The Engagement for the Council of State and the Establishment of the Commonwealth Government
The Engagement for the Council of State and the Establishment of the Commonwealth Government
复制标题
国务委员会的参与和联邦政府的成立
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-2281.1990.tb00869.x
复制
发表时间：
1990
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Barber
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Barber
0 NII 0 CT o B E R 1649年，联邦政府试图强迫即使是最低级的仆人宣誓效忠，从而加剧了许多人对其有争议的权力之路的低评价。它号召人们效忠于政府，“因为它现在已经建立，没有国王或贵族院”，因此它成为了对过去行为的提醒。许多人对1648年议会的军事清洗感到震惊，废除了上议院，处决了一个许多人仍然认为是上帝在地球上的中尉的国王。这项承诺遭到了广泛的反对，尤其是因为它针对的是那些高度政治化和能言善辩的社会成员，他们已经表达了对新政权的分歧。全国各地的神职人员尤其如此，他们已经接受了庄严的联盟和盟约，尽管被驱逐，但仍然在为一群人服务。尽管这是最有争议的，但10月的版本只是几个不同版本的效忠联邦的誓言之一。最后一次是1650年1月1日，适用于18岁以上的所有人。由于在鼓励和登记签署方面存在困难，执行誓言的努力逐渐消失。在1649年10月之前也有几个版本。它们之间的区别在于它们所适用的共同体成员，而不是每一个的措辞。事实上，这是不令人难以置信的建议，每一个措辞是故意相似，以建立d层次金字塔的订阅。由于必须由一个忠诚已经得到保证的上级来对下级进行宣誓，所以早期的婚约例子可能证明了一种进行“I”普适宣誓的意图。如果是这样的话，就必须从最高层开始，从政府本身的执行官员--国务理事会开始。然而，尽管建立这一点的重要性，金字塔，历史的订阅由理事会是远远不清楚，这雾已tlucked由误读的证据。问题的根源在于人们倾向于把塞缪尔·加德纳的《英联邦与保护国》中的事实和解释视为全部真相，而在国务理事会的订婚问题上，加德纳的叙述是有缺陷的。他坚持认为，亨利艾尔顿提交了宣誓的原始形式，这是由理事会的国家，议员和主要国家官员。第一次理事会会议于1649年2月17日星期六举行，加德纳注意到有14名成员出席，其中除了威廉爵士之外，
0 NII 0 CT o B E R 1649, the Commonwealth government compounded the low opinion which many held about its controversial route to power by attempting to enforce an oath of loyalty on even its most lowly servants. It called for allegiance to the government,‘as it is now established, without king or house of lords’, and it thereby became a reminder of past acts. Many had been scandalized by the military purge of parliament in 1648, the abolition of the Lords and the execution of a king whom many still regarded as God’s lieutenant on earth. The Engagement was widely opposed, even more so because it was directed at those highly yoliticizrd and articulate members of society who were already voicing their differences with the new regime. This was particularly true of churchmen around the country, who had taken the Solemn League and Covenant and who, despite ejections, were still ministering to a flock.Although it was the most controversial, the October version was only one of several different versions of an oath of loyalty to the Commonwealth. The last of these was to be that of I January 1650, which applied to everyone over the age of eighteen. The attempt to enforce ths oath petered out under the weight of difficulties involved in encouraging and registering its signing. There were also several versions before October 1649. The distinctions between them lay in the members of the community to whom they were applied, rather than the wording of each. Indeed, it is not implausible to suggest that the wording of each was deliberately similar, in order to set up d hierarchical pyramid of subscriptions. Sincc it was necessary for a superior, whose loyalty had already been secured, to administer the oath to subordinates, early examples of the Engagement may evidence an intention to administer’I universal oath. If this was the case, it was necessary to start at the very top, with the executive officers of the government itself-rhe council of state. However, despite the importance of establishng this point to the pyramid, the history of the subscriptions by the council is far from clear, and this mist has been tluckened by a misreading of the evidence. The source of the problem is the tendency to regard thc facts and interpretations in Samuel Gardiner’s Commonwealth andProtectorate” as the whole truth, and in the case of the Engagement for the council of state, Gardiner’s account is flawed. He maintained that Henry Ireton submitted the original form of the oath, which was to be taken by the council of state, MPs and leading state officials. The first council meeting took place on Saturday 17 February 1649, and Gardiner noted fourteen members present, of whom all except Sir William