Bibliography.—A detailed bibliography, with the chief authorities for particular periods, will be found in the article in theDict. of Nat. Biography, by C. H. Firth (1888). The following works may be mentioned: S. R. Gardiner’sHist. of England(1883-1884) and of theGreat Civil War(1886),Cromwell’s Place in History(1897),Oliver Cromwell(1901), andHistory of the Commonwealth and Protectorate(1894-1903);Cromwell, by C. H. Firth (1900);Oliver Cromwell, by J. Morley (1904);The Last Years of the Protectorate, 1656-1658, 2 vols., by C. H. Firth (1909);Oliver Cromwell, by Fred. Harrison (1903);Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, by T. Carlyle, ed. by S. C. Lomas, with an introd. by C. H. Firth (the best edition, rejecting the spurious Squire papers, 1904);Oliver Cromwell, by F. Hoenig (1887);Oliver Cromwell, the Protector, by R. F. D. Palgrave (1890);Oliver Cromwell ... and the Royalist Insurrection ... of March 1655, by the same author (1903);Oliver Cromwell, by Theodore Roosevelt (1900);Oliver Cromwell, by R. Pauli (tr. 1888);Cromwell, a Speech delivered at the Cromwell Tercentenary Celebration 1899, by Lord Rosebery (1900);The Two Protectors, by Sir Richard Tangye (valuable for its illustrations, 1899);Life of Sir Henry Vane, by W. W. Ireland (1905);Die Politik des Protectors Oliver Cromwell in der Auffassung und Tätigkeit ... des Staatssekretärs John Thurloe, by Freiherr v. Bischofshausen (1899);Cromwell as a Soldier, by T. S. Baldock (1899);Cromwell’s Army, by C. H. Firth (1902);The Diplomatic Relations between Cromwell and Charles X. of Sweden, by G. Jones (1897);The Interregnum, by F. A. Inderwick (dealing with the legal aspect of Cromwell’s rule, 1891);Administration of the Royal Navy, by M. Oppenheim (1896);History of the English Church during the Civil Wars, by W. Shaw (1900);The Protestant Interest in Cromwell’s Foreign Relations, by J. N. Bowman (1900);Cromwell’s Jewish Intelligencies(1891),Crypto-Jews under the Commonwealth(1894),Menasseh Ben Israel’s Mission to Oliver Cromwell(1901), by L. Wolf.(P. C. Y.; C. F. A.; R. J. M.)
Bibliography.—A detailed bibliography, with the chief authorities for particular periods, will be found in the article in theDict. of Nat. Biography, by C. H. Firth (1888). The following works may be mentioned: S. R. Gardiner’sHist. of England(1883-1884) and of theGreat Civil War(1886),Cromwell’s Place in History(1897),Oliver Cromwell(1901), andHistory of the Commonwealth and Protectorate(1894-1903);Cromwell, by C. H. Firth (1900);Oliver Cromwell, by J. Morley (1904);The Last Years of the Protectorate, 1656-1658, 2 vols., by C. H. Firth (1909);Oliver Cromwell, by Fred. Harrison (1903);Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, by T. Carlyle, ed. by S. C. Lomas, with an introd. by C. H. Firth (the best edition, rejecting the spurious Squire papers, 1904);Oliver Cromwell, by F. Hoenig (1887);Oliver Cromwell, the Protector, by R. F. D. Palgrave (1890);Oliver Cromwell ... and the Royalist Insurrection ... of March 1655, by the same author (1903);Oliver Cromwell, by Theodore Roosevelt (1900);Oliver Cromwell, by R. Pauli (tr. 1888);Cromwell, a Speech delivered at the Cromwell Tercentenary Celebration 1899, by Lord Rosebery (1900);The Two Protectors, by Sir Richard Tangye (valuable for its illustrations, 1899);Life of Sir Henry Vane, by W. W. Ireland (1905);Die Politik des Protectors Oliver Cromwell in der Auffassung und Tätigkeit ... des Staatssekretärs John Thurloe, by Freiherr v. Bischofshausen (1899);Cromwell as a Soldier, by T. S. Baldock (1899);Cromwell’s Army, by C. H. Firth (1902);The Diplomatic Relations between Cromwell and Charles X. of Sweden, by G. Jones (1897);The Interregnum, by F. A. Inderwick (dealing with the legal aspect of Cromwell’s rule, 1891);Administration of the Royal Navy, by M. Oppenheim (1896);History of the English Church during the Civil Wars, by W. Shaw (1900);The Protestant Interest in Cromwell’s Foreign Relations, by J. N. Bowman (1900);Cromwell’s Jewish Intelligencies(1891),Crypto-Jews under the Commonwealth(1894),Menasseh Ben Israel’s Mission to Oliver Cromwell(1901), by L. Wolf.
(P. C. Y.; C. F. A.; R. J. M.)
1Life of Sir H. Vane, by W. W. Ireland, 222.2C. H. Firth, Cromwell, p. 324.3John Morley, Oliver Cromwell, p. 393.4Frederic Harrison,Oliver Cromwell, p. 214.5John Morley,Oliver Cromwell, p. 483.6Frederic Harrison,Cromwell, p. 34.
1Life of Sir H. Vane, by W. W. Ireland, 222.
2C. H. Firth, Cromwell, p. 324.
3John Morley, Oliver Cromwell, p. 393.
4Frederic Harrison,Oliver Cromwell, p. 214.
5John Morley,Oliver Cromwell, p. 483.
6Frederic Harrison,Cromwell, p. 34.
CROMWELL, RICHARD(1626-1712), lord protector of England, eldest surviving son of Oliver Cromwell and of Elizabeth Bourchier, was born on the 4th of October 1626. He served in the parliamentary army, and in 1647 was admitted a member of Lincoln’s Inn. In 1649 he married Dorothy, daughter of Richard Mayor, or Major, of Hursley in Hampshire. He represented Hampshire in the parliament of 1654, and Cambridge University in that of 1656, and in November 1655 was appointed one of the council of trade. But he was not brought forward by his father or prepared in any way for his future greatness, and lived in the country occupied with field sports, till after the institution of the second protectorate in 1657 and the recognition of Oliver’s right to name his successor. On the 18th of July he succeeded his father as chancellor of the university of Oxford, on the 31st of December he was made a member of the council of state, and about the same time obtained a regiment and a seat in Cromwell’s House of Lords. He was received generally as his father’s successor, and was nominated by him as such on his death-bed. He was proclaimed on the 3rd of September 1658, and at first his accession was acclaimed with general favour both at home and abroad. Dissensions, however, soon broke out between the military faction and the civilians. Richard’s elevation, not being “general of the army as his father was,” was distasteful to the officers, who desired the appointment of a commander-in-chief from among themselves, a request refused by Richard. The officers in the council, moreover, showed jealousy of the civil members, and to settle these difficulties and to provide money a parliament was summoned on the 27th of January 1659, which declared Richard protector, and incurred the hostility of the army by criticizing severely the arbitrary military government of Oliver’s last two years, and by impeaching one of the major-generals. A council of the army accordingly established itself in opposition to the parliament, and demanded on the 6th of April a justification and confirmation of former proceedings, to which the parliament replied by forbidding meetings of the army council without the permission of the protector, and insisting that all officers should take an oath not to disturb the proceedings in parliament. The army now broke into open rebellion and assembled at St James’s. Richard was completely in their power; he identified himself with their cause, and the same night dissolved the parliament. The LongParliament (which re-assembled on the 7th of May) and the heads of the army came to an agreement to effect his dismissal; and in the subsequent events Richard appears to have played a purely passive part, refusing to make any attempt to keep his power or to forward a restoration of the monarchy. On the 25th of May his submission was communicated to the House. He retired into private life, heavily burdened with debts incurred during his tenure of office and narrowly escaping arrest even before he quitted Whitehall. In the summer of 1660 he left England for France, where he lived in seclusion under the name of John Clarke, subsequently removing elsewhere, either (for the accounts differ) to Spain, to Italy, or to Geneva. He was long regarded by the government as a dangerous person, and in 1671 a strict search was made for him but without avail. He returned to England about 1680 and lived at Cheshunt, in the house of Sergeant Pengelly, where he died on the 12th of July 1712, being buried in Hursley church in Hampshire. Richard Cromwell was treated with general contempt by his contemporaries, and invidiously compared with his great father. According to Mrs Hutchinson he was “gentle and virtuous but a peasant in his nature and became not greatness.” He was nevertheless a man of respectable abilities, of an irreproachable private character, and a good speaker.
Bibliography.—See the article in theDict. of Nat. Biography, and authorities there cited; Noble’sMemoirs of the Protectoral House of Cromwell(1787);Memoirs of the Protector ... and of his Sons, by O. Cromwell (1820);The Two Protectors, by Sir R. Tangye (1899);Kebleland and a Short Life of Richard Cromwell, by W. T. Warren (1900);Letters and Speeches of O. Cromwell, by T. Carlyle (1904);Eng. Hist. Review, xiii. 93 (letters) and xviii. 79;Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, Lansdowne MSS.in British Museum.
Bibliography.—See the article in theDict. of Nat. Biography, and authorities there cited; Noble’sMemoirs of the Protectoral House of Cromwell(1787);Memoirs of the Protector ... and of his Sons, by O. Cromwell (1820);The Two Protectors, by Sir R. Tangye (1899);Kebleland and a Short Life of Richard Cromwell, by W. T. Warren (1900);Letters and Speeches of O. Cromwell, by T. Carlyle (1904);Eng. Hist. Review, xiii. 93 (letters) and xviii. 79;Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, Lansdowne MSS.in British Museum.
(P. C. Y.)
CROMWELL, THOMAS,Earl of Essex(1485?-1540), born probably not later than 1485 and possibly a year or two earlier, was the only son of Walter Cromwell,aliasSmyth, a brewer, smith and fuller of Putney. His grandfather, John Cromwell, seems to have belonged to the Nottinghamshire family, of whom the most distinguished member was Ralph, Lord Cromwell (1394?-1456), lord treasurer; and he migrated from Norwell, Co. Notts, to Wimbledon some time before 1461. John’s son, Walter, seems to have acquired thealiasSmyth from being apprenticed to his uncle, William Smyth, “armourer,” of Wimbledon. He was of a turbulent, vicious disposition, perpetually being fined in the manor-court for drunkenness, for evading the assize of beer, and for turning more than his proper number of beasts on to Putney Common. Once he was punished for a sanguinary assault, and his connexion with Wimbledon ceased in 1514 when he “falsely and fraudulently erased the evidences and terrures of the lord.” Till that time he had flourished like the bay-tree.
Under these circumstances the absence of Thomas Cromwell’s name from the Wimbledon manor rolls is almost a presumption of respectability. Perhaps it would be safer to attribute it to Cromwell’s absence from the manor. He is said to have quarrelled with his father—no great crime considering the father’s character—and fled to Italy, where he served as a soldier in the French army at the battle of the Garigliano (Dec. 1503). He escaped from the battle-field to Florence, where he was befriended by the banker Frescobaldi, a debt which he appears to have repaid with superabundant interest later on. He is next heard of at Antwerp as a trader, and about 1510 he was induced to accompany a Bostonian to Rome in quest of some papal indulgences for a Boston gild; Cromwell secured the boon by the timely present of some choice sweetmeats to Julius II. In 1512 there is some slight evidence that he was at Middelburg, and also in London, engaged in business as a merchant and solicitor. His marriage must have taken place about the same time, judging from the age of his son Gregory. His wife was Elizabeth Wykes, daughter of a well-to-do shearman of Putney, whose business Cromwell carried on in combination with his own.
For about eight years after 1512 we hear nothing of Cromwell. A letter to him from Cicely, marchioness of Dorset, in which he is seen in confidential business relations with her ladyship, is probably earlier than 1520, and it is possible that Cromwell owed his introduction to Wolsey to the Dorset family. On the other hand, it is stated that his cousin, Robert Cromwell, vicar of Battersea under the cardinal, gave Thomas the stewardship of the archiepiscopal estate of York House. At any rate he was advising Wolsey on legal points in 1520, and from that date he occurs frequently not only as mentor to the cardinal, but to noblemen and others when in difficulties, especially of a financial character; he made large sums as a money-lender.
In 1523 Cromwell emerges into public life as a member of parliament. The official returns for this election are lost and it is not known for what constituency he sat, but we have a humorous letter from Cromwell describing its proceedings, and a remarkable speech which he wrote and perhaps delivered, opposing the reckless war with France and indicating a sounder policy which was pursued after Wolsey’s fall. If, he said, war was to be waged, it would be better to secure Boulogne than advance on Paris; if the king went in person and were killed without leaving a male heir, he hinted there would be civil war; it would be wiser to attempt a union with Scotland, and in any case the proposed subsidy would be a fatal drain on the resources of the realm. Neither Henry nor Wolsey was so foolish as to resent this criticism, and Cromwell lost nothing by it. He was made a collector of the subsidy he had opposed—a doubtful favour perhaps—and in 1524 was admitted at Gray’s Inn; but he now became the most confidential servant of the cardinal. In 1525 he was Wolsey’s agent in the dissolution of the smaller monasteries which were designed to provide the endowments for Wolsey’s foundations at Oxford and Ipswich, a task which gave Cromwell a taste and a facility for similar enterprises on a greater scale later on. For these foundations Cromwell drew up the necessary deeds, and he was receiver-general of cardinal’s college, constantly supervising the workmen there and at Ipswich. His ruthless vigour and his accessibility to bribes earned him such unpopularity that there were rumours of his projected assassination or imprisonment. All this constituted a further bond of sympathy between him and his master, and Cromwell grew in Wolsey’s favour until his fall. His wife had died in 1527 or 1528, and in July 1529 he made his will, in which one of the chief beneficiaries was his nephew, Richard Williams, alias Cromwell, the great-grandfather of the protector.
Wolsey’s disgrace reduced Cromwell to such despair that Cavendish once found him in tears and at his prayers “which had been a strange sight in him afore.” Many of the cardinal’s servants had been taken over by the king, but Cromwell had made himself particularly obnoxious. However, he rode to court from Esher to “make or mar,” as he himself expressed it, and offered his services to Norfolk. Possibly he had already paved the way by the pensions and grants which he induced Wolsey to make through him, out of the lands and revenues of his bishoprics and abbeys, to nobles and courtiers who were hard pressed to keep up the lavish style of Henry’s court. Cromwell could be most useful to the government in parliament, and the government, represented by Norfolk, undertook to use its influence in procuring him a seat, on the natural understanding that Cromwell should do his best to further government business in the House of Commons. This was on the 2nd of November 1529; the elections had been made, and parliament was to meet on the morrow. A seat was, however, found or made for Cromwell at Taunton. He signalized himself by a powerful speech in opposition to the bill of attainder against Wolsey which had already passed the Lords. The bill was thrown out, possibly with Henry’s connivance, though no theory has yet explained its curious history so completely as the statement of Cavendish and other contemporaries, that its rejection was due to the arguments of Cromwell. Doubtless he championed his fallen chief not so much for virtue’s sake as for the impression it would make on others. He did not feel called upon to accompany Wolsey on his exile from the court.
Cromwell had now, according to Cardinal Pole, whose story has been too readily accepted, been converted into an “emissary of Satan” by the study of Machiavelli’sPrince. In the one interview which Pole had with Cromwell, the latter, so Polewrote ten years later in 1539, recommended him to read a new Italian book on politics, which Pole says he afterwards discovered was Machiavelli’sPrince. But this discovery was not made for some years: thePrincewas not published until 1532, three years after the conversation; there is evidence that Cromwell was not acquainted with it until 1537 or 1539, and there is nothing in thePrincebearing on the precise point under discussion by Pole and Cromwell. On the other hand, the point is discussed in Castiglione’sIl Cortegianowhich had just been published in 1528, and of which Cromwell promised to lend Bonner a copy in 1530. TheCortegianois the antithesis of thePrince; and there is little doubt that Pole’s account is the offspring of an imagination heated by his own perusal of the Prince in 1538, and by Cromwell’s ruin of the Pole family at the same time; until then he had failed to see in Cromwell the Machiavellian “emissary of Satan.”
Equally fanciful is Pole’s ascription of the whole responsibility for the Reformation to Cromwell’s suggestion. It was impossible for Pole to realize the substantial causes of that perfectly natural development, and it was his cue to represent Henry as having acted at the diabolic suggestion of Satan’s emissary. In reality the whole programme, the destruction of the liberties and confiscation of the wealth of the church by parliamentary agency, had been indicated before Cromwell had spoken to Henry. The use of Praemunire had been applied to Wolsey; laymen had supplanted ecclesiastics in the chief offices of state; the plan of getting a divorce without papal intervention had been the original idea, which Wolsey had induced the king to abandon, and it had been revived by Cranmer’s suggestion about the universities. The root idea of the supreme authority of the king had been asserted in Tyndale’sObedience of a Christian Manpublished in 1528, which Anne Boleyn herself had brought to Henry’s notice: “this,” he said, “is a book for me and all kings to read,” and Campeggio had felt compelled to warn him against these notions, of which Pole imagines that he had never heard until they were put into his head by Cromwell late in 1530. In the same way Cromwell’s influence over the government from 1529-1533 has been grossly exaggerated. It was not till 1531 that he was admitted to the privy council nor till 1534 that he was made secretary, though he had been made master of the Jewel-House, clerk of the Hanaper and master of the Wards in 1532, and chancellor of the exchequer (then a minor office) in 1533. It is not till 1533 that his name is as much as mentioned in the correspondence of any foreign ambassador resident in London. This obscurity has been attributed to deliberate suppression: but no secrecy was made about Cranmer’s suggestion, and it was not Henry’s habit to assume a responsibility which he could devolve upon others. It is said that Cromwell’s life would not have been safe, had he been known as the author of this policy; but that is not a consideration which would have appealed to Henry, and he was just as able to protect his minister in 1530 as he was in 1536. Cromwell, in fact, was not the author of that policy, but he was the most efficient instrument in its execution.
He was Henry’s parliamentary agent, but even in this capacity his power has been overrated, and he is supposed to have invented those parliamentary complaints against the clergy, which were transmuted into the legislation of 1532. But the complaints were old enough; many of them had been heard in parliament nearly twenty years before, and there is ample evidence to show that the petition against the clergy represents the “infinite clamours” of the Commons against the Church, which the House itself resolved should be “put in writing and delivered to the king.” The actual drafting of the statute, as of all the Reformation Acts between 1532 and 1539, was largely Cromwell’s work; and the success with which parliament was managed during this period was also due to him. It was not an easy task, for the House of Commons more than once rejected government measures, and members were heard to threaten Henry VIII. with the fate of Richard III.; they even complained of Cromwell’s reporting their proceedings to the king. That was his business rather than conveying imaginary royal orders to the House. “They be contented,” he wrote in one of these reports, “that deed and writing shall be treason,” but words were only to be misprision: they refused to include an heir’s rebellion or disobedience in the bill “as rebellion is already treason, and disobedience is no cause of forfeiture of inheritance.” There was, of course, room for manipulation, which Cromwell extended to parliamentary elections; but parliamentary opinion was a force of which he had to take account, and not a negligible quantity.
From the date of his appointment as secretary in 1534, Cromwell’s biography belongs to the history of England, but it is necessary to define his personal attitude to the revolution in which he was the king’s most conspicuous agent. He was included by Foxe in hisBook of Martyrsto the Protestant faith: more recent historians regard him as a sacrilegious ruffian. Now, there were two cardinal principles in the Protestantism of the 16th century—the supremacy of the temporal sovereign over the church in matters of government, and the supremacy of the Scriptures over the Church in matters of faith. There is no room for doubt as to the sincerity of Cromwell’s belief in the first of these two articles: he paid at his own expense for an English translation of Marsiglio of Padua’sDefensor Pacis, the classic medieval advocate of that doctrine; he had a scheme for governing England by means of administrative councils nominated by the king to the detriment of parliament; and he urged upon Henry the adoption of the maxim of the Roman civil law—quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem. He wanted, in his own words, “one body politic” and no rival to the king’s authority; and he set the divine right of kings against the divine right of the papacy. There is more doubt about the sincerity of Cromwell’s attachment to the second article; it is true that he set up a Bible in every parish church, and regarded them as invaluable; and the correspondents who unbosom themselves to him are all of a Protestant way of thinking. But Protestantism was the greatest support of absolute monarchy. Hence its value in Cromwell’s eyes. Of religious conviction there is in him little trace, and still less of the religious temperament. He was a polished representative of the callous, secular middle class of that most irreligious age. Sentiment found no place, and feeling little, in his composition; he used the axe with as little passion as the surgeon does the knife, and he operated on some of the best and noblest in the land. He saw that it was wiser to proscribe a few great opponents than to fall on humbler prey; but he set law above justice, and law to him was simply the will of the state.
In 1534 Cromwell was appointed master of the Rolls, and in 1535 chancellor of Cambridge University and visitor-general of the monasteries. The policy of the Dissolution has been theoretically denounced, but practically approved in every civilized state, Catholic as well as Protestant. Every one has found it necessary, sooner or later, to curtail or to destroy its monastic foundations; only those which delayed the task longest have generally lagged farthest behind in national progress. The need for reform was admitted by a committee of cardinals appointed by Paul III. in 1535, and it had been begun by Wolsey. Cromwell was not affected by the iniquities of the monks except as arguments for the confiscation of their property. He had boasted that he would make Henry VIII. the richest prince in Christendom; and the monasteries, with their direct dependence on the pope and their cosmopolitan organization, were obstacles to that absolute authority of the national state which was Cromwell’s ideal. He had learnt how to visit monasteries under Wolsey, and the visitation of 1535 was carried out with ruthless efficiency. During the storm which followed, Henry took the management of affairs into his own hands, but Cromwell was rewarded in July 1536 by being knighted, created lord privy seal, Baron Cromwell, and vicar-general and viceregent of the king in “Spirituals.”
In this last offensive capacity he sent a lay deputy to preside in Convocation, taking precedence of the bishops and archbishops, and issued his famous Injunctions of 1536 and 1538; a Bible was to be provided in every church; thePaternoster, Creed and Ten Commandments were to be recited by the incumbent inEnglish; he was to preach at least once a quarter, and to start a register of births, marriages and deaths. During these years the outlook abroad grew threatening because of the alliance, under papal guarantee, between Charles V. and Francis I.; and Cromwell sought to counterbalance it by a political and theological union between England and the Lutheran princes of Germany. The theological part of the scheme broke down in 1538 when Henry categorically refused to concede the three reforms demanded by the Lutheran envoys. This was ominous, and the parliament of 1539, into which Cromwell tried to introduce a number of personal adherents, proved thoroughly reactionary. The temporal peers were unanimous in favour of the Six Articles, the bishops were divided, and the Commons for the most part agreed with the Lords. Cromwell, however, succeeded in suspending the execution of the act, and was allowed to proceed with his one independent essay in foreign policy. The friendship between Francis and Charles was apparently getting closer; Pole was exhorting them to a crusade against a king who was worse than the Turk; and anxious eyes searched the Channel in 1539 for signs of the coming Armada. Under these circumstances Henry acquiesced in Cromwell’s negotiations for a marriage with Anne of Cleves. Anne, of course, was not a Lutheran, and the state religion in Cleves was at least as Catholic as Henry’s own. But her sister was married to the elector of Saxony, and her brother had claims on Guelders, which Charles V. refused to recognize. Guelders was to the emperor’s dominions in the Netherlands what Scotland was to England, and had often been used by France in the same way, and an alliance between England, Guelders, Cleves and the Schmalkaldic League would, Cromwell thought, make Charles’s position in the Netherlands almost untenable. Anne herself was the weak point in the argument; Henry conceived an invincible repugnance to her from the first; he was restrained from an immediate breach with his new allies only by fear of Francis and Charles. In the spring of 1540 he was reassured on that score; no attack on him from that quarter was impending; there was a rift between the two Catholic sovereigns, and there was no real need for Anne and her German friends.
From that moment Cromwell’s fate was sealed; the Lords loathed him as an upstart even more than they had loathed Wolsey; he had no church to support him; Norfolk and Gardiner detested him from pique as well as on principle, and he had no friend in the council save Cranmer. As lay viceregent he had given umbrage to nearly every churchman, and he had put all his eggs in the one basket of royal favour, which had now failed him. Cromwell did not succumb without an effort, and a desperate struggle ensued in the council. In April the French ambassador wrote that he was tottering to his fall; a few days later he was created earl of Essex and lord great chamberlain, and two of his satellites were made secretaries to the king; he then despatched one bishop to the Tower, and threatened to send five others to join him. At last Henry struck as suddenly and remorselessly as a beast of prey; on the 10th of June Norfolk accused him of treason; the whole council joined in the attack, and Cromwell was sent to the Tower. A vast number of crimes was laid to his charge, but not submitted for trial. An act of attainder was passed against him without a dissentient voice, and after contributing his mite towards the divorce of Anne, he was beheaded on Tower Hill on the 28th of July, repudiating all heresy and declaring that he died in the Catholic faith.
In estimating Cromwell’s character it must be remembered that his father was a blackguard, and that he himself spent the formative years of his life in a vile school of morals. A ruffian he doubtless was, as he says, in his youth, and he was the last man to need the tuition of Machiavelli. Nevertheless he civilized himself to a certain extent; he was not a drunkard nor a forger like his father; from personal immorality he seems to have been singularly free; he was a kind master, and a stanch friend; and he possessed all the outward graces of the Renaissance period. He was not vindictive, and his atrocious acts were done in no private quarrel, but in what he conceived to be the interests of his master and the state. Where those interests were concerned he had no heart and no conscience and no religious faith; no man was more completely blighted by the 16th century worship of the state.
The authorities for the early life of Cromwell are the Wimbledon manor rolls, used by Mr John Phillips of Putney inThe Antiquary(1880), vol. ii., and theAntiquarian Mag.(1882), vol. ii.; Pole’sApologia, i. 126; Bandello’sNovella, xxxiv.; Chapuys’ letter to Granvelle, 21 Nov. 1535; and Foxe’sActs and Mon.From 1522 seeLetters and Papers of Henry VIII., vols. iii.-xvi.; Cavendish’sLife of Wolsey; Hall’sChron.; Wriothesley’sChron.These and practically all other available sources have been utilized in R. B. Merriman’sLife and Letters of Thomas Cromwell(2 vols., 1902). For Cromwell and Machiavelli see Paul van Dyke’sRenascence Portraits(1906), App.
The authorities for the early life of Cromwell are the Wimbledon manor rolls, used by Mr John Phillips of Putney inThe Antiquary(1880), vol. ii., and theAntiquarian Mag.(1882), vol. ii.; Pole’sApologia, i. 126; Bandello’sNovella, xxxiv.; Chapuys’ letter to Granvelle, 21 Nov. 1535; and Foxe’sActs and Mon.From 1522 seeLetters and Papers of Henry VIII., vols. iii.-xvi.; Cavendish’sLife of Wolsey; Hall’sChron.; Wriothesley’sChron.These and practically all other available sources have been utilized in R. B. Merriman’sLife and Letters of Thomas Cromwell(2 vols., 1902). For Cromwell and Machiavelli see Paul van Dyke’sRenascence Portraits(1906), App.
(A. F. P.)
CRONJE, PIET ARNOLDUS(c.1840- ), Boer general, was born about 1840 in the Transvaal and in 1881 took part in the first Boer War in the rank of commandant. He commanded in the siege of the British garrison at Potchefstroom, though he was unable to force their surrender until after the conclusion of the general armistice. The Boer leader was at this time accused of withholding knowledge of this armistice from the garrison (seePotchefstroom). He held various official positions in the years 1881-1899, and commanded the Boer force which compelled the surrender of the Jameson raiders at Doornkop (Jan. 2, 1896). In the war of 1899 Cronje was general commanding in the western theatre of war, and began the siege of Kimberley. He opposed the advance of the British division under Lord Methuen, and fought, though without success, three general actions at Belmont, Graspan and Modder River. At Magersfontein, early in December 1899, he completely repulsed a general attack made upon his position, and thereby checked for two months the northward advance of the British column. In the campaign of February 1900, Cronje opposed Lord Roberts’s army on the Magersfontein battleground, but he was unable to prevent the relief of Kimberley; retreating westward, he was surrounded near Paardeberg, and, after a most obstinate resistance, was forced to surrender with the remnant of his army (Feb. 27, 1900). As a prisoner of war Cronje was sent to St Helena, where he remained until released after the conclusion of peace (seeTransvaal:History).
CROOKES, SIR WILLIAM(1832- ), English chemist and physicist, was born in London on the 17th of June 1832, and studied chemistry at the Royal College of Chemistry under A. W. von Hofmann, whose assistant he became in 1851. Three years later he was appointed an assistant in the meteorological department of the Radcliffe observatory, Oxford, and in 1855 he obtained a chemical post at Chester. In 1861, while conducting a spectroscopic examination of the residue left in the manufacture of sulphuric acid, he observed a bright green line which had not been noticed previously, and by following up the indication thus given he succeeded in isolating a new element, thallium, a specimen of which was shown in public for the first time at the exhibition of 1862. During the next eight years he carried out a minute investigation of this metal and its properties. While determining its atomic weight, he thought it desirable, for the sake of accuracy, to weigh it in a vacuum, and even in these circumstances he found that the balance behaved in an anomalous manner, the metal appearing to be heavier when cold than when hot. This phenomenon he explained as a “repulsion from radiation,” and he expressed his discovery in the statement that in a vessel exhausted of air a body tends to move away from another body hotter than itself. Utilizing this principle he constructed the radiometer (q.v.), which he was at first disposed to regard as a machine that directly transformed light into motion, but which was afterwards perceived to depend on thermal action. Thence he was led to his famous researches on the phenomena produced by the discharge of electricity through highly exhausted tubes (sometimes known as “Crookes’ tubes” in consequence), and to the development of his theory of “radiant matter” or matter in a “fourth state,” which led up to the modern electronic theory. In 1883 he began an inquiry into the nature and constitution of the rare earths. By repeatedfractionations he was able to divide yttrium into distinct portions which gave different spectra when exposed in a high vacuum to the spark from an induction coil. This result he considered to be due, not to any removal of impurities, but to an actual splitting-up of the yttrium molecule into its constituents, and he ventured to draw the provisional conclusion that the so-called simple bodies are in reality compound molecules, at the same time suggesting that all the elements have been produced by a process of evolution from one primordial stuff or “protyle.” A later result of this method of investigation was the discovery of a new member of the rare earths, monium or victorium, the spectrum of which is characterized by an isolated group of lines, only to be detected photographically, high up in the ultra-violet; the existence of this body was announced in his presidential address to the British Association at Bristol in 1898. In the same address he called attention to the conditions of the world’s food supply, urging that with the low yield at present realized per acre the supply of wheat would within a comparatively short time cease to be equal to the demand caused by increasing population, and that since nitrogenous manures are essential for an increase in the yield, the hope of averting starvation, as regards those races for whom wheat is a staple food, depended on the ability of the chemist to find an artificial method for fixing the nitrogen of the air. An authority on precious stones, and especially the diamond, he succeeded in artificially making some minute specimens of the latter gem; and on the discovery of radium he was one of the first to take up the study of its properties, in particular inventing the spinthariscope, an instrument in which the effects of a trace of radium salt are manifested by the phosphorescence produced on a zinc sulphide screen. In addition to many other researches besides those here mentioned, he wrote or edited various books on chemistry and chemical technology, includingSelect Methods of Chemical Analysis, which went through a number of editions; and he also gave a certain amount of time to the investigation of psychic phenomena, endeavouring to effect some measure of correlation between them and ordinary physical laws. He was knighted in 1897, and received the Royal (1875), Davy (1888), and Copley (1904) medals of the Royal Society, besides filling the offices of president of the Chemical Society and of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. He married Ellen, daughter of W. Humphrey, of Darlington, and their golden wedding was celebrated in 1906.
CROOKSTON,a city and the county-seat of Polk county, Minnesota, U.S.A., on the Red Lake river in the Red River valley, about 300 m. N.W. of Minneapolis, and about 25 m. E. of Grand Forks, North Dakota. Pop. (1890) 3457; (1900) 5359; (1905, state census) 6794, 2049 being foreign-born, including 656 from Norway (2 Norwegian weeklies are published), 613 from Canada, 292 from Sweden; (1910 U.S. census) 7559. Crookston is served by the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific railways. It has a Carnegie library, and the St Vincent and Bethesda hospitals, and is the seat of a Federal Land Office and of a state agricultural high school (with an experimental farm). Dams on the Red Lake river provide a fine water-power, and among the city’s manufactures are lumber, leather, flour, farm implements, wagons and bricks. The city is situated in a fertile farming region, and is a market for grain, potatoes and other agricultural products, and lumber. Crookston was settled about 1872, was incorporated in 1879, received its first city charter in 1883, and adopted a new one in 1906. It was named in honour of William Crooks, an early settler.
CROP(a word common in various forms, such as Germ.Kropf, to many Teutonic languages for a swelling, excrescence, round head or top of anything; it appears also in Romanic languages derived from Teutonic, in Fr. ascroupe, whence the English “crupper”; and in Ital.groppo, whence English “group”), theingluvies, or pouched expansion of a bird’s oesophagus, in which the food remains to undergo a preparatory process of digestion before being passed into the true stomach. From the meaning of “top” or “head,” as applied to a plant, herb or flower, comes the common use of the word for the produce of cereals or other cultivated plants, the wheat-crop, the cotton-crop and the like, and generally, “the crops”; more particular expressions are the “white-crop,” for such grain crops as barley or wheat, which whiten as they grow ripe and “green-crop” for such as roots or potatoes which do not, and also for those which are cut in a green state, like clover (seeAgriculture). Other uses, more or less technical, of the word are, in leather-dressing, for the whole untrimmed hide; in mining and geology, for the “outcrop” or appearance at the surface of a vein or stratum and, particularly in tin mining, of the best part of the ore produced after dressing. A “hunting-crop” is a short thick stock for a whip, with a small leather loop at one end, to which a thong may be attached. From the verb “to crop,”i.e.to take off the top of anything, comes “crop” meaning a closely cut head of hair, found in the name “croppy” given to the Roundheads at the time of the Great Rebellion, to the Catholics in Ireland in 1688 by the Orangemen, probably with reference to the priests’ tonsures, and to the Irish rebels of 1798, who cut their hair short in imitation of the French revolutionaries.
CROPSEY, JASPER FRANCIS(1823-1900), American landscape painter, was born at Rossville, Staten Island, New York, on the 18th of February 1823. After practising architecture for several years, he turned his attention to painting, studying in Italy from 1847 to 1850. In 1851 he was elected a member of the National Academy of Design. From 1857 to 1863 he had a studio in London, and after his return to America enjoyed a considerable vogue, particularly as a painter of vivid autumnal effects, along the lines of the Hudson River school. He was one of the original members of the American Water Color Society. He continued actively in this profession until within a few days of his death, at Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, on the 22nd of June 1900. He made the architectural designs for the stations of the elevated railways in New York City.
CROQUET(from Fr.croc, a crook, or crooked stick), a lawn game played with balls, mallets, hoops and two pegs. The game has been evolved, according to some writers, from thepaille-maillewhich was played in Languedoc at least as early as the 13th century. Under the name ofle jeu de la crosse, orla crosserie, a similar game was at the same period immensely popular in Normandy, and especially at Avranches, but the object appears to have been to send the ball as far as possible by driving it with the mallet (seeSports et jeux d’adresse, 1904, p. 203). Pall Mall, a fashionable game in England in the time of the Stuarts, was played with a ball and a mallet, and with two hoops or a hoop and a peg, the game being won by the player who ran the hoop or hoops and touched the peg under certain conditions in the fewest strokes. Croquet certainly has some resemblance topaille-maille, played with more hoops and more balls. It is said that the game was brought to Ireland from the south of France, and was first played on Lord Lonsdale’s lawn in 1852, under the auspices of the eldest daughter of Sir Edmund Macnaghten. It came to England in 1856, or perhaps a few years earlier, and soon became popular.
In 1868 the first all-comers’ meeting was held at Moreton-in-the-Marsh. In the same year the All England Croquet Club was formed, the annual contest for the championship taking place on the grounds of this club at Wimbledon.1But after being for ten years or so the most popular game for the country house and garden party, croquet was in its turn practically ousted by lawn tennis, until, with improved implements and a more scientific form of play, it was revived about 1894-1895. In 1896-1897 was formed the United All England Croquet Association, on the initiative of Mr Walter H. Peel. Under the name of the Croquet Association, with more than 2000 members and nearly a hundred affiliated clubs (1909), this body is the recognized ruling authority on croquet in the British Islands. Its headquarters are at the Roehampton Club, where thechampionship and champion cup competitions are held each year.
The Game and its Implements.—The requisites for croquet are a level grass lawn, six hoops, two posts or pegs, balls, mallets, and hoop-clips to mark the progress of the players. The usual game is played between two sides, each having two balls, the side consisting of two players in partnership, each playing one ball, or of one player playing both balls. The essential characteristic of croquet is the scientific combination between two balls in partnership against the other two. The balls are distinguished by being coloured blue, red, black and yellow, and are played in that order, blue and black always opposing the other two.
The ground for match play measures 35 yds. by 28 yds., and should be carefully marked out with white lines. In each corner a white spot is marked 1 yd. from each boundary. The hoops are made of round iron, not less than ½ in. and not more than ¾ in. in diameter, and standing 12 in. out of the ground. For match play they are 3¾ or 4 in. across, inside measurement. They are set up as in the accompanying diagram, the numbers and arrows indicating the order and direction in which they must be passed. Each hoop is run twice, and each peg struck once. The pegs may be struck from any direction.
The pegs are 1½ in. in diameter and when fixed stand 18 in. above the ground. The balls were formerly made of boxwood (earlier still of beechwood); composition balls are now in general use for tournaments. They must be 35⁄8in. in diameter and 15 oz. to 16½ oz. in weight. It will be seen that for match play the hoops are only1⁄8or at the most3⁄8in. wider than the diameter of the ball. The mallets may be of any size and weight, but the head must be made of wood (metal may be used only for weighting or strengthening purposes), and the ends must be parallel and similar. Only one mallet may be used in the course of a game, except in the case ofbona fidedamage.
The object of the player is to score the points of the game by striking his ball through each of the hoops and against each of the pegs in a fixed order; and the side wins which first succeeds in scoring all the points with both the balls of the side. A metal clip corresponding in colour with the player’s ball is attached to the hoop or peg which that ball has next to make in the proper order, as a record of its progress in the game. No point is scored by passing through a hoop or hitting a peg except in the proper order. Thus, if a player has in any turn or turns driven his ball successively through hoops 1, 2, and 3, his clip is attached to hoop 4, and the next point to be made by him will be that hoop; and so on till all the points (hoops and pegs) have been scored. Each player starts in turn from any point in a “baulk” or area 3 ft. wide along the left-hand half of the “southern” boundary, marked A on the diagram, of the lawn—till 1906, from a point 1 ft. in front of the middle of hoop 1. If he fails either to make a point or to “roquet”2(i.e.drive his ball against) another ball in play, his turn is at an end and the next player in order takes his turn in like manner. If he succeeds in scoring a point, he is entitled (as in billiards) to another stroke; he may then either attempt to score another point, or he may roquet a ball. Having roqueted a ball—provided he has not already roqueted the same ball in the same turn without having scored a point in the interval—he is entitled to two further strokes: first he must “take croquet,”i.e.he places his own ball (which from the moment of the roquet is “dead” or “in hand”) in contact with the roqueted ball on any side of it, and then strikes his own ball with his mallet, being bound to move or shake both balls perceptibly. If at the beginning of a turn the striker’s ball is in contact with another ball, a “roquet” is held to have been made and “croquet” must be taken at once. After taking croquet the striker is entitled to another stroke, with which he may score another point, or roquet another ball not previously roqueted in the same turn since a point was scored, or he may play for safety. Thus, by skilful alternation of making points and roqueting balls, a “break” may be made in which point after point, and even all the points in the game (for the ball in play), may be scored in a single turn, in addition to 3 or 4 points for the partner ball. The chief skill in the game perhaps consists in playing the stroke called “taking croquet” (but see below on the “rush”). Expert players can drive both balls together from one end of the ground to the other, or send one to a distance while retaining the other, or place each with accuracy in different directions as desired, the player obtaining position for scoring a point or roqueting another ball according to the strategical requirements of his position. Care has, however, to be taken in playing the croquet-stroke that both balls are absolutely moved or perceptibly shaken, and that neither of them be driven over the boundary line, for in either event the player’s next stroke is forfeited and his turn brought summarily to an end.
There are three distinct methods of holding the mallet among good players. A comparatively small number still adhere to the once universal “side stroke,” in which the player faces more or less at right angles to the line of aim, and strikes the ball very much like a golfer, with his hands close together on the mallet shaft. The majority use “front play,” in which the player faces in the direction in which he proposes to send the ball. The essential characteristic of this stroke is that eye, hand and ball should be in the same vertical plane, and the stroke is rather a swing—the “pendulum stroke”—than a hit. There are two ways of playing it. The majority of right-handed front players swing the mallet outside the right foot, holding it with the left hand as a pivot at the top of the shaft, while the right hand (about 12 in. lower down) applies the necessary force, though it must always be borne in mind that the heavy mallet-head, weighing from 3 to 3½ ℔ or even more, does the work by itself, and the nearer the stroke is to a simple swing, like that of a pendulum, the more likely it is to be accurate. Either the right or the left foot may be in advance, and should be roughly parallel to the line of aim, the player’s weight being mainly on the rear foot. Most of the best Irish and some English players swing the mallet between their feet, using a grip like that of the side player or golfer, with the hands close together, and often interlocking. It is claimed that the loss of power caused by the hampered swing—usually compensated by an extra heavy mallet—is more than counterbalanced by the greater accuracy in aim. The beginner is well advised to try all these methods, and adopt that which comes most natural to him. Skirted players, of course, are unable to use the Irish stroke; and, asone of the most meritorious features of croquet is that it is the only out-of-door game in which men and women can compete on terms of real equality, this has been put forward as a reason for barring it, if it is actually an advantage.
When a croquet ground is thoroughly smooth and level, the game gives scope for considerable skill; a great variety of strokes may be played with the mallet, each having its own well-defined effect on the behaviour of the balls, while a knowledge of angles is essential. Skilful tactics are at least as necessary as skilful execution to enable the player so to dispose the balls on the ground while making a break that they may most effectively assist him in scoring his points. The tactics of croquet are in this respect similar to those of billiards, that the player tries to make what progress he can during his own break, and to leave the balls “safe” at the end of it; he must also keep in mind the needs of the other ball of his side by leaving his own ball, or the last player’s ball, or both, within easy roqueting distance or in useful positions, and that of the next player isolated. Good judgment is really more valuable than mechanical skill. Croquet is a game of combination, partners endeavouring to keep together for mutual help, and to keep their opponents apart. It is important always to leave the next player in such a position that he will be unable to score a point or roquet a ball; a break, however profitable, which does not end by doing this is often fatal. Formerly this might be done by leaving the next player’s ball in such a position that either a hoop or a peg lay between it and all the other balls (“wiring”), or so near to a hoop or peg that there was no room for a proper stroke to be taken in the required direction. Under rule 36 of theLaws of Croquetfor 1906, a ball left in such a position, provided it were within a yard of the obstacle (“close-wired”), might at the striker’s option be moved one yard in any direction. This rule left to the striker whose ball was “wired” more than a yard from the hoop or peg (“distance-wired”) the possibility of hitting his ball in such a way as to jump the obstacle. The jump-shot is, however, very bad for the lawn, and in 1907 a further provision was made by which the player whose ball is left “wired” from all the other balls by the stroke of an opponent may lift it and play from the “baulk” area. This practically means that “wiring” is impossible. The most that can be done is to “close-wire” the next player from two balls and leave him with a difficult shot at the third. If, however, the next player’s ball has not been moved by the adversary, the adversary is entitled to wire the balls as best he can.
The following is a specimen of elementary croquet tactics. If a player is going up to hoop 5 (diagram 1) in the course of a break, he should have contrived, if possible, to have a ball waiting for him at that hoop and another at hoop 6. With the aid of the first he runs hoop 5 and sends it on to the turning peg, stopping his ball in taking croquet close to the ball at 6. The corner hoops are the difficult ones, and after running hoop 6 the assisting ball is croqueted to 1 back, the peg being struck with the aid of the ball already there, which is again struck and driven to 2 back. If the player has been able to leave the fourth ball in the centre of the ground (known as a centre ball), he hits this after taking croquet, takes croquet, going off it to the ball at 1 back, and continues the break, leaving the centre ball where it will be useful for 3 back and 4 back. A first-class player should, however, be able to make a break with 3 balls almost as easily as with 4. A useful device, especially in a losing game, is to get rid of the opponent’s advanced ball if a “rover” (i.e.one which has run all the hoops and is for the winning peg) by croqueting it in such a way that it hits the peg and is thus out of the game. This can be done only by a ball which is itself also a rover. The opponent has then only one turn out of every three, and may be rendered practically helpless by leaving him always in a “safe” position. Inasmuch as a skilful player can cause an opponent’s ball to pass through the last two or even three hoops in the course of his turn and then peg it out, it is considered prudent to leave unrun the last three hoops until the partner’s ball is well advanced. There is a perennial agitation in the croquet world for a law prohibiting the player from pegging out his opponent’s ball. Many good players also think it desirable that the four-ball break should be restricted or wholly forbidden,e.g.by barring the dead ball.
To “rush” a ball is to roquet it hard so that it proceeds for a considerable distance in a desired direction. This stroke requires absolute accuracy and often considerable force, which must be applied in such a way as to drive the player’s ball evenly; otherwise it is very liable, especially if the ground be not perfectly smooth, to jump the object ball. The rush stroke is absolutely essential to good play, as it enables croquet to be taken (e.g.) close to the required hoop, whereas to croquet into position from a great distance and also provide a ball for use after running the hoop is extremely difficult, often impossible. To “rush” successfully, the striker’s ball must lie near the object ball, preferably, though not necessarily, in the line of the rush. By means of the rush it is possible to accomplish the complete round with the assistance of one ball only. To “cut” a ball is to hit it on the edge and cause it to move at some desired angle. “Rolling croquet” is made either by hitting near the top of the player’s ball which gives it “follow,” or by making the mallet so hit the ball as to keep up a sustained pressure. The first impact must, however, result in a distinctly audible single tap; if a prolonged rattle or a second tap is heard the stroke is foul. The passing stroke is merely an extension of this. Here the player’s ball proceeds a greater distance than the croqueted ball, but in somewhat the same direction. The “stop stroke” is made by a short, sharp tap, the mallet being withdrawn immediately after contact; the player’s ball only rolls a short distance, the other going much farther. The “jump stroke” is made by striking downwards on to the ball, which can thus be made to jump over another ball, or even a hoop. “Peeling” (a term derived from Walter H. Peel, a famous advocate of the policy) is the term applied to the device of putting a partner’s or an opponent’s ball through the hoops with a view to ultimately pegging it out.
The laws of croquet, and even the arrangement of the hoops, have not attained complete uniformity wherever the game is played. Croquet grounds are not always of full size, and some degree of elasticity in the rules is perhaps necessary to meet local conditions. The laws by which matches for the championship and all tournaments are governed are issued annually by the Croquet Association; and though from time to time trifling amendments may be made, they have probably reached permanence in essentials.