^{Page 1 note a} Captain Richard Deane, Comptroller of the Ordnance. Peacock, Army Lists, ed. 2, p. 101.

^{Page 1 note b} March 27. Commons' Journals, v., 127.

^{Page 1 note c} The petition is given in the Old Parliamentary History, xv., 342, and in The Journals of the House of Lords, ix., 114. According to Waller the petition was drawn up about March 22, and then presented to the Convention of officers. Vindication, p. 51. The same day an engagement was drawn up and signed by 29 officers undertaking to serve in Ireland. They are probably the ‘undertakers’ referred to. a

^{Page 2 note a} Quarter-Master-General of the Horse;, v. Waller's Vindication, p. 51, and Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva, ed. 1854, pp. 60, 218.

^{Page 2 note b} Lords' Journals, ix., iii.

^{Page 2 note c} John Saltmarsh, a leading Independent preacher; see Fuller's Worthies, ed, 1811, ii., 519 ; Hanbury, Historical Memorials, iii., 74,167 ; Rushworthis, vii., 944.

^{Page 2 note d} The letters which led to this vote are printed in the Lords' Journals, ix., 115; the declaration against the petitioners was drawn up by Holles: see Ludlow's Memoirs, ed. 1751, p. 74, and Waller's Vindication, p. 62. This Declaration, passed March 29, was erased by vote of June 3, 1647. Commons'Journals, v., 129, 197. It is printed in the Old Parliamentary History, xv., 344.

^{Page 3 note a} Skippon was summoned from Newcastle on March 29, and voted by the Commons to command the forces destined for Ireland, with the title of Field- Marshal (April 2). This vote was agreed to by the Lords on April 6. Commons' Journals, v., 133 ; Lords'Journals, ix., 122. He accepted the command with considerable reluctance, and resigned it on July 21, 1647. Lords' Journals, ix., 138, 158, 348 ; Commons' Journals, 129, 156, 176.

^{Page 3 note b} 27 March, 1647, when Clotworthy delivered the report of the Commissioners sent to the Army. Commons' Journals, v., 127.

^{Page 3 note c} This petition is printed in the Lords' Jownals, ix. 82: see also Godwin, Commonwealth, ii. 277.

^{Page 3 note d} Major Tulidah : see Lilburne's Sash Oaths unwarrantable, 1647, p. 35.

^{Page 4 note a} Hanserd Knollys.

^{Page 4 note b} Commons' Journals, T., 128 ; Godwin's Commonwealth, ii., 285. The rote was that these three regiments should be part of the 5,400 horse to be still maintained.

^{Page 5 note a} The Secretary was John Rushworth, Secretary to the General. This letter I take to be written by Gilbert Mabbott, once Rushworth's servant, one of the persons who regularly supplied news-letters to the army, and a familiar acquaintance of William Clarke's. He was most likely the writer of the three previous letters also.

^{Page 6 note a} The report of the Commissioners is printed in the Lords' Journals, ix., 152. Sir William Waller gives a detailed account of their mission in his Vindication, pp. 77–93. See also Rushworth, vi., 457, 460, 463.

^{Page 6 note b} Waller, p. 80.

^{Page 7 note a} Waller, p. 82.

^{Page 9 note a} The letter is printed in Rushworth, vi., 461; for Ihe comments of the Commissioners, see Waller, p. 85.

^{Page 10 note a} Waller, pp. 85, 86.

^{Page 10 note b} Nicholas Kempson.

^{Page 11 note a} Robert Fish. See Lords' Journals, ix., 154.

^{Page 11 note b} See Waller, pp. 90, 91.

^{Page 12 note a} A list of these officers is given in the Lords' Journals, ix., 114, viz. Edward Harley, Richard Fortescue, John Butler, Richard Fincher, John Alford, Charles Duckett, Sampson Gooday, Robert Robotham, and others, thirty in all.

^{Page 12 note b} Thomas Pennyfather and Benjamin Burges. Lords' Journals, ix., 114.

^{Page 13 note a} See Rushworth, vi., 468.

^{Page 13 note b} Nathaniel Shorte.

^{Page 13 note c} Rushworth, vi., 460, 463, 467.

^{Page 13 note d} Christopher Peckham.

^{Page 14 note a} Nicholas Kempson.

^{Page 14 note b} George Weldon.

^{Page 14 note c} On Massey's unpopularity see Waller, Vindication, p. 84.

^{Page 14 note d} William Herbert.

^{Page 14 note e} Edward Orpin.

^{Page 15 note a} Howard was a captain in Fleetwood's regiment, who offered to serve in Ireland, and was appointed by Parliament Colonel of a regiment of horse to be raised for that service. Lords' Journals, ix., 135, 137 ; Rushworth, vi., 459, 463. A list of officers who volunteered for Ireland, with their respective regiments, is given by Rushworth, vi., 460–464, and in the report of the Commissioners before referred to.

^{Page 15 note b} Commons' Journals, v. 153–4; for the Apology itself see the Book of Army Declarations, p. 9.

^{Page 15 note c} On the disbanding of Massey's brigade see Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva, ed. 1854, p. 314, and Hollis, Memoirs, ed. 1699, p. 81.

^{Page 16 note a} On Hammond's regiment see Rushworth, vi., 466 ; the officers mentioned were Edmund Rolphe, William Stratton, and Charles O'Hara. On Stratton see also Lords' Journals, ix., 141.

^{Page 16 note b} On the conduct of Captain (or Major) Francis Dormer see his own letter, Lords' Journals, ix., 153, where a full account of the disturbances in Colonel Robert Lilburne's regiment is given.

^{Page 17 note a} James Gray, Adjutant-General of the Foot.

^{Page 17 note b} Captain Arthur Evelyn.

^{Page 17 note c} See Rushworth, vi. 465

^{Page 19 note a} The regiments in Yorkshire and the North are not included, as this list refers merely to the New Model Army under the command of Fairfax.

^{Page 19 note b} Major of Colonel Robert Hammond's regiment; probably the Thomas Saunders mentioned in the Life of Colonel Untehinson, ii., 134.

^{Page 19 note c} Skippon, arrived in London about April 27, took his, seat in the Commons on April 29, and was sent down to the Army by order of April 30. Eushworth, vi., 463, 472, 474.

^{Page 19 note d} Robert Hammond, Nathaniel Rich, and Leonard Watson.

^{Page 20 note a} The letter of April 18. Eushworth, vi., 461.

^{Page 21 note a} Compare the letter of May 3, addressed by these three officers to the Speaker. Cary, Memorials of the Civil Wars. i. 205. On April 30, Skippon communicated to the Commons a letter addressed to himself, Fairfax, and Cromwell by the agents of eight regiments of Horse. Rushworth, vi., 474 ; Hollis, Memoirs, p. 89. The letter is printed in Cary's Memorials of the Civil War, i., 201, and in the Lords' Journals, ix., 164. Skippon, Cromwell, Ireton, and Fleetwood were ordered forthwith to go down to their charges in the army and employ their endeavours to quiet all disturbances in the Army, Commons' Journals, v., 158.

^{Page 21 note b} In the MS., the date assigned to this letter is April 3. The references to Skippon and the mention of the meeting of the officers render this date impossible, and a second news-letter written the same day supplies the correct date.

^{Page 21 note c} Should be Jubbes. John Jubbes entered the Army in April 1643, and after serving in Manchester's Army, became a member of the New Model, He was now Lieuteuant-Colonel of Hewson's regiment. He left the army in April, 1648, for reasons stated at length in his Apology touching Ms proceeding in a paper called Proposals for Peace and Freedom, 1648.

^{Page 22 note a} Captain John Reynolds, of Cromwell's own regiment of horse, knighted by Cromwell, June 11, 1655. See his life in Noble's House of Cromwell, ed. 1787, ii., 418.

^{Page 22 note b} Rushworth, vi., 480.

^{Page 22 note c} Thomas Margetts, a clerk of the Judge-Advocate of the New Model, Dr. John Mills. For a sketch of his life see Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1658–9, p. 378.

^{Page 22 note d} No indication is given of the authorship of this paper. It was probably however the work of Edward Sexby, for it closely resembles his subsequent letters in the policy it advocates.

^{Page 24 note a} No name is given, but simply an unintelligible cypher. It is probably by the author of the previous paper.

^{Page 24 note b} Rushworth vi., 476. With reference to Pembroke's statement about the number of cavaliers in Fairfax's army see Memoirs of Sir P. Warwick, p. 253.

^{Page 24 note c} See the Tanner MSS. in the Bodleian Library, vol. lviii., f. 46.

^{Page 25 note a} On this debate see Commons' Journals, v., 161; Rushworth, vi., 472, 478.

^{Page 25 note b} William Goffe, and George Gregson, captains in Colonel Harley's regiment, aad Lieutenant Griffith Lloyd. Rushworth, vi., 471.

^{Page 25 note c} A petition for the disbanding of the army pui-porting to come from the inhabitants of the Eastern Association.

^{Page 26 note a} May 3.

^{Page 26 note b} Rushworth, vi., 478; Commons' Journals, May 4, v., 162.

^{Page 26 note c} Commons' Journals, y., v., 167.

^{Page 27 note a} Rushworth, vi., 479; Commons' Journals, v., 163–4, May 6, 1647. Sir John Sedley is the person meant.

^{Page 27 note b} Rushworth, vi., 480.

^{Page 27 note c} Friday, May 7. The Commissioners give an account of their first meeting in a letter to Lenthal, dated May 8. Cary, Memorials, i. 207.

^{Page 30 note a} See Rushworth, vi., 458. Colonel Robert Hammond.

^{Page 30 note b} Colonel John Butler.

^{Page 31 note a} This note was probably written in 1662, when the letter was copied into the book from which it is now printed. Thomas Wragge was one of the two clerks to Rushworth, the Secretary of the Army. I take this letter to have been written to Rushworth by either William Clarke or Wragge, but probably by the former. Rushworth, as his letters in the Fairfax Correspondence seem to show, was in London most of the month, with Sir Thomas Fairfax.

^{Page 32 note a} The names appended are corrected from Rushworth, vi., 466.

^{Page 33 note a} 15 May. The letter referred to is that mentioned on p. 21, rote a, the letter read in the House of Commons on April 30.

^{Page 34 note a} Colonel Edward Whalley, a life of whom is given in Noble's House of Cromwell, ii., 143.

^{Page 35 note a} Major John Alford, of Colonel Rich's regiment, one of the subscribers of the engagement of March 22

^{Page 36 note a} Thomas Sheffield, Colonel of a regiment of horse, and Thomas Jackson, Lieutenant-Colonel of Fairfax's foot regiment.

^{Page 36 note b} John Lambert, succeeded in 1646 to the command of the regiment in the New Model which was originally Colonel Edward Mountague's.

^{Page 37 note a} Richard Fincher, before referred to, p. 1, was Major of Sheffield's regiment.

^{Page 37 note b} These particular petitions of the separate regiments may be found amongst the Clarke MSS., vol. xli., ff 105–127.

^{Page 38 note a} William Rainborowe, of Colonel Sheffield's regiment, not the more celebrated Colonel Thomas Rainborowe. See Lords' Journals, ix., 195.

^{Page 39 note a} On the question whether this ordinance was sufficient to secure the army from danger see the opinion drawn np by Ju dge Jenkins, May 24, 1647, and published as a pamphlet, entitled The Armies Indemnity. He decides that it was not sufficient.

^{Page 40 note a} Rushworth, vi., 485, 489. Commons' Journals, v., 174, 181; Lords' Journals, ix., 192, 201. Manchester's letter must have been dated May 14.

^{Page 41 note b} Andrew Goodhand of the Lifeguard.

^{Page 42 note a} Captain Henry Hall succeeded Charles Doyley as Captain of the Lifeguard. Sprigge, ed. 1854, p. 332 ; Rushworth, vi., 551.

^{Page 42 note b} John Farmer, captain in the regiment of dragoons commanded by Colonel John Okey.

^{Page 43 note a} John Hewson had succeeded to the command of Colonel Pickering's regiment of foot on the latter's death in December, 1645. Sprigge, pp. 167, 329.

^{Page 46 note a} Captains John Gladman, James Berry, and Adam Lawrence, all three of Fairfax's regiment of horse. A life of Berry is given in the Dictionary of National Biography. Mr. R. I take to be John Rushworth. The letter mentioned is that of the eight regiments. The regiments of Pye and Graves were quartered at Holdenby

^{Page 46 note b} See on this meeting the letter of the Commissioners. Cary, i., 214. Rushworth, vi., 485, 487. Another version of this speech of Skippon's is printed by Rushworth, and dated 15 May.

^{Page 47 note a} These two officers seem to be Lieutenant Colonel Jackson and Major Gooday of Fairfax's regiment, two of those who had engaged to serve in Ireland.

^{Page 48 note a} Francis White of Fairfax's foot regiment, on whom see Rushworth, viii., 943, and his own pamphlet, viz. The Copies of Several Letters presented to the Lord General Fairfax and Lieut-General Crommell, by Francis White, 1649.

^{Page 50 note a} John Disbrowe (or Desborough), Major of Fairfax's regiment of horse.

^{Page 51 note a} Colonel Robert Hammond.

^{Page 52 note a} William Cowell of Colonel Harley's regiment, died a colonel in 1648. See Carlyle's Cromwell, letter Ixix.

^{Page 52 note b} Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Reade of Colonel Herbert's regiment. Rushworth, vi., 466, 471.

^{Page 52 note c} Major Thomas Harrison, the regicide.

^{Page 54 note a} William Leigh of Fairfax's regiment of foot.

^{Page 54 note b} Lewis Audley of the same regiment. See on Audley, Burton's Diary, iii., 15, 37–45, 86.

^{Page 54 note c} Major of Ireton's regiment of horse.

^{Page 54 note d} MS. Mdum.

^{Page 55 note a} Robert Huntington, Major of Cromwell's regiment of horse. On 8 April, 1647, the House of Commons voted that he should command Cromwell's regiment. Commons' Journals, v., 137.

^{Page 55 note b} The Lieutenant-General of this regiment was Edward Salmon. Rushnorth, vi., 466.

^{Page 56 note a} Captain Daniel Thomas of Sir H. Waller's regiment.

^{Page 56 note b} Major Thomas Smith.

^{Page 57 note a} Azariah Husbands, of Rich's regiment. “Hee,” refers to Capt. Thomas.

^{Page 58 note a} MS. “ did not resolve.”

^{Page 58 note b} Major Nicholas Moore and Captain Charles Mercer of Okey's regiment of dragoons.

^{Page 59 note a} Adrian Scroope, the regicide, Major of the regiment of horse of Colonel Richard Grevis, or 'Graves, which was at this time guarding the King at Holmby. Scroope afterwards succeeded to the command of that regiment.

^{Page 61 note a} Charles Holcroft of the same regiment, one of those officers who had signed the engagement of March 22, promising to serve in Ireland.

^{Page 61 note b} Captain Fleming, of Graves's regiment, was adjutant-general of horse in the New Model, colonel in 1648, and killed in the war in Wales. Phillips, Civil War in Wales, i., 401.

^{Page 62 note a} Captain—Barton.

^{Page 62 note b} Colonel Nathaniel Rich ; his major was John Alford.

^{Page 64 note a} judged

^{Page 67 note a} Richard Fincher.

^{Page 68 note a} Colonel Robert Lilburne ; his major was William Master.

^{Page 69 note a} Mark Grime, of the regiment late Mountague's, now Lambert's.

^{Page 69 note b} had.

^{Page 71 note a} Edmund Chillenden, an account of whom may be found in the Dictionary of National Biography.

^{Page 72 note a} A note, evidently written in 1662, when these reports were transcribed, says : “Looke that Rogue's words was fidele, Ambo nebulones.”

^{Page 73 note a} Colonel Whalley ? We shall desire you to say that though there are dissenters in a few regiments yet it appears that the like sense is in all regiments.

^{Page 75 note a} Colonel Butler ?

^{Page 77 note a} George Joyce, cornet to Fairfax's life-guard.

^{Page 78 note a} Should be probably Sam. Whiting.

^{Page 79 note a} Should be Thomas Shepherd, I believe.

Of the sixteen names appended to this, nine, or if the corrections suggested be accepted, eleven are also attached to the letter of April 28.

The subsequent history of some of the men signing this document is of interest.

John Brayman (or Breman) became a lieutenant in Colonel Rich's regiment and was cashiered in February 1655, on the charge of complicity in the plot for raising a rebellion amongst the army in Scotland, in which Major-General Overton was implicated (Mereurius Politiciis, pp. 5052, 5165). In June 1659, he was restored to his place in the army with the rank of Captain, became major of Rich's regiment, and was arrested on April 13,1660, for endeavouring to raise his soldiers in support Lambert's intended insurrection (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1658–9, p. 289 ; ibid. 1660, pp. 202, 573). He was again arrested in May, 1662, and confined in the Tower and in Windsor Castle (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1661–2, pp. 376, 456). He was imprisoned n 1682 on account of suspected complicity in the Rye House plot (Luttrell's Diary, i., 269, 286, 556.

William Prior's career was less distinguished. He was, however, arrested in January, 1655, for taking part in the plots of the levelling party against the Protector (Mercurins Politcus, p. 5050; Thurloe, iii., 35).

^{Page 80 note a} This letter was evidently written by Colonel Lambert, who expressed in the debate views exactly similar to those contained in this letter, (p. 42), and acted as spokesman of the ten office s authorised to draw up the grievances. The authority given to them ran as follows:—

“The Officers whose names are here underwritt doe declare, That they conceive the summary of the severall Representations of their respective Regiments read to them in the Church in Walden the 15th of May, 1647, to be the substance of the severall Representations, and doe desire that Collonell Whalley, Collonell Hammond, Collonell Eich, Collonell Lambert, Collonell Ingoldesby, Collonell Okey, Collonell Hewson, Major Desbrowe and Major Cowell may perfect and drawe upp our summarie to be delivered to Major Generall Skippon and the rest of the Officers sent from the Parliament :” (Worcester MS., vol. xli., f. 101 b.) The list of names which follows is practically the same as that printed in Rushworth, vi., 47).

^{Page 80 note b} MS. “brought.”

^{Page 81 note a} MS. “expedition.”

^{Page 81 note b} Either Thomas Wragge or William Clarke.

^{Page 82 note a} The protestation and vindication of Colonel Butler and the other dissenting officers, which are annexed in the MS., were printed in a pamphlet entitled “A Vindication of a Hundred and Sixty-seven Commission Officers that arc cmrte off from the Army in Obedience to the Parliament Orders” published July 1, 1647. See also Rushworth vi., 495.

^{Page 82 note b} In the MS. this letter was originally dated 1662, for which date 1647 was afterwards substituted. This and an entry at the beginning of vol. lxvii. of these MSS. shows that these copies were made in 1662.

^{Page 82 note c} Edward Sexby first appears in history as one of the presenters of the letter of the

^{Page 84 note a} Lieutenant Frances Nicholls, of Lilburne's regiment, was committed by the House of Commons on April 27, having been sent up from the army in custody on account of his opposition to the enlistment for Ireland (Lords' Journals, ix. 154; Commons' Journals, v. 155). The vote mentioned in the letter took place on May 14 (Commons' Journals, v. 175) and is thus referred to in a newsletter of 17 May, amongst the Clarke Papers :—

“The House of Commons voted those that brought upp Ensigne Nicholls 10^{Page 78 note1}. and debated very much about discharging the Ensigne, and giveing him 10^{Page 78 note1} towards his charges; but going by voices foure carried it in the Negative, the Ensigne was informed by the Sargeant, that if he pleased to Petition the House they would give him his release and a gratuitie besides perhaps of 20^{Page 78 note1}. The reason why it was carried in the negative was because then it would be said they repented them of what they had done.”

^{Page 85 note a} This letter is headed in the MS. “ Letter from Lt. Cn.” It is perhaps also from Sexby, -who was undoubtedly the leading spirit amongst the agitators. In that case the heading may have been added by the copyist in 1662, and may mean Lieutenant-Colonel Sexby, giving him his later title. On the other hand, the expression “it is expected they will stand to us,” seems to show that the author was an officer. Perhaps “Lt. Cn” signifies Lieutenant Edmund Chillenden of Whalley's regiment of horse, one of the two officers elected in June, 1647, to act as “ agitator” for the officers of his regiment.

^{Page 85 note b} There are two copies of this letter amongst the Clarke Papers, one of which gives it as a postscript to the preceding letter. It was evidently written on May 18, from the reference to the disbanding vote ( Commons' Journals, v. 176).

^{Page 85 note c} See Fairfax Correspondence, iii., 343.

^{Page 86 note a} A newsletter of 18 May says: “The petition of the well affected parlie in the City should have been presented this day, but none can be found to present it though tendered at the House of Commons door. I understand that Mr. Hollis hath received the City petition, though himselfe is concerned in it, and hath presented it to the Speaker, with a promise to see it read to-morrow in the House.”

^{Page 86 note b} The advice about the printing press was followed. Hollis, in his Memoirs, &66, describes the army as “countenancing and publishing seditious pamphlets, for which they had a press which followed the army.” The printer of these pamphlets seems to have been a certain John Harris, who himself wrote several pamphlets under the name of “Sirrahniho.” Harris printed, inter alia, the following pamphlets : “A Declaration of Master William, Lentkall, Speaker of the House of Commons, wherein is contained the reasons that moved him to absent himself from the service of the House on Friday, July 30, 1647.” The imprint it bears is “Oxford, printed by J. Harris and H. Hills, living in Pennifarthing Street, 1647.“ ”The humble address of the Agitators,14 Aug. 1647,” is said to be printed at London, “for J. Harris, Printer to his Excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax,” and also “ the Resolutions of the Agitators of the army” “printed for John Harris, London, 1647.” On September 30, 1647, Parliament passed a stringent ordinance against unlicensed printing, and, at the request of Fairfax, appointed Gilbert Mabbot, licenser. The political press. in general thus passed under the control of the army, and there was no further need of Harris and his travelling press. Old Parliamentary History, xvi., 300, 309. About November, 1647, Harris printed a pamphlet entitled “The Grand Designe or a discovery of that form of Slavery entended, and in part brought upon the free people of England by a powerfull party in the Parliament, and Lieutenant General Cromwell, Commissary General Ireton and others of that faction in the army.” From this time he became closely associated with the Levellers, and published pamphlets for that faction.

^{Page 88 note a} Agitators were first elected by the eight regiments of horse whose representatives signed the letter of April 28; see p. 33, and Appendix B. In May, in consequence of the mission of the four officers to enquire into the grievances of the army, the foot regiments also chose agitators (Rushworth, vi., 485). Each company is said to have elected two, out of whom two were selected to represent the regiment. A comparison of the names appended to the different declarations of the agitators shows that in this letter one man signs for each regiment. The signatures to this letter represented the eight regiments of horse above mentioned ; Diggell belonged to Sheffield's regiment of horse, Mason to Sir Hardress Waller's foot regiment, Newson to Fairfax's regiment of foot, and the three others probably to regiments of foot then near Saffron Walden. The double mention of Newson is probably an error of the transcribers. The address of the agitators to Fairfax on May 29 (Booh of Army Declarations, p. 16) is signed by the representatives of ten horse regiments (the two additional regiments being those of Pye and Graves), and by representatives of six foot regiments (those of Lambert, Harley, Lilburne and Hewson with the two before-mentioned).

Herbert's regiment is probably spoken of as lately Colonel Herbert's, because he had accepted the command of a new regiment to be raised for the Irish service, out of the volunteers for that object from the different regiments of the new model. His old regiment was given in June or July to Colonel Robert Overton.

^{Page 90 note a} April 28, 1647.

^{Page 91 note a} This letter is not dated and no signatures are appended. It was, however, evidently written immediately after the abstract of the grievances had been drawn up, i.e. about May 20. Several agitators are mentioned as being sent with it to the northern troops. The names of three agitators belonging to the southern army are appended to a subsequent declaration, viz. Richard Kingdom of Cromwell's regiment, Thomas Diggel, of Harrison's, late Sheffield's regiment, and John Caseby, of Fleetwood's. None of these signed the petition of May 29, but Diggel signed the letter of. May 19, therefore their despatch to the north probably took place between 19th and 29th May.

^{Page 91 note b} It is difficult to determine the authorship of this letter. It seems to have been written by some one officially employed at headquarters. The signature does not occur again.

^{Page 91 note c} An account of the whole business of these petitioners is given in a pamphlet entitled Gold Tried in the Fire, 1647. British Museum, E. 392, (19). The petitioner committed to Newgate was one William Browne. Commons' Journals:, v. 179; Rushwortb, vi,, 488.

^{Page 93 note a} A news-letter of May 18 says: “ Things growe very high ; the Lord moderate them or else we are like to have a very sad kingdome. It is thought that the House intends to send down propositions to the King; it is thought such propositions will be sent as the King will signe, and then they thinke the King's party and theirs will be hard enough for us…. The great designe of the Parliament is to get the Magazine of Oxford into their hands upon pretence of the service of Ireland.”

^{Page 95 note a} See Army Declarations, p. 17.

^{Page 95 note b} These returns are amongst the Clarke Papers, Worcester MSS. vol. xli.

^{Page 99 note a} This report was presented to the House of Commons by Cromwell on May 21. Commons' Journals, v. 181; Fairfax Correspondence, iii. 348. It forms a sequel to the letters printed in Cary's Memorials of the Civil War, i. 205, 207, 214; and in Carlyle's Cromwell, Appendix, 10. The originals of those letters are amongst the Tanner MSS. in the Bodleian Library, but the MS. of this report is not amongst them. There are, however, amongst the Clarke MSS., copies of several letters which are in Tanner's collection, and the two frequently supplement each other. A news-letter amongst the Clarendon Papers, No. 2,520, says, “Lieutenant-General Cromwell on Friday last made his report from the army, that it will without doub disband, but they will not by any means hear of going for Ireland. The greatest difficulty, he said, would be to satisfy the demands of some (whom he had persuaded as much as he could possibly) but a great part of the army remitt themselves entirely to be ordered by the Parliament.” Compare Hollis, Memoirs, $ 87, Walker, History of Independency, ed. 1661, pt. i. p. 31.

^{Page 100 note a} This letter is headed “Letter from Lt. C. to the Agitators: ” see p. 85. The second sentence refers to the votes of the House of Commons on May 25: this letter was apparently written the same day. Of the cyphers some can be easily explained: 51 stands for London, 55, the army, 44, the agitators, 43, a rendezvous, 68, probably Fairfax.

^{Page 102 note a} beare ?

^{Page 102 note b} The date above given can hardly be correct. Fairfax was ordered down to the army on May 18, and arrived at Walden on May 20 (ante p. 93, Kushwortb, vi., 491). The letter “ to the several regiments” is that of May 24, printed in Rushworth, ri., 495. The removal of the headquarters to Bury took place on Tuesday, May 25. The letter also refers to the votes of Parliament on May 25 “Tuesday last,” as having this day become known to the soldiers, and was therefore probably written on Thursday, May 27. The Friday on which Fairfax was ill would then be May 21, the day after his arrival at the army; if it be taken to refer to Friday, May 28, this letter must have been written on May 29, and in that case the absence of any refer, ence to the council of war fixed for that day is curious. The authorship of the letter is more difficult to determine. It was evidently written by some one in authority in the army, to some one in the Parliament. The author speaks of the vote ordering Fairfax to the army as “ your commands,” and says of the proceedings of Parliament, “ unless you proceed,” etc. It was very probably addressed to Cromwell. The author had been recently in London, and it was his business in the army to keep things as right as he could; it was probably one of the four commissioners sent down at the beginning of May, two of whom, Skippon and Ireton, were still with the army. From substance and style it seems more likely to have been written by the latter.

^{Page 103 note a} Colonel William White, M.P. for Pontefract; see Fairfax Correspondence, iii., 42, 318, 342; Hollis, Memoirs,$ 130.

^{Page 105 note a} Headed as before, “ Letter from Lieutenant C— to the Agitators.”

^{Page 105 note b} 92 is perhaps Cornet Joyce.

^{Page 105 note c} Tuesday, June 1. These three lines appear to be an enclosure, a message to be forwarded to the agitators. It is probably from some one at Oxford.

^{Page 105 note d} Lord De La Warr.

^{Page 105 note e} Colonel Rainborowe was appointed on May 25 to command the forces intended for the reduction of Jersey. On May 28 he was ordered to repair to his regiment with all speed and take course to stay it at the place he shall find it at his coming down. Commons' Journals, v., 184, 193. For the reasons of this order see Hollis, Memoirs,$ 95. He found it quartered about Abingdon, and in a state of great disorder. Cary, Memorials of the Civil War, i., 221. The cause of Rainborowe's being ordered to his regiment is related by Hollis, Memoirs, $ 95, and is thus stated in a royalist news-letter, “Friday last Colonel Rainsborough told the House of Commons ‘that his regiment was marching, being thereto invited by the other regiments of the army who have persuaded them to participate in the fortune with the rest of the soldiery.’ The said House asked the Colonel what that signified, he answered he knew not, that he had been three months past rather a sollicitor for the Colonel of that regiment, showing from time to time the wants of his soldiers, and that the country people, being injured by some of his necessitous soldiers, fell upon them, as he had formerly acquainted the House, in soe much that his regiment was constrained to dislodge, and was now marched towards Oxon.” Clarendon MS. 2,522 The regiment had been quartered in Hampshire.

^{Page 106 note a} Skippon was not present at the council of war; see list of persons present, Army Declarations, p. 15 On June 1, the House of Commons ordered him to return at once to London, and he was again in his place on June 4 Commons' Journals, v., 195, 198. The letter should be dated, Bury, May 29.

^{Page 108 note a} These votes for disbanding were passed by the House of Commons on 25 May, on the report of the Derby House Committee, brought in by Hollis. They were agreed to by the Lords on May 28.

^{Page 108 note b} “The humble petition of the souldiers of the army” is printed with the names of the agitators appended in the book of Army Declarations, published in 1647, p 16, and without the names in Rushwortb, vi., 498.

^{Page 108 note c} A list of the names of the officers present is given in the book of Army Declarations, p. 15. A short account of the Councils in Bushworth, vi., 497.

^{Page 110 note a} “The opinion and humble advise of the Councell of Warre, convened at Bury, Saturday, 29 May, 1647.” Army Declarations, p. 12; Lords' Journals, ix., 226 ; Old Parliamentary History, xv., 385.

^{Page 110 note b} On May 28, Parliament ordered the votes to be sent to the General with a jointletter from the Speakers of the two Houses. The letter is printed in the Lords' Journals, ix., 217; Old Parliamentary History, xv., 380. Fairfax's answer to Manchester, Lords' Journals, 226 ; Old Parliamentary History, 384 ; his reply to Lenthall, Rushworth, vi., 499 ; Old Parliamentary History, 390.

^{Page 111 note a} The mention of the council of war gives the date of this letter to 29 May.

^{Page 112 note a} Robartes.

^{Page 112 note b} According to the Lords Journals, ix., 207, only three Lords protested.

^{Page 113 note a} Fairfax's letter of May 30 is printed in the Lords' Journals, ix., 226.

^{Page 114 note a} Colonel Richard Ingoldsby's regiment was then quartered at Oxford. They were.to be disbanded at Woodstock on June 14, and £3,500 was sent down to pay them, but recalled by vote of June 1. “The messenger being too slow, the money was got into Oxford before he could overtake it, and the soldiers, notwithstanding the Parliament's commands, were resolved not to part with it. The convoy of Dragoons who had guarded it from London attempted to have carried it back again, but the garrison soldiers fell upon them in the High Street by All Souls' College' (where the money then stood), wounded several, and beat the rest so shamefully out of the city that they were glad not only to leave the money but a waggon and team of horses behind them.” Wood, Annals, ii., 508. The agitators despatched Cornet Joyce and a body of horse to seize the magazine at Oxford, which was effected about June 1. Hollis, Memoirs, $ 95 ; Huntingdon's reasons for laying down his commission, Maseres Tracts, i. 398. According to John Harris, whose statement is copied by Huntingdon and Hollis, the seizure of the magazine was approved by Cromwell, The Grand Design, 1647, p. 3.

^{Page 116 note a} Undated, but pretty certainly written on June 2 from the references to the votes of the Commons of June 1, as to locking up the doors and sending to the Lords to sit. The end of the debate was a resolution “That this debate of this business concerning the army be laid aside for the present: and resumed the first business to-morrow morning; and nothing to intervene.” Commons' Journals, v., 195.

^{Page 117 note a} See p. 92 ; this second petition was rejected by 128 to 112 votes, Hollis and Sir William Lewes being tellers for the majority. Commons' Journals, v., 195. Sir Bichard Price's and Sir Philip Percival's cases were referred to a committee.

^{Page 118 note a} See Cary's Memorials of the Civil War, i., 219–222, and Rushworth, vi., 499, 500, 502.

^{Page 118 note b} See on the London Militia, Rushworth, vi. 648, 745.

^{Page 118 note c} The question whether this letter is the famous letter addressed to Cromwell is discussed in the preface. There are reasons for believing that it should be dated June 3. It appears to have been written immediately after the events related in it. Joyce surrounded Holdenby on the night of Wednesday, June 2, and occupied it about daybreak on June 3. By eight the house was in his possession, and he was peacefully setting his guards. According to the letter of Lord Montague, one of the Commissioners, Colonel Greaves escaped before one of the clock on the Wednesday night, which agrees exactly with the statement in this letter. Abont one o'clock in the morning seems to refer to the morning of the day on which the letter was written, rather than the morning of the day before. By the morning of the 4th, Joyce had arranged to carry the King to Newmarket, and needed no instructions. His plans were made.

The best accounts of the seizure of the King are that in Rushworth, vi., 513, apparently written by Joyce himself, and those contained in the letters of Lord Montague, dated June 3rd and 4th. Lords' Journals, ix., 237, 240, 250.

^{Page 119 note a} As in the case of Joyce's first letter, there is no note of any name or address. It is possible however to deduce from the contents of the letter certain conclusions as to the person to whom it was directed. Joyce was now on his way to Newmarket, where the rendezvous of the army was to take place. The letter is evidently written to some person at Newmarket, near it, or on the way to it. He is asked to assist in conveying the King thither, by giving Joyce a party to help him, and by coming with his friends to meet the King. The person to whom the letter is addressed was apparently not in the plot himself. Joyce thinks it necessary to tell him that the King has been taken from Holdenby, that it is at the King's own desire that he is being conveyed to Fairfax, and he also thinks it necessary to protest the excellence of his own intentions. After telling him what has been done he urges him to make the best of it. The se points suggest that Joyce was not writing to an accomplice but rather to a person whom he wanted to become one after the event. A suggestion based on these general conclusions may perhaps be ventured. Joyce purposed to go to Newmaket by way of Cambridge, as the fact that Whalley met him on the way the next day proves ( Lords' Journals, ix. 248). His route from Huntingdon to Cambridge lay-through the hundred of Papworth. On May 30, Major Adrian Scroope and that portion of the regiment of Colonel Graves which was not actually assigned to guard the King had been ordered to take np their quarters at once in Papworth hundred. (See Appendix C.) Had Scroope and his soldiers been so disposed they could have seriously hindered Joyce's journey to Newmarket. I suggest therefore that this letter was addressed to Major Scroope in general reliance on his sympathy and assistance. If so, Joyce in asking for “a partie” employs the word in the technical sense of a detachment of horse, and by “friends” probably means to ask Scroope to bring all the officers he can to meet the King.

^{page 121 note a} A life of Poyntz is given in Sir John Maclean's Historical and Genealogical Memoir of the Family of Poyntz. Sydenham Poyntz, b. 1607, was the fourth son of John Poyntz of Reigate. Originally a London apprentice he took service in Germany and rose to high rank in the imperial army. On his return to England he entered the parliamentary service, and on May 27, 1645, was voted by the House of Commons the command of a regiment of horse and a regiment of foot in the north, and shortly after was nominated commander-in chief of the seven associated northern counties. Commons' Journals, iv., 248, 250. On September 24, 1645, he defeated the King's forces at Rowton Heath, near Chester. On March 13, 1647, he was confirmed by the Commons in the post of Governor of York, and Clifford's Tower was also placed under his command. He had some difficulty in getting control of Clifford's Tower. A news-letter written abont this time says, “The northern general struts and looks big, and instead of true blue hath got a bundle of orange ribbon in his hat, much like a plume of feathers behind.” The adherents of Fairfax wore blue ribbons in their hats, the Levellers adopted sea-green as their colour, and the Clubmen in 1645 chose white ribbons. Lilbnrne, An Impeachment of High Treason against Oliver Cromwell, p. 41; Whitelock, Memorials, iii., 23, ed. 1854; Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva, p. 61, ed. 1854.

^{page 121 note b} Matthew Boynton, confirmed as governor of Scarborough, March 13, 1647. In the second civil war he sided with the royalists. Rushworth, vii., 1370.

^{page 122 note a} On Friday, June 4, when Fairfax was at Kenford, near Bury, he received the news of the seizure of the King, and immediately sent Whalley and his regiment to march to Holdenby to take charge of the guard of the King and attend the Commissioners there. On the morning of Saturday, June 5, he learnt that Joyce had on the preceding day removed the King from Holdenby to Hinchinbrook, near Huntingdon, and sent Whalley further orders to guard the King back to Holdenby, despatching also two more regiments of horse to assist him. To his great surprise the King refused to return. See Fairfax's, letters of June 4 and 7, Old Parliamentary History, xv., 400, 409; Lords' Journals, ix., 243, 248.

^{page 123 note a} Fairfax's answer to this letter is shown by a letter to Lenthal, June 8. Rushworth, vi., 551.

^{page 124 note a} An abridged version of this letter is given in Rushworth, vi., 549.

^{page 125 note a} Skippon's regimen

^{page 127 note a} From John Cosens. Rushworth, vi., 559 ; see also Commons' Journals, June 12, and two letters from Skippon on the subject. Cary, i. 229, 230.

^{page 128 note a} On June 15, the House of Commons voted that the General should deliver the person of the King to the Commissioners formerly appointed, that he should be placed at Richmond, and guarded by Colonel Rossiter's regiment. Twistleton was Major of Rossiter's regiment. His letter shows that a detachment of that regiment had before formed part of the King's guard. Further references to the subject are contained in the Lords' Journals, ix., 283, 287, 289. Twistleton succeeded Rossiter in the command of the regiment.

^{page 129 note a} Lieutenant Griffith Lloyd.

^{page 130 note a} The headquarters were at St. Alban's on the night of June 12. Fairfax received on June 11 a petition from the peaceable and well-affected inhabitants of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. Lords' Journals, ix., 260, 261, 2G3 ; Rushworth, vi., 559.

^{page 132 note a} From the officers of the army, but apparently never sent. Compare the letter of June 10, given by Carlyle and Rushworth.

^{page 132 note b} Friday, June 11, and Saturday, June 12. See Rushworth, vi., 553, 557.

^{page 133 note a} Sir John Gayer, impeached for his share in the tumults of July. Lords' Journals, ix., 201.

^{page 133 note b} On June 11, a Committee of Lords and Commons was appointed to join with the Committee of the Militia of the City of London, with power to put London in a posture of defence, suppress insurrections, etc. The same afternoon the letter from Fairfax and the chief officers of the army to the city of London was communicated t o the Parliament, and at the request of the city the army was ordered not to approach within 40 miles of London. On the 12th, hearing that the army was still approaching, the Mayor and Aldermen despatched a conciliatory answer to the letter and abandoned all intention of resistance. Commons' Journals, v., 206–209 ; Rushworth, vi., 554, 557; see also Fairfax Correspondence, iii., 355.

^{page 133 note c} Undated, but pretty clearly written early in June, as shown by the reference to the advice of the council of war of May 29 as recent; it was evidently written soon after the army declared its resolution not to disband, and before its political demands had been definitely set forth, i.e., before the representation of the army of June 14. On 11 June, Parliament and City made preparations for fighting, on 12 June, the City gave way and sent a deputation to the army with a conciliatory answer to the letter of the officers of June 10. As that letter was written by Cromwell the statement about his speaking home must refer to it.

^{page 135 note a} Lords' Journals, ix., 264.

^{page 135 note b} Sir Philip Stapleton.

^{page 135 note c} O. C. is not O. Cromwell. It is evidently written to Fairfax, and probably by some member of the House of Commons.

^{page 136 note a} Dated in the MS. June 16, but apparently referring to the tumult of June 14. Commons' Journals, v., 209 ; Rushworth, 561, 571. One of the charges against the 11 members evidently refers to this tumult of June 14 described in this letter. See also the Army Declaration of June 23, and the Fairfax Correspondence, iii., 357, 358.

^{page 137 note a} See Lord Montague's letter of June 27, 1647, and subsequent letters. Lords' Journals, ix., 299, 300. The commissioners of the Parliament complained on June 27 to Fairfax of his allowing these persons to have access to the King. They report, “the General tells us that it is very true that the King wrote to him about a fortnight since about those two chaplains, and he never gave him an answer ; whereat the King was angry.” In his letter to Parliament of July 8, Fairfax vindicated hi conduct in permitting Richmond and these chaplains to attend the King.

^{page 138 note a} Undated, probably written June 21, 1647. See Lord Montague's letter of June 20. Lords' Journals, ix., 283.

^{page 140 note a} Compare a paper printed at the end of the “Solemn Engagement” of June 5, 1647, entitled, “Severall Reasons, why we Souldiers cast out our Dissenting Officers.” British Museum, E., 392, 26.

^{page 140 note b} Lords' Journals, ix., 290, 292; Commons' Journals, v., 222.

^{page 140 note c} MS. “soe.”

^{page 141 note a} See Commons' Journals, v., 224, 225. The ten members asked for leave to be absent, which was granted on the afternoon of June 26.

^{page 143 note a} In a letter dated June 17, Poyntz gave Parliament an account of the commencement of the disturbances amongst his soldiers. Cary, Memorials of the Civil War, i., 233, see also pp. 264–282. For the orders in question see Lords' Journals, ix., 288 ;Commons' Journals, v., 218, 219. The Major Lilburne referred to appears to have been Major Henry Lilburne.

^{page 144 note a} Robert Newcomen. Lords' Journals, ix., 288; Cary,Memorials, i., 265.

^{page 145 note a} See p. 168, where this letter is made the the basis of the first charge of the agitators against Poyntz. Copley was impeached by the army in 1648. Rushworth, vii., 1354. Some other letters written by Poyntz at this period are in vol. 58 of the Tanner MSS . in the Bodleian Library. He invariably spells his own surname with a final “s,” and his Christian name as above.

^{page 146 note a} The petition and representation of eight regiments of the Northern Association is dated July 5, and was presented to Fairfax at Reading on July 15, and presented by him to Parliament on July 16. Rushworth, vi., 620–623. On June 25, Poyntz wrote to Fairfax informing him that several “gentlemen pretending dependence” on the southern army were causing disturbance amongst the northern regiments, and that in pursuance of the orders of Parliament he intended to arrest them. Fairfax's answer reached Poyntz, July 3. It was, “That if any officers or soldiers were come from his army into the northern army, and laboured to inform that army of the fair carriage of his, and that snch demands as were desired were just, and that the reports cast upon himself and his army in disobeying ordinances of parliament were nutrue, he had sent none such; but if any such were come from his army and had endeavoured to satisfy any of the truths aforesaid, he and the forces under him would countenance and protect such good instruments.” Fairfax Correspondence, iii., 359, 363. Fairfax's answer was dated June 28, or 29. This letter was probably written about the same time.

^{page 148 note a} The Commission of Fairfax appointing these and other officers to negotiate is printed in the Lords' Journals, ix., 312.

^{page 149 note a} The rest of the proceedings of the first day of the treaty are printed in the Lords' Journals, ix., 313; Old Parliamentary Siatory, xvi., 68, 66; Rushworth, vi., 605.

^{page 150 note a} Mr. Ward's sermon was preached on June 30; Rushworth, vi., 596; Commons' Journals, v., 228. On incendiary sermons see the Earl of Leicester's Journal, 28 July, 1647, Blencowe, Sydney Papers, p. 26. Gangraena had been before complained of by the Army, Army Declarations, 1647, p. 19.

^{page 150 note b} See Rushworth, vi,, 602; Old Parliamentary History, xvi., 61. Propositions falsely stated to be offered to the King by the Army.

^{page 151 note a} The charge against the eleven impeached Members is reprinted in the Old Parliamentary History, xvi., 69, which also gives the answer, p. 117.

^{page 151 note b} This second list gives the names of the persons selected to present the charge which took place on July 16, Commons' Journals, v., 236.

^{page 152 note a} Endorsed July 5.

^{page 153 note a} Appointed Lieutenant Colonel of the Tower Guards in August, 1647; killed before Colchester in July, 1648; Rushworth, vii., 1179, 1181.

^{page 155 note a} Governor of Leith and Colonel of a regiment under Monk, 1654–1658; he was also one of the Commissioners appointed by Monk to treat with the English Army in November, 1659. Saber's Chronicle, ed. 1670, pp. 686, 694.

^{page 156 note a} Commons' Journals, v., 237–8.

^{page 157 note a} Fairfax's letter of July 8, Old Parliamentary History, xvi., 101; Lords' Journals, ix.

^{page 158 note a} Probably written by Scout-Master Leonard Watson. See Lilburne's Jonah's Cry out of the Whale's Belly, 1647, p. 8. In a letter to Cromwell Lilburne says : “Your scoutmaster-general Watson will never uprightly adventure the shaking of his finger either for God, his countrey, or for the Army, further than he may be thereby of the stronger side. As for Dr. Stanes, whatever you may think of him, I averre he is a juggling knave. … And as for Nat. Rich, you yourselfs knowe him to be a juggling paltry base fellow: remember what you told him to his face in his own chamber in Fleet Street before me and my wife and two more, at the time Manchester's treason was upon examination.” Concerning Vane, Lilburne wrote to Cromwell on March 25,1647, “O Cromwell thou art led by the nose by two unworthy covetous earthworms, Vane and St. John.” Ibid., p. 3.

^{page 161 note a} Compare the letter from the Agitators to the Masters of Trinity House, June 18, 1647. Cary, Memorials, i., 237; Lords' Journals, ix., 284. There is also amongst the Clarke Papers a letter of the Agitators dated 6 July, printed as “A Declaration from the Agitators in the name of the whole Army under His Excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax {to their fellow-soldiers) of their Representations and Desires,” at the end of a pamphlet entitled “The King's Majesty's most Gracious Letter to his son James, Duhe of York,” 1647.

There are also some other papers relating to Wales, and threatened disturbances there, in vol. xli. of the Clarke MSS. A paper delivered to Fairfax at St. Albans by Dr. Basset, on the grievances of Glamorganshire; a letter from Colonel Laugharne to Fairfax, June 18, 1647; the grievances of the County of Pembroke, articles against Colonel John Poyer, etc.

^{page 162 note a} Lieutenant-Colonel William Rolfe, Deputy Governor of Bristol (Skippon's son-in-law), was given leave to come to London on May 28, 1647. Commons' Journals, v., 121. The dispute between Doyley and Captain Latimer Sampson, governor in Rolfe's absence, is narrated in one of Rushworth's letters. Fairfax Correspondence, iii., 370. Doyley had got a commission from Holies and his party.

^{page 163 note a} July 8, 1647. See Cary, i., 293, 298, 300.

^{page 164 note a} This and the following letters relating to the disturbances in the Northern Army are all undated, but evidently written between 9–16 July, It was therefore thought better to put them together.

^{page 165 note a} Unsigned.

^{page 167 note a} Thomas Dickenson, Lord Mayor of York, was voted by the House of Commons on 13 July, 1643, to have the custody of Clifford's Tower. Commons' Journals, v., 243.

^{page 168 note a} So in MS. These papers are from very corrupt transcripts.

^{page 169 note a} Poyntz was brought under a guard to Fairfax's headquarters at Reading, and was immediately released by the General. The Agitators presented a charge against him which is evidently that here printed. Cary, i., 306, 308; Fairfax Correspondence, iii., 370. Compare the papers from the Northern Army, printed by Rushworth, vi., 620–625.

^{page 171 note a} “Except snch as shall by the Parliament's appointment receive their commission from, and be at the disposal, etc.?”

^{page 171 note a} An earlier paper on the subject of the release of these prisoners had been presented by the Agitators on July 6. Clarke MSS. xii.

^{page 173 note a} Edmund Rolfe was Captain in Hammond's regiment, and accused in 1648 of a design against the King's life. The papers respecting this accusation are printed at length in the Lords' Journals, in Rushworth, and in Cary's Memorials. A petition of Rolfe's is in Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1654, 352.

^{page 175 note a} On the petitions presented to the General and Army see Whitelock's Memorials, ed. 1853, ii., 164; Holies, Memoirs, § 110.

^{page 177 note a} i.e. As delays are prejudicial so haste is delusive, I wish to avoid both.

^{page 178 note a} i.e. I am not in favour of beginning the debate till—

^{page 179 note a} The confused report of Ireton's speech may be thus paraphrased:—

We act as if we sought only to get power into our own hands. It is not getting power into one man's hands more than another's, but the settling and securing the liberties of the kingdom, we ought to seek. Before we bring ourselves into scandall and dishonour by raising new points of dispute and quarrelling more, the one thing necessary is to satisfy the kingdom what it is we want, and what we intend to do with tfcat power when we get it. Some particulars have been prepared by me for that purpose, etc.”

^{page 179 note b} Cromwell's remarks may be thus paraphrased: “Let us withdraw and consider. Discourses of this kind serve no useful purpose. I see power put in the hands of many that cannot tell me how to use it, of those that are likely to use it ill;” meaning the London Militia Commissioners.

^{page 180 note a} i.e. marching on London.

^{page 180 note b} i.e. that satisfaction be given as to the public settlement before these new things are desired.

^{page 180 note c} i.e. to place it in better hands.

^{page 181 note a} Allen's argument seems to be: “I wish, do whatever we may, that we may not stand idle while we are propounding these proposals for the preservation of the kingdom, etc. While we are making these preparations we must take power ont of the hands of these men. It is not a case of quarrelling to get power, but doing a thing that it is our duty to do. The people now in power desire so to carry things that they may have power to destroy us and the kingdom. Whether to deprhe them of that power be picking a quarrell, etc.”

^{page 181 note b} i.e. this paper presented.

^{page 181 note c} Several words are here omitted.

^{page 181 note d} For such a design.

^{page 183 note a} See p. 171.

^{page 183 note b} The paper on the London Militia presented on July 6.

^{page 184 note a} Army Declarations, p. 77, paper entitled An Answer of the Commissioners of the Army to the Paper, of the Commissioners of Parliament about a speedy proceeding. Cf. ibid., p. 49, paper of July 15.

^{page 186 note a} In this paragraph the order of the clauses as given in the MS. has been altered, excepting in the case of the last three lines, which are past mending.

^{page 187 note a} MS. “preparations.”

^{page 188 note a} MS. “ means by those that.”

^{page 188 note b} The report is here very confused and I have altered the position of several clauses to make the sense clearer.

^{page 188 note c} Our proposals.

^{page 189 note a} Here follows in the MS. “As that it may be seen to all the world that itt is an effectuall meanes to procure these things to bee granted as marching to London would doe.” This sentence evidently belongs to the end of the preceding paragraph.

^{page 189 note b} MS. “that the Commissioners General may by you.”

^{page 189 note c} i.e. the Parliament.

^{page 190 note a} MS. “was.”

^{page 190 note b} Clause transposed.

^{page 190 note c} Proved once, i.e. when this is once proved.

^{page 190 note d} The speaker's meaning seems to be that God has purposely prevented the parliament from accepting the terms of the army and thus pointed out to the army the necessity of using another way to obtain them.

^{page 191 note a} MS. “happily.”

^{page 191 note b} Though the reporter has irreparably confused Cromwell's actual words his meaning is plain enough.

“That which I speak of the advantages of a treaty relates only to the propositions for a general settlement of the kingdom. What I said to you on that point has been mistaken throughout if it be applied to the obtaining of the things which are to precede a treaty. You keep on misapplying that instead of giving me satisfaction as to the question of the danger of delay. That which I say in answer to the proposal in your paper is that we should obtain these things by a positive demand, and within a circumscribed time, forwarding them through the Commissioners the Parliament has appointed to treat. There is no harm in nominally using the Commissioners for this purpose if we do not treat with them, but merely turn them into messengers.”

^{page 193 note a} Clause transposed.

^{page 193 note b} Our friends in the Parliament.

^{page 194 note a} The report is here amended by transposing several clauses.

^{page 194 note b} MS. “partie.”

^{page 194 note c} MS. “perceive.”

^{page 194 note d} MS. “ as wee professe doe.”

^{page 195 note a} MS. “ intentions.”

^{page 195 note b} Clause transposed.

^{page 196 note a} To draw out our own proposals of all things.

^{page 196 note a} Two clauses transposed.

^{page 196 note c} See the letters of the Parliamentary Commissioners dated July 6, July 8, July 10, and July 18, and the paper delivered by them to the Commissioners of the Army on July 7, in which they complain that the proceedings of the Army Commissioners in the treaty have been very slow. Old Parliamentary History, xvi., pp. 93, 95, 97 107, 115; printed also in the Lords' Journals, and in the Collection of Army Declarations.

^{page 197 note a} On the history of the drawing up of the Heads of the Proposals agreed on by the Army, see Memoirs of Sir John Berkeley, Maseres, Select Tracts, i., 353, and Wildman's Putney Projects, 1647, p. 13. The other person mentioned as set apart for that work appears to have been Lambert, v. post. p. 212, and Whitelock, ii., 163 ed. 1853.

^{page 197 note b} MS. “of proposing.” The order of the sentences in this paragraph is evidently wrong.

^{page 198 note a} The last two sentences should probably run thus, “But I am the more against yon because those things are not proposed—I do not know that there is a thing agreed upon to be proposed—and not the less because at present you propose to those to whom you do not give such a full satisfaction a thing which may justly receive a deniall. I mean the proposal of returning the Militia into the hands of those in whom it lately was.” On the Militia, v., pp. 152, 171, 174.

^{page 198 note b} This may be thus paraphrased and emended, “I am bound by the opinion of the rest of the Councell so far as not to speak anything against that proposal itself, but I may go so far as to say that I would not have yon for that fall to march up to London.”

^{page 198 note c} Ireton's words perhaps were as follows: “I should but desire to remind you that that which is visible and apparent in your papers now is only the appearance of a kind of threatening.”

^{page 199 note a} When the Army first marched on London early in June, 1647.

^{page 200 note a} The eleven impeached members.

^{page 201 note a} The minor speakers are not so well reported as the more important ones. Allen's argument appears to be, “As for the reasons on which the weight of the argument against our immediate marching is laid, viz., that we might make our intentions known to the kingdom, etc.—it seems strange to me that these should be thought sufficient grounds. I fear that while we are preparing our scheme for a settlement some one may step in between us and the settlement of the kingdom. What if when we have presented our heads of a settlement to the people, as intending to satisfy them whether they will or no, we fail to satisfy them? What if they say ‘this is not what we expected, now we know what they mean we'll help ourselves some other way,’ and so some take one way, some another way? If in such confusion you have no power in your hands what will the consequences be?”

^{page 202 note a} May be paraphrased thus, “If any man urges, we would have a perfect settlement of all we seek, and would therefore march to London. Say we did force them to grant what we ask.”

^{page 203 note a} MS. “if the argument was not thus.” This clause is transferred from the line below.

^{page 203 note b} MS. “if.”

^{page 203 note c} Clause transposed from two lines below.

^{page 204 note a} MS. “in.”

^{page 204 note b} MS. “prest.”

^{page 204 note c} Clause transposed.

^{page 204 note d} MS. “I do not know as to the thing propounded by the Lieutenant General, I do not know that wee cannot promise ourselves soe as that wee cannot have it, nor then.”

^{page 205 note a} MS. “By that which was alleged of our marching.”

^{page 205 note b} On July 5 a vote was passed that no persons who had been in actual war against the Parliament, or accepted pardons from the King, or taken any part in bringing about the cessation or otherwise assisting the Rebellion in Ireland, or were sequestered by Parliament for delinquency should presume to sit in the House of Commons. Commons' Journals, v. 233. Those who infringed this order were by a second vote of July 9 to be liable to the penalties imposed in the Newcastle propositions on those who had sat in the Oxford Parliament, i.e., to be guilty of high treason and their estates to be sequestrated (ibid., p. 238; Gardiner, Constitutional Documents, p. 217).

^{page 206 note a} The report is here very confused. What Cromwell said was probably this, “If we will believe that which is the Truth in Fact, not that that which is a fancy, they have voted very essential things to their own purging.”

^{page 206 note b} Cromwell's argument seems to be this: “Shall we do that whilst they are upon the gaining hand in order to open their mouths in a title for us, that shall really stop their mouths? If we shall be so impatient—and that whilst they are as fast as they can gaining us the things we desire and have gained us more in the last 3 days than in 10 days whilst they were struggling for life end could not help us—for aught I know we may by advancing stop their mouths.” ‘In a title’ should perhaps be in a ‘tittle’ or may refer to the proposed declaration against foreign forces.

^{page 206 note c} MS. “fancie representations.”

^{page 207 note a} This might be rearranged thus: “And though there be great feares of other things I fear dividing as much as anything, and I shall very much question the integrity of any man that does not. I would not have the word spoken.”

^{page 208 note a} One of the greatest reasons for marching was removed.

^{page 209 note a} Spencer refers to the King's coming to Maidenhead to meet the Duke of York, July 15. Rushworth, vi. 625. His argument seems to be, “Our friends wished we had come with the King and would march up to London with them.”

^{page 209 note a} Cromwell's meaning appears to be: “Let us call on the Parliament to declare without delay whether they will do our work or not.”

^{page 211 note a} Referring to the ease of the eleven impeached members.

^{page 211 note b} The papers in question are the heads of the Army's proposals.

^{page 212 note a} The last words seem to belong to the next sentence. “That as was declared in the vote appointing me, if anybody, etc.”

^{page 212 note b} The propositions are printed in Rushworth, vii., 731. Old Parliamentary History, xvi., 212; Gardiner, Constitutional Documents, p. 232. The present discussion is on the second clause of the first head. Parliament might sit 240 days at the outside, and must sit at least 120 days.

^{page 213 note a} Clause transposed.

^{page 214 note a} At this point the report of the debate ends abruptly. The particular parts of the Army proposals referred to in Ireton's last remarks are—Head III., clauses 1—6.

^{page 214 note b} This letter is probably by John Rushworth, At least it very much resembles those from him to Lord Fairfax, dated July 13 and July 20. Fairfax Correspondence, iii., 367–371.

^{page 217 note a} July 26. Lords' Journals, ix. 355; Whitelock, Memorials, ii. 182, ed. 1853.

^{page 218 note a} One of the London Militia Committee. Rushworth, vi. 472.

^{page 218 note b} Leonard Watson, see Fairfax Correspondence, iii., 381.

^{page 218 note c} Unsigned and undated, probably written by Gilbert Mabbot, certainly July 26.

^{page 219 note a} This letter was obviously written between July 26 and August 4, 1647. On the former day the House of Commons adjourned till July 30, and on July 30 it was informed that Lenthal had left London on the morning of the 29th. The engagement of Lenthal, Manchester, and other members of Parliament to live and die with the army was dated August 4. According to Holies this was done “upon pretence of a force and violence that had been offered to the Parliament, but in truth, by a conspiracy with the Army, designed and laid principally by Mr. St. John, the solicitor; as appears by a letter sent from Rushworth (Sir Thomas Fairfax's Secretary) to the Speaker, with no name on it, but the latter part of it written with his own hand, advising him not to appear at the House on Friday morning, but to take counsel of Mr. Solicitor, who would tell him what was fit to be done, assuring him that the Army would all lie in the dirt, or protect them who were their friends. This, as I remember, was the purport of the letter yet remaining in one of the Houses: which no doubt came from Sir Thomas Fairfax, and Mr. Cromwell and the rest of those governors,” etc. (Holies, Memoirs, § 144). Ludlow says “we resolved to betake ourselves to the Army for protection, Sir Arthur Haselrig undertaking to persuade the Speaker to go thither, to which he consented with some difficulty” (Memoirs, i., 207). Lenthal's reasons are given in his own declaration, printed at the time at Oxford and London, and reprinted in the Old Parliamentary History, xvi., 196. He complains of the violence offered to the Parliament and himself on Monday, June 26, and that there has been no effectual course taken to prevent the like for the future. “But on the contrary, it is generally voiced in the town, that there will be a far greater confluence of apprentices, reformadoes, and others on Friday at the Parliament doors; and particularly notice was given to me that after they had made the House vote what they pleased they would destroy me.” See also Walker's History of Independency, ed. 1661, pt. i., p. 41.

^{page 220 note a} A news-letter amongst the Clarke Papers gives the following note on the designs in the city. “The Militia of the Citty have given forth double commissions to the same officers, the one in parchment very moderate, the other in paper very high and furious, to force, kill, slay, and destroy, etc. On Friday night last my Lord Mayor came from the Common Council into the Militia then sitting, and said, “how now gentlemen, be of good courage, I will be your Captain and stand by you,” or words to that effect. … Presently Ryley, the City scoutmaster came in and spoke encouraging words to the same purpose, and told them that he had received good intelligences that 30,000 Scots were upon their march for their assistance, that Morgan was their friend and was gone down to raise forces, and that he doubted not but that shortly considerable strength would be upon the back of the Army.”

^{page 220 note b} Rushworth, viii., 750.

^{page 221 note a} Rushworth, viii., 741, 765, 774

^{page 223 note a} Rushworth, quoting the “Perfect Diurnal,” notes under Aug. 2, that “the Earl of Warwick and Earl of Manchester sent to the General intimating that they had quit the Houses as most of the members likewise had; for that there could be no free parliament as things went; and that their Lordships were retired unto Essex, and intended, as there should be occasion, to wait on the General, casting themselves upon his protection,” Rushworth, viii. 742. Sir William Waller gives an account of the consultations of the Lords who thus joined the Army, and of the origin of the engagement of Aug. 4. Vindication, pp. 191–5. In addition to these preparations to assist the Army in Essex, the counties of Hertford and Kent also sent their trained bands to support it. (Rushworth, viii. 755, 772; Tanner MSS., Iviii. p. 435. Draught cf a Letter from the Speaker (Pelham) to the Commissioners of the County of Herts.)

^{page 225 note a} The proceedings of this Committee from August 29 to November 11, 1647, are contained in vol. lxvi. of the Clarke MSS. at Worcester College. Questions concerning the movement of troops, military discipline, promotions, and the pay of the Army came under their jurisdiction. The cases of persons claiming the benefit of capitulations made with the Army were considered by them; see for instance the reports on the cases of Sir John Munson and Peter Scot under October 6, and October 22.

^{page 225 note b} Huntington states in his “Reasons for laying down his Commission,” that the King's answer to the propositions was shown privately to both Cromwell and Ireton “in a garden-house at Putney, and in some part amended to their own minds.” Berkeley says that Charles “followed the advice of all the leading part of the Independent Party both in the Parliament and the Army, by refusing the articles and desiring a personal treaty;” adding “we gave our friends in the Army a sight of this the day before it was sent, with which they seemed infinitely satisfied.” (Masere's Tracts, i., 372, 403.)

^{page 226 note a} Fairfax was not present, “being not well, and at Turnham Green” (Rushworth, viii. 857).

^{page 226 note b} “The case of the Army truly stated, together with the mischiefes and dangers that are imminent, and some suitable remedies, and humbly proposed by the Agents of five Regiments of Horse, to the respective Regiments and the whole Army.” This paper (filling twenty pages of a quarto pamphlet) is dated Guildford, October 9, 1647, and signed by agents representing the regiments of Cromwell, Ireton Fleetwood, Rich and Whalley. It is accompanied by a letter from the agent to Fairfax, dated October 15, and was presented to the General on October 18. It is stated on the last page that “Upon the presentation to, and serious perusul thereof by his Excellency, the sum of his answer was to this effect. That he judged their intentions were honest, and desired that everyone of publique spirit would be acting for the publique, and that for his part he had freely ventured his life for common right and freedome, and should freely engage it againe, adding further that he thought it meet it should be presented to the Generall Councell.” See also Rushworth, viii., 845, 849, 850, 857. In the meeting of the General Council of the Army on October 22 the paper was discussed, and a committee appointed to meet the next day, to consider the case of the Army and present their conclusions to the next General Council on October 28. In the meantime the agitators put forth a new paper vindicating themselves from the charge of dividing the Army. (Rushworth, viii., 845, 849, 850, 856, 857; Godwin, Commonwealth, ii. 445–451).

^{page 228 note a} “Studds,” i.e. the upright in a lath and plaster wall. Halliwell quotes the following passage from Harrison's England. “Our houses are commonly strong and well timbered, so as in many places there are not above four, six, or nine inches between stud and stud.”

Major Francis White had used a similar metaphor in describing the intended agreement with the King. “ Being.it the convention, I spoke some words which gave distrust, that they were repairing an old house, and that when they were laying the top stone it would fall about their ears.”

The Copy of a Letter sent to his Excellency Sir T. Fairfax, by Francis White, Nov. 1647. British Museum, E. 413, 17.

^{page 228 note b} MS. “bee.”

^{page 230 note a} This must refer to the debate of September 23, 1647, on which day the House of Commons resolved “that the House will once again make application to the King, for those things which the Houses shall judge necessary for the welfare and safety of the Kingdom.” (Commons' Journals, v. 314.) Cromwell and Rainborough were both present on September 22, when the question of “the whole matter concerning the King was discussed in a Committee of the whole House, and they told against each other on the proposal to resolve the House into a Committee for that purpose, (1b. v. 312.) September 23 was a Thursday, on which day the general council of the Army usually met, which explains the absence of Cromwell and Rainborough. Of Cromwell's speeches in this debate news-letters give the only record. One of September 27 (Clarendon MS. 2602) says “The last week his Majesty's answers to the propositions being considered of in the House was voted to be a denial, and that the King's drift therein was to put a difference between the Parliament and the Army, and between the English and Scottish nation; whereupon a sharp debate grew whether the King should be sent nnto any more, or whether they should forthwith proceed to the settlement of the kingdom; to the latter most of the orators inclined, and in likelihood would have led the house that way, but that it was opposed by Cromwell and Ireton, who said it was no fit time to proceed with such vigour, the King having gotten so great a reputation in the Army, and therefore advised them to proceed in a way towards the satisfaction of the kingdom and army; and so they went to review the propositions, having first voted that they should be carried to the King as ordinances;, not as propositions. There have been in the prosecution of this business some desperate motions; as, that the King, in regard that many who give him ill counsel and are professed enemies to the Parliament resort unto him, should be restrained; that they shonld think no mere of the King, but proceed as if there were no such thing in the world; for that he is always an impediment to all good resolutions; some calling him Ahab, others Coloquintida. But all those speeches have been stopped by Cromwell and Ireton, whose civilities are visible, but the reality of their intentions not clearly discerned.”

Sir Edward Ford writes on 28 September: “It was moved earnestly in the House that the malignants might be removed from Court, and also that the King might be removed further off from the headquarters because of the confluence of people to him.. … might beget an ill influence and danger in the Army, but it was opposed by Cromwell and Ireton; of late they have spoken much in the King's behalf, seconded by yonng Harry Vane, Mr. Solicitor, and Mr. Fiennes. Cromwell, applying himself to the Speaker, told him that it was worth his consideration, how that there was a party in the army labouring for the King, and a great one; how the City was endeavouring underhand to get another party in the Army; and that there was a third party who was little dreamt of, that were endeavouring to have no other power to rule but the sword.” (Clarendon MS., 2604.) A news-letter addressed to Sir Richard Leveson, September 27, 1647, adds: “There has been snapping lately in the House between some of the root-and-branch men and the officers of the Army that are members. Ireton, moving the Army's proposals might be considered there, and sent to the King, gave occasion to one Scot (an insolent fellow and enemy to the proposals, as all of that spirit are) to let the House know there had been underhand treaties between the officers of the Array and the King, to which end Ashburnham and Sir John Berkeley were continually at the headquarters, agents for the King, which he desired might be examined; to which Cromwell by way of reply took occasion to vindicate his own innocency and to declare his readiness to obey the Parliament's commands, bnt if the House should think fit to examine that business, he desired it might be examined withal, which members of the House had been at head-quarters likewise, endeavouring to debauch the Army and seduce them from their principles” (Fifth Report of Hist. MSS. Comin. p. 173; cf. p. 179.) Scot was arrested by Fairfax on November 15, 1647, for inciting the soldiers to mutiny at the rendezvous at Corkbnsh-field, near Ware, for which he was suspended from sitting in the House of Commons. (Rushworth, viii. 875; Commons' Journals, v. 362.) He was member for Aldborough in Yorkshire, and should be distinguished from Thomas Scot, the regicide, member for Aylesbury. Scot, the leveller, died in January, 1648. (Cal. Clarendon Papers, i. 408.) It is probable that he was a royalist agent. (Clarendon MS. 2,534.)

^{page 233 note a} A brief account of the proceedings of the Committee is given in Rushworih, viii., 849, 850.

^{page 234 note a} A portion of an answer of the agitators to the charge of attempting to divide the Army is given by Rushworth, viii., 857.

^{page 234 note b} Wildman and Petty.

^{page 235 note a} MS. “desiring.”

^{page 235 note b} MS. “your expectations and my engagements.”

^{page 235 note c} MS., two lines below, gives “we have here men on purpose.”

^{page 236 note a} The answer of the agitators here mentioned is evidently the document known as “the Agreement of the People,” as the contents of Cromwell's speech prove, and the reference made to it by name by Ireton on p. 244. It is printed in Rushworth, viii., 859. It demands, (1) Equal electoral districts. (2) The dissolution of the Long Parliament on September 30, 1648. (3) Biennial Parliaments to be elected every March and sit for five months. (4) The limitation of the powers of future parliaments so as to guarantee complete toleration; a full indemnity for acts done during the late public differences, and good and equal laws. In one point it attacks the privileges of the peerage, demanding “That in all laws made, or to be made, every person may be bound alike, and that tenure, estates, charter, degree, birth, or place, do not confer any exception from the ordinary course of legal proceedings, whereunto others are subjected.” In conclusion it protests against the proposed treaty with the King. “These things we declare to be our native rights, and therefore are agreed and resolved to maintain them with our utmost possibilities, against all opposition whatsoever; being compelled th reunto, not only by the examples of our ancestors, whose blood was often spent in vain for the recovery of their freedoms, suffering themselves, through fraudulent accommodations, to be still deluded of the fruit of their victory, but also by our own woful experience, who haying long expected, and dearly earned the establishment of those certain rules of government, are yet made to depend for the settlement of our peace and freedom upon him that intended our bondage, and brought a cruel war upon us.”

^{page 237 note a} MS. “that.”

^{page 238 note a} MS. “and,”

^{page 238 note b} Clause transposed.

^{page 239 note a} May be paraphrased, “which paper I am confident if your hearts be upright as ours you do not bring with peremptoriness of mind, etc.” The words “if we should come to anything” seem to belong to the previous clause.

^{page 240 note a} MS. “it.”

^{page 241 note a} The text should probably run, “as to concur with the framers of this book.”

^{page 241 note b} In “The Case of the Army” it was asserted “that the Army's Engagement, Representations, Declarations, and Remonstrances, and promises in them contained, are declined, and more and more dayly broken, and not only in some smaller matters wherein the Army and Kingdom are not neerly concerned, but in divers particulars of dangerous consequence to the Army and the whole nation.” Ten points in which these engagements had been broken were then enumerated.

^{page 242 note a} MS. “finding.”

^{page 243 note a} i.e., “The soldier agitators contrasted with those who did not belong to tie Army.”

^{page 245 note a} Rainborowe had been added to the Committee of the Navy on 9 September, 1647, and appointed Vice-Admiral on September 27. ( Commons' Journals, v., 297, 318.) On October 2 the Commons voted that he should be at once despatched to sea, and on October 8 that he should be commander-in-chief of the ships appointed for the winter guard. (Ibid., 324, 328.) On September 29 the committee of general officers voted that Deane should succeed to the command of Rainborowe's regiment when the latter went to sea, which seems to be one of the causes of the discontent shown in Rainborowe'a speech. Cromwell and Rainborowe had before this fallen out on the question of treating with the King. A news-letter of September 20 (Clarendon MS. 2577) says, “The Parliament is not well pleased with the Army's proposals, and the Army is as much displeased with them for disliking them; and upon Thursday last there was a resolntion amongst them to send to the Houses that they should treat with the King upon the proposals. High language passed at the Council of War between Cromwell and Rainsborough, so high that Rainsborough told him that one of them must not live.”

^{page 246 note a} i.e., “All the good laws we now enjoy were innovations once, and intrenchments on the rights of the King or the Lords.”

^{page 249 note a} MS. “itt.”

^{page 249 note b} i.e., “if our engagements are unrighteous.”

^{page 249 note c} Perhaps Cromwell means “though the engagement may be unrighteous, and it may be good in the abstract to break it, circumstances may render it scandalous to do so now.”

^{page 250 note a} Clause transposed.

^{page 251 note a} Cromwell's dread of division is commented on in Berkeley's Memoirs, Masere's Tracts, i., 364.

^{page 252 note a} The sense requires, “to replace it by a new engagement.”

^{page 253 note a} enow. Halliwell gives “enow” as meaning even now and “anowe” as “now.”

^{page 253 note b} Goffe perhaps was referring to what took place on October 7, when the Council “gave audience to an High German, who pretended to be a prophet, and would prescribe a way for the settling of a firm and lasting peace.” Rushworth, viii., 836.

^{page 256 note a} The sentence should probably read thus: “Public departings from God (if there be any such thing in the Army that is to be looked upon with a public eye in relation

^{page 281 note a} M.S. “that candle of reason, and that first within us our lust.”

^{page 281 note b} Goffe was one of the most enthusiastic of the Army leaders, and resembled The Fifth Monarchy men in his views.

^{page 282 note a} MS. “yett.”

^{page 282 note b} i. e. “into the place of the Pope.”

^{page 283 note a} See Revelation, chaps, xvii., xviii., xix., xx., especially chap, xvii., verses 13,14.

^{page 284 note a} Numbers, xiv., 41, 42.

^{page 285 note a} Goffe refers to the debate of July 16, pp. 176–211.

^{page 285 note b} MS. “that.”

^{page 285 note c} Everard was evidently the trooper before referred to as “buff-coat.” Robert Everard of Cromwell's regiment was one of the signatories of the “Letter to the freeborn people of England,” published with the agreement. There were several Everards in the Army, v. Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 78.

^{page 286 note a} The Army's Declaration of June 14, 1647.

^{page 287 note a} MS. “any.”

^{page 288 note a} MS. “that.”

^{page 288 note b} In the MS. Everard's speech is extremely Confused, as fragments of different sentences are mixed together. Three clauses have been moved.

^{page 289 note a} The MS. inserts after “action,” “I meane doing in that kind, doing in that sort,” and after “heere,” “such kind of action, action of that nature.”

^{page 290 note a} Cromwell at this point seems to have produced the book of Army Declarations, printed by Matthew Simmons in September, 1647.

^{page 290 note b} MS. “that.”

^{page 290 note c} i. e. “that which you say now was then determined upon.”

^{page 290 note d} Transferred from two lines below.

^{page 291 note a} MS. “worke.”

^{page 293 note a} “See the Case of the Army Truly Stated, p. 9.

^{page 293 note b} Can hardly be Major Francis White, as he had been expelled from the Council.

^{page 293 note c} The Representative of the Army, i. e., the General Council established in pursuance of the Engagement of June 5, 1647, consisting of those general officers who had concurred in that engagement together with two commission officers and two privates for each regiment.

^{page 294 note a} MS. “soe as to acquiesce in it.”

^{page 294 note b} MS. “ for I know nott myself.”

^{page 295 note a} MS. “Armie's.”

^{page 297 note a} Two lines moved from the previous sentence, and several words omitted.

^{page 298 note a} MS. “prize all wheresoever.”

^{page 298 note b} MS. “going.”

^{page 298 note c} The last sixteen words are transferred from six lines lower.

^{page 298 note d} MS. “but.”

^{page 299 note a} The first article is, “That the people of England, being at this day very unequally distributed by Counties, Cities, and Burroughs, for the election of their Deputies in Parliament ought to be more indifferently proportioned, according to the number of the Inhabitants; the circumstances whereof, for number, place, and manner, arc to be set down before the end of this present Parliament.”

The supporters of the Agreement, as the debate shows, advocated manhood suffrage. Ireton however, and those responsible for the “Heads of the Proposals of the Army,” published in August, had merely advocated more equal electoral districts.

“That the Elections of the Commons for succeeding Parliaments may be distributed to all counties, or other parts or divisions of the Kingdom, according to some rule of equality or proportion, so as all Counties may have a number of Parliament Members allowed to their choice, proportionable to the respective rates they bear in the common charges and burthens of the Kingdome, or according to some other rule of equalitie or proportion, to render the House of Commons as near as may be an equall representative of the whole; and in order thereunto, that a present consideration be had to take off the Elections of Burgesses for poor, decayed, or inconsiderable townes, and to give some present addition to the number of Parliament Members for great counties, that have now less than their due proportion, to bring all at present, as neer as may be, to such a rule of proportion as aforesaid.”

^{page 300 note a} I take these words to be the remark of some interruptor, probably Cowling.

^{page 301 note a} MS. “I.”

^{page 303 note a} Rainborow.

^{page 303 note b} i. e., “the laws and rule of those;” or possibly “the laws and rule which those shall choose who taken together,” etc.

^{page 304 note a} p. 296.

^{page 304 note b} A vote, the right of exercising his reason by electing a representative.

^{page 304 note c} Rainborow's argument seems to be, “God gave man reason that he might use it, and though the poorest man may have no property yet he has his reason and he was meant to use it. It may be a small right but it is something, and you are not justified in taking from him any right God has given him.” See the same argument stated by the agitators. Case of the Army stated, p. 21.

^{page 305 note a} Any fixed interest to entitle him to a vote.

^{page 305 note b} The position of the last two sentences has been altered.

^{page 306 note a} See p. 299; and also the note.

^{page 306 note b} See p. 296.

^{page 307 note a} MS. “a man.”

^{page 307 note b} MS. “the same.”

^{page 308 note a} MS. “men.”

^{page 310 note a} The order of the first few sentences of this speech has been changed.

^{page 311 note a} i. e. “The franchise,” see pp. 315, 316.

^{page 311 note b} MS. “itt is.”

^{page 311 note c} This part of Rainborow's speech is too fragmentary to follow his arguments, but his two speeches on pp. 315, 316, supplement it.

^{page 312 note a} MS. “the man when they are.”

^{page 313 note a} The constitution proposed in the “Agreement of the People.”

^{page 313 note b} i. e. “The franchise.”

^{page 314 note a} MS. “an.”

^{page 314 note b} The passage may be thus paraphrased: “But here is the great objection to the rule that you go by. By that rule by which yon infer this to be the right of the people, of every inhabitant, you infer also that because every man hath such a right in nature—though it be not of necessity for the preserving of his life—that therefore you are to overthrow the most fundamental constitution of the kingdom for it. Now show me why, by the same rule, by the same right of nature, you will not claim the use of anything any man hath that is necessary for the sustenance of men.”

^{page 314 note c} MS. “this man.

^{page 314 note d} MS. “mee.”

^{page 316 note a} i. e. “Limited to possessors of freeholds worth 40s. a year. Cowling is giving his theory of the object of the statute of Henry VI. limiting the franchise to persons having free land or tenement to the value of 40s. by the year.”

^{page 317 note a} The word “fitt” should perhaps be “fixt.” “It is now fixed that the electors must not choose men to make laws who have no permanent interest in the kingdom.”

^{page 317 note b} These, i. e. “these foreigners.”

^{page 318 note a} Should be, “to constitute, i. e. to legislate, according to the just ends of government, not simply to maintain what is already established.”

^{page 318 note b} “That gentleman,” i. e. Rainborow, see p. 304.

^{page 319 note a} Probably should be “hath a right by nature that.” But see p. 303.

^{page 320 note a} The meaning apparently is, “Why should I have any interest in determining what the law of a land shall be, if I am not obliged to live under it.”

^{page 320 note b} Colonel Rich, p. 315.

^{page 321 note a} The position of these two clauses has been changed, but the latter part of the speech seems hopelessly confused.

^{page 322 note a} “Itt,” possibly means “the liberty of the people,” referring to Rainbtrow's speech.

^{page 323 note a} “Those two,” i. e. Cromwell and Ireton.

^{page 323 note b} If this Agreement be not accepted I will still not give up my birthright.

^{page 323 note c} Probably refers to the speech of Colonel Rich, that poor voters would sell their votes, or otherwise destroy the kingdom.

^{page 324 note a} i. e. Sexby.

^{page 324 note b} MS., “every Christian spirit ought to bear that, to carry that.”

^{page 325 note a} MS. “men.”

^{page 325 note b} Clause transposed from two lines above.

^{page 325 note c} MS. “all the souldiers have.”

^{page 326 note a} Possibly a reference to the parable of Jotham, Judges, ix. Or perhaps one should read “scrub.”

^{page 326 note b} MS. “lie.”

^{page 326 note c} MS. “soe.”

^{page 327 note a} May be paraphrased, “Now let any man shew me why, if we should go to plead, &c, we should stop there?”

^{page 327 note b} MS. “light.”

^{page 328 note a} Only the first words of some sentences out of the speech of Hugh Peters are here given. He suggests apparently an arrangement such as the one finally accepted, by which men who had assisted the Parliament should be given votes. Cromwell takes up the suggestion of a compromise, and develops it rather further, proposing the extension of the franchise to copyholders by inheritance.

^{page 328 note b} Perhaps in that paper (i. e. in the “Heads of the Proposals,” i., § 5) the amendment, of the representative may be offered too lamely, and there may be some reflection upon the generality of the people, if the franchise be insisted upon to be limited to the present voters. “Why perhaps there are a considerable number of copyholders by inheritance that ought to have votes,” etc. “This paper” referred to on p. 329 is the “Agreement.”

^{page 328 note c} Clause transferred from the last lines of the speech.

^{page 329 note a} Rainborow directly attacks Cromwell and Ireton. His words seem to mean: “If their rules must be observed, if these men must be advanced and other men that are in authority set under foot, I am not satisfied, and I do not see how this council can hold together.”

^{page 329 note b} Clause transferred from two lines above.

^{page 330 note a} MS. “in the freedome their choice as free.”

^{page 330 note b} To Cromwell.

^{page 330 note c} i. e. our promises, our engagements.

^{page 330 note d} Compare Clarke's speech on p. 339, which appears to be merely a second version of this.

^{page 331 note a} “You” refers to “both,” i. e. Cromwell and Ireton on the one hand, and Sexby and “Wildman on the other, vide pp. 329, 330, 335.

^{page 332 note a} Compare with these remarks about freedom of conscience a similar passage in Cromwell's third speech in Carlyle's Cromwell. The remainder of this speech is simply a chaos of detached phrases from different sentences. The argument seems to be, “If you claim liberty to follow your consciences, but will not grant me liberty to follow mine, there is no equality between us. Though we conscientiously believe that under certain circumstances we ought to resign our commands, you taunt us as if we were following our wills instead of our consciences, and accuse us of deserting the cause. Can anything be more harshly said?” In answer to Sexby's demand for an immediate vote (pp. 324, 330) Cromwell again proposes (as on p. 328) that the question should be referred to a committee to try to make a fair compromise.

^{page 333 note a} Rainborowe.

^{page 333 note b} Jnne 5, 1647.

^{page 333 note c} See the Army's Declaration of June 14, 1647.

^{page 334 note a} See the Army Declaration of June 14, and the “Heads of the Proposals of the Army,” § 1.

^{page 335 note a} The last ten lines of Ireton's speech are too confused for amendment. They may perhaps be paraphrased thus: “If you will appoint a committee to consider of some more equal distribution of that—so as you preserve the equitable part of that—keeping the franchise to men who are likely to be independent and not given up to the wills of others—thus far I shall agree with you. On the other hand, to those who say ‘I will not go with you except you go further,’ I answer, ‘I will go with you as far as I can, and when I can go no further I will sit down; I will not make any disturbance among you.’”

^{page 335 note b} i.e. Cromwell.

^{page 335 note c} i.e. Ireton.

^{page 336 note a} “This,” i. e. the constitution in that paper, in the “Agreement of the People.”

^{page 336 note b} i. e. “it is disputable.”

^{page 336 note c} i. e. “The constitution proposed by the ‘Agreement,’ if it were actually established.”

^{page 337 note a} i. e. “Whether this be a just constitution which says that 40^s year property enables a man to elect? If the question were stated so, etc.”

^{page 337 note b} See the Engagement of June 5, 1647, which concludes: “W e shall study to promote such an establishment of common and equal right and freedom to the whole, as all might equally partake of, but those that do, by denying the same to others, or otherwise, render themselves incapable thereof.”

^{page 338 note a} I should suggest here “right of nature,” and “principle of the right of nature.”

^{page 339 note a} I take this speech of Clarke's to be merely a second version of the speech on p. 330, not a new speech. It will be observed that Waller does not answer Clarke bat Chillenden.

^{page 339 note b} To Cromwell, who was presiding in the absence of Fairfax.

^{page 340 note a} Rushworth, vii., 913, 944.

^{page 341 note a} MS. “leave this.”

^{page 341 note b} Compare the reasons against the “Bill for a new Representative,” given in Cromwell's first speech in Carlyle's Cromwell. In this paragraph the position of several clauses has been altered.

^{page 341 note c} MS. “every.”

^{page 342 note a} Vide pp. 226, 233, 258, 276, 285, 288.

^{page 342 note b} The clauses making up these three sentences have been transposed. Lines 15–30 on p. 343, “It was told mee … manifest unto you,” seem properly to belong to this portion of the speech.

^{page 344 note a} Everard.

^{page 345 note a} On the rule referred to, see “Heads of the Proposals of the Army,” i. § 5.

^{page 346 note a} The Army in their Engagement of June 5 declared that they would not disband till they had such satisfaction for their grievances and desires as soldiers and such security for their rights as private men as should appear sufficient to the General Council of the Army then established. “Without such satisfaction and security we shall not willingly disband, nor divide, nor suffer ourselves to be disbanded or divided” (Rushworth, vi., 512). On this subject the following observations are made in the Case of the Army stated, p. 2.

“That the Annie's Engagemgnt, Representations, Declarations, and Remonstrances, and promises in them contained, are declined, and more and more dayly broken, and not only in some smaller matters wherein the Annie and the Kingdome are not so neerly concerned, but in divers particulars of dangerous consequence to the Army and the whole Nation, as,

“First, In the Engagement, page five, the Army promised every Member thereof each to other, and to the Parliament and Kingdome, that they would neither disband nor divide, nor suffer themselves to be ditbanded or divided untill satisfaction should be given to the Army in relation to their grievances and desires; and securitie that neither the Army nor the free borne people of England, should remaine subject to such injuries, oppression, and abuse, as the corrupt party in the Parliament then had attempted against them.

“Secondly, The Traine of Artillery is now to be disbanded, before satisfaction of securitie is given to the whole Army in relation to themselves, or other the free borne people, either in respect to their grievances or desires. And when the strength or sinews of the Army be broken, what effectual good can be secured for themselves or the people in case of opposition.

“Thirdly, The Army is divided into quarters so farre distant that one part is in no capabilitie to give timely assistance to another, if any designe should be to disband any part by violence sodainly, although neither our grievances nor desires as Soldiers or Commoners are redressed or answered. And as we conceive this dividing of the Army before satisfaction on securitie as aforesaid, to be contrary to the Armies intention in their Engagement, at the said Rendezvous, so we conceive it hath from that time given all the advantage to the enemies, to band and designe against the Armie, whereby not only pay hath been kept from the Soldiers, and securitie for areers prevented, but the kingdom was indangered to have been imbroyled in blood, and the settlement of the peace and freedome of the Nation, hath been thus long delayed.”

^{page 347 note a} Scroope's Regiment had been at Holdenby, where a part of it was employed in guarding the King.

^{page 347 note a} MS. “they goe to scandalise an engagement or to devide.”

^{page 348 note a} Throughout this speech of Iretou's the sentences in the MS. are so broken and confused that much rearrangement was necessary to make the sense intelligible. Compare the “Remonatanee of his Excellency, Sir Thomas Fairfax, and the Council of War, concerning the late discontent and distraction in the Army” (November 14, 1647). It was evidently based on this speech and was probably drawn up by Ireton.

^{page 349 note a} Ireton compares “the Heads of the Proposals of the Army,” published Aug. 1, 1647, with “the Agreement of the People,” first as to the basis to be taken in the equalisation of the constituencies, secondly as to the date to be fixed for the dissolution of Parliament, thirdly as to the question of the powers of the House of Commons.

^{page 349 note b} i. e. the Agreement.

^{page 350 note a} Clause 4 of the Agreement: “That the powers of this and all future representatives of this Nation, is inferior only to those who chuse them, without the consent or concurrence of any other person or persons” (i. e. King or Lords).

^{page 350 note b} May be paraphrased: “If any man will put it to the question whether we shall concur with that, I am willing to concur with it, provided you put the question with that limitation that hath bin all along acknowledged by the Parliament, that is where the safetie of the kingdom is concerned. Till we can acquit ourselves justly from any engagement, new or old, that we stand in to preserve the persons and rights of the King and Lords so far as they are consistent with the common right—till that be done I think there is reason that exception should continue.” The rest is too chaotic.

^{page 350 note c} In the Declaration of June 14 the words used are, “so far as may consist with the right and freedom of the subject and the security of the same for the future.”

^{page 350 note d} The position of this clause has been altered.

^{page 350 note e} “I do agree,” etc., as on p. 351.

^{page 351 note a} The controversy between the King and Parliament as to the meaning of the King's Coronation Oath had been very bitter in 1642. It then turned chiefly on the interpretation of the word “elegerit.”.

The Levellers now sought to interpret the oath so as to deny the legislative power of the House of Lords. Wildman in criticising the “Proposals,” complains: “A restriction to their usurpation of a negative voice to all the resolutions of the Commons, is not once named, or intimated; although Ireton himself hath confessed in their counsels, that the King by his oath is obliged to confirm such laws as the Commons should chuse; the word ‘Vulgus’ in the King's oath, signifying people, or folke, excludes the Lords totally from any right to intermeddle in the making of laws” (Putney Projects, p. 41).

^{page 351 note b} i. e. “I did not then desire it so much as I do now.”

^{page 351 note c} i. e. The consent of the King and the Lords is now necessary to the making of all laws.

^{page 353 note a} The three passages given in brackets are supplied from the Case of the Army, p. 20.

^{page 353 note b} Compare Wildman's Putney Projects, p. 40: “Although the Lords are the very offspring of the King's corrupt will; and were never so honoured by the people, as to have a trust committed to them to represent any county; yet those Proposals invest them with the highest authority only because of the King's Pattent. (1.) The Proposals allow them a power over the Militia, coordinate, and coequal, to the representative of all the nation, the Commons in Parliament; thus in the first and second property of the Second Proposal, the power of the Militia, etc. for ten years, to be disposed of by the Lords and Commons.”

^{page 354 note a} The Case of the Army, p. 6, observes:—

“In the declaration of June 14, p. 10, as in all other Remonstrances and Declarations, it was desired, that the rights and liberties of the people might be secured, before the King's businesse should be considered. Bui now the grievances of the people are propounded to be considered after the restoring him to that legall power, and that in such a way according to the proposalls, viz. with a negative voice, that the people that have purchased by blood what was their right, of which the King endeavoured to deprive them, should yet solely depend on his will for their relief in their grievances and oppressions; and in like manner the security for the Armie's arrears is proposed to be considered after the businesse of the Kinge be determined.”

The same view is expressed in Wildman's Putney Projects, 1647, pp. 22, 23. As Ireton points out, Wildinan was probably the author of the Case of the Army.

^{page 355 note a} This refers to Parliamentary privilege, which is aimed at in the fourth clause in the Agreement: “That in all lawes made or to be made every person may be bound alike, and that no tenure, estate, charter, degree, birth, or place, doe conferre any exemption from the ordinary course of legal proceedings whereunto others are subjected.” This is explained to mean, “That whereas now severall persons are by an usurped power exalted above the law and protected from due process at law, viz, Lords as Peers, although legally indebted, may not be touched with an arrest, nor be made subject to the censure of the law; whereby they have made little conscience when they have got men's estates in their hands, to return the same, but have stood upon their prerogative and thereby been protected, to the utter ruin and undoing of many of the free people of England.” The Grand Designs, 1647, by John Harris.

^{page 355 note a} See the Letter of the Agitators, “For the noble and highly honoured, the Free born people of England,” appended to the “Agreement of the People.”

“We have therefore inserted it into this Agreement, that no person shall be questionable for anything done, in relation to the late publike differences, after the dissolution of this present Parliament, further then in execution of their judgment; that thereby all may be secure from all sufferings for what they have done, and not liable hereafter to be troubled or punished by the judgment of another Parliament, which may be to their ruine, unlesse this Agreement be joyned in, whereby any acts of indempnite or oblivion shall be made unalterable, and you and your posterities be secure. But if any shall inquire why we should desire to joyn in an Agreement with the People, to declare these to be our native Rights, and not rather petition to the Parliament for them; the reason is evident: No Act of Parliament is or can be unalterable, and so cannot be sufficient security to save you or us harmlesse from what another Parliament may determine, if it should be corrupted; and besides Parliaments are to receive the extent of their power and trust from those that betrust them; and therefore the people are to declare what their power or trust is, which is the intent of this Agreement.”

^{page 356 note a} Wildman's argument is given in the Case of the Army, p. 12.

“The Armies and their assistants' indempnity is propounded to receive its strength from the King's consent; whereas not only his signing of or consent to any act is wholly null and void in law because he is under restraint and our indemnity will be insufficient if it shall depend in the least on his confirmation.” He proceeds to argue that an act of indemnity passed by one Parliament might be repealed by another, “whereas another Parliament cannot alter this.” Moreover, this very Parliament might be so corrupted by the King as to nullify an act of indemnity passed by it.

^{page 356 note b} From 1045 onwards the legislative and judicial powers of the House of Lords had been subject to constant attacks. Edwards, in the third part of his Gangraena, 1646, pp. 148, 196—200, collects a number of the utterances of the Levellers and Sectaries against the House of Lords. “The speeches and writings of the Sectaries against the House of Peers within this last six months or thereabouts are fearful and strange, tending apparently to the total overthrow of the House of Peers and of having any Lords in this kingdom, denying them all legislative and judicial power, and giving it all to the House of Commons, or rather to that beast with many heads, the common people.” The leaders of this attack were John Lilburne and Richard Overton. See An Alarum to the Mouse of Lords, 1646, and Overton's An Arrow against all Tyrants and Tyranny shot from the prison, of Newgate into the Prerogative Bowels of the Arbitrary House of Lords. On three separate occasions the privileges of the House of Lords seem to have been guaranteed: in 1645, on the passing of the self-denying ordinance (Rushworth, vi., 14); and in the summer of 1647 (Vindication of Sir William Waller, pp. 192–6); in January, 1648, after the passing of the vote of no further addresses to the King (Rushworth, vii., 967).

^{page 357 note a} The text may ho paraphrased thus:

“According to the best judgments of those that were entrusted to draw up the Proposals it was decided that we should not take away the power of the Lords in this kingdom, and it was so concluded in the Proposals. That in the Proposals our business was to set forth particulars. We had set forth general declarations which had come to much the same thing.”

^{page 358 note a} In the Declaration of June 14, it is said: “These things we desire may be provided for by Bill or Ordinance of Parliament to which the royall assent may be desired. When his Majesty in these things, and what else shall be proposed by the Parliament, necessary for securing the Rights and Liberties of the people, and for settling the Militia and peace of the Kingdom shall have given his concurrence to put them past dispute, we shall then desire that the Rights of his Majestic and his Posterity may be considered of, and setled in all things, so farre as may consist with the Right and Preedome of the Subject and with the security of the same for the future.”

In the Proposals, § xiv., it is demanded “That (the things heretofore proposed, being provided for settling and securing the rights, liberties, peace and safety of the kingdom) His Majestie's person, his Queen, and royall issue, may be restored to a condition of safety, honour and freedom in this nation, without diminution to their personal rights, or further limitation to the exercise of the regal power than according to the particulars aforegoing.”

^{page 358 note b} After Clause xvi., the Proposals continue: “Next to the proposalls aforesaid for the present settling of a peace, wee shall desire that no time may be lost by the Parliament for despatch of other things tending to the welfare, ease and just satisfaction of the Kingdom.” A number of grievances are then specially enumerated In the Declaration of Aug. 2, special attention is called to this distinction. “To these proposalls which we here first tender as necessary to a peace … we cannot hut add the further expression of our desires in some other particulars, which, though not so essential to peace, as necessarily to precede the settling of it, yet being matters of very public, and (most of them) of general grievance to the kingdom: we shall desire, that (the Parliament being set free) no time may be lost for a speedy consideration of them, so as the former things for the present settling of peace be not delayed thereby.”

^{page 360 note a} The charges referred to are shown by the following passages from the Case of the Army. “The whole intent of the Engagement and the equitable sense of it hath been perverted openly by affirming and by sinister means making seeming determinations in the Council that the Army was not to insist upon or demand any security for their own or other the freeborn people's freedoms or rights, though they might propound anything to the Parliament's consideration; and according to that high breach of their engagement their actions have been regulated, and nothing that was declared formerly to be insisted upon hath been resolvedly adhered to, or claimed as the Armie's or the people's due.” (p. 3.)

“In the Declaration of June 14, it is declared that the Army took up arms in judgement and conscience for the people's just rights and liberties, and not as mercenary soldiers, hired to serve an arbitrary power of the State. But the strength of the endeavours of many hath been, and are now, spent to persuade the soldiers and agitators, that they stand as soldiers only to serve the State, and may not as free Commons claim their right and freedom as due to them.” (p. 4.)

^{page 360 note b} Heads of the Proposals Articles, vi., xvi.

^{page 361 note a} Ireton refers first, to the petition oE the Army drawn up in March, 1647; secondly, to the desires of the Army in relation to themselves as soldiers, September 21, 1647. (Booh of Army Declarations, p. 160.)

^{page 361 note b} This passage may be thus paraphrased: “I think it is true in this, thet whoever talks of the soldiers endeavouring to secure themselves by the swords in their hands, or any other indemnity to be obtained by force, is for the perpetuating of combustions. Talk of that kind is inconsistent with a settlement, and does not suppose a settlement by the authority that has been hitherto acknowledged by us, by the legislative authority of the kingdom. Anyone who expects to get the arrears of the soldiers paid except through Parliament and through such a general settlement deceives himself. For my part, if I am to choose between the payment of my arrears, and the general settlement of the kingdom I would rather lose my arrears.”

^{page 362 note a} “Let the seventh particular in the first proposal be compared with the fourteenth proposall. In the seventh particular it is proposed ‘that the orders and rules set down by the Commons in Parliament, for the freedom of election of Members and the right constitution of their own house, be as laws,’ thus restraining the King's negative voice only in that one particular. And in the fourteenth proposal it is expressly desired, ‘that there might be no further limitation to the exercise of the regall power, than according to the foregoing particular’” (Putney Projects, p. 32). Wildman also complains that “When the proposalls were first composed there was a small restriction of the King's negative voice; it was agreed to be proposed that whatever bill should be propounded by two immediate succeeding parliaments should stand in full force and effect as any other law, though the King should refuse to consent” (p. 14). He states that Ireton and Cromwell to please the King expunged this restriction. The position of two clauses in Wildman's speech has been altered.

^{page 365 note a} This stipulation occurs also in the “Heads of the Proposals,” (i. § 7), but is not so clearly stated.

^{page 366 note a} Perhaps this word should be “equity,” see p. 334.

^{page 366 note b} Probably before 29th November, 1642, when an ordinance was passed for assessing those who had not voluntarily contributed. The third clause of the Agreement of the People (Jan. 1640) suggests May, 1643.

^{page 367 note a} The substance of the remaining articles is given later, pp. 407. 408.

^{page 367 note b} Monday, November 1. See Rushworth, iv., part 2, p. 859.

^{page 367 note c} Francis Allen of Ingoldsby's regiment; Major Allen of Berkshire, Thurloe, iv., 285.

^{page 368 note a} John Carter of Hewson's regiment.

^{page 368 note b} Henry Lilburne, Lieutenant-Colonel of the regiment of his brother, Robert Lilburne, turned Royalist in 1648, and was killed at the re-capture of Tynemouth Castle, August 11,1648.

^{page 369 note a} Considerable, i.e. “to be considered of.” The sense seems to be: “I think they ought to consider whether they intend to suppress the royalists (?) by the power of the Parliament.”

^{page 370 note a} Philippians iii., 8.

^{page 370 note b} MS. “yett if wee cannot have.”

^{page 370 note c} Cromwell's argument may be thns summed up: “Leave the settlement of government to Parliament, but provide that Parliament be rightly constituted. There may be care taken that future Parliaments be well composed as to their creation and election. Elections to Parliament are sometimes illegal, as for instance for corporations to choose two. I shall desire that there may be a form for the electing of Parliament. Another thing to be provided against is the perpetuity of the same Parliament, there is no security at present that it shall not be perpetual.” The policy advocated is that set forth in the Army Declaration of June 14. Compare Cromwell's remarks on pp. 328, 336.

^{page 371 note a} MS. “att least.”

^{page 371 note b} Cromwell's general meaning is plain enough, though the illustration he uses is difficult to understand. The Army, he argues, must have some civil authority to support it, therefore it ought to own the authority of the Parliament. He would lay hold of any commission from Parliament, any simulacrum of authority, anything that came from Westminster, from the other side of the Thames. Possibly the illustration was suggested by the story of the multitude of rats swimming over the Tweed, which is told in a news-letter of September, 1647. (Clarendon, State Papers, II, Appendix, xxxix.)

^{page 372 note a} “We propound: that whatsoever was proposed to be insisted on, either in the Declaration of June the 14, or the Remonstrance of June 23, and in the Remonstrance from Kingston, August 18, be adhered to resolvedly, so as not to recede from these desires, untill they be thoroughly and effectually answered.” Case of ihe Army, p. 14. On Allen, see Appendix B.

^{page 372 note b} John Jubbes, Lieutenant-Colonel of Hewson's regiment, see p. 21. He drew up in the next year, an “Agreement of the People” of his own, entitled “Proposals for Peace and Freedom,;” and was probably the author of a second pamphlet called “A Plea for Moderation in the Transactions of the Army, or weighty Observations upon the late Proposalls for Peace presented by the City of London to Comm. Gen. Ireton. By Veritie Victor, gent., 1648.

^{page 374 note a} I. Kings, xxii. 22; Jeremiah, xliii. 2.

^{page 375 note a} Cf. p. 284.

^{page 375 note b} MS. “that in the issue wee may not see that God hath spoken to us.”

^{page 375 note c} The papers of the committee, which Rainborow had just moved to have read.

^{page 375 note d} I. Corinthians, xiv. 29.

^{page 376 note a} “learnt,” i. e, taught.

^{page 377 note a} Jeremiah, li., 9; xiij., 23.

^{page 377 note b} Zechariah, xii., 3. Matthew, xxi., 44.

^{page 378 note a} Several words transposed.

^{page 379 note a} The Second Epistle of Peter, i. 19.

^{page 379 note b} Allen.

^{page 380 note a} i. e. “neither King nor Lords,”

^{page 380 note b} i. e. “argue.”

^{page 381 note a} Hebrews, viii., 10; I. Corinthians, ii., 16. So Cromwell elsewhere observes of certain things that they are “written in better books than those of paper; written, I am persuaded, in the heart of every good man.” Carlyle's Cromwell, Speech II.

^{page 381 note b} Compare Speech I. in Carlyle's Cromwell.

^{page 382 note a} Of. Cromwell's speech on p. 185.

^{page 383 note a} MS. “to.”

^{page 383 note b} The position of several clauses has heen altered.

^{page 385 note a} Wildman spoke in answer to the gentleman “who spoke last save one,” referring obviously to the long speech here attributed to Cromwell. The difficulty is that Ireton hereupon answers Wildman as if he were the speaker referred to. On the other hand the MS. distinctly attributes the speech to Cromwell, and in many points it is distinctly Cromwellian in style and ideas. Possibly the two brief speeches on this page should be attributed to Cromwell instead of Ireton.

^{page 386 note a} Apparently means those who subscribe the “Agreement of the People” as opposed to the officers who dissent from it. For the first “dissent,” “assent” should probably be substituted.

^{page 386 note b} The position of this clause has been changed.

^{page 386 note c} “Them” i. e. “the people.”

^{page 387 note a} Ireton says he made the exception to satisfy Wildman and his friends, not because he had any doubts of the fact himself.

^{page 387 note b} As the power has been usurped, not expressly to take it away is to confirm it.

^{page 388 note a} Remonstrance of May 26, 1642, and the King's answer: see Clarendon, Rebellion, v. 224–220, 292–305. See pp. 351, 399. The first part of this sentence seems to be really an interpolation of Wildman's: “Sir, you very well remember that which you argued of the King's oath,” referring to Ireton's speech on p. 351.

^{page 388 note b} Several words omitted.

^{page 389 note a} MS. “that.”

^{page 390 note a} Iretoii seems to refer to the first thirteen articles of the “Heads of the Proposals,” which contained the things “necessary for settling and securing the rights, liberties, peace and safety of the kingdom,” the granting of which was to precede the King's restoration to his personal rights. This plan of taking away the King's veto with respect to certain specified subjects seems to have been substituted by Ireton for the scheme of giving him a merely suspensive veto which was suggested in the first draft of the “Proposals.” See “Putney Projects,” p. 15.

^{page 390 note b} See p, 407, resolution 2.

^{page 391 note a} See p. 407.

^{page 391 note b} See articles 1 and 2, p._407.

^{page 391 note c} See article 4, p. 407.

^{page 392 note a} MS. “onely.”

^{page 392 note b} MS. “heertofore have bin subject to the breaches of the peace, have bin subject o t the common law.”

^{page 392 note c} Position of several clauses altered.

^{page 393 note a} The position of several words has been altered.

^{page 393 note b} For Wildman's criticisms see Putney Projects, p. 26; and the “Heads of Proposals” I. 1.

^{page 394 note a} Ireton again refers to the “Agreement of the People,” Clause 3, and compares it with the first two clauses of the “Proposals of the Army,”

^{page 395 note a} Unfortunately the article concerning the qualifications of persons to be elected Members of Parliament is not given, but it seems from this debate and from p. 394 that a member was to possess a property qualification of £20 a year, and that a peer might sit in the Lower House if elected, as indeed subsequently took place under the Commonwealth.

^{page 395 note b} Rainborow asks why the Lords and Commons should not sit together, in one House; and Ireton replies that it would be dangerous to admit so large a permanent element. See p. 397. The position of this question and answer has been changed. In the MS. they follow Ireton's answer about the trial of Lords by their Peers.

^{page 396 note a} Robert Titchburne had been appointed by Fairfax, Lieutenant of the Tower, in place of Colonel Francis West (Rushworth, vii. 761). A contemporary thus speaks of Titchburne: “I will not call him Colonel, his commission being illegal, and he fitter for a warm bed then to command a regiment or citadel; one that not above a month before he was chosen Lieutenant of the Tower held an opinion that it was not lawful for men to fight or kill men, [not] thinking that fighting would be in fashion again. And indeed when he was first made Lieutenant-Colonel of the Auxiliaries in London, if he durst have marched down only for a guard of three or four pieces of battery to Basinghouse before it was fortified, he had saved many a thousand men's lives; but he loved then nothing tending to fighting, and therefore he discouraged his soldiers and took a journey himself under a colour to Brainford, and then came home in triumph that he might pray that the walls of Basinghouse might fall down like the walls of Jericho. … But Colonel West is faithful, honest and valiant, and one that stood as well to his regiment as he hath done since to his principles: witness Gloucester expedition, where if the Newbery ground could speak, it would say his body was turned into a rock in the face of his enemy.” (The Honest Citizen or Faithful Counsellor to the City of London, p. 7). Titchburne was one of the Sheriffs in 1650, and Lord Mayor in 1656. Noble gives an account of Titchburne in his “Lives of the Regicides,” ii. 272. See also Heath's Chronicle, ed. 1663, p. 309.

^{page 397 note a} The absence of the text of the article discusssed, and the defects of the report make it difficult to decide the exact question at issue, but it seems to bo this. On Saturday, October 30, the Committee had agreed to give the Lords a suspensive veto. Then, apparently at Ireton's instigation, they decided that the Lords should possess no veto of any kind with respect to laws where the Commons declared the safety of the kingdom to be concerned. Instead of that they should possess, in case of laws affecting their persons and estates merely, a power of exempting themselves from the operation of such laws, and so secnring their personal rights, by refusing their consent. Thus, instead of a general suspensive veto they would get a simple power of nullifying certain particular laws so far as they affected themselves Ireton's speech is very confused, but may be thus paraphrased and rearranged. “‘Tis true on Saturday night we thought of that, viz., that the Commons should make so much use of the Lords in all affairs that their refusal to pass a law should occasion a review, but that if the Commons should after that review think fit to persist, it should be looked upon as a law without the consent of the Lords: bat that resolution was questioned in the name of safety. Instead of that the Committee voted last night, that the Lords should have a liberty to preserve one another, and we thought fit to submit a provision for that to your consideration. We had ai eye also to that point of the safety of the kingdom. It is provided for in the clauses respecting the rights of the Commons, etc.”

^{page 398 note a} See. 407, resolution 2.

^{page 399 note a} For Wildman's general views on the rights of the Lords as affected by the “Heads of the Proposals” see Putney Projects. He now criticises article 2 on p. 407.

^{page 400 note a} MS. “included.”

^{page 400 note b} MS. “take.”

^{page 400 note c} MS. “heere.” The position of several phrases in this sentence has been altered.

^{page 401 note a} Order of words in this sentence changed.

^{page 401 note b} Order of clauses in this sentence changed.

^{page 402 note a} Cowling probably refers to the story of King Alfred, “who caused 44 Justices in one year to be hanged as murderers for their false judgments.” Andrew Home's Mirrour of Justice, translated by W. II., 1646, p. 239.

^{page 402 note b} Rainborow appears to be wrong; see Stubbs, Constitutional History, vol. ii. § 269. and Old Parliamentary History, ii., pp. 12–29.

^{page 403 note a} “They,” i. e. Mr. Wildman's godly men.

^{page 403 note b} Ireton's previous speech supplies the words given in brackets, and his speech on p. 404 shows that Wildman proceeded to argue that the first maxim of just government was that all governments rested on the consent of the people; but the people never set up King or Lords, therefore the government of King and Lords was unjust.

^{page 404 note a} The order of these two interpolations of Wildman's has been changed.

^{page 405 note a} Titchborne argues thus: The right of making laws is expressly stated to he solely in the House of Commons. The formality of sending them to the King and Lords for their consent means nothing. Their consent is not necessary.

^{page 405 note b} I take this first sentence to be really another interpolation of Wildman's, and the rest of the speech Ireton's reply to it.

^{page 406 note a} Compare Putney Projects, pp. 19, 34.

^{page 406 note b} MS. “Lords.”

^{page 407 note a} MS. “small.”

^{page 407 note b} Major John Cobbett of Skippon's regiment, probably opposed the vote on the grounds stated by Wildman on p. 398. A pamphlet quotes “the saying of Ireton to honest Major Cobbett of Snowhill, who, for joyning with the agents of the Army, asked him if he were not deluded in his understanding, in joyning with the giddy-headed souldiers, and advised him not to run against the interest of himselfe and the officers” (The Hunting of the Foxes, etc., Soniers Tracts, ed. Scott vi., 52). Cobbett seems to have been concerned in the mutiny at Ware; was tried by court martial at Windsor in January, 1648, and sentenced to be cashiered (Rushworth, vii., 937, 940). Like others then sentenced he was forgiven and sent back to his regiment, then at Newcastle, and distinguished himself by his gallantry at the re-capture of Tynemouth Castle, August 11, 1648 (Rushworth, vii., 1226; The Second Part of England's New Chains Discovered, 1649, pp. 7, 11). He was made Adjutant-General of the Foot to the Army which invaded Scotland in July, 1650 (Crommelliana, p. 84). After the battle of Worcester he was selected to bear Cromwell's despatch to the Parliament, with the commendation “that the person who is the bearer hereof was equal in the performance of his duty to most that served you that day” (Carlyle's Cromwell, Letter clxxxiii). Cobbett made arelation, and produced “a collar of SS., which was the King of Scots', and his garter, which the said Major Cobbett took in his quarters at Worcester.” He was voted a gratuity of £100, and an annuity of £100 from forfeited lands in Scotland (Commons' Journals, vii., 13, 191). He seems to have died a Lieutenant-Colonel in 1656 (Cal. State Papers, Bom., 1656–7,pp.249,301). He should be distinguished from Major Robert Cobbett, another leveller, who ended by becoming a contractor for army-clothing (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1657–8, p. 118; Lilburne's Legal Fundamental Liberties, 1649, p. 40), and from the better known Colonel Ralph Cobbett.

^{page 409 note a} The, propositions referred to are summarised by Rushworth. vii., 861.

^{page 410 note a} A newsletter in the Clarendon Papers (vol. ii., Appendix, xlix.) says under Nov. 15: “On Thursday last Sir Thomas Fairfax's regiment of foot were drawn to a rendezvous: and one White, the Major of the regiment, told the soldiers that the kingdom must be under another government (which he said, to see how they would like it). Whereupon the whole regiment threw up their hats and cried, ‘A King, a King.’ And thereupun White got to his horse and made some haste out of the field.”

^{page 411 note a} Rushworth gives the result of the debate concerning the Militia.

^{page 411 note b} Compare Rushworth, vii., 862.

^{page 411 note c} On the proceedings of the Council of the Army between Nov. 3 and Monday, Nov. 8, see Appendix E.

^{page 411 note d} William Bray, Capt.-Lieutenant in Col. Robert Lilburne's regiment of foot, was a personage of some importance amongst the Levellers. In the mutiny of that regiment at Ware on Nov. 15, 1647, Bray was the only officer above the rank of a lieutenant who stayed with the soldiers. He was arrested on the charge of having led the regiment to rendezvous contrary to orders (Rushworth, vii., 875; Old Parliamentary History, xvi., 434). Bray's own account of his conduct, as delivered to the council of war which tried him, is printed in a pamphlet called The Discoverer, pt. 2, p. 52, 1649. He was tried by court martial at Windson Dec. 1647, and finally on submitting and acknowledging his error dismissed, and sent back to his regiment (Rushworth, vii., 922, 937, 940, 943). Owing, as he states, to the hostility of his lieut-col., Henry Lilburne, he was again suspended from his command. In the summer of 1648 he raised a troop of volunteers in Kent to serve against the royalists, and attached it to the regiment of Col. John Reynolds. In March, 1649, he was expelled from the General Council of the Army and deprived of his command. On March 19 he presented to the House of Commons a printed statement of his grievances, entitled, “An Appeal in the humble claim of justice agairfst Thomas Lord Fairfax,” etc., which was voted scandalous and seditious, and Bray committed to Windsor Castle, during the pleasure of the House (Commons' Journals, vi., 167; “Appeal,” pp. 11–15). He remained a prisoner at Windsor and Wallingford till Oct. 9, 1651 (Commons' Journals, vii., 31; Cat. State Papers, Dom., 1651, p. 353). Two letters from Bray to Lenthal, petitioning for his release, are amongst the Tanner MSS., lvi., 62; liii., 82; see also Cary's Memorials of the Civil War, ii., 141. and The Englishman's Fundamental Appeal; or the Third humble petition and address of Capt, William Bray, 1659. The first use Bray made of his freedom was to interrupt the proceedings of the Commissioners of Berkshire for underletting the estates of delinquents (Tanner MSS., lv., 110). In 1659 he published a pamphlet entitled, “A plea for the people's Good Old Cause,” and was recommended for employment as a sufferer for the true interest of the Commonwealth (Cal. State Papers, Dom., p. 249).

^{page 413 note a} This resolution is given in Rushworth, vi., 866.

^{page 413 note b} See “A remonstrance from his Excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax and his Council of War concerning the late discontent and distraction in the Army, etc., November 14, 1647” (Old Parliamentary History, xvi., 340.) The engagement given at the end was evidently drawn up by this Committee.

^{page 415 note a} See Rushworth, vi., 868, where this sentence continues “to the Generall for his order to communicate the same to the several regiments at their respective rendevouz.”

^{page 415 note b} Met November 25th, at Windsor.

^{page 416 note a} The letter referred to is printed in Appendix E.

^{page 416 note b} The letter of the Agitators to their regiments, quoted in Appendix E., continues as follows, referring apparently to the meeting of November 9: “The next day they still waved and refused the free debate of the aforesaid Question, and dissolved this Council for above a fortnight; and for a time resolved they would only prepare some faire Propositions to the Army, and about Arrears and pay, and sent to the Parliament for a moneths pay against a Randezvouz; But they declared they would divide the Army into three parts, to Randezvouz severally; and all this appeares to be only to draw off the Army from joyning together to settle those cleere foundations of Freedome propounded to you, and to procure your rights as you are Souldiers effectually, without any more delusions.”

^{page 418 note a} MS. “them.”

^{page 418 note b} November 11, 1647, probably addressed to Lambert, who was in command at York.

^{page 419 note a} A copy of this petition printed in England's Freedom Soldiers Rights, 1647, p. 10, adds the name of Will Everard.

^{page 420 note a} This was probably addressed to Lord Fairfax.