text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/125

 Papers, Dom. 1631–3, p. 278; cf. , Life of Vane, p. 6). But no prospect of preferment could induce him to stifle his conscientious scruples about the doctrines and ceremonies of the English church. He abstained, it was reported, two years from receiving the sacrament because he could get nobody to administer it to him standing. Conferences with bishops failed to remove his doubts or to induce him to conform. In 1635 he resolved to go to New England in order to obtain freedom to worship according to his conscience (''Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings'', xii. 246;, p. 12).

Vane arrived at Boston in the ship Abigail on 6 Oct. 1635 with the king's license to stay for three years in New England. He had also a commission, jointly with his fellow travellers, Hugh Peters [q. v.] and John Winthrop the younger, to treat with the recent emigrants from Massachusetts to Connecticut on behalf of the Connecticut patentees (, History of New England, ed. 1853, i. 203, 477). Massachusetts received him with open arms as ‘a young gentleman of excellent parts,’ and one who had forsaken the honours of the court ‘to enjoy the ordinances of Christ in their purity.’ On 1 Nov. 1635 he was admitted a member of the church at Boston, on 3 March 1636 he became a freeman of the colony, and on 25 March following was chosen its governor (ib. i. 203, 222, ii. 446). Even before his election Vane had begun to take part in administration and politics. On 30 Nov. 1635 Boston passed an order that all persons wishing to sue each other at law should first submit their cases to the arbitration of Vane and two elders. Not content with these petty duties, he boldly undertook to reconcile Winthrop and Dudley, and procured a conference on the causes of the party divisions of the moment which produced a certain number of useful regulations as to the conduct of magistrates (ib. i. 211).

Vane signalised the first week of his government by effecting an agreement with the masters of the ships in harbour for the better government of sailors on shore (ib. i. 222, 263;, History of Massachusetts, ed. 1765, i. 53). The outbreak of war with the Pequot Indians and the danger of war with the Narragansetts were Vane's first difficulties, but by the help of Roger Williams a satisfactory treaty was concluded with Miantonomo, the Narragansett chief (, p. 237). Less success attended Vane's intervention in the ecclesiastical politics of the colony. ‘Mr. Vane,’ says Winthrop, ‘a wise and godly gentleman, held with Mr. Cotton and many others the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in a believer, and went so far beyond the rest as to maintain a personal union with the Holy Ghost.’ Questions about ‘sanctification’ and ‘justification,’ of the difference between ‘a covenant of works’ and ‘a covenant of grace,’ the doctrine of Anne Hutchinson and the preaching of John Wheelwright, roused a storm which divided Massachusetts into two hostile factions, of which Vane's was the smaller and less influential. Vane, who had received letters recalling him to England, asked the general court for leave to depart (December 1636), and when pressed to stay ‘brake forth into tears, and professed that howsoever the causes propounded for his departure were such as did concern the utter ruin of his outward estate, yet he would rather have hazarded all than have gone from them at this time if something else had not pressed him more—viz. the inevitable danger he saw of God's judgments to come upon us for these differences and dissensions which he saw amongst us, and the scandalous imputations brought upon himself, as if he should be the cause of all; and therefore he thought it best for him to give place for a time.’ The court refused to accept these reasons for his resignation, but finally gave consent to his going on account of his private affairs. But a deputation from the church at Boston urged Vane to stay, and, professing himself ‘an obedient child of the church,’ he withdrew his resignation (, i. 247).

This undignified scene, whether a simple exhibition of weakness or a comedy played to procure a vote of confidence, naturally damaged the governor's position. A few days later, Vane having expressed some dissatisfaction about a conference of ministers which had taken place without his privity, Hugh Peters publicly rebuked him. He told Vane that ‘it sadded the ministers' spirits that he should be jealous of their meetings or seek to restrain their liberty,’ adding that before he came to Massachusetts the churches were at peace, and finally besought him ‘humbly to consider his youth and short experience of the things of God, and to beware of peremptory conclusions which he perceived him to be very apt unto’ (ib. i. 249). A little later the court, in spite of Vane's strenuous opposition, condemned a sermon by his friend Wheelwright as seditious. Twice also in meetings over which he presided he refused to put questions to the vote, and was obliged to see them put and carried by the opposition leaders. At the election of magistrates in March 1637 Vane and his supporters were all left out after a long and excited struggle (ib. i. 257–8, 260–2). Boston, however, still


text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 7/Section 707

§ 707. Dismissal of a case or conversion to a case under chapter 11 or 13

 * (a) The court may dismiss a case under this chapter only after notice and a hearing and only for cause, including—
 * (1) unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors;
 * (2) nonpayment of any fees or charges required under chapter 123 of title 28; and
 * (3) failure of the debtor in a voluntary case to file, within fifteen days or such additional time as the court may allow after the filing of the petition commencing such case, the information required by paragraph (1) of section 521, but only on a motion by the United States trustee.

 * (b)
 * (1) After notice and a hearing, the court, on its own motion or on a motion by the United States trustee, trustee (or bankruptcy administrator, if any), or any party in interest, may dismiss a case filed by an individual debtor under this chapter whose debts are primarily consumer debts, or, with the debtor’s consent, convert such a case to a case under chapter 11 or 13 of this title, if it finds that the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter. In making a determination whether to dismiss a case under this section, the court may not take into consideration whether a debtor has made, or continues to make, charitable contributions (that meet the definition of “charitable contribution” under section 548 (d)(3)) to any qualified religious or charitable entity or organization (as that term is defined in section 548 (d)(4)).
 * (2)
 * (A)
 * (i) In considering under paragraph (1) whether the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall presume abuse exists if the debtor’s current monthly income reduced by the amounts determined under clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv), and multiplied by 60 is not less than the lesser of—
 * (I) 25 percent of the debtor’s nonpriority unsecured claims in the case, or $6,000, whichever is greater; or
 * (II) $10,000.
 * (ii)
 * (I) The debtor’s monthly expenses shall be the debtor’s applicable monthly expense amounts specified under the National Standards and Local Standards, and the debtor’s actual monthly expenses for the categories specified as Other Necessary Expenses issued by the Internal Revenue Service for the area in which the debtor resides, as in effect on the date of the order for relief, for the debtor, the dependents of the debtor, and the spouse of the debtor in a joint case, if the spouse is not otherwise a dependent. Such expenses shall include reasonably necessary health insurance, disability insurance, and health savings account expenses for the debtor, the spouse of the debtor, or the dependents of the debtor. Notwithstanding any other provision of this clause, the monthly expenses of the debtor shall not include any payments for debts. In addition, the debtor’s monthly expenses shall include the debtor’s reasonably necessary expenses incurred to maintain the safety of the debtor and the family of the debtor from family violence as identified under section 309 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, or other applicable Federal law. The expenses included in the debtor’s monthly expenses described in the preceding sentence shall be kept confidential by the court. In addition, if it is demonstrated that it is reasonable and necessary, the debtor’s monthly expenses may also include an additional allowance for food and clothing of up to 5 percent of the food and clothing categories as specified by the National Standards issued by the Internal Revenue Service.
 * (II) In addition, the debtor’s monthly expenses may include, if applicable, the continuation of actual expenses paid by the debtor that are reasonable and necessary for care and support of an elderly, chronically ill, or disabled household member or member of the debtor’s immediate family (including parents, grandparents, siblings, children, and grandchildren of the debtor, the dependents of the debtor, and the spouse of the debtor in a joint case who is not a dependent) and who is unable to pay for such reasonable and necessary expenses.
 * (III) In addition, for a debtor eligible for chapter 13, the debtor’s monthly expenses may include the actual administrative expenses of administering a chapter 13 plan for the district in which the debtor resides, up to an amount of 10 percent of the projected plan payments, as determined under schedules issued by the Executive Office for United States Trustees.
 * (IV) In addition, the debtor’s monthly expenses may include the actual expenses for each dependent child less than 18 years of age, not to exceed $1,500 per year per child, to attend a private or public elementary or secondary school if the debtor provides documentation of such expenses and a detailed explanation of why such expenses are reasonable and necessary, and why such expenses are not already accounted for in the National Standards, Local Standards, or Other Necessary Expenses referred to in subclause (I).
 * (V) In addition, the debtor’s monthly expenses may include an allowance for housing and utilities, in excess of the allowance specified by the Local Standards for housing and utilities issued by the Internal Revenue Service, based on the actual expenses for home energy costs if the debtor provides documentation of such actual expenses and demonstrates that such actual expenses are reasonable and necessary.
 * (iii) The debtor’s average monthly payments on account of secured debts shall be calculated as the sum of—
 * (I) the total of all amounts scheduled as contractually due to secured creditors in each month of the 60 months following the date of the petition; and
 * (II) any additional payments to secured creditors necessary for the debtor, in filing a plan under chapter 13 of this title, to maintain possession of the debtor’s primary residence, motor vehicle, or other property necessary for the support of the debtor and the debtor’s dependents, that serves as collateral for secured debts;
 * divided by 60.
 * (iv) The debtor’s expenses for payment of all priority claims (including priority child support and alimony claims) shall be calculated as the total amount of debts entitled to priority, divided by 60.
 * (B)
 * (i) In any proceeding brought under this subsection, the presumption of abuse may only be rebutted by demonstrating special circumstances, such as a serious medical condition or a call or order to active duty in the Armed Forces, to the extent such special circumstances that justify additional expenses or adjustments of current monthly income for which there is no reasonable alternative.
 * (ii) In order to establish special circumstances, the debtor shall be required to itemize each additional expense or adjustment of income and to provide—
 * (I) documentation for such expense or adjustment to income; and
 * (II) a detailed explanation of the special circumstances that make such expenses or adjustment to income necessary and reasonable.
 * (iii) The debtor shall attest under oath to the accuracy of any information provided to demonstrate that additional expenses or adjustments to income are required.
 * (iv) The presumption of abuse may only be rebutted if the additional expenses or adjustments to income referred to in clause (i) cause the product of the debtor’s current monthly income reduced by the amounts determined under clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A) when multiplied by 60 to be less than the lesser of—
 * (I) 25 percent of the debtor’s nonpriority unsecured claims, or $6,000, whichever is greater; or
 * (II) $10,000.
 * (C) As part of the schedule of current income and expenditures required under section 521, the debtor shall include a statement of the debtor’s current monthly income, and the calculations that determine whether a presumption arises under subparagraph (A)(i), that show how each such amount is calculated.
 * (D) Subparagraphs (A) through (C) shall not apply, and the court may not dismiss or convert a case based on any form of means testing—
 * (i) if the debtor is a disabled veteran (as defined in section 3741 (1) of title 38), and the indebtedness occurred primarily during a period during which he or she was—
 * (I) on active duty (as defined in section 101 (d)(1) of title 10); or
 * (II) performing a homeland defense activity (as defined in section 901 (1) of title 32); or
 * (ii) with respect to the debtor, while the debtor is—
 * (I) on, and during the 540-day period beginning immediately after the debtor is released from, a period of active duty (as defined in section 101 (d)(1) of title 10) of not less than 90 days; or
 * (II) performing, and during the 540-day period beginning immediately after the debtor is no longer performing, a homeland defense activity (as defined in section 901 (1) of title 32) performed for a period of not less than 90 days;
 * if after September 11, 2001, the debtor while a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces or a member of the National Guard, was called to such active duty or performed such homeland defense activity.
 * (3) In considering under paragraph (1) whether the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter in a case in which the presumption in subparagraph (A)(i) of such paragraph does not arise or is rebutted, the court shall consider—
 * (A) whether the debtor filed the petition in bad faith; or
 * (B) the totality of the circumstances (including whether the debtor seeks to reject a personal services contract and the financial need for such rejection as sought by the debtor) of the debtor’s financial situation demonstrates abuse.
 * (4)
 * (A) The court, on its own initiative or on the motion of a party in interest, in accordance with the procedures described in rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, may order the attorney for the debtor to reimburse the trustee for all reasonable costs in prosecuting a motion filed under section 707 (b), including reasonable attorneys’ fees, if—
 * (i) a trustee files a motion for dismissal or conversion under this subsection; and
 * (ii) the court—
 * (I) grants such motion; and
 * (II) finds that the action of the attorney for the debtor in filing a case under this chapter violated rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
 * (B) If the court finds that the attorney for the debtor violated rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the court, on its own initiative or on the motion of a party in interest, in accordance with such procedures, may order—
 * (i) the assessment of an appropriate civil penalty against the attorney for the debtor; and
 * (ii) the payment of such civil penalty to the trustee, the United States trustee (or the bankruptcy administrator, if any).
 * (C) The signature of an attorney on a petition, pleading, or written motion shall constitute a certification that the attorney has—
 * (i) performed a reasonable investigation into the circumstances that gave rise to the petition, pleading, or written motion; and
 * (ii) determined that the petition, pleading, or written motion—
 * (I) is well grounded in fact; and
 * (II) is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law and does not constitute an abuse under paragraph (1).
 * (D) The signature of an attorney on the petition shall constitute a certification that the attorney has no knowledge after an inquiry that the information in the schedules filed with such petition is incorrect.
 * (5)
 * (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and subject to paragraph (6), the court, on its own initiative or on the motion of a party in interest, in accordance with the procedures described in rule 9011 of the

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, may award a debtor all reasonable costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) in contesting a motion filed by a party in interest (other than a trustee or United States trustee (or bankruptcy administrator, if any)) under this subsection if—
 * (i) the court does not grant the motion; and
 * (ii) the court finds that—
 * (I) the position of the party that filed the motion violated rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; or
 * (II) the attorney (if any) who filed the motion did not comply with the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (4)(C), and the motion was made solely for the purpose of coercing a debtor into waiving a right guaranteed to the debtor under this title.
 * (B) A small business that has a claim of an aggregate amount less than $1,000 shall not be subject to subparagraph (A)(ii)(I).
 * (C) For purposes of this paragraph—
 * (i) the term “small business” means an unincorporated business, partnership, corporation, association, or organization that—
 * (I) has fewer than 25 full-time employees as determined on the date on which the motion is filed; and
 * (II) is engaged in commercial or business activity; and
 * (ii) the number of employees of a wholly owned subsidiary of a corporation includes the employees of—
 * (I) a parent corporation; and
 * (II) any other subsidiary corporation of the parent corporation.
 * (6) Only the judge or United States trustee (or bankruptcy administrator, if any) may file a motion under section 707 (b), if the current monthly income of the debtor, or in a joint case, the debtor and the debtor’s spouse, as of the date of the order for relief, when multiplied by 12, is equal to or less than—
 * (A) in the case of a debtor in a household of 1 person, the median family income of the applicable State for 1 earner;
 * (B) in the case of a debtor in a household of 2, 3, or 4 individuals, the highest median family income of the applicable State for a family of the same number or fewer individuals; or
 * (C) in the case of a debtor in a household exceeding 4 individuals, the highest median family income of the applicable State for a family of 4 or fewer individuals, plus $525 per month for each individual in excess of 4.
 * (7)
 * (A) No judge, United States trustee (or bankruptcy administrator, if any), trustee, or other party in interest may file a motion under paragraph (2) if the current monthly income of the debtor, including a veteran (as that term is defined in section 101 of title 38), and the debtor’s spouse combined, as of the date of the order for relief when multiplied by 12, is equal to or less than—
 * (i) in the case of a debtor in a household of 1 person, the median family income of the applicable State for 1 earner;
 * (ii) in the case of a debtor in a household of 2, 3, or 4 individuals, the highest median family income of the applicable State for a family of the same number or fewer individuals; or
 * (iii) in the case of a debtor in a household exceeding 4 individuals, the highest median family income of the applicable State for a family of 4 or fewer individuals, plus $525 per month for each individual in excess of 4.
 * (B) In a case that is not a joint case, current monthly income of the debtor’s spouse shall not be considered for purposes of subparagraph (A) if—
 * (i)
 * (I) the debtor and the debtor’s spouse are separated under applicable nonbankruptcy law; or
 * (II) the debtor and the debtor’s spouse are living separate and apart, other than for the purpose of evading subparagraph (A); and
 * (ii) the debtor files a statement under penalty of perjury—
 * (I) specifying that the debtor meets the requirement of subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i); and
 * (II) disclosing the aggregate, or best estimate of the aggregate, amount of any cash or money payments received from the debtor’s spouse attributed to the debtor’s current monthly income.

 * (c)
 * (1) In this subsection—
 * (A) the term “crime of violence” has the meaning given such term in section 16 of title 18; and
 * (B) the term “drug trafficking crime” has the meaning given such term in section 924 (c)(2) of title 18.
 * (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), after notice and a hearing, the court, on a motion by the victim of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime, may when it is in the best interest of the victim dismiss a voluntary case filed under this chapter by a debtor who is an individual if such individual was convicted of such crime.
 * (3) The court may not dismiss a case under paragraph (2) if the debtor establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the filing of a case under this chapter is necessary to satisfy a claim for a domestic support obligation.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/126

 supported him, and returned the three excluded magistrates as its deputies. Vane showed considerable irritation at his defeat, and some undignified resentment towards Winthrop, his successful opponent. A controversy with Winthrop over a new law enabling the magistrates to prevent the settlement in the colony of persons they thought dangerous was his last appearance in Massachusetts politics. On 3 Aug. 1637 he set sail for England (ib. i. 263, 277, 281; Hutchinson Papers, i. 79).

Vane's American career has been harshly judged by American historians. He made many mistakes, but the greatest mistake was that made by the colonists themselves, when, out of deference to birth and rank, they set a young and inexperienced stranger to deal with problems which tasked the wisdom of their ablest heads. Subsequently, however, his connection with New England became an advantage to the colonies, and in 1645 Massachusetts merchants in difficulties with the English government found him a strong helper. ‘Though he might have taken occasion against us,’ writes Winthrop, ‘for some dishonour which he apprehended to have been unjustly put upon him here, yet both now and at other times he showed himself a true friend to New England and a man of noble and generous mind’ (, ii. 305).

In January 1639 his father obtained for Vane a grant of the joint treasurership of the navy. This office, of which the chief remuneration was a fee of threepence in the pound on money paid by the treasurer, was worth 800l. per annum, and would be worth as much more after the death of Vane's colleague, Sir William Russell (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1638–9, pp. 125, 307, 343, 485;, p. 103). Vane was consequently employed in the expenditure of the ship-money and the equipment of ships to be used for the Scottish war, while his connection with the admiralty led to his election as member for Hull in the Short parliament (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1639–40, p. 568). On 23 June 1640 Vane was knighted. On 1 July he married at St. Mary's, Lambeth, Frances, daughter of Sir Christopher Wray of Barlings, Lincolnshire, his father settling upon him, at the marriage, Raby, Fairlawn, and all his lands in England, which were of an estimated value of 3,000l. per annum (, pp. 101, 115). At this time Vane seemed, according to Clarendon, ‘to be much reformed in his extravagances,’ and appeared ‘a man well satisfied and composed to the government’ (Rebellion, iii. 34). But his religious views were unchanged, and an accidental discovery brought him into close connection with the parliamentary opposition. About September 1640 Vane was searching among his father's papers with the leave of the latter for a document required in connection with his marriage settlement, when he found his father's notes of the council meeting of 5 May 1640. Impressed by its ‘high concernment to the Commonwealth,’ he began to copy it. As he was transcribing it Pym came to visit him, and he showed Pym the original paper, and allowed him to make a copy of his own transcript. A distinction between his duty to his natural father and his duty as a ‘son of the Commonwealth,’ and Pym's argument that ‘a time might come when the discovery of this might be a sovereign means to preserve both church and state,’ overcame his first reluctance to allow this breach of confidence. The original was subsequently burnt at the king's orders, Vane's own copy was destroyed by Pym at his request, and Pym's transcript alone remained to be used by the opposition leaders in case the oral testimony of the elder Vane and other councillors should prove insufficient to convict Strafford of his design to employ the Irish army against the liberties of England. The production of this paper in the House of Commons on 10 April 1641, and at the trial in Westminster Hall three days later, sealed Strafford's fate (, Studies and Illustrations of the Great Rebellion, p. 328;, Notes of the Long Parliament, p. 37; , Rebellion, iii. 132). The verdict of the puritan party was that ‘an admirable providence had discovered this business’ which justified the younger Vane ‘from all breach of duty,’ because ‘this was an act of God himself’ (, p. 331).

In the first session of the Long parliament Vane, who was again returned for Hull, was, apart from his share in Strafford's trial, chiefly notable as a leader of the most advanced ecclesiastical party. On 9 Feb. 1641 he was added to the committee on church affairs as a representative of the root-and-branch men (Commons' Journals, ii. 81;, Letters, i. 306). Vane, Cromwell, and St. John were the originators of the bill for the total abolition of episcopacy which Sir Edward Dering introduced on 27 May 1641. Vane's first printed speech was one delivered on that bill, asserting that the whole fabric of episcopal government was ‘rotten and corrupt from the very foundation of it to the top,’ and must be pulled down in the interest both of the civil state and of religion (Old Parliamentary History,


text: User:Charles Xavier

title: User:Charles Xavier


text:
User talk:Charles Xavier

.

title: User talk:Charles Xavier


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/127

 ix. 291, 342;, History of England, ix. 381). A few days later he proposed a scheme appointing a body of commissioners, lay and clerical, to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction in every shire in place of the bishops (, Minutes of the Manchester Presbyterian Classis, pp. i, lii, lvii, xci, xcix, cvii).

In secular politics Vane came with equal rapidity to the front. When the king's attempt to seize the five members temporarily removed Pym and Hampden from the house, Vane took the lead. He was one of the committee appointed to vindicate the privileges of parliament, and was the author of the judicious declaration that the house did not intend to protect the accused in any crime, but would be ready to bring them to punishment if they were proceeded against in a legal way (, Arrest of the Five Members, p. 316).

By this time Vane was no longer an official. His father's dismissal from the secretaryship had been followed by his own removal from the treasurership of the navy (December 1641). Parliament took it ill, and as soon as the breach with the king was completed, the two houses passed an ordinance (8 Aug. 1642) reappointing Vane to his old post (Commons' Journals, ii. 709; Lords' Journals, v. 273).

From the commencement of hostilities Vane was one of the leaders of the war party. On 8 Nov. 1642 he excited the city to fresh exertions, and recounted the king's rupture of negotiations (Old Parliamentary History, xii. 17). He opposed, on 20 Dec. 1642, the propositions drawn up by the lords to be offered to the king, and the similar proposals put forward in February 1643 (, Great Civil War, i. 79;, pp. 541–3). Vane's sarcastic comments on Essex's proposal for reopening negotiations with Charles (11 July 1643) produced a bitter quarrel between them, and an ironical invitation from Essex to Vane to go hand in hand with him to the walls of Oxford (ib. pp. 570–5). When parliament decided to ask the Scots for assistance, Vane was one of the four commissioners sent to Edinburgh to negotiate (Instructions in Old Parliamentary History, xii. 340; Lords' Journals, vi. 139). Clarendon, commenting on this choice, enlarges on the ‘wonderful sagacity’ with which Vane penetrated the designs of others, and the ‘rare dissimulation’ with which he concealed his own, and concludes: ‘There need no more be said of his ability than that he was chosen to cozen and deceive a whole nation which excelled in craft and dissembling’ (Rebellion, ed. Macray, vii. 267). This was written many years later. Baillie, writing at the time, characterises Vane briefly as ‘one of the gravest and ablest’ of the English nation (Letters, ii. 89). The commissioners found the Scots indisposed to make ‘a civil league’ with England unless it were combined with ‘a religious covenant.’ On 17 Aug. the ‘solemn league and covenant’ was adopted by the Scottish convention of estates, but not till Henderson's original draft had been amended by Vane's insertion of words which gave parliament greater freedom. The Scots would have pledged the parliament to the reformation of religion in the church of England ‘according to the example of the best reformed churches.’ Vane's addition of the phrase ‘according to the word of God’ left the ‘door open to Independency,’ which the Scottish divines feared, and transferred the final decision of the question of the remodelling of the English church to parliament and the Westminster assembly. It is impossible to suppose that the Scottish commissioners were simply outwitted by Vane; they accepted the amendment because they hoped to interpret it according to their own wishes, through the political and military influence the alliance gave them (, Life of Hamilton, 1852, p. 307;, Memoirs, p. 265; , v. 467; , Great Civil War, i. 230; , Letters, ii. 88–95). What Vane himself understood by the covenant at the time his letters do not show. To the end of his life he protested that he had kept it in the sense in which he took it, saying on the scaffold that ‘the matter thereof and the holy ends contained therein I fully assent unto, and have been as desirous to observe; but the rigid way of prosecuting it, and the oppressing uniformity that hath been endeavoured by it, I never approved’ (Trial, pp. 60, 91; Report on the Duke of Portland's MSS. i. 129, 136).

On Pym's death Vane practically succeeded to his authority (, i. 274). ‘He was that within the house which Cromwell was without,’ says Baxter (Reliquiæ Baxterianæ, p. 75). In February 1644 Vane and St. John—the joint leaders of the war party—proposed and carried the establishment of the committee of both kingdoms. This was the first serious attempt to organise a government made by the Long parliament. The earlier committee of safety was set aside, and executive functions were entrusted to a body of twenty-five persons responsible to parliament for their conduct, but with authority to take independent action in everything connected with the conduct of the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/128

 war (, i. 304). The unscrupulous tactics by which the permanent establishment of the committee was effected help to explain the reputation for ‘subtlety’ which Vane acquired (ib. i. 343;, Letters, ii. 141, 154, 178, 186).

In the summer of 1644 the committee sent Vane to the camp before York to urge that Fairfax and Manchester should leave the siege to the Scots, and march into Lancashire against Prince Rupert (Vane's letters from the camp are of considerable interest: Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1644). There is ground for believing that, besides his ostensible mission, Vane was charged to propose a plan for the deposition of Charles I, and perhaps for the elevation of the elector palatine to the English throne. But the three generals were unanimous in rejecting the scheme, and it was one of the causes of the friction between the independent and the presbyterian leaders (, i. 367, ii. 27). Vane was one of the parliamentary commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge in January 1645, but took little part in their debates (Hist. MSS. Comm. 10th Rep. iv. 150;, Memorials, i. 375). He was more prominent as an advocate of the reorganisation of the army and the supersession of the Earl of Essex. When Zouch Tate proposed the self-denying ordinance, Vane seconded his motion (9 Dec. 1644). The speech which Clarendon attributes to Vane upon this occasion is probably fictitious. On 21 Jan. 1645, in the vote appointing Fairfax general, Vane and Cromwell were the two tellers for the majority. On 4 March Vane, as the spokesman of the House of Commons, appealed to the city to provide the money necessary to enable the new army to take the field (Commons' Journals, iv. 26;, p. 236; , ii. 90; , viii. 193, 241, 260).

This conduct completed the breach between Vane and the Scots which his advocacy of toleration had begun. On 13 Sept. 1644 Cromwell, St. John, and Vane persuaded the House of Commons to pass what was called ‘the accommodation order,’ appointing a committee to consider the differences on the question of church government, and, if agreement proved impossible, to devise some means of tolerating ‘tender consciences.’ ‘Our greatest friends,’ complained Baillie, ‘Sir Henry Vane and the solicitor (i.e. St. John), are the main procurers of all this, and that without any regard to us, who have saved their nation, and brought these two persons to the height of the power they enjoy and use to our prejudice.’ Vane, ‘whom we trusted most,’ expressed the view that the accommodation order did not go far enough, and even at the table of the Scottish members of the Westminster assembly had ‘prolixly, earnestly, and passionately reasoned for a full liberty of conscience to all religions’ (, Letters, ii. 230, 235;, ii. 30). Roger Williams, in the preface to his ‘Bloody Tenent of Persecution,’ quotes ‘a heavenly speech’ which he heard uttered by one of the leaders of the parliament. ‘Why should the labours of any be suppressed, if sober, though never so different? We now profess to seek God, we desire to seek light.’ There can be little doubt that Vane was the speaker quoted. The two were old friends, and the charter for Providence Plantation which Williams obtained from the commissioners for the government of the colonies (14 March 1644), Vane's influence had helped him to procure (, ii. 289;, History of New England, i. 608, ii. 215). While thus helping to found a colony based on the widest toleration, Vane also endeavoured to persuade the magistrates of Massachusetts to show more indulgence to religious dissentients. Writing to Winthrop in June 1645, he expressed his fear ‘lest while the congregational way among you is in its freedom and backed with power, it teach its oppugners here to extirpate it and root it out from its own principles and practice’ (ib. ii. 175;, p. 81). As the first civil war drew to its close, the king's last hope was to enlist Vane and the independents on his side by the promise of toleration. An attempt to open negotiations for that purpose in January 1644, through Lord Lovelace, had been frustrated by Vane's revelation of the intrigue (Camden Miscellany, vol. viii.). On 2 March 1646 John Ashburnham, at the command of the king, appealed to Vane to support the king's request for a personal treaty in London. ‘If presbytery,’ he added, ‘shall be so strongly insisted upon as that there can be no peace without it, you shall certainly have all the power my master can make to join with you in rooting out of this kingdom that tyrannical government, with this condition, that my master may not have his conscience disturbed—yours being free—when that work is finished’ (Clarendon State Papers, ii. 226). This second overture Vane also rejected.

In 1646 the presbyterian party gained the upper hand in the Long parliament, and Vane's leadership ended. At the commencement of 1647 he was still in close alliance with Cromwell, and in March Lilburne complained that Cromwell was ‘led by the nose by two unworthy covetous earthworms,’ Vane


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/129

 and St. John (Jonah's Cry out of the Whale's Belly, 1647, p. 3). In April, when the dispute between army and parliament began, Vane, like Cromwell, generally absented himself from the debates of the house (, iii. 241). On 7 June, when the army was marching on London, Vane was one of the six commissioners sent by the parliament to treat with it, and he took part in the treaty with the officers at Wycombe in July (Old Parliamentary History, xv. 407, 446;, Memorials of the Civil War, i. 265–8, 275, 286, 305–8, 315–19, 322). Both levellers and presbyterians distrusted him. In June he was ‘threatened to be cut in pieces’ by a mob outside the House of Commons, and in July Lilburne was reported to have said that ‘he had rather cut Sir Henry Vane's throat than Hollis's’ (Clarke Papers, i. 136, 158). When Vane attempted to persuade parliament to yield to the demands of the army, he was accused of threatening parliament with military intervention (, iv. 36;, History of Independency, i. 47). When he used his influence with the officers to prevent violent measures, the levellers denounced him as a self-seeking ‘grandee’ (, Putney Projects, 1647, p. 43). Backed by Cromwell and Ireton, he opposed Marten's motion that no further application should be made to the king (22 Sept. 1647); and when the army leaders and the chiefs of the independents four months later adopted Marten's plan, and passed the vote that no addresses should be made to the king (3 Jan. 1648), he still persisted in his opposition (Clarke Papers, i. 231). His dissatisfaction was notorious, and he said with truth in 1662, ‘I had neither consent nor vote in the resolutions of the houses concerning the non-addresses to his late majesty’ (Trial, p. 46; cf. Hamilton Papers, i. 149, 156).

On 28 April 1648 the two houses passed a vote declaring that they would not alter ‘the fundamental government of the kingdom by king, lords, and commons.’ Vane had helped to draw up a declaration to the same effect published in April 1646, and his opinion was unaltered. Accordingly he supported this vote, awaking thereby great mistrust among his friends in the army (Commons' Journals, iv. 513, v. 547;, Diary, iii. 173; , pp. 185, 191). A vote for reopening negotiations with the king followed, which Vane also supported, and on 1 Sept. he was appointed one of the commissioners of the two houses for the treaty at Newport (Clarke Papers, ii. 17; Commons' Journals, v. 572, 697). According to Burnet, Vane endeavoured to prolong the treaty, beguiling the king's party by offering toleration of episcopacy and the prayer-book; his real object being only to delay matters till the army could be brought up to London (Own Time, ed. Airy, i. 74). This view is unsupported by any evidence. Vane and his friend Pierrepoint were really anxious to come to an understanding with the king on the basis of ‘moderate episcopacy’ and toleration, a solution of which Cromwell, as his messages to Vane show, strongly disapproved (Clarke Papers, ii. 51). It is also clear that while Cromwell regarded his victories as a providential justification of the policy of the army, Vane, as Cromwell complained, made ‘too little of outward dispensations,’ and Cromwell expressed himself ‘unsatisfied with his passive and suffering principles’ (, Cromwell Letters, lxvii.; Proceeds of the Protector against Sir H. Vane, p. 6). In accordance with this principle, Vane, while denouncing the king's concessions during the treaty as unsatisfactory (3 Dec. 1648), was prepared to acquiesce in the decision of the House of Commons to continue the treaty rather than to use force to prevent its resumption (, History of Independency, ii. 26;, i. 208). He held submission to that decision a moral duty (Trial, p. 106).

For these reasons Vane absented himself from the house after ‘Pride's Purge,’ and remained away from 3 Dec. to 7 Feb. 1649. He took no part in the king's trial, and neither consented to nor approved his execution. Yet he continued to act as commissioner of the admiralty, and it was proved against him on his trial that he had issued orders in that capacity on the very day of the king's death (, Diary, iii. 174; Trial of Vane, pp. 27, 31, 46). Parliament unanimously elected him a member of the council of state (14 Feb. 1649), but he refused the oath approving of the king's execution and the abolition of the monarchy, and would not take his seat till it had been exchanged for an engagement to be faithful to the new government (ib. p. 46;, History of the Commonwealth, i. 7; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1649–50, pp. 5, 13). The people, he held, were the source of all just power, and ‘the little remnant of the parliament’ was now the representative of the nation. It might legitimately establish a free state, and he, being a member of that parliament entrusted with a public duty on behalf of the people, must obey and faithfully serve the new government (Trial, p. 46;, iii. 176).

No man served the Commonwealth with more zeal. Vane was elected a member of every council of state chosen during the


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Gellert, Christian Fürchtegott

GELLERT, gĕl'ẽrt, (1715-69). The most important of the forerunners of the golden age of German literature that was ushered in by Lessing. He was born at Hainichen, Saxony, and studied theology at Leipzig, where he afterwards passed most of his life as tutor, teacher, and professor, and where he died. His didactic and religious poems, fables, and stories were in their day immensely popular, as were his lectures on morals and literature. His Works (10 vols., 1769-74 and 1867) are types of the innocuous and rationalistic. His Fabeln und Erzählungen (1746) and the religious poems are still often republished separately. His Tagebuch (1869) is the best available biography. Consult also his Life by Döring (Greiz, 1833).


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/492

 With the advent to power of the Disraeli ministry in 1874 the nascent Imperial spirit grew in strength. Lord Carnarvon (the 4th earl), when under-secretary for the colonies in 1858–1859, had regarded Grey's federation proposal with disfavour, but later, as secretary of state, he had introduced the bill for the federation of the Canadian provinces. He now returned to the Colonial Office filled with the idea of doing for South Africa what had been done in British North America. Recent events in South Africa had appeared for a brief period to favour a union of its various colonies and states. The intimation of the impending grant of self-government to Cape Colony was regarded by both Boer republics as bringing nearer the prospect of their union with the British colonies. But just at that time differences arose between Great Britain and the republics as to the ownership of the Kimberley diamond fields which estranged the Boers (see and ). In the Transvaal Pretorius was succeeded by T. F. Burgers, a man totally unfitted to govern a country distracted by factions, harassed by wars with natives, and with an almost depleted exchequer. Yet in the condition of the Transvaal Lord Carnarvon found another argument in favour of federation. Union with the neighbouring states would, he thought, cure its ills and promote the general welfare of South Africa. As a preliminary step he accepted an offer from J. A. Froude to visit South Africa unofficially, and by travelling through its different states find out what were the obstacles to confederation and the means by which such obstacles could be removed. Froude landed at Cape Town on the 21st of September 1874, and having visited Natal, the Free State and Pretoria as well as Cape Colony, sailed for England on the 10th of January 1875. In the three and a half months he had spent in the country he had reached the conclusion expressed by the duke of Newcastle nearly twenty years previously, namely, that all England needed there was Table Bay—or the Cape peninsula—as a naval and military station. The South African states, he believed, might be left in internal affairs to work out their own future. These views coincided with those of Lord Carnarvon, who looked to federation as a means of relieving the Imperial government of some of the heavy responsibilities pressing upon it in South Africa, and he asked Froude to return to the Cape to take part in a conference in South Africa on the federation scheme. The offer was accepted, and Froude reached Cape Town again in June 1875. Lord Carnarvon's despatch (May 4, 1875), indicating his views, had preceded the arrival of Froude, and had incensed J. C. Molteno, the Cape premier, by its disregard of the colony's self-governing powers. A motion was carried in the Cape parliament affirming that any movement for federation should originate in South Africa and not in England. Froude on his arrival was much chagrined at the attitude taken by the Cape parliament, and conducted an oratorical campaign throughout the country in favour of federation. His speeches were lacking in judgment and tact, and created an unfavourable impression, The conference was not held, and Froude returned to England in the autumn.

Lord Carnarvon was far from abandoning his plan. The Transvaal was now in a condition bordering on anarchy, and numbers of its inhabitants were supposed to be looking to Great Britain for help. Another party in the Transvaal was seeking alliances with Germany and Portugal, and this danger of foreign interference was a further cause for action. In August 1876 the colonial secretary assembled a conference on South African affairs in London, nominating Froude as representative of Griqualand West. President Brand represented the Free State. Another member of the conference was Sir Theophilus Shepstone, (q.v.) Neither Cape Colony nor the Transvaal was represented, and the conference was abortive, President Brand having no permission from his state to consider federation. That subject was, in fact, not discussed by the delegates. In view of the troubles in the Transvaal, and in furtherance of Carnarvon's federation scheme, Shepstone was, on the 5th of October following, given a dormant commission to annex the republic “if it was desired by the inhabitants and in his judgment necessary.” The secretary of state sought the aid of Sir Bartle Frere as his chief agent in carrying through confederation, the then governor of Cape Colony and high commissioner for South Africa, Sir Henry Barkly, sharing the views of the Cape ministry that the time was inopportune to force such a step upon South Africa. In a letter dated the 13th of October, offering Frere the post Barkly was about to vacate, Lord Carnarvon wrote:—

The time required for the work of confederating and of consolidating the confederated states Lord Carnarvon estimated at not more than two years, and he was sanguine enough to hope that Frere would stay on at the Cape for two or three years “as the first governor-general of the South African dominion.” Frere accepted the offer, but did not leave England until March 1877. Shepstone preceded him, and in January 1877 had gone to Pretoria. His conferences with the leading men in the Transvaal and a consideration of the dangers which threatened it and the grave disorders within its borders satisfied Shepstone that he had no choice except to act upon his commission, and on the 12th of April he issued a proclamation annexing the country to the British Crown. During the interval between Shepstone's arrival in the country and the annexation the Volksraad had rejected the proposals for confederation laid before them in accordance with Lord Carnarvon's permissive bill, and had made no real attempt at reform. The annexation was acquiesced in by a considerable number of the white inhabitants. Shepstone was convinced that it was the only step which could save the country from ruin. The subject is discussed at greater length under. Frere, who had reached Cape Town on the 31st of March, learnt on the 16th of April that the annexation had taken place. He was inclined to regard Shepstone's act as premature, and he realized that it stirred very deeply Dutch national feeling throughout South Africa. Though anxious to promote Carnarvon's policy, Frere found that native affairs called for immediate attention. The Basuto and Kaffir tribes were giving trouble, and the 40,000 trained Zulu warriors under Cetywayo threatened the peace both of Natal and the Transvaal. In the same month (Aug. 1877) in which the British parliament passed the act, foreshadowed by the secretary of state, “for the union under one government of such of the South African colonies and states as may agree thereto,” another war with the Kaffirs broke out. This conflict lasted until May 1878, and largely absorbed the energies of Sir Bartle Frere In the meantime a scheme of unification, as opposed to federation, put forward by the Molteno ministry—a scheme which in its essence anticipated the form of government established in 1910—had met with no support from Frere or the home ministry. In January 1878 Lord Carnarvon resigned, and the driving force of the federation scheme thus disappeared. It was not, however, finally dropped until 1880. In July of that year proposals for a confederation conference were submitted to the Cape parliament. At that time Paul Kruger and Piet Joubert, delegates from the Transvaal Boers, were in Cape Town, and they used their influence to prevent the acceptance of the proposals, which were shelved by the ministry accepting “the

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/492


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/130

 period, and his name is always high in the list of attendances. He was on every committee of importance. When Cromwell invaded Scotland, the business of supplying his army with money, provisions, and reinforcements was specially trusted to Vane's care, and Vane also kept him informed of home and foreign politics. ‘Let H. Vane know what I write,’ is Cromwell's message when he was in his greatest extremity just before the battle of Dunbar (, Letters, cxxxix.). Their friendship was so close that they invented familiar names for each other; Cromwell called Vane ‘brother Heron,’ and Vane addressed Cromwell as ‘brother Fountain.’ In one of his letters Vane, after saying that his health and his private affairs had suffered through his constant attendance to public matters, complained of the factious opposition of other members of the council. ‘Brother Fountain,’ he continued, ‘can guess at his brother's meaning … many other things are reserved for your knowledge, whenever it please God we meet, and till then let me desire you upon the score of ancient friendship that hath been between us not to give ear to the mistakes, surmises, or jealousies of others, from what hand soever, concerning your brother Heron, but to be assured he answers your heart's desire in all things, except he be esteemed by you in principles too high to fathom, which one day I am persuaded will not be so thought by you’ (, Letters and Papers addressed to Cromwell, p. 79, cf. pp. 19, 40, 84).

When the conquest of Scotland was completed, Vane was one of the eight commissioners sent thither (December 1651) to settle the civil government and negotiate for the union of Scotland and England. On 16 March 1652 Vane reported to the house the successful result of his mission, and received its thanks for his services (Commons' Journals, vii. 30, 105; Diary of John Nicoll, pp. 80–7; Scotland and the Commonwealth, p. xxiii;, i. 298). His narrative has not been preserved, but his views on the later history of the question of the union, and on the measures taken by Cromwell to complete it, are contained in a speech delivered in 1659 (, Diary, iv. 178).

In foreign and colonial affairs Vane also took a very active part (cf. Cal. State Papers, Colonial—America and West Indies—1574–1660, pp. 347, 372, 394). To him Roger Williams naturally applied in 1652 to secure Rhode Island against interference from the confederate colonies, and to reconcile its internal dissensions. ‘Under God,’ wrote Williams in April 1653, ‘the great anchor of our ship is Sir Henry,’ and when he returned home in 1654 he brought with him a letter from Vane, rebuking the Rhode islanders for their disorders and divisions (, History of New England, ii. 356–360;, Life of Milton, iv. 395, 532; , Life of Roger Williams, p. 126).

The council of state had appointed on 13 March 1649 a committee to consider alliances and relations with European powers in general. Vane was one of its leading members, and Milton, as its secretary, learnt there to admire the skill with which he explained ‘the drift of hollow states hard to be spelled.’ In all negotiations with foreign ministers he was from the first employed (cf. Commons' Journals, vi. 209, 315, 517, 522). About the autumn of 1651 he undertook a secret mission to France to negotiate with Cardinal de Retz, who describes him as an intimate confidant of Cromwell, adding that he appeared to be a man of surprising capacity. But the exact date and the details of this mission are doubtful (, Cromwell and the English Commonwealth, i. 261;, History of the Commonwealth, ii. 91). Vane is said to have opposed the war with Holland, and it is certain that he was one of those most eager to reopen negotiations after the war began (ib. ii. 128, 183;, John De Witt, i. 282). He was a strong believer in the feasibility of the proposed coalescence of the two states, and blamed Cromwell for abandoning that project when he made peace with the Dutch (, Diary, iii. 4 seq.).

In the management of the navy both before and during the war Vane took a principal part. Up to the end of 1650 he was treasurer of the navy. On 12 March 1649 he was appointed one of the admiralty committee in whom the powers lately exercised by the lord high admiral were vested. On 4 Dec. 1652 he was one of the extraordinary commissioners charged with the inspection, direction, and equipment of the fleet (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1649–50, p. 34; Commons' Journals, vi. 440, vii. 225, 256). Contemporaries attributed the successful issue of the war largely to Vane's administrative skill, and Haslerig referred to him in the parliament of 1659 as ‘the gentleman by whose providence it was so excellently managed’ (, Diary, iii. 443;, i. 337, ii. 340). Vane was certainly an energetic administrator, but eulogistic biographers have attributed to him and to the admiralty committee much of the credit really due to their subordinates, the commissioners of the navy (English Historical Review, xi. 57, 62). Sikes, in his ‘Life of Vane,’ also exaggerates his pecuniary


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/493

 previous question” (June 29). Thus ended an attempt which lacked the element essential to success—spontaneity.

Confederation had, for the time being, ceased to be a living issue some time before its formal shelving by the Cape parliament. The Kaffir War of 1878 was followed by war with the Zulus. Frere, believing that the Zulu power was a standing menace to the peace of South Africa, and that delay in dealing with Cetywayo would only increase the danger, sent an ultimatum to the chief in November 1878. The invasion of Zululand began in January 1879, and was speedily followed by the disaster at Isandhlwana and by the defence of Rorke's Drift and of Eshowe. But at the battle of Ulundi in July the Zulu power was crushed, and a little later Cetywayo was taken prisoner (see : History). The removal of the Zulu danger did not, however, restore harmony between the British and the Boers in the Transvaal. The malcontent Boers became a powerful element in the country. They were largely influenced by an important section of the Dutch community in western Cape Colony, which carried on a campaign against annexation, seeing in it a blow to the ideal they had begun to entertain of a united South Africa of a Dutch republican type. Sir Garnet Wolseley, at this period (June 1879–May 1880) high commissioner of South-East Africa, gave the Transvaal a legislative council, but the members were all nominated. This could not be regarded as a redemption of the promise of a liberal constitution, and it had an injurious, though limited, effect on the Boer community. After the receipt in December 1879 of the reports of Mr Gladstone's speeches during his Midlothian campaign—in which he denounced annexation as obtained by means dishonourable to Great Britain—the Boers expected nothing less than the retrocession of the country.

There was one strong reason against retrocession, concerning which the Boers—if they gave it thought—would naturally be silent. To the British mind in general it was apparently non-existent. It had, however, been seen and its strength recognized by Sir Garnet Wolseley during his brief governorship of the Transvaal. Wolseley, in a despatch dated the 13th of November 1879 said:—

As Lord Morley in his Life of Gladstone says, “this pregnant and far-sighted warning seems to have been little considered by English statesmen of either party at this critical time or afterwards, though it proved a vital element in any far-sighted decision.”

The result of the general election of 1880 was to place Mr Gladstone in power. The new administration, notwithstanding Mr Gladstone's public utterances, declared their intention of retaining British sovereignty in the Transvaal, coupling with that decision a pious hope for the speedy accomplishment of confederation so as to allow of free institutions being given to Natal and the Transvaal. The disillusionment occasioned by this decision caused the Boer delegates then at the Cape to help to wreck the federation proposals (see supra). But if unwilling at the time to undo the work of Sir T. Shepstone, the Liberal cabinet were prepared to get rid of the chief British representative in South Africa—partly to please the extreme Radicals among their followers. Accordingly on the 2nd of August 1880 Frere received a telegraphic despatch from Lord Kimberley (the new secretary of state for the colonies) announcing his recall Frere's task was one of extreme delicacy; he chose to face difficulties rather than evade them, and had he been unfettered in his action might have accomplished much more than he was able to do; in its main lines his policy was sound. (See .)

Finding that the Gladstone administration would not give up the Transvaal voluntarily, the Boers now determined on rebellion. Hostilities began in December 1880, and eventually a series of engagements ended in the rout (Feb. 27, 1881) of a small British force which had occupied Majuba Hill the previous evening. The killed included the general in command, Sir George Colley. Meanwhile the resolution of Mr Gladstone and his colleagues to keep the Transvaal had been shaken by the Boer declaration of independence. After the first engagements this resolution was further weakened; and when, after a British reverse at Ingogo (Feb. 8), overtures were made by Mr Kruger on behalf of the Boers, the cabinet was strongly inclined to come to terms. The news of Majuba did not turn it from its purpose. Opinions will always differ as to the course adopted by the Liberal government. “We could not,” wrote Mr Gladstone, “because we had failed on Sunday last, insist on shedding more blood.” It is at all events abundantly clear that had the Boers not resorted to arms they would not have gained the support of the cabinet.

Sir Evelyn Wood, who had succeeded Colley as general in command and governor of Natal, under instructions from home, concluded a treaty of peace on the 22nd of March. The terms agreed upon were elaborated in a convention signed at Pretoria in August following. By this instrument the Transvaalwas granted self-government subject to British suzerainty and the control of the foreign relations of the state. In 1884 the Gladstone administration made further concessions by the London convention of that year. This last document still, however, reserved for Great Britain certain rights, including the power of veto over treaties concluded by the Transvaal with any power other than the Orange Free State. But the success of the Transvaal Boers both in war and diplomacy had quickened the sense of racial unity among the Dutch throughout the country, and there arose a spirit of antagonism between the Dutch and the British which affected the whole future of South Africa.

Before, however, dealing with the relations between the British and the Boers subsequent to 1881 brief reference may be made to affairs in which other powers were concerned; affairs which were the prelude to the era of expansion associated with the career of Cecil Rhodes. In 1868 the Europeans in Great Namaqualand and Damaraland petitioned for annexation to Great Britain. Eventually (1878) only Walfish Bay and a small strip of adjacent territory were annexed. In 1883 Germany entered the field and during 1884–1885, owing to the procrastinating policy of the Cape and British governments, all the coast between the Orange and the Portuguese frontier, save Walfish Bay, was placed under German protection (see, §5). The eastern boundary of German South-West Africa was fixed in 1890, the frontier running through the Kalahari Desert. Bechuanaland, the region between the German colony and the Transvaal, was secured for Great Britain. It was not on the west coast only that Germany made efforts to secure a footing in South Africa. In September 1884 an attempt was made to secure St Lucia Bay, on the coast of Zululand. Here, however, Great Britain stood firm. St Lucia Bay had been ceded to the British by the Zulu king Panda in 1843, and this cession has always been regarded as valid. Eventually Germany agreed to make no annexation on the east coast of Africa south of Delagoa Bay. With the proclamation of a British protectorate over the coast of Pondoland in January 1885 the coast-line from the

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/493


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Mandeville, Bernard

MANDEVILLE,, Bernard (1670?-1733). Author of the Fable of the Bees, born in Dort (or Dordrecht), Holland, about 1670. In a thesis maintained at Leyden, March 23, 1689, and entitled “De Brutorum Operationibus,” he argued that brutes act automatically — a theory of Descartes and of the older theology. Having taken his degree in medicine at Leyden, he settled in London as a physician. Never gaining much practice, he received, it is said, a pension from Dutch merchants. He died in London, January 21, 1733. His famous book, a doggerel pamphlet, first appeared under the title The Grumbling Hives, or Knaves Turned Honest (1705). It was republished in 1714, with the title The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices Public Benefits. A second edition with additions (1723) was presented as a nuisance by the grand jury of Middlesex. A second part appeared in 1728. Mandeville attempted to prove, perhaps with irony, that ‘private vices are public benefits:’ that waste, luxury, and profligacy are good things for a State. His audacious thesis led to a sharp controversy, in which Bishop Berkeley took a hand (Alciphron, 1732). Among Mandeville's other works are: Esop Dressed, or a Collection of Fables Writ in Familiar Verse (1704); Free Thoughts on Religion (1720); and An Enquiry Into the Causes of the Frequent Executions at Tyburn (1725).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/131

 (p. 97). As treasurer of the navy Vane received from 1642 to 1645 a salary of about 3,000l. per annum in fees. After the passing of the ‘self-denying ordinance’ that sum was reduced by one half, in accordance with an order of parliament, and on 16 July 1650 it was resolved to appoint a treasurer who should be paid a fixed salary of 1,000l. a year. As a compensation for the loss of his place, Vane was voted church lands to the value of 1,200l. a year (Commons' Journals, iv. 207, vi. 14, 440; cf. English Historical Review, ix. 487).

In domestic politics religion and parliamentary reform were the two subjects with which Vane was most concerned. In 1652 he wrote to the government of Massachusetts urging them not to censure any persons for matters of a religious nature (Massachusetts Hist. Coll. 3rd ser. i. 35). He saw good even in quakerism (Retired Man's Meditations, p. 184), and he opposed the party which wished to oblige Irish catholics to attend protestant worship (Commons' Journals, vi. 138). On the question whether the republic should have an established church or not, Vane and Cromwell took opposite sides. The proposals of Owen and other independent ministers to the committee for the propagation of the gospel, which Cromwell carried out in the ecclesiastical organisation of the protectorate, were absolutely contrary to Vane's principles. Of his utterances on the question no record has survived, but his brother Charles was one of the petitioners against Owen's scheme, and the sonnet which Milton sent to Vane on 3 July 1652 is a further proof that Vane was hostile to it. It expresses the satisfaction with which the poet hails a statesman who, like himself, was opposed on principle to a state church. To know Both spiritual power and civil, what each means, What severs each, thou hast learned, which few have done. The bounds of either sword to thee we owe: Therefore on thy firm hand Religion leans In peace, and reckons thee her eldest son (, Life of Milton, iv. 391–7, 442;, p. 97).

Vane's action on the question of dissolving the Long parliament produced a lasting breach between himself and Cromwell. Clarendon asserts, and Ludlow hints, that after the battle of Worcester Vane became suspicious of Cromwell's designs, and began to seek to diminish his power (Rebellion, xiv. 2;, Memoirs, i. 347). But there is no good evidence of this, and it is clear that as late as March 1653 they were still political allies (, Commonwealth, ii. 182). On 15 May 1649 Vane had been appointed one of a committee to report on ‘the succession of future parliaments and the regulating of their elections,’ and on the question of ‘the time for putting a period to the sitting of this parliament.’ On 9 Jan. 1650 he produced their report, which proposed that the future parliament should consist of four hundred members, representing proportionately the different counties, and that the present members of the Long parliament should retain their seats. Cromwell and the army in general wanted an entirely new parliament, and succeeded so far as to get the date of its calling fixed for November 1654. The Long parliament, however, preferred Vane's scheme, and embodied it in the bill which it was about to pass in April 1653. At the last moment Cromwell obtained from Vane and some other parliamentary leaders a promise to suspend the passing of the bill in order to discuss a suggested compromise, but the house itself insisted on proceeding with the bill. To prevent its passing, Cromwell dissolved the house. How far Vane was responsible for this breach of faith there is not sufficient evidence to determine, but it is clear that Cromwell regarded him as the person most to blame. According to Ludlow, when Cromwell called on his musketeers to clear the house, ‘Vane, observing it from his place, said aloud, “This is not honest; yea, it is against morality and common honesty.” On which Cromwell fell a-railing at him, crying out with a loud voice, “O Sir Henry Vane, Sir Henry Vane; the Lord deliver me from Sir Henry Vane!”’ (Memoirs, i. 353). Another version is that, as the members were going out, ‘the general said to young Sir Henry Vane, calling him by his name, that he might have prevented this extraordinary course, but he was a juggler, and had not so much as common honesty’ (, Sydney Papers, p. 141; cf., xiv. 9; , History of the Commonwealth, ii. 209).

After the expulsion of the Long parliament Vane retired to his house at Belleau in Lincolnshire, which he had purchased from the Earl of Lindsey (Commons' Journals, vi. 611). A seat in the ‘Little Parliament’ was offered to him, but refused. Cromwell seems to have desired his participation in the new government, and Roger Williams describes him as ‘daily missed and courted for his assistance’ (Cal. Clarendon Papers, ii. 203, 213;, Life of Milton, iv. 549; , i. 265). He lived in seclusion, devoting much of his time to speculations on religion, the first fruit of which was the publication of the ‘Retired Man's


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Mandeville, The Travels of Sir John

MANDEVILLE,. The title of a famous itinerary and collection of marvels, composed in the third quarter of the fourteenth century. The book opens and closes with delightful fragments of an apocryphal autobiography. The author claims to be one John Mandeville, born at Saint Albans, who crossed

the sea in 1322 and traveled through Tartary, Persia, Armenia, Africa, Chaldea, Ethiopia, Amazonia, and India. On his return, he stopped at Rome, where his ‘book was proved for true’ by the Pope's council. He adds that he first wrote it in Latin and then turned it into French and English (1356). Until very recently all these statements were accepted as facts. It now seems clear that of the versions named, the French (1371) is the oldest, and that from it were derived the others (early part of fifteenth century). Though the writer of the French original may have traveled in the East, his work is mainly a compilation from the travels of a German knight, William of Boldensele (1336), the journal of Friar Odoric (1330), the journey of Johannes de Plano Carpini, a Papal envoy to the Tatars (about 1250), the history of the East by Hetum, the Armenian (1307), other itineraries, and the mediæval specula. He drew upon Pliny, Solinus. Peter Comestor, Vincent of Beauvois, Brunell-Latine, and Jacques de Vitry. With little doubt, the compiler of the work was Jean de Bourgogne dit à la Barbe (John of Burgoyne with the Beard), who died at Liège in 1372. He may have been the John of Burgoyne who likely quitted England in 1322, and had good reasons for living under an assumed name. The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, abounding in marvels, has delighted many generations. Of the work, there are three English versions extant in at least thirty-four manuscripts. From the poorest were printed the fifteen editions from 1499 to 1725. A better version, edited anonymously in 1725, was carelessly reprinted by Halliwell (London, 1839-68), and edited, with modern spelling, by Wright, in Early Travels in Palestine (ib., 1848); by Morley (ib., 1886); and, with three illustrative narratives, by Pollard (ib., 1900). A third version (northern dialect) was edited by G. F. Warner for the Roxburghe Club (Edinburgh, 1889).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/132

Vane ’ (the introduction is dated 20 April 1655).

On the death of his father Vane thought of removing to Raby, and the arrangements for the sale of the arms there and the withdrawal of the garrison brought him into relations with the government of the Protector. Cromwell seized the opportunity to send him a courteous letter, which Vane answered by protesting (through Thurloe) that he was still the same both in true friendship to Cromwell's person and in unshakable fidelity to the cause (, iv. 36, 329; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1655 p. 315, 1655–6 pp. 43, 56). Vane was not a member of the parliament of 1654, though there was a report that he stood for Lincolnshire (ib. 1654, p. 288;, ii. 546). But, in spite of his inactivity, the discontent among the anabaptists and fifth-monarchy men was attributed to his secret influence (ib. iv. 509). In 1656 he came into open collision with the government. The Protector issued a proclamation for a general fast, in which the Lord was to be called upon to discover the Achan who had so long obstructed the settlement of the nation. Vane answered by publishing his ‘Healing Question propounded and resolved’ (, ii. 16; cf. Somers Tracts, vi. 315), which declared that the old cause was in danger because the general body of puritans was ‘falling asunder into many dissenting parts.’ The reason of this was that, instead of the freedom and self-government they had fought for, they saw a form of government rising up which suited only the selfish interest of a particular part (viz. the army), and did not promote the common good of the whole body engaged in the cause. The remedy was the adoption of a new constitution in place of the one which the army had imposed on the nation. Let there be called ‘a general council or convention of faithful, honest, and discerning men, chosen by the free consent of the whole body of adherents to this cause.’ The assembly thus chosen was ‘to agree upon the particulars that by way of fundamental constitutions shall be laid and inviolably observed,’ and tender this constitution to those it represented for subscription.

On 29 July 1656 Vane was summoned to appear before the council. He appeared on 21 Aug., was ordered to give a bond to the amount of 5,000l. that he would do nothing to the prejudice of the present government, and on refusing was sent a prisoner to the Isle of Wight (4 Sept.) Vane seized this opportunity to address a written reproof to the Protector. He told Cromwell that he was head of the army under the legislative authority of the people represented in parliament, but nothing more. ‘More than this I am not satisfied in my conscience is in truth and righteousness appertaining unto you.’ When Cromwell made himself the head of the state by the unlawful use of the power which parliament had entrusted to him, and allowed parliament only a share in the legislative authority, he was denying the principle of popular sovereignty which he and the army had asserted by executing the king. And just as he had denied his ‘earthly head,’ viz. ‘the good people of this nation in Parliament assembled,’ so he was denying Christ, his ‘heavenly head,’ by claiming authority in spiritual things and persecuting the saints (The Proceeds of the Protector (so called) against Sir H. Vane, Knight, 1656, 4to; cf., v. 122, 317, 328, 349; , ii. 16). Vane's imprisonment at Carisbrook Castle, which lasted till 31 Dec. 1656, prevented his candidature for the parliament of that year.

According to Ludlow, the Protector, in order to force Vane to compliance with the government, ‘privately encouraged some of the army to take possession of certain forest walks belonging to Sir H. Vane, near the castle of Raby, and also gave order to the attorney-general, on pretence of a flaw in his title to a great part of his estate, to present a bill against him in the exchequer’ (Memoirs, ii. 30). There seems, however, to have been real ground for doubt whether Vane was not claiming more than the grant under which he held entitled him to, to the detriment alike of the state and of smaller holders (Regicides no Saints, 8vo, 1700, p. 99; Carte MS. lxxiv. 15; Rawlinson MS. A. lxi. 102).

When Richard Cromwell called a parliament, Vane offered himself as a candidate at Hull and Bristol without success, but was returned for Whitchurch in Hampshire (, ii. 50;, vii. 588, 590). In a very able speech, 9 Feb. 1659, he urged parliament to define the Protector's authority before acknowledging Richard as Protector. The petition and advice, he argued, was but an attempt to revive monarchy, and would lead to the restoration of Charles II. ‘Shall we be underbuilders to supreme Stuart?’ ‘If you be minded to resort to the old government, you are not many steps from the old family.’ Let parliament therefore build upon the right of the people, which was ‘an unshaken foundation,’ and instead of accepting the new Protector as the son of a conqueror, ‘make him a son by adoption.’ The Protector, he explained, must be simply a


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/494

 mouth of the Orange to Delagoa Bay (save for the small stretch of Amatonga shore-line) became definitely British.

To Delagoa Bay, or rather to the southern part of the bay, Great Britain had laid unsuccessful claim. On the northern bank of the chief estuary of the bay the Portuguese had from the 16th century onward maintained a precarious foothold; it was their most southerly station on the east coast of Africa. In 1823 treaties had been concluded by the British with tribes inhabiting the southern shores of the bay. Neither the Portuguese nor the British claims seemed of much importance until the rise of the South African republic. Anxious for a seaport, the Transvaal Boers in turn laid claim to Delagoa Bay. This brought the dispute between Great Britain and Portugal to a head, the matter being referred in 1872 to the president of the French republic for arbitration. In 1875 an award was given by Marshal MacMahon entirely in favour of the Portuguese (see ). As a port outside British control Delagoa Bay was a source of strength to the Boers, especially as the railway was under their control. In the war which began in 1899 munitions of war and recruits for the Boers were freely passed through Delagoa Bay.

C. The Struggle for Supremacy between British and Dutch.—Bechuanaland, through which territory runs the route to the far interior—the countries now known as Rhodesia—was acquired, despite the strong desire of the Gladstone administration to avoid further annexations in South Africa. At first the encroachments on Bechuana territory by Boers from the Transvaal were looked upon with comparative indifference. The Boers respected neither the frontier laid down by the Pretoria convention nor that (modified in their favour) drawn in the London convention. But missionary influence was strong; it was reinforced by the growing strength of the imperialistic spirit and by the fears excited by Germany’s intrusion on the south-west coast. An expedition was sent out in October 1884 under Sir Charles Warren; the Boers, who had set up the “republics” of Goshen and Stellaland, were obliged to give way, and the country was annexed (see ). It was in connexion with this affair that Cecil Rhodes first came into prominence as a politician. As a member of the Cape parliament he undertook a mission, before the arrival of Warren, to the Goshen and Stellaland Boers, endeavouring, unsuccessfully, to obtain from them a recognition of British sovereignty. The acquisition of Bechuanaland by Great Britain was the essential preliminary to the development of the schemes which Rhodes entertained for the extension of British rule into Central Africa. In his endeavours to realize this aim he had to contend with the new spirit of national consciousness animating the Boers, which found expression in the formation of the Afrikander Bond.

In its external, as in most of its internal policy, the Transvaal was controlled from 1881 onward by Paul Kruger, who was elected president of the state in 1883. Yet Kruger was scarcely the real leader in the nationalist movement to which the successful revolt of 1880–81 gave strength. The support given by the Cape Colony Dutch to the malcontent Transvaal Boers has already been mentioned. During the 1880–81 revolt many Free State burghers, despite the moderating influence of President Brand, joined the Transvaal commandoes. Now a definite effort was made to build up a united South Africa on anti-British lines. In the latter part of 1881 a Dutch pastor at the Paarl, a town in western Cape Colony named Du Toit, in a paper called De Patriot, suggested the organization of an Afrikander Bond; in the same year Carl Borckenhagen, a German resident in the Free State, advocated such a bond in his paper, the Bloemfontein Express. The Bond was formed, its work being almost confined to Cape Colony. It held its first congress at Graaf Reinet in 1882. In the “programme of principles” upon which its constitution was modelled it was set forth that:

In the following year the Farmers’ Protection Association was amalgamated with the Bond, and the joint organization fell under the control of J. H. Hofmeyr, the leader of the Dutch party in Cape Colony. Under Hofmeyr’s politic control all declarations inconsistent with allegiance to the British Crown were omitted from the Bond’s constitution. It remained, however, a strong nationalist organization, which in practice was inimical not so much to the British connexion as to the British section of the population and to the development of the country on enlightened lines. (For the Afrikander Bond see further
 * History, and 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hofmeyr, Jan Hendrik.)

Not long after the Warren expedition the valuable gold fields which Sir Garnet Wolseley had foreseen would be discovered in the Transvaal were actually found. By 1886, the year in which Johannesburg was founded, the wealth of the Witwatersrand fields was demonstrated. The revenue which these discoveries brought into the Transvaal treasury increased the importance of that state. The new industrial situation created had its effect on all parties in South Africa, and in some measure drew together the British and Dutch sections outside the Transvaal. A customs union between Cape Colony and the Free State was concluded in 1889, to which later on all the other South African states, save the Transvaal, became parties. But Kruger remained implacable, bigoted, avaricious, determined on a policy of isolation. In 1887 he made proposals for an alliance with the Free State. Brand refused to be ensnared in Kruger’s policy, and the negotiations led to no agreement. (For details of this episode see : History.) Not many months afterwards (July 1888) the Free State lost by death the wise, moderating guidance of Sir John Brand. The new president, F. W. Reitz, one of the founders of the Bond, in 1889 committed the Free State to an offensive and defensive alliance with the Transvaal. Kruger thus achieved one of the objects of his policy. Within the Transvaal a great change was coming over the population. There flocked to the Rand many thousands of British and other Europeans, together with a considerable number of Americans. This influx was looked upon with disfavour by Kruger and his supporters, and, while the new comers were heavily taxed, steps were speedily taken to revise the franchise laws so that the immigrants should have little chance of becoming burghers of the republic. This exclusion policy was even applied to immigrants from the other South African countries. A system of oppressive trade monopolies was also introduced. The situation with which the Boers were called upon to deal was one of great difficulty. They could not keep back the waves of the new civilization, they feared being swamped, and they sought vainly to maintain intact their old organization while reaping the financial benefit resulting from the working of the gold mines. The wider outlook which would have sought to win the Uitlanders (as they were called) to the side of the republic was entirely lacking. The policy actually followed was not even stationary; it was retrogressive.

Meanwhile, and partly through distrust of the Kruger policy, there was growing up in Cape Colony a party of South African Imperialists, or, as they have been called, Afrikander Imperialists, who came to a large extent under the influence of Cecil Rhodes. Among these were W. P. Schreiner (afterwards premier of the colony) and J. W. Leonard (sometime attorney-general) and, to some extent, Hofmeyr. From the time of his entrance into politics Rhodes endeavoured to induce the leading men in the country to realize that a development of the Whole country could and should be accomplished by South Africans for South Africans. He fully admitted that the cry which had become so popular since 1881 of “Africa for the Afrikanders” expressed a reasonable aspiration, but he constantly pointed out that its fulfilment could most

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/494


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Mandingo

MANDINGO (native name, Mande-nga). An extensive linguistic group of negroes more or less mixed with Hamites, dwelling in Western Africa from the Senegal and Upper Niger to Monrovia, and numbering many millions. Physically they are spare and athletic; height, 1,700 millimeters or 67 inches; the cranial index or proportion of head width to head length is 75.5-78.8. They frequently have aquiline noses and features distinct from the negro, though the hair is woolly. In their food, dress, and habitations they are far above savagery, and, under Arab teachers, have attained a certain degree of culture. The speech, called Mandi, is widespread, and divided into many dialects, encircling Timbuktu and enroaching on Fulah and Hausa. About seven hundred years ago the Empire of Mali was founded by the ancestors of this people in the Upper Niger region, and under King Musa (1311-31) it covered the Gambia and Joliba basins. The Upper Niger tribes still call themselves Mali’-nke. In religion they are Mohammedan, having embraced that faith centuries ago and propagated it with great vigor. The Mandingos were divided into numberless tribes, each speaking its own dialect, and, through their lack of cohesion, they were conquered about 1500 by the Sonrhay. The English planted factories among them in 1618, but the expeditions into the Niger country ended in disaster. The French in the next century cut off

the progress of the English. In 1862 the Gambia Mandingos waged a propaganda for Islam in which hundreds of settlements of pagan tribes on the Gambia were laid waste.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/133

 chief magistrate—not an imitation of a king—and must possess no power of vetoing the laws which the representatives of the people agreed upon (, Diary, iii. 171, 318, 337). On the same ground he opposed any concession of a negative voice in legislation to the ‘other House,’ or any recognition of the authority of the new lords (ib. iv. 70, 292). Vane spoke with equal vigour against the admission of the members for Scotland and Ireland, allowing in the first case the validity of the act of union, but denying that of the arrangements for Scotland's representation in parliament made by the Protector. Ireland, he argued, was still a province, and it was inequitable to give it a power not only to make laws for itself, but to give perhaps a casting vote in making laws for England (ib. iv. 178, 229). Vane also attacked the foreign policy of the protectorate as calculated to promote the personal interests of the Protector rather than those of the nation (ib. iii. 384, 401, 489), and demanded the release of fifth-monarchy men and cavaliers arrested without legal warrant (ib. iii. 495, iv. 120, 262).

These speeches, logical, acute, and at times eloquent, give a much higher idea of Vane's powers than the formal orations published in the early days of the Long parliament. But his faith in his cause blinded him to the risk that the overthrow of the protectorate might produce the restoration of the Stuarts. When a supporter of the government talked of ‘consequences,’ he answered, ‘God is Almighty: will you not trust Him with the consequences? He is a wiser workman than to reject His own work’ (ib. iv. 72). This ‘blind zeal,’ as the royalists termed it, led him to sanction Ludlow's intrigues with the discontented officers of the army, and to ally himself with them to restore the Long parliament and set aside the Protector (ib. iv. 457;, ii. 65, 74). On the restoration of the Long parliament, Vane was at once appointed a member of the committee of safety (7 May) and of the council of state which succeeded it (14 May). He was also made a commissioner of the navy, a member of the committee of examination and secrecy, and one of a special committee appointed to examine into the case of prisoners for conscience' sake (Commons' Journals, vii. 646, 648, 654, 665; cf. Trial of Vane, p. 47). The management of foreign affairs was almost entirely in his hands, and to Bordeaux, the French ambassador, he seemed ‘the principal minister in the present government.’ Under his influence the foreign policy of the republic was prudent and moderate. ‘Vane at his last visit,’ wrote Bordeaux in July 1659, ‘made no mystery with me; he assured me that the sole desire of this government is to live on good terms with all neighbouring states, and to consolidate their internal affairs’ (, Richard Cromwell and the Restoration, i. 381, 411, 424, 433, 437, 443, 483; Commons' Journals, vii. 652, 670). In finance Vane was also active, having been added by a special vote to the treasury committee (ib. vii. 648, 737; cf., i. 154). Hitherto he had had little to do with the management of the army, but on 13 May he was appointed one of the seven commissioners for the nomination of officers, who were charged to replace Cromwellian officers by sound republicans. His position was that of a mediator between the army and the parliament. Like Ludlow, he opposed the restrictions which Haslerig and the majority of the parliament inserted in the commissions of the officers (, ii. 89, 103;, vii. 704). He tried also to reconcile Haslerig and Lambert, and it was mainly owing to his efforts that Lambert was made commander of the army sent to suppress the rising under Sir George Booth (, ii. 112; cf., Original Letters, ii. 200). On 10 Aug. 1659, during the excitement which that rising caused, Vane himself was chosen to command one of the regiments of volunteers raised in London, a circumstance which was one of the charges against him three years later (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, pp. 94, 563, 582; Trial, pp. 29, 33, 49). Vane's endeavours to conciliate the army, his apparent alliance with Lambert, and his opposition to the proposed engagement against government by a single person, though each defensible enough on public grounds, exposed him to great suspicions. He was believed to be plotting either to establish the fifth monarchy and the reign of the saints, or to set up a government in which he and Lambert would divide the power (ib. iii. 505;, ii. 424, 426, 483, 490; , Original Letters, ii. 200, 216, 225).

On 13 Oct. 1659 Lambert turned out the Long parliament. The officers in London, regarding Vane as their friend, appointed him one of their committee of safety (26 Oct.) and one of the six commissioners for the nomination of officers. He refused to accept either post, but continued to act as a commissioner of the admiralty under the government they set up. At his trial he defended himself by saying that though his position with regard to the navy brought him into contact with the members of the committee of safety, ‘yet I kept myself disinterested from all those actings of the army, as to any consent or approbation of mine (however in


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/134

 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. , ii. 284;, 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 (, ii. 149, 159, 161, 164, 172; Trial, p. 30;, 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 (, ii. 143, 154;, 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 (, ii. 181;, 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’ (, 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;, 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,