The Clarke Papers

doi:10.1017/S204217020000173X

The Clarke Papers

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 December 1901

Article contents

Abstract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: The Clarke Papers. Selections from the Papers of William Clarke
Information: Camden New Series , Volume 62 , December 1901 , pp. 1 - 270

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S204217020000173X [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1901

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 1 note 1} Clarke MSS. xxxi. 102.

^{page 2 note 1} An account of what occurred in the meetings of the officers between the dissolution of April 22 and the Council whose votes are recorded above, is given by Phillips (Baker's Chronicle, p. 660, ed. 1670). See also Bourne's letter in Clarke Papers, iii. 213; Thurloe, vii. 666. The Domestic State Papers contain no information of any value on the period between the dissolution of Bichard's Parliament and the restoration of the Long Parliament. Bordeaux's letters to Mazarin, dated May 5 and May 12 (new style), supply more rumours than facts as to transactions in the army. But he is doubtless right in saying that by the beginning of May the recall of the Long Parliament had been determined upon. From that date it was merely a question whether it should be recalled upon terms or unconditionally (Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 379).

^{page 2 note 2} April 28.

^{page 3 note 1} For a summary of the changes see Baker's Chronicle, continued by Phillips, ed. 1670, p. 659; Ludlow's Memoirs, ii, 71, ed. 1894.

^{page 3 note 2} Major of Colonel Ingoldsby's regiment; of. Ludlow's Memoirs, ii. 62.

^{page 3 note 3} An account of these interviews is given by Ludlow, ii. 74. In assigning to the first of them, in the margin of my edition of Ludlow, the date of April 29, I believe I was in error. It is probable that this interview of May 2 was the first.

^{page 3 note 4} A letter from Monck to Thurloe, dated May 3, is printed in the Thurloe Papers, vii. 667. It is an answer to one from Thurloe of April 26, informing him of the dissolution. Monck says simply, ‘I am very glad that, after go great an alteration, you continue in peace.’ He does not appear to have realised as yet that the dissolution meant the fall of the Protectorate.

^{page 4 note 1} A letter to Monck from Lieut-Colonels Mason and Sawrey, dated May 3, is amongst the papers of Mr. Leyborne-Popham. They assure him that ‘the army here in England is very unanimous in this late action.’ Report, p. 116.

^{page 5 note 1} ‘The humble Eepresentation and Petition of the General Council of the Officers of the Armies,’ forwarded by Bichard to Parliament on April 8, 1659. Old Parliamentary History, xxi. 339.

^{page 7 note 1} For an account of these conferences see Ludlow, ii. 74. According to Phillips the officers had debated ‘the election of a Council which should have a negative upon the remnant Parliament, when it should be restored. But after much debate that was thought fitter for the debate of the Parliament than them.’ This proposed senate was, according to Ludlow, one of the chief points of difference between the representatives of the offioers and those of the Parliament. Ludlow summarises the demands of the army, and they were subsequently embodied in the address presented to the House on May 13, which is dated May 12. It is reprinted in the Old Parliamentary History, xxi. 400.

^{page 7 note 2} See, for instance, ‘An Invitation to the Lord's People throughout the Three Nations, to provoke them to a holy Bejoicing for His late Salvation begun, ‘printed in the Public Intelligencer for May, pp. 9–16.

^{page 8 note 1} ‘The Declaration of the Officers of the Army of May 6, 1639.’ Old Parliamentary History, xxi. 367 ; Baker, p. 661.

^{page 8 note 2} ‘Their numbers were 50, about 80 more are capable of sitting,’ says a newsletter dated May 10. For a list see the Old Parliamentary History, xxi. 372.

^{page 9 note 1} Also in Clarke MSS. li. 676.

^{page 9 note 2} The Committee of Safety was appointed May 7, 1659.

^{page 10 note 1} Also in Clarke MSS. li. 68a.

^{page 10 note 2} The army under Monok's command had already signified its adherence to the new Government by two addresses. One, which is directed to the Speaker, is to be found in the Old Parliamentary History (xxi. 414), in Whitelooke's Memorials (iv. 346), and in the Public Intelligencer for May 16–23. It was read in Parliament on May 18, and gave great satisfaction (Commons Journals, vii. 658). The other, which was directed to Fleetwood and the General Council of the Army, is printed in Thurloe (vii. 669). According to Phillips, Monck at first thought of resistance; but when he convened some of his officers at Edinburgh to ‘sound their temper, he perceived they had been wrought upon; and therefore he judged it most prudent to seem to approve of what had been done. And to that purpose he writ a letter, signed by himself and hia officers, to the officers in London, which gave them assurance of hig adherence to them (but if Bichard had not dissolved his Parliament, Monck had then marched into England in favour of it).’ (Baker, p. 662.) According to Bordeaux, Monck in his first answer ‘had demanded to be told what the good old cause was, before he explained his intentions; but he has since sent a declaration by express that he would not desert the interest of the army.’ (Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 381.) Monck's earlier letters on the subject are missing.

^{page 11 note 1} Cornet Henry Monck to his relative the General. According to Phillips, Henry Cromwell at first thought of resistance to the combination which had overthrown his brother, and endeavoured to come to an understanding with Monck. ‘He despatched Cornet Monck to Scotland to General Monck (who came thither not till 15 days after the alteration of Government) to inform himself how he and his army stood affected to it, who returned no other answer than a copy of the letters the officers of his army had obliged him to send to Parliament.’ (Baker, p. 670.) Richard neglected to keep his brother informed; on April 26 he knew nothing of the dissolution of the Parliament (Thurloe, vii. 665). It seems that he was first officially informed of the late revolution by a letter from Lambert and other officers dated May 10. His answer is missing, but its general sense may be gathered from the letters to Richard Cromwell and Fleetwood on May 23 and 24 relative to the mission of the three persons mentioned above (ibid. vii. 674).

^{page 12 note 1} Johnston of Warriston was elected by the Parliament a Member of the Council of State, May 16, 1659. This speech is probably by him.

^{page 12 note 2} 1 Peter, ii. 13.

^{page 15 note 1} Seems to show that the author was not an Englishman.

^{page 15 note 2} Monck sent Ashfield's regiment of foot into England in reply.

^{page 16 note 1} From Tanner MS. li. 72, inserted to complete the correspondence.

^{page 17 note 1} See Ludlow, Memoirs, ii. 90. The form of the commission given to colonels is printed in Commons' Journals, vii. 674.

^{page 18 note 1} The letter referred to is that printed on the previous page from a copy amongst the Tanner MSS. (li. 72). The House took Monck's intervention on behalf of the officers under his command extremely ill, and ordered Sir Arthur Haslerig to prepare an answer to be signed by the Speaker. The answer, which was approved on June 10, ran as follows : ‘Your letter was read in Parliament. It is true the Parliament have under their consideration the officers of the armies ; it being of high concernment for the settlement of the nations to trust such as they are assured will be truly and really faithful to the Parliament and Commonwealth. There hath been, in these late changes, great discoveries of men; and peradventure such things are known to the Parliament that are not to yourself. The Parliament hath commanded me to acquaint you that they look upon yourself as their faithful servant, and shall not forget your fidelity’ (Commons' Journals, vii. 677, 680). According to Phillips, ‘Pearson and Mason, two Anabaptist lieutenant-colonels under General Monck,’ were the persons upon whose information the Commissioners for the Nomination of Officers principally acted. Phillips, after mentioning Monck's letter, goes on to say that, ‘to give him some satisfaction, they sent him back word, they would be very careful in the placing or displacing of his officers, and that in his own regiments of horse and foot there should be no alteration till such time as he were consulted in it.’ Baker, p. 670 ; cf. Gumble, p. 101.

^{page 18 note 2} Commons' Journals, vii. 677. The Act commissioning Fleetwood is printed at length in Thurloe (vii. 679).

^{page 19 note 1} The Army, of which the writer was evidently a member.

^{page 19 note 2} 2 See Commons' Journals, vii. 678; and also The Case of Colonel Matthew Altered, 1659, 4to. Alured, finally, was appointed colonel of the regiment of horse lately commanded by Colonel Whalley. See Ludlow's Memoirs, ii. 95, note, ed. 1894.

^{page 19 note 3} The officer referred to was Eichard Elton. On June 9 the House voted that the Committee of Safety should enquire whether Lieutenant-Colonel Elton ‘be a person within the qualifications declared by Parliament.’ Apparently he was, for on June 11 he received a commission as captain in place of William Brockett (Commons' Journals, vii. 677, 681). The reason for his degradation from the rank of lieutenant-colonel to captain was probably the desire to replace some officers who had lost their places under the late Government. Elton was the author of the Complete Body of the Art Military, published in 1650, one of the moat popular drill-books of the period.

^{page 20 note 1} This letter, which is unsigned, was probably sent some time after the incidents it records.

^{page 20 note 2} In the Army's petition they speak of ‘plucking the wicked out of their places.’—Old Parliamentary History, xxi. 338.

^{page 21 note 1} See Clarke Papers, iii. 288, and Baker's Chronicle, p. 659.

^{page 22 note 1} The passages described as in ‘cypher’ should rather be desoribed as in orthand of some kind.

^{page 22 note 2} Holland.

^{page 23 note 1} This letter is also amongst the Tanner MSS. (li. 88).

^{page 23 note 2} Parliament summoned Henry Cromwell to England by vote of June 7, resolving that the government of Ireland should be entrusted to five commissioners (Commons' Journals, vii. 674). His letter of resignation, addressed to the Speaker, is dated June 15, and is printed, together with two letters to Fleetwood, in the Thurloe Papers (vii. 683-5). Mercurius Politicus for June 23–30 contains the address of the Irish Army, and also a letter of Henry Cromwell's, dated June 22, on the surrender of his authority to the commissioners appointed by Parliament. It deserves reprinting.

^{page 24 note 1} 1 See note on p. 49.

^{page 24 note 2} On Lockhart's mission see Clarendon, State Papers, iii. 538, 540, 544, 549; Thurloe, vii, 765.

^{page 24 note 3} See Commons' Journals, vii. 791–2, and Scotland and the Protectorate, pp. 385–392.

^{page 24 note 4} See Commons' Journals, vii. 723–725; Clarendon, State Papers, iii. 46 , 531.

^{page 25 note 1} Nicholas Kelke.

^{page 25 note 2} On Wigan see Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 45.

^{page 26 note 1} See also Warriston's letter to Monck of July 14, directing him to take personal assurances from those ex-prisoners in the Tower who had given bonds as a condition of their release (Report on Mr. Leyborne-Popham's MSS. p. 118). Besides imposing this engagement Monck sent a circular to all governors of garrisons in Scotland, ordering them to prevent horse-races and other suspicious meetings, &c., dated June 25, 1659 (ibid. p. 120).

^{page 26 note 2} On July 14, 1659, the Council of State ordered General Monek to require paroles from dangerous persons in Scotland ; Lord Warriston and Colonel Berry to prepare the letter (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 27).

^{page 28 note 1} See Report on the Papers of Mr. Leyborne-Popham, p. 121.

^{page 29 note 1} See Baker's Chronicle, p. 671.

^{page 29 note 2} Eruption ?

^{page 29 note 3} See Commons' Journals, vii. 741; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, 158, 194, 230; Mercurius Politicus, p. 631; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 446; Baker's Chronicle, p. 672. Lambert was probably the great officer meant (Ludlow, ii. 111).

^{page 31 note 1} See Mercurius Politicus, July 31, p. 639, for an account of these gatherings in arms, and Cal. State Papers, Dora. 1659–60, pp. 59–61.

^{page 31 note 2} John Mayer ?

^{page 31 note 3} July 31.

^{page 32 note 1} This letter was apparently written to Colonel West by someone at Warrington, perhaps by Colonel Birch, and forwarded by West.

^{page 33 note 1} Rowton Heath ?

^{page 35 note 1} See Washbourne's Bibliotheca Qloucestriensis, p. cc.

^{page 38 note 1} Booth and his friends asserted that ‘they had taken arms in vindication of the freedom of Parliament, of the known laws, liberty and property, and of the good people of this kingdom groaning under uncomfortable taxes.’ See ‘A Declaration of Sir G. Booth at the last rendezvous on Tuesday last near the city of Chester;’ Sir George Booth's letter of August 2, 1659, showing the reasons of his present engagement.

^{page 38 note 2} Lambert took with him, according to Mercurius Politicals (p. 650), three regiments of horse and one regiment of dragoons, three regiments of foot and a train of artillery. Their names are not given. In his letter of August 20 he says that on Sunday, August 14, ‘the two regiments of foot which marched from London with the horse under the command of Colonel Swallow and Major Creed, being in all nineteen troops, united at Drayton, in the county of Salop.’ He sent back, however, the militia troop of Staffordshire and Derbyshire, and Captain Sabberton's troop of Swallow's, marching with the rest to Nantwich, where he stayed two days and was joined by four companies of Colonel Biscoe's foot and two of Colonel Ashfield's, and also by one troop of his own regiment and three of Colonel Lilburne's. In the battle, therefore, he had about twenty troops of horse, and two regiments and six companies of foot, or perhaps three regiments, twelve hundred or fifteen hundred horse, and at most about 3,000 foot. The foot regiments were Hewson's, his own, and parts of others; and the horse regiments, Swallow's, his own, part of Lilburne's, and some miscellaneous troops belonging to various regiments.

^{page 39 note 1} Manchester was not there, and Waller was a prisoner.

^{page 40 note 1} The names of these officers are omitted. See Commons' Journals, vii. 743, 762.

^{page 40 note 2} Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 90. Cf. Whitelooke, Memorials, iv. p. 357.

^{page 40 note 3} The proclamation against Booth, dated August 9, is printed in the Public Intelligencer, August 8–15, p. 647.

^{page 40 note 4} See Thurloe Papers, vii. 722. The three regiments sent from Dunkirk were the three ‘field regiments’ which had lately been serving with the French army, viz. the regiments of Major-General Morgan, Sir Brice Cochrane, and Colonel Sam Clarke. On arriving in England they were reduced into two regiments, under Cochrane and Clarke. Cal. State Pagers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 121.

^{page 43 note 1} 1 Needham had been removed from the post of editor of the Public Intelligencer on May 13, and replaced by John Canne (Commons' Journals, vii. 652).

^{page 45 note 1} Mercurius Politicus, August 11–18, p. 673; Public Intelligencer, August 15–22, p. 686.

^{page 45 note 2} See Life of Colonel Hutchinspn, ii. 220, 389, ed. 1885.

^{page 45 note 3} See Ludlow's Memoirs, ii. 110–13.

^{page 45 note 4} See Comet Boteler's letter, Tanner MSS. li. 133.

^{page 46 note 1} Lambert's account of Sir George Booth's defeat, which is dated Northwich, August 20, was read in Parliament on August 22. It was sent by Captain Brown, of Colonel Hewson's regiment, and is printed under the title of The Lord Lambert's Letter to the Speaker concerning the Victory over the Rebels under Sir George Booth. In two other letters, dated the next day, Lambert announced the surrender of Chester; and with them was also printed a letter from Major Edmund Waring, the Governor of Shrewsbury, relating occurrences in Chester after Booth's defeat. The original of Waring's letter is amongst the Tanner MSS. (li. 181). These three letters are printed as A Second and Third Letter from the Lord Lambert, &c. Chirk Castle, which had been garrisoned by the Royalists, surrendered to Lambert on August 24, and in the letter announcing its fall he was able to say, ‘There is now no visible enemy appearing in these parts’ (The Public Intelligencer, August 22–29, p. 687). The fullest account of Booth's defeat on the Eoyalist side is that by Mr. Mordaunt, Clarendon State Papers, iii. 552 ; see also Ludlow, ii. 113.

^{page 47 note 1} See A True Narrative of the Taking of Sir George Booth on Tuesday last, 4to, 1659.

^{page 48 note 1} 1 See Whitelooke, Memorials, iv. 349, 361; Ludlow, Memoirs, ii. 116. On September 14 Cooper was voted not guilty of the charge (Commons' Journals, vii. 778).

^{page 49 note 1} The business of the Union was in charge of Bulstrode Whitelocke, who introduced the Bill on July 30, 1659. He records a complimentary letter from Monck to himself on the subject, and says also that Monck wished to persuade him to become one of the Commissioners for the government of Scotland (Memorials, iv. 349, 352, 355, 363). On the proviso mentioned, see next page.

^{page 49 note 2} September 3. See Commons' Journals, vii. 774. The imposition of this oath was strongly opposed by Vane, and in consequence of his opposition it was referred to a committee, as stated at the close of this letter (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1639–60, p. 207 ; see also The Trial of Sir Henry Vane, 1662, 4to, p. 45 ; Carte, Original Letters, ii. 216).

^{page 50 note 1} See Lady Booth's letter to Sir Arthur Haslerig, September 22, 1659. MSS. of the Duke of Portland, i. 685, and also Commons' Journals, vii. 770; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 163; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 466.

^{page 50 note 2} Edmund Prideaux.

^{page 50 note 3} See Cal. State. Papers, Dom. 1659–60, pp. 163, 166, 167; Thurloe, vii. 726, 731, 744 ; Clarendon, State Papers, iii. 551, 564. Montague, on September 10, gave an account ‘of the business of the Sound, and of the fleet’ to the Council of State, who desired him ‘to write down the said narrative’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 184). A copy is amongst the MSS. of Lord Sandwich, but it has never been printed.

^{page 50 note 4} The business of the Union with Scotland occupied the restored Long Parliament for many sittings, as the Union effected by Cromwell's ordinances and by the Instrument of Government was held invalid. On May 18,1659, a Committee of the Council was appointed to take the question into consideration, and to report an Act for the purpose (Commons‘Journals, vii. 658). On May 24 an address, signed by the deputies who consented to the Union in 1652, was presented to Parliament, and referred to the Council of State (ibid. p. 664). The address is printed in Nicoll's Diary (p. 242). The Committee of Council reported an old Bill on the Union, read twice formerly in Parliament, probably that which was discussed in the Parliament of 1656 (ibid. pp. 445, 450, 681 ; cf. Scotland and the Protectorate, p. 333). The House, however, ordered a new Bill to be prepared and introduced. This Bill was read a first time on July 27, and a second time on July 30. It was debated in Committee of the whole House for eleven sittings during the next few weeks, but got no further (ibid. pp. 693, 736, 740, &c.).

This delay was probably due to the fact that the whole question of the limits of toleration was raised while the Bill was in Committee, by some of the amendments to it which were proposed. On July 27 Colonel Cobbett had presented to Parliament a petition from ‘some well-affected persons in Edinburgh, and other places near adjacent.’ The petitioners, after congratulating the Parliament on its restoration, concluded with the following request:—

‘It is our humble desire for ourselves and several others in this nation, that you will take care to provide for our just liberties, that we may share of those Gospel priviledges that the truly godly in England contend for, and expect to be secured in by you ; and that any law or Act of Parliament of this nation contrary thereunto may be abolished, either by some proviso to that effect to be inserted in the Act of Union, or by some other expedient way as you shall think fit; in doing whereof we shall look upon ourselves as engaged to bless God for you, and stand o t you with our lives and estates.’

The Speaker answered that the House was considering the Act of Union, and would take this request into consideration, ‘and do that which shall be best for you and the whole nation.’ Mercurius Politicus, July 21–28, 1659, in which this petition is printed (p. 623; see also Nicoll's Diary, p. 245), observes: ‘It's very remarkable that this petition from Scotland is the first that hath been presented from that nation to any power in England since the late troubles.’ The authors of the petition were without doubt the ‘gathered Churches,’ i.e. the Independent congregations which had sprung up in Scotland during its government by the English (see Scotland and the Commonwealth, pp. xxxix–xli). Though few in number, they were strong supporters of the English Government. It is evident that an attempt was made to insert a proviso of the kind which they desired, and that the paper printed here was drawn up by some Scottish Presbyterian in answer to that proviso and the policy which it represented.

^{page 51 note 1} MS. ‘fovver.’

^{page 54 note 1} MS. ‘excecible.’

^{page 55 note 1} MS. ‘reckned.’

^{page 56 note 1} Commons' Journals, vii. 784. The Humble Petition and Proposals of the Officers under the Command of the Right Honourable Lord Lambert in the late Northern Expedition is printed in Edward Phillips's Continuation of Baker's Chronicle, p. 676, ed. 1670. For comments on the proceedings relative to this petition, see Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 479, 482 ; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 573; Redmayne's True Narrative of tlie Proceedings in Parliament, Council of State, &c.,from. September 22 until this present Time, 1659, 4to, p. 1.

^{page 57 note 1} Derby.

¹ With this letter was sent a copy of the petition referred to in the last letter, which is not reproduced here, as it is already in print. Another paper (Clarke MSS. xxxi. 2176) gives the following account of its genesis: ‘Upon my Lord Lambert's returne through Darbyshire out of Cheshire there was a meeting of about 50 officers at Darby, though his Lordshippe was not informed of their desires drawne upp and subscribed. Colonel Sankey, Colonel Michell, Major Creede, and others were appointed to modell a draught of a peticion and addresse, which was affected in 5 heades.’ This is evidently extracted from Colonel Michell's letter to William Clarke of September 24, 1659, printed in the Eeport on Mr. Leyborne-Popham's MSS. p. 128. Phillips says that after the petition was drawn up, Colonel Duckenfield was sent to London to acquaint the General Council of Officers with the proceedings at Derby. The petition itself, directed to Ashfield, Cobbet, and Lieut.-Col. Duckenfield, followed later. “And at the same time, when this was sent to London, an officer was despatched with a duplicate of it to General Monck, and a letter with it, to desire his concurrence and that the officers of his army might join with them. Which letter was subscribed by fourteen of the chief officers employed under Lambert” (Baker, p. 676). A summary of this letter is given in Mr. Leyborne-Popham's MSS., but without the names appended (p. 123). It was probably written on September 25, or thereabouts.

^{page 59 note 1} About the same date Monck wrote to the Speaker, informing him of what he had done. Bordeaux, writing to Mazarin, October 10/20, says that Monck ‘ wrote two days ago to inform the Parliament that he had prevented the petition of the Northern brigade from being subscribed by the troops under his command (Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 498). Similarly Samborne, writing to Hyde on October 14, says Monck ‘ writ to the Parliament very lately that his officers had received addresses from the officers here, and thereupon had a meeting, but he had stric ly forbidden any more assemblies, with some other compliments to the Parliament, which encouraged them in their high voting against Lambert, etc’ (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 581). The letter referred to does not appear to have survived. It was probably written about September 30 or October 1, for it was read in Parliament on October 5, when the House ordered that the Speaker should write a letter to Monck, ‘ taking notice of the Parliament's good acceptance of his faithfulness and expressions of the same by his letters and otherwise.’ This letter, drawn up by Whitelocke, was sent off on October 7, and duly reached Monck, whose reply is dated October 13. The reply, which reached London on October 17, four days after the expulsion of the Parliament by Lambert, is printed in Redmayne's True Narrative (p. 22).

^{page 59 note 2} Bordeaux, writing to Mazarin, October 10/20, 1659, says: ‘ Monck wrote two days ago to inform the Parliament that he had prevented the petition of the Northern brigade from being subscribed by the troops under his command’ (Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 498). The letter referred to, which seems to be lost, was probably written about October 1, for on October 5 Parliament ordered that the Speaker should write a letter to Monck, ‘ taking notice of the Parliament's good acceptance of his faithfulness and expressions of the same by his letters and otherwise.’ Whitelocke was to draw it up (Commons' Journals, vii. 792 ; cf. Baker's Chronicle, p. 681; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 581). This was done, and the letter signed by Lenthall and dated October 7 duly reached Monck. His reply, dated October 13, appears to have reached London October 17, four days after the interruption of the Parliament (Eedmayne's True Narrative, p. 22). It is not either in Toland's collection of Monck's letters or in the Old Parliamentary History.

^{page 60 note 1} The origin of this breach was as follows: After the suppression of the Derby petition by the Parliament the officers drew up a vindication of their conduct and of the contents of their petition, entitled The Humble Representation and Petition of tlie Officers of the Army, which was presented to. the House on October 5, 1659. It is printed in Eedmayne's True Narrative (p. 4), and in Baker's Chronicle (p. 679). One clause asked that any persons who cast scandalous imputations upon the Army might be duly punished. This was directed against Haslerig (Baker, p. 680). Another asked that Fleetwood's commission as commander-jn-ehief should be renewed. Parliament took the petition into consideration, and passed votes ia favour of several of its requests, but at the same time vindicated the members attacked, resolving that they had done no more than their duty in informing the House of the Derby petition. Meanwhile the officers in London appealed to the troops elsewhere in England and to the armies in Scotland and Ireland for support. One of these letters, signed by Lambert and eight other officers, was presented to Parliament, which replied by annulling the commissions of the nine officers in question (October 12). A specimen of these circulars is printed in Thurloe (vii. 755), and a slightly different version, addressed to General Monck, is printed in Eedmayne's True Narrative, p. 14. It asked Monck to communicate the petition to his officers, and to get their subscriptions to it, and forward them to Fleetwood's secretary. Monck replied, in a letter dated October 13, with a refusal. ‘ Our force,’ said he, ‘ is very small, and our enemy very great; and I shall be unwilling to set anything on foot that may breed jealouses amongst us. And finding many officers decline the signing all papers of that nature, and rather propense to declare their testimony to the Parliament's authority, and their absolute adherence thereunto, I have thought it my duty to suspend the execution of your desires.’

In the same way Colonel Overton and the garrison of Hull, in a letter dated October 11, also refused to send in their signatures, concluding, as Monck did, with an exhortation to unity and submission to the authority of Parliament. Both letters are printed in Eedmayne (pp. 14, 16); cf. Baker, 681.

^{page 66 note 1} To Captain Farmer (Baker, p. 687) or to Captain Deane (Gumble, p. 137).

^{page 66 note 2} Monck announced his resolution to the world in a series of letters and declarations. On October 20 he wrote, or had drawn up by Clarke, three letters—one to the Speaker, the second to Fleetwood, the third to Lambert. ‘ I am resolved,’ he told Lenthall, ‘ by the grace and assistance of God, as a true Englishman, to stand to and assert the liberty and authority of Parliament; and the Army here (praised be God !) is very courageous and unanimous, and I doubt not but to give a good account of this action to you. I have, according to the Act of the 11th of this instant, being constituted a commissioner for the government of the Army, put out such persons as would not act according to your commission. I call God to witness that the assertion of a Commonwealth is the only intent of my heart.’ To Fleetwood and Lambert he wrote in terms of rebuke, warning the latter that ‘the nation of England will not endure any arbitrary power, neither will any true Englishman in the Army.’ He also published a Declaration of the Commander-in-Chief in Scotland and the officers under his command, which was signed by ‘ William Clarke,’ in the name and by the appointment of the Commander-in-Chief and the Officers of the Army in Scotland. In A Letter from a Person of Quality at Edinburgh, dated October 25, it is said that although this was published in the name of the officers, ‘ none was at the contriving of it but himself, Wilkes, Morgan, Emerson, Smyth, and Gumble.’ It was accompanied by a Declaration of the Officers of the Army in Scotland to the Churches of Christ in the Three Nations, which is said by the same authority to have been written by Collins, one of the chaplains of the Army. The three letters and the two declarations were all printed as pamphlets, and are to be found reprinted in Eedmayne's True Narrative, pp. 24–31, and the letters are numbers iii., vi., vii. in Toland's Collection of Monck's Letters (1714, 8vo.)

^{page 69 note 1} Cobbett apparently started on October 16. He took with him an account of the late revolution, drawn up by the officers and signed by Fleetwood, Desborough, Berry, Mason, Kelsey, Salmon, Duckenfield, and Camfield, on behalf of the rest of the officers. This letter, which begins, ‘ We hold it a duty incumbent upon us, in order to the preserving the peace of the Commonwealth,’ Monck was requested to communicate to his officers. It is reprinted in Eedmayne's Narrative (p. 35), but not dated there. The answer of the officers at Edinburgh, dated October 27, is in the same collection (p. 38). It begins : ‘ With how great reluctancy we put pens to paper against you, our sad hearts … can bear us witness.’

The same day that this answer was drawn up the General Council of the Officers of the Army assembled at Wallingford House published a declaration intended as an appeal to the nation, and as a public vindication of their conduct in putting a stop to the sitting of Parliament. It is also reprinted by Redmayne (p. 42), and was published in pamphlet form.

On Cobbett's arrest, see Baker, p. 687. ‘It was seasonably done,’ says the continuator; ‘for if he had been permitted to pass, the opinion which was had of him by the soldiers might much have hindered the General's proceedings.’

^{page 70 note 1} This letter was written by Fleetwood in reply to Monck's letter of October 20, According to Phillips, however, writing as usual on the authority of Clarges, Monck's letter did not arrive till the evening of October 28. Yet this answer is plainly dated October 25, and Monck, in his reply to it on November 3, mentions the date of Fleetwood's letter. On this point, therefore, Phillips is apparently wrong.

On the receipt of Monok's letter, says Phillips, ‘Fleetwood, Lambert, and Desborough immediately met at Whitehall in much confusion, and about twelve at night they sent Major Haynes to desire Clarges to come to them, who, when he came, after some question of his knowledge of the General's proceedings (to which he made very wary answer), they desired him to go to Scotland with Colonel Talbot (whose regiment was then at Edinburgh), to prevail with Monck for a treaty of mediation, to prevent effusion of blood. They said they chose Talbot to accompany him because he was very grateful to the General. Clarges was very glad of this opportunity to get away (for he feared to be much worse treated), and they were so pressing for his departure that they allowed him but three hours' preparation for his journey.’ Talbot and Clarges arrived at Edinburgh on November 2 (Baker, pp. 685, 688). They started to return to London on November 8 (Clarke MSS. li. 81). Clarges on his way negotiated on Monck's behalf with Fairfax and Colonel Bossiter (Baker, pp. 690–692).

^{page 77 note 1} On October 18 the General Council of Officers, sitting at Wallingford House, declared and owned Fleetwood as Commander-in-Chief of all the land forces of the Commonwealth, with Lambert as Major-General and Desborough as Commissary-General of the Horse. This note, with nine resolutions as to the future government of the army, they sent to Monck on October 19, with a request to procure the subscriptions of the officers under his command. Their letter is printed in Thurloe, vii. 766. I have not found a copy of the resolutions themselves. They must be inferred from the answer.

^{page 82 note 1} In answer to this epistle Monck wrote the letter to ‘ The Congregated Churches in and about London,’ addressed to Owen, Hooke, and Greenhill, and dated Nov. 23, 1659, which is reprinted as No. XII. in Toland's collection of Monck's letters.

^{page 82 note 2} Phillips, after mentioning that Caryll, the minister, Col. Goffe, and Col. Whalley were sent to Monck to endeavour a reconciliation, says: ‘Likewise Mr Hammond and Mr. Barker were deputed in the name of the Independent congre gations in and about London to mediate a peace between the two armies ’ (Baker, p. 690). Gumble, however, while rightly describing Barker and Caryll as the emissaries of the Churches, says that they were accompanied ‘ as intruders’ by Whalley, Goffe, and Mr. Hammond, of Newcastle (Life of Monck, p. 143). Monck held a conference with these emissaries at Holyrood, ‘ where were present to treat with them General Monck, Col. Fairfax, Col. Syler, Doctor Barrow, the Judge-Advocate of the Army, and Mr. Gumble, one of the General's chaplains. At this conference Mr. Collins, an Independent minister (who had been one of the preachers of the late Council in Scotland), was admitted to be present as a neuter.’ Phillips goes on to give a summary of Caryll's speech and of the debate which followed. Gumble gives no details, but seems to dispute the truth of the account given by Phillips (p. 143).

^{page 84 note 1} The letter to Fleetwood is amongst the Clarke MSS. (xxxii. 67–69), but it is not of sufficient interest to print.

^{page 91 note 1} 1 The MS. gives no indication of the person to whom this was addressed. It was perhaps written to John Owen, or, it may be, to Mr. Samuel Hammond, of Newcastle, who appears from his letter of December 17 to have had some previous correspondence with Monck.

^{page 92 note 1} Mr. Houloupp, Monck's messenger. See a letter from Capt. Griffith Lloyd to Monck, printed in the Report on Mr. Leybourne Popham's MSS., p. 125.

^{page 94 note 1} This letter to Monck, with a list of thirty supporters and twenty-nine who opposed it, is printed in Redmayne's Narrative, p. 64.

^{page 95 note 1} A copy of the address referred to in the above letter is amongst the Clarke Papers (xxxii. 121); it is of no great interest, and has been already printed, from a copy amongst the papers of Col. John Jones, in the Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire for 1860–1, p. 265. The address is dated October 16, and contains a vague approval of the doings of the army in England and a promise not to be divided from their brethren there. The signers are Hardress Waller, Thomas Cooper, Peter Wallis, Alexander Brayfield, John Nelson, William Arnop, Joseph Deane, Eichard Lawrence, Daniel Abbott, Henry Pritty, Thomas Sadler, Henry Jones, William Moore, Abel Warren, and Thomas Davies. With it is a letter of October 27 from Jones to Ludlow, announcing the despatch of Col. Barrow and Lieut.-Col. Dobson to England to represent the Irish officers. Monck had written to Ludlow, the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, announcing his resolution of supporting the Parliament, and asking for his adhesion (October 28). The letter arrived during Ludlow's absence, and was answered by Col. Jones and by the officers of the Irish army (Ludlow's Memoirs, ed. 1894, ii. 147, 449). Jones's letter was merely a civil acknowledgment, dated November 4. The letter of the officers in general, signed by Jones himself, Waller, Cooper, Lawrence, Robert Phaire, Nicholas Kempson, and Henry Jones, was a direct negative : ‘ We cannot approve of any resolution of yours, or any other man, which may tend to the engaging of any part of the armies or forces of these nations against their brethren, or to the dividing of them in interest or affection, being well assured that such a practice will be found in the issue to be nothing else but the opening of a door for the common enemy to come in.’ This letter was sent by Major John Barrett, who was given by Jones general instructions to endeavour to prevent a breach. All three letters are printed in the Proceedings of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1860–1, pp. 271–274. The letter of the officers to Monck is also amongst the Clarke MSS. (xxxii. 119). On Barrett's mission see Baker, pp. 690–1. At the same time that Barrett arrived Monck received information from Cornet Monck that Sir Charles Coote, Theophilus Jones, and a large portion of the Irish army would support him, and that it was hoped to gain over Hardress Waller. Monck wrote an answer to the Irish officers, which is dated November 21 (Clarke MSS. xxxii. 130–132). It was printed as a broadside. ‘ A Letter from General Monck to the Commissioners of the Parliament in Ireland ’ (British Museum, King's Pamphlets, 669, f. 22, No. 39). Also in pamphlet form as ‘ A Sober Letter of General Monek's unto the Commander-in-Chief and Officers in Ireland,’ 4to, 1659. The pamphlet is dated Edinburgh, November 27, but the broadside copy of the letter is undated. In the postscript Monck says : ‘ This messenger after some time being in this city, carried himself very indiscreetly, so that I thought fit to confine him to his chamber, which I hope you will not take ill.’

^{page 96 note 1} The same day Monck wrote a letter to Fleetwood acknowledging his of October 25 and 29, and announcing his sending of the three commissioners named above. It is printed under the title of ‘General Monek's last Letter to His Excellency the Lord Fleetwood,’ together with a letter from Talbot and Clarges to Fleetwood dated November 4, announcing the success of their mediation, and one from Col. John Pearson to Fleetwood dated November 5. The two former letters are reprinted in Redmayne's Narrative, pp. 68, 69.

^{page 101 note 1} The A. B. means the Anabaptists, that is, the extremer Independents.

^{page 103 note 1} About November 10 or 11 the Committee of Safety displaced the existing Commissioners for the Management of the Militia and appointed new ones. A list of their names is given in Redmayne's True Narrative, which contains also a list of the officers appointed by them for the six regiments of the London trained bands (pp. 70, 71).

^{page 105 note 1} Here occur in the MS. (Clarke Papers, xxxii. ff. 75-80b) two letters: one from the officers of the English army to Monck and his subordinates, beginning, ‘ Dear Brethren and Fellow Soldiers ’; the other a reply from Monek and the officers in Scotland, beginning, ‘ Dear Brethren and Fellow Soldiers in the Lord, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ In the MS. the answer is dated November 7. Both are printed in a pamphlet called A Letter from the Officers at Whitehall to the Officers under Oenerall Monck in Scotland, with the Answer of General Monck and his Officers thereunto, wherein with plainness and sinceritie they endeavour to set before them the evil of their doings.’ Printed at Edinburgh, by Christopher Higgins, in Hart's Close, over against the Throne Church, and reprinted in London, 1659.

The letter of the English officers was sent by Captain Richard Deane. ‘The pretence of Deane's coming to Scotland,’ says Phillips, ‘was to look after his charge, for he was one of the Treasurers at War; but he privately dispersed tickets as he travelled to seduce Monck's soldiers from him, bringing him withal a letter from Fleetwood which contained an offer of what command in the army he should desire, upon the least private intimation of his inclining to take part with it’ (Baker, p. 690; cf. Price, p. 786.) Monck declined this offer, and felt obliged to send Deane away with a rebuke for his intrigues amongst the soldiers. This Deane was cousin of the Parliamentary admiral, and was a leading man amongst the Baptists. A letter from him concerning that sect, addressed to Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, is printed in Neal's History of the Puritans, iii. 379, ed. 1837.

In the postscript to their letter the English officers add, ‘We hope to hear in your answer to this that all our dear friends, now in bonds, are at liberty.’ Monck and the Scottish officers replied: ‘We intreat you not to put so hard a name upon the necessary and short restraint of our brethren as bonds; we still own them and use them as brethren; their pay is still continued to them, and the restraint put upon them, for their, and your, and our security, and the security of all God's people, we hope will be very short-shorter than either you or we can expect. And take it no ill we acted anything without first sending to you. We acted nothing but what was necessary to our present safety, and immediately sent our letters to you, which, if they came not to your hand, it is not our faults. We have lately sent commissioners, men faithful and approved, whom we hope you will treat as brethren.’

^{page 108 note 1} Almost illegible. I cannot identify the place meant.

^{page 108 note 2} Of the officers named, Pretty, Coulson, and Prime belonged to the regiment of Col. Saunders ; Deane, Beke, and Mynne to that of Col. Twisleton. Monck shortly afterwards gave Knight the command of the first regiment, and Clobery that of the second.

^{page 108 note 3} The Eeport on the MSS. of Mr. Leyborne-Popham contains a letter from Col. Miles Man, at Inverness, to Monck, respecting the signature of this test by the troops under his command (p. 125). Man had succeeded Smith as governor of Inverness (Baker, p. 687).

^{page 108 note 4} The troops in question were apparently four troops of horse and six companies of foot sent by Monck to surprise Berwick about the end of October 1659. That enterpries failing, they were quartered about Alnwiek (Baker, p. 687). Farmer was major of Morgan's regiment of horse, Dennis of the regiment of foot lately under Cobbett's command.

^{page 109 note 1} Compare Whiteloclce's Memorials, iv. 382.

^{page 111 note 1} Compare Gumble's Life of Monck, p. 140.

^{page 113 note 1} Clarke's Papers do not contain any account of the preliminaries of this meeting, nor any of the letters convening it. In the Court Book of the burgh of Banff, however, there appears an entry of a letter from General Monok to the boroughs of Banff and Cullen, which was read on Nov. 7, 1659: ‘ Gentlemen, I desyre yow will be pleased to aggrie amongst your selfes to send ane of your number to meit with me heir at Ed. (?) the fyifteint day of November, because I have ane espeoiall oqcasione to speik with them about gome effairis that concerne the countrye at this tyme, which is all at present from your very loueing freind and servand. Datit at Edr, the 27 October 1659. Subscryvit thus George Monck.’ Accordingly Bobert Sharp, Sheriff Clerk of Banff, was chosen commissioner, with an allowance of three pounds Scots per diem, to cover his expenses.—Annals of Banff, i. 141 (New Spalding Club).

^{page 115 note 1} In Mercurius Politicus, Dec. 8–15, 1659, a correspondent writing from Newcastle gives an abstract of ‘ a Scotish Diurnal, the first that came forth in print in Edinburgh, commencing from Tuesday, November 29, to Saturday, December 3, 1659. Printed by Christopher Higgins, in Hart's Close, over against the Trone Church. The title of it … is the Faithful Intelligencer.’ Monck's letter given above, is printed there, with some changes, and is reproduced with a running commentary by the writer in Mercurius Politicus (p. 935). When the representatives of the shires met at Edinburgh, Monck ‘ in a very few, yet pithy expressions, … delivered the substance of the letter ensuing.’ Consequently this is sometimes described as Monck's speech, sometimes as his letter. Cf. Nicoll's Diary, p. 257 ; Wodrow, History of the Church of Scotland, ed. 1828, i. 60.

^{page 116 note 1} Amongst the MSS. of Lord Kinnaird calendared in the fifth Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission are the following three papers : A Commission appointing George Kinnaird of Eossie and Mr. John Nairne to meet General Monck at Edinburgh on October 10, 1659, to discuss the affairs of the county; a letter to Monck, dated Perth, October 26, on public affairs and on the situation created in Perthshire by Monck's intention to march into England, both with regard to the occupation of the Scottish fortresses and concerning the arming of the Scots; a Commission dated December 3, 1659, appointing Sir George Einnaird to repair to Monck at Berwick as commissioner for the county (p. 621).

^{page 116 note 2} The articles of agreement between Monck's and Fleetwood's commissioners are to be found in Clarke MSS. li. f. 17. They are not printed because they are already in print in Baker's Chronicle (p. 693) and in Toland's Collection of Monck's Letters (No. XIII.). The agreement, which is dated November 15, consisted of nine articles:

1. To oppose Charles Stewart, or anyone claiming in his name a right to the government.

2. To oppose the setting up of any single person, and to endeavour to settle a commonwealth.

3. That no form of government should be set up without the approval of a General Council of officers representing the armies of the three nations and the fleet. Regulations as to the constitution of this Council.

4. A Parliament to be summoned as soon as possible. Qualifications of its members to be determined by the representatives of the armies and certain persons named.

5. The army in Scotland to be paid its proper share of the assessments.

6. Case of officers suspended or dismissed to be determined by fourteen commissioners, chosen half from the army in Scotland and half from that in England.

7. Indemnity for officers, soldiers, and others concerned in the differences which had arisen since October 10.

8. The Ministry and the universities to be countenanced and maintained.

9. Forces on both sides to be drawn back.

^{page 119 note 1} Henry Ogle was in 1655 captain of the Northumberland troop of Militia, and held the same command in 1659 (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 94). Gumble speaks of ‘ Captain Ogle, with his five sons, with the two small Militia troops of Northumberland,’ who assisted Monck from the first (Gumble, p. 194). Price describes the Captain as ‘ an honest old man, zealous for the good old cause ’ (p. 744, ed. Maseres; see also Baker, p. 697). This letter was probably written by one of.the Ogles.

^{page 127 note 1} According to Phillips, Monok was informed of the terms of the agreement, by the industry of Clarges, before the messengers mentioned in Lambert's letter arrived. They reached Edinburgh, says the same authority, the evening before the day on. which the answer of Monck's officers was drawn up—i.e. on the evening of November 23. Of the officers named on p. 125, Cambridge was major of Twisleton's, Griffith Lloyd captain in Fleetwood's horse, and Joseph Wallington captain in Desborough's.

^{page 135 note 1} Monok's letter to the City, which is dated November 12, 1659, is amongst the Clarke MSS. (lii. 16b). It is printed in the Old Parliamentary History (xxii. 46), together with the answer of the City, which was not drawn up or sent till December 29 (cf. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, ii. 357, 363). Both letters were printed at the time: A letter of November 12 from General Monck, directed and delivered to the Lord Mayor, etc., of London, inciting them, and all true Englishmen, to give their assistance for redemption of the almost lost Liberties of England; Two Letters, the one sent by the Lord Mayor, etc., to Gen. Monch ; the other, his Excellency's answer thereunto.

Monck's letter, according to Whitelocke, ‘was not well relished’ by the prevailing party in the Common Council (Memorials, iv. 375; cf. Baker, p. 695). Accordingly the two gentlemen who delivered it were both committed to prison. A letter from Colonel Atkins to William Clarke about his imprisonment is printed in the Report on Mr. Leyborne-Popham's MSS., p. 130. It was alleged that the letter was fictitious, on the ground that Monck made no reference to it in contemporaneous letters to his commissioners; and also that it was disavowed by the said commissioners, partly as inconsistent with the negotiations, and partly on account of the handwriting. ‘The body of the letter was not written in the hand of Mr. Clarke, his usual secretary, as also that the signing “George Monck” differed somewhat from his hand in those other letters, and that the seal appeared not so exact and clear as the other sealings (Mercurius Politicus, November 24-December 1, p. 912). The newspaper, however, made amends in a later number (December 22–29, p. 983), and, mentioning Colonel Markham, added that though Monck's letter ‘was in those days censured, and upon some surmises represented as afiction,time hath since manifested the contrary,’ and its delivery by Atkins and Markham ‘was a real and extraordinary service done for the Parliament in a doubtful time.’ Markham for this and other services was made one of the seven persons appointed by Parliament to command the army till the Parliamentary commissioners should come to London (December 26).

^{page 140 note 1} This letter is neither addressed nor dated. It was evidently written on November 28.

^{page 144 note 1} MS. ‘best.’

^{page 154 note 1} This letter is from a MS. in the Phillips Collection (No. 1013), which was sold in 1898, and ia now in the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh.

^{page 156 note 1} Cambridge was major of Twisleton's regiment of horse, and Mouns (who is also described as Mynn, Mims, or Munns) was lieutenant of his troop. This letter also is from the Phillips MSS.

^{page 157 note 1} In Mercurius Politicus for November 24-December 1, 1659, there is a long list of ‘the officers that have either deserted General Monck, or that upon his declaring, being in England, have refused to return to their charges’ (p. 922).

^{page 157 note 2} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 158 note 1} Oliver Pretty and James Wright both appear in the list of captains in the regiment of Col. Saunders, appointed by Parliament in July 1659 {Gal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 396). Paddon was lieutenant of Wright's troop in that list, but Monck made him captain of a troop in his own regiment (December 27).

^{page 158 note 2} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 159 note 1} Joseph Witter was promoted by Monck from captain to be lieutenant-colonel of the regiment which Parliament had given to Col. John Pearson (late Daniel's regiment). He secured the citadel at Perth for Monck when the latter declared against the army in England, and made Lieut.-Ool. Keane and Major Kelke prisoners (Baker, pp. 686–7). Captain Eichard Williams was discharged, but returned from England, and endeavoured to induce two companies of the regiment quartered at Dunbar to desert, but his plan was detected (ibid. p. 691). Mark Mould had been his lieutenant.

^{page 159 note 2} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 160 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 160 note 2} Yaxley Bobson was a captain in Col. Sawrey's regiment of foot, which waa quartered at Ayr. When Monok declared for the Parliament against the Army he commissioned Eobson to secure the citadel at Ayr. Robson set deliberately to work, and carried out his orders without any recourse to force. ‘He dealt so with the officers that most of them, except the colonel and lieutenant-colonel, agreed to comply with the General.’ Lieut.-Col. Holmes ‘privately got away to Carlisle, and secured that garrison for the army in England.’ (This was the Holmes who fought under Monmouth at Sedgmoor.) Col. Sawrey temporised for a time, but finally he also fled into England. Peter Crispe, the major, seems also to have left. An earlier letter from Eobson is printed in the Eeport on the MSS. of Mr. Leyborne- Popham (p. 127), and there is one from Daniel Jackson, the regimental chaplain, to Speaker Lenthall, in Grey's Examination of Neal's Puritans, iv.. appendix, p. 135. Monok finally made Eobson colonel of the regiment.

^{page 165 note 1} Printed in the Public Intelligencer, Nov. 28-Dec. 5, 1659, p. 919, and dated Deo. 1. Cf. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, ii. 358.

^{page 168 note 1} There is a good account of the riot in some letters written by Samuel Pepys. See an article on ‘The Early Life of Pepys’ in Maemillan's Magazine for November 1893.

^{page 169 note 1} After the fall of Bichard Cromwell, Col. Nathaniel Whetham was appointed Governor of Portsmouth (May 12), a man who had great influence there, having been also governor during the Commonwealth (Ludlow's Memoirs, i. 394, ii. 80). Sir Arthur Haselrig, Col. Walton, and Col. Morley, three of the commissioners in whom Parliament, on October 11, 1659, had vested the government of the army, encouraged by the failure of the treaty between Monck and the English army, entered into correspondence with Whetham, who agreed to receive them and to declare for the restoration of the Long Parliament. On Sunday, December 3, Haselrig and his two colleagues came to Portsmouth, were welcomed by Whetham, seized some dissatisfied officers, and made their declaration (see A Letter from Sir Arthur Haselrig in Portsmouth to an Honourable Member of the late Parliament, 1639, 4to). The three sent letters to the Lord Mayor and the Commissioners of the London Militia demanding their support, and entered into an acrimonious correspondence with Fleetwood (The True Copys of several Letters from Portsmouth directed by Sir Arthur Haselrig, etc., to the Lord Fleetwood, 1 59, 4to; cf. Thurloe, vii. 795). Eobert Wallop, Nicholas Love, and other influential gentlemen joined them, though Col. Bichard Norton refused to do so. Troops were sent down to besiege them; but on December 20 five companies of foot and five troops of horse (the latter belonging to Col. Eich's regiment) went over to the besieged, and the rest of the besieging force submitted (Public Intelligencer December 19–26). Haselrig and his friends then marched to London with a force consisting of about fifteen troops of horse and a regiment of foot. He arrived in London, and took his seat in Parliament on December 29 (Report on the MSS. of the Duke of Portland, i. 689; Commons' Journals, vii. 799; Whitelocke's Memorials, iv. 377–8, 380, 385; Ludlow, ii. 157, 160, 170, 183, 204; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 629 ; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, ii. 301, 303, 309, 317, 320, 331).

^{page 172 note 1} This refers to the suspicious favour which Lambert was just now showing to some of the Koyalists.

^{page 175 note 1} On the same day, probably, Monok sent the undated letter to Fleetwood which is printed at p. 131 of the Eeport on Mr. Leyborne-Popham's MSS. Fleetwood's letter of December 1, to which he there refers, is missing, but the reference to the offer made to Lambert to withdraw his forces seems to show that the two letters to Lambert and Fleetwood were written at the same time.

^{page 179 note 1} On the march to Coldstream and arrival there, see Baker, p. 697; Gumble, p. 161; Price, p. 744.

^{page 180 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 181 note 1} Should probably be signed Mi[chael] Richardson. Richardson was Major of Colonel Mitchell's regiment, and Governor of Aberdeen in 1657 (Thurloe, vi. 145, 162). In the summer of 1659 the oommand of the regiment was transferred to Overton, and Richardson and other officers dismissed (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 177).

^{page 185 note 1} The sense requires: ‘all particular demands centreing in a Parliament.’ A od many words appear to be left out in Clarke's copy of this letter.

^{page 186 note 1} There was a plot to surprise the Tower on December 12, in which Colonel Fitch, the Lieutenant of the Tower, Captain Spooner, and others were concerned. An account of it is given in Mercuriue Politicus, December 8–15, 1659, p. 954.

^{page 188 note 1} Colonel John Fagg was arrested in his own house by Lieut.-Colonel Lagoe. He was raising forces to march to Portsmouth. Mercurius Politicus, December 8–15, p. 946.

^{page 188 note 2} Thurloe, vii. 797.

^{page 188 note 3} Lient.-Colonel Miller?

^{page 188 note 4} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library

^{page 189 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 191 note 1} Phillips, in his continuation of Baker's Chronicle, on the authority of Sir T. Clarges and his papers, prints these five propositions and Monck's answer (p. He omits, however, the stipulation in Clause 1 of Monck's answer, imposing the obligation not to aot in favour of Charles Stuart, and this suppression is obviously made in order to clear Monck's reputation for loyalty. Phillips also gives an excellent acoount of the discussions which took place on the question of arming the Scots. Sea also Guizot, Richard Cromwell, ii. 53, 335, 355 (Scoble's translation) ; Price, p. 739 (ed. Maseres); Gumble, p. 149; Bcrillie Letters, iii. 439; Burnet's Own Time (ed. Airy), i. 152, note.

^{page 193 note 1} The letter to Lambert is eyidently that printed in the Report on Mr. Leyborne-Popham's MSS., p. 133.

^{page 194 note 1} For the ‘seven fundamentals’ and other particulars of the constitution proposed by the Council of Officers, see Mercurius Politicus, December 8–15, pp. 946, 956. The number for December 15–22 contains a declaration against the scheme, published by the Lord Mayor and the Common Council (p. 967). On this constitution see also Ludlow, Memoirs, ii. 171–4.

^{page 195 note 1} The Governor of Stirling was Colonel Thomas Reade.

^{page 197 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 197 note 1} Monck was exceedingly dissatisfied with the conduct of Colonel Timothy Wilkes as a negotiator. When the three commissioners returned from London he confined Colonel Wilkes for discovering, or at least not pursuing, some private instructions ; but after a while Wilkes was released, upon satisfaction that what he did was out of ignoranoe and not malice (Baker, p. 696). On December 15, Thomas Hughes, formerly major, was made colonel in his place.

^{page 198 note 1} Captain William Collinson.

^{page 198 note 2} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 199 note 1} Wilkes, cf. p. 197.

^{page 199 note 2} Captain Richard Clifton, to whom Monck now offered a majority, was Governor of Edinburgh Castle.

^{page 199 note 3} Colonel George Fenwick was colonel of the regiment when it was first raised, and was succeeded by Wilkes about 1656.

^{page 200 note 1} Undated, but doubtless written December 16, 1659. In 1644 Newman was lieutenant in Captain Berry's troop in Cromwell's regiment of horse. In February 1662 he was a prisoner in the Gatehouse, and his wife Susanna petitioned for his release (Somers's Tracts, vii. 530).

^{page 200 note 2} Phillins MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 201 note 1} Burntisland?

^{page 201 note 2} Leith.

^{page 203 note 1} Monck's answer to this letter, dated December 28, is printed later. Waller begins by apologising for his part in the joint letter of the Irish officers, dated November 4 (see ante, p. 95, note). The ‘late action’ mentioned towards the end of the letter was the seizure of Dublin Castle on December 13 by Colonel John Bridges, Major Edward Warren, Captain Abel Warren, and others. These three officers published an account of their enterprise, entitled A perfect Narrative of the grounds and, reasons moving some Officers of the Army in Ireland to the securing the Castle of Dublin for the Parliament, 4to, 1660. (See also Report on the Duke of Portland's MSS. i. 688, and Thomason Tracts, E. 1013, 8.) In Mercurius Politicus for December 22–29, p. 987, the declaration of the officers, dated Dublin Castle, December 14, is printed at length. It begins ‘Whereas by divine permission a new interruption hath been put upon the Parliament.’ The seizure of Dublin Castle was followed by a similar movement in other parts. Munster was secured by Lord Broghil, Connaught by Sir Charles Coote, and Ulster by Colonel Gorges (Ludlow, ii. 185-189). Monck's kinsman, Cornet Henry Monck, was one of the minor actors in the movement (Baker, p. 699). Sir Hardress Waller's connection with it is defined in the Perfect Narrative. He was an accomplice after the event. After securing Dublin Castle, say the authors, ‘it now behoving those thus engaged to put themselves into that order whereby the work in their hands might be carried on (by the blessing of the Lord) more prosperously,’ and, considering the countenance ‘they might have in that matter by the Major-General, if he would own them in it, they thereupon desired his heading them, and that by his hand orders might press upon all occasions, he being the visible superior officer in Ireland, whereunto (they and that undertaking appearing for the Parliament) he assented, he having been some weeks before prepared by a general discourse concerning it’ (p. 9). Waller therefore became the nominal head of the movement. Two letters from Jones to Waller, upbraiding him for his part in it, and one to Colonel Thomlinson on the same subject, dated December 19, 20. and 22, are printed in the Transactions of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, vol. i., New Series, part xiii. 1860–1, pp. 293–7. The three commissioners, Jones, Thomlinson, and Corbet, were all made prisoners by the revolting officers. Moreover, when Ludlow returned to Ireland to take up his command (December 30), Hardress Waller and the officers refused to allow him to land. Their correspondence on the subject is printed in Ludlow's Memoirs, ii. 449, ed. 1894. In a letter of January 16, 1660, Monck joined in the attack on Ludlow (ib. ii. 471).

^{page 205 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 205 note 2} Fife. See A letter from the noblemen, gentlemen, justices, and freeholders of the Shire of Fife to the Lord General Monck, with Monck's answer, dated December 14, printed as a broadside. Bruce is apparently excusing himself for not signing this address.

^{page 206 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 210 note 1} Unton Croke was major of Colonel Berry's regiment. The declaration published by his troops at their rendezvous at Warminster is printed in Mercurius Politicus, December 29–January 5, p. 996. On Croke, see Ludlow, ii. 170 ; Sir A. Croke's Genealogical History of the Family of Croke, i. 525–48.

^{page 211 note 1} See Ludlow, Memoirs, ii. 174.

^{page 211 note 2} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 211 note 3} A letter from Warriston to Sir James Stewart, dated December 10, is printed in the Report on Mr. Leyborne-Popham's MSS., p. 132. Perhaps this was the letter sent by Major Cambridge.

^{page 216 note 1} At first the fleet seemed inclined to support Lambert and Fleetwood against Monck and the supporters of the Parliament. A number of the officers of the navy, including Bichard Stainer, William Goodson, and other notable men, wrote a letter to Monck, dated November 4, condemning his proceedings, and urging him to come to an agreement with the leaders of the English army. This is printed in Whitelocke's Memorials, iv. 370. Monck's answer to this letter, but without a date, is No. 14 of Toland's collection of Monck's letters. It is direoted to Vice-Admiral Goodson.

Like the army, however, the fleet was divided, and on December 13 Vice-Admiral Lawson and the officers of the fleet in the Powns published a declaration in favour of the restoration of the Long Parliament. It is printed in Mereurius Politicus for December 22–29, p. 975. Two letters from Lawson to the City, dated December 13 and 21, are printed in the Public Intelligencer, p. 967. Ludlow gives a good account of the revolt of the fleet, and the negotiations whioh took place between its officers and the representatives of the army (Memoirs, ii. pp. 176, 180). There is also a contemporary Narrative of the Proceedings of the Fleet contained in a letter from M. H. (i.e. Captain Mark Harrison of the ‘Elias’), which is reprinted in Penn's Memorials of Sir William Penn, ii. 186.

^{page 217 note 1} The letter from Lenthall to Monck, said to be enclosed, is not amongst the Clarke MSS. Monck's answer to it, dated ‘Coldstream, Deo. 29,’ is printed in the Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 39, and is No. 15 in Toland's collection.

^{page 220 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 222 note 1} Major Davison died in prison at York in 1665, haying been arrested on suspicion of plotting against the government of Charles II. (Memoirs of Sir Henry Slingsby and Captain John Hodgson, ed. 1806, p. 196.) He was major of the foot regiment of Colonel Charles Fairfax.

^{page 222 note 2} The address given is purely conjectural.

^{page 223 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 224 note 1} Undated ; written probably about December 27.

^{page 226 note 1} According to Gumble six troops under Colonel Theophilus Jones were accordingly drawn down into Ulster for embarkation, but not actually sent. Campbell arrived soon after Monck reached Coldstream (on his mission, see Gumble, p. 182; Baker, p. 699). Monek also sent Sir Joseph Douglas to engage Sir Charles Coote to declare for a free Parliament (Price, p. 751), and about the same time Captain Cuffe was sent by Lord Broghil to Monck (Baker, p. 703). Monck distrusted Waller in spite of his protestations, and let Lord Broghil know it (Warner, Epistolary Curiosities, i. 53).

^{page 228 note 1} See Monok's letter to Lenthall of December 29.

^{page 229 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advoeates' Library,

^{page 229 note 2} Robert Rede.

^{page 230 note 1} A tide-waiter, employed in the Customs?

^{page 231 note 1} Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 233 note 1} So described in the endorsement. From the Phillips MSS. in the Advocates' Library.

^{page 237 note 1} Since the letter of December 28, printed on p. 225.

^{page 239 note 1} Monok entered Newcastle on January 5 (Kennet, p. 18), and wrote from thence a letter to the Speaker, dated January 6, and sent by Gumble, which was read in the House on January 12 (Commons' Journals, vii. 808 ; cf. Gumble, 204, 207, pp. 209–220). There is no copy of the letter amongst the Clarke MSS., and it does not appear to have been printed anywhere. But he also sent by Gumble a reply to the letter sent from the Lord Mayor on December 29, which is in print (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 50 ; Toland, No. xvii.).

^{page 239 note 2} On the doings of Fairfax and his occupation of York, see Kennet's Register, pp. 6, 13; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 295 ; Mercurius Politlcvs, Jan. 5–12, p. 1011; letter of Fairfax, Cholmley, and Arthington, January 1.

^{page 240 note 1} There is perhaps a mistake in the date of the above letter. In Commons' Journals, vii. 805, a letter from General Monck at Wooller is mentioned as read in the House on January 9, and said to be dated January 3.

^{page 242 note 1} Ludlow's Memoirs, ed. 1894, ii. 451.

^{page 242 note 2} Ib. ii. 464–471.

^{page 242 note 3} Monok's opinion of Ludlow was in agreement with that expressed by the officers. See his letter to the Speaker from Ferrybridge on January 16 (ib. ii. 471).

^{page 243 note 1} ? Sol. Cambie. See Ludlow's Memoirs, ii. 455.

^{page 243 note 2} Monck reached York on October 11, and stayed there till October 16. In a letter written to the Speaker from York on January 12 he acquaints him with his arrangements respecting the troops he found at York, and others in the North of England. There is no copy of this amongst the Clarke MSS.; but it is printed at length in Grey's Answer to Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. iv., Appendix, p. 161. A letter from Lenthall, dated January 7, reached Monck at York, ordering him to come to London. His answer, dated January 16, is printed in the same work (p. 163). See also Report on the Duke of Portland's MSS. i. 694.

^{page 244 note 1} Overton had been reinstated by the restored Long Parliament, and his imprisonment by the Protector declared unjust (Commons' Journals, vii. 688, 738). He was made commander of a regiment of foot, eight companies of which were still in Scotland when Monck declared against the Parliament (Baker, pp. 685, 687; MSS. of Mr. Leyborne-Popham, pp. 122, 127; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 45). Overton and the officers at Hull refused to support the representation and petition of the army, of October S. Their answer, dated October 11, is printed in Redmayne's True Narrative, p. 16, and was now forwarded by Overton to Monck (Clarke MSS. xxxii. 46). On October 11, 1659, Parliament appointed Overton one of the seven commissioners for the government of the army and he thus became Monck's colleague. Consequently Monck, when he declared against Fleetwood and Lambert, wrote to Overton for support, at the same time that he wrote to Ludlow (Clarke MSS. xxxii. 44 ; cf. Ludlow, Memoirs, ed. 1894, ii. 449). To this Overton seems to have returned no answer, remaining ostentatiously neutral, and criticising the action of both parties to the quarrel. He published, about November 1659, a tract called The humble and healing Advice of Col. Robert Overton to Charles Lord Fleetwood and General Monk. Addressing Monck and the Scottish officers, he says, ‘ I am very much afraid that in this matter you are under a bad influence, though you have a plausible pretence ; and although 1 wish and shall press after a right understanding betwixt you and the army in England, yet in this your undertaking I cannot bid you good speed.’

^{page 245 note 1} The printed version of this pamphlet reads ‘ obedience.’ King's Pamphlets, E. 1013, 21.

^{page 246 note 1} The printed version has ‘ overleaping.’

^{page 247 note 1} The four regiments of foot numbered about 4,000 men ; the three regiments of horse about 1,800: total, 5,800. The regiments of horse were those of Monck himself, of Knight (late Saunders's), and of Clobery (late Twisletofl's). The regiments of foot were those of Monok, Read, Hubblethorn (late Talbot's), and Lydcott (late Cobbett's) (Baker, p. 701; Price, p. 758).

^{page 248 note 1} Monck left Colonel Charles Fairfax's regiment at York. He sent back to Scotland Major-General Morgan's regiment of horse and Morgan's regiment of foot (late Daniel's). He also ordered that Colonel Sam Clarke's regiment of foot, one of those which had returned from Flanders In the previous August, should set out for Scotland, but its march was delayed by want of money (Baker, p. 700; Gumble, pp. 188, 221; Grey, Answer to Need, iv., Appendix p, 163; Cal. State Papers, Doin. 1659–60, pp. 121, 322, 353).

^{page 248 note 1} On January 12, 1660, the House voted Gnmble 100l.; on January 26 it recommended him to the Provost and Fellows of Eton for the first Fellowship which should fall vacant (Commons' Journals, vii. 808, 823). Two letters from Monck, dated January 21, were read in the House on January 26—probably this letter and that to St. John or Weaver.

^{page 250 note 1} Weaver had, during the usurpation of the government by the army, played a prominent part in the opposition. He took part with Cooper, Berners, and Scot in an unsuccessful attempt to seize the Tower for the Parliament (Thurloe, vii. 797). He helped to secure it on December 24, when the Parliament was restored, and it was committed to the custody of himself and his three colleagues on December 26 (Mercurius Politicus, December 22–29, pp. 978, 984). He was one of the Council of State elected on December 31, 1659, and signalised himself in it by his opposition to the proposed oath abjuring Charles Stuart (Baker, p. 700; Commons' Journals, vii. 797, 799, 800).

^{page 251 note 1} The Irish Brigade consisted of the forces sent over from Ireland in August 1659, to help in the suppression of Booth's rising. They consisted of 1,000 foot and 500 horse under Colonel Zanchey and Colonel Axtell. Zanchey cast in his lot with Lambert and Fleetwood, but most of the officers of the brigade were zealous for the Parliament (Ludlow, Memoirs, ii. 110, 118,127, 130, 153, 162, 203). Major Godfrey and the cavalry of the Irish Brigade helped Fairfax to secure York (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, 288, 293, 300 ; Mercurius Politicus, Dec. 29-Jan. 5, p. 1003); MSS. of Mr. Leyborne-Popham, p. 140).

^{page 251 note 2} See Scot's letter to Monck (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 310).

^{page 252 note 3} Colonel Redman and Lieut.-Colonel Brett arrived to take command of the Irish Brigade on December 31, but, according to Major Godfrey, were generally regarded with some distrust, as being formerly ‘ such great sticklers for a Protector’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 294). Both had been cashiered for that reason in July 1659 (ibid. p. 12; Ludlow, ii. 203). Redman was already in communication with the agents of Charles II., and was knighted after the Restoraion.

^{page 253 note 1} Colonel Hugh Bethell commanded a regiment of horse in the army of the Northern Association in 1645, and was badly wounded at the battle of Rowton Heath in September 1645. He again commanded a regiment of Yorkshire horse during the year 1648.

^{page 253 note 2} Colonel Bethell.

^{page 254 note 1} On Colonel Saunders and Major Barton, see Monck's letter of December 29 (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 41; Commons' Journals, vii. 804; Grey, Answer to Neal's Puritans, iv., Appendix p. 137).

^{page 254 note 2} Commons' Journals, vii. 808.

^{page 254 note 3} Scot and Eobinson met Monck on the road between Leicester and Nottingham on January 23. See Gumble, p. 226 ; Baker, p. 702 ; Price, p. 754.

^{page 256 note 1} See p. 137, ante.

^{page 257 note 2} The members of the Council of State appointed on May 19, 1659, continued to meet after the expulsion of the Long Parliament by Lambert on October 11, and the foroible interruption of their own meetings by the soldiers (Ludlow, Memoirs, ii. 83). Nine of them met in London on November 19 and sent a letter of encouragement to Monck, which is reprinted in Baker's Chronicle, p. 695. Phillips mentions this commission, and says that it was left in the hands of Clarges till a safe messenger could be found. Clarges had rejoined Monck at Nottingham (ibid. p. 701; Clarke MSS. lii. 50). The commission was approved on January 26, when this letter was read in Parliament (Commons’ Journals, vii. 823).

^{page 258 note 1} The lists of the officers commissioned by Monck are contained in vol. LII, of the Clarke MSS., but would require too much space to print here.

^{page 258 note 2} Monck's answer to the Devonshire declaration, which is dated Leicester, January 21, is printed in the Old Parliamentary History (xxii. 68), and is No. xviii. in Toland's collection of his letters. For criticisms on Monck's answer see Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, pp. 330, 345; Ludlow, Memoirs, ii. 208. The Devonshire declaration is reprinted in Kennet's Register, p. 20. Its publication and presentation by Sir Copleston Bampfield led to Bampfield's arrest, but other counties promptly followed the example of Devon (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 674, 679, 682; Commons' Journals, vii. 836, 847); cf. the Berkshire declaration, Mercurius Politicus, Jan. 26-Feb. 2, and those of Suffolk, Norfolk, and Bucks in the same number. All demanded the readmission of the secluded members.

^{page 260 note 1} William Morice, knighted and made Secretary of State after the Restoration, is described by Clarendon as allied to Monck, ‘and entirely trusted by him in the managing of his estate in that county’ (Rebellion, xvi. 162).

^{page 260 note 2} Monck's answer to this letter is printed in the Clarendon State Papers, iii. 678.

^{page 262 note 1} Monck was sent into the City on Thursday, February 9, with orders to arrest certain persons, to take down the gates and portcullises, and to take away the posts and chains which had been put up for the defence of the City (Commons’ Journals., vii. 837). His letter to the Council of State, of the same date, giving an account of his fulfilment of part of his orders and of his reasons for not fulfilling the rest, is printed in the Old Parliamentary History (xxii. 92), and is No. 22 in Toland's collection. Parliament thereon ordered him to complete his task, and on Friday, the 10th, he did so, returning again that night to Whitehall. On the morning of Saturday 11th, Monck sent a long letter to the Speaker, from Whitehall, signed by himself and his officers, in which he demanded the issue of writs for new elections, &c and manifested openly his opposition to the policy of the prevailing party in the House (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 98; Toland, No. 23). After sending the letter, he marched again into the City (Baker, pp. 706–709).

On February 12 the Council of State wrote to Monck, complaining of ‘the tumultuous assemblies and outrageous disorders’ which had taken place the previous night, and inviting him to return to Whitehall (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1658–59, p. 358). He returned the answer printed above. Their reply, dated February 13, is also calendared amongst the State Papers (p. 360). Monck's rejoinder is amongst the Clarke Papers.

^{page 263 note 1} Further letters from the Council of State to Monck between February 15 and February 20 are to be found in the Calendar of State Papers, 1659–60, pp. 365, 367, 370, 372.

^{page 264 note 1} For accounts of this conference see Kennet's Register, p. 61; Gumble, p. 260; Baker, pp. 709, 710; Christie, Life of Shaftesbury, i. 212; Ludlow, ii. 228. See also cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, p. 372. A second meeting took place on Saturday, February 18.

^{page 265 note 1} The letter from Hull is given in an abridged form in Bakery's Chronicle, p. 713, and in the Report on Mr. Leyborne-Popham's MSS., p. 163. Orerton's explanatory letter, dated March 6, is in the same report, p. 170.

^{page 265 note 1} On receipt of this account of Overton's proceedings, Monck sent Major Jeremiah Smith and Colonel Alured to Overton to explain the state of affairs, with letters from himself and from the Council of State. ‘The General having a design to remove Overton,’ Smith was instructed ‘privately to deal with some officers and soldiers under him who loved him not, to bring him to reason, if upon orders for his remove he should be disobedient to them’ (Baker, p. 713). They arrived at Hull on March 7, and found Overton more amenable to reason than they expected. An extract from the letter of the two emissaries to General Monck, and copies of Overton's letters to Monck and to the Council of State, are printed in Mercurius Politicus, March 8–15, pp. 1163–65.

Monck simultaneously appointed Colonel Fairfax Governor of Hull, and sent him to Beverley with a small force, giving him also a letter to Overton, in which Overton was ordered to repair to London within twenty-four hours after its receipt. This letter is printed at length in Baker's Chronicle (p. 712). Overton obeyed: Fairfax was in possession of Hull by March 12, and its late Governor arrived in London on the 18th or 19th of March (Mercuritis Politicus, pp. 1174, 1190; see also Price, p. 778; Gumble, p. 267 ; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1659–60, pp. 381, 388).

^{page 266 note 1} Apparently the proclamation for preventing tumults and disturbances, dated March 17. It offered a reward of ten pounds for the arrest of any person trying to debauch the soldiers. It is printed at length in Mercurius Politicus, March 22–29, p. 1198. The result was an address from the Army, embodying an engagement not to take part in any meetings for contriving declarations, &c. relating to affairs of State. This is printed in Baker, p. 719.

^{page 268 note 1} Egerton MS. 2618, f. 71. This is from the portion of the Clarke Papers Bold to the British Museum by Mr. Leyborne-Popham.

Article contents

The Clarke Papers

Abstract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests