Long Parliament - October 1, 1659 - January 1, 1660 Disruption of Long Parliament

January 1, 1660 Disruption of Long Parliament

Edmond Ludlow made several attempts to reconcile the army and parliament in this time period but was ultimately unsuccessful. Parliament ordered the regiments of Col. Morley and Col. Moss to march to Westminster for their security, and sent for the rest of the troops that were about the London to draw down to them also with all speed.

In October 1659, Col. Lambert and various subordinate members of the army, and acting in the military interest, resisted Col. Morley and others who were defending Long Parliament. Col. Lambert, Major Grimes, and Col. Sydenham eventually gained their points, and placed guards both by land and water, to hinder the members of Parliament from approaching the House. Though Col. Lambert subsequently acquitted himself to Henry Vane the Younger and Edmond Ludlow and the "Committee on Safety" an instrument of the Wallingford House party acting under their miss-direction.

Nevertheless, Parliament was closed once again by military force until such time that the army and leaders of Parliament could effect a resolution. Rule then passed to an unelected Committee of Safety, including Lambert and Vane; pending a resolution or compromise with the Army.

During these disorders, the Council of State still assembled at the usual place and the "Lord President Bradshaw John Bradshaw (judge), who was present, though by long sickness very weak and much extenuated, yet animated by his ardent zeal and constant affection to the common cause, upon hearing Col Syndenham's justifications of the proceedings of the army in again disrupting parliament, stood up and interrupted him, declaring his abhorrence of that detestable action, and telling the council, that being now going to his God, he had not patience to sit there to hear his great name so openly blasphemed; and thereupon departed to his lodgings, and withdrew himself from public employment."

The Council of Officers at first attempted to come to some agreement with the leaders of Parliament. On Oct. 15, 1659, the Council of Officers appointed ten persons to 'consider of fit ways and means to carry on the affiars and government of the Commonwealth.' On Oct. 26, 1659 the Council of Officers appointed a new Committee of Safety of twenty-three members.

On Nov 1, 1659, the Committee of Safety nominated a committee 'to consider of and prepare a form of government to be settled over the three nations in the way of a free state and Commonwealth, and afterwards to present it to the Committee of Safety for their further considerations.'

The designs of General Fleetwood of the army and the Wallingford House party were now suspected as being in a possible alliance with Charles Stuart (Charles II). According to Edmond Ludlow, "The Wallingford House party, as if infatuated by a superior power to procure their own destruction, continued obstinately to oppose the Parliament, and fixed in their resolution to call another (that is a reformed Parliament more agreeable to their interests). On the other side, I was sorry to find most of the Parliament men as stiff, in requiring an absolute submission to their authority as if no differences had happened among us, nor the privileges of Parliament ever been violated, peremptorily insisting upon the entire subjection of the army, and refusing to hearken to any terms of accommodation, though the necessity of affairs seemed to demand it, if we would preserve our cause from ruin." Edmond Ludlow warned both the army and key members of Parliament that unless a compromise could be made it would "render all the blood and treasure that had been spent in asserting our liberties of no use to us, but also force us under such a yoke of servitude, that neither we nor our posterity should be able to bear."

Starting on December 17, 1659, Henry Vane representing the Parliament, Major Saloway and Col. Salmon with powers from the officers of the army to treat with the fleet, and Vice-Admiral Lawson met in negotiating a compromise. The navy was very adverse to any proposal of terms to be made with the Parliament before Parliament's readmission, insisting upon the absolute submission of the army to the authority of Parliament. A plan was then put in place declaring a resolution to join with the Generals at Portsmouth, Col. Monk, and Vice-Admiral Lawson, but it was still unknown to the republican party that Col. Monk was in league with King Charles II.

Col. Monk, though a hero to the restoration of King Charles II, was also treacherously disloyal to the Long Parliament, to his oath to the present Parliament, and the old republican cause. Ludlow stated in early January, 1660 when in conversation with several key officers of the army: 'Then,' said Capt. Lucas, 'you do not think us to be for the Parliament?' 'No indeed,' said I; 'and it is most manifest to me, that the design of those who now govern the Council of Officers, though at present it be covered with pretences for the Parliament, is to destroy both them and their friends, and to bring in the son of the late King. This statement may be verified by the many executions of key Parliament members and Generals after the restoration of King Charles II. Therefore the restoration of King Charles II could not be an act of the Long Parliament acting freely under its own authority, but only under the influence of the sword by Col. Monk, who traded his loyalties for the present Long Parliament, in preference to a reformed Long Parliament and to the restoration of King Charles II.

Finally, on April 22, 1660, 'Major-General Lambert's party was dispersed' and General Lambert taken prisoner by Col. Ingoldsby.