taft 1979 historical research

8/18/2019 Taft 1979 Historical Research

1/17

Voting

Lists

of

the Council

of

Officers,

December 1648

I N

T H E I N T E R V A L between Colonel Thomas Pride’s purge of the Commons on

6 December 1648 and the trial of King Charles, which began

20

January 1649,

the council of officers was largely concerned with ‘preparing and perfecting’ a

constitution which would transform England into a republic settled ‘upon

Grounds of common Freedom and Safety’.’ Throughout these weeks the

victorious army was the dominant force in the government. The truncated

House, soon described as the Rump, carried out the oficers’ commands to

establish a tribunal to try the king. The council of officers, meeting in Whitehall,

considered the government which would be established after the king was

removed. The views of more than seventy officers on major constitutional

proposals are revealed by the voting lists published below.

Analysis of these votes enlarges our knowledge of the army’s attitude during

this time of transition. New light is thrown on the role of Henry Ireton,

commissary-general of horse and principal draftsman of the army’s political

documents. The democratic character of the council of officers and the

independence of individual participants are demonstrated. The forces which

shaped the constitution submitted to the Rump by the army on 20 January 1649

are clarified. Although

i t

is

probable that additional divisions were recorded

during these weeks of debate,2 positive conclusions can be drawn from the seven

lists which are at hand.

The lists transcribed here are from volume

XVI,

folios

40, 42, 44r-v

and 62, in

the Clarke Papers in Worcester College, O x f ~ r d . ~he names of those present at

the council on 16, 1 8 , 2 1 and 2 6 December are written in two columns on folios

measuring five and

a

half by seven inches. Each l is t precedes the report of the

day’s

debate, and both lists and debates are in the handwriting of a clerk who

presumably took notes of council meetings in William Clarke’s absence. Rough

writing makes

i t

difficult to be certain of some ofthe names, and copies of the

lists in volume C X I V of the Clarke Papers do not always resolve the difficulties.‘

The votes cast-affirmative or negative-are recorded beside the officers’ names.

On 2 1 December, when two divisions were recorded, the second division is listed

to the left of the names; on the 26th, a third division

is

listed in an additional

column on the left. The totals of the votes are given at the ends of the f01ios.~

i A Petition from

.

. . the

Grneral Coiincel

of Officers

. . .

Tu the . . . Commons ofEngland

. .

. Concerning the

Draught of

A n

Agreement of the Peuple

.

. . Together with the said Agrerment presented Salurday , Jar i 2 0 ( 1 2 2

J a i i . 1

164qi .

pp. 4-5.

I

w i h

t o

itiailk Pto l i ~s s ora

G

E .

A y l i ~ i c ~ .

. lk i t ) r t l i Rrat l l-o\tri. CLi i i i I i i i c ,

R o l h i n \ , Lois Schwoctcr ,

C. M .

Wil l i ams n n d Austin Wooli-ych 101 hcii o i i i i w l i i i i ( l ‘ IN oui .igcnicmt.

-rhtb provoht , i n d F-cl low\ 111 Worccr r c r College. 0 x l i ) i c i . I i a w grac

io i i \ lv g i w i

p(,tiniuioti

to publish these manuscripts.

I

am particularly indebted

to

the Libr-arian, Miss Lesley Montgonirry,

for

her unfailing help an d kindness.

’

Clarke

MSS., CXIV f o s . 141 , 1 4 2 , 143, 1 5 4 ~ - 1 5 5 .bid. lo. 156 is

a

third 2 6

Drc. list

which is

in

CLirkr’s hn i i d a n d m a y IIOI b e

a ‘copy’

(be low, nn. . 60).

*

See below, p.

I 4 4 .

On

16Drc . and

twicr o n 26

Dec. totals diffrr

by

o n e

lroni

thr r ecord ed votes.


2/17

V O T I N G L IS T S O F T H E C O U N C I L O F O F F I C E R S 139

With the single exception of the vote total for

16

December, division totals are

repeated in the reports of the debates. These reports have been published

by

C.

H.

Firth in his edition of the Clarke Papers,6 where the lists of ofhcers present

are subsumed in a table

of

‘Officers attending at Councils and Committees,

Nov., 1648--March, 1649’.’ Nowhere does Firth or any other historian

comment on the existence of the voting lists.*

The council meetings which took place at Whitehall in December 1648 were

not t h e first meetings during which officers cast affirmative and negative votes. As

early as

2 1

March 1647, officers assembled at Saffron Walden to debate

parliament’s arrangements for disbanding and for sending troops to Ireland.

Four propositions were put ‘to every Oficer distinctly’. Two were resolved

affirmatively, ‘Nemine contradicente’ ; two others were carried ‘affirmatively by

all’ except for seven negatives in one instance and twelve in another. The

dissenting voters are named, as they are for further votes taken the next day.

There are printed lists of those present for both days, but

if

division lists exist

they have not been di sc~vered .~hese and other votes taken in the army councils

i n

the spring of

1647

were at most marginally political. l o Six months later, when

officers, ordinary soldiers and civilian Levellers came togcther at Putney,

demands that political disputes be ‘putt to a question’ were largely ignored by

the presiding general, Oliver Cromwell.lI Related questions were voted on in at

least one committee meeting at Putney on

2

November,‘* and, according to one

report, on 4 November the full council voted that all who wexe not servants or

beggars ‘ought to have voyces in electing those which shall represent them in

Parliament..

.

and there were

b u t

three voyces against this your Native

Freedom’.’’ There

is

no other mention of this sweeping resolution and no record

of the affirmative or negative voices. Apparently, officers cast thcir first-and

possibly their only-recorded votes on constitutional questions during the

Whirehall debates which produced the four lists given here.

Thr Clarke Papers ( h e r e a k e r

C . P . ) ,

ed. C. H . Firth

( q v o l s . ,

Can iden new ser. , xlix, liv, Ixi, Ixii, 1891-

i g o i ) , ii . 133-49, passim; Firth rarely cites close references, but comparison with the MSS. indicates

that he i isrd the accounts i r i Clarke MS S . ,

XVI

fos.

4ov-63 ,

for these debates. E xcept fo r

26

Dec.. for

which there are MSS. in 3 h a n d s (XVI fos. 62v-63, and CXIV fos. 155v-158v), there is no record

oC

council sessions in C larke’s han d betw een 14 Dec. (LXV

fos.

108-27) a n d 29 Dec. (ibid., fos. 1 2 8 f f j ;

C X I V to.

15Xr-\, is Clarke’s partial transcript of his

2 6

Dec. record in fos.

1 5 6 ~ - 1 5 7 ~ .

C.P.,

ii, App.

D.

Th e r e a r e

some

inaccuracies

in

the table.

Thr

lists came tu

my

attention in the course

of

research for a n article which reconsiders the

history

of

the

officers’

Agreement and ra ises fur ther quest ions abo ut the conclusion that

i t

was little

inore

than a facet of Ireton’s device

to

distract the

Levellers.

This t radi t ional in terpre ta t ion is not

modified in recent secondary studies which encompass the period (e.g. D. Underdown,

Pride?

Purge

( O x f o r d ,

197 1 ) ; B.

Wo r d e n ,

The Rwnp Parliament,

r648-53 [Cambr idge , 197411, al though in

The

Lr i i e l l e rc tn the English Reuolutton,

ed .

G .

E. Aylmer

(197,5), p. 42 ,

the edit or states that ‘ the sincerity of

rhc Army ofhcers in

presenting

the i r compromise

Agreernent to the

R u m p H o u s e

of Cornmons

is a

niattrr for debate’. CI’. I .euel l rr Manqeilors, rd. D. M.Wolfe (N rw York,

1954) .

).

9 1 .

A Declaration ofthe

Fngagements

. .

I/

/he

Arm,yusua l ly t e rmed

Book o Army Declarulions

(publ ished

by Matthew Simmons,

s7

Srp t .

1647),

pp.

2-5.

N o

record

of

this inwting is in Clarke MSS.,

XLl or

cx.

o

o r

srveral council

votes

on

zg

May

see HzJlortcal Collections

ed. J . Rushwor th (2nd edn . , 8

vo l s . ,

I

711-21,

vi. 497-8;

C.P . , i . 108-1 1 . N o

voting

l ist for this meeting has been found in Clarke MSS.,

X1.I 10s . 140-1, which are

a

fair transcripr o f

the

day’s deba te, or in thr account in Clarke’s ha nd in

vol.

CX (n o fo l ia t ion ); C.P. , i . 108-11 , reproduces the account in

v o l .

XLI precisely. A list of

9 8

oltirt~r-sresent on

zg

May is in the Bo o k of Army Declarattonr, p . 15.

’ C.P.,. ,323,3~0.335.

l 2 Ibid., pp. 407-9.

’ A Lelter

wntfrom

several Agitatori (4 he Army

T o

their reipectiue Regimenli . . . W i t h a true

Accounl of

lhe

Procrrrfing,()/ the General Co7~ncvl,

igned by Edward

Srxby

a n d

14

others

1

I N o v .

16471,

p .

4.


3/17

140 V O T I N G L I ST S

O F

T H E C O U N C I L

At

Whitehall, the council ofofficersvoted on proposed alterations to the second

Agreement Ofthe People.

This

Agreement,

which was submitted to the officers on

1 1

December and published by John Lilburne four days later,I4 had been worked

over by

‘16

Commissioners’: four Levellers, led by Lilburne; four army officers,

headed by Ireton; four City Independents; and four Rumpers, only one of

whom, Henry Marten, attended regularly. A working paper, drawn up by

Iilburne, the other three Levellers and Marten, had been submitted to the whole

committee early in December. After more than a week of discussion, marked by

‘a long and tedious tug.

. .

with Commissary General1 Ireton.

. ,

Principally

about Liberty of Conscience, and the Parliaments punishing where no law

provides’, Lilburne believed agreement was reached ‘amongst the major part of

the

16

C~mmissioners’.’~he completed draft greatly extended the franchise,

redistributed the constituencies for future ‘Representatives’ (as parliaments were

to

be called), and reserved specific rights to the sovereign people.

N o

Representative, for example, could interfere with any person’s religious practice,

impress men for military service, enact or continue any law

or

privilege that did

not apply equally to all men, or punish in the absence of a declared law.I6 These

precise restraints on the governing power-a written

‘Bill

of Rights’ protecting

the liberty

of

individuals-were vital elements in the Leveller canon, and when

the council of officers began

to

debate them Lilburne declared that ‘there was

neither faith, truth, nor common honesty’ among ‘the great ones of the Army’.’’

Lilburne’s bias is evident, but

it

is conceivable that while Ireton was meeting with

the other commissioners he was also preparing alternative proposals to present

to

the council of officers when they considered the ‘Leveller’ text. Ireton may

have worked out his proposals with army colleagues,

for

the voting lists reveal

that a cadre of senior officers favoured the modification of several clauses

restricting the Representative.

The officers debated the

Agreement

without discernible rancour. The council

was in substantial accord on a number of alterations which were no

less

important than those which required divisions. Proposals submitted by

committees were often accepted ‘nernine contradicente’.

On

other occasions,

consensus was so apparent that decisions were recorded as ‘resolved’ or ‘passt

thus’, and one vote taken on

16

December was

so

lopsided that the clerk simply

wrote in the record of the debates: ‘Passt in the Afbmative by all. Except

Colonel Hewson and Scoutmaster Roe’.’’ Committees necessarily drafted the

proposals which were submitted to the council, and except for the

14

December

debate on the religious reserve, when clergymen and civilian Levellers took part,

surviving evidence suggests that most changes were agreed to with little dissent

while proposals which were more controversial were voted on without

a ~ r i m ony . ’~parse comments in contemporary newssheets do no t contradict the

I‘ ffic luri cal Collections,

vii.

1 3 5 8 ; Foundaticmr

ofl


4/17

O F

O F F I C E R S , D E C E M B E R

1 6 4 8

141

impression conveyed by the official record,20although a somewhat different view

of proceedings is given by the diarist, John Evelyn.

‘I gott privately into the Council of the rebel1 Army at White-hall’, wrote Evelyn

in his diary on 1 8 December, ‘where

I

heard horrid villanies’.zl In a letter to his

father-in-law the same day, Evelyn reported that

‘all

the discourse’ about the

Agreement had caused him to don ‘suitable equipage’ to enter ‘the council-

chamber, where, Ireton presiding, a large scroll containing this new device was

examined, and each paragraph

or

title there (after a very short debate) put to the

question,-but with that disorder and irreverence, and palpable cozenage, as

is

impossible for you ever to believe, unless you were an eye-witness of their

transactions’. The officers did not agree ‘to any one thing’, continued Evelyn;

nor did they abstain ‘from using uncivil terms at what time they differed in

judgment;

so

young, raw, and ill-spoken men (Ireton himself; in whom the

world is

so

much mistaken, not excepted,) I never imagined could have met in

council together’.22

Evelyn’s Royalist prejudice is as apparent as Lilburne’s frustration, yet the

report cannot be dismissed as baseless. The day Evelyn attended, Ireton presided

over a chamber filled with more than fifty officers and an unknown number of

civilian^.^^

After ‘much debate’,24 division was taken on the question: ‘Wether

the sixth Reserve’--which forbade the Representative to punish in the absence

of

existing law-‘shalbe waved

or

not’. The closeness of the vote,

18-16,25

suggests

that the proposal was tensely argued. If i t is unlikely that Ireton was ‘ill-spoken’,

reports

of

council debates in 1647 as well as 1648 reveal that he was a forceful,

frequently dogmatic debater whose determination to carry his points irritated as

often as

i t

convinced.26Dissents from junior oficers, condemned as ‘irreverence’

by Evelyn, reflected the lack of deference toward senior commanders which

characterized the New Model Army and enabled all ranks to express their views

when ‘they differed in judgment’. Stripped of i ts pejorative adjectives, Evelyn’s

description of the

18

December meeting provides an enlightening, first-hand

account of a council which in all probability was very like other councils held at

this time.

Attendance at the

1 8

December meeting was representative of the meetings

when votes were recorded. With the exception of

16

December, when Lord

General Fairfax presided and only thirty-four officers were listed as present,

Ireton presided on all of the division days and over

fifty

officers were present

each day. The ninety-four officers who attended one

or

more of these meetings

z ”

For example ,

A Ppr/ecl Diurnall, I 1-18

Dec., entry

for I I

Dec., notes that the

Agreement

was

presented to the council

of

officers which ‘ap point a speedy debate and co nside ration

otit’. Ibid., 18-

2,5

Dec., entry for Dec., notes ’large debates’ o n religion and ‘muc h deba te’

on

the power

of

the

Rrprcsenta t ivr

to punish in

the absence

of

‘known Law’.

Ser

also:

The Moderate, n m .

3-6,

passtm;

M m u r i u t

Pragmaticus, n o s .

38-4 1 ,

passim.

2 L The Diary

ofJohn Euelyn,

rd. E.

S .

d e Beer 6

vols. ,

O x t o r d , 1955),

ii.

5 4 6 .

z 2 Ewlvn to Sir Richard

B w w n e ,

18 Dec. 1648, Diary and Correspondence ofJuhn Evelyn, F . R . S . , ed. W.

Bray ( 4

vols . ,

18591,

iii.

34-5.

*’Clarke

MSS., XVI fo .

4 2

(below),

lists

5 4 officers

in

a t t mt i a n c e plus

‘MI-.

Wildrnan/Mr.

Walwiidetc.’ . Many civilians had a ttende d on

14 Der.

(Clarke M S S . , XVI fo s . 2 8 v - - ~ g ) ,a n d some

also

a p p e a r 1 0 have been present on the 2 1st C.P.,i . 1 3 9 : All bu t O fficers to goe fo r th ’ ) , a l though non e

is noted

on

the atten danc e list for this day.

z4 Above, n. 2 0 .

25

C.P . ,

i i .

1 3 6 ;Clarke

MS S . , XVI fo.

4 2 (below).

26 F o i cxarnple: a t Pu tn ry ,

1 6 4 7

( C . P . ,

i.

302-4, 307-8,

313-15, 3 2 5 - 5 ) ; at W hitehall,

1648

( ibid. , ii.

78-1

74,

paJrimi.


5/17

142 V O T I N G L I S T S

O F

T H E C O U N C I L

included men from every commissioned rank

: 2 7

nine general stall’ officers,

headed by Fairfax and Ireton, fifteen colonels, nine lieutenant-colonels, ten

majors, forty-one captains, five lieutenants, on e ensign, thrre cornets and on e

quartermaster. N O votes were cast by twenty-one officers who are listed as

present, but eighteen of them came to only

one

session and there is no pattern of

abstention.

The votes cast by the seventy-three officers who participated indicate that

junior officers were not pressed to vote in conformity with their commanders.

Approximately two-thirds of the attending officers belonged to troops and

companies assigned to London on 1 December 1648.2s n addition to the three

general officers-Fairfax, Ireton and Adjutant- General Stubber-who held

regimental commands, ten of the colonels who were present on division days

were commanders of forces quartered in or near London.2y reton and Colonel

Richard Deane were the only officers attending from their regiments; n o known

of’ficer

of’

Stubber’s or Whichtote’s companies voted;%*Fairtax and three

colonels-Cooke, Pride and Scroope-had too few regimental officers voting on

any one question to permit valid deductions. The votes of‘ ive other colon&--

Harrison, Hewson, Okey, Rich and Whalley-and their officers are revealing?’

Harrison missed several meetings because he was escorting the king from Hurst

Castle to Windsor,s2but on 26 December Harrison was opposed by two of his

captains

in

all three votes, while his cornet voted against him one time out of three.

Colonel Hewson, who was present at every session, was opposed by his

lieutenant-colonel, Daniel Axtell, five times out of five. On the ~Gth, ith three

subordinates present, Okey was deserted by his major in the two votes both men

cast, although two of Okey’s captains voted with him on three questions. Rich

and

two of

his junior officers were recorded in two votes on 2 1 December and his

captain-lieutenant and his quartermaster opposed Rich both times. Whalley,

who attended every session and cast five votes, was opposed by his major two

times out of three, by a captain in one vote of two, by a lieutenant on ;tie two

occasions both voted, and by another lieutenant three times out of tour. I t

is

apparent that officers freely and frequently opposed their superiors.

The voting pattern was sustained arriorig officers from tbrces away ti-om

1,ondon. Of the five colonels in this group-Sir William Constable, Reynolds,

Saunders, Tomlinson and

Sir

Hardress Waller-only Constable and Waller were

present with omcers from their regiments. Constable, an M . P . , attended only on

2 1 December when he was opposed by his captain in both divisions. Although

Waller’s regiment was quartered in the South West,33Waller attended all but one

of the four voting days and his lieutenant-colonel and two captains wrre even

2 7 Only commissioned officers attended council nleetings after 8 Jan . 1648 (C . P . ,

pp.

Iviii-lixi. On

14,

1 5 ,

2 9 Dec. 1648, 40 additional officers attended once

or

more (Clarke

MSS., XVI

Ibs.

28-9, 38,

641; there are no attendance lists tor

2 3

Dec. or tor any meetings in January.

2a

C.P.,

i i . 6 5 .

These forces included over

300

officers.

2q

Col. Adrian Scroope’s regiment apparently was near London (Sir Charles Firth and

G.

Davies,

The Regimenlal

History

o Cromwell’t Army

12

vols., Oxford, 1940).

p. log); he

arid

3

of’ his offirer5

attended several council meetings. Regimental commanders with lorces in London who did not

a t t t d on the

4

voting days were:

,Lt . -Gen.

Cromwell, Ma,].-Gen. Skippon iwhose lorces wrre

commanded by 1,t.-Col. Ashfield), Col. Barkstead and Col. 1ngold.sby. Cromwell and Barkstead did

attend ocher council meetings in December.

I have been unable to identify 3 subalterns.

Headed by Lt.-Cul. Ashfield, 8 officers attended from the regiment of the absent Skippon. On

2 1

Dec., the only day 5 of them voted, the 5 were in accord in both divisions except for Capt. Bower’s

affirmative vote

on

the second question.

s 2 C . P . , i .

1 3 3 .

J3 Firth and Davies, p. 444.


6/17

O F O F F I C E R S , D E C E M B E R 1 6 4 8 1 4 3

more assiduous. It is notable that Lieutenant-Colonel Salmon was at odds with

Waller five times out of five, one captain was opposed four times out of four,

and another captain supported his colonel only one time in five. Officers

attending whose commanders were not present included three lieutenant-

colonels, three majors and seventeen captains,

two

of whom, Captains Adam

Raynes and William Bradford, arrived in London from Pontefract with a

declaration against the king and an accompanying letter from Ma,jor-General

Lambert asking that the captains ‘be admitted to sit with your General

Council’.34 These twenty-three subordinate officers cast forty-one votes in

opposition to Ireton’s minority positions and only ten votes in support .

I n

great part, general officers and colonels formed

a

relatively conservative

hard core which supported Ireton while other officers were closer to the

positions of civilian Levellers. On 16 December, the second reserve was debated

and thc question put: ‘Wether wee shall propound in this Agreement any reserve

from the power

of

the Representative in point of impresting men for the Warre’.

The

council affirmed the reserve,

2

2-6. Ireton led the minority

of

six, supported

only by the scoutmaster-general, three of the seven voting colonels and one

of

the four lieutenant-c olo~ iels.~ ~

On

18

December, as previously noted, the vote was close on a proposal

10

waive the sixth reserve: ‘That the Representative intermeddle not with the

execution of Laws, nor give judgment. . . where no law hath been before

p r ~ v i d e d ’ . ~ ~his question,

as

Lilburne had pointed out when he published his

Agreement

on

15

December, had been ‘much already controverted’, with Ireton

leading the resi~tance.~’ n

18

December, Ireton led a minority of sixteen

officers

who favoured waiving the clause; he was supported by ten staff

and

field

officers and five captains. The majority of eighteen consisted

of

three lieutenant-

colonels, one major, one adjutant-general of horse, eleven captains and two

lie~itenants.’~

The divisions recorded

on 2 1

December resolved one question concerning the

religious reserve. This reserve-the first in Article

V I of

the 15 December

dratt-had given the ‘16 Commisioners’ no less and probably more trouble than

the sixth reserve. Again, Ireton had been Lilburne’s chief antagonist, and

Lilburne subsequently confessed that before publishing the Agreement on

15

December he ‘mended’ the religious clause ‘to the sense of us all but I r e t ~ n ’ . ~ ~

The sticking point was whether to entrust the civil government with positive

power in religious matters, and Ireton’s first recorded speech to the council

of

officers

on 14 December left no doubt

of

his conviction that the constitution

should ‘committ

a

trust to the civill Magistrate concerning spiritual1 thinges

as

concerning civill thinges.’.*OThe long debate luded clergymen and civilian

Levellers

as

well as officers,and Ireton was effectively opposed by Captain John

Clarke and the Leveller spokesman, John Wildman, who ably defended

t he

view

34

HtJtorical Collections,

vii. 1366-7.

35

C.P . . i i .

1‘33-4;

Clarkr MSS., XVI 10. 40

(hc low) .

Cook?, listed a s Lr.--Col.,

was

a c-olonel

(Biographical N otes, in Appendix , below). A serond p roposal on th r 16th-to reserve the pow er

to

iniprc\s for a foreign war-was ag rte d 10 b y all but the scoutnias t r r -general and

Col.

Hewsun

a0uvc.

p .

1 4 0 ) .

y 6

Fovndntzons

o/Freedom,

Art. V I, clause 6.

97 [hid.. p. 2.

s Clarke MSS. , XVI fo . 42 (be l ow) . Firth states that ‘ i n t h c New

Mo de l t h c .

n t l l t ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ - p e n r ~ ~ - a l1

horse werr always regim ental captains’

(C .

H. irth, Cromwell5Armyi

1962edn.),

p. 6111).but Blackmore

was

a

ma jor and Bury was

a

lieutenant-colonel

(Biogi-aphical

Notes , in Appendix , below).

d q Foi&hms

o f F r e d o m ,

p. 2 ; Lilburne, p. 35.

HJ

C .P . ,

i i . 8 I

;

cf. zbzd.

pi’.

8 3 ,

98-130, passim.


7/17

144

V O T I N G L I S T S

O F THE

C O U N C I L

set forth in the Agreement published by Lilburne the next day: matters of religion

and worship are not ‘trustable’

to

any civil power; liberty of conscience is a

birthright which cannot be re~trained.~’efore the debate began on the i4th, a

joint committee including Wildman, clergymen and officers had been named to

consider ‘the particulars this day debated’. The committee was augmented on 16

and 18 December and held at least two meetings at Colonel Tichbourne’s house

before the council assembled on 2

1

December.42

O n the ~ 1 s the council was presented with ‘an expedient’ to resolve the

religious question. Without a division the officers agreed not

to

refer the

proposal, and the question was put: whether the Representative should be

empowered to exercise ‘final1 udgment’ in ‘Morall’ as well as ‘all natural1 and

civil1 things’, except as specifically reserved. However restricted by subsequent

clauses, the inclusion of ‘moral1 things’ in the catalogue of the Representative’s

positive powers was a denial of the principle that religious belief and practice

were inviolable individual rights. Ireton led seventeen votes in favour of the

inclusion, only seven of which were cast by officers below field grade. Among

Ireton’s supporters, oddly enough, was Quartermaster Warren, whose colonel,

Nathaniel Rich, was among the twenty-seven officers who defeated the proposal.

Other opponents included seventeen captains, one lieutenant and one cornet.

The next question-whether under the general article now agreed on the reserve

concerning religion should be subjoined-was overwhelmingly carried by the

negatives, 37-1 2. Ireton, Scoutmaster-General Rowe and six colonels now led

the majority, while the twelve who stood firm for the reserve included two

colonels-Constable and Thomas Saunders-one lieutenant-colonel, seven

captains and two subaltern^.^^ Ireton may have succeeded in eliminating the

reserve by holding forth the prospect of a separate, detailed article concerned

with religion, and when this article-No.

g

in the officers’ Agreement-was

considered by the council in January

it

is probable that further divisions took

place.44

On 26 December, the last day for which we have any voting lists, the council

cast three votes which ordered the wording of the sixth reserve-which forbade

the Representative to punish where no law existed. Ireton had vainly tried to

excise the reserve on the i8th, and on the 26th an ‘expedient’ was presented

which set forth a long-winded, highly qualified reserve detailing situations

wherein the Representative was not to give ‘imediate judgment’. The device was

rejected without recorded contradiction. Rephrased in accordance with the

Leveller version, a second proposal simply stated ‘That the Representative may

not give Judgment upon any man’s person or estate where noe law hath bin

before provided’, save only in calling to account public officials for failing in

their trust.

By 22-14

the officers voted to put the proposal to the question, and

by 25-14 it was carried ‘as part of the reserve’. Ireton, Rowe and seven colonels

headed the minority in the first vote, and only Colonel Rich shifted

to

the

majority in the second. In the final vote of the day, on the question whether any

addition should be made to the reserve, Ireton joined the majority which

C . P . ,

ii . pp.

73-182, passim,

esp.

pp. 94-5

(Clarke),

1 1 0 - I ,

131

(Wildman).

Foundulions

of Freedom,

Art. VI, general article and clause

1 :

the R epresentative was perm itted

only to

set up a form

of

public

worship.

* C.P. , i i . 7 2 .

154-6.

No

account

ofthe

comm ittee’s meetings has been discovered.

43 Ib id . , pp. 139-40;

Clarke

MSS. , XVI fo.

44r-v (below).

k1 C.P., i i . 1 7

1-4

8 ,

10, 1

I

Jan .). Reports

of

the debates are fragmentary and

no

attendance

lists for

January have been discovered.

For

Article

9,

see below,

pp. I

45-6.


8/17

O F O F F I C E R S , D E C E M B E R

1 6 4 8

‘45

defeated any additions,

1 9 - 1 2 . ~ ~

erhaps he feared that additions would only

restrict the Representative more severely.

The voting

lists

flatly contradict Lilburne’s insistence that Ireton performed at

Whitehall as ‘an absolute King, if not an Emperor, against whose will no man

must dispute’.46 n fact, nothing is more evident that Ireton’s inability to fulfil his

desire to reduce the Agreement’s limitations on the governing power. Although

Ireton had drafted most of the army’s declarations demanding restrictions on the

power of ~a rl ia me nt ,~ ’e had repeatedly been forced to take a more radical line

than he desired. In the political councils of the army, Ireton was always a

moderate voice, fearful of a radical extension of the franchise, slow to recognize

that neither king nor Crown could survive, and never surrendering his

conviction that the sovereignty of the people’s representatives in parliament was

the essential goal

of

the revolution. This conviction, which was shared by many

senior officers, inspired Ireton’s opposition to the extensive curbs on legislative

sovereignty set forth in the Leveller

Agreement.

The prevailing votes of junior officers, on the other hand, reflrcted the distrust

of a powerful legislature which had brought the army into politics in the spring

of 1647. Arbitrary actions by parliament at that time had aroused the lower

commissioned ranks and their subordinates, and an early manifesto warned

‘That Parliament-Privileges, aswel as Royal-Prerogatives, may be perverted and

abused, or extended to the destruction of.

.

. The Rights and Privileges of the

People’.48The words may have been penned by Ireton, but the impetus came

from below, where fear of legislative usurpation never ceased to affect the course

of political action. Distrust of parliament was never stronger than during the

weeks before the execution of the king, and Ireton could neither eliminate the

reserve forbidding impressment of men for war nor circumscribe the reserve

forbidding the Representative to punish in the absence of existing law. The

attempt to give the Representative positive power in religious matters was not

only defeated but the general statement of the Representative’s authority was

augmented to declare that authority did not extend to ‘things Spiritual1 or

E~angelicall’ .~~

Captains and subalterns, more numerous than senior officers and no less

united, were able to carry their points against their commanders because the

individual liberty which the

Agreement’s

reserves sought to protect was respected

in the council of officers. Every division confirms the democracy which

characterized political practice in the army at this time, while the voting lists

particularize the independence which distinguished all the commissioned ranks.

Repeatedly, the lower echelons voted contrary to their commanders. Only on

21 December did senior and junior officers join in an overwhelming vote to

eliminate the reserve ensuring toleration for everyone. The religious article

which was subsequently adopted stated that the Christian faith was ‘recommen-

ded, as the publike Profession’ of the nation, but no one was to be ‘compelled’ to

p 5

C . P . ,

ii. 147-9;

Clarke

MSS., XVI fo. 62

(below). Clause

5 of

AIt.

8

in the officers’

Agreement

is

essentially as passed on

26

Dec.;

cf. Foundations ofFreedom,

Art.

VI ,

rlausp

6 ,

which differs only in the

opening phrase . T he vot ing l is ts (below) have o ne less m inor i ty vote

on

the f irs t quest ion a nd one

mo re minor i ty vote

o n

the second quest ion than a re recorded as to ta ls.

i6

Lilburne, p. 35.

I’

For

example:

A Declaration: or, Representation F ro m ..

.

the Army

14

J u n e

16471,

esp.

pp. 9-13; An

humble Remonstrance from. . . the Army

(23 u n e

1647),

esp. p. 8;

A Remonstrance O f . . . the General1

Councell

of

Oficers

Held at S t . Albans ( 1 2 2

Nov.1

16481,

esp.

pp.

65-7,

n humble Remon. trancr.

p .

X .

A

Petition

.

.

. Together with the said Agreement,

Art.

8 .


9/17

V O T I N G L I S T S O F T H E C O U N C I L

146

that profession. All who professed faith in God by Jesus Christ were to be

protected in the exercise of their religion although this protection would not

‘necessarily extend to Popery or Prelacy’.50Few soldiers were concerned with the

protection of those who were not Christians or of Christians whose faiths

rejected toleration for others. If, as seems probable, Ireton prepared the new

article, he carried it in the council because it accorded with the views

of

all but a

handful of sectarian revolutionaries. As principal draftsman, Ireton was able to

elaborate and influence a number of alterations in the co n~t i tu t ion .~~t the same

time, there is no hint that he or any other senior officer made any attempt to

control the votes of their subordinates, and the final draft of the

Agreement

in no

way distorted clauses which had been resolved contrary to Ireton’s desires.

All the majority decisions recorded in the existing division lists were embodied

in Article 8 of the constitution submitted to the Rump by the army on

2 0

January. The text was neither Lilburne’s nor Ireton’s. Rather, as the accompany-

ing Petition asserted, it was the product of the assembled council’s ‘utmost

endeavors for a sound and equal Settlement’.5z The division

l ists

attest that

assertion as the majority votes illuminate the words of Captain Clarke on the

opening day of the debates: ‘This Army by the blessing of God hath done very

great thinges for the Nat ion. .

.

Wee are now closing uppe the day, and

I

thinke

every one heere is willing to see an end of the days, yea yeares [of his life] were itt

to see that frcedome soe often spoken of, and that common right soe often

desired, clearly brought forth to the people’.53

B A R B A R A

A F T

Worcester College,

Oxford,

Clarke MSS.

uol.

X V P

yo. 40.

Question: Whether to retain any reserue

from

the Representative ‘in point of impresting

men

o r the Wurre’.]55

Westminster December the

16th 1648

Generall Councell

Present

Lord Generall

Conimissary-Gen. Ireton

Sir Hardre se Waller

Col. Scroo pe

Col. Rich

Col.

Hewson

Col. Whally

Col. Tomlinson

Col.

Deane

neg.

Lt. -Col . Ashfield

neg.

Lt.-Col. Venables

Lt.-Col. Axtell

aff. Lt.-Col. Cooke

neg. Lt.-Col. Salmon

aff:

aff.

aff.

neg.

aff.

aff.

neg.

aff.

A

Pelition . . .

ogether with the said ape em ent , Art .

9.

5’ For

example: the reserve

o n

impressment was expanded

to

permit impressment for defence;

r-rapprirtionment

of

House seats was altered in accordance with the army’s concern for triendly

rtirninerrial interests.

52

A

Petition

.

.

.

Together with the said Agreement,

p.

6

5 5 C . P . ,

i. 94 ( 1 4

Dcr.). The speaker was almost certainly John Clarke, captain in Sir

Hardi-rLs

Waller’s regiment: the speech includes a strong defence

of

absolute toleration, and

on

z

1

Dec. Clarke

of’Waller’s regirnrnt cast one of the iz minority vote5 favouring inclusion of the religious reserve

(Clarke

MSS. , XVI lo. 44,

below).

Abbreviations have either been extended or standardized in the modern form. The various

abbreviations

for

‘negative’ and ‘affirmative’have been standardized

to

‘neg.’ and

‘ a f f ’ .

Otherwise,

spelling

is

as in the original but punctuation has been standardizcd in accordance with the prevailing

prarrire in the manuscript. Dashes which are often next to names when no votes are recorded have

been ornittcd. 1 wish to thank Mrs. Laetetia Yeandle of the Folger Libr-ary for advice

in

transcribing

the manuscript.

5s For analyses o questions and votes

on

this and subsrquent days, see above, pp.

145-5.


10/17

O F O F F I C E R S , D E C E M B E R 1 6 4 8 ‘47

Adj

. Gen.

Bury

Scoutm aster-Gen. Row

Lt.-Col. Reade

Adj.- Gen. S tubb ard

Major Coleman

Lt.-Col.

Kelsey

Capt. Zanchy

Capt . Ho dden

Cap t. W agstaffe

aff.

12nd column]

neg. Cap t. Allen

aff. Capt.

G r o v e

aff.

Cap t. Clarke

aff.

Ca pt. Scotten

Capt. Deane

Cap t. Meservey

aff. Cap t. Barrow

aff. Cap t. Dorney

Cap t. Cadwell

Capt.

Davis

Cornett Malin

5 neg.

2 2

aff.

aff.

aff.

aff’.

aff.

aff.

aff.

aff’.

aff.

aff:

yo.

42. Question: Whether

to

waive the Reserve forb tddtng the Representatwe

to

meddle with

the exerutton of laws or gzvejudgment where no

law

exists.1

White hall December the 18

1648

General1 Councell

Present

Cornrnissary-Gen. Ire ton

Lt .-Gen. Ham ond

Col.

Whally

Col. Tom iinson

Col. Pride

Col. Hewson

Col. Okey

Lt. -Col . Cooke

not

heare

the debate

Lt.-Col. Chandler

Lt.-Col. Mason

Lt.-Col.

Goffe

Lt.-C ol. A shfield

Lt.-C ol. Reede56

Lt. -Col . Salmon

Lt.-Col. Rede Ar.56

Lt.-Col. A xtell

Major Coleman

M ajor W eekes

Major Cobbett

Major Husbands

Major Barton

M ajor Swallow

Scoutm aster Roe

Ad j.-Gen . Bury

Mr. W ildman

Mr. W alwin

[ zn d column1

aff. Ca pt. Browne

aff. Cap t. Brayheld

aff.

Cap t. Spencer

aff. Ca pt. Wagstaffe

Capt. Ho dden

aff.

Capt.

Butler

aff. Cap t. Tornlins

Ca pt. Meservey

Cap t. Clarke Sir

H.

Waller

aff.

Capt. Clarke Maj.-G en. S[kipponl

Capt. Deane

Cap t. Cadwell

aff.

Cap t. Allen

neg. Capt. Rogers

neg. Capt. Harr ison

neg. Cap t. Bower

neg. Cap t. Symonds

neg. Cap t. Pitson

Ca pt. L t. Davis

Capt. Joyce

Cap t. Reynolds

aff.

Capt . I la rding

aff. Capt. Lt. Babington

aff.

Cap t. Disher

neg.

Capt.

D ~ r n e y ~ ~

Capt.

G r o v e

Capt. B arrow

Capt. Ware

I,t.

Chillenden

Lt.

Day

Lt. Wilkinsvn

18

neg.

16

aff.

aff.

neg.

neg.

aff.

neg.

neg.

neg.

neg.

neg.

atT.

neg.

aft:

neg.

aff.

neg.

neg.

neg.

neg.

56

Lt.-C ol . Rrade

(Reede;

Rcde) is listed twire; ifro un ted on ce , votr totals acrorti with the totals in

5 7

The name of ‘Capt. Davis’

has

been deleted

at

diis point .

the manu script.


11/17


12/17

O F O F F I C E R S ,

D E C E M B E R

1648 149

yo.

6 2 .

Question I : Whether the proposal forb idding the Representative to pun ish 'where noe law

hath bin before provide d'sho uld be pu t to the question as par t ofth e sixth reserve.

Question

2 :

Wh ether the proposal should be part ofthe reserve.

Question : Wh ether any addit ion should be made to the sixth reserue.1

White hall the 26th of December 1648

General1 Cou ncell

Present

Commissary- Gen .

Ireton

Col. Whally

Sir Hard ress Waller

Col. Hewson

Col. Okey

Col. Rich

Col. Harrison

Col. Saunders

Co l. Reynolds

Lt.-Col. A shfield

Lt.-Col. Rede

Lt.-C ol. Venables

Lt.-Col. Salmon

Adj. Stubbard

Quartermaster- Gen.

Gravnor

Ad,j. Gen . Blackmore

Scoutmaster Roe

Ad;.-Gen. Bury

Lt.-C ol. Axtell

Major Cambridg

Lt.-Col. Wich

Major Abbotte

Major Coleman

Major C arter

Ma jor Ba r todo

M ajor Swallow

I11 [21

I31

neg. neg. neg.

neg. neg.

neg. neg.

neg. neg. aff.

neg. neg. aff.

neg.

aff.

neg. neg. aff.

neg. neg.

neg. neg.

aff.

aff.

aff. neg.

aff.

aff.

neg.

aff.

aff.

aff.

aff.

aff.

aff.

aff. aff.

aff. neg.

neg.

aff.

aff. neg.

aff. neg.

aff. neg.

aff.

aff. neg.

aff. neg.

neg.

aff.

[an d column]

Capt. Gladm an

Cap t. Spencer

Cap t. Wolfe

Cap t. Mercer

Capt. B arrow

Cap t. Scotten

Ca pt. Reynolds

Capt. D eane

Capt. Davis

Capt . Ho dden

Cap t. Clarke-Sir

H.

Cap t. Zanchy

Cap t. Messervey

Ca pt. Peck

Capt. Bridge

Capt. Cadwell

Capt. D orney

Cap t. Denison

Lt. Cham berlaine

Lt. Day

Lt. Chillenden

Lt. W ilkinson

Lt. Jubb e

Cornett Strange

Corriett Savage

Waller

1st

Qu estion Iznd Question1

2 2 aff. 2 5 aff.

15

neg.

1 3

neg.

[11 [ZI I31

neg. neg.

aff. aff. neg.

neg. neg. aff.

aff.

aff.

neg. neg. aff.

aff. aff. neg.

aff.

aff.

neg.

aff. aff.

aff.

aff.

aff.

aff.

neg. neg.

aff. aff.

aff.

aff.

aff. aff.

aff. aff.

aff. aff.

neg. aff.

aff. aff.

3rd

Question

12 aff.

i g

neg.

neg.

neg.

neg.

aff.

neg.

aff.

neg.

neg.

neg.

aff.

aff.

A P P E N D I X

An asterisk

( 1

befo re a na m e indicates that the officer

is

listed in the

Dictionary o National

Biography. A dagger (t) ndicates that the officer is identified in Firth and Davies,

Regimental Histoly.

Unless the en tries in these works are inadequate

or

inaccurate , no o ther

references ar e cited f or these officers.

Unless otherwise noted, ranks and regiments are as of December

1648.

Figures

in

parentheses after the December dates give the number

of

votes cast by the officer on

the given day.

General Staff

Officers

?BLACKMORE,

John Dec. z6 0)

Adjutant-general of

horse;6'

major, Cromwell's regiment

ho William Clarke s list

l o r

16 Dec. (Clark? M S S . , CXIV fo. 1 5 6 ,

a n d

cl . ahov e, n . 41 has neg .

o

the

right of

Major

Barton s name. On the

MS .

transcribed here the 3rd question total is so placed

that

Clark? r ou ld have inisrcad the ne g. total as Barton s

votc lo1

Qtic.;tioir I ,

6 1

Public Record

Oftice, S P

28/55 fos. 8 1 - 1 ; Cale ndaro fSlafe Papers, Domerltc,

1648-9,

p. 339.


13/17

V O T I N G L I S T S O F

T H E

C O U N C I L

150

t B LACKWELL, J ohn

Dec. 21

0)

Dec. 16(1), 8(1), 1 (2),

26(3)

Dec.

16

0)

Dec. 2

1

z ) ,

26 0)

Deputy treasurer-at-war; had been a captain in Cromwell's regiment,

1 64562

Adjutant-general of horse; lieutenant-colone16s

"tFAIRFAX, Thomas, 3rd Baron

Commander-in-chief

Quartermaster-general of horse and

foot6'

Lieutenant-general of the ordnance65

Commissary-general

of

horst-

Scoutmaster-generaP

Adjutant-general of foot; had been commissioned major under

Col.

Henry Grey,

1645; regiment to Ireland, where Stubber became colonel of a regiment by

Apr.

1648;

ommanded a company

of

foot in London, Dec. 1648~

BURY,ohn

tGRAVNoR ( G R O S V E N O R ) ,dward

HAMMOND,homas Dec.

18 (1)

"TIRETON, Henry

ROWE,William

TSTUBBER, Peter

Dec.

16 11,

18

11, 21 2), 6

(3)

Dec.

16 ( I ) , 18 11, 21 (21,2 6 ( 3 )

Dec. 16

( I ) , 26

3 )

Colonels

"tCONsTABLE, Sir William, Bt.

tCooKE, George

*tDEANE, Richard

:'?HARRISON, Thomas Dec.

26

3 )

*?HEWSON, John

"to

KEY,ohn Dec. 18(1),21(2),26(3)

"?PRIDE, Thomas Dec.

18 0)

"tREYNOLDS, John

'TRICH, Nathaniel

TSAUNDERS, Thomas

"'tScRooPE, Adrian

'TTOMLINSON, Matthew

"tWALLER, Sir Hardress

"tWHALLEY, Edward

Dec. 21 (2)

Dec. 16

11, 18

( o ) , 1 ( 2 )

Dec.

16

I), 2 1 01

Dec. 16

I ) ,

18

11,

21 o), 26(3)

Dec.

18

I),

26

0)

Dec. 16(1),

1

21,

6(2)

Dec.

21

z ) ,

26

2 )

Dec. 16 o),

21

2 )

Dec. 16(1),

8(i), 1 1 )

Dec.

16

i), 21 21,26 (2)

Dec. iS(i), s(]), 21

I),

26(2)

Governor of Windsor castle; commanded a company of foot in London, Dec.

164868

TASHFIELD, Richard Dec.

16(1),

8(1),21(~),26(3)

Dec.

16(1), S i),

21 I ) , 26(3)

WHICHCOTE,hristopher Dec.

26 2)

Lieutenant-Colonels

Skippon's regiment; commanded regiment in London, Dec. 1648

Hewson's regiment

A

'Wm. Chandler' was commissioned lieutenant-colonel under Col. Henry

Grey,

1645; regiment to Ireland, where, in Apr. 1648, Thos. Chandler' (a relative

of

William?) mustered a foot company and was a captain in Stubber's regimenP9

TAXTELL,Daniel

CHANDLER, Dec. 18

1 )

6 2 J. Sprigge. Anglia Redzvzua

[1647] ,

pp. 3 2 5 , 330. For corrections

to

Firth and Davies, see

G.

E.

Aylmer,

The

Sla lei Servants

( 1 9 7 3 ) .

.

243 .

6s

Clarke

MSS.,

LXVII

fo.

2 7 (Aug .

1648).

N o regimenta l co nnect ion evident ; Bury may be the

'Capt. Bury who left Ireton's regiment, 1646 (Sprigge, p.

331).

See also, Sir Jam es Berly an d S.

G.

Lee, A Cromwellian Major-Gen eral: the Career of ColonelJames Berry (O x fo rd ,

19381,

p. 56 n . 2.

6 k P . R . O . , SP

28/55

os. 81-1;

C.P.,

i, ii,passim.

65 Firth , Crom welli Army, passim.

66 P . R . O . ,SP

28/57

fos . 3pr-v ,

450

(Dec. 1648).

67 P.R.O. , S P 28/55 fo .

499;

Lords

Journals,

vii.

339 (1645 );

Calendar ofstate Papers, Ireland, 1 6 4 7 4 0 ,

pp. 1 2 ,

13,

1 7 ; C . P . ,

ii. 6 5 , where comm anders of forces ordere d to Lo ndo n, Dec. 1648, ar e l isted.

C.P. , ii.

65, 142-4.

LJ.,

ii.

339;

Cal. S . P . Ireland 1 6 4 7 4 0 , pp. 13 . 1 7 ; Fir th an d Davies , 'Th om as Chandler ' .


14/17

O F

O F F I C E R S ,

D E C E M B E R

1648

COO KE, eo rge: see Colonel Cooke

’tGoFFE, William

‘“TKELSEY,Thomas

Fairfax’s regim ent of

foot

Ingoldsby’s regiment

Pride’s regim ent

Overton’s regim ent

Waller’s regim ent

Governor of Liverpool, 1648

?MASON, J o h n

TREAD

T h o m a s

tSALMoN, Edward

“TVENABLES, Robert

WicH:

see Colone l Whichcote

Majors

tABBOrr, Daniel Dec.

26

( 2 )

TAUDLEY, Lew is Dec .

4 1

0)

BART TON,

Nathaniel

Okey’s

dragoons

Raised ‘irregu lar’ force,

1648

Scroope’s regim ent

Possibly the ‘Captain Cambridge’ of Col. Henry Grey’s regiment,

1645,

was a

major by

1648 ; or

possibly

a

mistake in the rank of Owen Cambridge, who rose

from captain to m ajo r in Twistleton’s regiment,

c.

165 1 O

Dec. 1 8 1 ) ,

z 21,

2 6 1 )

CAMBRIDG, Dec. 26 (3)

?CARTER, J o h n

Dec. z i

01,

26

0 )

Hewson’s regiment

Skippon’s regim ent

Fleetwood’s regim ent

tCoeBE‘rr,J o h n

tCoLEMAN, William

THUSBANDS, Azariah

Dec.

18

( o ) , 1

( 2 )

Dec.

1 6 1 ) , 1 8 1 ) , 2 6 ( 3 )

Dec. 18 (o) , z i 0)

Rich’s regimen t

tSwALLow, Robert

Whalley’s regimen t

WEEKES, Dec.

18

0)

Possibly Timothy Wilkes, major in the ‘Tower Regiment’ commanded

by

Cooke ,

Dec. 1648; ‘M ajor Wilkes’ is record ed as prese nt, D ec. 14,

zg7 ’

Dec. 18 I ) , 26

2)

Captains

tALLEN, Francis

TBABINGTON, Th o m as

Dec. 16 I ) ,18

I ) , 2 1

2 )


Dec.

18

( o ) ,

1

( 2 )

Styled ‘C apt.’, Dec. 18, ‘Capt.-Lt.’, Dec.

zi ;

Rich’s regimen t

Dec.

16 11,

18

(o),

21 21,

26 0)

Probably the Capt . Barrow who commanded

a

company

at

Shrewsbury garrison

until spring

1649,

at which time Ro bert B arrow (pro bably the sam e officer) becam e

lieutenant-colonel in Venable’s regiment7z

Pro bably W illiam Bayly, captain -lieuten ant in Barkstead’s regim ent, July [ i6471”

Lambert’s regim ent

BARROW,

BAYLY,

Dec. 2

1

( 2 )

”TBAYNES, A dam Dec. zi 1 )

’’

L J . ,

vii. 339;

Firth and

Davies,

‘Owen Cambridge’.

I ’

Firth and

Davies,

‘Timothy

Wilkes’; Clarke MS S . , XVI fos. 2 8 ,

64.

Clarke MSS. , LXVII , p. 23 trorn the back); Firth and Davies, ‘Robert Barrow’, for career afirr

1649.

’3

Clarke

MSS. , LXVlI fo. 8.


15/17

152 V O T I N G L I S T S OF

THE

C O U N C I L

BLACKWELL,oh n : see Deputy treasurer-at-war

BO WER,

Dec.

1 8

o),

2 1 2 )

Probably the ‘Capt. Bower’ commissioned in Skippon’s regiment, 1 6 4 5 ”

tBRADFORD, W illiam Dec. 2 1 2 )

Lilburne’s regiment

t B

RAYFIELD,

Alexander

Hewson’s regiment

?BRIDGE, T obia s Dec.

2 6 3)

Okey’s drag oon s

BROWNE,ohn Dec.

1 8 1 )

Fairfax’s reg ime nt of horse o r Deane’s regiment75

BUTLERBOTELER),

lmost certainly William Boteler, captain of a Northamptonshi re t roop

of

horse,

July

1 6 4 8 ;

captain, Harrison’s regimen t, May

1 6 4 9 7 6

Dec.

1 6 1 1, 1 8 1 1 , 2 1 z ) , 2 6 3 )

Constable’s regiment

Dec.

1 8 o), 21

z ) ~ ’


Dec.

1 8

o),

2 1 ( 2 ) , 2 6

(3)”

Waller’s regim ent

Dec. 1 6 11, 18 I ) , 2 6 ( 3 )

Styled ‘Capt.’, Dec.

1 6 , 2 6 ,

and ‘Capt. Lt.’, Dec.

1 8 :

probably Abraham Davis,

advanced from captain-lieutenant to captain, Ingoldsby’s regiment; possibly

Dec.

1 8

(o),

2 1 2 )

Dec.

1 8 I ) , 2 1 2 )

?CADWELL, Matthew

CLA RK E,o h n

?CLARKE, Jo h n ,

DAVIS,

He nry Davis, captain in Hewson’s regim ent,

1 6 4 7 ”

Hesilrige’s regim ent7 g

Barkstead’s reg ime nt

Fairfax’s regim ent

of

horse

Barkstead’s reg ime nt

Fairfax’s regim ent o f horse

Overton’s regiment

Whalley’s regim ent

Cap tain an d gov erno r of Brownsea castle, Dorsetso



Waller’s regimen t

~ D E A N E ,ichard

tDENIsoN,John

fDISHER, William

TDORNEY, Henry

tGLADMAN,John

TGROOME, Benjamin

?GROVE, John

H A R D I N G ,enry

?HARRISON, Jam es

THELSUM (HELSHAM),rthur

?HODDEN, Richard

Dec.

1 6 1 ) ,

18

( I ) , Z I 2 ) , 2 6 i 2 )

Dec.

2 1

o),

2 6 0)

Dec. 1 8 0)

Dec. 16 11, 1 8 ( I ) , 2 1 2 ) , 2 6 3 )

Dec. 2 6 2 )

Dec.

2 1 2 )

Dec.

1 6

o),

18

( I ) ,

2 1

( 2 )

Dec. 1 8 1 )

Dec.

1 8

0)

Dec.

2 1 ( 2 )

Dec.

16 11, 1 8 ( I ) , 2 1

(21 ,

2 6 (3)

“LJ., ii .

266, 2 78; Sprigge, p.

327 ,

‘Capt. Bow en’.

’’For Browne

of

Fairfax’s regim ent:

P.R.O.,

S P 28 / 58

fos.

574-575v;

Firth and Davies. For Browne

I

CommonsJounal~,

. 62 5; Clarke MS S . ,

LXVII

fo. 25. See also,

P .

H. Hard acre, ‘W rlliam Boteler:

I 7 On 16

Dec. a n u nidentified ‘Capt. Clarke’ is listed as present and voting (Clarke M S S . , above) .

ofDe ane’s regiment:

P.R.O., SP

28/56 fo. 184r-v,

and

S P 28 / 58 fo. 138.

a Crom wellian oligarch’,

Huntington Libr.

Quart.,

xi 1947-81, 1-1 1 .

Clarke

MSS., LXVII

f o . 13 ( n o date); The

Humble Remonstrance . . . $Divers Officers and Souldiers . . .

Capt. Deane was a cousin of Col . (later Admiral) Richard Deane ( C . P . ,

i .

456 ); the

two

are

under Command

of

Colonel Hewson ( 9

Nov. 1647). p. 4 .

confused in the index o f Firth and Davies.

8o

Clarke

MSS., LXVII , p.

i g (from the back).


16/17

O F

O F F I C E R S , DE C E M B ER 1648

153

’“tJOYCF.,George Dec. 18

1 )

Cornet, Fairfax’s regiment ofhors e; captain by 1648*l

Okey’s dragoons

Ingoldsby’s regimenta2

Harrison’s regiment

Fairfax’s regiment of foot

?MERCER, Charles Dec. 2 1

(21,

26 ( 3 )

Dec. 16(1),18(1),

1

(21,26(3)

Dec. 2 1 z ) , 26

( 3 )

MESSERVY,rancis

?PECK, John

?PITSON, James Dec. 18

( 1 )

REYNomS,John:

see

Colonel Reynolds

? R O G E R S ,

Dec.

18

0)

TSconEN, Edward

SPENCER,

robably John Rogers of Skippon’s regiment

Cromwell’s rcgiment

Probably the Captain Spencer of Harrison’s regiment who testified at trial of

Hamilton

et

al., 1649”

Skippon’s regiment

Comptroller of Cromwell’s artillerya4


Probably ‘Capt. lWilliam1 Weare’, agitator for Rich’s regiment, 1647; possibly the

same William Ware commanded a troop in Marten’s ‘irregulars’, 1648’~

Harrison’s regiment

Probably the Captain Wolfe named captain in Scroopc’s regiment, 1647

Fleetwood’s regiment

Dec. 16

1 ) . 2 1 (21,

26 01

Dec.

18 01, z i

(n),26

( 3 )

tSYMoNDs, William Dec.

1 8 0)

TOMLINS,dward Dec. 18 0)

TWAGSTAFFE, Richard Dec. 16 i ) , 18

1 )

WARE, Dec.

18 (1)

TWINTHROP, Stephen Dec. 2 I 0)

tWOLFE, Dec. 26

0)

t Z A N c H Y (SANKEY),ichard

Dec.,i6 o ) , 2 1 (21, 26 (3)

Subalterns

TCHAMBERLAINE, Thomas Dec. 2 6

( 3 )

Lieutenant, Whalley’s regiment

Lieutenant, Whallcy’s regiment

DAY,

ieutenant

FAIRBANKE,_ Dec. 2 1

( 1 )

Ensign

J UBBE (JUBBES),artin

Dec. 2 6 0 )

Lieutenant, Hewson’s regiment, 1647 ; probably the Captain ‘Jubbs’ of Axtell’s

regiment, 165.0~“

Cornet, Cromwrll’s ‘Ironsides’, I 644”

*?CHILLENDEN, Edmund Dec.

1 8

(11,

2 1

11 ,

26

( 3 )

Dec.

18 11,

26

( 3 )

MALI N,

___ Dec. 16

0)

8 1

In Sept. 1647 Fairfax apparently rejected a reconmiendat ion to give Joyce a captaincy in

Flr r twood’s regime nt (Fir th and Davies , p. 93). I have been unable to discovei Joyce’s asaignnrent as

captain befrirc his appoin trnent as gove rnor of Port land,June 1650 D . N B.) .

Clarke MSS., XVII fa.

13

(n o da te ) .

as C.P.,

ii. 195 note b,

andpacsirn;

Firth a nd Davies, p. 1 9 s .

84

Firth,

Cromwell’x

Army,

p. 169

n.

I .

8 5 C . P . , i . 4 3 9 , i i . 2 1 3 n o t e a .

86 The Humble Remonstrance 9

Nov.

16471.

p.

4;

Firth and Davies, p . 628.

8 7

Berry

and

Lee,

p.

15 n . I . Probably the same

officer

was the Capt. Malin of the Protector’s troop

w h o

was

cashiered, 1658 (Firth and Davies, pp.

73,

75).


17/17

154

V O T I N G L I S T S

O F

T H E

C O U N C I L O F O F F I C E R S

SAVAGE,

Dec. 21 (2), 2 6 3 )

Cornet

Cornet, Harrison's regiment

Quartermaster, Rich's regiment

Lieutenant, Fairfax's regiment

of

footn9

TSTRANGE, Joseph Dec. 26 (3)

WARREN,

Thomas Dec.

21 (21

WILKINSON,

Dec.

18 ( o ) , 1 (2), 2 6 0)

Clarke

MSS., LXVlI fo.

P I t

1647); Firth and Davies,

p. 157 1660).

a9

Clarke

MSS. , LXVII

fo.

3 (1647) .

taft 1979 historical research

Documents