Monck, George (DNB00)
MONCK or MONK, GEORGE, first Duke of Albemarle (1608–1670), born 6 Dec. 1608 at Potheridge, near Torrington in Devonshire, was the second son of Sir Thomas Monck, knt., by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir George Smith of Maydford in the same county (Gumble, Life of Monck, 8vo, 1671, p. 1; Visitation of Devonshire, 1620, ed. Colby, pp. 188-91). In 1625 the under-sheriff of Devonshire perfidiously arrested Sir Thomas Monck as he went to pay his respects to the king, and George Monck avenged his father's wrongs by thrashing the under-sheriff. To avoid legal proceedings he took service as a volunteer in the expedition to Cadiz, under his kinsman, Sir Richard Grenville, who was then major to the regiment of Sir John Borough. In 1627 he distinguished himself by bringing a letter from the king to the Duke of Buckingham in the Isle of Ré, 'passing the army, which lay before Rochelle, with great hazard of his life.' It was probably as a reward for this service that he now obtained an ensign's commission in Borough's regiment (Gumble, p. 4; Works of George Granville, Lord Lansdowne, ed. 1736, iii. 253). About 1629 Monck entered the Dutch service, serving in the regiment of the Earl of Oxford, which after Oxford's death became the regiment of George Goring. At the siege of Breda, in 1637, Monck led the forlorn hope in the assault on one of the outworks of the town. He distinguished himself also as a strict disciplinarian, and earned a reputation as a good officer. A quarrel with the magistrates of Dort on the question of their jurisdiction over the soldiers under Monck's command finally led to his quitting the Dutch service. A scheme was at this time on foot in England for the colonisation of Madagascar by a joint-stock company, and Monck thought of becoming one of the adventurers in that enterprise. But the outbreak of the Scottish troubles provided him employment in England (Gumble, pp. 5-ll; Hexham, Brief Relation of the Siege of Breda, 4to, 1637, p. 27). In the list of the army under the command of the Earl of Northumberland, in 1640, Monck appears as lieutenant-colonel of the foot regiment of the Earl of Newport (Peacock, Army Lists, 2nd edit. p. 75). Gumble attributes to Monck's good conduct the saving of the English guns in the rout at Newburn (p. 10; cf. Skinee, Life of Monck. 1724, p. 18).
At the outbreak of the Irish rebellion the Earl of Leicester a relative of Monck's was lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and at once offered Monck the command of his own regiment of foot. .The regiment, consisting of twelve hundred men, landed at Dublin on 21 Feb. 1642 (Gumble, p. 15; Nalson, Historical Collections, ii. 919). Monck gained much honour at the battle of Kilrush, and by defeating the Irish in a number of skirmishes and forays (Borlase, Irish Rebellion, ed. 1743, p. 100). In June 1642 he 'took Castleknock, and killed eighty rebels, besides some that he hanged; and a while after he took the castles of Rathroffy and Clongoweswood in the county of Kildare, and did good execution upon the enemy' (Coxe, Hibernia Anglicana, ii. 107). In December 1642 he relieved Ballinakill, besieged by General Preston, and defeated at Tymachoe an attempt of the Irish to intercept his return to Dublin (Carte, Ormonde, ed. 1851, ii. 386; Bellings, Hist. of the Irish Catholic Confederation, i. 91, ii. 177). In the summer of 1643 he conducted an expedition for the relief of Castle-Jordan in King's County, captured various places in Wicklow, and took part in an unsuccessful campaign against Owen O'Neill (ib. i. 161, ii. 271, 363; Carte, ii. 500). On 7 June 1643 the Earl of Leicester commissioned Monck as governor of Dublin, with a salary of 40s. a day, but the king, at the request of the lords justices, appointed Lord Lambert instead (ib. ii. 347 ; Bekkings, ii. 44). Though he failed to obtain this public recognition of his services, he had gained the confidence of his men, and was 'the most beloved by the soldiers of any officer in the army' (Carte, iii. 43).
Even before the cessation of September 1643 Monck had obtained leave to return to England, possibly on account of the death of his father. His refusal to take the oath which Ormonde imposed on the Irish army before it was transported to England to serve Charles I proceeded, according to Carte, from a desire to consult his patron, the Earl of Leicester, or to obtain his arrears from the parliament before again entering the king's service, nor did it prevent Ormonde granting him a pass. But some loose talk of Lord Lisle's about the possibility of gaining over Monck to the parliamentary cause, and a message which Pym had sent to Monck with that object, drew suspicion upon him. Ormonde consequently sent him under safe custody to Bristol till the king's pleasure should be known, at the same time telling the governor that Monck was a person ' that hath very well deserved in the service of this kingdom,' and that 'no unworthy thing ' was laid to his charge. The governor allowed him to go to Oxford to justify himself, which he succeeded in doing without difficulty. In his interview with Charles I he frankly criticised the conduct of the war in Ireland, and asserted that ten thousand men properly disciplined and equipped, and commanded by officers of experience, could bring it to a conclusion (ib. iii. 37, v. 504, 525 ; Gumble, p. 17).
His old regiment had been given to his second in command, but he obtained a commission to raise a new one. He rejoined the army just before its defeat by Fairfax at Nantwich (25 Jan. 1644), fought as a volunteer at the head of his old regiment, and was taken prisoner. On 8 July he was brought to the bar of the House of Commons, charged with high treason, and committed to the Tower, where he remained for two years, find- ing it very difficult even to subsist (Skinner, p. 23 ; Carte, Original Letters, i. 38, 41 ; Commons' Journals, iii. 554). His elder brother, Thomas, who was not rich, and was actively engaged in the king's cause, sent him 50l. In a letter begging for another 50l., on the score of his great necessities, Monck adds : ' I shall entreat you to be mindful of me concerning my exchange ; for I doubt all my friends have forgotten me.' Prince Rupert made an attempt to get him exchanged for Sir Robert Pye [q. v.], and the king sent him 100l., a gift which he often mentioned with gratitude in later days (Gumble, p. 20; Skinner, p. xix; Hist. M8S. Comm. 6th Rep. gratitude in later days (Gumble, p. 20; p. xix : Hist. MSS. Comm. 6th Rep. p. 63; Cal. of Compounders, p. 1366; Notes and Queries, 8th ser. iv. 241).
In September 1646, when Ormonde was negotiating with the parliament, one of his requests was that Monck and some other imprisoned officers might be released and sent over to Ireland, ' being men that knew the country and were experienced in the service, and therefore fitter to be employed than others' (Carte, iii. 270). For the same reason, when the parliament took the Irish war into its own hands, it decided to employ Monck. On 1 July he obtained leave to go beyond seas, on condition of taking the 'negative oath.' But Lord Lisle, who was chosen by parliament lord-lieutenant of Ireland, persuaded Monck to offer to serve there. On 12 Nov. 1646 Lisle reported to the lords from the Derby House committee that Monck had engaged his honour that he would faithfully serve the parliament if he were employed in Ireland ; and, moreover, that he had taken the negative oath, was willing to take the covenant, and was ready to start at a moment's notice (Commons' Journals, iv. 595, 720 ; Lords' Journals, viii. 562). The offer was accepted, and there can be little doubt that Monck actually did take the covenant, though the fact has been much disputed (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 352 ; Guizot, Life of Monck, ed. Wovtley, p. 39). A royalist tradition represents Monck before he left the Tower as solemnly begging the blessing of his fellow-prisoner, Dr. Wren, and pledging himself never to be an enemy to the king. Whether the story is true or not, Monck, like Lord Broghill and others, certainly drew a distinction between bearing arms against the Irish rebels and bearing arms against the king. But once embarked in the service of the parliament, military honour led him to be unswervingly faithful to the government whose pay he took (Barwick, Life of John Barwick, p. 267). In February 1647 Monck set out with Lord Lisle for Munster, with the rank of adjutant-general, returning in April, when Lisle's commission expired. Parliament now determined to divide the command, assigning the government of Leinster to Michael Jones [q. v.], and that of Ulster to Monck (Carte, iii. 324, 331 ; Gumble, p. 25 ; Lords' Journals, ix. 336).
During the next two years Monck's ability was chiefly shown by the skill with which he contrived to maintain his position and to provide for his men in a ravaged and barren country. In October 1647, and again in August 1648, he joined Jones, and the two made brief campaigns together and captured a few small fortresses (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1645-7, p. 593 ; Hist. MSS. Comm. 6th Hep. p. 205 ; Hist. of the War in Ireland, by an Officer of Sir John Clotworthy 's Regiment, Dublin, 1873, pp. 58-62 ; Portland MSS. p. 493). In 1648 the defection of the Scottish army in Ulster made his position extremely precarious ; but by a skilfully arranged plot he surprised their headquarters at Carrickfergus (16 Sept.) and Belfast, and sent their general, Robert Monro [q. v.], a prisoner to England (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 52; Borlase, p. 255).
On 28 Sept. parliament appointed Monck governor of Carrickfergus, and voted him a gratuity of 500l. The king's execution led to further divisions among the adherents of the parliament, and the 'old Scots ' the colony established in Ulster by the plantation of James I now declared against the parliament, and summoned Monck to join them in support of Charles II (The Declaration of the British in the North of Ireland, with some Queries of Colonel Monck, &c., 1648, 4to ; Hill, The Montgomery MSS., i. 177-90). Belfast and Carrickfergus fell into their hands, and Monck was obliged to retire to Dundalk (April 1649). In this extremity, finding Jones unable to give him any help, he concluded a cessation of arms for three months with Owen Roe O'Neill [q. v.] (8 May 1649). Monck was well aware that the peace propositions put forward by O'Neill were not likely to be accepted by the parliament. He succeeded in persuading O'Neill to modify them, but even when amended considered them 'wonderful high,' and believed that O'Neill would be satisfied with much less than he demanded. As an excuse for his action in concluding the armistice he pleaded simply military necessity, the ill condition in which he was between the forces of O'Neill and the Scots, and the paramount importance of preventing O'Neill from joining Ormonde in an attempt to drive the English out of Ireland. In forwarding the convention and O'Neill's propositions to Cromwell personally, instead of to the council of state, he wrote : 'Since there was great necessity for me to do it I hope it will beget no ill construction, when the advantage gained to the service, by dividing Ormonde and MacArt, is fully weighed' (25 May 1649). From a military point of view the arrangement with O'Neill did produce some of the results anticipated by Monck. On the other hand, as soon as it became known, the fidelity of Monck's own men was shattered. Inchiquin, whom Ormonde sent against him, took Drogheda, induced nearly all its garrison to join his army, and intercepted the convoy of ammunition which Monck forwarded to O'Neill, with a request for help (15 July). Two days afterwards Inchiquin invested Dundalk, and Monck's own soldiers forced him to surrender (17 July). Monck then proceeded to England, landed at Chester on 26 July, and appeared before the parliament on 10 Aug. The house passed a vote in which they ' utterly disapproved ' of his proceedings in the treaty with O'Neill, but declared their belief in his good faith, and promised not to question his conduct further. Monck asserted that he had acted solely on his own responsibility (Commons' Journals, vi. 277 ; cf. Aphorismical Discovery, n. vii. 216 ; Carte, Original Letters, ii. 388 ; Walker, History of Independency, ed. 1661, ii. 230; The True State of the Transactions of Col. Geo. Monck with Owen Roe MacArt, O'Neill, &c., 1649, 4to).
In July 1650 Cromwell invaded Scotland, and took Monck with him. There was some difficulty, however, in finding him a command. Bright's regiment, which had fought against Monck at Nantwich, was indignant at the suggestion that he should become their colonel. Cromwell formed a new regiment for him, by taking five companies from Fenwick's and five from Hesilrige's. On 13 Aug. parliament ordered the regiment thus made to be placed on the establishment, and it became at the Restoration the Coldstream guards (Memoirs of Capt. John Hodgson, ed. 1806, p. 139 ; Mackinnon, The Coldstream Guards, 1833, i. 4). At Dunbar Monck led the brigade of foot, and did good service, though Gumble probably exaggerates when he represents him as teaching Cromwell and the other officers the art of war, and gives him the whole credit of the victory (Carlyle, Cromwell, Letter cxl. ; Gumble, pp. 34-8). He was subsequently engaged during November 1650 in the siege of Dirleton Castle and other small places, and in the spring of 1651 in the capture of the more important fortresses of Tantallon and Blackness. ' Thereby,' says Gumble, 'he increased in reputation and credit with the general, and seemed to bear the greatest sway in the councils of war, which drew upon him the envy of all the old officers.'
In May 1651 Monck was appointed lieutenant-general of the ordnance, and when Cromwell marched into England in pursuit of Charles II he left Monck as commander-in-chief in Scotland (Mackinnon, i. 32-6 ; Mercurius Politicus, 29 May-5 June 1651). They parted on 4 Aug. 1651, and the forces left with Monck amounted, according to Cromwell's estimate, to five or six thousand men. On 6 Aug. he summoned Stirling, which capitulated on the 14th. On the 28th a party of horse, under Colonel Alured, captured the Earl of Leven and the Scottish committee of estates at Alyth in Perthshire. On 1 Sept. Dundee was taken by storm, after it had been besieged for about ten days. About five hundred of the garrison were killed, and for the rest of the day and the following night the soldiers were allowed to plunder at will. 'The stubbornness of the people,' apologised Monck to Cromwell, 'enforced the soldiers to plunder the town.' Ludlow accused Monck of ordering Lumsden, the governor of Dundee, to be put to death in cold blood, but the statement is contradicted by other authorities, and is improbable. There is no ground for charging him with exceptional barbarity, and his despatch shows that the garrison were not indiscriminately put to the sword (Gary, Memorials of the Civil War, ii. 327, 345 ; Old Parliamentary History, xx. 18; Guizot, p. 61).
In his answer to the thanks of the parliament, and in previous letters Monck complained that he was in urgent need of reinforcements (Cart, ii. 365; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1651, p. 399). He himself was taken ill with gout or rheumatism soon after the capture of Dundee. Hence, though Montrose, Aberdeen, and other places submitted, and the Marquis of Huntly and other leaders laid down their arms, the conquest of Scotland was not completed till the following year. Lambert was sent to Scotland in November 1651, and eight commissioners, of whom Monck was one, were appointed to effect the civil settlement of the country (25 Oct., Commons' Journals, vii. 30). Monck left Scotland in February 1652, and proceeded to Bath to recruit his health (Gumble, p. 46 ; Mercurius Politicus, 6-13 Nov. 1650). In June the council of state contemplated ordering him back to his command, but on second thoughts they retained him in England, to supervise the fortifications of Yarmouth (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1652-3, pp. 329, 624).
With Monck's appointment as one of the three generals of the fleet on 26 Nov. 1652, a new period in his career begins. Unlike his two colleagues, Blake and Deane, he had no naval experience, but parliament regarded energy, resolution, and the habit of command as sufficient qualifications. The fleet put to sea on 8 Feb., and a three days' battle with the Dutch began off Portland, 18 Feb. 1653. In the first day's battle, ' General Monck, in the Vanguard, then admiral of the white, and all his division, being at least four miles to leeward of the other generals when the fight began . . . the main stress of the fight lay upon the red and blue divisions ' (Memorials of Sir William Penn, p. 478). But the white division came into action later, and Mildrnay, the captain of the Vanguard, was among the slain. Of the merchantmen Tromp was convoying twenty-four were taken, while four Dutch men-of-war were captured and five sunk (ib. pp. 475, 477 : Life of Cornelius Tromp, 1697, pp. 89-104). A second battle took place on 2 and 3 June, off the coast of the Netherlands. Blake's squadron did not arrive till after the first day's fight was over, and Deane was killed early on the first day, so that Monck was in sole command during great part of the battle. Tromp admitted the loss of eight ships, and the Dutch fleet retired behind the shoals known as the Wielings, between Ostend and Sluys. The command of the sea fell into the hands of the English fleet, many rich merchantmen were captured, and the English 'held the coast of Holland as 'twere besieged' (ib. p. 129 ; Penn, i. 491-8). Blake having fallen ill, the council of state on 9 July 1652 sent Monck a commission authorising him to exercise all the powers which had been granted to the three admirals jointly (ib. p. 500). Tromp sailed out from his anchorage on 27 July, and a still bloodier battle took place on 29 and 31 July, in which Tromp was killed, and the Dutch lost twenty-six men-of-war.
The success of the English fleet was partly due to the restoration of discipline among the officers, and to improved organisation. A letter from Deane and Monck to the council of state shows with what vigour they urged their advice, and insisted upon extended powers when the good of the service required it (Life of Deane, pp. 601, 604, 631). As much, or more, was due to improved tactics. 'Our fleet,' says a description of the second battle, 'did work together in better order than before, and seconded one another ' (ib, p. 648). The third battle, an officer who took part in it terms f a very orderly battle,' and a French eye-witness describes the English, fleet as 'drawn up in a line extending above four leagues' (Gumble, p. 67 ; Life of Penn, i. 510). Both the biographers of Penn and Deane claim the adoption of this system of tactics as due to those admirals, but all the arguments by which Deane's claim is supported apply with equal force to Monck's. The essence of the system was the attempt to introduce into naval warfare something of the order which distinguished scientifically fought land-battles. In technical matters Monck undoubtedly owed much to his subordinates, and his special recommendation of Penn to succeed Deane shows that he recognised the necessity of professional assistance (ib. i. 492). He held regular councils of war, and one of his officers describes him as telling his assembled flag-officers, in a meeting held after Deane's death, that their joint advice should be as binding to him as an act of parliament (Gumble, p. 64).
These three great battles practically ended the Dutch war, though peace was not concluded till the following year. The parliament voted Monck a gold chain of the value of 300l., and a medal commemorating his victories (Commons' Journals, vii. 296; cf. Mackinnon, i. 58). On 1 Oct. 1653 he received the formal thanks of the house on taking his seat there as one of the members for Devonshire (Commons' Journals, vii. 328).
During Monck's absence at sea Cromwell forcibly dissolved the Long parliament (20 April 1653). In the 'Declaration of the generals at sea, and captains under their command' (23 April 1653), Monck and his colleague Deane accepted the change, and replied simply that it was 'set upon their hearts' that they were called and entrusted by the nation to defend it against its enemies at sea, whether Dutchmen or others, and were resolved unanimously to prosecute that end (Deane, Memoirs of General Deane, p. 618 ; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1652-3, p. 289). It is evident that Monck did not share the enthusiastic hopes with which many of his fellow-soldiers regarded this revolution. In 1659, when he was taunted with his acquiescence in 1653, he explained that 'the variety of times doth much vary the nature of affairs, and what might then patiently be submitted unto, we being engaged with a foreign enemy in a bloody war, cannot be drawn into a precedent at this time, after our repentance' (Letter to Vice-admiral Goodson, 4 Nov. 1659). According to Gumble, Cromwell did not venture to act till he had sounded Monck, and discovered that he had no concern for the Long parliament, nor any obligation to them (p. 73). But this is improbable, for Monck had hitherto taken no part at all in political matters.
In the spring of 1654 Monck again took the command of the army in Scotland. A royalist insurrection with which his successor, Robert Lilburne, was unable to cope had broken out in the preceding summer, and was at its height when Monck arrived (Monck's commission, dated 8 April 1654, is printed in Turloe, ii. 222). His first act was to issue a proclamation offering an amnesty to all persons who laid down their arms within twenty days, and promising a reward of 200l. for Middleton [see Middleton, John, first Earl of Middleton], and four other leaders of the insurrection, dead or alive (4 May 1654, Thurloe, ii. 261). As he received considerable reinforcements from England, and was assisted by an expedition from the north of Ireland, he was able to undertake a skilfully combined campaign in the highlands. His plan was to burn the corn, to destroy the strongholds of the enemy, and to establish garrisons at strategic points. SoLclosely were the royalists pressed that Middleton's army rapidly diminished, and on 19 July Colonel Morgan overtook him at Lochgarry (Mercurius Politicus, 27 July-3 Aug., and 10-17 Aug. 1654; Baillie, iii. 255). He followed up his victory by 'destroying,' as he terms it, 'those parts of the country where the enemy usually harboured in winter.' 'By this means,' he reported, 'and by the sending some of them to the Barbadoes, their spirits do begin to fail them ' (Thurloe, ii. 526, 555). Before the summer ended the submission of the royalists made rapid progress. The Earl of Glencairn made terms on 29 Aug., Lord Kenmure on 14 Sept., and Middleton escaped to the continent about February 1655 (Nichols, Letters and Papers addressed to Cromwell, 1743, p. 130).
In December 1654 the success of Monck's work was threatened by widespread dissatisfaction among the English troops in Scotland. A portion of the officers were in close communication with the parliamentary opposition to Cromwell, and were spreading seditious pamphlets in the army. Some of the non-commissioned officers were conspiring with the Levellers in England, and a plot had been formed to seize Monck and march into England to overthrow the Protector. Overton, Monck's second in command, who was believed to sympathise with the movement, was to be placed at its head. What made the danger greater was that the pay of the soldiers was many months in arrear. Monck, with his usual promptitude, suppressed the incendiary pamphlets, arrested the conspirators, cashiered the minor offenders, and shipped off the leaders to England. 'My opinion is,' he wrote, 'that unless his highness be very severe with those that are disturbers of the peace, we shall never have any certain settlement' (Thurloe, iii. 45, 76, 179). During the later years of his government he carefully purged his army of anabaptists and quakers.
From July 1655 Monck was assisted in the civil government of Scotland by a council, to which very extended powers were granted. Its most important member was Lord Broghill [see Boyle, Roger, Baron Broghill and first Earl of Orrery], and it contained two Scots, John Swinton and William Lockhart (Cal State Papers, Dom. 1655, pp. 108, 152, 255). But Monck's influence alone inspired the government, and little difference of policy can be detected. Justice was administered without distinction of persons, caterans and moss-troopers transported to the sugar plantations, and order rigidly maintained. 'A man,' boasted one of the council, 'may ride all Scotland over with a switch in his hand and 100l. in his pocket, which he could not have done these 500 years' (Burton, Diary, iv. 168). The taxes levied on Scotland were extremely heavy, and Monck urgently pressed their reduction (Thurloe, vi. 330). In ecclesiastical matters he favoured the protesters,' whom he termed 'the honest party,' as against the 'resolutionists,' but strongly opposed a proposal to interfere with the autonomy of the Scottish burghs in favour of the former party (ib. iii. 117, vi. 529). His courtesy to the Scottish nobility is highly praised by Gumble, and by the end of his rule he had gained considerable popularity. 'That worthy person, General Monck, said a Scottish member in Richard Cromwell's parliament, and those worthy officers amongst us, have won our affections' (Burton, Diary, iii. 138; Gumble, p. 89).
On the intrigues of the royalists Monck kept a very vigilant eye. In December 1654 there was a rumour that Charles II was about to land in Scotland. 'If he comes,' wrote Monck, 'I doubt not we shall (through the blessing of God) keep him back in such a country where he cannot ride or travell but in "trowses" and a plaid' (Thurloe, iii. 3 ; cf. v. 348). In spite of this Charles II, in 1655, sent a letter to Monck, expressing the belief that he still retained his old affection for his sovereign, and bidding him reserve himself for the opportunity of future service. Monck duly forwarded a copy of the letter to Cromwell, and abated nothing of his activity in arresting the king's agents (Guizot, Life of Monck, ed. Wortley, p. 85).
Between Monck and Cromwell cordial and unbroken confidence throughout existed. 'Your honest general, George Monck, who is a simple-hearted man,' was the Protector's description of him to one of the officers under his command. In 1657 the Protector summoned Monck to a seat in his new House of Lords, but he begged to be excused, on the ground that his presence was indispensable in Scotland. The royalists eagerly spread unfounded reports that he had refused to obey the Protector's orders. Cromwell made a jest of these stories, and is said to have written to Monck : 'There be that tell me there is a certain cunning fellow in Scotland called George Monck, who is said to lie in wait there to introduce Charles Stuart ; I pray, use your diligence to apprehend him, and send him up to me' (Thurloe, vi. 741, 863 ; Price, ed. Maseres, p. 712). On Cromwell's death Monck wrote to Henry Cromwell, promising his support to the new protector (Lansdowne MS. 822, f. 243). He procured an address of recognition from the army in Scotland, and exerted himself to return supporters of the government to parliament (Thurloe, vii. 404, 411, 574, 613).
A few days after Richard's accession Monck sent him, through his brother-in-law, Thomas Clarges [q. v.], a paper of advice, specially valuable for the light which it throws on its author's political views. In ecclesiastical matters he advised the protector to favour the moderate presbyterians, and to call an assembly of divines to endeavour to find some way of union among the different sects, hinting, in conclusion, that to his mind toleration had gone a little too far. In civil affairs he bade him rely upon St. John, Broghill, Thurloe, and similar councillors, and to endeavour to engage to himself 'those of power and interest amongst the people, for which he has a better opportunity than his father, having not the same obligations to so many disquiet spirits.' Monck's distrust of the leaders of the English army is very noticeable. He urged Richard to reduce its expense by putting two regiments into one, which would give him an opportunity to get rid of 'some insolent spirits' among the commanders. 'There is not,' he added, 'an officer in the army upon any discontent that has power to draw two men after him if he be out of place' (ib. vii. 37).
Of his own power to suppress either a royalist rising or a military revolt, Monck wrote with easy confidence (ib. vii. 545, 616). Richard made Monck keeper of Holyrood House, and invited him to sit in his House of Lords, but, as before, Monck represented that he could not be spared from Scotland (ib. vii. 526, 579). When the protector quarrelled with the army some of his friends urged Monck to march into England to his support, and he would doubtless have done so had not Richard been induced to dissolve his parliament. A royalist represents Monck as saying : ' Richard Cromwell forsook himself, else I had never failed my promise to his father or regard to his memory,' and the phrase truthfully sums up his conduct (Ludlow, Memoirs, ed. 1698, p. 643; Gumble, p. 97; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 628). All parties watched Monck's action with great interest, but he took the restoration of the Long parliament with composure, and put his name to the fervid address of congratulation forwarded by his army to the parliament. In a private letter he simply expressed his pleasure that so great a change had been effected without bloodshed, and his hope that the men in power would 'enter upon something to keep us in peace and quietness' (ib. iii. 475, 480 ; Thurloe, vii. 667, 669). But when the newly appointed commissioners for the nomination of officers began to remove and to change the officers of the regiments under his command, Monck at once signified his dissatisfaction (Baker, Chronicle, ed. Phillips, pp. 670, 675 ; Old Parliamentary History, xxi. 427). His discontent was well known, and in the summer of 1659 overtures were made to him from the royalists.
Immediately on receiving the news of Cromwell's death Lord Colepepper had pointed Monck out to Hyde as the instrument best able to effect the king's restoration. He 'commandeth,' Colepepper wrote, absolutely at his devotion ... a better army than that in England is, and in the king's quarrel can bring with him the strength of Scotland I need not give you his character ; you know he is a sullen man that values him enough, and much believes that his knowledge and reputation in arms fits him for the title of Highness and the office of Protector better than Mr. Richard Cromwell's skill in horseracing and husbandry doth. You know, besides, that the only ties that have hitherto kept him from grumbling have been the vanity of constancy to his professions, and his affection to Cromwell's person. . . . Nothing of either of them can now stick with him, The way to deal with him is, by some fit person to shew him plainly, and to give him all imaginable security for it, that he shall better find all his ends (those of honour, power, profit, and safety) with the king than in any other way he can take' (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 413). It was accordingly resolved to approach Monck through his cousin, Sir John Grenville, and his brother, Nicholas Monck [q. v.] Charles, on 21 July 1659, gave Grenville full powers to treat with Monck, and undertook to make good any engagements he might make to Monck or his officers. At the same time he drew up a letter to the general himself. 'I cannot think,' he wrote, 'you wish me ill, for you have no reason to do so ; and the good I expect from you will bring so great benefit to your country and yourself, that I cannot think you will decline my interest. ... If you once resolve to take my interest to heart, I will leave the way and manner of declaring it entirely to your own judgment, and will comply with the advice you shall give me' (Baker, Chronicle, ed. Phillips, p. 672 ; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 417, 421, 516). Nicholas Monck arrived at Dalkeith at the beginning of August 1659, on the ostensible pretext of arranging a match for his daughter. He communicated the contents of the king's letter to his brother. The general allowed him to talk freely and listened favourably, but would not promise to receive the letter (ib. iii. 543, 618). Monck's chaplains, Gumble and Price, have both left accounts of this incident, but Price was at the time more trusted. He goes too far, however, when he represents Monck as henceforth resolved to restore the king, and has to admit that neither then nor much later durst he venture to mention his name to the general. Both agree, however, in stating that Monck resolved to cooperate with, or take advantage of the royalist-presbyterian rising then on foot in England, and that he concerted some of the necessary military preparations for that step. Price himself was charged to draw up a letter from the army in Scotland to the parliament, declaring for a full and free parliament and for the known laws and liberties of the nation. But Monck postponed action till the arrival of the next post from England, and it brought the news of Lambert's defeat of Sir George Booth [q. v.] The plan was immediately abandoned, the letter burnt, and the conspirators sworn to secrecy.
Disheartened by this check, and finding the independence of his command greatly limited by the action of parliament in displacing many of his officers, Monck wrote to Lenthall begging leave to retire (3 Sept.) His intention was to go to Ireland and live on the estate which he had purchased with his arrears of pay. But Clarges, Monck's agent in London, and Speaker Lenthall, contrived to keep back the letter for ten days, till Monck changed his mind (Baker, p. 675). One of the reasons for this course was the prospect of an immediate breach between the parliament and the army. 'I see now,' said Monck, ' that I shall have a better game to play than I had before. I know Lambert so well that I am sure he will not let those people at Westminster sit till Christmas-day' (Price, p. 726). Through Clarges, Monck promised support to the parliamentary leaders, and a letter which parliament received from him on 5 Oct. emboldened them to deal severely with Lambert and his followers. When they revoked Fleetwood's commission as commander-in-chief, Monck was one of the persons in whose hands they vested the command of the army (Baker, p. 682 ; Commons' Journals, vii. 792; cf. A Letter from General Monck to the Speaker, 13 Oct. 4to, 1659).
The army leaders had not anticipated Monck's opposition. They invited him to sign their petition to parliament, to which he returned an emphatic refusal, and sent Colonel Gobbet to him to explain the causes of their conduct. Monck received the news of the expulsion of the parliament on 17 Oct., concerted his measures the same night, and in the next two days secured Edinburgh, Leith, Berwick, and other fortresses, placed officers whom he could trust in command of his regiments, and arrested those whose defection he feared. On 20 Oct. he despatched a letter to Lenthall announcing his resolve 'to assert the liberty and authority of parliament,' and with it expostulations addressed to Lambert and Fleetwood, telling the one that England would not endure any arbitrary power, and the other not to be deluded by the specious pretences of ambitious persons (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 4 ; Baker, p. 685). These were followed by a series of declarations to the army, the churches, and the nation (True Narrative of the Proceedings in Parliament, Council of State, General Council of the Army, etc., from Sept. 22 to this present, 4to, 1659). All were conciliatory in tone, and as would-be mediators were many, Monck agreed to send three commissioners to negotiate with the leaders of the English army. The commissioners came to an agreement on 15 Nov., but he refused to ratify it, on the ground that they had gone beyond their instructions (Baker, pp. 693-5). Further negotiations to take place at Newcastle were accordingly agreed to. Delay strengthened Monck's position, for he had 70,000l. in hand, while the troops opposed to him under the leadership of Lambert were ill-paid and afterwards unpaid. He was also enabled thereby to complete his communications with the 'opponents of military rule in England and Ireland, and to give them time to come to his aid. Nine of the old council of state met together in London, and sent him a letter of thanks (19 Nov.), followed by a commission constituting him absolute commander-in-chief of all the forces in England and Scotland (24 Nov. ; Baker, p. 695). At their instigation the garrison of Portsmouth declared for the restoration of the parliament (3 Dec.) ; then the fleet in the Downs followed Portsmouth's example (13 Dec.), and finally a revolution in the Irish army, headed by Sir Charles Coote and Lord Broghill, placed the government of that country in the hands of Monck's supporters (14 Dec.) The troops in London abandoned the struggle and submitted to the parliament, which again resumed its place at Westminster on 26 Dec.
Monck was now able to advance into England. His forces were inferior in number to Lambert's, and he was especially weak in horse. To remedy this he had increased the number of pikemen in each regiment, and turned his dragoons into regular cavalry. His determination to maintain English authority in Scotland obliged him to leave four regiments of foot to hold the Scottish fortresses and to reject suggestions that he should summon the Scots to his assistance. A certain number of Scotsmen were enlisted to fill the vacancies in his foot regiments. Monck also persuaded the Convention of Estates to facilitate his march by guaranteeing the early payment of the assessments due from the country. More than a benevolent neutrality he knew he could not expect, unless he were to declare openly for the king.
Monck had established his headquarters at Coldstream on the Tweed, about nine miles from Berwick, a position which would enable him either to bar Lambert's advance if he marched by the east coast, or to march directly on London if Lambert invaded Scotland by way of Carlisle (8 Dec.) On 24 Dec. he broke off the negotiations with Lambert, and on 2 Jan. 1660 crossed the Tweed into England. His forces amounted to about five thousand foot and two thousand horse. Lambert's army broke up as Monck's advanced. Monck marched slowly towards London, disbanding or purging the rebellious regiments of Lambert's army on his way. An opportune riot among some of the soldiers in London supplied him with a plausible reason for requiring that Fleetwood's forces should leave London to make room for the troops which he brought with him. He felt strong enough to send part of his forces back to Scotland, and entered London on 3 Feb. with four thousand foot and eighteen hundred horse.
Throughout this journey Monck was besieged by addresses from all parts of England, asking for the readmission of the excluded members of parliament. The city, with which he had long been in correspondence, sent messengers to demand a full and free parliament (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 46). Parliament itself had sent two commissioners to congratulate Monck, and to watch his movements. He frequently left them the task of answering the petitioners, his own return ' consisting in a nod, a frown, or the rubbing of his forehead if the speech were long' (Price, p. 755). In a letter answering the petition of the gentlemen of Devonshire, he urged submission to the existing parliament, and argued that the readmission of the excluded members or the restoration of monarchy would be contrary to the interests of the nation. But to the demands of some of his officers that he should solemnly engage his army to be 'obedient to the parliament in all things, except the bringing of Charles Stuart,' he answered that they must not seem to dictate to parliament, or they would fall into the same error as the English army (ib. p. 754: Kennett, p. 32). And though publicly discountenancing the demands of the city he gave private encouragement to its leaders through his chaplain Gumble (Gumble, pp. 209-20; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 649). The ambiguity of his utterances and the contradiction between his words and his actions puzzled the shrewdest observers. Neither Hyde nor the royalist agents in England could guess whether he meant to serve the king or to maintain the Rump in power.
Parliament had been profusely grateful to Monck for Lambert's overthrow. On 2 Jan. they elected him one of the council of state, on the 12th they ordered a bill to be brought in to justify and approve all his actions, on the 16th they voted him 1,000/. a year, and on 2 Feb. appointed him ranger of St. James's Park. The commission as commander-in-chief, granted him by the old council of state, had been confirmed on 26 Jan. Nevertheless, the parliamentary leaders regarded him with suspicion.
Monck entered London on 3 Feb., and on 6 Feb. was solemnly thanked by Speaker Lenthall on behalf of parliament. In reply he summarised his answers to the addresses he had received, and set forth the policy he desired parliament to follow. They were to reconcile the 'sober gentry' to the government and to protect the l sober interest,' allowing neither cavaliers nor fanatics any share of power. Two points in his speech were more alarming. He plainly hinted that he had pledged himself that the parliament should be filled up, and its sittings speedily determined. At the same time he warned them against the proposed imposition of an oath abjuring the house of Stuart, and it was known that he himself, on taking his place in the council of state, had refused to take the oath (Gumble, p. 229).
Immediately after Monck's arrival the quarrel between the parliament and the city came to a head, and the latter refused to pay taxes. On the morning of 9 Feb. Monck marched into the city with orders to arrest eleven leading citizens, take away the posts and chains in the streets, and make the gates indefensible. Having carried out the greater part of his task, he wrote to the house that he had forborne taking down the gates and portcullises in order not to exasperate the city, and begged that tenderness might be used towards it. But the parliamentary leaders were too exalted by his obedience to listen to his remonstrances. 'All is our own,' said Heselrige, 'he will be honest;' or, according to another story, 'Now, George, we have thee, body and soul' (Ludlow, ii. 825). They commanded him to execute his orders to the letter, and on the following day he completed his task (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 93). The result of the two days' work was to change the temper of Monck's soldiers, and rouse their indignation against the parliament. No doubt Monck foresaw this result, and counted on it. When Price soon after asked him how he was engaged to undertake this detestable piece of service, he answered : 'This was a trick you knew not of, and I assure you that I could not have done my business so soon without it, and possibly not at all' (Price, p. 763). He now drew up a letter to parliament peremptorily demanding the issue of writs for a new parliament within the next week, and the fixing of a date for the dissolution of the present assembly (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 98). The letter was presented to the house on the morning of 11 Feb., and on the afternoon of the same day Monck met the corporation in the Guildhall, told them what he had done, and apologised for his late ungrateful duty. His declaration was received with general joy, and celebrated by bonfires, in which the Rump was burnt in effigy all over London. The parliament received Monck's letter with feigned thanks, but showed its real distrust by vesting the control of the army in five commissioners, of whom Monck was one, while three were of their own faction (Ludlow, ii. 830). The council of state humbly pressed him to return to Whitehall, but Monck turned a deaf ear to their appeals. He was now bent on procuring the readmission of the members expelled in 1648, and with that object obtained a conference between the ' secluded ' and the sitting members. But the conference led to no result, and he solved the difficulty by ordering the guards to admit the secluded members to the house (21 Feb.) Before they took their seats he pledged them to settle the government of the army, call a new parliament for 20 April, dissolve the present one within a month, and appoint a new council of state to govern in the interval (Baker, p. 710; Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 140). They kept their word, elected a new council with Monck at the head of the list (21 Feb.), appointed him general-in-chief of all the land forces in the three kingdoms (25 Feb.) and joint-commander of the navy (2 March). On 16 March parliament was dissolved, but not till it had annulled the engagement to be faithful to a commonwealth previously required from all persons in office.
Hitherto Monck had lulled the suspicions of the republicans by public and private protestations of his fidelity to the republic. 'As for a Commonwealth,' he wrote to Heselrige on 13 Feb., 'believe me, Sir, for I speak it in the presence of God, it is the desire of my soul, and shall (the Lord assisting) be witnessed by the actions of my life, that these nations be so settled in a free state, without a king, single person, or House of Peers, that they may be governed by their representatives in parliament successively' (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 678). In his speeches and manifestoes he was equally vehement (Kennett, p. 63 ; Baker, p. 711). Hitherto the republicans had hoped that 'Monck could not be such a devil to betray a trust so freely reposed in him' (Ludlow, ii. 816). Now convinced that the restoration of the Stuarts was imminent, Heselrige and others offered the supreme power to Monck, and Bordeaux, the French ambassador, assured him of the support of Mazarin, if he chose to accept the offer (BAKER, pp. 715, 717 ; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, ii. 293). But Monck refused to listen to these suggestions, and ordered Bordeaux not to interfere in matters of government.
More serious was the danger of a military revolt. Monck had prepared to deal with it by removing Fleetwood's troops from London, quartering the regiments in small sections, and replacing inflexible republicans by colonels whom he could trust. On 15 March a meeting of officers demanded that he should send to the parliament to re-enact the engagement against a monarchy, but he told them 'that he brought them not out of Scotland for his nor the parliament's council; that for his part he should obey the parliament, and expected they should do the same' (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 696 ; Baker, p. 716). He then ordered them to their regiments and forbade them to assemble again, and finally obtained from the whole army an engagement to submit to whatsoever the Lord should bring forth from the consultations of the coming parliament (9 April; Baker, p. 719). So effectual were these measures, that when Lambert escaped from the Tower, he was only joined by seven or eight troops of horse and a few cashiered officers, and his recapture put an end to the insurrection (22 April).
Before this time Monck had entered into direct communication with Charles II. The precise date at which he resolved to restore the king has been much disputed. Speaking of Nicholas Monck's visit to his brother in July 1659, Clarendon says : 'At that time there is no question the general had not the least thought or purpose to contribute to the king's restoration, the hope whereof he believed to be desperate ; and the disposition that did grow in him afterwards did arise from those accidents which fell out, and even obliged him to undertake that which proved so much to his profit and glory . . . ' 'It was the king's great happiness that he never had it in his power to serve him till it fell to be in his power, and, indeed, till he had nothing else in his power to do' (Rebellion, xvi. 100, 115). On the other hand, Price represents Monck as first conceiving the idea of a restoration in July 1659, and covertly avowing his intention before he entered England (Price, ed. Maseres, pp. 721, 746). As early as November 1659 Monck told Clarges that he intended to readmit the 'secluded members,' and every politician knew that this meant the restoration of the monarchy (Baker, p. 688). His conduct when he declared against the army in October 1659, the foresight with which he provided for every possibility, and the decision with which he acted, all render it difficult to suppose that he had no clear conception of his ultimate object.
Much of Monck's success was due to his judicious selection of his instruments. In dealing with the republicans he had made Gumble his mouthpiece, Sharpe was his agent with the presbyterians, and Clarges with the officers. To negotiate with royalists a new personage was required, and for that purpose he had made choice of his relative William Morice [q. v.], one of the secluded members, whom he summoned from Devonshire and made governor of Plymouth (Clarendon, Rebellion, xvi. 162 ; Baker, p. 712). Through Morice he arranged an interview with Sir John Grenville (19 March), and at last received from his hands the letter the king had sent him in the previous summer. 'My heart,' he told Grenville, 'was ever faithful to the king, but I was never able to do him service till the present time.' He refused to give Grenville a letter for the king, but made him commit his instructions to memory, and despatched him at once to Brussels. Monck's recommendations were that the king should remove at once to Breda, and thence offer a general pardon and indemnity, guarantee all sales of land effected by the late authorities, and promise religious toleration. In the Declaration of Breda (4 April) the king practically adopted Monck's suggestions, but by Hyde's advice referred to the ultimate decision of parliament the interpretation and execution of his general promises. With the declaration, Charles sent Monck a commission as captain-general, authority to appoint a secretary of state, and letters for the city, the council of state, and the parliament (Price, pp. 783-91; Clarendon, xvi. 166-74). Monck silently laid them aside until the meeting of parliament. His negotiation with the king meant, as Charles told Grenville, 'the king's restoration without conditions.' Monck's apology for thus anticipating the action of parliament lay in the belief that he could not guarantee the peace of the nation during the time that a treaty would require (Burnet, Own Time, i. 161, ed. 1833). Parliament met on 25 April, and the next day Monck was solemnly thanked by both houses. The king's letters were presented on 1 May, and the restoration of the monarchy was voted the same day.
On 25 May the king landed at Dover. Monck met him on the shore with expressions of humility and devotion. Charles 'embraced and kissed him' (cf. Gumble, p. 383). Next day at Canterbury Monck was knighted, invested with the order of the Garter and made master of the horse (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659-60, p. 447). On 7 July he was raised to the peerage by the titles Baron Monck of Potheridge, Beauchamp, and Teyes, Earl of Torrington, and Duke of Albemarle, granted a pension of 700l. a year, and given the estate of New Hall in Essex. The selection of these titles was an implicit admission of the claims set forth in the pedigree which his panegyrists had lately published, representing him as descended from Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, and from Arthur Plantagenet, a natural son of Edward IV (Complete Peerage, by G. E. C., i. 58). But his paramount merit was that set forth in Sir Richard Fanshawe's Latin preamble to his patent, whose recital of his services closes with the words, 'hsec omnia, prudentia ac felicitate summa, victor sine sanguine, perfecit' (Peck, Desiderata Curiosa, ii. 514). For the moment the king's obligations made Monck's influence enormous, but he used it with moderation. He presented Charles with a list of about seventy persons recommended for office, but greatly to the king's relief explained that it was a mere formality. Of his kinsmen, Morice became secretary of state, Nicholas Monck bishop of Hereford, 'and Clarges was knighted and made commissary-general of the musters. He never wearied of advancing the interests of Grenville and his family, and Ashley Cooper owed to Monck's special recommendation his immediate admission to the privy council (Clarendon, Continuation, §13; Cat. State Papers, Dom. 1664-5, p. 436).
Monck's influence was naturally greatest in military affairs. His position as captain-general was confirmed by a patent for life (3 Aug. 1660). While the rest of the army was disbanded, his own regiment of foot was continued as the king's guards, and a large part of his horse regiment was reenlisted in the horse guards. Their necessity had been shown by Venner's insurrection (7 Jan. 1661).
In purely political questions Monck's influence was far less powerful. His views as to the details of the restoration settlement are contained in a paper sent to the king about 9 May 1660 (Lister, Life of Clarendon iii. 500). He proposed that five persons only should be excepted from the Act of Oblivion ; that the sales of church lands and crown lands by the late authorities should be confirmed as leases for a term of years ; and that those who had bought lands belonging to private persons should have the usufruct of them until the purchase-money was repaid. The solution which the royalist zeal of the convention preferred was far more sweeping. Monck himself sat among the judges of the regicides, but cannot fairly be blamed. He was not, like some of his colleagues, partly responsible for the policy which prepared the way for the king's execution ; he had endeavoured to limit the number of victims, and he faithfully observed his personal pledges to Heselrige and others, whose lives he had promised to save (Hist. MSS. Comm. 8th Rep. p. 212).
In ecclesiastical matters also the policy adopted was not that which he advocated. All the evidence tends to prove that Monck was at heart a moderate presbyterian, just as his wife was a violent one. 'Moderate, not rigid, presbyterian government, with a sufficient liberty for consciences truly tender,' was his definition of the settlement he desired the 'secluded members' to establish. It was with great difficulty that Price induced him to promise not to engage himself against bishops (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 142 ; Price, p. 774 ; Wodrow, Church History, ed. 1828, i. 5-19). The compromise Monck proposed to the king was that an assembly of divines should be called to settle, in conjunction with parliament, the future government of the church. As an advocate of comprehension he was present at the Worcester House conference (22 Oct. 1660), and two years later intervened in support of the attempt to suspend the enforcement of the Act of Uniformity (Clarendon, Continuation, 335-8 ; Pepys, Diary, 3 Sept. 1662).
In the settlement of Scotland Monck's advice naturally had considerable weight. He appears, however, to have been opposed to the withdrawal of the English garrisons and to the destruction of the forts erected there during the English conquest (Wodrow, Church History, ed. R. Burns, 1827, i. 44). But he had promised the Scots nobility before going into England that 'he would befriend them in all their just liberties,' and this was one of the points they had most at heart. To the Scottish clergy, with whose leaders he had been in communication through James Sharpe, he was pledged for the maintenance of presbyterianism, and therefore opposed the immediate introduction of episcopacy (Clarendon, Continuation, 105). He had recommended Sharpe to Hyde and to the king as likely to prove useful in the settlement of church matters (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 741). Clarendon also attributes Glencairne's employment to Monck's recommendation (Continuation, §95). The part which Monck took in procuring Argyll's condemnation has been much controverted. One of the charges against Argyll was his active support of the English government of Scotland against the Scottish royalists, and when there was a difficulty about proving it Monck forwarded a selection from Argyll's letters to himself and other English governors. This fact, asserted by Baillie and Burnet, but denied by later writers, is now conclusively proved (Burnet, i. 225 ; Baillie, ed. Laing, iii. 465 ; Hist. MSS. Comm. 6th Rep. p. 617 ; for the controversy, see Guizot, Monk, ed. Wortley, p. 293). Burnet terms this an act of 'inexcusable baseness;' on the other hand, the letters were not of the private nature which he asserts, but a part of the official correspondence of the English government in Scotland which had, according to custom, remained in Monck's possession (Own Time, i. 225).
At the Restoration Monck had been appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, but was unwilling either to quit England or to resign his post. His Irish estate, according to Clarendon, amounted to 4,000l. a year, 'which he thought he could best preserve in the supreme government, though he was willing to have it believed in the city and the army that he retained it only for the good of the adventurers, and that the soldiers might be justly dealt with for their arrears' (Continuation, §124). In the Act of Settlement provisos were inserted in favour of Monck's rights, and his influence was undoubtedly used on behalf of the English colony. At first the king appointed Lord Roberts to act as Monck's deputy, but as that arrangement proved unsatisfactory three lords justices were appointed instead (December 1660). The death of one of these caused a new difficulty, which Monck solved by resigning his commission and begging the king to make Ormonde lord-lieutenant (November 1661; ib. §§ 198, 234).
Monck's part in the foreign policy pursued during the early years of the reign is obscure. Burnet, on the doubtful authority of Sir Robert Southwell, attributes to him the suggestion of the Portuguese match. It is clear that Monck was a strong supporter of the scheme, if not actually its originator (Own. Time, i. 300; Kennett, Register, p. 394; Carte, Ormonde, iv. 102). Burnet represents him as the chief adviser of the sale of Dunkirk, but, according to the letters of d'Estrades, Clarendon told him that Monck was one of its chief opponents. Nevertheless, his position as lord-general naturally led to his appointment as one of the commissioners to arrange the details of the sale (Own Time, i. 312 ; Clarendon State Papers, iii. Appendix, p. xxv ; Lansdowne, Works, 1732, i. 459). Public opinion regarded Monck as one of the instigators of the Dutch war. 'Some,' says Gumble, 'did report him the chief councillor, but they are mistaken, for he scarce declared himself in it till the parliament had voted to adhere with their lives and fortunes' (p. 410). Foreign observers, however, shared the popular view, and the Dutch ambassador reported to his masters a conversation in which Monck announced that at any cost England must have her proper share in the trade of the world (Pontalis, Jean de Witt, i. 325; Christie, Life of Shaftesbury, i. 278). Throughout the war, whether Monck was at home or at sea, the burden of its management rested largely on his shoulders. When the Duke of York took command of the fleet he deputed his authority as lord high admiral to Monck instead of entrusting it to commissioners (22 March 1665 : Memoirs of Naval Affairs, 1729, p. 124). 'It is a thing that do cheer my heart,' wrote Pepys ; 'for the other would have vexed us with attendance, and never done the business ' (Diary, 17 March 1665). All through the plague-year Monck remained in London, executing the duties of his office, maintaining order in the city, and, with the assistance of William Craven, earl of Craven (1606-1697) [q. v.], superintending the measures taken to check the plague. His example and his presence were of the greatest value (Clarendon, Continuation, §§662; Gumble, Life of Monk, p. 419).
In November 1665 the king decided to employ Monck at sea. At first he hesitated to accept, on the ground that he was more necessary in London, 'as he thought he had done the king better service by staying in London than he could have done in any other place' (Clarendon). Finally he consented, I but begged that his acceptance might remain a secret for the present ; 'for if his wife should come to know it, before he had by degrees prepared her for it, she would break out into such passions as would be very uneasy to him.' Her 'cursed words' when she did learn it are recorded by Pepys (Diary, 9 Dec. 1665).
With Rupert as his colleague in command Monck put to sea on 23 April 1666. Rupert with twenty ships was detached in May to prevent the junction of the French squadron with the Dutch. This resolution was taken, according to Sir William Coventry, 'with the full 'consent and advice' of Monck (ib. 24 June 1666 ; Clarendon, Continuation, §868). During Rupert's absence the Dutch fleet appeared off the North Foreland (1 June), and though Monck had but fifty-four ships to their eighty he at once attacked. The English fleet had the weather gauge, but could not use their lower deck guns. Monck's tactics have been highly praised by a modern critic, but when the day closed the English fleet, especially the white squadron, had lost heavily (Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, p. 121). The Swiftsure, which carried the flag of Vice-admiral Sir William Berkeley, had been taken, and Rear-admiral Sir John Harman's ship, the Henry, completely disabled. The next day the battle was renewed, the Dutch, according to English accounts, receiving a reinforcement of sixteen ships. By night the English fleet, reduced to thirty-four fighting ships, was in full retreat. On the third day the retreat continued. l My Lord-general's conduct,' wrote Sir Thomas Clifford, 'was here well seen to be very good, for he chose out sixteen of the greatest ships of these thirty-four to be a bulwark to the rest, and to bring up the rear in a breast, and so shoved on the others in a line before him, and in this way we maintained an orderly and good retreat all Sunday' (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1665-6. p. xx). At three in the afternoon Prince Rupert's squadron was sighted, but the junction of the two fleets was attended by the loss of the Royal Prince, Sir George Ayscue's flagship, which struck on the Galloper Sands, and was burnt by the Dutch. Monck's own ship, the Royal Charles, also grounded, but was got off, and his evident determination to blow her up rather than surrender greatly alarmed the gentlemen volunteers on board (Grumble, p. 436 ; Works of Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham, ii. 6). On the fourth day the English fleet again attacked and was worsted, but the Dutch were in no condition to keep the seas, and both navies returned to their ports to refit. The lowest estimate of the English loss was eight hundred killed and fifteen hundred wounded. The Dutch claimed to have taken twenty-three men of war and lost but four.
Monck's conduct in engaging at once instead of waiting for Rupert to join him was severely criticised. It was said that his success in beating the Dutch in the earlier war had made him over-confident and foolhardy (Evelyn, Diary, 6 June ; Pepys, Diary, 4 July). On the other hand Monck had good reason to believe that Rupert would have joined him before the fleet was shattered by two days hard fighting. He also complained bitterly of the conduct of his captains. 'I assure you,' he wrote to Coventry, 'I never fought with worse officers than now in my life, for not above twenty of them behaved like men' (Pepys, Correspondence, ed. Smith, i. 110). The sailors, however, never fought better (cf. Temple, Works, ed. 1754, i. 144).
Monck and Rupert put to sea again on 17 July, and on the 25th and 26th engaged the Dutch. The jealousy which existed between Tromp and De Ruyter facilitated victory for the English. The Dutch lost two ships only, but three admirals and a great number of men, and were driven to take shelter in their ports (Life of Cornelius Tromp, pp. 374-89 ; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1665-6, p. 579). A fortnight later (8, 9 Aug.) a detached squadron of small ships from the English fleet landed one thousand men on the islands of Vlie and Schelling, and burnt 160 Dutch merchantmen in harbour, whose cargoes were valued at a million sterling.
Monck was summoned from sea by the news of the great fire of London. He was back by 8 Sept., and his influence in the city was of the greatest use in restoring order (Pepys, Diary, 8 Sept.) He could not be spared to resume his command of the fleet during 1666, and for 1667 the government, at its wits' end for money, took the fatal resolution of laying up the great ships in harbour. The lighter ships were to be sent out to prey on Dutch commerce, and the English coast was to be protected by fortifications at Sheerness, Portsmouth, and Harwich. Sir William Coventry was credited with the suggestion, but the council in general shares the blame of its adoption, and popular rumour represented Monck as unsuccessfully opposing it (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1667, pp. xxiv, xxvii ; Pepys, Diary, 14 June 1667). When the Dutch fleet appeared in the Thames, he was, as usual, despatched to the point of danger (cf. Marvell, Last Instructions to a Painter, 1. 510). By sinking ships and raising batteries he endeavoured to protect the men-of-war laid up at Chatham, and wrote hopefully that he had made them safe (Pepys, Diary, 12 June, 20 Oct. 1667). But the negligence with which his orders were executed rendered all his exertions fruitless, for on 12 June the Dutch broke the chain across the Medway, burnt eight great ships, and captured Monck's old flagship, the Royal Charles. The narrative which Monck laid before the House of Commons proved that he did all a commander so badly seconded could do, and the house thanked him for his eminent merit in the late war (Commons' Journals, ix. 6, 11). 'The blockhead Albemarle,' comments Pepys, 'hath strange luck to be loved, though he be the heaviest man in the world, but stout and honest to his country' (Diary, 23 Oct. 1667).
This was Monck's last public service. He had been appointed first lord of the treasury when it was put into commission (24 May 1667) ; but he took little part in the business of the board. When Clarendon fell into disgrace, Monck at first tried to reconcile him with the king, but finally used his influence in parliament against him (Clarendon, Continuation, §§ 1136, 1177). Towards the end of 1668 his increasing infirmities obliged him to retire permanently to New Hall. Ever since, his recovery from a dangerous fever (August 1661) he had been liable to asthma, and to swellings which finally developed into dropsy. He was suffering from these complaints when he entertained Cosmo III of Tuscany (12 June 1669), grew rapidly worse in the following December, and died on the morning of 3 Jan. 1670. He died, wrote an eye-witness, 'like a Roman general and soldier, standing almost up in his chair, his chamber like a tent open, and all his officers about him' (Monckton Papers, ed. Peacock, 1885, p. 94).
His old friend, Seth Ward, who was with him in his last moments, preached his funeral sermon ('The Christian's Victory over Death,' 4to, 1670). The grateful king took the charge of funeral and monument out of Christopher Monck's hands, and announced that he would bear the cost of both himself. Monck's funeral was consequently long delayed. 'It is almost three months,' wrote Marvell on 21 March, 'and he yet lies in the dark unburied, and no talk of him' (Works, ed. Grosart, ii. 317). The funeral, celebrated with great pomp, took place in Westminster Abbey on 30 April 1670 (Sandford, The Order used at the Solemn Interment of George, Duke of Albemarle, fol. 1670; Mackinnon, i. 132). The monument Charles never erected, but one was at last put up in 1720, in pursuance of the will of Christopher, second duke of Albemarle. Monck's effigy, dressed in armour, was long one of the sights of the abbey, and the contributions of the curious were usually collected in his cap. The effigy is still preserved, but no longer shown to visitors (Stanley, Memorials of Westminster, ed. 1868, pp. 228, 343; Dart, Westmonasterium, i. 153).
A portrait of Monck, by Walker, is in the possession of the Earl of Sandwich, and one by Lely is in the Painted Hall at Greenwich ; a third, by an unknown painter, was No. 815 in the National Portrait Exhibition of 1866. The Sutherland Collection in the Bodleian Library contains about twenty engraved portraits.
Monck's appearance is thus described by Gumble : 'He was of a very comely personage, his countenance very manly and majestic, the whole fabric of his body very strong.' A French traveller who saw him in 1663 is more explicit : 'Il est petit et gros ; mais il a la physionomie de 1'esprit le plus solide, et de la conscience la plus tranquille du monde, et avec cela une froideur sans affectation, et sans orgueil, ni dedain ; il a enfin tout 1'air d'un homme fort modere et fort prudent' (Voyages de B. de Monconys, ed. 1695, II. ii. 167). An Italian, writing of six years later, describes him as ' of the middle size, of a stout and square-built make, of a complexion partly sanguine and partly phlegmatic, as indeed is generally the case with the English ; his face is fair, but somewhat wrinkled with age ; his hair is grey, and his features not particularly fine or noble ' (Magalotti, Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo III, 1821, p. 469). Of Monck's habits Gumble gives a minute account (pp. 465-75). He was very temperate, and before his sickness 'was never known to desire meat or drink till called to it, which was but once a day, and seldom drank but at his meals.' But if occasion arose he could drink deep, and when some young lords forced him to take part in a drinking bout, he saw them all under the table, and withdrew sober to the privy council (Jusserand, A French Ambassador at the Court of Charles II, 1892, p. 96). Throughout he retained much of the puritan in his manners, was ' never heard to swear an oath,' and never gambled till his physicians advised it as a distraction. In religion Monck was careful in all observances, at heart 'inclined much to the rigidest points of predestination,' and he sometimes inserted religious reflections in his despatches. His courage, which was always conspicuous, was 'a settled habit of mind,' and 'as great in suffering as in doing.' But the virtue which his biographer praises as 'paramount in him and mistress of all the rest' was his prudence, including under that term the practical dexterity with which he made use of all men and all means to bring about the Restoration. The perjuries which it cost him to effect it never troubled his conscience. He regarded them as legitimate stratagems sanctified by the end in view. His natural reserve had made dissimulation easy to him, and his character for honesty and simplicity made him readily believed.
Monck was an indefatigable official, rising early, sleeping little, and despatching an enormous amount of business. He had very little education, spelt badly, and expressed himself awkwardly, and often tautologically, but his letters are always clear and to the point. As a general he was remarkable for his care of his men, and for a knowledge of military science rare among the self-taught commanders of the Commonwealth. He occupies a place in Walpole's 'Royal and Noble Authors' by virtue of 'Observations upon Military and Political Affairs,' written when he was a prisoner in the Tower, and published by John Heath in 1671. A portrait of Monck by B. Walker belongs to the Earl of Sandwich ; another, by an unknown hand, to J. B. Monck, esq. ; another was painted by Dr. Logan, an engraving of which and two others are in the possession of James Falconer, esq.
Anne, duchess of Albemarle, was the daughter of John Clarges, a farrier in the Savoy, by his wife, Anne Leaver. She married, on 28 Feb. 1632-3, Thomas Radford, also a farrier, and afterwards a servant to Prince Charles, from whom she was separated in 1649, but of whose death before her second marriage no evidence appears to have been obtained.' Her remarriage to Monck took place on 23 Jan. 1652-3 at St. George's, Southwark (Chester, Westminster Abbey Registers, p. 171). Aubrey asserts that she was Monck's seamstress when he was prisoner in the Tower, and hints that she was also his mistress. A letter written in September 1653, mentioning the marriage, describes her character in the harshest terms, but these scandalous stories contain inaccuracies which destroy their credit (Letters from the Bodelian, ii. 452; Thurloe, i. 470). By her Monck had two sons: first, Christopher, born in 1653, second duke of Albemarle [q. v.] ; secondly, George, who died an infant, and was buried in the chapel at Dalkeith House (Skinner, p. 70). In 1659 all Mrs. Monck's influence with her husband was exercised on behalf of the restoration of the monarchy. Price dwells on the freedom she was wont to use in her evening conversations with the general after his day's work was over. At night too he was sometimes 'quickened with a curtain lecture of damnation a text that his lady often preached upon to him' (Price, ed. Maseres, pp. 712, 716). This zeal gained her the praise of Hyde's correspondents, who speak of her as 'an extreme good woman,' and 'a happy instrument in this glorious work' (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 739, 741, 749). After the Restoration her defects became more obvious, and Clarendon terms her 'a woman of the lowest extraction, the least wit, and less beauty;' 'i nihil muliebre praeter corpus gerens' (Rebellion, xvi. 98). To Pepys she seemed 'a plain, homely dowdy,' and he complains that when he dined at the duke's he found him with ' dirty dishes, and a nasty wife at table and bad meat' (Diary, 4 April 1667). Her worst fault, however, was avarice, and she was commonly accused of selling offices in her husband's department, and of even worse methods of extortion (ib. 22 June 1660 ; 16 May 1667). She died on 29 Jan. 1670, said to be aged 54, and was buried in Westminster Abbey on 28 Feb. (Chester, p. 171).
[Of separately published lives of Monck the most important is The Life of General Monck, Duke of Albemarle, with Remarks upon his Actions, by Thomas Grumble, D.D., 8vo, 1671. Gumble was Monck's chaplain during 1659 and part of 1660, and derived much of his information from Monck and his officers. The Life by Thomas Skinner is for the most part a mere compilation, though Skinner was promised the use of original papers by Lord Bath and the second Duke of Albemarle (Notes and Queries, 1st ser. i. 377, 8th ser.iv. 421). It was first published in 1723 by William Webster, curate of St. Dunstan's-in-the-West, London, who added a preface containing some original documents. Of modern lives the most important is that by Guizot, originally published in 1837. Of this there are two translations, the first, published in 1838, with valuable annotations by J. Stuart Wortley, the second, published in 1851, by A. R. Scoble, from G-uizot's revised edition of his work (1850), with an appendix of diplomatic correspondence. A life, by Julian Corbett, 1889, is included in the series of English Men of Action. Lives of Monck are also in Winstanley's Worthies, 1684; Biographia Britannica, v. 3134; Campbell's British Admirals, 1744 ; Prince's Worthies of Devon, 1701. A pedigree is given in the Visitations of Devon, ed. by Colby. In 1660 a pamphlet was printed, entitled The Pedigree and Descent
of his Excellency, General George Monk, setting forth how he is descended from King Edward III, by a Branch and Slip of the White Rose, the House of York; and likewise his Extraction from Richard, King of the Romans.
For particular portions of Monck's career the following are the chief authorities: 1. For his service in Ireland: Carte's Life of Ormonde; Carte's MSS. in the Bodleian Library; Gilbert's Aphorismical Discovery of Treasonable Faction. 2. For his services at sea: Granville Penn's Memorials of Sir William Penn, 1833; J. B. Deane's Life of Richard Deane; The Life of Cornelius Van Tromp, translated 1697; the parliamentary newspapers for 1653, and the Calendar of Domestic State Papers. 3. For his government of Scotland: The Thurloe State Papers, 1742; the manuscripts of Sir William Clarke in the library of Worcester College, Oxford; Mackinnon's Hist. of the Coldstream Guards, 1833; Masson's Life of Milton, vol. v. 4. For the Restoration : The Mystery and Method of his Majesty's happy Restoration, by John Price, one of Monk's chaplains, 8vo, 1680; reprinted by Maseres in Select Tracts relating to the Civil Wars in England, 1815; The Continuation of Sir Richard Baker's Chronicle of the Kings of England, by Edward Phillips, printed in the edition of 1661 and subsequent editions, in what relates to Monck is based on the papers of his brother-in-law, Sir Thomas Clarges; the papers of Monck's secretary, Sir William Clarke, throw much light on the history of this part of Monck's life; some of them are in the library of Worcester College, Oxford, others in the possession of F. Ley borne Popham, esq., of Littlecote; Ludlow's Memoirs, 1698; the Clarendon State Papers, vol. iii.; Guizot's Hist. of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration of Charles II, translated by A. R. Scoble, 1855. Letters and declarations by Monck during this period, reprinted from contemporary pamphlets, are to be found in the Old Parliamentary History. Shortly after the Restoration A Collection of Letters and Declarations, &c., sent by General Monk, 4to, 1660, was published, which was reprinted in 1714 in 8vo. This was meant to expose his perfidy, and his protestations in favour of a republic were all printed in italics. It contained a letter to the king on 30 Dec. 1659, which is a forgery. 5. For the post-Restoration period of Monck's life: Burnet's Hist, of his own Time; the Continuation of Clarendon's Life, and the Diary of Samuel Pepys. A Vindication of General Monck from some Calumnies of Dr. Burnet and some Mistakes of Dr. Echard, in relation to the sale of Dunkirk and the Portuguese match, was published by George Granville. It called forth an answer, to which Granville replied in A Letter to the Author of Reflections Historical and Political, occasioned by a Treatise in Vindication of General Monk. Both are reprinted in the Genuine Works of Lord Lansdowne, 2 vols. 1736. On Monck's death the university of Oxford published a collection of Latin verses, Epiceclia Universitatis Oxonicnsis in Obitum Georgii ducis Albemarliæ, fol., 1670; and Cambridge added Musarum Cantabrigiensium Threnodia, 1670, 4to. Payne Fisher wrote an Elogium Sepulchrale, and Thomas Flatman a Pindarique Ode. Robert Wild, Iter Boreale, 1660, 4to, celebrates Monck's march from Scotland, and! Dryden's Annus Mirabilis, 1667, his four days' sea-fight.]