CHAPTER V.

: 1656-1658.

Cooper now in opposition to Cromwell-He falls back on the Presbyterian party-Elected for Wiltshire to new Parliament-Prevented by the Council from taking his seat-Is one of the sixty-five who sign a letter to the Speaker protesting-Afterwards signs Remonstrance-The Humble Petition and Advice-Cromwell refuses to be King-House adjourned from June 26, 1657, to January 20, 1658Cromwell's Peers or "Other House"-Cooper not one-The £500 fine for composition, imposed by Long Parliament in 1644, remitted by Cromwell-Cooper's friendship with Henry Cromwell, and letter to him-Cooper and the other excluded members take their seats on meeting of Parliament, January 1658-Formidable opposition to Cromwell and the new Constitution-Debates about the "Other House"-Cooper's speeches-Cromwell dissolves the Parliament, February 4-Cromwell's death.

In the absence of any positive information on the subject of the differences which arose about this time. between Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper and Cromwell, it might be conjectured that Cromwell's dissolution of the last Parliament was disapproved of by Cooper. It does not appear that the proceedings of that parliament, however much they may have been irritating and disappointing to the Protector, furnished sufficient cause. for a dissolution, which immediately rendered it necessary to trample on Cromwell's own constitution in order to raise money. The changes which the Parliament had made in the Instrument of Government were, after all, not extensive; all the essentials of the original constitu

tion promulgated by Cromwell and his officers had been retained. Moderate men generally thought that Cromwell should have accepted the alterations made by the Parliament, and borne with its provocations, rather than again peril the settlement of the Commonwealth; and there is no doubt that the dissolution of the last Parliament lost Cromwell many supporters.1

Cooper never returned to his seat in the Council of State. We know nothing at all of his proceedings during twenty months which intervened between the dissolution of the last Parliament and the assembling of another on the seventeenth of September, 1656. But when this Parliament assembled, Cooper was regarded by Cromwell as an opponent.

The Royalists became very active in intrigues and conspiracies after the dissolution of January 1655; but Cooper had no connexion now or for some time after with this party. The restoration of the heir of the late King could only have been regarded at this period as a remote possibility by any but the zealous adherents of his family. Cooper fell back on the Presbyterian party, and in the two next parliaments was one of the leaders of the opposition which the Presbyterians and Republicans combined to wage against Cromwell and his

successor.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper was again elected by the county of Wiltshire to serve in the second Parliament elected according to the provisions of the Instrument of Government, which met in 1656. But this time. Cromwell would not permit him to take his seat.

1 Ludlow, ii. 512.

The Instrument of Government had provided that, for the first three Parliaments called under its provisions, all members elected must obtain a certificate of approbation from the Council, in order to be permitted to sit. This provision, designed to secure an observance of the qualifications enjoined for members, was stretched on the present occasion to exclude a large number of members whose opposition Cromwell feared. The number of members to whom the Council refused certificates of approbation is variously stated; there is no doubt that it exceeded a hundred, and probably it was not far below two hundred. Soldiers at the door of the House prevented the entrance of all who could not produce the Council's certificates. Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper was one of the excluded. About ninety other names of excluded members are known; among them are Sir Arthur Haselrig, Scot, and Weaver, leaders of the Republicans; and Morrice, Colonel Birch, Alexander Popham, Serjeant Maynard, and Sir Harbottle Grimstone, members of the Presbyterian party. Another name in the list is that of the Earl of Salisbury, who had sat in the Rump Parliament, and who, in the subsequent reign of Charles the Second, was a zealous member of the Opposition of which Shaftesbury was the leader.

Sixty-five of the excluded members, among whom was Cooper, signed a letter to the Speaker, complaining that they had been forcibly prevented by soldiers from taking their seats. This letter was presented in the House by Sir George Booth, a distinguished member of the Presbyterian party, who had not been excluded. The House

resolved that the Council should be desired to state their reasons for what they had done. The Council said that the Instrument of Government had imposed on them the duty of judging whether the members returned possessed the prescribed qualifications; that the same Instrument had provided that the members to be elected should be "such and no other than such as were persons of known integrity, fearing God, and of good conversation;" that they had examined all the returns according to their duty, and had not refused certificates of approbation to any who appeared to them to come within the above description; and that for those whom they had not approved "his Highness had given orders to some persons to take care that they should not come into the House." An overpowering majority of the members who had been allowed to sit resolved to be content with this insolent reply, and to refer the excluded members to the Council.

A Remonstrance, addressed to the people, couched in the strongest language, was afterwards drawn up, and printed with the names of ninety-three of the excluded inembers appended to it. This Remonstrance declared that whoever had advised the Protector's late proceeding was a capital enemy of the Commonwealth: that all who should sit and vote in the mutilated assembly were adherents of the capital enemies of the Commonwealth, and betrayers of the people's liberties; that the assembly which now sat was not the representative body of England; that their votes and acts were null and void; and that a free Parliament alone could set aside the laws in times of danger, and justly provide for the

future government of the Commonwealth. The paper concludes by declaring that those who sign it are ready to expose their lives and estates to the utmost hazard for the service of the people, and to procure the assembling of a free Parliament. Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper's name is appended to this printed document, But there is reason to think that all the names which were printed had not been subscribed to it; and it may be inferred from the strong language of this Remonstrance that it was not openly circulated.

A few of the members who had been excluded afterwards made peace with the Council, and obtained admission into the House. But Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, with the great majority, remained excluded during the whole of the first session of this Parliament.1

This session lasted nine months, till the twentysixth of June, 1657. Cromwell's measure of exclusion had at last obtained for him a manageable Parliament.

It is probable, from what took place in this Parliament, that Cromwell's principal reason for assembling it was to procure a change in the constitution, involving

1 Dr. Lingard, who is generally most accurate in details, has stated incorrectly that Sir A. A. Cooper became Cromwell's intimate adviser after this exclusion from Parliament. (xi. 80, note.) A little discussion in which Cooper's name was mixed up took place on December 22, 1656, during his enforced absence from this Parliament. A Captain Arthur petitioned for payment of moneys laid out by him for the Parliament in the beginning of the Civil War, and said he had been betrayed and taken prisoner by Cooper. One member, Mr. Robinson, suggested that Sir A. A. Cooper should satisfy the petitioner; another, Mr. Butler, replied, "Sir A. A. Cooper has done you good service, and the petitioner doth not say his sufferings were by him.' The matter was dropped. Captain Arthur's complaint would probably refer to the time when Cooper was on the King's side. (Burton's Diary of Cromwellian Parliaments, i. 204.)