Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:47:05.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A History of the Presbyterian Party from Pride's Purge to the Dissolution of the Long Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Leland H. Carlson
Leland H. Carlson
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The period of the Civil Wars and the Commonwealth marked a turning point in the development of the English people. With the insight that comes from historical perspective, we can see that the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689, the accession of a new dynasty in 1714, the American Revolution of 1776, and even the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, were to a considerable degree influenced by the significant events of the period 1640–1660.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1942 , pp. 83 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1942

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

1 Price, John, Clerico-Classicum, or The Clergy Alarum to a Third War (London, 1648), 48.Google Scholar

2 Nedham, Marchamont, The Case of the Commonwealth of England Stated (London, [1650]), 63.Google Scholar

3 Price, , Clerico-Classicum, 7.Google Scholar

4 Hutchinson, Lucy, Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, ed. Firth, C. H. (rev. ed.; London, 1885), II, 155 f.Google Scholar

5 Rushworth, John, Historical Collections (London, 1721–1722), VII, 1378.Google ScholarGreat Britain, Journals of the House of Commons (London, 1803–[1885]), VI, 107.Google Scholar Cited hereafter as C. J.

6 In the five years after 1648 the Independent clergymen monopolized the appointments to preach before the assembled Parliamentary members in St. Margaret's, Westminster. Denis Bond, William Bridge, Joseph Caryl, Thomas Goodwin, William Greenhill, Philip Nye, John Owen, Hugh Peters, Peter Sterry, and William Strong were frequently invited to speak. Stephen Marshall, who had forsaken the Presbyterian ranks, preached before the Parliament on November 1, 1649. But well-known Presbyterians were not included on the appointment lists (C. J., VI, 251, 287, 301, 318, 374, 423, 447, 480, 491, 549).Google Scholar

7 Great Britain, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1649–1650, I, ed. Green, Mary A. E. (London, 1875), 19–27.Google Scholar Cited hereafter as Cal. St. Pap., Dom. Ser.

8 C. J., VI, 157.Google Scholar

9 Cawton, Thomas Jr., The Life and Death of That Holy and Reverend Man of God, Mr. Thomas Cawton (London, 1662)Google Scholar, passim; C. J., VI, 278.Google Scholar

10 C. J., VI, 175.Google Scholar

11 A Book Without a Title (London, 1649), 7.Google Scholar

12 C. J., VI, 257.Google Scholar Very likely it was this legislation which the Scottish ministers had in mind when they accused Cromwell of persecuting the English clergy. To this charge Cromwell replied: “The ministers of England are supported, and have liberty to preach the gospel, though not to rail, nor under pretense thereof to over-top the civil power, or debase it as they please. No man hath been troubled in England or Ireland for preaching the gospel; nor has any minister been molested in Scotland since the coming of the Army hither” (Several Letters and Passages between His Excellency, the Lord General Cromwell and the Governor of Edinburgh Castle and the Ministers There [London, 1650], 4 f.).Google Scholar

13 Cal. St. Pap., Dom. Ser., 1650, II, 24, 214.Google Scholar

14 Baxter, Richard, Reliquiae Baxterianae: or, Mr. Richard Baxter's Narrative of the Most Memorable Passages of Sis Life and Times, ed. Sylvester, Matthew (London, 1696), 66.Google Scholar

15 G. J., VI, 436 f.Google ScholarCal. St. Pap., Dom. Ser. 1650, II, 231.Google Scholar

16 Great Britain, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Thirteenth Report, Appendix, Part I, The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Portland, Preserved at Welbeck Abbey (London, 1893), I, 587.Google Scholar He was ordered to keep at least twenty miles from London.

17 C. J., VI, 468.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., 485.

19 Ibid., 485.

20 The Council of State had to act circumspectly. A flagrant violation, such as Cawton's prayer for Charles II, was considered treason and could be punished, but the non-observance of a thanksgiving day was an offense not easy to judge. Loyalty and sympathy were virtues difficult to evoke by punitive measures. The Council knew that the ministers had a strong popular following. It knew also that the clergy could and did “observe” the parliamentary order in some fashion—though what a fashion! Moreover, the government, which theoretically stood for toleration, was sensitive about the accusation of violating tender consciences.

If the Presbyterians could not rejoice in Cromwell's success at Dunbar, much less could they observe the “crowning mercy” manifested to the Parliamentary forces in their victory over the Scots at Worcester on September 3, 1651. But the correct way to celebrate such a deliverance from the “northern presbytery” was demonstrated by the Independent clergyman, Peter Sterry, while preaching before the Parliament on its thanksgiving day, November 5, 1651. Utilizing the occasion to denounce those who opposed the providences of God, Sterry particularly stigmatized the Presbyterians with coarse comparisons: “I have desired in my preaching, in my Prayers, to work with God even for the opening of the eyes of men to see, that the same Spirit which lay in the polluted bed of Papacy may meet them in the perfumed Bed of Presbytery, that the fornications and sorceries of this Whore, are then greatest when they are most mysterious.” (Sterry, Peter, England's Deliverance from the Northern Presbytery Compared with Its Deliverance from the Roman Papacy [London, 1652], Dedicatory Epistle.)Google Scholar

21 An estimate based on the names of offending ministers, listed principally in the C. J. and the Cal. St. Pap., Dom. Ser.

22 The Oxford Book of Seventeenth Century Verse, eds. Grierson, H. J. C. and Bullough, G. (Oxford, 1934), 504.Google Scholar Of course, the Presbyterians would make their own identification of the “new foes” and the “hireling wolves.”

23 British Museum, Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers, and Manuscripts Relating to the Civil War, the Commonwealth, and Restoration, Collected by George Thomason, ed. Fortescue, G. K. (London, 1908), I, xxi.Google Scholar These tracts constitute one of the best collections of source material for the period.

24 passim.

25 Issued just three days before the beheading of Charles I.

26 This conference pertained especially to the topic of toleration. The reasons advanced by the Presbyterians for their non-attendance were given in order to meet strong criticism of their action.

27 An Answer to the Cities Representation (London, 1648)Google Scholar, passim. The writer is using the argument advanced in Acts 5:38–39.

28 An Eye Salve to Anoint the Eyes of the Ministers of the Province of London (London, 1649), 4 f.Google Scholar

29 Price, John, Clerico-Classicum, or the Clergy Alarum to a Third War (London, 1649), 14 f., 56 f.Google Scholar

30 The Armies Remembrancer (London, 1649), 31 f.Google Scholar

31 The City Ministers Unmasked (London, 1649), 9Google Scholaret passim. Both sides appealed to the salus populi as the lex suprema. But neither side clarified what that salus populi actually was; the assumption of both parties seemed to be that salus meant deliverance from the other party and that populus meant that group of people sympathizing with the respective party viewpoint.

32 Harford, Rapha, A Gospel Engine, or Streams of Love and Pity to Prevent New Flames in England (London, 1649), 4.Google Scholar

33 Ibid., 7. The story of building the new walls of Jerusalem is given in Nehemiah 4.

34 As early as January 5, 1649, Parliament had issued an Ordinance directing General Fairfax to seize all unlicensed presses and to make diligent search for scandalous pamphlets (A Warrant of the Lord General Fairfax to the Marshal General of the Army [London, 1649], 3, 5).Google Scholar

35 Price, , Clerico-Classicum, 4.Google Scholar

36 That is, objectionable because Presbyterian.

37 Strongly anti-army in tone.

38 Probably written by several authors, this pamphlet was subscribed by sixty-three ministers.

39 Great Britain, Journals of the House of Commons (London, 1803–1885), VI, 166.Google Scholar In July, 1649, a book was published, entitled, The Confession of Faith, and Catechisms Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at West-minster: together with Their Humille Advice Concerning Church Government and Ordination of Ministers, which carried the imprimatur of James Cranford. Since any publication of the Westminster Assembly of Divines required the official approval of Parliament, the House of Commons directed the Committee for Plundered Ministers to ascertain if and when Cranford had licensed the book, and if he was not culpable, to determine what person, if any, had given permission to the printer, Robert Bostock (C. J., VI, 275).Google Scholar

40 Although the pamphlet appeared anonymously and was written in the third person, the authorship of Love was obvious.

41 [Love, Christopher], A Modest Vindication of the Late Vindication of the Pamphlet Entitled Clerico-Classicum (London, 1649), 19–20.Google Scholar

42 An Illumination to Sion College (London, 1649), 32.Google Scholar

43 Great Britain, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1649–1650, ed. Green, Mary A. E. (London, 1875), I, 127.Google Scholar

44 C. J., VI, 214.Google Scholar

45 T. B., Logoi Apologetikoi; Four Apologicall Tracts (London, 1649)Google Scholar, passim.

46 C. J., VI, 312.Google Scholar By November 13, as a result of diligent investigation by the Council, Clement Walker was apprehended, and Parliament ordered him committed to the Tower (Ibid., 322). Walker was one of the members who had been excluded from the House of Commons by Colonel Pride and kept in prison thereafter for several weeks. It is difficult to classify him religiously, since he professed to be a member of no party, but if we accept Richard Baxter's negative definition of a Presbyterian as one who was not an Episcopalian, an Independent, or a sectary, then Walker may be termed a nominal Presbyterian with Erastian tendencies.

47 Great Britain, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660 eds. Firth, C. R. and Rait, R. S. (London, 1911), II, 245–54.Google Scholar

48 Cal. St. Pap., Dom. Ser., 1649–1650, I, 522–24.Google Scholar

49 Great Britain, Journals of the House of Lords (London, n. d.), X, 461.Google Scholar

50 Baillie, Robert, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, 1637–1662, ed. Laing, David for the Bannatyne Club (Edinburgh, 1841–1842), II, 147.Google Scholar

51 Geree, John, Katadunamis: Might Overcoming Right (London, 1649), 1.Google Scholar

52 The Harmonious Consent of the Ministers within the County Palatine of Lancaster with Their Brethren the Ministers of the Province of London, in Their Late Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ and to Our Solemn League and Covenant; as also of the Errors, Heresies, and Blasphemies of Those Times and the Toleration of Them (London, 1648)Google Scholar. Quoted from Drysdale, A. H., History of the Presbyterians in England; Their Rise, Decline, and Revival (London, 1889), 352 n.Google Scholar

This statement should be compared with the idealistic declaration made by Robert Baillie, who was reputed to be as strait-laced as any among the rigid Scotch Presbyterians: “But if once the government of Christ [Presbyterianism] were get up among us, we know not what would impede it, by the sword of God alone without any secular violence, to banish out of the land those spirits of error, in all meekness, humility, and love, by the force of truth convincing and satisfying the minds of the seduced. Episcopal courts were never fitted for the reclaiming of minds. Their prisons, their fines, their pillories, their nose-slittings, ear-droppings, and cheek-burnings did not hold down the flame, to break out in season with the greater rage. But the reformed Presbytery doth proceed in a spiritual method eminently fitted for the gaining of hearts; they go on with the offending party with all respect; they deal with him in all gentleness from weeks to months, from months sometimes to years, before they come near to any censure” (Baillie, Robert, Dissuasive from the Errors of the Times [London, 1645], 7).Google Scholar

53 Clarke, William, The Clarice Papers, ed. Firth, C. H. (“Camden Society: New Series,” Vol. LIV; London, 1891–1901), II, 71–132Google Scholar. See also Wood-house, A. S. P., Puritanism and Liberty (London: J. M. Dent & Sons 1938), 32 f.Google Scholar

54 The twofold purpose of this pamphlet was to protest against the trial of Charles I, and to answer the charges of the army.

55 A Serious and Faithful Representation of the Judgments of Ministers of the Gospel within the Province of London, (London, 1649), pp. 1–3Google Scholar. Cf. [Love, Christopher], A Modest and Clear Vindication of the Serious Representation and Late Vindication of the Ministers of London (London, 1649), 10 f.Google Scholar

56 Cobbett, William, Parliamentary History of England (London, 1806–1820), III, 1261 f., 1267–77.Google Scholar

57 Ibid., p. 1276. In order to make it appear that concessions were not being made to Catholics and Episcopalians, the army Council included the elastic clause: “It is not intended to be hereby provided that this liberty shall necessarily extend to popery or prelacy” (Ibid., 1276).

58 A Vindication of the Ministers of the Gospel in and about London, from the Unjust Aspersions Cast upon Their Former Actings for the Parliament, with a Short Exhortation to the People to Keep Close to Their Covenant Engagement (London, 1648), passim.Google Scholar

59 Ashurst, William, Reasons Against Agreement with a Late Printed Paper, Intituled, Foundations of Freedom: or, The Agreement of the People (London, 1648), 28.Google Scholar

60 Ibid., 12.

61 There were forty-seven ministers who subscribed The Serious and Faithful Representation.

62 A Parallel Between the Ministerial Ingenuity of the Forty-Seven London Ministers and the Foul Miscarriages of the Army, in Their Declarations and Covenants-Breaking (London, 1649), 4.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., 38.

64 The Priests' Patent Cancelled, or, the Layman's Answer to the Priests' Objections (London, 1649).Google Scholar

65 Ibid., 1 f.

66 Ibid., 9. Hartley's opinion on ordination and on the proper criterion for the selection of ministerial candidates should be contrasted, however, with the comments made by John Gauden in 1659, after observing for ten years the new process of selecting men for the ministry: “Grave and godly bishops, with their learned presbyters, must be set aside as broken vessels, that they may set up, by popular and plebian suffrages, some miserable mechanics, some engines, some pitiful praters and parasites of the vulgar, who have had no higher breeding or degree in Church or State than that of poor trades men …; their shop hath been their school, their hammers or shuttles or needles have been their books. At last, coachmen, footmen, ostlers, and grooms despair not to become preachers, by a rare and sudden metamorphosis, coming from the office of nibbing horses' heels to take care of men's souls” (Ecclesiae Anglicanae Suspiria. The Tears, Sighs, Complaints, and Prayers of the Church of England [London, 1659], 165).Google Scholar

67 The Essex Watchmen's Watchword to the Inhabitants of the Said County (London, 1648), 11 f.Google Scholar

68 In May, 1649, a Presbyterian writer, one T. B., published his Logoi Apologetikoi: Four Apologicall Tracts (London, 1649)Google Scholar, wherein he denounced the army position and vindicated the attitude of his own party. There is nothing significantly new in his writing so far as the subject of toleration is concerned.

69 Mercurius Pragmaticus, May 29 to 06 5, 1649.Google Scholar

70 Richard Browne, John Clotworthy, Lionel Copley, William Lewis, and William Waller. The suggestion that the prisoners might secure their liberty proved to be chimerical (Walker, Clement, Anarchia Anglicana, Part II [London, 1661], 157).Google Scholar

71 Great Britain, Journals of the House of Commons (London, 1803–[1885]), VI, 278.Google Scholar

72 Ibid., 300.

73 The Declaration is printed in full in Cobbett, , Parliamentary History of England, III, 1319–1334.Google Scholar

74 A Declaration of the Parliament of England in Vindication of Their Proceedings, and Discovering the Dangerous Practices of Several Interests against the Present Government and Peace of the Commonwealth, in Cobbett, , Parliamentary History of England.Google Scholar

75 Vindication of the Presbyterial Government and Ministry (London, 1649)Google Scholar, passim, quoted from Drysdale, , History of the Presbyterians, 353 f.Google Scholar

76 Cf. The City Ministers Vnmasked (London, 1649), 20 f.Google Scholar

77 A Presbyterian, and the probable author of the Serious and Faithful Representation.

78 Baxter MSS, III, 39, in Dr. Williams' Library; quoted from Drysdale, , History of the Presbyterians, 366 n.Google Scholar

79 Spedding, James, Life and Letters of Lord Bacon (London, 1868–1890), III, 103.Google Scholar

80 Great Britain, Journals of the House of Commons (London, 1803–[1885]), V, 283Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as C. J.

81 Ibid., 315 f.

82 A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783, ed. Howell, T. B. (London, 1816–1826), V, 67Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as State Trials.

83 Great Britain, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660, eds. Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S. (London, 1911), II, 193, 365, 407.Google Scholar

84 State Trials, V, 73.Google Scholar

85 The background causes were the victories of Cromwell in 1644 and 1645, the increased army participation in governmental affairs after 1646, the Scottish fiasco in August of 1648, Pride's Purge in December of the same year, and the execution of Charles I in January, 1649.

86 Baillie, Robert, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, 1637–1662, ed. Laing, David for the Bannatyne Club (Edinburgh, 1841–1842), III, 458.Google Scholar

87 State Trials, V, 67, 83.Google Scholar

88 Cobbett, , Parliamentary History of England, III, 839, 840, 874, 877, 881Google Scholar. C. J., V, 315 fGoogle Scholar. Great Britain, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles I, 1645–1647, ed. Hamilton, W. D. (London, 1891), 600.Google Scholar

89 Hillier, George, A Narrative of the Attempted Escapes of Charles the First from Carisbrooke Castle (London, 1852), 106–109, 121 fGoogle Scholar. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Thirteenth Report, Appendix, Part I, The Manuscripts of his Grace the Duke of Portland (London, 1891), I, 589Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Portland Manuscripts. Whitelock, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs from the Beginning of the Reign of Charles the First to the Happy Restoration of King Charles the Second (Oxford, 1853), II, 413.Google Scholar

90 Baillie, , Letters and Journals, III, 66, 458.Google Scholar

91 State Trials, V, 124Google Scholar; C. J., V, 317, 323.Google Scholar

92 State Trials, V, 89, 93, 121.Google Scholar

93 Ibid., passim.

94 Francis Lord Willoughby had been a Presbyterian leader in the House of Lords up to 1648. Colonel Richard Graves had been the keeper of Charles I at Holmby House at the time that he was seized by Cornet Joyce and the army in June, 1647.

95 State Trials, V, 98, 183, 185.Google Scholar

96 Ibid., 98. It seems probable that the holding of meetings at the “Swan,” at the “White Hart,” and at the “Bear” was a policy of caution to escape the watchful eye of the government. Throughout the two years of plotting, rotation of meeting places was the rule. The only exception to this generalization were the several meetings held in the lower room of Christopher Love's home, at a later time when the conspirators could feel more certain of the truthworthiness and zeal of the participants.

97 Were it possible to discover the names of these persons of honor, information might be obtained concerning parliamentary members and noblemen. The names of the Earls of Manchester, Suffolk, and Warwick are mentioned in Love's trial as persons fit to command when the Scots should invade England (State Trials, V, 118)Google Scholar. But no convincing evidence seems to be extant to prove their direct complicity.

98 ibid., 67. The current negotiations between Charles II and the Scots were far from successful because of the rigid demands of the latter. (The Acts of the Parliament of Scotland During the Commonwealth [Edinburgh, 1872], VI, Part II, 727–32.)Google Scholar Charles and his advisers hoped that the English would collaborate in moderating these demands. At least the effort could be made.

99 State Trials, V, 78Google Scholar. William Drake was most likely the man to whom the letters were delivered (Ibid., 92).

100 Ibid., 68. Portland Manuscripts, I, 602.Google Scholar

101 State Trials, V, 68, 101.Google Scholar

102 Ibid., 68. The dating of this correspondence is problematical. The negotiations between Charles II and the Scots were broken off in June, 1649. A later possible terminus a quo could be 08 7, 1649Google Scholar, when George Winram was appointed by the Scottish Parliament to resume treaty discussions. Not until October 11 did Winram sail from Leith for Holland. Thus, conjecturally, sometime in September, after he learned of the decision of the Scottish Parliament, or in October, when he received news of Winram's landing in Holland, Percy advised the English Presbyterians to appoint a delegate to go to Jersey. Sometime in late October or more likely in November, Winram met Titus in Holland, and together they proceeded to Jersey where they arrived December 6, 1649 (Hoskins, S. Elliott, Charles the Second in the Channel Islands, II, 358).Google Scholar

103 SirBalfour, James, The Historical Works of Sir James Balfour (Edinburgh, 1824–1825), III, 432Google Scholar. These conferences seem to have been reported to the government at Westminster by their agent Walter Strickland. On the same day that Strickland's letter was read to Parliament, the House of Commons ordered that the estates of Francis Lord Willoughby, Major-General Massey, and Alderman James Bunce be sequestered (C. J., VI, 337)Google Scholar. It can hardly be a coincidence that the order for sequestration in the Journal of the House of Commons follows immediately after the report of Strickland's letter on December 25, 1649 (Ibid.)

104 In September, 1649, when the English Presbyterians were making arrange ments to send Captain Titus to the King, Charles II and his brother, the Duke of York, set out with their attendants from St. Germain near Paris on the first stage of their contemplated trip to Ireland. The royal party arrived at Coutances, a few miles from the French coast, on September 16, and on the following afternoon reached Jersey, where it was lodged in Elizabeth Castle as the guest of Sir George Carteret and the loyal inhabitants of the island (Hoskins, S. Elliott, Charles the Second in the Channel Islands [London, 1654], II, 303–310).Google Scholar

105 Gardiner, S. R., History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649–1660 (2d ed.; London, 1897), I, 130 f.Google Scholar, 143–148.

106 See the two letters of Lord Byron and Sir Edward Nicholas to the Marquis of Ormonde, October 12, 16, 1649, in Carte, Thomas, A Collection of Original Letters and Papers, Concerning the Affairs of England, from the Year 1641 to 1660 (London, 1739), I, 326Google Scholar. Most likely the disconcerting information regarding Drogheda came to Jersey by dispatches carried on the Irish frigate, the “Cock,” which anchored at Jersey on October 14, 1649 (Hoskins, , Charles the Second in the Channel Islands, II, 334).Google Scholar

107 In the following month of January, 1650, the King wrote to Ormonde: “You will perceive by my public letter, that I have resolved of a treaty with my subjects of Scotland, whereunto I was principally induced by that relation which Harry [Henry] Seymour made to me from you, of the state of things in Ireland; and do believe that an agreement with them (if it may be had upon honourable and just terms) will be the likeliest means to make a speedy and powerful diversion in England” (Carte, , Collection of Original Letters and Papers, II, 423).Google Scholar

108 Acts of the Parliament of Scotland and the Government During the Common wealth, VI, Part II, 601Google Scholar. Cf. Gardiner, , Letters and Papers Illustrating the Relations between Charles the Second and Scotland in 1650, 85, n.Google Scholar

109 Portland Manuscripts, I, 587, 588, 597, 598.Google Scholar

110 Ibid., 599.

111 One minister, John Jaquel, testified later that he had attended twenty fasts (A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783 ed. Howell, T. B. [London, 1816], V, 117Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as State Trials). If we assume that the meetings were held regularly, and that the forty weeks from August, 1650, to May, 1651, constituted approximately the period referred to by Jaquel, the fasts were held every other week.

112 State Trials, V, 129Google Scholar. A Short Plea for the Commonwealth, (London, 1651), 9.Google Scholar

113 Portland Manuscripts, I, 581.Google Scholar

114 It is impossible to date the beginning of Major Adams' cooperation with the Council of State. January or February, 1651, would be a likely time. In the summer of 1651, when Christopher Love was on trial for his life, he was successful in securing from Major Cobbett an admission that he had utilized the services of Major Adams, had paid his wife money, and had given assurance of succor to Adams in his own difficulties with the State. There is an intimation in the trial record that Thomas Scott had promised Major Adams some form of preferment (State Trials, V, 112)Google Scholar. It is not surprising, therefore, in the light of the treacherous methods of Adams, that Love termed him a hired witness, a veritable Tobiah and Sanballat combined (Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651, III, 439, 478Google Scholar; State Trials, V, 112)Google Scholar. And in later years, when Richard Baxter, the beloved minister at Kidderminster, Worcestershire, reflected on the trial of Love, he spoke of Adams as “the guilty brother” (Reliquiae Baxterianae, ed. Sylvester, Matthew [London, 1696], 66).Google Scholar

On August 18, 1652, Parliament resolved to present Major Adams with land in Ireland worth £200 annually as a reward for his information regarding the Presbyterian conspiracy. In addition, Parliament granted him £100 for the cost of transporting his family and possessions to Ireland (C. J., VII, 166Google Scholar; Cal. St. P., Vom. Ser., 1651–1652, IV, 355).Google Scholar

115 Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser. 1651, III, 83, 88Google Scholar; see Gardiner, S. R., History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate (2d ed., London; 1897), I, 406.Google Scholar

116 Tracts Relating to Military Proceedings in Lancashire During the Great Civil War, ed. Ormerod, George (n. p., printed for the Chetham Society, 1844), 313 n.Google Scholar

117 C. J., VI, 551Google Scholar. Five hundred pounds reward was offered for Cooke's discovery, and a special messenger was sent to Milburne, Derbyshire, to sequester his estate (C. J., VI, 551Google Scholar; Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651, III, 97).Google Scholar

118 Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651, III, 222Google Scholar; C. J., VI, 579.Google Scholar

119 Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651, III, 130.Google Scholar

120 A certain Mr. Clarke, evidently a secret agent for the Commonwealth, wrote a letter from Breda to an unnamed official in London, wherein he stated: “Cooke's letter to Thornhill will never be answered, about the Kentish business, or the engagers; but Cooke is fearfully cursed and all his friends here, as Sir Richard Page, and a great many more, ill thought of because of him (Original Letters and Papers of State, Addressed to Oliver Cromwell, ed., Nickolls, John Jr [London, 1743], 65).Google Scholar

121 One immediate result of Cooke's statements was an order from the Council of State to the Militia Committee of London, cautioning it to be ready for any uprisings (Ibid., 131).

122 On May 28, 1651, the Council of State presented to Parliament a full report of the depositions of Cooke and subjoined the following statement: “Mr. Thomas Cooke's information hath been made use of … against Captain Potter and Mr. Thomason, solely discovered and apprehended upon his information, which ocasioned the first proceeds against the treasons of some of those of the Presbyterians judgment” (Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651 III, 222Google Scholar; Portland Manuscripts, 603 f.).Google Scholar

123 Portland Manuscripts, 586Google Scholar. Thomason was kept in prison until May 27, 1651, when he was liberated on bail of £1,000 (Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651, III, 218)Google Scholar. An order of the Council on June 2, 1651, saved his estate from sequestration (Ibid., 230). Inasmuch as Thomason had carried one of Charles II's letters from Alderman Bunce to the London ministers, had received details of the Treaty of Breda from Cooke, and had been fully aware of the plans of the Presbyterian conspirators, it is surprising that he was treated so leniently by the Council of State. His failure to divulge information which he had known for nine months unquestionably made him guilty of misprision of treason. There is a brief summary of the arrest, imprisonment, examination, and release of Thomason in the Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers, and Manuscripts Relating to the Civil War, the Commonwealth, and Restoration, Collected by George Thomason, 1640–1661, ed. Fortescue, G. K. (London, 1908), I, x.Google Scholar

124 Portland Manuscripts, 586, 604.Google Scholar

125 Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651, III, 147.Google Scholar

126 Ibid., 162.

127 Potter, was arrested in 04, 1651Google Scholar, and required to make several detailed depositions to the Committee of Examinations (State Trials, V, 81, 88)Google Scholar. He was committed to the Tower on May 6, 1651, to await trial before the High Court of Justice on a charge of treason (Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651, III, 180).Google Scholar

128 Ibid., 179–89; Original Letters and Papers of State Addressed to Oliver Cromwell, ed. John Nickolls Jr., 66.Google Scholar

129 The index of the Calendar of State Papers, 1651, IIIGoogle Scholar, identifies Richard Drake with Roger Drake. The latter is the Dr. Drake referred to five times in the Calendar. The lone reference to Richard Drake probably is not relevant to the Presbyterian conspiracy. These two men, in turn, should not be confused with William Drake, arch-conspirator of the Presbyterians. William Drake was the son of DrDrake, Roger (C. J., V, 323).Google Scholar

130 In his article on Christopher Love in the Dictionary of National Biography, William A. Shaw erroneously gives the date for Love's arrest as May 14.

131 ibid., 205.

132 Ibid., 208. Dr. Bastwick must have been released shortly after the Council had questioned him. There is no record of his imprisonment, and there is no evidence of his participation in the plot.

133 The Council hoped to discover the letter which King Charles II had sent from Scotland to Prynne, (Portland Manuscripts, 594).Google Scholar

134 Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651, III, 238.Google Scholar

135 Ibid., 240.

136 Jacquel's name is variously given as Jethell, , Jekell, , and Jekyll, in the Cal. St. P., Dom. Ser., 1651, III, 245, 249, 253.Google Scholar

137 Ibid., 247. With the exception of Richard Herrick, who was a clergyman in. Manchester, Lancashire, these men were all London ministers. Of the ten men, six were apprehended by the Council. Thomas Cawton and James Cranford escaped to Rotterdam; Daniel Cawdrey and James Nalton probably went into hiding, but Nalton was arrested at a later date. Conceivably, Cawdrey may have been released after questioning by the Council.

138 One would think that the Act of General Pardon and Oblivion should have given Browne his freedom. The fact that the government kept Browne in prison indicates the hosility which the Commonwealth officials felt toward him, and the importance which they attached to his action of having abetted the Scottish invasion of 1648. In 1659, when Browne related his experiences to a sympathetic Parliament, he stated that he had been imprisoned for five years (Burton, Thomas, Diary of Thomas Burton, ed. Rutt, John Towill [4 vols.; London, 1828], IV, 263 f.)Google Scholar. Thus, he must have been liberated in December, 1653, or January, 1654, since his imprisonment began on December 12, 1648. As sheriff of London, he was most active in opposing the rise of the Cromwellian party.