Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:14:59.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parliament, Law and War in the 1620s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Derek Hirst
Derek Hirst
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 455 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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.)

References

1 See the various articles in Journal of Modern History, xlix (1978), 557–660Google Scholar; and Christianson, P., ‘The causes of the English Revolution: a reappraisal’., Journal of British Studies, xv (1976), 40–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Ruigh, Robert E., The parliament of 1624 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), p. 319Google Scholar; Johnson, R. C. et al. (eds.), Commons debates in 1628 (New Haven, 1977-8), ii, 224.Google Scholar

3 White, Coke, pp. 143, 219.

4 Ibid. pp. 192, 220, 76.

5 Russell, C., ‘Perspectives in parliamentary history, 1604–1629’, History, lxi (1976), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Russell, Parliaments, p. 64.

7 Ibid. pp. 103, 420.

8 Elton, G. R., ‘Tudor government. The points of contact: parliament’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. xxiv (1974), 183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitchell, W. M., The rise of the revolutionary party in the English House of Commons 1603–1629 (New York, 1957).Google Scholar

9 Russell, Parliaments, p. 25. For an outstanding example of ideological sophistication in 1610, see the speech of Thomas Hedley on impositions: Foster, E. R. (ed.), Proceedings in parliament 1610 (New Haven, 1966), ii, 170–97.Google Scholar

10 Ibid, ii, 72, 354.

11 Russell, Parliaments, pp. 198–9; White, Coke, pp. 99–100.

12 Hexter, J. H., ‘Power struggle, parliament and liberty in early Stuart England’, J.M.H. i (1978), 39–40.Google Scholar

13 Scot, T., The highwaies of God and the King and The proiector (London, 1623)Google Scholar; Hirst, D., Representative of the people? (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 144–5, 164–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Russell, Parliaments, p. 15; Commons debates in 1628, iv, 65.

15 Russell, Parliaments, p. 233.

16 See, for example, the articles by Christianson and Farnell in J.M.H. xlix (1978), 575–99, 641–60.

17 Historical Manuscripts Commission Report, Hastings MSS. iv (1947), 255–7, 262–3; Relf, F. H. (ed.), Notes of the debates in the House of Lords, 1621–1628 (Camden Soc., 1929), p. 130.Google Scholar

18 H.M.C. Report, duke of Buccleuch's MSS. in (1926), 340–1; Johnson, G. W. (ed.), Fairfax correspondence (London, 1848), I, 158Google Scholar. For the peers’ preoccupation with matters of honour see, for example, Snow, V. F., Essex the rebel (Lincoln, Neb. 1970), pp. 104–6, 180–1Google Scholar; and Sharpe, K., ‘The earl of Arundel, his circle and the opposition to the duke of Buckingham, 1618–28’, in Sharpe, K. (ed.), Faction and parliament (Oxford, 1978), pp. 209–44.Google Scholar

19 Russell, Parliaments, p. 14n.; Relf, Debates in the lords, p. 126.

20 Russell, Parliaments, p. 368.

21 Commons debates in 1628, III, 270; II, 65, and III, 27, 201, 203. Coke avowed even more ominously that he could not be restrained by any law made, ibid, III, 189.

22 Quoted in Russell, Parliaments, p. 368; Commons debates in 1628, III, 271.

23 Russell, Parliaments, p. 349; Commons debates in 1628, in, 272.

24 Although Russell does at one point concede that 1628 was closer to 1640 than it was to 1621, this is certainly not the thesis of the book. Russell, Parliaments, p. 420.

25 Russell, Parliaments, p. 427.

26 Barnes, T. G., Somerset 1625–1640 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 253–7, 271–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fletcher, A., County community in peace and war (London, 1975), pp. 193–4, 201Google Scholar. It should be noted that both Barnes and Fletcher hold the central government as much at fault as the local authorities: see also Hirst, D., ’The privy council and problems of enforcement in the 1620s’, Journal of British Studies, xviii (1978), 44–66.Google Scholar