^{page 1 note a} MS, “cavalrie.”

^{page 2 note a} Compare Rushworth, vii. 1054. Rushworth simply reprints the “Perfect Diurnal” in which a sentence or two of this letter is quoted.

^{page 2 note b} Headings enclosed in square brackets are added by the editor.

^{page 3 note a} Cf. Old Parliamentary History, xvii., 93; Rushworth, vii., 1051, 1055; Walker, Independency, pt. i., pp. 84, 90; Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv., 97; Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 4th series, vii., 140.

^{page 5 note a} On this plot see lords‘Journals, x., 262, May 18, 1648.Google Scholar Rushworth, vii., 1119.

An earlier plot of the same kind is mentioned in Mercurius Dogmaticus, Jan. 20–28, 1648: “There was a design of late … which was—One Major Clark, sometime a Vinter at the Miter in Bishopsgate Street, Lieutenant Corbet, and Richard Yates, formerly officers in the King's army, had contrived a way how to purchase themselves and the loyall partie of this kingdome a redemption from their cruell bondage; and for that purpose had given forth tickets to those whom they knew to be cordially affected, exhorting them to make all the strength they could amongst their friends and allies; and when of considerable strength to divide themselves into three bodies, where of the one was to seize upon the Tower, the other to surprise the men at Westminster, and the other to keep a court of guard at Temple Barre, to hinder the citizens from flocking to their rescue…. A Declaration was printed and dispersed abroad the heads where of were these:

“‘To all those that are faithfnll to God, loyall to their King, and desire to be freed from their cruell bondage.

“‘1. Wee declare our intentions to be onely for the preservation of His Majestie and ourselves from ruine and the restitution of His Majestie to His just rights, the knowne lawes to their due course, and ourselves to our ancient liberties.

“‘2. To destroy all those who shall adhere to Sir Thomas Fairfax, in purr suance of his damnable Declaration for deposing the King.

“‘3. To hang up all men at their own doores immediately who shall conceale any parliament-man in their house within the Citie, and not give present ncotie of him to the present governor of the Tower.‘

“But this undetaking was blasted, even in the bud, for (as the Devill would have it) the Citie Marshall had notice given him of the place where these Loyalists resorted, who at the second search found and surprised them.”

^{page 6 note a} Cf. Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv., 126.

^{page 7 note a} Position of clause altered.

^{page 7 note b} By the letter of intelligence of May 8, Clarendon MS., 2778, it appears that the Independent leaders were even then reviving the negotiations.

^{page 8 note a} MS. “these.”

^{page 8 note b} This letter is injured by damp, and in parts illegible. It ia pretty certainly from Thomas Margetts, like that of April 8.

^{page 9 note a} Cf. Rushworth, vii., 1113.

^{page 11 note a} Wednesday May 17. “This was thanks giving day for the victory in Wales, which was punctually observed by the Houses, but very slightly in the City.” Rushworth, vii, 1117.

^{page 12 note a} On the Surrey petition see Rushworth, vii., 1116, and Walker, History of Independency, part i., Epistle. Mr. Gardiner enumerates the pamphlets written on the side of the petitioners and the side of the soldiers, and concludes in favour of the account given by the soldiers. Great Civil War, iii., 376.

^{page 13 note a} On tbe origin of the Kentish rising see Matthew Carter's A true relation of the Honourable though unfortunate expedition of Kent, Essex, and, Colchester. He is particularly hostile to Livesey, pp. 7, 15, 96, 32.

^{page 16 note a} MS. Commission.

^{page 17 note a} On Scoutmaster-General Leonard Watson and his intrigues with the royalists see Carte, Original Letters, 1739, i., 220.

^{page 18 note a} Lords‘Journals, x., 282.

^{page 18 note b} This letter and that of the same Committee dated May 26, are calendared in Cal. S. P. Dom., 1647–9, pp. 79, 81.

^{page 18 note c} These 3 regiments were those of Cols. Kich, Barkstead, and Tichborne. Cf. Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv., 134.

A letter from Fairfax to the Derby House Committee printed in the Lords‘Journals, and reprinted in the Old Parliamentary History, xvii., 149, gives an account of the distribution of his forces.

^{page 22 note a} Cf. Gardiner, Great Civil Wai; iv., 137.

^{page 24 note a} Compare with this the letter of Hammond on the same subject, May 29,1648. Old Parliamentary History, xvii., 191. Is T. H. Thomas Herbert?

^{page 24 note b} Cf. Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv., 145. This letter, which is not dated, immediately follows one dated June 4, and was probably written June 5 or 6.

^{page 25 note a} Cf. Surtees Society, Miscellanea, 1860, Journal of the Siege of Pontefract, p. 89.

^{page 26 note a} MS. “small increase.” See Fairfax Correspondence, iv., 35.

^{page 27 note a} Cf. Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv., 148; Rushworth, vii., 1150.

^{page 31 note a} Cf. Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv., 200; Rushworth, vii, 1235.

^{page 32 note a} M.S. “more.”

^{page 37 note a} Major Wansey and the garrison of Woodhouse in Wiltshire are referred to. Fourteen of the garrison were hanged by Sir Francis Dodington's orders, two by himself and twelve by Sir William St. Leger. Ludlow,Memoirs, i., 103.

^{page 38 note a} This word is unfinished. Probably Stinchcombe in Gloucestershire, a small parliamentary garrison near Berkeley Castle, taken by the troops of Rupert and Sir Charles Lucas in Aug., 1645. Twenty, or according to some stories forty, of the garrison are said to have been put to the sword in cold blood. Webb, Civil War in Herefordshire, ii., 214. Report on the Portland MSB., i., 250.

^{page 38 note b} Stormed by the Scots in July, 1645. Vicars, Burning Bush, p. 203; Webb, Civil War in Herefordshite, ii. 378.

^{page 39 note a} See Mercurius Rustious, No. 1; Carter, pp. 167, 234.

^{page 40 note a} For a copy of Warwick's summons to the revolted ships and their answer see Old Parliamentary History, xvii., 49l.

^{page 41 note a} i.e. “Mennes.”

^{page 43 note a} MS. “now.”

^{page 43 note b} MS. “promise.”

^{page 44 note a} This letter is certainly from William Rowe. It is summarised in Rushworth, vii., 1304. William Rowe was in 1650 Scoutmaster-General, and evidently held that post (or some similar post) in the English army in Scotland in Oct., 1648. In the New Model the place had been held by Leonard Watson, who had now left the army. George Downing seems to have succeeded Rowe as Scoutmaster-General. Many of Rowe's letters of intelligence are amongst the Letters and Papers of State addressed to Oliver Cromwell, which were published by John Mckolls in 1743.

^{page 46 note a} Part of this letter is printed in “The Moderate” for Oct. 31, Nov. 7, which has furnished me with one or two small corrections of the Clarke MS. copy. The Report on Lord Braye's MSS. (Hist. MSS. Comm. 10th Report, pt. vi, pp. 168–173) contains a series of letters written hy Thomas Margetts to John Browne, Esq., Clerk of the Parliament, which help to complete those amongst the Clarke Papers. They are dated: Brancepeth, Sept. 14, 1643; Belford, Sept. 20; Mordington, Sept. 26; Seaton, Oct. 3; Dalkeith, Oct. 10; Seaton, Oct. 17; Broxmouth, Nov. 1. The letter of Oct. 17, summarised in the Report, is printed in full in Rushworth, vii., 1305, but wrongly dated. The letter printed above is obviously also from Margetts. He was attached to Lambert throughout the campaign, and Lambert was now remaining in Scotland to protect the establishment of the new government.

^{page 48 note a} MS. “Act.”

^{page 48 note b} MS, “butt.”

^{page 49 note a} A copy of this letter is contained in vol. xvi. of the Clarke Papers at Worcester College, where it is signed “Heron Brother,” and no indication is given of tbe person to whom it was sent. I concluded it from internal evidence to be written by Cromwell to Robert Hammond. Some letters from Cromwell to Hammond were mentioned in the Report of the first Historical MSS. Commission, p. 116, as being in the possession of the Marquis of Lothian. Mr. Gardiner at my request examined these letters last summer, and has kindly supplied me with copies of them. Two are now printed in the Preface. The third was identical with the letter in vol. xvi. of the Clarke Papers, but as the copy in the Newbattle MSS, gave an obviously better text I have printed it here in place of the copy given by Clarke. Differences between the two versions, simple variations in the spelling and punctuation excepted, are marked in the notes. The Newbattle version seems to me to be a copy also, and not an original. Compare with this letter Cromwell's letter of Nov. 25, 1648, to Hammond, letter lxxxv. in Carlyle's collection. Carlyle assumes the latter to have been written from “Knottingley near Pontefract,” where the letter printed here was written. “Dear Robin” is the term by which Cromwell, Ireton, and other intimate friends usually address Hammond. In this letter Cromwell also makes use of the names which he sometimes employed in his correspondence with Vane and one or two others. “Brother Heron” is the younger Vane. “Brother Fountayne”, is Cromwell himself. (See Nickolls, Original Letters and Papers addressed to Oliver Cromwell, 1743, pp. 78, 84). “Sir Roger” seems to have been one of Cromwell's companions in Scotland, possibly Lambert or Hesilrige. Hesilrige and Cromwell had just been entertained at Edinburgh by the Argyle party (see Whitelock, Memorials, ed. 1853, ii., 422, 432). Cromwell defends himself against the charge of granting too favourable terms to the Scots, or as he puts it “turning Presbyterian.” The “wise friend” is probably Pierrepont, as Mr. Gardiner suggests. Pierrepont and Vane were both now at Newport, as two of the Commissioners sent by Parliament to negotiate with the King. Both were probably in daily intercourse with Hammond. “It appears from this letter,” writes Mr. Gardiner, “that Cromwell had heard that a party amongst the Independents, including Vane, Pierrepont, and Hammond, in their alarm at the thorough-going reforms demanded by the Levellers, weie anxious to come to an understanding with the King on the basis of moderate episcopacy and toleration. It was to this state of opinion that he now addressed himself. (Great Civil War, iv. 248.)

^{page 50 note a} Compare the letter of Nov. 25. “Dost thou not think this fear of the Levellers (of whom there is no fear) ‘that they would destroy nobility,’ has caused some to take up corruption, and find it lawful to make this ruining hypocritical agreement? Hath not this biassed even some good men?”

^{page 50 note b} Compare letter II. in Carlyle's collection: “If here I may honour my God, either by doing or suffering, I shall be most glad.”

^{page 51 note a} “He,” i.e. the King.

^{page 51 note b} “Day of businesse,” Clarke MS.

^{page 51 note c} I should suggest “shirke” instead of “sharke,”

^{page 51 note d} “thy heart,” Clarke MS.

^{page 51 note e} The King; compare the letter of Nov. 25. “This man against whom the Lord hath witnessed.”

^{page 51 note f} “Answers,” i.e. the answers made by the Scots to Cromwell's declarations. “Cromwell,” suggests Mr. Gardiner, perhaps refers to the answer made by the Committee of Estates on Oct 6, in which they speak of “these covenanted kingdoms.”

^{page 52 note a} “Our brothers of Scotland really presbyterians,” i.e. notmen like the Presbyterian leaders in England professing Presbyterianism for a political purpose.

^{page 52 note b} “and noe more.” Clarke MS.

^{page 52 note c} “made a conquest.” Clarke MS.

^{page 52 note d} “as if it worke not yet (by reason the poore soules are soe wedded to their governement) yett their is that conviction,” etc. Clarke MS.

^{page 52 note e} i. e. A mixed government established in which the Argyle and Hamilton parties would counterbalance each other.

^{page 53 note a} “and made a parliment null and called a new one.” Clarke MS.

^{page 53 note b} “if thay bee not drencht too deepe in theere owne reason and opinion.” Clarke MS.

^{page 53 note c} “world.” Clarke MS.

^{page 53 note d} None of the writing or signature of ths letter is in Cromwell's hand.

^{page 54 note a} A Council of War, or more properly a meeting of the “General Council of Officers of the Army” took place on Nov. 7, but the Clarke Papers do not contain a record of the votes, though they give a list of officers present. A table of attendances at Councils of War, drawn up from these lists, is given at the end of this volume. Another Council meeting took place on Nov. 16, of which these papers contain no record except the resolutions above. The document referred to is the Remonstrance presented to the House of Commons on Nov. 20. See Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv., 236–245.

^{page 54 note b} The date of these Instructions should be Nov. 21. Fairfax's letter to Ewer (“that sealed from the Generall”) is the letter dated Nov. 21, in answer to Hammond's letter of Nov. 19. It is printed in Lords’ Journals, x., 610; Old Parliamentary History, xviii., 240, 255. Ireton's letter (“that unsealed from the Commissary Generall”) is dated Nov. 22, and is printed in Birch's Letters to Col. Robert Hammond, p. 95. The letter from the Council can hardly be the letter of Nov. 25 (or rather warrant) signed by Rushworth in the name of the Council. It must rather be some docnment like the letter of the 4 officers (Birch, p. 87). Ewer was not to deliver it unless he found Hammond satisfied to act.

^{page 55 note a} From a very rough draft.

^{page 55 note a} From a very rough draft.

^{page 56 note a} Names supplied from above.

^{page 56 note b} Mercurius Pragmaticus for Aug. 22–29, 1648, after reading the votes for a personal treaty with the King, says: “The precious Saint Harry, is extream angry that the Houses should presnme, contrary to his liking, to proceed so farre as they have done in order to a treaty, for which cause he is resolved to declare against them, in as high terms as ever he did against the King…. And therefore he and one Eires are busy in drawing up a manifesto both against King, Lords, and Commons, as confederate to the enslaving of the people; and having already borrowed a sufficient number of Horse, on whom he hath set riders, who display their imbellished colours beautified with this misterious motto, ‘For the People's Freedom against all tyrants whatsoever,’ hee is now imployed about listing of foot; the rusticks of Berkshire resorting to him in great numbers, being mightily taken with [the] novell doctrine, that the supreame power & authority is inherently in the people, & to them doth Harry daily preach in the habit of a Leveller, proposing unto them that they ought not to acknowledge any power above them, or doe homage or yeeld obedience to any, they being a free people subsisting of themselves, & that they ought to pay no tithes, and to confirme them in these opinions, hee hath already forbidden his owne tenants & souldiers, not to yeeld him any manner of reverence, or to be subject unto his commands in ought but what shall concerne them in the warre; & now having begun to act the second part of Jack Cade, hee goes on very prettily, having already distributed the tithes belonging to one of the parsons at Reading amongst the poor of the parish, & also hath divided the spoiles of many prerogative landlords amongst their tenants.”

According to Lilburne, Marten also taught the Berkshire jurymen that they were greater men than the judges and ought to sit with their hats on at assizes. Trial of John Lilburne, 1649, 4to, p. 123.

Marten's chief assistants in raising these forces were Col. William Eyres and Capt. John Waldron. Their undisciplined soldiers were provided with horses by the simple process of stopping travellers on the highway, or breaking into the stables of the gentlemen of the county (see Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv., 268; Tanner MSS., lvii., ff. 197–199; Portland MSS. i., 495; Grey's Examination of Nea's Puritans, iii., Appendix, p. 67). On Aug. 21, the House of Commons ordered the forces of the adjacent counties to suppress Marten and his adherents, and sent down Major Fincher to command the local forces for that purpose (Commons’ Journals, v., 676).

^{page 57 note a} Isaac Ewer, who had succeeded to the command of Hammond's old regiment. Saunders was Lieut.-Col.

^{page 58 note a} See Lords’ Journals, x., 614, for Hammond's letter of. Nov. 28, on the coining of Col. Ewer.

^{page 59 note a} The Commons adjourned its consideration to NOv. 27.

^{page 59 note b} A letter to Fairfax from Westminster, dated 27 Nov., after reciting the votes of the Parliament with respect to Hammond on Nov. 27 adds: “These thinges I thought itt my duty to acquaint you with, least the Governor of the Isle of Wight might possibly deale contrary to your Excellences expectation in a business of soe high concernement, and though letters came this day from Windsor that the King was secured, yett this [letter of Nov. 26] from Col. Hammond, and the orders thereupon, doe make an absolute contradiction. Soe that the honest partie knew not what to thinke of the businesse.”

^{page 61 note a} Col. Thomas Ayres, Eyres, or Eyre, was the commander of Hurst Castle. The garrison seems to have been about forty men. Eyres appears to have been absent when the King arrived, and his lieutenant was probably the officer of whose conduct Sir Thomas Herbert so loudly complains (Memoirs, ed. 1702, p. 85.) The letter and the two warrants annexed (which last should also be dated Nov. 27), were probably signed by Rushworth in the name of the Council of Officers.

^{page 61 note b} Rushworth vii. 1341.

^{page 61 note c} For officers present see table of attendances.

^{page 61 note a} Col. Thomas Ayres, Eyres, or Eyre, was the commander of Hurst Castle. The garrison seems to have been about forty men. Eyres appears to have been absent when the King arrived, and his lieutenant was probably the officer of whose conduct Sir Thomas Herbert so loudly complains (Memoirs, ed. 1702, p. 85.) The letter and the two warrants annexed (which last should also be dated Nov. 27), were probably signed by Rushworth in the name of the Council of Officers.

^{page 61 note b} Rushworth vii. 1341.

^{page 61 note c} For officers present see table of attendances.

^{page 62 note a} A similar letter (mutatis mutandis) dated 25 Nov. was sent to officers commanding in different parts of England. That directed to Col. Hammond is printed in Lords‘Journals, x., 614.

^{page 63 note a} Cromwell's opinion of the Remonstrance is given in an undated letter to Fairfax, printed in the English Historical Review for 1887, p. 149. “Wee have read your Declaration heere,” he says, “and see in itt nothinge but what is honest, and becominge Christians and honest men to say and offer.” Compare also letter 83 in Carlyle's Cromwell.

^{page 63 note b} Henry Pretty, of Ireton's regiment, later a colonel in the army in Ireland.

^{page 64 note a} This second warrant should apparently be dated Nov. 29. Mr. Gardiner suggests that Ewer had accompanied Hammond to Windsor, and that it consequently became necessary to send new agents. The warrant is from the General Council of Officers. Great Civil War, iv., 256.

^{page 64 note b} Probably from John Rushworth.

^{page 65 note a} Before the march of the army to London.

^{page 71 note a} This letter is one of the few originals amongst the Clarke MSS. On the state of political feeling in the northern army see Rushworth, vii., 1366, 1400. A series of letters from the camp before Pontefract are printed in The Moderate. Margetts was secretary to the Council of Officers of the northern army, and probably to Lambert its commander.

^{page 72 note a} This account of the votes of the General Council of Dec. 14 is from vol. xvi. 4to of the Clarke MSS. The debate which follows is from vol. 67, folio.

^{page 73 note a} For list of names see the table of attendances, given at the end of the volume. Cromwell was absent. Mercurius Pragmaticus notes under Dec. 14: “This day Duke Oliver set forth in state towards Windsor, upon an entreaty by letter from Duke Hamilton to come and conferre notes with him, now that design is ripe for execution. It's thought that cunning coward (for as yet we must not call him traytor) hath told tales…” The same paper adds: “Munday, Decem. 18, came information, that much discourse had passed between Hamilton and Cromwell at Windsor but in conclusion he protested he was not invited in by his Majesty, nor by any member of Parliament.” Mercurius Pragmaticus, Dec. 12–19, 1648.

^{page 73 note b} This debate concerns article seven of the original “Agreement” laid before the Council of the Army. It runs thus: “That the power of the people's Representatives extend (without the consent or concurrence of any other person or persons) to the enacting, altering, repealing, and declaring of Laws; to the erecting and abolishing Officers and [?] Courts of Justice and to whatever is not in this Agreement excepted or reserved from them.” Eight reservations or exceptions then follow. The first is the one now before the Council. “We do not now empower our Representatives to continue in force, or make any Lawes, Oaths, and Covenants, whereby to compell, by penalties or otherwise, any person to any thing, in or about matters of Faith, Beligion, or God's Worship, or to restrain any person from the professing his Faith, or exercise of Religion, according to his conscience, in any house or place (except such as are or shall be set apart for the publique worship,) nevertheless the instruction or directing of the nation in a publique way, for the matters of Faith, Worship, or Discipline (so it be not compulsive or expresse Popery) is referred to their discretion.” Lilburne's Foundations of Freedom, 4to, 1648; cf. Rushworth, vii., 1358. In the completed Agreement, presented to Parliament on Jan. 20, 1649, there was no reservation concerning religion, but a separate article, the ninth, was devoted to the question of toleration and to religious matters in general. Old Parliamentary Hittory, xviii., 533.

^{page 75 note a} “On Saturday the two politic pulpit-drivers of Independency, by name Nye and Goodwin, were at the debate of settling the Kingdom, in the mechanic councell at Whitehall, and one main question was concerning the extent of magistracy, which Nye and Goodwin requested them not to determine before advice had with some learned divines; which saying of theirs turned the debate into a quarrell: for the mechanicks took snuff, told them they thought themselves as divine as any divines in the kingdom, which a brother standing by undertook to prove, and pretended a sudden revelation for the purpose, by which means both Nye and Goodwin were once again made silenced ministers.” Mereuriut Pragmatioug, Dec. 12–49, 1648.

^{page 76 note a} In the “Humble petition of thousands of well affected people inhabiting the City of London,” etc., presented on Sept. 11,1648, this view is clearly set forth. The petitioners address the House of Commons as “the supreme authority of England,” and will them so to consider themselves. They are told that they must not admit King or Lords to any share in this supreme authority, “it being impossible for us to believe that it can consist either with the safety or freedom of the nation to be governed by two or three supremes.” The petition complains that the Commons have declared that they will not alter the ancient government from King, Lords, and Commons; “not once mentioning, in case of difference, which of them is supreme, but leaving that point, which was the chiefest cause of all our public differences, disturbances, wars, and miseries, as uncertain as ever.” Old Parliamentary History, xvii., 454.

^{page 76 note b} MS. “exercise,” the last line supplies the correction.

^{page 77 note a} “Hee,” i.e., the magistrate.

^{page 77 note b} Order of the two sentences altered.

^{page 78 note a} Ireton, so far as these reports can be trusted, had not yet spoken. I doubt whether the order of the speeches given, in the MS. is always correct.

^{page 79 note a} See p. 72.

^{page 79 note b} Answering Wildman.

^{page 79 note c} MS. “by.”

^{page 80 note a} The position of several clauses altered.

^{page 80 note b} i.e., a difference not as to the nature of the supreme power but whether the King alone possessed it.

^{page 81 note a} The last three sentences lines are transferred from p. 80.

^{page 83 note a} Cf. Veraon, “The Sword's Abuse Asserted, or a word to the Army; shewing the weakness of carnal weapons in spiritual warfare, the sword an useless tool in temple work: and the bearer thereof an unfit builder. Tendered to the serious consideration of his Excellency the Lord Fairfax and his General Councel, upon occasion of their late debates about the clause concerning religion in the promised Agreement. By John Vernon, sometimes a member of the Army. Imprinted for John Harris, Decemb. 1648.”

^{page 83 note b} MS. “to.”

^{page 83 note c} MS. “outward.”

^{page 84 note a} MS. “serve.”

^{page 85 note a} MS. “needinesse & acquiringe.”

^{page 86 note a} “them,” i.e. tho Magistrates, changing abruptly from the singular to the plural.

^{page 88 note a} incomes, i.e. incomings, impressions. Cromwell speaks of “men who know not what it is to pray or believe, and to receive returns from God.”

^{page 89 note a} If any one of these three or four questions propounded were put to the vote we might know the minds of this meeting.

^{page 89 note b} This question of the power of the magistrate with respect to religion.

^{page 89 note c} Peter doubtless refers to Udall's tract: The state of the Church of England laid open in a conference between Diotrephes a Bysshopp, Tertullus a papiste, Demetrius an usurer, Pandochus an Innkeeper, and Paule a preacher of the worde of God, published in 1588.

^{page 89 note d} Cf. Cromwell, 4th speech, in which he terms England “the best people in the world…. A people that have the highest and clearest profession amongst them of the greatest glory, namely religion.”

^{page 90 note a} Peter means to say that he does not agree with Waller's suggestion.

^{page 90 note b} Peter does not ageee with Sprigge's view.

^{page 90 note c} i.e. temporal gains.

^{page 91 note a} Canticles, viii., 9.

^{page 91 note b} Peter's meaning is clear though the report is hopelessly involved. He recommends that the reserve be adjourned for a month or two, and the outside public invited to give their opinions on it, whilst the council of war continues its discussions on the other parts of the Agreement.

^{page 91 note c} Spencer refers apparently to a passage in the letter prefixed to the Agreement. The Agreement is said to be presented by the Army, “as a testimony whereby all men may be assured what we are willing and ready to acquiesce in.”

^{page 91 note d} Hee, i.e. the magistrate.

^{page 91 note e} Possibly Wildman or Overton, certainly some layman not a member of the Army. “Tha gentleman” whose argnment is refuted is Ireton.

^{page 92 note a} i.e. Have the question stated.

^{page 92 note b} MS. “wee.”

^{page 93 note a} i.e. Do not adjourn the consideration of the religious question till we have settled the civil questions, as some propose, but appoint a committee at once to consider the religious question. This proposal was adopted.

^{page 93 note b} Compare the eighth section of the Agreement of the People (as presented Jan. 20, 1649). “That the representatives have and shall be understood to have the supreme trust … and the highest and final judgment concerning all natural or civil things; but not concerning things spiritual or evangelical.”

^{page 93 note c} Refers to Deane.

^{page 94 note a} “We expected,” say the Petitioners to the Parliament, “That you would have exempted matters of religion and God's worship from the compulsive or restrictive power of any authority upon earth, and reserved to the supreme authority an uncompulsive power only of appointing a way for the public, whereby abundance of misery, persecution, and heart-burning would for ever be avoided…. That you would not have followed the example of former tyrannous and superstitious parliaments, in making orders, ordinances, or laws, or in appointing punishments concerning opinions or things supernatural, styling some blasphemies, others heresies; whereas you know yourselves easily mistaken, and that divine truths need no human helps to support them: such proceedings having been generally invented to divide the people amongst themselves and to affright men from that liberty of discourse by which corruption and tyranny would be soon discovered.” Old Parliamentary History, xvii., 456, 458.

^{page 95 note a} May be paraphrased: “Had almost made religion itself to fall to the ground, under pretence of restraining errors and blasphemies.”

^{page 96 note a} i.e. I wish you would not suggest that the Army has broken its engagements.

^{page 96 note b} The gratid army remonstrance of Nov. 20, 1648, to which Ireton refers, supplies the words given here in brackets (Old Parliamentary History, xviii., 236). In the text of the speech in Clarke MS. after the word “hitherto” in 1. 16. come the following words, which are clearly misplaced, “and for relation to lawes in that kinde and for providing better for the well government of the nation, and wee move this as to advice to matters of justice and of the kingdom.”

^{page 97 note a} “An Agreement of the people of England, and the places therewith incorporated for a firm and present peace upon grounds of common right and freedom.”

^{page 97 note b} Clarke?

^{page 97 note c} Sprigge.

^{page 98 note a} “These things we declare to be essential to our just freedomes, and to a thorough composure of our long and wofull distractions. And therefore we are agreed and resolved to maintain these certain rules of government and all that joyne therein, with our utmost possibilities against all opposition whatsoever.” Foundations of Freedom, p. 12.

^{page 102 note a} MS. “that of religion.”

^{page 102 note b} i.e. made this a case of conscience, said he was following his conscience in thus acting.

^{page 102 note c} Specimen of the argument used by the gentleman.

^{page 102 note d} Walford was one of Fairfax's chaplains.

^{page 103 note a} Of Scroope's regiment of horse.

^{page 103 note b} Apparently refers to the King's trial.

^{page 103 note c} Referring to Harrison's proposal for a Committee.

^{page 104 note a} MS. “whole.”

^{page 104 note b} Richard Overton.

^{page 104 note c} See Preface. The history of the drawing up of the original “Agreement” is given at length by Lilburne.

^{page 105 note a} Order of clauses altered.

^{page 105 note b} MS. “this.”

^{page 106 note a} MS. “hee.”

^{page 106 note b} MS. “hee.”

^{page 106 note c} The order of the clauses given in the MS. has been altered.

^{page 106 note d} Ireton's point is that the question raised by Parker may be considered later after the main question, whether the magistrate has any power at all, has been settled.

^{page 107 note a} MS. “informing.”

^{page 108 note a} MS. “to.”

^{page 108 note b} Order of clauses altered.

^{page 108 note c} Isaiah, x., 27.

^{page 109 note a} From this point the speech becomes simply a collection of fragmentary sentences.

^{page 109 note b} MS. adds “or ought to be.”

^{page 110 note a} MS. “knew.”

^{page 111 note a} The last clause has been transferred from a later sentence. Nye proposes to amend Ireton's definition by adding these words.

^{page 111 note b} MS. “reasonings.”

^{page 112 note a} MS. “of.”

^{page 112 note b} MS. “bee.”

^{page 112 note c} MS. “or.”

^{page 113 note a} Probably a reference to Clarke's note-taking.

^{page 115 note a} MS. “driven.”

^{page 115 note b} Order of sentences changed.

^{page 116 note a} “This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God.” John xvii., 3.

^{page 116 note b} MS. “samenesse of power.”

^{page 117 note a} Word illegible.

^{page 117 note b} See the argument of Roger Williams in The Bloudy Tenent of Persecutions, ed. 1848, p. 272 et seqq.

^{page 117 note c} I should be inclined to suggest “virtue” in place of visage, were it not that Goodwin might perhaps have been intending a play upon words.

^{page 117 note d} The MS. continues “for matter of freenesse.”

^{page 118 note a} Cf. The Bloudy Tenent, pp. 214, 305, 341.

^{page 118 note b} MS. “magistrates.”

^{page 118 note c} MS. “of.”

^{page 119 note a} Nye's argument is clearly “If a Commonwealth may provide for feeding the bodies of its members may it not provide also for feeding their souls, etc.”

^{page 119 note b} The position of the last sentence has been changed.

^{page 119 note c} “them,” i.e. laws, or possibly magistrates.

^{page 120 note a} The beginning of this speech is hopelessly confused. Wildman attempts to answer both Nye, “the gentleman that spoke last,” and Goodwin, “the gentleman that spoke before.”

^{page 121 note a} i.e. “equally fallible and more likely to err.” Some word such as “constituted” is required hy the sense, in place of “restrained.”

^{page 122 note a} MS. “of.”

^{page 122 note b} Position of phrases altered.

^{page 123 note a} MS. “any.”

^{page 123 note b} MS. “therof.”

^{page 124 note a} MS. “panges.”

^{page 124 note b} MS. “sence.”

^{page 124 note c} MS. I conceive the punishment of the Ceremoniall law was not of the Morall law itt self the punishment of the Morall law was not of the Morall law itt self, but of the purity of the Jewes.

^{page 125 note a} MS. “Morall.”

^{page 125 note b} Position of clause altered.

^{page 126 note a} Position of clanses altered.

^{page 126 note b} Position of clause and order of words altered.

^{page 126 note c} In this speech, which is exceptionally confused in the MS., the position of several clanses has been altered.

^{page 128 note a} MS. “The Gospell the parts of itt.”

^{page 129 note a} “Hee,” i.e. the magistrate.

^{page 129 note b} “They,” i.e. the Epistles.

^{page 129 note c} i.e. leaving the magistrates to decide what was to be restrained or permitted.

^{page 130 note a} i. e. The magistrate was himself an idolater.

^{page 131 note a} MS. “not morall, but not naturally morall.” Wildman's next sentence shows that the first “not" is superfluous. Some repetitions hare been omitted, and some corrections from a second version of the speech inserted.

^{page 132 note a} On Nov. 10 the House of Commons had voted that Holland and Owen and five other chief promoters of the second civil war should be simply banished. Lords, Journals, x., 690, 596; Great Civil War, iv., 246. But this vote had been rescinded by the Commons on Dec. 13, 1648. Commons' Journals, vi., 96. Mr. Gardiner points out that Cromwell was of opinion that these leaders should be tried before the King's trial instead of afterwards. Great Civil War, iv., 282.

^{page 133 note a} Probably signed in the name of Fairfax.

^{page 134 note a} In the Agreement as originally laid before the Council this reservation ran thus: “We do not empower them to impresse or constraine any person to serve in warre, either by sea or land, every man's conscience being to be satisfied in the justnesse of that cause wherein he hazards his life.” Lilbnrne, Foundations of Freedom, p. 11; Rushworth, vii., 1860. Compare vol. i., p. 409. In the Agreement as presented to Parliament on Jan. 20 this reserve agrees with the resolution as passed on Dec. 16, with the following clause added: “or for assisting in execution of the laws; and may take order for the employing and conducting of them for those ends; provided etc.”

^{page 135 note a} The third Reserve was passed as it stood in Lilburne's draft agreement, except that the first sentence ran originally: “That after the dissolution of this present Parliament,” etc. See also vol. i., p. 409. The fourth Reserve, now voted to be laid aside, ran thus: “That in any lawes hereafter to be made, no person by vertue of any tenure, grant, charter, patent, degree or birth, shall be privileged from subjection thereto, or being bound thereby as well as others.” The bearing of this clause on the position of the House of Lords may be seen by comparing it with the arrangement proposed in 1647. Clarke Papers, vol. i., pp. 391, 408. The fifth Reservation was of the same kind: “That all priviledges or exemptions of any persons from the lawes, or from the ordinary course of legal proceedings, by vertue of any tenure, grant, charter, patent, degree or birth, or of any place of residence or refuge, shall be henceforth void and null, and the like not to be made or reserved again. Lilburne, Foundations of Freedom, p. 11.

^{page 139 note a} On Richard Haddock see the Haddock correspondence, printed in vol. viii. of the Camden Miscellany by Mr. Mannde Thompson.

^{page 139 note b} Under Friday, Dec. 22, the Perfect Diurnal says: “The General Council of the Army have had many large debates this week upon that reserve in the Representative, in matters of religion; some Presbyterian ministers have been discoursed withal, and at last an expedient is agreed upon, which will give satisfaction; much debate also upon the power of the Representative in Civils, as how they might proceed to punish, not being directed by a known law.”

^{page 140 note a} This is practically the eighth clause of the Agreement as presented to Parliament on Jan. 20, 1649, except that the eighth clanse, after “natnral and civil things,” continues “but not concerning things spiritual and evangelicall” and then enumerates the six reservations, prefacing them thus: “Provided that, even in things natural and civil, these six particulars next following are, and shall be, understood to be excepted and reserved from our Representatives.” Old Parliamentary History, xviii., 532. In the completed Agreement a separate article, viz. the ninth, was devoted to the question of religion, instead of a simple section amongst the reservations. For the schedule propounded in 1647, see vol. i., p. 407.

^{page 141 note a} Anthony Mildmay. See Appendix.

^{page 142 note a} Eton.

^{page 142 note b} Winchester Tower?

^{page 144 note a} In October, 1642, Col. John Venn occupied Windsor Castle for the Parliament. In April, 1645, the House of Commons recommended Col. Christopher Whichcote (to use his own spelling of his name) as Venn's successor. Whichcote, who had commanded a brigade under Essex in Cornwall, and had signed the capitulation of Sept. 1, 1644, seems to have been removed from his governorship in 1651. He died about 1665. Commons’ Journals, iv., 100, 121; Rushworth, v., 706. Mercurius Politious, July 24–31, 1651. Some documents relative to the sojourn of Charles I. at Windsor are printed by Tighe and Davis, Annals of Windsor, ii, 228.

^{page 146 note a} These instructions were all passed unanimously, as Clarke MS., xvi., 61, shows, with the exception of the fifth, which was opposed by Cromwell, and by Cromwell alone. The reason may have been that he thought this particular instruction unnecessarily harsh. Or, on the other hand, he may have considered that it would be an obstacle to the treaty with the King, which, in the hope of saving the life of Charles, Cromwell still continued to advocate. Great Civil War, iv., 283–286.

^{page 147 note a} I conclude from this vote and letter that Fairfax, disapproving of the proposal to try the King, had absented himself from the meetings of the Council, in order not to be implicated in the preparations for the King's trial; but was held nevertheless to be bound by the decisions of the majority of the Council in political matters. From the time when the Council of the Army was first set up, May 1647, the attachment of his signature to the declarations and political manifestos of the army was a mere matter of form. In his “Short Memorial” he says: “From the time that they declared their usurped authority at Triplow Heath, I never gave my free consent to anything they did: but being yet undischarged of my place they set my name in a way of course to all their papers, whether I consented or not” It is certain that Fairfax in writing this, much over-states and ante-dates his opposition to the proceedings of the Army. During 1647 he seems to have been in perfect agreement with the other leaders of the Army. Their differences began in 1648. At some period in the beginning of 1648, probably about April, if the statement of Fairfax himself may be trusted, he prevented a forcible purgation of the Parliament which Cromwell and some others advocated (Short Memorial, ed. Maseres, p. 446; cf. Life of Col. Hutchinson, ii., 149, ed. 1885; Rushworth, vii., 1070). In November, 1648, his objections to the acceptance of “Ireton's draft Remonstrance led to a last negotiation between the Army leaders and the King (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv., 237). Now, in December, 1648, after giving his support to the Remonstrance, playing the most prominent part in the occupation of London and the interruption of the Newport treaty, he accepted the responsibility of Pride's Purge, but parted company with the Council of Officers on the question of the King's trial.

^{page 148 note a} This is the sixth Reserve in the original Agreement, and the fifth in the Agreement as presented on January 20,1649. The difference is that the sixth Reserve originally began, “That the Representatives intermeddle not with the execution of any law, nor give judgment,” &c. Both versions conclude “punishing publique officers for abusing or failing in their trust,” so that these three words are probably accidentally omitted in the report of the proceedings of December 26, printed above. For the formulas adopted in November, 1647, see vol. i., pp. 407, 408.

^{page 150 note a} A large number of petitions both from the army and different counties were presented to Fairfax in December and January, 1648–9. See Rushworth, vii., 1374, 1388, and the Moderate for those months, pp. 200, 210, 211, 214, 223, 224, 231, 233, 239, 251, 263, 285.

^{page 150 note b} A full account of this woman's discourse to the Council is contained in the pamphlet entitled: “A Vision wherein is manifested the disease and cure of the Kingdome, being the summe of what was delivered to the Generall Councell of the Army, Decemb. 29, 1648. Together with a true copy of what was delivered in writing (the fifth of the present January) to the said Generall Councell, of divine pleasure concerning the King in reference to his being brought to triall, what they are therein to do and what not, both concerning his office and person. By E. Poole, herein a servant to the most High God. London 1648. 4to.” In a pamphlet published in 1651 called “A brief narrative of the Mysteries of State carried on by the Spanish faction,” etc., she is represented as a “monstrous witch” provided by Cromwell in order to mould the Council to his designs.

^{page 151 note a} “The great work which lieth upon you is to become dead to every pleasant picture which might present itself for your delight, that you perfectly dying in the will of the Lord, you may find your resurrection in him.” A Vision, etc.

^{page 151 note b} This account of her vision stands first in Mrs. Poole's pamphlet and was probably delivered before the fragmentary speech on p. 150, but I have preserved the order given in the MS.

^{page 152 note a} The words in this speech inserted in brackets are derived from the pamphlet.

^{page 152 note b} The position of this clause has been altered.

^{page 153 note a} “The Lord hath a controversie with the great and mighty men of the earth, with the Captains and Rulers, and Governors. You may be great and mighty upon the earth, but against the mighty men of the earth is his controversy held: For as you are the potsherd of the earth, he will surely breake you to peeces till there be not a shred left to carry coals on.” A Vision, etc.

^{page 154 note a} MS. “hee.”

^{page 154 note b} “She being after demanded, Whether she had any direction to give the Councel? She answerd, No: for the present, for she was in this case presented to herself as tha Church which spirit is in you, and shall guide you.” A Vision, etc.

^{page 154 note c} Cf. Vol. i., p. 381.

A petition from Lieut.-Col. Lilburne was read after Mr. Poole's business was finished, and the Council then proceeded to discuss the Agreement.

^{page 155 note a} The seventh Reserve in the original draft of the Agreement was: “That no member of any future Representative be made either Receiver, Treasurer, or other officer daring that imployment, saving to be a Member of the Councell of State.” Iu the Agreement as presented on January 20 this was the seventh Article. The eight Reserve in the original draft of the Agreement was: “That no Representative shall in anywise render up, or give, or take away any of the foundations of common right, liberty or safety contained in this Agreement, nor shall levell men's estates, destroy propriety or make all things common.” This became in the Agreement as presented on January 20 the sixth reservation of the eighth Article. The following words were also added in the completed Agreement: “And that, in all matters of such public concernment, there shall be a liberty to particular members of said Representative to enter their dissents from the major vote.”

The eighth Article of the original Agreement before it was altered, as mentioned above, concluded; “Soe as the sessions thereof continue not above 40 daies, and soe it dissolve two moneths before the appointed time for the meeting of the next Representative.” In the Agreement as presented on January 20 the Article, passed as above, is the sixth in order.

The ninth Article of the original Agreement passed as above, became in the completed Agreement the third reservation of the eighth Article. The chief alteration made by the Council from Lilburne's original draft is the insertion of the sentences printed in italics.

The tenth Article now passed by the Council is also the tenth in the Agreement as presented on January 20. In the original draft of the Agreement it ran: “That every officer or leader of any forces in any present or future Army, or garrison that shall resist the orders of the next or any future Representative (except such Representative shall expressly violate this Agreement) shall forthwith after his or their resistance, by vertue of this Agreement, loose the benefit and protection of all the laws of the land, and die withont mercy.” Lilburne's Foundations of Freedom, p. 12.

^{page 156 note a} See p. 187.

^{page 156 note a} Cf. vol. i., pp. 364, 365.

^{page 157 note a} The paper is given in the MS. at the close of 1648, but from its contents is not improbably of earlier date.

^{page 157 note b} Arthur Annesley.

^{page 164 note a} She being afterwards asked by some of the chief officers; Whether she conceived they were called to deliver up the trust to them committed either to Parliament or people? She answered, No, for this reason it being committed to their care and trust it should certainly be required to their hands, but take them with you as younger brethren who may be helpfull to you. A Vision, p. 2.

^{page 164 note b} Against the King's execution.

^{page 165 note a} “Our Counsels run all for the following of Providence by present dispatch, and will not endure any mediations; no, nor hear again of Ireton's proposals, that it were perhaps safer to have the King live prisoner for to dispose him a while to abandon his negative, to part from Church lands, to abjure the Scots, etc.” Royalist letter Jan. 8, 1649, Carte, Original Letters, i., 202.

Ireton appears to have tried to make use of Mrs. Poole's vision to support the policy he had been urging.

^{page 165 note b} “She was asked, whether she spake against the bringing of him to triall, or against their taking of his life. She answered, Bring him to his triall, that he may be convicted in his conscience, but touch not his peison.” A Vision, p 6.

^{page 166 note a} She argues in her message to the Council that they are not to take the King's life. “Vengeance is mine I will repay saith the Lord … Stretch not forth the band against him. For know this, the conquest was not without divine pleasure, whereby kings came to reign, though through lust they tyrannized; which God excuseth not but judgeth; and his judgments are fallen heavy, as you see upon Charles your Lord.” P. 6.

^{page 168 note a} This last sentence is attributed by the MS. to Sadler, but is clearly part of Mrs. Poole's answer to his question.

^{page 168 note b} MS. “another kinde.”

^{page 168 note c} The sense of her argument, according to the pamphlet, was that the King is to the people as the husband to the wife. The husband is head of the wife (Ephesians, v. 23), and therefore apparently may be put under restraint but not cut off, She quotes the case of Nabal.

^{page 168 note a} This speech, though given in the MS. at the end of the debate on Mrs. Poole's message, has absolutely no connection with it at all. These debates, as I conclude from a number of signs and other indications in the MSS., were taken down in shorthand on loose sheets of paper at the time, then put up in bundles, and not transcribed or copied into the folio book at present containing them until many years later, probably not till 1662. Under the circumstances it would not be surprising if a speech were sometimes inserted in the wrong place. This speech may very well belong to the debate of Jan. 6, or to that of 13 Jan. Cowell apparently urges the Council not to seek to give up their power to Parliament, as they proposed to do by the Agreement, but to keep the government in their own hands Like the Israelites, he argues, the English people have come out of the house of bondage. Just as the Israelites bankered after the gods of Egypt and set up a golden calf, so the army are making a mistake in too punctiliously adhering to the old Constitution, and striving to set up government by parliaments again.

^{page 169 note b} He perhaps said, “wherein these burdens have been upon us 300 or 400 years.”

^{page 170 note a} The first article of the original Agreement was:

“That to prevent the many inconveniences apparently among from the long continuance of the same persons in authority, this present Parliament he dissolved upon, or hefore, the last day of April in the year of onr Lord 1649.” Lilburne, Foundations of Freedom, p. 4. In the agreement as presented on Jan. 20, 1649, this article was adopted with merely a couple of verbal alterations; viz. “supreme authority,” “end and dissolve.” In the third article the first Thursday in May, 1649, was fixed as the date for the election of the new Parliament. In Oct. 1647, the army demanded a dissolution by Sept. 3, 1648. See vol. i., p. 364.

^{page 30 note b} “Them,” i.e. the Parliament. Cromwell says on 12 Sept. 1654: “I pressed the Parliament, as a member, to period themselves;—once and again, and again, and ten nay twenty times over” (Carlyle, Speech III.). “So willing were we, even very tender and desirous if possible, that these men might quit their places with honour” (Speech I).

^{page 171 note a} This last sentence is added below as a separate speech of Ireton's, but seema clearly to be part of this.

^{page 171 note b} i.e. Oppose the Agreement.

^{page 171 note c} A life of William Erbury is given by Wood, Atkenae Oxonienses, ii.,,75, ed. 1721. Wood says he was a chaplain in Essex's army, “and therein he sometimes exercised himself in military concerns, but mostly in those relating to his function, whereby he corrupted the soldiers with strange opinions, Antinomian Doctrines, and other dangerous errors, and by degrees fell to grosser opinions, holding universal redemption, etc., and afterwards became a Seeker, and I know not what.”

^{page 171 note d} The debate is evidently on the 3rd clause of the ninth article (concerning religion), which runs thus in the Agreement presented on Jan. 20: “That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, however differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship or discipline publickly held forth, as aforesaid, shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in the profession of their faith and exercise of religion, according to their consciences in any place except such as shall be set apart for the public worship; where we provide not for them, unless they have leave: so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others or to actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts. Nevertheless it is not intended to be hereby provided, that this liberty shall necessarily extend to popery or prelacy.”

^{page 172 note a} “Monday, Decem. 25. Notice was given of what passed in the Councell of Mechanicke at Whitehall on Saturday, where they voted a toleration of all religions whatsoever, not excepting Turkes nor Papists nor Jewes.” Pragmatictis, Dec. 19–26. On the toleration of the Jews see Carte, Original Letters, ii., 233. On Jan. 5, 1649, a petition was presented to Fairfax and the General Council from Johanna Cartwright and her son Ebenezer Cartwright, inhabitants of Amsterdam, for repealing the act of banishment against the Jews, “and that they may be again received and permitted to trade and dwell amongst you in this land, as now they do in the Netherlands.” This was printed in 1649 under the title of The Petition of the Jems. 4to.

About the same time a negotiation was set on foot between the Catholics and Independents. The Catholics were to support the new government on the promise of a free exercise of their religion in England. See Carte, Original Letters, i., 206, 216, 219–222; Clarendon State Papers, ii., 544.

^{page 172 note b} The Perfect Diurnal, under Jan. 8, says: “The Generall Councell of the Army intended to perfect the Agreement this day, if the sitting of the Commissioners for the trial of the King in the Painted Chamber had not prevented them.”

^{page 173 note a} On Jan. 10 and Jan. 11 the discussion is evidently on Article 9, Clauce 1, of the Agreement of Jan. 20: “It is intended that the Christian religion be held forth and recommended, as the public profession in this nation, which we desire may by the grace of God be reformed to the greatest purity in doctrine, worship and discipline according to the word of God; the instructing of the people thereunto in a public way, so it be not compulsive; as also the maintaining of able teachers for that end, and for the confutation or discovery of heresy, error, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine is allowed to be provided for by our Representatives; the maintenance of which teachers may be out of a public treasury and we desire not by tithes. Provided, that popery or prelacy be not held forth as the public way or profession in this nation.”

The second clause ran: “That to the public profession so held forth, none be compelled by penalties or otherwise; but only may be endeavoured to be won by sound doctrine, and the example of a good conversation.” The third clause is quoted on p. 171, note

^{page 173 note b} William Butler of Northamptonshire, afterwards one of Cromwell's major-generals, and throughout his life a great advocate of liberty of conscience. In 1652 he presented to the Committee for the Propagation of the Gospel a paper on behalf of toleration, containing four questions, the second of which illustrates the argument of this speech. “Whether it be not the will or counsel of God that there must be heresies, yea damnable heresies, that such who are approved may be made perfect, and whether it be not the pleasure of God that the judgment and condemnation of such false teachers and heretics be left to Himself?” Masson's Life of Milton, iv., 393.

^{page 174 note a} The Perfect Diurnall gives the following account of this day's proceedings: “Thursday last the Generall Councell of Officers sate at Whitehall. The Agreement of the People as it was fully concluded of was read: and it was referred to some officers to nominate some other trustees for the making the divisions in the severall counties for elections, besides the Lord Grey, Sir John Danvers, etc. Also that two petitions should be drawn up in the name of the Councell to the House; the one for the taking off of Tythes; and the other for the repealing of the statutes for the banishment of the Jews in regard it was not held fit to mention them in the Agreement.

^{page 174 note b} By the first section of Article 9 of the Agreement. The question of the existence of an Established Church was one of the chief causes of division amongst the independent party. It led to the dissolution of the Little Parliament in 1653, and produced a permanent breach between Cromwell and many persons, officers of the army and Independent ministers, who had hitherto been his strongest supporters. See Masson, Life of Milton, iv., 513–518.

^{page 175 note a} The first twenty lines of Ireton's speech substantially anticipate the explanation of the Agreement given to Parliament in the “Humble Petition of the Army,” presented with it. Old Parliamentary History, xviii., 516–619. That document says:

“To prevent misunderstanding of our intentions therein, we have but this to say: That we are far from such a spirit, as positively to impose oar apprehensions upon the judgments of any in the kingdom, that have not forfeited their freedom, and much less upon yourselves…. We humbly desire, That whether it shall be fully approved by you and received by the people, as it now stands, or not, it may yet remain upon Record before you, a perpetual witness of our real intentions and utmost endeavours for a sound and equal settlement; and as a testimony whereby all men may be assured what we are willing and ready to acquiesce in; and their jealousies satisfied or mouths stopt, who are apt to think or say, we hare no bottom.”

^{page 176 note a} MS. “Agreements.”

^{page 176 note b} The tenth Article, quoted on p. 156.

^{page 176 note c} MS. “then.”

^{page 177 note a} i.e. You can argue if yon like that we have not sufficiently diminished the power of future governments, but you cannot fairly argue we are setting up new powers.

^{page 178 note a} “them,” i.e. the nation.

^{page 179 note a} The order of the clauses has been altered.

^{page 179 note b} Erbury wants to have an immediate removal of the grievances of the nation effected by means of a committee of a few officers and “faithful persons.”

Erbury, to use a modern phrase, demanded social reforms, and refused to be satisfied with improvements in the machinery of government. The Agreement had specified 400 as the number of members to sit in future parliaments. The proposal to entrust power to a small body appears again in 1653. Cromwoll and his fellow officers urged the Rump “to devolve their trust over to some well-affected men such as had an interest in the nation and were known to be of good affection to the Commonwealth, which we told them was no new thing when this land was under the like hurlyburlies.” (Carlyle's Cromwell, Speech I.). So too Lambert, after the expulsion of the Rump, “moved that a few persons not exceeding the number of ten or twelve might be trusted with the supreme power.”

^{page 179 note c} MS. “to Agreement in itt that they.”

^{page 180 note a} Erbury's argument is that the Army is as lawful an authority as any of the Parliaments to be called under the Agreement.

^{page 181 note a} “All of them,” i.e. all the articles of the Agreement.

^{page 182 note a} “The Lords met this day in Court, and adjourned till to-morrow morning.

“Some of the most rigid Presbyterian Ministers desired (in respect some Officers of the Army had formerly desired a meeting with them, to dispute the Legality of their present proceedings, and having failed the said Officers at that time) that his Excellency would be pleased to give Order for some Officers to give them a meeting this Afternoon, at three of the clock at his Excellencies own house; which granted, they met accordingly, none being admitted to come into the Room, but such as were appointed to dispute the business. Some general Arguments were then insisted on for about two or three hours. The Officers of the Army prest for particulars to be insisted on, to the end they might come to the depth of the Arguments, and a clear satisfaction therein: the Ministers desired another time for that business, which was granted accordingly. The Officers desiring a day weekly to argue particulars with them.” The Moderate, Jan. 9–16, 1649.

^{page 183 note a} Page 84.

^{page 184 note a} MS. “nott.”

^{page 184 note b} “itt,” i.e. the weaker brother's burden.

^{page 184 note c} Harrison's speech should be read with the address prefixed to the Agreement of the People, which he paraphrases in parts. Old Parliamentary History, xviii., 516–9. “We resolved,” he says, “that since God had put this power in our hands we would put on record our views of what the terms of the settlement of the nation should be, but that we would not attempt to impose our private views, and ‘settle this or that or anything which might be of concernment to others;’ nor would we make use of the opportunity to perpetuate our own dominion and keep power in our own hands. On the contrary we resolved to return power as soon as possible into the hands of the people and their representatives in parliament, and content ourselves with merely recommending our scheme of settlement.”

^{page 185 note a} The position of this clause has been altered.

^{page 185 note b} MS. “wordes.”

^{page 185 note c} These words given in inverted commas represent the opinion of worldlings on the motives which had led the Army to seize power.

^{page 186 note a} The Perfect Diurnal says, trader 13 Jan.: “This day the General Councell of the Army met at Whitehall, with an intention to have subscribed the Agreement, but (some other affairs intervening) it was put off till Monday, against which time a Declaration to be published with tbe Agreement then read, was ordered to be in readiness.” The Declaration was passed on Jan. 15 and the Agreement presented on Jan. 20. Rushworth, vii., 1391, 1392.

^{page 192 note a} See Commons’ Journals, vi., 149.

^{page 193 note a} A Proclamation by his Excellency the Lord General for the regulating of souldiers in their march to Ireland.

Whereas it is credibly reported, that divers souldiers in their march through several counties towards Ireland have and do still harrass, plunder, and act great violences and insolences in the countrey, to the great injury of the people and dishonour to the army, notwithstanding the power by a former proclamation given to the countrey to suppress and secure them so doing: I do therefore hereby require all officers and souldiers of the army under my command, that do quarter in or near such places, to be ayding aud assisting to the people of the country, for their relief against the outrages and violences of any such souldiers, in their march or otherwise. Provided that it is not intended hereby, that those engaged for the Irish Service be discouraged, disturbed, or interrupted in their march and orderly quartering. Given under my hand and seal in Queen Street this 17 day of March, 1648. T. Fairfax.

The Moderate, March 13–20, 1648/9.

^{page 193 note b} In the Clarke MSS. here follows a copy of the petition presented to the general and council of the officers by certain soldiers demanding the re-establishment of the representative council of agitators which had existed in 1647. It is printed in The Hunting of the Foxes from New-Market and Triploe Heaths to Whitehall by five small Beagles (late of the Armie); or the Grandee-Deceivers unmasked, that you may know them. Directed to all the Free-Commons of England, but in especiall to all that have and are still engaged in the Military Service of the Commonwealth…. Printed in a Corner of Freedome right opposite to the Councel of Warre, Anno Domini 1649. This pamphlet is reprinted in the Somers Tracts, ed. Scott, vol. vi., p. 44. The petition is there (p. 54) signed by five soldiers, viz., Robert Ward, Thomas Watson, William Sawyer, Simon Granut, George Jellis.

^{page 195 note a} i.e. the hands of the Parliament.

^{page 195 note b} A full account of the trials of Hamilton, Holland, Capel, Norwich, and Sir John Owen is given in a volume amongst the Clarke MSS. (Worcester College MSS., vol 70.) Clarke was one of the witnesses, and probably took down the proceedings himself. Major Blackmore, of Cromwell's regiment, and Captain Spencer, of Harrison's, were amongst the witnesses. The question now discussed in the Army Council was whether the Council should mediate with the Parliament for the lives of all or any of the persons condemned. It was specially urged that the articles given by Lambert to Hamilton involved an assurance of life to Hamilton, and should be made good by the Army.

^{page 196 note a} Pitson seems to refer to the fact that Hamilton had escaped from prison at Windsor. He was recaptured in a few hours, and it was alleged against him that he had broken his parole to the governor, Col. Whichcote.

^{page 196 note b} Parole?

^{page 196 note c} i.e. Duke Hamilton.

^{page 198 note a} MS. “dayes.”

^{page 199 note a} MS. “pretended.”

^{page 199 note b} The Perfect Diurnal, under March 15, 1649, reporting the proceedings of the Council of the Army which met on that day, says: “Report was made from the Court Marshall by the Judge Advocate concerning the miscarriages of Mr. Thompson in Essex, and of his putting a man out of possession by a company of disguised persons with false haire and beards, that he was turned over to the Civill Magistrate, and Leiutenant Colonel Lilburne and one Harris offered to be his bayle.” William Thompson had been originally a corporal in Col. Whalley's regiment, but was cashiered for his scandalous and disorderly conduct in autumn, 1647, and was for a time imprisoned at Windsor. He then published, possibly with help from John Lilburne, a pamphlet called England's Freedom Souldiers Rights, or the just declaration, plea, and protestation of William, Thompson, a free Commoner of England unjustly imprisoned at Windsor, 14, Dec, 1647. Allowed to go to London on parole he was found stirring up sedition, and was arrested by Cromwell, and sent back. See The Kingdom's Weekly Post, March 2–9,1641/8; and also a pamphlet called A Vindication of Lieut.-Gen. Cromwell and Comm. Gen. Ireton against a libel signed by one Tompson, by A. C, dated March 7, 1647/8, B 431–16. Other notices of Thompson are contained in The Discoverer, 4to, 1649, pt. ii., pp. 7, 19; England's New Chains, 1649, p. 8; The Prisoners Mournful Cry, 1648; and The Justice of the Army vindicated, 1648. Thompson was killed in May, 1649, having headed the rising of the Levellers which was suppressed at Burford. See Whitelocke's Memorials, iii., 37.

^{page 200 note a} See Cal. State Papers Dom. 1649–50, pp. 39, 41, 49, and Commons’ Journals, vi., 162, 176.

^{page 202 note a} MS. “undertaking.”

^{page 203 note a} Position of words altered.

^{page 203 note b} MS. “him.”

^{page 203 note c} they, i.e. the English Presbyterians.

^{page 205 note a} MS. in each case reads “butt.”

^{page 206 note a} MS. those.

^{page 206 note b} MS. to goe or stay.

^{page 207 note a} “March 23. This day the Conncel of the Army met again and named two officers of every regiment of horse and foot of the Army, and divers garrisons of the Kingdom to meet the next morning, to seek God, together with what advice to offer to the General concerning the expedition for Ireland, and to make a report to the Councel Monday next by three of the clock in the afternoon. The Lieutenant General is to give in his answer to the Councel of State on Tuesday next, whether he will go for Ireland or not.—The Moderate, March 20–27,1649.

^{page 207 note b} i.e. Fairfax.

^{page 208 note a} Here follow extracts from Ormond's letter of March 9, 1648, to Col. Michael Jones, and fragments of Jones's answer of March 19. Both letters having been printed in full these summaries are omitted. For the letters, see Milton's Prose Works, ed. Buhn, vol. ii., 170–174.

^{page 209 note a} March 26 [?] The Councel of the Army sat at Whitehall, and the Committee appointed Saturday last, to propose some particulars for the encouragement of those that shall engage for Ireland made report thereof to the General Councel, upon debate whereof the Councel sate all day and most part of the night. The propositions reported were many.

(1.) That such as shall go shall have three moneth's advance of their pay, and one moneth's advance of their arrear.

(2.) Their accounts to be audited, and security given for them, and to be paid at a certain time, when the Parliament shall appoint.

(3.) That in case they shall be slain in the service, their next kindred or friend may receive the same by will or assignment.

(4.) That shipping may be provided for their transportation, and provision's made ready with expedition.

(5.) That there may be a Court of Admiralty constituted at Dublin, or elsewhere in Ireland, that so the men of war may not be troubled to lose so much time as to their prizes.

These with many other were reported by the said Committee; and if the Councell approve hereof then to be by them transferred to Parliament for their approbation.

The Moderate, March 29–27,1649.

April 20. This day lots were drawn by the officers of the Army for the service of Ireland; the regiments whose lots did fall to go, were, of horse, Commissary Geuerall Ireton's, Colonel Scroop's, Colonel Hewson's, and Major General Lambert's; of foot, Colonell Ewer's, Colonel Cook's, Colonel Hewson's, and Colonel Dean's; of Dragoons, Major Abbot's, Capt. Mercer's, Capt. Fulcher's, Capt. Garland's, and Capt. Bolton's troops.

The Moderate, April 17–24, 1649.

^{page 211 note a} The chief pamphlets on the Diggers are (1) “A Watchword to the City of London and the Armie” by Jerrard Winstanley, 1649. (2) A letter to the Lord Fairfax and his Council of War … delivered to the General and the chief officers on Saturday, June 9, 1649. Reprinted in the Harleian Miscellany, viii., 586, ed. Park. The true Leveller&s Standard; or the State of Community opened and presented to the sons of men, by William Everard, 4to, 1649. On April 20, 1649, Everard and Winstanley had an interview with Fairfax. An account of this interview is given in Whiteloche&s Memoriala, iii., 18, extracted from The Moderate or some other newspaper. See also the papers printed on pp. 215–224, post.

^{page 211 note b} From Mr. Popham&s MSS. This letter is slightly abridged.

^{page 213 note a} This letter, which is accompanied by a petition from the inhabitants of Whitchurch, is from Mr. Popham's MSS. Parliament had voted on 2 Feb., 1649, that the horse under the command of Col. Marten should be made up to a full regiment, but probably in consequence of this and other complaints the vote seems not to have been acted upon. Commons’ Journals, vi, 129. The officers probably had originally commissions like that of Captain Rice, whose commission from Marten is printed on p. 66. Amongst the Clarke Papers there is a list of officers of this regiment for whom commissions were desired, Feb. 1, 1649, viz.: Capt.-Lieut. William Yate, of Marten's own troop; Capt. William Ware (commander of the troop lately Rice's); Capt. Richard Pechell, of the Wilts troop; Capt. Greenwood, of Derbyshire; Capt. Dolphin, of Nottingham; and Arthur Evelyn, for his own troop. The regiment was evidently intended to be made up from what were termed the “loose troops” raised in different counties, and not forming part of any regiment, and Evelyn was probably to be its major.

^{page 214 note a} An agreement was concluded between Coote and O'Neill, 22 May, 1649.

^{page 214 note b} This letter is not dated, but it is inserted amongst news-letters dated June, 1649, and was probably written either early in June or towards the end of May.

^{page 218 note a} MS. “over.”

^{page 218 note b} MS. Possibly “consert“ or “concert”.

^{page 218 note c} Sic.

^{page 221 note a} From vol. xviii. of the Clarke MSS., in Worcester College Library; undated, but, from the accompanying papers and internal evidence, clearly written in 1649.

^{page 222 note a} Three of the Diggers, Henry Bickerstaffe, Thomas Star, and Jerrard Winstanley, were brought before the Court at Kingston for trespass in digging upon St. George's Hill, and infringing the rights of Mr. Drake, the Lord of the Manor. Winstanley was sentenced to pay for fine and law costs £11 9s. 1d.; Bickerstaff was imprisoned for three days, and Winstanley's four cows were seized. “They took away,” he complains, “the cowes which were my livelyhood, and beat them with their clubs, that the cowes heads and sides did swell, which grieved tender hearts to see: and yet these cowes never were upon George Hill, nor never digged upon that ground, and yet the poore beasts must suffer because they gave milk to feed me.” He adds that the “parish priest, and the Surrey ministers, and sorry ones too they are, that have set up a lecture at Cobham for a little time, to preach down the Diggers, have bid the people neither to buy nor sell with us, but to be at us imprison us or banish us.”—Watchword to the City of London.

^{page 224 note a} These verses are probably by Winstanley, who inserts similar compositions now and then in his pamphlets. To his Law of Freedom in a Platform he prefixes the following lines:

“In thee O England is the Law arising up to shine,

If thou receive and practise it, the crown it wil be thine,

If thon reject and stil remain a froward son to be,

Another land wil it receive, and take the crown from thee.”

And on the title-page of his Watchword to the City of London he writes;

“When these clay bodies are in grave, and children stand in place,

This shewes we stood for truth and peace and freedom in our daies;

And true born sons we shall appear of England that's our mother

No Priests nor Lawyers wiles t' embrace, their slavery wee'l discover.”

^{page 224 note b} This letter and Kympton Hilliard's letter on the next page are from Mr. Popham's MSS.

^{page 227 note a} Taken prisoner by the Scots, Whitelock, iii., 255.

^{page 228 note a} This letter is from Mr. Popham's MSS. In Mercurius Puliticus, Oct. 30-Nov. 6, 1651, p. 1175, is a relation of the taking of Jersey, which is also printed in Several Proceedings in Parliament for the same date, p. 1698. Heane's letter, dated 27 Oct., and Blake's letter, dated 26 Oct., are also to be found in the latter newspaper, p. 1700. Heaue's correspondence with Philip Carteret about the surrender of Montorgueil Castle is printed in Several Proceedings, p. 1734, and Mercurius Politicus, p. 1213. See also Mercurius Puliticus, 1307, 1318, 2156, 2551. Hilliard's letter seems to have been used in compiling the official relation, but contains many additional details.

^{page 228 note b} “Margery.” Mermtrhis Politicus.

^{page 233 note a} “Yeares” MS.

^{page 237 note a} “Hee,” i.e. Chillenden.

^{page 238 note a} MS. 46 Gal. Several errors in the refs. to chapter and verse have been corrected.

^{page 239 note a} From Mr. Popham's MSS.

^{page 239 note b} See Preface.

^{page 239 note c} Or “Baynes.”

^{page 240 note a} “Of your letter” omitted.

^{page 240 note b} “Surely.”

^{page 241 note a} “and as.”

^{page 241 note b} “Many.”

^{page 242 note a} “At your own opportunities.”

^{page 242 note b} “soe.”

^{page 242 note c} There are two copies of this letter in the Clarke MSS. One is headed “Letter to Lieut.-Col. Wilkes.” The variations in the two texts, when of any importance, are given in the notes. From its position amongst the other letters it should be dated between 14 and 18 January, 1654/5.

^{page 246 note a} MS. “beere.”

^{page 246 note a} MS. “Presbyterrars.”

^{page 246 note c} Two fragmentary letters from Thurloe's collection of MSS. in the Bodleian, printed at the end of the Preface, further elucidate the opposition of the Fifth-Monarchy men to the Protectorate.