THE BARBONE PARLIAMENT.* THU reader may omit without much fear
of loss the first fifty pages or so of Mr. Glass's book. If he wants to know the true story of what is popularly called the " Barebones " Parliament, he will probably be able to dispense with the preliminary survey of affairs, civil and religions, which Mr. Glass has thought it right to give. And, indeed, Mr. Glass is not a very safe guide, disposed as be is to rhetorical exaggeration. The Star Chamber was not an admirable Tribunal, but it is simply ridiculous to say that it " began a work of repression and persecution second only to that of a Spanish inquisition." The Star Chamber did not burn thousands of harmless men and women.
But on his proper subject Mr. Glass has something really interesting to say. The " Barbone Parliament" has met with scant justice from historians. Clarendon, who knew better, though allowing that some of its Members were men of station and property, says that the "major part" were " a pack of weak, senseless fellows." Hume improves upon this by declaring that the "far greater part were low mechanics the very dregs of the fanatics." Lingard, however, whom Mr. Glass does not seem to have consulted, is fair
9 The Barbone Paritament. By Henry Alexander Glass. London : T. Clarke and Co. De.]
•
enough. He says, " Though not distinguished by opulence, they were men of independent fortunes," and he expressly rejects the common description of them as "men in trade, and of no education." Still, a common error had to be corrected, and Mr. Glass has done it. First comes the name. " Praise God Barebones " was an invention of Cavalier wit. Praise Barbon was a prosperous tradesman in the City (Mr. Glass says "a freeman of the Leathersellers' or Skinners' Company "—a very strange mistake), and was a well known, though scarcely a leading, Member of the Parliament. Some Royalist wit inserted a couple of " e's," and adding a spice of irreverence, constructed a telling niekname. The Parliament, to which Cromwell had recourse to quiet a growing popular discontent, was not elected,—that would have been a hazardous experiment. It was an Assembly of nominees, appointed by a Council itself nominated for the purpose. The result was a compromise. There were two parties in the Council, one represented by Cromwell himself, the other led by Major- General Thomas Harrison, the most powerful of the Fifth Monarchy men, and there were two parties in the Assembly of their nominees, but the Harrisonians were in a minority. It was a powerful minority, however, numbering about sixty in a House of one hundred and forty-four, and, considering the character of its Members, probably more diligent in attendance. But it would be a mistake to suppose that even the minority consisted of "low mechanics." Colonel Blount, a friend of Evelyn and Pepys ; Sir John Ireton, Lord Mayor of London in 1659 ; Sir Robert Jermy, of an old Norfolk family ; Swinton of Swinton, " nineteenth Baron," were among them. Sixteen were "J.P.'s," and five had been, or were after- wards. High Sheriffs of their counties. In fact it is difficult to see who could have been the " low mechanics " of whom Hume speaks. Fanatics many of them certainly were, and these were powerful enough at last to bring the Assembly to its end. Still, the Parliament did some good work, especially in the direction of simplifying the public finance. Thirty-three Acts in all were passed during the five months of its existence, —a fairly respectable total in quantity, and not, as far as we can judge, contemptible in quality. They anticipated, says Mr. Glass, " some of the legislation of the nineteenth century." This is not the same thing as saying that they were desirable. But it implies that the legislators were men of insight and activity of mind.
It was naturally through the subject of religion that the Parliament came by its end. The minority were extremists on many matters, proposing, for instance, and nearly carrying, the total abolition of the Court of Chancery ; but it was on religion that they were most fiercely in earnest. The Com- mittee to "consider Propriety of Incumbents in Tithes" presented their Report on December 2nd. (It had been in session from July.) The first article of their scheme was sweeping enough. Commissioners were to go through all England ejecting "ignorant, profane, and scandalous ministers." But it was not sweeping enough for Harrison and his friends. The objectionable incumbents ejected, others were to be put into their place. That did not please the party of anarchy. The whole system was to be swept away. Every man was to do as he pleased. The majority had grown slack in attendance, and on December 10th, after a week's debate, the first Resolution was rejected by fifty-six to fifty-four. On the Monday—the 10th was a Saturday—the Cromwellians, assembling early, prepared and carried hastily a Motion that the House should resign its power into the Lord-General's hands. The Speaker went with the mace—one of the House's first acts had been to recall the " bauble " to its old place—and presented the resignation. Returning to the - House, he reported what had been done, and then walked out, all the Cromwellians following him. The Harrisonians stayed behind, till Colonel Goffe appeared on the scene, and entreated them to walk out. " Was this the Colonel's own desire or a command ? " they asked. The Colonel would not say, but " pressed them to leave the House because they might act those things which might prove destructive to the Commonwealth and to themselves." This was a broad hint, but the Members "had a mind to it longer." The Colonel, still polite, "desired them to be so civil as to withdraw," and they withdrew. This was the end, but, on the whole, the "Barbone Parliament" compares not unfavourably with the other Assemblies of the Commonwealth.
Previous page
