God's Fury, England's Fire_ A New History of the English Civil Wars - Michael J. Braddick [439]
17. A remonstrance of his excellency Thomas Lord Fairfax, Lord Generall of the Parliaments forces and of the Generall Councell of officers (London, 1648), p. 24.
18. For the importance of this argument see Patricia Crawford, ‘Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 303–23.
19. Quoted from Gentles, New Model Army, p. 275.
20. A remonstrance of his excellency, p. 16. This clause follows directly from that quoted by Gentles, who sees a clearer intent behind the calls for justice to be exacted from the King.
21. Ibid., pp. 47–51, quotation at p. 47.
22. This may relate to the classical republican view that popular sovereignty was equivalent to reason, which should restrain interest (the equivalent of passion or will): Blair Worden, ‘Classical Republicanism and the Puritan Revolution’, in Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Valerie Pearl and Blair Worden (eds.), History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H. R. Trevor-Roper (London, 1981), pp. 182–200, esp. pp. 193–4.
23. A remonstrance of his excellency, p. 36.
24. A remonstrance or declaration of the army (London, 1648).
25. A remonstrance of his excellency, p. 64.
26. For example, John Vernon, The Swords Abuse Asserted (1648); [Clement Walker], Animadversions upon the armies remonstrance (Huntington Library copy dated 4 January 1648, authorship attribution EEBO), refutes the historical account, makes a good case against the lawfulness of regicide (p. 15) and makes Gentles’s point about who ‘the people’ defended by the army are (p. 22) (see Gentles, New Model Army, p. 276); The recoyle of ill-cast and ill-charged ordinances (1648); [Nedham], A plea for the king, and kingdome (1648), engages with the detail but highlights the principle – his defence of the King was not intended to save Charles’s life, but was a defence against the threat to government posed by this version of salus populi. On the other side of the argument, The humble ansvver of the general councel of the Officers of the army (1648) justified the purge of Parliament, not in terms of justice on the King, but of a purging of interests in order to secure a settlement which defended the public good.
27. Gardiner, IV, pp. 236–45; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 118–23, 129.
28. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 126–7; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 274.
29. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 130–32.
30. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 276–8, 280; Charles Carlton, Charles I: The Personal Monarch (London, 1983), pp. 339–42.
31. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 131, 133–40.
32. Ibid., pp. 140–42; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 281.
33. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 143–8, 152, 208–20; Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 23, 387–92.
34. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 283–5.
35. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 150–63; Gardiner, IV, p. 275. For the mixed political profile of the purged parliament see Worden, Rump, ch. 2. For the triumph of radicals in London see Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 533–47.
36. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 178–82; Underdown, Somerset, pp. 146–50; Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 292–3.
37. Adamson, ‘Frighted Junto’, pp. 43–5. In fact the Confederate alliance was by this time unravelling under the weight of its own contradictions: Micheàl Ó Siochrú’, Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis (Dublin, 1999), ch. 6.
38. Adamson, ‘Frighted Junto’, esp. pp. 40–52; Sean Kelsey, ‘The Trial of Charles I’, EHR, 118, 477 (2003), 583–616, esp. pp. 587–8. For the navy see Bernard