⁶⁹ The listing of royal birthdays at the start of the journal is completely out of character with the rest of the work. Perhaps it was the result of an earlier abandoned project to keep a commonplace book.

⁷⁰ Reference numbers are provided in eighteen instances, although the first seven have been crossed out.

⁷¹ Below, pp. 58, 96, 107, 111.

⁷² Below, p. 127.

⁷³ Below, p. 89.

⁷⁴ Below, pp. 73–4, 75, 76.

⁷⁵ Below, pp. 118, 120, 152, 153, 154–5, 156.

⁷⁶ Below, pp. 81, 82, 117, 147.

⁷⁷ Below, p. 124.

⁷⁸ Below, pp. 105, 119, 120, 126, 134.

⁷⁹ Below, pp. 71 & n. 186, 79–80 & n. 228.

⁸⁰ Below, pp. 108 & n. 353, 116 & n. 394. There are a further five instances of completely wrong or inaccurate statements: below, pp. 43 & n. 32, 118 & n. 401, 121 & n. 422, 153 & n. 581, 157 & n. 600.

⁸¹ Below, p. 82 & n. 235.

⁸² Below, pp. 93, 94.

⁸³ For example, below, pp. 99, 100.

⁸⁴ Below, p. 81.

⁸⁵ Below, pp. 84, 85 & n. 253.

⁸⁶ Below, p. 113.

⁸⁷ Below, pp. 119–20.

⁸⁸ For example, his report on the complicity of Alderman Bunce and some common councilmen in the invasion of the Houses in July 1647, or his account of Scots commissioners badgering MPs on 2 August 1647: below, pp. 162, 166.

⁸⁹ Stieg (ed.), The diary of John Harington, MP, pp. 29, 32, 34, 46, 61, 68.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Below, p. 94 & n. 288.

⁹¹ Below, pp. 56–7, 58, 61, 78.

⁹² Below, p. 61 & n. 134.

⁹³ Below, pp. 169–70 & n. 649.

⁹⁴ Below, p. 150.

⁹⁵ The editors would like to thank Elliot Vernon for drawing their attention to the term ‘covenant-engaged citizens’ as the self-appellation of the High Presbyterian party in the City.

⁹⁶ Common council, the City of London's legislature, met in the Guildhall and was theoretically the representative body of all its freemen. Any freeman who was a ratepaying householder was eligible for election as a councillor and had to seek re-election each year. However, in practice councillors were usually drawn from among the more prosperous citizens and continued in office for successive years. Yet the common council elections of 1641 and, to a much lesser extent, those of 1642–46 proved controversial, as efforts were made to unseat political opponents. Common council had a total membership of about 237 councillors in the mid-seventeenth century but, like its national equivalent, the House of Commons, levels of attendance could vary considerably depending on the political climate and the issues raised. Common councils were usually called about five or six times a year, while the City's executive body, the court of the lord mayor and aldermen, normally sat twice a week and exercised a careful control over the former. The particular circumstances of the 1640s temporarily liberated common council from aldermanic control and led councillors to talk up the powers and privileges of their assembly, claiming that it was the representative body of the City. Juxon refers to common council in his journal as ‘our representative body’ and quotes examples of its presumption: below, pp. 102, 103, 122–3, 142.

⁹⁷ Below, pp. 89–90.

⁹⁸ Below, p. 106. In other words, Juxon is claiming that less than a fifth of the total membership of common council were openly and resolutely partisan.

⁹⁹ Below, pp. 109–10.

¹⁰⁰ Below, p. 111.

¹⁰¹ Below, p. 90.

¹⁰² Below, pp. 122–23.

¹⁰³ Below, p. 125.

¹⁰⁴ Below, p. 156 & n. 596; CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 215V.

¹⁰⁵ Below, p. 90.

¹⁰⁶ Below, p. 101; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 170–70V.

¹⁰⁷ Below, pp. 122–23 & n. 428; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 178V–80V.

¹⁰⁸ Below, p. 109 & n. 361.

¹⁰⁹ Below, p. 85.

¹¹⁰ Below, p. 89.

¹¹¹ Below, p. 95.

¹¹² Below, p. 97.

¹¹³ Below, p. 103.

¹¹⁴ Below, p. 108.

¹¹⁵ Below, pp. 89–90.

¹¹⁶ Below, p. 90.

¹¹⁷ Below, p. 85.

¹¹⁸ Below, pp. 114, 123.

¹¹⁹ Below, p. 128.

¹²⁰ Below, p. 161.

¹²¹ Below, p. 162.

¹²² Below, p. 97.

¹²³ Below, p. 144 & n. 546.

¹²⁴ Below, pp. 136–7 & nn. 510–14.

¹²⁵ Worden, B., ‘“Wit in a Roundhead”: the dilemma of Marchamont Nedham’, in Amussen, S. D. and Kishlansky, M. A. (eds.), Political culture and cultural politics in early modern England: essays presented to David Underdown (Manchester, 1995), p. 317Google Scholar. For the development and use of interest theory during the civil war period, see Gunn, J. A. W., Politics and the public interest in the seventeenth century (1969)Google Scholar, ch. 1; Kishlansky, M. A., ‘Ideology and politics in the parliamentary armies, 1645–9’, in J. Morrill (ed.), Reactions to the English Civil War (1982), pp. 163–83Google Scholar; Scott, J., Algernon Sidney and the English Republic 1623–1677 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 207–8Google Scholar; Tuck, R., Philosophy and government 1572–1651 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 222–3, 228–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²⁶ Gunn, , Politics and public interest, pp. xi, 1–3.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ The following paragraph draws heavily upon the work of Worden and Gunn: ‘Wit in a Roundhead’, pp. 317–19Google Scholar; Politics and public interest, pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ The writings of the due de Rohan influenced not only Nedham but also Algernon Sidney and a whole range of republican and Protestant theorists: Scott, , Algernon Sidney, pp. 53, 76, 207Google Scholar; Gunn, , Politics and the public interest, pp. 36–8, 48.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Worden has argued that reason was ‘central to the political creed’ of the classical republicans of the Interregnum. They saw politics as essentially ‘a conflict between reason on the one hand and passion and will on the other. Popular sovereignty answered to reason: the hereditary principle embodied passion and will’: Worden, ‘Classical republicanism and the Puritan Revolution’, in H. Doyd-Jones, V. Pearl and B. Worden, eds., History and imagination (1981), pp. 193–5Google Scholar. Juxon seems to have equated the royal interest, and perhaps ‘greatness’ generally, with irrationality (see below, pp. 23 n. 132, 29–30 & n. 188, 147), although whether he also shared the classical republicans' rationalist, Arminian leanings in religion is highly doubtful.

¹³⁰ The novelty of the language of interest for Juxon is underlined by his occasional use of the Italianate forms ‘interesse’ or ‘intresse’. See Tuck, , Philosophy and government, p. 223.Google Scholar

¹³¹ The language of interest has been described by J. Scott as a ‘sceptical and potentially … “morally ambivalent” form of analysis': Scott, , Algernon Sidney, p. 207.Google Scholar

¹³² Below, p. 83. He dismisses the king and his advisers at Oxford as ‘these men of strong fancies but bad intellects’: below, p. 43.

¹³³ Below, p. 147.

¹³⁴ Below, p. 74. Juxon at one point employed a similar line of argument with reference to the king: below, p. 79.

¹³⁵ For example, a tract attributed to Nedham, Good English: or, certain reasons pointing out the safe way of settlement in this kingdom (8 05 1648)Google Scholar, BL, E 441/10.

¹³⁶ For this blend of the Machiavellian and the puritan among mid-seventeenth century English radicals, see Worden, B., ‘Milton's republicanism and the tyranny of heaven’, in Block, G., Skinner, Q. and Viroli, M. (eds.), Machiavelli and republicanism (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 230, 232.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ The struggle between private and public interest seems to be interpreted by Juxon in partly eschatological and providentialist terms as an aspect of God's ‘extraordinary design’ for the destruction of ‘sensualities … pomp, glory and greatness’ and the setting up of a ‘new monarchy’: below, p. 89.

¹³⁸ Gunn, , Politics and public interest, pp. 6–7, 38.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Below, pp. 68, 72, 75, 76, 95, 98, 103, 116. He likewise contrasts ‘bad and interested men’ with the ‘good and conscientious’: below, p. 103. Juxon's belief that the pursuit of private interest and factional ends represented the greatest obstacle to the advancement of the common good was echoed by the New Model Army in the summer of 1647: Kishlansky, , ‘Ideology and polities’, in Morrill (ed.), Reactions to the English CM War, pp. 177–8.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Below, p. 116.

¹⁴¹ Gunn, , Politics and public interest, pp. 38–9Google Scholar; Tuck, , Philosophy and government, p. 223Google Scholar; Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition (Princeton, 1975), p. 373.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Juxon refers on two occasions to ‘the Scots' interest’, and once to ‘the clergy interest’: below, pp. 103, no, 124.

¹⁴³ For a discussion of the various meanings which attached to the word ‘party’ during the 1640s, see Kishlansky, , New Model Army, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Below, pp. 43, 52, 57, 84, 147.

¹⁴⁵ Below, pp. 49, 95, 106, 113, 116, 135.

¹⁴⁶ Below, pp. 40, 45.

¹⁴⁷ Below, p. 70.

¹⁴⁸ Below, pp. 106, no, in, 114, 119, 125, 144, 151, 153, 164.

¹⁴⁹ Below, pp. 116, 135, 137.

¹⁵⁰ In March 1645, Juxon comments that even though the younger Vane and Oliver St John favoured the Independent faction, they ‘most sincerely do intend the real happiness of the nation’. Similarly, he implicitly contrasts the Independents with ‘honest and ingenious men’, and ‘wise and good men’: below, pp. 76, 103, 116, 117, 128, 135, 147.

¹⁵¹ Below, p. 147.

¹⁵² Below, pp. 67, 68, 72, 74, 75, 75–6, 79, 105–6, 113, 129, 139, 143.

¹⁵³ Below, pp. 56, 58, 103, 104, 114, 151. The meaning which Juxon attached to the term ‘honest’ in this context may well have derived directly, or at second hand, from Cicero and other classical writers, who equated it with what was ‘utile’, i.e. beneficial to human society and one's state, and the civic virtues of ‘prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude’: Tuck, , Philosophy and government, pp. 7, 8Google Scholar. That Juxon seems to have used ‘honest’ and ‘godly’ interchangeably as political terms suggests that he saw the latter as being redolent of the same civic and humanistic virtues as the former.

¹⁵⁴ Below, p. 103.

¹⁵⁵ Below, p. 104.

¹⁵⁶ Below, pp. 137, 164.

¹⁵⁷ Below, pp. 61, 63, 103, 114, 151, 158. Although at one point he distinguishes between the ‘honest party’ in the Commons and the ‘godly party’ generally, he saw the former as defenders of the latter: below, p. 104.

¹⁵⁸ Below, pp. 75–6, 76, 77, 103, 104, 114.

¹⁵⁹ Below, p. 77.

¹⁶⁰ Below, pp. 80, 86, 104–5.

¹⁶¹ Below, p. 135.

¹⁶² Below, p. 49.

¹⁶³ From 1642, argues John Adamson, Essex was directing ‘a political campaign … to confer upon himself protectoral rank and power’, or the ‘unlimited commission of a Roman dictator’: Adamson, J. S. A., ‘The baronial context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. 40, 1990, pp. 100, 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Below, pp. 42–3, 46, 52, 55, 56, 58, 60, 63–5, 74.

¹⁶⁵ Below, pp. 63–5, 66, 72.

¹⁶⁶ Below, p. 76.

¹⁶⁷ Below, pp. 52, 68, 80, 86, 117.

¹⁶⁸ Below, pp. 46–7, 48.

¹⁶⁹ Below, p. 47.

¹⁷⁰ Below, p. 47.

¹⁷¹ Below, p. 46.

¹⁷² Below, p. 46.

¹⁷³ Below, pp. 62, 75, 78, 81, 82–3, 83–4, 87, 112, 115–16, 117. He occasionally took a more sympathetic view of the Scottish people's miseries: below, p. 88.

¹⁷⁴ Below, pp. 44, 50. Juxon concedes that the Scots had come to parliament's aid ‘in our necessity and have done us some good charges …’: below, p. 83.

¹⁷⁵ Below, p. 61.

¹⁷⁶ Below, pp. 61–2.

¹⁷⁷ Below, pp. 133, 146.

¹⁷⁸ Below, pp. 122, 126, 128, 135, 140, 145.

¹⁷⁹ Below, pp. 86, 87, 94, 99.

¹⁸⁰ Below, p. 62.

¹⁸¹ Below, pp. 61, 86.

¹⁸² Below, p. 86.

¹⁸³ Below, p. 106.

¹⁸⁴ Below, pp. 86, 87, 89–90, 95, 119.

¹⁸⁵ Below, pp. 95–6. It would reveal much about Juxon's thinking on this issue if his reaction were known to the Cromwell-Saye group's attempts to introduce a bill in October 1647 giving limited toleration to Independent congregations and moderate Anglicans: Adamson, J. S. A., ‘The English nobility and the projected setdement of 1647’, Historical Journal, 30 (1987), pp. 584–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adamson, , ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament’, in J. Morrill (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, (1990), pp. 68–9.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Below, p. 128.

¹⁸⁷ Those of the City aldermen who opposed the covenant-engaged faction were committed to an erastian Presbyterian church which preserved the parochial system while allowing limited toleration: Mahony, M., ‘The Presbyterian party in the Long Parliament, 2 July 1644–3 June 1647’, (unpublished D.Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1973). PP. 192–3.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Below, p. 51. ‘Greatness’, according to Juxon, is ‘a hindrance … to human society’ as well as being incompatible with Christ's kingdom: below, pp. 92, 147. Juxon, it seems, like Algernon Sidney and Milton, drew little distinction between monarchy and tyranny. Juxon and Sidney certainly perceived an increasing trend among continental princes to trample their people's interests in pursuit of dynastic and personal ambitions: Scott, , Algernon Sidney, p. 196Google Scholar; Worden, , ‘Milton's republicanism’, in Block, Skinner and Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli and republicanism, pp. 228–9.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Below, pp. 48, 92. Thus the prince of Orange, in attempting to achieve absolute power, ‘comes too late upon the stage to act that part’.

¹⁹⁰ Juxon and Culpeper would probably have seen eye to eye on a broad range of religious as well as political issues. Their differences were more of degree than kind. Thus Culpeper, a religious Independent, seems to have attached greater importance than Juxon to the benefits of toleration and freedom of conscience: Braddick, M. J. and Greengrass, M., eds., The letters of Sir Cheney Culpeper, 1641–1657 (Camden Misc. xxxiii, 1996), pp. 137–48.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ The one exception to this rule occurs near the start of the journal when Juxon refers to ‘the party of the Lords’ who were enemies of the Scots: below, p. 43.

¹⁹² Below, pp. 67, 68, 72, 74, 75, 187.

¹⁹³ Below, p. 47.

¹⁹⁴ Below, p. 68.

¹⁹⁵ Below, p. 72.

¹⁹⁶ Below, pp. 74, 75.

¹⁹⁷ Below, pp. 57, 76.

¹⁹⁸ For Northumberland's role in the creation of the New Model, see Adamson, J. S. A., ‘Of armies and architecture: the employments of Robert Scawen’, in Gentles, I., Morrill, J. and Worden, B. (eds.), Soldiers, writers and statesmen of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 36–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Juxon is complimentary about only one European nobleman, the duke d'Enghien, whom he describes as ‘a most gallant prince, a true gentleman’ and, although a Catholic, ‘very favourable’ to the Protestant interest: below, p. 145.

¹⁹⁹ Below, p. 147. Warwick is also criticised later for persuading Lord Robartes to desert the ‘better party’: below, p. 84.

²⁰⁰ Below, pp. 89, 98, 121, 138, 145.

²⁰¹ Below, p. 89.

²⁰² Tuck, , Philosophy and government, pp. 228–30, 234Google Scholar; Scott, , Algernon Sidney, p. 209Google Scholar. Juxon thought single person rule and the hereditary principle to be detrimental to the interests of the Dutch. Whether he thought the same with regard to the English is open to question: below, p. 92.

²⁰³ Below, p. 157.

²⁰⁴ Below, pp. 56, 75–6, 77.

²⁰⁵ In other words, did Juxon agree with the New Model Army soldiers when they declared in June 1647 ‘this we speak of in relation to the House of Commons, as being entrusted in the peoples' behalf for their interest in that great and supreme power of the commonwealth, namely the legislative power, with the power of final judgement’? (cited in Kishlansky, , ‘Ideology and polities’, in Morrill (ed.), Reactions to the English Civil War, pp. 174–5).Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ See Wootton, D., ‘The republican tradition: from Commonwealth to common sense’, in Wootton (ed.), Republicanism, liberty and commercial society, 1649–1776 (Stanford, 1994), pp. 1–2Google Scholar; see also Worden, B., ‘Marchamont Nedham and the beginnings of English republicanism, 1649–1656’Google Scholar, in ibid., pp. 45–6; Tuck, , Philosophy and government, p. 222.Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ Juxon is best described as a ‘classical humanist’ (to borrow Markku Peltonen's phrase) rather than a classical republican. Although not concerned specifically with constitutional forms, classical humanism, in its emphasis on ‘civic consciousness’, ‘citizenship, public virtue and true nobility’, provided many of the themes central to republican thinking during the 1640s and 1650s: Peltonen, M., Classical humanism and republicanism in English political thought 1570–1640 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 1–17, 311–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰⁸ Below, pp. 95–6, 102, 158. Tuck has identified a number of political Independents during the 1640s who endorsed ‘the principle of election and the supremacy of an elective assembly, though one without any “vulgar” participation’: Tuck, , Philosophy and government, PP. 235–40, 247.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ Below, p. 84.

²¹⁰ Above, pp. 4, 7, 16.

²¹¹ Below, pp. 112, 113.

²¹² Below, p. 94.

²¹³ Below, p. 43.

²¹⁴ Below, pp. 151–2.

²¹⁵ Below, p. 84.

²¹⁶ Below, pp. 57–8.

²¹⁷ Below, p. 67. A. N. B. Cotton has speculated that Cromwell's relation of the ‘effect and substance’ of his narrative against Manchester was not a summary of the whole speech and probably excluded ‘very important sections of it’. Juxon's own précis of Cromwell's words, which differs markedly from the printed summary, certainly supports this conclusion: Cotton, A. N. B., ‘Cromwell and the self-denying ordinance’, History, 62 (1977). PP. 217. 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹⁸ Below, p. 67.

²¹⁹ Cotton, , ‘Cromwell and the self-denying ordinance’, pp. 211–31.Google Scholar

²²⁰ Below, p. 67.

²²¹ Below, pp. 103–4, 124–5.

²²² Below, p. 82.

²²³ Below, p. 120.

²²⁴ Below, pp. 52, 84, 104, 154. It was Stapilton, claimed Juxon, who launched the attack in the Commons upon the New Model Army in July 1646: below, p. 131.

²²⁵ Below, p. 169.

²²⁶ Snow, V. F., Essex the rebel: the life of Robert Devereux, the third earl of Essex 1591–1646 (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1970), pp. 203, 313.Google Scholar

²²⁷ Pearl, V., ‘London's counter-revolution’, in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: the quest for settlement 1646–1660 (1972), pp. 35–6, 38Google Scholar; Mahony, , ‘The Presbyterian party in the Long Parliament’, pp. 206–7, 224–8, 330–1.Google Scholar

²²⁸ Mahony, , ‘The Presbyterian party in the Long Parliament’, p. 15Google Scholar; Underdown, D., Pride's Purge: politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 3; Adamson, J. S. A., ‘Parliamentary management, men-of-business and the House of Lords, 1640–49’, in C. Jones (ed.), A pillar of the constitution: the House of Lords in British politics, 1640–1784 (1989), pp. 21–50.Google Scholar

²²⁹ Below, pp. 72, 104.

²³⁰ Below, pp. 56, 58, 63, 68, 70, 76, 80, 84, 104, 106. ‘The Scots, the assembly, City, Lords, Stapilton's party, and malignants, their interests all meet in one upon several considerations against the godly party …’: below, p. 104.

²³¹ Below, pp. 68, 76, 79, 83.

²³² Below, pp. 61, 63, 75, 76.

²³³ Below, pp. 70, 89, 95, 112, 116, 117, 120, 125, 132, 135, 137, 144.

²³⁴ For examples of this confusion, or conflation, of meanings see below pp. 80, 86, 94, 95, 112, 117, 133, 139, 144.

²³⁵ Below, pp. 40, 43, 61, 62, 70, 71, 72, 75, 79, 85, 86, 95, 103, 123, 125, 158. For ‘Presbyterians’ and ‘Independents’ etc. as largely political labels, see below, pp. 75, 76, 83, 88, 147.

²³⁶ Kishlansky, , New Model Army.Google Scholar

²³⁷ Below, pp. 69–70, 77; Kishlansky, , New Model Army, pp. 28–32Google Scholar. For the argument that the self-denying ordinance was a weapon designed by the war party for use against Essex and other aristocratic generals, see Rowe, V. A., Sir Henry Vane the younger: a study in political and administrative history (1970), pp. 55–7Google Scholar: Kaplan, L., Politics and religion during the English Revolution: the Scots and the Long Parliament 1643–1645 (New York, 1976), pp. 85–9Google Scholar; Gentles, , pp. 6–10Google Scholar. Mahony and others have argued in a similar vein, although with more emphasis on self-denial as a response of Cromwell and his allies to their vulnerability following the formation of the Presbyterian-Scottish alliance: Mahony, M., ‘The Savile affair and the politics of the Long Parliament’, Parliamentary History, 7 (1988), pp. 214–16Google Scholar; Cotton, , ‘Cromwell and the self-denying ordinance’, pp. 211–31Google Scholar. Ashton's analysis of the self-denial initiative is broadly in line with that of Kishlansky: Ashton, R., The English Civil War: conservatism and revolution 1603–1649 (1978), pp. 226–8.Google Scholar

²³⁸ Below, pp. 69–70, 72.

²³⁹ The military scribe, (27 Feb.–5 Mar. 1644)Google Scholar, BL, E 35/21, p. 16.

²⁴⁰ Below, p. 39.

²⁴¹ Below, pp. 78, 112, 136.

²⁴² Below, pp. 52, 92–3, 146–7.

²⁴³ Below, pp. 135, 145.

²⁴⁴ Below, pp. 45–6, 78, 88, 146–7.

²⁴⁵ Below, pp. 45, 46, 47–8, 52, 88, 90–1, 106, 112, 129–30, 131–2, 136, 144–5, 149, 153.

²⁴⁶ Below, pp. 45, 46.

²⁴⁷ Below, p. 72.

²⁴⁸ Below, p. 89.

²⁴⁹ Below, pp. 92, 132.

²⁵⁰ Below, p. 92.