Front Page Titles (by Subject) APPENDIX E.: Proceedings in the Council of the Army between Nov. 3 and Nov. 8, 1647. - The Clarke Papers. Selections from the Papers of William Clarke, vol. 1
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
APPENDIX E.: Proceedings in the Council of the Army between Nov. 3 and Nov. 8, 1647. - Sir William Clarke, The Clarke Papers. Selections from the Papers of William Clarke, vol. 1 
The Clarke Papers. Selections from the Papers of William Clarke, Secretary to the Council of the Army, 1647-1649, and to General Monck and the Commanders of the Army in Scotland, 1651-1660, ed. C.H. Firth (Camden Society, 1901). 4 vols.
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Proceedings in the Council of the Army between Nov. 3 and Nov. 8, 1647.
Of the meetings which took place between Wednesday, Nov. 3, and Monday, Nov. 8, the Clarke papers unfortunately contain no record. Of Nov. 4 Rushworth says, “This day the council of the Army again sat at Putney and they considered of some alterations to be desired in the propositions of peace to be sent to his Majesty.” The special work of the day seems to have been considering the propositions dealing with delinquents in relation to the late war (Rushworth, vii., 863). Of the debates of Friday, Nov. 5, and Saturday, Nov. 6, he simply observes, “The general council of the Army sat this day at Putney, and the general with them, and had much debate of the Heads of the Proposalls before mentioned. They sat also again about the same on Saturday, but have not yet finished them” (ibid., 864). Fairfax, who had been ill and was mentioned as absent on October 28, seems to have first returned to his place on Nov. 5. It is probable that Cromwell was absent attending to his duties in parliament. On Nov. 5 the Commons discussed the propositions to be sent to the King, which were that day reported to it from a committee of the two Houses appointed to give them their final form. A circular letter from the Agitators to their regiments says, “Our friends obtained a generall Randezvous, and a Letter from the Councell to clear the Armie from any desire or intent of constraining the Parliament to send Propositions to the King.”
“A Copy of a Letter sent by the Agents of severall Regiments of his Excellencie’s Army (that are resolved to the last drop of their blood to stand for the Liberties and Freedoms of the people of England) to all the Souldiers in the said Armie.”
The letter is referred to in the Commons’ Journals, Nov. 6, 1647, but not given there or in the Lords’ Journals. It ran thus:
Whereas it is generally reported that the House was enduced to make another addresse to the King, by Propositions, by reason it was represented to the House as the desire of the Army, From a tendernesse to the priviledges of parliamentary actings, this night the Generall Councell of the Army declared, that any such representation of their desires was together groundlesse; and that they earnestly desire no such consideration may be admitted into the House’s resolutions in that particular.
Signed by the appointment of the Generall Councell of the Army.
Putney, Novem. 5, 1647.
A newsletter in the Clarendon Papers, dated Nov. , says: “Colonel Rainborough, at a council of war held at the headquarters, intimated that the army was not disposed to make any more addresses to the King, which produced the letter to the Speaker, now in print, to that effect, signed by William Clarke, dated the 5th of November from Putney. Ireton opposed the same all he could, and in testimony of his dissent left the council, protesting he could come no more there to be partaker of the high neglect and violation of reason and justice which he observed to reign amongst them. He hath been moved since to return, but continues resolute.” (Clarendon State Papers II., Appendix xli.)
The letter of the Agitators does not expressly mention Ireton’s presence at the debate of Nov. 5 and seems to place his withdrawal on Nov. 6. Speaking of the meeting on Monday, Nov. 8, they say “the day before Commissary Generall Ireton withdrew and protested he would act no more with them unless they recalled the letter.”
Of the debates of Saturday, November 6, and Monday, November 8, the Agitators say:—
At the next meeting a Declaration was offered to the Councell, wherein the Kings corrupt interest was so intermixed, that in a short time, if he should so come in, he would be in a capacitie to destroy you, and the people. Upon this wee desired onely a free debate of this Question; Whether it were safe, either for the Armie, or the people, to suffer any power to be given to the King: and Lievtenant Generall Crumwell, and the rest, professed as before God, they would freely debate it; and munday last, a Generall Councell was appointed for that purpose; but when they met they wholly refused, and in stead of that spake very reproachfully of us and our Actions, and declared against that which was past the Councell before Concerning the voyces of those in Election, which have not fortie shillings by the yeare free-hold, and against the Letter sent by the Councell to the Parliament, and to prevent any further debate, they would have dissolved the Councell for above a fortnight; and thus our hopes of agreeing together to settle your and the peoples freedoms were then frustated, and though the chìefe of them had desired some of our friends, not above three dayes before, to goe on in their actings, for they might come in when they should doe us more service then at that time, yet then they made great outcries against us, and complaints of distempers in the Armie, which were nothing but endeavours after their rights and freedoms.
end of vol. i.
REPORT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CAMDEN SOCIETY,
The Council of the Camden Society elected on May 2, 1890, regret the loss by death of the following members:—
They also have to report the following accessions to the Society:—
The books for the year 1890-91 have been—
1. Visitations and Memorials of Southwell Minster. Edited by A. F. Leach, Esq., late Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford; Assistant Charity Commissioner.
2. The Clarke Papers. Vol. I. Edited by C. H. Firth, Esq., M.A.
In the coming year the Council propose to issue—
1. The Nicholas Papers. Vol. II. To be edited by G. F. Warner, Esq., M.A.
2. The Accounts of the Offices of the Monastery of Abingdon. To be edited by R. E. G. Kirk, Esq.
The first of these will throw light on the efforts of the Royalists to regain power during the Commonwealth and Protectorate. The second will add to our knowledge of Medieval economy.
The volume of the Accounts of Henry, Earl of Derby, which was to have been issued this year, has been unavoidably postponed, but the Council hope to be able to include it in the issue for 1892-3.
The Council wish specially to call the attention of Secretaries and other Officers of Libraries and Institutions which are members of the Camden Society to the proposed new law which authorises such Institutions to name a representative who shall be capable of being elected to sit in the Council. The members of the present Council are most anxious to strengthen their position in the manner thus indicated.
Samuel Rawson Gardiner,Director.
BALANCE SHEET 1890-91.
We, the Auditors appointed to audit the Accounts of the Camden Society, report to the Society, that the Treasurer has exhibited to us an Account of the Receipts and Expenditure from the 1st of April 1890 to the 31st of March 1891, and that we have examined the said accounts, with the vouchers relating thereto, and find the same to be correct and satisfactory.
And we further report that the following is an Abstract of the Receipts and Expenditure during the period we have mentioned:—
April 16, 1891.
John W. Hales.