f government, and submit it to the approbation of a new
parliament. An order, that the forces on both sides should retire to their
respective quarters, was gladly obeyed; the men mixed together as friends
and brothers, and reciprocally promised never more to draw the sword
against each other.[1]

[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 685. Journals, Oct. 13. Clar. Pap. iii. 581, 590.
Ludlow, ii. 247-251. Ludlow's account differs considerably from that
by Whitelock. But the former was in Ireland, the latter present at the
council.]

Thus a second time the supreme authority devolved on the meeting of
officers at Wallingford House. They immediately established their favourite
plan for the government of the army. The office of commander-in-chief,
in its plenitude of power, was restored to Fleetwood; the rank of
major-general of the forces in Great Britain was given to Lambert; and all
those officers who refused to subscribe a new engagement, were removed from
their commands. At the same time they annulled by their supreme authority
all proceedings in parliament on the 10th, 11th, and 12th of October,
vindicated their own conduct in a publication with the title of "The Army's
Plea,"[1] vested the provisional exercise of the civil authority in a
committee of safety of twenty-three members, and denounced the penalties of
treason against all who should refuse to obey its orders, or should venture
to levy forces without its permission. An attempt was even made to replace
Richard Cromwell in the protectorial dignity;[a] for this purpose he came
from Hampshire to London, escorted by three troops of horse; but his
supporters in the meeting were out-voted by a small majority, and he
retired to Hampton Court.[2]

[Footnote 1: See Declaration of the General Council of Officers, 17. The
Army's Plea for its Present Practice, printed by Henry Hills, printer to
the army, 1659, is in many parts powerfully written. The principal argument
is, that as the parliament, though bound by the solemn league and covenant
to defend the king's person, honour, and dignity, did not afterwards
scruple to arraign, condemn, and execute him because he had broken his
trust; so the army, though they had engaged to be true and faithful to the
parliament, might lawfully rise against it, when they found that it did not
preserve the just rights and liberties of the people. This condition was
implied in the engagement; otherwise the making of the engagement would
have been a