Petition of the three colonels
Open-knowledge reference entry
The petition of the three colonels or The Humble Petition of Several Colonels of the Army was a document of the English Interregnum. Written by the Republican agitator John Wildman in the name of John Okey, Thomas Saunders, and Matthew Alured—three colonels in the New Model Army—it criticised Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate, called for the institution of the Council of Officers' Agreement of the People of December 1648 and was circulated in the army during 1654. On 18 October that year, after the petition had been ceased and the three officers arrested, John Wildman published it. Okey was court-martialled, found not guilty of treason, and set free once he resigned his commission. Saunders was not tried after he resigned his commission. Alured was cashiered from the Army and spent a year in prison because, in addition to signing the petition, he had stirred up dissatisfaction among English troops stationed in Ireland.
Notes
References
Woolrych, Austin (2004). Britain in Revolution: 1625–1660. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-927268-9.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Petition of the three colonels” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Petition, three and colonels, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7178434. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1648, 1654, 2004 and 1625.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Petition of the three colonels”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Petition of the three colonels primary sources, Petition of the three colonels archive and Petition research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Petition of the three colonels”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Petition of the three colonels” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.