Editing Long Parliament (section)

==Recall of the Rump (7 May 1659&nbsp;– 20 February 1660)==
After [[Richard Cromwell]], who had succeeded his father [[Oliver Cromwell|Oliver]] as [[Lord Protector]] in 1658, was effectively deposed by an officers' [[coup d'état|coup]] in April 1659, the officers re-summoned the Rump Parliament to sit. It convened on 7 May 1659, but after five months in power it again clashed with the army (led by [[John Lambert (general)|John Lambert]]) and was again forcibly dissolved on 13 October 1659. Once again, Sir Henry Vane was the leading catalyst for the republican cause in opposition to force by the military.{{sfn|Upham|1842|pp=291–294}}

The persons connected with the administration as it existed at the death of Oliver were, of course, interested in keeping things as they were. Also, it was necessary for someone to assume the reins of government until the public will could be ascertained and brought into exercise. Henry Vane was elected to Parliament at Kingston upon Hull, but the certificate was given to another. Vane proceeded to Bristol, entered the canvass, and received the majority. Again the certificate was given to another. Finally Vane proceeded to Whitechurch in Hampshire and was elected a third time and was this time seated in Parliament. Vane managed the debates on behalf of the House of Commons. One of Vane's speeches effectively ended Richard Cromwell's career:{{sfn|Upham|1842|pp=291–294}}

{{Blockquote|Mr. Speaker, among all the people of the universe, I know none who have shown so much zeal for the liberty of their country, as the English, at this time, have done. They have, by the help of Divine Providence, overcome all obstacles, and have made themselves free&nbsp;... I know not by what misfortune, we are fallen into the error of those, who poised the Emperor Titus to make room for Domitian, who made away Augustus that they might have Tiberius, and changed Claudius for Nero&nbsp;... whereas the people of England are now renowned, all over the world, for their great virtue and discipline; and yet suffer an idiot, without courage, without sense, nay, without ambition, to have dominion in a country of liberty. One could bear a little with Oliver Cromwell, though, contrary to his oath of fidelity to Parliament, contrary to his duty to the public,&nbsp;... But as for Richard Cromwell, his son, who is he?  Where are his titles&nbsp;... For my part, I declare, Sir, it shall never be said that I made such a man my master.{{sfn|Upham|1842|pp=291–294}}}}

This speech swept everything before it. The Rump Parliament which Oliver Cromwell had dispersed in 1653 was once more summoned to assemble, by a declaration from the [[Council of Officers]] dated on 6 May 1659.{{sfn|Upham|1842|pp=291–294}}

Edmond Ludlow made several attempts to reconcile the army and parliament in this time period but was ultimately unsuccessful. Parliament ordered the regiments of Colonel Morley and Colonel Moss to march to Westminster for their security, and sent for the rest of the troops that were about London to draw down to them also with all speed.<ref>{{harvnb|Ludlow|1894|p=137}} cites ''Weekly Intelligencer'', 11–18 October 1659; ''Declaration'' of the officers of the army 27 October 1659; Crate, ''Original Letters'', ii.247</ref>

In October 1659, Colonel Lambert and various subordinate members of the army, acting in the military interest, resisted Colonel Morley and others who were defending the rump Parliament. Colonel Lambert, Major Grimes, and Colonel Sydenham eventually gained their points, and placed guards both by land and water, to hinder the members of Parliament from approaching the House. Colonel Lambert subsequently acquitted himself to Henry Vane the Younger, Edmond Ludlow and the "Committee on Safety," an instrument of the [[Wallingford House party]] acting under their misdirection.{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|pp=137–140}}

Nevertheless, Parliament was closed once again by military force until such time that the army and leaders of Parliament could effect a resolution. Rule then passed to an unelected ''[[Committee of Safety (England)|Committee of Safety]]'', including Lambert and Vane; pending a resolution or compromise with the Army.

During these disorders, the Council of State still assembled at the usual place, and:
{{Quote|the Lord President [[John Bradshaw (judge)|Bradshaw]], who was present, though by long sickness very weak and much extenuated, yet animated by his ardent zeal and constant affection to the common cause, upon hearing [[William Sydenham|Col Syndenham's]] justifications of the proceedings of the army in again disrupting parliament, stood up and interrupted him, declaring his abhorrence of that detestable action, and telling the council, that being now going to his God, he had not patience to sit there to hear his great name so openly blasphemed; and thereupon departed to his lodgings, and withdrew himself from public employment.{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|pp=140–141}} }}

The Council of Officers at first attempted to come to some agreement with the leaders of Parliament.<ref>{{harvnb|Ludlow|1894|p=141}} cites: Guizot, ''Richard Cromwell'', ii. 267, and the proceedings of the Council of officers on 15 October</ref>  On 15 October 1659, the Council of Officers appointed ten persons to "consider of fit ways and means to carry on the affairs and government of the Commonwealth".  On 26 October 1659 the Council of Officers appointed a new Committee of Safety of twenty-three members.<ref>{{harvnb|Ludlow|1894|p=141}} cites: ''A True Narrative'', pp. 21, 41; Guizot [''Richard Cromwell''], ii. 272.</ref>

On 1 November 1659, the Committee of Safety nominated a committee "to consider of and prepare a form of government to be settled over the three nations in the way of a free state and Commonwealth, and afterwards to present it to the Committee of Safety for their further considerations".<ref>{{harvnb|Ludlow|1894|p=149}} cites: Guizot, ''Richard Cromwell'', ii. 284</ref>

The designs of General Fleetwood of the army and the [[Wallingford House party]] were now suspected as being in a possible alliance with [[Charles II of England|Charles II]].{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|p=164}} According to Edmond Ludlow: {{quote|The [[Wallingford House party]], as if infatuated by a superior power to procure their own destruction, continued obstinately to oppose the Parliament, and fixed in their resolution to call another (that is a reformed Parliament more agreeable to their interests). On the other side, I was sorry to find most of the Parliament men as stiff, in requiring an absolute submission to their authority as if no differences had happened among us, nor the privileges of Parliament ever been violated, peremptorily insisting upon the entire subjection of the army, and refusing to hearken to any terms of accommodation, though the necessity of affairs seemed to demand it, if we would preserve our cause from ruin.{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|p=170}} }}

Edmond Ludlow warned both the Army and key members of Parliament that unless a compromise could be made it would "render all the blood and treasure that had been spent in asserting our liberties of no use to us, but also force us under such a yoke of servitude, that neither we nor our posterity should be able to bear".{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|p=178}}

Starting on 17 December 1659, Henry Vane representing the Parliament, Major Saloway and Colonel Salmon with powers from the officers of the army to treat with the fleet, and Vice-Admiral Lawson met in negotiating a compromise. The navy was very adverse to any proposal of terms to be made with the Parliament before Parliament's readmission, insisting upon the absolute submission of the army to the authority of Parliament.<ref>{{harvnb|Ludlow|1894|p=181}} cites ''Narrative of the Proceedings of the Fleet'', published in 1659, and reprinted in Penn's ''Memorials of Sir William Penn'', ii. 186</ref>  A plan was then put in place declaring a resolution to join with the Generals at Portsmouth, Colonel Monck, and Vice-Admiral Lawson, but it was still unknown to the republican party that Colonel Monck was in league with King Charles II.{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|p=185}}

Colonel Monck, though a hero to the restoration of King Charles II, was also treacherously disloyal to the Long Parliament, to his oath to the present Parliament, and to the [[Good Old Cause]]. Ludlow stated in early January 1660 when in conversation with several key officers of the army:
{{Quote| "Then", said Capt. Lucas, "you do not think us to be for the Parliament?" "No indeed", said I; "and it is most manifest to me, that the design of those who now govern the Council of Officers, though at present it be covered with pretences for the Parliament, is to destroy both them and their friends, and to bring in the son of the late King".{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|p=192}} }}

This statement may be verified by the many executions of key Parliament members and Generals after the restoration of King Charles II. Therefore, the restoration of King Charles II could not be an act of the Long Parliament acting freely under its own authority, but only under the influence of the sword by Colonel Monck, who traded his loyalties for the present Long Parliament, in preference to a reformed Long Parliament and to the restoration of King Charles II.{{citation needed|date=September 2013}}

General George Monck, who had been Cromwell's viceroy in Scotland, feared that the military stood to lose power and secretly shifted his loyalty to the Crown. As he began to march south, Lambert, who had ridden out to face him, lost support in London. However, the Navy declared for Parliament, and on 26 December 1659 the Rump was restored to power.

On 9 January 1660, Monck arrived in London and his plans were communicated.  Whereupon Henry Vane the Younger was discharged from being a member of the Long Parliament; and Major Saloway was reproved for his role and committed to the Tower during the pleasure of the house. Lieutenant-General Fleetwood, Col. Sydenham, Lord Commissioner Whitlock, Cornelius Holland, and Mr. Strickland were required to clear themselves touching their deportment in that affair. High treason was also declared against Miles Corbet, Cor. John Jones, Col. Thomlinson, and Edmond Ludlow on 19 January 1660. 1,500 other officers were removed from their command and "scarce one of ten of the old officers of the army were continued". Any known Anabaptists in the army were specifically discharged.  So tame had Parliament become, that though it was most visible that Monck's letters and Arthur Haslerig's instructions were designed for the dissolution of the Long Parliament, they were obeyed by the remainder of the members and all these designs were to be put into execution. Though named by Parliament for treason, Miles Corbet and Edmond Ludlow were for a while were permitted to continue to sit with Parliament, and for a time the charges against these men were dropped.{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|pp=201–211}}<ref>{{harvnb|Ludlow|1894|p=228}} (cites: Price, 'Mystery
and Method of his Majesty's Happy Restoration', reprinted by Maseres<!--see Ludlow pages 141–142-->,  p. 751; [[cf.]] Guizot, ''Richard Cromwell'', ii. 371; Carte ''Ormonde'', iv. 51 <!--This will probably be Thomas Carte's ''The Life of James, Duke of Ormond''-->)</ref>