“For the Sake of Liberty” 1652–1654ests of Charles II. About February 8 Marchamont Nedham published a strong defense
of the Rump’s expulsion and the dissolution of Barebones, arguing that the revolu-
tion was not about forms of government but about liberties, which the new gov-
ernment would better secure because it separated the legislative and executive
powers.^114 For nine months the Protector and council governed without parlia-
ment, passing some eighty-two ordinances, among them provisions for the reform
of Chancery and for commissions to approve preachers presented to benefices and
to eject scandalous or insufficient ministers and schoolmasters. For the first six months
of the Protectorate Milton wrote no state letters, or at least none we know of.^115
Nor was Milton involved in the flurry of treaty-making – with the United Prov-
inces, Sweden, Portugal, and Denmark – that quickly settled disputes long mired in
negotiations and on terms very favorable to England.^116 But he was no doubt pleased
to see several negotiations he had worked on concluded at last, and an end to the
war with the Dutch. He was perhaps given a respite from diplomatic duties to
complete his answer to the Regii Sanguinis Clamor.^117
The change of government meant that Milton had to revamp whatever part of
his answer to the Clamor was already drafted, to suit the circumstances of the Pro-
tectorate. As he worked on it he had to give some attention to two personal legal
cases that began in early 1654 and continued in the courts for years: one, a suit he
initiated to recover a long-standing debt of £150 from the heirs of Sir John Cope,
now deceased; the other an action brought against him by Mrs Elizabeth Ashworth
who had a claim on the Wheatley property, alleging that he had held on to that
property after recovering all that was owed him by the Powells.^118 Milton’s lawyer
brother, Christopher, now practicing in London, handled these legal matters for
him; their fraternal bond evidently withstood their political differences.^119
Just as Milton’s manuscript was ready for press or actually in press, several testi-
monials were presented to him denying More’s authorship of Clamor. Earlier, Milton
had heard one or two denials of or queries about More’s authorship, but found it
easy to believe the preponderance of testimony on the other side. On April 14/24,
however, John Dury wrote Hartlib from The Hague, for transmission to Milton,
that he had heard testimony denying More’s authorship of the Clamor and the
pregnancy of Salmasius’s servant, and that a court decision had dismissed charges
against More in that affair:
I have understood from one of the Ministers of Middelburg of my acquaintance who is
very familiar with Mr Moore that hee is not the author of that booke, but that it is a
French minister who lives in France whom Mr Moore did name to him under a promise
of secrecy, so that I could not learne his name; and as for the other rumors concerning
Bontia who is an English woman; it is false that shee is with childe to him only shee did
claime a promise of mariage of him, which he denyes hee ever made to hir and the
business hath been agitated before the Court of Justice here, and hee freed from her, and
declared innocent of all that is blameworthy in that matter... now I would not that Mr.
Milton should mistake in all this and spread false reports against a man that is blameles.^120