¹ Cromwell, at Putney. Firth, C. H. (ed.), The Clarke papers (hereafter Clarke papers), Camden Society Publications, 4 vols. (London, 1891–1901), 1, 369Google Scholar.

² House of Lords Journal (hereafter L.J.), VIII, 543.

³ The assumption that the Levellers pervaded the army is central in Woodhouse, A. S. P., Puritanism and liberty (London, 1938)Google Scholar; Wolfe, D. M.Leveller manifestoes of the Puritan Revolution (New York, 1944)Google Scholar; Brailsford, H. N., The Levellers and the English Revolution (London, 1961)Google Scholar; Morton, A. L., Freedom in arms (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; and Aylmer, G. E., The Levellers in the English Revolution (Ithaca, New York, 1975)Google Scholar. It is, perhaps, best summarized by K. V. Thomas: ‘through their links with the agitators…the Levellers forced Cromwell and the Army ‘grandees’ into increasingly radical postures. They engineered the seizure of the King in June 1647, the march on London, and the staging of the remarkable debates at Putney in October–November where officers, agitators and civilian Levellers thrashed out the principles on which the new political order was to rest.’ ‘The Levellers and the franchise’, in Aylmer, G. E. (ed.), The Interregnum: the quest for settlement (London, 1972), p. 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ The relationship between the radical sects in London and the Leveller leadership has been most recently analysed by ProfTolmie, M. in The triumph of the saints (Cambridge, 1977)Google Scholar. He concludes that the sects, particularly the independent and baptist congregations, were not much influenced by Leveller programmes in the critical period 1646–8. In conjunction with this article, it is timely to readdress the question, was there a Leveller movement?

⁵ This does not suggest, as Dr Gentles has, that the army faced an arrears crisis which precipitated its revolt. The aggregate figures from which he has worked do not present a true picture of the arrears problem. Gendes, I., ‘The arrears of pay of the parliamentary army at the end of the first Civil War’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLVIII, no. 117 (05, 1975)Google Scholar. Nor does it seem to me that he provides a convincing explanation of the army's radicalization. Besides an alarming number of errors and inaccuracies, he attaches far too much importance to arrears and ignores the prevalent evidence of issues of honour. Dr Morrill's study, ‘The army revolt in 1647’, although it relies upon some of Gentles' insupportable conclusions, is a far more convincing piece of work. Yet, I am not persuaded that the events of 1647 constitute an army ‘revolt’. They are better understood as a process of politicization and radicalization. Gentles, I., ‘Arrears of pay and ideology in the army revolt of 1647’, in Bond, B. and Roy, I. (eds.), War and society (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Morrill, J. S., ‘The army revolt of 1647’, in Duke, A. C. and Tamse, C. A. (eds.), Britain and the Netherlands, VI (The Hague, 1977)Google Scholar.

⁶ Morrill, J. S., ‘Mutiny and discontent in English provincial armies 1645–47’, Past and Present, no. 56 (08, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gentles, ‘The revolt of the army’, pp. 57–64.

⁷ British Library, Thomason Tracts (hereafter E.) 515 (3), Perfect Diurnal, no. 189, 8–1503 1647Google Scholar; Bodleian Library (hereafter Bodl.) Tanner MSS, vol. 59, fo. 792. On 11 March the Commons changed the jurisdiction of a manslaughter trial to the council of war and instructed the assize judges on precedents culled by John Selden. Whitacre's diary, British Library Additional Manuscripts (hereafter B.L. Add. MSS) 31,116, fo. 304.

⁸ SirWaller, William, Vindication of the character and conduct of Sir William Waller (London, 1793), p. 52Google Scholar; House of Commons Journal (hereafter C.J.) v, 115.

⁹ Kishlansky, M. A., ‘The case of the army truly stated: the creation of the New Model Army’, Past and Present, no. 80 (1979), 51–74Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Rushworth, John, Historical Collections (hereafter Rushworth), 8 vols. (London, 1721), VI, 445Google Scholar; L.J IX, 112–13.

¹¹ Rushworth, VI, 446; Clarke papers, I, 17; Rushworth, VI, 468; E. 515 (10), Perfect diurnal, no. 196, 26 April to 3 May 1647.

¹² Waller, Vindication, pp. 92–3. The imprisonment of Ensign Nichols became a cause célèbre within the army. Nichols was arrested by Major Francis Dormer for distributing the March petition among the companies Dormer was reorganizing for the Irish service. His pockets were searched and his papers taken from him. The commissioners brought Nichols to London without informing Fairfax, who, for reasons of health, had left army headquarters. For further details of the Nichols affair see B. L. Loan 29/175 fos. 49–50.

¹³ Cary, Henry (ed.), Memorials of the Great Civil War 1642–52, 2 vols. (London, 1842), 1, 203–4Google Scholar. It is generally assumed that these were the ‘radical’ cavalry regiments. Actually, they were all of the cavalry regiments with the exception of Rossiter's stationed in Lincolnshire, and those of Pye and Graves, which were at Holmby. For this common misunderstanding see Gentles, ‘Arrears of pay and ideology’, p. 48.

¹⁴ Rushworth, VI, 474; Bodl. Tanner MSS, vol. 58, fo. 84; Clarke papers, 1, 431.

¹⁵ Clarke papers 1, 26.

¹⁶ On 27 April Nichols was granted £2 from the army's contingency funds to offset the cost of his imprisonment. William Clarke's accounts, Chequers MSS, 782, fo. 50. I would not follow Morrill in classifying Nichols's arrest as an issue of indemnity. Morrill. ‘The army revolt of 1647’, p. 78.

¹⁷ Worcester College Library, Clarke MSS (hereafter Clarke MSS), vol. XLI, fos. 105–27. E. 390 (26), ‘The declaration of the army’; Clarke MSS, vol. XLI, fo. 120.

¹⁸ Clarke MSS, vol. XLI, fos. 118–22. The selection made from these documents by Woodhouse, Puritanism and liberty, p. 399, is wholly unrepresentative of their content.

¹⁹ Clarke MSS, vol. XLI, fos. 106, 121, 106.

²⁰ Ibid. fos. 122, 113.

²¹ Some concern the army had of its reputation can be gauged by the £150 subsidy granted to the printer of Sprigge's Anglia rediviva, a non-political but pro-army account of the war. William Clarke's accounts, Chequers MSS, 782, fo. 42.

²² Tolmie's separation between the Leveller leadership and the radical congregations must be contrasted with the assumptions of Brailsford and Frank that the Leveller movement originated during the war. Tolmie, The triumph of the saints; Brailsford, The Levellers; Frank, Joseph, The Levellers (Cambridge, Mass., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Corporation of London Record Office, Common Council Journal (hereafter Co. Co. Jo.), vol. XL, fo. 131. John Lilburne, ‘Innocency and truth justified.’ In his account of the meeting at Windmill Tavern Lilburne asserted that a large number of those who assembled to draw the petition were unknown to him. For some discussion of the role of Goodwin's congregation see Kirby, D. A., ‘The parish of St. Stephen's Coleman Street,’ unpublished B. Litt, (Oxford University, 1971)Google Scholar.

²⁴ E. 343 (11) ‘A remonstrance of many thousand citizens.’

²⁵ Walwyn, William, ‘Walwyn's just defence’ in Haller, William and Davies, Godfrey (eds.), The Leveller tracts (New York, 1944), pp. 352–3Google Scholar. Tolmie's assessment that ‘the chronology of these petitions is vague’ should not obscure the fact that they most certainly belong to the first quarter of 1647 rather than the last half of 1646. Tolmie, The triumph of the saints, p. 146.

²⁶ Hertfordshire Record Office, Halsey MSS 70556. Letter from Col. Alban Cox. I am indebted to Professor David Underdown for this reference.

²⁷ ‘Walwyn's just defence’, p. 355.

²⁸ Whitacre's dairy, B.L. Add. MSS 31,116, fo. 304; Co. Co. Jo., vol. XL, fo. 207; E. 393 (39), John Lilburne, ‘Rash oaths unwarrantable’, p. 29.

²⁹ Whitacre's diary, B.L. Add. MSS 31,116, fo. 305; E. 393 (39), ‘Rash oaths.’ Tulidah was granted bail the following day on a motion by Holies. He was a member of the army and his quick release suggests either that Holies did not want to make this petition an army issue, or, more likely, that Tulidah's actions were in support of Tue rather than the petition.

³⁰ E. 393 (39), ‘Rash oaths’, p. 40; ‘Walwyn's just defence’, p. 356.

³¹ E. 393 (39) ‘Rash oaths’ pp. 41–3; C.J. 5, 179.

³² E. 359 (17), ‘London's liberty in chains discovered’; E. 362 (6), ‘An anatomy of the Lords' tyranny’; E. 373 (1), ‘The oppressed man's oppression’; E. 378 (13), ‘The outcryes of oppressed Commons’.

³³ This inversion of the traditional account of the relation between Lilburne and the London radicals is justified both by Walwyn's account of the early petitioning campaign and Lilburne's rather acerbic assessment of the agitation which followed the arrest of Tue. It is clear from both that Lilburne's role was less than central. ‘Walwyn's Just Defence’; E. 393 (39), ‘Rash oaths’, p. 44.

³⁴ One measure of the difficulty in assessing the impact of puritanism on the army is the contradictory directions in which its doctrines lead. Edmund Chillenden, for example, an agitator and generally thought one of Lilburne's correspondents wrote a tract in September 1647 justifying lay preaching. Bemoaning the continuation of religious persecution he advised the soldiery: ‘but you see God ordering it…His hand being in it we must conclude it is for His glory and our good (let us with patience possess our souls letting our moderation be known to all men, the Lord is at hand)…and not to resist authority, but patiently to bear and suffer what penalty shall be put upon us.’ E. 405 (io), Edmund Chillenden, ‘Preaching without ordination.’

³⁵ C.J., v, 183. The original plan was to begin the disbandment on 28 May. Public Records Office, State papers 21/26, fo. 62.

³⁶ Rushworth, v, 498.

³⁷ Cary, Memorials, 1, 219–20. Bodl. Tanner MSS, vol. Lvm, fo. 129; Cary, Memorials, 1, 221–2. Rainsborough appears to have played no part in his regiment's mutiny and little in the agitation of the fall. During September and October he was busy securing a commission in the navy and his appearance at Putney in October was in this connexion. Clarke papers, 1, 105, notee.

³⁸ These departures were almost equally divided between horse and foot and more than fifty non-commissioned officers also left service. In the regiments in which these changes occurred a dramatic reshaping of the army's officer corps resulted. For fuller details see Kishlansky, M. A., ‘The emergence of radical politics in the English Revolution’ (Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1977), pp. 414–17Google Scholar.

³⁹ Joyce's action has been the subject of considerable speculation. Sir Charles Firth's account remains the most plausible although fresh evidence has come to light which further confuses an already tangled event. Clarke papers, 1, xxiv–xxxi.

⁴⁰ Rushworth, vi, 509.

⁴¹ Rushworth, vi, 512. The Solemn Engagement of 5 June set out the soldiers' interpretation of the events of the previous two months. They explicidy denied they had any intention of ‘overthrowing magistracy, the suppressing or hindering of Presbyterian government and establishing Independent, or the upholding a general licentiousness under pretense of liberty of conscience’. I cannot agree with Gardiner that the council of the army was established in June although it was first suggested then. Gardiner, S. R., The history of the Great Civil War, 4 vols. (London, 1893), III, 281Google Scholar. See below, note 60. The inclusion of the Solemn Engagement as a Leveller document by both Wolfe, Leveller manifestoes, and Morton, Freedom in arms, is an example of the confusion that surrounds Leveller studies.

⁴² C.J., v, 197; Whitacre's diary, B.L. Add. MSS 31,116, fo. 311; Steig, M. F. (ed.), The diary of John Harington, M.P., Somerset Record Society Publications, LXXIV (1977), p. 55Google Scholar.

⁴³ C.J., v, 206–8; Clarke papers, 1, 133; E. 515 (19), Perfect diurnal, no. 202, 7–14 Jun e 1647.

⁴⁴ The parliamentary or constitutional history of England (hereafter O.P.H.), 24 vols. (London, 1751–1762), xv, 438–40Google Scholar; Co. Co. Jo., vol. XL, fo. 221.

⁴⁵ ‘The Army have resigned themselves in all business to the hands of their superior officers,’ the general's chaplain wrote to Lord Fairfax. Bell, Robert (ed.), The Fairfax correspondence, 2 vols. (London, 1849), I, 354–46Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Rushworth, vi, 564, 567.

⁴⁷ Ibid., vi, 567–70.

⁴⁸ Ibid., vi, 569–70.

⁴⁹ Ibid., vi, 570–1.

⁵⁰ C.J. v, 225, 227, 229.

⁵¹ Clarke MSS, vol. ex, fos. 56–61.

⁵² E. 400 (5), John Lilburne, ‘Jonah's cry out of the whale's belly.’

⁵³ Clarke papers, 1, 100, 108–11. On the face of it there seems little reason to accept Wolfe's conclusion that the letters signed by the code number 102 were Leveller-inspired. His reasoning is the familiar tautology: the agitators were Levellers hence their actions were directed by the Leveller leaders. The prevention of piecemeal disbandment was an army issue which centred on the divisions in Fairfax's foot regiment. Wolfe, Leveller manifestoes, p. 29, n. 1.

⁵⁴ ‘Walwyn's just defence’, p. 358.

⁵⁵ E. 393 (39), ‘Rash oaths’, p. 46.

⁵⁶ E. 392 (4), ‘The poor wise-mans admonition unto all the plain people of London.’

⁵⁷ E. 378 (13), John Lilburne, ‘The outcry of oppressed Commons’, p. 14. ‘We for our own preservation shall tread in the Parliament's steps by appealing to the people against them, as they did against the King.’

⁵⁸ E. 400 (5), ‘Jonah's cry’; E. 393 (39), ‘Rash oaths’, p. 47.

⁵⁹ Rushworth, VI, 578, 585–91, ‘An humble remonstrance of the army.’

⁶⁰ E. 400 (5), ‘Jonah's cry.’ This confirms, as does the formal presentations signed by Rushworth from the council of war, that the council of the army was not yet established. It was not until 16 July that agitators were admitted to a full meeting of the council of war and not until after the march on London that the council of the army began to meet. Its sessions were finally regularized in early September. Clarke papers, 1, 214; E. 407 (34), ‘Papers of the treaty at a great meeting of the general officers of the army.’ See also R. Overton, ‘An appeal from the degenerate representative body’, in Wolfe, Leveller manifestoes, p. 188.

⁶¹ E. 421 (19), John Wildman, ‘Putney projects’, p. 10.

⁶² Overton, ‘An appeal’, pp. 185, 187–8.

⁶³ Ibid. p. 187.

⁶⁴ Clarke papers, I, 152–6.

⁶⁵ Ibid. 1, 170–3. The use of the officer agitators as a conduit is another demonstration of the absence of a General Council of the Army.

⁶⁶ Clarke papers, 1, 171–6.

⁶⁷ ‘Tho' this [a march nearer to London] was much pressed with reasons and earnestness by the agitators, yet the General and the officers after many hours debate so satisfied them with arguments and reasons to the contrary, that they submitted it to the General and officers, no man gainsaying it.’ Ibid. 1, 215.

⁶⁸ Ibid. 1, 209.

⁶⁹ See especially agitator Allen's speech, ibid. 1, 193.

⁷⁰ C.J., V, 260–1.

⁷¹ C.J., V, 261; Co. Co. Jo., vol. XL, fos. 243–4; E. 518 (28), Perfect summary, no. 7, 30 Aug. to 7 Sept. 1647.

⁷² Clarke papers, I, 220.

⁷³ O.P.H. XVI, 235; the full declaration is printed on pp. 225–37.

⁷⁴ L.J. IX, 374.

⁷⁵ C.J. V, 270, 272–3. Harington's diary, p. 57; C.J. uv, 271, 270.

⁷⁶ C.J. V, 273, 278–9.

⁷⁷ O.P.H. XVI, 269.

⁷⁸ O.P.H. XVI, 268.

⁷⁹ Harington's diary, p. 58. ‘They which should sit in the House before that satisfy the House they had not joined in the votes that passed in the interval should be esteemed members.’

⁸⁰ C.J. v, 283, 291, 315–16.

⁸¹ On 2 August several persons supporting a petition for composure with the army were killed in Guildhall yard when cavalry raised by the new Militia Committee charged through them. E. 518 (16), Perfect diurnal, no. 210, 2–9 Aug. 1647.

⁸² Although the apprentices' riot is one of the central events in both army and Leveller history it has never been suggested that the debate which centred on the franchise for servants might have been influenced by the apprentices' recent action. Some reports of those who were active on 26 July stressed that servants were being used to keep masters officially uninvolved. See especially E. 518 (23), Perfect occurrances, no. 34, 20–27 Aug. 1647.

⁸³ E. 407 (I), ‘Two declarations from his Excellency.’ See White's defence, E. 413 (17), ‘The copy of a letter to Sir Thomas Fairfax.’

⁸⁴ E. 421 (19), John Wildman, ‘Putney projects.’

⁸⁵ C.J. v, 327; On 15 and 16 September the Commons had received similar petitions from London, Oxford, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire. C.J. v, 301, 305.

⁸⁶ ‘Walwyn's just defence’, p. 351.

⁸⁷ E. 409 (22) John Lilburne, ‘The juglers discovered.’ On 7 August Fairfax authorized the payment of £10 for Lilburne, probably for maintenance in jail. William Clarke's Accounts, Chequers MSS 782, fo. 43.

⁸⁸ E. 409 (22), ‘The jugglers discovered’, p. 8.

⁸⁹ House of Lords Record Office, Nalson MSS (photocopy), vol. VI, 53; C.J. v, 294. Rushworth's letter to Cromwell is instructive to any who still believe that the lieutenant-general was in command of the New Model.

⁹⁰ E. 407 (41), John Lilburne, ‘Two letters writ by Lt-Col Lilburne.’

⁹¹ L.J. IX, 436.

⁹² E. 412 (11), ‘The additional plea of Lt-Col Lilburne’; E. 407 (41). ‘Two letters’; E. 518 (42), Perfect occurrances, no. 40, 1–8 Oct.

⁹³ E. 518 (26), Perfect occurrances, no. 35, 27 Aug. to 3 Sept. The agitators were quartered in Hammersmith.

⁹⁴ Clarke papers, I, 223–4; E. 407 (38), ‘A declaration from His Excellency’, ‘There being a General Council of the Army appointed to be held every Thursday.’

⁹⁵ C.J. v, 306.

⁹⁶ E. 518 (26) Perfect occurrances, no. 35, 27 Aug. to 3 Sept; E. 518 (40) Perfect diurnal, no. 218, 27 Sept. to 4 Oct.

⁹⁷ E. 405 (22), ‘The resolutions of the agitators of the army.’

⁹⁸ C.J. v, 289–90.

⁹⁹ Rushworth, VII, 804; C.J. v, 298, 301.

¹⁰⁰ E. 407 (38), ‘A declaration from his Excellency’; Rushworth, VII, 815.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., VII, 820.

¹⁰² Ibid., VII, 829, 835, 842.

¹⁰³ E. 411 (9), printed in Wolfe, Leveller manifestoes, pp. 199–222.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. pp. 211–16.

¹⁰⁵ E. 412 (6), ‘Two letters from the agents of the five regiments.’

¹⁰⁶ E. 518 (47), Perfect diurnal, no. 221, 18–25 Oct. 1647.

¹⁰⁷ E. 411 (19), ‘Papers from the army.’

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. This eyewitness account estimated support for ‘The case of the army’ at about 400 in an army of 21,000.