62:
and ending the strife of the Civil War. Henry Ireton and one other officer (probably John
Lambert) were "sequestered" from the treaty negotiations and tasked with drawing up the proposals. On July 17, Ireton presented a draft of these "Heads of the Proposals" at a meeting of the General Council of the Army in Reading. In the Reading Debates, and in the two weeks that followed, these draft proposals were debated and fine-tuned. The King and his closest advisors were allowed to comment on the proposals, resulting in significant modifications. Also present at the Reading Debates on the Heads was a delegation of the army's most strenuous allies from London (including the future Levellers
70:, and Maximilian Petty). The proposals may also have been edited in consultation with important Independent MPs and Lords, some of whom were present at Reading as part of parliament's negotiating team. Henry Ireton's surviving papers contain documents, some in Ireton's own hand, revealing the process of drafting and editing that produced the final version of the Heads. On August 1, after a final set of edits to address the king's objections, the army council approved a completed draft of the "Heads of the Proposals." Copies were sent to the king, parliament and the city of London, and the completed peace plan was dispatched to be printed for public view.
112:
toleration for dissentient
Puritans, whilst forbidding all use of the book of Common Prayer. In his reply to their propositions, the King, on 14 September, expressed a preference for the Proposals of the Army, as more conducive "to the satisfaction of all interests and a fitter foundation for a lasting peace". Major Huntington's letter shows that the King expected the leaders of the Army to stand by him in procuring an offer of better terms from parliament.
120:
amongst the
Levelling party in the Army as also outside of it, and "the credit and reputation" of both Cromwell and Ireton was much blasted thereby. They were accused of falsely representing it to be the desire and sense of the Army that this new application should be made to the King. The charge is thus stated by Wildman in his Putney Projects (p. 43).
274:
61:
not to disband until their grievances had been redressed. The army then began to march towards London. Parliament sent negotiators to treat with the army leadership. As part of these negotiations, the army agreed to draft a series of proposals, laying out their blueprint for settling the kingdom
119:
and his party were eager for the passing of a vote to make no further addresses to the King. Cromwell and Ireton, on the other hand, opposed Marten's motion, and the House finally resolved on 23 September that they would once again make application to the King. This decision led to much discontent
111:
Even after the occupation of London by the New Model Army had taken place, Parliament, instead of taking up the Heads of the
Proposals as the basis of a settlement of the kingdom, sent to the King a revised edition of the Newcastle Propositions, differing mainly in that it proposed a limited
92:
The sitting
Parliament was to set a date for its own termination. Thereafter, biennial Parliaments were to be called (i.e. every two years), which would sit for a minimum of 120 days and maximum of 240 days. Constituencies were to be
48:
that included accepting the covenant, installing a
Presbyterian form of church government, giving Parliament control of the Army for 20 years, and turn over key supporters for punishment. Charles refused to accept these stiff terms.
127:
and Henry Ireton negotiated with the King, they lost the army radicals' support. The radicals criticized their "servility" to the king. Without an amicable solution between the Army, King, English
Parliament, and the Scots the
281:: "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]", Volume I. by
227:
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
28:. The authorship of the Proposals has been the subject of scholarly debate, although it has been suggested that it was drafted in the summer of 1647 by Commissary-General
226:
464:
452:
260:
213:
89:
was allowed to be read but not mandatory, and no penalties should be made for not going to church, or attending other acts of worship.
497:
252:
205:
222:
502:
149:
184:
487:
492:
129:
233:
160:. The religious settlement proposed by Ireton in 1647 was virtually identical to that finally adopted in the
145:
116:
102:
Parliament was to control the appointment of state officials and officers in the army and navy for 10 years.
25:
33:
282:
218:
86:
302:
21:
99:
would be retained in church government, but the power of the bishops would be substantially reduced.
44:
In 1646 the Scots captured King
Charles I and opened negotiations with Parliament. It demanded the
185:"Making ‘the Heads of the Proposals’: The King, the Army, the Levellers, and the Roads to Putney,"
161:
348:"Making 'the Heads of the Proposals': The King, the Army, the Levellers, and the Roads to Putney"
115:
The question of a new treaty was discussed in the House of
Commons on 22 and 23 September 1647.
256:
248:
209:
201:
173:
58:
359:
153:
124:
177:
157:
141:
67:
20:
was a set of propositions intended to be a basis for a constitutional settlement after
481:
278:
63:
29:
140:
Although the "Heads of Proposals" was never adopted, Ireton promoted it in the
328:
Charles L. Hamilton, "Anglo-Scottish Militia Negotiations, March–April 1646."
96:
82:
Royalists had to wait five years before running for, or holding, an office.
363:
152:. The Instrument of Government was the written constitution that defined
333:
347:
191:
316:
Constitutional Royalism and the search for settlement, c.1640-1649
57:
In June 1647, the New Model Army seized King Charles I, entered a
277:
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
148:. Elements of "Heads of Proposals" were incorporated in the
237:
180:, vii. 731. See Great Civil War, iii. 329–333, 340–343.]
223:
Politics and the Army in the English Civil War Part 1
144:. He presented it as a moderate alternative to the
245:Aspects of English Protestantism, c. 1530-1700
174:The Heads of the Proposals offered by the Army
238:British Civil Wars & Commonwealth website
8:
429:
427:
412:Firth (1901), Cites: Rushworth vii. 810.
294:
198:Henry Ireton and the English Revolution
40:Background and Newcastle propositions
7:
192:https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/ceaa312
176:August 1, 1647. Cites as a source
14:
272:
221:(editor, Camden Society, 1901).
247:, Manchester University Press,
1:
469:Declaration of Representation
303:Heads of the Proposals, 1647
234:Heads of the Proposals, 1647
78:The main propositions were:
519:
403:Como (2020), pp. 1416-1422
394:Como (2020), pp. 1390-1406
385:Como (2020), pp. 1390-1408
376:Como (2020), pp. 1389-1390
330:Scottish Historical Review
352:English Historical Review
243:Tyacke, Nicholas (2001).
187:English Historical Review
498:Republicanism in England
190:, 135 (577), 1387-1432.
150:Instrument of Government
130:Second English Civil War
346:Como, David R. (2020).
183:Como, David R. (2020).
146:Agreement of the People
106:
26:First English Civil War
503:17th-century documents
240:, Retrieved 2009-12-07
107:King Charles' reaction
53:Drafting the Proposals
46:Newcastle propositions
442:Firth (1901), p. 228.
421:Firth (1901), p. 225.
283:Charles Harding Firth
136:Historical importance
87:Book of Common Prayer
196:Farr, David (2006).
24:was defeated in the
364:10.1093/ehr/ceaa312
162:Toleration Act 1688
314:Smith, D. (1994).
32:and Major-General
18:Heads of Proposals
488:English Civil War
261:978-0-7190-5392-4
214:978-1-84383-235-5
200:, Boydell Press,
74:Main propositions
59:Solemn Engagement
510:
472:
461:
455:
449:
443:
440:
434:
431:
422:
419:
413:
410:
404:
401:
395:
392:
386:
383:
377:
374:
368:
367:
343:
337:
326:
320:
319:
311:
305:
299:
276:
275:
518:
517:
513:
512:
511:
509:
508:
507:
493:1647 in England
478:
477:
476:
475:
471:of 14 June 1647
462:
458:
450:
446:
441:
437:
432:
425:
420:
416:
411:
407:
402:
398:
393:
389:
384:
380:
375:
371:
345:
344:
340:
327:
323:
313:
312:
308:
300:
296:
291:
273:
170:
154:Oliver Cromwell
138:
125:Oliver Cromwell
109:
76:
55:
42:
12:
11:
5:
516:
514:
506:
505:
500:
495:
490:
480:
479:
474:
473:
456:
444:
435:
423:
414:
405:
396:
387:
378:
369:
338:
332:(1963): 86-88
321:
318:. p. 132.
306:
293:
292:
290:
287:
286:
285:
269:
268:
264:
263:
241:
230:
216:
194:
181:
169:
166:
158:Lord Protector
142:Putney Debates
137:
134:
108:
105:
104:
103:
100:
94:
90:
83:
75:
72:
68:William Walwyn
54:
51:
41:
38:
22:King Charles I
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
515:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
491:
489:
486:
485:
483:
470:
466:
460:
457:
454:
448:
445:
439:
436:
430:
428:
424:
418:
415:
409:
406:
400:
397:
391:
388:
382:
379:
373:
370:
365:
361:
358:(577): 1390.
357:
353:
349:
342:
339:
335:
331:
325:
322:
317:
310:
307:
304:
298:
295:
288:
284:
280:
279:public domain
271:
270:
266:
265:
262:
258:
254:
253:0-7190-5392-7
250:
246:
242:
239:
235:
232:Plant, David
231:
228:
224:
220:
217:
215:
211:
207:
206:1-84383-235-6
203:
199:
195:
193:
189:
188:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:
167:
165:
163:
159:
156:'s powers as
155:
151:
147:
143:
135:
133:
131:
126:
121:
118:
113:
101:
98:
95:
91:
88:
84:
81:
80:
79:
73:
71:
69:
65:
60:
52:
50:
47:
39:
37:
35:
31:
27:
23:
19:
468:
459:
447:
438:
433:Firth (1901)
417:
408:
399:
390:
381:
372:
355:
351:
341:
329:
324:
315:
309:
297:
244:
219:Firth, C. H.
197:
186:
139:
122:
117:Henry Marten
114:
110:
93:reorganized.
77:
64:John Wildman
56:
45:
43:
34:John Lambert
30:Henry Ireton
17:
15:
267:Attribution
229:, Volume I.
482:Categories
168:References
97:Episcopacy
465:pp. 80,81
289:Footnotes
178:Rushworth
132:started.
334:in JSTOR
123:Because
451:Tyacke
301:Plant,
467:. See
259:
251:
212:
204:
463:Farr
453:p. 69
257:ISBN
249:ISBN
210:ISBN
202:ISBN
85:The
16:The
360:doi
356:135
484::
426:^
354:.
350:.
255:,
236:,
225:,
208:,
164:.
66:,
36:.
366:.
362::
336:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.