Case of 1 country. The case of Eusebius Andrews was more complicated. He was a lawyer who had served as a colonel under the King in the first Civil War, and had the misfortune to have for a friend a certain John Bernard who had served under him as a major. This man was now a spy of the Council of State, and there is good reason to believe 1649. that in the latter part of August or the beginning of September 1649 he suggested to Andrews-after the manner of such creatures to take up again an old plan of Andrews's own, for the seizure of the Isle of Ely in the event of affairs in Ireland or Scotland going against the Commonwealth.2 Andrews readily seized the bait, and placed himself in the hands of Holmes and Benson, two men introduced to him by Bernard. Of these Benson suggested that Sir John Gell, whose pay, due for services as a commander before the New Model was formed, was still outstanding, was highly discontented. In December, in consequence of Cromwell's success in Ireland, the plan of seizing the Isle of Ely was dropped. Andrews, however, had an interview with Gell, who grumbled at his treatment by the men in power, and hinted that if ever he took up arms again it would be on the Royalist side. 1650. March 18. He signs an engagement. On Whether drawn into the movement or not, Andrews threw himself into it heart and soul. March 18 he signed an engagement, binding himself and others that signed it to 'use all . . possible A Brief Relation, E, 608, 11; Merc. Pol. E, 608, 11. He was a D.C.L., who had returned to Oxford after the end of the first Civil War. See an account of him in the Dict. of Nat. Biogr. xxxiii. 161. 2 There is no full report of Andrews's trial. We have the so-called report printed in the State Trials, v. 1, which gives us Andrews's own narratives and his legal arguments, but no word of other evidence against him. The True State of the Case of Sir John Gell (E, 612, 17) gives us Sir John's view of the matter, and Bernard's A True Confutation (E, 613, 9) treats it from his point of view. In the latter pamphlet Bernard prints some important documents, but the extreme weakness of his defence against the allegations that he had been the first to suggest the seizure of the Isle of Ely carries conviction that Andrews spoke the truth in charging him with it. 7 skill and endeavour . . to settle and establish Charles the Second, our rightful and lawful Prince, in his throne of England against all rebels, usurpers or opposers whatsoever,' and this engagement was signed also by Benson and a certain Ashley, as well as by Bernard, and one Pitts, who called himself Smith, and was another of the Council's spies. This precious pair entertained Andrews with wild tales of risings in the counties. What they most wanted, however, was to obtain Gell's signature, but Gell was too cautious to comply, and on March 25 both Andrews and Gell were arrested. August 16, Andrews was tried before the new High Court of Justice on a charge of treason. He was condemned, and was Sentence executed on August 22. Gell was subsequently on Gell. Oct. 7. On sentenced to lose his estate and to imprisonment for life for misprision of treason. Benson and Ashley were both condemned to death. On October 7 Benson alone was executed. Execution of Benson. Oct. 8. The Presbyterian ministers will not keep the thanks The Government, after the discovery of this plot, was in the uneasy position of being aware that influential classes were arrayed against it, though it was unable to discover the persons who held the threads of the conspiracy. The Presbyterian ministers, especially, were a sore trouble. On October 17, for instance, there was a report from the Council of State that considerable numbers of them had refused to keep the day of thanksgiving for the victory at Dunbar,' but though in individual cases ministers displaying hostility to the Governwere ordered to leave the towns in which they preached,2 it was not till November 27 that a to remove from all giving day. ment Nov. 27. Ministers sweeping order was given refusing engagement to be removed from towns. garrison and other towns ministers who were obstinate in refusing to subscribe to the engagement. A month later the Council of State reported 'a wilful 'See for the case of two ministers at Hull, C. of St. Order Book, Interr. I, II, p. 40; of one at Bristol, ib. I, 13, p. 52. 2 C.J. vi. 501, 502. and strict observation of the day commonly called Christmas Day.' Shops had been closed and contemptuous speeches uttered. In some places mass had been sung, 'to the great dishonour of Almighty God, notorious breach of the laws, and scandal of the Government.' Moreover, the arms and pictures of the late King were still to be seen in public places in London.' Dec. 27. Report on the continued ob servance of Christmas Day. It was useless to strike at the symptoms of disease when the disease itself was beyond reach. Yet its existence was now manifested by evidence more alarming than the shutting of shops and the keeping up of prohibited pictures. On December 5 Parliament received the news of a Royalist outbreak in Norfolk. Isolated as it was, it was easily suppressed, and its only result was that its leaders were tried by a High Court of Justice specially instituted for the purpose, and lost their lives on the gallows.2 There Norfolk. ever, a probability that the Government would be confronted by something more than a local rising if Charles contrived to slip past Cromwell and to throw himself into England with part, at least, of the new and formidable army which he was gathering in the North. Dec. Insurrec tion in 1651. Jan. The Royalist scheme known. was, how By the middle of January the members of the Council of State were in possession of a great part of the Royalist plans. A certain George Bishop, who had been employed to make discoveries, had in his pay not only members of the council which directed the Royalist movements in England, but also some of the messengers who carried their secret despatches abroad. By this means Bishop learnt that arrangements had been made for a great rising before Christmas. Every district in England had its appointed officers, and its men marked out for the service, whilst Newcastle and Von Karpfen were to land in Kent as soon as Dover Castle had been surprised, with 4,000 Germans 1 C.J. v. 516. 2 Ib. vi. 505. The proceedings of the High Court may be traced in the newspapers of the day. See also Middleton to Lenthall, Dec. 2, Rich to Dec. 4, Grey's Impartial Examination, iv. 105, 107. 1651 Jan. 13. threats of MEASURES OF DEFENCE 9 at their heels. Though the unauthorised outbreak in Norfolk had interfered with the execution of this design, an insurrection on a far larger scale was not likely to be long delayed.1 Much as Bishop had already learnt there was more to be known, and on January 28 he was able to inform Cromwell that a woman would before long wait on him in Edinburgh with a ciphered letter which she had been commissioned by the English Royalists to place in the hands of the King.2 In the Council of State there was much perplexity. On January 13, when Bishop's story had been told, the committee appointed to examine into plots against the GovernProposed ment suggested that those who gave information of confiscation. such designs should be rewarded with part of the estates of the conspirators, and that public notice should be given that all disturbers of the peace should lose their lives and estates without mercy. The Council for some reason, perhaps as fearing to hasten the outbreak by revealing its knowledge of the danger, did not think fit to adopt this proposal, contenting itself with ordering the re-arrest of dangerous persons who had been formerly imprisoned, but were now at large on their own recognisances. At the same time Parliament was to be asked to prohibit all horse-races, hunting and hawking matches, as well as football playing, where sport might easily be made the cloak for military gatherings.3 On February 4, to meet the danger of an invasion from Scotland, the Council recommended that a considerable force of cavalry should be despatched to the North of England, where, in consequence of its proximity to Scotland, danger was especially feared.4 Measures of the Council. By this time the official year of the second Council of State was drawing to an end. In choosing the third Council, the sittings of which commenced on February 17, Parliament Bishop to Cromwell, Jan. 14, 18, 21, with enclosures, Milton State Papers, 49, 54, 55. 2 Bishop to Cromwell, Jan. 28, Ibid. 57. 3 C. of St. Order Book, Interr. I, 16, p. 31. ▲ Ib. Interr. I, 17, p. 32. Feb 17. The third Council of State. resolved to reserve twenty seats for new members, amongst whom were two officers, Harrison and Fleetwood, the latter of whom had lately returned from Scotland. As Cromwell, Skippon, and Hazlerigg were re-elected, the military element was more strongly represented than before. Amongst those excluded were Fairfax and Marten. For some unknown reason the powers of the new Council were limited to the last day of November.2 Jan. Hazlerigg and Scot visit Cromwell. Attitude of the new Council. Earlier in the year Hazlerigg and Scot had been with Cromwell in Edinburgh,3 doubtless to concert plans for the suppression of the expected insurrection. For some time the new Council maintained an attitude of prudent reserve, occasionally ordering the arrest of some person of whom suspicions were entertained, or directing the destruction of some fortification which might be dangerous in the hands of an enemy. The new militia, too, was warned to be in readiness to play its part whenever occasion served. Nor was the High Court of Justice idle. On March 4 Sir Henry Hyde was executed by its sentence on a charge of having accepted an embassy to Constantinople from the King, and of having used his influence with the Sultan to procure the discharge of Sir Thomas Bendish, the minister acknowledged by the Commonwealth, as well as of having urged the merchants to declare for the King." March 4. Execution of Sir Henry Hyde. The case of another victim demands more careful examina tion. Brown Bushell was one of five whose trial for life had In her preface to her Calendar (1651) Mrs. Everett Green puts the number incorrectly at fifteen. 2 C.J. vi. 530-533; Act constituting a Council of State, Interr. I, 89, p. 9. 3 They made their report, after their return, on Jan. 23, C.J. vi. 527. 4 See vol. i. 267. 5 A Perf. Diurnal, E, 784, 22. He was about to merchants' goods for the use of the King of Scotland.' seize upon our This may mean only that he tried to get a contribution from them. We have no report of the trial, and cannot speak positively of the details of the charge. |