POLITICAL HISTORY city by seizing Tilbury and crossing to Gravesend, so as to command the river. But now for the first time London was taken from the south. South wark declined to join hands with the City in resisting the advance of the army, 1 the old jealousy of the suburbs against London possibly helping to decide their attitude. But the southern bank of the Thames was thereby thrown open to the army. It was intimated to the army that the Surrey trainbands were not prepared to defend South- wark. 2 At z o'clock in the morning of August 4 Colonel Rainsborough, marching from Kingston, took possession of the Surrey side fortifications. Two pieces of cannon planted opposite the gate of London Bridge per- suaded the defenders to open the passage, and Rainsborough occupied the bridge. On August 6 the army took possession of the City and Westminster. The headquarters were afterwards fixed at Putney ; and here were chiefly carried on the debates in the council of the army during the autumn of 1647 for the settlement of the kingdom. It was in effect the centre of English politics, where the proposals and suggested terms of settlement propounded by the officers, the king and the Parlia- ment were discussed. It was not easy to make these terms between the utterly opposed fanatics for Presbyterianism and Independency, the conscious and uncon- scious Republicans and the mass of quiet people who desired the restora- tion of the old Constitution with both king and Parliament in their right places. The Royalist fanatics were down and their wishes disre- garded, but they were ready to take any advantage that they could of the contentions among their conquerors. The king was regarded by so many people as indispensable that it is small wonder that he thought himself so. The monarchical and Presbyterian Scots were jealously regarding the course of all English negotiations. Naturally the alliance was drawn together between English Presbyterians, Scots, Moderate people, and old Royalists, which after twelve years more of uncertainty and military rule was to prove irresistible in 1660. But in 1648 it was hampered by the life and character of Charles and was opposed by an army admirably organized and led, which had not begun to lose faith in its work as God-appointed. Surrey shared the wishes of most of the country for a settlement on the lines of the old Constitution and for the disbanding of all armies. Like the rest of the country it underrated the difficulties of the task and was not organized to enforce its views. The crying grievance to all people was the burden of the soldiery. On December 17, 1647, the Surrey farmers presented a pitiful petition to Parliament to the effect that for six years they had endured the charge of soldiers quartered upon the county, and that their landlords neverthe- less demanded their full rents, though the tenants were impoverished by free quarters. 8 The landlords also were in many cases impoverished by 1 Rushworth, vii. 741.
- When the Parliament was again in accord with the army it passed on August 1 1 a vote of thanks
to the Southwark trainbands for their attitude. Rushworth, vii. 772. 3 Rushtvorth Collections, pt. iv. vol. ii. December 17, 1647. I 413 DD3
