¹ Westminster P[ublic] L[ibrary], MS F4 (St Martin's Church wardens' accounts for 1647), pp. 2–11. In St Martin's Westminster the plague epidemic of 1647 reached its peak on 26 and 27 July, as indicated by the parish burial register. Mortality from plague in Westminster was in 1647 ten times higher than the rate for the summer of 1648. See also the church warden's entry for 28 May: ‘Paid Clarke for carrying a man that died in dunghill ally of the plague and lay dead unknown two daies, six shillings and six pence’ (MS F4, p. 24).

² A Perfect Summary of Chiefe Passages in Parliament, no. 2 (26 July–2 08 1647), pp. 9–12Google Scholar (B[ritish] L[ibrary], E 518/13). Dr Williams's Lib., MS 24.50 (Thomas Juxon's diary), fo. 113.

³ The petition and solemne engagement of the citizens of London ([31 July], 1647), B.L., E 518/11. Bodl[eian] Lib[rary], MS Tanner 58, fo. 415.

⁴ Kishlansky, M. A., The rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 266–8Google Scholar.

⁵ This account of the riots is drawn from the depositions of eye-witnesses taken before the Committee investigating the violence, among the House of Lords Main Papers: H[ouse] [of] L[ords] R[ecord] O[ffice], M[ain] P[apers] 25/9/47, fo. 23V (examination of Benjamin Spier, confirmed by Thomas Tassel's deposition, ibid. fo. 24r–v).

⁶ H.L.R.O., MP 25/9/47, fo. 23V (examination of Spier). (The Main Papers are filed chrono-logically, and references to them are by date and folio number: hence, 25/9/47 is 25 September 1647.)

⁷ H.L.R.O., MP 25/9/47, fo. 21 (Anthony Henley's deposition).

⁸ H.L.R.O., MP 25/9/47, fo. 21r–v (deposition of William Hulles, servant to the Serjeant-at-Arms).

⁹ Beinecke Lib., Yale University, Osborn MS Fb 155 (John Browne's Commonplace Bk, fo. 239: SirMaynard, John to ‘one about the King’ [Berkeley?]. The letter is undated, but on internal evidence was written between 29–3107 1647Google Scholar. (A xerox copy of this Commonplace Book is held in the H.L.R.O.) The original letter was intercepted and later used as evidence of Maynard's complicity in the management of the July disorders. By this means it came into the parliamentary archive, and was copied by Browne (then Clerk of the Parliaments) into his commonplace book, probably well after the events described, as Browne's guess at a date – August 1648 – is obviously incorrect. This letter is almost certainly the document referred to by William Purefoy as the ‘lett[er] wch was all his owne [Maynard's] hand writinge’, which formed the basis of the charge of treason against Maynard: Purefoy to SirWentworth, Peter, 9 09 1647Google Scholar. Hampshire R.O., Jervoise MS, 44 M 69/E 77. It is also mentioned in John Boys's diary for 7 Sept., printed in Underdown, D. E., ‘The parliamentary diary of John Boys, 1647–8’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xxxix (1966), 147Google Scholar.

¹⁰ For the City's involvement in these events, see Pearl, Valerie, ‘London's counter-revolution’, in The interregnum: the quest for settlement, ed. Aylmer, G. E. (1972), pp. 50–53Google Scholar. Kishlansky, , New Model, p. 267Google Scholar.

¹¹ L[ords] J[oumal], ix, 362–4. C[ommons] J[ournal], v, 259–61.

¹² Sir Edward Forde to [Lord Hopton?], 9 Aug. 1647: Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 32

¹³ For the dominance of this group within the Committee of Revenue, see CJ, IV, 491; LJ, VIII, 195, 241. P.R.O., SP 28/269/1, fos. 1, 17, 19, 2i, 23, 39, 57; E 407/8/167–8 (accounts of the Receiver-Gen, of the Rev.); SP 28/350/10 (Cttee of Rev. ace, stray from the E 407 series). B.L., Add. MS 15750 (Misc. letters and warr.), fo. 23. The group's control of the Exchequer is discussed in Adamson, J. S. A., ‘The peerage in politics, 1645–9’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1986), pp. 33–58Google Scholar. For contemporary criticism of their influence over the parliamentary finances: An eye-salve for the armie (1647), sig. A2 [2]v (B.L., E 407/16).

¹⁴ Archives du Ministére des Relations Exterieures, Paris, Correspondence politique, Angle-terre, t. 52, fo. 734.

¹⁵ Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 168 (Nalson papers), fo. 35. Wharton does not appear as a signatory of the peer's Declaration of 4 Aug. against the attempt to coerce parliament during the July riots; this was because he was already at army headquarters when the riots took place and therefore could not strictly state that he had been ‘forced’ to leave the capital.

¹⁶ Merc[urius] Morbicus ([20 Sept.] 1647), p. 5. A Perfect Diurnall, no. 205 (5–12 July 1647), pp. 1641–3 (B.L., E 518/3).

¹⁷ For Fairfax's attempts to allay these fears see, Fairfax to Manchester, 8 July 1647: LJ, DC, 323–4. Cf. Perfect Occurrences, no. 27 (2–9 July 1647), pp. I74–[6] (B.L., E 518/2).

¹⁸ Bedfordshire R.O., MS AD/3342; printed as ‘The Tower of London letter-book of Sir Lewis Dyve’, ed. Tibbutt, H. G., Publ. Beds. Hist. Rec. Soc., XXXVIII (1958)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Dyve to the king, 19 July 1647: Dyve, , ‘Letter-Book’ ed. Tibbutt, H. G., p. 68Google Scholar.

²⁰ Ibid. p. 68.

²¹ After his departure on the 9th, Saye did not attend the Lords again until the army restored the Speakers to both Houses on 6 August: LJ, IX, 321, 374. Beinecke Lib., Yale, MS Osborn Fb 155 (Browne's Commonplace Book), fo. 239V. Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 24.

²² Pierrepont was named as one of the managers of the projected settlement in Sir John Maynard≈s letter to an attendant of the king, [29–31 July 1647]: Beinecke Lib., MS Osborn Fb 155 fo. 239V.

²³ MP June-July 1645, fos. 190–263, esp. fo. 221.

²⁴ For the background to these scandals and for the Savile affair see Crawford, P., Denzil Holies, 1598–1680: a study of his political career (London, 1979), pp. 114–20Google Scholar; Pearl, V., ‘London puritans and Scotch fifth-columnists: a mid-17th century phenomenon’, in Studies in London history presented to Philip Jones, ed. Hollaender, A. E. J. and Kellaway, W. (1969), pp. 318Google Scholar ff.

²⁵ Dyve, , ‘Letter-Book’, ed. Tibbutt, H. G., p. 68Google Scholar.

²⁶ Discussed in detail below pp. 572–5.

²⁷ Selections from the papers of William Clarke, ed. Firth, C. H., 4 vols. (Camden Soc., 1891–1901), I, 211, 216Google Scholar.

²⁸ Worcester College, Oxford, Clarke MS LXV (General Council of the Army, Minutes), fo. 106r (17 July 1647).

²⁹ Worcester College, Clarke MS LXV (Army Council, Min.), fo. 106v. Part of the debate in the Council of War this day is printed in Woodhouse, A. S. P., Puritanism and liberty (London, 1938), p. 421Google Scholar, where the MS is incorrectly cited as being Clarke MS LXVII.)

³⁰ Underdown, David, ‘Party management in the recruiter elections, 1645–48’, English Historical Review, LXXXIII (1968), 243Google Scholar.

³¹ [Musgrave, John], A fourth word to the wise ([8 06] 1647), p. 2Google Scholar(B.L., E 391/9).

³² The proposals delivered by Ireton were referred to a sub-committee of twelve officers and twelve Agitators o n the 18th, with leave for Cromwell to be present when he was able. Clarke papers, ed. Firth, 1, 211, 216.

³³ B.L., Add. MS 34253 (Parliamentary commrs' letters to Manchester, June–July 1647), fos. 49, 51, 54, 57–65 71–75. Although the earl of Nottingham was technically senior in rank, Wharton was clearly the chief parliamentary negotiator.

³⁴ Sir Thomas Fairfax to Lord Fairfax, 18 July 1647; B.L., Add. MS 18979 (Fairfax corr.), fo. 247.

³⁵ It seems likely that the first meetings of this body took place on 16 and 17 July; I am grateful to Professor Austin Woolrych for allowing me to read part of his study of the General Council (Soldiers and statesmen, Oxford, forthcoming), prior to publication.

³⁶ Earl of Nottingham to Manchester, 19 July 1647; The proposals delivered to the earl of Nottingham ([21 July] 1647), p. 8 (B.L., E 399/10).

³⁷ Dyve to the king, 19 July 1647: Dyve, , ‘Letter-Book’ ed. Tibbutt, H. G., p. 68Google Scholar.

³⁸ Lilburne, to Cromwell, , 22 June 1647: printed in Ionahs cry out of the whales belly (1647), p. 8Google Scholar(B.L., E 400/5). See also the MS note in the B.L. MS of Sir John Berkeley's memoirs, identifying the officers with whom Berkeley had ‘often and free Communication’ as ‘Stanes, Watson or Rich’: B.L., Add. MS 29869, fo. 5. Lilburne also warned Cromwell against ‘those two covetous earth-wormes, Vaine and St John’; ibid. p. 3. St John was reported to have written to Cromwell, warning him against proceeding too quickly with the negotiations with the king, lest they arouse even greater suspicion. Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 29, fo. 263.

³⁹ A narrative by John Ashburnham of his attendance on King Charles the first, 2 vols. (1830), II, 91Google Scholar. The authenticity of these memoirs is established by the existence of at least two contemporary MS copies, intended for private circulation, corrected and annotated in Ashbournham's hand. They were written after 1658 (since Sir John Berkeley is referred to as Lord Berkeley at the time of composition), although Ashbournham claimed to have taken down notes ‘whilst things were fresh in my memorie’: Ashbournham, , Narrative, II, 58Google Scholar. Their utility as a factual account is greatly diminished by their overtly polemical intent – defending Ashbournham's conduct and denigrating Berkeley's. For the MS copies, see P.R.O., PRO 30/34/16 (Popham papers); East Sussex R.O., Ashbumham MS 3977. For a sample of Ashbournham's hand, B.L. Add. MS 15857 (Orig. lett.), fo. 14.

⁴⁰ A Perfect Diurnall (5–12 July 1647), p. 1638 (B.L., E 518/3).

⁴¹ Dyve to the king, 6 July 1647; Dyve, , ‘Letter-Book’, ed. Tibbutt, H. G., pp. 65–6Google Scholar.

⁴² H.L.R.O., MP 21/6/47, fo. 76.

⁴³ P.R.O., SP 28/27/2 (Army pay warr., Eastern Assoc.), fos. 193, 247, 252, 269. See also the short biography of Stane in Holmes, C., The Eastern Association (Cambridge, 1974), p. 128Google Scholar. Stane's father held lands in Warwick Lane, London, and Hornchurch, Essex, which his son inherited in 1646; Essex R.O., D/DCq/E1 (will of William Stane, sr.).

⁴⁴ Stane to Mandeville, 30 Aug. 1642: H.L.R.O., Willcocks MS, 2/1 (HMC, Manchester MSS, no. 505). Stane used to lodge with Lord Brooke's former tailor and client, John Dillingham – an address also used by Stane's friend, Cromwell. John Weaver to Stane, 20. Aug. 1644; P.R.O., SP 16/539/221. Cotton, A. N. B., ‘John Dillingham journalist of the middle group’, English Historical Review, XCIII (1978), 820CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 832.

⁴⁵ P.R.O., WARDS 9/556 (Decree Bks), p. 622 (7 May 1644), pp. 693, 776.

⁴⁶ P.R.O., WARDS 9/556, pp. 622, 693, 877.

⁴⁷ Saye to Lenthall, 10 Feb. 1644: Bodl. Lib., MS Tanner 62, fo. 555; P.R.O., SP 28/265/1 (Cttee Ptns papers).

⁴⁸ LJ, VII, 498–9.

⁴⁹ H.L.R.O., MP June–July 1645, fo. 232 (St John's deposition concerning the ‘Savile affair’), corroborated by Savile's deposition, fo. 223v; and John Crewe's deposition, fo. 242v.

⁵⁰ H.L.R.O., MP June–July 1645, fos. 232, 242v.

⁵¹ By May 1648, Stane and Watson had become notorious as the henchmen of Saye's political group. When the younger Vane broke with the army and followed Saye and Northumberland in supporting the revocation of the Vote of No Addresses, it was put down to the fact that ‘Do[cto]r Stane and Scoutm[aste]r Generall Watson had bin too conversant with him’. Letter of intelligence to Fairfax, 24 May 1648; Worcester College, Oxford, Clarke MS CXIV, fo. 21.

⁵² Dyve, , ‘Letter-Book’, ed. Tibbutt, , p. 68Google Scholar.

⁵³ Nottingham, to Manchester, , 19 July 1647: The proposals delivered to the earl of Nottingham ([21 07] 1647), p. 8 (E 399/10)Google Scholar. Lenthall was so sure that Wharton was to have returned by this day that he wrote anxiously to John Rushworth, inquiring what had become of him, when he failed to appear by the early evening. B.L., Sloane MS 1519 (misc. letters), fo. 104.

⁵⁴ The time of Wharton's arrival was noted by Lenthall in his letter to Rushworth; B.L., Sloane MS 1519 (misc. lett.), fo. 104v.

⁵⁵ Widdrington also served as a useful ally for Northumberland in the house of commons. Northumberland to Potter, 27 Jan. 1646; Alnwick Castle, Northumberland MS O.I.2 (f). Widdrington was also associated with Wharton's local factional interests in Westmorland and Cumberland: [Musgrave, ], A fourth word to the wise (1647), pp. 2–5, 15Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Lenthall had sponsored Wharton's admission to Lincoln's Inn in 1638 and had close links with the members of the Saye–Northumberland group in the Lords. The records of the honourable society of Lincoln's Inn: admissions 1420–1893, 2 vols. (1896), 1, 234Google Scholar. Lenthall was Northumberland's counsel in the Exchequer during the 1630s; P.R.O., E 125/25 (Exch. of Pleas, Decree Bks), fos. 331–2V.

⁵⁷ B.L., Sloane MS 1519 (misc. lett.), fo. 104r–V. Dyve, , ‘Letter-Book’, ed. Tibbutt, , p. 68Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ A Perfect Diurnall, no. 206 (19–26 July 1647), pp. 1668–9 (B.L., E 518/8).

⁵⁹ A Perfect Summary, [no. 1], (19–26 July 1647), p. 5 (B.L., E 518/9).

⁶⁰ CJ, V, 252; the two papers referred to are entered in LJ, IX, 340–1.

⁶¹ Harrvney, Luke [Henry Walker, anag.], Perfect Occurrences, no. 29 (16–23 07 1647), p. 201 (B.L., E 518/7)Google Scholar.

⁶² Bodl. Lib., MS Tanner 58, fo. 415 (depositions of William Rawson and Peregrine Pritty, taken that day). For the text of the Engagement see The petition and solemne engagement (1647), B.L., E 518/11.

⁶³ Lawmind, John [Wildman], Putney proiects. Or the old serpent (1647), p. 14, (B.L., E 421/19)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ The riots appear to have been directed by a small group of M.P.s, including SirWaller, William, SirClotworthy, John and SirMaynard, John, operating from the Bell Tavern in King Street, Westminster. Pearl, ‘London's Counter-Revolution’, p. 52Google Scholar. Professor Kishlansky has questioned the degree to which the disorders of 26 July were the result of planning, suggesting rather that the riots were the consequence of the pent-up grievances of reformadoes, apprentices and other groups, which had been building up throughout the summer. The evidence of the depositions taken from witnesses of the riots (surviving among the Lords' Main Papers) provides clear evidence that the riots were carefully organized and directed by disaffected M.P.s. ‘What they [the rioters] did’, declared Brace (one of the ringleaders of the mob), ‘they were advised by a Member of the house of Comons.’ See House of Lords depositions, H.L.R.O., MP 25/9/47, fos. 21–24. Thus, while the grievances of reformadoes and apprentices provided the tinder, the decision to apply the spark was made by the group of M.P.s who had been impeached by the army; and the timing of this decision was a direct result of the news that Saye and his allies were close to reaching a settlement with the king (a point which is corroborated by Sir John Maynard's letter, cited in the next note). See Kishlansky, , The rise of the New Model Army, pp. 266–7Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Maynard, to ‘one about the King’, [29–31 07 1647]Google Scholar: Beinecke Lib., MS Osborn Fb 155, fo. 239r–V.

⁶⁶ Pearl, , ‘London's Counter-Revolution’, p. 52Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ LJ, IX, 367.

⁶⁸ Deposition of Michael Baker, messenger of the house of lords, made 2 Aug. 1647; summarized in A Perfect Summary, no. 3 (2–9 08 1647), pp. 17–18Google Scholar, (B.L., E 518/15).

⁶⁹ For Baker see LJ, VIII, 203; Joseph Hunscott to Baker, H.L.R.O., MP 8/7/45, fo. 50. He also served as Messenger attending the Commissioners of the Great Seal: P.R.O. (Kew), AO 1/1374/123 (Audit Office, Hanaper decl. acc., 1643–4).

⁷⁰ Michael Baker's deposition, pp. 20–1. SirWaller, William, Vindication of the character and conduct of Sir William Waller (1793), p. 191Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 24 (letter of intell., 2 Aug. 1647). The king was at Latimers for around a week, from Monday 26 July; LJ, IX, 346, 370.

⁷² A Perfect Summary, no. 3 (2–9 08 1647), pp. 20–1Google Scholar. Hanworth Court was owned by the royalist Lord Cottington, but had been granted to Saye's use; Victoria county history: Middlesex, II, 393, 395. Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 170 (Nalson papers), fo. 204. The house was also used by Fiennes, Nathaniel: [Prynne, William], A checke to Brittanicus (1644)Google Scholar, sig. A2.

⁷³ Ashbournham, , Narrative (1830), II, 92Google Scholar. The memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, ed. Firth, C. H., 2 vols.. (Oxford, 1894), 1, 162Google Scholar. Ludlowe's evidence is confirmed by Salisbury's accounts at Hatfield: Hatfield, A., Box L/I. On the composition and editing of Ludlowe's Memoirs, Dr Worden's introduction to Ludlowe's, A voyce from the watchtower (Cam. Soc., 4th series, vol. 21, 1978)Google Scholar is indispensable. Worden casts considerable doubt on the authenticity of Ludlowe's account, pointing out (as Firth had also done in his edition), that Ludlowe had drawn heavily on the account of the 1647 negotiations by Sir John Berkeley. The text of the Memoirs contains the admission that the author had derived information from an account ‘I have seen in a manuscript written by Sir John Berkeley himself, and left in the hands of a merchant of Geneva’ (Memoirs, ed. Firth, p. 153 and n.; Worden, pp. 57–8). Darby printed Berkeley's memoirs in 1699, the same year in which Toland brought out Ludlowe's Memoirs – a coincidence that led Dr Worden to construct an elaborate and entirely plausible hypothesis that Toland faked most of the section dealing with 1647, drawing on Berkeley's (authentic) memoirs for his information, and inventing the story that Ludlowe had seen Berkeley's manuscript in Geneva to allay suspicions about the obvious parallels between the two accounts (Worden, p. 58 and n.). However, the discovery of an early MS recension of Berkeley's memoirs, enables this hypothesis to be assessed in the light of new evidence; (for this MS, dated 1662/3, see Dr Williams's Lib., Roger Morrice MS D, pp. 9–52). This MS copy of Berkeley's memoirs contains a MS note dated ‘5 March 1662[/3?]’ by its unidentified owner, that he had been given this book in Geneva by a man who did not understand English (Dr Williams's Lib., Morrice MS D, p. 8). This establishes that Berkeley's memoirs were circulating in MS at Geneva at the time Ludlowe was there in 1662. So there is no prima facie reason to suppose Ludlowe's claim, that he had seen a copy ‘left in the hands of a merchant of Geneva’ was one of Toland's fictitious interpolations. While one must still use Ludlowe's Memoirs with caution, it is likely that the extent of Toland's bowdlerisation of the parts of the text dealing with 1647 is not as great as Dr Worden first supposed. Another MS fair copy is B.L., Add. MS 29869.

⁷⁴ Salisbury's attendance is confirmed by an entry on 13 Aug. 1647 in the Hatfield accounts for the fortnightly reimbursal of sums expended by one of his gentlemen of the chamber; £9 12s. was paid to ‘ Mr Thornhill for my Lords Expences att Syon and elsewhere, when he went to the Army’. Hatfield, A., Box L/I.

⁷⁵ Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 168 (Nalson papers), fo. 35V (peers' decl. of 4 Aug. 1647). Ludlowe, who was among those who fled to the army, and was present at the Syon House meeting, summarized their brief in similar terms: ‘to consult what was most advisable to do in that juncture’. The parliamentary or constitutional history of England, 24 vols. (1751–1762), XVI, 244Google Scholar. Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, ed. Firth, , I, 162Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ The Heads of the Proposals were later issued in a revised form with ‘explanations’ by the army of what it considered was the meaning of certain passages in the original proposals. It is in this form that they were printed by Rushworth in his Historical Collections, and later reprinted in S. R. Gardiner's The constitutional documents of the puritan revolution, 1628–1660 (Oxford, 1906), pp. 316–26. The best text for the Proposals is H.L.R.O., MP 21/9/47, fos 40–43 (signed by Rushworth). This recension includes only the first sixteen ‘heads’ (printed in Gardiner, pp. 316–23); the additional heads (Gardiner, text, pp. 323–6, commencing at the paragraph ‘And whereas there have been of late…’Google Scholar) were a rag-bag of grievances and miscellaneous provisions which, although included in the August printings of the Proposals (Thomason's copy dated 5 Aug., B.L., E 401/4, for example), were never regarded as part of the Heads proper. Cf. Bodl. Lib., MS Tanner 58, fos. 513 ff.

⁷⁷ A Perfect Diurnall, no. 210 (2–9 08 1647), p. 1688Google Scholar(B.L., E 518/16). For Stanwell, see Victoria county history: Middlesex, III, 43Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 168 (Nalson papers), fo. 35r–v. Old Parl. Hist., XVI, 244.

⁷⁹ Westminster P.L., MS F4 (Church wdns' acc., St Martin's), p. 39; 5s. to ‘The Ringers when Sr Thomas Fairfax came to London with the Lords and Mr Speaker’.

⁸⁰ Perfect occurrences of every date iournall, no. 52 (6–13 08 1647), pp. 210–11Google Scholar (B.L., E 518/17). See also the description of the procession in Forde to [Hopton?], 9 Aug. 1647; Bodl., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 32.

⁸¹ Gardiner, S. R., History of the great civil war 1642–1649, 4 vols. (1893), III, 329–30Google Scholar.

⁸² Lawmind [Wildman], John, Putney protects. Or the old serpent (1647), p. 15Google Scholar (B.L., E 421/19).

⁸³ Ibid. sig. F3. Beinecke Lib., MS Osborn Fb 155, fo. 239V.

⁸⁴ [Wildman], Putney protects, sig. F2[v]. For Wandesford see Clay, J. W., ‘The gentry of Yorks. at the time of the civil war’, Yorks. Archaeol. Journal, XXIII (1915), 349–94Google Scholar. Wandesford had also been Northumberland's nominee as a Commissioner of the Great Seal in Dec. 1646. H.L.R.O., MP 24/12/46, fo. 78 (draft in Northumberland's hand); LJ, IX, 626.

⁸⁵ Declaration of the peers (signed by Manchester, Northumberland, Kent, Salisbury, Denbigh, Mulgrave, Saye, Grey of Warke and Howard); original text: Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 168, fo. 35r–v; printed in Old Parl. Hist, XVI, 241–4.

⁸⁶ LJ, IX, 374–5; CJ, V, 268–9.

⁸⁷ LJ, IX, 375; CJ, V, 269.

⁸⁸ LJ, IX, 374, 379; CJ, V, 269.

⁸⁹ LJ, IX, 375. The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, no. 222 (10–17 08 1647), p. 634Google Scholar[recte 635] (B.L., E 402/13).

⁹⁰ See also the ‘Declaration of the Army’ sent from the Lords to the house of commons on 10 Aug.: Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 168 (Nalson papers), fos. 115, 116–123V.

⁹¹ CJ, V, 269–70; LJ, IX, 380.

⁹² CJ, V, 269.

⁹³ LJ, IX, 375; CJ, v, 269.

⁹⁴ LJ, IX, 374, 383; CJ, v, 268, 270.

⁹⁵ The Moderne Intelligencer, no. 3 (26 08–I 09 1647)Google Scholar, sig. C (B.L., E 405/15). See also the Lords' message to the Commons of 13 Aug., that the City Militia officers continued to act ‘under pretence’ of the order passed on the day of the riots, ‘to the disturbance of the peace of the p[ar]l[iament] and Citty’. Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 168 (Nalson papers), fos. 45, 46V.

⁹⁶ Kingdoms Weekly Intelligencer, no. 222 (10–17 08 1647), p. 634Google Scholar[recte 635] (B.L., E 402/13).

⁹⁷ Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 168 (Nalson papers), fos. 35, 43; LJ, IX, 384.

⁹⁸ The diary of John Harington, M.P. 1646–1653, ed. Stieg, M. F. (Somerset Rec. Soc., vol. 74, 1977), pp. 56–7Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ CJ, v, 275. Reasons delivered by…the earle of Manchester: for nulling the forc'd votes ([20 Aug./ 1647), pp. 2–3 (B.L., E 403/2).

¹⁰⁰ A continuation of certain speciall and remarkable passages (14–21 Aug. 1647), sig. H (B.L., E 404/5).The Perfect Weekly Account, no. 34 (18–24 08 1647)Google Scholar, sig. Kk2 [1] (B.L., E 404/12).

¹⁰¹ CJ, V, 273.

¹⁰² H.L.R.O., M P 18/8/47, fos. 54–70v (original text); printed in Two letters from his excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax (20 Aug. 1647), B.L., E 402/28; and A remonstrance from his excellency ([20 Aug.] 1647), B.L., E 402/30. Old Parl. Hist., xvi, 251–73. See also, letter of intelligence to Lord [Hopton?], 12 Aug. 1647: Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 36.

¹⁰³ Fairfax, to Manchester, , 19 08 1647, printed in Two letters from his excellency ([20 Aug.] 1647), p. 2 (B.L., E 402/28)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ A declaration of the last demands propounded by his excellency ([20 Aug.] 1647), p. 3 (B.L., E 404 /3).

¹⁰⁵ CJ, v 279.

¹⁰⁶ Discussed below, p. 593.

¹⁰⁷ Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, ed. Firth, , I, 163Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ LJ, IX, 408.

¹⁰⁹ H.L.R.O., MP 7/9/47, fos. 147–161V. There are a number of minor variants between this text, as presented to the king in Sept. 1647, and the text of the Newcastle Propositions that Gardiner printed (deriving his text from Rushworth). LJ, IX, 417, 422, 425, 428.

¹¹⁰ LJ, IX, 413 (1 Sept.).

¹¹¹ So much so that in the text presented to the king, the peers did not even trouble to remove the names of Holles, Stapleton, Glynne or Hunsdon (all impeached members) from the list of Conservators of the Peace: H.L.R.O., MP 7/9/47, fo. 152V. Rushworth's text comes up with a number of absurdities, such as a ‘Sir [sic] Denzil Holles’, which have found their way uncritically into Gardiner's, S. R.The constitutional documents of the Puritan revolution, 1628–1660 (Oxford, 1906), p. 298Google Scholar.

¹¹² LJ, IX, 435. Rushworth, , Historical collections, 8 vols. (1680–1701), IV, i, 309–17Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Letter of intelligence, 2 Aug. 1647: Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 24.

¹¹⁴ Opponents of the July proposals attempted to cut this line of communication between Saye's group at Westminster and the king's ‘Court’, by moving that Ashbournham be removed from attendance on the king; not surprisingly Saye vigorously (and successfully) opposed this attempt to jeopardize the projected settlement. Sir Edward Forde to Lord Hopton, 28 Sept. 1647: Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 76V. See also below, p. 596.

¹¹⁵ Guildford Muniment Room, Surrey, Bray MS 85/5/2/29: ‘Robert Thomson senior’ [Nicholas Oudart, the king's secretary] to SirNicholas, Edward, 16 08 1647Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 170 (Nalson papers), fos. 181 v, 192V, 193r–v. Cf. Vox Mliitaris, no. 5 (14–21 Nov. 1648), p. 35 (B.L., E 473/8).

¹¹⁷ Ashbournham, , Narrative (1830), II, 98Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Roots, Ivan, The great rebellion 1642–1660 (London, 1966), p. 116Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ LJ, IX, 434–5.

¹²⁰ LJ, IX, 441; CJ, V, 311. H.L.R.O., MP 21/9/47, fos. 40–43. Wharton had introduced the draft of the proposals to the Lords on 20 July; A Perfect Summary of Chiefe Passages in Parliament, no. [1] (19–26 07 1647), p. 5 (B.L., E 518/9)Google Scholar. Another copy was introduced into the Commons by Povey in September: Bodl. Lib., MS Tanner 58, fos. 513 ff. The introduction of the Proposals coincided with the passage of a resolution that the king's reply to the Newcastle Propositions, tendered at Hampton Court, constituted a rejection of the terms. LJ, IX, 442. Perhaps significantly, it was Evelyn who brought this resolution from the Commons to the Lords; ibid. For Evelyn's relations with the Saye-Northumberland peers, see below, p. 593.

¹²¹ H.L.R.O., MP 8/10/47, fo. in; LJ, IX, 476; Gardiner, , Constitutional documents, pp. 298–9Google Scholar. H.L.R.O., MP 15/10/47, fos. 164–7.

¹²² For Manchester's lenient attitude see P.R.O., SP 16/593/56/25 (Samuel Jones's examination); see also, Add. MS 34253 (Main Papers, strays), fo. 42; Claydon House, Verney MS, earl of Devonshire to Verney, 23 Oct. 1645 (B.L., Film 636/6); H.L.R.O., MP 20/2/47, fo. 571 LJ; IX, 26; Dorset to Middlesex, 31 Jan. 1647: Kent A.O., Sackville MS, U 269/C248 unfol. For Northumberland, Sir Percy Herbert to Lady Herbert [1644]; P.R.O., PRO 30/53/7 (Herbert of Cherbury corr.), fo. 58.

¹²³ LJ, IX, 476.

¹²⁴ LJ, IX, 481. Heads, XV, 2.

¹²⁵ A proposal to exclude from pardon only ‘6 or 4’ had been under discussion as early as 1 April; letter of intelligence, Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 29, fo. 165.

¹²⁶ Alnwick Castle, Northumberland MS XVI, fos. 55–57v. Westminster Public Lib., MS F 2002, fos. 144–5. Adamson, , ‘The peerage in polities’, pp. 82–104Google Scholar.

¹²⁷ The text of this 13 October draft is given verbatim in The Moderate Intelligencer, no. 134 (7–14 10 1647), pp. 1319–20Google Scholar, and was later published in A Perfect Diurnall (11–18 Oct. 1647), sig. 10 O [IV] (B.L., E 518/45). It is so accurate that the editor of The Moderate Intelligencer (who printed it first) must have had access to the MS original.

¹²⁸ H.L.R.O., MP 15/10/47, fos. 162–3. The House had debated the proposals in committee on the 12th; Kingdoms Weekly Intelligencer, no. 230 (12–19 10 1647), p. 694Google Scholar (B.L., E 411/11). LJ, IX, 481, 484. (The Journal does not record who introduced the bill on the 13th, but notes Saye managing and reporting the bill on the 15th, indicating Saye almost certainly as the draftsman of the bill.)

¹²⁹ H.L.R.O., MP 15/10/47, fos. 162v–163.

¹³⁰ The Commons later modified this, excluding Article VIII (the section enjoining the Nicene, Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds) from the list defining the principles of religion. CJ, v, 333.

¹³¹ Ibid.

¹³² [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis (1654), pp. 122–3Google Scholar. For a discussion of the authorship of this tract, see Adamson, J. S. A., ‘The Vindiciae Veritatis and the Political Creed of Viscount Saye and Sele’, Historical Research, 60 (1987), 45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³³ H.L.R.O., MP 15/10/47, fos. 162–3v. Saye's pre-war objections to the Prayer Book were directed against its enforcement as the only approved mode of worship: it was as if ‘because some men had need to make use of Crutches, all men should be prohibited the use of their legges’. Saye, , Two speeches in parliament (1641), p. 10Google Scholar. Saye had no doctrinal or theological objection to the use of the Prayer Book; indeed, according to John Williams, the bishop of Lincoln, ‘ye L[ord] Say hath joined with him in his Chappell in all ye Prayers and Services of the Church’. B.L., Harl. MS 6424 (Warner's diary), fo. 45.

¹³⁴ LJ, IX, 483.

¹³⁵ Beinecke, MS Osborn Fb 155, fo. 239r–v.

¹³⁶ [Wildman, ], Putney protects. Or, the old serpent (1647), p. 14Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ H.L.R.O., MP 8/10/47, fo. 111. LJ, IX, 476. Dr Williams's Lib., Morrice MS D (Berkeley memoirs) printed as SirBerkeley, John, Memoirs (1699), p. 31Google Scholar. [Wildman, ], Putney protects, pp. 13–15Google Scholar.

¹³⁸ Bodl. Lib., MS Dep. c. 168, fos. 36–42v. This MS copy of the Heads, signed by Rushworth, contains a number of modifications which attest to the accuracy of Wildman's account of the preparation of the text. Cf. fo. 38v, where the reference to ‘ten years’ as the period for which royalists were to be excluded from office has been crossed out and reduced to five; compare Wildman, , Putney protects (1647), p. 14Google Scholar, where he states that the proposal originally stipulated ten years, but that this was later changed to five after the Heads had been presented to the king. Gardiner, , Civil war, III, 340Google Scholar.

¹³⁹ Worcester College, Oxford, Clarke MS LXV (Army Council, Min.), fo. 106.

¹⁴⁰ H.L.R.O., MP 15/10/47, fos. 160–3. LJ, IX,, 482–4. A Perfect Diurnall, no. 221 (18–25 10 1646)Google Scholar, sig. 10 P (B.L., E 518/47).

¹⁴¹ [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis, p. 6Google Scholar.

¹⁴² Heads, II, I (dealing with the militia) differs little from the militia provision in the Newcastle propositions: both give the control of the militia permanently to parliament, only differing on the time during which the king is to be excluded from even a nominal right of participation. Gardiner, , Constitutional documents, pp. 294, 319Google Scholar; H.L.R.O., MP 21/9/47, fo. 41. The only significant addition made in the Heads is that parliament was ceded the power to ‘nominate and appoint’ all officers and commanders of the forces. This was duly added by the peers in October, when, enacting Heads II, I, they stipulated that parliament ‘shall from time to time appoint all Comanders and Officers for the said Forces, or remove them as they shall see cause’. H.L.R.O., MP [4/10/47, fo. 59; mentioned, but not entered, at LJ, IX, 467.

¹⁴³ The text of the Heads printed by Rushworth and duplicated by Gardiner contains the significant variant that these parliamentary restrictions on the exercise of royal power were to apply only to ‘the King's Majesty that now is’; that is, the position of the king's successor was left unspecified (Gardiner, p. 319). On this question Saye's October propositions were more explicit than the Heads, though not inconsistent with their letter. (The house of lords’ copy of the MS omits ‘that now is’ in this clause, inserting it in a later clause (‘…hereafter by his said Majesty that now is’) but without change of meaning: H.L.R.O., MP 21/9/47, fo. 41.)

¹⁴⁴ Heads, III; H.L.R.O., MP 21/9/47, fo. 41v. MP 15/10/47, fo. 161. The Commons disliked this name, preferring the designation ‘Co[mmi]ttees of Both Howses of Parlem[en]t’: ibid. fo. 161. It is possible this bill also gave the Council of State powers over foreign relations, as provided for in the Heads; in the absence of a full text of the bill this question must remain open.

¹⁴⁵ H.L.R.O., MP 15/10/47, fo. 160; enacts Heads, v.

¹⁴⁶ LJ, IX, 482, 483, 484; Heads, I. Wharton's proposal is summarized in A Perfect Diurnall, no 221 (18–25 Oct. 1647), sig. 10 P, p. 1774 (B.L., E 518/47).

¹⁴⁷ H.L.R.O., MP 21/9/47, fo. 42; Heads, XIV; in practice, however, the king's access to these revenues would have been severely checked by the patronage network established by the Saye–Northumberland group in the Exchequer.

¹⁴⁸ LJ, IX, 484; enacts Heads, XVI.

¹⁴⁹ H.L.R.O., MP 15/10/47, fos. 160v–16ir; Heads X, VII.

¹⁵⁰ LJ, IX, 482 (14 10 1647)Google Scholar. The draft bills are missing from the Main Papers butsome of their content may be gleaned from references to these bills in the Journals, and in the Perfect Diumall, whose editor seems to have had access to the Lords' drafts. ‘Lord Wharton reported a draught of a proposition for putting a period to this Parliament and a proposition concerning justices of the Peace and Grand Jury men,’ LJ, IX, 482. The first of Wharton's bills is described in the CJ as ‘concerning the period of this Parliament, and the sitting of those future’, CJ, V, 338 (21 10 1647)Google Scholar. These two bills almost certainly enacted Heads, 1, 1–7, dealing with elections; and Heads I, 11, dealing with J.P.s and Grand Juries at assizes. The CJ entry suggests that Wharton's bill changed the duration of parliaments from the three-year term established under the Triennial Act to some other term. This probably followed the July proposals in establishing biennial parliaments. A Perfect Diumall refers to the Lords' bill as providing for the dissolution of the Long Parliament within a year ‘after the Act for a triennial Parliament’ ibid. no. 221 (18–25 Oct. 1647), p. 1774 (B.L., E 518/47).

¹⁵¹ LJ, IX, 483.

¹⁵² LJ, IX, 499, 503, 504, 506–7. CJ, V, 337, 346, 348.

¹⁵³ The Perfect Weekly Account, no. 42 (20–26 Oct. 1647), sig. R[v]. See also, The Kmgdomes Weekly Intelligencer, no. 231 (19–26 10 1647), p. 705Google Scholar, (B.L., E 411/26).

¹⁵⁴ LJ, IX, 506–7; CJ, V, 348. A Perfect Diumall, no. 220 (11–18 10 1647)Google Scholar sig. 10 O [IV] (B.L., E 518/45).

¹⁵⁵ H.L.R.O., MP 15/10/47, fo. 162r–V.

¹⁵⁶ LJ, IX, 499, 506–7. CJ, V, 346, 348.

¹⁵⁷ Cooke, John, Redintegratio amoris (]27 08.] 1647), p. 28Google Scholar(B.L., E 404/29).

¹⁵⁸ For Saye's use of Mulgrave's proxy see SirEwes, Simonds D', The journals of all the parliaments during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1682), p. 7Google Scholar(D'Ewes was employed to draw up the instrument revoking the appointment of Saye as Mulgrave's proctor). I owe this reference to the kindness of Mr Peter Salt.

¹⁵⁹ Cooke, John, The vindication of the professors and profession of law (1646), pp. 80–1Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁰ Chequers Court, Bucks, MS 782 (copies of William Clarke's accounts), fo. 43. These are disbursements ordered by Fairfax in his capacity as commander-in-chief. (The originals are Leeds, Thoresby Society MS SD, IX; I am grateful to Professor Austin Woolrych for information on this point.) The Redintegratio amoris is a detailed apologia for the July proposals, and contains a lengthy defence of the importance ofthe house of lords. Cooke received £15 on 27 July 1647 (the day after the riots broke out at Westminster), and it is possible that the Rtdintegratio, which appeared four weeks later to the day, was the result of a commission from the Lord General. The entry in Clarke's accounts (Chequers MS 782, fo. 43) is for ‘extraordinary service’ – that is, not for the legal work in which he would normally have been employed – and this may refer to the Redintegratio. In any event, Cooke's links with the General Council of the Army were extremely close after Pride's purge, Cooke was appointed solicitor at the king's trial. Aylmer, G. E., The shoe's servants (1973), pp. 30, 276Google Scholar.

¹⁶¹ H.L.R.O., MP 15/10/47, fo. 162r–V.

¹⁶² Cooke, John, What the independents would have, or, a character (1647), p. 16Google Scholar.

¹⁶³ Merc[urius] Prag [maticus], no. 8 (2–9 11 1647), p. 58Google Scholar (B.L., E 413/8). In allowing for the maintenance of lecturers out of tithes, the Saye–Northumberland peers established the validity of a principle which had been declared illegal in the case of the Feoffees of Impropriations in 1632 – a scheme to use tithes from impropriate livings purchased by the feoffees to support puritan lecturers. P.R.O., E 112/211/533 (Exchequer, King's Rem., bills), printed in Calder, I. M., ed., Activities of the puritan faction of the church of England 1625–33 (1957)Google Scholar.Most of the feoffees were closely associated, by patronage or employment, with the Saye-Northumberland peers who sponsored this legislation in 1647. Most prominent among the clerical feoffees were Saye's two protégés and life-long friends from St Stephen's, Coleman Street; Richard Sibbes and John Davenport. For Sibbes, see Seaver, P. S., The puritan lectureships: the politics of religious dissent 1560–1662 (Stanford, Cal., 1970), pp. 236–7Google Scholar. The clearest evidence of Saye's relationship with Davenport comes in a letter written by Davenport to Thomas Temple on hearing that Saye had not long to live. He wrote of ‘my Euer Honoured, Lord, Viscount, Say and Sele, unto whom I haue bene Continually, Neare 40 years Past, Exceedingly Obliged, for sundry Testimonyes of his Speciall ffauors towardes me when I liued in London, and I was in Holland, and after my retturne thence to london And since my abode in this Wildernesse [Massachusetts], which hath bine aboue 24 Yeares’. Davenport to Temple, 19 Aug. 1661: P.R.O. (Kew), CO 1/15/81; printed in Letters of John Davenport puritan divine, ed. Calder, I. M. (New Haven, Conn. 1937), pp. 190–4Google Scholar. Of the lawyers among the feoffees were Saye's friend, Christopher Sherland, the counsel to the Providenc Island Company (P.R.O., E 112/211/533; Calder, , Puritan faction, pp. 39–42Google Scholar; Hexter, , The reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1940), p. 82Google Scholar; Russell, , Parliaments and English politics, 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 31, 251–2, 407–8)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Samuel Browne, Northumberland's counsel and later Salisbury's steward (P.R.O., SP 16/515/146/1; Calder, , Puritan faction, pp. 42, 145–7)Google Scholar; and in their suit in the Exchequer, the feoffees were defended by William Lenthall, Northumberland's counselin that court and a close friend of Lord Wharton. For Lenthall as Northumberland's counsel see, e.g. P.R.O., E 125/25 (Exchequer of Pleas, Decree Bks), fos. 331–2V; for his role in the feoffees' case,Calder, , Puritan faction, pp.4, 26n, 73 (printing P.R.O., E 113/211/533). Lincoln's Inn Adm., 1, 234Google Scholar; B.L., Sloane MS 1519 (misc. corr.), fo. 104. As patrons and protectors of these advocates of puritan lectureships it was natural that Saye, Wharton. flforthumberland and Salisbury should be looked to in 1647 to be the sponsors of godly reformatfon.

¹⁶⁴ [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis, pp. 122, 129Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁵ Waller, , Vindication, p. 192Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁶ A Perfect Diumall, no. 210 (2–9 08 1647), p. 1688Google Scholar (B.L., E 518/16).

¹⁶⁷ LJ, IX, 444 (22 09 1647)Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁸ Merc. Prog., no. 9 (9–16 11 1647), pp. 70–[71]Google Scholar (B.L., E 414/15).

¹⁶⁹ CJ, V, 332. He was added with Evelyn and the Revenue Committeeman, Hodges, Thomas: A Perfect Summary ofChiefe Passages in Parliament, no. 7 (30 Aug. -6 09 1647), p. 53Google Scholar (B.L., E 518/28).

¹⁷⁰ Four M.P.s were added to this committee on 1 Sept.; Fiennes and Evelyn; and two members of the Committee of Revenue, Sir William Armyne and Thomas Hodges. CJ, V, 288. LJ, IX 581. Beck was another of the Lincoln's Inn network that was associated with Saye and Wharton (which included Browne, St John, Fiennes, Lenthall and others). He was a Gloucestershire man, and may have been employed by Saye in estate business. Lincoln's Inn Adm. 1, 218. Aylmer, , The state's servants, pp. 418–19Google Scholar. CJ, V, 451–2. B.L., Add. MS 37344 (Whitelocke's Annals), fo. 132. Merc. Prag., no. 6 (19–26 10 1647), p. 42Google Scholar (B.L., E 411/23).

¹⁷¹ H.L.R.O., MP 17/12/47 (original Lords' draft); final version, LJ, IX, 581.

¹⁷² LJ, IX, 662. For Kent's associations with the Saye–Northumberland group see, The Moderne Intelligencer, no. 3 (26 Aug.–1 09 1647)Google Scholar, sig. C (B.L., E 405/15).

¹⁷³ Merc. Prag., no. 6 (19–26 10 1647), p. 44Google Scholar (B.L., E 411/23). For the use of the Court of Requests for political meetings see Holies, Denzell, A grave and learned speech. Or an apology delivered([20 07] 1647), p. 6Google Scholar (B.L., E 399/14).

¹⁷⁴ A second narrative of the late parliament (1658), reprinted in Phoenix Britannicus, ed. J. Morgan (1732), pp. 125 ff.; quote at p. 146.

¹⁷⁵ White, Francis, A copy of a letter ([11 11 ] 1647), pp 1–2Google Scholar(B L, E 413/17) The incident referred to took place around September of that year White had been expelled from the General Council of the Army for suggesting there was no authority left in the state ‘but the sword’, but he was readmitted in December A declaration from his excellence (9 Sept 1647), B L, E 518/30 Clarke papers, ed Firth, , I, lVIIGoogle Scholar

¹⁷⁶ For other examples of contacts between Goodwin's congregation and officers in Fairfax's army, see Vicars, JohnThe Coleman-street conclave visited ([21 03 ] 1648), pp 22–3Google Scholar, (B L, E 433/6) John Goodwin's gathered church met in the parish of St Stephen's Coleman St Guildhall Lib, MS 4458/1 (Vestry Mins, St Stephen's, Coleman St), p 160 Until the late 1640s, John Goodwin's congregation met in ‘Alchurchlane’ parish (ibid)

¹⁷⁷ Brooke, , speech of 8 11 1642, Three speeches spoken in Gvild-Hall (1642), p 4Google Scholar(Wing, B 4910)

¹⁷⁸ See the speeches by Evelyn and Fiennes on 30 April 1646, Minutes of the sessions of the Westminster assembly of divines, ed Mitchell, A F and Struthers, J (Edinburgh, 1874), p 225Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ CJ, v, 348

¹⁸⁰ Harrington, , Diary, ed Stieg, , p 54Google ScholarCJ, v, 187

¹⁸¹ For Fleetwood's friendship with Saye, see his letter to Saye, printed in [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis, p 61Google ScholarSee also, B L, Add MS 37344 (Whitelocke's Annals), fo 56 Hatfield, Cecil Petitions 2359 Worcester College, Oxford, Clarke MS, XLI, fo 128

¹⁸² In Feb 1649, Sidney became deputy to the countess of Carlisle as keeper of Nonsuch House and Park – an appointment he almost certainly owed to Northumberland who was then managing the countess's affairs Warwickshire R O, Warwick Castle MS, CR 1886/2836 CJ, v, 370 Among the drafting committee for the four bills, in the Commons. were St John and Salisbury's influential steward, Underdown, Samuel Browne DPride's purge politics in the puritan revolution (oxford, 1971), pp 87–8Google Scholar

¹⁸³ John Rylands Lib, Manchester, Eng Ms 300/12 (Pink Papers) B L, Add MS 63057 (Burnet's historical notes, 2 vols), 1, 174–5

¹⁸⁴ Alnwick Castle, Northumberland MS, O.I.2(f): Northumberland to Potter, 24 June 1645.

¹⁸⁵ For Saye's high opinion of Pierrepont, see [Saye, ], Vindiciae veniatis, p. 91Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁶ [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis, p. 91Google Scholar; [part II], p. 71.

¹⁸⁷ Bedfordshire R.O., Lucas MS (earl of Kent papers), L 22/28.

¹⁸⁸ Dyve to the king, 5 Sept. 1647; Dyve, , ‘Letter-Book’, ed. Tibbutt, H. G., p. 84Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁹ Clarke papers, ed. Firth, , I, 369Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁰ Dyve to king, letters of 5 and 13 Sept. 1647; Dyve, , ‘Letter-Book’, ed. Tibbutt, H. G., p. 84Google Scholar (for quote); pp. 84, 88. This meeting was noted (but misdated) by Gardiner, who did not have access to Dyve's detailed account (obtained at first hand from Lilburne, who was lodged near his cell in the Tower). Gardiner, , Civil war, III, 369Google Scholar. Cf. ‘The Proposition of Lieut. Col. Lilburne’, 2 Oct. 1647; printed in Perfect Occurrences, no. 40 (1–8 10 1647), p. 276 (B.L., E 518/42)Google Scholar.

¹⁹¹ Dyve, , ‘Letter-Book’, ed. Tibbutt, H. G., p. 84Google Scholar.

¹⁹² Lilburne to Marten, 15 Sept. 1647; Lilburne, , Two Letters…to Col. Henry Martin (1647), pp. 4–5Google Scholar. Lilburne, however, acknowledged Wharton's past favour to him: Wharton had ensured that Lilburne was given until the afternoon to prepare his ‘Protestation’ to the Lords in 1646, when Lilburne was summoned to appear at the Bar of the House. Lilburne, , The iuglers discovered ([09] 1647), P. 9Google Scholar (B.L., E 409/22).

¹⁹³ Lilburne, John, The iuglers discovered ([09] 1647), p. 9Google Scholar (B.L., E 409/22).

¹⁹⁴ Lilburne to Fairfax, 21 Aug. 1647; printed in ibid.Clarke papers, ed. Firth, I, 438. For a reassessment of the extent of Leveller influence see Kishlansky, Mark, ‘What happened at Ware?’, Historical Journal, XXV (1982), 827–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘The army and the Levellers: the roads to Putney’, Historical Journal, XXII (1979), 795–824Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁵ For his friendship with Mulgrave (Fairfax's cousin), see Cromwell to Wharton, 2 Sept. 1648; Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches, ed. Carlyle, T., (3 vols., 1847), I, 1304Google Scholar. Mulgrave later became a member of Cromwell's privy council.

¹⁹⁶ Cromwell to Lord Howard of Escrick, 23 March 1647: P.R.O., SP 19/106, fo. 36.

¹⁹⁷ B.L., Add. MS 4186, fo. 14; G.F.T. Jones, , Saw-pit Wharton (Sydney, 1967), p. 113Google Scholar. Merc. Prag., no. 6 (19–2610 1647), pp. 43–4Google Scholar (B.L., E 411/23). Merc. Melancholicus, no. 10 (30 10 6 11 1647), p. 59Google Scholar (B.L., E 412/32). For Cromwell's relations with Wharton see also Worth-Rush, John [pseud.], A coppie of a letter to be sent to Lieutenant General Cromwell ([7 10 1647]), p. 7Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁸ [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis, pp. 145–6Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁹ [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis, p. 148Google Scholar.

²⁰⁰ Cromwell to Fairfax, 13 October 1647 (dated at Putney): B.L., Sloane M S 1519, fo. 80.

²⁰¹ CJ, v, 332.

²⁰² Boys, John, ‘Diary’, ed. Underdown, D. E., p. 149 (20 10 1647)Google Scholar.

²⁰³ H.L.R.O., Order Book B/16 (16 June 1647).

²⁰⁴ Beinecke Lib., MS Osborn Fb 155 (Browne Cpl. Bk), fo. 239: ‘Jack Ashburnham is rich; and yet much at Oxford, and would saue stakes: besides, he knows not the K.'s best freinds, an d he is imployed by the K's and Kingdomes greatest enemies [named as Saye, St John, Pierrepont, Vane, Fiennes an d Evelyn].’

²⁰⁵ Sir Edward Forde to Lord Hopton, 28 Sept. 1647; Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 76v.

²⁰⁶ Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 162. (The attendant is not identified, but is probably Nicholas Oudart.)

²⁰⁷ LJ, IX, 483–4.

²⁰⁸ LJ, IX, 486, 499.

²⁰⁹ Merc. Prag., no. 6 (19–26 10 1647), p. 43Google Scholar (B.L., E 411/23). Merc. Melancholicus, no. 10 (30 10 6 11 1647), p. 59Google Scholar (B.L., E 412/32).

²¹⁰ The Perfect Weekly Account, no. 41 (13–20 10 1647)Google Scholar, sig. Q.3 [1], (B.L., E 411/14). Col. Edmund Whalley to Speaker Lenthall, 15 Nov. 1647, printed in Peck, Francis, ed., Desiderata curiosa (1732), IX, 38–40Google Scholar. (Peck's suggestion that the letter was to Sir John Lenthall is obviously erroneous; see ibid. p. 40.)

²¹¹ An agreement of the people ([3 Nov.] 1647), B.L., E 412/21.

²¹² For these debates see Clarke papers, ed. Firth, 1, 226–406. Aylmer, G. E., The Levellers in the English revolution (1975), pp. 97–130Google Scholar.

²¹³ Merc. Elencticus, no. 2 (5–12 11 1647), pp. 10–11Google Scholar (B.L., E 414/4). Saye missed the Saturday morning sitting of the Lords on 30 October, indicating that he had probably left London the previous evening. LJ, IX, 504, 506.

²¹⁴ Merc. Elencticus, no. 2 (5–12 11 1647), pp. 10–11Google Scholar. For the identification of the member's house at Putney as Goodwyn's, see A continuation of certain speciall and remarkable passages (28 Aug.3 Sept. 1647), sig. L 2 (B.L., E 405/18). For an earlier political meeting at Putney, attended by Goodwyn and Cromwell, see B.L., Add. MS 37344 (Whitelocke's Annals), fo. 20v.

²¹⁵ Saye to Lenthall, 10 Feb. 1644; Bodl. Lib., MS Tanner 62, fo. 555. P.R.O., WARDS 9/ 556 (Entry Bk of Orders), p. 776. For Goodwyn's work as chairman of the Commons' Committee for Petitions, see P.R.O., SP 28/265/1 (Committee for Petitions papers), fos. 31, 44, 50, 52, 64, 77. 81, 99, 103.

²¹⁶ Merc. Elencticus, no. 2 (5–12 11 1647), p. 11Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ LJ, IX, 506. Debate continued in the General Council of the Army on the Agreement until 8 November.

²¹⁸ Merc. Elencticus, no. 2 (5–12 11 1647), pp. 10–11Google Scholar. Ashbournham claimed that under the new arrangements the guards were posted ‘so neare His Majesties Chamber that they disturbed His repose’. Ashbournham, Narrative, II, 101.

²¹⁹ [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis, p. 74Google Scholar.

²²⁰ For the Scottish background see Gardiner, , Civil war, IV, 87–8Google Scholar. Stevenson, David, Revolution and counter-revolution in Scotland 1644–1651 (1977), pp. 90–7Google Scholar.

²²¹ Merc. Elencticus, no. 2 (5–12 11 1647), p. 11Google Scholar (B.L., E 414/4).

²²² Westminster projects, or the mysterie of Darby House discovered (1648), pp. 1, 7. (B.L., E 433/15). Bodl. Lib., MS Tanner 58, fo. 783: Ashhurst to Lenthall, [1647]. For Ashhurst, see also John Rylands Lib., Manchester, Eng. MS 296/206 (Pink Papers); P.R.O., SP 28/269/2 (Cttee of Revenue warr.), fo. 176V. Broughton Castle, Oxon, Saye MS n/87.

²²³ LJ, IX, 518.

²²⁴ For Nathaniel Fiennes's errands to the Court of Requests see Merc. Prag., no. 6 (19–26 10 1647), p. 44Google Scholar (B.L., E 411/23).

²²⁵ The proposal in the original draft to limit the king's negative voice is summarized by Wildman, in Putney protects (1647), p. 14Google Scholar.

²²⁶ Elector Palatine to Elizabeth of Bohemia, 11 Nov. 1647: P.R.O., TS 23/1 (Treasury Solicitor, miscell., Elector Palatine's correspondence).

²²⁷ Late in October, Charles had conferred privately with the earls of Lanark and Lauderdale, resolving to escape from the army and to journey incognito to Berwick, while the Scot's Commissioners used the threat of invasion to exact from parliament more lenient terms for a restoration. Burnet, Gilbert, The Memoires of the lives and action of James and William dukes of Hamilton (1677), p. 324Google Scholar. Burnet claimed to have received his information at first hand from Lauderdale.

²²⁸ Bodl. Lib., MS Clarendon 30, fo. 175 (letter of intell., 8 Nov. 1647).

²²⁹ H.L.R.O., MP 6/12/47, fo. 72r–V. MP 16/12/47, fos 125–6. MP 24/12/47, fo. 46. MP 28/ 12/47, fo 7IV. Gardiner, , Constitutional documents, pp. 335–41Google Scholar.

²³⁰ [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis, pp. 74–5Google Scholar.

²³¹ LJ, IX, 340, 482.

²³² Moderate Intelligencer, no. 134 (7–14 10 1647), pp. 1319–20Google Scholar (B.L., E 410/25).

²³³ Gardiner, , Civil war, III, 375–6Google Scholar.

²³⁴ C. S. R. Russell, ‘Parliament and the king's finances’, in idem, ed., The origins of the English civil war (1973), p. 113.

²³⁵ Merc. Prag., no. 19 (18–25 09 1648)Google Scholar, sig. T 2[v] (B.L., E 423/21).

²³⁶ Characteristically, when Cromwell summoned Wharton to attend his Upper House, Wharton turned to Saye for counsel as to whether he should accept the invitation. Bodl. Lib., MS Carte 80, fo. 749.

²³⁷ Merc. Prag., no. 19 (18–25 09 1648)Google Scholar. sig. T 2[v] (B.L., E 423/21).

²³⁸ Lilly, William, Merlini anglici ephemeris 1648 (1647)Google Scholar, ‘To the Reader’, 23 Oct. 1647, sig. A 2v: ‘It's a very lye if Wharton swear it’. [Musgrave, John], A fourth word to the wise ([8 06] 1647), pp. 2–5Google Scholar.

²³⁹ A letter to the earle of Pembrooke concerning the times (1647), p. 12. This anti-semitic remark referred to Saye's reputation as a defender of the practice of usury: see his MS tracts, ‘A defence of Usury, by the Ld Say, 1641’, Cambridge University Library, Add. MS 44/20 (Patrick papers); and Saye, ‘A Tract to Prove that Usuary is Lawful’, Queen's College, Oxford, MS Reg. 195, fos. 12–20.

²⁴⁰ Merc. Elencticus, no. 2 (5–12 11 1647), p. 11Google Scholar (B.L., E 414/4).

²⁴¹ [Saye, ], Vindiciae veritatis, p. 76Google Scholar.