THE DERBY PETITION 245
more, with ships to transport them to England. Besides,
Admiral Mountagu had been listening to an agent of Charles II
and suddenly brought the fleet he commanded in the Baltic
back to England. The combination was powerful on paper, but
all depended on the ability of the enemies of the Rump to keep
the field until help joined them from overseas. On the contrary
the main force in Cheshire, under Sir George Booth, was easily
defeated by Lambert, and the other bands dispersed without
striking a blow. Mountagu explained his sudden return on the
ground that his fleet needed provisioning, but he lost his com-
mand, which was given to John Lawson, an ardent republican.
Most unexpectedly the ignominious collapse of this rising
proved a blessing in disguise to the royalists: when their cause
looked darkest, a ray of light was seen. Ever since the close of
the first civil war they had hoped that their enemies would
quarrel among themselves. They had been disappointed time
and again, thanks to Cromwell's genius; but now there was no
one who could enlist the confidence of all sections of the army.
Instead there were Fleetwood, vain and easygoing; Disbrowe,
an uncouth bully; and, most dangerous of all, 'honest John
Lambert', ambitious, restless, rash, and shortsighted.
It was Lambert who was destined to take the first steps
towards upsetting the republican applecart. The officers of his
army at Derby drew up and presented to parliament a petition
in which they asserted that the proof, afforded by the late
victory, that Providence was still on their side, impelled them
to insist that His bounty should not be wasted. They therefore
asked that the army's petition of 12 May should be no longer
ignored, but made the basis of a permanent settlement, and
that to preserve the unity of the army Fleetwood should be
named commander-in-chief, Lambert second to him, and Dis-
browe and Monck, respectively, commanders of the horse and
foot. They further demanded that neutrals or malignants
should be removed from all offices, corporations regulated, and
the magistracy confined to the well-disposed.1 The leaders in
the house, who never lacked the courage of their convictions
(however far removed from all contact with reality), promptly
voted that to have any more general officers would be hazard-
ous and expensive; and a motion that the petition itself was
unseasonable and of dangerous consequence was defeated by
1 Sir Richard Baker, A Chronicle of the Kings of England (1674), P- ^73-