auderdale, had made the
following remark before the Common Council, viz., "That many aspersions
had been caste upon their armie and their proceedings by malignants; and
desired that the authors of them might be looked upon as those that
endeavour to disturb the unitie of both kingdomes."(710)

(M342)

That at least was the story as recorded in the Journal of the House.
Allen, however, declared that he had been inaccurately recorded, and the
Common Council, in giving parliament their own version of the matter,
denied that Lauderdale had made any such remark. He had said nothing that
could give offence. They forwarded the letter as desired, but begged that
it might be returned in order that it might be entered on the city's
Journal. They further expressed a wish to print and publish it so that the
real facts might be known. Allen, they said, was not to be credited, and
had been guilty of a breach of privilege in what he had done.(711)

(M343)

The House, however, took a different view of Allen's conduct, and declared
that he had only done his duty. It at the same time came to a resolution
that the relation entered on the Journal of the House varied from Allen's
and ordered it to be expunged.(712)

(M344)

Three years later, when Allen was elected alderman of the ward of
Farringdon Without, the House declared (5 Dec, 1649) that it deemed it "an
acceptable service to the commonwealth" if Allen would accept the post,
and the Common Council resolved (19 Dec.) to revoke all votes of the court
that had been passed in the month of February, 1646, reflecting on Allen's
conduct.(713)

(M345)

Hitherto the City and Parliament had, in the presence of a common danger,
mutually supported one another; but as soon as the royalists ceased to
give further cause for alarm differences immediately sprang up. The
question of the City's jurisdiction over the militia raised within the
weekly bills of mortality, as well as over that raised within the city and
liberties, was no new question. It had been raised at least as far back as
August, 1644,(714) but during the crisis of the civil war the matter had
been allowed to drop until December, 1645, when the City again brought it
forward and urged parliament to acknowledge its jurisdiction.(715) Before
parliament would give its assent it wished to be informed whether the
jurisdiction claimed by the City was already vested in the City by Charles
or by custom, and if not, what extension of