No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2014
A variant transcription of one of the Whitehall Debates has been identified among the Clarke papers. Located in volume 16 of the Worcester MSS, it records the latter part of the longest debate, on 14 December 1648, concerning the Second Agreement of the People. The fair copy of this debate by army secretary William Clarke (in volume 65 of the Worcester MSS) was previously believed to be the only surviving record. The new source provides additional text, clarifies obscure passages, and is generally easier to understand. Historians now have the advantage of another account of the meeting, which reveals its importance more fully. Although the Levellers’ Agreement was never to be implemented, the Whitehall Debates took place between Pride's Purge and the trial and execution of Charles I. The variant therefore sheds new light on the thinking of the army command and its advisers both religious and lay at this time of unprecedented constitutional crisis. It also provides the first documentary evidence that the army debates at Putney (1647) and Whitehall (1648–9) were not recorded by Clarke alone, but by a team of at least three secretaries.
For their invaluable advice in the preparation of this article, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Clive Holmes and Prof. Ian Gentles. Dr Joanna Parker, Librarian, Worcester College, Oxford, and the staff of the Scholars’ Centre in the University of Western Australia Library, especially Azra Tulic, have also been most generous with their assistance. I am indebted, further, to the referees who read this article for their extremely helpful comments.
1 Aylmer, G. E., ‘Introduction’, in Aylmer, G. E., ed., Parliament, the Civil War and the conquest and administration of Scotland: Sir William Clarke manuscripts in Worcester College, Oxford (1640–1664) (Brighton, 1979), pp. 10–11Google Scholar and n. 5; Clair, L. Le, ‘The survival of the manuscript’, in Mendle, M., ed., The Putney Debates: the army, the Levellers, and the English state (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 19–35Google Scholar, at p. 30; Henderson, F., ed., The Clarke papers: further selections from the papers of William Clarke, Camden 5th ser., 27 (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 2Google Scholar, 380.
2 Clarke papers, Worcester College, Oxford (hereafter Worcester MSS); Firth, C. H., ed., The Clarke papers: selections from the papers of William Clarke, Camden Society n.s. (4 vols., London, 1891–1901)Google Scholar, xlix, Preface; Le Clair, ‘Survival’, pp. 20–2; M. Mendle, ‘Introduction’, in Mendle, ed., Putney Debates, pp. 1–15.
3 An agreement of the people for a firme and present peace, upon grounds of common-right and freedom (London, 1647).
4 Firth, ed., Clarke papers, xlix, Preface, p. x.
5 Le Clair, ‘Survival’, p. 21.
6 Woodhouse, A. S. P., ed., Puritanism and liberty: being the army debates from the Clarke manuscripts with supplementary documents (London, 1938)Google Scholar.
7 Mendle, ‘Introduction’, pp. 3–4; Henderson, F., ‘Reading, and writing, the text of the Putney Debates’, in Mendle, , ed., Putney Debates, pp. 36–50Google Scholar, esp. pp. 49–50.
8 Mendle, ‘Introduction’, pp. 7–9; Lamont, W., ‘Puritanism, liberty and the Putney Debates’, in Mendle, , ed., Putney Debates, pp. 241–55Google Scholar; B. Worden, ‘The Levellers in history and memory, 1660–1960’, in ibid., pp. 256–82; Baker, P. and Vernon, E., eds., The Agreements of the people, the Levellers and the constitutional crisis of the English revolution (New York, NY, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Worcester MSS, 16, fos. 53r–[54]v, 56r–[60]r.
10 A petition from His Excellency Thomas Lord Fairfax and the General Councel of Officers of the Army to … parliament … concerning the draught of an Agreement of the people (London, 1649).
11 Taft, B., ‘The Council of Officers’ Agreement of the people, 1648/9’, Historical Journal, 28 (1985), pp. 169–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 185; Smith, D. L., ‘The Agreements of the people and the constitutions of the Interregnum governments’, in Baker, and Vernon, , eds., Agreements, pp. 239–61Google Scholar.
12 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 64r; 65, fo. 134r–v.
13 Gentles, I., ‘The New Model Army and the constitutional crisis of the late 1640s’, in Baker, and Vernon, , eds., Agreements, pp. 139–62Google Scholar, at p. 141.
14 Lilburne, J., The legall fundamentall liberties of the people of England (London, 1649), p. 35Google Scholar; Taft, B., ‘From Reading to Whitehall: Henry Ireton's journey’, in Mendle, , ed., Putney Debates, pp. 175–93Google Scholar; idem, ‘Voting lists of the Council of Officers, December 1648’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 52 (1979), pp. 138–54, esp. pp. 140–5; idem, ‘The Council of Officers’ Agreement’, passim; Gentles, I., The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford and Cambridge, MA, 1992), pp. 289ffGoogle Scholar.
15 Henderson, ‘Reading Putney’, esp. pp. 46–8.
16 Withington, P., ‘Public discourse, corporate citizenship, and state formation in early modern England’, American Historical Review, 112 (2007), pp. 1016–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 1028.
17 Peltonen, M., Classical humanism and republicanism in English political thought (Cambridge, 1995)Google Scholar; Withington, ‘Public discourse’, esp. pp. 1016–28; Kyle, C. R., Theater of state: parliament and political culture in early Stuart England (Stanford, CA, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peltonen, M., Rhetoric, politics and popularity in pre-revolutionary England (Cambridge, 2013)Google Scholar; Le Clair, ‘Survival’, pp. 19–20.
18 Blair, A. M., Too much to know: managing scholarly information before the modern age (New Haven, MI, and London, 2010), pp. 69Google Scholar, 115; Hunt, A., The art of hearing: English preachers and their audiences, 1590–1640 (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 139–47Google Scholar; Henderson, ‘Reading Putney’, p. 40. See also de Vivo, F., Information and communication in Venice: rethinking early modern politics (Oxford, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Henderson, ‘Reading Putney’, passim; Hunt, Art of hearing, p. 146; Mendle, M., ‘News and the pamphlet culture of mid-seventeenth-century England’, in Dooley, B. and Baron, S. A., eds., The politics of information in early modern Europe (London, 2001), pp. 57–79Google Scholar, at p. 65.
20 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 127r; 16, fo. [60]r. Because of concerns regarding the emendations of Firth and Woodhouse, I have thought it advisable to transliterate quotations from the manuscripts as conservatively as possible. Even expanded contractions are therefore indicated by means of square brackets and other interpolations (including introduced punctuation) have been kept to a minimum. On the rare occasions when italic type has been deemed essential for purposes of clarification, it is indicated in the footnote.
21 Kyle, Theater of state, p. 7.
22 Le Claire, ‘Survival’, p. 21. The inventory to the microfilm edition remains the most comprehensive overall guide to their contents: Aylmer, ‘Introduction’, pp. 35–45.
23 Worcester MSS, 16, fos. 31r–[35]r; Henderson, F., ‘Drafting the Officers’ Agreement of the people, 1648–49: a reappraisal’, in Baker, and Vernon, , eds., Agreements, pp. 163–94Google Scholar, at p. 164.
24 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 55r–v.
25 Firth, ed., Clarke papers, liv, p. 131 and note a.
26 Firth made no apparent use of the variant, for example, to clarify Wildman's earlier speech, whose beginning he described as ‘hopelessly confused’: ibid., pp. 120–1, and p. 120, note a.
27 Firth, ed., Clarke papers, xlix, Preface, p. lxxvi; Woodhouse, ed., Puritanism and liberty, Introduction, pp. 11–13. Firth's identification of some (though by no means all) of his alterations to the text of the debate at Whitehall on 14 Dec. 1648 can be found in his footnotes: Firth, ed., Clarke papers, liv, pp. 71–132.
28 Le Clair, ‘Survival’, p. 22; Mendle, ‘Introduction’, p. 4 n. 11.
29 Henderson, ‘Reading Putney’, pp. 46–8.
30 Ibid., pp. 39–48.
31 In all cases, these initials match with the full names given by Clarke.
32 Henderson, ‘Reading Putney’, pp. 46–7.
33 Jordan, W. K., The development of religious toleration in England (4 vols., London, 1932–40), iii, pp. 119–31Google Scholar; Brailsford, H. N., The Levellers and the English revolution (London, 1961), ch. 19Google Scholar; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 285–94; Coffey, J., John Goodwin and the puritan revolution: religion and intellectual change in seventeenth-century England (Woodbridge, 2006)Google Scholar, ch. 6.
34 Worcester MSS, 16, fos. 28r–[29]r; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 287. Calculations vary as to the exact numbers. In the attendance list, the names of four officers (Col. Tichborne; Lieut. Cols. Salmon, Gosse, and Cooke) are repeated, which may be one cause of the confusion; further, though he spoke, Richard Overton's name does not appear. The names of the officers are printed in Firth's table of attendees (but it is not without errors), while Gentles lists the civilian attendees and identifies many of them: Firth, ed., Clarke papers, liv, App. D; Taft, ‘Voting lists’, p. 139 n. 7; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 522 n. 123. There may also have been anonymous observers present: see Taft, ‘The Council of Officers’ Agreement’, p. 174.
35 Foxley, R., ‘Freedom of conscience and the Agreements of the people’, in Baker, and Vernon, , eds., Agreements, pp. 117–38Google Scholar.
36 Coffey, J., ‘The toleration controversy during the English revolution’, in Durston, C. and Maltby, J., eds., Religion in revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 42–68Google Scholar, at p. 42.
37 Coffey, J., Persecution and toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689 (Harlow and New York, NY, 2000)Google Scholar; Walsham, A., Charitable hatred: tolerance and intolerance in England, 1500–1700 (Manchester and New York, NY, 2006), esp. pp. 6–13Google Scholar, 232ff; Coffey, ‘Toleration controversy’, passim.
38 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 113v.
39 Gentles, ‘Constitutional crisis’, p. 148.
40 Coffey, ‘Toleration controversy’, p. 51.
41 Goodwin, T., Nye, P., Simpson, S., Burroughs, J., and Bridge, W., An apologeticall narration (London, 1643/4)Google Scholar; Polizzotto, C., ‘Liberty of conscience and the Whitehall Debates of 1648–1649’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 26 (1975), pp. 69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘The campaign against The humble proposals of 1652’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 38 (1987), pp. 569–81; Capp, B. S., England's culture wars: puritan reformation and its enemies in the Interregnum, 1649–1660 (Oxford, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
42 Coffey, John Goodwin, chs. 4–5; Firth, C. H., Cromwell's army (London, 1921), p. 322Google Scholar; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 522 n. 123.
43 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 112r.
44 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 108r.
45 Worcester MSS, 65, fos. 116r, 114r.
46 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 116v (my italics).
47 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 117v.
48 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 117v (underlined in original).
49 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 109v; 16, fo. [29]v.
50 Worcester MSS, 65, fos. 111v, 117r, 119v.
51 [Overton, R.,] The araignement of Mr. Persecvtion ([London,] 1645)Google Scholar; idem, An arrow against all tyrants ([London,] 1646).
52 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 120r; 16, fo. 53r.
53 The variant substitutes ‘ye power’ for Clarke's ‘any power’: Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 53r; 65, fo. 120r.
54 Polizzotto, ‘Liberty of conscience’, pp. 78–9.
55 Worcester MSS, 65, fos. 120r–121r; 16, fo. 53r–v.
56 Polizzotto, ‘Liberty of conscience’, pp. 81–2.
57 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 122r; 16, fo. [54]v.
58 Worcester MSS, 65, fos. 120r, 121r; 16, fo. 53r–v.
59 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 122v; 16, fo. 56r.
60 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 123r; 16, fo. 56v.
61 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 124r; 16, fo. [57]r.
62 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 123v; 16, fo. [57]r.
63 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 124r; 16, fo. [57]v.
64 For techniques the clerks are likely to have used in order to produce as accurate a record as contemporary shorthand systems allowed, see Henderson, ‘Reading Putney’, p. 48.
65 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [57]v.
66 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [57]v; 65, fo. 124r.
67 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 120r.
68 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 53r.
69 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 122r.
70 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [54]v (my italics).
71 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 124v.
72 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [58]r. Although Collier's speech is clearer in the variant, it is by no means ‘exceptionally confused’ in Clarke's version, as Firth maintained in justification of his extensive alterations to it. Firth's comment suggests that he was less at ease with religious arguments: Firth, ed., Clarke papers, liv, p. 126, note c.
73 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 120v.
74 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 53r.
75 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 120v. Clarke's version has no preposition following ‘Answer’; ‘vpon’ is supplied from the variant: Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 53v.
76 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 53v. One of Lilburne's epithets for Ireton was ‘the cunningest of Machiavilians [sic]’: Legall fundamentall liberties, p. 35.
77 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 121r.
78 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [54]r.
79 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 123r.
80 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 56r–v (my italics).
81 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 126v.
82 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [59]v.
83 Firth, ed., Clarke papers, liv, p. 131.
84 Polizzotto, ‘Liberty of conscience’, p. 79.
85 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [54]r–v.
86 Worcester MSS, 65, fos. 121v–122r.
87 Henderson, ‘Reading Putney’, p. 38.
88 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 121v.
89 Firth, ed., Clarke papers, liv, p. 117 and note a.
90 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 122r.
91 Firth, ed., Clarke papers, liv, p. 117, note c.
92 Woodhouse, ed., Puritanism and liberty, Introduction, pp. 40–1.
93 [Williams, R.,] The blovdy tenent, of persecution, for cause of conscience (London, 1644), p. 209Google Scholar. For Williams, as for Goodwin, the earthly antitype of Old Testament Israel was the (gathered) churches of Christ under the Gospel. See ibid., p. 206, where he refers to ‘the unparallel'd state of that typicall Land and people of the Iewes … having no Antitype but the Churches of Christ Iesus. ‘Goodwin's use of ‘parallel’ in the quotation also echoes this passage from Williams.
94 Worcester MSS, 16, fos. [54]v–56r; 65, fo. 122r–v. This speech by Nye is bifurcated in the variant by the interleaved document on fo. 55r–v.
95 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 56v; 65, fo. 123v.
96 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [54]v; 65, fo. 122r.
97 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [54]v; 65, fo. 122r.
98 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 56r; 65, fo. 122v. There is no closing bracket in the original.
99 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 56r; 65, fo. 122v.
100 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 56r; 65, fo. 122v.
101 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 56r; 65, fo. 122v.
102 The most notable of these minor divergences is that Clarke's version substitutes ‘an Edict’ (underlined in original) for ‘a right’ in the passage: ‘I doe not goe about to say, yt a Magistrate as if hee had a right from heaven should oppose this.’ Worcester MSS, 16, fo. 56r; 65, fo. 122v.
103 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 122r.
104 Worcester MSS, 16, fol. [54]v. For another example of ‘abett’ in the same hand, see the manuscript version of the Second Agreement bound earlier in the volume: Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [32]r. See also [Lilburne, J.], Foundations of freedom; or an agreement of the people (London, 1648), p. 7Google Scholar.
105 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 122v.
106 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 122v.
107 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 122v.
108 Attempting to redeem this passage, even Firth showed signs of strain: ‘Nye's argument is clearly “If a Commonwealth may provide for feeding the bodies of its members may it not provide also for feeding their souls, etc.”.’ Firth, ed., Clarke papers, liv, p. 119, note a (my italics).
109 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [57]v.
110 Worcester MSS, 16, fo. [57]v; 65, fo. 124r. Woodhouse's attribution of an earlier, anonymous, speech to Gilbert is not convincing: Puritanism and liberty, p. 152 and n. 1.
111 See Henderson's discussion of the speeches of Colonel Thomas Rainborowe at Putney: ‘Reading Putney’, p. 48.
112 Henderson, ‘Reading Putney’, p. 50.
113 Kyle, Theater of state, p. 69.
114 Mendle, ‘News and the pamphlet culture’, p. 63.
115 Worcester MSS, 65, fo. 120r (brackets in original).
116 Firth, ed., Clarke papers, liv, p. 113, note a.
117 Woodhouse, ed., Puritanism and liberty, p. 155.