many things by way of discourse I did not decline converse with them), holding it my duty to penetrate as far as I could into their true intentions and actions, but resolving within myself to hold true to my parliamentary trust’ (Trial, p. 50; cf. Guizot, ii. 284; Ludlow, ii. 157). This account unduly minimises Vane's part, though it doubtless represents his intentions. The army also appointed Vane on 21 Oct. one of a committee of ten to consider of fit ways and means to carry on the affairs and government of the Commonwealth, and of a larger committee appointed on 1 Nov. to draw up a constitution. So much was his influence dreaded that it was said that agents of the lawyers and established clergy had offered to raise 100,000l. for the use of the army if the officers would hearken no longer to Vane's schemes against them (Ludlow, ii. 149, 159, 161, 164, 172; Trial, p. 30; Whitelocke, iv. 367). He assisted the officers also by endeavouring to reconcile Ludlow and Lambert, and by preventing Fleetwood from accepting the proposals made him on behalf of the royalists (Ludlow, ii. 143, 154; Whitelocke, Memorials, iv. 382). Finally, when the defection of the fleet gave the final blow to the domination of the army, Vane accepted once more the post of mediator (17 Dec.), and went to negotiate with the officers of the navy on behalf of the army (Ludlow, ii. 181; Penn, Memorials of Sir William Penn, ii. 186).
As soon as the Long parliament was again restored, Vane's compliance with the usurpation of the army became a charge against him, and on 9 Jan. 1660 he was expelled from the house and ordered to repair to Raby (Commons' Journals, vii. 806). A month later, on Monck's complaint that he was still in London, he was sent to his house in Lincolnshire in charge of the sergeant-at-arms (Commons' Journals, vii. 841; Old Parl. Hist. xxii. 99; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 678).
Vane's fall was saluted with almost universal rejoicing. ‘People,’ wrote Maidstone to Governor Winthrop, ‘were pleased with the dishonour put upon him, he being unhappy in lying under the most catholic prejudice of any man I ever knew’ (Thurloe, i. 767). Ballad-makers, satirists, and pamphleteers were loud in their exultation (Sir Harry Vane's Last Sigh for the Committee of Safety, 4to, 1659; Vanity of Vanities: or Sir Harry Vane's Picture, 1660, fol.; Rump Songs, ii. 25, 64, 100, 108; Catalogue of Caricatures in the British Museum, pp. 920, 952, 972). The most popular of these satires, and the only one with any wit in it, is Thomas Flatman's ‘Don Juan Lamberto, or a Comical History of the Late Times, by Montelion, the Knight of the Oracle,’ which appeared in 1661, and went through three editions. ‘Sir Vane the Knight of the Mysterious Allegories’ is one of the principal characters, and the proposed marriage between his son and Lambert's daughter one of the incidents (reprinted in Somers Tracts, vii. 104, ed. Scott). Forged letters, stating that Vane was to head a rising of the anabaptists to take place in April 1660, and stories that the fifth-monarchy men had elected him as their king, further increased his unpopularity (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 409; Mass. Hist. Coll. 4th ser. vii. 515; A New King Anointed, 4to, 1659).
When the Restoration took place, Vane was held too dangerous to be allowed to escape. On 11 June 1660 the House of Commons voted his exclusion from the Act of Indemnity without a single dissentient voice. He was made one of a class of twenty culprits who were to be excepted from pardon in all particulars not extending to life. The House of Lords went further, and, omitting the reservation made by the commons, put Vane's name among those of persons to be wholly excepted. Over the amendment of the lords a long discussion took place between the two houses. It was urged by Holles on Vane's behalf that he was not a regicide, to which an obscure member replied that it was expedient to have some one to die for the kingdom as well as for the king. A compromise was at last agreed upon by which Vane and Lambert were capitally excepted as ‘being persons of mischievous activity,’ but both houses petitioned the king ‘that if they shall be attainted, execution as to their lives may be remitted’ (30 Aug. 1660). Charles, on his part, replied that he granted the petition of the two houses (Trial of Sir H. Vane, pp. 48, 74; Commons' Journals, viii. 152; Lords' Journals, xi. 163; Old Parl. Hist. xxii. 438).
Vane was imprisoned in the Tower and kept for some time in very close confinement. His property had been seized and his rents detained by his tenants without waiting for his indictment or condemnation. On 25 Oct. 1660 orders were issued for his transportation from the Tower to the Scilly Isles (Trial, pp. 20, 70; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1661–2, pp. 51, 118, 125, 141; Dalton, ii. 120). The parliament elected in 1661, less merciful than the Convention, passed a vote that Vane and Lambert should be proceeded against capitally (1 July 1661), and addressed the king to send for them with a view to their trial (Commons' Journals, viii. 287,
