passed in February 1652 with the hope of reconciling the conquered royalists to the new government (Ludlow, Memoirs, p. 171). He was appointed a member of the committee to select commissioners for the reform of the law, and of that charged to consider the laws touching the n»lief of the poor. In the still more important committee for the propagation of the gospel Cromwell headed the section which advocated complete toleration. ‘I had rather,’ he said in one of its debates, ‘that Mahometanism were permitted amongst us than that one of God's children should he persecuted.’ It was as a member of that committee that Milton appealed to Cromwell against the new foes who threatened to bind the soul in secular chains, and called upon him to save free conscience from hirelings (Masson, Life of Milton, iv. 394, 440).
In a few months, however, the impetus thus given to reform was spent. The Dutch war led parliament to raise money from the royalists in the old fashion, and confiscation began again. The work of law reform stood stock still, and neither the propagation of the gospel nor liberty of conscience was provided for (Carlyle, Speech i.) To Cromwell and his officers it seemed that the duty of setting these things right rested on themselves. In 1652, as in 1647, they held that their successes had called them to govern and take care of the commonwealth and made them the guardians of the land (Religuiæ Baxterianæ, p. 99).
Now they had also the additional responsibility of the promises made in the army manifestos of 1647–9. ‘So,’ says Cromwell, ‘finding the people dissatisfied in every corner of the nation, and laying at our doors the non-performance of those things which had been promised and were of duty to be performed, we did think ourselves concerned if we would keep up the reputation of honest men in the world’ (Speech i.) One sign of this rising feeling was the army petition of 12 Aug. 1652. Another was the series of conferences between the officers of the army and the members of the parliament which began in October 1652. But these conferences produced no result save that the bill for a new representative was pressed forward with renewed zeal. It was not simply the faults and shortcomings of the Long parliament, but a fundamental difference between soldiers and parliamentarians concerning the future constitution of the state, which led to the final breach. The original plan of the parliamentary leaders had been to perpetuate the existence of the present parliament by following the precedent of 1646 and electing new members in the place of those dead or excluded. The resistance of Cromwell forced them to abandon this plan, and they then adopted a scheme which provided for a continuous succession of parliaments, each lasting two years, and one immediately succeeding another. From the army point of view there was little to choose between a perpetual parliament and perpetual parliaments. Each alike meant a legislative power always sitting and arbitrarily usurping the functions of the judicial and executive powers (Speeches iii. xiii.) Four years ago, in the ‘agreement of the people,’ the army had demanded constitutional securities against the arbitrary power of parliament, and they were not willing now to accept a settlement which prolonged that power and embodied none of those guarantees. A minor objection was that, by the provision in the bill relating to the qualifications of electors, neutrals and deserters of the cause would have been enabled to vote (Speech i.) In a final conference the officers urged these objections, and proposed that parliament should select a small body of men of approved fidelity and commit to them the trust of settling the nation. According to the statement of the officers they obtained a promise from the representative of the parliament that the progress of the bill should be stopped till this expedient had been considered. But the next morning news was brought to Cromwell that the third reading of the bill was being hurried through the house. Ere this the officers had reluctantly come to the conclusion that it was their duty to resort to force rather than submit to the passing of this measure (ib.) Now this breach of faith seemed to render any compromise impossible. Cromwell hastened to Westminster, and after listening for a few minutes to the debates rose and addressed them. ‘At the first and for a good while he spake in commendation of the parliament for their pains and care of the public good; afterwards he changed his style, told them of their injustice, delays of justice, self-interest, and other faults.’ from the faults of the parliament as a body he proceeded to the faults of the individuals, giving them sharp language but not mentioning their names. Finally he called in five or six files of musketeers, pointed to the speaker and bade them fetoh him down, pointed to the mace and bade them take away these baubles. As the members were going out he called to Vane by name, telling him that he might have prevented this extraordinary course, but he was a juggler and had not so much as common honesty (Sidney Papers, ed. Blencowe, p. 140; other accounts are : Ludlow, Memoires, p. 174; Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 554; Letter from Bordeaux to Servien,
