¹ Henrietta Anne, youngest child of Charles I.

² Juxon does not employ the ‘new style’ (or Gregorian) calendar, in actual fact, but keeps to the ‘old style’ (or Julian) calendar. However, this edition of his journal takes the new year to begin on 1 January and not 25 March.

³ Theophilus Riley, the scoutmaster general for the City of London who was involved in Sir Basil Brooke's plot in December–January 1643–44.

⁴ Count de Harcourt, ambassador extraordinary from France, sent to mediate a peace in England.

⁵ George, first Lord Goring, Charles's ambassador in Paris.

⁶ Should read 18 January 1644.

⁷ LJ, vi. 378Google Scholar. For a fuller account of this dinner at Merchant Taylors' Hall, see Baillie, , ii 134–5.Google Scholar

⁸ Juxon's view of the impact of Riley's plot resembles that of Baillie who claimed that ‘This accident, though invented for division, has made a firmer union of the whole party than ever’: Baillie, , ii. 134.Google Scholar

⁹ Captain or Major Thomas Ogle - Peter Smart's son-in-law — was a prisoner in Winchester House.

¹⁰ By the ‘Independent party’ Juxon is probably referring to the religious Independents. The political Independent faction did not emerge until 1645.

¹¹ The Westminster assembly of divines.

¹² Philip Nye, the Independent divine.

¹³ Of St Stephen, Coleman Street, the leading London Independent divine.

¹⁴ The fullest account of the Ogle plot can be found in Gardiner, B. M. (ed.), ‘A secret negotiation with Charles the first, 1643–1644’, (Camden Misc. viii, 1883)Google Scholar. See also Baillie, , ii 135–7.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Both the earl of Essex and a leading member of his staff, Sir Gilbert Gerard, were evidently kept well-informed about the plot's progress: Gardiner, (ed.), ‘A secret negotiation with Charles the first’, pp. 13–17, 27.Google Scholar

¹⁶ This ‘trusty man’ was possibly the bearer whom Thomas Devenish, the keeper of Winchester House, entrusted with his letter to the earl of Bristol of 5 January 1644. Devenish claimed that the bearer was ‘in some measure made privy into the design in general, as one who hereafter good use may be made of, his interest in that sort of people [the religious Independents] being greater than his outward condition promiseth’: Gardiner, (ed.), ‘A secret negotiation with Charles the first’, p. 27.Google Scholar

¹⁷ John Digby, first earl of Bristol.

¹⁸ James Ussher.

¹⁹ Lieutenant-Colonel John Moseley, an officer in the parliamentary garrison at Aylesbury.

²⁰ The Oxford parliament which first sat on 22 January 1644.

²¹ Prince Rupert, Charles's nephew (son of his sister Elizabeth and her husband, Frederick V, the Elector Palatine), commander of the king's horse.

²² Lord John Lovelace, one of several peers who had left the Westminster parliament to join the king at Oxford in August 1643.

²³ Sir Henry Vane junior, a leading war party figure.

²⁴ Oliver St John.

²⁵ William Lenthall, Sir Arthur Hesilrige and Samuel Browne, MP for Dartmouth (Devon) in the Long Parliament.

²⁶ Moses Wall, the earl of Warwick's chaplain.

²⁷ Henry Rich, first earl of Holland, younger brother of Robert Rich, second earl of Warwick, and a leader of the peace party in the Lords.

²⁸ LJ, vi. 381, 391.Google Scholar

²⁹ Isaac Dorislaus, advocate-general of Essex's army.

³⁰ Sir Philip Stapilton, captain of Essex's life-guard.

³¹ John Glynne, recorder of London.

³² Gardiner, , i. 299Google Scholar; Rushworth, , v. 560–61Google Scholar; Clarendon, , iii. 293–4Google Scholar. The king addressed both Houses in Christ Church Hall and not separately, as Juxon claims.

³³ The ‘gentleman that first spake’ was evidently SirCulpepper, John: The kingdom's weekly intelligencer (23–30 January 1644), BL, W30/19, pp. 314–15Google Scholar; Mercurius, etc. (31 January–6 February 1644), BL, W31/18, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

³⁴ On 22 January 1644: CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 86.

³⁵ The Apologeticall Narration published by five Independent clergy at the end of 1643 in response to a November 1643 petition of London ministers to the assembly of divines opposing the gathering of churches. It brought to an end the earlier reticence of the Independent clergy by openly stating their differences with the Presbyterians: Tolmie, , The triumph of the saints, pp. 95–6.Google Scholar

³⁶ Rushworth, , v. 487–94.Google Scholar

³⁷ The battle of Nantwich, 25 January 1644, at which the northern parliamentarian commanders, Sir Thomas Fairfax and Sir William Brereton, defeated John Lord Byron, general of the king's forces in North Wales and the Marches.

³⁸ The solemn league and covenant of 1643.

³⁹ Patrick Ruthven, earl of Forth and Brentford.

⁴⁰ James, duke of York, the second son of Charles I.

⁴¹ Rushworth, , v. 566–7.Google Scholar

⁴² Sir Edward Dering, a Kent baronet and MP; a political moderate who was the first to accept parliament's terms for a pardon at the beginning of 1644.

⁴³ Lennart Torstensson, commander of the Swedish army in Germany.

⁴⁴ The cessation was agreed on 15 September 1643: Rushworth, , v. 548–53Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ ‘Phesitiarii’ appears to be the full form of the word intended by Juxon but its meaning is a complete puzzle.

⁴⁶ Donough MacCarty, Viscount Muskerry, and Turlough[?] O'Neill: see Rushworth, , v. 548.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ English resident at Brussels; the letter concerned was of 27 December 1643: LJ, vi. 368.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ William, Lord Grey of Wark, speaker of the House of Lords.

⁴⁹ Francis, first Lord Cottington.

⁵⁰ Lit. intresse.

⁵¹ The committee of both kingdoms.

⁵² Philip Herbert, fourth earl of Pembroke, and William Cecil, second earl of Salisbury, peace lords and allies of Essex.

⁵³ Juxon supports the view that the setting up of the committee of both kingdoms was an anti-Essex move. For analysis of the political make-up of the committee, see Pearl, V., ‘Oliver St John and the “middle group” in the Long Parliament: August 1643–May 1644’, English Historical Review, 81 (1966), pp. 508–14Google Scholar; Mulligan, L., ‘Peace negotiations, politics and the committee of both kingdoms’, Historical Journal, 12 (1969), pp. 4–5Google Scholar; Kaplan, , Politics and religion during the English Revolution, pp. 18–24.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The ordinance of 16 February 1644 setting up the committee of both kingdoms: Firth, and Rait, , i. 381–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The committee of safety.

⁵⁶ Patrick Ruthven (see note 39 above).

⁵⁷ i.e. the committee of both kingdoms. The parliamentary diarist Sir Simonds D'Ewes also used the term ‘council of state’ when referring to this committee: BL, Harl. Ms. 166, fos. 9, 12V, 13V.

⁵⁸ Sir William Waller, Essex's rival for command of the parliamentary forces.

⁵⁹ György Rákóczi, prince of Transylvania.

⁶⁰ On 12 March 1644: Rushworth, , v. 565.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Sir John Meldrum, the Scottish commander of the parliamentary forces in Nottinghamshire.

⁶² For the quarrel between Colonel King and Lord Willoughby, see Holmes, C., ‘Colonel King and Lincolnshire politics, 1642–46’, Historical Journal, 16 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ Juxon seems to be referring here to the cadre of senior officers associated with Essex, which included Lord Willoughby.

⁶⁴ The battle of Cheriton, Hampshire, on 29 March 1644. News of the victory reached Westminster on 1 April: CJ, iii. 443.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ George Thomson, colonial trader and brother of Maurice Thomson.

⁶⁶ On 10 April 1644.

⁶⁷ On 11 April 1644.

⁶⁸ William Cavendish, first marquess of Newcastle, commander of royalist forces in the north.

⁶⁹ i.e. ways and means. What exactly Juxon means by this phrase is not clear.

⁷⁰ On 6 May 1644.

⁷¹ Essex relieved Lyme on 15 June 1644.

⁷² Juxon is referring here to the pamphlet by Gheynell, Francis, Aulicus his dream, of the long's sudden coming to London (15 05 1644)Google Scholar, BL, E47/22.

⁷³ Silvanus Taylor, sergeant-major in the Westminster regiment of Sir James Harrington.

⁷⁴ William Ball, a gentleman from St Dunstan in the West.

⁷⁵ CJ, iii. 458, 462, 466Google Scholar; LJ, vi. 498, 504, 506, 527, 531, 538Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 94; Lindley, , pp. 320–22.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ The London lines of communication.

⁷⁷ The precise words Taylor and Ball were accused of uttering were ‘that the adding of greater or other forces unto the lord general's army was but to put a sword into their hands to cut our own throats with it, or to go with it to the king’: HLRO, main papers, 25 April 1644, examinations of witnesses concerning the speeches against the lord general. This alleged observation was made on 18 April at a meeting of the City's militia committee at Coopers' Hall.

⁷⁸ i.e. Sir Philip Stapilton, captain of Essex's lifeguard. Juxon appears to be the only source for this quarrel between ‘Stapilton and that party’ and Fleetwood and Harrison, although the fact that such a falling out did occur would certainly help to explain the two men's decision in the spring of 1644 to quit Essex's lifeguard and join the Eastern Association army: Holmes, C., The Eastern Association in the English CM War (Cambridge, 1974). PP. 172, 201.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Lionel Copley, commissary general, a leading member of Essex's party.

⁸⁰ Probably the wife of the City merchant, William Kendall, a member of the London sequestration committee.

⁸¹ Willy-nilly.

⁸² Scottish form of artillery (O.E.D.). The meaning here is obscure.

⁸³ The original classical phrase is conjectural. Two possibilities are that it may be a contraction of ‘una salus victis nullam sperare salutem’ (‘the only safety for the conquered is not to hope for safety’) or a reference to another phrase meaning ‘good fortune [i.e. the goddess of good fortune, Salus] grants well being [salutem] to the virtuous’.

⁸⁴ The beginning of May 1644.

⁸⁵ Hans Behre, a Dutchman with his own troop of Dutch mercenaries.

⁸⁶ The declaration of Commissary-General Behre against divers slanders and lies spread abroad against him (1 05 1644)Google Scholar, BL, 669 f. 10/3; Observations on the declaration of Commissary-General Behre [2 05 1644]Google Scholar, BL, 669 f. 10/4; CJ, iii. 478, 488.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Edmund Harvey, a London silkman, whom Marchamont Nedham claimed in 1648 was ‘once a most furious Presbyter’ but, as a result of his purchase of church lands, had been ‘drawn over to the Independents’. Clement Walker later described Harvey as one who had turned from ‘a furious Presbyter to a Bedlam Independent’: Mercunus pragmaticus (22–29 08 1648)Google Scholar, BL, E461/19; Walker, Clement, History of Independency, pt. II, p. 13.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Notwithstanding.

⁸⁹ CSPD, 1644, pp. 83, 92, 103, 136, 150, 176, 200Google Scholar; CJ, iii. 488, 490, 493.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ i.e. Holland, Bedford, Portland, Conway, Glare, and Lovelace from the House of Lords.

⁹¹ The committee of both kingdoms was eventually re-appointed on 22 May 1644: CJ, iii. 481, 483, 485–6, 489–94, 496–8, 500–501, 503–4Google Scholar; LJ, vi. 541–3, 548–9, 551, 553–4, 556–7, 559, 562–4.Google Scholar

⁹² Lit. intrestes.

⁹³ Basil Fielding, second earl of Denbigh.

⁹⁴ Clarendon, , iii. 371–4Google Scholar; An exact relation of the massacre at Bolion, May 28, by Prince Rupert (28 05 1644)Google Scholar, BL, E7/1.

⁹⁵ Bashaw or Pasha, a high-ranking Turkish officer or commander.

⁹⁶ The battle of Marston Moor.

⁹⁷ A drake is a small cannon.

⁹⁸ The battle of Cropredy Bridge on 29 June 1644.

⁹⁹ Sir John Glanville, Commons' speaker in the Short Parliament.

¹⁰⁰ Robert Sidney, second earl of Leicester.

¹⁰¹ Richard Browne, the London coal-merchant.

¹⁰² On 12 July 1644: CJ, iii. 559–60Google Scholar; LJ, vi. 628–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Essex's presence in the west caused the temporary lifting of the blockage of Plymouth in July 1644: Rushworth, , v. 690.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ John, Lord Robartes of Truro, later first earl of Radnor.

¹⁰⁵ The earl of Warwick, who supplied Essex's army on its march into the west.

¹⁰⁶ Henry Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, eldest son of William Seymour, first marquess of Hertford.

¹⁰⁷ On 6 August 1644: Clarendon, , iii. 394–5Google Scholar; Rushworth, , v. 691–2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Henry, first Baron Wilmot of Adderbury, Oxfordshire, lieutenant-general of the horse, who sent a private letter of his own to Essex.

¹⁰⁹ On 9 August 1644: Clarendon, , iii. 396–8Google Scholar; Rushworth, , v. 692–3, 696–7Google Scholar; The accusation given by his majesty against the Lord Wilmot: together with the Lord Wilmot's declaration of his innocerny (12 08 1644)Google Scholar, BL, £7/27.

¹¹⁰ On 10 August 1644: Clarendon, , iii. 398Google Scholar; Rushworth, , v. 693.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ This was the so-called ‘one and all’ campaign which Charles launched with a royal proclamation at Chard on 30 September 1644: Rushworth, , v. 715–6Google Scholar; Malcolm, J. L., Caesar's due: loyalty and King Charles, 1642–46 (1983), pp. 201–2.Google Scholar

¹¹² Charles Lewis, Elector Palatine, nephew of Charles I.

¹¹³ On 17 August 1644.

¹¹⁴ John Glynne.

¹¹⁵ Juxon appears to be the only source for Hesilrige's speech in defence of Penington. D'Ewes noted that Penington ‘found so many friends that in the issue the House declined the passing of any censure upon him for the present’: BL, Harl. Ms. 166, fos. 110–110v.

¹¹⁶ Murrough O'Brien, sixth Baron Inchiquin and future first earl of Inchiquin. He declared for parliament on 17 July 1644 and was made president of Munster by the committee of both kingdoms in January 1645: CSPD, 1644, p. 357Google Scholar; CSPD, 1644–1645, PP.271–2.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Wareham surrendered to the parliament on 10 August 1644: Rushworth, , v. 697Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ The surrender of Essex's foot at Lostwithiel on 2 September 1644.

¹¹⁹ On 8 September 1644: Rushworth, , v. 712.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ The house of Warwick, second Baron Mohun of Okehampton, at Boconnoc, Cornwall, was seized by royalist forces on 14 August 1644.

¹²¹ John Butler, colonel of Essex's own regiment of foot.

¹²² Colonel Edward Aldrich, parliamentary governor of Aylesbury.

¹²³ Thomas Tyrrell, a colonel of foot in Essex's army and later MP for Aylesbury and Buckinghamshire.

¹²⁴ For details of this controversy see Rushworth, , v. 702–3, 710–11Google Scholar; CJ, iii. 641, 645Google Scholar; BL, Harl. Ms. 166, fos. 125v–126; HLRO, main papers, 3 December 1644.

¹²⁵ CJ, iii. 620–21, 635–6Google Scholar; LJ, vi. 699, 700, 712Google Scholar; Bruce, , pp. 27–41.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ The initiative for placing Skippon in command over the London brigade came from the brigade officers. St John (the solicitor) reported their request from the committee of both kingdoms to the Commons, which rejected it: Rowe, , pp. 49–50Google Scholar; Baillie, , ii. 235Google Scholar; CJ, iii. 651, 653, 655; BL, Harl. Ms. 166, fo. 128v.

¹²⁷ Sir James Harrington was colonel of the Westminster militia, a ‘parochial Independent’ and a later supporter of Pride's purge.

¹²⁸ Juxon appears to be referring here to the Commons orders of 27 and 30 September 1644 relating to the examination of Butler, Tyrrell etc. by the commissioners for martial law and the committee for reforming the lord general's army: CJ, iii. 641, 645.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Thomas Wentworth, first earl of Cleveland.

¹³⁰ Placed troops in ambush.

¹³¹ Rushworth, , v. 720–32Google Scholar; Clarendon, , iii. 432–8.Google Scholar

¹³² On 19 October 1644: CJ, iii. 676.Google Scholar

¹³³ Recovered.

¹³⁴ Theomachia: being the substance of two sermons preached upon occasion of the late defeat in the west, is September 1644, BL, E12/1. Goodwin was not summoned before the committee of plundered ministers until May 1645: BL, Add. Ms, 15,669 fos. 66, 68v, 74.

¹³⁵ Prynne, W., A full reply to certain brief observations [by John Goodwin] on Master Prynne's twelve questions about Church government [19 10 1644]Google Scholar, BL, E257/7; Articles of impeachment and accusation exhibited in parliament against Colonel Nathaniel Fiennes … by Clement Walker and William Prynne (15 11 1643)Google Scholar, BL, E78/3.

¹³⁶ Goodwin was sequestered from the living on 22 May 1645: BL, Add. Ms. 15,669, fo. 75v.

¹³⁷ The accommodation order of 13 September 1644: CJ, iii. 626.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ The letter sent from the Scots commissioners at Newcastle on 23 October 1644: CJ, iii. 684Google Scholar; LJ, vii. 43–4.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ LJ, vii. 43Google Scholar; CJ, iii. 684.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Lit. intress.

¹⁴¹ The syntax here is unclear.

¹⁴² Warwick, Pembroke and four members of the Commons attended the Westminster assembly on 7 November 1644 with a request from both Houses to hasten its work on reforming church government. When the Independent ministers in the assembly then entered their dissents to the assembly's resolution to send up such work as had already been completed, ‘My Lord of Pembroke was exceeding urgent and smart against all those, that should go about to hinder the work of the church’: Lightfoot, John, The journal of the proceedings of the assembly of divines (ed.), J. R. Pitman (1824), p. 323.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ The Uxbridge propositions.

¹⁴⁴ James Compton, third earl of Northampton.

¹⁴⁵ Sir Charles Gerard, general of south Wales.

¹⁴⁶ Lawrence Crawford, a Scot and religious Presbyterian, was major-general of Manchester's Eastern Association army.

¹⁴⁷ Rushworth, , v. 730–31Google Scholar; LJ, vii. 61.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ At Cropredy Bridge.

¹⁴⁹ The Eastern Association.

¹⁵⁰ Juxon may well be glossing Machiavelli here. The Prince is the likeliest source.

¹⁵¹ Juxon appears to be the only source for this vote on Waller in the committee of both kingdoms.

¹⁵² On 7 November 1644: CJ, iii. 691Google Scholar; LJ, vii. 52.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ The seventh was Sidrach Simpson who was not listed by Juxon; LJ, vii. 70.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ On 14 November 1644: CJ, iii. 695–6.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Basil Fielding, second earl of Denbigh; William, Lord Maynard; William Pierrepont; Bulstrode Whitelocke; Thomas, Lord Wenman; John, Lord Maitland; and Robert Barclay.

¹⁵⁶ Henry, Lord Percy.

¹⁵⁷ For Cromwell's speech in the Commons on 25 November 1644, see Bruce, , pp. 78–95Google Scholar; Abbott, , Writings and speeches, i. 302–11Google Scholar; Rushworth, , v. 732.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ i.e. her Catholicism.

¹⁵⁹ In the printed accounts of this speech Cromwell makes no reference to his religious preferences or to his motives in taking up arms.

¹⁶⁰ LJ, vii. 73, 76, 79–80Google Scholar; Rushworth, , v. 733–6.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ i.e. ‘that if they fought and beat the king he yet would be king, but if he beat them they should lose their army, nay their estates, and it may be their heads too’: above, p. 63.

¹⁶² Baillie, early in December 1644, was convinced that if Cromwell could be removed from the army then it would ‘break the power of that potent faction [i.e. the Independents]’: Baillie, , ii. 245Google Scholar. For the attempts by Essex's party to bring charges against Cromwell, see BL, Add. Ms. 37, 343, fos. 343v–46; Spalding, R. (ed.), The diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke 1605–1675 (1990), pp. 160–1.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Should read 30 November: CJ, iii. 710–11.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Lit. intrestes.

¹⁶⁵ Lit. intrest.

¹⁶⁶ Lit. intrests.

¹⁶⁷ Greenvile: CJ, iii. 711.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Endymion Porter's eldest son, George Porter, was captured at Marston Moor.

¹⁶⁹ The vote in Essex's favour over the exchange was 93 to 52: CJ, iii. 711.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ LJ, vii. 111Google Scholar; CJ, iii. 734Google Scholar; ibid., iv. 2, 7, 10. The Lords passed the ordinance for Laud's attainder on 4 January 1645: LJ, vii. 125–7.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Juxon seems to be referring to the Commons resolutions of 4 December 1645: Gardiner, , ii. 88–9.Google Scholar

¹⁷² James Stuart, first duke of Richmond and fourth duke of Lennox; Thomas Wriothesley, fourth earl of Southampton.

¹⁷³ 9 December 1644: CJ, iii. 718.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ CJ, iii. 718Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 4–5.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ i.e. to question.

¹⁷⁶ For a similar comment see Baillie, , ii. 247.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Above note 172.

¹⁷⁸ On 17 December 1644: CJ, iii. 726Google Scholar. The tellers for the yeas (93 votes) were Denzil Holles and Sir Philip Stapilton; for the noes (100 votes), Sir Henry Vane junior and Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire.

¹⁷⁹ His answer to the propositions of both Houses which had been brought by Richmond and Southampton: CJ, iii. 725–6Google Scholar; LJ, vii. 103–4.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ The fast was held on 18 December and the vote taken on 19 December: CJ, iii. 729.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ CJ, iii. 726, 728Google Scholar. The attempt to have a proviso to this effect added to the self-denying ordinance was rejected on 19 December 1644.

¹⁸² Sir Alexander Carew was second-in-command of the garrison at Plymouth and had attempted to surrender the garrison to Prince Maurice. He was executed on 23 December 1644.

¹⁸³ Sir John Hotham, governor of Hull, was sentenced to death on 7 December for having secretly corresponded with the royalist commander in the north, the earl of Newcastle.

¹⁸⁴ Captain John Hotham, who was also sentenced to death for his role in the same secret correspondence with Newcasde. He was executed on 1 January 1645, the day before his father's execution.

¹⁸⁵ Sir John Hotham was executed on 2 January 1645.

¹⁸⁶ Juxon is mistaken here. According to Clarendon, Sir John Hotham had many friends among the ‘Presbyterian party’ at Westminster, but their efforts to secure him a reprieve were thwarted by ‘divers of the Independents, his mortal enemies, he having uttered some speeches against Cromwell and the Independents’. On 30 December 1644 the Commons divided on the question of whether to concur with the Lords in sparing Sir John Hotham's life; the political Presbyterians Sir Philip Stapilton and Sir John Coke were tellers for the yeas, but lost the division to the political Independents Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire and Oliver Cromwell: Clarendon state papers, ii. 184Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Lit. intresses.

¹⁸⁸ On 4 January 1645.

¹⁸⁹ James Hamilton, third marquess and first duke of Hamilton.

¹⁹⁰ i.e. the self-denying ordinance.

¹⁹¹ By ‘junto party’ Juxon was probably referring to what Clarendon termed simply the ‘junto’; that is, the inner ring of royalists at court which determined policy, see Roy, I., ‘George Digby, royalist intrigue and the collapse of the cause’, in Gentles, I., Morrill, J. and Worden, B. (eds.), Soldiers, writers and statesmen of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1998). p. 75.Google Scholar

¹⁹² The following, down to the bottom of folio 36v, is in a different hand.

¹⁹³ The vote was taken on 21 January 1645: CJ, iv. 26.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ The treaty of Uxbridge ended on Saturday, 22 February 1645.

¹⁹⁵ On 11 February 1645.

¹⁹⁶ Richard Graves was a colonel of horse under Essex and became a staunch Presbyterian.

¹⁹⁷ On 22 February 1645.

¹⁹⁸ Lit. intresses.

¹⁹⁹ Lit. intresses.

²⁰⁰ He was executed on 20 February 1645.

²⁰¹ On 28 February 1645.

²⁰² Vile.

²⁰³ Lit. intresses.

²⁰⁴ CJ, iv. 26, 31, 63–6, 73, 75–7, 81, 83Google Scholar; LJ, vii. 259, 262, 264, 266–8, 272–4, 276–7Google Scholar; BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fos. 198–98v; HLRO, main papers, 10 March 1645, fos. 145–8.

²⁰⁵ The words ‘our brethren’ are written in red ink in the margin to the left of the words ‘our brethren’ in black ink in the body of the text.

²⁰⁶ The Breakdown in me alliance between the Vane-St John group and the Scots only seems to have become common knowledge late in February 1645: Underdown, D., Pride's purge: politics in the Puritan Revolution (1971), p. 67.Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ The Lords passed the list on 18 March 1645: LJ, vii. 268, 272–7Google Scholar; Gardiner, , ii. 187Google Scholar; BL, Harl. Ms. 166, fo. 184v.

²⁰⁸ LJ, vii. 289–98Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 94–5Google Scholar. Fairfax's commission passed the Lords on 1 April 1645. Gentles estimates the vote as 11 to 9: Gentles, , pp. 22, 452–3 n. 132.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ On 2 April 1645: LJ, vii. 299Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 96–7.Google Scholar

²¹⁰ Northumberland and his ‘gentleman-servant’, Robert Scawen, were instrumental in the creation of the New Model Army: Adamson, J., ‘Of armies and architecture: the employments of Robert Scawen’, in Gentles, Morrill and Worden (eds.), Soldiers, writers and statesmen of the English Revolution, pp. 45–8.Google Scholar

²¹¹ This is a reference to an ordinance of 31 March 1645 for a loan of £80,000 from Londoners: Firth, and Rait, , i. 656–60Google Scholar. Several leading godly citizens acted as treasurers at war for the money.

²¹² On 3 April 1645: LJ, vii. 302–3.Google Scholar

²¹³ Salus populi suprema lex (‘let the good of the people be the chief law’).

²¹⁴ He resigned on 9 April: LJ, vii. 311.Google Scholar

²¹⁵ Thomas Blount of Wricklesmarsh, Kent.

²¹⁶ Second son of Sir Francis Windebank, former secretary of state.

²¹⁷ On 24 April 1645.

²¹⁸ ‘Miss Anna, daughter of the duke of Mantua; she has in that kingdom a private income of ten thousand pounds sterling a year. She is also a strong Catholic but not a troublesome one’.

²¹⁹ Lit. intresses.

²²⁰ On 11 May 1645.

²²¹ Colonel Edward Massey, formerly the parliamentary governor of Gloucester, was appointed major-general of the Western Association forces by ordinance on 24 May 1645.

²²² Lit. intrest.

²²³ By mid-May 1645.

²²⁴ LJ, vii. 390–92.Google Scholar

²²⁵ Leicester was taken on 31 May 1645.

²²⁶ Juxon's meaning is not clear here.

²²⁷ CJ, iv. 169–70Google Scholar; LJ, vii. 421Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 39.Google Scholar

²²⁸ The reference is to the battle of Naseby, fought on 14 June 1645. Juxon is wrong about the relative size of the armies; parliament's army at Naseby was nearly double the strength of the king's forces: Gardiner, , ii. 247Google Scholar; Gentles, , p. 55.Google Scholar

²²⁹ These commissioners were sent to the Scottish parliament primarily in order to negotiate the removal of Scottish garrisons from Carlisle and other northern English towns in the Scots' hands. The ordinance appointing the commissioners was read in the Commons on 12 July, and in the Lords on 28 July: CJ, iv. 206Google Scholar; LJ, vii. 514–15.Google Scholar

²³⁰ The Scots' garrisoning of Carlisle after its surrender on 28 June 1645 was conceived by the Commons to contravene the terms of the solemn league and covenant and generated considerable ill-feeling at Westminster towards the Scots: CSPD, 1644–45, p. 619Google Scholar; Baillie, , ii. 301Google Scholar; Meikle, H. W. (ed.), Correspondence of the Scots commissioners in London 1644–1646 (Edinburgh, 1917), p. 92Google Scholar; [William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele], Vindiciae veritatis, or an answer to a discourse intitled Truth it's Manifest (12 09 1654)Google Scholar, BL, E811/2, pp; 115–19.

²³¹ On 25 July 1645.

²³² On 18 August 1645 parliament agreed to draw up new peace proposals.

²³³ Foolish, simple (Scottish term).

²³⁴ For the king's plundering ‘voyage’ in August 1645 through Huntingdonshire, see Gardiner, , ii. 290–1, 302.Google Scholar

²³⁵ No corroborating evidence for this purported exchange has been found and Juxon may be reporting fanciful hearsay.

²³⁶ It was taken on 15 August 1645; Sir Lewis Dyve was governor of Sherborne.

²³⁷ Pontefract was taken on 21 July 1645.

²³⁸ Lieutenant-General David Leslie, commander of the Scots' horse.

²³⁹ Sydenham Poyntz, commander of the Northern Association army.

²⁴⁰ Edward Rosseter, who commanded a detachment of the New Model Army based in the Eastern Association.

²⁴¹ Montrose's victory at Kilsyth on 15 August 1645.

²⁴² On 30 July 1645.

²⁴³ On 28 August 1645.

²⁴⁴ The siege of Hereford was raised on 1 September 1645.

²⁴⁵ For the war party's backing of Lord Robartes prior to his volte-face in the autumn of 1644, see BL, Harl. Ms. 166, fos. 36v, 37; Clarendon, , iii. 387.Google Scholar

²⁴⁶ Lit. inter[e]st.

²⁴⁷ Juxon appears to be the only source to claim that Robarles switched allegiance out of fear of retribution by Stapilton (and Essex), or that Warwick was instrumental in his conversion. For Robarles and his role in encouraging Essex to march into Cornwall, see Clarendon, , iii. 386–7Google Scholar; [Saye], Vindiciae veritatis, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

²⁴⁸ Bristol was surrendered on 11 September 1645.

²⁴⁹ On 12 September 1645: CJ, iv. 273.Google Scholar

²⁵⁰ On 26 September 1645.

²⁵¹ The battle of Philiphaugh, 13 September 1645.

²⁵² William Hamilton, first earl of Lanark.

²⁵³ ‘The good service of some English in Commissary General Middleton's regiment is much spoken of’: Montrose totally routed at Twidale [Philiphaugh] ly Lieutenant-General Leslie (13 09 1645)Google Scholar, BL, E301/19, p. 6.

²⁵⁴ i.e. Montrose's victory at Kilsyth on 15 August 1645.

²⁵⁵ On 22 September, having died on 9 September.

²⁵⁶ To the right honourable Lords and Commons assembled in parliament, the humble petition of [blank] (20 09 1645)Google Scholar, BL, 669 f. 10/37 (Ms. note ‘sent to Mr George Thomason to get hands to it about 20 September’, Fortescue, , i. 397Google Scholar); BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fo. 240.

²⁵⁷ On 20 September 1645: CJ, iv. 280.Google Scholar

²⁵⁸ On 23, 24 and 26 September 1645.

²⁵⁹ The battle of Rowton Heath, 24 September 1645.

²⁶⁰ LJ, viii. 6–8Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 355Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 144v–45.

²⁶¹ On 5 October 1645.

²⁶² LJ, vii. 619–22, 630–31Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 283.Google Scholar

²⁶³ Alderman Thomas Adams, lord mayor of London 1645–46.

²⁶⁴ LJ, vii. 691, 694Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 339–40.Google Scholar

²⁶⁵ Basing House was stormed on 14 October 1645.

²⁶⁶ John Faulet, fifth marquess of Winchester.

²⁶⁷ Chepstow surrendered on 10 October 1645.

²⁶⁸ The first debate in the Commons on whether to send home the Scots army occurred in October 1645 following receipt of letters from Yorkshire bemoaning the ‘infinite oppressions and extortions’ of the Scottish forces in the region: CSPD, 1645–47, pp.: 183, 189Google Scholar; Bodleian Library, Ms. Nalson IV, fos. 187, 212–13, 214, 244.

²⁶⁹ The battle of Sherburn in Elmet, 16 October 1645: LJ, vii. 666Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 316, 320, 324Google Scholar; The Lord George Digby's cabinet (26 03 1646)Google Scholar, BL, E329/15.

²⁷⁰ i.e. Gustavus Adolphus.

²⁷¹ On 24 October 1645.

²⁷² The headquarters of clerical Presbyterianism in London.

²⁷³ The ordinance of 20 October 1645: Firth, and Rait, , i. 793–7.Google Scholar

²⁷⁴ The City committee to confer with ministers about the eldership: CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 148–48v.

²⁷⁵ Bermuda, or Somers Islands, on 27 October 1645: CJ, iv. 325.Google Scholar

²⁷⁶ A reference to his Italian birth.

²⁷⁷ i.e. the Gascons.

²⁷⁸ Louis de Bourbon, duke of Enghien, son of the prince of Condé.

²⁷⁹ Much of Digby's correspondence seized after the battle at Sherburn was subsequently printed: The Lord George Digby's cabinet. Nowhere in any of his correspondence, printed or otherwise, does this quotation appear, and it seems likely that Juxon was reporting an embellished version of the letters read in the Commons.

²⁸⁰ Dr Stephen Goffe, chief agent of Lord Jermyn.

²⁸¹ Lit. interesses.

²⁸² i.e. she never intended that the match should stand.

²⁸³ This is a reference to the scandalous affair between Henry Jermyn, one of Henrietta Maria's favourites, and Eleanor Villiers in the early 1630s which landed them both in the Tower. There was some tension between the queen's gaiety and sociability and Charles's gravity and strict morality, but die court was a model of moral propriety when compared with both its predecessor and successor: HMC, Cowper, ii. pp. 40–41Google Scholar; Sharpe, K., The personal rule of Charles I (Yale, 1992), pp. 170, 190, 212Google Scholar. George Weckherlyn was Charles's secretary.

²⁸⁴ Sir John Brown, a colonel of horse in the Scottish army, defeated George Lord Digby and Sir Marmaduke Langdale at Annan Moor, near Carlisle, on 23 October 1645: PRO, SP41/2/125. Digby and his officers took ship for the Isle of Man on 24 October.

²⁸⁵ i.e. Crete.

²⁸⁶ According to V. Rowe, Pym and the younger Vane were friends and close political allies, although they could ‘disagree on occasion’. Vane and Fiennes were also allies, if nothing more, during the mid-1640s: Rowe, V. A., Sir Henry Vane the younger (1970), pp. 10, 11, 19–20, 21, 23, 27, 63, 96, 99Google Scholar; Baillie, , iii. 16.Google Scholar

²⁸⁷ Oliver St John, solicitor-general.

²⁸⁸ Juxon speaks as if he was personally acquainted with Vane, Wharton and St John. His observation on St John, that he lacked a ‘pleasing deportment’, certainly accords closely with that of Clarendon who described St John as having ‘a great cloud in his face’, and of a ‘dark and clouded countenance’: Clarendon, , i. 183, 246.Google Scholar

²⁸⁹ A contracted form of the Latin ‘quaestiones’, meaning questions, queries.

²⁹⁰ CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 150, 153; BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fos. 243–4; ibid., 37,344, fos. 26–7; CJ, iv. 348.Google Scholar

²⁹¹ CJ, iv. 348.Google Scholar

²⁹² LJ, vii. 714–18Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 154v; BL, Add. Ms. 37,344, fo. 27.

²⁹³ Set up on 14 November 1645: CJ, iv. 342Google Scholar; LJ, vii. 703.Google Scholar

²⁹⁴ That St John was the instigator of these motions is confirmed by Walter Yonge and the author of The Scottish dove: BL, Add. Ms. 18,777, fos. 173v–74; The Scottish dove (3–10 12 1645), BL, E311/19, p. 883.Google Scholar

²⁹⁵ This committee was appointed on 1 December 1645: CJ, iv. 362.Google Scholar

²⁹⁶ Arthur, Lord Capel of Hadham.

²⁹⁷ Those royalists excluded from pardon under the terms of the Uxbridge propositions.

²⁹⁸ Juxon appears to be saying that if the king must come to London to reach an accommodation then it would be better if he did so before he has disbanded his forces. If he failed to do the latter, the name of the proceedings should be changed from an accommodation to a capitulation.

²⁹⁹ 21 December, the customary election-day for common council. Yet because it fell on a Sunday in 1645 the election was postponed to the following day.

³⁰⁰ To the right worshipful, the aldermen, and common coundlmen of the ward ofFarringdon Within, at their wardmote, 22 December 1645 (22 12 1645)Google Scholar, BL, 669 f. 10/41.

³⁰¹ There is some further evidence to support Juxon's contention that this Presbyterian initiative met with only limited success in the City: Lindley, , pp. 361–2Google Scholar & n. 31.

³⁰² LJ, viii. 81–2, 85, 91, 99–100Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 395–9, 405Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 219–20.Google Scholar

³⁰³ Juxon's meaning here is obscure.

³⁰⁴ Lit. intrests.

³⁰⁵ CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 160. The City committee previously appointed to confer with ministers about the eldership was given the task of drafting the petition. There is no reference in the journals of common council to support Juxon's claim that members of the committee for fortifications were added.

³⁰⁶ CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 160.

³⁰⁷ CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 160v–61; CJ, iv. 407Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 104–5Google Scholar; Baillie, , ii. 337.Google Scholar

³⁰⁸ Glamorgan's treaties with the Irish Catholics, news of which reached Westminster on 16 January 1646: Rushworth, , vi. 239–46Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 409.Google Scholar

³⁰⁹ On 19 January 1646.

³¹⁰ Juxon is referring here to what became known as the Newcastle propositions.

³¹¹ This is a small capital ‘Q’ in superscript. Its meaning is not known.

³¹² Lit. intressd.

³¹³ CJ, iv. 428–9.Google Scholar

³¹⁴ The Commons were informed on 2 February 1646: CJ, iv. 427.Google Scholar

³¹⁵ William Pierrepont, MP, a member of the committee of both kingdoms and a moderate Independent.

³¹⁶ This alludes to the ‘unknown knight’ controversy. The ‘gentleman’ who received the thanks of the House - the eponymous ‘unknown knight’ - was later revealed as the Yorkshire MP, Sir Henry Cholmley: CJ, iv. 412, 436–8, 466, 479, 486Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 123–4Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 235–7Google Scholar; Meikle, (ed.), Correspondence of the Scots commissioners, p. 164.Google Scholar

³¹⁷ Northumberland and Stapilton were leading members of the committee of both kingdoms.

³¹⁸ CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 170–70v. The letter was dated 27 January 1646.

³¹⁹ Francis Allen or Alleyn, recruiter MP for Cockermouth 1645–53 and common councillor 1645–46. Allen was a factional ally of the Independent peer, the earl of Northumberland: Adamson, , ‘Of armies and architecture’, pp. 52–3.Google Scholar

³²⁰ The account was entered in the Commons' journals but later expunged by order of the House: CJ, iv. 437, 449.Google Scholar

³²¹ James Livingstone, first earl of Callander.

³²² On 9 February 1646: CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 166v.

³²³ John Maitland, Lord Lauderdale, spokesman for the Scots commissioners before common council on 11 February 1646. He was said to have denounced the ‘malignants’ or ‘incendiaries’ who were trying to disturb the unity between Scotland and England. Baillie acknowledged that Lauderdale used the word ‘malignants’ (Baillie, , ii. 352Google Scholar), while Juxon claimed that it was ‘incendiaries’.

³²⁴ Lit. intrest.

³²⁵ i.e. the political Independents in the Commons.

³²⁶ Lit. intresses.

³²⁷ Lit. intressd.

³²⁸ CJ, iv. 439.Google Scholar

³²⁹ The committee appointed on 20 October 1645 to confer with London ministers about elders: CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 148–48v.

³³⁰ Thomas Player, senior, colonel of the City's white regiment.

³³¹ CJ, iv. 448.Google Scholar

³³² It has proved impossible to discover the identity of this speaker.

³³³ The speaker is saying that he wondered that Vane should now call for more time to debate the matter, when he had taken the opposite view concerning the legislation for the New Model Army, which had passed through the Commons very rapidly.

³³⁴ CJ, iv. 449.Google Scholar

³³⁵ This is a reference to parliament's investigation of an incident in which Walter Long attacked Allen: CJ, iv. 395, 397, 400, 407–8, 412, 420.Google Scholar

³³⁶ The identity of this speaker cannot be ascertained.

³³⁷ Sir Philip Stapilton's political following in the Commons.

³³⁸ Lit. intrests.

³³⁹ On 17 February 1646.

³⁴⁰ Juxon has confused Cardigan with Cardiff, which was retaken on 18 February 1646: Hutton, R., The royalist war effort 1642–46 (1982), pp. 195–6Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 457–8.Google Scholar

³⁴¹ There were two letters from the Scottish parliament dated 3 February 1646 directed to both Houses of the English parliament and signed by John Lindsay, earl of Crawford and Lindsay (and not the earl of Callander) as president of parliament: CJ, iv. 448Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 177–9Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 233–5.Google Scholar

³⁴³ Carlisle and the other northern garrisons in the Scots' hands.

³⁴² Should read 3 May.

³⁴⁴ i.e. the Scots Ulster army under Monro.

³⁴⁵ Gaston, duke d'Orléans.

³⁴⁶ Every day.

³⁴⁷ CJ, iv. 455.Google Scholar

³⁴⁸ On 24 February 1646: CJ, iv. 452–3Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 183–4.Google Scholar

³⁴⁹ This is again a reference to the ‘unknown knight’ controversy: above, p. 100 n. 316.

³⁵⁰ Henry Hastings, Lord Lougliborough, son of the earl of Huntingdon. Ashby-de-la-Zouch surrendered on 3 or 4 March 1646: The true informer (2–7 03 1646)Google Scholar, BL, E327/10, p. 358.

³⁵¹ Lord Loudoun, chancellor of Scotland, and Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston.

³⁵² The ordinance was passed on 14 March 1646. Its fourteenth clause provided for the appointment of parliamentary commissioners in each province who would have the final say on appeals against suspensions from communion for non-listed (or ‘supernumary’) offences: CJ, iv. 463–5, 475.Google Scholar

³⁵³ The petition was signed by 24 citizens: CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 173v, 174v.

³⁵⁴ i.e. the parliamentary commissioners to hear appeals against suspensions from communion.

³⁵⁵ CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 173v.

³⁵⁶ CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 174–74v.

³⁵⁷ The vote and proceedings on the City petition on 11 March were subsequently erased from the Lords' journals: LJ, viii. 207–8Google Scholar truncated entry; CJ, iv. 479Google Scholar. The ten peers who entered their dissents were probably identical with those who protested against the vote on 13 March approving parliamentary commissioners to hear communion appeals: LJ, viii. 208.Google Scholar

³⁵⁸ John Glynne.

³⁵⁹ BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fo. 259; Baillie, , ii. 361.Google Scholar

³⁶⁰ Other sources give Tuesday, 17 March: Edwards, T., Gangraena (1646), ii. BL, E338/12, p. 8Google Scholar; Hawes, T., A Christian relation of a Christian affliction (31 03 1646)Google Scholar, BL, E506/24. There is no record of the meeting in the journals, the City having apparently carried out the Commons' instructions to expunge proceedings on the petitions from their records: CJ, iv. 475.Google Scholar

³⁶¹ Juxon appears to be the only source for the content of Browne's speech to common council. For parliament's instructions to the delegation which addressed the City fathers on 16 March, see HLRO, main papers, 11 Mar 1646; Bodleian Library, Ms. Tanner 60, fo. 554.

³⁶² The citizens' petition of 9 March 1646.

³⁶³ i.e. the high Presbyterian faction in common council, or the leaders of the ‘covenant-engaged citizens’ as they preferred to style themselves.

³⁶⁴ Both Houses agreed to expunge all the offending items connected with the petition from their journals and urged common council to do likewise: CJ, iv. 475, 477, 479Google Scholar; BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fo. 260; above p. 109 n. 360.

³⁶⁵ Lit. interest.

³⁶⁶ Cowardice.

³⁶⁷ On 14 March 1646.

³⁶⁸ i.e. Glamorgan's negotiations to gain Irish assistance for the king in England.

³⁶⁹ The action took place at Stow-on-the-Wold on 21 March 1646.

³⁷⁰ According to John Vicars, Astley said ‘Gentlemen, ye may sit down and play, for you have done all your work, if you fall not out among yourselves’: Vicars, J., The burning bush not consumed. Or, the fourth and last part of the parliamentary-chronicle (1646), BL, E348, p. 399.Google Scholar

³⁷¹ The rest of this line is left blank.

³⁷² The City invited parliament to dine with them at Grocers' Hall after the day of thanks giving in Christ Church on 2 April: CJ, iv. 492.Google Scholar

³⁷³ On 26 March 1646: CJ, iv. 492Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 175v.

³⁷⁴ Mitchell, A. F. and Struthers, J. (eds.), Minutes of the sessions of the Westminster assembly of divines (Edinburgh, 1874), pp. 209–11Google Scholar. The petition was presented to both Houses on 23 March 1646: CJ, iv. 485, 492Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 232–3.Google Scholar

³⁷⁵ The Lord George Digby's cabinet and Dr Goff's negotiations, BL, E329/15, printed on 26 March 1646.

³⁷⁶ ‘That Oldenbarnevelt never did as much’.

³⁷⁷ Under duress.

³⁷⁸ CJ, iv. 495–6Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 248Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 249–50Google Scholar. The vote was taken on 31 March 1646.

³⁷⁹ Should read April 2nd Thursday.

³⁸⁰ Murrough O'Brien, Lord Inchiquin, president of Munster.

³⁸¹ Monday was 6 April.

³⁸² i.e. the parliamentary army committee to the London militia committee.

³⁸³ A vindication of Mayor Adams was to be called for in the City's remonstrance of 26 May 1646.

³⁸⁴ Some papers of the commissioners of Scotland given in lately to the Houses of Parliament concerning the propositions of peace (11 04 1646)Google Scholar, BL, E333/1; CJ, iv. 507Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 271–2Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 253–57.Google Scholar

³⁸⁵ The petition of the assembly of divines of 23 March 1646: CJ, iv. 485, 506.Google Scholar

³⁸⁶ CJ, iv. 507–8Google Scholar. David Buchanan was the Covenanters' leading apologist during the mid-1640s and his tract, Truth its manifest (12 11 1645)Google Scholar, BL, E1179/5, his most controversial work: Kishlansky, , New Model Army, pp. 96–7.Google Scholar

³⁸⁷ All three were leading figures in Essex's party.

³⁸⁸ The common council meeting was on Tuesday, 14 April 1646: CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 176.

³⁸⁹ Which became the City remonstrance of 26 May 1646.

³⁹⁰ On 13 April 1646.

³⁹¹ In preparation.

³⁹² The declaration of 17 April 1646: CJ, iv. 512–14Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 277.Google Scholar

³⁹³ On 21 April 1646: CJ, iv. 516–17.Google Scholar

³⁹⁴ Juxon has either written ‘1,000’ for ‘10,000’ or is mistaken in his figures. The Northern Association committee at Westminster proposed that parliament's northern army consist of 10,000 horse and foot — a proposal which the Commons accepted on 6 April 1646: CJ, iv. 501Google Scholar; Meikle (ed.), Correspondence of the Scots commissioners, p. 172.Google Scholar

³⁹⁵ Lit. intrests.

³⁹⁶ Lit. intrest.

³⁹⁷ Lit. interest.

³⁹⁸ Juxon is being facetious here, using the Scottish pronunciation of ‘twa’ for ‘two’.

³⁹⁹ A complaint of the false prophets mariners upon the drying up of their hierarchical Euphrates. As it was preached in the Island of Guernsey by John De La March, [09 1641]Google Scholar, BL, E169/4.

⁴⁰⁰ Thomas Wriothesley, fourth earl of Southampton, and Sir Edward Nicholas, secretary of state to the king.

⁴⁰¹ The siege of Woodstock was conducted by Colonel Charles Fleetwood and Rain-borowe. Ireton and his regiment were involved in the siege of Oxford: CJ, iv. 523–4Google Scholar; Firth, C. H. and Davies, G., Regimental history of Cromwell's army (Oxford, 1940), pp. 92, 117Google Scholar. Juxon has conflated the king's overtures to Ireton at Oxford and to Rainborowe at Woodstock: Gardiner, , iii. 95–6Google Scholar.

⁴⁰² Gardiner, , iii. 96Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 523–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁰³ CJ, iv. 523.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁴ The guide was not Sir Edward Nicholas but Dr Michael Hudson, a royal chaplain, as Juxon later acknowledges: below, p. 120; Gardiner, , iii. 97–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁵ James Stuart, first duke of Richmond and fourth duke of Lennox, and Montagu Bertie, second earl of Lindsey.

⁴⁰⁶ The identity of the ‘him’ in this sentence is unclear, although in the context Juxon implies that it is the king.

⁴⁰⁷ On 30 April 1646, the Commons resolved that Richmond and Lindsey be imprisoned in Warwick Castle. However, on 2 May the Lords ordered that the two peers be held in custody at Windsor Castle. The Commons objected, but the Lords appear to have prevailed: CJ, iv. 527, 541–2Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 291, 305, 313, 315.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁸ Their declaration of 17 April 1646: CJ, iv. 512–14Google Scholar. See above pp. 114–15.

⁴⁰⁹ CJ, iv. 519–20.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁰ Sir John Wollaston was a senior alderman who had been lord mayor in 1643–44. The other three aldermen were John Fowke, William Gibbs and Thomas Foot.

⁴¹¹ i.e. the ‘covenant-engaged’ faction.

⁴¹² CJ, iv. 531–2Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 297.Google Scholar

⁴¹³ Juxon consistently confuses Guernsey with Jersey, which was the Channel Island in question.

⁴¹⁴ i.e. Jersey.

⁴¹⁵ The source of this purported speech of Charles's has not been found.

⁴¹⁶ Dr Michael Hudson, one of the royal chaplains.

⁴¹⁷ A general training of the City forces in Hyde Park had been planned for 5 May but was put off by order of parliament: Rushworth, , vi. 267Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 531.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁸ Either Thomas Rainborowe or Charles Fleetwood: CJ, iv. 526Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 291Google Scholar; Gardiner, , iii. 96.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁹ Alexander Leslie, first earl of Leven, the commander of the Scottish army in England.

⁴²⁰ Lit. intresses.

⁴²¹ On 6 May 1646: CJ, iv. 537–8Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 308Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 268Google Scholar; Bodleian Library, Ms. Tanner 59, fo. 161.

⁴²² Eleven peers entered their dissents to the vote in the Lords against demanding custody of the king, not ten as Juxon states: LJ, viii. 309.Google Scholar

⁴²³ Juxon is referring here to an earlier Lords' vote, that of 11 March 1646, condemning the City's recent petition as a gross breach of parliamentary privilege by the same margin of 13 votes to 10, with the latter similarly entering their dissents: above, p. 108. The last phrase should probably be rendered ‘the slighting [i.e. the slighting of the petition] being carried by a few [votes]’. The point he appears to be making is that London citizens raised no objections to the close vote in the Lords on this occasion, but they had previously not accepted a vote by the same margin that ran counter to their wishes.

⁴²⁴ Newark surrendered to commissioners appointed by the committee of both kingdoms on 6 May 1646.

⁴²⁵ i.e. Oliver St John, a leading figure in the political Independents.

⁴²⁶ Juxon seems to be referring here to a debate and series of divisions in the Commons on 11 May 1646 concerning the disposal of the king and the delivery of the garrisons still in royalist hands. Juxon appears to be the only source to identify Oliver St John as the author of the ‘unhappy motion’ concerning the king's garrisons, which was opposed by St John's allies among the political Independents: CJ, iv. 542.Google Scholar

⁴²⁷ There is no record of such a meeting in the journals of common council.

⁴²⁸ The following common council debate was held on Wednesday, 20 May: CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 178v–80v.

⁴²⁹ CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 181–2v.

⁴³⁰ A petition of citizens of London presented to the common council for their concurrence … for submission to parliament (22 05 1646)Google Scholar, BL, 669 f. 10/57. George Thomason claimed that it was signed by only 93 petitioners: Fortescue, , i. 440Google Scholar.

⁴³¹ i.e. parliament's pains and care etc.

⁴³² i.e. the City's petition.

⁴³³ John Jones was a friend of the high Presbyterian minister, James Cranford and a signatory of the City petition of 12 November 1645. John Bellamy was a Presbyterian bookseller and a leading apologist for the City's remonstrance of 26 May 1646.

⁴³⁴ The earl of Essex, leader of the political Presbyterians.

⁴³⁵ CJ, iv. 554–5Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 328–9.Google Scholar

⁴³⁶ CJ, iv. 555Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 334Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40. fo. 183; Rushworth, , vi. 271–2, 274–5.Google Scholar

⁴³⁷ Lit. intrest.

⁴³⁸ But the Lords' resolution that the text should be published led nine peers to enter their dissent: LJ, viii. 331–4.Google Scholar

⁴³⁹ CJ iv 555Google Scholar; BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fo. 271v. Juxon appears to be the only source for Thomson's speech.

⁴⁴⁰ The whole day was said to have been taken up in debate on the remonstrance. Many ‘sober men’ were reported to have been displeased at what they saw as ‘wholly a design of the Presbyterian party’. The eventual Commons vote on their answer to the City, that it would be considered when the time was convenient, was carried 151 to 108. The tellers for the yeas were Sir Philip Stapilton and Sir John Clotworthy; for the noes, Sir Arthur Hesilrige and Sir John Evelyn: BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fo. 271; ibid., 37,344, fos. 52–3; CJ, iv. 555–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁴¹ The humble acknowledgement and petition of divers inhabitants in and about the City of London (2 06 1646)Google Scholar, BL, E339/12. This petition came to be commonly referred to as the ‘antipetition’ opposing the remonstrance.

⁴⁴² The resolution to thank the petitioners was carried by 112 votes to 108, with Sir John Evelyn and Sir Arthur Hesilrige acting as tellers for the yeas, and Denzil Holles and Sir Philip Stapilton for the noes: CJ, iv. 561.Google Scholar

⁴⁴³ CLRO Jor. 40, fo. 183v.

⁴⁴⁴ Sir Edward Nicholas, the king's secretary.

⁴⁴⁵ Rushworth, , vi. 266–7Google Scholar.

⁴⁴⁶ On 8 June 1646: Rushworth, , vi. 272–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁷ Juxon has misheard or mistranscribed ‘Lord St Leger’ for John, ninth Lord Sinclair, who was closely involved in the Scots' secret negotiations with the king during the siege of Hereford. There was no ‘Lord St Leger’ among the Scottish contingent in England: Gardiner, , ii. 285Google Scholar.

⁴⁴⁸ Colonel Robert Montgomery, an officer in the earl of Leven's army.

⁴⁴⁹ Sir Edward Hyde, the future earl of Clarendon.

⁴⁵⁰ i.e. Jersey.

⁴⁵¹ Probably James, first duke of Hamilton, whom Charles had had imprisoned in Pendennis Castle in 1643.

⁴⁵² CJ, iv. 575.Google Scholar

⁴⁵³ The battle of Benburb (county Tyrone) on 5 June 1646.

⁴⁵⁴ Certain considerations and cautions agreed upon by the ministers of London according to which they resolve to put the Presbyterial government in execution upon the ordinances of parliament (19 06 1646)Google Scholar, BL, E341/11.

⁴⁵⁵ The Newcastle propositions, which were despatched to the king on 13 July 1646.

⁴⁵⁶ It is unclear whether by ‘they’ Juxon means parliament or the political Independents, who were thought by some contemporaries, notably the Scots, to be the main authors of the Newcastle propositions. See Scott, D., ‘The “northern gentlemen”, the parliamentary Independents, and Anglo-Scottish relations in the Long Parliament’, Historical Journal, 42 (1999). 347–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵⁷ i.e. Jersey.

⁴⁵⁸ Charles's original letter, as recorded in the Lords' journals on 17 June (LJ, viii. 379–80Google Scholar), contained no reference to Jean de Montreuil (alt. Montereul), the French ambassador in Scotland.

⁴⁵⁹ Alexander Leslie, first earl of Leven.

⁴⁶⁰ James Livingstone, first earl of Callander.

⁴⁶¹ Archibald Campbell, first marquess of Argyle.

⁴⁶² Argyle addressed a grand committee of both Houses appointed to receive him on 25 June: LJ, viii. 392–3Google Scholar. His speech is in Rushworth, , vi. 298–99Google Scholar.

⁴⁶³ Browne was a leading parishioner of St Peter Westcheap and a signatory of the London Presbyterian petition of 12 November 1645.

⁴⁶⁴ On 25 June 1646: LJ, viii. 390–91.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁵ CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 186v.

⁴⁶⁶ It was on 3 July that common council approved their answer to the king's letter to the City of the previous 19 May: CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 187–87v.

⁴⁶⁷ On 4 July: LJ, viii. 411.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁸ This was the response of the Commons: CJ, iv. 602.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁹ CJ, iv. 602Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 411, 413Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 304–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁰ Monday was 6 July.

⁴⁷¹ Lit. intresses.

⁴⁷² Jean-Armand de Maillé, duc de Brezé, admiral of France.

⁴⁷³ Pompone de Bellièvre, French ambassador to England.

⁴⁷⁴ i.e. Jersey.

⁴⁷⁵ Rushworth, , vi. 307–8Google Scholar. The letter had been despatched from Edinburgh on 18 June 1646.

⁴⁷⁶ On 17 July: CJ, iv. 620–21Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 436.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁷ Should read 13 July, Monday.

⁴⁷⁸ Sir Thomas Soames and Samuel Vassall (two of the City's MPs) appeared before common council on 15 July to explain why the Commons could not approve of the City sending their proposed petition to the king: CJ, iv. 615–6Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 189.

⁴⁷⁹ There is no record of this in the journals of common council for 15 July 1646.

⁴⁸⁰ On 24 July 1646: CJ, iv. 642.Google Scholar

⁴⁸¹ The motion was lost by 91 votes to 90, with Hesilrige and Sir John Evelyn tellers for the noes and Stapilton and Holles tellers for the yeas: CJ, iv. 631–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁸² On 30 July, the first Ormond peace: Rushworth, , vi. 401–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁸³ Randal MacDonnell, second earl of Antrim, and Ludovic Lindsay, sixteenth earl of Crawford.

⁴⁸⁴ Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, viscount of Turenne.

⁴⁸⁵ After his father's death, i.e. he is a bastard.

⁴⁸⁶ In opposition.

⁴⁸⁷ Colonel Sydenham Poyntz commanded the force of cavalry that shadowed the Scottish army as it moved northwards with the king: Baillie, , ii. 375Google Scholar. In contrast to Juxon, Viscount Saye and Sele believed that Poyntz was ready and willing to fight with the Scots, and would have done so had he received orders from parliament: [Saye], Vindiciae veritatis, p. 101.Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁸ Juxon is probably referring here to the French diplomatic correspondence seized by a parliamentary vessel in the Channel in July 1646 and subsequently examined by a Commons committee: CJ, iv. 641Google Scholar; Fotheringham, J. G. (ed.), The diplomatic correspondence of Jean de Montereul (Scottish Hist. Soc. n.s. xxix, 2 vols., 1898), i. 245–6Google Scholar; Gardiner, S. R. (ed.), The Hamilton papers (Camden Soc. n.s. xxvii, 1880), pp. 107–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁹ On 17 and 19 August 1646 respectively.

⁴⁹⁰ The Commons took this action on 20 August: CJ, iv. 649.Google Scholar

⁴⁹¹ ‘With matters unaccomplished’.

⁴⁹² Charles Seton, second earl of Dunfermline.

⁴⁹³ On 14 August 1646: CJ, iv. 644.Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁴ CJ, iv. 647, 649, 654–6, 659Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 487.Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁵ CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 191–2; ‘de novo’ means ‘anew’.

⁴⁹⁶ On 10 September: CJ, iv. 665.Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁷ Lit. intrest.

⁴⁹⁸ Henry VIII is surely intended.

⁴⁹⁹ Lit. intrest.

⁵⁰⁰ Essex died on 14 September 1646.

⁵⁰¹ Edgehill.

⁵⁰² Northumberland and St John.

⁵⁰³ Baillie, , ii. 401.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁴ The Scottish parliament assembled on 3 November 1646. It had a higher membership, especially of burgesses, than its recent predecessors and the majority of the gentry and burgesses continued to adhere to Argyle: Young, J. R., The Scottish parliament 1639–1661: a political and constitutional analysis (Edinburgh, 1996), pp. 163, 185, 331, 334–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁵ On 18 September 1646: CJ, iv. 672.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁶ James Tuchet, third earl of Castlehaven.

⁵⁰⁷ Clotworthy and King had been appointed commissioners to treat with Ormond (for the surrender of Dublin) by 29 September 1646: CSP Ireland, 1633–47, p. 520.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁸ Dunkirk was surrendered to the French on 1 October 1646.

⁵⁰⁹ ‘Italy is the graveyard of France.’

⁵¹⁰ Sir John Gayre, a senior alderman who had been passed over for the mayoralty for several years because of his neo-royalism, was finally elected on 29 September 1646.

⁵¹¹ Gayre had been imprisoned for refusing to pay his assessments.

⁵¹² i.e. conventicles or gathered churches.

⁵¹³ John Warner was a leading political Independent who had been resolutely opposed to the City remonstrance of May 1646. He was to serve as lord mayor in 1647–48 as the army's nominee following their purge of the City.

⁵¹⁴ In the selection of a new lord mayor, the traditional practice was for common hall to forward two names, including the senior alderman under the chair, to the court of aldermen, which duly chose the latter. According to Juxon's account of the 1646 election, John Warner, the most senior eligible alderman, secured the vote of Independents and their supporters, while the Presbyterian vote went to John Langham and James Bunce with the hope of gaining their selection as the two nominees and the eventual endorsement of Langham. However, with the ‘honest party’ vote thus split three ways, Sir John Gayre emerged as runner-up to Langham on the combined ‘malignant’ vote; their two names went forward to the court of aldermen and Gayre, as the senior candidate, was duly chosen.

⁵¹⁵ Monday was 5 October.

⁵¹⁶ There were conferences on 1, 6 and 10 October 1646: Rushworth, , vi. 329–36Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 729.Google Scholar

⁵¹⁷ John Maitland, second earl of Lauderdale.

⁵¹⁸ John Campbell, first earl of Loudoun, chancellor of Scotland.

⁵¹⁹ CJ, iv. 692–6.Google Scholar

⁵²⁰ The papers from the Scots commissioners were delivered into both Houses on 20 October: LJ, viii. 532–40Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 701.Google Scholar

⁵²¹ CJ, iv. 687, 692, 697.Google Scholar

⁵²² The true manner and form of the proceeding to the funeral of Robert earl of Essex (22 10 1646)Google Scholar, BL, E360/1. Waller had been the most senior serving officer under Essex and had become a leading political Presbyterian.

⁵²³ i.e. the Commons would rather have had this compromise of all seven commissioners than the Lords' four nominees.

⁵²⁴ Some papers given in by the commissioners of the parliament of Scotland, to the parliament of England (29 10 1646)Google Scholar, BL, E360/12. Although purporting to have been printed by Evan Tyler, the actual printer was Robert Bostock according to Thomason: Fortescue, , i. 472Google Scholar.

⁵²⁵ The only parliamentary vote on the covenant at this time was on 18 November 1646, when the Independents won a division against giving a second reading to an ordinance requiring subscription to the covenant by everyone in the kingdom: CJ, iv. 725.Google Scholar

⁵²⁶ The reference is to the disputed succession, producing rival Catholic and Protestant alliances, to these substantially Protestant north-western German territories, beginning in 1609 and ending with their partition in 1614.

⁵²⁷ Burroughs and his fellow Stepney preacher, William Greenhill, were two of the most influential Independent divines in London and vocal opponents of Presbyterian church government. He died on 13 November 1646.

⁵²⁸ Should read 27 November.

⁵²⁹ On 26 November 1646.

⁵³⁰ The humble petition of many well-affected freemen and covenant-engaged citizens of the City of London was read in the Commons on 2 December and was referred to the committee for complaints: CJ, iv. 735.Google Scholar

⁵³¹ See The moderate intelligencer (3–10 12 1646), BL, E365/16, p. 786Google Scholar; A perfect diurnall (30 11–7 12 1646), BL, E513/27, p. 1406Google Scholar; The humble petition of the lord mayor, aldermen and commons of the City of London (1646)Google Scholar, BL, E366/16, p. 9; Mahony, M., ‘Presbyterianism in the City of London, 1645–1647’, Historical Journal, 22 (1979), p. 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³² Bulstrode Whitelocke records that a parliamentary committee was appointed to deal with the business of the petition and find some expedient to preserve the peace: BL, Add. Ms. 37,344, fos. 71–2. He does not reveal the committee's actions as noted by Juxon.

⁵³³ William Drake, fourth son of Roger Drake, of St Peter Westcheap.

⁵³⁴ CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 199; BL, Add. Ms. 37,344, fo. 72.

⁵³⁵ Sir George Clark was an alderman of eminent standing in the City.

⁵³⁶ On 13 January 1647: CJ, v. 51–2Google Scholar; LJ, viii. 670–71.Google Scholar

⁵³⁷ HLRO, main papers, 19 December 1646, petition of the lord mayor, aldermen and commons of the City of London and annexed ‘representation’; BL, Add. Ms. 37,344, fo. 73.

⁵³⁸ LJ, viii. 617–8.Google Scholar

⁵³⁹ CJ, v. 20–21.Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁰ It is not entirely clear what Juxon's meaning is here. He seems to be implying that the Lords had unilaterally made order for the disposal of the king (‘the king and the commands of one house of parliament’), yet no such order had been made. He also seems to indicate that he has seen, or otherwise has knowledge of, an earlier draft of the City petition. However, he is wrong to state that reference to the ‘concurrence of both Houses’ was left out of the final draft — the City petition acknowledged that the ‘bringing home’ of the king should be left wholly to the wisdom of both Houses: To the right honourable the Lords … the humble petition of the lord mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City of London (29 12 1646), BL, E366/14, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁴¹ LJ, viii. 621–22, 626–28Google Scholar; CJ, v. 28.Google Scholar

⁵⁴² Lit. intressed.

⁵⁴³ The second Glamorgan treaty concluded by Edward Somerset, first earl of Glamorgan, who succeeded to the marquessate of Worcester on 18 December 1646.

⁵⁴⁴ Glamorgan had been imprisoned on 4 January 1646 and released on the following 21 January. The Irish peace was eventually proclaimed on 30 July 1646.

⁵⁴⁵ Jean Baptist Rinuccini, archbishop of Fermo, papal agent in Ireland from 22 October 1645.

⁵⁴⁶ The poor showing of the Independents in the common council elections of 21 December 1646 is confirmed by both royalist intelligence and the record of returns in wards like Coleman Street and Farringdon Without: Bodleian Library, Ms. Clarendon 26, fo. 161v; Guild., Ms. 4458/1, fo. 141; ibid., 4415/1, fo. 135; ibid., 3016/1, fos. 286–7; ibid., 3018, fo. 132. Furthermore, Thomas Juxon's uncle, Arthur Juxon, may have been a casualty of this and the previous year's election, for there is no evidence that he served on common council again after 1645 unul 1648.

⁵⁴⁷ i.e. January 1647.

⁵⁴⁸ Juxon appears to be referring to the ratification by the Scottish parliament on 24 December 1646 of a vote in the committee for common burdens on 16 December that the king must consent to all the Newcastle propositions or else the government of Scotland would be settled without him. The vote in the committee was ‘a close and bitter one’: Young, , The Scottish parliament 1639–1661, pp. 171–2Google Scholar; Stevenson, D., Revolution and counter-revolution in Scotland 1644–1651 (1977), pp. 77–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁹ On 24 December 1646.

⁵⁵⁰ Pompone de Bellièvre.

⁵⁵¹ The plan was discovered on 21 December 1646: LJ, viii. 620.Google Scholar

⁵⁵² i.e. intercepted by Rowland Laugharne, parliamentary commander in Wales.

⁵⁵³ Philip Sidney, Viscount Lisle, the eldest son of the earl of Leicester.

⁵⁵⁴ Sidney and Waller clashed with Inchiquin, president of Munster, over who should control the army in Ireland.

⁵⁵⁵ por Viscount Lisle's lieutenancy of Ireland, and the backing it received from ‘the Lord Northumberland's party’, see Adamson, J., ‘Strafford's ghost: the British context of Viscount Lisle's lieutenancy of Ireland’, in Ohlmeyer, J. H. (ed.), Ireland from independence to occupation 1641–1660 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 128–59.Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁶ CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 204V.

⁵⁵⁷ Philip Herbert, fourth earl of Pembroke.

⁵⁵⁸ Juxon seems to be referring to the vote in the Scottish parliament of 16 January 1647 on whether or not the king should be left at Newcastle (i.e. to the custody of the English parliament). He appears to be the only source to state that the vote was carried by one voice: Young, , The Scottish parliament 1639–1661, p. 174.Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁹ Juxon appears to be saying that the English, having previously sought aid from the Saxons and Danes, came to be conquered by them.

⁵⁶⁰ George, first Lord Goring, created first earl of Norwich by the king in 1644, who was Charles's ambassador in France. Juxon appears to be the only source to claim that Goring was attempting to arrange a ‘treaty’ between the king and the Spanish at Brussels.

⁵⁶¹ Lit. intrest.

⁵⁶² Crow, English ambassador to Turkey, seized some of the property and persons of Levant company merchants trading there: Subtlety and cruelty: or a true relation of the abuses and oppressions of Sir Sackville Crow, his majesty's ambassador at Constantinople (4 07 1646)Google Scholar, BL, E358/5.

⁵⁶³ The request was refused on 8 March 1647: LJ, ix. 68–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁴ On 15 February 1647: CJ, v. 89.Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁵ On 27 February 1647: CJ, v. 100–101Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 41.Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁶ On 2 March 1647: St Giles-in-the-Fields, register of marriages 1615–1713, fo. 30v.

⁵⁶⁷ Juxon is referring here to his brother-in-law, Richard Byfield (1598?–1664) who conducted the wedding but was not the incumbent. This was Henry Cornish: Camden local studies and archives centre, Holborn Library, St Giles-in-the-Fields vestry minute book, P/GF/M/1, p. 46. Byfield was rector of Long Ditton, Surrey, and had been added to the assembly of divines in 1645. He was reportedly ‘a great covenanter’ and was one of the City's Presbyterian ministers questioned for their role in the July 1647 riots. He was to be ejected from his living after the Restoration. His will, made in August 1662, has an extraordinary preamble in which he reaffirms his belief in the doctrine of the Trinity and the infallibility of scripture, and expresses his utter detestation of popery, Arminianism, Socinianism and Anabaptism ‘with all the dreams and furies of Enthusiasts, Quakers and Familists’. After his ejection, he retired to Mortlake and was buried in the parish church in December 1664: DNB, iii. 565Google Scholar; Foster, J., Alumni Oxonienses, 1500–1714, ser. 1, vol. 1, p. 226Google Scholar; The army anatomised (4 12 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E419/6, p. 35; PRO, PROB 11/317/9 will of Richard Byfield.

⁵⁶⁸ CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 204v, 205v–206.

⁵⁶⁹ On 16 March 1647 common council approved the texts of the City petitions, which were presented to both Houses the following day: CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 207–8; CJ, v. 115Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 82–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁰ The humble petition of many thousands, earnestly desiring the glory of God, the freedom of the commonwealth, and the peace of all men. This was the Leveller ‘large petition’ addressed to the Commons. Common council ordered that copies of this petition should be annexed to the City's petitions to the Houses: Wolfe, D. M. (ed.), Leveller manifestoes of the Puritan Revolution (repr. London and New York, 1967), pp. 131–41Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 207–10.

⁵⁷¹ On 15 March 1647: CJ, v. 112.Google Scholar

⁵⁷² Juxon has now returned to discussion of the City's petition.

⁵⁷³ The humble petition of colonels, lieutenant-colonels, majors, and other officers, that have faithfully served the great cause of the kingdom, under the authority of parliament (22 03 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E382/4, which was presented to the Commons on 22 March 1647: CJ, v. 120.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁴ On 27 March 1647: CJ, v. 127.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁵ On 29 March 1647: CJ, v. 128–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁶ Holles's ‘declaration of dislike’, assented to by the Commons on 29 March 1647 and by the Lords on the following day: CJ, v. 129–30Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 111–12, 115.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁷ Lieutenant-General Thomas Hammond, Colonel Robert Hammond, Colonel Robert Lilburne, Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Pride and Lieutenant-Colonel Mark Grime on 1 April 1647: CJ, v. 132.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁸ CJ, v. 132Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 444–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁹ On 1 April 1647: CJ, v. 131.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁰ Voted on 2 April 1647: CJ, v. 133.Google Scholar

⁵⁸¹ On 6 April 1647: CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 212–12v.

⁵⁸² On 16 April 1647: CJ, v. 145Google Scholar. The jurisdiction of the new militia committee was to extend over the suburbs as well as the City itself, but Juxon is wrong about the ordinance requiring the committee's members to be drawn from the suburbs too.

⁵⁸³ This is probably a reference to Ormond's offering to surrender the lord lieutenantship to parliament on 6 February 1647: LJ, ix. 29–30.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁴ On 27 April 1647: CJ, v. 155Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 152.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁵ On 7 May 1647: CJ, v. 166Google Scholar. See above, Adamson, , ‘Strafford's ghost: the British context of Viscount Lisle's lieutenancy of Ireland’.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁶ According to A perfect diurnall (26 04–3 05 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E515/10, p. 1571, Skippon desired to be excused ‘by reason of his age and disability … but seeing he is ordered by both houses of parliament and called thereunto, he shall deny himself to serve the public, and obey the commands of both houses’. No corroborating evidence has been found for Juxon's statement that Skippon was ‘over persuaded’ by his friends to accept command in Ireland, or that he professed he should die before he arrived in Dublin.

⁵⁸⁷ On 29 March: CJ, v. 129Google Scholar. Juxon is repeating himself.

⁵⁸⁸ Holles's ‘declaration of dislike’ drawn up on 29 March: above, p. 152.

⁵⁸⁹ The officers appeared before the House on 1 April: CJ, v. 132Google Scholar; above p. 152.

⁵⁹⁰ The parliamentary commissioners arrived at army headquarter at Saffron Walden on 15 April: Rushworth, , vi. 457Google Scholar.

⁵⁹¹ Ensign Francis Nicholls.

⁵⁹² The commissioners made their report to the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 April, hence the previous Saturday was 24 April: CJ, v. 154–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁹³ Other sources report that Pembroke quoted the figure of 4,000 cavaliers: Gentles, , p. 482Google Scholar, n. 95. For Pembroke's speech and rumours that the army was holding secret negotiations with the king, see Rushworth, , vi. 476Google Scholar; Clarke papers, i. 24, 26Google Scholar; Kishlansky, , New Model Army, pp. 208–9Google Scholar; Woolrych, , Soldiers and statesmen, pp. 69–71Google Scholar; Gentles, , p. 153.Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁴ The City asked for a new militia committee in March 1647 and the ordinance passed the Lords; it passed both Houses on 16 April 1647: LJ, ix. 82, 143Google Scholar. Juxon is repeating himself: above, p. 153.

⁵⁹⁵ CJ, v. 160–61Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 143, 174–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁶ On 27 April 1647: CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 215v; Rushworth, , vi. 472–3Google Scholar. John Brett was a fellow recalcitrant common councillor.

⁵⁹⁷ CJ, v. 160–61Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 175–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁸ CJ, v. 153, 159Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 163, 165Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 478Google Scholar. In other words, the Lords designated composition fines (‘Goldsmiths’ Hall') rather than the sale of delinquents' estates as security for the £200,000.

⁵⁹⁹ On 5 May 1647: CJ, v. 163Google Scholar. The tellers on the question that the House shall insist on their former resolutions about security for the loan were Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire and John Boys for the yeas (91); Walter Long and Richard Knightley for the noes (104). The victorious ‘party’ would appear to be that of the political Presbyterians.

⁶⁰⁰ The agitators in the New Model Army resolved early in May to ‘hold correspondence’ with their fellow soldiers and the ‘well affected’ elsewhere in the kingdom, although Juxon appears to be the only source to state that they requested Poyntz's horse to join with them at this time. Certainly by June Poyntz was complaining that agitators from the ‘southern army’ were causing disturbances among his northern regiments: Clarke papers, i. 23, 142–6Google Scholar; Gary, H. (ed.), Memorials of the Great Civil War in England from 1646 to 1652 (2 vols., 1842), i. 233, 282Google Scholar. Juxon has apparently mistaken the calls from certain regiments for justice against the authors of the ‘declaration of dislike’ for the desire of the army in general. In fact, most senior officers were still anxious to confine the army's demands to purely military matters: Gentles, , pp. 163–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁰¹ Juxon goes further than most commentators in stressing the abhorrence felt by Cromwell, the New Model's friends at Westminster, and many senior officers at the prospect of the army challenging the authority of parliament. For Cromwell's position on this issue in the spring of 1647, see Clarke papers, i. pp. xvii–xxGoogle Scholar; Abbott, , Writings and speeches, i. 435–7Google Scholar; Clarendon, , iv. 223.Google Scholar

⁶⁰² ‘The humble petition of divers well-affected people, in and about the City of London’, which the Commons on 20 May ordered to be burnt along with the Leveller ‘large petition’: CJ, v. 179–80Google Scholar; BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fo. 310; ibid., 37,344, fos. 87–8; above, p.151.

⁶⁰³ On 21 May: CJ, v. 181.Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁴ ‘The humble petition of many thousands of well-affected people’, read in the Commons on 2 June, but the motion to return an answer was defeated by 128 votes to 112: CJ, v. 195Google Scholar. The tellers for the yeas were Sir John Evelyn and Sir Michael Livesey and for the noes, Denzil Holies and Sir William Lewes.

⁶⁰⁵ On 28 May: CJ, v. 192Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 216.Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁶ The ‘declaration of dislike’ was voted to be expunged from the Commons' journals on the night of 3–4 June and the Lords were asked to do the same: CJ, v. 196–7Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 502Google Scholar; BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fo. 311v. The declaration was subsequently repealed by ordinance on 8 June: CJ, v. 202Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 242, 247–8Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 547–8Google Scholar. In seeking to correct Juxon's chronology, Gentles confuses the two processes: Gentles, , pp. 173Google Scholar. 489 n. 259.

⁶⁰⁷ CJ, v. 197; BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fos. 311–12; Stieg, M. F. (ed.), The diary of John Harington, MP, 1646–53 (Somerset Record Soc. 74, 1977), p. 55.Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁸ On 7 June when MPs were again intimidated: CJ, v. 201–2Google Scholar; BL, Add. Ms. 31,116, fo. 312; Stieg (ed.), The diary of John Harington, p. 55.Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁹ The army's letter was brought to the City on 11 June: CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 219–20; CJ, v. 208Google Scholar. The eleven members were not charged until 16 June.

⁶¹⁰ On 11 June: CJ, v. 207Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 255Google Scholar.

⁶¹¹ Alderman Thomas Vyner, William Hiccocks, Robert Lowther, Richard Waring and Walter Pell were also commissioners: Rushworth, , vi. 558Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 220V–221.

⁶¹² i.e. the ‘eleven members’.

⁶¹³ Rushworth, , vi. 585–92Google Scholar; CJ, v. 223Google Scholar. The vote was taken on 25 June 1647.

⁶¹⁴ On 16 June: CJ, v. 214Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 271.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁵ The Commons resolved on 3 and n June 1647 that any of the officers and common soldiers who agreed to disband or to serve in Ireland should have their full arrears of pay: CJ, v. 197, 207Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 241, 252Google Scholar; Gentles, , p. 167.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁶ Common council petition of 2 July 1647: Rushworth, , v. 597–600Google Scholar; CJ, v. 231Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 231v–32v. The Commons granted leave to the eleven members to go overseas on 20 July: CJ, v. 251–2.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁷ On 17 July: CJ, v. 248–9.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁸ The king sent a letter to parliament from Holmby House, dated 12 May 1647, in which he agreed, if he was allowed to come to London to conclude a personal treaty, to the establishment of Presbyterianism for three years and to relinquish power over the militia for ten years: LJ, ix. 193–4.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁹ The humble petition of the citizens, commanders, officers and soldiers of the trained bands and auxiliaries etc. and the annexed A solemn engagement (21 07 1647)Google Scholar, BL, 669 f. 11/47; CJ, v. 255.Google Scholar

⁶²⁰ CJ, v. 257Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 35.Google Scholar

⁶²¹ i.e. the vote against the petition.

⁶²² On 23 July: CJ, v. 254, 256–7Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 349.Google Scholar

⁶²³ The force upon the Houses of 26 July: LJ, ix. 355–7Google Scholar; CJ, v. 258–9Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vii. 747Google Scholar; BL, Add. Ms. 37,344, fo. 100.

⁶²⁴ CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 240V.

⁶²⁵ The Commons met on 27 July but immediately adjourned till the following Friday, 30 July: CJ, v. 259Google Scholar. The Lords had adjourned on 26 July until 30 July: LJ, ix. 358.Google Scholar

⁶²⁶ Henry Pelham was chosen speaker on 30 July when the House reassembled: CJ, v. 259.Google Scholar

⁶²⁷ Francis, fifth Baron Willoughby of Parham: LJ, ix. 358.Google Scholar

⁶²⁸ On 30 July: LJ, ix. 361Google Scholar; CJ, v. 259–60.Google Scholar

⁶²⁹ CJ, v. 260–61Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 242v–44; Rushworth, , vi. 646.Google Scholar

⁶³⁰ On 29 July 1647 it was resolved to borrow £20,000 for the defence of the City: CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 243.

⁶³¹ CJ, v. 266Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 247.

⁶³² On 31 July: CJ, v. 261Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 363Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 646Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 244, 246V.

⁶³³ On 31 July: Firth, and Rait, , i. 992–4Google Scholar; CJ, v. 260–61Google Scholar; Rushworth, , iv. 646.Google Scholar

⁶³⁴ CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 244v–46.

⁶³⁵ Several newsbooks reported that there was ‘great appearance’ of reformadoes and militia officers at a rendezvous in St James's fields on 31 July: A perfect diurnal of some passages in parliament (26 07–2 08 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E518/12, pp. 1682–3; The kingdom's weekly intelligencer (27 07–3 08 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E400/39, p. 617.

⁶³⁶ There had been a comprehensive purge of this suburban subcommittee for the militia: Worcester College, Oxford, Clarke Ms. 2/3, fos. 102v–163.

⁶³⁷ The night of 2–3 August 1647.

⁶³⁸ ‘The petition of the young men and apprentices of the City of London’ presented to common council on 27 July: CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 240v–41.

⁶³⁹ CJ, v. 264.Google Scholar

⁶⁴⁰ Juxon appears to be the only source to claim that the Scots commissioners badgered those MPs who dissented to the motion that the king be invited to London to treat.

⁶⁴¹ The Guildhall incident of 2 August in which only two men may have been killed: LJ, ix. 401–2Google Scholar. Juxon appears to be the only source for the horsemen in Cheapside crying up the king, although an anonymous pamphleteer claimed that Massey's men came ‘thick in companies to the Guildhall gate, shouting, hollowing, and crying for king, parliament and City’: The disconsolate reformado: or the sad look'd Presbyterian jack (21 08 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E404/4, pp. 3–4. For other accounts of the Guildhall incident, see The army anatomized (4 12 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E419/6, p. 24; Two petitions from the City of London (12 10 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E401/20, pp. 4–5.

⁶⁴² For those members who fled to the army after the Presbyterian ‘riots’ of 26 July, see Old parliamentary history, xxvi. 241–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁴³ The ministers delivered their message firstly to the Lords and Commons on 2 August and then to common council: LJ, ix. 368Google Scholar; CJ, v. 265Google Scholar; Mitchell, and Struthers, (eds.), Minutes of the Westminster assembly, pp. 407–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁴⁴ CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 251v.

⁶⁴⁵ Other contemporary accounts of the army's conduct on 7 August are similarly favourable: CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 252; BL, Add. Ms. 37,344, fo. 104; Gentles, , pp. 193–4Google Scholar.

⁶⁴⁶ It has been suggested that the soldiers had piled their weapons into carts so as to be less frightening to the citizens: Gendes, , p. 495Google Scholar n. 32.

⁶⁴⁷ Fairfax was appointed on 6 August and Tichborne on 9 August 1647: CJ, v. 269Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 375, 379Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vii. 760–61.Google Scholar

⁶⁴⁸ A perfect diurnall (16–23 08 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E518/21, p. 1708; Perfect occurrences (20–27 08 1647)Google Scholar, BL, E518/23, p. 232; A short and true narratine of the departure from England, sickness and death of Sir Philip Stapilton (18 08 1647), BL, E409/3.Google Scholar

⁶⁴⁹ The first account of Nicoll's words to be published appears to have been in October 1647: Peter, Hugh, A word to the army. And two words to the kingdom (11 10 1647), BL, E410/16, p. 6.Google Scholar