Complaints and queries vpon Englands misery acted Octob. 13, 1659, by some officers of the army, against the Parliament of the common-wealth of England / by a true lover of the lawes and liberties of England, E.D.

About this Item

Complaints and queries vpon Englands misery acted Octob. 13, 1659, by some officers of the army, against the Parliament of the common-wealth of England / by a true lover of the lawes and liberties of England, E.D.
E. D., True lover of the lawes and liberties of England.
London :: Printed by J.C.,

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication ( This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to for more information.

Subject terms
England and Wales. -- Army.
England and Wales. -- Parliament.
Great Britain -- History -- Puritan Revolution, 1642-1660.
Link to this Item
Cite this Item
"Complaints and queries vpon Englands misery acted Octob. 13, 1659, by some officers of the army, against the Parliament of the common-wealth of England / by a true lover of the lawes and liberties of England, E.D." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 25, 2024.


Page [unnumbered]

COMPLAINTS and QUERIES upon Englands Misery, acted Octob. 13 1659.

Complaint. O How dolefully different is this day from this day sevennight? when Parliament, and Councel os State, Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-Council of the City of London, with the Officers of the Army, met at their sacred Solemn devotions of singing, praying, praysing and preaching the praises of God, for the late deliverance from the Northwest Insurrection; marching afterwards in great State with sound of Trumpets, atrendance of Armed Souldiers, and aspect of innumerable people, to a most sumptious Dinner, where they eat and drank of all choise varieties and rarities, with great welcome, and rare Musick, and all interchangeable signs and significations, of integrated unity and amity. But now the Army hath (they say) dissolved the Parlia∣ment; And is not this daies sorrow far greater then that daies joy; sad enough to break more hearts then on that day were made merry?

Query. Say ye the Parliament is dissolved, How can that be, when by an Act of the people in Parliament, this Parliament was never to be dissolved, without an Act of their own. Nor did those Representatives of the the people of England ever consent to their dissolution? So that let come never so many pretended Parliaments, Con∣ventions, Forms pretending Supream Power; yet will not the supremacy of this Parl∣liament still impend over them? Will not the Authority of this Parliament be still in force, to call all the said Pretentioners to an accompt, and to stick in their sides, when ever the free people of England, (continually watching their opportuni∣tys) shall bring them back to sit in Parliament?

Compl. However, if the Army have not dissolved, yet sure enough they have inter∣rupted, and put off the Parliament; which is sad enough. It being all one with not ha∣ving a remedy, as not to have Liberty to use it: So that the cry of the good people is; The Parliament is gone, and we in probability for ever undone.

Quaere. Whether we shall do well, so to conclude? For did they not so once afore, in Olivers time; some of them assisting him in that evil, others of the Army afterwards, strengthning him keeping out the Parliament till many of the Comman∣der, and some of the Souldiers troubled in Conscience left the Army; and others so manifested their dissatisfaction, that they were lifted out by Oliver? And is not this last evil in this second interruption greater then the former? And therefore like to cry lowder against their Consciences, to cause them (if God please) to return? I say, I Query whether this second interruption be not greater then the former, all things considered? For, did not the remaining Officets of the Army (pretending to godliness) refuse to take warning of treasuring up an evil Conscience, by the trouble of Conscience that befel the others? Did they not assist in the Proclaiming Richard Protector? not knowing any sufficient ground? And had they not the patience, and connivance at least▪ if not giving some assistance to the said Richads callin a Free Pauliament (as they named it); so free, that besides (through notorious patching and shuffling) the most of them were

Page [unnumbered]

English Cavelleers, arch Royalists; there were called in 60 Scottish and Irish▪ Re∣presentatives; against all Law, Custome, Ordinance or shew of Authority whatso∣ever; to the dangerous prejudice of this Nation of England (they being a third part more then the Quorum of an English Parliament) able to make Lawes upon us with∣out our consents, if at any time 40 of ours should not be in the House?

And moreover did not the complexion of that Parliament (as they call it) appear as looking towards a Kings At least did not the Army suspect so much, whereby they feared the reverting of Kings, Queens, Lands, and Fee-FarmRents? And did not the Officers of the Army upon these and the like considerations, set forth in Print their repentance for all their aforesaid evils, of May 6, 1659. Saying,

The pub¦lick concernment of this Commonwealth being through a vicisitude of dangers and back-slidings of many brought into that state and posture wherein they now stand, AND OUR SELVES also contributing thereunto, by wandering divers wayes, from righteous and equal paths; and also observing to our great grief that the good SPIRIT which formerly appeared amongst us in the carrying on of this great work did daily decline, so as the GOOD OLD CAUSE became a reproach, &c.?
And did not they and some of the former Commanders troubled in Conscience as aforesaid joyning with them, earnestly intreat in the said Printed Declaration,
(That this Parliament formerly interrupted by Oliver) would return to the exer∣cise and discharge of their trust, promising them (in the said Declaration) that they would be ready in their places, as becomes them to yield them their utmost assi∣stance to sit▪in safety, in setling and securing the peace and freedom of this Com∣monwealth.

And when this Parliament with much self-denial, ventured themselves divers ways to sit and act, and now the conscentious Officers that afore relinquished, or were ejected out of Command are restored to their respective Commands; did not the generallity of both sorts of the Officers aforesaid, (all pretending to god∣liness) now again stop this Parliament from going to the House, and therein seem to vomit up their repentance (repenting of that repentance) and to lick up that Vomit which formerly they had spewed out. And did not the Same men herein fare worse then before; not onely in transgressing against their former self-conviction, former examples of Conscience, former repentings, former repentance of their indangering the whole Commonwealth, but against the Sage Patriots of their Coun∣trey and pious (for the Generallity) towards God, and some of them brave Soldi∣ers; and that after they had sat half a year, mainly doing their Drudgery, getting Laws of Excise and Custom, raising Taxes, and paying Souldiers by Sea and Land? Yea in the very Act of stopping the Speaker in Kings-street, when a Lieut. Col. bus∣ling in the business, was asked why▪he did these things? Did he give any other answer, but this? That he had received a Command so to do. And doth not such an answer as this make a considered man astonished what might be the GODLINESS (so much cryed up) of a Souldier, that out of the business of War, and resistance of the Su∣pream Legislative Power obey an unrighteous command (his Conscience being witness) without dispute.

Compl. They were necessiated (they say) thus to stop the Parliament, for self-preservation.

Quaery. Is there any doubt but that self was mainly in it? But is there any necessi∣ty?

Page 3

Can there be any necessity (if we believe that GOD Governs the World) of sinning? Or was there such a stress to be put upon Nine Mens losing their Com∣missions, wherein were imbarked onely a little future ayry honour, and durty riches, they having had enough already to make them of Low-men to live like Lords? Or is not the truth of the storie, that they brought themselves into that dammage▪ if they count it so great a dammage, as to tear up all, rather then to fall into it? For, did not fourty Commanders of the North-West expedition presently after their com∣passing things about Chester, subscribe a Petition, or some such paper to have a Ge∣nerall, and generall Officers? And when the Parliament (having private notice of it) Voted that the granting that request was Needless, Chargeable, and Dangerous to the Common-wealth, did not 230 Officers anon after subscribe a Representation and Petition, wherein (besides many shrew'd reflexions on the Parliament hinted, as it were of their ingratitude, their oblique admonitions of the Army, &c:) desiring of the Parliament nine Proposals; in the sixt and seventh whereof they Petition that no Officer might be put into the Army but by a Committe of Nomination, nor put out of the Army without a due proceeding at their Court Martial; and in the eigth they neatly couch that their Commander in cheife might be more fixed in his Com∣mission, then the condition of the Parliament it self was, according to a certain Vote that they had formerly passed, touching the length of their sitting? And were not these Proposals obvious to be interpreted (as some did interpret them) That the Ar∣my cold better trust the said Committe of Nomination, and Court Martial, then the Parliament; and looked more after their own Establishment then that of the Parlia∣ment? And to graspe at a power to change the Complexion of the Army (the Parlia∣ments Servants,) as they the Officers should see cause, without the Cognizance of the Parliament their Master? Yet because in the said paper of Proposals they did so often mention themselves to be the Parliaments faithfull Servants (which title did they make good) did not the Parliament strein hard to squeese out so much out

of the said paper as to give them thanks for the good expressions of their affections, and faithfulness; and to tell them they had already taken into consideration some of the particulars in the said Representation; and that they would the rest on Sa∣turday next?
And did not the Parliament keep their promise? And within few dayes were come to the sixt Proposall afore-named? But mean while, did not nine of their Officers, not staying for the Parliaments answer subscribe a Letter, sending it about to the rest to subscribe it, to be sen to the Army in Scotland and Ireland, that the Officers in both these places might subscribe to the said Representation and Pro∣posall, which, with the said Letter (mentioned therein) they accordingly sent the said Letter? which attempt did it signifie less then that they were resolved here in England to adhere (and to get the rest in Scotland and Ireland to adhere if they could) to those Proposalls what ever answer the Parliament should give them? This originall Letter with the said nine hands, being brought by a Commander to whom it was sent to subscribe, unto the Parliament, was it not a sufficient cause to make the Parliament the same day it was brought in, after long debate (for they sat late) to vote the Commissions of those nine Officers voyd? And thereby to experience whether the Army, or Parliament were in chiefe rule? And whether the Parliament were not better to dye in honour, then to live and loose their Authority? Now doth this sto∣ry merit such a self preservation, as must be attained with an universall desolation of the safety of three Nations? Are nine mens pomp and riches, or rather only the con∣tinuance

Page 4

of addition of those two (for there was nothing but parchment voted away from them) balanceable against the peace and prosperity of three Nations? If they say anon the Parliament might vote out nine more and nine, &c, &c: Is this imagina∣bly possible (unless so many would be as disobedient as the first nine) seeing the Par∣liament cannot be without an Army? And could the Officers of the Army, yea and some of the said ejected Officers brook it to be uncommissionated by Oliver or the other so dealt with from time to time▪ for their faithfulness to the Parliament; and are they now affraid to be voted out of Commission from time to time, whilst they stand faithfull to the Parliament? If they say (as some of them did that Octob. 13.) that they were forced so to rout or stop the Parliament, that they might know whether they were to live or dye: Is not this a strange Ceimaera, phantisied meerly in the braine, unbecomming men of valour, that had so often boldly looked death in the face? Had the Parliament had that in their hearts, might they not as easily have vo∣ted them to be seised upon? Did this Parliament execute the King without unking∣ing of him; and could they not imprison or punish Commanders of an Army, with∣out first uncommissionating them? Did not therefore these Officers in opposing the Parliaments sitting, seek a self-preservation rather from their own jealousies, then re∣al dangers? However, may not any Malefactor as Lawfully, if not more Lawfully, offer violence to an Officer of the Magistate, sent by authority to arrest, or imprison that Malefactor, alleadging he did it out of Self-preservation?

Compl. But they did put this cessation upon the Parliament (as they say them∣selves) for another reason, viz: because the voting out of nine Officers at once did put a disreputation upon the Army.

Que. Did not the Earl of Essex and hundreds of men of quality submit to the Par∣liament to be laid aside and took it not to heart, as these men have done? Were they not rather honoured for their self-deniall.

Que. Did not Oliver do neer as much at one time; and much more at severall times to the value of an 100? Yet had they any courage on that juster occasion, to extricate and deliver themselves? Yea could this one act, and but once acted since the Parliament sate, in slightly punishing nine for disobedience to them, put a disre∣pute on an Army of 5 or 6000? Did not they in their Address to Richard deli∣vered (the former convention sitting in Parliament as they called it) importune that all Uuworthy men should be removed, in what place soever they were, whether among themselves or &c: and then ought it no disrepute to rhe Armie? If they say, but those they meant were indeed unworthy, but not the said nine: then the query will be, whether the Parliament are meetest to be the judge of that, or the Army; yea those nine, and that in their own case? But the maine query touching this complaint of disreputation is, whether the revenge or remedy they took, in interrupting the Parliament of England (called together this second time by their own intreaty) were the right ready way to cure that their supposed disrepute? Or rather was not a direct course to accumulate more, and worse reproach upon themselves the longest day they have to live, in the eyes of all true English-men? and to leave it on record when they are dead in the Chronicles of England? Yea have not this supposed cure, wound∣ed the repute and hearts of all the sober Godly people of England that adhered to the Parliament, by the taunts of Enemies at home, crying to them, where is now your Par∣liament? and by the rejoycings of the Enemie abroad in all Nations round about us, animated (in all likelyhood) hereby to invade us? yea whether the Officers by this

Page 4

breaking off of Parliament have not rendered themselves a scorn to their own Soldi∣ers whiles they now jeer, saying, every month, or quarter they have a new Ma∣ster?

Compl. Others say, shall the Parliament Vote all the Godly out of the Army?

Querie. Are those nine all your Godly ones? Yea are those nine all Godly? Cold we ever heare, or learne so much touching some of them, though it would have been joy to us to have heard it? Is not he Godly that doth Godly, Tit. 1. 11. 12? Or can true Godliness be seperated from Righteousness by the same place? Or is he a Righteous man, that doth not that which is Righteous, 1 Joh. 3. 7? Or are these vio∣lences against the grand Government of a Nation, the fruits of Godliness, Jam. 3. 17? Is this to Learn meekness of Christ as we are commanded, Math. 11. 29? Do Sol∣diers herein as becomes Godly ones, obey the Command of God, Luk. 3. 14? And John Baptist said to the Soldiers Do violence to no man; neither accuse any fals∣ly, and be content with your wages? Is this according to that rule, Dearly beloved, Avenge not your selves, Rom. 12. 19? Can men be Godly according to the first Ta∣ble, whilst unrighteous according to the second Table, Jam. 2. 10. Must these nine Godly ones (if so) be redressed at no cheaper a rate, then by pulling up the Foundati∣on of the ancient only supream Authority of this Nation, to the great grief of thou∣sands of Godly people, to the stopping of the Trade of thousands of Tradesmen; to the preventing the timely reliefe of thousands of poor Prisoners, Orphans, and Widdowes, for whom the Parliament were preparing to relieve them? Is this accor∣ding to 1 Joh. 3. 16. to lay down our lives for the Godly Brethren? Or in it not ra∣ther like Matchiavels Maxim, Let our friends Perish so as our Enemies perish together with them? If ye from thence call to mind, and object your ventering your lives for the good people and Parliament of England; the query is, whether most of you did it not when ye had but little else to venter? And whether the Parliament and many of the good people of England did not venter their lives and great Estates, viz: han∣ging up and Confiscation, if the King had prevailed, besides ventering their lives (a many of them) in battle receiving many honourable wounds? And whether all the people of England have not well paid you ever since; thousands becomming very poor, to make you rich? And whether they making you their Servants, and thus dain∣tily bringing you up, ye have not most ingratefully made your selves their Ma∣sters?

Compl, We will not, say others of them, serve the Parliament, or any Forme, con∣trary to the Common main interest, viz: Of Freedome as Men, and Freedome as Christians.

Querie. Touching Liberty as Christians, that is Liberty of Conscience, what signes or tokens were there of the Parliaments infringing this? were there not many for one, in the Parliament for large Liberty of Conscience? Yea did they not mani∣fest it in a Resolve at a Committe for that purpose (and 'tis in print) for a larger al∣lowance of Liberty of Conscience then the Army Petitioned for? Let us set down both, word for word, and then see whose expressions for that thing are larger. The humble Petition and Address of the Officers of the Army, to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England, May 12. 1659. Proposall the sixt.

That all persons who profess Faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His Eternall Son, the true God, and in the holy Spirit▪
God coequall with the Father and the Son, one God

Page [unnumbered]

blessed for ever, and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures 〈…〉〈…〉 Testament, to be the revealed, or written word or will of God, shall not be restrained from their profession, but have due encouragement and equal pro∣tection in the profession of their Faith, and exercise of Religion, whilst they abuse not this liberty to the civil injuries of others, or disturbance of others in their way of Worship: So that this Liberty be not extended to Popery or Pre∣lacy, nor to such as shall practise, or hold forth licentiousness, or prophanness, under the profession of Religion. Thus the Army, in their Address afore∣••••d.

The Committee of Parliament for Government, October the 8th 1659. Resolved, That the Supream deligated power is not intrusted to restrain the pro∣••••ssion of any person, or persons who profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus hrist God manifested in the Flesh, and in God the Holy Spirit, God blessed for vermore, And do acknowledge the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa∣ent to be the revealed or written word, or will of God; but ought to give due en∣••••uragement, and equal protection to them in the profession of their Faith, and ••••cercise of Religion, whilst they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 disturbance of others, in their way of VVorship, Thus the Commttee of Pa∣〈…〉〈…〉ment.

Now the Quaery is, Whether the Committee doth not express themselves in ••••ger and softer termes for Liberty of Conscience, then the said Officers of the rmy? And if any Reader cannot perceive it; Whether if he as a Quaker or a ocinian (to name no more, though more might be named) according to what hath een truly recited out of the said printed Copies) Whether we had not rather ubscribe to that of the Committee, then to that of the Officers of the Army? Yea 'tis quaeried further, whether this were the way to secure Liberty of Con∣cience, to disperse the Parliament, the only Legislative power to restrain the Adversaries of Liberty of Conscience, by a Law to give way to the said Liberty? Yea, whether whilst we look on the present, and former breaches made on Par∣liaments, and invasion of worse things in their room, ushered in commonly with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cry for Liberty of Conscience, do not render this cry very suspicious, that it is used only as a Visard to palliat every ugly design?

2. Touching Liberty as men, that is of our persons. that we be not unlawfully mprisoned, and of our Purses and Estates, that they be not drained by illegall, awless Taxes, and of our Familes, that they be not molested with force and Free-quarter upon and in our Houses, and upon which the Quaere is, whether the way to attain this Liberty securely be, to take off the Parliament, (the only Legal Assertor of that Liberty) whilst there are 3 great Armies in England, Scot∣land and Ireland, that must (or at least will) be maintained? Yea, are not the Commanders of the Army by this course, in a fair way to make their Children, yea and themselves too, very slaves, in case they leave the Army, or the Army leaves them, and leave us in this condition?

3. Touching non-serving the Parliament, or any Form, conttary to the said two Liberties; This quaery is, Whether the common use of this word Form, (of late years) in a disdainful sence, be not a Satanical invention, and Engine to keep men off at large, from any thing that should bound them to a closer con∣scientions walking, despisig all wayes of Worship as Forms, contemning Parli∣aments

Page [unnumbered]

〈…〉〈…〉ny the Power thereof, whether this be to obey the Form of Doctrine (〈…〉〈…〉.) the Form of sound words (2 Tim. 1. 13.) continued in the Scriptures 〈…〉〈…〉 Command (1 Pet. 2. 13.) To submit to every Ordinance of man (in things Civil) for Conscience sake? Much more to a Parliament that is above Kings? And threatens us (Rom. 13. 1, 2.) That if we resist the HIGHER Powers, we resist the Ordinance of GOD; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damna∣tion? Now is there any more natural and Genuine HIGHEST Power, then a Parliament chosen by the People, in whom the Original of Supream Powers rdi∣cated? Quaery further, whether, though in some things there may be a form with∣out substance, there can be any visible substance or Action without its Form▪ As, can there be Fire without Heat, Water without liquidity, kinds of Beasts and Birds and men without variety of Forms, True godliness without some Form of profession, a fighting Army without some form of Battallio? A Government set up by the people over themselves without a Parliament (or call it what yo will) that doth present the people, by the peoples choyse, and consent? And is not the Peoples Agreement how they will be governed, a Fundamental Form of Government, both Intrinsical to the Constitution and Extrinsical to the Exe∣cution of the Legislative part?

Comp. Others say this Parliament, consisting of these men, are not fit to a rule, as not refined enough; and therefore a more refined party is fitter for it. Not to excuse the want of that goodness as was desirable in some 3 or 4 of them; were not the generality of them learned, pious Godly men, for men of that rank and quality? If notwithstanding, the Officers of the Army and their Adherents, knowing them (I suppose) by name, would call them into the House, doth it not probably signifie, that they called them to sit, only to do their drudgerie, viz: To out Mr. Richard, to clear the way (for I know not who;) to make an Act of Indemnity for the Army; to lay two Taxes to be paid within half a year▪ to pay the Soldiery and Seamen; to make two Acts, the one for payment of ex∣cise, the other for payment of Customs, for them whom the Army should a〈…〉〈…〉▪ ter thrust into Government to gather up; dismissing this Parliament under th〈…〉〈…〉 great odium of the people in the three Nations? It is queered further, if never 〈…〉〈…〉 refined a party as can be had (afore Christ come, and make all the Inhabitants o〈…〉〈…〉 the Earth perfect Saints) should take upon them, the supream Legislative power and rule, can they allow more Liberty of Conscience, then aforesaid? Can they defray the Commonwealths charges with less Taxes then will maintaine a stron〈…〉〈…〉 Fleet at Sea, and pay 3 huge Armies in England Scotland and Ireland? or can they rule justly without punnishing Offenders? If they cannot; where is the re∣fined difference? yea where will there be any Bassis or Bottom of that refined Go∣vernment if the peoples consent Concurre not to their sitting? And if their consent doth not Concurre, where is our Civil Liberty as men, and our Liberty of con∣science as Christians, liable to be imposed upon, to submit to we know not what refined Phantasies.

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.