THE HISTORY O F ENGLAND. Written in FRENCH by M. RAPIN DE THOYRAS. Tranflated into ENGLISH, with Additional Notes, by ILLUSTRATED WITH MAPS, GENEALOGICAL TABLES, and the HEADS The FOURTH EDITION, corrected. VOL. XI. LONDON: Printed, by Affignment from Mr. Knapton, for T. OSBORNE and J. SHIPTON, J. HODGES, J. ROBINSON, MDCCLVII. THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND. The hiftory of the INTER-REGNUM, from the death of CHARLES I. to the restoration of CHARLES II. The history of the Inter-regnum is divided into three principal parts. The first contains what paffed, whilft England was reduced to a DEMOCRACY. The fecond, what happened during the protectorates of OLIVER and RICHARD CROMWELL. The third, what passed from the deprivation of RICHARD CROMWELL, to the refloration of CHARLES II. T PART I. The Commonwealth of ENGLAND. O understand the revolutions in England after the 1649. will not be amifs to make here a fhort recapitulation. First, The parliament now fitting confifted properly but A recapituof a houfe of commons, who refufed to acknowledge the lation of A 2 fome impor nega- tar & matters. 1649. megative voice of the peers. This they had manifeftly fhowed in erecting a court of juftice to try the king without the concurrence of the lords, whofe confent was voted unneceffary. Secondly, This houfe of commons was compofed of a fmall number of members, all independents, anabaptifts, or other fectaries. All the prefbyterian members who fat in the house the 6th of December were expelled by the army; and the absent, whofe principles agreed not with those of the independents, durft not resume their places. If ever there was an ufurpation, it was this mutilated parliament's government, founded only in violence, and wholly supported by the army. For though the house of commons pretended to represent the people of England, it is very certain, the nation afforded but few perfons, who were pleased to fee the fovereign power lodged in the hands of fuch reprefentatives. Thirdly, The independents, of whom this house was chiefly compofed, were diftinguished by two principles, one relating to the civil, the other to the ecclefiaftical government. By the firft, they afferted, that the republican government was not only the most perfect, but also absolutely neceflary for England, after fo many oppreffions from her kings, who had changed the government into a real tyranny. With regard to religion, though they called themfelves proteftants, their principle was, that every particular church was independent, and might be governed as the members thought proper. Their notions concerning the vocation of the minifters of the gofpel, were also very fingular, as they believed that, without any other call, every man was free to difcharge the office of minifter, and ufe the talents given him by God. The other fectaries, who had joined the independents because they found in that party a full toleration, were united with them in the firft of thefe principles, and had declared for a republican government. But with respect to religion, there were between them fome differences, which the independents regarded the lefs, as they wanted to increase their adherents, and befides, believed that in matters of religion, toleration was abfolutely neceffary. Fourthly, There was ftill in the army a remnant of levellers, who ftill adhered to their principles, and were always ready for any attempt to recover their credit. It' is true, Cromwell, after having himfelf raised this faction, had in fome measure difperfed, but not entirely deftroyed it. An able leader would have made it as formidable as ever. Fifthly, Fifthly, It was with the utmost concern that the prefbyterians faw the independents in poffeffion of fovereign power. By that all their measures were broken: their progress for eight years became fruitlefs, and the ftorm they had raised against the king, returned upon their own heads, or at least, it was apparent, they had all this while been labouring for others without any thing done for themselves. For indeed the independents were equally enemies to prefbyterian and epifcopal government. As to civil government, it is certain, the prefbyterians were not averfe to royalty in general. If they had undertaken to limit its power, it was not from a belief that the thing was evil in itself, as established by the laws of England, but because the two laft kings had used their power to destroy prefbyterianifm. So, whatever they had done against king Charles I. was not pointed so much against his dignity as his perfon, because they confidered him as their enemy, and defpaired of establishing a presbyterian government in the church, fo long as he had power to prevent it. Very likely however many of them would have complied with a republican government, notwithstanding the tenour of the covenant, had that government not been in the hands of the independents, who were by no means inclined to fupport prefbyterianifm, and whofe principles upon toleration were entirely rejected by the prefbyterians. And therefore an union between the prefbyterians and independents was morally impoffible. Sixthly, The royalifts, equally enemies of both, could unite with neither of the parties, confidering the oppofition there was between their principles. The independents were for a commonwealth, to which the royalifts could not confent. On the other hand, the presbyterians were for maintaining their government in the church, and most of the royalifts could hardly believe, the prefbyterian churches, as they had no bishops, to be true chriftian churches. Thus the royalifts, though perfecuted by both parties, were far from joining with either. On the contrary, they conceived fome hopes, that the divifion among their enemies would, one day, give them a good opportunity to reftore the monarchy to its former ftate. Wherefore they induftriously fomented this divifion, in expectation that the prefbyterians would at last be obliged to abandon their projects, and unite with the royal party, to free themselves from the perfecutions they fuffered. Such were the interefts of the parties which divided the people of England immediately after the death of Charles I. 1649. |