ter

Blake

rallying with great difficulty his disordered convoy, and gradually ste retiring along the French coast in order to reach that of his own country. He succeeded in this design on the fourth day after his encounter with Blake, by dint of persevering and intelligent courage, but after having lost, according to the statements of the Dutch, nine ships of war and twenty-four merchantmen, and, according to the English reports, seventeen ships of the first class and more than forty of the second. The States-General, in this emergency, proved themselves worthy of being so faithfully served, for they acted with justice: not only did they express their gratitude to Tromp, Ruyter, Evertz, and Floritz, but, in order to give them an unmistakable proof of their approbation, they made them rich presents, to which the particular States of the province of Holland added gifts of their own. The Parliament, on its side, gave way, somewhat noisily perhaps, to transports of joy; not only did it address official thanks to the commanders of the squadron, and take measures, first by opening a subscription, and afterwards, in the name of the State, to provide for the families of the men who had fallen in the action; but it appointed the celebration of a solemn service of thanksgiving throughout the dominions of the Commonwealth. Wherever the Dutch prisoners landed, they were escorted to London by troops of horse, and in all the towns through which they passed, the bells rang merry peals in celebration of a victory, which had been preceded by such intense anxiety, and which had cost such desperate efforts.'

It was at once real and futile; it was an additional vicissitude in a struggle already full of vicissitudes, but not one of those triumphs which definitively settle questions, and decide the fate of nations. Victorious not long before, the United Provinces were now defeated, but not despondent; it soon became known that a new fleet was in preparation in their ports: whoever was the victor, the war only became more ruinous and desperate after every battle.

The Catholic powers of the Continent, France and Spain especially, watched with secret satisfaction this ardent conflict between the two Protestant republics; which, in spite of all their expressions of courtesy, they regarded, in reality, with distrust and ill-will. The English Parliament had found it impossible either to remain

1 Whitelocke, p. 551; Dixon's Life of Blake, pp. 230-244; Old Parliamentary History, vol. xx. pp. 116-121; Memorials of Sir William Penn, vol. i. pp. 472-485; Wicquefort's Histoire des Provinces Unies, vol. iv. pp. 886-339; Leclerc's Histoire des Provinces Unies, vol. ii. pp. 128-333; Brandt's Life of Ruyter, pp. 28-32.

N

really neutral between the Courts of Paris and Madrid, or to secure, by a decided choice, an alliance with either of them; in its indecision, it had always inclined towards Spain, whose inert and feeble policy could lend it no effectual assistance, and had constantly manifested a kind of hostile coolness towards France, whose ambitious activity and increasing strength might have rendered her a most useful ally. Both Courts remained motionless, seeking rather to aggravate than to terminate the war. The Protestant Courts of the North, on their side-Sweden and Denmark, among others were divided between the two rival republics: the King of Denmark, Frederick III., after having first made the most marked advances in London, took the side of the United Provinces, with which he was connected by commercial interests and prior treaties; Queen Christina of Sweden showed some favour rather towards the British Commonwealth, but did not declare herself on its side, or lend it any assistance.1 The ambitious and short-sighted arrogance of the republican Parliament had thrown all the foreign relations of England into disorder, and forced it to adopt a policy which set it at variance with its natural friends, without anywhere providing it with

other allies.

At home this policy imposed enormous burdens on the nation, and necessitated an increase of tyranny on the part of the new government. It was requisite to maintain the army constantly on a war-footing, to defend the Commonwealth against the disaffection of the country; and incessantly to augment the fleet, to defend the country against foreign foes. In December, 1652, the Parliament voted 120,000l. per month for this double defence during the coming year,-80,000l. for the army, and 40,000l. for the fleet; and new acts of a special character were passed on several occasions, during the course of 1653, to supply the deficiencies of this inadequate budget. And as the public taxes, although very heavy, were not enough to meet such necessities, recourse was constantly had, either to further sales of crown or church lands, or to fresh confiscations either of the revenues, or of the entire property, of delinquent royalists. In November, 1652, the Parlia ment voted that the parks and palaces of Windsor and Hampton Court, Hyde Park, Greenwich Park, and Somerset House, should be sold, and that the proceeds should be devoted to the expenses of the navy; bills were also proposed for the sale of the royal forests, and even of several cathedrals, which it was doubtless intended to

1 Leclerc's Histoire des Provinces Unies, vol. ii. pp. 326, 327; Wicquefort's Histoire des Provinces Unies, vol. iv. pp. 352-361; Commons' Journals, vol. vii. pp. 103, 104, 119, 133, 135, 137, 149, 182, 190, 191, 194, 203, 234.

to Seco

nd fer

demolish. Many of these measures were either not carried into effect, or were afterwards revoked; but the confiscations and fines inflicted on the royalists were always rigorously levied. In 1651, at the time when the negotiations with the United Provinces were broken off, seventy wealthy Cavaliers were condemned to the confiscation of all their property, both real and personal: during the following year, amid the exigencies of the war, twenty-nine others suffered the same fate; and six hundred and ninetytwo others were allowed to ransom their sequestrated possessions only by paying one-third of the value to the Commonwealth within four months.' Civil tyranny thus undertook to supply the necessities which an unwise foreign policy had created.

A united and unopposed government would have found it exceedingly difficult to endure such a burden for any length of time. The republican Parliament, with all its feverish enthusiasm, was weak and tottering; for it was rent by violent internal dissensions, and Cromwell, at once powerful and at leisure, made it his sole business to turn its faults to his own advantage, and to undermine the ground beneath its feet.

1 Commons' Journals, vol. vi. p. 604; vol. vii. pp. 160, 211, 212, 216, 222, 224; Old Parliamentary History, vol. xx. pp. 103-113; Scobell's Collection of Acts, pp. 156, 210.

BOOK IV.

CONFLICT BETWEEN CROMWELL AND THE PARLIAMENT ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN A REDUCTION OF THE ARMY-PROPOSITION OF A GENERAL AMNESTY AND A NEW ELECTORAL LAW-PROJECTS OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS REFORM-CONVERSATION BETWEEN CROMWELL AND THE PRINCIPAL LEADERS OF THE PARLIAMENT AND ARMY-PETITION OF THE ARMY IN FAVOUR OF REFORM, AND FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PARLIAMENT-CHARGES OF CORRUPTION AGAINST THE PARLIAMENT-IT ATTEMPTS TO PERPETUATE ITS EXISTENCE BY SANCTIONING NEW ELECTIONS-URGENCY OF THE CRISIS-CROMWELL DISSOLVES THE PARLIAMENT.

ON the 9th of September, 1651, three days after the Parliament had appointed four of its members to wait upon Cromwell, and offer him their most thankful congratulations upon the victory of Worcester, it voted that the charges of the Commonwealth should be lessened without delay, and directed the Council of State and the Committee of the Army to furnish it with a return of all the forces then on foot, that it might consider how the army might be most conveniently reduced, and the expenses of the State diminished. On the following day it was resolved, that four thousand cavalry and four thousand infantry should be disbanded. Six days afterwards, Cromwell, on resuming his seat in the House, received the solemn thanks of the Speaker, a gift of lands of the yearly value of four thousand pounds, and the palace of Hampton Court as a residence; but at the same time the House referred it to the Council of State to consider what forces were necessary to be kept up for the safety of the country; and in consequence, on the 2nd of October, it determined that five regiments of foot and three regiments of horse should be dismissed, that a large number of garrisons should be reduced, and that the army should be left at an establishment of about twenty-five thousand men, whereby a saving of thirty-five thousand pounds per month would be effected.1

These measures were evidently dictated by a regard for the

1 Commons' Journals, vol. vii. pp. 15, 18, 19, 23.

public interest: the country groaned beneath the weight of taxation, and it was to be expected that victory would remove at least a part of the burdens imposed by war. But apart from these considerations, the attitude of the Parliament disclosed the prevalence of other feelings and other motives: in its anxiety to disband the troops, its chief object was to weaken a dangerous rival. Such an attempt must be perilous, however necessary and legitimate; revolutionary governments are never welcome to break the sword which has saved their life; the service is so great that they can never adequately reward or forget it, and their prudential measures to check ill-satisfied ambition are regarded as evidences of ingratitude and fear. Those powers only, which are based upon right, and sanctioned by time, can recompense and disarm great conquerors without fear of making them their masters.

Cromwell made no resistance, no objection even; the measure was too natural, and too indisputably necessary to admit of opposition. He was, moreover, greatly pleased at the dismissal of the militia regiments, whose independent habits, and patriotic rather than military spirit, were by no means agreeable to him. But too clear-sighted to mistake the intentions of the Parliament, he hastened, in his turn, to take precautions, and prepare to be avenged upon it. At his instigation, and with his support, two propositions, both popular in the country, although with different parties, were immediately revived, and carried with all expedition. through the House: these were a general amnesty, and an electoral law to regulate the period of the dissolution of the Parliament, and the nomination of its successors. Neither of these propositions was a new one; for more than two years they had figured among the number of those questions which the Parliament announced its intention to determine, and which it made some show of taking into consideration. On the 25th of April, 1649, it had decided, upon the report of Ireton, that an Act of amnesty should be prepared,the basis of such an Act had been indicated by the House. The bill was produced, read a first and second time on the 5th of July, and referred to a committee, which was to meet on the following day; after which, nothing more was heard of it. At about the same period, on the 15th of May, 1649, a committee had been appointed to prepare a law for the election of future Parliaments. On the 9th of January, 1650, Vane made a long report on this subject, in which the principles of the new electoral system were set forth the House resolved that it would meet once a-week to discuss the measure; and during the years 1650 and 1651, fortyeight sittings were actually held, or at least convoked, for this