98. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 148–50.
99. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 250–55.
100. Gardiner, III, pp. 324–7; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 165–6.
101. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 153–67; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 373–4. For the controversy over the authorship of the Heads-of Proposals see J. S. A. Adamson, ‘The English Nobility and the Projected Settlement of 1647’, HJ, 30 (1987), 567–602; Mark A. Kishlansky, ‘Saye what?’, HJ, 33 (1990), 917–37; J. S. A. Adamson, ‘Politics and the Nobility in Civil War England’, HJ, 34 (1991), 231–55; Mark A. Kishlansky, ‘Saye no more’, JBS, 30 (1991), 399–448. See also John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War 1630–1648, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1999), pp. 199–200; Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 132–3.
102. Summarized in Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 135–6. For the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 316–26.
103. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 374.
104. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 169–74; Gardiner, III, pp. 327–8, 335–6.
105. Gardiner, III, pp. 336–40; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 172–4.
106. Gardiner, III, pp. 343–5; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 190–91; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 181–2.
107. Gardiner, III, pp. 345–6, quotation at p. 345; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 192–4; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 182–3.
108. Gardiner, III, pp. 347–52; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 194–6.
109. Hughes, Gangraena, pp. 416–17; for the view that Edward’s campaign, the Presbyterian mobilization for a national church and against Independency, and the resulting cleavage among the godly were not inevitable products of irreconcilable aspiration see ibid., esp. pp. 326–33; for the fortunes of Presbyterians after its failure as a model for the national church in 1647 see Vernon, ‘Sion College’, chs. 4–7. The central arguments are set out in Elliot Vernon, ‘A Ministry of the Gospel: The Presbyterians during the English Revolution’, in Durston and Maltby (eds.), Religion, pp. 115–36.
110. Gardiner, II, p. 59.
111. An example each: The Kings Maiesties letter intercepted (London, 1647) revealed the King’s negotiations with the French; An answer to a letter concerning the kings going from Holdenby to the army (London, 1647); The declaration of the commissioners for the kingdom of Scotland (London, 1647); Vox militaris (11 August 1647); His Majesties declaration to all his subjects (London, 20 December 1647).
112. For Norwich see John T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 155–72; Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 368–75. For some important studies of local politics in these months see David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), pp. 140–46; Clive Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), pp. 187–99; Mary Coate, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum 1642–1660: A Social and Political Study (Oxford, 1933), pp. 237–42, 338–40; Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 269–89. For an overview see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 139–57. For the failure of the Presbyterian church organization see Morrill, ‘The Church in England’, pp. 155–8.
113. Anon., Strange Newes from Scotland ([London], 1647), Thomason date 24 September 1647, p. 3.
114. Ibid., pp. 4–5.
115. John Taylor, The World turn’d upside down (London, 1647), Thomason date 28 January, was a reissue of his Mad Fashions: Bernard Capp, The World of John Taylor the Water-Poet 1578–1653 (Oxford, 1994), p. 202.
116. Anon., A great fight in the church at Thaxted (London, 1647), Thomason date 25 September 1647.
18. The Army, the People and the Scots
1. For the appointment of the new agents see Austin Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen: The General Council of the Army and Its Debates 1647–1648 (Oxford, 1987), ch. 8; Austin Woolrych, ‘The Debates from the Perspective of the Army’, in Michael Mendle (ed.), The Putney Debates of 1647, The Army, the Levellers and the English State (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 53–78, at pp. 65–6; for the term ‘Leveller’, see Blair Worden, ‘The Levellers in History and Memory’, in ibid., pp. 256–82, appendix. Morrill and Baker question the closeness of the political alliance between Walwyn and the others prior to this date: John Morrill and Philip Baker, ‘The Case of the Armie Truly Restated’, in ibid., pp. 103–24, at pp. 119–20. This challenges the conventional view in most previous studies of the Levellers.
2. For the latter view see Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’. For a measured overview see Rachel Foxley, ‘Citizenship and the English Nation in Leveller Thought, 1642–1653’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge (2001), ch. 5. Foxley argues that the army and the Levellers employed similar metaphors and tropes: that they were literally speaking the same language.
3. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 160–65, 174–8.
4. Ibid., pp. 174–8, quotation at p. 177; Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 431–3; David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 132–6. For Scottish politics in these months see David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 88–93.
5. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 195–6; Gardiner, CD, pp. 326–7, quotation at p. 327.
6. Gardiner, III, pp. 366–9; Cust, Charles I, pp. 433–5.
7. For the reprinting of the Heads of Proposals see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 197–8. One edition of the Book of Declarations, acquired by Thomason on 2 October, reprints a Lords order of 27 September (LJ, ix, 450) giving sole benefit to the publishers. Another, presumably earlier, edition exists without this order on the title page. For an example of editing see Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), p. 480 n. 67.
8. Gardiner, III, p. 365; LJ, ix, 452; A&O, I, pp. 1021–2 (30 Sept. 1647), quotation at p. 1021. The Large Petition had also called for an end to name-calling as a necessary prelude to settlement: G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Levellers in the English Revolution (London, 1975), p. 78.
9. For the porousness of early modern parliaments see Chris R. Kyle and Jason Peacey (eds.), Parliament at Work: Parliamentary Committees, Political Power, and Public Access in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2002).
10. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 195 and n. 17; White was present at the Putney debates on 29 October: C.H. Firth, The Clarke Papers, with a preface by Austin Woolrych (London, 1992 edn), p. 280.
11. For the attribution of authorship or co-ordination to Sexby see Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’. Woolrych expressed support for the view in ‘The Debates’, at p. 66; he was more convinced of Wildman’s claims by the time he wrote Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), p. 383.
12. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 191–3, 203–6; Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’, pp. 108–10.
13. Reprinted in Don M. Wolfe (ed.), Leveller Manifestoes of the Puritan Revolution (New York, 1944), pp. 196–222, quotations at pp. 199, 212, 218, 220.
14. Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’.
15. Reprinted in Gardiner, CD, pp. 335–5, quotation at p. 334.
16. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 215–16 and n. 7.
17. Gardiner, III, pp. 367, 381.
18. Michael Mendle, ‘Introduction’, in Mendle (ed.), Putney Debates, p. 1: the blackout may have been, partially at least, officially imposed: Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 226 and n. 44. For Clarke see Woolrych, ‘The Debates’, p. 68.
19. For a detailed narrative of the debates see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, ch. 9. I have followed his summaries in Britain in Revolution, pp. 385–92 and ‘The Debates’, pp. 71–8. For the fullest published text see Firth (ed.), Clarke Papers, pp. 226–406; A. S. P. Woodhouse (ed.), Puritanism and Liberty: Being the Army Debates (1647�
��9) from the Clarke Manuscripts with Supplementary Documents, 2nd edn (London, 1974), pp. 1–123, contains very full extracts.
20. Woodhouse (ed.), Puritanism and Liberty, p. 11.
21. Ibid., p. 46.
22. Ibid., pp. 53–4.
23. For influential views of the controversy over the franchise see C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962), pt III; Keith Thomas, ‘The Levellers and the Franchise’, in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646–60 (London, 1972), pp. 57–78; David Wootton, ‘Leveller Democracy and the Puritan Revolution’, in J. H. Burns, with Mark Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 412–42, esp. pp. 429–30; Patricia Crawford, ‘“The poorest she”: Women and Citizenship in Early Modern England’, in Mendle (ed.), Putney Debates, pp. 197–218, esp. pp. 199–203; Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’, pp. 117–19; Quentin Skinner, ‘Rethinking Political Liberty’, History Workshop Journal, 61:1 (2006), 156–70, esp. pp. 160–65.
24. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 390–91.
25. Quoted in Gardiner, IV, pp. 5, 7; See also Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 391. For blood guilt see Patricia Crawford, ‘Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 303–23, Ludlow quoted at p. 312; for blood guilt and the dangers of a weak peace in 1643 see above, p. 259.
26. Gardiner, IV, p. 9 for this vote.
27. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 393–4, 395–8; this revises the case made by Mark A. Kishlansky, ‘What Happened at Ware?’ HJ, 25 (1982), 827–39.
28. Reprinted in W. C. Abbott, Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1937), I, pp. 557–60, quotations at pp. 558, 559.
29. Cust, Charles I, pp. 434–5; Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 88–94; Gardiner, IV, pp. 1, 9–10, 12–13, 15–16.
30. For incisive accounts of the politics see Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 92–5; Cust, Charles 1, pp. 434–5. See also Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–1648 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 20–42.
31. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 308; a similar suggestion was made at the General Council by Harrison: Gardiner, IV, p. 16.
32. Gardiner, IV, pp. 14–19.
33. For Taylor see above, p. 490. Some of the responses to the Kings Cabinet opened made a similar case: for example, Anon., Some observations upon occasion of the publishing of their majesties letters (Oxford, 1645), p. 4; Anon., A Key To the Kings cabinet (Oxford, 1645), pp. 10–11.
34. Gardiner, CD, pp. 328–32; for the politics of these crucial days see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 304–10.
35. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, p. 95; for this (relatively) sympathetic view of Charles’s honesty see Cust, Charles 1, esp. pp. 408–10, 438–9.
36. Cust, Charles 1, p. 436; for the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 335–47.
37. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 307–9; Gardiner, IV, pp. 33–4.
38. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 95–7. Developing hostility to the Covenanters” ‘extra-national’ interpretation of the Solemn League and Covenant can be traced in Culpeper Letters.
39. For the origins of the Engagement see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 316–26.
40. Gardiner, CD, pp. 347–52, quotation at pp. 349–50.
41. Gardiner, IV, p. 41.
42. Ibid.; for the text of Charles’s rejection see Gardiner, CD, pp. 353–6, quotation at p. 355.
43. Gardiner, CD, p. 356; for the previous proposal see above, p. 510.
44. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 319–23, quotations at pp. 320, 321 (italics in the original). The regicide was to make clear, however, that a willingness to kill the King, or see him killed, could co-exist with a commitment to the preservation of the House of Lords: Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1974), esp. pp. 49–50.
45. Gardiner, IV, pp. 52–6; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 320–23; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 237–8: see the Commons order, CJ, v, 416, interpreted here as reviving the powers of the Committee of Both Kingdoms, with a reformed (all-English) membership and a new title. The Committee of Both Kingdoms was defunct after the Scots handed over the King at Newcastle and returned north: Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 160–62, 164–7; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 352. It may not have been formally dissolved, however, and it is not clear from the order if it is being revived, or reconfigured. I am grateful to Ann Hughes and Mark Kishlansky for discussing this with me
46. Gardiner, CD, pp. 348–9.
47. Gardiner, IV, pp. 60–61; A declaration of the Commons of England In Parliament assembled [11 February 1648] (London, 1648), TT, E.427[9]; Alastair Bellany, ‘The Murder of James I: Mutations and Meanings of a Political Myth, c. 1625–1660’ (unpublished paper).
48. Charles Carlton, Charles 1: The Personal Monarch (London, 1983), p. 328.
49. Gardiner, III, p. 309–10. For other indications of his apparent willingness to die rather than compromise his principles see Gardiner, III, pp. 134–7; and Cust, Charles I, esp. pp. 410, 421.
50. The authoritative study is M. D. Whinney, ‘John Webb’s Drawings for the Whitehall Palace’, Walpole Society, 31 (1946 for 1942-3), 45-107, esp. pp. 45, 81–8. There is documentary evidence that Webb visited the King in Hampton Court and Carisbrooke. A surviving scheme, marked ‘taken’ by Charles I, belongs stylistically with the work of Webb rather than Jones, and obviously predates 1649. It is therefore supposed to be the one that arose from these visits of Webb. For fuller context see Simon Thurley, The Lost Palace of Whitehall (London, 1998), pp. 17–28; for the comparison with the Escorial see P. W. Thomas, ‘Charles I of England: The Tragedy of Absolutism’, in A. G. Dickens (ed.), The Courts of Europe: Politics, Patronage and Royalty 1400–1800 (London, 1977), pp. 191–211, at p. 193. For earlier attributions of these designs See also J. Alfred Gotch, ‘The Original Drawings of the Palace of Whitehall Attributed to Inigo Jones’, Architectural Review, 31 (1912), 333–64; E. S. De Beer, ‘Whitehall Palace: Inigo Jones and Wren’, Notes and Queries, 177 (1939), 471–3. For Jones and Webb see John Newman, ‘Jones, Inigo (1573–1652)’, ODNB, 30, pp. 527–38; John Bold, ‘Webb, John (1611–1672)’, ODNB, 57, pp. 837–40.
19. To Preserve That Which God Hath Manifestly Declared Against
1. David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 98–105; Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–8 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 326–35.
2. Micheal Ó Siochrú, Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis (Dublin, 1999), ch. 5; Patrick J. Corish, ‘Ormond, Rinuccini, and the Confederates, 1645–9’, in T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin and E. J. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early Modern Ireland 1534–1691 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 317–35, at pp. 323–30; summary in Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), p. 405; Gardiner, IV, pp. 102–10.
3. David Underdown, Pride’s Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971), p. 90.
4. Alan Everitt, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640–1660 (Leicester, 1966), pp. 231–3.
5. Ibid., p. 233.
6. Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 241–2.
7. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 91–2. For Norwich see John T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 172–82.
8. Gardiner, IV, pp. 68–9, 94, 97–8; Ian Gentles, ‘The Struggle for London in the Second Civil War’, HJ, 26 (1983), 277–305, esp. pp. 287–9. There were many different versions of tip-cat.
9. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 93–4. For anti-war sentiment and post-war reli
gious disruption in Cornwall see Mary Coate, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum 1642–1660: A Social and Political Study (Oxford, 1933), pp. 330–38.
10. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 94–5, 99–100; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 241; for Essex see William Cliftlands, ‘The “Well-Affected” and the “Country”: Politics and Religion in English Provincial Society, c. 1640–1654’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Essex (1987), pp. 77–9, ch. 4.
11. [William Davenant?], London, King Charles his Augusta or City Royal (London, 1648), Thomason date 7 March; Anon., Coleman-Street Conclave Visited (London, 1648), Thomason date 21 March; Anon., Calendar-Reformation (London, 1648), Fortescue date 27 March; Anon., A true and perfect picture of our present reformation (London, 1648), Fortescue date March; Anon., Mistris Parliament Brought to Bed of a Monstrous Childe of Reformation (London, 1648), Thomason date 29 April. The birth was assisted by the midwife Mrs London, the nurse Mrs Synod, and the gossips Mrs Schism, Mrs Privilege, Mrs Ordinance, Mrs Universall Toleration and Mrs Leveller; Anon., Last will and testament (London, 1648).
12. Vindiciae, contra Tyrannos: a defence of Liberty against Tyrants (London, 1648), Thomason date 1 March; Queen Elizabeth’s speech to her last parliament (London, 1648), Thomason date 16 March. For the Vindiciae see Anne McLaren, ‘Rethinking Republicanism: Vindiciae, Contra Tyrannos in Context’, HJ, 49 (2006), 23–52; and the convincing riposte by George Garnett, ‘Law in the Vindiciae, Contra Tyrannos: A Vindication’, HJ, 49 (2006), 877–91. It was probably the product of a collaboration between Hubert Languet and Philippe Mornay, written in France between 1574 and 1577, and widely circulated in the rest of Europe thereafter. For the text and its history see George Garnett (ed.), Brutus: Vindiciae, contra tyrannos or, Concerning the Legitimate Power of a Prince over the People, and of the People over a Prince (Cambridge, 1994), esp., for the translations, pp. lxxiv-lxxxviii. For Walker see David Wootton, ‘From Rebellion to Revolution: The Crisis of the Winter of 1642/3 and the Origins of Civil War Radicalism’, in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), The English Civil War (London, 1997), pp. 340–56, at p. 352.
God’s FURY, England’s FIRE Page 93