Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-xnzfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-27T03:12:05.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“The Fittest Subject for A King's Quarrel”: An Essay on the Militia Controversy 1641-1642*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Lois G. Schwoerer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , November 1971 , pp. 45 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

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.

References

1. “The King's Cabinet opened: Or certain Pacquets of secret Letters and Papers. Written with the King's own Hands,” (London, 1645)Google Scholar in Harleian Miscellany (London, 1746), VII, 525Google Scholar. 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, 570Google Scholar. Rushworth, John, Historical Collections (London, 1721), IV, 525Google Scholar. 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, 145Google Scholar. 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. 175Google Scholar.

5. Allen, J. W., English Political Thought: 1603-1644 (New York, 1938), p. 424Google Scholar. 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, 177Google Scholar.

7. Allen, , English Political Thought: 1603-1644, pp. 386–412Google Scholar, and Wormald, B.H.G., Clarendon: Politics, History and Religion 1640-1660 (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 47–113Google Scholar.

8. The bibliography is lengthy. The most important studies are Jordan, W. K., Men of Substance (Chicago, 1942)Google Scholar and Judson, Margaret A., “Henry Parker and the Theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty,” Essays in History and Political Theory (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), pp. 138–167Google Scholar.

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. xxvGoogle Scholar 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, 4Google Scholar, 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, 186Google Scholar, notes that the bill has not been preserved and it is necessary to deduce its contents from the debate. Wormald, , Clarendon, pp. 103–107Google Scholar 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. 21Google Scholar.

16. The Venetian ambassador perceived this point. See his dispatch quoted in Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 88Google Scholar, n. 1.

17. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 444Google Scholar; Hexter, , Reign of King Pym, pp. 176–77Google Scholar.

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, 288Google Scholar, and the disarming of Papists. See Ibid., II, 261, 263, 267, 271, 273, 277, 302, 306, 325, 402, 415. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. xxviiiGoogle Scholar 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, 457Google Scholar, 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, 2Google Scholar.

21. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 18Google Scholar, n. 26. Bray, William (ed.), The Diary of John Evelyn. To which are added a selection from His familiar Letters (London, 1906), IV, 113Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar. 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. 129–146Google Scholar.

23. Commons Journals, II, 290Google Scholar. Cf. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 17Google Scholar.

24. Commons Journals, II, 289Google Scholar.

25. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 11Google Scholar, 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, 303Google Scholar. The offending captains were ordered to appear.

30. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 97–98Google Scholar.

31. Commons Journals, II, 306Google Scholar.

32. Ibid.

33. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 145Google Scholar. Commons Journals, II, 316Google Scholar.

34. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 86Google Scholar. Wedgwood, , The King's War, p. 22Google Scholar.

35. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 202Google Scholar.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.; also Commons Journals, II, 325Google Scholar. Journal of the House of Lords, IV, 453Google Scholar.

38. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 208Google Scholar, n. 10.

39. The text is in Rushworth, , Historical Collections, IV, 435–436Google Scholar. See also Commons Journals, II, 327Google Scholar; Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 217–218Google Scholar.

40. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 451Google Scholar; Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 211, 213–215Google Scholar; Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 86–87Google Scholar.

41. Commons Journals, II, 328Google Scholar. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 217Google Scholar.

42. Commons Journals, II, 330Google Scholar.

43. Lords Journals, IV, 462Google Scholar.

44. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 95Google Scholar. 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. 244Google Scholar. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 446–47Google Scholar recalls that the Solicitor-General, Oliver St. John, introduced the bill.

47. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 365Google Scholar.

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. 490–519Google Scholar for a study of Oliver St. John.

49. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 565Google Scholar.

50. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 246Google Scholar.

51. Ibid., p. 244.

52. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 445Google Scholar.

53. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 247Google Scholar.

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. 247Google Scholar.

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. 248Google Scholar.

56. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 444Google Scholar.

57. Commons Journals, II, 334Google Scholar. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 248Google Scholar.

58. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 447Google Scholar.

59. Commons Journals, II, 351Google Scholar. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 327Google Scholar. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 103Google Scholar.

60. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 263–64Google Scholar.

61. Ibid., p. 263. See also pp. 265-66. Cf. Commons Journals, II, 338Google Scholar; Lords Journals, IV, 469Google Scholar.

62. He was discharged on 21 December. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 268–69, 275–76Google Scholar. Commons Journals, II, 351Google Scholar.

63. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 110Google Scholar. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 346Google Scholar. Commons Journals, II, 356Google Scholar.

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. 47–48Google Scholar.

65. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 356, 358, 364Google Scholar. Commons Journals, II, 359, 364Google Scholar; Lords Journals, IV, 496Google Scholar.

66. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 369Google Scholar. Cf. p. 368, n. 17.

67. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 123Google Scholar.

68. Commons Journals, II, 366Google Scholar.

69. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 372Google Scholar.

70. Ibid., p. 374.

71. Ibid., p. 375, and n. 7.

72. Commons Journals, II, 366Google Scholar. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, p. 376Google Scholar.

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, 522Google Scholar. See Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 155–56Google Scholar.

75. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 386, 388, 396Google Scholar n. 1, 399-401, 400 n. 18; C.S.P.D., 1641-43, pp. 247-249; Commons Journals, II, 370, 371, 372Google Scholar; Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 148, 154Google Scholar.

76. Commons Journals, II, 371, 372, 383, 393–95Google Scholar. 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. 8–13Google Scholar argues the significance of the petitions.

78. Ibid., p. 12. Gardiner, , History of England 1603-1642, X, 163–64Google Scholar.

79. Commons Journals, II, 293Google Scholar.

80. Wedgwood, , The King's War, 1641-1647, pp. 17, 20, 21Google Scholar.

81. Hexter, , The Reign of King Pym, p. 32Google Scholar.

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. 7Google Scholar; 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, xlviGoogle Scholar.

85. Boynton, , The Elizabethan Militia, p. 233Google Scholar. Also Wilcox, W. B., Gloucestershire: A Study in Local Government 1590-1640 (New Haven, 1940), p. 90Google Scholar, and Thompson, Gladys S., Lords-Lieutenants in the Sixteenth Century: A Study in Tudor Local Administration (London, 1923), p. 84Google Scholar.

86. Boynton, , The Elizabethan Militia, pp. 244, 245, 247, 256, 257, 294Google Scholar.

87. Ibid., pp. 224, 225, 272, 282, 287, 291, 292, 294.

88. Wake, , A Copy of Papers to Musters, Beacons, Subsidies, Etc., p. xlviGoogle Scholar.

89. Commons Journals, II, 262Google Scholar.

90. Coates, , D'Ewes Journal, pp. 244–45Google Scholar.

91. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 446Google Scholar.

92. Boynton, , Elizabethan Militia, pp. 11, 210Google Scholar.

93. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 366Google Scholar.

94. Ibid., I, 445.

95. Ibid., I, 366.

96. Anon., The Militia of the King and Kingdome (London, 1642), p. 38Google Scholar.

97. Boynton, , Elizabethan Militia, pp. 294–95Google Scholar.

98. Ibid., p. 296.

99. Rushworth, , Historical Collections, IV, 525Google Scholar.

100. Anon., The Peaceable Militia, or the Cause and Cure of this late and present Warre. (August, 1648), p. 6Google Scholar.; Cf. Rutt, , Diary of Sir Thomas Burton, III, 466Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar. 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, 525–26Google Scholar.

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, 69Google Scholar.

109. Ibid., II, 64.

110. Commons Journals, II, 496Google Scholar; Lords Journals, IV, 666Google Scholar; Whitelocke, , Memorials, I, 170–75Google Scholar. Schofield, Bertram (ed.), The Knyvett Letters, 1620-1644 (London, 1949), pp. 102–103, 105Google Scholar. Folger Library, Sir Giles Mompesson to Edward Hyde, April, 1642, Folger Library MSS, x.c. 23.

111. Commons Journals, II, 478Google Scholar. SirVerney, Ralph, Verney Papers, Notes of Proceedings in the Long Parliament [Camden Society, XXXI] (London, 1845), pp. 162–64Google Scholar.

112. H.M.C., MSS of Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, I, 292Google Scholar.

113. Ibid.; Also Verney, , Verney Papers, p. 165Google Scholar.

114. Verney, , Verney Papers, p. 162Google Scholar.

115. Whitelocke, , Memorials, I, 172Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar, 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, 27Google Scholar and notes 14, 16. Also Jordan, , Men of Substance, 142–43Google Scholar, 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. 84Google Scholar; Weinstein, M. F., “‘Jerusalem Embattled:’ Theories of Executive Power in the Early Puritan Revolution” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 1965)Google Scholar 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)Google Scholar. 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)Google Scholar.

123. Digges, Dudley, An Answer to a Printed Book, Intituled, Observations Upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses (Oxford, 1642)Google Scholar.

124. See Patterson, Frank A. (ed.), The Works of John Milton (New York, 1931–1938), XVIII, 636Google Scholar, note 6; and Wolfe, Don M. (ed.), The Complete Prose Works of John Milton (New Haven, 1959), II, 34Google Scholar.

125. Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament, and their Proceedings: or: their Military Design proved loyal and legal (London, October 15, 1642)Google Scholar, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 46Google Scholar.

126. Anon., The Case of the Commission of Array Stated (n.p., October 20, 1642), p. 1Google Scholar.

127. Bland, Peter, A Royall Position …, or an addition to a book intituled Resolved upon the question. (London, 1642), p. 15Google Scholar.

128. Spelman, , A View of a Printed Book, p. 2Google Scholar.

129. Rushworth, , Historical Collections, IV, 547Google Scholar.

130. Digges, , An Answer to a Printed Book, p. 25Google Scholar.

131. Hall, William, A sermon preached at St. Bartholomews the lessee in London on the XXVIII day of March 1642 (London, 1642)Google Scholar, preface.

132. Bland, , A Royall Position, p. 9Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar 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)Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar. 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, 167Google Scholar.

136. Parker, , Observations, p. 44Google Scholar.

137. Anon., A Discourse Upon The Question In debate between the King and Parliament (London, September, 1642), p. 5Google Scholar.

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. 14Google Scholar.

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. 12Google Scholar.

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. 5Google Scholar.

144. Ibid., pp. 1, 5.

145. Ibid., pp. 10, 29, 30.

146. Anon., Touching the Fundamental Lawes, p. 10Google Scholar.

147. Bland, , A Royal Position, p. 7Google Scholar. Anon., Militia Old and New, One Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Two. Read All or None; and Then Censure (London, August 18, 1642)Google Scholar; Anon., The Case of the Commission of Array Stated, p. 5Google Scholar.

148. Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 63Google Scholar.

149. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 7Google Scholar.

150. Ibid., p. 43.

151. Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 63Google Scholar.

152. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 10Google Scholar; See too Anon., A Discourse Upon The Question, p. 15Google Scholar.

153. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 11Google Scholar. cf. Parker, , Observations, p. 35Google Scholar.

154. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 11Google Scholar.

155. Ibid.

156. For example, Anon., A Declaration of the great affaires (London, 1642), pp. 5, 6Google Scholar, and Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 48Google Scholar: “The Equity of the Law, and not the Letter of the Law, is the true Law.”

157. Bland, , Resolved upon the question, pp. 14, 15Google Scholar 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. 13Google Scholar.

159. Marshall, Stephen, A Plea for Defensive Arms … And … the lawfulnesse of Parliaments taking up defensive arms is … asserted (London, 1642), pp. 25, 24Google Scholar.

160. Anon., A Discourse Upon The Questions, p. 15Google Scholar.

161. Ibid., p. 9.

162. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 11Google Scholar.

163. Marshall, Stephen, A Plea for Defensive Arms, p. 24Google Scholar.

164. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, pp. 16Google Scholar, 14. Also Anon., The Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 50Google Scholar.

165. Anon., Truth and Peace Honestly Pleaded (n.p., November 1642)Google Scholar, mentioned in Allen, , English Political Thought 1603-1644, p. 441Google Scholar.

166. Thomson, M. A., A Constitutional History of England (London, 1938), IV, 11Google Scholar.

167. For example, March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 15Google Scholar; Prynne, William, Vox Populi (London, 1642), p. 3Google Scholar. The Journals for both Houses show that Parliament swiftly and ruthlessly repressed opposition to the Militia Ordinance. For example: Lords Journal, IV, 652, 653Google Scholar; V, 6, 7; Commons Journal, II, 471, 472, 473, 492, 503, 507, 510, 513Google Scholar. The most important episode occurred at Maidstone in Kent.

168. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 16Google Scholar.

169. Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion, I, 592–93Google Scholar.

170. Prynne, , Vox Populi, p. 5Google Scholar.

171. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 27Google Scholar.

172. Ibid., p. 28.

173. For example, Anon., Certain Materiall Considerations (London, 1642), p. 11Google Scholar.

174. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, pp. 11–12Google Scholar. Cf. Bland, Peter, Resolved upon the Question, p. 13Google Scholar; March, , An Argument or Debate In Law, p. 26Google Scholar.

175. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 12Google Scholar.

176. Anon., A Discourse upon the Question, p. 4Google Scholar.

177. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, pp. 29, 41, 43Google Scholar.

178. Parker, , Observations, 41Google Scholar. Also Anon., A Discourse Upon The Questions, p. 12Google Scholar.

179. For example: Bland, , Resolved upon the question, pp. 5–7Google Scholar; Anon., The Militia of the King and Kingdome, p. 39Google Scholar.

180. For example: Anon., The Instructions of God's Word (London, 1642)Google Scholar; and Prynne, William, The Aphorismes of the Kingdom (London, 1642)Google Scholar.

181. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 15Google Scholar. The same point was made by Prynne, William, The Opening of the Great Seal of England (London, 1643), p. 32Google Scholar.

182. March, , An Argument Or Debate In Law, p. 17Google Scholar.

183. Anon., A Discourse Upon The Questions, p. 15Google Scholar.

184. Anon., The Observator Defended In a Modest Reply (London, 1642), p. 3Google Scholar.

185. Marshall, , A Plea for Defensive Arms, p. 26Google Scholar.

186. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, p. 11Google Scholar. Cf. Anon., Vindication of the Parliament, and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 50Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar.

188. Hammond, , A Vindication of Christ's reprehending Saint Peter, p. 72Google Scholar.

189. Anon., Vindication of the Parliament and their Proceedings, in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 59Google Scholar; also 49.

190. Ibid.

191. Ferne, , The Resolving of Conscience, pp. 30, 45, 46Google Scholar was especially emphatic. Also, Spelman, , A View of a Printed Book, pp. 20, 41Google Scholar.

192. See Weston, Corinne, “Beginnings of the Classical Theory of the English Constitution,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, C (1956), 133–144Google Scholar, and her book, English Constitutional Theory and the House of Lords, 1556-1832 (London, 1965), especially pp. 23–43Google Scholar.

193. Burney, Richard, An answer; or, Necessary animadversions, upon some late impostumate observations invective against His Sacred Majesty (London, 1642), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

194. Thomson, , Constitutional History of England, IV, 153–54Google Scholar. 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)Google Scholar. It is worth noting that William Pierrepont (1607?-1678) who chaired the Committee of the Militia in the spring of 1642 (Commons Journals, II, 427Google Scholar) opposed the Militia Bills at the Restoration.