1660 Restoration - the Merry Monarch

In May 1660 Charles II arrived in London from the Dutch quay of Scheveningen. The Protectorate had crumbled on Cromwell’s death. Parliament’s Rump was re-instated, but unrest among political and religious groups, and in the army, risked anarchy. There was popular relief at the prospect of a return to ‘normal’ rule. With Charles invited back, most people were pleased. Were their hopes met? Did Charles deliver on expectations? And is his sunny reputation deserved?

Charles II, by John Michael Wright

In early 1660 the Rump (Parliament filleted in 1648 of army sceptics), having actually been dismissed by the Army in October 1659, was now again in power. But 20 years of religious tensions persisted between those who wanted a new Church of England and a radical minority wishing to leave it behind. London street protests demanded a ‘free parliament’. The agitation seemed to presage a new civil war.

General Monck had marched his army down from Scotland and at first looked as if he would do Parliament’s will. But he changed his mind in February 1660, demanding new elections for a representative regime to carry authority. This was welcomed. But Charles’ return was no foregone conclusion. Some simply wanted a new Parliament, with maybe Monck as head of state. Things were certainly in flux.  

Charles' opportunism

But in April Charles presented himself as a unifying figure via his Declaration of Breda. In an opportunist move he offered a free pardon for ‘crimes’ against himself and his father, with Parliament to decide on exceptions; a ‘liberty to tender consciences’ with Parliament again to determine the terms of a religious settlement; and Parliament to decide on contested land rights. The pledges hit the right note. In May the Commons voted to restore the Stuart monarchy on this more constitutional basis. Charles II appeared in London a few weeks later.

He started well, choosing advisers from each side of the conflict. And he made good on his three main promises to Parliament. But in July the regime suppressed newspapers not under government control. In 1661 it severely restricted public grievance petitions. Ten so-called ‘regicides’ were hanged drawn and quartered as traitors.

Liberty of conscience?

Having promised to unify the country, 1661’s fanatically pro Royalist ‘Cavalier Parliament’ restricted freedom, being bent on preventing anyone ever again overturning its idea of law and order. Embittered, vengeful and in a mood of retribution it severely punished opponents.

Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon

In 1662 Parliament passed a Uniformity Act, part of the ‘Clarendon Code’ hobbling non-conformism and hugely boosting the re-instated Church of England. Office holders had to swear allegiance and the Common Prayer Book was made compulsory. It was hardly liberty of conscience. Puritan clergy then left the Church en masse. Despite being against the move Lord Chancellor Clarendon took the rap. The Test Act for religious conformity in public offices was a further blow to those who believed promises on liberty of conscience.               

Clarendon was impeached for treason in 1667 over the Second Dutch War. England’s fleet was destroyed in the Medway and its flagship Royal Charles towed back to Holland. A shocking episode after the Protectorate navy's success against the Dutch fleet. The king bore the main responsibility. He had ignored advice and been asleep at the wheel. But the monarch couldn't be publicly blamed so a scapegoat had to be found.

'Royal Charles', captured by the Dutch fleet

Secret French deal

In 1670 the Secret Treaty of Dover was signed with France. Charles would assist Louis XIV with 60 warships and 4000 soldiers in his war of conquest against the Dutch Republic. Charles got an annual pension of £230,000 with a bonus on a promised Catholic conversion. 6000 French troops would help him defeat any rebellion at home.

Louis XIV, after Lefebrve 

This was astonishing duplicity, even by Charles’ dire standards - and would have been incendiary if then known. The full damning terms were not discovered for 100 years. The Third Anglo-Dutch War followed the Dover Treaty. Louis benefited here, but not Charles, who underestimated Dutch resilience and misjudged his influence on nephew William, who won power in Holland without his help. Later, in 1679, Charles was bribed by Louis XIV to maintain England’s neutrality. Secretary of State Danby was unfairly blamed and sent to the Tower.

Despot rule

In 1679 Charles faced a hostile Parliament. Suspected of wanting to impose Catholicism, he sided with his brother on the Exclusion Bill. This sought to deny his Catholic brother James the succession. A huge political row saw Parliament dissolved four times. In his last five years Charles ruled as a despot, prosecuting pro-Exclusion Whigs and seizing their estates. Charles replaced judges and sheriffs at will and packed juries to secure convictions.

History’s treatment of Charles’ 25 year reign has often been gentle. Many in the arts community stress his re-opening theatres, and seem neither to know nor care much about the rest. That's indeed a common perception, On the other hand academic historians looking at statecraft have judged him far more severely. So what are the myths? Well, it’s really more about misperceptions.

He broke his promises and prorogued Parliament. An opportunist and self-serving unprincipled liar, who barely showed up for work, he spent most of his time at his own pleasure, had several illegitimate children and kept a string of mistresses at public expense. He greedily received cash from overseas powers and was happy to mortgage the country for his own benefit. Yet curiously, much of the press gave him a free pass.

Barbara Castlemaine, Peter Lely

He can be forgiven the Plague of 1665 and the Great Fire of London the following year. They occurred on his watch but were clearly just bad luck. On the admittedly sparse plus side he saw a chance to renew London after the fire, paying for it by levying a coal tax. And of course Charles was personal patron of architect Sir Christopher Wren. In the arts and sciences, he founded the Royal Observatory and supported the Royal Society.

Charles' corruption

But his hedonistic immoral lifestyle was notorious. Virtually drunk on sex - an obsession shared with the court - nothing would interfere with his social life. His queen, Catherine of Braganza, provided no heir, and was pretty shamefully treated. But other ladies produced at least 13 illegitimate children to him. One of these girlfriends, Barbara Castlemaine, alone had five. Charles deluged them with gifts and huge palace apartments. Barbara was allowed to siphon off massive sums that should have gone to the exchequer. At the Navy Board, Samuel Pepys said £2.3m was unaccounted for. The rumours were that Charles had lavished much of it on his mistresses.

’Orange-wench’ Nell Gwyn, plus Lucy Walter and Louise de Kerouaille, were other famous lovers. Louise, a Breton, was suspected of being a French Catholic spy. When an angry crowd shouted insults at Nell, mistaking her for Louise, she’s supposed to have smiled and shouted, “No. I’m the Protestant whore!” They, and all the others, were given titles and honours. Corruption on a grand scale, and even with a controlled press, it was most unpopular and strongly resented.

Nell Gwyn, Peter Lely

Historian Ian Mortimer has the Restoration as a tipping point between the medieval and modern world, in terms of calculation and rational explanation. “Worried about losing your goods to fire in 1660, your best hope was prayer. 10 years later it was fire insurance. Scientific problems came to be subject to calculation rather than supposition”.

Many from the 1660s just wanted a pragmatic return to regularity, not a succession of weak, short lived governments. It seems this was a prime reason for their backing Restoration. Until it ended badly the reign at least blocked a return to the earlier spell of confusion. This, rather than any great love for the king, was probably the main buttress of its public support.

There’s no getting away from Charles as a cynical, immoral, corrupt king. He “was a kick against the moral rectitude of late 17^th century Puritanism. He wanted to rub the Puritans’ noses in filth” says Mortimer. He converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.