¹ Modern accounts of the mutiny at Ware include: Gardiner, S. R., The history of the Great Civil War, 4 vols. (London, 1893), IV, 22–3Google Scholar; Firth, C. H. (ed.), The Clarke papers, 4 vols. (London, 1891)Google Scholar; Abbott, W. C., The writings and speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1937–47), I, 560–1Google Scholar; Joseph, FrankThe Leveller (Levellers Cambridg, Mass., 1955), P. 142;Google ScholarRoots, I., Commonwealth and Protectorate (New York, 1966), p. 123Google Scholar; Underdown, D. E., Pride's purge (Oxford, 1970), p. 87Google Scholar; Fraser, A., Cromwell our chief of men (London, 1971), p. 224Google Scholar; Aylmer, G. E., The Levellers in the English Revolution (Ithaca, New York, 1975), p. 34.Google Scholar

² Scrope, R. and Monkhouse, T. (eds.), State papers collected by Edward, earl of Clarendon, commencing 1621, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1767–86), 11, app. xlii.Google Scholar

³ Edmund, Ludlow, The memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, 3 vols. (Bern, 1699), I, 222;’ Memoirs of Sir John Berkeley’Google Scholar, in Maseres, F. (ed.), Select tracts relating to the Civil Wars in England, 2 vols. (London, 1815), II, 385Google Scholar. Worden, A. B. (ed.), Edmund Ludlow, a voice from the watchtower (London, 1978) provides important caveats on the use of Ludlow.Google Scholar

⁴ Edward, earl of Clarendon, History of the Great Rebellion, ed. Macray, W. D., 6 vols. (Oxford, 1888), IV, 276. Clarendon does not place this incident in either time or space, but it follows immediately after his narrative of Charles's escape from Hampton Court on 11 November.Google Scholar

⁵ Paul, Rapin[-Thoyras], The history of England, 28 vols. (London, 1726–47), II, 841Google Scholar; Hume, D., The history of Great Britain, 8 vols. (London, 1770), v, 434.Google Scholar

⁶ Maseres, Select tracts, I, xxix-lxxi.

⁷ Ibid. I, liii.

⁸ Carlyle, T., Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches with elucidations, 2 vols. (New York, 1845), I, 237.Google Scholar

⁹ Clarendon state papers, II, app. xlii. The report in full reads: ‘November 18/28, 1647: Lieutenant-General Cromwell deported himself very gallantly and prudently at the rendezvous near Ware: where perceiving Lilburne's regiment (which came thither without order) to appear in a mutinous manner with Whites in their hats, he rid round the same, and coming to the head of the regiment drew his sword and charged so furiously through it, as the regiment (being much astonished therewith) pulled out their Whites, and craved mercy.’

¹⁰ Ibid. app. xli. In this report of 15 November the writer makes clear that he has relied upon ‘a friend of mine that came out of Hertfordshire’ for news of the events preceding the rendezvous.

¹¹ Gardiner, , Great Civil War, IV, 22–3. Of the five sources cited for the entire episode, only Clarendon's informant mentions Cromwell. Mercurius Elenticus is an equally strange place to glean information about activities in the army, but its sole comment on the events was ‘three were condemned by the council of war for mutiny’. E. 416 (13).Google Scholar

¹² Firth repeated the story in at least three very influential publications: D.N.B. s.v. Cromwell; Oliver Cromwell and the rule of the puritans in England (New York, 1900), pp. 182–3Google Scholar; Clarke papers, I, liv. The only modern author who has called the story into question is Brailsford, H. N., The Levellers and the English Revolution (Stanford, 1961) pp. 295–7.Google Scholar

¹³ Lords Journal, IX, 527Google Scholar; E. 414 (13). These works are reprinted in Maseres, loc. cit. The best newsbook accounts are E. 520 (6), Perfect Occurances of Every Day's Journal, no. 46, 12–19 Nov., 1647; E. 416 (28), Kingdom's Weekly Intelligencer no. 235, 16–23 Nov., 1647; E. 414 (1), Moderate Intelligencer no. 138, 4–11 Nov., 1647.Google Scholar

¹⁴ E. 558 (14). The account of Bray's testimony given in this pamphlet agrees in detail with comments Bray made in his own tracts published in the months following the rendezvous. E. 421 (27), ‘A letter to Sir Thomas Fairfax from Captain-Lieutenant Bray’; E. 422 (27), ‘A representation to the nation’.

¹⁵ See, for example, John, Rushworth, Historical collections, 8 vols. (London, 1721), VII, 804, 815, 829.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For details of the events leading to the Putney debates see Kishlansky, M. A.,’ The army and the Levellers: the roads to Putney’, Historical Journal, XXII, 4 (1979).Google Scholar

¹⁷ E. 411 (9), ‘The case of the army truly stated’.

¹⁸ For efforts to recall the old agitators see the narration in the petition from Colonel Whalley's regiment, E. 414 (13), ‘A full relation of the proceedings at the rendezvous’: and ‘A copy of a letter from the commissary-general's regiment’, Worcester College Library, A.A. 1.19. I am grateful to Leslie Montgomery for providing me with a photocopy of this tract.

¹⁹ There was considerable confusion over whether the Agreement had been adopted at Putney. The Kingdom's Weekly Intelligencer reported that it had achieved general approbation, E. 413(11), no. 233, 2–9 Nov. 1647; a petition from Colonel Hewson's regiment which included the Agreement praised Fairfax's leadership and vowed that the regiment stood ready ‘in opposing and suppressing all incendiaries who do and shall beget divisions and distempers in the Army’, E. 413 (6), ‘The humble remonstrance and desires of divers Officers’; and the Agreement itself was published in London, E. 412 (21).

¹⁹ E. 413 (19), ‘A letter from his excellency’.

²⁰ After the rendezvous, Fairfax went so far as to send Hewson's regiment to quarter within the City, a move which finally resulted in swift action to secure the army's pay.

²¹ E. 413 (18), ‘A copy of a letter sent by the agents of several regiments’. Thomason noted ‘this was scattered up and down the streets by agitators’. This tract is cited in Fairfax's preamble to the declaration which was presented to the soldiers at Ware, E. 414 (14), ‘A remonstrance from his excellency’.

²² E. 416 (1), Kingdom's Weekly Intelligencer no. 234, 9–16 Nov., 1647.

²³ The Moderate Intelligencer reported this incident in its 11 November issue: ‘news came this day that the regiment of Colonel Lilburne, Governor of Newcastle, as it was in a slow motion toward that town, had declared for the King and would not go forward; afterwards came letters that tell that they had thrown off all their officers’, E. 414 (1), Moderate Intelligencer no. 138, 4–11 Nov., 1647.

²⁴ Rushworth, , Historical collections, VII, 870.Google Scholar

²⁵ Bray claimed that he acted as he did during the mutiny because of the royalist threat. The Moderate Intelligencer had also heard rumours of royalist penetration into this regiment. E. 558 (14), ‘The justice of the army against evil-doers vindicated’; E. 414 (1), Moderate Intelligencer no. 138, 4–11 Nov., 1647.

²⁶ The details of this narrative are from E. 558 (14), ‘The army vindicated’.

²⁷ E. 414 (14), ‘A remonstrance from his excellency’, reprinted in Masseres, Select tracts, 1, xxxv.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. 1, xxxix.

²⁹ The regiments were: ‘of horse those of Fairfax, Rich, Fleetwood, and Twisleton; of foot those of Fairfax, Pride, and Hammond’.

³⁰ Although they held military rank, neither Scot nor Eyres held New Model commands. It is not clear what happened to Rainsborough. He remained at Army headquarters, and perhaps was on the field during the rendezvous. His New Model command had lapsed upon his appointment to the fleet.

³¹ Clarke's account explicitly states that only Harrison's regiment wore these papers in their hats. E. 414 (13), ‘A full relation of the proceedings at the rendezvous’, reprinted in Maseres, Select tracts, I, lviii; The Moderate Intelligencer reported ‘that Colonel Harrison's regiment was drawn to the headquarters by the persuasion of one Allin of that regiment who told them he had found out as much money of a malignant as would pay the Army for three months and that his excellency had made choice of that regiment to secure it; a most rational argument’. E. 416 (8), Moderate Intelligencer no. 139, 11–18 NOV., 1647.Google Scholar

³² E. 558 (14), ‘The army vindicated’. Bray made mention of this order in his tract, E. 422 (27), ‘A representation to the nation’.

³³ E 558 (14), ‘The army vindicated’. Neither Clarke nor Fairfax records this incident, and none of the sources gives any role to Cromwell.

³⁴ E. 558 (14), ‘The army vindicated’. No one appears to have charged Bray with complicity in the mutiny at Dunstable, and this probably explains the lenient treatment he received.

³⁵ E 558 (14), ‘The army vindicated’.

³⁶ Ibid.

³⁷ The only hint of Cromwell's presence at Ware comes in Clarke's account. He relates that after the court martial some soldiers approached Cromwell complaining they had been abused by their officers ‘and being told by the Lieutenant-General that they should have justice against them were very much satisfied’. E. 414(13), ‘A full relation of the proceedings at the Rendezvous’, reprinted in Maseres, Select tracts, I, lviii. It is possible that if Cromwell came to Ware it was for the court martial rather than the review.

³⁸ Lords Journal, IX, 527, reprinted in Maseres, Select tracts, I, xl-xliii.Google Scholar

³⁹ E. 520 (7), Perfect Diurnal no. 225, 15–22 Nov., 1647.

⁴⁰ E. 520 (6), Perfect Occurances no. 46, 12–19 Nov., 1647. There is some reason to speculate that the Army actually owned the press on which Perfect Occurances was printed. Chequers MSS, 782, fo. 43.

⁴¹ E. 416 (28), Kingdom's Weekly Intelligencer no. 235, 16–23 Nov., 1647.

⁴² See note 37 above.

⁴³ E. 520 (9), Perfect Diurnal no. 226, 22–29 Nov., 1647.

⁴⁴ See the petition they presented, 669 fo. II (98), ‘To the Commons. The petition of many free-born people’; E.411 (9), ‘The case of the Army’; the report of the petition in Underdown, D. E. (ed.), ‘The parliamentary diary of John Boys’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXXIX (1966), 151Google Scholar; and the defence of Corporal William Thompson, E. 419 (23), ‘England's freedoms, soldier's rights’. It might be pointed out that the authors of’ The hunting of the foxes’ who referred to Arnold's punishment did so in an extremely precise fashion: ‘Mr Arnold, a private soldier was shot to death for promoting and assisting the work of the soldiery in reference to the Solemn Engagement of the Army’, that is by encouraging the soldiers not to divide from the main body of the army. They do not claim that Arnold was killed for promoting the Agreement. ‘The hunting of the foxes by five small beagles’, in Wolfe, D. M. (ed.), Leveller manifestoes of the Puritan Revolution (N.Y. 1967), p. 363.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ ‘Diary of John Boys’, loc. cit. pp. 152–3.

⁴⁶ Fairfax was requested to send up the names of any who should be punished but were not under military command. Bodleian Library, Tanner MSS, LVIII, fo. 594.

⁴⁷ Underdown, D. E., Pride's purge (Oxford, 1970); A. B. Worden, The Rump Parliament.Google Scholar