Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-xbbwl Total loading time: 1.205 Render date: 2021-02-26T07:55:53.054Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The Journal of Thomas Juxon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2009

Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]


[fo. 1: blank]

[fo. iv] 1646

Prince Charles born 29th May and is now 16. Princess Maria born 4 November and is now 15. James duke of York born 14 October and now is 13. Princess Elizabeth born 28 December and now is 12. Henry duke of Gloucester born 8 July and now is 6. Henrietta Maria born 16 June and now is 2.

[fo. 2] Anno domini 1643/4 stilo novo.

Th'affairs of Europe respecting the Protestant party do seem to congratulate the new year and give great hopes that ere long the great [crossed out] despised generation shall flourish.

Research Article
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1999


1 Henrietta Anne, youngest child of Charles I.

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

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

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

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

6 Should read 18 January 1644.

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

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

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

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

11 The Westminster assembly of divines.

12 Philip Nye, the Independent divine.

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

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

15 Both the earl of Essex and a leading member of his staff, Sir Gilbert Gerard, were evidently kept well-informed about the plot's progress: Gardiner, (ed.), ‘A secret negotiation with Charles the first’, pp. 1317, 27.Google Scholar

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

17 John Digby, first earl of Bristol.

18 James Ussher.

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

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

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

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

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

24 Oliver St John.

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

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

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

28 LJ, vi. 381, 391.Google Scholar

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

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

31 John Glynne, recorder of London.

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

33 The ‘gentleman that first spake’ was evidently SirCulpepper, John: The kingdom's weekly intelligencer (23–30 January 1644), BL, W30/19, pp. 314–15Google Scholar; Mercurius, etc. (31 January–6 February 1644), BL, W31/18, pp. 910.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

38 The solemn league and covenant of 1643.

39 Patrick Ruthven, earl of Forth and Brentford.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 Francis, first Lord Cottington.

50 Lit. intresse.

51 The committee of both kingdoms.

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

53 Juxon supports the view that the setting up of the committee of both kingdoms was an anti-Essex move. For analysis of the political make-up of the committee, see Pearl, V., ‘Oliver St John and the “middle group” in the Long Parliament: August 1643–May 1644’, English Historical Review, 81 (1966), pp. 508–14Google Scholar; Mulligan, L., ‘Peace negotiations, politics and the committee of both kingdoms’, Historical Journal, 12 (1969), pp. 45Google Scholar; Kaplan, , Politics and religion during the English Revolution, pp. 1824.Google Scholar

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

55 The committee of safety.

56 Patrick Ruthven (see note 39 above).

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

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

59 György Rákóczi, prince of Transylvania.

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

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

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

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

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

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

66 On 10 April 1644.

67 On 11 April 1644.

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

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

70 On 6 May 1644.

71 Essex relieved Lyme on 15 June 1644.

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

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

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

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

76 The London lines of communication.

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

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

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

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

81 Willy-nilly.

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

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

84 The beginning of May 1644.

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

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

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

88 Notwithstanding.

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

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

91 The committee of both kingdoms was eventually re-appointed on 22 May 1644: CJ, iii. 481, 483, 485–6, 489–94, 496–8, 500501, 503–4Google Scholar; LJ, vi. 541–3, 548–9, 551, 553–4, 556–7, 559, 562–4.Google Scholar

92 Lit. intrestes.

93 Basil Fielding, second earl of Denbigh.

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

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

96 The battle of Marston Moor.

97 A drake is a small cannon.

98 The battle of Cropredy Bridge on 29 June 1644.

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

100 Robert Sidney, second earl of Leicester.

101 Richard Browne, the London coal-merchant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

113 On 17 August 1644.

114 John Glynne.

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

116 Murrough O'Brien, sixth Baron Inchiquin and future first earl of Inchiquin. He declared for parliament on 17 July 1644 and was made president of Munster by the committee of both kingdoms in January 1645: CSPD, 1644, p. 357Google Scholar; CSPD, 16441645, PP.271–2.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

122 Colonel Edward Aldrich, parliamentary governor of Aylesbury.

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

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

125 CJ, iii. 620–21, 635–6Google Scholar; LJ, vi. 699, 700, 712Google Scholar; Bruce, , pp. 2741.Google Scholar

126 The initiative for placing Skippon in command over the London brigade came from the brigade officers. St John (the solicitor) reported their request from the committee of both kingdoms to the Commons, which rejected it: Rowe, , pp. 4950Google Scholar; Baillie, , ii. 235Google Scholar; CJ, iii. 651, 653, 655; BL, Harl. Ms. 166, fo. 128v.

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

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

129 Thomas Wentworth, first earl of Cleveland.

130 Placed troops in ambush.

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

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

133 Recovered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

140 Lit. intress.

141 The syntax here is unclear.

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

143 The Uxbridge propositions.

144 James Compton, third earl of Northampton.

145 Sir Charles Gerard, general of south Wales.

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

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

148 At Cropredy Bridge.

149 The Eastern Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

156 Henry, Lord Percy.

157 For Cromwell's speech in the Commons on 25 November 1644, see Bruce, , pp. 7895Google Scholar; Abbott, , Writings and speeches, i. 302–11Google Scholar; Rushworth, , v. 732.Google Scholar

158 i.e. her Catholicism.

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

160 LJ, vii. 73, 76, 7980Google Scholar; Rushworth, , v. 733–6.Google Scholar

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

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

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

164 Lit. intrestes.

165 Lit. intrest.

166 Lit. intrests.

167 Greenvile: CJ, iii. 711.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

174 CJ, iii. 718Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 45.Google Scholar

175 i.e. to question.

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

177 Above note 172.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

185 Sir John Hotham was executed on 2 January 1645.

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

187 Lit. intresses.

188 On 4 January 1645.

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

190 i.e. the self-denying ordinance.

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

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

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

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

195 On 11 February 1645.

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

197 On 22 February 1645.

198 Lit. intresses.

199 Lit. intresses.

200 He was executed on 20 February 1645.

201 On 28 February 1645.

202 Vile.

203 Lit. intresses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

215 Thomas Blount of Wricklesmarsh, Kent.

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

217 On 24 April 1645.

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

219 Lit. intresses.

220 On 11 May 1645.

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

222 Lit. intrest.

223 By mid-May 1645.

224 LJ, vii. 390–92.Google Scholar

225 Leicester was taken on 31 May 1645.

226 Juxon's meaning is not clear here.

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

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

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

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

231 On 25 July 1645.

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

233 Foolish, simple (Scottish term).

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

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

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

237 Pontefract was taken on 21 July 1645.

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

239 Sydenham Poyntz, commander of the Northern Association army.

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

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

242 On 30 July 1645.

243 On 28 August 1645.

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

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

246 Lit. inter[e]st.

247 Juxon appears to be the only source to claim that Robarles switched allegiance out of fear of retribution by Stapilton (and Essex), or that Warwick was instrumental in his conversion. For Robarles and his role in encouraging Essex to march into Cornwall, see Clarendon, , iii. 386–7Google Scholar; [Saye], Vindiciae veritatis, pp. 4950.Google Scholar

248 Bristol was surrendered on 11 September 1645.

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

250 On 26 September 1645.

251 The battle of Philiphaugh, 13 September 1645.

252 William Hamilton, first earl of Lanark.

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

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

255 On 22 September, having died on 9 September.

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

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

258 On 23, 24 and 26 September 1645.

259 The battle of Rowton Heath, 24 September 1645.

260 LJ, viii. 68Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 355Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 144v–45.

261 On 5 October 1645.

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

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

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

265 Basing House was stormed on 14 October 1645.

266 John Faulet, fifth marquess of Winchester.

267 Chepstow surrendered on 10 October 1645.

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

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

270 i.e. Gustavus Adolphus.

271 On 24 October 1645.

272 The headquarters of clerical Presbyterianism in London.

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

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

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

276 A reference to his Italian birth.

277 i.e. the Gascons.

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

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

280 Dr Stephen Goffe, chief agent of Lord Jermyn.

281 Lit. interesses.

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

283 This is a reference to the scandalous affair between Henry Jermyn, one of Henrietta Maria's favourites, and Eleanor Villiers in the early 1630s which landed them both in the Tower. There was some tension between the queen's gaiety and sociability and Charles's gravity and strict morality, but die court was a model of moral propriety when compared with both its predecessor and successor: HMC, Cowper, ii. pp. 4041Google Scholar; Sharpe, K., The personal rule of Charles I (Yale, 1992), pp. 170, 190, 212Google Scholar. George Weckherlyn was Charles's secretary.

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

285 i.e. Crete.

286 According to V. Rowe, Pym and the younger Vane were friends and close political allies, although they could ‘disagree on occasion’. Vane and Fiennes were also allies, if nothing more, during the mid-1640s: Rowe, V. A., Sir Henry Vane the younger (1970), pp. 10, 11, 1920, 21, 23, 27, 63, 96, 99Google Scholar; Baillie, , iii. 16.Google Scholar

287 Oliver St John, solicitor-general.

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

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

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

291 CJ, iv. 348.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

296 Arthur, Lord Capel of Hadham.

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

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

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

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

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

302 LJ, viii. 81–2, 85, 91, 99100Google Scholar; CJ, iv. 395–9, 405Google Scholar; Rushworth, , vi. 219–20.Google Scholar

303 Juxon's meaning here is obscure.

304 Lit. intrests.

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

306 CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 160.

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

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

309 On 19 January 1646.

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

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

312 Lit. intressd.

313 CJ, iv. 428–9.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

321 James Livingstone, first earl of Callander.

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

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

324 Lit. intrest.

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

326 Lit. intresses.

327 Lit. intressd.

328 CJ, iv. 439.Google Scholar

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

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

331 CJ, iv. 448.Google Scholar

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

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

334 CJ, iv. 449.Google Scholar

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

336 The identity of this speaker cannot be ascertained.

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

338 Lit. intrests.

339 On 17 February 1646.

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

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

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

342 Should read 3 May.

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

345 Gaston, duke d'Orléans.

346 Every day.

347 CJ, iv. 455.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

355 CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 173v.

356 CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 174–74v.

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

358 John Glynne.

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

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

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

362 The citizens' petition of 9 March 1646.

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

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

365 Lit. interest.

366 Cowardice.

367 On 14 March 1646.

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

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

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

371 The rest of this line is left blank.

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

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

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

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

376 ‘That Oldenbarnevelt never did as much’.

377 Under duress.

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

379 Should read April 2nd Thursday.

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

381 Monday was 6 April.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

389 Which became the City remonstrance of 26 May 1646.

390 On 13 April 1646.

391 In preparation.

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

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

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

395 Lit. intrests.

396 Lit. intrest.

397 Lit. interest.

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

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

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

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

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

403 CJ, iv. 523.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

409 CJ, iv. 519–20.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

414 i.e. Jersey.

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

416 Dr Michael Hudson, one of the royal chaplains.

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

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

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

420 Lit. intresses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

429 CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 181–2v.

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

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

432 i.e. the City's petition.

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

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

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

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

437 Lit. intrest.

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

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

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

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

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

443 CLRO Jor. 40, fo. 183v.

444 Sir Edward Nicholas, the king's secretary.

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

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

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

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

449 Sir Edward Hyde, the future earl of Clarendon.

450 i.e. Jersey.

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

452 CJ, iv. 575.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

457 i.e. Jersey.

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

459 Alexander Leslie, first earl of Leven.

460 James Livingstone, first earl of Callander.

461 Archibald Campbell, first marquess of Argyle.

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

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

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

465 CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 186v.

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

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

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

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

470 Monday was 6 July.

471 Lit. intresses.

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

473 Pompone de Bellièvre, French ambassador to England.

474 i.e. Jersey.

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

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

477 Should read 13 July, Monday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

486 In opposition.

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

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

489 On 17 and 19 August 1646 respectively.

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

491 ‘With matters unaccomplished’.

492 Charles Seton, second earl of Dunfermline.

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

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

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

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

497 Lit. intrest.

498 Henry VIII is surely intended.

499 Lit. intrest.

500 Essex died on 14 September 1646.

501 Edgehill.

502 Northumberland and St John.

503 Baillie, , ii. 401.Google Scholar

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

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

506 James Tuchet, third earl of Castlehaven.

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

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

509 ‘Italy is the graveyard of France.’

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

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

512 i.e. conventicles or gathered churches.

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

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

515 Monday was 5 October.

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

517 John Maitland, second earl of Lauderdale.

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

519 CJ, iv. 692–6.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

528 Should read 27 November.

529 On 26 November 1646.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

538 LJ, viii. 617–8.Google Scholar

539 CJ, v. 2021.Google Scholar

540 It is not entirely clear what Juxon's meaning is here. He seems to be implying that the Lords had unilaterally made order for the disposal of the king (‘the king and the commands of one house of parliament’), yet no such order had been made. He also seems to indicate that he has seen, or otherwise has knowledge of, an earlier draft of the City petition. However, he is wrong to state that reference to the ‘concurrence of both Houses’ was left out of the final draft — the City petition acknowledged that the ‘bringing home’ of the king should be left wholly to the wisdom of both Houses: To the right honourable the Lords … the humble petition of the lord mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City of London (29 12 1646), BL, E366/14, pp. 56.Google Scholar

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

542 Lit. intressed.

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

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

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

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

547 i.e. January 1647.

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

549 On 24 December 1646.

550 Pompone de Bellièvre.

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

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

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

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

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

556 CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 204V.

557 Philip Herbert, fourth earl of Pembroke.

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

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

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

561 Lit. intrest.

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

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

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

565 On 27 February 1647: CJ, v. 100101Google Scholar; LJ, ix. 41.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

583 This is probably a reference to Ormond's offering to surrender the lord lieutenantship to parliament on 6 February 1647: LJ, ix. 2930.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

591 Ensign Francis Nicholls.

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

593 Other sources report that Pembroke quoted the figure of 4,000 cavaliers: Gentles, , p. 482Google Scholar, n. 95. For Pembroke's speech and rumours that the army was holding secret negotiations with the king, see Rushworth, , vi. 476Google Scholar; Clarke papers, i. 24, 26Google Scholar; Kishlansky, , New Model Army, pp. 208–9Google Scholar; Woolrych, , Soldiers and statesmen, pp. 6971Google Scholar; Gentles, , p. 153.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

612 i.e. the ‘eleven members’.

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

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

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

616 Common council petition of 2 July 1647: Rushworth, , v. 597600Google Scholar; CJ, v. 231Google Scholar; CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 231v–32v. The Commons granted leave to the eleven members to go overseas on 20 July: CJ, v. 251–2.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

621 i.e. the vote against the petition.

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

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

624 CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 240V.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

634 CLRO, Jor. 40, fos. 244v–46.

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

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

637 The night of 2–3 August 1647.

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

639 CJ, v. 264.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

644 CLRO, Jor. 40, fo. 251v.

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

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

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

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

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

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 72 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.