Abstract
Only days after The Case of the Army Truly Stated was published, Cromwell spoke for three hours in the House of Commons in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. He denied that either he or his senior officers had any part in the manifesto, explicitly disavowed it and dissociated himself and the Army leadership from the soldiers’ arguments. In Army terms it was a very divisive speech and since Parliament at that time leaked copiously, news of it soon circulated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Further Reading
The main printed text used in this chapter is A. S. P. Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty. Being the Army Debates (1647–9) from the Clarke Manuscripts with Supplementary Documents (London: J. M. Dent, 2nd ed. 1974).
Christopher Hill and Edmond Dell, The Good Old Cause. The English Revolution of 1640–1660: its Causes, Course and Consequences (London: Laurence and Wishart, 1949), Part Ten, pp. 352–8.
Charles Blitzer (ed.), The Commonwealth of England. Documents of the English Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1641–1660 (New York: Capricorn Books, 1963), pp. 44–79.
G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Levellers in the English Revolution (London: Thames and Hudson, 1975), pp. 97–130.
Austin Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen. The General Council of the Army and its Debates, 1647–1648 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), especially chapters VIII-X.
Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), pp. 202–19.
Mark A. Kishlansky, ‘Consensus Politics and the Structure of Debate at Putney’, Journal of British Studies, 20 (Spring 1981), pp. 50–69.
J. S. A. Adamson, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament’, in John Morrill (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London: Longman, 1990), pp. 49–92.
Christopher Hill, ‘The Norman Yoke’, in his Puritanism and Revolution. Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the 17th Century (London: Secker & Warburg, 1958), pp. 50–122.
H. N. Brailsford (ed. Christopher Hill), The Levellers and the English Revolution (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951).
Howard Shaw, The Levellers (London: Longman, 1968), especially chapters 4 and 5.
Brian Manning, The Levellers’, in E. W. Ives (ed.), The English Revolution1600–1660 (London: Edward Arnold, 1968), pp. 144–57.
Keith Thomas, ‘The Levellers and the Franchise’, in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646–1660 (London: Macmillan, 1972), pp. 57–78.
G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Levellers and the English Revolution (London: Thames and Hudson, 1975).
Mark Kishlansky, ‘The Army and the Levellers: The Roads to Putney’, Historical Journal, xxii (1979), pp. 795–824.
Copyright information
© 2000 D. E. Kennedy
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kennedy, D.E. (2000). The Army in Debate. In: The English Revolution 1642–1649. British History in Perspective. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-333-98420-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-333-98420-8_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-63181-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-333-98420-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)