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 (Gardiner, 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; Cary, 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 (Gardiner, iv. 36; Walker, 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’ (Wildman, 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; Burton, Diary, iii. 173; Hamilton Papers, 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’ (Carlyle, 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 (Walker, History of Independency, ii. 26; Ludlow, 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 (Burton, 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; Gardiner, 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; Burton, iii. 176).
No man served the Commonwealth with more zeal. Vane was elected a member of every council of state chosen during the
