We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
View all Google Scholar citations for this article.
The struggle between King and Parliament in 1641-42 for command of the militia was to King Charles I “the Fittest Subject for a King's Quarrel.” As the King himself and a group of pamphleteers, preachers and members of Parliament realized, the controversy was not just a contest for control of military power. The fundamental issue was a change in England's government, a shift in sovereignty from King or King-in-Parliament to Parliament alone. As Charles explained, “Kingly Power is but a shadow” without command of the militia. His contemporaries, representing various political allegiances, also testified to the significance of the contest over the militia. They described it as the “avowed foundation” of the Civil War, “the greatest concernment” ever faced by the House of Commons, and the “great quarrel” between the King and his critics. To some men it was this dispute over military authority and the implications for government which were inherent in it, rather than disagreements about religion, taxes or foreign policy, that made civil war unavoidable.
Concern about military authority first erupted in the fall of 1641 in response to a series of events – rumors of plots involving the King, the presence in London of disbanded soldiers who had returned from the war with Scotland, the “Incident” in Scotland, and above all the rebellion in Ireland which required the levying of an army to subdue those rebels.
The author wishes to thank the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at George Washington University for its support, and also Mrs. Letitia Yeandle at the Folger Shakespeare Library for her help in deciphering the microfilm of Simonds D'Ewes Journal after January 10, 1642.
1. “The King's Cabinet opened: Or certain Pacquets of secret Letters and Papers. Written with the King's own Hands,” (London, 1645) in Harleian Miscellany (London, 1746), VII, 525. The King's papers were seized at The Battle of Naseby and compiled by Henry Parker. See D.N.B.
2. Ibid.
3. The contemporary comment, in sequence, is from: Hyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil War in England, ed. Macray, W. D. (Oxford, 1888), I, 570. Rushworth, John, Historical Collections (London, 1721), IV, 525. Rutt, John T., ed., Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq. Member in the Parliaments of Oliver and Richard Cromwell from 1656 to 1659 (London, 1828), III, 145. The speaker was Edmund Ludlow (1617?-1692).
4. Parliament's declarations are described as “ambiguous, obscure, and at times a little stupid” by Hexter, Jack, The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), p. 175.
5. Allen, J. W., English Political Thought: 1603-1644 (New York, 1938), p. 424. Studies mentioned in footnote 8 deal with Parker's thought and the royalist response, not the coincidence of his views and those in the pamphlet literature of 1642-43.
6. Whitelocke, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs from the Beginning of the Reign of Charles the First to the Happy Restoration of King Charles the Second (Oxford, 1853), I, 177.
7. Allen, , English Political Thought: 1603-1644, pp. 386–412, and Wormald, B.H.G., Clarendon: Politics, History and Religion 1640-1660 (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 47–113.
8. The bibliography is lengthy. The most important studies are Jordan, W. K., Men of Substance (Chicago, 1942) and Judson, Margaret A., “Henry Parker and the Theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty,” Essays in History and Political Theory (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), pp. 138–167.
9. Coates, Willson H., The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Etves From the First Recess of the hong Parliament to the Withdrawal of King Charles from London (New Haven, 1942), p. xxv confirms the general accuracy of Gardiner's narrative.
10. At least 23 tracts were written to support Parliament; at least 20 for the King. The royalist response will not be thoroughly discussed in this essay.
11. The terms “trained bands” and “militia” will be used interchangeably in this essay as they were in 1642.
12. Unless otherwise noted all biographical information is from the D.N.B. A study of Arthur Haselrig (M.P. for Leicestershire d. 1661) would be worth doing.
13. A Parliamentary Ordinance was a declaration passed by both Houses and issued without the assent of the King. Such a device had been used since August 20, 1641 by the Long Parliament. Sir Simonds D'Ewes had looked into the precedents and had quite erroneously assured the House of an ordinance's great and ancient authority. D'Ewes later ruefully remarked that he was no stranger to the meaning of an ordinance. There is no evidence that a Parliamentary ordinance was ever issued during the Middle Ages without royal authority. See Gardiner, S. R., History of England 1603-1642 (London, 1884), X, 4, and BM, D'Ewes Journal, Harleian MSS, 163, f. 475. (The folio numbers to the Harleian MSS follow those used in the index to that manuscript).
14. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 186, notes that the bill has not been preserved and it is necessary to deduce its contents from the debate. Wormald, , Clarendon, pp. 103–107 discusses Edward Hyde's reaction to Charles's move and the underlying intentions of the King.
15. Wedgwood, C. V., The King's War, 1641-1647 (New York, 1959), p. 21.
16. The Venetian ambassador perceived this point. See his dispatch quoted in Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 88, n. 1.
17. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 444; Hexter, , Reign of King Pym, pp. 176–77.
18. The Commons wanted to disarm the King and the enemies of Parliament. They urged the disbanding of the army raised for the war with Scotland. See Journals of the House of Commons, II, 259, 260, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, 271, 282, 286, 288, and the disarming of Papists. See Ibid., II, 261, 263, 267, 271, 273, 277, 302, 306, 325, 402, 415. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. xxviii points out that the effort to disarm the Papists during the fall of 1641 came to nothing. They insisted that France and Spain not be allowed to levy troops for their armies in Ireland. Spain's and France's activities in Ireland deepened the distrust of the Commons against Charles. The House made representations to both the Spanish ambassador (who was rude) and the French ambassador (who was gracious). See Commons Journals, II, 257, 266, 269, 275, 282, 283, 285, 438–439, 456, 457, and they took under consideration the needs and defects of the navy. See Ibid., II, 257, 264, 280, 304, 499-500.
19. Ibid., II, 257.
20. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 2.
21. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 18, n. 26. Bray, William (ed.), The Diary of John Evelyn. To which are added a selection from His familiar Letters (London, 1906), IV, 113.
22. There are two major studies of Pym: Hexter's The Reign of King Pym and Brett, S. Reed, John Pym, 1583-1643: The Statesman of the Puritan Revolution (London, 1940). For an interesting account of the opposition in the House of Commons and how it was organized in the fall of 1640, see Keeler, Mary F., “There Are No Remedies For Many Things But By A Parliament,” Conflict in Stuart England (New York, 1960), pp. 129–146.
23. Commons Journals, II, 290. Cf. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 17.
24. Commons Journals, II, 289.
25. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 11, n. 9; p. 10.
26. Ibid., p. 18, n. 26.
27. Ibid., p. 37.
28. Ibid., p. xxvi, n. 25.
29. Ibid., p. 70 and see p. 72. Also Commons Journals, II, 303. The offending captains were ordered to appear.
30. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 97–98.
31. Commons Journals, II, 306.
32. Ibid.
33. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 145. Commons Journals, II, 316.
34. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 86. Wedgwood, , The King's War, p. 22.
35. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 202.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.; also Commons Journals, II, 325. Journal of the House of Lords, IV, 453.
38. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 208, n. 10.
39. The text is in Rushworth, , Historical Collections, IV, 435–436. See also Commons Journals, II, 327; Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 217–218.
40. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 451; Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 211, 213–215; Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 86–87.
41. Commons Journals, II, 328. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 217.
42. Commons Journals, II, 330.
43. Lords Journals, IV, 462.
44. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 95. The clause was copied from a law of Edward III. For years the King's authority over the local, county militia had been restricted in this way.
45. Ibid., X, 155; cf. pp. 99, 103.
46. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 244. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 446–47 recalls that the Solicitor-General, Oliver St. John, introduced the bill.
47. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 365.
48. Ibid., I, 445. See Pearl, Valerie, “Oliver St. John and the ‘middle group’ in the Long Parliament: August 1643 — May 1644,” English Historical Review (1966), pp. 490–519 for a study of Oliver St. John.
49. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 565.
50. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 246.
51. Ibid., p. 244.
52. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 445.
53. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 247.
54. Either John or William Mallory, M.P. for Ripon. He was knighted on 23 December 1641 probably because of this speech. See Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 247.
55. Sir Thomas Coke, younger son of Sir John Coke and M.P. for Leicester borough. This episode is reported by D'Ewes with evident amusement. See Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 248.
56. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 444.
57. Commons Journals, II, 334. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 248.
58. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 447.
59. Commons Journals, II, 351. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 327. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 103.
60. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 263–64.
61. Ibid., p. 263. See also pp. 265-66. Cf. Commons Journals, II, 338; Lords Journals, IV, 469.
62. He was discharged on 21 December. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 268–69, 275–76. Commons Journals, II, 351.
63. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 110. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 346. Commons Journals, II, 356.
64. The lords took exception to the King's reference to a bill being discussed in Parliament. For comment see Wedgwood, , The King's War, pp. 47–48.
65. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 356, 358, 364. Commons Journals, II, 359, 364; Lords Journals, IV, 496.
66. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 369. Cf. p. 368, n. 17.
67. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 123.
68. Commons Journals, II, 366.
69. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 372.
70. Ibid., p. 374.
71. Ibid., p. 375, and n. 7.
72. Commons Journals, II, 366. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 376.
73. Probably Haselrig and Strode were included among the five men Charles designed to arrest because of their connection with the Militia Bill.
74. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 522. See Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 155–56.
75. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 386, 388, 396 n. 1, 399-401, 400 n. 18; C.S.P.D., 1641-43, pp. 247-249; Commons Journals, II, 370, 371, 372; Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 148, 154.
76. Commons Journals, II, 371, 372, 383, 393–95. Pym was thanked on 25 January for managing so well a conference with Lords, which included the militia question.
77. Manning, Brian, “The Outbreak of the English Civil War,” The English Civil War and After 1642-1658, ed. Parry, R. H. (Berkeley, 1970), pp. 8–13 argues the significance of the petitions.
78. Ibid., p. 12. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 163–64.
79. Commons Journals, II, 293.
80. Wedgwood, , The King's War, 1641-1647, pp. 17, 20, 21.
81. Hexter, , The Reign of King Pym, p. 32.
82. C.S.P.D., 1641-43, pp. 192-93.
83. Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1640-42, p. 264.
84. Boynton, Lindsay, The Elizabethan Militia 1558-1638 (London, 1967), p. 7; and Wake, Joan (ed.), A Copy of Papers Relating to Musters, Beacons, Subsidies, in the County of Northampton, 1586-1623 (Printed for the Northamptonshire Record Society, 1926), pp. xxi, xlvi.
85. Boynton, , The Elizabethan Militia, p. 233. Also Wilcox, W. B., Gloucestershire: A Study in Local Government 1590-1640 (New Haven, 1940), p. 90, and Thompson, Gladys S., Lords-Lieutenants in the Sixteenth Century: A Study in Tudor Local Administration (London, 1923), p. 84.
86. Boynton, , The Elizabethan Militia, pp. 244, 245, 247, 256, 257, 294.
87. Ibid., pp. 224, 225, 272, 282, 287, 291, 292, 294.
88. Wake, , A Copy of Papers to Musters, Beacons, Subsidies, Etc., p. xlvi.
89. Commons Journals, II, 262.
90. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 244–45.
91. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 446.
92. Boynton, , Elizabethan Militia, pp. 11, 210.
93. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 366.
94. Ibid., I, 445.
95. Ibid., I, 366.
96. Anon., The Militia of the King and Kingdome (London, 1642), p. 38.
97. Boynton, , Elizabethan Militia, pp. 294–95.
98. Ibid., p. 296.
99. Rushworth, , Historical Collections, IV, 525.
100. Anon., The Peaceable Militia, or the Cause and Cure of this late and present Warre. (August, 1648), p. 6.; Cf. Rutt, , Diary of Sir Thomas Burton, III, 466.
101. C.S.P.D., 1641-43, p. 260.
102. BM, D'Ewes Journal, Harleian MSS 162, f. 375 verso. For a study of Henry Marten, the first man to voice republican ideas in the Long Parliament, see Williams, C. M., “The Political Career of Henry Marten, with special reference to the origins of Republicanism in the Long Parliament.” (D. Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1954). I am indebted to Barbara Bradfield Taft for lending me her copy of this dissertation. Her own study of 17th century Republicans is forthcoming.
103. BM, D'Ewes Journal, Harleian MSS, 163, f. 409 verso.
104. Rushworth, , Historical Collections, IV, 525–26.
105. BM, D'Ewes Journal, Harleian MSS, 163, f. 475 verso.
106. Ibid., 163, f. 475, f. 475 verso.
107. Ibid., 163, f. 416 verso, f. 417 verso.
108. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, II, 69.
109. Ibid., II, 64.
110. Commons Journals, II, 496; Lords Journals, IV, 666; Whitelocke, , Memorials, I, 170–75. Schofield, Bertram (ed.), The Knyvett Letters, 1620-1644 (London, 1949), pp. 102–103, 105. Folger Library, Sir Giles Mompesson to Edward Hyde, April, 1642, Folger Library MSS, x.c. 23.
111. Commons Journals, II, 478. SirVerney, Ralph, Verney Papers, Notes of Proceedings in the Long Parliament [Camden Society, XXXI] (London, 1845), pp. 162–64.
112. H.M.C., MSS of Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, I, 292.
113. Ibid.; Also Verney, , Verney Papers, p. 165.
114. Verney, , Verney Papers, p. 162.
115. Whitelocke, , Memorials, I, 172.
116. Ibid., I, 165.
117. Ibid., I, 165, 171, 175-76. Littleton was known as a “profound lawyer,” “well-versed in the records.” He told Hyde he voted for the Militia Ordinance to disarm the Commons. Littleton joined the King in May.
118. Parker, Henry, Observations upon some of his Majestie's late Answers and Expresses (London, 1642), which followed an earlier version with slightly different title dated May 21, 1642, was printed on July 2, 1642. There was a second edition in 1642.
119. For titles of Parker's tracts and the chronological sequence of replies and rejoinders, see Haller, William (ed.), Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution, 1638-1647 (New York, 1934), I, 24, 26, 27 and notes 14, 16. Also Jordan, , Men of Substance, 142–43, n. 4.
120. Henry Hammond, A Vindication of Christ's reprehending Saint Peter, from the Exceptions of Master Marshall, (n.p., n.d.). Printed with Hammond, Henry, Of Resisting the Lawful Magistrate (Oxford, 1944), p. 84; Weinstein, M. F., “‘Jerusalem Embattled:’ Theories of Executive Power in the Early Puritan Revolution” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 1965) provides a recent discussion of Marshall's thought.
121. Ferne, Henry, The Resolving of Conscience, Upon this Question … Subjects may take Arms and resist? (Cambridge, 1642). The tract was reprinted at London in 1642, with a second edition printed at Oxford in 1643. The article in the D.N.B. asserts that this tract was the first pamphlet openly on the King's side.
122. Spelman, John, A View of a Printed Book Intituled, Observations upon His Majesties late answers and expresses (London, after September 9, 1642).
123. Digges, Dudley, An Answer to a Printed Book, Intituled, Observations Upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses (Oxford, 1642).
124. See Patterson, Frank A. (ed.), The Works of John Milton (New York, 1931–1938), XVIII, 636, note 6; and Wolfe, Don M. (ed.), The Complete Prose Works of John Milton (New Haven, 1959), II, 34.
125. Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament, and their Proceedings: or: their Military Design proved loyal and legal (London, October 15, 1642), in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 46.
126. Anon., The Case of the Commission of Array Stated (n.p., October 20, 1642), p. 1.
127. Bland, Peter, A Royall Position …, or an addition to a book intituled Resolved upon the question. (London, 1642), p. 15.
128. Spelman, , A View of a Printed Book, p. 2.
129. Rushworth, , Historical Collections, IV, 547.
130. Digges, , An Answer to a Printed Book, p. 25.
131. Hall, William, A sermon preached at St. Bartholomews the lessee in London on the XXVIII day of March 1642 (London, 1642), preface.
132. Bland, , A Royall Position, p. 9.
133. Ibid., p. 11.
134. Two examples of anonymous tracts are: Touching the Fundamentall Lawes …, to which is Annexed, the privilege and power of the Parliament touching the Militia (London, February 24, 1643) and The privileges of the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, wherein ‘tis proved their power is equall with that of the House of Lords, if not greater, though the King joyn with the Lords. However it appears that both houses have a power above the King. (London, 1642).
135. This tract appeared also under the title A Question answered, how laws are to be understood and obedience yielded? Necessary to the present state of things touching the militia (London, 1642). It angered the King who demanded that the House of Lords find out who wrote it and punish him and the publisher. C.S.P.D., 1641-43, p. 308. Whitelocke, , Memorials, I, 167.
136. Parker, , Observations, p. 44.
137. Anon., A Discourse Upon The Question In debate between the King and Parliament (London, September, 1642), p. 5.
138. Ibid., p. 9.
139. Ibid., p. 5.
140. Ibid., pp. 9, 6. Also Bland, Peter, An Argument in justification of the five members … wherein is proved, that the raising of this present army by authority of Parliament, is not treason (London, 1643), p. 14.
141. Bland, Peter, Resolved upon the question … wherein is likewise proved, that … the settling of the Militia as 'tis done by the Parliament … is according to … Law (London, 1642), p. 12.
142. Ibid.
143. March, John, An Argument or Debate in Law: Of the Great Question Concerting the Militia; As it is now settled by Ordinance of both Houses of Parliament. By which, it is endeavored, to prove the Legalitie of it, and to make it warrantable by the fundametall Laws of the Land (London, September 30, 1642), p. 5.
144. Ibid., pp. 1, 5.
145. Ibid., pp. 10, 29, 30.
146. Anon., Touching the Fundamental Lawes, p. 10.
147. Bland, , A Royal Position, p. 7. Anon., Militia Old and New, One Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Two. Read All or None; and Then Censure (London, August 18, 1642); Anon., The Case of the Commission of Array Stated, p. 5.
148. Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 63.
149. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 7.
150. Ibid., p. 43.
151. Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 63.
152. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 10; See too Anon., A Discourse Upon The Question, p. 15.
153. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 11. cf. Parker, , Observations, p. 35.
154. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 11.
155. Ibid.
156. For example, Anon., A Declaration of the great affaires (London, 1642), pp. 5, 6, and Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 48: “The Equity of the Law, and not the Letter of the Law, is the true Law.”
157. Bland, , Resolved upon the question, pp. 14, 15 and To The Reader.
158. Goodwin, John, Anti-Cavalierisme, or, truth pleading as well the necessity, as the lawfulness of this present war (London, 1642), p. 13.
159. Marshall, Stephen, A Plea for Defensive Arms … And … the lawfulnesse of Parliaments taking up defensive arms is … asserted (London, 1642), pp. 25, 24.
160. Anon., A Discourse Upon The Questions, p. 15.
161. Ibid., p. 9.
162. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 11.
163. Marshall, Stephen, A Plea for Defensive Arms, p. 24.
164. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, pp. 16, 14. Also Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 50.
165. Anon., Truth and Peace Honestly Pleaded (n.p., November 1642), mentioned in Allen, , English Political Thought 1603-1644, p. 441.
166. Thomson, M. A., A Constitutional History of England (London, 1938), IV, 11.
167. For example, March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 15; Prynne, William, Vox Populi (London, 1642), p. 3. The Journals for both Houses show that Parliament swiftly and ruthlessly repressed opposition to the Militia Ordinance. For example: Lords Journal, IV, 652, 653; V, 6, 7; Commons Journal, II, 471, 472, 473, 492, 503, 507, 510, 513. The most important episode occurred at Maidstone in Kent.
168. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 16.
169. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 592–93.
170. Prynne, , Vox Populi, p. 5.
171. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 27.
172. Ibid., p. 28.
173. For example, Anon., Certain Materiall Considerations (London, 1642), p. 11.
174. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, pp. 11–12. Cf. Bland, Peter, Resolved upon the Question, p. 13; March, , An Argument or Debate In Law, p. 26.
175. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 12.
176. Anon., A Discourse upon the Question, p. 4.
177. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, pp. 29, 41, 43.
178. Parker, , Observations, 41. Also Anon., A Discourse Upon The Questions, p. 12.
179. For example: Bland, , Resolved upon the question, pp. 5–7; Anon., The Militia of the King and Kingdome, p. 39.
180. For example: Anon., The Instructions of God's Word (London, 1642); and Prynne, William, The Aphorismes of the Kingdom (London, 1642).
181. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 15. The same point was made by Prynne, William, The Opening of the Great Seal of England (London, 1643), p. 32.
182. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 17.
183. Anon., A Discourse Upon The Questions, p. 15.
184. Anon., The Observator Defended In a Modest Reply (London, 1642), p. 3.
185. Marshall, , A Plea for Defensive Arms, p. 26.
186. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 11. Cf. Anon., Vindication of the Parliament, and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 50.
187. Prynne, William, A Vindication of Psalms 105.15 … Proving … that it is more unlawfull for Kings to plunder and make War upon their Subjects … than for Subjects to Take up Armes against Kings (London, 1642).
188. Hammond, , A Vindication of Christ's reprehending Saint Peter, p. 72.
189. Anon., Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 59; also 49.
190. Ibid.
191. Ferne, , The Resolving of Conscience, pp. 30, 45, 46 was especially emphatic. Also, Spelman, , A View of a Printed Book, pp. 20, 41.
192. See Weston, Corinne, “Beginnings of the Classical Theory of the English Constitution,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, C (1956), 133–144, and her book, English Constitutional Theory and the House of Lords, 1556-1832 (London, 1965), especially pp. 23–43.
193. Burney, Richard, An answer; or, Necessary animadversions, upon some late impostumate observations invective against His Sacred Majesty (London, 1642), pp. 14–15.
194. Thomson, , Constitutional History of England, IV, 153–54. The most recent study of the Restoration Militia is Western, J. R., The English Militia in the 18th Century: the Story of a political issue, 1660-1802 (London, 1965). It is worth noting that William Pierrepont (1607?-1678) who chaired the Committee of the Militia in the spring of 1642 (Commons Journals, II, 427) opposed the Militia Bills at the Restoration.
* The author wishes to thank the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at George Washington University for its support, and also Mrs. Letitia Yeandle at the Folger Shakespeare Library for her help in deciphering the microfilm of Simonds D'Ewes Journal after January 10, 1642.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
Loading metrics...
Abstract views reflect the number of visits to the article landing page.
Loading metrics...
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 13th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
