Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:01:35.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Political Groups and Tactics in the Convention of 1660

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. R. Jones
J. R. Jones
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Surprisingly little attention has been given by modern historians to the composition or the detailed proceedings of the Convention Parliament of 1660. The generalizations of past generations of historians have been accepted and transmitted. In particular, terms of description have been applied to the political and religious groups in this parliament without precise definition or even verification. Since the demolition work performed by Professor Hexter, few would use the terms ‘presbyterian’ or ‘independent’ in talking of groups in the Long Parliament, at least without qualifications and additional definition. Yet they are still generally and confidently used in speaking of major groups in the Convention. So too is the label ‘royalist’, a quite useless term to use of 1660, when all but a few members wanted the return of the King, whatever their attitude had been in the 1640's. Yet these terms are still used as if ‘royalist’ and ‘presbyterian’ denoted separate and mutually exclusive groups. Some historians also see nothing illogical in contrasting ‘presbyterian’ (which if it means anything is a religious classification) with ‘royalist’ (a political term).

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1963 , pp. 159 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hexter, J. H., Reappraisals in History (London, 1961), ch. 7, ‘The Problem of the Presbyterian Independents’.Google Scholar

2 See, for instance, Ogg, D., England in the Reign of Charles II (Oxford, 1934), I, 30–1Google Scholar; Trevelyan, G. M., England under the Stuarts (London, 1949), 277.Google Scholar

3 P‘ublic’ R‘ecord’ O‘ffice’, Baschet (transcripts); Bordeaux to Mazarin, 19 April, 3 and 6 May (N.S.), 1660.

4 Davies, G., ‘The General Election of 1660’, Huntington Library Quarterly, XV (1951–2), 220, 232Google Scholar; and his The Restoration of Charles II (San Marino, Calif., 1955), 331–2.Google Scholar

5 Brown, L. F., ‘The Religious Factors in the Convention Parliament’, English Historical Review, xxn (1907), 51–63. She did emphasize one important point, that 208 members were sitting for the first time.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 See Bosher, R. S., The Making of the Restoration Settlement (London, 1951), ch. iv, ‘The Recapture of the Establishment’.Google Scholar

7 H‘istorical’ M‘anuscripts’ C‘ommission’, Vth Report (Sutherland), 196.Google Scholar

8 In addition to the reports in Cobbett's Parl‘iamentary’ Hist‘ory of England’, iv (1808), use has been made of a manuscript Diary in the Bodleian (MS. deposit, 9) which is much fuller in its reports. For an account of this diary see C. Robbins, 'seymour Bowman Esq., M.P., Diarist of the Convention of 1660’, Notes and Queries, 196 (1951), 56–9.

9 Bosher, op. cit. 118–20.

10 Diary; not reported in Part. Hist. The six were Annesley, Bacon, Knight, Knightley, Stevens and Swinfen.

11 Stevens and Swinfen spoke on 28 November, and with Knightley also on 4 and 6 July. Knight opposed turning out ministers on 16 July. Annesley spoke frequently in favour of comprehension and defended ministers facing eviction (Diary).

12 There were ten former royalist members of the Long Parliament; 118 former parliamentarians, of whom 58 had been recruiters. Altogether at least 110 members can be identified as formerly active royalists during the civil war, rather more than 180 as active parliamentarians.

13 The Speaker, Sir Harbottle Grimston, was also a former 13 The Speaker parliamentarian member of the Long Parliament.

14 It is significant that there were no divisions on the principle of any of these matters.

15 P.R.O., Baschet, Bordeaux to Mazarin, 22 and 26 April (N.S.) 1660. Bodleian, Carte MSS., 30, fos. 576, 584. Ed. Routledge, F. J., Cal‘endar of the’ Clar‘endon\ S‘tate\ P‘apers’, iv (1932), 616.Google Scholar

16 He was one of the deputation sent to Charles II at The Hague. The Diary reports him as speaking in favour of clemency, for instance to Haselrig and Fleetwood, and against punitive action against Commonwealth officers. But on the crucial issues he expounded the Court line; helping to delay the bills of religion, speaking against purchasers of Crown lands, and arguing in favour of the excise as compensation for the abolition of wardship.

17 H.M.C. Vth Report (Sutherland), 205.

18 Cal. Clar. S.P,. iv, 681, Mordaunt to Hyde, 27 April 1660. P.R.O., Baschet, Bordeaux to Mazarin, 7 June 1660. See also M. Coate, ‘WilliamMoriceandtheRestorationofCharlesII’, English Historical Review, xxxiii (1918).

19 Identified with the ‘country opposition’ in the Cavalier Parliament, he strenuously opposed Exclusion in 1679–80, and became the chief Tory spokesman in the Convention of 1689. (J. R. Jones, The First Whigs (Oxford, 1961), 57n., 64, 70–1.)

20 Clarges spoke in favour of the bill on 6 November, but not on 28 November, Part. Hist. 141.

21 The following members can be identified as dependants or associates of Monk; Annesley, Clarges, Fairfax, Bethel, Cloberry, Morice, John Robinson, Col. Knight, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Birch, Rossiter, Sir Gilbert Gerrard, Sir Henry Wright, Sir William Doyley, Edward and Robert Harley, Edmund Petty, Col. Ireland, Sir Anthony Irby and Edward and George Montague.

22 P.R.O., Baschet, Bordeaux to Mazarin, 7 June 1660.

23 In the debate on 22 August Birch said that he was speaking on behalf of Haselrig by the desire of Monk (Part. Hist. 109). They secured the vote of £20,000 for Monk on 22 June. (C‘ommons’ J‘ournals’, vm, 71–2.)

24 The Autobiography of Sir John Bramston (Camden Society, 1845), 116–17. C.J. vm, 1.Google Scholar

25 C.J. viii, 52, 140. Cal. Clar. S.P. IV, 686. Ed. Rutt, J. T., Diary of Thomas Burton (London, 1828), H, 70, 73.Google Scholar

26 See the memoranda by Silas Titus, British Museum, Egerton MSS. 1533, fo. 55; and by Colonel Whitley, John Rylands Library, Mainwaring MSS., Manuscripts Books 24, 76–7.

27 Cal. Clar. S.P. iv, 603, 665–6, 674, 683.

28 It was an error to start the debate on 16 July with the outspoken Northcott; the diffuse debate on grievances, 14 December, which served no useful purpose, shows most of these faults. (Part. Hist. 160–2.)

29 The case of William Drake did not deserve the attention which it received on 17 and 20 November (Part. Hist. 145–6, 147–8). See Hyde's general comment, Continuation of the Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon (Oxford, 1759), 9–10.

30 As an example Col. King introduced a petition on 21 July, a Saturday and so a poor day for the development of the subject. Although the Court was prevented from throwing it out by 125 to 106, the debate petered out and was not resumed. (C.J. viii, 97. Diary. Not reported in Part. Hist.).

31 This debate (Diary; Parl. Hist. 71–5) had been introduced by a letter from the King asking for the speedy passage of the bill of indemnity. Prynne took the lead in suggesting exceptions and continued to do so throughout.

32 Diary; Parl. Hist. 76–7, an abridgement. Apart from Charlton, who lost his temper, Prynne was the only member to support this clause in its entirety; even vindictive former royalists like Thomas admitted that it was too sweeping to be amended, but would have to be withdrawn.

33 Diary. Moved by Col. Jones. Rejected by 180 to 151 (C.J. viii, 81). Parl. Hist. 77 does not make it clear that this debate was on 4, not 2, July.

34 Diary, 11 July. Parl. Hist. 81. Prynne was the worst, but by no means the only example of stultifying vindictiveness; on 18 June many former parliamentarians singled out their individual enemies or aversions; Goodrick against Dethick and Creed, Sir Ralph Ashton against Whitelocke, Wild and Stevens against Nye, Hopkins against Cobbet. (Diary; Parl Hist. 73–5.

35 Diary; Parl. Hist. 76.

36 The reference was made by Clarges, whose motive was presumably to except fanatics, but his intervention imperilled the whole bill. (Diary; Parl. Hist. 94.)

37 On 7 December, when he was seconded by Titus, Parl. Hist. 158.

38 C.J. viil, 8, 11, 49. The full title was ‘ a Bill for Confirmation of the Privileges of Parliament, Magna Carta, Statutum de Talagio non concedendo, the Petition of Right and other Acts’. It received a second reading on 29 May, but got no further.

39 Carte MSS, 30, fo. 592; Prynne to Charles II, 2 May 1660.

40 Carte MSS. 30, fo. 582. Cal. Clar. S.P. iv, 682.

41 He urged agreement with the Lords’ amendments (Diary, n, 17, 18 July) but spoke for the bill of Religion on 9 July, and twice on 16 July.

42 Diary, 2 July. Not reported in Parl. Hist.

43 On 27 November, Parl. Hist. 151.

44 On 17 December, Parl. Hist. 162.

45 On 4 December, Parl. Hist. 156. The difference between them and Col. King was that, in addition to (and because of ?) receiving cash rewards, they supported the Court line on religion as well as politics.

46 H.M.C. Vth Report (Sutherland), 168.Google Scholar

47 He was also knighted, and became Speaker of the next Parliament in 1661. He had more parliamentary experience than most of the managers, having sat in 1656 and 1659. Instead of royalists it was former cromwellians who suffered expulsion—Robert Wallop, Francis Lassells, Luke Robinson and Col. Hutchinson.

48 C.J.viii,4, 11.

49 Rutt, Diary of Thomas Burton, in, 435.

50 Diary, 9 July.

51 See Finch's speech on 30 July (Diary), when he argued that the bill for ministers was not in accordance with the votes of the committee. Up to 31 May Finch was named to fourteen committees, Turner to nine and Charlton to ten.

52 Carte MSS. 30, fo. 667, Lord Aungier to Ormonde, 22 May 1660. H.M.C. Vth Report (Sutherland), 181. H. N. Mukerjee, ‘An Early Instance of the Parliamentary Whip’, Notes and Queries, 166 (1934), 239.

53 Diary, on 16 July. The report in Part. Hist. 82–4 is very much abridged. Part of his duties consisted of putting forward motions for discussion and, at the appropriate time, urging that the question should be put and voted on.

54 C.J. viii, 91.

55 An example of this prescience can be seen on 6 July (Diary), when Charlton urged amendment of a proviso, but the more impetuous Court members forced a division, and were defeated. On 9 July the managers changed their tactics in mid-debate, moving adjournment when they saw that outright rejection was beyond their reach. The debate on 27 November (Part. Hist. 151) is a good example of Finch and Charlton working together, and completely outmanoeuvring King, Boscawen and Prynne.

56 C.y. viii, 74. This petition complained of proceedings by the chancellor, the Marquess of Hertford; the debate is not reported in Part. Hist.

57 The full title was ‘an Act for the maintenance of the true reformed Protestant Religion, and for the Suppression of Popery, Superstition, Profaneness, and other Disorders and Innovations in Worship and Ceremonies’. The last few words are the ones with controversial implications.

58 Diary. Not reported in Part. Hist.

59 Diary. Part. Hist. 79–80, a much abridged report. Broderick, who spoke twice, repeated Williams's argument but enlarged it by moving for a national synod.

60 Bosher, op. cit. 168—9, m which he misinterprets the attitude of Widdrington, Grove and Edward Stevens, who were supporters of comprehension.

61 Part. Hist. 80.

62 Diary. Parl. Hist

63 Walpole, who later got a K.B., was the grandfather of the eighteenth-century Whig statesman.

64 Diary; Part. Hist. 82–4.

65 Diary; not reported in Part. Hist. It was poor compensation when a motion passed, asking the King to issue a proclamation against drunkenness, swearing, sabbath-breaking and other profaneness (C.J. viii, 95).

66 Diary; not reported in Parl. Hist. C.J. viii, 104.

67 Diary. C.J. viii, 106.

68 C.J. viii, 148.

69 On 2 July by Bampfield, on 9 August by Wild (Diary, neither reported in Parl. Hist.). On 27 November by Boscawen and Col. King (Parl. Hist. 151).

70 Diary, 2 July. Parl. Hist. 76.

71 And in the second session debates on the public debt, and the important question of compensatory revenues for the King after the abolition of wardship (19, 21, 27 November).

72 Hyde commented, ‘that party that was in Truth devoted to the King and to the old Principles of Church and of State…thought not fit so to cross the Presbyterians as to make them desperate…but diverted the Argument by proposing other Subjects of more immediate Relation to the publick Peace’ (Continuation of the Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon(Oxford, 1759), 9–10). For an example see the debate on 4 July (Diary) when Charlton moved for the bill of indemnity in an attempt to stifle complaints against orders by the Lords on the subject of ejected ministers.Google Scholar

73 Diary; Parl. Hist. 74.

74 Diary, debate on 1 August, when the managers saw that an inquiry into alleged embezzlements would be rejected. See also H.M.C. Vth Report (Sutherland), 194.

75 Diary; Parl. Hist. 76.

76 C.J. VIII, 81.

77 C.J. VIII, 83.

78 Diary. Not reported in Parl. Hist.

79 Bosher, op. cit. 195–8. The text is in Parl. Hist. 131–41.

80 The Court, on the other hand, made a concerted attempt to create a diversion by moving that the Book of Common Prayer should be read in the house (Parl. Hist. 141–2).

81 There was an unusually large number of by-elections for such a short-lived Parliament. Five members died, others received legal appointments or peerages, four were expelled, but the greatest number arose from members being returned for more than one constituency. Monk was elected for Cambridge University as well as for Devon, opting for the latter; he was replaced at the former by William Montague, at the latter (when he went to the Lords) by a conspicuous former royalist in Sir Edward Seymour. Similarly Bullen Reymes replaced Edward Montague at Weymouth when he opted for Dover; when he got a peerage the latter was succeeded by George Montague.

82 C.J. viii, 18, 33, 59, 70. See also Mukerjee, H. N., ‘Elections for the Convention and Cavalier Parliaments’, Notes and Queries, 166 (1934), 402—3.Google Scholar

83 For instance the committee seated Thomas Saunders for Wallingford, rejecting Sir Humphrey Bennet; the elections for Gatton and Camelford, where former royalists were concerned, were declared void. It was said at the time that double returns had been purposely multiplied in order to prejudice former royalists, but the decision as to who should sit pending the hearing of cases was determined by whether or not a contestant had been returned by the proper officer (C.J. viii, 3, 12, 13, 62, 106, 115, 117).

84 P.R.O., Baschet, Ruvigny to Mazarin, 1 September 1660. H.M.C. Vth Report {Sutherland), 154.

85 On 21 August on an amendment to the ministers’ bill (C.J. viii, 129).

86 Bosher, op. cit. 180.

87 At least 129 members can be identified as receiving offices, honours or grants during 1660. They fall into six broad categories: (1) those former royalists whose services were needed by the Court—the managers, Finch, Charlton and Turner—and also others who were to become useful—Falkland, Sir Frederick Cornwallis and Gilbert Gerard; (2) fortunate former royalists whose grants can be regarded as compensation for former losses; some of these men were obscure, like Kenrick Eyton, more were well connected; (3) formerly active agents in the royalist underground, such as Roger Whitley; (4) dependants and followers of key figures in the Restoration, of Monk, Montague and Manchester; (5) those who had either outstanding qualifications for office—Sir William Penn and Sir George Downing—or the money to buy in Clarendon's market (Grimston's £4000 for the Mastership of the Rolls); (6) leading lawyers.

88 H.M.C. Vth Report (Sutherland),200.Google Scholar