God's Fury, England's Fire_ A New History of the English Civil Wars - Michael J. Braddick [434]
14. Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’.
15. Reprinted in Gardiner, CD, pp. 335–5, quotation at p. 334.
16. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 215–16 and n. 7.
17. Gardiner, III, pp. 367, 381.
18. Michael Mendle, ‘Introduction’, in Mendle (ed.), Putney Debates, p. 1: the blackout may have been, partially at least, officially imposed: Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 226 and n. 44. For Clarke see Woolrych, ‘The Debates’, p. 68.
19. For a detailed narrative of the debates see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, ch. 9. I have followed his summaries in Britain in Revolution, pp. 385–92 and ‘The Debates’, pp. 71–8. For the fullest published text see Firth (ed.), Clarke Papers, pp. 226–406; A. S. P. Woodhouse (ed.), Puritanism and Liberty: Being the Army Debates (1647–9) from the Clarke Manuscripts with Supplementary Documents, 2nd edn (London, 1974), pp. 1–123, contains very full extracts.
20. Woodhouse (ed.), Puritanism and Liberty, p. 11.
21. Ibid., p. 46.
22. Ibid., pp. 53–4.
23. For influential views of the controversy over the franchise see C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962), pt III; Keith Thomas, ‘The Levellers and the Franchise’, in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646–60 (London, 1972), pp. 57–78; David Wootton, ‘Leveller Democracy and the Puritan Revolution’, in J. H. Burns, with Mark Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 412–42, esp. pp. 429–30; Patricia Crawford, ‘“The poorest she”: Women and Citizenship in Early Modern England’, in Mendle (ed.), Putney Debates, pp. 197–218, esp. pp. 199–203; Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’, pp. 117–19; Quentin Skinner, ‘Rethinking Political Liberty’, History Workshop Journal, 61:1 (2006), 156–70, esp. pp. 160–65.
24. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 390–91.
25. Quoted in Gardiner, IV, pp. 5, 7; See also Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 391. For blood guilt see Patricia Crawford, ‘Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 303–23, Ludlow quoted at p. 312; for blood guilt and the dangers of a weak peace in 1643 see above, p. 259.
26. Gardiner, IV, p. 9 for this vote.
27. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 393–4, 395–8; this revises the case made by Mark A. Kishlansky, ‘What Happened at Ware?’ HJ, 25 (1982), 827–39.
28. Reprinted in W. C. Abbott, Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1937), I, pp. 557–60, quotations at pp. 558, 559.
29. Cust, Charles I, pp. 434–5; Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 88–94; Gardiner, IV, pp. 1, 9–10, 12–13, 15–16.
30. For incisive accounts of the politics see Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 92–5; Cust, Charles 1, pp. 434–5. See also Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–1648 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 20–42.
31. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 308; a similar suggestion was made at the General Council by Harrison: Gardiner, IV, p. 16.
32. Gardiner, IV, pp. 14–19.
33. For Taylor see above, p. 490. Some of the responses to the Kings Cabinet opened made a similar case: for example, Anon., Some observations upon occasion of the publishing of their majesties letters (Oxford, 1645), p. 4; Anon., A Key To the Kings cabinet (Oxford, 1645), pp. 10–11.
34. Gardiner, CD, pp. 328–32; for the politics of these crucial days see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 304–10.
35. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, p. 95; for this (relatively) sympathetic view of Charles’s honesty see Cust, Charles 1, esp. pp. 408–10, 438–9.
36. Cust, Charles 1, p. 436; for the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 335–47.
37. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 307–9; Gardiner, IV, pp. 33–4.
38. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 95–7. Developing hostility to the Covenanters” ‘extra-national’ interpretation of the Solemn League and Covenant can be traced in Culpeper Letters.
39. For the