‘Religious misery is
at the same time the expression of real misery and the protest against that
real misery.” - Cliff Slaughter
‘That man of blood”
Major General Thomas Harrison
“The scum and scouring
of the country.... Deduct the weavers, tailors, brewers, cobblers, tinkers,
carmen, draymen, broom-men and mat makers and then give me a list of the
gentlemen. Their names may be writ in text, within the compass of a single
halfpenny. Mercurius Elencticus (7-14
June I648), British Library, E447/ II, 226
That
Major General Thomas Harrison lacks a full modern academic study is a bit of
historical anomaly given that he played such a fundamental role in the English revolution
and dare I say English History. It is to
David Farr and Ashgate publishers credit that this poor oversight has been
largely rectified.
In
the past the absence of such a biography has been “due to the apparent
limitations of the source material”. These limitations were exposed by historian
C H Simpkinson who in his review Thomas Harrison- Regicide and Major General in
the American Historical Review Vol 11 No 1 1905 said “it would be interesting
to know what induced the publishers of the Temple Biographies to include in
their list Thomas Harrison. It is impossible to make out of him a popular
subject. Moreover, the facts in his life are too little known to make it
possible to write a successful popular biography. Consequently, it would be
better to have attempted a life based strictly upon thorough research”.[1]
Farr’s
biography is based on very thorough research. It is certainly is the most subtle view of Harrison than has previously has
been portrayed. “Unlike the only two previous full length studies of Harrison
the present work makes use of a full range of manuscript, primary and secondary
sources, including the huge range of new material that has fundamentally
changed how the early modern period is now understood. Fully footnoted and referenced,
this study provides the first modern academic study of Harrison”.
One
difficulty Farr sought to overcome was that rightly or wrongly Thomas Harrison
is best known for his role in the regicide of Charles 1st. Harrison
was one of the foremost republican leaders during the English revolution. He
was never forgiven by later Monarchists for this role and his death was a
brutal and bloody affair. He was after all he was hanged, drawn and quartered
by the Restoration government in 1660. Harrison’s gruesome fate was witnessed
by Samuel Pepys who wrote of him “To my Lord’s in the morning, where I met with
Captain Cuttance, but my Lord not being up I went out to Charing Cross, to see
Major-general Harrison hanged, drawn, and quartered; which was done there, he
looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition. He was presently cut
down, and his head and heart shown to the people, at which there was great
shouts of joy. It is said, that he said that he was sure to come shortly at the
right hand of Christ to judge them that now had judged him; and that his wife
do expect his coming again”.[2]
Given
that Harrison’s later life is better documented than his earlier work it is
understandable that Farr in his book employs a thematic, rather than
chronological approach, as the introduction says “to illustrate the role of
millenarianism and providence in the English Revolution, religion within the
new model army, literature, image and reputation, and Harrison’s relationship
with key individuals like Ireton and Cromwell as well as groups, most notably
the Fifth Monarchists”.
The
book is sub divided into three main parts. The first part starts with an
analysis of Harrison’s last years of life. Farr seeks in this part of the book
to explain Harrison’s problem in coming to terms with the political collapse of
the Interregnum regimes. A collapse he had no social, political or military
answer to. It must be said that he was not the only radical figure to fail to understand
his and many others fall from influence and power. Harrison’s only answer was
to put his faith in God believing that his fall from power had been
pre-ordained.
This
answer may have suited people living in the 17th century but I am
afraid people living in the 21st century need a little more. One of the few historians to examine the defeat of
the radical groups was Christopher Hill. In his the Experience of Defeat-
Milton and Some Contemporaries Hill somewhat controversially sought
to understand how the radical groups fell from providence so easily. He
believed that Milton’s Paradise lost was a “mediation on the reasons for the
revolution failure”. It is not really the place to dwell on Hill’s book but
suffice to say his conclusions were a little pessimistic especially when he
drew incorrect comparisons with ‘other failed revolutions’
Part two examines “Harrison’s years of ‘power”. Farr spends a significant amount of space in this part of book evaluating Harrison’s political activities and how they impacted on his role in the New Model Army and his major part in the trial and regicide of the king.
Farr’s
research into the regicide is a welcome change from modern historiography. Geoffrey Robertson correctly said that
“historians rarely have a good word to say about the trial This downplaying of the
importance of the trial of Charles l is another annoying trait of numerous revisionist
historians.
Regicide
Harrison
was one of the first regicides to be put on trial and publicly executed.
Leading Monarchists and the king saw Harrison as an important figure both
politically and militarily in which to act out their very public revenge on a leading
Puritan revolutionary. After all out of the 59 regicides, Harrison was third
only to Cromwell and Henry Ireton in the leadership of the revolution, also he
was a key individual in the process that brought Charles to his execution. A
swift show trail and execution was meant to show the population that
revolutionary action should be discouraged.
Harrison
was proceeded against because he was seen as a personification of the
revolutionary republicanism that had seen the first and only republic in
English history. The aim of the show trial was to make the regicide
illegitimate in the eyes of the population. It must said that it did not work
too well. So much so that the bourgeoisie has for centuries sought to remove
from history this and other events of the English Revolution. According to the
article in February 2014 issue of History Today even the new immigration test
has removed the entire period of the civil war on the grounds that “the wounds
are still too fresh”.[3]
Conservative historians have in the last analysis sought to deny that “all of
modern England grew up out of the revolution in the seventeenth century”.
Textual Turn
Chapter
3 is certainly the most problematical in the sense that Farr’s use of words
such as “textual” is a little ambiguous. Take for instance this quote “ in
October 1660, the restoration regime staged show trials of the men it regarded
as either the greatest immediate threat, the most culpable for the regicide, or
most responsible for the subsequent non-monarchical regimes. Harrison’s
execution was also reinforced in text to disseminate the example as widely as
possible. Harrison had felt impelled to act in 1642 and, in 1660, the dynamic
of religion still prompted him to make a final protest. Harrison, by the
unrepentant stand he took at his trial and the courageous manner in which he
met his death, and also the textual representations of his actions, also
provided a contrasting example of protest and continued allegiance to what he
regarded as a godly cause. The contradictory messages from the same events can
be seen in the differing textual responses they provoked and how they were
read. Harrison’s stance and the responses to it, whether textual or ‘real’, can
also be seen as partly responsible for the limits of the overt restoration
repression”.
I do not like Farr’s
use of the word “textual” it tend s to give far to much credence to the work of historians such as the late Stuart Hall who were in or around
the Communist Party of Britain. Hall advocated cultural studies as a way of
analyzing past and present historical and political problems. As was pointed out in a recent obituary of
hall “Cultural Studies originated as part of an attack on revolutionary
Marxism, directed above all against its contemporary expression, Trotskyism.
The academic field sought to shift the focus of social criticism away from
class and onto other social formations, thus promoting the development of
identity politics. Its establishment, in the final analysis, was a hostile
response to the gains made by the Trotskyist movement in Britain from the 1950s
onwards.[4]
Moving
on, the trial was considerably risky and in some cases bordered on the reckless
action for the ruling elite at the time. Harrison still had considerable if
passive support amongst sections of the lower middle classes.
To
his supporters he was an example that despite coming from a poor and
“relatively obscure background” a man could rise to the highest positions in
the state. While not being openly in favour of Harrison’s revolutionary politics
i.e. his republicanism Farr does a very good job of restoring Harrison’s
reputation. Unlike many modern day historians he believes that Harrison’s
behaviour during and after the war was significantly influenced by his earlier
life and economic position. Farr describes him being on the “fringes of
merchant and lawyer networks”.
As
Farr suggests Harrison was “radicalized by his experience in the armies of the Eastern Association and new Model to emerge as an extreme millenarian at the centre of
the army’s revolution of 1647–49 and the developing Fifth Monarchist movement
to late 1653”. That Harrison was radicalized during the civil war is without
doubt however I believe that his strong republicanism and his support for the
Fifth Monarchists was also a product of radical ideas that were developing
prior to the outbreak of the Civil war. London Pre civil war was an attraction for
any radical group or individual to express their beliefs and to win new
supporters.
‘That man of blood”
It
is to Harrison’s eternal credit that he very publicly denounced the king as
‘that man of blood’ in early November 1647. A full two years before the king was
due to be executed. On this particular issue Harrison had considerable support
inside the New Model Army for this action. Also on this point the fifth
Monarchist’ were to the left of other radical groups such as the Levellers who
opposed the execution.
While
Harrison sought through prayer meetings to seek God’s answer to complex
political, social and even military problems again to 21st century
eyes this is clearly not enough. Harrison
was clearly not a great theoretician despite being a substantial letter writer
he published no substantial body work of his own and nothing in his papers show
a clear theoretical understanding of republicanism, despite this handicap it
must be said he was a little more farsighted than Cromwell. But on most other things at this point in
time “Harrison stood at Cromwell’s shoulder in April 1653 as a fellow
millenarian, perhaps a reminder to Cromwell of, in his most providential moments,
his own desire for a hagiocracy. The calling of the nominated assembly, more
commonly known as the ‘Barebones Parliament’, in July 1653 was, perhaps, the
closest Britain came to a theocracy and, on the surface, at its heart appeared
to be Harrison and the millenarian Fifth Monarchists”. [5]
Previous Historiography
It
must be said that previous historiography leaves a lot to be desired and that
is putting it mildly. The last book length study of Thomas Harrison came out in
1939. Varley’s account of Harrison in the ‘highgate worthies’ series is
difficult to access. The best of a bad
bunch is C H Simpkinson’s a series of lectures which were made into a
biography. Again not a standard biography. This is available on Amazon or as a
free eBook. Harrison is given a brief comment in M Ashley’s 1954 Cromwell’s
Generals. Harrison’s New Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is by Ian
Gentles in 2004. One minor criticism of Farr is he does not really analysis in
any great depth why such an important figure in 17th century England
has been given such scant treatment.
Harrison, Fifth Monarchists and historiography
One
way around this problem is to examine as Farr has done is to place Harrison in the
context of his membership of the Fifth Monarchist movement. The Marxist Cliff Slaughter once said ‘Religious
misery is at the same time the expression of real misery and the protest
against that real misery.” [6] This
phrase taken from his essay Religion and Social Revolt Cliff Slaughter Labor
Review Vol 3 No 3 June 1958 aptly expresses the Fifth Monarchists or any other
radical group. In Marxist terms they represented the “sigh of the oppressed”.
It
is very surprising that the foremost work and I am talking about Christopher
Hill's The World Turned Upside Down on the radical groups of the 1640s contains
next to nothing on the fifth Monarchy group. It was by far the largest group
with upwards of 40,000 supporters and achieved a level of state power that the
Levelers and Diggers could only have dreamed of. Therefore I find it a little
strange that David Renton would say this about them “In comparison to the Fifth
Monarchy men, the Diggers, the Levellers and Agitators who had successfully led
a revolution, culminating in the removal of King Charles's head.[7] If
I am correct the Levellers actually opposed the king’s execution.
A
cursory look at previous historiography on the movement would uncover a degree
of confusion as to exactly what the origins of the group. A study undertaken in
1912 has the Fifth Monarchists alongside the Baptists.
As
C. Eden Quainton said” he Quakers and Fifth Monarchy men, for example, were
certainly entitled to be called Anabaptists, but the label meant nothing except
dislike, when applied to the Presbyterians. Anything, however, in the nature of millennial
belief or hope was certain to be called Anabaptist, as was the case with Fifth
Monarchy opinions, which were adopted by many Anabaptists, especially in the
army”.[8]
Any
study of the group would have to take into consideration the foremost authority
on the subject being Capp’s 1972
study. Capp placed the Fifth Monarchists
in their broadest context being principally an urban movement and appealed to
people below the gentry. In modern terms this was a movement of the petty
bourgeoisie and its lowest section. Many of the members of the Fifth
Monarchists had real fear that the civil war would reduce them to penury.
One
right wing pamphlet at the time wrote of the Fifth Monarchy men “The scum and
scouring of the country.... Deduct the weavers, tailors, brewers, cobblers,
tinkers, carmen, draymen, broom-men and mat makers and then give me a list of
the gentlemen. Their names may be writ in text, within the compass of a single
halfpenny. Mercurius Elencticus (7-14
June I648), British Library, E447/ II, 226
It
is hard not to agree with Capp’s assertion that Harrison and his Fifth Monarchy
friends did not have a coherent set of beliefs and should not be seen as a
political party. While this is true if you examine them from the standpoint of
the 21st century but if you examine them in sense of the 17th
century the fact that 40,000 people had similar beliefs and were prepared to
fight and die for their beliefs then a much clearer and precise picture of them
can be got.
They
faced the same problem as other radical groups such and the Levelers and
Diggers in that they came from relatively similar class background as the
leaders of the revolution Ireton and Cromwell. While political differences were
apparent especially regard equality and the franchise.
The
fifth Monarchist’s were part of a group of men that sought to understand the
profound political and social changes that were taking place at the beginning
of the 17th century. They were the true ‘Ideologues of the revolution’ and had
a certain capacity for abstract thought. To a certain extent I agree with Perez
Zagorin that there were similarities with other radical groups such as the Levellers, Diggers etc.
In
other areas they were radically different, sections did advocate a violent
overthrow of society so much so that they were persecuted and were spied upon
by Cromwell’s spymaster general John Thurloe. In the end they had no program to
bring about social change. Sections of the group were in favour of bringing in a
Mosaic code. This collection of religious edicts were extremely authoritarian bordering
on a form of clerical fascism.
Their
class outlook, that being of small producers, conditioned their ideology. The
contradiction between their concern for the poor and their position of
representatives of the small property owners caused some tension. They had no
opposition to private property and therefore they accepted that inequalities
would always exist, they merely argued for the lot of the poor to be made more
equitable.
Ivan Roots- C Hill -
Ivan
Roots’ dismissive review of Capp’s work ignored the broader importance of the
movement. According to one writer “Capp presented Harrison as someone who held
millenarian views by 1649. He commented on him being regarded by contemporaries
as the ‘hero of the preachers and the most violent critic of the rump’. With
regard to the removal of the rump, Capp argued that Harrison’s differences with
Cromwell were ‘over methods rather than objectives’, but that later Harrison
had no qualms in declaring the Protectorate as illegal. Capp believed that in
1660 Harrison presented himself as a martyr for the Fifth Monarchist cause”.
It
is quite surprising that Hill did so little work on the Fifth Monarchists. His
ground breaking book The World Turned Upside Down largely passes them by. His
review of Capp’s book praises him for his research that opposes the general
view from conservative historians that they and other radicals were a “lunatic
fringe”. While having similarities with the Leveller’s a major difference was
their opposition to the extension of the franchise. Also unlike the Levelers
the Fifth Monarchists were far more interested in extending the revolution
abroad. John Roger’s argued “how dust our Army to be still, now the work is to
do abroad”
Pre-1642
Farr’s
book pays considerable attention despite a paucity of information to the
pre-1642 Harrison. Farr correctly states that Harrison’s “millenarian outlook”
was shaped by a developing religious ferment, his meeting of like- minded
military people in the Eastern Association and his economic position in society
“. Farr provides considerable evidence that Harrison was not great shakes as a
politician it is common knowledge that he “was a failure as a political leader,
primarily due to his being ‘sadly wanting in the arts of political strategy’ or
because of his ‘lack of patience for administrative routine’ by considering in
detail Harrison’s engagement with the daily parliamentary routine in his time
as an MP”.
Harrison and the New Model army
Part
3 examines Harrison’s time in the New Model Army and the link between his
socio-economic status and his political and military actions. He was a loyal
and important member of the army. Farr
does attempt in his book to examine to what extent Harrison’s political and
military activities
were influenced by socio-economic factors. Farr draws upon the work of Ian
Gentles who has written extensively on the Political, social and economic
makeup of the New Model Army participants. In an
essay called The New Model Officer Corps in 1647- Gentles is one of the few
historians who have bothered to analyze who did the fighting in the civil war.
“As
absorbing as this debate continues to be, it is noteworthy that few historians
in the twentieth century have had anything to say about those who did the
actual fighting. Over 100,000 men put their lives at risk on behalf of king or
parliament. While many of them had been pressed into service, thousands of
others, mostly cavalry, took up arms voluntarily. Why were so many ready to
kill and to risk being killed? Is there any correlation between their social
origins or their economic interests, and their allegiance in the civil war?
This study attempts an answer to this question in relation to the revolutionary
army. It was the New Model more than any other body of men that forced the pace
of revolutionary events between I645, the year of its founding, and i653, when
its leader Oliver Cromwell expelled the remnant of the Long Parliament. Can
anything be discovered about their socio-economic profile? Is there any link
between the sociology of the army and its political radicalism”?
It
is with this spirit of inquiry that Farr examines the link between Harrison’s
socio-economic background and his military and political actions. As
is stated in the introduction “Harrison’s background in his native
Staffordshire, particularly the economic, political and religious circumstances
of the Harrison family in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Harrison’s roots are then
further developed by illustrating how important his move to London was in
shaping why he became a parliamentary activist at such an early stage, as well
as laying the foundations for some of the key political, economic and religious
connections of his later life. it enables the text to finish on a rounded
picture of the trajectory of his life from 1616 to his execution in 1660,
rooted in the personal and economic factors that have been overlooked in light
of his high-profile religious and political radicalism but were very much part
of who he was”.
Some
objective problems do come up when examining soldier’s beliefs in the New Model
Army. The main one being a lack of historical data especially for rank and file
soldiers. Gentles therefore concentrates his research on the upper sections of
the army’s hierarchy.
Social
mobility in the army was very fluid according to Gentles “we would expect men
who did not enter the army as commissioned officers to come from humbler
backgrounds than those who did. At least thirty-seven, or nearly a sixth of the
238 officers, are known to have risen from the rank of private, corporal,
sergeant or quartermaster. This is in striking contrast to the royalist armies,
where the policy was never to promote non-commissioned officers to commissioned
rank. Data about social status are available for only fifteen of the thirty-seven,
and not surprisingly they were mostly merchants, tradesmen and small yeomen.
The other twenty-two, about whom nothing has been uncovered, are unlikely to
have been more exalted in their status”.
Gentles
concludes with point “The radical
dynamic which was unleashed by the potent brew of anti-popery, antinomianism
and Puritan egalitarianism was accentuated by the youthfulness and the low
social status of the New Model officers who articulated it”. It is a shame that
there is little of this kind of research into socio-economic influences on
political or military decisions. After all it was Cromwell who knew the
importance of socio-economic status, the man about whom Cromwell said he would
'rather have a plain, russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for and
loves what he knows than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else'.
Farr’s
book is an extremely enjoyable read. More importantly it has shone a bright
light on a person that deserves far more research. Also he has shown the Fifth
Monarchists to be an important part of the English Revolution. While far more
needs to be researched on the republicanism expressed by the group. Farr’s book
should be read straight after Capp’s work. The book deserves a wide audience
and would be a comfortable read for a general reader as well as the more
academic one. Hopefully it will be placed on university reading lists in the
future. Hopeful the paperback version will be a little cheaper.
Notes
1 1 Cromwell and the Anabaptists during
1653 Author(s): C. Eden Quainton Source: Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 1, No.
2 (Jun., 1932), pp. 164-178 Published by: University of California Press
2. Thomas Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell’s Letters, Speeches London 1905 86-87
3. The New Model Officer Corps in 1647: A Collective Portrait Author(s): Ian Gentles Social History, Vol. 22, No. 2 (May, 1997), pp. 127-144 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
4. Thomas Harrison- Regicide and Major General by C H Simpkinson-American Historical Review Vol 11 No 1 1905
5. 'The Fifth Monarchists and Popular Millenarianism; in J. F. McGregor and B. Reay, eds., Radical Religion in the English Revolution (OUP 1984; paperback edn., 1986), 165-89.
6. The Diary of Samuel Pepys-13th October 1660.
7. The Experience of Defeat- Milton and Some Contemporaries Christopher Hill Faber and Faber
8. Alex Callinicos -The Rule of the Saints Socialist Worker Review, No. 69, October 1984.Transcribed by Christian Høgsbjerg.(ETOL).
9. The Experience of Defeat: Milton and Some Contemporaries Christopher Hill Faber and Faber £12.50
10. The Fifth Monarchy Men. Review of B S Capp the Fifth Monarchy Men. Cambridge Review 20 October 1972.
11. Rogers, John (b. 1627), Fifth Monarchist writer- Oxford Dictionary of National Biography http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23983?docPos=7
12. Reluctant Regicides, Toby Haggith and Richard Weight, History Today February 2014
13. The Fifth Monarchy Insurrections : Champlin Burrage The English Historical Review, Vol. 25, No. 100 (Oct., 1910), pp. 722-747
14. The Fifth Monarchy Men: Politics and the Millennium Leo F. Solt Church History, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1961), pp. 314-324
15. Mercurius Elencticus (7-14 June I648), British Library, E447/ II, 226
16. "Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood" Patricia Crawford Journal of British Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Spring, 1977), pp. 41-61
17. The Fifth Monarchy Men: A Study in Seventeenth-Century English Millenarianism by B. S. Capp Leo F. Solt The American Historical Review, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct., 1973),
18. Millennium and Revolution: Two Themes In Seventeenth Century British Utopianism Lyman Tower Sargent Utopian Studies, No. 2 (1989), pp. 38-49
19. John Bunyan and the Fifth Monarchists : Richard L. Greaves Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Summer, 1981), pp. 83-95
20. John Rogers: A Disillusioned Fifth Monarchy Man : Suellen M. Hoy Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn, 1972), pp. 125-146
21. A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution (1954). Perez Zagorin
22. Cultural theorist Stuart Hall (1932-2014): A political career dedicated to opposing Marxism By Paul Bond http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/05/hall-m05.html
2. Thomas Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell’s Letters, Speeches London 1905 86-87
3. The New Model Officer Corps in 1647: A Collective Portrait Author(s): Ian Gentles Social History, Vol. 22, No. 2 (May, 1997), pp. 127-144 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
4. Thomas Harrison- Regicide and Major General by C H Simpkinson-American Historical Review Vol 11 No 1 1905
5. 'The Fifth Monarchists and Popular Millenarianism; in J. F. McGregor and B. Reay, eds., Radical Religion in the English Revolution (OUP 1984; paperback edn., 1986), 165-89.
6. The Diary of Samuel Pepys-13th October 1660.
7. The Experience of Defeat- Milton and Some Contemporaries Christopher Hill Faber and Faber
8. Alex Callinicos -The Rule of the Saints Socialist Worker Review, No. 69, October 1984.Transcribed by Christian Høgsbjerg.(ETOL).
9. The Experience of Defeat: Milton and Some Contemporaries Christopher Hill Faber and Faber £12.50
10. The Fifth Monarchy Men. Review of B S Capp the Fifth Monarchy Men. Cambridge Review 20 October 1972.
11. Rogers, John (b. 1627), Fifth Monarchist writer- Oxford Dictionary of National Biography http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23983?docPos=7
12. Reluctant Regicides, Toby Haggith and Richard Weight, History Today February 2014
13. The Fifth Monarchy Insurrections : Champlin Burrage The English Historical Review, Vol. 25, No. 100 (Oct., 1910), pp. 722-747
14. The Fifth Monarchy Men: Politics and the Millennium Leo F. Solt Church History, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1961), pp. 314-324
15. Mercurius Elencticus (7-14 June I648), British Library, E447/ II, 226
16. "Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood" Patricia Crawford Journal of British Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Spring, 1977), pp. 41-61
17. The Fifth Monarchy Men: A Study in Seventeenth-Century English Millenarianism by B. S. Capp Leo F. Solt The American Historical Review, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct., 1973),
18. Millennium and Revolution: Two Themes In Seventeenth Century British Utopianism Lyman Tower Sargent Utopian Studies, No. 2 (1989), pp. 38-49
19. John Bunyan and the Fifth Monarchists : Richard L. Greaves Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Summer, 1981), pp. 83-95
20. John Rogers: A Disillusioned Fifth Monarchy Man : Suellen M. Hoy Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn, 1972), pp. 125-146
21. A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution (1954). Perez Zagorin
22. Cultural theorist Stuart Hall (1932-2014): A political career dedicated to opposing Marxism By Paul Bond http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/05/hall-m05.html
Footnotes
[1]
4.Thomas Harrison- Regicide and Major General by C H Simpkinson-American
Historical Review Vol 11 No 1 1905
[2]
The Diary of Samuel Pepys-13th October 1660.
[3]
Reluctant Regicides, Toby Haggith and Richard Weight, History Today February
2014
[4]
Cultural theorist Stuart Hall (1932-2014): A political career dedicated to opposing
Marxism
By Paul Bond 5
March 2014
[5]
Introduction Major General Thomas Harrison David Farr- Ashgate 2014
[6]
Religion and Social Revolt Cliff Slaughter Labor Review Vol 3 No 3 June 1958
[7]
Marxists and historical writing in Britain Dave Renton http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/marxist_history.html
[8]
Cromwell and the Anabaptists during 1653 Author(s): C. Eden Quainton Source:
Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jun., 1932), pp. 164-178
