Notes to Chapter 1
Army (London, 1659, c. October 25); and The Grand Concernments of England ensured by
a constant Succession of Free Parliaments, with some smart Rebukes to the Army (London,
1659, c. October 25).
57 For example, The Armys Plea for Their Present Practice (London, 1659, c. October 24);
The Armies Vindication of This Last Change, Wherein, is plainly Demonstrated, the Equity,
Power, and Right of the Army to Settle these Nations upon the Foundations of Righteousnesse
and Freedome (London, 1659, c. October), 4–7.
58 A new edition of Vane’s Healing Question, dated in the Harvard copy October 18, 1659,
affirms that both parliament and army represent the well-affected people and emphasizes
the necessity of their firm union. Henry Stubbe in A Letter to an Officer of the Army
concerning a select Senate (London, 1659, October 26) calls for a “Select Senate” of nine or
thirteen “Conservators of Liberty” to be elected by those who had fought for or adhered
to the Commonwealth, with a charge to preserve the fundamentals and control the mili-
tia, the ministry, and the universities. The popular legislature, freely chosen by the tradi-
tional electorate, would deal with all other matters – war, peace, taxation, and the like.
59 A Letter to a Friend, Concerning the Ruptures of the Commonwealth, dated by Milton Octo-
ber 20, was first published in Toland’s edition from a manuscript originating with Edward
Phillips. A somewhat different and apparently prior version is in the Columbia manu-
script.
60 Woolrych, “Introduction,” CPW VII, 121, thinks Vane and Milton were at this junc-
ture too far apart and suggests the dying John Bradshaw as the friend. Besides Vane and
Stubbe, arguments for reconciliation between Rump and army were urged by several
Independent ministers, including John Owen, Philip Nye, and William Bridges. See
Ludlow, Memoirs, II, 139–70, and Woolrych, CPW VII, 114.
61 He made these notes sometime between October 27 when the “present” Committee
of Safety was set up, and December 24 when the Rump was again restored. Woolrych
believes that Milton’s references to a threatened civil war point to the period between
November 3 and 15, when Monk and Lambert seemed ready to face off (CPW VII,
129–40), but that threat was rather quickly dispelled, whereas the danger of widespread
civil conflicts escalated steadily. This draft was first published in CM XVIII, 3–7; in the
Columbia manuscript, pp. 19–21, it is erroneously placed before rather than after the
“Letter to a Friend.”
62 Royalist letters to Clarendon on October 28 reported the maneuvers for Richard: Cal-
endar of Clarendon State Papers, IV, 425; there were similar reports in December and as
late as February, 1660.
63 George Monk, “To the Speaker,” in A Declaration of the Commander-in-chief of the Forces
in Scotland, Also... Three Letters from the Lord General Monck (London, 1659, c. October
20), 7. For Monk’s complex moves and motives, see Godfrey Davies, The Restoration of
Charles II, 1658–1660 (San Marino, 1955), ch. 2.
64 He suggests that those judged insufficient might be removed and worthier chosen, but
refuses to press that point now, “lest it be misinterpreted.”
65 The previous summer Milton evidently decided not to extend his lease of the Red
Rose in Bread Street beyond its expiry in 1674, and on June 10 it was granted from that
date to Thomas Hussey.
66 A Guildhall Elegie (London, 1659). Thomason dates it November 9, but this is obvi-
ously a mistake for November 29.
Notes to Chapter 11