rel="nofollow" href="#n364" type="note">364 The Earl of Bedford, though he had received a military command, did not hesitate to abandon those who conferred it. This apostate noble fled from Westminster to Oxford: but finding that the king, who never forgave his enemies, did not receive him with the favour he expected, he returned to London; where, though he was allowed to remain in safety, it could not be supposed that he should again experience the confidence of parliament.365
Such examples as these were not likely to lessen the distrust which both parties felt for each other. It soon became evident that a war of classes was unavoidable, and that the rebellion of the parliament against the king must be reinforced by a rebellion of the people against the nobles.366 To this the popular party, whatever may have been their first intention, now willingly agreed. In 1645 they enacted a law, by which not only the Earl of Essex and the Earl of Manchester lost their command, but all members of either house were made incapable of military service.367 And, only a week after the execution of the king, they formally took away the legislative power of the peers; putting at the same time on record their memorable opinion, that the House of Lords is ‘useless, dangerous, and ought to be abolished.’368
But we may find proofs still more convincing of the true character of the English rebellion, if we consider who those were by whom it was accomplished. This will show us the democratic nature of a movement which lawyers and antiquaries have vainly attempted to shelter under the form of constitutional precedent. Our great rebellion was the work, not of men who looked behind, but of men who looked before. To attempt to trace it to personal and temporary causes; to ascribe this unparalleled outbreak to a dispute respecting ship-money, or to a quarrel about the privileges of parliament, can only suit the habits of those historians who see no further than the preamble of a statute, or the decision of a judge. Such writers forget that the trial of Hampden, and the impeachment of the five members, could have produced no effect on the country, unless the people had already been prepared, and unless the spirit of inquiry and insubordination had so increased the discontents of men, as to put them in a state, where, the train being laid, the slightest spark sufficed to kindle a conflagration.
The truth is, that the rebellion was an outbreak of the democratic spirit. It was the political form of a movement, of which the Reformation was the religious form. As the Reformation was aided, not by men in high ecclesiastical offices, not by great cardinals or wealthy bishops, but by men filling the lowest and most subordinate posts, just so was the English rebellion a movement from below, an uprising from the foundations, or as some will have it, the dregs of society. The few persons of high rank who adhered to the popular cause were quickly discarded, and the ease and rapidity with which they fell off was a clear indication of the turn that things were taking. Directly the army was freed from its noble leaders, and supplied with officers drawn from the lower classes, the fortune of war changed, the royalists were every where defeated, and the king made prisoner by his own subjects. Between his capture and execution, the two most important political events were his abduction by Joyce, and the forcible expulsion from the House of Commons of those members who were thought likely to interfere in his favour. Both these decisive steps were taken, and indeed only could have been taken, by men of great personal influence, and of a bold and resolute spirit. Joyce, who carried off the king, and who was highly respected in the army, had, however, been recently a common working tailor;369 while Colonel Pride, whose name is preserved in history as having purged the House of Commons of the malignants, was about on a level with Joyce, since his original occupation was that of a drayman.370 The tailor and the drayman were, in that age, strong enough to direct the course of public affairs, and to win for themselves a conspicuous position in the state. After the execution of Charles, the same tendency was displayed, the old monarchy being destroyed, that small but active party known as the fifth-monarchy men increased in importance, and for a time exercised considerable influence. Their three principal and most distinguished members were Venner, Tuffnel, and Okey. Venner, who was the leader, was a wine-cooper;371 Tuffnel, who was second in command, was a carpenter;372 and Okey, though he became a colonel, had filled the menial office of stoker in an Islington brewery.373
Nor are these to be regarded as exceptional cases. In that period, promotion depended solely on merit; and if a man had ability he was sure to rise, no matter what his birth or former avocations might have been. Cromwell himself was a brewer;374 and Colonel Jones, his brother-in-law, had been servant to a private gentleman.375 Deane was the servant of a tradesman; but he became an admiral, and was made one of the commissioners of the navy.376 Colonel Goffe had been apprentice to a drysalter;377 Major-general Whalley had been apprentice to a draper.378 Skippon, a common soldier who had received no education,379 was appointed commander of the London militia; he was raised to the office of sergeant-major-general of the army; he was declared commander-in-chief in Ireland; and he became one of the fourteen members of Cromwell's council.380 Two of the lieutenants of the Tower were Berkstead and Tichborne. Berkstead was a pedlar, or at all events a hawker of small wares;381 and Tichborne, who was a linendraper, not only received the lieutenancy of the Tower, but became a colonel, and a member of the committee of state in 1655, and of the council of state in 1659.382 Other trades were equally successful; the highest prizes being open to all men, provided they displayed the requisite capacity. Colonel Harvey was a silk-mercer;383 so was Colonel Rowe;384 so also was Colonel Venn.385 Salway had been apprentice to a grocer, but, being an able man, he rose to the rank of major in the army; he received the king's remembrancer's office; and in 1659 he was appointed by parliament a member of the council of state.386 Around that council-board were also gathered Bond the draper,387 and Cawley the brewer;388 while by their side we find John Berners, who is said to have been a private servant,389 and Cornelius Holland, who is known to have been a servant, and who was, indeed, formerly a link-boy.390 Among others who were now favoured and promoted to offices of trust, were Packe the woollen-draper,391 Pury the weaver,392 and Pemble the tailor.393 The parliament which was summoned in 1653 is still remembered as Barebone's parliament, being so called after one of its most active members, whose name was Barebone, and who was a leather-seller in Fleet Street.394 Thus too, Downing, though a poor charity-boy,395 became teller of the exchequer, and representative of England at the Hague.396 To these we may add, that Colonel Horton had been a gentleman's servant;397 Colonel Berry had been a woodmonger;398 Colonel Cooper a haberdasher;399 Major Rolfe a shoemaker;400 Colonel Fox a tinker;401 and Colonel Hewson a cobbler.
Compare
Dr. Bates, who had been physician to Cromwell, intimates that this was foreseen from the beginning. He says, that the popular party offered command to some of the nobles, ‘not that they had any respect for the lords, whom shortly they intended to turn out and to level with the commoners, but that they might poison them with their own venom, and rise to greater authority by drawing more over to their side.’
This was the ‘Self-denying Ordinance,’ which was introduced in December, 1644; but, owing to the resistance of the peers, was not carried until the subsequent April.
On this great Epoch in the history of England, see
‘Cornet Joyce, who was one of the agitators in the army, a tailor, a fellow who had two or three years before served in a very inferior employment in Mr. Hollis's house.’
Ludlow (
‘The fifth-monarchy, headed mainly by one Venner, a wine-cooper.’
‘The second to Venner was one Tuffnel a carpenter living in Gray's Inn Lane.’
‘He was stoaker in a brewhouse at Islington, and next a most poor chandler near Lion-Key, in Thames Street.’
Some of the clumsy eulogists of Cromwell wish to suppress the fact of his being a brewer; but that he really practised that useful trade is attested by a variety of evidence, and is distinctly stated by his own physician, Dr. Bates.
‘John Jones, at first a serving-man, then a colonel of the Long Parliament, … married the Protector's sister.’
‘Richard Deane, Esq., is said to have been a servant to one Button, a toyman in Ipswich, and to have himself been the son of a person in the same employment; … was appointed one of the commissioners of the navy with Popham and Blake, and in April (1649) he became an admiral and general at sea.’
‘Apprentice to one Vaughan a dry-salter.’
‘Bound apprentice to a woollen-draper.’
‘Altogether illiterate.’
‘Berkstead, who heretofore sold needles, bodkins, and thimbles, and would have run on an errand any where for a little money; but who now by Cromwell was preferred to the honourable charge of lieutenant of the Tower of London.’
‘Edward Harvy, late a poor silk-man, now colonel, and hath got the Bishop of London's house and manor of Fulham.’
Owen Rowe, ‘put to the trade of a silk-mercer, … went into the parliament army, and became a colonel.’
‘A silkman in London; … went into the army, and rose to the rank of colonel.’
He was ‘a woollen-draper at Dorchester,’ and was ‘one of the council of state in 1649 and 1651.’
‘A brewer in Chichester; … in 1650–1 he was appointed one of the council of state.’
John Berners, ‘supposed to have been originally a serving-man,’ was ‘one of the council of state in 1659,’
‘Holland the link-boy,’
‘A poor child bred upon charity.’
See
