¹ A petition from…the General Councel of Officers…to the…commons of England…concerning the draught of an agreement of the people…together with the said agreement presented Saturday, Jan. 20. ([22 Jan.] 1649). Commons Journals, VI, 122 (hereafter CJ).

² CJ, VI, 133 (7 02 1948/1949)Google Scholar. The acts abolishing monarchy and the House of Lords were not finally passed until 17 and 19 March (ibid. pp. 166, 168); the act constituting the Commonwealth was not passed until 19 May (ibid. p. 212). ‘Republic’ was, however, used in the oath of office prescribed for Councillors of State, Feb. 1648/9 (The constitutional documents of the Puritan Revolution, 1625–1660, ed. Gardiner, S. R., 3rd edn [Oxford, 1906] no. 87Google Scholar).

³ Lilburne, John, The legall fundamental liberties of the people of England ([18 06 1649), pp. 35–8Google Scholar. Cf. L. Colonel John Lilburne, his apologetical narration (Amsterdam, 04 1652), pp. 8–9Google Scholar.

⁴ Gardiner, S. R., History of the great Civil War, 1642–1649, new edn, 4 vols. (London, 1894), IV, 295–6Google Scholar. For recent concurrence, in addition to Marxist historians, see Underdown, David, Pride's purge (Oxford, 1971), pp. 198–200Google Scholar; Worden, Blair, The Rump Parliament, 1648–53 (Cambridge, 1974), p. 76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Pease, T. C., The Leveller movement (Washington, 1916), p. 258Google Scholar, agrees that the officers abandoned the constitution ‘when they no longer needed the Levellers’ but suggests that reasons for the dismissal of the Agreement may be found ‘in the attitude of the army council’ (ibid. p. 267). See also The Levellers in the English Revolution, ed. Aylmer, G. E. (London, 1975), p. 42Google Scholar, where Aylmer states that ‘the sincerity of the Army officers in presenting their compromise Agreement to the Rump…is a matter for debate’; Leveller manifestoes, ed. Wolfe, D. M. (New York, 1944), pp. 90–1Google Scholar, in which Wolfe states that the officers ‘hung their faith’ on the Agreement and presented it in all sincerity. Neither Pease nor Aylmer nor Wolfe considers the differences within the army Council or the reasons for the officers– subsequent silence.

⁵ Taft, Barbara, ‘Voting lists of the Council of Officers, December 1648’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LII (1979), 138–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ A declaration: or, representation from…the army (14 June 1647); An humble remonstrance from…the army (23 June 1647).

⁷ The heads of the proposals (1 Aug. 1647). The Clarke papers (hereafter CP), ed. Firth, C. H., 4 vols. (Camden new series, xlix, liv, lxi, lxii, 1891–1901), 1, 226–417, passim, and 441 (Putney debates, 10–11, 1647)Google Scholar.

⁸ For the Levellers' extreme distrust of centralized government see Manning, Brian, The English people and the English Revolution (London, 1976), pp. 324–30Google Scholar.

⁹ The humble petition of divers wel affected persons (11 Sept. 1648), reprinted, Leveller manifestoes, ed. Wolfe, No. 11. For Lilburne's part, Lilburne, Legall fundamentall liberties, p. 29.

¹⁰ The writings and speeches of Oliver Cromwell, ed. Abbott, Wilbur Cortez, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1937–1947), 1, 562–67Google Scholar. The memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, ed. Firth, C. H., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1894), 1, 203–5Google Scholar.

¹¹ Postscript to newsletter, 27 Sept. 1648, Clarke MSS, Worcester College, Oxford, CXIV, fo. 80; the report is in William Clarke's hand. Mercurius pragmaticus, 26 Sept.–3 Oct., 3–10 Oct. Ireton's letter has not survived.

¹² A remonstrance of…the General Councell of Officers held at St. Albans ([22 Nov.] 1648; Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, p. 31Google Scholar.

¹³ There is no surviving correspondence between Ireton and Cromwell for these weeks, but Mercurius pragmaticus, 3–10 Oct., suggested that both were concerned with two revolutionary ‘Petitionary Letters’ from Northern troops; see A copie of two letters…concerning the late large petition (Oct. 1648). For Cromwell's promotion of Leveller-Independent meetings see Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, p. 29Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, pp. 29–35Google Scholar, for contemporary account of the meetings.

¹⁵ A remonstrance, pp. 62, 65–7.

¹⁶ Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, pp. 31–3Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Marten left the House to raise a regiment ‘against King, Lords, and Commons’(Williams, C. M., ‘The political career of Henry Marten’ [unpublished D.Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1954]. pp. 370–8Google Scholar).

¹⁸ The other committeemen were: Colonel John White, Daniel Taylor and Richard Price (City Independents); Maximilian Petty, William Walwyn and John Wildman (Levellers); Alexander Rigby, Thomas Chaloner and Thomas Scot (Rumpers who rarely, if ever, attended); Colonels Sir William Constable (also an M.P.), Matthew Tomlinson and John Barkstead, Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Kelsey, and Captain William Packer (with Ireton, any four would make up the officers' contingent) – Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, pp. 33–4Google Scholar; CP, 11, 61.

¹⁹ Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, pp. 34–5Google Scholar.

²⁰ ‘An Agreement of the people of England & the places therewith Incorporated for a secure and present peace upon grounds of Comon right and freedom’, Clarke MSS, XVI, fos. 31–5. This MS is almost certainly in the hand of a clerk (other than William Clarke) who took notes of the Council meetings at Whitehall (ibid. fos. 29–65 V passim), which suggests that it is a copy of the committee text used by the officers. I am editing the MS for publication.

²¹ Foundations of freedom; or an agreement of the people ([15 Dec.] 1648), in which ‘three or four hundred persons’ is altered to ‘300 Persons’. Lilburne's published text also deleted the article (3) arranging for the election of biennial Representatives (‘An Agreement’, Clarke MSS, XVI, fos. 31 v–32) and altered the religious reserve (below, p. 177). In CP, II, 73, note b, Firth refers to ‘the original ‘Agreement’ laid before the Council of the Army’, but in that note and thereafter he quotes from Foundations of freedom (e.g. ibid. p. 155, note a).

There were at least three slightly variant editions of Foundations of freedom. References in this paper are to the copy belonging to Firth, which is now in the Worcester College library; this copy, without name or place of publication, has the prefatory letter dated 15 December. The copy in the Thomason tracts, British Library, is identical except for misdate of the prefatory letter, Friday, 10 December (10 December was a Sunday).

²² ‘An Agreement’, Clarke MSS, XVI, fos. 34–34 ^v.

²³ Historical collections, ed. Rushworth, John, 2nd edn, 8 vols. (London, 1721–1722), VII, 1358 (11 Dec. 1648)Google Scholar. Captain Spencer's speech of 14 December (CP, 11, 91) implies that the draft was accompanied by a statement that the officers were prepared to ‘acquiesce’ in the Agreement; Spencer continued with a comment about his inability to acquiesce if the magistrate's power over religion were not restrained.

²⁴ A petition…together with the said agreement, p. 5.

²⁵ Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, p. 35Google Scholar.

²⁶ Ibid. Colonel Harrison had transmitted Ireton's acceptance of Lilburne's proposal for a drafting committee (ibid. p. 33).

²⁷ Historical collections, ed. Rushworth, , VII, 1358Google Scholar. CP, 11, 71–132; for Lilburne, ibid. pp. 78, 84, 98. Note also the absence of any reference to Ireton's ‘promise’ in Lilburne's 28 Dec. petition protesting the conduct of the army debates (below, pp. 178–9). For Walwyn and Wildman see Clarke MSS, XVI, fo. 42.

²⁸ Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, p. 35Google Scholar.

²⁹ Army debates at Reading and Putney in 1647 had included private soldiers (CP, 1, 180–215, passim [Reading], 226, 279, 363, 413 and passim [Putney]), but many more civilians – Levellers and clergymen – participated during the meetings at Whitehall, where officers in large numbers are recorded as attending and voting.

³⁰ The figure of 160 is derived from: attendance lists in the Clarke MSS, XVI, fos. 28–9, 40, 42, 44^r-v, 62, 64; those recorded as speakers during the meetings (CP, 11, 73–183, passim.); those listed as committeemen (ibid. pp. 72, 134–5, 136, 156). It is possible that some men appointed to committees did not attend the debates, but as those named were in London it is unlikely. There is no attendance list for meetings in January, and except for the debate on 13 Jan. (ibid. pp. 175–86), the sessions after 14 Dec. are very sparsely reported. There were over 300 officers in the London area at this time (ibid. p. 65).

³¹ For the Levellers' dissatisfaction with Ireton's discourses, see Lilburne, John et al. A plea for common-right and freedom. To…General Fairfax and the Commission-Officers of the armie ([29 12 ] 1648), pp. 3, 5Google Scholar. For Cromwell, see below, p. 179.

³² CJ, VI, 122 (20 01 1648/1649)Google Scholar. Dictionary of national biography (hereafter DNB), s.v. Robert Hammond.

³³ The eight colonels are in the DNB, where Firth's biography of Hewson accepts the ‘honest shoemaker’ description. But see Hewetson, John, ‘Colonel John Hewson, the Cromwellian’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, XXXVI (1906), 429–32Google Scholar.

³⁴ Note on index of the Sanders MSS, Derbyshire Record Office, p. 8: ‘Capt. Nathaniel Barton of Caldwell, formerly chaplain to Sir Thomas Burdett of Foremark.’

³⁵ DNB, s.v.

³⁶ Hardacre, P. H., ‘William Boteler: A Cromwellian oligarch’, Huntington Library Quarterly, XI (1947–1948), 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar. John Clarke of Sir Hardress Waller's regiment was almost certainly the Captain Clarke who spoke on 14 December (CP, 11, 93–4) and was a member of the religious and subscription committees (ibid. pp. 72, 156); see Taft, , ‘Voting Lists’, p. 146 n. 53Google Scholar. For his career, see SirFirth, Charles and Davies, G., The regimental history of Cromwell's army, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1940), 11, 443, 449–50Google Scholar; Woolrych, Austin, Commonwealth to Protectorate (Oxford, 1982), pp. 181–2Google Scholar and passim; Woolrych states that Clarke may be the John Clarke admitted to Gray's Inn, 1635, son and heir of Humphrey Clarke of Edmonton, gent.

³⁷ CP, 1, 436.

³⁸ Ibid. pp. 208–9.

³⁹ Ibid. pp. 180, 187, 280, 330, 338.

⁴⁰ Majors Carter and Coleman had advanced from captains to majors; Salmon is first noted as Waller's lieutenant-colonel, suggesting promotion from a local force; the four captains – Butler, Clarke, Hodden and Spencer – all progressed in ways suggestive of enterprising men of the middle classes. Coleman, Butler and Spencer were in regiments of horse, where officers were often of some independent, if small, means. Carter, Salmon, Clarke and Hodden, however, were officers of foot. By 1648 the cavalry no longer dominated the political action of the army.

⁴¹ Except for the committee on religion (below, n. 51) and the committee named 29 Dec. to consider a form of conclusion and subscription (CP, 11, 156–7), no committee appointment has been discovered.

⁴² ‘An agreement’, Clarke MSS, XVI, fos. 31v–32. A petition…together with the said agreement, pp. 8, 16–17.

⁴³ The heads of the proposals (1 Aug. 1647), Article 1, no. 5.

⁴⁴ A petition…together with the said agreement, pp. 8–15. The remaining seats were to be allotted by future Representatives ‘as they shall see cause’ to rectify disproportion (ibid. p. 16).

⁴⁵ ‘An agreement’, Clarke MSS, XVI, fo. 33. A petition…together with the said agreement, p. 19.

⁴⁶ For the limits of this movement see below, p. 181. Lilburne reported having ‘a good sharp bout’ with Richard Price (the scrivener) over publication of Foundations of freedom (Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, p. 35)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ In addition to the three City Independents who were named commissioners in the officers' Agreement, the fourth City member of the committee of sixteen, Colonel Tichborne, was a member of the Council of Officers' committee to reconsider the religious reserve, and the meetings were held at his London house (CP, II, 72, 135). It should also be noted that two colonels who had been members of the committee of sixteen subsequently cast votes for major changes in the text: Sir William Constable supported Ireton's attempt to empower the legislature to exercise final judgement in ‘Morall’ as well as ‘civil things’ (Taft, , ‘Voting Lists’, p. 148Google Scholar); Matthew Tomlinson supported Ireton's equally unsuccessful effort to delete the sixth reserve (below, p. 178; Taft, , ‘Voting Lists’, p. 147Google Scholar).

⁴⁸ A petition…together with the said agreement, p. 6.

⁴⁹ CP, 11, 79–83, 97–8, 105, 107, 113–15, 122. See also: ‘Arguments for a Restrictive power in Magistracie’, Clarke MSS, XVI, fos. 48–48V; ‘a further Argument’, ibid. fos. 49–49V.

⁵⁰ CP, 11, 115–18 (Goodwin), 120–1, 131 (Wildman), 95 (Clarke), 173 (Boteler). See also speeches of Spencer, 14 Dec., 10 Jan. (ibid. pp. 91, 174).

⁵¹ The committee included officers, clergymen, City Independents, and, at least initially, John Wildman (ibid. pp. 72, 134–6). No account of its meetings has been discovered.

⁵² Ibid. pp. 139–40 (21 Dec.); Taft, , ‘Voting Lists’, p. 148Google Scholar.

⁵³ A petition…together with the said agreement, Articles 8 and 9.

⁵⁴ ‘An agreement’, Clarke MSS, XVI, fo. 34. Foundations of freedom, art. 7, no. 1. For Lilburne's other deletions and alterations, see above, n. 21.

⁵⁵ Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, p. 35Google Scholar. Lilburne's statement has been largely unchallenged. Woodhouse, A. S. P. (ed.), Puritanism and liberty (London, 1938), p. 362, n. 27Google Scholar, notes that the Clarke MSS includes ‘professing Christianity’ he does not comment on Lilburne's statement. Brailsford, H. N., The Levellers and the English Revolution, ed. Hill, Christopher (London, 1961), p. 382Google Scholar, accepts Lilburne's statement that only Ireton insisted on ‘professing Christianity’.

⁵⁶ No Papist nor Presbyterian ([21 Dec.] 1648), asked particularly for toleration for Roman Catholics. No public plea appears to have been made for anglicans. For consideration of extending toleration see CP, II, 172, note a; The Moderate, no. 24 (19–26 Dec. 1648), entry tor 25 Dec.

⁵⁷ Above, n. 50.

⁵⁸ For example, see the contrast between Boteler's defence of toleration and opposition to a state church in 1648/9 and 1652 and his harsh treatment of Roman Catholics and Quakers (Hardacre, , ‘William Boteler’, pp. 2–3, 7–8)Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Article 9 was concluded in January; reports of the proceedings are fragmentary (CP, 11, 171–4), and if, as seems probable, further divisions took place, the records have not been discovered.

⁶⁰ The printed version of the surviving debates includes over 60 pages concerning religion and some 20 pages on other questions (CP, 11, 71–186, passim).

⁶¹ Ibid. pp. 133–4; Taft, , ‘Voting Lists’, pp. 146–7Google Scholar.

⁶² Only Col. Hewson and Scoutmaster Rowe are noted as opponents (CP, 11, 134).

⁶³ Ibid.; A petition…together with the said agreement, Art. 8, 1st reserve.

⁶⁴ CP, 11, 135; A petition…together with the said agreement, Art. 8, 2nd reserve.

⁶⁵ CP, 11, 135; A petition…together with the said agreement, Art. 8, 4th reserve. There is no record of debate or action on the reserve.

⁶⁶ CP, 11, 135, 156.

⁶⁷ A perfect diumall, 18–25 Dec. Evelyn, to SirBrowne, Richard, 18 Dec. 1658, Diary and correspondence of John Evelyn, F.R.S., ed. Bray, W., 4 vols. (London, 1859), 111, 34–5Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Above, p. 172. See Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, p. 31Google Scholar, for earlier dispute at Windsor.

⁶⁹ CP, 11, 136; Taft, , ‘Voting Lists’, p. 147Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ CP, 11, 147–9; Clarke MSS, CXIV, fos. 156V–157; Taft, , ‘Voting Lists’, pp. 144–5, 149Google Scholar. A petition…together with the said agreement, Art. 8, 5th reserve.

⁷¹ Clarke MSS, XVI, fo. 64 V. Lilburne et al., A plea for common-right and freedom, especially pp. 3–6. The petition had been presented by Lilburne and the other signatories ‘to the Generals own hands at the Mews, the 28 of December’ (Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, pp. 35–6Google Scholar).

⁷² CP, 11, 155–7. The committee's 7th reserve became art. 7 in the officers' text. The 8th reserve became the 6th reserve and the officers added a proviso that in matters of ‘such fundamentall concernment’ members might enter their dissents from the majority. Art 8 became Art 6. Art. 9 became the 3rd reserve. Art. 10 remained Art. 10. ‘An Agreement’, Clarke MSS, XVI, fos. 34^v–35. A petition…together with the said agreement.

⁷³ CP, II, 170–1. For Cromwell's attendance, see Clarke MSS, XVI, fo. 64 (attendance list, 29 Dec). Cromwell also attended 15 December (ibid. fo. 38) and may have been present 23 December (no list), but the Agreement was not discussed either day. There is no attendance list for January.

⁷⁴ Ashhurst, William, Reasons against agreement with a late printed paper, intituled, foundations of freedom, or, the agreement of the people ([26 12] 1648)Google Scholar. Cf. An appendix to the agreement for the people. By , A. P. [a royalist?], (24 01 1648/1649)Google Scholar; Behold, here is a word, or an answer to the late remonstrance of the army, and to…the foundation of the peoples freedomes ([24 Jan.] 1648/9). For rejoinders to Ashhurst see: The state of the kingdome represented to the people… (23 Jan. 1648/9); Cokayne, William, The foundations of freedome, vindicated ([7 02.] 1648/9)Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ A plea for common-right and freedom (above, pp. 178–9).

⁷⁶ The humble petition of firm and constant friends to the parliament and Common-wealth, presenters and promoters of the late large petition of September 11, MDCXLVIII ([19 Jan.] 1648/9), reprinted, Leveller manifestoes, ed. Wolfe, no. 15.

⁷⁷ Below, pp. 182–3.

⁷⁸ See esp. the petitions of [18] Jan. 1647/8 and 11 Sept. 1648 – reprinted, Leveller manifestoes, ed. Wolfe, nos. 9, 11.

⁷⁹ An agreement of the free people of England, tendered as a peace-offering to this distressed nation (1 May 1649), reprinted, Leveller manifestoes, ed. Wolfe, no. 19, see esp. p. 401.

⁸⁰ Davis, J. C., ‘The Levellers and Christianity’, in Politics, religion and the English Civil War, ed. Manning, Brian (London, 1973), pp. 239–41Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Lilburne, John, Englands new chains discovered ([26 02] 1648/1649)Google Scholar. Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, pp. 35–9Google Scholar.

⁸² Lilburne, John, Prince, Thomas, Overton, Richard, The picture of the councel of state ([11 04] 1649), p. 37Google Scholar. Ibid. p. 22, for Lilburne's view at this point.

⁸³ Lilburne, John, Walwyn, William, Prince, Thomas, Overton, Richard, A manifestation ([14 04] 1649), p. 7Google Scholar. Davis, , ‘Levellers and Christianity’, p. 241Google Scholar, notes that in May 1652 Lilburne urged the officers to revive their Agreement. For praiseful recollections of the officers' proposal see: The humble petition of several colonels of the army ([18 10] 1654), drafted by Wildman, JohnGoogle Scholar; The humble petition of diverse citizens and inhabitants…of London ([25 01] 1657/1648)Google Scholar; The humble petition of many thousand citizens…of London (17 02 1658/1649), p. 4Google Scholar; Panarmonia [transl.]. Or, the agreement of the people, revived, and recommended (22 Sept. 1659), p. 4.

⁸⁴ One pamphlet gave unqualified support to the principles ‘to be further established’ by the Agreement: A new-years Gift: presented by … the General-councel of officers ([1 Jan.] 1648/9). Other tracts published between mid-January and mid-March expressed varying degrees of disapproval of the officers' proposal; signed by ministers and/or ‘well-affected’ persons, the pamphlets came from London, Essex, Leicester and more distant counties. For examples see Thomason Tracts, British Library, E. 538 (25); E. 541 (16); E. 545 (22); E. 546 (11); E. 546 (27).

⁸⁵ The humble petition and representation of several Churches of God in London, commonly (though falsly) called Anabaptists (2 April 1649).

⁸⁶ Above, p. 176.

⁸⁷ Sedgwick, William, Justice upon the armie remonstrance. Or a rebuke of that evill spirit that leads them in their counsels and actions ([11 12] 1648), p. 23Google Scholar and passim; cf. Sedgwick, William, A second view of the army remonstrance, or justice done to the armie ([23 12] 1648)Google Scholar. For a response to Sedgwick and a defence of the army as God's instrument see Collier, Thomas, A Vindication of the army-remonstrance ([20 12] 1648)Google Scholar; Collier was a Particular Baptist and participant at the Whitehall debates (CP, II, 125).

⁸⁸ Williams, , ‘Marten’ pp. 378–80Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ CJ, vi, 141 (14 Feb.).

⁹⁰ CP, II, 163–70. On 29 December Mrs Poole had reported a vision which revealed ‘the presence of God with the Army’ (ibid. pp. 150–4).

⁹¹ Ibid. pp. 175–86.

⁹² A petition… together with the said agreement, pp. 3–6. Lieutenant-General Thomas Hammond led the delegation of 17 officers who went to St Stephens; Colonels John Okey and Sir Hardress Waller were in the delegation; no others have been identified. A perfect diumall, 15 22 January; CJ, vi, 122; Historical collections, ed. Rushworth, , vn, 1395, 1398Google Scholar; The parliamentary or constitutional history of England from the earliest times to the Restoration of Charles II 24 vols. (London, 1751–1762), XVIII 516Google Scholar.

⁹³ CP, 1, 176–214, esp. p. 197 (Ireton); more than 100 officers and agitators were present (ibid. p. 214). A draft of The heads of the proposals (above, nn. 7, 43) was submitted to the Council of the Army on 17 July (CP, 1, 211). For Ireton and Lambert see ibid. p. 197, note a.

⁹⁴ The Agreement had been presented for debate at the army meetings at Putney, 28–29 Oct. (CP, 1, 226–363); for published text see An agreement of the people ([3 Nov.] 1647). A declaration of the engagements… of the army (published by Simmons, Matthew, 27 09 1647)Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ For the 1647 compromise see CP, I, 363–7, 407–11, 440–2; cf.Historical collections, ed. Rushworth, , vII, 861–4Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ In 1647 the committee proposed that the franchise be extended to all freemen who had served or assisted parliament in the war (CP, 1, 366), and one report states that on 4 Nov. the General Council voted for manhood suffrage (A Letter sent from several agitators to their respective regiments… with a true account of the proceedings of the General Councel, signed by Sexby, Edward and 14 others [11 11 1647], p. 4)Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ In 1647 it was agreed in committee, nemine contradicente, that ‘Matters of Religion and the wayes of God'worshippe, as to any positive compulsion there, are nott intrusted to any humane power’ (CP, 1, 409).

⁹⁸ A declaration: or, representation from.… the army (14 Jun e 1647); An humble remonstrance from… the army (23 June 1647); both drafted by Ireton. CP, I, 170–217 (Reading, July 1647). Ibid. pp. 226–410; above, pp. 182–3 an d nn. 95–7 (Putney, Oct.-Nov. 1647).

⁹⁹ Above, p. 179; cf. CP, 1, 369 (1647).

¹⁰⁰ Above, n. 47.

¹⁰¹ Morrill, J. S., ‘The army revolt of 1647’, Britain and the Netherlands, VI: Papers delivered to the sixth Anglo-Dutch Historical Conference, ed. Duke, A. C. and Tamse, C. A. (The Hague, 1977), pp. 54–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Kishlansky, Mark A., ‘The Army and the Levellers: the roads to Putney’, Historical Journal, XXII (1979), 795–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Manning, , The English people and the English Revolution, pp. 324–9)Google Scholar, convincingly argues that the weak executive, restricted legislature and decentralized government desired by the Levellers postulated a polity hostile to any standing army and incapable of responding to the needs and grievances of the existing army.

¹⁰² Above, pp. 177–8; Taft, , ‘Voting lists’, pp. 145–6Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Lilburne, , Legall fundamentall liberties, pp. 29–32Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ The death warrant was signed by 59 men: 7 of the 43 Rumpers were senior officers – Constable, Miles Corbet, Cromwell, Harrison, Ireton, John Jones and Valentine Walton; of the 16 signers who were not Rumpers, 13 were officers.

¹⁰⁵ Taft, , ‘Voting lists’, esp. pp. 141–6Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Writings and speeches of Cromwell, ed. Abbott, , II, 5Google Scholar.