this letter. Thurloe made some kind of “promise” to Nedham, but there is no information regarding what the promise was or when it was made. If Nedham was giving a percentage of his proits to Thurloe’s ofice, he could have been receiving information in return. Or this money could be a tribute that Thurloe demanded as payment for the printing laws that put Nedham’s competitors out of business. If Morland was in charge of collecting money from Nedham, he may also have been Nedham’s principle contact. It is conceivable that all exchanges of money and information were done by Morland, and that Thurloe and Nedham rarely met. Cromwell’s secretary of state was a busy man and, in the words of Raymond, “it is doubtful that he ever found time to pass more than a cursory eye over the completed text [of Mercurius Politicus] before it went to press.”13 Thurloe was

58

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

oficially in charge of Politicus (which is why people complained to him about the newsbook), but he seems to have delegated the daily business of Politicus to Morland. The content of Politicus suggests that someone within the Protectorate was pressuring Nedham. At certain points, a voice other than Nedham’s emerges in Politicus in order to disseminate oficial propaganda. At the same time, Politicus was clearly not a simple mouthpiece for the government, since Nedham’s own voice and style are prominent. Sometimes Nedham’s interest and the Protectorate’s interest (or least the interest of certain members of the Protectorate) became intertwined, and both parties spoke together through Politicus. But Politicus was always a heterogeneous newsbook that contained the opinions of Nedham and his paymasters as well as foreign correspondents.14 Nedham knew that there were limits as to what he could print, and he was cautious when printing English political news. He illed up so much space with foreign news and non-political domestic news that Parliament’s activities were described only briefly. Several of Cromwell’s kingship speeches are in Politicus – or at least some heads of Cromwell’s speeches – but the fact that the most controversial speeches do not appear is revealing. Three of Cromwell’s kingship speeches were printed in Politicus: those of 31 March 1657, 8 April 1657, and 25 May 1657. In each case, Nedham provided only a summary, not a word-for-word rendition. Most of the lines in Politicus contain the exact words Cromwell used; Nedham simply chose to leave out sentences that he thought were repetitive, irrelevant, or too controversial. The remaining kingship speeches, however, are not present in any issue of Polticus. A close look at the three speeches that do appear reveals a pattern. The irst kingship speech to appear in Politicus – that of 31 March 1657 – was delivered on the day that Parliament presented the Humble Petition to Cromwell. After the presentation, Cromwell pointed out how important this document was and said that he needed some time alone to consider its contents. He made no controversial remarks and provided no hint as to whether he would accept the Humble Petition or not. The 8 April speech was also generally neutral, except for one line, in which Cromwell said he was uncertain about the royal title. The line is: “I had, and I have, hesitation as to that individual thing [the crown].”15 This line did not appear in Politicus, yet it is present in the Clarke, Asycough, and Additional manuscripts. Either Nedham chose to remove the one line that

Mercurius Politicus

59

offered insight into Cromwell’s decision, or Thurloe and his associates provided Nedham with a carefully edited version of the speech for publication. Additional Manuscript 4157 at the British Library, which is part of the Thurloe Papers, contains this speech;16 therefore, Thurloe had a copy of the 8 April speech and could have produced an edited version for Nedham. It is also noteworthy that, while the 31 March speech and an edited version of the 8 April speech were included in Politicus, the 3 April speech – in which Cromwell expressed his apprehension about kingship – was not. For 3 April, Politicus merely states: “The same Afternoon, the Committee of the House attending his Highnes, He was pleased to deliver his sence to them in a Speech.”17 There were no clues as to what Cromwell’s “sence” was, and no further information on the 3 April speech appeared in Politicus. The editorial decisions regarding these irst three speeches had an obvious purpose: to conceal Cromwell’s hesitation and create the illusion of unity in the government. All Cromwell’s speeches to the kingship committee were absent from Politicus. Since these speeches revealed the distance between Cromwell and the men who offered him the crown, their nonappearance is unsurprising. Politicus referred to Cromwell making speeches to the committee, but never provided any details. For the 13 April speech – in which Cromwell outlined his precise reasons for rejecting the crown – Politicus stated: “The Committee of Parliament appointed to attend his Highnes, having on Saturday last presented divers Reasons in Order to his Highnes satisfaction, touching the humble Petition and Advice of the Parliament, formerly presented to his Highnes, did attend him again this day; and being admitted to his presence, his Highnes offered divers things unto them, to be communicated to the House.”18 Nedham did not elaborate on the “divers things” that Cromwell said to the committee, keeping his readers in the dark. His reporting of the 21 April speech was similar: “The Lord Whitelocke acquainted the House, that the Committee attended his Highnes yesterday, who was pleased to speak something to what had been formerly offered, and had a Paper, wherein (hee said) were contained other Things which hee had to offer to the Committee and desired another time to be appointed to that purpose.”19 Once again, Politicus mentioned only that Cromwell delivered a speech; it said nothing about its content. Not until 25 May was there a proper account of one of Cromwell’s speeches. On 25 May, Cromwell accepted the Humble Petition and Advice with its offer of the title

60

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

of lord protector. Like the speeches of 31 March and 8 April, the 25 May speech lacked controversy. It also represented a joyous occasion, the advent of the new written constitution. Of the eight speeches that Cromwell made regarding kingship, only the bland speeches of 31 March, 8 April, and 25 May were deemed appropriate for public consumption. Nedham – or his political masters – did not want the public to know about the disagreements over kingship. If one read only the 31 March speech and the version of the 8 April speech that was in Politicus, one would have no idea how dificult it was for Cromwell to decide whether or not to accept the crown. Politicus projected the illusion of harmony among the nation’s rulers. If factions who opposed kingship, such as the sects, were aware of the discord over the question of the crown, then they might have been motivated to take action to sway Cromwell. Thanks to the reporting in Politicus, the sects had no knowledge of the kingship debates. Their ignorance on this issue partly explains why they did not produce any kingship pamphlets during the actual kingship crisis;20 based on the information in Politicus, attempting to dissuade Cromwell from accepting the crown was a lost cause. Another reason why Thurloe and the more conservative elements of the Protectorate desired to keep the kingship speeches out of Politicus was their sectarian nature. As will be discussed in chapter  7, when Cromwell explained why he could not accept the crown, his reasoning was akin to that of the sects. Sectarian pamphlets were prominent in the public sphere. If the kingship speeches appeared in Politicus, members of the reading public might note the similarities between Cromwell’s language and the sects’. Thurloe and the rest of the kingship party viewed Cromwell as a stabilizing force. Such an image was popular with a nation that had experienced civil war and much political turmoil; however, the people would never see Cromwell as a champion of stability if they linked him with radical Fifth Monarchists and other sects. The friends of Cromwellian kingship refused to let the public know that Cromwell rejected the crown on the same grounds as the sects; consequently, none of Cromwell’s speeches to the committee on kingship were printed until after his death. Nevertheless, one must remember that Cromwell provided three reasons for his decision: the laws of England did not require a king; godly men were opposed to the royal title; and God’s providence had

Mercurius Politicus

61

struck down both the royal family and the royal title. Only the last two reasons were in agreement with sectarian arguments. Nedham hated the sects just as much as the conservative Cromwellians,21 but he was also no friend of monarchy.22 Nedham was wary about the possibility of Cromwell becoming king, and he certainly would have agreed with Cromwell that the laws of England did not require a king. Nedham’s decision not to include Cromwell’s irst reason suggests that he was under pressure from the conservative Cromwellians. Or perhaps Morland and Thurloe never informed Nedham of the details of Cromwell’s speech, preferring to keep him ignorant rather than risk the printing of anti-kingship arguments. Either way, the the decision not to report Cromwell’s irst reason for refusing the crown was made by the conservative Cromwellians and not Nedham. In addition to not printing anti-kingship comments, Nedham did include the speaker’s pro-kingship speech on 31 March 1657. When the Humble Petition and Advice was irst offered to Cromwell, the speaker delivered a speech outlining the advantages of kingship. Part of that speech appeared in Politicus, which reported: “In this speech he [the Speaker] took occasion, for severall Reasons, to commend the Title and ofice of a King, in this Nation; As that a King irst setled Christianity in this Island; That it had been long received and approved by our Ancestors, who by experience found it to be consistent with their Liberties; That is was a Title best known to our Laws, most agreeable to their constitution, and to the temper of the People. And these things he made evident at large by divers grave and weighty arguments.”23 Such comments were contrary to Nedham’s own thoughts; he considered kings and tyrants to be one and the same.24 Nedham would never have printed a speech of this nature voluntarily. Thurloe, Morland, or another conservative Cromwellian likely ordered him to include it in Politicus. The kingship crisis was a sensitive matter. The conservative Cromwellians saw it as their best chance to restore the ancient constitution, and they had no intention of endangering their scheme by permitting Nedham’s republicanism to dominate Politicus. Consequently, the voice of the conservative Cromwellians in Politicus is louder than Nedham’s during the weeks of the kingship crisis. Prior to the actual kingship crisis, there are other instances in Politicus when the opinions of the kingship party ill the pages. Politicus contained regal descriptions of Cromwell that were designed

62

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

to warm the population to the prospect of Cromwell becoming king. On 8 February 1654 the city of London entertained Cromwell in an elaborate and royal manner. Politicus related the events: An entertainment was given to his Highness the Lord Protector, in a very magniicent manner, by the City of London … [Cromwell] came down to dine in the great Hall, where he sat in the middle of a long Table, his Son the Lord Henry on the left hand, and the Lord Mayor on the right, and on each side of them the Council … being entertained (besides Cheare) with Musick, Voices, Drums and Trumpets. After this his Highness was conducted upstairs again, by my Lord Mayor to a noble Banquet. This being done, his Highness departed, being played out by Hoboys and other loud Musick.25 This account of the festivities renders Cromwell king-like. Several aspects of Cromwell’s entry into London drew on royal precedent, namely, his ornate clothing, the delivering of the sword of the city, and the knighting of the lord mayor.26 Despite these similarities, “the protectoral display,” in Laura Knoppers’s words, “borrowed only to transform,” since Politicus also contained the recorder’s speech which described Cromwell as “a new kind of ruler, whose power drew upon the consent of the people.”27 The recorder stated that London was anciently called “the Heart of the Nation; and if the Heart be in a Politique consideration, as it is in the Naturall, it will communicate Life and Spirits into the other Members, by which means the whole Body may unanimously contribute their desires and endeavours to oppose the common Enemy, and after all our Distractions, see the Nation established upon the irm Basis of Peace and Righeousness, which is the end of Government.”28 The Protectorate, in the recorder’s opinion, had yet to achieve legitimacy as a government, and it required the support of the capital to do so. “By stressing the antiquity of the institutions which now welcome Cromwell, the recorder’s speech ties the legitimacy bestowed upon the regime by the City to the continuity of the City’s traditions and, by implication, to the Protectorate’s ongoing support for the City’s conservative counter-revolution.”29 In any case, even though the recorder’s speech redeined the ceremony, the reporting of lavish ceremonies that were connected with England’s traditions increased the proile of Cromwell in the public’s eye.

Mercurius Politicus

63

More obvious royal parallels occurred when Politicus reported Cromwell’s meetings with foreign ambassadors. When ambassadors from the Dutch Republic attended Cromwell, “the Room was richly adorned with Hangings, and a rich Chair of State set for the Lord Protector, who was attended by his Councill. The Entertainment was stately; the Ambassadors bowing several times, as they came up the Room, his Highness rose up when they drew near.”30 If members of the kingship party desired the public to view Cromwell as kingly, they had to convince Nedham’s readers that foreign leaders respected Cromwell as much as any other king, and that Cromwell received ambassadors in a royal manner. A letter from the town and county of Poole published in Politicus also contributed to this royal image. The letter, like many similar submissions, praised Cromwell, but it included the key line, “until our deliverance be compleated, and your Highness actions Crowned with perpetual praise.”31 During the course of the Protectorate, copious letters were sent to Cromwell from all over the country praising him,32 yet only a few of these letters were printed in Politicus. The letter from Poole was likely included because of its reference to Cromwell being crowned; the printing of such a letter created the impression that there was support for Cromwellian kingship across the nation. All these royal references to Cromwell were from the early stages of the Protectorate. In 1654 Nedham applauded the structure of the Protectorate in his A State of the Case of the Commonwealth, but he did so on the grounds that it was republican in nature.33 Nedham did not link the Protectorate to kingly rule in 1654, but Politicus did. The newsbook’s royal remarks did not originate from its editor, then, but from someone in the kingship party who instructed Nedham to portray Cromwell as a king. When Politicus reported the changes in government, the inluence of Cromwell’s allies was also present. Few details regarding the actual events were printed in Politicus, while the aftermath was described in detail. On 20 April 1653, the day that Cromwell dissolved the Rump, Politicus reported: “The Lord General deliver’d in Parliament divers Reasons wherefore a present Period should be put to the sitting of this Parliament; and it was accordingly done, the Speaker and the Members all departing. The grounds of which Proceedings will (its probable) be shortly made publick.”34 This account omitted any reference to soldiers being present and concealed any anger in Cromwell’s speech. The whole event seems

64

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

ordinary, with none of the drama that is usually associated with the end of the Rump.35 In contrast to this sparse description, the events following the dissolution received much attention. Letters of loyalty from the generals at sea, oficers in Edinburgh, the garrison in Hull, and forces in Jersey were all printed to reassure Nedham’s readers that the change in government had not resulted in mutiny and chaos.36 Cromwell’s declaration explaining that a Council of State was going to rule until the next Parliament was also printed in Politicus.37 Four issues later, Nedham reported: “The Generall, and Councell of Oficers, have sat very close this week, in making choyce of such persons as are to be invested with the Supreame Authority; which being a matter of moment, takes up more time then was at irst conceived.”38 Public restlessness and anxiety may have prompted this comment as Cromwell sought to convince the nation that he and the Council were working as hard as they could to stabilize the government. When the Nominated Assembly did inally meet, Nedham described the events as business as usual. On 7 July Politicus reported: “Severall Resolves were passed by the Supreme Authority; As, that they [members of the Nominated Assembly] be called, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of England; And that the Chairman be called Speaker. It was ordered also, that the Mace be used again, and the old Sergeant at Arms readmitted to his place.”39 The Nominated Assembly as a form of government – that is, a group of men selected for their godly nature to rule – had no precedent in English history. This novelty had the potential to unsettle those who preferred the ancient constitution. The best method to alleviate such fears was to persuade the readers of Politicus that the Nominated Assembly functioned similarly to previous parliaments, with a speaker, mace, and sergeant-at-arms. Nedham despised the Nominated Assembly and would have preferred to turn the reading public against the assembly of saints;40 Politicus’ description of the Nominated Assembly, therefore, was written by someone else who forced Nedham to include it his newspaper. ✻

Thus far, the analysis has focused on instances when the government dictated the content of Politicus. There are, however, reports in Politicus that are in opposition to Thurloe’s and Cromwell’s beliefs.

Mercurius Politicus

65

The reporting of the James Naylor affair is one such example. Cromwell condemned Naylor’s behaviour but was troubled by Parliament’s vindictiveness towards him. Naylor’s case, he feared, might set a dangerous precedent. In a letter to Parliament, he expressed his concerns about permitting the House of Commons to decide matters of conscience. He wrote: “Although we detest and abhor the giving or occasioning the east countenance to persons of such opinions and practices … I do desire that the House will let us know the grounds and reasons whereupon they have proceeded.”41 In a speech to his fellow army oficers, he warned: “The case of James Naylor might happen to be your own case.”42 The persecution of Naylor, in Cromwell’s opinion, opened the door to a wave of oppression of the godly. In Politicus, Naylor irst appeared as just one of several Quakers who were arrested for causing disturbances. On 14 November 1656 Politicus reported that Naylor plus four other Quakers had been transported as prisoners from Bristol to London, but no details were provided.43 In the following issues, Nedham included only brief references to the Naylor debates in Parliament. The fact that Naylor was charged with blasphemy was not even mentioned until 5 December 1656 – a mere ten days before the committee for examining blasphemy made its inal decision. The only evidence in Politicus that some mps sympathized with Naylor was the number of days devoted to the debate on his case.44 Being an avid hater of Quakers, Nedham had no desire to ill his newspaper with speeches from mps who pitied Naylor’s plight. When the House of Commons did inally rule against Naylor, Nedham’s joy at the sentence and contempt for Naylor dominated Politicus. “Thus you see,” he wrote, “how this wretched Imposter hath prevailed upon his Followers, to bewitch them to the committing of strange Absurdities, and the uttering of many horrible Blasphemies, the like for all Circumstances never heard of in any Age before. An Account whereof I had hitherto forborne; but have now give it in briefe, that the honour and Justice of Parliaments Sentence passed upon him may be made evident to the People.”45 Such comments are to be expected from a man like Nedham, but they were in opposition to Thurloe’s attitude. Thurloe was in favour of leniency for Naylor and pointed to the lack of laws against blasphemy, except for an act of 1650 under which the maximum sentence was imprisonment for six months or banishment.46 Since Politicus’ depiction of

66

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Naylor was contrary to Thurloe’s and Cromwell’s opinion, it is evident that the secretary of state and lord protector were not inluencing Nedham on this occasion. Naylor was not alone in experiencing Nedham’s contempt; John Biddle also received unlattering commentary. Politicus included the order to burn Biddle’s work and to arrest both him and his printers and publishers on 12 December 1654; however, its most interesting comments occurred later when Cromwell received a petition on behalf of Biddle. The newsbook noted that on 22 September 1655 a Petition was presented by divers persons to his Highnes, on the behalf of Biddle the Arrian Blasphemer, in which Petition they pleaded the two Articles in the Government which provide for liberty of Conscience. His Highnes spent some time in debating things with them upon grounds of Scripture, in ine letting them understand, that the liberty of Conscience provided for in those Articles, should never, while he hath any Interest in the Government, be stretched so farr as to countenance them who denie the divinity of our Saviour, or to bolster up any blasphemous opinions contrary to the Fundamentall verities of Religion.47 Cromwell, in this account, placed limits on liberty of conscience and stood against anti-Trinitarians. This message was further emphasized the following week, when Politicus informed its readers that the men who presented the petition now disowned it. Cromwell had convinced them of the error of their ways and “shewed moreover, that the maintainers of this Opinion of Mr. Biddles, are guilty of great Blasphemy against Christ, who is God equal with the Father.”48 Nedham portrayed Cromwell as not only ighting blasphemy but also winning converts. This image of an anti-sectarian Cromwell who believed in limits on liberty of conscience was the creation of Nedham. Although other members of the Protectorate also despised the sects, Nedham required no encouragement or pressure to assault them in print, and he likely wrote these comments on his own accord. ✻

Nedham and Politicus were not pawns of the Protectorate and did not merely relect the opinions of the secretary of state. Nedham was capable of writing independently49 and Thurloe was either too busy

Mercurius Politicus

67

to notice or did not think that Nedham’s writings threatened state security. That being said, Thurloe’s ofice had a connection of some kind with Nedham, although it is unclear if Thurloe himself had much contact with the editor of Politicus. Politicus, then, was more than a state-controlled newspaper. Voices from different factions in the government appeared in it along with that of the editor. Although at times it is dificult to recognize these voices, the voice of the kingship party was loudest during the kingship crisis. Politicus provided no details of the kingship debates because they would have created the impression of instability in the government. Thurloe or someone in his ofice made the decision that Politicus should remain silent on the subject of kingship and Nedham willingly obeyed. In short, Mercurius Politicus is another piece of government propaganda that attempted to keep the kingship crisis out of the public discourse.

4 Cromwellian Writers: Marchamont Nedham, John Milton, and Michael Hawke The Protectorate employed a vast number of skilled men who handled the day-to-day business of government. Many of these men were Cromwellian writers, a term I use to denote an employee of the government or a prospective employee who also wrote pamphlets that discussed the nature of the Protectorate and lord protector. In this study, there are two categories of Cromwellian writers: the prose writers, considered in this chapter, and the poets, addressed in the following chapter. The opinions expressed by these writers can be either positive or negative. It is their relationship to the Protectorate that connects these men, as either civil servants or would-be civil servants. Some writers wrote their tracts at the behest of the Protectorate – such as John Milton – while others wrote of their own volition – such as Edmund Waller. Even when the government commissioned a writer to produce a defence of the Protectorate, the inal product often relected the views of the author more than those of the government. For this reason, these tracts were not included in chapter 2, on printed propaganda, since many of them are, after a careful reading, unlattering to Cromwell. This chapter and the next one examine how employees and potential employees of the Protectorate reacted to the growth of Cromwellian monarchical power. The most surprising feature of these reactions is their diversity. Even regular employees of the Protectorate did not agree on the monarchical nature of Cromwell’s rule. The three Cromwellian prose writers discussed in this chapter are Marchamont Nedham, John Milton, and Michael Hawke. Nedham and Milton both held positions in the government, but they differed

Cromwellian Writers

69

in their opinions. These two men are perhaps the most obvious Cromwellian writers, since both were employees of the Protectorate and both commented on Cromwell’s monarchical power in print. In addition to these two writers, Michael Hawke produced printed works in order to please Cromwell and persuade the lord protector of his usefulness. Hawke was not as close to Cromwell as Nedham and Milton, but his use of the printed medium in an attempt to secure employment renders him a Cromwellian writer. Each writer had a unique reaction to the growth of Cromwellian monarchical power, and their reactions are best understood when analyzed separately since this method throws their differences into bold relief. Although it is sometimes necessary to refer back to other Cromwellian writers in order to highlight differences, this chapter addresses each writer on his own terms. Marchamont Nedham, like several of the other authors in this book, is often labelled a republican in the historical literature. Historians have long been fascinated by early modern English republicanism;1 however, their analyses rarely consider how republican writings are situated within the broader print culture of the 1650s. Instead, they prefer to compare English republicans to each other and to Machiavelli.2 Although signiicant, their work marginalizes the extensive discourse on Cromwellian monarchical power in which the republicans participated. For the purpose of the present study, the republicans are treated not an isolated group but rather as one element of the print world. The analysis presented here also underlines the republicans’ diversity; at times, certain republican writings on Cromwellian power have more in common with the views of religious sects than with those of fellow republicans. In other instances, republican writers employ a common style that can be appreciated only when viewed next to pamphlets from different factions. My approach is to situate republican writings within the context of other tracts in order to better understand their place in print culture. Since some republican writers maintained employment with the Protectorate while others did not, they appear in different chapters of the book. Nedham and Milton worked for the government throughout the 1650s and are in the present chapter, while Sir Henry Vane and James Harrington, who were not in the government’s employ, appear in later chapters. This structure not only permits the comparison of writers inside and outside the government, it also emphasizes that the republicans were integrated within print

70

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

culture. English republicans did produce signiicant work regarding Cromwell and kingship; however, they were not the only ones to do so, and their work is best analyzed alongside that of sectarians, monarchists, poets, and others. Only then can the unique nature of republican tracts be understood. ✻

As mentioned earlier, Marchamont Nedham was the editor of the leading newsbook in the Protectorate, Mercurius Politicus, but he also wrote the political tracts A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth and The Excellencie of a Free-State. Since the content of Politicus was monitored and, for the most part, controlled by the state (at least on the topic of kingship), I examined it in the preceding chapter, while the more independently written A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth and The Excellencie of a Free-State are considered here. Nedham initially reacted to Cromwell’s power with enthusiasm. His irst major political work during the Protectorate was A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth, published in 1654. This tract, which was printed by Thomas Newcombe (who also printed Politicus), formally defended the dissolution of the Rump and the structure of the Protectorate. It is also one of the only printed tracts that Cromwell speciically mentioned in his speeches. On 22 January 1655, when he dissolved the irst Protectoral Parliament, Cromwell, after describing the circumstances under which he became lord protector, said: “But, this not being the time and place of such an averment, for satisfaction sake herein enough is said in a book, entitled, A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth, &c., published in January 1653.”3 In an analysis of the kingship question, one of the main challenges is to determine if Cromwell actually read the kingship pamphlets or was even aware of their existence. In the case of A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth, he unquestionably knew of the pamphlet and was familiar with its content. In A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth, Nedham supported the Instrument of Government because it provided the proper balance between protector and Parliament, with each acting as a check on the other.4 The Protectorate, according to Nedham, was “suficiently popular, the ancient Liberties of England not only secured, but enlarged; and that although the executive powers be

Cromwellian Writers

71

placed in a single person, yet it stands on a fairer account than former times.”5 At this early stage of the Protectorate, Nedham viewed the lord protector as an “Elective Prince, who standing upon Terms of good behaviour, will be continually employed for the beneit and defence of the Community.”6 Nedham also despised the two regimes that preceded the Protectorate, the Rump and the Nominated Assembly. According to Nedham, owing to the Rump’s ambition, “all our hopes were blasted, in regard particular Members became studious of Parties and private Interests, neglecting the publick; and by reason of their dilatory Proceedings in the House, and unlimited arbitrary decisions at Committees, wholly perverted the end of the Parliaments.”7 Nedham had even harsher words for the Nominated Assembly. He wrote of its members: “In truth, their principles led them to a pulling down all and establishing nothing: So that instead of the expected Settlement, they were running out into neer Anarchy and confusion.”8 Since Nedham felt such contempt toward the Rump and the Nominated Assembly, he initially found it easy to applaud the Protectorate. This attitude changed after a few years of Cromwellian rule. In 1656 Nedham published The Excellencie of a Free-State, which represents a shift in his reaction to Cromwell’s monarchical power. The title page of the work does not list a printer, but it does state that the tract was printed for Thomas Brewster, the same man whom Thurloe nearly appointed as the printer for the Council of State during the Nominated Assembly. Much of The Excellencie reproduces Nedham’s editorials in Mercurius Politicus in the early 1650s. Throughout these editorials, Nedham drew on examples from antiquity to argue that “the Right, Liberty, Welfare, and Safety of a People consists in a due succession of their Surpeme Assemblies” rather than being vested in “the hands of a Standing [monarchical] Power.”9 Nedham also used these editorials to warn the English people that kingly power can reside in many different forms of government. It was not suficient to merely drive out the persons of kings, “the Interest of Monarchy” must also be removed in order to establish a free state.10 Why did Nedham reprint these editorials as a major political tract? By 1656, it was clear that the Cromwellian Protectorate was not going to hold “a due succession of their [the people’s] Supreme Assemblies.” This situation caused Nedham to reconsider his assessment that the lord protector was an “Elective Prince.” Once he did so, he saw the need to renew the debates he had

72

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

launched in the early 1650s. Issues regarding free states and monarchical power were again relevant as the ofice of the lord protector became more dictatorial in the wake of the dissolution of the irst Protectoral Parliament, the rule of the major-generals, and rumours of Cromwellian kingship.11 Many of Nedham’s lines from his editorials took on a new meaning in 1656, connecting Cromwell to igures in antiquity who robbed the people of their liberty. Nedham’s inal reaction to the growth of Cromwellian monarchical power was to return to his previous republican arguments and retailor them into The Excellencie of a Free-State, which was a subtle critique of the Protectorate. Nedham knew that publishing The Excellencie of a Free-State was risky and he sought to minimize the attention it might receive from the censors. He removed some of the radical statements that were in Politicus and eliminated the inal editorial in which he called for the disestablishment of the church.12 Nedham, in The Excellencie, diluted the social radicalism that was so common in Politicus in order to create a platform for a coalition of interests of the Protectorate’s enemies.13 In order to appeal to commonwealthsmen, Presbyterians, and royalists, “the provocative social – and religious – radicalism of his newspaper, and its criticisms of the titled nobility, were dropped or muted; so were its attacks on political Presbyterians; so were the cruellest of its blows at the memory of Charles I.”14 In the opening of the pamphlet, Nedham claimed that he was responding to statements in royalist tracts, particularly one written by “Mr. Howell.”15 The tract to which Nedham was referring is probably James Howell’s Som Sober Inspections Made into the Cariage and Consults of the Late-Long Parlement, irst published in 1655.16 It is easy to see why such a pamphlet offended Nedham. Not only did it proclaim that “the wisest of them [European governments] concur in this opinion, that there is no Government more resembling Heaven, and more durable on Earth, or that hath any certain principles but Monarchy,”17 it also provided a history of the Civil War that was hostile to the Long Parliament and sympathetic to Charles I. Such ideas gave Nedham plenty of motivation to produce The Excellencie; however, Howell’s work is mentioned in the preface and then forgotten, as Nedham invites his readers to consider which type of government is better: monarchy or a succession of elected assemblies.18 This was the topic of Nedham’s editorials in

Cromwellian Writers

73

Politicus in the early 1650s, and it continued to be relevant in 1656, when Cromwell was on the verge of kingship. When historians read The Excellencie, they interpret it as a critique of Cromwell and the Protectorate, although the pamphlet ostensibly defended both. If Cromwell actually had read it, he would have not viewed the pamphlet in this manner. The Excellencie successfully passed the scrutiny of the censors, so they did not believe it questioned the regime or its ruler. Nedham never denounced Cromwell by name; he referred unfavourably only to Roman igures who shared certain qualities with Cromwell. If the censors merely gave The Excellencie a cursory glance, they would not have seen Cromwell’s name, or the name of any other contemporary; consequently, they would not have deemed it worthy of censorship. As mentioned in the Introduction, Thurloe and the other censorship oficials did not censor everything, only the most dangerous pamphlets. This situation provided Nedham with the opportunity to publish a controversial document without angering the authorities. Throughout the pamphlet, Nedham cited examples from ancient Rome which were meant to parallel the situation in the Protectorate. When discussing the Roman expulsion of the kings, Nedham reminded his readers that “when they drave out Kings, [they] forgat to drive out the Mysteries and inconveniences of Kingly power, which were all reserved within the hands of the Senate. By this means the poor people missing the irst opportunity of setling their freedom, soon lost it again.”19 Here, when Nedham mentioned the Romans, he was referring to the English people in thinly veiled fashion. Like the Romans, the English had destroyed the institution of monarchy, but they had established a government that possessed the same arbitrary power as the tyranny of Charles I. First the Rump exercised unchecked control over the nation and then, under the Instrument of Government, Cromwell held a dangerous amount of power. A couple of pages later, Nedham draws an implied link between Cromwell and Brutus after the latter expelled Tarquin. Nedham condemns Brutus because he “cheated them [the Romans] with a meer shadow and pretence of liberty: he had indeed an Ambition high enough, and opportunity fair enough to have seized the Crown into his own hand; but there were many considerations that deterr’d him from it.”20 In 1656 no oficial offer of the crown to Cromwell had been made, but rumours of it were prominent. Nedham was

74

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

undoubtedly aware of the kingship speculation and he likely believed that Cromwell desired the royal title. The irst part of the statement, referring to the “shadow and pretense of liberty,” was also a slight at Cromwell. Although he had killed the king and founded a government that was not, at least in name, a monarchy, Cromwell had failed to grant the people true liberty. He still ruled as a king, keeping all the power in his hands as opposed to the people’s. Nedham later issued a warning to all states regarding the danger of over-mighty statesmen, which relected England’s own experience with Cromwell. He wrote: “One prime Principle of State, is, To keep any man, though he had deserved never so well by good success or service, from being too great or popular: it is a notable means (and so esteemed by all Free-states) to keep and preserve a Commonwealth from the Rapes of Usurpation.”21 Over the course of Cromwell’s career, Nedham had witnessed him accomplish many great military feats for the nation. Nedham – a propagandist for Parliament – appreciated what Cromwell had done on the battleield. Such victories, however, did not justify unchecked political power. Cromwell had become a Caesar-like igure, using his military triumphs to secure political dominance. In Nedham’s opinion, a single person presiding over the government in kingly fashion, even if he had reached this position through his own merit, was unacceptable. Once it was clear that Cromwell would dominate Parliament and use the army to enforce his will, Nedham would no longer praise the regime. For all of his dislike of the form of the Protectorate, Nedham did approve of one of its core policies: the Cromwellian church settlement and its efforts to repress certain radical religious sects. The Cromwellian church settlement had four key elements: free conscience for Christians other than Episcopalians, Catholics, and members of radical sects; maintenance of the parishes and tithes; a central committee, called the “Triers,” to examine new ministers; and local committees, termed “Ejectors,” to investigate “insuficient” existing ministers.22 One of the most striking features of this settlement was the power that the state wielded in religious affairs. Cromwell and the Independent divines who advised him all supported religious authority exercised by a temporal government.23 On the issue of free conscience, Cromwell was horriied by the spread of new heresies in the 1650s and had no desire to establish broad religious toleration. To quote Blair Worden, Cromwell’s “imagination could not enter the world of Ranters and Quakers and Socinians, whose principles

Cromwellian Writers

75

seemed so different from the biblical and Christocentric radicalism he had known in the New Model in the 1640s.”24 Cromwell shared both this dislike of sectarian heresy and a belief in a state-controlled church with his propagandist. Like Cromwell, Nedham believed that the separation of secular and ecclesiastical authority was a source of political unrest; instead, he believed that the two should be merged in order to keep ecclesiastical oficials subservient to the secular government. In The Excellencie of a Free-State, he proclaimed: “Most of the Civil Wars, and Broilers, throughout Europe, have been occasioned, by permitting the settlement of Clergy-Interest, with the Secular, in National Formes, and Churches, it will doubtless be understood, that the Division of a State into Ecclesiasticall and Civil, must needs be one of the main Errors in Christian Polity.”25 A state, according to Nedham, should not be divided into civil and ecclesiastical authority; such a situation only created internal problems. The power of the clergy angered Nedham, and he took special exception to Roman Catholic priests, who “desired all with Bell, Book, and Candle, excommunicating and deposing King’s and Emperours, and binding mens Consciences still, under the irst specious pretence of suppressing Heresie, to believe only in their Arbitrary Dictates, Traditions, and Errours.”26 The fact that the Catholic Church could stand against civil government frustrated Nedham. England had done well to break from the Papacy, but it “left the Seed, and Principle of it, still behind, which was a State Ecclesiastical united with the Civil; for the Bishops twisted their own interests with that of the Crown, upon a Protestant accompt; and by vertue of that, persecuted those they called Puritans, for not being as Orthodox (they said) as themselves.”27 The persecutory nature of the Church of England under the Stuarts offended Nedham, who desired liberty of conscience. The tyrannical bishops had no right, in his opinion, to inluence civil government and restrict religious belief to their narrowly deined doctrine. Although he advocated liberty of conscience, Nedham also recognized the need for the state to control certain unorthodox beliefs. During the early days of the Protectorate, when many conservative members of government feared the power of the sects, he spied on the Fifth Monarchists. On 20 December 1653 he reported to the government the details of a meeting of Fifth Monarchists that occurred on 19 December. At this meeting, the Fifth Monarchists discussed the prophesies in the Book of Daniel and how the ten

76

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

horns on the Beast represented ten kings of Europe.28 Nedham iniltrated the meeting and disclosed its proceedings to the Council the next day. On 7 February 1654 he wrote to Cromwell providing him with further information against the Fifth Monarchists. Nedham noticed that these meetings were becoming “dull” as Cromwell imprisoned many key igures in the movement.29 Nedham was only too happy to assist Cromwell in this cause. In A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth, Nedham expressed his fears regarding the Fifth Monarchists. He wrote: “So that if their [Fifth Monarchists] design of setting up the Fifth Monarchy according to the dreams they had of it, had taken effect, wherein men could have had no other Right but what they must have derived from them and their Party; it is no hard matter to discern how the common Interest of this Nation would have been swallowed up by a particular Faction, and what a pernicious Engine it must have proved to the perverting of all Order among Men.”30 Nedham’s hatred of Quakers emerged in his newsbook, Mercurius Politicus. When describing the arrest of Quakers, Mercurius Politicus was all but rapturous. On 26 February 1656 it stated: “Divers Quakers have been apprehended as they were roving about the Country in Leicestershire, and among them one Fox, a principle leader of that phrentick party, they are brought up hither, and detained in custody. It hath been observed, that in the said Country, there have of late been many meetings of those people, called Quakers, Ranters, and others, which are disposed by some of our horse. This Fox being brought to Whitehall had divers followers, poor, silly melancholly people.”31 Nedham despised the Quakers because he feared that they would convert Baptists and members of other sects, thus spreading social and political disorder. Reporting from St Martins, Cornwall, on 17 April 1656, Mercurius Politicus declared: “Those of the Baptized Judgment have had severall publick meeting at Bodmin of late. Many of them, who have had a great appearance of Godlines, fall off to be Ranters; others Quakers. The Quakers have been very diligent in sowing their corrupt Seed lately in these parts.”32 Nedham disapproved of the Protectorate’s structure and suspected Cromwell of having royal ambitions; however, he had no objections to Cromwell’s efforts to control rebellious religious sects. Nedham’s applause for Cromwell’s religious policy partly accounts for the lack of any direct criticism in his writings; Cromwell had his laws, but at least he knew, in Nedham’s opinion, how to handle the critically important religious issue.

Cromwellian Writers

77

✻

John Milton is best known for his poetry, but he also defended the regicide and the English Commonwealth and served the Commonwealth and Protectorate as secretary for “foreign tongues.” Milton’s knowledge of ancient and modern languages permitted him to communicate with audiences abroad. While Nedham’s defence of the Protectorate was designed for an English audience, Milton’s work was written in Latin and targeted continental Europe. As is true of Nedham, Milton’s writings reveal his reaction to Cromwell’s monarchical power. Unlike Nedham, he disapproved of Cromwell’s religious policies but could accept a single person presiding over the government. One of the dificulties in analyzing Milton’s reaction to Cromwell’s monarchical power is his decision not to produce any printed work during the later stages of the lord protector’s rule. Consequently, he did not comment at the time of the kingship crisis. After his Second Defence was printed in 1654, Milton remained silent until the end of the Protectorate. Nedham, conversely, anticipated the kingship crisis and published The Excellencie before the actual offer of the crown. Milton undoubtedly was aware of the events leading up to the kingship crisis and their potential implications, yet he chose not to contribute to one of the most signiicant debates of the decade. Practical motives might be behind Milton’s decision: as an employee of the state, Milton could risk losing his ofice and salary if he wrote a pamphlet that opposed the expansion of Cromwell’s personal power. Second Defence, therefore, is the only tract in which Milton directly discussed this subject. Milton’s other works, however, must not be ignored. Although they do not mention Cromwell by name, Milton’s writings both before and after the Protectorate do address monarchical government. When analyzed in conjunction with Second Defence, these printed tracts enhance our understanding of Milton’s reaction to the growth of Cromwellian monarchical power. Like Nedham, Milton was a civil servant in the 1650s and often used the regime’s oficial printers. In the early 1640s, however, Milton had no position in government and sometimes had to rely on less well-established printers. The irst printer with whom Milton had regular contact was Matthew Simmons, who was a favourite printer of the radicals and Independents during the Civil War. Simmons printed Milton’s Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce in

78

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

1643, beginning a professional association between Milton and the Simmons family that would last thirty years. Simmons also printed Milton’s The Judgment of Martin Bucer, Articles of Peace, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, and Eikonklastes, and his son and successor Samuel printed Paradise Lost.33 Simmons died in 1654. For Second Defence and his 1659–60 writings, Milton relied on a man who did much printing for Cromwell’s regime, Thomas Newcombe. Newcombe’s decision to print Milton’s Second Defence, which oficially defended the Protectorate, is unsurprising. What is surprising is that Newcombe continued to print Milton’s work until 1660. He printed A Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes, Considerations on the Likeliest Means, and the irst edition of The Readie and Easie Way, all written during the political chaos that ensued after Oliver Cromwell’s death. As in the early 1640s, Milton was an outsider during Richard Cromwell’s Parliament; consequently, his writings were bolder since he need not fear offending a political master.34 Unlike Second Defence, these later works, particularly The Readie and Easie Way, entailed some risk for a printer. Newcombe must have had a good relationship with Milton if he continued to print his works even after they stopped endorsing the current government. Newcombe’s loyalty did have its limits, for the title page of second edition of The Readie and Easie Way merely says “Printed for the author.” The political situation changed between the publication of the two editions. When Milton completed the irst edition, anyone who openly promoted the king’s cause still risked serious penalties; however, by the time Milton published the second edition, there was more danger in defending the Commonwealth.35 With the Restoration looming, Newcombe, who would go on to become the manager of the re-established king’s printing house,36 thought it pertinent to avoid any further connection with radical or antimonarchical printing. Livewell Chapman, who had sold the irst edition of the Readie and Easie Way, was a fugitive from the Council at the time of the second edition.37 With his inancier on the run, and his printer unwilling to become involved, Milton bore the cost of producing the second edition himself.38 Such an act demonstrates the importance he placed on the second edition of The Readie and Easie Way. Although Milton would have preferred to use the same printer, his position relative to the government and the political circumstances could affect how his writings entered the print world.

Cromwellian Writers

79

Regardless of how they were printed, Milton’s writings consistently reveal him to be indifferent to forms of government, and this indifference might have contributed to his decision not to produce any prose during the kingship crisis. Milton may have assumed that King Oliver would not govern any differently from Lord Protector Cromwell. For Milton, how a regime ruled was more important than the precise title of the head of state. In The Defence of the People of England – published in 1651 as a response to Claude Salmasius’ attack on the English Commonwealth – he stated that the best form of government differed depending on the time and nation. “Certainly,” he wrote, “the same government is itting neither for all peoples, nor for one people at all times; now one form is better, now another, as the courage and industry of the citizens waxes or wanes.”39 Additionally, Milton made an effort to demonstrate that he was opposed to tyranny, not monarchy. This aspect of Milton differentiates him from Nedham, who was hostile to all forms of government that elevated a single individual to supreme power. As early as February 1648, Milton distinguished between kings and tyrants in his pamphlet The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, which was written with the intent of persuading the population that Charles I must be held accountable for his crimes. In this pamphlet he proclaimed: “Look how great a good and happiness a just King is, so great a mischief is a Tyrant.”40 Here, Milton was able to acknowledge that a good king can bring happiness to a nation. In later works, Milton explicitly wrote that it was tyrants he hated, not kings. In his The Defence of the People of England, Milton outlined his reasons for writing the tract. One of the reasons was “to maintain the common rights of our people against the unrighteous tyranny of kings, doing so not because I hatred kings, but only tyrants.”41 Milton was responding to a perception that he was utterly against the concept of monarchy at all times in all forms. In this passage Milton revealed that, whatever his critics might think, tyranny rather than monarchy was the subject of his contempt. These comments demonstrate that Milton was not entirely opposed to the idea of monarchical government; he was merely cautious because he knew that if monarchical power was placed in the wrong hands – it did not matter if those wrong hands belonged to a king or to a lord protector – tyranny could easily arise. When Milton discussed kingship, he asserted that only certain people were qualiied for such a digniied ofice. One’s own abilities

80

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

rather than inheritance rendered a man worthy of a royal title. In Defence of the People of England, Milton noted that “there is by nature no right of succession, and no king but the one who surpasses all others in wisdom and bravery; the rest have become king by force or favor contrary to nature, when they rather should have been slaves. For nature gives the wisest dominion over those less wise, not a wicked man dominion over good or a fool over the wise.”42 Such a statement contrasts with Nedham’s fear of giving great men absolute power. Nedham believed that one of the key challenges for a republic was to refrain from giving a single man great power, even if his exploits and qualities merited it. Conversely, Milton viewed wise men as naturally ruling over their fellow countrymen. Milton’s attitude is the result of not only his elitism but also his lexibility on forms of government. If a man was so wise as to be able to rule effectively and justly, then the situation favoured a monarchical government; in a society where all men were of similar capabilities, however, a republic was preferable. Nedham and Milton differed on how government should respond to great men; Nedham wanted to limit and control them, while Milton was willing to elevate the virtuous ones. The one tract of Milton’s that contains a strong anti-monarchist sentiment is The Readie and Easie Way, published in 1660. As noted, two editions of The Readie and Easie and Way exist, and the contents of each relect the political situation at the time it was written. When the second edition was completed – which was probably at the end of March or the very beginning of April43 – a Stuart restoration seemed inevitable and certain aspects of the irst edition needed to be altered. All references to the Rump were removed, as was the argument for denying magistrates authority over religion.44 Despite these changes, both editions pronounce a harsh judgment upon monarchy. In the irst edition, printed in late February or early March 1660,45 Milton warned that “a king must be ador’d as a Demigod, with a dissolute and haughtie court about him, of vast expence and luxurie, masks and revels, to the debaushing of our prime gentry both male and female; not at his own cost but on the publick revenue.”46 Why would Milton so clearly condemn monarchy in The Readie and Easie Way when in earlier works he was eager to stress that he hated tyranny, not monarchy? Milton’s greatest fear was unquestionably the return of Stuart kings. With this possibility looming, he adopted a staunchly anti-monarchical stance in the hope of persuading others

Cromwellian Writers

81

to avoid the folly of returning to royal rule. Even in the irst edition of The Readie and Easie Way, Milton was still willing to concede that, in theory, a king could be a wise and effective ruler, but he then offered an important caveat: “I denie not but that ther may be such a king, who may regard the common good before his own, may have no vitious favorite, may hearken only to the wisest and incorruptest of his Parlament; but this rarely happ’ns in a monarchie not elective.”47 The anti-monarchical statements in The Readie and Easie Way represent not so much a change in Milton’s attitude toward monarchy as a response to the current political situation: the return of the discredited house of Stuart. In terms of Milton’s relationship with Cromwell, a crucial issue must be addressed: Why did Milton, regardless of what his political thoughts were, defend the establishment of the Protectorate with his Second Defence of 1654? The answer in part lies with Milton’s thoughts on the Rump. The rule of the Rump did not satisfy Milton’s republican aspirations. Milton, like Nedham, had urged his countrymen to sweep away all aspects of the ancient constitution, including the House of Commons, and turn to the Mediterranean republics for inspiration.48 When the Rump failed to meet Milton’s expectations, he lost faith in it. In his Second Defence, Milton praised Cromwell because he had “put an end to the domination of these few men [the members of the Rump], since they, although so often warned, had refused to do so.”49 Toward the end of the Rump’s rule, Milton had come to the conclusion that the English republic had been achieved by the efforts of a determined few, that the government did not represent the popular will, and that most of his countrymen were not it for freedom.50 As the Interregnum drew to a close, Milton began to believe that powerful men would have to act on behalf of the people since the people themselves were unable to comprehend their own interest. In the second edition of The Readie and Easie Way, Milton pointed to the dangers of democracy and scorned the people for preferring monarchical government. Milton asserted that “most voices ought not alwaies to prevail where main matters are in question”51 and bemoaned the fact that “the inconsiderate multitude are now so madd upon [the prospect of returning to kingship].”52 The people could not be trusted in an election; therefore, they had to be made to understand what their interest was, and only a republic could properly educate them.53 At the time of Cromwell’s elevation, the

82

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

possibility of a Stuart return loomed, with exiled royalists hoping to take advantage of the chaos in England.54 This outcome had to be avoided at all cost, even if it meant elevating Cromwell to quasimonarchical status. In the words of Milton’s biographer William Parker, Milton believed that “if the majority of people were so stupid as to want a new tyranny over conscience, then a strong man like Cromwell should interfere.”55 Yet how sincerely did Milton champion Cromwell? Milton wrote of Cromwell twice – in a sonnet dedicated to him in 1652 and in his Second Defence in 1654 – and in each instance there is a warning to Cromwell. Milton was able to tolerate the type of government Cromwell established, but he refused to accept the state-dominated Cromwellian church; this view contrasts with that of Nedham, who supported the Cromwellian church settlement but opposed the structure of the Protectorate. In 1652 John Owen, a former chaplain in Cromwell’s army and later vice-chancellor at Oxford, submitted to Parliament a plan for “the propagation of the gospel.”56 Owen’s system would later be revised into the Triers and Ejectors that Cromwell established. The recommendations in Owen’s proposal outraged many sects. The Baptists had three objections: they disapproved of the state having any power in appointing preachers; they were against the notion of compulsory attendance at a national church; and they were concerned by the restrictions placed on matters of faith.57 Such a scheme also involved far too much state power in ecclesiastical affairs for Milton’s taste. Milton’s sonnet directed to Cromwell was part of a campaign undertaken by the sects against Owen’s proposals.58 Milton opened the sonnet with praise for Cromwell’s recent military victories, but he concluded it with an appeal to Cromwell to save the nation from spiritual tyranny. Milton warned Cromwell that new foes arise Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains: Help us to save free conscience from the paw Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw.59 In Milton’s opinion, Cromwell was the one man who had the power to halt the proposed religious settlement and who also might be sympathetic to sectarian concerns.

Cromwellian Writers

83

Milton’s attitude toward the sects and a national religion further distances him from his fellow Protectoral employee, Nedham. Milton belonged to no sect, and his precise religious beliefs are dificult to determine. He disapproved of the state being involved in ecclesiastical affairs and restricting people’s religious beliefs. This stance was partly motivated by his own elitism, which could not accept the state limiting the religious understanding of intellectuals, such as himself. In Areopagitica, Milton wrote: “For when God shakes a Kingdome with strong and healthful commotions to a generall reforming, ’tis not untrue that many secretaries and false teachers are then busiest in seducing; but yet more true it is, that God then raises to his own work men of rare abilities, and more then common industry not only to look back and revise what has been taught heretofore, but to gain furder and goe on, some new enlightn’d steps in the discovery of truth.”60 The state had no right to interfere with the religion of great men, since God might be using them for further reformation. Milton’s A Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes, published in 1659 after Cromwell’s death, illustrates Milton’s views on the relationship between church and state. The main sources of religion, according to Milton, were scripture and “the illumination of the Holy Spirit so interpreting that scripture as warrantable only to our selves.”61 Since scripture could not be understood without divine illumination, “no man or body of men in these times can be the infallible judge or determiners in matters of religion to any other men’s consciences but thir own.”62 In Milton’s opinion, the state had no right to oblige every member of society to attend a national church. Such action did not advance religion, but “compell hypocrisie.”63 State-dominated religion was associated with popery, while Protestantism, with its emphasis on reading the scriptures for oneself, permitted many religious denominations to seek the truth in their own way. Milton remarked: “For ask them, or any Protestant, which hath more authoritie, the church or the scripture? They will answer, doubtless, that the scripture.”64 If the English were true Protestants, they would place the authority of the scripture above that of the church, and not permit authorities, civil or religious, to interfere with an individual’s understanding of the Bible. In this aspect, Milton seems more akin to the sects than to Nedham, who all but celebrated the state’s persecution of Quakers and espoused a state-dominated church.

84

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Despite their differences, Milton and Nedham shared concerns regarding Cromwell’s monarchical power. As noted earlier, Milton was quicker to express his doubts than Nedham, publishing his Second Defence in 1654. That work was a response to the royalist pamphlet The Cry of the Royal Blood, which was published anonymously around August 1652. Adrian Vlacq, the printer of The Cry of the Royal Blood, sent Milton a copy in the hope that Milton would quickly produce a response and Vlacq could print it as well; however, it was two years before Second Defence appeared.65 Milton did not mention Cromwell until the inal pages of Second Defence, when he responded to criticisms of Cromwell. Certain factions were blaming Cromwell for England’s troubles, and Milton argued that these accusations were unfair. Referring to the Presbyterians, he wrote: “If they themselves make any mistake through want of foresight, they do not blush to ascribe it to the trickery and deceit of Cromwell. All blame is diverted to him; he suffers for every mistake.”66 Milton then proceeded to glorify Cromwell’s military achievements. Although these comments were lattering to Cromwell, they hardly amounted to unqualiied praise. Milton was merely defending Cromwell against insults from royalists and Presbyterians and acknowledging his military success. His comments were inspired by his own hatred of royalists and Presbyterians rather than by his love of Cromwell. After outlining Cromwell’s military career, Milton briely described Cromwell’s dissolution of the Rump and the rule of the Nominated Assembly. Finally, Milton addressed the lord protector: “Cromwell, we are deserted! You alone remain.”67 Milton, at this point, offered some genuine praise for Cromwell, arguing that “there is nothing in human society more pleasing to God, or more agreeable to reason, nothing in the state more just, nothing more expedient, than the rule of the man most it to rule. All know you to be that man, Cromwell! Such have been your achievements as the greatest and most illustrious citizen, the director of public counsels, the commander of the bravest armies, the father of your country.”68 Milton referred to Cromwell as “the liberator of your country” whose exploits “have outstripped not only the achievements of our kings, but even the legends of our heroes,” but then shifted the tone.69 Immediately after claiming that Cromwell surpassed kings and heroes, Milton wrote: “Consider again and again how precious a thing is this liberty which you hold, committed to your care, entrusted and commended to you by how dear a mother, your native land. That which she once sought

Cromwellian Writers

85

from the most distinguished men of the entire nation, she now seeks from you alone and through you alone hopes to achieve. Honour this great conidence reposed in you, honour your country’s singular hope in you.”70 In this passage, Milton expects nothing less from Cromwell than the rescue and salvation of the British Isles. Cromwell’s position is now almost a burden with great responsibilities. Beginning the third sentence with the imperative “honour,” Milton leaves the impression that he is issuing commands. Cromwell may have been the head of state, but he was not free to do as he wished. The remainder of Second Defence is illed with cautionary advice to Cromwell. By the close of the tract, Milton’s initial laudatory remarks have given way to stern warnings, revealing the author’s true purpose. Yet his concerns are different from those of Nedham in The Excellencie. Milton’s counsel is directed at Cromwell personally, while Nedham’s advice targets the mps and the general public. This difference relects the problems that each writer perceived with the Protectorate; Nedham objected to its structure – that is, a single person with subservient parliaments – while Milton feared the ambition of the speciic man holding monarchical power – that is, Cromwell. When Milton mentioned Cromwell, he participated in a common discourse with both monarchical and sectarian writers by comparing Cromwell to the royalists.71 Cromwell had driven out the royalists, but if he began “to slip into the same vices, to imitate those men, to seek the same goals, to clutch at the same vanities, you [Cromwell and his allies] actually are royalists yourselves, at the mercy either of the same men who up to now have been your enemies, or of others in turn, who, depending on the same prayers to God, the same patience, integrity, and shrewdness which were at irst your strength, will justly subdue you, who have now become so base and slipped into royalist excess and folly.”72 These comments are more than helpful advice; they demonstrate that Milton was concerned about Cromwell’s kingly nature as early as 1654. Even though Milton was willing to tolerate kingly government under certain circumstances, he knew how easily a monarchy could slide into a tyranny, and he came to doubt if Cromwell had the necessary virtue to avoid such a slide. While Nedham objected to monarchical power in government generally, Milton could accept a monarchy in theory, but he reacted negatively to a Cromwellian monarchy. ✻

86

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Unlike Nedham and Milton, Michael Hawke, who had a master’s of arts degree and had received training at Middle Temple, was not an employee of the Protectorate, but he did aspire to such a position.73 He considered himself a long-time loyal supporter of Cromwell and believed that he merited a reward from the government for his services. On 28 May 1656 Hawke petitioned the House of Commons for some ofice; in the petition he reminded Parliament that he had always acted in support of the government and had printed endorsements of the regime.74 Hawke’s previous pro-Cromwellian work was the pamphlet The Right of Dominion and Property of Liberty, published in 1655. This tract justiied Cromwell’s rule by force and argued for “the necessity of his Highness acceptation of the Empire.”75 Throughout the pamphlet, Hawke both connected himself to and distanced himself from his two fellow Cromwellian prose writers. Hawke, in The Right of Dominion and Property of Liberty, defended governments that ruled by right of conquest, as Nedham did,76 arguing that “by the Law of war, whatsoever the Victor obtaineth, is his right … a sure and irresistible power conferreth the right of dominion and ruling over those cannot resist.”77 Additionally, he referred to Nedham’s book A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth – although he recorded the title incorrectly – as the best source of information for all the recent changes in government.78 His links to Milton are just as prominent. Elitism is prominent in both writers, since they agreed that a wise man should rule over the rest of the country. Hawke wrote: “Such a valourous man, excelling others in vertue, is worthy of an Empire, which by right, saith the Philosopher, appertaineth to such an one … Then it is right that such an one be Lord of all and King alone.”79 Taking Milton’s argument further, Hawke claimed that kings are distinct from tyrants, as “tyrants use rigor for their will and pleasure, but Kings out of necessity or extremity.”80 When discussing religious governance, the language of The Right of Dominion becomes even more Miltonic. Hawke claimed: “Truth being left to the decision of the Conscience, and operation of the spirit which is one, may in the end prove Universally Victorious, and Christendome reduced to Unity and Truth; The contrary effects whereof continually happen by the Tyranous imposition of opinions on mens Consciences.”81 Hawke’s assertion that “it is Irreligion and tyranny to force the consciences of men”82 could have come from any of Milton’s writings. Both men

Cromwellian Writers

87

believed that magistrates ought “not to constraine the will of man to believe or seeme to professe that which he knoweth not.”83 Despite the fact that Hawke was merely a prospective government employee while Nedham and Milton were regulars on the payroll, there were many commonalities between them. Where Hawke separates himself from Nedham and Milton is in his unambiguous praise for kingship and Cromwell. His writings have none of Nedham’s fear regarding the destruction of liberty, and even though he shared Milton’s vision of religious liberty, he never expressed concern about the Cromwellian church settlement. For Hawke, monarchy was both a divine government and the best form of government. “The body of the Commonweale,” according to Hawke, “is one, and ought by one soule to be ruled.”84 His reasons for preferring monarchy were many: the counsel of one man is more secret, one man is more active and less likely to delay, and one man is less subject to corruption.85 This love of monarchy naturally led Hawke to support the Protectorate and Cromwell’s power within it. He compared Cromwell favourably to Julius Caesar and Augustus, both of whom established one-man rule in Rome after a chaotic civil war.86 In the political instability that followed the dissolution of the Rump and the end of the Nominated Assembly, Cromwell was urged to become protector by “divers persons of honour and quality” and the army oficers, with the approval of chief magistrates and other gentlemen.87 Ultimately, Cromwell accepted the Protectorship “for the prosperity and tranquillity of the turbulent and distempered State.”88 These justiications for Cromwell’s monarchical power would repeat themselves in Hawke’s next pamphlet, Killing Is Murder, published in 1657. Hawke wrote Killing Is Murder in response to Edward Sexby’s Killing Noe Murder, in which Sexby justiied assassinating Cromwell. In Killing Is Murder, Hawke defended Cromwell’s position of power, arguing that he ruled England by appointment of God, by right of war, and by consent of the people.89 Attacking Cromwell’s critics, Hawke addressed the claims of Sexby: “Yet cannot this Imposter [Sexby] ind any Place or Text in the Scripture, where any Power or Commission is given to the people to govern themselves, or choose themselves a Governor, or to alter the manners of Government at their pleasure.”90 Hawke pointed out that, in the Bible, God, and not the people, determined the form of government for the Israelites; therefore, the people of England should

88

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

accept Cromwell as ruler since he, like the kings of Israel, was appointed by God and legitimated by providence. Another reason to uphold the Protectorate was its similarity to earlier English governments. Hawke asserted that the Protectorate brought England “as neer as may be to our ancient way of Government.”91 The reference to “ancient” government is crucial. During the second Protectoral Parliament, Cromwell established a second house of Parliament. The members of this house were selected by Cromwell and functioned similarly to the old House of Lords. With the creation of the second house, the Protectorate looked very much like the ancient constitution of king, lords, and commons. By comparing the Protectorate to the ancient constitution, Hawke was implicitly casting Cromwell as king. Finally, Hawke stated that monarchy was the only form of government in which all social groups were content. In a monarchy, “the nobles and the rich are defended from the injury of the multitude, and the people are protected from the oppressions of the Nobles and the Rich: So there is no greater Liberty than in Monarchy.”92 Such a description rendered monarchy beneicial to everyone within the nation. Hawke’s gloriication of monarchical government is the most absolute of all Cromwellian prose writers. Although Hawke did not forget to praise the lord protector, the bulk of his work discusses the advantages of monarchical government in general. Such a pamphlet was timely in 1657, the year of the kingship crisis and Cromwell’s second inauguration as lord protector. Hawke undoubtedly hoped that such a pamphlet would catch Cromwell’s eye and lead to a job in government for its author. ✻

Nedham and Milton were both employees of the Protectorate, and both expressed subtle criticisms of Cromwell in their printed work. Yet the two men disapproved of Cromwell for different reasons, Nedham for his political power, Milton for his religious policy. Hawke hoped to join the ranks of Nedham and Milton in working for the Protectorate and his writings contain unquestioned support for Cromwell and his regime. All three men fall under the title Cromwellian writers, but all three had different reactions to Cromwell’s monarchical power. This diversity of opinion will continue in the next chapter, where we consider the Cromwellian poets.

5 Cromwellian Poets: Edmund Waller, Andrew Marvell, George Wither, and John Lineall As with the prose writers of the previous chapter, the Cromwellian poets were either employed by the Protectorate or sought employment while writing on the topic of Cromwell’s power. The only difference between the two groups is the form their writing took. Edmund Waller and Andrew Marvell were the most famous Cromwellian poets, and both were eager to cast the lord protector as a monarch. Although not quite as renowned as Waller and Marvell, George Wither was a government employee whose poems speciically addressed the lord protector’s decision to reject the royal title. I have included the obscure poet John Lineall in this chapter because he wrote his Cromwellian poem in 1655 (the same year that Waller, Marvell, and Wither printed their poems) and he discussed the same issues as his more illustrious colleagues. Additionally, Lineall hoped to secure ecclesiastical employment from Cromwell, rendering him a Cromwellian writer. These four poets have a greater degree of uniformity in their writing than the prose writers, since all of them praised Cromwell’s political dominance in their work (although Wither turned on Cromwell after his death). Waller and Marvell began the Civil War supporting the royalists and naturally endorsed monarchical government, regardless of who was at its head, while Lineall’s desire for employment obliged him to laud Cromwell. Wither’s praise was the quietest of the four, but Cromwell’s decision not to become king earned him the poet’s respect. When viewed together with the prose writers, these poets are part of diverse group of Protectoral employees who differed not only in their former allegiances but also in their reactions to the growth of Cromwellian monarchical power.

90

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

✻

Unlike Nedham and Milton, the poet Edmund Waller began the Civil War as an active supporter of the king. He sat in both the Short and Long Parliaments where he was a moderate conservative, distrustful of innovation and critical of absolute monarchical doctrine. At the outbreak of war, Waller remained in Parliament and helped to coordinate what came to be known as Waller’s plot. The plan was for citizens and some mps to use passive resistance to force Parliament to negotiate with the king. When John Pym learned of the plot, he arrested Waller, who betrayed all those involved in order to save himself. Although he avoided a death sentence, Waller had to go into exile on the continent, where he spent his time devising a plan to return to England and make peace with the new regime. In November 1651 the Rump revoked Waller’s banishment and he returned to England in January 1652. Leaving his Stuart allegiances in the past, Waller established good relations with both the Commonwealth and the Protectorate. His skills did not go unnoticed and in 1655 Cromwell appointed him commissioner of trade; he remained loyal to the Protectorate throughout the 1650s.1 Waller’s loyalty took the form of writing poems that praised Cromwell and described him in kingly terms. Published after Cromwell dissolved the irst Protectoral Parliament, Waller’s A Panegyric to My Lord Protector provides Cromwell with a new basis of support. His aim was to establish a broad consensus for Cromwell’s rule, one to which royalists would adhere.2 In the opening stanza of the Panegyrick, Waller proclaimed: Whilst with a strong, and yet gentle hand You bridle faction, and our hearts command, Protect us from our selves, and from the Foe, Make us unite, and make us conquer too.3 Here, Cromwell was doing everything that England required: ending the factions that had led to civil war, protecting the nation from internal (Levellers and other radicals) and external threats, uniting a divided country, and achieving military victories. England had been a broken nation, but under Cromwell’s rule it was both mended

Cromwellian Poets

91

and enhanced. Waller’s Cromwell was the healer of England whose power came from God. Waller wrote: When Fate or Errour had our Age misled, And ore this Nation such confusion spred: The only cure which could form Heaven come down, Was so much power and piety in one.4 The Civil War had been a dark time for everyone, but Cromwell, sent from heaven, had the power and the piety to end England’s troubles and lead it to greatness. Cromwell, in Waller’s poem, brought stability to England, a gift that all factions, royalist or parliamentarian, could appreciate. When Waller praised the Protectorate for being traditional, his writing was both similar to and different from other kingship tracts. Like the other writers, Waller compared Cromwell to former English kings. Cromwell’s family was, according to Waller, the model for all families. Cromwell was: One, whose extraction’s from an Ancient Line, Gives hope again that well-born Men may shine, The meanest in your nature milde and good, The noble rest secure in your blood. … Your [Cromwell’s] private life did a just Pattern give How Fathers, Husbands, Pious Sons should live, Born to command; your princely virtues slept, Like humble Davids, while the lock he kept.5 Although Waller could not claim that Cromwell’s line was royal, his assertion that it was ancient renders the protector sympathetic to the nobility.6 Cromwell’s setting of the standard for families also parallels Stuart kings’ setting trends for behaviour at court. In both instances, people looked to the ruler for guidance. The familial description of Cromwell also appealed to royalists who remembered Charles I’s self-presentation as the ideal father and husband.7 Waller, however, also drew upon another tradition to legitimize Cromwell’s regime, a Roman tradition. By comparing the Roman world to England in the 1650s, Waller linked Cromwell to famous

92

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Roman statesmen. Julius Caesar, in Waller’s poem, was a great ruler who had the misfortune of being unappreciated by his contemporaries. Rome needed a strong ruler, such as Caesar, but: This Caesar found, and his ungrateful Age With losing him, went back to blood and rage. Mistaken Brutus thought to break their Yoak, But cut the bond of Union with that stroak.8 “Mistaken Brutus” represented those royalists who hoped to assassinate Cromwell. Like Caesar, Cromwell had risen to power in the aftermath of a civil war and brought order to chaos. Both men, however, had many enemies who incorrectly believed that they could serve the nation by killing its head of state. Waller related Caesar’s story in order to dissuade anyone who thought England would be better off without Cromwell. Caesar’s death hurt Rome more than it helped it; the same was true for Cromwell and England. After Brutus killed Caesar: That Sun once set, a thousand meaner Starres Gave a dimme Light to Violence and Warres, To such a Tempest as now threatens all, Did not your mighty Arme prevent the fall.9 The assassination of Cromwell would only lead to further war and chaos, as it did with Julius Caesar. Waller’s poem seeks to avoid this outcome by demonstrating the value of Cromwell. While comparing Cromwell to Julius Caesar, Waller simultaneously likened him to Augustus, the man who brought peace to Rome. Waller’s reason for linking Cromwell to both Julius Caesar and Caesar’s nephew and heir, Augustus – two men who ruled the Roman world under very different circumstances – was to express his fear and hope for Cromwell and the Protectorate. Waller feared that the English people would turn on Cromwell, as the Romans did on Caesar, but he hoped that they would obey the lord protector so that he could usher in a golden age as Augustus did. Prior to Augustus’ rule, Rome had experienced a series of violent civil wars and: As the vext world to inde repose at last It self into Augustus Arms did cast:

Cromwellian Poets

93

So England now, doth with like toyle opprest, Her weary head upon your [Cromwell’s] bosome rest.10 In its hour of need, England turned to Cromwell for stability just as Rome had turned to Augustus. This comparison brought with it the promise of prosperous years ahead. By connecting Cromwell to Caesar and Augustus, Waller created a second tradition under which the Protectorate fell. The Roman tradition and English monarchical traditions were not mutually exclusive. Cromwell could be like Augustus and former English kings simultaneously. Waller’s second layer of tradition simply provided Cromwell’s rule with additional legitimacy. In addition to the Augustan qualities of the Panegyrick, the poem also contains Machiavellian features as it focuses on imperial growth and a strong well-ordered state.11 This emphasis on imperial glory aided in building a consensus around Cromwell. Perhaps the Machiavellian elements were designed to appeal to republicans who hated Cromwell for destroying the English Commonwealth. If republicans, both inside and outside Parliament, viewed Cromwell as expanding England’s power in a Machiavellian manner, then they might be willing to align themselves with the Protectorate. This mixing of Machiavellianism and monarchism makes Cromwell an attractive leader to all political factions. Waller was an employee of the Protectorate, yet his reaction to Cromwell’s monarchical power could not be more different from that of his fellow employees, Nedham and Milton. Waller’s praise of Cromwell did not go unnoticed or unanswered by Stuart loyalists. In 1659 Richard Watson published The Panegyrike and the Storme, which responded to Waller’s depiction of Cromwell. Watson was an Anglican clergyman who, at the outbreak of the Civil War, demonstrated his loyalty to the royalist cause by delivering a provocative lecture at Great St Mary’s, the university church in Cambridge.12 By 1647, Watson had joined the exiled court in Saint-Germain, where he was part of the royalist faction that opposed any negotiations with the Scots. He remained in exile throughout the Interregnum and corresponded with other exiles on the continent.13 In his writings, Watson attacked not only Cromwell but also Waller, who, he said, had honoured a usurper. In a section addressed to Waller, Watson claimed of Cromwell’s panegyrist:

94

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Whist with a loftie, yet a lattering, pen Thus highly you extol the worst of men; Whilst Nero is by you, as Trajan, show’n, And you, by praysing, make his crimes your owne.14 Watson viewed Waller as a man who lauded tyrants and suggested that there was no limit to the evil that Waller was willing praise. He wrote: Sure, had you livd’ in other Tyrants dayes, Y[ou] had celebrated them with equal prayse, And we may well beleeve, did he rule here, You’ld thus extoll Protector Lucifer.15 Watson’s poem includes a stanza in response to each stanza that Waller wrote. When addressing Waller’s references to Roman history, Watson did not interpret Cromwell as England’s Augustus. Rather, Augustus – in the form of Charles II – had yet to arrive in England. The British Isles were surrounded in darkness: Till our Augustus by his birth and merit Come the usurped Chariot to inherite; He’ll with his conqu’ring rages all clouds dispell, Check Boreas, how big soere he swell.16 For Watson, Cromwell was a destructive usurper who brought only suffering. His poem ensured that Waller’s grand image of Cromwell did not go unchallenged; however, The Panegyrike and the Storme’s appearance in print in 1659 – four years after Waller’s poem – demonstrates the challenge of publishing such a poem during the lord protector’s life. ✻

Of all the Cromwellian poets, Andrew Marvell’s work is perhaps the most dificult to decipher. Like so many of the writers considered in this book, he switched sides during the revolutionary decades of the seventeenth century. Historians tend to agree that Marvell’s Cromwell poems mix elements of royalism and republicanism, making his true political stance unclear. Yet, while Marvell’s poems may

Cromwellian Poets

95

be illed with their own unique complexities, his three poems on Cromwell (“An Horation Ode upon Cromwell’s Return from Ireland,” “The First Anniversary of the Government under His Highness the Lord Protector,” and “A Poem upon the Death of his Late Highness the Lord Protector”), when considered together, form a clear endorsement of Cromwellian monarchy. The more monarchical Cromwell became, the greater the praise he received from Marvell. Marvell began the English Civil War by travelling to the continent. He left England in late 1642 or 1643 and remained abroad for four years, thus avoiding the major ighting of the war. Although his trip steered him away from the violence that was about to engulf England, Marvell did not leave his country to avoid the war. He used what money he had to fund his travels and gain experience in foreign lands and languages that would later aid him as a secretary.17 His European tour included Holland, France, Italy, and Spain. Returing to England in 1647, Marvell began to write poems connected to the royalist cause. When he heard the news that Francis Villiers – who was son to George Villiers, former Duke of Buckingham, and had been a feature of Caroline court culture since he was a child – was killed by parliamentary soldiers, Marvell joined the many voices in commenting on the tragedy of this event. Marvell’s poem “An Elegy upon the Death of My Lord Francis Villiers” is his most openly royalist poem. Some scholars have questioned Marvell’s allegiance in this poem, but its closing lines call for vengeance and read like a rallying cry for the royalist cause. Marvell ended the poem with: And we hereafter to his [Villiers’s] honour will Nor write so many, but so many kill. Till the whole Army by just vengeance come To be at once his trophy and his tomb.18 Additionally, the poem’s similarities with other royalist manuscript poems suggests that Marvell had contact with royalist circles.19 After the regicide Marvell contributed to “Lachrymae Musarum,” a collection of elegies to Lord Hastings, a young cavalier hero who died of smallpox. Still, although this poem is part of a royalist anthology, Marvell’s work is not as ostensibly anti-parliamentarian as the other poems in the collection.20 Similarly, his “The Nymph

96

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Complaining for the Death of the Fawn” is associated with the works on the martyrdom of Charles I, but Marvell is again careful to conceal views that might endanger his future career prospects.21 Such works foreshadow his impending conversion to Cromwellianism. Marvell’s irst real break from royalism comes in the form of “An Horation Ode upon Cromwell’s Return from Ireland,” which celebrates Cromwell’s military achievements. This poem has inspired much debate among historians, owing partly to its mixing of royalism and republicanism and partly to its close proximity to Marvell’s anti-parliamentary work “Tom May’s Death.” Most explanations for Marvell’s sudden shift to republicanism followed by an antiparliamentary poem relate to the luidity of the political situation that caused many writers to switch sides and have little consistency in their writing.22 It was possible for an author to write for a position that was not his own as a sort of literary exercise.23 One need not look any further than Marchamont Nedham for an example of a man who expressed a range of conlicting opinions in his writing. In these years of confusing allegiances, “it was natural for an intelligent man like Marvell to insist on a variety of truths.”24 Although the historical community has devoted much energy to explaining Marvell’s shifting allegiances, the issue is not as perplexing as it appears. Throughout all three of his Cromwell poems, Marvell displays loyalty to monarchical government. “An Horatian Ode” celebrates a republican military victory over Ireland, but it does not celebrate republicanism as a political theory. Its focus is the achievements of one man, not an assembly. Marvell’s choice of Cromwell as the subject of “An Horatian Ode” reveals where the real power in the nation lies.25 Cromwell was still several years away from becoming lord protector and master of the British Isles, but Marvell’s poem anticipates his rise. As will be demonstrated in the next chapter, since the late 1640s royalists had been predicting that Cromwell’s ambitious nature would lead him to take the crown. Marvell’s association with royalist circles might have inluenced his thoughts on Cromwell and kingship. Unlike the royalists, however, Marvell welcomed a Cromwellian monarchy; his great fear, as revealed in “An Horatian Ode,” was a Cromwellian tyranny. When describing Cromwell, “An Horation Ode” consists of both calls to give him more power and unease about the power Cromwell already possessed. Cromwell had recently defeated the Irish; therefore:

Cromwellian Poets

97

They can afirm his praises best, And have, though overcome, confessed How good he is, how just And it for highest trust.26 Being “it for highest trust” suggests that Cromwell was worthy to be head of state. Immediately after this stanza, however, Marvell expresses some concern. He writes: “Not yet grown stiffer with command, / But still in the Republic’s hand.”27 These lines imply that Cromwell might, perhaps soon, overstep his bounds as a general for the Commonwealth and pursue personal power. This prediction is followed by praise for Cromwell’s leadership. Marvell notes: “How it he is to sway / That can so well obey.”28 Within the same stanza, Marvell warns that Cromwell might assert dominance over the nation and proclaims that he is a “it” leader. How could Marvell caution against Cromwell’s power while at the same time argue that he deserved such power? In 1650, when Marvell wrote “An Horatian Ode,” Cromwell’s precise ambitions were not known. He was a general in the army with immense power who, according to the royalists, desired the crown, but he was still oficially serving the Commonwealth. Marvell, like the royalists, predicted that Cromwell would eventually rise above Parliament and dominate the nation, but the poet, in 1650, had no idea what the Cromwellian government would look like. Would it resemble a traditional monarchy? Would it contain some form of Parliament? Would Cromwell be a just ruler, or a cruel tyrant? With all these questions unanswered, Marvell was careful with his praise of Cromwell in “An Horatian Ode.” Cromwell, for Marvell, is a force for transformation, but it is still unclear if that transformation will be positive or negative. In Marvell’s poem, Cromwell had “ruin[ed] the great works of time, / and cast the kingdoms old / Into another mould.”29 He destroyed the government that had grown out of centuries of work, but with what would he replace it? The Rump Parliament was, for Marvell, an interim government that could not last. Oficially, it was ruling the nation, but Marvell’s description of Cromwell makes him the true source of power, while the Rump was merely a igurehead. Marvell refers to Parliament only once in the entire poem. At line eighty-ive, Marvell writes: “He [Cromwell] to the Commons’ feet presents / A kingdom, for his irst year’s rents.”30 Here, the House of

98

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Commons is a passive assembly, while the actual work is done by Cromwell. It is only a matter of time before Cromwell’s personal greatness overwhelms the Rump. For Marvell, the rule of the Rump was temporary, but Cromwell’s future government was not yet known. All that was known for sure was the damage Cromwell had caused during his rise to power. Not only had he ruined “the great works of time,” but he had also rendered traditional values useless. Marvell exclaims: Though Justice against Fate complain, And plead the ancient rights in vain; But those do hold or break, As men are strong or weak.31 The “ancient rights” of England were powerless against a man like Cromwell, who had the ability to break and alter anything that impeded him. As a result of Cromwell’s actions: Nature that hateth emptiness, Allows of penetration less: And therefore must make room Where greater spirits come.32 Cromwell’s actions had destroyed England’s traditional political institutions, and now it was up to him to ill this void. He had the opportunity to create something great, but would he take advantage of this opportunity? Marvell’s description of the regicide further reveals that he viewed Cromwell’s destruction of the ancient constitution as an opportunity to build a better government. As a monarchist, Marvell could not endorse the killing of the king. The description of the regicide in “An Horatian Ode” is both bloody and horrifying: That thence the royal actor born The tragic scaffold might adorn, While round the armed bands Did clap their bloody hands.33 The image of “armed bands” clapping “their bloody hands” lays the responsibility of the regicide on the army rather than Cromwell. In

Cromwellian Poets

99

this terrible situation, Charles behaved with dignity as he “bowed his comely head / Down, as upon a bed” and faced the executioner’s axe.34 The regicide, in Marvell’s poem, was a violent, cruel act, and its victim is portrayed in a sympathetic light. Yet Marvell mixed the shock of the regicide with his hope for the future: A bleeding head where they begun, Did fright the architects to run: And yet in that the State Foresaw its happy fate.35 The regicide, despite its horror, could lead to additional glory for England. The current glory, as the next stanza reveals, was Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland. The future glory lay in Cromwell’s rule. At the time of “An Horatian Ode’s” composition, there was no way to predict the nature of Cromwell’s government, or even when he would seize power. Four years later, when Marvell wrote “The First Anniversary of the Government under His Highness the Lord Protector,” all those questions were answered. Marvell’s second Cromwell poem responds to the doubts and worries of the irst, arguing that Cromwell had achieved everything for which Marvell had hoped in “An Horatian Ode.” The political landscape had changed dramatically in the four years between the two poems, and so had Marvell’s position. Marvell desired a career in the civil service, and he might have written the poems “An Horatian Ode” and “The Character of Holland” with the intention of impressing the government. He became friends with John Milton, who, in February 1653, wrote to John Bradshaw, president of the Council of State, requesting that Marvell be made his assistant. Marvell was turned down for this position, but by this point he had attracted favourable attention from those in power. In the summer of 1653, Cromwell appointed him tutor to William Dutton, his ward, at Eton. Shortly after arriving at Eton, Marvell wrote to Cromwell thanking him for the position. The letter reads: “It might perhaps seem it for me to seek out words to giue your Excellence thanks for my selfe. But indeed the only Ciuility which is proper for me to practise with so eminent a Person is to obey you, and to performe honestly the worke that you haue set me about.”36 The wording of Marvell’s letter contains all the usual deference and obedience to Cromwell that one would expect in a communication of this kind.

100

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Although Marvell was unquestionably happy to gain some recognition from the government, as Cromwell’s personal power grew, Marvell likely began to hope for better things from his employer.37 This desire for further promotion was part of the motivation for writing “The First Anniversary.” The poem appeared in print in January 1655, with Thomason dating his copy 17 January. In issue 240 of Mercurius Politicus (covering events of 11–18 January), “The First Anniversary” is described as “newly printed and published.”38 There is no evidence to suggest that Marvell produced “The First Anniversary” at the request of the Protectorate, but he probably had at least covert approval from the regime.39 The poem certainly said everything that Protectorate wanted it to say, and it was the only one of Marvell’s Cromwell poems that was printed in the 1650s. Its printer was Thomas Newcombe, the man who did much of the oficial printing of the Protectorate, including Mercurius Politicus and the works of Nedham, Milton, and Waller, further suggesting some connection to the government. Like “An Horatian Ode,” “The First Anniversary” has received a variety of interpretations.40 The poem certainly celebrates the Protectorate, but, as Nigel Smith notes, it is possible that Marvell, like his friend Milton, might have publicly supported the Protectorate while privately fearing the threat to liberty.41 This interpretation relies heavily on comments Marvell made in a letter to Milton. The two men had been corresponding about Milton’s book Second Defence and Marvell asserted: “I shall now studie it even to the getting of it by heart.”42 Although such a remark reveals Marvell’s respect for Milton, it does not necessarily translate to a shared republican doctrine. Milton had written on behalf of Marvell in February 1653, and the younger man may have felt loyalty toward his would-be supervisor. Second Defence also contained passages that praised Cromwell’s military achievements, of which Marvell certainly approved. There was unquestionably a level of respect between the two men, but their reactions to Cromwell’s monarchical power, as will be shown, differed dramatically. Any analysis of “The First Anniversary” must begin with the title. During the Commonwealth, anniversaries were marked from the regicide, but Marvell changed the starting point to the lord protector’s inauguration. The new start date suggests that, since Cromwell had been in ofice for an entire year, enough time had passed to evaluate the effectiveness of his rule. No such evaluation was

Cromwellian Poets

101

possible when Marvell wrote “An Horatian Ode” in 1650 because Cromwell was not yet the head of state. Marvell produced “The First Anniversary” after he had seen Cromwell’s government in action for one full year; only then was he able to judge whether or not all the destruction that Cromwell had brought, and that had been described in “An Horatian Ode,” had resulted in positive change. “The First Anniversary” answers the question: Were the violence and traumatic changes of the Civil War and regicide worth it? The answer is a resounding yes. In Marvell’s second Cromwell poem, the lord protector is a unique ruler “for whose happy birth / A mould was chosen out of better Earth.”43 Cromwell was unlike all other leaders because he was made of a different and “better Earth.” The use of the word “mould” also connects the poem to “An Horatian Ode.” In the irst poem, Cromwell “cast the kingdoms old / Into another mould,” but Marvell did not say whether or not that mould was an improvement. By the time of “The First Anniversary,” Cromwell had proven the merit of his government, and Marvell happily afirmed that Cromwell was shaped in a mould of “better Earth.” As a ruler made of “better Earth,” the Cromwell of “The First Anniversary” surpassed all European monarchs. Marvell mocked the slow pace of Cromwell’s continental rivals, while the lord protector produced accomplishments at an unprecedented rate. Cromwell’s accomplishments were impressive because: ’Tis he [Cromwell] the force of scatted time contracts, And in one year the work of ages acts: While heavy monarch make a wide return, Longer, and more malignant then Saturn: … Their earthly projects under ground they lay, More slow and brittle then the China clay: Well may they strive to leave them to their son, For one thing never was by one king done.44 European kings could not even inish a single project, they had to leave it to their heir to complete. Such a description renders Cromwell the most industrious ruler in Europe. Cromwell particularly outshone the Protestant monarchs who were not doing all they could to combat the Antichrist (that is, the pope and the Roman Catholic Church). Addressing these Protestant rulers, Marvell exclaims:

102

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Then shall I once with graver Accents shake Your regal sloth, and your slumbers wake: Like the shrill huntsman that prevents the east, Winding his horn to kings that chase the beast. Till then my muse shall hollow far behind Angelique Cromwell who outwings the wind; And in dark nights, and in cold days alone Pursues the monster thorough every throne: Which shrinking to her Roman den impure, Gnashes her gory teeth; nor there secure.45 Cromwell was the only brave Protestant soldier ighting the Antichrist, and the other European monarchs needed to follow his example. Marvell’s poem leaves no doubt as to which European ruler was the best warrior and the best Christian. Cromwell’s abilities and achievements had left his rival monarchs in “The First Anniversary” confused and amazed. They struggled to understand him and his unusual position in government, since their simple minds could not fathom Cromwell’s greatness. “The First Anniversary” concludes in the voice of a European king attempting to make sense of Cromwell. The king pondered: “He seems a king by long Succession born, And yet the same to be a king does scorn. Abroad a king he seems, and something more, At home a subject on the equal loor. O could I once him with our title see, So should I hope yet he might die as we.”46 If Cromwell became a king, his rivals on the continent could understand him better. But Cromwell was not a king, a fact that the poem stressed: “For to be Cromwell was a greater thing / Than ought below, or yet above a king.”47 Marvell’s insistence that Cromwell was not a king countered criticisms of Cromwell’s ambition. Rather than a king, Cromwell was like Gideon, a judge in the Old Testament.48 Holding the powers of a king but lacking the title, Cromwell remained a mystery to the rest of Europe. In addition to not sharing his title with European monarchs, Cromwell’s government, according to “The First Anniversary,” was also exceptional among European states. In “An Horatian Ode,”

Cromwellian Poets

103

Cromwell had destroyed the ancient constitution but had yet to replace it with anything. In “The First Anniversary,” Cromwell’s government had been in place for one year and Marvell was eager to describe it and compare it to others. Marvell acknowledged that Cromwell had built this new government from scratch, personally: Choosing each stone, and poising each weight, Trying the measures of the bredth and height; Here pulling down, and there erecting new, Founding a irm state by proportions true.49 As in “An Horatian Ode,” Cromwell was “pulling down,” but now he was also building on “proportions true.” The greatness of Cromwell’s government lay in its balance. In the Protectorate: ’Tis not a freedom, that where all command; Nor tyranny, where one does them withstand: But who of both the bounders knows to lay Him as their father must the state obey.50 Cromwell’s rule was a middle way between parliamentary sovereignty and absolute monarchy.51 The question of what kind of government Cromwell would form had been answered, and the answer, in Marvell’s opinion, could not be better. Although he was not a king, Cromwell did have monarchical power, and by late 1654 Marvell was prepared to celebrate that power. This celebration of Cromwellian power continued in Marvell’s third Cromwellian poem, “A Poem upon the Death of His Late Highness the Lord Protector.” By the time of Cromwell’s death, Marvell had gained further political preferment and become close with the Cromwellian family. On 2 September 1657 Marvell inally received the civil-service appointment that he desired; he was made assistant secretary of “foreign tongues,” aiding the near blind Milton in his work. Cromwell also asked Marvell to prepare entertainment for his daughter Mary’s marriage to Thomas Belasyse, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg. This event was signiicant, since it marked the rise of Cromwell’s family to the ranks of nobility, and Marvell was a part of this elevation.52 Marvell’s connection with the Cromwell family is present in the poet’s inal Cromwell poem. “A Poem upon the Death” expresses a personal sorrow at Cromwell’s death and

104

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

contains several references to Cromwell’s family – particularly to his daughter Elizabeth, who had died one month before her father – which reveal not only how close Marvell was to Cromwell’s family but also the personal devotion that the poet felt toward his master.53 Although much of “A Poem upon the Death” addressed Marvell’s own grief, it also solidiied Cromwell’s status as a monarch. Like the death of all great rulers, Cromwell’s end was represented in nature by violent storms. In the case of Cromwell’s death: But oh what pangs that death did Nature cost! First the great thunder was shot off, and sent The signal from the starry battlement: The winds receive it, and its force outdo, As practicing how they could thunder too.54 Only the death of a truly exceptional monarch could produce such a reaction from nature. In addition, Marvell no longer shied away from calling Cromwell a monarch. He wrote of Cromwell: “For he no duty by his height excused / Nor though a prince, to be a man refused.”55 Marvell was also now willing to compare Cromwell with other English kings, claiming that Cromwell “in a valour less’ning Arthur’s deeds, / For holiness the Confessor exceeds.”56 These favourable comparisons to King Arthur and King Edward the Confessor places Cromwell among the upper echelons of English kings, rendering him more monarchical than in any of Marvell’s previous poems. The most monarchical section of the poem comes at the end, when Marvell describes the succession. In “The First Anniversary,” Marvell mocked the hereditary governments of European kings, but in “A Poem upon the Death” he celebrated Richard Cromwell’s succession. Oliver was now dead, but: Richard yet, where his great parent led, Beats on the rugged track: he, virtue dead, Revives … A Cromwell in an hour a prince will grow. How he becomes that seat, how strongly strains, How gently winds at once the ruling reins?57

Cromwellian Poets

105

Cromwell’s family had now entered the ranks of kings. Oliver’s son would naturally grow into a prince because of the greatness of his pedigree. The member of such a family “becomes the seat” and holds the “ruling reins” with ease. This represents a shift from Marvell’s position in “The First Anniversary,” in which he stressed Cromwell’s differences from European monarchs. The increasingly regal nature of the Protectorate in the later years of Cromwell’s life and Marvell’s connection with the Cromwell family prompted the poet to promote the hereditary succession of the Cromwell line and elevate Oliver and his family to the level of royalty. Andrew Marvell’s reaction to the growth of Oliver Cromwell’s monarchical power was to embrace that power. Beginning the Civil War as a royalist, Marvell supported monarchical government, unconcerned with who the monarch was or what his title was. Once Charles I was killed, Marvell looked for the person who could replace him as a strong monarch, and Cromwell was the obvious choice. While Cromwell was still a general, Marvell was careful with his praise, but once he established the Protectorate, Marvell celebrated him in verse. Marvell lauded Cromwell as both a new kind of monarch and also as a traditional king. What mattered most to Marvell was that England had an effective monarch leading it to glory. Once Cromwell demonstrated to Marvell that he was such a monarch, he received the poet’s praise. ✻

George Wither’s literary career dates back to the reign of James I. His irst major success was Abuses Script, and Whipt in 1613, which, although popular, landed him in prison for its remarks regarding the king’s “evil counsellors.”58 Wither’s problems with the printing authorities did not end there; he was arrested at least once more prior to the Civil War and came into conlict with the Stationers’ Company over the printing of Psalms. When the war began, Wither, unlike Waller and Marvell, sided with Parliament and received the commission of captain for a Surrey troop of horse; he continued to gain government appointments throughout the Commonwealth and Protectorate. After the regicide, Wither was one of the trustees in charge of securing the goods and personal estate of Charles I, and in 1649 Cromwell ordered him to take charge of a convoy of

106

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

ammunition heading for Ireland. Cromwell must have been pleased with his efforts, since he appointed Wither master of the statute ofice in July 1655, a position he held until October 1658.59 Although Cromwell may have been satisied with Wither in 1655, the poet’s support for his patron was conditional. Wither’s The Protector. A Poem, published in 1655, endorsed Cromwell, but only as lord protector, not as king. In 1655 the offer of the crown was still two years away, but Wither wrote as though Cromwell was about to make a decision on kingship. The poem’s complete subtitle – A Poem briely illustrating the supereminency of that dignity; and, rationally demonstrating, that the title of Protector, providentially conferred upon the supreme governour of the British republike, is the most honorable of all titles, and that which, probably, promiseth most propitiousness to these nations; if our sins and divisions prevent it not – reveals the author’s intent. From the beginning, this poem had a cautionary tone. In the “epistle dedicatory,” Wither wrote: But, that you [Cromwell] will be pleased to peruse What of your Sov’raign Title now ensues; That it may minde you of his love who gave it; Shew, on what terms, to what intent you have it; And keep you careful, that it be not changed.60 Cromwell’s title came from God, and the lord protector must never forget that fact. Since God had created the title, no man could create a title that was preferable to lord protector. Addressing the entire nation, Wither proclaimed: “Let us not change that Title which is given / (For ought we know) by decree from heav’n.”61 Wither adhered to the Pauline argument that the powers that be are from God, and no human authority, in his opinion, had the right to alter a title that originated from God. Not only had God given Cromwell the title of protector, he had also destroyed the title of king. One of the many problems with kingship was that “it crosseth the designes of Providence.”62 God had removed kings from England, and Wither was angered that some mps desired to restore a government that had kept England in “bondage.”63 This claim, as will be demonstrated in a later chapter, was similar to that of the sects. Both Wither and the sects viewed the resurrection of kingship as defying God’s providence; however,

Cromwellian Poets

107

Wither was keen to distance himself from the radical sects. Wither stressed that: We look for such a Government, as shall Make way for Christ: not that fantastical Fifth Monarchie, whereof some people dream, … But, that, present here He, may so be, and so to reign, appear As he hath promis’d.64 Wither connected kingship with providence, but he was not a Fifth Monarchist. Instead, his perception of kingship was closer to that of Cromwell himself, who, as noted in an earlier chapter, said: “The providence of God hath laid aside this title providentially.”65 In 1657, after the kingship crisis, Wither produced another Cromwellian poem entitled A Suddain Flash. With this poem, Wither celebrated Cromwell’s rejection of the crown and displayed remarkable insight into Cromwell’s reasoning. Cromwell’s current title of lord protector was, in Wither’s opinion, far superior to that of king. Cromwell made the right choice in refusing the crown: For, in his condescending to be King, He have been, at best, no great thing Than other Earthly Princes: But, hereby He may ascend unto a Soveraignty, Which raiseth him, nine Orbes above their Sphear, To be inthroned, where Immortals are.66 Echoing Marvell in The First Anniversary, Wither believed that Cromwell, as protector, surpassed all other monarchs. In addition of the glories of Protectorship, Wither stressed the danger of returning to kingly rule. Wither feared having a king “with his Pedlers Pack / Of Vanities, which have been by this Nation / Rejected by a solemn protestation.”67 These lines demonstrate that Wither’s contempt for kings was rooted in their “vanities” and ceremony rather than in their political power. With this view of kingship, Wither endorsed the single-person rule of the Protectorate while at the same time rejoicing in Cromwell’s refusal of the crown.

108

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Wither also believed that Cromwell’s decision regarding the crown was inal. Responding to the claim that Cromwell would eventually become king, Wither asserted that Cromwell never will accept it [the crown], till, he shall By Faith and Reason, be convinc’d in all And ev’ry Scruple, which, this day, offends His Conscience; or dissatisies his Friends.68 With these lines, Wither connected his poem to two features of Cromwell’s kingship speeches: a wish to avoid offending the saints, and a commitment to follow his own conscience.69 Wither was aware that many religious sects were hoping and praying that Cromwell would not take the crown. He wrote: “Thou hast thereby, so strengthened all their hands, / So cheered all their hearts, throughout these lands, / Who prayd, or feared for thee, in this tyrall.”70 Given the large number of sectarian pamphlets (which will be discussed in chapter 7), it is unsurprising that Wither took note of these opinions. What is more surprising is the similarity between Cromwell’s speeches and Wither’s interpretation as to why Cromwell refused the crown. The similarities become stronger when Wither described the role of Cromwell’s conscience. Wither claimed: “And, Really, refusal he doth make, / In Christian prudence, and for Conscience sake.”71 Wither’s wording is comparable to Monarchy Asserted’s version of the 13 April speech, in which Cromwell said: “Truly the prudence of God hath laid aside this title providentially.”72 These links between the language of the two men suggest that Wither was aware of the content of Cromwell’s kingship speeches. He was not a member of the kingship committee, but his position as master of the statute ofice likely linked him to some members of the committee. If no one slipped Wither a copy of the kingship speeches, then the poet was able to understand Cromwell’s thought process better than any other writer studied in this book. In both The Protector. A Poem and A Suddain Flash, Wither supported Cromwell and his government because the lord protector had resisted the temptation to become king. His attitude changed after Cromwell died and received a lavish funeral. As mentioned earlier, Wither’s hatred of kings stemmed largely from their love of ceremony, and Cromwell’s funeral, although it was for a lord protector, had all the trappings of a royal event. Cromwell may not have been

Cromwellian Poets

109

king, but, in Wither’s opinion, his later years brought with them the worst aspects of kingship. In his poem Salt upon Salt, published in 1659, Wither pondered: Who can believe, that he [Cromwell], who viliide Not long ago, the vanitie and pride Of former Princes? … Should ever of his own accord, think it Those Trinkets which he sleighted to admit? And, when he down the Grave descended, Should thither, with more vain pomps be attended Then any English Prince, that heretofore A soveraign Scepter, in these Islands bore?73 Wither was always willing to accept Cromwell’s position of political dominance over the nation – because Cromwell’s power was sanctioned by God – but he refused to tolerate the penchant for royal ceremony that Cromwell displayed in his inal years as lord protector. This support of Cromwell’s political power distances Wither from the sects, who employed similar language but despised both Cromwell’s power and any title he held. Wither was one of the few writers who could separate Cromwell’s power from his title. Most writers either approved or disapproved of Cromwell’s monarchical power regardless of what his title was. Only Wither’s endorsement was conditional on Cromwell wielding that power as lord protector. Once the Protectorate’s ceremonialism became as regal as that of the Stuart kings, Wither’s approval turned to contempt. ✻

Waller, Marvell, and Wither were the most famous Cromwellian poets, but they were not the only ones who discussed Cromwell’s monarchical power in verse. John Lineall’s poem To His Highness Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland (printer unknown) refers to Cromwell in monarchical terms, using some of the same themes as other writers. This poem, like Waller’s “Panegyrick,” Marvell’s “First Anniversary,” and Wither’s “The Protector,” was printed in 1655 and, also like the other three poems, addresses the problem of certain factions being unsatisied with Cromwell.

110

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Little is known about Lineall beyond the brief description that he himself provides; this description suggests a inancial motive for writing. At the end of the poem, he stated that he was a “Minister and Preacher of Gods Word, yet now hath neither place nor maintenance, being aged 66 years.”74 Unlike Waller, Marvell, and Wither, Lineall was not an employee of other Protectorate, but he hoped that by lattering Cromwell he could gain some appointment or salary for himself. Lineall offers a ringing endorsement of Cromwell which responded to the current political situation. In the poem, Cromwell was empowered by God to save England. Lineall began by asking God to continue to praise Cromwell, then wrote: His [Cromwell’s] glory let it far exceed above, In Paradise, where true joys ever dwell, Give him that Crown, that earthly Crowns excel.75 This is the only explicit reference to the crown in the poem, but its presence right at the beginning immediately orientates the reader to the concept of kingship. The words “give him that Crown” are directed to the general population, as Lineall urged them to honour Cromwell with the title he deserved. Cromwell’s popularity was low in 1655 owing to his dissolution of the irst Protectoral Parliament and the increasingly authoritarian nature of his regime. One of Lineall’s goals in writing the poem was to change people’s attitudes toward Cromwell, and convince the nation that he merited praise. At one point he exclaimed: “O English hearts, advance your thoughts on high, / Laud now express to him that rules the Sky.”76 Such statements illustrated to Englishmen how they should, in Lineall’s opinion, be treating Cromwell. Lineall attempted to improve Cromwell’s standing in the public’s eye by describing him as a divinely appointed saviour. When Lineall outlined Cromwell’s past actions, he used the theme of stability. England was experiencing political troubles, but God intervened and raised Cromwell to save the nation. “Even from the heart,” Lineall wrote, “that God hath made a choice, / Lifting up one [i.e. Cromwell] a Nehemiah stout.”77 Lineall’s Cromwell is not only the man who brought order to the British Isles, but also the man whom God chose to defend His cause. Lineall recalled Cromwell’s rise to the ofice of lord protector:

Cromwellian Poets

111

His [Cromwell’s] happy entrance I do remember, In the tenth month it was, cold December; God gave him power in zeal our hearts to warm, Himself with Councel, us to save from harm.78 This account is joyful, with God Himself empowering Cromwell to save the nation. It is unknown whether or not Lineall’s laudatory poem succeeded in gaining him an ecclesiastical appointment, but it is clear from both the poem’s language and Lineall’s description of himself that such an appointment was his goal in writing. ✻

Both men who worked for the Protectorate and men who sought employment from the government commented on the regal nature of Cromwell’s regime and the monarchical power in the lord protector’s hands. These reactions varied from mistrust to celebratory praise. Nedham feared the power of a single person dominating elected assemblies, even if that person had demonstrated great virtue and ability. In principle, Milton had no objection to a superior man towering over the political system, but the reality of the Protectorate caused him to question if Cromwell had the necessary qualities for such a position. Conversely, Waller had no doubt as to the greatness of Cromwell’s character. His Panegyrick to My Lord Protector is an unlinching endorsement of the Protectorate and lord protector, as it questions why anyone would not support the new regime. Marvell began with cautious optimism for Cromwell in 1650, but as Cromwell became more monarchical, Marvell’s praise became louder. His reaction was the exact opposite of that of Nedham, who began to publish criticisms of Cromwell when it was clear that the lord protector ruled as a monarch. Waller’s and Marvell’s praise is matched only by that of the prospective employees Hawke and Lineall, whose writings constantly latter Cromwell and condemn his enemies. These would-be employees capitalized on the topical nature of Cromwellian kingship as they attempted to gain a position in the Protectorate. George Wither could support Cromwell’s monarchical power, but only if he retained the title and behavior of a lord protector. His interpretation of Cromwell’s reasons for refusing the crown was closer to Cromwell’s actual

112

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

words than any other Cromwellian writer, suggesting that he either saw copies of the kingship speeches or had a profound understanding of the lord protector’s mind. The reactions of Cromwellian writers to the growth of Cromwellian monarchical power covers the entire spectrum, demonstrating that there was no consistency within this group. When added to other internal reactions to Cromwell’s monarchical power, this lack of unity among employees of the Protectorate reveals tensions within the government. The propagandist Nedham and the secretary for foreign tongues Milton did not approve of the monarchical character of the Protectorate, but their criticisms were different. Further emphasizing this diversity, Nedham’s and Milton’s fellow employees Waller and Marvell had nothing but praise for Cromwell and his government, although Marvell’s praise was likely motivated in part by a desire for further appointment. Wither’s reaction falls somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. He owed his position in government to Cromwell’s patronage, but he endorsed the Protectorate only as long as Cromwell avoided kingship and all regal ceremony. Additionally, as discussed in the previous chapters, printed propaganda projected another image of the lord protector, and Cromwell and the kingship party had their own ideas on monarchy. Printed propaganda steered clear of the kingship issue, while the lord protector refused the crown for reasons of divine providence. The kingship party published nothing during Cromwell’s life, but it viewed Cromwellian kingship as the only solution to Britain’s political instability. Some within the Protectorate were in favour of Cromwellian kingship while others (including the lord protector himself) were not. Each faction employed the medium of print in order to project its ideas regarding a Cromwellian monarchy into the public discourse, thus creating a vibrant print culture. Although the offer of the crown came from members of the Protectorate, an examination of the printed works produced by the government and government employees demonstrates that there was no agreement on this controversial subject within the Protectorate.

6 Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists: A Split in the Royalist Movement The previous chapters discussed the diverse reactions to Cromwellian power within the Protectorate. The following chapters will reveal that the reactions outside the government were just as varied. This chapter focuses on those who had supported the Stuarts and fought against Cromwell in the Civil War. The establishment of the Protectorate created new challenges for those loyal to the Stuart family. It represented the entrenchment of Cromwell and decreased the likelihood of a Stuart restoration. With the monarchical nature of Cromwell’s position and the possibility of kingship looming, supporters of monarchy now had an alternative to the Stuart dynasty. King Oliver I would, potentially, bring all the tradition and stability of monarchical government, and this option, in the mid-1650s, appeared more likely than a restoration of the Stuarts. Some royalists publicly supported Cromwell by producing printed tracts that praised the Protectorate and the stability it brought to the British Isles. In their writings, they either explicitly told Cromwell to accept the crown or described him as though he already was king. The speciic title of king was important for Cromwellian monarchists, since it would connect Cromwell with previous regimes. Although many of these men had fought on the side of Charles I during the Civil War, their true loyalty lay with tradition and monarchical government, not with the Stuart family. Consequently, it was easy for them to abandon the House of Stuart for the House of Cromwell. Not all royalists viewed the establishment of the Protectorate as an opportunity. The political situation after 1653 weakened the efforts of those royalists who hoped to place Charles II on the throne. Not only did the Protectorate appear militarily unassailable, but the

114

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

anticipation of Cromwellian kingship caused many royalists to favour the lord protector. Stuart loyalists had to develop strategies to cope with this situation. Some royalists were unwilling to remain in England during the Protectorate and went into exile, others attempted to live peaceably under the new regime, and still others plotted to overthrow Cromwell. Their writings, both public and private, reveal their assumption that Cromwellian kingship was inevitable and the frustration that they felt. From the late 1640s, they attacked Cromwell in print and manuscript, satirizing him and his government. Some Stuart loyalists even addressed their pamphlets to Cromwell in the hope of persuading him to return the Stuarts to power. All of these reactions, however, did nothing to endanger the protector or Protectorate. ✻

Cromwellian kingship, much to the chagrin of Stuart loyalists, was endorsed by numerous printed pamphlets in the mid-1650s. The possibility of restoring monarchy under the leadership of Cromwell attracted people from a variety of religious and political backgrounds. Some were members of the Protectoral government searching for stability. Some were devoted followers of Cromwell himself. Others, however, were former Stuart loyalists, who, when they saw the impotence of the royalist movement, threw their lot in with Cromwell. The Cromwellian monarchist movement must be viewed as a diverse group. Supporting Cromwellian kingship did not necessarily make one a rabid follower of Cromwell, or a irm adherer to kingly government. Several factors could convince someone that Cromwellian kingship was the lesser of several evils. Many Cromwellian monarchists had not supported either Cromwell or Parliament during the Civil War. They were neutrals or royalists who were against all-out war. In the mid-1650s, however, Cromwell was the best hope for stability and a return to the ancient constitution. The basic structure of the Protectorate (that is, rule by a single person and Parliament) appeared similar to that of the ancient constitution and Protectoral ceremony became more monarchical as the years passed. As mentioned in the Introduction, Cromwell began to adopt the practices and customs of former monarchs. Bulstrode Whitelocke noted that the Cromwellian upper house was similar to the House of Lords in the pre-Civil War

Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists

115

government. Whitelocke’s diary for 20 January 1658 reads: “The members of the other house summoned by w[r]itt mett & sate in the Lords house as the Lords used to doe formerly.”1 The old House of Lords had been abolished with the monarchy in 1649, and the previous Interregnum governments had no equivalent of the House of Lords. Cromwell changed this situation with his second house, which was comprised of men whom he had nominated himself. The House of Lords had been one of the key features of the ancient constitution (the other two being the king and the House of Commons), and its revival (albeit in a different form from the pre-regicide years) signalled a shift toward a traditional, monarchical government. In addition to domestic regal ceremony, the Protectorate also attempted to project a monarchical image on the European stage. The royal diplomatic protocol for receiving ambassadors was revived during Cromwell’s reign. Unlike the Commonwealth, Cromwell held elaborate public audiences with foreign ambassadors, modelled on those of Charles I.2 English ambassadors also attempted to convince foreign monarchs that the Protectorate functioned identically to a monarchy. When Whitelocke served as ambassador to Sweden, he subtly misrepresented the structure of the English government in order to render it more monarchical and similar to the Swedish court. For example, although foreign-policy matters were usually discussed by the English Council of State, Whitelocke allowed Queen Christina to believe that information was passed to the lord protector alone.3 Besides behaving royally in England and abroad, Cromwell had another quality that drew royalists to him. He was the only man with the power to restrain the radical elements of the revolution, such as Levellers and Fifth Monarchists. The Leveller leader John Lilburne stood trial during the Nominated Assembly while the rest of the Leveller movement lost the inluence it had once held. As mentioned in chapter 4, the Cromwellian church settlement had no room for the radical sects who promoted heretical beliefs. Whenever these radical movements attempted a violent revolt (as the Fifth Monarchists did in the spring of 1657), the army quickly intervened and ended the uprising. Cromwell’s government promoted order, and it had the military strength necessary to enforce that order. All these facts rendered Cromwell and the Protectorate attractive to those who merely desired a return to stability. One such man was the political writer James Howell, who, during the Civil War, portrayed himself as an impartial observer. Howell

116

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

hated faction and encouraged all parties to negotiate. The regicide, in Howell’s opinion, was an arbitrary act committed by a tyrannical government. His support for the English Commonwealth was at best tacit; he never actively sought employment from the Rump, nor did he refuse it.4 With the rise of Cromwell, Howell endorsed a return to hereditary monarchy in his writings. His pamphlet An Admonition to My Lord Protector and His Council of Their Present Danger, published in 1654, warned Cromwell of the peril he faced if he did not assume the royal title. Cromwell, according to the pamphlet, was threatened on two sides: the soldiers and the citizens. The soldiers were angry because Cromwell was “imposing that kind of Government upon the souldiery which they have fought against, and indeed a worse.”5 The general populace, conversely, preferred the old government and laws; the problem was that Cromwell had abolished that regime without providing the liberty of conscience that people expected.6 This situation put Cromwell in danger, since “the people are so passionately affected to the old line, as their onely constant security from rapine and bloodshed, that they will never be at rest till they have an opportunity to destroy the rooter up [i.e. Cromwell] of that three great fences of their Religion, Laws, and that unquestionable succession which would entirely secure them form any more dispute.”7 If Cromwell became king, he would go from being hated by the people to being loved by them.8 In order to neutralize the royalist threat, Howell thought it would be best for Cromwell to reach an agreement with Charles II; once Cromwell died, Charles II would succeed him.9 Howell was in favour of Cromwell taking the crown, but his loyalties lay with tradition and stability, not with Cromwell. The sole reason he supported Cromwell was that the lord protector was the only man with the power to restore the ancient constitution. This state of affairs created many unexpected advocates of Cromwellian kingship. Some men who fought for the Stuarts in the Civil War found themselves defending Cromwell’s regime in the 1650s. In 1657 Peter Heylyn – a leading apologist for Laud’s church in the 1630s – dedicated his book Ecclesia Vindicata to Cromwell.10 Ecclesia Vindicata is a collection of works which Heylyn had written in the 1640s and either published anonymously or never published before.11 Unlike Howell, Heylyn did not explicitly instruct Cromwell to accept the crown, but dedicating a book to Cromwell in 1657 suggests that the author was pleased with the monarchical tendencies of the

Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists

117

Protectorate. In the dedication, Heylyn attempted to persuade Cromwell to re-establish episcopacy. A monarchy (which the Protectorate nearly was in 1657) would, according to Heylyn, beneit from having a church hierarchy. Heylyn hoped that “in the settlement of the Civill State, there might be somewhat offered to your Consideration in order to the like Establishment in the Ecclesiastick. For certainly (my Lord) as long as Matters in the Church remaine unsettled, & that there be Liberty of multiplying into Sects and Factions, the Civill Peace will have no sure foundation to rest upon & consequently must needs prove doubtfull, & of short continuance.”12 Heylyn ended his appeal to Cromwell by referring to himself as “Your Highness most humble servant to be commanded.”13 His words in this dedication mark a dramatic shift in loyalty from his position in the 1630s. The manuscript version of Ecclesia Vindicata with the dedication to Cromwell was never printed; however, the printed version does contain a declaration that connects the book to the kingship crisis. The printed declaration is addressed to Edward Davis, Heylyn’s former schoolmaster. When discussing the speed with which he produced the book, Heylyn wrote: “But the necessity of offering something to the consideration of the Higher Powers, which might conduce unto the Peace and Happiness of this languishing Church, will (I hope) plead in my excuse; especially in the Conjuncture in which the long-expected Settlement of the Civil State, is so much discourst of.”14 Heylyn’s reference to “the long-expected Settlement of the Civil State” could only mean the offer of the crown. Thomason dated his copy of Ecclesia Vindicata 11 July, by which point the kingship crisis was over but a more monarchical Protectorate had been established. Heylyn had initially planned to publish Ecclesia Vindicata in 1655, but Penruddock’s failed rising and Cromwell’s subsequent restrictions on royalists convinced him that it was not the appropriate time for a former royalist to attract the lord protector’s attention.15 Given the wording of his dedication to Davis, the kingship crisis was likely the reason Heylyn returned to publishing Ecclesia Vindicata in 1657. In addition to Ecclesia Vindicata, Heylyn wrote The Stumbling Block of Disobedience and Rebellion, which encouraged obedience to Cromwell’s government. The Stumbling Block sought to demonstrate the fallacy of John Calvin’s arguments in favour of rebellion. By praising obedience and condemning rebellion, Heylyn was

118

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

indirectly endorsing the Protectorate. In the Preface, he admitted that most readers might assume that he wrote the book when England was ruled by a monarchy and speciically when the monarchy was being challenged in the early 1640s.16 Heylyn, however, asserted that the book was written for the present situation and one of his reasons for writing it was “To preserve the Dignity of the Supreme Power, in what Person soever it be placed, and ix his Person in his own proper Orb.”17 Even though Cromwell had obtained “the supreme power” by force and most royalists considered him a usurper, Heylyn was still willing to respect the authority of the Protectorate. Heylyn naturally served those in power and his continued inclination to do so dictated his allegiance during the Protectorate.18 The anonymous author of A Copy of a Letter Written to an Oficer of the Army by a True Commonwealthsman and No Courtier also believed that a monarchy with Cromwell at its head was the best solution for England’s problems. Although the author of this pamphlet is unknown – Thomas Newcombe was the printer – he was clearly a Cromwellian monarchist and his arguments are akin to those presented by other members of this group. The pamphlet sought to prove that a hereditary monarchy was preferable to an elected monarchy. The author’s primary appeal was to the tradition of hereditary monarchy in England. He asked if “any of them [Cromwell’s critics] ever hear or read that the Soveraignty of this place [England] was ever elective?”19 For the author, the notion of changing the entire system of succession simply because certain factions in England did not approve of Cromwell was ridiculous. He continued by querying: “Doe they indeed think that this man that now hath it, is, for his part, so much the worst and most undeserving of any that ever ruled, that, for his exemplary infamy and disgrace, a particular law must be brought in to the prejudice of his posterity?”20 The author also contrasted the stability of hereditary monarchy with the factious nature of elective monarchy: “As thus, Sir, elective and limited Monarchies doe nourish qarties [presumably meant to be “parties”] and factions, for want of a common centre of Union amongst themselves, so the generality of the subjects and people doe in them live in the highest degree of servitude.”21 The author’s decision to frame the debate over Cromwell’s succession as being between hereditary and elective monarchy suggests that he considered the Protectorate a monarchy; all that was needed was a secure line of succession.

Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists

119

A similar pamphlet is The True Cavalier Examined by His Principles by John Hall. The author is not the same John Hall who was a republican writer, friend of Milton and Nedham, and, if contemporary rumour is correct, co-editor of Mercurius Politicus with Nedham. Rather, he is John Hall of Richmond, a minor courtier prior to the Civil War who supported the royalist cause during the war as servant to Secretary Robert Long and clerk comptroller to the Prince of Wales.22 By 1651, he was under suspicion for his connection with Charles II, and this suspicion might have encouraged him to live quietly in Richmond during the 1650s.23 Hall hoped to convince the royalists that Cromwell’s government embodied all of their principles. Like most royalists, Hall “had from Scripture and Reason found Monarchy to be the best and only form of Government,” but he also “asserted this obedience to be continually due to that Person which God in his providence should set over us. And truly I have looked upon submission and conformity to the present Power, not only as necessary in respect of duty and care of publick peace and beneit, but for advance of private wishes too, be they on which side they will.”24 Like the author of A Copy of a Letter, Hall considered the Protectorate a monarchy. He referred to Cromwell’s “royal resolution,” and, when discussing royalists, he stated: “It is to all the world apparent, that there is no Party that by their Principles stand more inclined and affected to the present Government, that is to Monarchy, than they.”25 In Hall’s analysis, the cause of the royalists and the cause of the Protectorate were identical. In defending the Protectorate, Hall focused on its monarchical rather than on its republican elements – conversely Nedham, as discussed chapter 4, endorsed the Protectorate because it contained all the ingredients of a republic. Hall did not need to suggest that Cromwell should accept the crown; Cromwell, in Hall’s opinion, already was king. The pamphlet that most openly promoted and celebrated Cromwellian kingship was The Unparalleld Monarch. Or The Portrait of a Matchless Prince, printed in 1656. Near the beginning of the pamphlet, the anonymous author wrote that his intention was not to “enthrone” Cromwell with arguments, but rather “to give you a sight of his head and arms, and if I could do that handsomely and to life, it could not be denied but they were made purposely for our Crown and Sceptre.”26 The main obstacle to this objective was Cromwell’s unroyal origins. The author was conscious of this issue

120

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

and employed strategies to resolve it. He began by asserting that nature “counts not all those it to reign, who derive their title form the womb.”27 Not all hereditary monarchs deserved to be kings; however, Cromwell, who had not one drop of royal blood, was worthy of being a prince. He acquired his position of power through force, but that did not, in the author’s opinion, render his rule illegitimate. Cromwell’s actions were more important than his birth; for, “though he [Cromwell] came not to the Throne by descent, and were no Prince in his cradle, yet the Honour and safety of the Nations being onely and still meant in his Actions, He hath distinguisht and well cleared Himself from those two cursed and base names of Usurper and Tyrant.”28 The author created an argument for monarchy by merit. Cromwell should be king because he earned it and, consequently, surpassed all other kings. The author queried: “Which of our Brittish Kings hath he not already out-gone by many thousand paces in all Royal performances?”29 He might not have been born a prince, but Cromwell’s accomplishments, in this anonymous author’s opinion, dwarfed those of all other British monarchs. Yet, for all the author’s arguments regarding the irrelevance of birth, he still felt obliged to write something lattering about Cromwell’s lineage. Cromwell’s family could not be traced back to any famous igure, so the author was forced to employ vague terms. He claimed that Cromwell “is certainly the Grandchild of some Hero, the Offspring of some worthy Ancient, desceuded of great and mighty Kings.”30 This ictional Cromwellian family tree was another method for making Cromwell worthy of kingship. He may not have been raised to be a prince, but historically there was royal blood in his family, which “hath silently past through the earthen and muddy pipes of his Ancestors, and now risen again in his veins.”31 This claim is unfounded, but it cements the author’s central argument that Cromwell was worthy of the crown and sceptre of England. Cromwell’s rise to power was unprecedented in English history, and his supporters had to be creative in justifying his monarchical position. ✻

How did Stuart loyalists react to this printed support for Cromwellian kingship and the growth of Cromwell’s monarchical power? Some royalists were convinced that the majority of the population despised the lord protector and desired the Stuarts to return. In

Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists

121

his autobiography, Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, described the growth of the people’s hatred toward Cromwell. Hyde had sat in both the Short and Long Parliaments and was an outspoken critic of the abuses of the prerogative courts during the personal rule of Charles I. His collaboration with the parliamentary leadership, however, was strained by their desire to abolish episcopacy. When the king raised his standard at Nottingham, Hyde accompanied him and later became a member of the Privy Council. He joined Charles II in Paris, where he found himself one of the most senior political igures. While in exile, Hyde sought to halt small royalist uprisings in England, preferring instead to wait for Cromwell to die or for a schism in the army to weaken the lord protector’s hold on the nation.32 Concerning the population’s attitude toward Cromwell, Hyde’s biographer Henry Craik wrote: “However concealed the aims and workings of the Royalists were, Cromwell knew well enough that under their inluence a large proportion of the nation viewed him with bitter and unrelenting hatred, which waited only for a itting opportunity to show itself.”33 Cromwell commanded a powerful army, but he “could not check the slow but certain growth of the ingrained hatred of his rule which was spreading amongst every class in the nation.”34 Craik’s remarks must be read with caution since he was likely inluenced by Hyde’s writings, which sought to cast the Protectorate in a negative light so as to render the Restoration inevitable. Newsletters from London also shaped Hyde’s opinion. One newsletter, dated 3 June 1653, stated: “His Ex[cellen]cy cannot be ignorant of the present inclination to the young King since every fellow now dares to talke it [a Stuart Restoration] almost publiquely in the streets, and the boys sing prophane Ballads of his Ex[cellen]cy.”35 This description of boys singing “prophane Ballads” about Cromwell could well have played a role in convincing Hyde that the general populace was unhappy with the lord protector. Even though they viewed the Protectorate as unpopular, Stuart loyalists recognized that Cromwell’s military strength ensured that the regime could not be toppled. They commented on his absolute control of the British Isles and viewed their own efforts as comparatively feeble and hopeless. Former secretary of state Edward Nicholas noted the importance of Cromwell in the Protectorate. Nicholas had been appointed secretary of state by Charles I in 1641 and served the king during and after the Civil War. When the king’s forces

122

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

surrendered at Oxford, Nicholas realized that he would not be pardoned by Parliament and went into exile. Cromwell, in Nicholas’s opinion, was a major obstacle to the Restoration, and the only solution was to put a price on his head; Hyde opposed this plan.36 On 10 September 1657 Nicholas wrote to Hyde: “All letters from England afirm that Cromwell is now absolutely master of all England and secure against all intestine opposition; and, if so, there will be little hope for the k. to do much good in order to his Restoration until that villain shall be knockt in the head.”37 Only with the removal of Cromwell could royalists plan to retake the nation. Joseph Jane – a staunch royalist who had operated as an intelligence agent for Nicholas since September 1649 – wrote a letter to Nicholas that conveys a similar message. Royalists’ efforts, in his account, appeared weak compared to the power of the Protectorate. Jane was discouraged because he had witnessed “the villayne Cromwell pursue his interest with all imaginable endeavours, and wee hope to gett strength without any demonstrations of affection to those from whence our helpe must come and are without zeale to the religion wee professe or conscientious practice of piety and morall goodness, I cann expect noe redemption from the present calamity.”38 Given the strength of the New Model Army and its loyalty to Cromwell, royalists had little hope of unseating the lord protector. Charles II was also concerned about the ineffectiveness of royalist rebellions. In a letter written on 3 June 1655 to “M.N.,” the king lamented: “Trust me, however I have for the present been disappointed in my hopes in England, it hath not proceed from any of the reasons you guess; nor could I have hastened more than I did. They who will not believe anything to be reasonably designed, except it be successfully executed, had need of a less dificult game to play than mine is.”39 With the royalists unable to remove Cromwell from power, the future king expressed a feeling a hopelessness. As the years went by, he became anxious for action. In July 1657 Charles wrote to the Earl of Bristol: “Every week brings me letters from my friends in England, to know against what time I will expect them to be ready and what they may depend upon from me; and if this winter pass without any attempt on my part, I shall take very little pleasure in living till the next.”40 As the leader of the royalist movement, Charles felt obliged to continue to attempt to overthrow Cromwell’s government, even though the presence of the army ensured that any such attempt was destined to fail.

Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists

123

Because of the power of the army, many royalists who remained in England heeded Hyde’s advice and kept out of the limelight, living quietly as they awaited the eventual return of the Stuarts. Since none of the Interregnum regimes permitted them to vote, forms of government did not concern the royalists, provided they could continue to live their lives in peace. Expressing this wish to live unmolested, a Roman Catholic royalist said: “If all this ado would procure us a fair pardon, we would make your Cromwell our idol.”41 The writings of peaceful royalists “gave classic expression to the culture of sequestered royalism.”42 Izaak Walton’s The Compleat Angler – irst published in 1653 and reissued in 1655 in an augmented edition – was, on the surface, about ishing; however, it also promoted the contemplative life for royalists who remained in England. Walton was a royalist, but he hated Laudian innovation as much as he did the Root-and-Branch reforms of the 1640s. His book was immensely popular. In Walton’s own lifetime it went through ive editions and more than three hundred further editions appeared in the following centuries.43 In the book, angling became a substitute for political action. Referring to Henry Wotton – a diplomat and friend of Walton who died before the Civil War – Walton stated that angling was “a rest to his mind, a cheerer of his spirits, a diversion of sadness, a calmer of unquiet thoughts, a Moderator of passions, a procurer of contentedness, and that it begot habits of peace an patience in those that profest and practic’d it.”44 Royalists could forget the political woes of the nation by patiently devoting themselves to angling. Angling was a form of security, as royalists disappeared into the pastoral landscape in order to avoid the dangerous political landscape.45 Other royalist writers picked up on this message, and whenever another pamphlet referred to ishing, it was endorsing the philosophy of The Compleat Angler.46 Steven Zwicker views The Compleat Angler’s celebration of peaceful, withdrawn life as a response to triumphant Puritanism. Seclusion and quietism become the moral high ground.47 Royalists may not have had any political power, but in Walton’s work they had moral and spiritual power. His philosophy provided secluded royalists with the means to achieve a victory over Cromwell’s semi-monarchical regime without ever ighting its soldiers. Although they could not topple the Protectorate, royalists did not have to choose between endorsing Cromwell’s government and living as enemies of the state; angling permitted them to maintain both their values and their safety.

124

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

While most royalists were content to remain on their land and quietly wait for the Stuarts to return, some desired aggressive action. A group of royalists known as the Action Party plotted and executed what became known as Penruddock’s Rising in 1655. That rebellion was a dismal failure and resulted in further restrictions on royalists.48 It demonstrated the futility of any royalist effort to overthrow the Protectorate with an armed insurrection. The royalists were unable to topple Cromwell’s government, but they were still able to speculate on the lord protector’s actions. Whether they remained in England or led to the continent, royalists believed that Cromwell would inevitably take the crown. This presumption began well before Cromwell was even lord protector. In the aftermath of the Civil War, royalist writers produced satires in which Cromwell, having defeated the king, attempted to place the crown on his own head. In the late 1640s, Cromwell was only one member of the parliamentary party and was not even head of the army – Sir Thomas Fairfax was still in overall command – but royalist writings tended to focus on Cromwell and his personal ambition. The two parts of the play Craftie Cromwell present Cromwell as a Machiavellian igure who aimed at nothing less than the throne. In the irst part, Cromwell proclaimed that he would not cease “till I have brought to passe what I intend, til I have made myself Lord Paramount, and quite eradicated all those Lawes which many Ages past have beene ador’d, till I have quite dissolved all Monarchy, and topsi-turvey turn’d all Regall Power.”49 The Cromwell of this play had bold plans and was willing to do anything to achieve them. In one scene Cromwell was shown plotting with Colonel Thomas Pride and mp Henry Marten; once they inished discussing what to do with the king and House of Lords, Cromwell said: “And then, though Heaven and Earth say no such thing, / Yet spight of fates and men, I will be king.”50 In The Second Part of Crafty Cromwell, Cromwell was crowned in the presence of mp Marten and army oficers Pride, Henry Ireton, and George Joyce, who all shout “long live King oliver.”51 After the coronation these men plot to kill Charles and dissolve Parliament.52 Although Cromwell was only one of many characters in these plays, he was portrayed as the driving force behind the events. The two parts of the Crafty Cromwell were probably not written by a signiicant member of the royalist party and were designed for entertainment. The irst major political igure to speculate on

Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists

125

Cromwellian kingship may well be the Marquis of Ormond. Ormond had fought against the Irish insurgents in the 1640s and was made lord lieutenant of Ireland by Charles I in 1644. In late 1650 he went into exile and joined Charles II’s court in France. Throughout the 1650s he had dificulty keeping up to date with events in Ireland and England as the Interregnum authorities monitored his correspondence with his wife and servants.53 Nevertheless, being a member of the exiled court, Ormond was privy to much information regarding Cromwell. From an early date, Ormond connected Cromwell to the crown. In March 1649 Ormond issued a declaration entitled The Marquesse of Ormond’s Declaration, Proclaiming Charles the Second, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, which stated that, by the regicide, the parliamentarians revealed that “their intention is to change the Monarchy of England into Anarchy, unlesse their aim to irst to constitute an elective Kingdome, and Crumwell or some such John of Leydon be elected, then by the same force by which they have thus far compassed their end to establish a perfect Turkish tyranny.”54 At this point the dissolution of the Rump and Cromwell’s complete dominance over the government were still four years away. Ormond’s remarks were the irst prediction of Cromwell’s rise to kingship from a high-level royalist. After the regicide, the image of Cromwell desiring the crown continued to appear in royalist writings. The ballad A Cofin for King Charles, A Crowne for Cromwell is a dialogue between Cromwell, the dead king, and the people of England. Cromwell began by saying: So, so, the deed is done, the Royall head is severed, As I meant, when I irst begunne and strongly have indeavord. Now Charles the I. is tumbled down, the second, I not feare: I graspe the Secepter, weare the Crown, nor for Jehovah care.55 In this account, Cromwell had planned to execute Charles and take his crown from the start. The entire purpose of the Civil War, in fact, was to steal the crown. When the people of England claimed that they had not known his intentions at the outset, Cromwell called

126

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

them “sick braind fools” and wondered how they could not have grasped his true objective.56 These perceptions of Cromwell ambitiously seeking the crown became ingrained in the minds of royalists. Once he became lord protector, it was natural for them to assume that a Cromwellian monarchy was a foregone conclusion. Throughout the 1650s, royalists continued to whisper to each other about the impending change in government. Hyde maintained agents in England who provided him with information. One such man was Silius Titus, who often used the alias John Jennings. Titus began the Civil War on the side of Parliament but was later won over by the royalists and even attempted to engineer the king’s escape from the Isle of Wight. After the regicide, he entered the service of Charles II and was appointed one of the grooms of the bedchamber of the king. Both Charles II and Hyde trusted Titus. Hyde noted, “Unless he is the greatest dissembler in the world … he sets the least value on himself and gives the greatest testimony to others.”57 Writing to Hyde on 1 December 1656, Titus claimed: “Cromwell will now suddenly take upon him the name of king, and there be some in this towne [Antwerp] th[a]t c[on]firme they have seen the crowne, and describe it.”58 Titus made this statement before the oficial offer of the crown, but many observers still saw kingship as a natural move for Cromwell. The assertion by some people that they had seen the crown intended for Cromwell demonstrates the strength of the kingship rumours. On 10 April 1657 – in the middle of the kingship crisis – Titus relayed additional information suggesting that Cromwell’s assumption of the crown was imminent. He wrote that the “Presbyterian Party [the mainstream opponents of Charles I who had never been reconciled to Pride’s Purge or the regicide] say all things in order to the making Cromwell king go on without any opposition; that though the Republican Party in the house and armie at irst talke verie high, yet now they are submitte enough and beginne to distrust theire own strength to make good any opposition.”59 Here, Titus portrayed the republicans in Parliament as lacking conidence and not providing effective opposition. Later in the same letter, Titus referred to the possibility of Cromwell not accepting the crown, but then dismissed it. He claimed that he “saw one letter, but give no great credit to it, that sayes Cromwell will Refuse the title of king; but will accept all of the Power that’s offered him.”60 By giving “no great credit” to this letter, Titus cast kingship as a probable outcome.

Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists

127

Rumours of Cromwell rejecting the crown were discarded, while rumours of him accepting the crown were believed. Titus, and those who read his letters, were convinced that Cromwell was on the verge of becoming king. In their opinion, Cromwell’s assumption of the crown was a logical move for an ambitious man who was master of the British Isles. Similarly, on 25 April 1657, Ormond wrote to Secretary Nicholas: “I thinke I haue reason to beleeue Cromwells taking vpon him the title King will not enduce a peace with Spaine.”61 Ormond wrote as though Cromwell had already assumed the royal title. He did not describe Cromwell becoming king as a possibility in the distant future; rather, Ormond’s wording renders King Oliver a fait accompli. Royalist writings expressed frustration with more than just Cromwellian kingship. Some royalists thought that they were not making suficient use of the printing press. One royalist newsletter from London, detailing the events of the week of 15–22 July 1653, lamented the fact that John Lilburne was more effective at utilizing the press than the king. The newsletter related that Lilburne’s papers “so frequently put [his readers] in minde of the ancient Laws and Libertys of the Nation, which if they worke so much upon the mindes of all men by mention of so inconsiderably a person as hee [Lilburne], what glourious effects would they probably produce when vindicated by the pen and sword of the King … it is wished that he [the king] would sometimes imploy his pen, until he can have a good opportunity to use his sword.”62 Lilburne had demonstrated the potential power of print, yet the king, who commanded much more respect throughout the nation, was unable to take advantage of this medium. Part of the reason for limited pro-Stuart printing was the censorship laws and the fear of judicial punishment. A less dangerous medium for expressing royalist thought was manuscript circulation. A manuscript could never reach the audience of a printed tract, but it was also less likely to be detected or traced since it had no publisher or printer. One event that sparked several satirical manuscripts was Cromwell’s carriage accident. In November 1654 Cromwell was riding in a carriage through Hyde Park when he took the reins himself. While holding the reins he lost control, fell to the ground, and was dragged for some distance. To make the situation even more serious, his pistol went off while he was being dragged. This incident provided royalists with much material with which to mock the lord

128

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

protector. The poem “The Coachman of St. James” describes the carriage accident as a deeply embarrassing incident for Cromwell. All observers laughed at Cromwell’s predicament. The author was “pleas’d to fancy how the glad compact / of Hackney Coachmen sneare at y[ou]r [Cromwell’s] last Act.”63 Cromwell, the most powerful man in the British Isles, appears foolish in this account. He [Cromwell] did presume to rule because forsooth Has bin a Hors Commander from his youth But he must know there’s difference in rains Of Horses fed with Oates and fed with granes.64 Although Cromwell towered over the government of England, Scotland, and Ireland, he failed to control one carriage. The author mused: “See him that trampled thousands in Gore / Dismounted by a party but of four.” Such humiliating lines would have been censored if they appeared in print. “The Coachman of St. James” is part of a collection of writings by G. Sacheverel65 which also includes the poem “On Cromwell Sick.” In this poem, Sacheverel hoped that Cromwell would die and then suffer eternal torments for the suffering he had inlicted. The poem opens with a powerful cry: “Yield Periwig’d Imposter, yield to fate / … Down to the low’st Abysee, blachest shade.”66 A similar line appears later in the poem: “Descend, Descend, thou veiled Devil fal.”67 Cromwell, in Sacheverel’s opinion, deserved the worst of punishments in the afterlife because his evils were unmatched. Even Satan had to play second iddle to Cromwell in the symphony of evil. Cromwell’s “acts are catching Cozen Satan too / Thou hast a trick more th[a]n he ever knew.”68 This poem provides another example of a slanderous attack on Cromwell personally that appeared not in print but in manuscript. Sacheverel was not the only poet to satirize Cromwell’s coach incident. In the poem “On the Protector’s Falling from His Coach,” the anonymous author lamented: “It grieves me much that he wase shallow brain / Can’t guide a Coach should governe Charles his waine.”69 In a somewhat lighter tone, another poem mocked Cromwell: Because he [Cromwell] did heare the best Chariteer Did aunciently weare a Crown Up went the horse heeles,

Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists

129

round and round went the wheeles Till his Highness came tumbling down.70 Cromwell was a powerful man, both politically and militarily. Yet this accident revealed that he was as weak and vulnerable as anyone. It was the perfect event to exploit in satirical poetry, as the royalists attacked Cromwell the only way they could.71 Even with the threat of judicial punishment, some Stuart loyalists were willing to address Cromwell himself in printed tracts. Some Englishmen felt so loyal to the Stuart house that they wrote to Cromwell encouraging him to return the Stuarts to power. Arise Evans and Walter Gostelo were two such men. Both wrote to Cromwell and pointed out the advantages of a Stuart restoration. For them, the transition from a Cromwellian semi-monarchy to a Stuart monarchy would be a beneicial shift and only the lord protector could initiate it. Neither Evans nor Gostelo can be described as typical, since both experienced visions telling them to contact Cromwell; nonetheless, their efforts demonstrate the attachment certain people in the British Isles had for their former royal family. Evans, a Welshman, had experienced visions since he was fourteen, and he attempted to warn Charles I in the early 1630s that he had seen a vision of the king’s doom.72 In Evans’s opinion, a lawful king ( that is, Charles Stuart) was required in order to achieve peace in England. He wrote to Cromwell: “That without their conjunction to their Native and right king, there is no hope for peace, certainty, or safety to this Nation.”73 Evans’s views were known to royalists on the continent. Newsletters from London that were sent to Hyde described Evans’s actions. On 27 May 1653 it was reported that “Rice Evans is againe in print directly declaring their [Cromwell and the members of his government] ruine except they restore King Charles Stuart by name.”74 Again on 3 June 1653 a newsletter stated that “prophet Evans dayly puts him [Cromwell] in minde of it [the people’s hatred of him], and proffers himself hanged if that King Charles be not among us yet before winter.”75 The newsletters that Hyde received tended to focus on major events, such as Lilburne’s trial. If Evans’s activities also featured in these letters, he must have been attracting some attention, even if it was only from royalists who wanted to believe his prophecies. Walter Gostelo was a similar igure. Gostelo, who in his two books, an unpublished manuscript, and a series of letters portrayed

130

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

himself as a prophet with the solemn duty of transmitting the divine will to the people of England, described the nation as being in favour of the Stuarts.76 Like Evans, he did not go unnoticed, although in his case it was the Protectoral authorities who monitored him rather than the royalists. Major Robert Creed wrote to Cromwell warning him “that one, who writes himselfe Walter Gosteloe, did sent almost forty bookes to one mr. Humphreys, a bookseller in Warwick, in my judgment a very dangerous consequence to your highness and these nations.”77 It is easy to understand why Gostelo’s writings concerned Major Creed. In For the Lord Protector, Gostelo asserted: “The Hourablest, wisest, best and most considerablest people in this Kingdom desire Kingly Government, the Person, none but him, whose unquestionable Right the Crown is, charles stuart.”78 In his book Charls Stuart and Oliver Cromwell United, Gostelo described visions in which God instructed him to speak to Cromwell. Gostelo initially distrusted Cromwell, since he viewed the lord protector as placing royal prerogatives in his own hands. These visions, however, changed Gostelo’s mind, and he came to believe that God would use Cromwell to restore Charles II. Gostelo stated that Cromwell must “make him [Charles Stuart] a Glorious King; for by thy means God will have it so.”79 Although Gostelo had faith that Cromwell would eventually restore Charles II, he refused to acknowledge Cromwell’s title of lord protector. The only title appropriate for Cromwell was “General of all our Forces.”80 This title reveals where Gostelo thought Cromwell belonged: in the military sphere, not the political one. Evans and Gostelo considered Charles Stuart their legitimate ruler and they hoped, in vain, to convince Cromwell that the nation would be better off with Charles II on the throne. ✻

Cromwellian kingship threatened some royalists and inspired others. The possibility of King Oliver I presented monarchists with a nonStuart alternative. Monarchists now had to decide which man they thought should wear the crown, Charles Stuart or Oliver Cromwell. For those who cared more about the structure of government than its personnel, support for a Cromwellian monarchy was an obvious choice. They responded to the monarchical nature of the Protectorate with ringing endorsements in print. For those, however, who could

Cromwellian Monarchists and Stuart Loyalists

131

never view Cromwell as anything other than a usurper, the options were far less appealing. With the prospect of Cromwellian kingship looming, they had lost their monopoly on monarchical solutions to England’s political troubles. Censorship laws limited their ability to present their case in print, the military strength of the Protectorate ensured that no royalist rebellion succeeded, and Cromwell’s regal nature cost the royalists many supporters. Satirical poems in manuscript were the only safe means of mocking Cromwell. Thus, the most common reactions to Cromwellian power among Stuart loyalists were entering into quiet seclusion and/or commenting on the inevitability of Cromwellian kingship in their letters. Both Stuart loyalists and Cromwellian monarchists believed that Cromwell would become king, but only those who were happy with this prospect were permitted to publish their opinion in print. The Protectorate attempted to prevent Stuart loyalists from printing through censorship laws, while Cromwellian monarchists attempted to induce Cromwell to take the crown through their writings. Print and politics had a close relationship in the 1650s. This relationship would remain close when the religious sects discussed kingship.

7 Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

Unlike the Cromwellian monarchists, sectarian writers were hostile to kingly government, and they were not timid when it came to expressing their opinions. The sects were the most open critics of Cromwellian monarchical power, always addressing the lord protector directly and never tiptoeing around the issue. Although they held a diverse set of religious beliefs, several characteristics were common among the new religious sects: an emphasis on immediate contact with the divine; a belief in experienced truth over given truth; a rejection of the distinction between priest and layman; a hostility toward tithes; in some cases, a refusal to recognize orthodox teachings on the Trinity; a tendency toward speculation about the existence of heaven and hell; a de-emphasis on predestination; and a call for liberty of conscience.1 As a result of these shared beliefs and tendencies, there were no clear delineations between each sect. It was common to have multiple allegiances. For example, Fifth Monarchist groups grew out of pre-existing congregations, which they never entirely left.2 Fifth Monarchists, Quakers, and the other new sects were a tiny minority, but they were determined to make their presence felt. Their greatest opportunity to affect the governance of the British Isles came during the rule of the Nominated Assembly, in which Fifth Monarchists and other religious radicals held several seats. Unfortunately, for the sects, the Nominated Assembly’s short term in power prevented them from having a major impact. Historians tend to view the Nominated Assembly as the high point in sectarian power;3 after its dissolution, the sects were no longer a force with which to be reckoned. Comments made by politicians and generals

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

133

in the mid- and late 1650s, however, reveal that their fear of sectarian power did not end with the Nominated Assembly. The members of the second Protectoral Parliament frequently raised the spectre of sectarian menace. During the debates regarding James Naylor in late 1656, Major-General Philip Skippon said: “It has been always my opinion, that the growth of these things [sects] is more dangerous than the most intestine or foreign enemies.”4 Bernard Church, mp for Norwich City, commented on the recent growth of Quakerism. He noted that when he “sat in the last Parliament, there was scarce the name of these [Quakers]; but their increase since has been incredible.”5 What seemed an insigniicant religious group in 1654 had ballooned into a movement that threatened the traditional values of the whole nation. Beginning in the north and spreading south to every county, Quakerism was no longer a local nuisance but a national concern.6 Secretary Thurloe received numerous letters reporting the spread of Quakerism. On 24 February 1654 James Powell wrote to Thurloe noting “the comeinge of the quakers, who with their franticke doctrines have made such an impression on the mindes of people of this cittie and places adjacent that it is wonderful to imagin.”7 Thurloe himself commented on the continuing danger of the Fifth Monarchy men. On 15 April 1656 he wrote to Henry Cromwell: “There is another sort of men, who grow somewhat troublesome; I meane those, who are named (though falsely) 5th monarchy men, who have their daylye meetinges to provoake one another to blood, and professe openly, that their intention is to trye for it with the sword, if they can get any convenient number together.”8 Even three years after the dissolution of the Nominated Assembly, sectarianism continued to be on the minds of the leaders of the Protectorate. They no longer held seats in Parliament, but the sects were still a threat. ✻

One of the reasons the sects remained a signiicant force was their use of print. A decrease in sectarian military power did not inevitably lead to political marginalization. The Fifth Monarchists were no longer a security threat, but they were still able to create unrest through their written work. Providential reasoning, so common in sectarian writing, had a broad allure in the 1650s. With the ability to undermine the legitimacy of Cromwell’s government

134

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

through print, the sects remained a potent group even after the Nominated Assembly. Sectarian printing attracted much attention from Protectoral authorities. The establishment of the major-generals’ regime aided Thurloe in monitoring pamphlets, since many of the major-generals feared the growth of religious radicalism. Major-General William Goffe informed Thurloe that Quaker leader George “Foxe and two more eminent northerne quakers have beene in Sussex, and are now in this county, doing much worke for the devill, and delude many simple soules, and att the same time there are base bookes against the Lord Protector disperst among the churches, but rejected by all sober men.”9 Similarly, on 8 August 1656 he wrote to Thurloe: “I heere he [one Cole of Hampton, a man inclining towards Quakerism] did disperse some of these pamphlets into the isle of Wight, and some weere scattered about the streetes in the markett places in Southampton.”10 Private citizens also communicated to Thurloe and Cromwell information relating to the printing and distribution of sectarian pamphlets. William Shefield and Thomas Cockran twice wrote to Cromwell to warn him of Quaker printing. They stated: “They [Quakers] have a printer with them, and sixe and constantly writing; they are very insolent, disturbing ministers in time of exercise on the Lord’s-day.”11 John Harris relayed information on Fifth Monarchists’ printing and the spread of their pamphlets.12 With his elaborate system of informants, Thurloe followed both the printing and the distribution of sectarian literature. Although Thurloe was the head of intelligence, other members of the government knew that the sects were using print to undermine the government. During the Naylor debates, Lord Chief Justice Glynne said: “It is high time to take a course with them [Quakers]. They disturb our courts of justice; several indictments against them; their persons and pamphlets daily pestering of us.”13 Thurloe could have informed the lord chief justice about the problem of Quaker printing, or Glynne might have noticed the prominence of Quaker pamphlets, or the Quakers’ frequent court appearances might have caught his attention. Whatever the case, statements like Glynne’s demonstrate that both knowledge and fear of sectarian printing extended beyond Thurloe and his staff. The printed word was a powerful tool, but, given the government’s concern about sectarian printing, the possibility of censorship always loomed over sectarian pamphlets. Since those in power

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

135

considered sectarian ideas threatening, radical writings could not be produced and distributed in the same manner as uncontroversial pamphlets. The Quakers maintained contacts in London and in the army to help move their pamphlets around the country. The primary Quaker printer was Giles Calvert, who resided in London and had briely served as printer for the Council of State during the Nominated Assembly. The Quaker Thomas Aldam had urged the movement to turn to printing as a way of spreading its message, and he contacted Calvert through the army.14 Calvert published Quaker works in London, and then they were transported by carrier to York.15 During this process, Aldam requested Captain Amor Stoddard – a close companion of George Fox, he also supplied northern Quakers with publications from the Council of Oficers in London – to keep him informed on all movement of books.16 In terms of distribution, Quaker ministers often personally oversaw the dissemination of their tracts. They handed them out or read them aloud at public events such as market days, sermons, and trials.17 Quakers also used their political contacts to distribute their pamphlets. The Quaker Thomas Fell was allied with William West, a member of the Nominated Assembly who distributed Quaker pamphlets in London.18 These measures ensured that Quaker writings hostile to Protectorate reached their target audience. Although the sects were able to use printed works to increase their inluence, they also knew that print was being employed against them. Quakers were aware of their misrepresentation in the newsbooks, and they were generally hostile toward this medium. Quaker John Penneyman publicly burnt sacks full of newsbooks well into the Restoration.19 In his journal, George Fox noted that a “newsmonger”-priest “put in the news-book that I wore silver buttons which was false, for they were but alchemy. And after, he put in his news-book that I hung ribbons on people’s arms which made them to follow me; which was another of his lies for I never wore nor used ribbons in my life.”20 This awareness of their negative image in print suggests that the sects not only contributed to print culture, they also followed it. Despite Penneyman’s and Fox’s animosity toward newsbooks, Quakers produced copious printed tracts of their own. The anger they felt toward newsmongers did not dampen their opinion of print in general. For the sects, though, printed works were a double-edged sword. They permitted movements like the Quakers to grow rapidly

136

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

and spread their message, but they also provided a forum for the religiously conservative factions to ridicule sectarianism. The sects were a diverse group with a wide range of beliefs. Consequently, they wrote on an array of different topics. One topic, however, prompted many sectarian writers to take up the pen: the growth of Cromwellian monarchical power. This topic was not always a concern for the sects. When Cromwell irst rose to prominence, the sects viewed him as an ally, particularly after his dissolution of the Rump. In the aftermath of the Rump, the Fifth Monarchist John Rogers looked to Cromwell as the man who should lead the people of God. In a letter to Cromwell on 3 June 1653, Rogers wrote: “But the most wise God guide you! And that he may double the spirit of your predecessors upon you, viz. of Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Nehemiah and all others whom he hath appointed for the Government of his people.”21 The Church at the Chequer without Aldgate had a similar reaction to Cromwell’s dissolution of the Rump. Its members wrote to Cromwell: “He [God] hath graciously raised up, and spirited you all along as his instruments in his worke of pulling downe men of corrupt interests.”22 At this point, both Rogers and the church viewed Cromwell as an instrument of God, doing His will by removing the corrupt members of the Rump. Several churches went so far as to claim that Cromwell was protecting them. The “baptized churches” of Northumberland wrote to Cromwell: “That which we further crave of your Highness is, a gracious acceptance and Christian construction of these our honest addresses, for the vindication of our integrity and affection; no longer desiring protection from you, then we shall in all humble subjection demean and approve ourselves.”23 This letter implies that, without Cromwell’s assistance, they would have experienced persecution. Similarly, the churches of Newcastle proclaimed: “From that divine principle, which God hath endowed you [Cromwell] with, for that protection of his people, will not be unrequited in that day, when Christ will reward any kindness shewed to the least of Saints.”24 In this description, Cromwell and the godly appear on the same side in the war over liberty of conscience. This sectarian excitement at Cromwell’s rise to power was based on the assumption that Cromwell would protect the sects and advance their goals, such as ending tithes. His actions had paved the way for the establishment of the Nominated Assembly, which was illed with men handpicked for their godliness. The Nominated

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

137

Assembly, however, did not sit for long before handing its power over to Cromwell, who did not rule solely for the godly. As the years passed, Cromwell’s behaviour caused the sects to question their initial endorsement. Cromwell’s acceptance of the Nominated Assembly’s dissolution coupled with his quasi-monarchical status generated much fear among the sects. Employing language of judgment and providence, religious groups published letters and petitions addressed to Cromwell advising him to avoid not only the crown but also all monarchical power. Despite the diversity of religious beliefs held by the sects, four themes repeat themselves throughout these pamphlets. The four themes are: Cromwell, by accepting the crown, was rebuilding an institution that God had destroyed; God would one day judge Cromwell for his actions; Cromwell was offending the godly; and God was withdrawing his sanction for Cromwell’s designs. The themes of God destroying monarchy, God judging Cromwell, and Cromwell’s offence toward the godly also appeared in the lord protector’s own speeches, suggesting that there was some common ground between him and the sects. The sects had their own reasons for fearing a return to monarchical government. Many of them believed that the destruction of the monarchy had ushered in a New Jerusalem. Baptists hoped that, with monarchy and the established church removed, they could obtain legal toleration and an end to tithes.25 According to the Quakers, the Civil War was fought against “the tyrannical Kings and bloody Bishops.”26 They anticipated that, through the execution of the king, breakdown of episcopacy, and abolition of the House of Lords, a society of equality could be established.27 A return to monarchy threatened all these goals, since the sects identiied kingship with a hierarchical society, a national church, and an oppressive religious policy. Fifth Monarchists had additional motives for wishing the royal ofice to remain buried. They had a speciic view of history based on prophesies in the Book of Daniel. In the visions of Daniel, there were four beasts, representing world empires – Babylon, the Medes and Persians, Greece, and Rome. Once the last beast had been destroyed, the saints would reign forever, that is, the Fifth Monarchy.28 The execution of Charles led many Fifth Monarchists to believe that the way had been paved for the rule of the saints. For example, Mary Cary, a Fifth Monarchy prophetess, identiied Charles as the little horn on the fourth beast.29 All of the ancient

138

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

constitution and existing society, according to the Fifth Monarchists, was part of the anti-Christian Fourth Monarchy.30 Now that the Fourth Monarchy had been overthrown, there was no returning to the old habits of governing. If Cromwell were to assume the title of king, he would, in the minds of the Fifth Monarchists, be usurping a title that rightfully belonged to King Jesus. ✻

The sects’ most powerful argument against kingship was their assertion that God had destroyed monarchical government. This belief rendered the existence of any monarchical institution blasphemous. One key sectarian igure who raised this issue was the Fifth Monarchist John Rogers. Fifth Monarchists are unique among the sects because, for them, belief in the imminent Kingdom of Christ was the very reason for the group’s existence.31 The movement emerged when the Rump Parliament and then Cromwell failed to promote godliness; Fifth Monarchy was a reaction to fading hopes of the millennium.32 The members of the Rump had been religiously conservative and, given the fragility of the new English republic, had no time for godly reformation. After the dissolution of the Rump, future Fifth Monarchists looked to Cromwell as the bringer of further reformation. Then, when he accepted the voluntary dissolution of the Nominated Assembly, Cromwell became their enemy as well. As mentioned earlier, Rogers had written hopefully about Cromwell in 1653. He printed letters advising Cromwell how to govern in the aftermath of the Rump and proposing a system of governance almost identical to that of the Nominated Assembly – that is, an assembly of godly men, selected by Cromwell, ruling the nation.33 Obviously, Rogers and his fellow Fifth Monarchists were angered when the Nominated Assembly dissolved itself and was replaced by the Protectorate. This change in government prompted hostile writings from Rogers and other Fifth Monarchists which led to their arrests. In April 1654 Cromwell ordered soldiers to search Rogers’s house for books and papers, and to deliver them to Thurloe.34 Rogers was arrested on 27 July 1654 and imprisoned in Lambeth Palace. Over the next two years he was transferred to several different prisons and spent much of his time on the Isle of Wight; he was not released until 11 December 1656.

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

139

In his pamphlet Mene, Tekel, Perez, Rogers criticized the newly established Protectorate, claiming that Cromwell was not following his own promises and pointing to the similarities between the Protectorate and the Stuart monarchy. Rogers pleaded with Cromwell to “see a little in the midst of our Agony and trouble, how like this present Government looks to that which the Lord (by the faith and prayers of his despised people II. Heb. 33) hath so eminently ingaged against, laid in the dust, and stamped upon with disdain (fulilling his word therein) and whilst you were with the Lord (therein) he was with you but oh! is there no danger to sit in the same fear?”35 In fact, of course, the lord protector was a regicide who had no desire to resurrect Charles I’s policies and government. Any assertion that the Protectorate mirrored the rule of the Stuarts would have deeply offended him, and explains his decision to arrest Rogers. Rogers was not the only sectarian writer to link Cromwell to the former Stuart government. His fellow Fifth Monarchist Anna Trapnel held a similar view and shared Rogers’s fate of imprisonment. Trapnel illustrates the luidity of the sects; at various times she was associated with Familists, Fifth Monarchists, Baptists, and Quakers.36 Oficials arrested and interrogated Trapnel in January 1654, and in the course of her coninement she experienced visions and at times broke into song. Prior to 1654, she had experienced visions, but there were no signs that foreshadowed her rapid rise to fame.37 Trapnel’s statements were published in a pamphlet entitled The Cry of a Stone. Although her comments were made during an interrogation, she spoke as though she knew that her words would be heard across the nation. She is, therefore, no different from Rogers when he published pamphlets intended for mass readership. The text The Cry of a Stone, however, has other complexities. It is written in the irst person, but the prophecy is a transcription of Trapnel’s words by a male “relator” who misses the irst three days of her prophesying and his capacity to record her words verbatim was, by his own account, imperfect.38 These issues make it dificult to determine Trapnel’s voice, but the pamphlet still retains all the features common to sectarian writings. In The Cry of a Stone, Trapnel spoke with admiration about Cromwell’s dissolution of the Rump, but she prophesied the downfall of the Protectorate because Cromwell had become an enemy of God. At one point she said: “If he were not (speaking of Lord Cromwell) backsliden, he would be ashamed of his great pomp and

140

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

revenue, whiles the poore are ready to starve, and art thou providing great Palaces? Oh this was not Gideon [she often referred to Cromwell as Gideon] of old, oh why dost thou come to rear of the pillars, the stones which are laid aside?”39 The image of Cromwell raising pillars and stones that had been “laid aside” appeared in his own speeches. For Trapnel, as for other Fifth Monarchists, there was only one king, Christ. Cromwell’s regal power and ceremonies became sacrilegious when he took a title that belonged to Christ and Christ alone. During her interrogation, she sang: Oh do not thou aspire, for to So high a title have; As King, or Protector: But oh Unto Christ that do leave.40 She sang of Christ being a better general, king, and protector than Cromwell. In this account, Cromwell was a usurper, but unlike the depiction in royalist writings, he usurped a title meant for Christ, not Charles Stuart. Fifth Monarchists were the most vocal critics of the Protectorate in its early years; nonetheless, they were not the only religious group to assert that Cromwell was building what God had crushed. The Quakers John Camm and Francis Howgill employed similar wording in their public letter to Cromwell. Quakerism, founded by George Fox, grew as a protest movement concerned not only with religious issues but political and social ones as well. The Quakers were, in the words of Barry Reay, “spiritual millenarians.”41 They thought that Christ had already come in them and would come in others; the Quaker millennium was inward. Unlike Fifth Monarchists who supported the doctrine of predestination, Quakers asserted that salvation was possible for anyone, since all people possessed the inner light of God.42 Despite their differences with the Fifth Monarchists, the Quakers Camm and Howgill also portrayed Cromwell as acting against God’s will. They wrote to Cromwell: “What saith the Lord, have I thrown down all the oppressors, and broken their Laws, and art thou now going about to establish them again? and art going to build again, that which I have destroyed.”43 George Fox expressed an identical view in his pamphlet A Warning from the Lord. This publication, as its title suggests, was a warning to Cromwell that his actions,

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

141

particularly his style of government, were displeasing God. Fox chastised Cromwell because he “set up that which is abomination to God, which is out of the light, this is all for condemnation, for the Sword, and for the Famine.”44 Despite their differences in theology, Quakers and Fifth Monarchists understood Cromwell and kingship in identical terms. The pamphlet The Protector (So Called) in Part Unveiled further indicates the diversity of radical religious opinion arrayed against Cromwell’s assumption of the crown. The pamphlet was written anonymously, and so the author’s religious convictions cannot be known for certain; however, a few clues are present. The author stated that, although he frequently advocated on behalf of John Biddle, he was not of the same mind as Biddle and, therefore, not an antiTrinitarian. In the postscript, the author noted that many readers would think him – because of his discussion of the Fifth Monarchy principles – a staunch Fifth Monarchist, intolerant of other opinions. The author asserted that this perceived intolerance was not the case. He insisted that he did “freely own all that are godly, under what forme soever … and am not for imposing upon, or persecution, and imprisoning of any, as to the matter of faith, and things pertaining to conscience.”45 Throughout the pamphlet he advocated the Fifth Monarchists’ position, but in the postscript he shied away from a clear religious stance. Perhaps he was a Fifth Monarchist but did not declare himself so in order to avoid the stigma of that label. Or perhaps he was a separatist Independent who believed in liberty of conscience and spoke on behalf of the Fifth Monarchists because they faced much persecution. Historians may never be able to conirm deinitively the author’s religious denomination; what is certain is that he promoted a fairly broad concept of liberty of conscience. This pamphlet focused its attack on the Instrument of Government, criticizing both the circumstances under which it was written and the power it granted Cromwell. In the events leading up to the creation of Protectorate, Lambert and his allies are described as deceitful as they attempted “to colour over the cloak of their design, which was, to hold forth [that] the business [the writing of the Instrument and the dissolution of the Nominated Assembly] was done by the general consent of the Oficers, when it was not so; which is plainly jugling and deceit.”46 Cromwell, in the pamphlet, was a hypocrite because he recreated a government that he had previously destroyed. The author was shocked that “they who professe

142

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

to be Christians, and to have been so much called by the Lord to his worke, and have been so instrumentall in his hand, in destroying the Antichristian broode: should notwithstanding be setting themselves in many of the same places and thinges, and thereby give nourishment to that which they had destroyed.”47 Later, the author wrote: “The Monarchical foundation on which he [Cromwell] stands, is that which the Lord by his Spirit in his People, and by their hands without them, hath destroyed.”48 As in the Fifth Monarchist and Quaker writings, the recreation of the old government appears antiChristian and hypocritical. Monarchical government may have been attractive to Cromwell, but it did not relect the broader interest of the godly, who recognized the evil of the royal ofice. The pamphlet A Word for God contains a message similar to that of the Fifth Monarchists. This pamphlet has numerous signatures, including that of Vavasor Powell, who was a prominent Independent preacher in Wales with a deeply millenarian outlook. After the regicide he was a staunch supporter of the Commonwealth, and on 22 February 1650 he was named as an approved minister under the Act for the Propagation of the Gospel in Wales.49 He also endorsed the Nominated Assembly, but he despised the Protectorate and began preaching against Cromwell only three days after he had been installed as lord protector.50 Powell is usually credited as the author of the pamphlet.51 It may be impossible to determine the religious afiliation of every person who signed this publication – Thurloe believed that most of the signatures were forged52 – but the presence of Powell’s name suggests Independent and millenarian sympathies among the signatories. The pamphlet concerned Thurloe, who, on 5 February 1656, wrote to Henry Cromwell: “I perceive there hath beene great endeavours to spread a paper of Vavasour Powell’s and some other Welshmen, in Ireland as in all this nation, and it is greatly hugged by some … This booke stole out into the world, and now it is abroad, I know not whether it be itt or convenient to stile it.”53 The secretary of state was both aware of Powell’s writings and uncertain how to deal with them. Censoring pamphlets was a delicate matter and certainly not an easy one once a pamphlet had spread across the country and abroad. The closing remarks in A Word for God suggest that Thurloe did take some action to halt the publication of the pamphlet. According to the pamphlet, “there hath been great endeavours to stile it [A Word for God] in the Birth; to that end, some of the

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

143

Subscribers were threatened with imprisonment” and Powell was arrested.54 Given the content of A Word for God, Thurloe’s attempts to control the spread of it are unsurprising. As with Rogers’s writings, the primary purpose of A Word for God was to undermine the legitimacy of the Protectorate by invoking religious arguments. The end of the pamphlet stated: “And it is most evident to us, that they [Cromwell and the members of his government] there by build again, what before they did destroy; and in so doing they render themselves and the Cause, Religion, Name and People of God abominable to Heathens, Papists and profane Enemies.”55 Cromwell, according to Powell and his allies, was attempting to establish a government that God had destroyed, and in doing so he was acting contrary to God’s wishes. The sects were not alone in believing that God had ground monarchical government into the dust. In his speeches to Parliament explaining his reasons for rejecting the crown, Cromwell repeated the sects’ assertion that God had destroyed the royal ofice. As already noted, Cromwell irst discussed the Humble Petition and Advice on 31 March 1657, but he delayed providing his reasons for being reluctant to accept the crown until 13 April. On this occasion, he told Parliament: “Truly the providence of God has laid this title aside providentially … And God has seemed providentially not only to strike at the family but at the name. As I said before, de facto it is blotted out, it is a thing cast out by Act of Parliament, it’s a thing has been kept out till this day.”56 At this point, Cromwell had spent nearly two weeks meditating on whether or not he should accept the crown. Finally, he decided that God had removed kingship from England once and for all. The sects came to the same conclusion as Cromwell; the only difference was that the lord protector was slower to make up his mind. This decision was not an easy one for Cromwell. His conservative and radical tendencies were pulling him in two different directions. Ian Gentles notes that, throughout his kingship speeches, Cromwell was consistent in expressing his reluctance to assume the crown. Gentles interprets this consistency as a commitment to refusing the crown from the beginning.57 Cromwell’s reservations may have been consistent, but he still hoped that the kingship party could change his mind. On 8 April 1657, the day Cromwell expressed his willingness to meet with the kingship committee, he told Parliament: “I am ready to render a reason of my apprehension [for the crown], which

144

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

happily may be overswayed by better apprehension.”58 Cromwell entered into discussions with the kingship committee hoping to be persuaded to accept the crown. Before making his inal decision on the royal title, he gave the kingship party a chance to convince him. Only after their arguments failed to sway him did Cromwell deinitively announce his refusal. Later in the 13 April speech, Cromwell continued to employ language similar to that of the sects. He said: “I would not seek to set up that that providence hath destroyed and laid in the dust, I would not build Jericho again.”59 In the Bible, Jericho was a city around which God ordered Joshua to march with his soldiers. God also instructed Joshua to bring seven priests with seven trumpets of rams’ horns. On the seventh day of marching around the city, the priests were to blow their trumpets and all the soldiers were to shout. Joshua did as he was ordered, and on the seventh day, when the priests blew their trumpets and the soldiers shouted, the city walls collapsed and the Israelites slaughtered everyone in the city. The city had been obliterated by command of and with the aid of God. Joshua proclaimed that anyone who dared to rebuild the walls that God had destroyed would be cursed. With this biblical background in mind, one can easily relate Cromwell’s reference to Jericho to the wording of the sects. Although none of the sectarian writers discussed above made speciic mention of Jericho, they all described Cromwell building what God had destroyed. Trapnel’s description of Cromwell setting up pillars and stones which had been laid aside creates an image of Cromwell rebuilding a fallen city. Both Trapnel and Cromwell viewed the kingship crisis as paralleling the city of Jericho, and both believed it would be a sin to rebuild the city. The sects and Cromwell unquestionably disagreed on many issues, such as how far to extend liberty of conscience, but on some subjects they were in agreement. Politically, Cromwell was conservative, with a preference for traditional government, but his religious views had more in common with the radical sectarians; these radical tendencies appear most clearly in the kingship speeches. ✻

Quakers, Fifth Monarchists, and other sects may not have explicitly written of Jericho, but Sir Henry Vane, a former ally of Cromwell’s, did. Since both Cromwell and Vane connected kingship with Jericho,

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

145

it is worth analyzing the thinking of Vane and his relationship with Cromwell in detail. Vane and Cromwell had a long history of collaboration, beginning in the Civil War. During the debates in the Long Parliament, Vane’s chief concern was religious freedom and he was eager to attack episcopacy in the early 1640s. This anti-episcopacy stance rendered Vane and Cromwell natural allies.60 Their close relationship is illustrated by a letter Cromwell wrote to Colonel Robert Hammond on 6 November 1648, in which he repeatedly referred to Vane as “my brother.”61 Both men had similar objectives, namely liberty of conscience for all of God’s people, and they remained close throughout the 1640s.62 After the irst Civil War, Presbyterianism was the dominant faction in Parliament and Vane withdrew from politics, but he remained intimate with Cromwell.63 The two men continued to be on friendly terms in the early 1650s, but as the rule of Rump came to a close, so did Vane’s and Cromwell’s friendship. Toward the end of the Rump, Cromwell had become impatient with the mps’ failure enact godly reform, while Vane still clung to the Rump Parliament as the sole semblance of constitutionality.64 Cromwell’s speech when he dissolved the Rump reveals the extent of the fracture between the two men. Cromwell is reported to have said: “O Sir Henry Vane, Sir Henry Vane, the Lord deliver me from Sir Henry Vane.”65 Cromwell was disappointed that his friend was unable to sway Parliament in favour of godly reform.66 Vane connected kingship with Jericho in his tract A Healing Question, published in 1656. The printer of A Healing Question is unknown, but its bookseller was Thomas Brewster. Although it is dificult to comment on the allegiances of printers and booksellers, Brewster’s willingness to be involved with both The Excellencie of a Free-State and A Healing Question represents a signiicant shift from his former position on the shortlist of printers that Thurloe had provided to the Council. Perhaps Brewster was unconcerned about selling controversial literature because he retained contacts and allies in the Protectorate. In any case, the purpose of A Healing Question is obvious: to reunite the members of the good old cause. Vane believed that a “private and selish interest” had shattered the alliance that had stood against Charles I.67 Despite these unpleasant circumstances, Vane was conident that the members of the cause could be reunited because that “cause hath still the same goodness in it as ever” and “the Persons concerned and engaged in this Cause,

146

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

are still the same as before.”68 The bulk of the pamphlet is devoted to convincing the various factions that it was in their best interest to join forces again. Despite their different objectives, both Vane and sectarian writers suggested that Cromwell was mimicking the Stuart kings and offending God by doing so, although Vane’s wording was milder than that of the sects. In A Healing Question, when discussing the Protectorate’s drift toward tyranny, Vane cautioned: If those very Tyrannical principles and Antichristian reliques, which God by us hath punished in our predecessors, should again revive, spring up afresh, and shew themselves lodged also and retained in our bosomes … If these things should ever be found amongst us (which the Lord in mercy forbid) shall we need to look any further for the accursed thing? will not our Consciences shew us from the light of the Word and Spirit of God, how neer a conformity these actions would hold therewith? which sin, Josh. 7. became a curse to the Camp, and withheld the Lord from being any more amongst them, or going out with their forces. And did the action of Achan import any more then these two things.69 Vane’s reference to Achan is the key point. In the Old Testament, after Joshua had destroyed Jericho, Achan, in deiance of both Joshua and God, retrieved a garment and some silver and gold from the city. For his sin, the entire Israelite army was punished. Comparing the re-establishment of monarchy to Achan’s sin and Jericho linked Vane to both sectarian writers and Cromwell, who asserted that he “would not build Jericho again.” Is it possible that Cromwell’s reference to Jericho was a response to Vane’s pamphlet? Unlike the sectarian writings that invoked this idea, Cromwell might have read A Healing Question, given that it was written by a former colleague whom he respected. His comments about Jericho were made to the committee on kingship, not to the entire House of Commons, and they were kept out of the public discourse until after Cromwell’s death. Considering Vane and Cromwell’s similar beliefs and background, both men might very well have viewed kingship in the same light, as paralleling Achan’s sin. In A Healing Question, Vane framed the question of kingship in the same language as the sects, but he lacked their aggressive writing

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

147

style. Vane never mentioned Cromwell by name, probably hoping to avoid judicial punishment. Nevertheless, Vane was imprisoned for writing A Healing Question. Prior to its publication, he presented the Council with a copy of A Healing Question for its perusal. The Council made no effort to halt the publication of A Healing Question and it was entered into the register of the Stationers’ Company at the end of May 1656, well before the actual writs for the second Protectoral Parliament were issued in the summer of 1656.70 Ludlow’s Memoirs indicate that Vane showed A Healing Question to MajorGeneral Charles Fleetwood, who approved it and promised to share it with Cromwell.71 Why did the authorities not immediately censor Vane’s work? The timing of Vane’s arrest provides one possible explanation. The government imprisoned Vane from 4 September 1656 to 31 December 1656, just as the second Protectoral Parliament was preparing to sit. Cromwell and his advisers likely feared that Vane would create unrest among the newly elected mps, paralyzing Parliament. After the problems with the irst Protectoral Parliament, Cromwell was unwilling to take any chances, and imprisoning a potential enemy like Vane was a natural manoeuvre. Although Vane had been in a state of retirement from politics during the irst Protectoral Parliament, he was perceived as a troublemaker even before the appearance of A Healing Question. On 6  February 1656 Henry Cromwell wrote to Thurloe: “Sir H. Vane, and such like whoe are as rotten in their principles, cane make good use of such delusions as these, 5th monarchy, and the like, to carry on their designes. Mr. Weaver hath writ verry hotly to a friend of his, (who tolde me it as a secresy) that Sir H. Vane goes up and downe amongst these people and others, endeavouring to withdrawe them from their submission to the present government, which is perhaps no newes to you … if he bee not prevented, he will be a sad scourge to Englande.”72 The fact that Henry Cromwell believed that this information is “no news” to Thurloe suggests that the secretary of state was also keeping an eye on Vane. Given Henry Cromwell’s comments, it is unsurprising that the government was ready to arrest Vane before the second Protectoral Parliament sat. On 4 September 1656 the president of the Council, Henry Lawrence, wrote to Sergeant-at-Arms Edward Dendy, ordering the arrest of Vane for writing A Healing Question.73 The Protectorate had a vast intelligence network and undoubtedly kept watch over possible enemies like Vane. During a controversial time such as an election,

148

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

the government employed the charge of seditious writing as grounds for keeping Vane away from the political arena. It should be noted that, while Vane was arrested for writing A Healing Question, the authors of the similarly controversial The Excellencie of a Free-State and Oceana74 avoided judicial punishment. Unlike The Excellencie of a Free-State and Oceana, A Healing Question was written by an active politician whom the government identiied with its opponents.75 Another factor was the manner in which A Healing Question was written. While The Excellencie of a Free-State focused its discussion on ancient Rome, and the ideas in Oceana were conined to a ictional island, A Healing Question related directly to the current political situation in England. Although his criticisms were all abstract and he never named names,76 it was clear that Vane was unsatisied with the present rulers. He charged the government with failing to implement liberty of conscience despite the fact that it had promised to do so. At several points he expressed concern that the rulers of the Protectorate were becoming as religiously restrictive as Charles I, a claim not unlike those in sectarian pamphlets.77 Such comments were bound to land Vane in prison. After his arrest, Vane altered the tone of his writing. On his release, he published a pamphlet entitled The Proceeds of the Protector (So Called) and His Council against Sir Henry Vane, Knight, in which he defended the content of his earlier pamphlet and criticized Cromwell in a more open manner. In this pamphlet, Vane portrayed the Protectorate as a corrupt government that resembled Stuart rule. He lamented: “And truly it is with no small grief, at time to be lamented, that the evill, and wreched principles of the misgovernment, which the King then aymed to worke out his designe by, but could not effect, should now revive, and spring up so evidently in the hands of men professing godlinesse.”78 Vane completed his assault on Cromwell with the claim that the lord protector was “ayming at the Throne in spirituals as well as Temporals.”79 Such a statement is much more direct than anything Vane wrote in A Healing Question and similar to the comments in sectarian pamphlets. Vane’s experience of imprisonment affected his writing style. He began his effort to inluence the Protectorate with mild criticisms; however, after a stint in prison, his blunt remarks and writing style in 1657 appear more sectarian than his earlier work. One feature that differentiates the sects from the other writers who were critical of monarchical power was the possibility of imprisonment. Since

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

149

Nedham and Milton were on the government’s payroll, there was little chance of them ever being arrested. They probably knew that there was a limit to what they could write, and they had no desire to push the boundaries of what was deemed acceptable and thereby risk losing their salaries. Similarly, James Harrington80 was careful enough in his writing and politics to avoid any punishment. Sectarian writers, conversely, such as John Rogers and John Spittlehouse, were in and out of prison throughout the Protectorate. Authors who had experienced imprisonment or who knew that jail time was a distinct possibility tended to be more direct in their attacks on Cromwell, while those who were conident that they would not face prosecution were subtler. Why was this the case? Perhaps men like Vane and Rogers knew that, once they were labelled an enemy, the government would punish them whenever it was in the regime’s best interest. They were marked men and received no leniency with regard to their political writings. When Vane, like members of the sects, wrote that Cromwell was rebuilding what God had destroyed, his imprisonment, like that of sectarian writers, was inevitable. ✻

Related to the claim that Cromwell was re-establishing what God had destroyed is the belief that God will one day judge Cromwell. If Cromwell was defying God by reconstructing Jericho, then he had little to look forward to at the Last Judgment. In Mene, Tekel, Perez, Rogers remarked that he and his followers felt no anger or hatred toward any people, “only against the sins and evil of this change in government, which God wil (and if Righteous we are sure must) Judge.”81 While Rogers saw God as judging only the alteration in government orchestrated by Cromwell, John Camm and Francis Howgill stressed that God would judge Cromwell himself. They reminded Cromwell that he “must give an account to the Lord how thou hast ruled for him, for the mighty day of the Lord is come, and is coming, wherein all faces shall gather blackness, it is a day of darkness.”82 Here, Cromwell is giving an account of himself before God, but there is no discussion of Cromwell being condemned or losing his soul. Rogers, Camm, and Howgill sought to remind Cromwell of God’s eventual judgment, yet they did not include any mention of Cromwell suffering eternal damnation. Camm and Howgill’s fellow Quaker George Fox adopted a harsher tone. His

150

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

pamphlet A Warning from the Lord warned that “the Judgment of God is gone out against you [Cromwell], and you are to be cut down with the Sword, and with the light you are to be condemned.”83 Fox’s message is more powerful than that of the other three writers, since in this case Cromwell is to be “cut down” and “condemned.” Written in 1655, A Word for God and A Short Discovery of His Highness the Lord Protector’s Intentions Touching the Anabaptists in the Army both refer to the punishment Cromwell was bound to receive at the hands of God. The author of A Word for God wished that Cromwell would “harden not your neck against the truth as you will answer it to the great judge, before whose impartial Tribunal you (as well as we shalbe very shortly cited to give an account of all things done in the body, whether good or evill.”84 The pamphlet makes no speciic mention of Cromwell being damned, but his neck is on the line. A Short Discovery was written anonymously; however, it addressed the rumour of Cromwell dismissing all Anabaptists from the army and listed reasons why such an action would not be beneicial to Cromwell. The pamphlet was, therefore, likely written by an Anabaptist or at least someone who was sympathetic to the Anabaptist cause. Thurloe investigated the pamphlet and learned from an informant that John Sturgeon (the same man involved with the pamphlet Killing Noe Murder) was the author.85 Sturgeon was interrogated, but he denied authorship of the pamphlet.86 Toward the end of the pamphlet, the author asked “whether the excessive pride of your [Cromwell’s] Family, do not call for a speedy judgment from Heaven, seeing Pride never goeth without a fall.”87 The author also pointed to signs that God was not pleased with Cromwell and was preparing to punish him, namely: “Whether the six Coach-horses did not give your Highness a fair warning of some worse thing to follow, if you repent not, seeing God often forewarns before he strikes home.”88 When the author wrote of the “six coach-horses,” he was referring to Cromwell’s carriage accident, during which the lord protector’s horses dragged him through Hyde Park. The author cautioned Cromwell, but he still implied that there was hope for the lord protector, if he repented. The warnings to Cromwell continued in 1656 and 1657 as his assumption of the royal title seemed more and more likely. One such warning was issued by William Bradford. Bradford’s religion is unknown, but it is unlikely that he was a Fifth Monarchist, Quaker, or Anabaptist. Unlike Fifth Monarchists, Bradford makes

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

151

no reference to his co-religionists being imprisoned; the only complaint that he raised regarding the Protectorate was the possibility of kingship. His writing lacks discussion of the inner light within each person, common in Quaker texts. He did briely mention the Anabaptists, writing: “The Anabaptist sayes you are a peridious person, and that because you promised them att a certaine day to take away tythes, but did not perform with them.”89 But Bradford himself did not complain about the existence of tithes and his reference to the Anabaptists suggests that he was not a member of that sect. Throughout the letter, Bradford portrayed Cromwell as being vulnerable to the persuasion of advisers. Cromwell’s true friends, Bradford claimed, desired him to refuse the crown. At one point, Bradford referred to himself as “havinge gone along with you [Cromwell] from Edge-hill to Dunbar.”90 This statement coupled with his emphasis on Cromwell’s past military glories suggests that he served in the army. When discussing kingship, Bradford exclaimed: “The hazard will be more than their remedie can helpe; there will be more safety to yourself and the nation, for you disowne the vote [for the crown].”91 Here, Bradford urged Cromwell not to take the crown in a logical manner, presenting a simple cost-beneit analysis. Later in the letter, Bradford invoked the power of God. He told Cromwell to “remember that you are but man, and must dye, and come to judgment.”92 Such a statement forced Cromwell to consider the long-term results of his actions, speciically, how acquiring the crown would affect his salvation. Bradford presented another warning toward the close of the letter. He stated: “I desire your present business, against oathes and engagements, may not provoke the vialls of God’s wrath to breake the glasses where your tears are, and I hope will be, if you provoke him not further.”93 The key element of this statement appears at the end, “if you provoke him not further.” The implication was that Cromwell had already provoked God’s wrath and if he were to do so again, he would face dire consequences. Bradford’s letter introduces the concept that Cromwell was already on negative terms with God; this claim put Cromwell’s salvation at even greater risk. The theme of God judging Cromwell is epitomized in the Quaker Mary Howgill’s printed letter to Cromwell written in 1657. Howgill stressed that a change had occurred in Cromwell. At the beginning of his military and political career, Cromwell relied on God’s strength to achieve greatness; now, he was relying on his own strength. Cromwell, who once served God, was now serving his own interests.

152

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Howgill lamented: “Oh! what shameless things are done in thy name and by thy authority?”94 Such acts would not go unnoticed or unpunished. Cromwell will, one day, have to face God and then, according to Howgill, he will suffer for his misdeeds. At the close of her letter, Howgill wrote: “And when thou givest account of all those actions which have been acted by thee, and in thy name, and by thy power, oh what a day will it be with thee! For as my soul lives, these things will be laid to thy charge; And for us, whom the Lord hath redeemed from the vain-glory of the world, and hath grassed us into himself, he will plead our cause, yea the righteous cause of himself, and he will make thee an example to all the great ones in the world; and when that day comes upon thee, thou shalt me remember, that thou wast warned of all thy evil.”95 Howgill separated Cromwell, of whom God will make an example, from the godly, whom God will redeem. Formerly, Cromwell and the godly were ighting for the same righteous cause, but now Cromwell had taken up his own cause; as a result, God will judge each of them differently. Cromwell himself was preoccupied with God’s judgment. Puritans such as Cromwell believed that, if an individual’s actions displeased God, then God might punish the entire community.96 Cromwell’s concern with God’s judgment was relected throughout his kingship speeches. On 3 April 1657, when discussing the Humble Petition and Advice but not yet offering a deinitive answer on the title of king, he told Parliament: “And I must say, that if I were to give an account before a greater tribunal than any that’s earthly, [and if I were asked]97 why I engaged [all along]98 in the late wars, I could give no account but it would be wicked, if it did not comprehend these two ends [religious and civil liberty].”99 In this statement, Cromwell attempted to convince his critics that he was capable of justifying all his actions to God. On 8 May 1657, still speaking about the Humble Petition and Advice, but after he had outlined his reasons for refusing the crown, Cromwell asserted: “But, in things that respect particular persons, every man that is to give an account to God of his actions, he must, in some measure, be able to prove his own work, and to have an approbation in his own conscience of that, that he is to do, or to forbear.”100 This statement provides another example of both Cromwell’s concern for his own salvation and the lord protector’s response to his detractors. He stressed that a man must be able to justify his actions to his own conscience, not anyone else’s. If Cromwell could satisfy his own conscience that he

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

153

had acted for the good of the nation, then it did not matter what sectarian writers thought. Both Cromwell and sectarian writers believed that the lord protector would one day have to face the judgment of God; they differed over whether Cromwell could justify his actions to God. ✻

The third theme in sectarian writings relates to Cromwell’s relations with the godly. Prior to the establishment of the Protectorate, the sects regarded Cromwell as their patron. This approval did not last. The godly began to view Cromwell an enemy because of his regal behaviour and aspirations. According to the pamphlet A Word for God, Cromwell had “caused great searching of heart, and divisions among many of Gods people by a sudden, strange, and unexpected alteration of Government.”101 Rather than protecting the saints, as a man in his position of power should, Cromwell was dividing them by his actions. Speciically, the creation of the Protectorate led some saints to question Cromwell’s role as their champion. A Word for God informed Cromwell that the saints had turned against him: “Especially irst, The illing of the Saints hearts and faces with inexpressible grief and shame: And secondly, The stopping (at least) of the strong current of their Prayers, which was once for you; if not the turning directly against you.”102 Cromwell had gone from being an ally of the godly to a target of their wrath. John Spittlehouse also employed the theme of Cromwell offending the godly. Spittlehouse was a Fifth Monarchist who, like John Rogers, thought favourably of Cromwell when he dissolved the Rump but turned against him after the end of the Nominated Assembly. As was true of many Fifth Monarchists, one of Spittlehouse’s chief complaints against the Protectorate was the existence of tithes. In his pamphlet An Explanation of the Commission of Jesus Christ, published in 1653, Spittlehouse asserted that tithes were “repugnant to the maintenance assigned by Jesus Christ to his Apostles and Disciples.”103 Tithes, in Spittlehouse’s opinion, were anti-Christian because there was no scriptural foundation for them. For his writings, Spittlehouse faced judicial punishment. On 30 November 1653 he was ordered “to be brought before the Council when the report is made from the Committee for Examinations on the Isle of Axholme.”104 A few days later, on 9 December, “the Committee for

154

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Examinations to call for John Spittlehouse, and learn whether he will own his several petitions to Council, and his printed petition to Parliament against Mr. Thurloe, and to report his answer.”105 Spittlehouse’s troubles did not end there. On 19 October 1654 his book An Answer to One Part of the Lord Protector’s Speech was “sent to the Attorney-General, who is to proceed against them [Spittlehouse and his publisher Livewell Chapman] according to the law, give account to the council of his opinion, and meanwhile the sergeant-at-arms is to retain them in custody.”106 While in custody, Spittlehouse petitioned Cromwell, but to no avail. In his pamphlet Certain Queries Propounded to the Most Serious Consideration of Those Persons Now in Power, Spittlehouse concentrated on criticizing the Instrument of Government, but he was able to link England’s irst written constitution to Cromwell’s mistreatment of the godly. Spittlehouse, speaking of the new government’s failure to eliminate the standing army, tithes, and lawyers, and to take the necessary steps to convert the Jews, asked “whether the refusal of the present Rulers, and the Army so to do, must not unavoidably put them on a desperate principle of persecution of such of the people of God.”107 In Spittlehouse’s account, the Protectorate itself had become offensive to the godly by failing to address their most pressing issues, such as the removal of tithes. Although his approach was not as direct as Powell in A Word for God, he still portrayed Cromwell’s actions as offending the very people he hoped to protect. In his conversation with Cromwell in 1654, Rogers adopted a similar approach. Rather than tell Cromwell that the saints had turned against him, Rogers reminded him how much the saints had suffered to remove monarchical government, which Cromwell was now reconstructing. Rogers told Cromwell: “Now, my Lord, let the loud cries of the blood, shed against these things you have set up, be heard, and make restitution of that blood, those lives, tears, bowels, faith, prayers, limbs, and skulls of us and our relations left in the ields and laid out against this kind of government, whether in Civil or Ecclesiastical.”108 Rogers’s image of the blood shed by the saints in the Civil War recalled the sacriices they made in order to rid England of kingly government; the implication was that, without these sacriices, Cromwell would not have risen to his position of dominance. Cromwell, in a sense, owed a debt to the saints and the creation of the Protectorate was not the appropriate manner by

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

155

which to pay them back. In a similar fashion, the anonymous author of A Short Discovery noted the importance of the Anabaptists in Cromwell’s career. He wondered whether Cromwell “had come to that height of honour and greatness as you are now come to, if the Anabaptist (so called) had been as much your Enemies as they had been your friends?”109 Without the aid of the Anabaptists, Cromwell would not have achieved anything, and now they deserved some acknowledgment of their faithful service. While the sects’ thoughts regarding Cromwell – whether positive or negative – are always clear, the lord protector’s own attitude toward the sects is more complicated. In some of his speeches, he spoke as though he espoused acceptance of all Christian denominations. When the Nominated Assembly irst met, he outlined his ambitions for the nation. He told the members: “I hope that will teach you to pity others, that so Saints of one sort may not be our interest, but that we may have respect unto all, though of different judgments.”110 Later in the same speech, he said: “And if the poorest Christian, the most mistaken Christian should desire to live peaceably and quietly under you, soberly and honestly desire but to lead a life of godliness and honesty, let him be protected.”111 These statements suggest that Cromwell was sympathetic to a wide range of religious beliefs; however, one must be careful interpreting the lord protector’s words. He sought to protect the “saints,” but whom did he mean by that term? Certainly not Fifth Monarchists. While giving his opening speech to the irst Protectoral Parliament, he explained to the mps that “there are others more reined, many honest people, whose hearts are sincere, and the evil that hath deceived them is the mistaken notion of Fifth Monarchy.”112 Fifth Monarchists were far too dangerous and potentially subversive for Cromwell to welcome them into the fold. Yet, although he called the movement “mistaken,” he still referred to its members as “honest.” Cromwell’s conversation with John Rogers in 1654 provides further evidence that Cromwell had some respect for the Fifth Monarchists. Cromwell, according to Rogers’s account of the conversation, revealed that there was a time when he and Rogers had much in common. The lord protector noted “that the time was there was no great difference betwixt you and me. I had you in my eye, and did think of you for employment (and preferment); you know it well enough.”113 Cromwell even admitted to Rogers: “I believe you speak many things according to the Gospel, but you suffer for evil

156

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

doing.”114 Such a statement suggests that Cromwell was motivated to arrest Fifth Monarchists not because of their beliefs but because of the security threat that they posed. Even though he sought to curtail Fifth Monarchists and other radical sects, Cromwell, by his own admission, shared some beliefs with them. Cromwell’s speeches during the kingship crisis create the impression that he was afraid to lose the support of the saints. In his speech to Parliament on 13 April 1657, in which he offered his most comprehensive explanation for rejecting the crown, Cromwell listed the opinions of the godly as one of the reasons he could not accept the royal title. He announced to Parliament: I tell you there are such men in this nation that are godly, men of the same spirit, men that will not be beaten down with a carnal or worldly spirit while they keep their integrity. I deal plainly and faithfully with you, I cannot think that God would bless me in the undertaking of anything, that would justly and with cause grieve them … But if that I know, as indeed I do, that very generally good men do not swallow this title, though really it is no part of their goodness to be unwilling to submit to what a Parliament shall settle over them, yet I must say that it is my duty and my conscience to beg of you, that there may be no hard thing put upon me, things I mean hard to them, that they cannot swallow.115 These lines make Cromwell appear sympathetic to sectarian wishes. He was aware of their negative reaction to kingship, and did not desire to offend them. One has the impression that the lord protector was unwilling undertake any policy without irst receiving the blessing from the godly. Obviously, this was not the case. Many of Cromwell’s actions and views, such as his adoption of regal ceremony and his limited concept of liberty of conscience, angered the godly, but their reaction left him unmoved. Nevertheless, one should not ignore the impact that sectarian opinion had on Cromwell during the kingship crisis and the shock that conservative mps experienced when they heard Cromwell’s speech. The hostile attitude of the sects toward kingship did play a role in Cromwell’s decision to refuse the crown, but it was not the sole or the decisive factor. The lord protector’s decision to mention sectarian concerns in his speech undoubtedly alarmed the conservative mps

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

157

who feared the sects’ inluence. The kingship party knew that the sects opposed kingship, but they assumed that the opinion of this small minority held no sway over the lord protector. In a letter to Henry Cromwell dated 13 April 1657, John Bridges, an mp who supported kingship, was certain that [Cromwell’s] “greate reason will not permit him to balance the resolves of parliament made upon soe greate a debate and consideration, with the humour of persons without, that can give little of reason besides this, that the godly men are dissattisfyed.”116 In Bridges’s opinion, the godly’s disapproval of kingship was a poor reason to refuse the royal title, yet Cromwell still listed it as one of the factors that inluenced his thinking. Cromwell’s decision to link himself with the sects is likely why his kingship speeches were not printed during his lifetime. The conservative mps would never permit the public to view Cromwell as an ally of fanatical religious sects. ✻

The inal theme in the sectarian pamphlets is the suggestion that God, because of Cromwell’s actions, was now turning His back on the lord protector’s designs. This theme is different from the idea of God one day passing judgment on Cromwell. The writers who stated that God was withdrawing from Cromwell were referring to a speciic military operation – the failure of the Western Design – as opposed to an event at a non-speciic date in the future when Cromwell would have to answer before God. The notion that God was no longer guiding him was a terrifying prospect for Cromwell, who had always counted on God’s help in meeting his objectives. Throughout his career he had attributed his success in battle to God. After his victory at Dunbar in 1650, Cromwell wrote a lengthy letter to William Lenthall, speaker of Parliament, in which he described the battle and God’s role in securing the victory. Toward the end of the letter, Cromwell made it clear who was responsible for the victory, proclaiming: “But, Sir, it’s in your hands, and by these eminent mercies God puts it more into your hands, To give glory to Him; to improve your power, and his blessings, to His praise. We who serve you beg of you not to own us, – but God alone.”117 For Cromwell, every small event at the battle was the work of God and had helped his army achieve victory. When describing the actual battle, Cromwell noted that “the morning

158

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

proving exceedingly wet and dark, we recovered by that time it was light, a ground where they could not hinder us from our victual: which was an high act of the Lord’s Providence to us.”118 Something as simple as the rising of the sun was the work of God’s providence aiding Cromwell and his men. With God’s strength propelling the English army forward, Cromwell believed that he would never lose a battle; however, Cromwell was aware that God could just as easily turn his back on the English if they failed to honour him. In his letter after Worcester, Cromwell hoped that “the fatness of these continued mercies may not occasion pride and wantonness, as formally the like hath done to a chosen Nation, but that the fear of the Lord, even for His mercies, may keep an Authority and a People so prospered, and blessed, and witnessed unto, humble and faithful.”119 God had bestowed many mercies on England, but if the English turned their back on God, they would feel His wrath. Cromwell always understood military victories as God’s approval of his actions, and he assumed that the Western Design would receive the same divine endorsement as the battles of Dunbar and Worcester. The Western Design was part of Cromwell’s plan to attack the Spanish Empire. In December 1654 a leet of thirty ships and 3,000 soldiers set sail for the Caribbean with the intention of capturing Hispaniola. On 25 April 1655, however, the English forces were thoroughly defeated at San Domingo. What remained of the English expedition withdrew to the undefended island of Jamaica, and then returned to England.120 A military disaster on this level was previously unknown to Cromwell and deeply affected him. After hearing the news, he shut himself in a room for a whole day.121 The Swedish ambassador suggested that Cromwell was on the verge of assuming the royal title but the failure of the Western Design threw all his plans off balance.122 Other members of Cromwell’s government were also shocked by the events and questioned their significance. Major-General Charles Worsley was desperate “to know what our sin is, and what His [God’s] pleasure is, that we are so crossed and visited in Jamaica.”123 A regime that had known nothing but success in military affairs had experienced its irst defeat. A government whose strength lay in martial power had suffered heavy losses in men and resources. Such an event was bound to raise doubts in the minds of the nation’s leaders. To add to Cromwell’s own feelings of doubt regarding the Western Design, a few sectarian writers seized on this issue as an example of

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

159

God abandoning Cromwell. The anonymous pamphlet A Ground Voice, Vavasor Powell’s A Word for God, and Samuel Chidley’s printed letter to Cromwell – both pamphlets were published in 1655, while the letter was written in 1656 – discuss how God had brought about Cromwell’s recent military failures. A Ground Voice reads: “When the Army that was sent by O Cromwell came to Hispaniola, they landed eight thousand men, and in marching twenty miles many of them fell down dead, and the rest when they came to engage, led when none pursued. The Army of eight thousand men did never see one hundred Spanyards in a body, and yet such a spirit of fear possessed your fellows that they led, and these few Spanyards pursued and killed them till they were a weary; The Lord did exceedingly appear against them suitable to that in Judges 5 and 20.”124 The author emphasized the numerical superiority that the English forces held, yet the Spanish still defeated them. Events such as English soldiers falling down dead while marching suggest divine intervention; God’s will doomed the expedition to fail. Chidley – a Leveller pamphleteer who, after the Leveller movement collapsed, attempted to establish a separatist congregation in London – presented similar claims in his letter. He pointed to all the evil acts Cromwell had perpetrated and discussed how they would bring about his ruin. Regarding the Western Design, he asked Cromwell: “How can such your frequent appearances of evil avail you in your Spanish Wars, O ye mortal gods, who must die like men, and fall like one of the Princes?”125 Cromwell’s sinful ways had doomed the expedition and would continue to plague his ambitions, for God never granted success to evil men. Although A Word for God does not mention the Western Design by name, it still addressed the same issue. When listing the “sad effects” of Cromwell’s “Pride, Luxury, Lasciviousness, changing of Principles and forsaking the good wayes,” the pamphlet included “God’s single withdrawing from you and your designs.”126 A Word for God did not need to describe the failed expedition in detail. The mention of God withdrawing support for Cromwell in 1655 could mean only one thing: the Western Design. The catastrophe of that episode provided sectarian writers with a concrete example of God turning His back on Cromwell, and they were quick to employ it in their pamphlets. The sectarian assertion that God, by withdrawing His favour, was now undermining Cromwell’s plans received a response from

160

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

the print world. George Smith’s pamphlet God’s Unchangeableness argued that Cromwell still enjoyed God’s favour and would continue to do so. There is no record of Smith writing any other pamphlet and no evidence that he was ever employed by the Protectorate. Little is known about Smith himself, and his precise motives for writing this pamphlet will likely remain a mystery. In the “To All Freeborn People of England” section, Smith wrote: “As to my vindication of the Lord Protector, whom Providence hath exalted, Providence will yet further order him, and all his counsels and actions, after the counsel of Gods will: God hath a great work for him to do, and it shall be done.”127 Smith’s description of Cromwell contrasts with the accounts examined above. For Smith, God had not turned His back on Cromwell, but rather continued to use Cromwell to achieve His ends. Providence, according to Smith, orders everything in the world down to the last detail. All that had happened before, including Cromwell’s rise to prominence, occurred through God’s will. If God placed Cromwell at the head of the English state, then He must have done so for the beneit of the nation. God’s providence “hath prevented those designs, and freed us from that yoke” – a reference to the Rump and Nominated Assembly – giving “us comfort in hopes of a settled peace and holy Reformation, with the restoring of us again to our Laws and true privileges, By that Illustrious and Noble Champion oliver Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland &c. whom providence hath made instrumental to hinder destruction to the Nation, and provide that our Teachers are not driven into corners, as the Lord hath promised they shall not be.”128 Cromwell, in this account, becomes the hero of providence, the saviour destined to provide peace and security to the nation. The sectarian claims that Cromwell was acting against God’s providence undoubtedly played a role in motivating Smith to write, since his engagement with sectarian writers created a dialogue in print. ✻

One point about all sectarian pamphlets needs to be stressed. Every pamphlet discussed in this chapter was written before the actual offer of the crown was made. During the two months – April and May 1657 – that Cromwell agonized over whether or not to accept the crown, no sectarian writer mentioned kingship. The mp John Bridges expressed concern about possible Anabaptist pamphlets condemning

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

161

kingship in a letter to Henry Cromwell dated 10 March 1657. The letter reads: “Heere was a rumour as if the Anabaptist churches would publish a manifesto expressing theire dislike of the present proceedings, but we heare little of it att present.”129 This letter was written before Parliament actually offered Cromwell the crown, but while the House of Commons was preparing the Humble Petition and Advice. As the letter suggests, nothing came of these rumours. Quaker leader George Fox, who was unquestionably concerned about kingship, published four pamphlets in April and May 1657, but not one of them mentioned the offer of the crown.130 This fact is startling. Why did the sects not attempt to convince Cromwell of the evils of monarchy during the kingship debates? The answer may be connected to the sparse reporting of the kingship crisis in Mercurius Politicus. If the sects based their knowledge of political events on reports in the newsbooks – Fox’s remarks in his journal demonstrates that he was aware of the content of newsbooks – then they had no idea how dificult a decision it was for Cromwell. Mercurius Politicus created the impression that Cromwell’s acceptance of the crown was a foregone conclusion. This knowledge may have broken the spirit of sectarian writers; if Cromwell already was king, then there was no point trying to persuade him to reject the crown. The sects wrote about kingship only when they believed they had the potential to inluence events; otherwise, they focused on matters of doctrine and education. Although the sects wrote nothing on the topic of kingship during April and May 1657, some were still politically active. On 9 April 1657 a group of Fifth Monarchists attempted an uprising. Having prior knowledge of the revolt, Thurloe was able to suppress it without dificulty.131 Despite its hopelessness, the Fifth Monarchist revolt on 9 April garnered some attention from government oficials. John Bridges informed Henry Cromwell of the rebels’ “considerable quantity of armes,” stressing the threat they posed.132 Bulstrode Whitelocke also recorded the incident in his diary.133 Perhaps the revolt’s proximity to the kingship crisis concerned supporters of Cromwellian kingship, such as Bridges and Whitelocke. Thurloe, another supporter of kingship, dismissed the notion that the revolt was prompted by the offer of the crown. He reported to the Council: “For this is not the worke of a day or two, nor hath it begun since you begun to thinke of some settlement of these distracted nations, which I perceive some will needs thinke, that these things are the

162

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

fruits of the alterations made in the government, which they say honest men cannot beare, and are grieved at it. There is no such matter.”134 The Fifth Monarchists certainly hated Cromwell before the offer of kingship, but even if they had been planning this uprising for months, the exact timing could have been inluenced by the kingship crisis. It is also possible that Thurloe, being an advocate of kingship, deliberately downplayed any connection between the revolt and kingship. Thurloe was certainly no stranger to manipulating information in order to aid the cause of kingship. After Miles Sindercombe’s plot to assassinate Cromwell was foiled, the secretary of state used his control of the newsbooks to promote a political settlement based on kingship, stressing that it was the only solution to the threat of the lord protector’s assassination.135 Thurloe might have used his report on the Fifth Monarchist uprising to assure mps that Cromwellian kingship would not spark immediate violent unrest. But a Fifth Monarchist revolt occurring nine days after Parliament had offered the crown to Cromwell is more than mere coincidence. If nothing else, the kingship crisis affected the precise day on which the revolt occurred. ✻

Sectarian writings were an important part of Protectoral print culture: they represented the religious radicalism that had exploded in the mid-seventeenth century and threatened the established order. When the sects attacked Cromwell in print, they were neither subtle nor ambiguous. The Protectorate found these pamphlets to be offensive and dangerous and responded with numerous arrests. Yet these efforts did not stop the publication and dissemination of pamphlets espousing radical religious sentiment. Loyal printers and informal methods of distribution ensured that sectarian pamphlets were still produced and still reached their audience. Of all the topics upon which the sects wrote, Cromwell’s monarchical power had the most urgency. A return to monarchy would, they feared, destroy everything for which they had fought. On this issue, the sects were united. Fifth Monarchists, Quakers, Baptists, and others all opposed the possibility of King Oliver. They may have had varying religious beliefs, but they all believed that God had destroyed the ofice of king. They were not alone in this conviction. Cromwell’s own words demonstrate that he was also convinced that

Religious Reactions to Cromwellian Power

163

“God has seemed providentially not only to strike at the family [of kings] but at the name.”136 Considering Cromwell’s efforts to stile sectarian printing and imprison their leaders, it is surprising to see Cromwell and the sects agreeing on such a crucial issue. The similarities between Cromwell’s and the sects’ wording also shocked the religiously conservative mps who sought to curtail the sects. The fact that Cromwell and the sects agreed on the question of kingship threatened the image of Cromwell as a champion of stability, which appeared in government propaganda and some monarchist writings. This situation shaped how Cromwell’s kingship speeches were transmitted to the public, and ensured that these speeches would not be printed in their entirety until the Restoration.

8 James Harrington’s Oceana and Its Relation to the Protectorate

The inal reaction to the growth of Cromwell’s monarchical power that this book will consider is that of James Harrington. Harrington took no part in the Civil War, but he became friends with Charles I. In 1648 Parliament appointed him as one of the gentlemen of the bedchamber of the king, and, according to some accounts, he was present with Charles I on the scaffold.1 John Aubrey noted how close the two men were. In his Brief Lives, Aubrey wrote: “Mr.  Harrington passionately loves his Majestie. He was on the Scaffold when the King was beheaded; and I have often times hearde him speak of Charles I with the greatest zeale and passion imaginable and that his death gave him so great a griefe that he contracted a Disease by it.”2 The king loved Harrington equally, but the two men differed in their political outlook. Aubrey explained: “The King loved his [Harrington’s] company; only he would not endure to heare of a Commonwealth.”3 Aubrey’s commentary suggests that Harrington was contemplating republican principles from an early date, certainly well before the king was executed. Troubled by the regicide and the political chaos of the Interregnum, Harrington outlined his solutions in his most famous work, Oceana. In the “Epistle to the Reader,” Harrington claimed that he had been working on it for only two years; however, given the complexity of the book, it was likely the result of years of contemplation.4 ✻

Harrington’s Oceana outlines the process by which the commonwealth of Oceana was founded. The key igure in this process is the

James Harrington’s Oceana

165

Archon – the lawgiver – who represented Cromwell. After viewing the political situation in Oceana, the Archon “had so sad relections upon the ways and proceedings of the parliament as cast him upon books and all other means of diversion, among which he happened upon this place of Machiavel.”5 Machiavelli’s work demonstrated that the legislator of a commonwealth must be one man and that the government must be created all at once. After reading Machiavelli, the Archon set in motion plans to erect the commonwealth of Oceana. Like Cromwell, he met with the army and then “disposed” of Parliament.6 Once the existing assembly had been swept away, the Archon was free to build a new commonwealth in Oceana. Oceana itself was meant to parallel England, and the two nations geographically close to Oceana represented Scotland and Ireland. Bordering Oceana was “Marpesia [Scotland], being the northern part of the same island, [which] is the dry nurse of a populous and hardy people, but where the staddles have been formerly too thick.”7 To complete this connection with Scotland, Harrington wrote: “These countries [Oceana and Marpesia], having been anciently distinct and hostile kingdoms, came by Morpheus [James I] the Marpesian, who succeeded by hereditary right unto the crown of Oceana.”8 Ireland’s doppelgänger was the “neighbour island” of “Panopea, the soft mother of a slothful and pusillanimous people … anciently subjected by the arms of Oceana.”9 The political circumstances and geography of Oceana mirrored those of England, just as the position and description of the Archon mirrored Cromwell. Throughout Oceana, Harrington compared the Archon to Moses, both of whom created a new commonwealth out of nothing. The Archon “taking counsel of the commonwealth of Israel as of Moses, and of the rest of the commonwealths as of Jethro, framed the model of the commonwealth of Oceana.”10 At that time, Cromwell was frequently compared to Moses. Men as diverse as the Digger Gerard Winstanley and the Fifth Monarchist John Spittlehouse linked the two igures.11 Winstanley referred to Cromwell as Moses in 1651 and Spittlehouse did so in 1653 when the Fifth Monarchists looked to Cromwell as the man to promote their cause.12 Cromwell never openly called himself a new Moses, but his speeches were illed with references to the crossing of the Red Sea and leading the people of England out of bondage. When he opened the irst Protectoral Parliament, he explicitly compared the English and Israelites. In Cromwell’s opinion, “the only parallel of God’s dealing with us that

166

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

I know in the world, which was largely and wisely held forth to you this day, – Israel’s bringing out of Egypt through a wilderness, by many signs and wonders towards a place of rest.”13 By likening the Archon’s/protector’s role in government to that of Moses, Harrington participated in a discourse that was, at least potentially, lattering to Cromwell. Additionally, when describing the Archon’s heritage, Harrington wrote: “The most renowned Olphaus Megaletor, sole legislator of the commonwealth of Oceana, was derived from a noble family.”14 Cromwell’s family was not noble, but several Cromwellian monarchists, such as the anonymous author of the pamphlet The Unparalled Monarch, claimed that Cromwell descended from an illustrious family. Thus, Harrington’s description of the Archon is again connected to positive characterizations of Cromwell in the print world. Although Cromwell and the Archon had a similar part to play in the building of a new commonwealth, their actions differed. Speciically, Harrington’s Archon had no personal ambition and was eager to step down from his position of power as soon as his task was complete. Once the Archon had established the constitution to govern Oceana, he “resolved that all carnal concupiscence should die in the place, to which end, that no manner of food might be left to ambition, he entered into the senate with unanimous applause and, having spoken of his government as Lycurgus did when he assembled the people, abdicated the magistracy of Archon.”15 The Archon removed himself from power, while Cromwell continued to occupy the ofice of lord protector seemingly indeinitely. For this reason, Blair Worden describes the Archon as the “anti-Cromwell, whose creation opposes iction to fact.”16 Worden views Oceana as a “meditation upon the dissolution [of the Rump],” with Harrington contrasting the man England needed in 1653 with the man that Cromwell was.17 Harrington was certainly displeased with Cromwell’s actions after he dissolved the Rump, but the opportunity to build a perfect commonwealth had not yet completely passed. At the time of Oceana’s publication, the second Protectoral Parliament had just sat and Cromwell still had the ability (assuming he had the desire) to establish Harrington’s commonwealth. Harrington’s description of the Archon can be read as a satirical attack on Cromwell, but Harrington likely did not desire Cromwell to read it in that manner.18 The fact that Oceana was not censored suggests that Thruloe and the regime’s oficial censors read the book as honest advice

James Harrington’s Oceana

167

rather than a critical satire. But, if Harrington published Oceana merely to reveal Cromwell’s shortcomings as a leader, why did he include all the details about the constitutional machinery of Oceana? The answer is that Harrington hoped to do much more with Oceana than merely describe Cromwell’s failings; he sought to direct the lord protector back to the path of political virtue by providing him with all the information he had previously lacked. Rather than mock Cromwell, Harrington used the Archon to instruct him. When describing the Archon, Harrington employs a “voice of counsel” as he attempts to enlist Cromwell’s help to achieve the political settlement that had eluded the nation.19 The Archon was in the same position as Cromwell, but the former exercised his power for the beneit of the commonwealth rather than personal gain. The Archon was everything that Harrington had hoped and continued to hope Cromwell would be. Through reading Machiavelli, the Archon learned that, when building a commonwealth, it was “necessary that the archives of ancient prudence should be ransacked.”20 Consequently, his speeches to the people of Oceana were illed with references to both antiquity and Machiavelli, two sources that Cromwell never cited (Cromwell only quoted the Bible). The Archon’s speeches were an education for Cromwell, informing him which sources he needed to read in order to better understand ancient prudence. Until he came to such an understanding, Cromwell would, in Harrington’s opinion, be unable to lead the nation. The passage describing the Archon removing himself from power appealed to Cromwell’s own desire to step down. In his speech to the irst Protectoral Parliament on 12 September 1654, Cromwell told the mps: “I hoped to have had leave to have retired to a private life, I begged to be dismissed of my charge, I begged it again and again.”21 This speech was printed; therefore, Harrington could have read it. In Oceana, Harrington sought to illustrate to the lord protector how he could accomplish his wish of retiring from politics while at the same time establishing a lasting political settlement. The reaction of the people of Oceana after the Archon stepped down was also meant to entice Cromwell into following the Archon’s example. The Archon’s decision earned him eternal praise from the Oceanans. One member of the assembly stated: “He [the Archon] will sit higher in their [the people’s ] hearts, and in the judgement of all good men, than the kings that go up stairs unto their seats.”22 By abdicating, the Archon achieved greater glory than any king who ruled by hereditary right.

168

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Cromwell, too, had the potential to reach this level of fame, if only he would follow the guidelines Harrington set out in Oceana. Cromwell, in Harrington’s opinion, needed advice because, without it, he would continue to struggle in his role as head of state. Harrington disapproved of Cromwell’s long tenure in power, since the permanency of Cromwell’s ofice gave the Protectorate a monarchical quality. According to Harrington, “monarchy, reaching the perfection of the kind, reacheth not unto the perfection of government, but must have some dangerous law in it.”23 Conversely, “popular government, reaching the perfection of the kind, reacheth the perfection of government that hath no law in it.”24 Harrington expressed doubt regarding the beneits of monarchical government. He believed that there were two kinds of monarchy: monarchy by arms and monarchy by nobility. For a monarchy by arms, Harrington considered the Ottoman Empire to be the best example; however, such a government was lawed because “the janissaries have frequent interest and perpetual power to raise sedition, and to tear the magistrates, even the prince himself, in pieces.”25 For a monarchy by nobility, Harrington viewed the former government of Oceana (that is, England) as a typical example, but in it “the nobility had frequent interests and perpetual power by their retainers and tenants to raise sedition and … to levy a lasting war unto the vast effusion of blood.”26 Harrington also considered monarchies less productive than commonwealths. At the close of Oceana, he described the increase in land and revenue after Oceana had been a commonwealth for eleven years, noting that “men addicted unto monarchy deride [these accomplishments] as impossible.”27 These statements seemingly cast Harrington as an anti-monarchist. Yet Harrington’s political opinions are not so simple. First, one must recall his friendly relationship with Charles I during the Civil War. Second, he insisted on incorporating former royalists into the commonwealth, arguing that simply because they opposed the commonwealth was no reason to exclude them from government.28 If the royalists or any other party were denied participation in government, then the commonwealth would not be founded upon the principle of justice.29 This stance was a response to Cromwell’s efforts to exclude royalists from his parliaments. Third, in a later passage in Oceana, Harrington suggests that under certain circumstances, monarchical government could work. He stated: “Oceana, or any other nation of no greater extent, must have a competent nobility,

James Harrington’s Oceana

169

or is altogether incapable of monarchy.”30 Therefore, a country like Oceana (or England) could function with a monarchy, but only with a competent nobility. Harrington repeated this message two years later in The Stumbling Block of Disobedience and Rebellion, which was a response to Peter Heylyn’s defence of monarchical government in a publication of the same title. Most of Harrington’s tract focused on proving that Heylyn’s historical and biblical evidence was faulty, but he also wrote: “Kings, no question, where the balance is monarchical, are of divine right, and if they be good the greatest blessing that the government so standing can be capable of; but the balance being popular, as in Israel, in the Grecian, in the Sicilian tyrannies, they are the direst curse that can befall a nation.”31 Only under speciic circumstances was monarchical government the proper form. Harrington’s harsh words regarding monarchy were prompted by a belief that few monarchies in history had the prerequisites for success. In terms of popular governments, Harrington praised them,32 but he also spoke out against republicans in England. In The Prerogative of Popular Government, Harrington lamented the fact that after the abolition of monarchy in England “the popular council hath been put upon invention, and they that have been the prevailing party have used means to keep the result unto themselves, quite contrary unto the nature of popular administration.”33 The reason for his positive words about popular governments in general and his negative comments on English republicans in particular is that Harrington had deinite views about the type of popular government he desired, and the English Commonwealth did not meet his criteria. In Harrington’s opinion, in England “they are too few who understand what is the form or model naturally necessary unto a popular government, or what is required in that form or prudence for the itting of it unto the use of this nation.”34 The government of a commonwealth also “consisteth of such orders and novelties in this land, as will never be lit upon by an assembly, nor credited by such as are unexperienced in the art.”35 Although this situation was challenging, it was, in Harrington’s mind, no excuse for not forming a commonwealth. Like Milton, Harrington, at least in 1659, was an elitist republican who believed that wise men should lead the ignorant masses and reveal to them their true interest. In his Discourse Showing That the Spirit of Parliaments, With a Council in the Intervals, Is Not to Be Trusted for a Settlement, published in 1659,

170

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Harrington wrote: “That the people of this land have aversion from novelties or innovations, that they are incapable of discourse or reasoning upon government, that they do not understand the true form of a free and equal commonwealth, is no impediment unto them, nor excuse unto wise and honest men, why they should not be embarked.”36 Harrington’s (and Milton’s) frustration with the English people grew out of their continued commitment to monarchy. Harrington distrusted the English parliamentary system because it would inevitably return the Stuarts to power.37 All of England’s current institutions were incapable of creating the type of commonwealth Harrington desired, which is why he looked to Cromwell as the sole legislator able to establish a commonwealth with a completely new structure.38 In Oceana, Harrington formally laid out a detailed constitution that he believed Cromwell should have erected in 1653 and that he hoped the lord protector might still build in 1656. His description of the commonwealth is very detailed, in order to ensure that Cromwell knew exactly the type of commonwealth England required. Two of the most important aspects of this constitution were the agrarian law, which involved “freezing” the balance of land, and the ballot, which was an elaborate system of voting similar to that of Venice. Harrington’s agrarian law forbade the inheritance of land worth more than 2,000 pounds a year. This system would create a stable balance of property and prevent competition between rich and poor, and between rich and rich.39 In one of his speeches, the Archon defended the agrarian law, asking whether land distribution “can give any security unto the government unless it be ixed? … through the want of this ixation, potent monarchies and commonwealths have fallen upon the heads of the people, and accompanied their own sad ruins with vast effusions of innocent blood.”40 Harrington believed that many civil wars, including the English, were caused by an improper balance of land, which is why the agrarian law was such a key component of his constitution. The fourteenth order of the commonwealth of Oceana outlined the other fundamental element in the constitution, the ballot. The order speciically stated that Oceana would follow the system of balloting used in Venice, which Harrington considered to have the best contemporary government.41 As a safeguard against faction and corruption, the principle of “motion” or “exquisite rotation” was at the centre of the constitution.42 Representative bodies in Oceana were

James Harrington’s Oceana

171

permanent, but one-third of their members would rotate every year. Harrington defended this system of rotation, asserting: “If you allow not a commonwealth her rotation, in which consists her quality, you reduce her to a party, and then it is necessary that you be physicians indeed, or rather farriers.”43 The agrarian law, ballot, and rotation were the most important features of the constitution of Oceana, but Harrington also included detailed procedures for electing magistrates, organizing the capital city, and other political matters. These details provided Cromwell with all the information he required to establish a commonwealth that met Harrington’s expectations. Unlike Nedham, Harrington had a speciic image of what a free state should look like. Harrington and Nedham may have differed over forms of government, but the style of their criticisms was similar. Harrington never directly mentioned Cromwell in Oceana, he merely drew parallels with the Archon. He dedicated Oceana to Cromwell, but the dedication did not have any of the praise that normally followed.44 As with Nedham, Harrington’s concealed critique of the Protectorate was unlikely to attract Cromwell’s attention precisely because it was concealed. Cromwell and other members of the Protectoral government would not necessarily have interpreted Oceana as assailing their regime. Additionally, at the time of Oceana’s publication, Harrington was not a major political igure. After the execution of Charles I, he withdrew from politics and attempted to write poetry.45 Even though Harrington had been on friendly terms with Charles I, his post-regicide behaviour did not concern any of the Interregnum governments. Despite all these factors, Harrington still claimed, in his “Epistle to the Reader,” that he had trouble printing Oceana. He stated: “A Spaniel questing hath sprung my Book out of one Presse into two other, wherefore you will ind the Retrieve, or that which follows next, differently marked from what went before.”46 John Pocock believes that the phrase “A Spaniel questing” refers to a government agent interfering with the production of Oceana; however, this interference was, in Pocock’s opinion, prompted not by Oceana’s content but by the identity of its printer and bookseller.47 John Streater, who had been imprisoned for seditious printing in 1653, printed one of the editions of Oceana. Livewell Chapman sold Oceana, and he had been imprisoned for his association with Fifth Monarchists. He was apprehended in 1655, and a letter from Major-General John

172

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Barkstead to Thurloe stated that Chapman “is the owner or at least a sharer in the private press, that hath and doth soe much mischiefe.”48 Controversy around Chapman continued after the Restoration; in 1661 he was allegedly the compiler of a notorious tract entitled The Phoenix of the Solemn League & Covenant, for which Thomas Brewster, Giles Calvert, and others were punished.49 Harrington’s “questing spaniel,” then, may have been tracking the bookseller and printer of Oceana rather than its author.50 Harrington’s use of Streater as a printer is noteworthy. Although both men are often described as republican, their political thoughts and allegiances differed. Streater was a former army oficer who had fought in the Civil War and served in Ireland. He returned to London shortly before Cromwell forcibly dissolved the Rump, and he remained a thorn in Cromwell’s side throughout the Protectorate. For issuing the periodical The Grand Politick Informer – one of Streater’s many republican publications – Streater was imprisoned until the end of the Nominated Assembly. Once released, he continued writing and publishing republican tracts, often breaking large works into several shorter pamphlets as a way of avoiding censorship. Returning to military service in 1659, and seeing the Rump once again threatened by the army, Streater hatched a plot to seize the Tower of London and declare for Parliament; however, the plan was betrayed. Streater did well for himself after the Restoration, building up probably the largest private printing house in the country and at one stage owning ive presses.51 In terms of government, Streater’s political loyalties lay with the Rump and he thought the decision to dissolve it was disastrous.52 The dissolution of the Rump, in Streater’s view, was part of Cromwell’s scheme for personal power. In his pamphlet Secret Reasons of State, he referred to himself in the third person and claimed that the dissolution of the Rump “did much to astonish and amaze J.S. so that he concluded from the action itself, it being of so high a nature, together with many other circumstances he had observed, That the General intended nothing lesse then making himself absolute Lord of his Country, contrary to his Promises, Duty, and Trust.”53 Streater was generally skeptical about great men and believed that society must avoid giving favours to them.54 He had more faith in the populace as a whole, because “the judgments of the people are not so subject to be corrupted as great persons, for the people have no other end in what they desire, but common equity;

James Harrington’s Oceana

173

whereas otherwise great persons are swayed by several ends and interests; and therefore often elections are more safe: for by this means the people keep the power in their own hands.”55 The primary cause of a people’s misery was “thy not knowing thy Liberties and Rights.”56 Streater’s greatest fear was the destruction of liberty at the hands of tyrants. In order to prevent this situation, he asserted that rulers must have limitations on their power. One of the cornerstones of his theory was to limit the term of elected oficials to one year in order to prevent any abuse of power.57 Conversely, Harrington, as mentioned above, disliked the men who comprised the Rump and thought the constitutional machinery of Oceana was the best government for England. He was also willing to grant a great man like Cromwell total power in extraordinary circumstances. For Harrington, “a commonwealth is seldom or never well turned or constituted, except it have been the work of one man; for which cause a wise legislator, and one whose mind is irmly set not upon private but the public interest, not upon his posterity but upon his country, may justly endeavour to get the sovereign power into his own hands.”58 This concept of permitting one man to have sovereign power for the purpose of establishing a commonwealth would have frightened Streater, who mistrusted powerful men. By the closing years of the Interregnum, Streater was able to accept some elements of Harrington’s political ideas, but he remained iercely loyal to the Rump. Speciically, Streater was willing to admit that, in theory, Harrington’s model of government could suit England. In his pamphlet A Shield against the Parthian Dart, printed in 1659, Streater defended the authority and legitimacy of the restored Rump, but he also stated: “That a Commonwealth may be Governed as Mr. Harrington describeth; nay, England it self: But the Interests on foot in the Nation make it Incapable. Therefore such a Government must be made choyce of, that may best it the Interests.”59 In an ideal world, the government outlined in Harrington’s Oceana could govern England, but the current political realities made such a government impossible. Streater’s experience of printing Oceana likely warmed him to Harrington’s ideas, but even in 1659 he still maintained that an assembly of annually elected members best suited England and he still lauded the members of the Rump.60 Given their differences, why would the two men collaborate on Oceana? After being released from prison, Streater likely had dificulty inding work now that the government considered him an

174

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

enemy, and it is possible that he printed Oceana out of a need for money. As for Harrington, he probably entrusted Streater with the printing of Oceana precisely because of his reputation. Since Streater had printed blatantly anti-Protectoral literature in the past, he would have no scruples about printing the subtly critical Oceana. Other more renowned printers, such as Henry Hills and Thomas Newcombe, would have been unwilling to risk their reputation by printing Oceana. Despite their ideological differences, then, Harrington and Streater were the ideal team to produce Oceana. ✻

Cromwell and his allies may not have responded to Oceana, but others did. Both the clergy and sects were offended by Harrington’s use of pagan religion in a commonwealth.61 Harrington was aware of the negative reactions his work was receiving and answered them in print. He published the pamphlet Pian Piano in 1656, which contained letters between Harrington and Henry Ferne in which they debated the merits of Harrington’s ideas. It is possible that Ferne’s initial criticisms of Harrington were so restrained that Harrington published Pian Piano only out of a desire to stir a reaction to his original work.62 Harrington thrived on debate, and in the fall of 1659 he and his friends founded the Rota Club, which met at various London coffee houses and provided its members a venue to discuss political issues.63 Harrington’s frustration over the lack of a debate regarding Oceana may, in part, explain the title Pian Piano, meaning quietly or softly, which could refer to what Harrington perceived as the gentle nature of the debate surrounding Oceana. If true, then Harrington’s representation of Ferne’s arguments is likely inaccurate, since Harrington was more interested in creating a heated debate than reproducing a mild one. In the early 1640s, Ferne had argued that there were problems with the king’s government, but that these issues did not justify Parliament’s rebellion. He also defended the Church of England, asserting that it was free of the religious licence associated with sectarianism and, unlike Roman Catholicism, did not claim infallibility; it permitted its members to use their own minds and reasoning. Harrington’s sister gave him a copy of Oceana, and a written debate ensued.64 In Pian Piano, Ferne began by asserting that experience had proven monarchy to be a superior form of government, and that

James Harrington’s Oceana

175

in order to achieve Harrington’s scheme “the nature of men was irst to be new modeled.”65 He also lamented the fact that gentlemen such as Harrington meddled in church affairs.66 Harrington responded with a series of queries that he and Ferne debated. Over the course of these discussions, Harrington reiterated his disapproval of monarchical government and his concept of a national religion. The pamphlet amounts to a defence of many of Harrington’s principles as expressed in Oceana. Harrington’s particular brand of republicanism received little support even among his fellow republicans. Nedham began several issues of Mercurius Politicus with letters from Utopia and Oceana designed to mock Harrington. He opened with a series of letters from Utopia chronicling how the Utopians lost their naive idealism regarding politics and government and learned the political realism that was prominent in Nedham’s works. After the Utopian letters, Politicus contained a letter from Oceana. A resident of Oceana mocked Utopia, but it was his comments regarding his homeland that reveal Nedham’s disrespect for Harrington’s ideas. The letter from Oceana pointed out “that if you go to Venice to learn to Cog a Die with a Balloting Box, you’ll soon get money enough to purchase a better Island then Utopia, and there you may erect a Commonwealth of your own.”67 The government of Venice was not unlike Harrington’s model, and Nedham sought to demonstrate how easy it was to manipulate such a system. All one had to do was alter the results of the balloting. Nedham then ridiculed the balloting process in Oceana. He stated that, although the author of Oceana lists the many classes of gentlemen in Oceana, “a HighConstable is a Prime oficer of State amongst them if he Ken the Knack of Balloting, and can but tell Noses; by which means he may perchance amount to the Dignity of a Non-sincer, whose Ofice it is to provide Boxes of all Colours of the Rainbow.”68 This statement illustrates a weakness in the government of Oceana: one high constable had total power in terms of controlling the ballot. The letters from Oceana and Utopia were not the only means by which Nedham sought to undermine Harrington. When Oceana irst appeared in print, Mercurius Politicus did mention the work but provided no details about it and did not even list the author’s name; other new books in the same issue received more extensive advertisement.69 Nedham’s actions reveal the lack of camaraderie among republicans.

176

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

John Milton also criticized Harrington’s model of government. He speciically disagreed with Harrington that a rotation was the best method to prevent corruption in government. In the second edition of The Readie and Easie Way, Milton argued that a perpetual Senate was a more effective method for controlling the ambition of men than rotation, since it was a solution “without danger and mischance of putting out a great number of the best and ablest: in whose stead new elections may bring in as many raw, unexperienc’d and otherwise affected, to the weakening and much altering for the wors of public transactions.”70 The rotation was a cornerstone of Harrington’s political theory, and it found no support from Milton. Sir Henry Vane attacked Harrington’s ideas in both Parliament and print. When the Rump was restored in 1659, Harrington and his circle presented it with The Humble Petition of Divers Well-Affected Persons, which advocated a form of government similar to that in Oceana. The proposal was ignored; many republican mps, including Vane, opposed Harrington’s scheme.71 In print, Vane published A Needful Corrective or Ballance in Popular Government in 1660. Structured as a letter to Harrington, A Needful Corrective opens by suggesting that Harrington placed too much faith in human prudence. “The high esteem and reverence,” wrote Vane, “you [Harrington] bear (and that deservedly) unto humane Prudence, (which the more ancient the date is that you set to it, is doubtless the better, as the most partaking of its primitive purity) does nevertheless, I fear, outweigh with you, beyond what it ought.”72 For Vane, it was important that the English be “a holy as well as a free people.”73 With this as his goal, Vane argued for a greater role for God, since “Man, at his best, stands in need of the ballancing and ruling motion of Gods Spirit to keep him steadfast.”74 At the close of the pamphlet, Vane assured Harrington that he wrote this letter out of a desire to improve Harrington’s system, not to commence an argument; however, the pamphlet’s title coupled with Vane’s political actions suggest a level of animosity between the two men. Nedham’s comments in Politicus, Milton’s assertions in The Readie and Easie Way, and Vane’s printed letter were all slights at Harrington, even though all four writers were republicans. Despite their differences, Nedham and Harrington did have some common ideological ground. Harrington, like Nedham, disapproved of Cromwell remaining in power indeinitely and at the same time endorsed Cromwell’s church settlement. Harrington proposed

James Harrington’s Oceana

177

controls on the clergy, free exercise of religion for Congregational churches, and state supremacy over national religious life, all key components of the Cromwellian church.75 In Oceana, Harrington envisioned a national religion that was controlled by the state. “A commonwealth,” according to Harrington, “is nothing else but the national conscience. And if the conviction of a man’s private conscience produce his private religion, the conviction of the national conscience must produce a national religion.”76 The national religion of Oceana was enforced by the Council of Religion, which, as “the arbitrator … in cases of conscience more peculiarly appertaining unto religion, Christian charity, and a pious life, shall have the care of the national religion and the protection of the liberty of conscience, with the cognizance of all causes relating unto either of them.”77 This council was a civil body, selected and controlled by temporal authorities rather than ecclesiastic ones. Such a structure was designed to control the clergy, whose involvement in political affairs Harrington feared. The Archon expressed Harrington’s contempt for the clergy when he said: “My lords, if you know not how to rule your clergy, you will most certainly be like the man that cannot rule his wife; have neither quiet at home nor honour abroad. Their honest vocation is to teach your children at the schools and the universities, and the people in their parishes; and yours is concerned to see that they do not play the shrews.”78 The clergy were necessary in a commonwealth, but they had to know their place. Harrington’s anti-clerical remarks have the same venom as Nedham’s; both writers desired to keep ecclesiastic power under the heel of the state. In terms of liberty of conscience, Harrington believed that it could not exist without a national religion. He did not understand why advocates of a national religion hated liberty of conscience and vice versa, since both were necessary parts of a religious settlement.79 Liberty of conscience in the commonwealth of Oceana was fairly broad. The nineteenth order of Oceana stated: “No coercive power in the matter of religion to be exercised in this nation; the teachers of the national religion being no other than such as voluntarily undertake that calling, and their auditors or hearers no other than are also voluntary. Nor shall any gathered congregation be molested or interrupted in their way of worship (being neither Jewish or Idolatrous) but vigilantly and vigorously protected and defended in the enjoyment, practice and profession of the same.”80 This level of liberty of conscience could, in Harrington’s opinion, be achieved only in a

178

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

commonwealth. A monarchy was simply incapable of liberty of conscience. In 1659, when the nation was plagued by political instability, Harrington wrote: “It is apparent that what introduceth monarchy introduceth suppression of civil liberty, and in that of liberty of conscience.”81 Yet, although he advocated liberty of conscience for most denominations, Harrington did not tolerate the extreme sects such as the Fifth Monarchists. These sects, according to Harrington, “are the most dangerous”; “holding that the saints must govern,” they “go about to reduce the commonwealth unto a party.”82 Harrington’s liberty of conscience did have its limits, and Fifth Monarchists who promoted the rule of the saints were that limit. Consequently, like Nedham, Harrington approved of Cromwell’s efforts to arrest leading Fifth Monarchists in the opening months of the Protectorate. Politically, Harrington and Cromwell might have had many disagreements, but on the question of religious governance, Harrington’s system in Oceana was “essentially vindicating the religious policies of the Cromwellian Independents.”83 ✻

Although he was an outsider, Harrington’s reaction to Cromwell’s monarchical power has more in common with that of the government employees Nedham and Milton than with that of his fellow outsiders, the royalists and the sects. Unlike the royalists, Harrington advocated neither Cromwellian kingship nor Stuart restoration. Unlike the sects, he did not criticize Cromwellian monarchical power in religious terms. His writing also lacked the direct style of both Stuart loyalists and sectarians. Harrington was cautious when writing about politics. Both he and Nedham never mentioned Cromwell, or any other contemporary, by name in their tracts. This decision was taken to avoid being censored and arrested, and it proved effective. Harrington, like his fellow republicans Nedham and Milton, was never imprisoned for his writing during the Protectorate. Although there are differences in their philosophies, all three men subtly criticized Cromwell’s monarchical power, arguing that its continued expansion would rob the nation of liberty. Harrington’s career demonstrates that it was possible for both government employees and outsiders to criticize the monarchical nature of Cromwell’s regime without facing any major consequences.

James Harrington’s Oceana

179

Harrington certainly disapproved of monarchy, but his reaction to the growth of Cromwell’s monarchical power was, at least initially, not entirely negative. Cromwell’s power represented an opportunity for Harrington. The existing representative assemblies in England would never form the type of commonwealth that Harrington desired; only a sole igure could be the architect of such a commonwealth. In the mid-1650s, Cromwell was the absolute master of the British Isles, and the one man with the power to create Harrington’s constitution. Before undertaking such a task, Cromwell had to be educated in the art of ancient prudence, which Harrington attempted to do through the igure of the Archon. Next, Cromwell needed to understand the form of government that England required, which Harrington outlined in Oceana. The treatise Oceana is an instruction manual with all the information that Cromwell required to build Harrington’s commonwealth. Harrington’s reaction to the growth of Cromwell’s power was to advise him how best to use that power. Like Andrew Marvell, Harrington believed that Cromwell’s power could be beneicial to the nation. Unlike Marvell, Harrington was disappointed with Cromwell’s actions and attempted to steer him back on course. But Cromwell ignored Harrington’s advice, which prompted Harrington, after Cromwell’s death, to refer to the lord protector as “the late usurper.”84 Once Cromwell was dead, Harrington held nothing back in his criticisms since the danger of censure had passed.

Conclusion

This book has illustrated the diversity of reactions to the growth of Oliver Cromwell’s monarchical power. These reactions covered the entire ideological spectrum, from republicanism to conservatism to religious radicalism, all of which were intellectual trends in the English Revolution. Inside the Protectorate, Cromwell debated the offer of the crown for weeks before inally deciding that accepting the crown would be tantamount to rebuilding Jericho. His speeches demonstrate that he considered kingship to be a personal matter, that he needed to satisfy his own conscience before anyone else’s, and that he would not defy the will of God to appease the will of Parliament. Members of the kingship party believed that kingship was a logical step for Cromwell and employed legal arguments in an attempt to persuade him. In their opinion, the title of king was the one best known to the laws of England and God had not removed the royal title from England permanently. Despite the impassioned debates between Cromwell and the kingship committee, information regarding the kingship crisis was kept out of printed propaganda. No declaration regarding the possible transition to monarchical government was printed and Cromwell’s kingship speeches appeared only as passing references in Mercurius Politicus. Reactions from Cromwellian writers were the most varied, ranging from veiled criticisms to outright praise. Nedham and Milton cloaked their concerns about Cromwell’s government, while Michael Hawke, Edmund Waller, and John Lineall celebrated Cromwell’s monarchical power. Andrew Marvell was initially cautious in his approval of Cromwell, but once the monarchical nature of his regime became obvious, so did his support

Conclusion

181

of Cromwellian monarchical power. George Wither also supported Protector Cromwell, claiming that God bestowed Cromwell’s power upon him, but he would never accept King Oliver I. All of these reactions highlight the tensions inside the regime. External reactions were just as diverse. The royalist movement was divided between Cromwellian monarchists, who supported kingship and printed endorsements of the Protectorate, and Stuart loyalists, who called Cromwell a usurper and satirized him. The monarchical nature of Cromwell’s government was appealing to those royalists who cared only about the restoration of traditional forms of government. Cromwell offered these men the government they desired, but that was insuficient for those of them who would never accept a ruler without royal blood. Yet even the Stuart loyalists who were united in their hatred of Cromwell had diverse reactions to his regime. Some plotted revolt, others satirized him in poetry, and still others attempted to live quietly and avoid politics. Stuart loyalists’ hatred of Cromwell was matched only by that of the religious sects, who feared any type of monarchical power. They framed their anti-monarchical comments in the language of providence, asserting that Cromwell was acting against God’s will, that God would one day judge Cromwell, that Cromwell was betraying God’s people, and that God was withdrawing His favour from Cromwell’s designs. Many of their arguments against kingship incorporated language almost identical to that of the lord protector, suggesting that both Cromwell and the sects viewed kingship in a similar manner. Finally, James Harrington objected to Cromwellian monarchical power and presented his case in a formal philosophical treatise. Like the Cromwellian writers Nedham and Milton, Harrington was careful when criticizing Cromwell, creating the ictional country of Oceana to express his disapproval of Cromwell’s monarchical power. How do these reactions relate to each other? The irst point to note is that many reactions inside the Protectorate also appeared outside it. The debates over monarchy that illed the House of Commons in the irst months of 1657 had dominated the print world since the regicide. Cromwell and the sects used similar language regarding kingship, both being convinced that God had destroyed the royal title. Cromwell even mentioned the opinions of the godly as one of his reasons for refusing the crown. This similarity to the sects is somewhat surprising given Cromwell’s efforts to imprison sectarian leaders and his innate political conservatism. Edmund Waller’s royal

182

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

praise of Cromwell was echoed in pamphlets by Cromwellian monarchists, particularly John Hall and the anonymous author of A Copy of a Letter from a True Commonwealthsman. All three men viewed Cromwell as though he already was a king. The Cromwellian writers Nedham and Milton feared that Cromwell’s power would infringe on the nation’s liberty, just as the outsider James Harrington did. The sects’ appeal to providence echoed the wording in George Wither’s poems. One’s position relative to the Protectorate had little impact on how one reacted to Cromwell’s monarchical power. The worlds of print and high politics were connected; both politicians and marginal pamphlet writers viewed monarchy in similar terms. Civil War loyalties are also a poor predictor of an author’s reaction to Cromwell’s monarchical power. Some men who sided with Parliament during the Civil War (such as Bulstrode Whitelocke and George Wither) supported Cromwellian power, while other parliamentarians (such as John Milton and Sir Henry Vane) objected to Cromwell’s dominance. Similarly, some Civil War royalists (such as John Hall and Edmund Waller) welcomed a Cromwellian monarchy, while others (such as Edward Hyde) feared it. Neither connection to the Protectorate nor actions during the Civil War can explain the types of reactions to Cromwell’s power. Just as a myriad factors could convince one to side with the king or Parliament in the Civil War, so too could a plethora of issues affect how one reacted to the possibility of Cromwell becoming king. There is no simple formula for determining allegiance in mid-seventeenth-century England. The range of printed reactions to Cromwell’s monarchical power reveals that, despite the new printing laws and the potentially repressive system of censorship, writers and printers were still able to produce pamphlets on a controversial subject. Of particular note is the work of the three republicans, Nedham, Milton, and Harrington. Although their writings are, after a careful reading, unlattering to Cromwell and his government, they were generally permitted to enter the public discourse unmolested. Perhaps Thurloe and the other censorship oficials did not notice the veiled condemnations in republican writings. Or perhaps republicans were not considered a major threat, and the regime preferred to focus its limited resources on the potentially more destructive sects. For all their disapproval of the Protectorate, the republican writers never attempted to organize a rebellion to overthrow the state; the same cannot be said of the Fifth Monarchists. Whatever the reason, the result was that the

Conclusion

183

reading public had easy access to republican tracts that criticized the current head of state and the prospect of him being crowned. The decision of state oficials not to censor republican writings affected the content of the print world. Again, print and politics of the 1650s intersected. Since so many pamphlets relating to the question of Cromwellian kingship were produced, any study of Cromwellian kingship must consider print culture. It is a mistake to view the kingship question in solely biographical or high political terms. Despite the best efforts of the regime, the public knew that Cromwellian kingship was a possibility. The pamphlets of the 1650s were illed with the same debates as the House of Commons in 1657. Many of the individuals who wrote kingship pamphlets – such as Michael Hawke and Anna Trapnel – had never met Cromwell and had no oficial afiliation with the government; yet they still felt compelled to write. The question of Cromwellian kingship concerned people outside the House of Commons and the kingship committee. Cromwell’s decision affected the entire nation, and many elements within the nation – regardless of their social, religious, or political background – recognized the importance of this decision and commented upon it in print. The political possibility of kingship provided writers with both content and motivation for their pamphlets. Topics in pamphlets mirrored debates in Parliament, and brought those debates to an audience much broader than the kingship committee or mps. The world of Parliament and the world of print culture were both ixated on the question of kingship, and only by studying both can we hope to understand the signiicance of kingship in the Protectorate. How does the study of print culture enhance our knowledge of the kingship question? The existence of such a large number of kingship pamphlets and the diversity of their authorship suggests that Cromwellian kingship was a topic of interest. The arguments in these pamphlets were known to the reading public, who undoubtedly repeated them as they debated the issue among themselves. Therefore, kingship must have been discussed and debated among the reading population. This inding suggests a new role for the public with regard to the question of Cromwellian kingship. The public was not passive but active in the debate over Cromwell’s monarchical power. Printed opinions also add further depth to the kingship question when compared to Cromwell’s own words. It is impossible to

184

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

determine if Cromwell actually read any of the kingship pamphlets, but his speeches connect him to the opinions expressed in the print world. Two of Cromwell’s three reasons for refusing the crown lie in sectarian writings, speciically, the godly’s rejection of kingship and the belief that the providence of God had destroyed the royal title. Cromwell’s third reason – the laws of England did not require a king – was a common argument in republican treatises, especially those of Marchamont Nedham. Statements concerning God’s judgment, so common in Cromwell’s kingship speeches, echoed remarks in sectarian pamphlets, while his providential reasoning was present in George Wither’s poems. Cromwell’s understanding of his position as lord protector is also represented in print culture. Like Cromwell, Andrew Marvell, in “The First Anniversary,” argued that a lord protector was different from a king. Arise Evans and Walter Gostelo agreed with Cromwell that his position in government was impermanent. They differed in that Evans and Gostelo thought that Cromwell should prepare the way for the restoration of the Stuarts and Cromwell himself desired some sort of godly government, but all three men viewed Cromwell’s rule as temporary. Cromwell’s reaction to his own monarchical power was not unique; rather, the opinion that the lord protector expressed in Parliament was identical to many of the views set out in printed pamphlets. Cromwell’s connection with the language of the kingship pamphlets raises questions regarding his relationship with print culture. Were Cromwell’s speeches to Parliament a means of communicating with printed pamphlets? Which, if any, pamphlets did Cromwell read? Did Thurloe and other censorship oficials brief him on the content of kingship pamphlets? How did Cromwell know so much about the sects’ reasons for opposing kingship? Did the lord protector discuss kingship when he met with George Fox, John Camm, Francis Howgill, and other sectarian igures? With the exception of the Bible, little is known of Cromwell’s reading habits.1 This subject, however, deserves a close examination in light of Cromwell’s and the pamphlet world’s similar comments on monarchical power. Cromwell rejected the crown, as the sects demanded, but he also maintained his monarchical power, an action of which the monarchists approved. His decision represents a middle path between the sects and the advocates of Cromwellian kingship. In a sense, most of the political and religious factions in England could claim a victory from the kingship crisis. Similarly, Cromwell could convince himself

Conclusion

185

that he had satisied both his own political conservatism and religious radicalism by turning down the title but keeping the power. The factions that opposed Cromwellian kingship celebrated the fact that Cromwell refused the title, while the monarchists took comfort in the fact that Cromwell’s rule was still secure and he continued to function as a king, lacking only the title. The lord protector’s desire for unity and his goal of building a broad consensus played a pivotal role in convincing him that the best response to the kingship crisis was to refuse the title but keep the power. The rejection of the crown was more than just an expression of Cromwell’s religious convictions; it was also a political decision, made by a statesman who sought to keep all factions satisied. The diverse printed reactions to Cromwell’s monarchical power also situate the the ideas of the 1650s within the larger intellectual climate of seventeenth-century England. In the 1650s, England may not have had a king, but the ideas of kingship and monarchy never disappeared. Even before Charles I was executed, royalists were linking Cromwell to the crown. Printed pamphlets that connected Cromwell with kingship increased in number during the years of the Protectorate. Speculation regarding Cromwell and kingship culminated in 1657 with Parliament’s oficial offer of the crown. Even after the Restoration, the pamphlet Monarchy Asserted sought to cast the kingship party and Protectoral government in a conservative, monarchical light. Questions of kingship were never far from the minds of the government and the pamphlet writers of the 1650s. The regicide did not silence discussion on kingship; on the contrary, that discussion only increased after the king’s death. If kingship continued to be a prominent topic in the 1650s, then the decade itself is not disconnected from the Restoration. As mentioned above, kingship pamphlets were distributed throughout the country and involved the broader population in the debate. Politicians and writers were not the only ones concerned with monarchical government; the reading public of the 1650s also contemplated kingship. Given that in the 1650s the entire nation was drawn into the question of kingship, numerous pamphlets supporting monarchical rule were published, Cromwell’s government took on a royal appearance, and Parliament oficially offered the crown to Cromwell, the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 is unsurprising. The Cromwellian kingship question, with its long history dating back to the late 1640s, kept at least the idea of royal government alive.

186

Perceptions of a Monarchy without a King

Despite the fact that Charles I had been executed, monarchy did not die in England; the debate over how and if kingship could be restructured continued throughout the 1650s. Politically, monarchy was restored in 1660, but the the idea of monarchy had never disappeared. Master of Rolls William Lenthal put it best during the kingship debates when he said: “The king never dies, but the name and thing hath a kind in a vulgar sense, of an immortality.”2 With kingship still very much part of the political scene, the 1650s were not an abnormality in seventeenth-century England; they were one generation’s attempt to understand monarchy and its place in England. The question of kingship occasioned the most dificult and one of the most important decisions that Cromwell made as lord protector. Before Parliament had even offered him the crown on 31 March 1657, a mass of printed material on the subject already existed. These pamphlets incorporated the entire nation into the kingship debate and ensured that, whatever form the government took, a monarchical ethos would remain. Accordingly, a full understanding of the 1650s cannot be achieved simply by studying the speeches in Parliament and the actions of generals and politicians. Printed pamphlets provide historians with a deeper appreciation of the nature of the 1650s. The kingship pamphlets are inseparable from the kingship question; these topics cannot be considered separately, they must be examined simultaneously. Print culture and high politics were part of the same historical phenomenon.

Notes

abbre viat io n s bl British Library bodl Bodleian Library, Oxford CJ Journals of the House of Commons CP D.M. Wolfe et al., eds., Complete Prose Works of John Milton, 8 vols. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1953–82) CSPD Calendar of State Papers Domestic ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography TSP Thomas Birch, ed., A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, 7 vols. (1742)

in t ro du ct io n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Coward, The Cromwellian Protectorate, 84–5. Ibid., 85. Ibid., 86. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 263–4. Text is from Additional ms 6125. No other versions are known. Coward, The Cromwellian Protectorate, 87–8. Smith and Little, Parliaments and Politics during the Cromwellian Protectorate, 19. Ibid., 25. Ibid., 31–2. Ibid., 42. Ibid., 31–2, 35. Ibid., 43–4.

188

Notes to pages 7–10

12 Sherwood, Oliver Cromwell: King in All but Name, 26–8. 13 Ibid., 45–8. 14 Spalding, ed., The Diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 471. Spalding presents “Highness” as “H[ighne]s.” For greater clarity, I have substituted “H[ighnes].s” 15 Firth, “Cromwell and the Crown,” 75. 16 See Worden, “Oliver Cromwell and the Sin of Achan,” 125–45; Gaunt, Oliver Cromwell; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution; Hirst, “The Lord Protector, 1653–1658” and England in Conlict; Paul, The Lord Protector; Coward, The Cromwellian Protectorate; Little, “Offering the Crown to Cromwell,” 24–31. 17 Hirst, England in Conlict, 309. 18 Paul, The Lord Protector, 364. 19 Worden, “Providence and Politics in Cromwellian England,” 57. 20 Ibid., 67. 21 See chapter 7. 22 Worden, “Oliver Cromwell and the Sin of Achan,” 136–7. 23 Ibid., 145. 24 Worden, Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England; Knoppers, Constructing Cromwell; Holberton, Poetry and the Cromwellian Protectorate. 25 Little, “John Thurloe and the Offer of the Crown to Cromwell,” 216–40. 26 Peacey, “Cromwellian England,” 176–99; McElligott, Royalism, Print and Censorship in Revolutionary England, 210. 27 Sharpe, Image Wars, 468–92. 28 In the 1630s, an average of 624 printed titles were produced per annum. In 1640 the number increased to 848 before exploding to 2,042 in 1641 and 4,038 in 1642. Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain, 163–5. 29 Mendle, “News and Pamphlet Culture in Mid-Seventeenth-Century England,” 63. 30 Raymond, The Invention of the Newspaper, 119. 31 Peacey, “The Management of Civil War Newspapers,” 101–2. 32 Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture, 177. 33 Ibid., 178. 34 Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering, 226. 35 Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture, 197. 36 McKenzie and Bell, eds., A Calendar and Chronology, 338. 37 Ibid., 350.

Notes to pages 11–21

38 39 40 41 42

43

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

189

Rutt, ed., Diary of Thomas Burton, vol. 1, cxix. McKenzie and Bell, eds., A Chronology and Calendar, 367. Ibid., 373–4. The responsibilities outlined in this pamphlet were identical to those listed in the preceding paragraph. Orders of His Highness the Lord Protector Made and Published by and with the Advice and Consent of His Council, for Putting into Speedy and Due Execution the Laws, Statutes and Ordinances, Made and Provided against Printing Unlicensed and Scandalous Books and Pamphlets, and for the Further Regulating of Printing, 12. An Ordinance of the Lords & Commons Assembled in Parliament, against Unlicensed or Scandalous Pamphlets, and for the Better Regulating of Printing. 28 September. 1647. Ordered by the Commons Assembled in Parliament, That This Ordinance Be Forthwith Printed and Published, 4–5. Firth, “‘Killing No Murder,’” 308. TSP , vol. 7, 315–19. McElligott, “‘A Couple of Hundred Squabbling Small Tradesmen?’” 92. Peacey, “Cromwellian England,” 184. Ibid. Knoppers, Constructing Cromwell, 110. For a discussion of royalist pamphlets that claim that Cromwell desired the crown, see chapter 6. Barber, Regicide and Republicanism. Roots, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 207. Text is taken from Whitelocke’s Memorials. Ibid., 210. Text is taken from Whitelocke’s Memorials. Ibid., 211. Ibid., 214. When quoting from pamphlet sources, as well as manuscripts, I have used the original spelling, with the exception of changing “f” to “s” where appropriate.

ch ap t e r o n e 1 Gurney, “Onslow, Sir Richard (bap. 1601, d. 1664),” ODNB . 2 On 6 December 1648 Colonel Thomas Pride and a group of soldiers barred moderate mps from entering the House of Commons. This purged Parliament was more radical in nature and drew up the bill to try and execute the king for treason.

190

Notes to pages 21–6

3 Schwarz, “Fiennes, Nathaniel (1607/8–1669),” ODNB ; Lindley, “Glynne, Sir John (1603–1666),” ODNB . 4 Barnard, “Boyle, Roger, First Earl of Orrery (1621–1679),” ODNB . 5 Little, Lord Broghill and the Cromwellian Union with Ireland and Scotland, 145. 6 Ibid., 146. 7 Ibid., 130. 8 Ibid., 129. 9 Ibid., 143. 10 Ibid., 150–2. 11 Ibid., 127. 12 Little, “Jephson, William (1609/10–1658),” ODNB . 13 Little, Lord Broghill and the Cromwellian Union with Ireland and Scotland, 147. 14 Little, “Gookin, Vincent (c. 1616–1659),” ODNB . 15 Venning, “Wolseley [Ouseley], Sir Charles, Second Baronet, Appointed Lord Wolseley under the Protectorate (1629/30–1714),” ODNB . 16 Venning, “Lisle, John, Appointed Lord Lisle under the Protectorate (1609/10–1664),” ODNB . 17 Roots, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 211. Text is from Whitelocke’s Memorials. 18 Ibid., 212. 19 Spalding, The Improbable Puritan, 210. 20 Spalding, ed., The Diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 132. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., 229. 23 Ibid., 287. 24 Gaunt, ed., The Correspondence of Henry Cromwell, 1655–1659, 247. 25 Ibid., 188. 26 Ibid. 27 Roots, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, back cover. 28 When Roots reproduced Stainer’s 1901 edition of Cromwell’s speeches, he left out the square brackets that marked Stainer’s editorial additions to the text of Monarchy Asserted. Stainer’s additions were likely designed to render Monarchy Asserted a more comprehensible source. Roots’s decision not to include Stainer’s square brackets makes it dificult to determine where the text of Monarchy Asserted ends and Stainer’s additions begin. This complication can confuse historians using Roots’s edition, and I myself have been guilty of accepting Roots’s work without closer examination. Pages 165–6 of my article “Printing Oliver Cromwell’s Speeches”

Notes to pages 26–30

29 30

31 32 33

34

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

191

include analysis of words that are part of Stainer’s edition and not Monarchy Asserted. In the present book, I have used Stainer’s text with his square brackets and, where appropriate, his notes explaining his brackets. I have also added my own notes to draw attention to any errors on Stainer’s part. Stainer, Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, xi. Stainer labeled this manuscript “Ayscough,” although his reasons for doing so are unclear. The name Ayscough does not appear anywhere in the manuscript. The manuscript may be connected to Samuel Ayscough, who was a librarian at the British Museum in the late 1700s. In my article “Printing Oliver Cromwell’s Speeches,” I referred to the manuscript as Ayscough, but here I will call it Additional ms 6125 since its providence remains unknown. Abbott, ed., Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, vol. 4, 446n180. bl, Additional ms 6125, fol. 315. Thomas Carte, a great collector of manuscripts, acquired Lord Wharton’s papers, which contain the manuscript for Cromwell’s speech on 3 April 1657. During the kingship crisis, an mp who signed his name “T.B.” provided Wharton with newsletters on the events in Parliament. “T.B.” was likely Thomas Burton, and it is possible that he also was the author of the manuscript reproducing the speech of 3 April 1675. William Clarke accompanied Cromwell into Scotland and became his secretary. When Cromwell returned to London, Clarke remained in Scotland, attached to General George Monck. Throughout the 1650s, Clarke received newsletters from London, and several manuscripts of Cromwell’s speeches were included with these newsletters. bodl, Carte ms lxxx, fol. 755; Worcester College, Oxford, Clarke ms 29, fol. 33b. Fletcher, “Cromwell and the Godly Nation,” 211. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 218–19. Text is from the Additional ms 6125; this is the only known version of the speech. Ibid., 242. Text is from the Additional ms 6125. For speculation on the providence of Ashmole ms 749, see my “Printing Oliver Cromwell’s Speeches,”157. Wing’s Short Title Catalogue lists Whitelocke as the author, while Early English Books, 1641–1700 gives Fiennes as the author. Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs, 288. Rutt, ed., Diary of Thomas Burton, vol. 2, 9. For a detailed discussion of the differences between Monarchy Asserted and the manuscript sources, see my “Printing Oliver Cromwell’s Speeches,” 163–8.

192

44 45 46 47

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Notes to pages 30–5

Carlyle, ed. The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, vol. 3, 75n2. Ibid. Worden, “Providence and Politics in Cromwellian England,” 57. Worden, “Oliver Cromwell and the Sin of Achan,” 125–45; Hirst, “The Lord Protector, 1653–1658,” 119–48; Little, “Offering the Crown to Cromwell,” 24–31. Worden, “Providence and Politics in Cromwellian England,” 63. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 308. Text is from the bodl, Ashmole ms 9. Another version exists in Monarchy Asserted. Anonymous, Monarchy Asserted, 41. For a complete discussion as to how the language of Cromwell is similar to that of the sects, see chapter 7. Anonymous, Monarchy Asserted, 1–3. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 295. Text is from bodl, Ashmole ms 9. Another version is in Monarchy Asserted. Ibid., 301. Ibid., 303. In Monarchy Asserted, the line reads, “Truly the prudence of God hath laid this title aside providentially.” Original text says “if it be taken.” This is one of Stainer’s editorial changes, which he marks in his edition. Stainer added these words from the Clarke ms. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 271–2. Text is from bodl, Carte ms, lxxx. Other versions are in Additional ms 6125 and Clake ms 29. Stainer added this word from the Clarke ms. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 272. Ibid., 275–6. Text is from Worcester College, Oxford, Clarke ms 29. Other versions are in Additional ms 6125 and Additional ms 4157 (from Thurloe Papers). Venning, “Wolseley [Ouseley], Sir Charles, Second Baronet, Appointed Lord Wolseley under the Protectorate (1629/30–1714),” ODNB . Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 310. Text is from Monarchy Asserted, 82–3. Another version of the text is in Additional ms 6125. “Says” in original text. This is one of Stainer’s changes. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 311. Text is from Monarchy Asserted, 83. This word is in Stainer’s edition (without square brackets), but it is not in the original. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 312. Text is from Monarchy Asserted, 84. Ibid. Text is from Monarchy Asserted, 84.

Notes to pages 35–41

193

69 Ibid., 266. Text is from Additional ms 6125. Other versions Lansdowne ms 754 and Clarke ms 29. 70 Ibid., 313. Text is from Monarchy Asserted, 84–5. Another version is in Additional ms 6125. 71 Ibid., 351. Text is from CJ . Other versions are in Clarke ms 29, Additional ms 6125, Harley ms 6846, Monarchy Asserted, and the Thurloe Papers. 72 See chapter 7 for a complete discussion of pamphlets that referred to God judging Cromwell. 73 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 309. Text is from Monarchy Asserted, 82. Another version is in Additional ms 6125. 74 Ibid., 139. Text is from His Highnesse the Lord Protectors Speeches in the Painted Chamber, the One on Monday the 4th of September; the Other on Tuesday the 12th of September 1654. 75 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 283–4. Text is from Monarchy Asserted, 10. Monarchy Asserted has the only full account of the conversation between Cromwell and the kingship committee on 11 April 1657. 76 Anonymous, Monarchy Asserted, 48. 77 Ibid., 55. 78 Ibid., 44. 79 Ibid., 69. 80 Ibid., 53. 81 Ibid., 57. 82 Ibid., 72–5. 83 Ibid., 72. 84 Gaunt, ed, The Correspondence of Henry Cromwell, 257. 85 Ibid., 264. 86 Ibid., 260. 87 Ibid., 236. 88 I am not sure of this word. In the manuscript, the letter I have rendered as “c” is blotted and dificult to decipher. 89 bodl, Clarendon ms 55, fol. 36.

ch ap t e r t wo 1 Two other types of propaganda used by the Protectorate were the newsbook Mercurius Politicus and long, formal defences of the regime produced by writers hired for this purpose, such as Nedham’s The True State and Case of the Commonwealth and Milton’s Second Defense. Since these works contain the author’s own voice as well as state propaganda, they will be considered in later chapters.

194

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Notes to pages 41–8

Oxford English Dictionary Online (http://www.oed.com). Ibid. McElligott, Royalism, Print and Censorship, 9. Peacey, “The Hunting of the Leveller,” 30. Gadd, “Hills, Henry, Senior (c. 1625–1688/9),” ODNB . Meyer, “Dugard, William (1606–1662),” ODNB . Gadd, “Newcombe, Thomas, the Elder (1625x7–1681),” ODNB . Anonymous, The London Printers Lamentations or the Press Opprest and Overprest, 5. Meyer, “Dugard, William,” ODNB . Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, and in Other Libraries of Northern Italy, vol. 31, 169–70. Barker, “John Thurloe Secretary of State, 1652–1660,” 551. McKenzie and Bell, eds, A Chronology and Calendar of Documents, 333. Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1641–1667, 105. Hessayon, “Calvert, Giles (bap. 1612, d. 1663),” ODNB . Ibid. Ibid. The language and tone of the declarations combined with the mixing of biblical references suggests that Cromwell’s own hand was involved in writing them. Sharpe, Image Wars, 478. Ibid. Carlyle, ed., The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, vol. 2, 266. A Declaration of Oliver Cromwell, Captain General of All the Forces of This Commonwealth, 1. A Declaration of the Lord General and his Councel of Oficers; Shewing the Grounds and Reasons for the Dissolution of the Late Parliament, 5–6. Ibid., 8. For further discussion of the works of John Spittlehouse and his Fifth Monarchy beliefs, see chapter 7. Spittlehouse, Certaine Queries Propounded, 4. Anonymous, The Protector (So Called) in Part Unveiled, 12. A Declaration Concerning the Government of the Three Nations, 3. Ibid., 6. McKenzie and Bell, eds, A Chronology and Calendar of Documents, 351. Ibid. Sharpe, Image Wars, 480.

Notes to pages 48–55

195

32 Penruddock’s Rising was organized by the Action Party (a group of royalists who were eager to overthrow the Protectorate by force) in March 1655. The rebellion was supposed to occur in half a dozen locations, but only in one, Salisbury, did the royalists actually rise. The royalist insurgents did manage to seize control of Salisbury, but the Protectorate’s soldiers were quick to respond and pursued the royalists to South Molton, where they were defeated. 33 A Declaration of His Highness, by the Advice of his Council, Shewing the Reasons of Their Proceeding for Securing the Peace of the Commonwealth, 15–31. 34 Sharpe, Image Wars, 478. 35 Seymour, “Pro-Government Propaganda in Interregnum England,” 363. 36 The Last Speech of His Highnesse the Lord Protector to the Parliament, 8. 37 George Thomason was a book collector and perhaps the author of The Character of a Protector (1654). His copies of that work and others include annotations, possibly by him. 38 Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers, 151. 39 Ibid., 133. 40 The entire text of the Instrument did not appear in Politicus until issue 186, 29 December 1653–6 January 1653, thirteen days after the Instrument was read out in Westminster. Politicus claimed that it was presenting the Instrument exactly as it was read on 16 December. 41 Politicus, issues 184 and 186. 42 His Highnesse the Lord Protector’s Speeches to the Parliament in the Painted Chamber, 13. 43 Spittlehouse, An Answer to One Part of the Lord Protector’s Speech, 1. 44 The Speech of His Highnesse the Lord Protector to the Parliament in the Painted Chamber at Westminster, on Munday Last, Being the Forth of This Instant September, 1654, 5. 45 As discussed in chapter 8, Chapman also sold James Harrington’s Oceana. 46 CSPD , 1654, 378. 47 Firth, ed., The Clarke Papers, vol. 3, 21. 48 McKenzie and Bell, eds, A Chronology and Calendar of Documents, 367.

ch ap t e r t h re e 1 Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering, 107. 2 Ibid., 102–3.

196

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Notes to pages 55–63

Ibid., 128. Frank, The Beginnings of the English Newspaper, 237. Ibid., 245. Ibid., 246. McKenzie and Bell, eds., A Chronology and Calendar of Documents, 376. bodl, Rawlinson ms a24, 61. bl, Additional ms 4365, fol. 339v. See Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers, 228–9, for further examples of people writing to Thurloe about the content of Politicus. Aubrey, Mr. Secretary Thurloe, 43. Frank, Cromwell’s Press Agent, 114. TSP , vol. 7, 470. Raymond, “‘A Mercury with a Winged Conscience,’” 9. Ibid. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 275. Text is from Clarke ms 29. Other versions are in Additional ms 6125 and Additional ms 4157 (from Thurloe Papers). All versions agree on this line. In total, Thurloe’s manuscripts consist of sixty-one volumes; most of these currently reside in the Bodleian Library in the Rawlinson Manuscripts, but a few volumes are in the British Library as Additional Manuscripts. The British Library: Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts, 42. Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 356, 2–9 April 1657, 7718. Ibid., issue 357, 9–16 April 1657, 7736. Ibid., issue 358, 16–23 April 1657, 7752. For a discussion of the timing of sectarian pamphlets, see chapter 7. For further discussion on Nedham’s hatred toward the sects, see chapter 4. For a full discussion on Nedham’s thoughts regarding monarchy, see chapter 4. Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 355, 26 March–2 April 1657, 7702–3. Knachel, ed., The Case of the Commonwealth of England, 127. Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 191, 2–9 February 1654, 3262. Knoppers, Constructing Cromwell, 77. Ibid., 78. Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 192, 9–16 February, 1654, 3267. Holberton, Poetry and the Cromwellian Protectorate, 40. Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 195, 2–9 March 1654, 3325. Ibid., issue 204, 4–11 May 1654, 3474–5. See Nickolls, ed., Original Letters and Papers of State, Addressed to Oliver Cromwell, for numerous letters of praise addressed to Cromwell.

Notes to pages 63–70

197

33 See chapter 4. 34 Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 149, 14–21 April 1653, 2388. 35 Both Edmund Ludlow and Lucy Hutchinson describe Cromwell as being angry and shouting as he dissolved the Rump. See Ludlow, Memoirs, 193; and Hutchinson, ed., Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson, 288. 36 Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 150, 21–28 April 1653, 2395; issue 152, 5–12 May 1653, 2418; issue 157, 9–16 June 1653, 2502–3; issue 160, 30 June–7 July 1653, 2550. 37 Ibid., issue 151, 28 April–5 May 1653, 2410. 38 Ibid., issue 155, 26 May–2 June 1653, 2481. 39 Ibid., issue 161, 7– 14 July 1653, 2579. 40 See chapter 4. 41 Carlyle, ed., The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, vol. 3, 20. 42 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 264. Text is from Additional ms 6125. There are no other known versions of this speech. 43 Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 336, 13–20 November 1656, 7388. 44 Seymour, “Pro-Government Propaganda in Interregnum England,” 402. 45 Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 340, 11–18 December 1656, 7453. 46 Aubrey, Mr. Secretary Thurloe, 84. 47 Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 276, 20–27 September 1655, 5642. 48 Ibid., issue 277, 27 September–4 October 1655, 5660. 49 Nedham’s republican treatise The Excellencie of a Free-State demonstrates how far he could diverge from Cromwell and the Protectorate. See chapter 4 for a discussion of this work.

ch ap t e r f o u r 1 See Worden, “Republicanism, Regicide and Republic,” 307–27, for a detailed discussion of different theories of early modern English republicanism. Some examples of the work done on the topic are: Skinner, “Classical Liberty and the Coming of the English Civil War,” 9–28; Peltonen, Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought; Norbrook, Writing the English Republic; Scott, Commonwealth Principles. This is just a small sample of scholarship on early modern English republicanism. 2 See Skinnner, Liberty before Liberalism; Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment; Sullivan, Machiavelli, Hobbes and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England. 3 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 192. Text is from His Highness Speech to the Parliament in the Painted Chamber, at Their Dissolution,

198

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Notes to pages 70–8

upon Monday the 22d. of January 1654. This is the only verbatim version of the speech. Nedham, A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Dominions thereto Belonging, 33. Ibid., 29. Ibid., 47. Ibid., 9. Ibid., 13–14. Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 74, 30 October–6 November 1651, 1173; ibid., Mercurius Politicus, issue 73, 23–30 October 1651, 1157. Ibid., issue 100, 29 April–6 May 1652, 1573. Worden, Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England, 307–9. Frank, Cromwell’s Press Agent, 100. Worden, Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England, 313. Worden, “Marchamont Nedham and the Beginnings of English Republicanism,” 78. Nedham, The Excellencie of a Free-State, “To the Reader.” For a discussion of James Howell and his political ideas, see chapter 6. Howell, Som Sober Inspections Made into the Cariage and Consults of the Late-Long Parlement, 4. Worden, Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England, 307–8. Nedham, The Excellencie of a Free-State, 6–7. Ibid., 9. Ibid., 75. Collins, “The Church Settlement of Oliver Cromwell,” 18. Ibid., 22. Worden, “Toleration and the Cromwellian Protectorate,” 212. Nedham, The Excellencie of a Free-State, 152. Ibid., 151. Ibid. CSPD , 1653–1654, 304–8. Ibid., 393. Nedham, A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth, 18. Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 246, 22 February–1 March 1655, 5164. Ibid., issue 306, 17–24 April 1656, 6909. Gadd, “Simmons, Matthew (b. in or before 1608, d. 1654),” ODNB . Worden, Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England, 335. Woolrych, “Introduction,” 197. Gadd, “Newcombe, Thomas, the Elder (1625x7–1681),” ODNB .

Notes to pages 78–86

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

199

Woolrych, “Introduction,” 206. Ibid. CP , vol. 4, 392. Ibid., vol. 3, 212. Ibid., vol. 4, 535. Ibid., 425–6. Woolrych, “Introduction,” 206. Ibid., 209, 212. Ibid., 177. CP , vol. 7, 360. Ibid., 377. Worden, “Milton and Marchamont Nedham,” 168. CP , vol. 4, 671. Parker, Milton, 415. CP , vol. 7, 415. Ibid., 446. Ibid., 443. Worden, “John Milton and Oliver Cromwell,” 255. Parker, Milton, 415. Worden, “John Milton and Oliver Cromwell,” 246. Polizzotto, “The Campaign against The Humble Proposals of 1652,” 573. Ibid., 577. Worden, Literature and Politics, 245. CP , vol. 2, 566. Ibid., vol. 7, 246. Ibid. Ibid., 258. Ibid., 251. Worden, Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England, 262. CP , vol. 4, 663. Ibid., 671. Ibid., 671–2. Ibid., 672. Ibid., 673. For further discussion on how monarchists and sectarians portrayed Cromwell, see chapters 6 and 7. CP , vol. 4, 681. Hawke, Killing Is Murder, and Killing No Murder, 1. McKenzie and Bell, eds, A Chronology and Calendar of Documents, 386. Hawke, The Right of Dominion and Property of Liberty, title page.

200

Notes to pages 86–94

76 After listing all the governments that were founded upon the sword, Nedham concluded “that those whose title is supposed unlawful and founded merely upon force, yet being possessed of authority, may lawfully be obeyed. Nor may they only, but they must.” Knachel, ed., The Case of the Commonwealth of England, 28. 77 Hawke, The Right of Dominion, 50. 78 Ibid., 88. 79 Ibid., 36. 80 Ibid., 48. 81 Ibid., 185. 82 Ibid., 133. 83 Ibid., 179. 84 Ibid., 75. 85 Ibid., 96. 86 Ibid., 84–6. 87 Ibid., 88. 88 Ibid. 89 Hawke, Killing Is Murder, 10. 90 Ibid., 8. 91 Ibid., 14. 92 Ibid., 19.

ch ap t e r f ive 1 Chernaik, “Waller, Edmund (1606–1687),” ODNB . 2 Holberton, “Political Poetry and Culture of the Protectorate, 1653– 1659,” 110–11. 3 Waller, A Panegyrick to My Lord Protector, 1. 4 Ibid., 7. 5 Ibid., 7–8. 6 Holberton, Poetry and the Cromwellian Protectorate, 99. 7 Ibid. 8 Waller, A Panegyrick to My Lord Protector, 9. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., 10. 11 Raylor, “Waller’s Machiavellian Cromwell,” 408. 12 Peacey, “Watson, Richard (1611/12–1685),” ODNB . 13 Ibid. 14 Watson, The Panegyrike and the Storme, “To the Pitfull author of the Panegyrike.”

Notes to pages 94–103

15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

201

Ibid. Ibid., 20. Smith, Andrew Marvell, 45. Smith, ed., The Poems of Andrew Marvell, 17. Smith, Andrew Marvell, 72. Smith notes that, while Marvell wrote, “Therefore the democratic stars did rise, / And all the worth from hence did ostracize,” Nedham, another contributor, lamented, “It is decreed, we must be drain’d (I see) / down to the dregs of a Democracie.” Ibid., 77. Ibid., 79. Worden, Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England, 84. Smith, Andrew Marvell, 85. Hunt, Andrew Marvell, 67. Worden, Literature and Politics, 88. Smith, ed., The Poems of Andrew Marvell, 277. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 275. Ibid., 277. Ibid., 275. Ibid. Ibid., 276. Ibid. Ibid., 277. Margoliouth, ed., The Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell, vol. 2, 304. Smith, Andrew Marvell, 125. Nedham, ed., Mercurius Politicus, issue 240, 11–18 January 1655, 5066. Worden, Literature and Politics, 141. See ibid., 138; Patterson, “Andrew Marvell and the Revolution,” 117; Holberton, Poetry and the Cromwellian Protectorate, 118; Wallace, “Andrew Marvell and Cromwell’s Kingship,”144. Smith, Andrew Marvell, 127. Margoliouth, ed., The Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell, vol. 2, 306. Smith, ed., Poems of Andrew Marvell, 292. Ibid., 287–8. Ibid., 291. Ibid., 297. Ibid., 293. Ibid., 294; Worden, Literature and Politics, 146. Smith, ed., Poems of Andrew Marvell, 294.

202

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

Notes to pages 103–16

Ibid., 295. Worden, Literature and Politics, 146. Smith, Andrew Marvell, 141–3. Hunt, Andrew Marvell, 135. Smith, ed., The Poems of Andrew Marvell, 306–7. Ibid., 306. Ibid., 308. Ibid., 311–12. O’Callaghan, “Wither, George (1588–1667),” ODNB . Ibid. Wither, The Protector. A Poem, the “epistle dedicatory.” Ibid., 33. Ibid., 5. Ibid., 4. Wither, A Suddain Flash, 12. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 303. Text is from Ashmole ms. Alternative version is in Monarchy Asserted, which reads, “the prudence of God hath laid aside this title providentially.” Wither, A Suddain Flash, 4. Ibid., 11. Ibid., 4. See chapter 1 for a full discussion of Cromwell’s kingship speeches. Wither, A Suddain Flash, 7. Ibid., 3. Monarchy Asserted, 41. Wither, Salt upon Salt, 19–20. Lineall, To His Highness Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

ch ap t e r s ix 1 2 3 4

Spalding, ed., The Diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 483. Sherwood, Oliver Cromwell: King in All but Name, 20. Holberton, Poetry and the Cromwellian Protectorate, 12. Woolf, “Howell, James (1594?–1666),” ODNB .

Notes to pages 116–20

203

5 Howell, An Admonition to My Lord Protector and His Council of Their Present Danger, 4. 6 Ibid., 5. 7 Ibid., 10. 8 Ibid., 9–10. 9 Ibid. 10 In a manuscript version of this work, the printed dedication to Heylyn’s schoolmaster is removed and two sheets have been inserted in its place bearing a four-page dedication to Cromwell. Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England, 185. 11 The works are The Way and Manner of the Reformation (an expanded version of Parliaments Power in Lawes for Religion), the Historie of Episcopacie, the History of Liturgies, the Undeceiving of the People in the Point of Tithes, and the Brief Discourse on the use of prayers before the sermon. All of these works defended the established church, although none were a speciic defence of Laudian policies in the 1630s. Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England, 162. 12 Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England, 165. 13 Ibid. 14 Heylyn, Ecclesia Vindicata, the “epistle dedicatory.” 15 Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England, 163. 16 Heylyn, The Stumbling Block of Disobedience and Rebellion, Preface. 17 Ibid. 18 Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England, 162–5. 19 Anonymous, A Copy of a Letter Written to an Oficer of the Army by a True Commonwealthsman and No Courtier, 8. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., 28. 22 Peacey, “Nibbling at ‘Leviathan,’” 244. 23 Ibid., 245. 24 Hall, The True Cavalier Examined by His Principles, Preface. 25 Ibid., “To His Highness Oliver, Lord Protector.” 26 Anonymous, The Unparalleld Monarch. Or the Portrait of a Matchless Prince (London, 1656), “To the Reader.” 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., 2–3.

204

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Notes to pages 120–8

Ibid., 3. Ibid., 8. Ibid., 8–9. Seaward, “Hyde, Edward, First Earl of Clarendon (1609–1674),” ODNB . Craik, The Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon, vol. 1, 362. Ibid., 364. bodl, Clarendon ms 45, fol. 484. Baron, “Nicholas, Sir Edward (1593–1669),” ODNB . Warner, ed., The Nicholas Papers, vol. 4, 13. Ibid., 62. Bryant, ed., The Letters, Speeches and Declaration of King Charles II, 37. Ibid., 57. Hardacre, The Royalists during the Puritan Revolution, 106. Wilcher, The Writing of Royalism, 328. Zwicker, Lines of Authority, 64. Walton, The Compleat Angler, 33. Smith, Literature and Revolution in England, 329. Wilcher, The Writing of Royalism, 328. Zwicker, Lines of Authority, 67. See Durston, Cromwell’s Major-Generals, and Underdown, Royalist Conspiracies in England. Anonymous, Craftie Cromwell, 7. Ibid., 14. Anonymous, The Second Part of Crafty Cromwell, 15. Ibid., 15–16. Barnard, “Butler, James, First Duke of Ormond (1610–1688),” ODNB . The Marquesse of Ormond’s Declaration, Proclaiming Charles the Second, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, 3. Anonymous, A Cofin for King Charles, A Crowne for Cromwell, 1. Ibid. Marshall, “Titus, Silius (1622/3–1704),” ODNB . bodl, Clarendon ms 52, fol. 75. bodl, Clarendon ms 54, fol. 106. Ibid. Warner, ed., The Nicholas Papers, vol. 4, 7. bodl, Clarendon ms 46, fol. 113. bl, Additional ms 28,758, fol. 109v. Ibid. Little is known of Sacheverel. The inside cover of Additional ms 28, 758, says that the poems were “mostly written at Oxford” between 1651 and

Notes to pages 128–35

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

1662. The poet may be George Sacheverell, who inherited New Hall Manor from his father, Valence, in Sutton Coldield and is credited with two poems printed in 1663, Hudibras on Calamy’s Imprisonment and Wild’s Poetry and Sir Hudibras to the Vinters: A Satyr on Their Adulterated Dear Wines. Salzman, ed., “The Borough of Sutton Coldield.” bl, Additional ms 28,758, fol. 109r. Ibid. Ibid. bodl, Locke ms e17, p. 81. bodl, Rawlinson ms Poet 26, fol. 153r. See also bl, Stowe ms 185, fol. 85r for another manuscript poem mocking Cromwell’s coach accident. Corns, “Evans, Arise (b. c.1607, d. in or after 1660),” ODNB . Evans, To His Excellencie the Lord Generall Cromwell, and His Honourable Councel of the Army at White-Hall, 1. bodl, Clarendon ms 45, fol. 437. Ibid., 484. O’Neill, “Gostelo, Walter (bap. 1604, d. 1662?),” ODNB . TSP , vol. 3, 212. Gostelo, For the Lord Protector, 1. Gostelo, Charls Stuart and Oliver Cromwell United, 136. Ibid., 130.

ch ap t e r s e ve n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

205

Reay, “Radicalism and Religion in the English Revolution,” 15. Hinds, ed., The Cry of a Stone by Anna Trapnel, xxix. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, 581; Hirst, England in Conlict, 285. Rutt, ed. Diary of Thomas Burton, vol. 1, 25. Ibid., 128. Reay, The Quakers and the English Revolution, 10–11. TSP , vol. 3, 170. Ibid., vol. 4, 698. Ibid., 408. Ibid., vol. 5, 287. Ibid., vol. 3, 94. Ibid., 149. Rutt, ed. Diary of Thomas Burton, vol. 1, 169. Peters, Print Culture and the Early Quakers, 51. Ibid., 52.

206

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Notes to pages 135–42

Ibid. Peters, “Patterns of Quaker Authorship, 1652–1656,” 19. Peters, Print Culture and the Early Quakers, 54. Smith, “Hidden Things Brought to Light,” 58. Nickalls, ed., The Journal of George Fox, 201. Rogers, Some Account of the Life and Opinions of a Fifth-MonarchyMan, 56. Nickolls, ed., Original Letters and Papers of State, Addressed to Oliver Cromwell, 121. Ibid., 135. Ibid., 138. McGregor, “The Baptists,” 53. Reay, “Quakerism and Society,” 151. Ibid. Capp, The Fifth Monarchy Men, 23. Ibid., 51. Ibid., 131. Ibid., 14. Ibid., 58. Rogers, Some Account of the Life and Opinions of a Fifth-MonarchyMan, 49–51. CSPD , 1654, 163. Rogers, Mene, Tekel, Perez, 8. Hinds, ed., The Cry of a Stone by Anna Trapnel, xxix. Ibid., xix. Ibid., xxiii. Trapnel, The Cry of a Stone by Anna Trapnel, 50. Ibid., 29. Reay, “Quakerism in Society,” 146. Capp, The Fifth Monarchy Men, 179; Reay, “Quakerism in Society,” 145. Camm and Howgill, This Was the Word of the Lord Which Iohn Camm and Francis Howgill Was Moved to Declare and Write to Oliver Cromwell, 5. Fox, A Warning from the Lord, 3. Anonymous, The Protector (So Called) in Part Unveiled, 87. Ibid., 12. Ibid., “To the Reader.” Ibid., 18. Roberts, “Powell, Vavasor (1617–1670),” ODNB . Ibid.

Notes to pages 142–9

207

51 Ibid. Thurloe had a copy of this pamphlet in his papers and believed the author to be Powell. See TSP , vol. 4, 380–2, 505. 52 TSP , vol. 4, 505. 53 Ibid. 54 Anonymous, A Word for God, 8. 55 Ibid., 6. 56 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 303. The text is from Ashmole ms 749. Monarchy Asserted has an alternative version, which states: “Truly the prudence of God hath laid aside this title providentially.” 57 Gentles, Oliver Cromwell, 175. 58 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 275–6. Text is from Clarke ms. Other versions exist in Additional ms 6125 and Additional ms 4157 (from Thurloe Papers). 59 Ibid., 304. The text is from Ashmole ms 749. Another version of the speech exists in Monarchy Asserted, but there are no variations in this line. 60 Mayers, “Vane, Sir Henry, the Younger (1613–1662),” ODNB . 61 Carlyle, ed., The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, vol. 3, 390. 62 Eustace, “Sir Henry Vane the Younger,” 147. 63 Mayers, “Vane, Sir Henry, the Younger (1613–1662).” 64 Eustace, “Sir Henry Vane the Younger,” 150. 65 Ludlow, Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, 193. 66 Mayers, “Vane, Sir Henry, the Younger (1613–1662).” 67 Vane, A Healing Question Propounded, 3. 68 Ibid., 1–2. 69 Ibid., 14. 70 Mayers, “‘Real and Practicable, Not Imaginary and Notional,’” 65. 71 Ludlow, Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, 244. 72 TSP , vol. 4, 509. 73 CSPD , 1656, 98. 74 These works and their authors, Marchamont Nedham and James Harrington, are discussed in chapters 4 and 8 respectively. 75 Mayers, “‘Real and Practicable, Not Imaginary and Notional,’” 38. 76 Ibid., 58. 77 Vane, A Healing Question, 14. 78 Vane, The Proceeds of the Protector (So Called) and His Council against Sir Henry Vane, Knight, 3. 79 Ibid., 8. 80 See chapter 8 for a full discussion of the work of Harrington. 81 Rogers, Mene, Tekel, Perez, 1. 82 Camm and Howgill, This Was the Word of the Lord, 1.

208

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Notes to pages 150–5

Fox, A Warning from the Lord, 2–3. Anonymous, A Word for God, 2. TSP , vol. 3, 739. Ibid. Anonymous, A Short Discovery of His Highness the Lord Protector’s Intentions Touching the Anabaptists in the Army, 6. Ibid. Nickolls, ed., Original Letters and Papers of State, 141. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Howgill, A Remarkable Letter by Mary Howgill to Oliver Cromwell, Called Protector, 3. Ibid., 3–4. Worden, “Oliver Cromwell and the Sin of Achan,” 128. These words are from the Clarke ms. These words are from the Clarke ms. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 270. Text is from Carte ms, lxxx. Other versions are in Clarke ms 29 and Additional ms 6125. There are minor variations in the Clarke ms, but they do not change the meaning. Stainer’s square brackets contain words from Clarke ms. Ibid., 351. Text is from the CJ . Other versions are in Clarke ms 29, Additional ms 6125, Harley ms 6846, Monarchy Asserted, and the Thurloe Papers. No major variations exist in any of these versions. Anonymous, A Word for God, 1. Ibid., 2. Spittlehouse, An Explanation of the Commission of Jesus Christ, 7. CSPD , 1653–1654, 277. Ibid., 294. Ibid., 1654, 378. Spittlehouse, Certain Queries Propounded to the Most Serious Consideration of Those Persons Now in Power, 11–12. Rogers, Some Account of the Life and Opinions of a Fifth-MonarchyMan, 211. Anonymous, A Short Discovery, 3. Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 108. For this speech, Stainer drew on two sources. The irst is a pamphlet entitled The Lord General Cromwell’s Speech Delivered in the Council-Chamber, upon the 4 of July 1653, and the second is from a version in Original Letters and Papers of State of … Mr. John Milton.

Notes to pages 155–61

209

111 Ibid., 109. 112 Ibid., 134. Text is from His Highnesse the Lord Protector’s Speeches in the Painted Chamber, the One on Monday the 4th of September; the Other on Tuesday the 12th of September. This source is the only verbatim version of the speech. 113 Rogers, Some Account of the Life and Opinions of a Fifth-MonarchyMan, 203. 114 Ibid., 196. 115 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 300–1. Text is from Ashmole ms 749. Monarchy Asserted also contains this speech. There are some variations in these lines but they are all minor and do not change the meaning. 116 Gaunt, ed., The Correspondence of Henry Cromwell, 1655–1659, 254. 117 Carlyle, ed. The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, vol. 2, 108. 118 Ibid., 103. 119 Ibid., 226. 120 Coward, The Cromwellian Protectorate, 68. 121 Ibid. 122 Robert, trans. and ed., Swedish Diplomats at Cromwell’s Court, 1655– 1656, 169. 123 Coward, The Cromwellian Protectorate, 69. 124 Anonymous, A Ground Voice, 6. 125 Chidley, To His Highness the Lord Protector, &c. and to the Parliament of England, 2. 126 Anonymous, A Word for God, 2. 127 Smith, God’s Unchangeableness, a3. 128 Ibid., 15. 129 Gaunt, ed., The Correspondence of Henry Cromwell, 221. 130 Fox’s four pamphlets were The Priests Fruits Made Manifest and the Fashions of the World, and the Lust of Ignorance, printed 15 April 1657; A Warning to All Teachers of Children, Which Are Called School-Masters and School Mistresses, printed 23 April 1657; The Priests and Professors of Catechisme, for Them To Try Their Spirits, Whether It Be after the Doctrine of Godliness, or after the Traditions of Men, printed 25 April 1657; and An Epistle to All People on the Earth, and the Ignorance of All the World, of the Birth That Must Be Silent, and of the Birth That Is to Speak, Which Declares God; and the Difference betwixt Silence and Speaking, printed 10 May 1657. 131 TSP , vol. 6, 184–5; Capp, Fifth Monarchy Men, 11. 132 Gaunt, ed., The Correspondence of Henry Cromwell, 254. 133 Spalding, ed., The Diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 461.

210

Notes to pages 162–8

134 TSP , vol. 6, 185. 135 For details on how Thurloe manipulated printed works on kingship, see Little, “John Thurloe and the Offer of the Crown to Cromwell.” 136 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 304. Text is from Ashmole ms 749. Monarchy Asserted also contains the speech, but this line is identical in both versions.

ch ap t e r e ig h t 1 Worden, “James Harrington and ‘The Commonwealth of Oceana,’ 1656,” 83. 2 Dick, ed., Aubrey’s Brief Lives, 124. 3 Ibid. 4 See Worden, “Harrington’s Oceana,” 114–19. 5 Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 207. 6 Ibid., 207. 7 Ibid., 159. 8 Ibid., 160. 9 Ibid., 159. 10 Ibid., 209. 11 Morrill, “Cromwell and his Contemporaries,” 271–2. 12 Ibid. 13 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 128–9. Text is from His Highnesse the Lord Protector’s Speeches in the Painted Chamber, the One on Monday the 4th of September; the Other on Tuesday the 12th of September. This is the only known verbatim version of this speech. 14 Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 183. 15 Ibid., 342. 16 Worden, “Harrington’s Oceana,” 120. 17 Ibid., 119–21. 18 Scott, Commonwealth Principles, 285. 19 Ibid., 286. 20 Worden, “Harrington’s Oceana,” 208. 21 Stainer, ed., Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 149–50. Text is again from His Highnesse the Lord Protector’s Speeches in the Painted Chamber. No alternative versions of the 12 September speech exist. 22 Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 349. 23 Ibid., 179. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.

Notes to pages 168–73

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

211

Ibid. Ibid., 349. Ibid., 203. Ibid. Ibid., 201. Ibid., 574. Harrington points out that popular governments have never been conquered by kings; that, if any popular governments have been seditious, it is because of imperfections in their constitutions; that, if a popular government is founded on equality, there can be no sedition; and that no man within a popular government can have enough power to create sedition. Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 180. Ibid., 392. Ibid., 584. Ibid., 749. Ibid., 751. Ibid., 748–50. Scott, Commonwealth Principles, 289. Worden, “James Harrington and ‘The Commonwealth of Oceana,’ 1656,” 88–9. Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 235. Ibid., 241. Worden, “James Harrington and ‘The Commonwealth of Oceana,’ 1656,” 89. Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 249. Worden, “James Harrington and ‘The Commonwealth of Oceana,’ 1656,” 124. Blitzer, An Immortal Commonwealth, 27. Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 7. Ibid. Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers, 44. Ibid. Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 10. Johns, “Streater, John (c. 1620–1677),” ODNB . Ibid. Streater, Secret Reasons of State, 2. Streater, A Glympse of That Jewel, Judicial, Just, Preserving Libertie, 10. Ibid., 12. Ibid., “To the Reader.” Ibid., 3.

212

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Notes to pages 173–86

Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 207. Streater, A Shield against the Parthian Dart, 17–18. Ibid., 16, 12. Blitzer, An Immortal Commonwealth, 40. Quintrell, “Ferne, Henry (1602–1662),” ODNB . Blitzer, An Immortal Commonwealth, 59. Ibid. Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 370–1. Ibid. Nedham, ed,, Mercurius Politicus, issue 356, 2–9 April 1657, 7705. Ibid., 7706. Ibid., issue 334, 29 October–6 November 1656, 7362. CP , vol. 7, 435. Höpl, “Harrington, James (1611–1677),” ODNB . Vane, A Needful Corrective or Ballance in Popular Government, 1. Ibid., 2. Ibid., 6. Collins, The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes, 187. Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 185. Ibid., 251. Ibid., 309. Ibid., 204. Ibid., 251. Ibid., 749. Ibid., 204. Collins, The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes, 188. Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington, 750.

conclusion 1 Morrill and Barker, “Oliver Cromwell, the Regicide, and the Sons of Zeruiah,” 20. 2 Anonymous, Monarchy Asserted, 47.

Bibliography

p rim ary s o u rce s Manuscripts Bodleian Library Ashmole ms 749 (collection of sixteen manuscripts bound together; the eleventh manuscript is Cromwell’s speech on 13 April 1657) Carte ms lxxx, fol. 755–6 (Cromwell’s speech on 3 April 1657) Clarendon mss (letters relating to political affairs) Locke ms e 17, fol. 81 (a satirical poem about Cromwell) Rawlinson ms a24, fol. 61 (letter to Thurloe regarding Mercurius Politicus) Rawlinson ms Poet 26, fol. 153r (a satirical poem about Cromwell)

British Library Additional ms 4157, fol. 180–1 (Cromwell’s speech on 8 April 1657) Additional ms 4365, fol. 339v (letter to Thurloe regarding Mercurius Politicus) Additional ms 6125 (collection of Cromwell’s speeches) Additional ms 28,758 (collection of poems by G. Sacheverel) Harley ms 6846, fol. 237 (Cromwell’s speech on 5 May 1657) Lansdowne ms 754, fol. 153 (Cromwell’s speech on 31 March 1657) Stowe ms 185, fol. 85r (a satirical poem about Cromwell)

Worcester Colleg e Library, O xfo rd Clarke ms 29 (newsletters relating events in England, including several of Cromwell’s speeches)

214

Bibliography

Correspondence, Speeches, Other Documents Abbott, Wilbur Cortez, ed. Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1988. Birch, Thomas, ed. A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, Esq; Secretary, First, to the Council of State, and afterwards to the Two Protectors, Oliver and Richard Cromwell: in Seven Volumes. London: Printed for the executor of the late Mr Fletcher Gyles; Thomas Woodward; and Charles Davis 1742. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1649–1660. London: Longman 1875–86. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, and in Other Libraries of Northern Italy, Volume 29. London: Longman / hmso 1864–1947. Carlyle, Thomas, ed. The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell with Elucidations. Edited in Three Volumes with Notes, Supplement and Enlarged Index by S.C. Lomas. 3 vols. London: Methuen and Co. 1904. Dick, Oliver Lawson, ed. Aubrey’s Brief Lives. London: Secker and Warburg 1960. Firth, C.H., ed. The Clarke Papers, 4 vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1899. Gaunt, Peter, ed. The Correspondence of Henry Cromwell: 1655–1659. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007. Hutchinson, Julius, ed. Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson. London: Dent 1965. Hyde, Edward. The Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1827. Knachel, Philip A., ed. The Case of the Commonwealth of England. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia 1969. Loftis, John, and Paul Hardare, eds. Colonel Joseph Bampield’s Apology: ‘Written by Himself and Printed at His Desire’ 1685. Lewisburg, pa: Bucknell University Press; and London: Associated University Presses 1993. Ludlow, Edmund. Memoirs: of Edmund Ludlow. With a Collection of Original Papers, and the Case of King Charles the First. London: Printed for T. Becket, P.A. de Hondt, T. Cadell, and T. Evans 1771. Margoliouth, H.M., ed. The Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1971. McKenzie, D.F., and Maureen Bell, eds. A Chronology and Calendar of Documents relating to the London Book Trade, 1641–1700. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005.

Bibliography

215

Nickalls, John L., ed. The Journal of George Fox. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1952. Nickolls, John, ed. Original Letters and Papers of State, Addressed to Oliver Cromwell; concerning the Affairs of Great Britain. From the year MDCXLIX to MDCLVIII. Found among the Political Collections of Mr. John Milton. Now First Published from the Originals. London, 1743. Pocock, J.G.A., ed. The Political Works of James Harrington. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1977. Robert, Michael, trans. and ed., Swedish Diplomats at Cromwell’s Court, 1655–1656: The Missions of Peter Julius Coyet and Christer Bonde. London: Ofices of the Royal Historical Society, University College London, 1988. Rogers, John. Some Account of the Life and Opinions of a Fifth-MonarchyMan; Chiely Extracted from the Writings of John Rogers, Preacher. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer 1867. Roots, Ivan, ed. Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. London: Everyman 1989. Rutt, John Towill, ed. Diary of Thomas Burton. 4 vols. London: H. Colburn 1828. Stainer, Charles L., ed. Speeches, 1644–1658: Collected and Edited by Charles L. Stainer. London: H. Frowde 1901. Smith, Nigel, ed. The Poems of Andrew Marvell. London: Longman 2003. Spalding, Ruth, ed. The Diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke. New York: Oxford University Press 1990. Warner, George F., ed. The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State. 4 vols. London: Printed for the Camden Society 1886–1920. Whitelocke, Bulstrode. Memorials of the English Affairs. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1853. Wolfe, D.M., et al., ed. The Complete Prose Works of John Milton. 8 vols. New Haven, ct, and London: Yale University Press 1953–82.

Pamphlets Anonymous. The Character of the Rump. London, 1660. Anonymous. A Charge of High Treason Exhibited against Oliver Cromwell Esq; for Several Treasons by Him Committed. London, 1653. Anonymous. A Cofin for King Charles, A Crowne for Cromwell. London, 1649. Anonymous. A Copy of a Letter Written to an Oficer of the Army by a True Commonwealthsman and No Courtier. London, 1656.

216

Bibliography

Anonymous. Craftie Cromwell. London, 1648. Anonymous. A Declaration to the Free-Born People of England Now in Arms against the Tyrannie and Oppression of Oliver Cromwell Esq. London, 1655. Anonymous. The Difference between an Usurper and a Lawful Prince. London, 1657. Anonymous. The Downfall of the Fifth Monarchy. London, 1657. Anonymous. A Ground Voice. London, 1655. Anonymous. To His Excellency the Lord Generall Cromwell, and All the Honest Oficers and Souldiers in the Armie, for the Common Wealth of England. London, 1653. Anonymous. The London Printers Lamentations or the Press Opprest and Overprest. London, 1660. Anonymous. Monarchy Asserted, to be the Best, Most Ancient and Legall Form of Government. London, 1660. Anonymous. To the Oficers and Souldiers in the Army, More Especially to Those Oficers That Sit in Council at White-Hall, a Sober Admonition from Some Sighing Souls. London, 1657. Anonymous. The Protector (So Called) in Part Unveiled. London, 1655. Anonymous. The Second Part of Crafty Crvmwell. London, 1648. Anonymous. Sedition Scourg’d, or a View of That Rascally & Venemous Paper, Entituled, A Charge of High-Treason Exhibited against Oliver Cromwel, Esq; for Several Treasons by Him Committed. London, 1653. Anonymous. A Short Discovery of His Highness the Lord Protector’s Intentions Touching the Anabaptists in the Army. London, 1655. Anonymous. The Unparalleld Monarch. Or the Portrait of a Matchless Prince. London, 1656. Anonymous. A Word for God. Or a Testimony on Truths Behalf; from Several Churches, and Divers Hundreds of Christians in Wales (and Some Few Adjacent) against Wickedness in High Places. London, 1655. Baxter, Richard. The Saints Everlasting Rest. London, 1650. Berkeley, John. Memoirs of Sir John Berkley. London, 1699. Camm, John. Some Particulars concerning the Law, Sent to Oliver Cromwell, Who Is Chief Ruler in These Nations, according to Man. London, 1654. Camm, John, and Francis Howgill. This Was the Word of the Lord which John Camm and Francis Howgill Was Moved to Declare and Write to Oliver Cromwell. London, 1654. Chidley, Samuel. To His Highness the Lord Protector, &c. and to the Parliament of England. London, 1656.

Bibliography

217

– To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England. 1657. A Copy of the Letter from His Excellency the Lord Generall Cromwell, Sent to the Members of Parliament Called to Take upon Them the Trust of the Government of This Commonwealth. London, 1656. A Declaration of His Highness, by the Advice of His Council, Shewing the Reasons of Their Proceeding for Securing the Peace of the Commonwealth. London, 1655. A Declaration of His Highness the Lord Protector, upon His Actual Dissolution of the Parliament of England. London, 1655. A Declaration of the Lord Generall and His Councel of Oficers; Shewing the Grounds and Reasons for the Dissolution of the Late Parliament. London, 1653. A Declaration and Order of his Excellency the Lord Generall Cromwell, and His Councill of Oficers for the Continuance of the Assessment for Six Months, from the 24th. of June 1653. to the 25th. of December following. London, 1653. A Declaration concerning the Government of the Three Nations of England, Scotland, and Ireland, by His Highness the Lord Protector Cromwel: and His Speech to the Lord Commissioners of the Broad Seal of England, and the Judges in Their Scarlet Gowns, and Robes, Immediately before He Took the Chair of State, the City Sword, and Cap of Maintenance. London, 1653. A Declaration of Oliver Cromwell, Captain General of All the Forces of This Common-wealth. London, 1653. Evans, Arise. To His Excellencie the Lord Generall Cromwell, and His Honourable Councel of the Army at White-Hall. London, 1653. Fox, George. An Epistle to All People on the Earth. London, 1657. – The Priests Fruits Made Manifest. And the Fashions of the World, and the Lust of Ignorance. London, 1657. – The Priests and Professors Catechisme, for Them to Try Their Spirits. London, 1657. – To Thee Oliver Cromwell. London, 1655. – A Warning to All Teachers of Children. London, 1657. – A Warning from the Lord. London, 1654. Goodwin, John. Peace Protected and Discontent Dis-armed. London, 1654. Gostelo, Walter. Charls Stuart and Oliver Cromwell United. London, 1655. – For the Lord Protector. London, 1655. The Government of the Common-wealth of England, Scotland, & Ireland, and the Dominions thereto Belonging; as It Was Publickly Declared at Westminster the 16. day of December 1653. London, 1653.

218

Bibliography

Hall, John. The True Cavalier Examined by His Principles; and Found Not Guilty of Schism or Sedition. London, 1656. Hawke, Michael. Killing Is Murder. London, 1657. – The Right of Dominion and Property of Liberty. London, 1655. Heylyn, Peter. Ecclesia Vindicata. London, 1657. – The Stumbling Block of Disobedience and Rebellion. London, 1658. His Highness Speech to the Parliament in the Painted Chamber, at Their Dissolution, upon Monday the 22d. of January, 1654. London, 1655. His Highnesse the Lord Protector’s Speeches in the Painted Chamber, the One on Monday the 4th of September; the Other on Tuesday the 12th of September. London, 1654. Horton, Hur. The Faithful Narrative of the Late Testimony and Demand Made to Oliver Cromwell, and His Powers, on the Behalf of the Lord’s Prisoners, in the Name of the Lord Jehovah (Jesus Christ) King of Saints and Nations. London, 1655. Howell, James. An Admonition to My Lord Protector and His Council of Their Present Danger. London, 1654. – Som Sober Inspections Made into the Cariage and Consults of the LateLong Parlement. London, 1655. Howgill, Mary. A Remarkable Letter by Mary Howgill to Oliver Cromwell, Called Protector. London, 1657. The Last Speech of His Highnesse the Lord Protector to the Parliament on Tuesday in the Painted Chamber, Being the 12. of This Instant September. London, 1654. Lineall, John. To His Highness Oliver Cromwell, Lord High Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland. London, 1655. The Lord General Cromwel’s Speech Delivered in the Council-Chamber, upon the 4 of July, 1653. London, 1654. The Marquesse of Ormond’s Declaration, Proclaiming Charles the Second, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland. London, 1649. Moon, John. The True Light Hath Made Manifest Darknesse. London, 1657. Nedham, Marchamont. The Excellencie of a Free-State. London, 1656. – ed. Mercurius Politicus. London, 1650–60. – ed. The Publick Intelligencer. London, 1655–60. – A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Dominions thereto Belonging. London, 1654. Orders of His Highness the Lord Protector Made and Published by and with the Advice and Consent of His Council, for Putting into Speedy and Due Execution the Laws, Statutes and Ordinances, Made and

Bibliography

219

Provided against Printing Unlicensed and Scandalous Books and Pamphlets, and for the Further Regulating of Printing. London 1655. An Ordinance of the Lords & Commons Assembled in Parliament, against Unlicensed or Scandalous Pamphlets, and for the Better Regulating of Printing. 28 Septembr. 1647. Ordered by the Commons Assembled in Parliament, That This Ordinance Be Forthwith Printed and Published. London, 1647. Parker, Alexander. A Testimony of the Light Within. London, 1657. Pendred, William. To His Excellencie, the Lord-General Cromvvel: and all the Honest Oficers and Souldiers in the Army, for the Common-wealth of England. London, 1653. Price, John. Tyrants and Protectors Set Forth in Their Colours. London, 1654. Price, Laurence. A Famous City Turned to Stone. London, 1656. Pringle, Alexander. A Stay in Trouble or the Saints Rest in the Evil Day. Ipswitch, uk, 1657. Prynne, William. King Richard the Thirde Revived. London, 1657. Purnell, Robert. A Little Cabinet Richly Stored with All Sorts of Heavenly Varieties. London, 1657. Rogers, John. Mene, Tekel, Perez, or a Little Appearance of the Handwriting (in a Glance of Light) against the Powers and Apostates of the Times. London, 1654. Saller, William. An Appeal to the Consciences of the Chief Magistrates of this Commonwealth, Touching the Sabbath-Day. London, 1657. Scudery. Curia politiae, or, the Apologies of Severall Princes. London, 1654. Sexby, Edward. Killing Noe Murder. Holland, 1657. Smith, George. God’s Unchangeableness. London, 1655. Smith, Humphrey. The First and Second Priesthood Declared according to the Scriptures, That Both Priests, Professors and People May Come to See with the Light of Christ, Which Priesthood This Belongs to. 1657. The Speech of His Highnesse the Lord Protector to the Parliament in the Painted Chamber at Westminster, on Munday Last, Being the Fourth of This Instant September. London, 1654. Spittlehouse, John. An Answer to One Part of the Lord Protector’s Speech. London, 1654. – Certain Queries Propounded to the Most Serious Consideration of Those Persons Now in Power. London 1654. – An Explanation of the Commission of Jesus Christ. London, 1653. – A Warning-Piece Discharged. London, 1653.

220

Bibliography

Streater, John. A Glympse of That Jewel, Judicial, Just, Preserving Libertie. London, 1653. – Secret Reasons of State. London, 1659. – A Shield against the Parthian Dart. London, 1659. Thomason, George [?]. The Character of a Protector. 1654. Trapnel, Anna. The Cry of a Stone. London, 1654. Vane, Henry. A Healing Question Propounded. London, 1656. – A Needful Corrective or Balance in Popular Government. London, 1660. – The Proceeds of the Protector (So Called) and His Councill against Sir Henry Vane, Knight. London, 1656. Waller, Edmund. A Panegyrick to My Lord Protector. London, 1655. Walton, Izaak. The Compleat Angler. London, 1653. Watson, Richard. The Panegyrike and the Storme. London, 1659. Wither, George. The Protector: A Poem. London, 1655. – Salt upon Salt. London, 1659. – A Suddain Flash. London, 1657.

s e co n dary s o u rce s Achinstein, Sharon. Literature and Dissent in Milton’s England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003. – Milton and the Revolutionary Reader. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press 1994. – “Texts in Conlict: The Press and the Civil War.” In Neil Howard Keeble, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Writing the English Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001. – “The Uses of Deception: From Cromwell to Milton.” In Katherine Z. Keller and Gerald J. Schiffhorst, eds., The Witness of Times: Manifestations of Ideology in Seventeenth Century England. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press 1993. Adamson, J.S.A. “Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament.” In John Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London and New York: Longman 1990. Aubrey, Philip. Mr. Secretary Thurloe: Cromwell’s Secretary of State, 1652– 1660. London: Athlone Press 1990. Baillie, W.M. “Printing Bibles in the Interregnum: The Case of William Bentley and a Short Answer.” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 91, no. 1 (1997): 65–91. Barber, Sarah. Regicide and Republicanism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 1998.

Bibliography

221

Barker, E. “John Thurloe Secretary of State, 1652–1660.” History Today, 8 (1958): 548–55. Barnard, Toby. “Boyle, Roger, First Earl of Orrery (1621–1679).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/3138 (accessed 19 January 2012). – “Butler, James, First Duke of Ormond (1610–1688).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4191 (accessed 27 October 2008). Baron, Sabrina Alcorn. “Licensing Readers, Licensing Authorities in Seventeenth-Century England.” In Jennifer Anderson and Elizabeth Sauer, eds., Books and Readers in Early Modern England: Material Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2002. – “Nicholas, Sir Edward (1593–1669).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/20097 (accessed 27 October 2008). Bell, Maureen. “Offensive Behaviour in the English Book Trade, 1641– 1700.” In Robin Myers, Michael Harris, and Giles Mandelbrote, eds., Against the Law: Crime, Sharp Practice and Control of Print. London: British Library 2004. Blitzer, Charles. An Immortal Commonwealth: The Political Thought of James Harrington. Hamden, uk: Archon Books 1970. Brailsford, H.N. The Levellers and the English Revolution. London: Cresset Press 1961. British Library: Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts, 1756–1782. London: British Museum Publications 1977. Calhoun, Craig. “Introduction: Habermas and the Public Sphere.” In Craig Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, ma, and London: MIT Press 1992. Campbell, Gordon. “Milton, John (1608–1674).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18800 (accessed 25 July 2007). Capp, Bernard. “The Fifth Monarchists and Popular Millenarianism.” In J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, eds., Radical Religion in the English Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1984. – The Fifth Monarchy Men. London: Faber and Faber 1972. Chernaik, Warren. “Waller, Edmund (1606–1687).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28556 (accessed 22 January 2009). Clegg, Cyndia. Press Censorship in Caroline England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008.

222

Bibliography

– Press Censorship in Jacobean England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001. Collins, Jeffrey. The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005. – “The Church Settlement of Oliver Cromwell.” History, 87, no. 285 (2002): 18–40. Corns, Thomas N. “Evans, Arise (b. c.1607, d. in or after 1660).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/8975 (accessed 25 July 2007). – “Milton and the Characteristics of a Free Commonwealth.” In David Armitage, Armand Himy, and Quentin Skinner, eds., Milton and Republicanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995. – “Milton’s Quest for Respectability.” Modern Language Review, 77, no. 4 (1982): 769–79. – “Radical Pamphleteering.” In Neil Howard Keeble, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Writing the English Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001. – Uncloistered Virtue: English Political Virtue, 1640–1660. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1992. Coward, Barry. Cromwell. London: Longman 1991. – The Cromwellian Protectorate. Manchester, uk, and New York: Manchester University Press 2002. Craik, Henry. The Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon, Lord High Chancellor of England. 2 vols. London: Smith, Elder and Co. 1911. Cromartie, Alan. “Harringtonian Virtue, Machiavelli, and the Method of the Moment.” Historical Journal, 41, no. 4 (1998): 987–1009. Davis, J.C. “Cromwell’s Religion.” In John Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London: Longman 1990. – “Equality in an Equal Commonwealth: James Harrington’s Republicanism and the Meaning of Equality.” In Luc Borot, ed., James Harrington and the Notion of Commonwealth. Montpellier, France: L’Université Paul-Valery 1998. – Oliver Cromwell. London: Arnold 2001. Dobranski, Stephen B. “Licensing Milton’s Heresy.” In Stephen Dobranski and John Peter Rumrich, eds., Milton and Heresy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998. – Milton, Authorship, and the Book Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999. Durston, Christopher. Cromwell’s Major-Generals: Godly Government during the English Revolution. Manchester, uk, and New York: Manchester University Press 2001.

Bibliography

223

– “Policing the Cromwellian Church: The Activities of the County Ejection Committees, 1654–1659.” In Patrick Little, ed., The Cromwellian Protectorate. Woodbridge, uk: Boydell Press 2007. Dzelnainis, Martin. “Milton’s Classical Republicanism.” In David Armitage, Armand Himy, and Quentin Skinner, eds., Milton and Republicanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995. Eustace, Timothy. “Sir Henry Vane the Younger.” In Timothy Eustache, ed., Statesmen and Politicians of the Stuart Age. Basingstoke, uk: Macmillan 1985. Fallon, Robert Thomas. Milton in Government. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press 1993. – “A Second Defence: Milton’s Critique of Cromwell.” Milton Studies, 39 (2000): 167–83. Feola, Vittoria. “Elias Ashmole and the Uses of Antiquity.” PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2005. Firth, C.H. “Cromwell and the Crown.” English Historical Review, 17, no. 67 (1902): 429–42. – “Cromwell and the Crown.” English Historical Review, 18, no. 69 (1903): 52–80. – “‘Killing No Murder.’” English Historical Review, 17, no. 66 (1902): 308–11. – Oliver Cromwell and the Rule of the Puritans in England. London: Oxford University Press 1953. – “Thurloe and the Post Ofice.” English Historical Review, 13, no. 51 (1898): 527–33. Fletcher, Anthony. “Cromwell and the Godly Nation.” In John Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London: Longman 1990. Frank, Joseph. Beginnings of the English Newspaper. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press 1961. – Cromwell’s Press Agent. Lanham, md: University Press of America 1980. Freist, Dagmar. Governed by Opinion: Politics, Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637–1645. London and New York: Tauris Academic Studies 1997. Gadd, I. “Hills, Henry, Senior (c. 1625–1688/9).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/13322 (accessed 6 April 2009). – “Newcombe, Thomas, the Elder (1625x7–1681).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/19987 (accessed 6 April 2009). – “Simmons, Matthew (b. in or before 1608, d. 1654).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/69230 (accessed 23 April 2009).

224

Bibliography

Gaunt, Peter. “Cromwell’s Purge? Exclusions and the First Protectoral Parliament.” Parliamentary History 6, no. 1 (1987): 1–22. – “Drafting the Instrument of Government 1653–1654: A Reappraisal.” Parliamentary History, 8, no. 1 (1989): 28–42. – “Law-Making in the First Protectoral Parliament.” In Colin Jones, Malyn Newitt, and Stephen Roberts, eds., Politics and People in Revolutionary England. Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1986. – Oliver Cromwell. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers 1996. – “‘The Single Person’s Conidants and Dependents?’ Oliver Cromwell and His Protectoral Councillors.” Historical Journal, 32, no. 3 (1989): 537–60. Gentles, Ian J. “Harrison, Thomas (bap. 1616, d. 1660).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12448 (accessed 19 November 2009). – Oliver Cromwell: God’s Warrior and the English Revolution. Houndmills, uk: Palgrave Macmillan 2011. Gill, Catie. “‘All the Monarchies of This World Are Going Down the Hill’: The Anti-Monarchism of Anna Trapnel’s The Cry of a Stone (1654).” Prose Studies, 29, no. 1 (2007): 19–35. Goldie, Mark. “The Civil Religion of James Harrington.” In Anthony Pagden, ed., The Languages of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987. Greaves, Richard L. “Sturgion, John (d. 1665).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/26750 (accessed 23 April 2009). Green, Ian, and Kate Peters. “Religious Publishing in England c. 1640– 1695.” In John Barnard and Donald Francis McKenzie, eds., with the assistance of Maureen Bell, The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 4: 1557–1695. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002. Gurney, John. “Onslow, Sir Richard (bap. 1601, d. 1664).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 20793 (accessed 19 January 2012). Hardacre, Paul. The Royalists during the Puritan Revolution. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1956. Heath, G.D. “Making the Instrument of Government.” Journal of British Studies, 6, no. 2 (1967): 15–34. Henderson, Frances. “Clarke, Sir William (1623/4–1666).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 5536 (accessed 22 April 2008).

Bibliography

225

Hessayon, Ariel. “Calvert, Giles (bap. 1612, d. 1663).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/39669 (accessed 23 April 2009). Hill, Christopher. God’s Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson 1970. – “Irreligion in the ‘Puritan’ Revolution.” In J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, eds., Radical Religion in the English Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1986. Hinds, Hilary, ed. The Cry of a Stone by Anna Trapnel. Tempe, az: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies 2000. Hirst, Derek. England in Conlict, 1603–1660: Kingdom, Community, Commonwealth. London: Arnold 1999. – “The Failure of Godly Rule in the English Republic.” Past and Present, 132 (1991): 33–66. – “The Lord Protector, 1653–1658.” In John Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London and New York: Longman 1990. Holberton, Edward. Poetry and the Cromwellian Protectorate: Culture, Politics, and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008. – “Political Poetry and the Culture of the Protectorate, 1653–1659.” PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2006. Hollings, Majory. “Thomas Barrett: A Study in the Secret History of the Interregnum.” English Historical Review, 43, no. 169 (1928): 33–65. Holmes, Clive. Why Was Charles I Executed? London: Hambledon Continuum 2006. Höpl, H.M. “Harrington, James (1611–1677).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12375 (accessed 25 July 2007). Howell, Roger. “Henry Vane the Younger and the Politics of Religion.” History Today, 13 (1963): 275–82. Hunt, John Dixon. Andrew Marvell: His Life and Writings. Ithaca, ny: Cornell University Press 1978. Hutton, Ronald. The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales, 1658–1667. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1985. Ingle, H. Larry. “Fox, George (1624–1691).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10031 (accessed 14 October 2009). Johns, Adrian. “Streater, John (c. 1620–1677).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/26656 (accessed 23 April 2009).

226

Bibliography

Jones, G.F. Trevallyn. Saw-Pit Wharton: The Political Career from 1640 to 1691 of Philip, Fourth Lord Wharton. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press 1967. Keeble, N.H. “Richard Baxter (1615–1691).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1734 (accessed 25 July 2007). Kelsey, Sean. “The Death of Charles I.” Historical Journal, 45, no. 4 (2002): 727–54. – Inventing a Republic: The Political Culture of the English Commonwealth, 1649–1653. Stanford, ca: Stanford University Press 1997. – “Wharton, Philip, Fourth Baron Wharton (1613–1696).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/29170 (accessed 22 April 2008). Knoppers, Laura Lunger. Constructing Cromwell: Ceremony, Portrait and Print, 1645–1661. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000. Lake, Peter, and Steve Pincus. “Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England.” In Peter Lake and Steve Pincus, eds., The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Manchester, uk, and New York: Manchester University Press 2007. Lambert, Sheila. “Richard Montagu, Arminianism and Censorship.” Past and Present, 124 (August 1989): 36–68. – “State Control of the Press in Theory and Practice: The Role of the Stationers’ Company before 1640.” In Robin Myers and Michael Harris, eds., Censorship & the Control of Print: In England and France 1600– 1910. Winchester, uk: St. Paul’s Bibliographies 1992. Lindley, Keith. “Glynne, Sir John (1603–1666).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10843 (accessed 19 January 2012). Little, Patrick. “Gookin, Vincent (c. 1616–1659).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11008 (accessed 1 June 2009). – “Jephson, William (1609/10–1658).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14769 (accessed 19 January 2012). – “John Thurloe and the Offer of the Crown to Cromwell.” In Patrick Little, ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives. Basingstoke, uk, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009. – Lord Broghill and the Cromwellian Union with Ireland and Scotland. Woodbridge, uk: Boydell Press 2004.

Bibliography

227

– “Offering the Crown to Cromwell.” History Today, 57, no. 2 (2007): 24–31. Loewenstein, David. Representing Revolution in Milton and His Contemporaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001. – “The War of the Lamb: George Fox and the Apocalyptic Discourse of Revolutionary Quakerism.” In Thomas Corns and David Loewenstein, eds., The Emergence of Quaker Writing: Dissenting Literature in Seventeenth-Century England. London: Frank Cass 1995. Knights, Mark. Representation and Misrepresentation in Later Stuart Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004. Maden, Falconer, et al., ed. A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford . Vol. 2. Munich, Germany: Kraus Reprint 1980. Marshall, Alan. “Sexby, Edward (c .1616–1658).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/25151 (accessed 21 October 2009). – “Titus, Silius (1622/3–1704).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27482 (accessed 27 October 2008). Mayers, Ruth E. “‘Real and Practicable, Not Imaginary and Notional’: Sir Henry Vane, A Healing Question, and the Problems of the Protectorate.” Albion 28, no. 1 (1996): 37–72. – “Vane, Sir Henry, the Younger (1613–1662).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28086 (accessed 31 October 2009). McElligott, Jason. “‘A Couple of Hundred Squabling Small Tradesmen’: Censorship, the Stationers’ Company, and the State in Early Modern England.” Media History, 11, nos. 1/2 (2005): 87–104. – Royalism, Print and Censorship in Revolutionary England. Woodbridge, uk: Boydell and Brewer 2007. McGregor, J.F. “The Baptists: Fount of All Heresy.” In J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, eds., Radical Religion in the English Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1986. Mendel, Michael. “News and Pamphlet Culture in Mid-SeventeenthCentury England.” In Brendan Dooley and Sabrina Alcorn Baron, eds., The Politics of Information in Early Modern England. London and New York: Routledge 2001. Meyer, W.R. “Dugard, William (1606–1662).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8182 (accessed 6 April 2009).

228

Bibliography

Miller, Lucasta. “The Shattered Violl: Print and Textuality in the 1640s.” In Nigel Smith, ed., Literature and Censorship. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer 1993. Milton, Antony. Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England: The Career and Writings of Peter Heylyn. Manchester, uk: Manchester University Press 2007. – “Licensing, Censorship, and Religious Orthodoxy in Early Stuart England.” Historical Journal, 41, no. 3 (1998): 625–51. Morrill, John. “The Church in England 1642–1649.” In John Morrill, ed., Reactions to the English Civil War, 1642–1649. London: Macmillan 1982. – “Cromwell and his Contemporaries.” In John Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London: Longman 1990. Morrill, John, and David Loewenstein. “Literature and Revolution.” In David Loewenstein and Janel M. Meuller, eds., Cambridge History of Early Modern English Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002. – “The Making of Oliver Cromwell.” In John Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London: Longman 1990. Morrill, John, and Philip Barker. “Oliver Cromwell, the Regicide, and the Sons of Zeruiah.” In David Smith, ed., Cromwell and the Interregnum. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing 2003. Myers, Robin. “Searching the Stationers’ Company Records for Printing History.” Journal of the Printing Historical Society, 21 (1992): 5–12. Nelson, Eric. “‘Talmudical Commonwealthsmen’ and the Rise of Republican Exclusivism.” Historical Journal, 50, no. 4 (2007): 809–35. Norbrook, David. Writing the English Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999. O’Callaghan, Michelle. “Wither, George (1588–1667).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.queensu.ca/ view/article/29804 (accessed 11 April 2011). O’Neill, Ian L. “Gostelow, Walter (bap. 1604, d. 1662?).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 74523 (accessed 25 July 2007). Parker, William Riley. Milton: A Biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1968. – Milton’s Contemporary Reputation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press 1940. Patrick, J. Max. “The Idea of Liberty in the Theological Writings of Sir Henry Vane.” In C. Robert Cole and Michael E. Moody, eds., The Dissenting Tradition. Athens: Ohio University Press 1975. Patterson, Annabel. “Andrew Marvell and the Revolution.” In Neil Howard Keeble, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Writing the English Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001.

Bibliography

229

– Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press 1984. Paul, Robert. The Lord Protector: Religion and Politics in the Life of Oliver Cromwell. London: Lutterworth Press 1955. Peacey, Jason. “Cromwellian England: A Propaganda State?” History, 91, no. 302 (2006): 176–99. – “Henry Parker and Parliamentary Propaganda in the English Civil Wars.” PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1994. – “The Hunting of the Leveller: The Sophistication of Parliamentarian Propaganda, 1647–53.” Historical Research, 78, no. 199 (2005): 15–42. – “The Management of Civil War Newspapers: Auteurs, Entrepreneurs and Editorial Control.” Seventeenth Century, 21, no. 1 (2006): 99–127. – “Nibbling at ‘Leviathan’: Politics and Theory in England in the 1650s.” Huntington Library Quarterly, 61, no. 2 (1998): 241–57. – Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum. Aldershot, uk: Ashgate Publishing 2004. – “Reporting a Revolution: A Failed Propaganda Campaign.” In Jason Peacey, ed., The Regicides and the Execution of Charles I. Houndmills, uk,and New York: Palgrave 2001. – “The Struggle for Mercurius Britanicus: Factional Politics and the Parliamentarian Press, 1643–1646.” Huntington Library Quarterly, 68, no. 3 (2005): 517–44. – “Watson, Richard (1611/12–1685).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28856 (accessed 22 January 2009). Peltonen, Markku. Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press 1995. Peters, Kate. “Patterns of Quaker Authorship, 1652–1656.” In Thomas Corns and David Loewenstein, eds., The Emergence of Quaker Writing: Dissenting Literature in Seventeenth-Century England. London: Frank Cass 1995. – Print Culture and the Early Quakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005. Plomer, Henry R. A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1641–1667. London: Printed for the Bibliographic Society by Blades, East and Blades 1907. Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press 1975.

230

Bibliography

Polizzotto, Carolyn. “The Campaign against The Humble Proposals of 1652.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 38 (1987): 569–81. Porter, Eric. “A Cloak of Knavery: Kingship, the Army, and the First Protectorate Parliament 1654–1655.” Seventeenth Century, 17, no. 2 (2002): 187–205. Quintrell, Brian. “Ferne, Henry (1602–1662).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9349 (accessed 23 April 2009). Raylor, Timothy. “Reading Machiavelli, Writing Cromwell: Edmund Waller’s Copy of The Prince and His Draft Verses towards A Panegyrick on My Lord Protector.” Turnbull Library Record, 35 (2002): 9–32. – “Waller’s Machiavellian Cromwell: The Imperial Argument of A Panegyrick to My Lord Protector.” Review of English Studies, 56, no. 225 (2005): 386–411. Raymond, Joad. “Hall, John (bap. 1627, d. 1656).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11969 (accessed 25 July 2007). – The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks, 1641–1649. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1996. – “Irrational, Impractical and Unproitable: Reading the News in Seventeenth-Century Britain.” In Kevin Sharpe and Steven N. Zwicker, eds., Reading, Society and Politics in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003. – “Jane, Joseph (d. 1658).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14648 (accessed 27 October 2008). – “‘The Language of the Public’: Print, Politics, and the Book Trade in 1614.” In Stephen Clucas and Rosalind Davies, eds., The Crisis of 1614 and the Addled Parliament: Literacy and Historical Perspectives. Aldershot, uk, and Burlington, vt: Ashgate 2002. – “‘A Mercury with a Winged Conscience’: Marchamont Nedham, Monopoly, and Censorship.” Media History, 4, no. 1 (1998): 7–18. – “Nedham, Marchamont (bap. 1620, d. 1678).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/19847 (accessed 25 July 2007). – “The Newspaper, Public Opinion, and the Public Sphere in the Seventeenth Century.” In Joad Raymond, ed., News, Newspapers, and Society in Early Modern Britain. London: Frank Cass 1999. – Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003.

Bibliography

231

Reay, Barry. “Popular Hostility towards Quakers in Mid-SeventeenthCentury England.” Social History [London], 5, no. 3 (1980): 387–407. – “Quakerism and Society.” In J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, eds., Religion in the English Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1984. – The Quakers and the English Revolution. London: Temple Smith 1985. – “Radicalism and Religion in the English Revolution: An Introduction.” In J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, eds., Radical Religion in the English Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1986. Roberts, Stephen K. “Powell, Vavasor (1617–1670).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22662 (accessed 14 October 2009). Roots, Ivan. “Swordsmen and Decimators – Cromwell’s Major-Generals.” In R.H. Parry, ed., The English Civil War and After. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press 1970. Salzman, L.F., ed. “The Borough of Sutton Coldield.” A History of the County of Warwick: Volume 4: Hemlingford Hundred (1947), 230–45, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42686 (accessed 18 April 2012). Schwarz, Marc L. “Fiennes, Nathaniel (1607/8–1669).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9413 (accessed 19 January 2012). Scott, Jonathan. Commonwealth Principles: Republicanism Writing of the English Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004. – England’s Troubles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000. Scriba, Christoph J. “Pell, John (1611–1685).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21802 (accessed 21 May 2009). Seaward, Paul. “Hyde, Edward, First Earl of Clarendon (1609–1674).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/14328 (accessed 27 October 2008). Seymour, Michael. “Pro-Government Propaganda in Interregnum England, 1649–1660.” PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1987. Sharpe, Kevin. Image Wars: Promoting Kings and Commonwealths in England, 1603–1660. New Haven, ct: Yale University Press 2010. – Remapping Early Modern England: The Culture of Seventeenth-Century Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000. – Selling the Tudor Monarchy: Authority and Image in Sixteenth-Century England. New Haven, ct, and London: Yale University Press 2009.

232

Bibliography

Sherbo, Arther. “Ayscough, Samuel (1745–1804).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/953 (accessed 20 June 2009). Sherwood, Roy. Oliver Cromwell: King in All but Name, 1653–1658. Stroud, uk: Sutton Publishing 1997. Shuger, Debora. Censorship and Cultural Sensibility: The Regulation of Language in Tudor-Stuart England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2006. Skerpan-Wheeler, Elizabeth. “Eikon Basilike and the Rhetoric of SelfRepresentation.” In Thomas N. Corns., ed., The Royal Image: Representations of Charles I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999. Skinner, Quentin. “Classical Liberty and the Coming of the English Civil War.” In Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002. – Liberty before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998. – “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.” History and Theory, 8, no. 1 (1969): 3–53. – Visions of Politics. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002. Smith, David. Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994. – “Oliver Cromwell, the First Protectoral Parliament and Religious Reform.” Parliamentary History, 19, no. 1 (2000): 38–48. – “Oliver Cromwell and the Protectoral Parliaments.” In Patrick Little, ed., The Cromwellian Protectorate. Woodbridge, uk: Boydell Press 2007. Smith, David, and Patrick Little. Parliaments and Politics during the Cromwellian Protectorate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007. Smith, Nigel. Andrew Marvell: The Chameleon. New Haven, ct, and London: Yale University Press 2010. – “Hidden Things Brought to Light: Enthusiasm and Quaker Discourse.” In Thomas Corns and David Loewenstein, eds., The Emergence of Quaker Writing: Dissenting Literature in Seventeenth-Century England. London: Frank Cass 1995. – “Literature and London.” In David Loewenstein and Janel M. Meuller, eds., The Cambridge History of Early Modern English Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002.

Bibliography

233

– Literature and Revolution in England, 1640–1660. New Haven, ct, and London: Yale University Press 1994. – Perfection Proclaimed: Language and Literature in English Radical Religion, 1640–1660. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1989. – “Popular Republicanism in the 1650s: John Streater’s ‘Heroick Mechanicks.’” In David Armitage, Armand Himy, and Quentin Skinner, eds., Milton and Republicanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995. Smuts, R. Malcolm. “Craven, William, Earl of Craven (bap. 1608, d. 1697).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/6636 (accessed 25 July 2007). Snobelen, Stephen D. “Bidle, John (1615/1616–1662).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2361 (accessed 25 July 2007). Sommerville, Johann. “Oliver Cromwell and English Political Thought.” In John Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London and New York: Longman 1990. Spalding, Ruth. The Improbable Puritan: A Life of Bulstrode Whitelocke. London: Faber and Faber 1975. Speck, W.A. “Harley, Robert, First Earl of Oxford and Mortimer (1661– 1724).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/12344 (accessed 4 December 2009). Stevenson, David. “Cromwell, Scotland and Ireland.” In John Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London and New York: Longman 1990. Styles, Philip. “Dugdale and the Civil War.” Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society, 86 (1974): 132–47. Sullivan, Vickie B. Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004. Thirsk, Joan. “The Sales of Royalist Land during the Interregnum.” Economic History Review New Series, 5, no. 2 (1952): 188–207. Treadwell, Michael. “Lists of Master Printers: The Size of the London Printing Trade, 1637–1723.” In Robin Myers and Michael Harris, eds., Aspects of Printing from 1600. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Press 1987. – “Printers on the Court of the Stationers’ Company in the 17th and 18th Centuries.” Journal of the Printing Historical Society, 21 (1992): 29–42. Trevor-Roeper, Hugh. “Oliver Cromwell and His Parliaments.” In Religion, the Reformation and Social Change and Other Essays by Hugh TrevorRoper. London: Macmillan 1967.

234

Bibliography

Tubb, Amos. “Mixed Messages: Royalist Newsbook Reports of Charles I’s Execution and of the Leveller Uprising.” Huntington Library Quarterly, 67, no. 1 (2004): 59–74. – “Printing the Regicide of Charles I.” History, 89, no. 296 (2004): 500–24. Underdown, David. Pride’s Purge. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1971. – Royalist Conspiracies in England: 1649–1660. New Haven, ct: Yale University Press 1960. – “Sir Richard Willys and Secretary Thurloe.” English Historical Review, 69, no. 272 (1954): 373–87. Venning, Timothy. “Lisle, John, Appointed Lord Lisle under the Protectorate (1609/10–1664).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16756 (accessed 19 January 2009). – “Thurloe, John (bap. 1616, d. 1668).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27405 (accessed 23 April 2009). – “Wolseley [Ouseley], Sir Charles, Second Baronet, Appointed Lord Wolseley under the Protectorate (1629/30–1714).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29849 (accessed 1 June 2009). Wallace, John M. “Andrew Marvell and Cromwell’s Kingship: The First Anniversary.” In George de F. Lord, ed., Andrew Marvell: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood, nj: Prentice Hall 1968. Wilcher, Robert. The Writing of Royalism, 1628–1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001. Woodford, Benjamin. “Printing Oliver Cromwell’s Speeches: The Making of a Split Personality.” Parliamentary History, 31, no. 2 (2012): 152–68. Woolf, D.R. “Howell, James (1594?–1666).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/13974 (accessed 22 January 2009). Woolrych, Austin. Britain in Revolution: 1625–1660. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2002. – Commonwealth to Protectorate. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1982. – “Introduction.” In D.M. Woolf et al.,, ed., The Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Vol. 7. New Haven, ct, and London: Yale University Press 1980. Wootton, David. “Introduction: The Republican Tradition: From Commonwealth to Common Sense.” In David Wootton, ed., Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial Society. Stanford, ca: Stanford University Press 1994.

Bibliography

235

Worden, Blair. “Classical Republicanism and the Puritan Revolution.” In Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Valerie Peal, and Blair Worden, eds., History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H.R. Trevor-Roper. London: Duckworth 1981. – “Harrington’s ‘Oceana’: Origins and Aftermath, 1651–1660.” In David Wootton, ed., Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial Society. Stanford, ca: Stanford University Press 1994. – “James Harrington and ‘The Commonwealth of Oceana,’ 1656.” In David Wootton, ed., Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial Society. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press 1994. – “John Milton and Oliver Cromwell.” In Ian Gentles, John Morrill, and Blair Worden, eds., Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998. – “Literature and Censorship in Early Modern England.” In A.C. Duke and C.A. Tamse, eds., Too Mighty to Be Free: Censorship and the Press in Britain and the Netherlands. Zutphen, Netherlands: De Walburg Pers 1987. – Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England: John Milton, Andrew Marvell, Marchamont Nedham. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007. – “Marchamont Nedham and the Beginnings of English Republicanism.” In David Wootton, ed., Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial Society. Stanford, ca: Stanford University Press 1994. – “Milton and Marchamont Nedham.” In David Armitage, Armand Himy, and Quentin Skinner, eds., Milton and Republicanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995. – “Oliver Cromwell and the Council.” In Patrick Little, ed., The Cromwellian Protectorate. Woodbridge, uk: Boydell Press 2007. – “Oliver Cromwell and the Sin of Achan.” In Derek Beales and Geoffrey Best, eds., History, Society and the Churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1985. – “Providence and Politics in Cromwellian England.” Past and Present, 109 (November 1985): 55–99. – “Republicanism, Regicide, and Republic: The English Experience.” In Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002. – The Rump Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1974. – “Toleration and the Cromwellian Protectorate.” In W.J. Sheils, ed., Persecution and Toleration: Studies in Church History. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1984.

236

Bibliography

Zaret, David. Origins of Democratic Culture. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press 2000. Zwicker, Steven. Lines of Authority. Ithaca, ny, and London: Cornell University Press 1993.

Index

Abbott, W.C., 25–7 Aubrey, John, 164 Baptists: importance in Cromwell’s career, 155; opposition to monarchy, 137, 162; opposition to state church, 82; as part of Cromwell’s image of God’s people, 28; rumours of Cromwell dismissing them from the army, 150; in William Bradford’s letter, 151 Barkstead, John, 11–12, 172 Berry, Major-General James, 25 Biddle, John, 66, 141 Bradford, William, 150–1 Brewster, Thomas: as printer for Council of State, 43–4, 46; as printer of other works, 71, 145, 172 Bridges, John, 25, 157, 160–1 Broghill, Lord: career in Parliament, 21–2; close relationship with Cromwell, 34; as part of kingship committee, 33, 38– 9; preparing Humble Petition, 5–6

Calvert, Giles, 43–4, 135, 172 Camm, John, 140, 149, 184 Carlyle, Thomas, 25–7 censorship: collapse of, 9–10; of Killing Noe Murder, 12–13; laws of Protectorate, 10–12; limits of, 13; of religious radicals, 134; of royalists, 127, 131; writers attempt to avoid, 73, 172, 182 Chapman, Livewell, 78, 154, 171–2 Charles I, 121, 125, 145; Arise Evans warns, 129; Cromwell being as arbitrary as, 73, 139, 148; Cromwellian ceremonialism modelled after, 115; Milton against, 79; relationship with James Harrington, 164, 168, 171, 185; representation of, 91, 96; support for in the Civil War, 14, 72, 113; trial and execution of, 3, 16, 23–4, 186 Charles II: concerned about royalist rebellions, 122; in exile in Paris, 121, 125; in Gostelo’s writings, 130; in Howell’s writings, 116; relationship with Titus, 126;

238

Index

royalists seek to place on the throne, 113; in Watson’s writings, 94 Chidley, Samuel, 159 Christina, Queen of Sweden, 115 Clarke, William, 53, 191n.34 Creed, Major Robert, 130 Cromwell, Henry: letters of, 147; letters to, 24, 39, 133, 142, 157, 161 Cromwell, Oliver: church settlement of, 74–5; compared to Moses, 165–6; compared to Roman leaders, 73–4, 91–3; compared to royalists, 85, 146, 148; connections with kingship party, 21–5; creates censorship laws, 11–12; described as being superior to kings, 101–2, 107; described as having noble ancestry, 91, 120, 166; in Evans’s writings, 129; in Gostelo’s writings, 129–30; in Harrington’s writings, 165–8, 170–1, 173, 176–9; in Hawke’s writings, 86–8; in historiography, 7–9; kingship committee responds to, 37–9; in Lineall’s writings, 109–11; in Marvell’s writings, 94–105; in Milton’s writings, 77, 79, 81–2, 84–5; in monarchical writings, 116–20; nature of his title, 14; in Nedham’s writings, 70–6; not convinced by legal arguments, 36–7; in Politicus, 58–64, 66; power of, 15, 19; in print culture, 13–15; 17–19, 111–12, 180–6; in propaganda, 41, 45–7, 54; reaction to Naylor, 65; reasons for refusing kingship, 33; relationship with Hills, 42;

relationship with Vane, 144–5; religious sects disapprove of, 136–8; respects Thurloe, 44; in royalist correspondence, 126–7; royalist reactions to, 113–14, 120–4, 130–1; in royalist satire, 124–6, 128–9; rule as lord protector, 1–7; in sectarian writing, 138–43, 149–55, 157–60; similarities with kingship pamphlets, 184; similarities with religious sects, 143–4, 152–3, 162–3, 181, 184–5; speeches of, 17, 20, 25– 37, 40, 49–54, 57, 180; thoughts on monarchy, 16–17, 20; thoughts on sects, 155–7; understanding of his role in government, 34–5, 184–5; uses propaganda, 42, 45, 48–9; in Vane’s writings, 146–9; views kingship as a private matter, 35–6; in Waller’s writings, 90–4; in Wither’s writings, 106–9 Cromwell, Richard: in Marvell’s poems, 104; succeeds Oliver, 7 Desborough, Major-General John, 4 Dugard, William, 43, 45 Dugdale, William, 56 Dunbar, battle of, 151, 157–8 Dury, John, 56 Evans, Arise, 129–30, 184 Ferne, Henry, 174–5 Fiennes, Nathaniel: career, 21; close relationship with Cromwell, 34; as a member of the kingship committee, 32, 36; as possible author of Monarchy Asserted, 29–31

Index

Fifth Monarchists, 18, 115, 132, 141–2, 144, 150, 162, 171, 182; against tithes, 153; attempt an uprising in 1657, 161–2; compared to Quakers, 140–1; conservative members of government afraid of, 60, 133–4; Cromwell discusses in his speeches, 52, 155; Cromwell’s relationship with, 155–6, 165; disappointed in Cromwell, 138–40; Harrington dislikes, 178; Nedham spies on, 75–6; reasons for wanting an end to kingship, 137–8; similarities with Cromwell’s speeches, 31, 53; use of print, 133–4; Wither dislikes, 107 First Protectoral Parliament, 12, 72, 147; Cromwell dissolves, 3, 48, 110; Cromwell’s speeches to, 11, 26, 37, 49, 51–2, 70, 155, 165, 167 Fleetwood, Major-General Charles, 147 Fox, George, 76, 134–5, 140–1, 149–50, 161, 184 Freeman, George, 50–2 Glynne, John, 21, 37–8, 134 Goffe, Major-General William, 39, 134 Gookin, Vincent, 22, 39 Gostelo, Walter, 129–30, 184 Hall, John, 17, 119, 182 Hammond, Colonel Robert, 145 Harrington, James, 17–19, 43, 69; advises Cromwell with Oceana, 165–8; avoids censorship, 149, 171; debate in Pian Piano,

239

174–5; describes government of Oceana, 170–1; dificulties publishing Oceana, 171–2; negative reaction from other republicans, 175–6; relationship with Charles I, 164, 168; relationship with Streater, 171–4; religious views, 176–8; thoughts on monarchy, 168–9; thoughts on republics, 169–70 Hawke, Michael, 17–18, 68–9; compared with other writers, 111, 180, 183; discusses the nature of the Protectorate, 86–8; seeks employment from Protectorate, 86 Heylyn, Peter, 116–18, 169 Hills, Henry: career, 42–4, 46; careful with what he prints, 174; only one to print dissolution speech, 11, 53 Howell, James: comments on Cromwell, 115–16; Nedham responds to, 72 Howgill, Francis, 140, 149, 184 Howgill, Mary, 151–2 Humble Petition and Advice, 3, 5–6, 32, 61, 161; Broghill’s role in creating, 22; Cromwell discusses, 143, 152; mentioned in Politicus, 59 Hutchinson, Lucy, 197n35 Hyde, Edward, 121–3, 182; receives information from Titus, 126; receives newsletters about Evans, 129 Ibbitson, Robert, 44 Instrument of Government, 3–5, 50; efforts to control the printing of, 47–8, 51; limits of, 35;

240

Index

Nedham discusses, 70, 73; sects suspicious of, 46, 141, 154; Whalley discusses, 39 Jane, Joseph, 122 Jephson, William, 22, 24 Jones, Colonel Philip, 32, 38 kingship committee, 6, 17, 29, 108, 143–4, 183; arguments based on law, 36–7; arguments in favour of kingship, 37–40; Cromwell’s close relationship to, 34; Cromwell’s speeches to, 33–5, 60, 146, 180; members of, 32; Politicus mentions, 59; speeches of, 30, 32 kingship crisis, 15, 26, 30, 33, 144, 184–5; attempts to keep public ignorant of, 54, 180; Fifth Monarchists revolt during, 161– 2; in historiography, 7–8; Milton writes nothing during, 77, 79; in Politicus, 17, 60–1, 67, 161; print culture connected to, 40, 88, 107, 117; royalists write during, 126; speeches during, 27, 156 kingship party, 20–3, 25, 54, 112, 143–4, 180, 185; arguments of, 38–40; aware of sectarian opposition, 157; inluence on Politicus, 60–1, 63, 67; kingship question, 9, 15–16, 19, 70, 183, 185–6; no propaganda on, 54 kingship speeches, 14, 20, 184; connection to sectarian writing, 143–4, 152–3, 156–7; connection to Wither’s writings, 108, 112; content of, 33–7; no printed pamphlets of, 53–4, 157, 163,

180; sources of, 27s; summaries of in Politicus, 58–60; variations in, 27–32 Lambert, Major-General John, 22, 24–5, 141 Lenthal, William, 16, 32, 37, 157, 186 Levellers, 4, 42, 90, 115, 159 Lilburne, Lohn, 42–3, 115, 127 Lineall, John, 17–18, 89, 109–11, 180 Lisle, Sir John, 23, 33 Lomas, S.C., 26–7, 30 Long Parliament, 72, 90, 121, 145 Machiavelli, Niccolo, 69; in Harrington’s works, 165, 167; royalists portray Cromwell as, 124; in Waller’s poems, 93 major-generals: regime of, 3–5, 11, 22, 49, 72, 134 Marquis of Ormond, 125, 127 Marvell, Andrew, 18, 43, 89, 94; compared with other writers, 107, 109–12, 179–80, 184; describes Cromwell in “First Anniversary,” 100–3; describes Cromwell in “An Horatian Ode,” 96–9; describes Cromwell in “A Poem upon the Death,” 103–5; political career in the Interregnum, 99, 103; relationship with Milton, 100; royalist poetry, 95– 6; travels in 1640s, 95 Mercurius Politicus, 17, 43, 49; advertises other works, 100, 175; against Cromwell and Thurloe’s beliefs, 65–7; against sects, 65–7, 76; connected to the government,

Index

55–8, 60–1; contains brief summaries of Cromwell’s speeches, 26–7, 29, 50, 53, 58–60, 161, 180; contains Instrument of Government, 51; mocks Harrington, 175; portrays Cromwell in a regal manner, 61–3; reports changes in government, 63–4; republican editorials in, 71 Milton, John, 17–19, 42–3, 68–9; career, 77; criticizes Harrington’s model, 176; describes Cromwell in Second Defence, 84–5; differs from Waller, 93; indifference to government forms, 79–81; not censored, 149; reaction to Cromwellian church, 82–3; reaction to Cromwell’s power, 77, 88, 111–12, 180–2; relationship with Marvell, 99–100; similar to Harrington, 169–70, 178; similar to Hawke, 86–7; thoughts on democracy, 81–2; thoughts on the Rump, 81; use of printers, 77–8 Monarchy Asserted, 27, 29–31, 53– 4, 108, 185; variations in, 31–2 Morland, Samuel, 12, 57–8, 61 Mottershed, Edward, 50, 52 Naylor, James, 4–5; in Politicus, 65–6; debates concerning, 133–4 Nedham, Marchamont, 17–19, 43, 68–9, 111–12; approves of Protectorate’s religious policy, 74–6; compared to Hall, 119; compared to Harrington, 171, 177– 8; compared to Hawke, 86–7; compared to Marvell, 96; compared to Milton, 77, 79–85, 88; compared to other writers,

241

180–2, 184; compared to Vane, 149; compared to Waller, 90, 93; criticizes Harrington, 175–6; discusses Cromwell in The Excellencie of a Free-State, 71–4; discusses Cromwell in The True State of the Case of the Commonwealth, 70–1; as editor of Politicus, 55–61, 63–7; hates sects, 65–6, 75–6 Newcombe, Thomas, 118, 174; career, 43; prints Marvell’s works, 100; prints Nedham’s work, 70; relationship with Milton, 78 Nicholas, Edward, 121–2, 127 Nominated Assembly, 3, 23, 45–7, 87, 115, 160; censorship laws of, 10; Cromwell’s speech to, 49, 51, 155; in Milton’s writings, 84; Nedham’s opinion of, 71; in Politicus, 64; printers for, 43–4, 135; sectarian power in, 132–4; sects support, 136–8, 142, 153 Onslow, Sir Richard, 21, 32, 38 Owen, John, 82 Packe, Sir Christopher, 5–6 Penruddock’s Rising, 48, 117, 124, 195n.32 Powell, Vavasor, 142–3, 154, 159 Presbyterians, 6, 21, 72, 84, 126, 145 Pride’s Purge, 21, 126, 189n.2 propaganda, 9, 17, 41, 193n.1; deinition of, 41; in Politicus, 58, 67; used in the Civil War and Interregnum, 42; used by the Protectorate, 45–9, 53–4, 112, 163, 180

242

Index

providence: Broghill’s belief in, 21; in Cromwellian monarchists’ writings, 119; Cromwell’s belief in, 8, 158; in Cromwell’s speeches, 31–2; in Hawke’s writings, 88; in kingship committee’s arguments, 38; reason for Cromwell refusing the crown, 33, 60–1, 112, 143, 184; in sectarian writings, 137, 181–2; in Smith’s writings, 160; in Vane’s writings, 144; in Wither’s writings, 106–7 Quakers, 6, 28, 32, 74, 132, 144, 151; compared to Fifth Monarchists, 140, 149–52; despise kingship, 137, 162; feared by mps, 133; monitored by major-generals, 134; Nedham despises, 65, 76, 83; printing by, 43–4, 135–6, 161; write about Cromwell, 140–1 Ratcliffe, Thomas, 50, 52 republicanism, 15, 23, 70, 180; in Harrington’s writings, 164, 169– 71, 175; in historiography, 69; in Marvell’s writings, 94, 96; in Milton’s writings, 80–1; in Nedham’s writings, 61, 69–74; in Streater’s writings, 172–3 Reynolds, John, 39 Rogers, John, 136, 138–9, 149, 153–5 Roots, Ivan, 25–6, 190n.28 Rota Club, 174 royalists, 14, 21–2, 53, 82, 89, 93, 131, 181; attempt to live peacefully, 123; attempt uprisings, 124; comment on censorship, 56;

comment on Cromwell’s power, 120–2, 126–7; compared to other writers, 140, 178, 182; Cromwell compared to, 85, 146, 148; Harrington seeks to incorporate, 168; Marvell’s connection to, 94–7, 105; Nedham attempts to appeal to, 72; Nedham responds to, 72; pamphlets, 16–17, 84, 124–6, 129– 30, 185; pay decimation tax, 4; printers, 43; restrictions on, 48; satirical poetry, 127–9; support Cromwell, 113, 115–19; targeted by censorship laws, 11; view Cromwell as usurper, 113–14; Waller appeals to, 90–2 Rump Parliament, 38, 44, 80, 87, 90, 116, 125, 160; censorship laws of, 10–11; Cromwell complains about, 16; Cromwell dissolves, 3, 20, 45–6; dissolution reported in Politicus, 63–4; Harrington presents proposals to, 176; Harrington’s thoughts on, 166, 173; Marvell’s thoughts on, 97–8; Milton’s thoughts on, 81, 84; Nedham dislikes, 70–1, 73; sects’ reaction to, 136, 138– 9, 153; Streater’s thoughts on, 172–3; uses propaganda, 42; Vane’s thoughts on, 145; Whitelocke’s reaction to dissolution of, 24 Russell, Francis, 39 Sacheverel, George, 128, 204–5n.65 Second Protectoral Parliament: Broghill’s role in, 21–2; crises of, 4–5; Cromwell’s speeches to, 28;

Index

mps fear sects, 133; Oceana published during, 166; offers Cromwell the crown, 3–4, 6; second house established, 88; Vane imprisoned before, 147 Sexby, Edward, 4, 87 Simmons, Matthew, 77–8 Sindercomb, Miles, 4–5, 44, 162 Skippon, Major-General Philip, 133 Smith, George, 160 Spittlehouse, John: against tithes, 153; compares Cromwell to Moses, 165; criticizes Instrument of Government, 46; uses Cromwell’s speeches, 51–3; writes that Cromwell offends the godly, 153–4 Stainer, C.L., 25–7, 32, 190n.28 Stationers’ Company, 50, 105, 147 Streater, John, 171–4 Sturgeon, John, 150 Swift, William, 39–40 Thomason, George, 50, 53, 100, 117, 195n.37 Thurloe, John, 39; career, 43–4; foils Sindercomb’s plot, 5; involved in controlling printing, 8–9, 44, 47– 8, 71, 73, 138, 142–3, 150, 154, 182, 184; involved with Politicus, 55–61, 67; monitors religious sects, 133–4, 142; Politicus in opposition to, 64–6; relationship with Cromwell, 44; suppresses Fifth Monarchist revolt, 161–2 Titus, Silius, 126–7 Trapnel, Anna, 139–40, 144 Vane, Sir Henry, 43, 69; arrested, 147–8; attacks Harrington’s

243

ideas, 176; compares Cromwell to Charles Stuart, 148–9; discusses kingship, 145–7; relationship with Cromwell, 145 Waller, Edmund, 18, 43, 68, 89, 109; career, 90; compared with other writers, 105, 110–12, 180– 2; describes Cromwell in poems, 90–4 Walton, Izaak, 123 Watson, Richard, 93–4 Western Design, 8, 56; in sectarian writing, 157–9 Whalley, Major-General Edward, 39 Whitelock, Bulstrode: as ambassador to Sweden, 115; complains about Politicus, 56; describes Cromwell’s second house, 114– 15; describes Protectoral ceremonialism, 7; discusses kingship with Cromwell, 16, 20, 23; as member of the kingship committee, 33–4, 36–7, 39; notes Fifth Monarchist revolt, 161; possible author of Monarchy Asserted, 29–31; reasons for supporting Cromwellian kingship, 23–4 Winstanley, Gerard, 165 Wither, George, 18, 89, 105, 110– 12, 181–2, 184; describes Cromwell, 106–9 Wolseley, Sir Charles, 22–3, 33–4 Worcester, battle of, 158 Wood, Robert, 47, 50, 53 Worsley, Major-General Charles, 158