Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:36:13.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evil Counsel: The Propositions to Bridle the Impertinency of Parliament and the Critique of Caroline Government in the Late 1620s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2012

Noah Millstone
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
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 813 - 839
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 2011

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 Star Chamber proceedings, June 1630, Folger Shakespeare Library, MS X.d.337, fol. 6r.

2 Samuel Harsnet to Henry Vane, 6 November 1629, The National Archives (TNA), SP 16/151/24.

3 Previous treatments include Rushworth, John, Historical Collections, 8 vols. (London, 1659–70), 2:50–53Google Scholar; Cobbett, William, Howell, Thomas Bayly, and Jardine, William, eds., Cobbett’s Complete Collections of State Trials, 10 vols. (London, 1809–26), vol. 3, cols. 387–99Google Scholar; Gardiner, Samuel R., History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603–1642, 10 vols. (London, 1883–84), 7:138–41Google Scholar; Sharpe, Kevin, Sir Robert Cotton, 1586–1631: History and Politics in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1979), 143–46Google Scholar; and Reeve, L. J., Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule (New York, 1989), 158–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Star Chamber order, 15 November 1629, TNA, SP 16/151/70; Sir Robert Heath’s bill of information, 16 November 1629, British Library (BL), Add. MS 23,967, fol. 24. For the sake of consistency, references throughout will be to the copy of the Propositions embedded in Sir Robert Heath’s bill of information found at BL, Add. MS 23,967, fols. 24r–33r. This is likely an official copy produced for the trial. It is endorsed “Mr Goad,” probably the Star Chamber deputy clerk John Goad; further, it is written on full folio sheets and only on the recto side.

5 Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, 145.

6 Titles can be found in [Anon.], A Machavillian Plot ([London], 1642)Google Scholar; Dorchester’s notes, ca. late May 1630, TNA, SP 16/167/44; Harsnet to Vane, 6 November 1629, TNA, SP 16/151/24.

7 Sharpe, Compare, Sir Robert Cotton, 144Google Scholar; Russell, Conrad, Parliaments and English Politics, 1621–1629 (New York, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cust, Richard, The Forced Loan and English Politics, 1626–1628 (New York, 1987)Google Scholar; Reeve, Charles I; Cogswell, Thomas, “The Politics of Propaganda: Charles I and the People in the 1620s,” Journal of British Studies 29, no. 3 (July 1990): 187–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 For a list of these manuscripts, see nn. 160–61 below.

9 Habermas, Jürgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Burger, Thomas and Lawrence, Frederick (Cambridge, MA, 1991)Google Scholar; Mah, Harold, “Phantasies of the Public Sphere: Rethinking the Habermas of Historians,” Journal of Modern History 72, no. 1 (March 2000): 153–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lake, Peter and Pincus, Steve, “Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England,” Journal of British Studies 45, no. 2 (April 2006): 270–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lake, Peter and Pincus, Steven, eds., The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2007)Google Scholar; Cowan, Brian, “Geoffrey Holmes and the Public Sphere: Augustan Historiography from Post-Namierite to the Post-Habermasian,” Parliamentary History 28, no. 1 (February 2009): 166–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cogswell, “Politics of Propaganda”; Zaret, David, Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England (Princeton, NJ, 2000)Google Scholar; Watt, Tessa, Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550–1640 (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; Halasz, Alexandra, The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (New York, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raymond, Joad, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 2003)Google Scholar; Eisenstein, Elizabeth L., The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe, 2 vols. (New York, 1979)Google Scholar.

10 Cogswell, Thomas, “Underground Verse and the Transformation of Early Stuart Political Culture,” in Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern Europe: Essays Presented to David Underdown, ed. Amussen, Susan and Kishlansky, Mark (Manchester, 1995), 277–300Google Scholar, “John Felton, Popular Political Culture and the Assassination of the Duke of Buckingham,” Historical Journal 49, no. 2 (June 2006): 357–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bellany, Alastair, The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England: News Culture and the Overbury Affair, 1603–1660 (Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar, “‘Raylinge rymes and vaunting verse’: Libellous Politics in Early Stuart England, 1603–1628,” in Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England, ed. Sharpe, Kevin and Lake, Peter (Stanford, CA, 1992), 285–310Google Scholar, “Libels in Action: Ritual Subversion and the English Literary Underground,” in Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500–1850, ed. Harris, Tim (Basingstoke, 2001), 99–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “Singing Libel in Early Stuart England,” Huntington Library Quarterly 69, no. 1 (March 2006): 177–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beal, Peter, In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England (New York, 1996)Google Scholar; Love, Harold, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woudhuysen, H. R., Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts, 1558–1640 (Oxford, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Croft, Pauline, “Annual Parliaments and the Long Parliament,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 49, no. 140 (November 1986): 155–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fleck, Andrew, “‘At the time of his death’: Manuscript Instability and Walter Raleigh’s Performance on the Scaffold,” Journal of British Studies 48, no. 1 (January 2009): 4–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Kishlansky, Mark, “The Emergence of Adversary Politics in the Long Parliament,” Journal of Modern History 49, no. 4 (December 1977): 617–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morrill, John S., “William Davenport and the ‘Silent Majority’ of Early Stuart England,” Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 58 (1975): 115–29Google Scholar, The Revolt of the Provinces: Conservatives and Radicals in the English Civil War, 1630–1650 (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Russell, Conrad, The Fall of the British Monarchies, 1637–1642 (Oxford, 1991), esp. 1–14Google Scholar; Sharpe, Kevin, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, CT, 1992), esp. 195–96, 644–730, 931Google Scholar; Burgess, Glenn, Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven, CT, 1996), esp. 1–2, 9, 47–48, 62Google Scholar.

12 Cromartie, Alan, “The Constitutionalist Revolution,” Past and Present, no. 163 (May 1999): 76–120, esp. 77–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fletcher, Anthony (The Outbreak of the English Civil War [London, 1981], 409, 415)Google Scholar refers to the “abnegation of reason” and “the imaginative poverty of the seventeeth century.”

13 Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere”; Cogswell, Thomas, “‘The people’s love’: The Duke of Buckingham and Popularity,” in Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain: Essays in Honour of Conrad Russell, ed. Cogswell, Thomas, Cust, Richard, and Lake, Peter (Cambridge, 2002), 211–34Google Scholar.

14 Sharpe, Kevin, Reading Revolutions: The Politics of Reading in Early Modern England (New Haven, CT, 2000), 5Google Scholar; McRae, Andrew, “Reading Libels: An Introduction,” Huntington Library Quarterly 69, no. 1 (March 2006): 1–13, quote at 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Sharpe, Kevin, “Introduction: Rewriting Sir Robert Cotton,” in Sir Robert Cotton as Collector: Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and His Legacy, ed. Wright, C. J. (London, 1997), 1–39, 21Google Scholar; Rushworth, Historical Collections, 2:50–51.

16 Particularly the failure of Richard James to corroborate Oliver St. John’s testimony. Defendants’ answers, ca. November–December 1629, Houghton Library, fMS Eng 977, cf. fols. 20v–26v with fols. 27v–28v.

17 Propositions, BL, Add. MS 23,967, fols. 24–25.

18 Anonymous speech to the council (1629?), TNA, SP 16/126/47; Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, 121–24; Prestwich, Menna, Cranfield: Politics and Profits under the Early Stuarts (Oxford, 1966), 111–20Google Scholar; Dietz, Frederick C., English Public Finance, 1558–1641 (New York, 1932), 234Google Scholar.

19 I thank Brian Weiser for bringing this point to my attention. Dietz, English Public Finance, 134–40; Sir Julius Caesar’s notes of projects, ca. 1610, BL, Add. MS 10,038, fols. 17r–v.

20 Propositions, BL, Add. MS 23,967, fol. 27.

21 Ibid., fols. 24–27.

22 Whether the two were identical is impossible to verify, as Dudley’s original does not survive. Birch, Thomas, ed., The Court and Times of Charles the First, 2 vols. (London, 1848), 2:58–59Google Scholar; John Pory to ?, 12 Feb. 1629/30, BL, Harley MS 383, fol. 92v; Privy Council to Sir David Foulis, draft, 25 November 1629, TNA, SP 16/152/36; Adams, Simon, “Dudley, Sir Robert,” in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB), 60 vols. and online database, ed. Matthew, H. C. G. and Harrison, Brian (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar.

23 Strong, Roy, “England and Italy: The Marriage of Henry Prince of Wales,” in For Veronica Wedgwood These, ed. Ollard, Richard and Tudor-Craig, Pamela (London, 1986), 64–75Google Scholar.

24 Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, ed., The Fortescue Papers (London, 1871), 6–12Google Scholar; Dudley’s project, TNA, SP 14/71/35, fol. 56r.

25 Strong, Roy, Henry, Prince of Wales and England’s Lost Renaissance (New York, 1986)Google Scholar.

26 Dudley to Foulis, 15 July 1614, TNA, SP 14/77/65.

27 Somerset to Dudley, 12 September 1614, TNA, SP 14/77/83–84.

28 Bellany, Politics of Court Scandal, 25–73.

29 Sharpe asserts that the Propositions remained in the custody of Somerset’s client, Sir Robert Cotton; but Rushworth (Historical Collections, 2:50) cites an unnamed witness that Cotton’s library had acquired the Propositions only around 1621–22; cf. Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, 143–45. Rushworth’s text is supported by a Star Chamber report embedded in Observations Concerninge the high and hono[ra]ble Court of Starrchamber, ca. late 1630s, All Souls College, Oxford, MS 178B, fol. 69r. Another copy of the same Observations is Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies (HALS), MS XII.A.38.

30 Rawson to ?, 6 November 1629, BL, Harley MS 383, fol. 90; Dixon to Montagu, 5 November 1629, Historical Manuscript Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleuch, 3 vols. (London, 1899–1926) (hereafter HMC Buccleuch), 3:344Google Scholar; Dasent, John Roche, ed., Acts of the Privy Council of England, 1629–1630 (London, 1960), 170Google Scholar.

31 John Rawson to ?, November 1629, BL, Harley MS 383, fol. 90r; Halliwell, James Orchard, ed., The Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, 2 vols. (London, 1845), 2:40–41Google Scholar; John Moore to John Scudamore, 7 November 1629, TNA, C 115/102/7757.

32 Privy Council warrant, 3 November 1629, TNA, SP 16/151/10; Birch, Court and Times, 2:37–38.

33 Field and Turner were not detained; copies of Wentworth’s notes, ca. 1629–30, Beinecke Library, Osborn b32, 261–62.

34 Rawson to ?, 6 November 1629, BL, Harley MS 383, fol. 90; Moore to Scudamore, 7 November 1629, TNA, C 115/102/7757.

35 Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, 48–81.

36 Bellany, “Raylinge rymes,” 285.

37 Star Chamber proceedings, June 1630, Folger, MS X.d.337, fol. 6v.

38 Defendants’ answers, ca. 1630, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fols. 21r–23v.

39 Richard James to Secretary Dorchester, November 1629?, TNA, SP 16/152/78; Star Chamber proceedings, June 1630, Folger, MS X.d.337, fol. 6v; Wentworth’s notes, ca. 1629–30, Beinecke, Osborn b32, 262.

40 Copies of the answers are in Houghton, fMS Eng 977; Folger, V.a.116; and Northamptonshire Record Office (NRO), FH 2816–23.

41 Heath’s bill of information, 16 November 1629, BL, Add. MS 23,967, fol. 31.

42 Defendants’ answers, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fols. 1r–10v.

43 Cotton’s answer, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fols. 11r, 13v.

44 Wentworth’s notes, June 1630, Sheffield Archives, WWM/Str P/24–25/47.

45 Defendants’ answers, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fols. 21r–23v.

46 Rawson to ?, 6 November 1629, BL, Harley MS 383, fol. 90; Halliwell, Autobiography of D’Ewes, 2:40–41.

47 Halliwell, Autobiography of D’Ewes, 2:39; Bellany, Alastair, “‘The brightnes of the noble leiutenants action’: An Intellectual Ponders Buckingham’s Assassination,” English Historical Review 118, no. 479 (November 2003): 1242–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Halliwell, Autobiography of D’Ewes, 2:39–43.

49 Love (Scribal Publication, 76n) makes a similar point from D’Ewes’s account alone.

50 Ibid., 46.

51 Defendants’ answers, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fols. 1v–2r, 6v–7r.

52 Moore to Scudamore, 7 November 1629, TNA, C 115/102/7757; transcript, Chateauneuf to Richelieu, 18 November 1629, TNA, Public Record Office (PRO) 31/3/66, fol. 196r; diary of Walter Yonge, BL, Add. MS 35,331, 64.

53 Defendants’ answers, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fols. 8r–26r.

54 Love, Scribal Publication, 177–79.

55 Sharpe, Kevin, “The Earl of Arundel, His Circle and the Opposition to the Duke of Buckingham, 1618–1628,” in Faction and Parliament: Essays on Early Stuart History, ed. Sharpe, Kevin (London, 1985), 209–44Google Scholar.

56 Sharpe, Reading Revolutions, 60.

57 The main exception was Somerset, whom many newsletter writers noted as the odd man out; Aglionby to Hobbes, November 1629, in The Correspondence of Thomas Hobbes, ed. Malcolm, Noel, 2 vols. (New York, 1994), 1:7Google Scholar; Braunmuller, A. R., “Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, as Collector and Patron,” in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, ed. Peck, Linda Levy (Cambridge, 1991), 230–50Google Scholar.

58 Paul Christianson, “Selden, John,” in ODNB; Seddon, P. R., ed., The Letters of John Holles, 3 vols. (Nottingham, 1975–86), 3:398–99Google Scholar; Forster, John, Sir John Eliot: A Biography, 1590–1632, 2 vols. (London, 1865), 2:545Google Scholar; Birch, Court and Times, 2:57; Reeve, Charles I, 15.

59 Kishlansky, Compare Mark, “Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity,” Past and Present, no. 189 (November 2005): 41–80, esp. 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Rawson to ?, 6 November 1629, BL, Harley MS 383, fol. 90; Notestein, Wallace and Relf, Helen, ed., Commons’ Debates for 1629 (Minneapolis, 1921), xxiiGoogle Scholar; Malcolm, Noel, Reason of State, Propaganda, and the Thirty Years’ War (Oxford, 2007), 66–71Google Scholar.

61 Love, Scribal Publication, 46.

62 Rawson to ?, 6 November 1629, BL, Harley MS 383, fol. 90.

63 Beal, In Praise of Scribes, 18–19.

64 Defendants’ answers, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng MS 977, fol. 3r.

65 Wentworth’s notes, 1629–30, Beinecke, Osborn b32, 261.

66 Materials relating to the trial of Lord Balmerino, ca. 1634, BL, Harley MS 4697, fol. 44r.

67 Heaton, Gabriel, “‘The poor man’s petition’: Anthony Atkinson and the Politics of Libel,” Huntington Library Quarterly 69, no. 1 (March 2006): 105–20, 111–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule, 706; Reeve, L. J., “Sir Robert Heath’s Advice for Charles I in 1629,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 59, no. 140 (November 1986): 215–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, 45; Cromartie, Alan, The Constitutionalist Revolution (Cambridge, 2006), 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 [Cotton, Robert], The Danger Wherein the Kingdom Now Standeth ([London], 1628)Google Scholar. Handwritten copies include BL, Add. MS 8,827, fols. 12–19; BL, Add. MS 28,011, fols. 18r–21v; BL, Harley MS 160, fols. 1–10; Cambridge University Library (CUL), MS Gg.4.13, fols. 84–88; and many others. Love, Scribal Publication, 83–88.

70 Starkey to Scudamore, 11 February 1625/6, TNA, C 115/108/8575.

71 Notestein and Relf, Commons’ Debates for 1629, xxviii.

72 Cust, Forced Loan, 61, 171.

73 Henry Bouchier to James Ussher, 4 December 1629, in Parr, Richard, The life of the most reverend father in God James Usher (London, 1686), 414Google Scholar.

74 Pocock, J. G. A., The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (New York, 1987), 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Russell, Parliaments and English Politics; Judson, Margaret Atwood, The Crisis of the Constitution: An Essay in Constitutional and Politiacal Thought in England, 1603–1645 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1949)Google Scholar; Sommerville, J. P., Politics and Ideology in England, 1603–1640 (New York, 1986)Google Scholar, and “The Ancient Constitution Reassessed,” in The Stuart Court and Europe: Essays in Politics and Political Culture, ed. Smuts, R. Malcolm (Cambridge, 1996), 39–64, esp. 64Google Scholar; Burgess, Glenn, The Politics of the Ancient Constitution: An Introduction to English Political Thought, 1603–1642 (Basingstoke, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven, CT, 1996)Google Scholar; Peltonen, Markku, Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought, 1570–1640 (Cambridge, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cromartie, “Constitutionalist Revolution,” and Constitutionalist Revolution.

75 “Remedii estraordiniarii e violenti,” quoted in Raab, Felix, The English Face of Machiavelli: A Changing Interpretation, 1500–1700 (London, 1964), 57Google Scholar.

76 Raab, English Face; Skinner, Quentin, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 2010), 1:158–68Google Scholar; Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, NJ, 1975), 194–218Google Scholar; Kahn, Victoria, Machiavellian Rhetoric (Princeton, NJ, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In his bill of information, Heath described the Propositions as “pestilent,” an epithet frequently paired with “Machiavellian”; BL, Add. 23,967, fol. 24; [Nashe, Thomas], Greens, groats worth, of witte (London, 1592), sig. F1rGoogle Scholar.

77 [Stubbes, John], The Discoverie of a Gaping Gulf Whereinto England is like to be Swallowed (London, 1579)Google Scholar; [Parsons, Robert], The Copie of a Leter Wryten by a Master of Arte (n.p., 1584)Google Scholar; Lake, Peter, “The Politics of ‘Popularity’ and the Public Sphere: The ‘Monarchical Republic’ of Elizabeth I Defends Itself,” in Lake and Pincus, Politics of the Public Sphere, 59–94Google Scholar.

78 Defendants’ answers, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fols. 3r–v, 24v.

79 Sommerville, Politics and Ideology, 106.

80 Ibid., 4; Burgess, Politics of the Ancient Constitution, 18–78.

81 Lockwood, Shelley, ed., Sir John Fortescue on the Laws and Governance of England (New York, 2002), 52Google Scholar; Koenigsberger, H. G., “Monarchies and Parliaments in Early Modern Europe,” Theory and Society, no. 5 (1978): 181–217, esp. 191–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klein, William, “Parliament, Liberty and the Continent in the Early Seventeenth Century: The Perception,” Parliamentary History 6, no. 2 (October 1987): 209–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sacks, David Harris, “The Paradox of Taxation: Fiscal Crises, Parliament, and Liberty in England, 1450–1640,” in Fiscal Crises, Liberty, and Representative Government, 1450–1789, ed. Hoffman, Philip T. and Norberg, Kathryn (Stanford, CA, 1994), 7–66, esp. 11–13Google Scholar.

82 Lockwood, Sir John Fortescue, 49–51; Koenigsberger, “Monarchies and Parliaments,” 191–93.

83 Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, 24; Sacks, “Paradox of Taxation,” 13.

84 Lake, Peter and Questier, Michael, The Antichrist’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-Reformation England (New Haven, CT, 2002), 3–53Google Scholar.

85 Sir George Carew, Relation of the State of France, composed 1609, BL, Add. 48,062, fols. 93r, 95r.

86 Dallington, Robert, A survey of the state of the great dukes of Tuscany (London, 1605), 39–66Google Scholar.

87 Raleigh’s Dialogue, composed 1615, Folger, MS G.b.7, fol. 51r; Beer, Anna R., Sir Walter Ralegh and His Readers in the Seventeenth Century: Speaking to the People (London, 1997), 66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Compare Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, 217–19; Sommerville, Politics and Ideology, 43–47; Beer, Sir Walter Ralegh, 111.

89 Tuck, Richard, Philosophy and Government (Cambridge, 1993)Google Scholar.

90 The locus classicus for this argument is de Commynes, Philippe, The historie of Philip de Commines (London, 1614), 180Google Scholar; Guy, John, “The Rhetoric of Counsel in Early Modern England,” in Tudor Political Culture, ed. Hoak, Dale (London, 2002), 292–310Google Scholar.

91 These passages were marked by Sir John Eliot in his copy of Raleigh’s Dialogue; Cornwall Record Office, Port Eliot MS 655/8, fols. 79v–80r; Beer, Sir Walter Ralegh, 111–14.

92 Bakos, Adriana (The Images of Kingship in Early Modern France: Louis XI and Political Thought, 1560–1789 [London, 1997], 34–35)Google Scholar traces this parallel to François Hotman’s Francogallia. I would like to thank Cesare Cuttica for this reference.

93 Bidwell, William and Jansson, Maija, ed., Proceedings in Parliament, 1626, 4 vols. (New Haven, CT, 1992), 3:241–42Google Scholar.

94 ? to Conway, 16 November 1629, TNA, SP 161/151/81.

95 Heath’s bill of information, 16 November 1629, BL, Add. MS 23,967, fols. 24, 31.

96 Sir Nathaniel Brent to Sir Richard Beaumont, 13 November 1629, Bodleian Library, MS Add. C 259, fol. 47r.

97 Dorchester’s notes, May 1630? TNA, SP 16/167/44.

98 Propositions, BL, Add. MS 23,967, fols. 31–32.

99 Richard Cust, “Charles I and Popularity,” in Cogswell, Cust, and Lake, Politics, Religion and Popularity, 235–58, 238.

100 Rushworth, Historical Collections, 1:670–71.

101 Examination of Eliot, March 1629, TNA, SP 16/139/6; Peacey, Jason, “The Paranoid Prelate: Archbishop Laud and the Puritan Plot,” in Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Europe, ed. Coward, Barry and Swann, Julian (Aldershot, 2004), 113–34Google Scholar.

102 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian (CSPV), 1629–32, 241.

103 Green, Mary Anne Everett, ed., Diary of John Rous: Incumbent of Santon Downham, Suffolk, from 1625 to 1642 (New York, 1964), 46Google Scholar.

104 Star Chamber proceedings, June 1630, Folger, MS X.d.337, fol. 6v; Wentworth’s notes, ca. 1629–30, Beinecke, Osborn b32, 262; the French ambassador explained that the prisoners claimed the work “avoir esté trové dans les papiers du feu Duc de Buckingham” (transcript, Chateauneuf to Richelieu, 26 November 1629, TNA, PRO 31/3/66, fol. 95v).

105 Cust, Forced Loan, 23–24.

106 Keeler, Mary Frear, Cole, Maija Jansson, and Bidwell, William B., eds., Commons Debates 1628, vol. 4, 28 May–26 June 1628 (New Haven, CT, 1978), 130Google Scholar.

107 Simonds D’Ewes to Martin Stuteville, 4 February 1626, BL, Harley MS 383, 24r; Joseph Mead’s abstract, 8 September 1626, BL, Harley MS 390, 115r; Bellany, “Raylinge rymes,” 285.

108 Cogswell, “Felton,” 369, “The people’s love,” 212.

109 Keeler, Cole, and Bidwell, Commons Debates 1628, 4:130.

110 Rushworth, Historical Collections, 1:459.

111 Notestein and Relf, Commons’ Debates for 1629, 102–3.

112 Cogswell, “Felton,” 378.

113 Dorchester’s notes, May 1630? TNA, SP 16/167/44.

114 Propositions, BL, Add. MS 23,967, fol. 27.

115 Defendants’ answers, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fol. 3r.

116 Tuck, Philosophy and Government, 119, 224; Sharpe, Personal Rule, 33–34, 40–41, 59–60, and 716–17.

117 Lake, P. G., “Constitutional Consensus and Puritan Opposition in the 1620s: Thomas Scott and the Spanish Match,” Historical Journal 25, no. 4 (December 1982): 805–25, esp. 823CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Dietz, English Public Finance, 234; Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, 300; Cust, Forced Loan, 76; Sharpe, Personal Rule, 13.

119 See, e.g., Contribution proposal (1628?), TNA, SP 16/126/47.

120 Cust, Forced Loan; Keeler, Cole, and Bidwell, Commons Debates 1628, 4:146.

121 Russell (Parliaments and English Politics, 335, 380) is characteristically thorough on this issue.

122 CSPV, 1626–28, 126; Cust, Forced Loan, 58.

123 Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, 381–86; Cogswell, “Felton,” 370–72; cf. Peltonen, Classical Humanism, 290–93.

124 Although the protests may have been sincere; Sharpe, Personal Rule, 42.

125 Keeler, Cole, and Bidwell, Commons Debates 1628, 4:145, 168.

126 CSPV, 1625–26, 508.

127 Bakos, Image of Kingship, 38.

128 Maynard, John, Letter from a Jesuit to the Father Rector, spring 1628, BL, Harley MS 286, fols. 300r–301vGoogle Scholar.

129 Guy, J. A., “The Origins of the Petition of Right Reconsidered,” Historical Journal 25, no. 2 (June 1982): 289–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

130 Commons’ Remonstrance, 17 June 1628, Folger, MS X.d.430, 133.

131 Cogswell, “Felton,” 357–85.

132 Gardiner, History of England, 7:67–77; Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, 395–416; Thompson, Christopher, “The Divided Leadership of the House of Commons,” in Sharpe, Faction and Parliament, 245–84Google Scholar.

133 “Interrogatory to be ministred to the pr[i]soners to be examined, touchinge the late disorder in ye Commons house of p[ar]liam[en]t,” spring 1628, BL, Egerton MS 2978, fol. 39r.; Fraser, Ian H. C., “The Agitation in the Commons, 2 March 1629, and the Interrogation of the Leaders of the Anti-Court Group,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 30, no. 81 (May 1957): 86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

134 Copies include BL, Add. MS 29492, fol. 61v; BL, Hargrave MS 311, fol. 201r; BL, Lansdowne MS 93, fol. 131; BL, Sloane MS 1199, fols. 83v–84r; CUL, Gg.4.13, 103.

135 Malcolm, Reason of State, 96, 106.

136 Star Chamber proceedings, June 1630, Folger, MS X.d.377, fol. 8r.

137 Ibid., fol. 5v.

138 Defendants’ answers, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fols. 11v, 13r, 21r, 22r.

139 Earl of Bedford’s notebook, ca.1630s, Woburn Abbey, MS 23,131.

140 Defendants’ answers, November 1629, Houghton, fMS Eng 977, fols. 4r–v.

141 Peck, Linda Levy, Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I (London, 1982), 101–21Google Scholar.

142 Christianson, “Selden.”

143 Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, 32, 41–45, 122–23, 142, 183, 238; Beinecke, Osborn b22 contains fifteen of Cotton’s tracts.

144 Robert Dixon to Lord Edward Mountagu, November 1629, HMC Buccleuch, 3:345.

145 Star Chamber proceedings, June 1630, Folger, X.d.337, fols. 5v–6r.

146 John Pory to Josehp Mead, 12 February 1630, BL, Harley MS 383, fols. 92r–v.

147 Joseph Mead to Martin Stuteville, 17 April 1630, BL, Harley MS 389, fol. 513r.

148 Star Chamber reports, Lambeth Palace, MS 1,253, fols. 99v–101r.

149 Materials relating to the trial of Lord Balmerino, post-1634, BL, Harley MS 4,697, 46v.

150 Privy Council notes, 5 May 1630, BL, Add. MS 72,420, fol. 2v.

151 Wentworth’s notes, June 1630, Sheffield Archives, WWM/Str P/24–25/47; Foster, Stephen, Notes from the Caroline Underground: Alexander Leighton, the Puritan Triumvirate, and the Laudian Reaction to Nonconformity (Hamden, CT, 1978), 17–39Google Scholar.

152 Folger, X.d.377 contains a partial transcript of these proceedings, as do Inner Temple Library, Petyt MS 538/39, fols. 366–71, and Bodleian, Rawlinson MS C 839, fols. 2–9. A short note is included in Harvard Law School, MS 1101, fol. 51r, and All Souls College, Oxford, MS 178B, fols. 27v–29r.

153 Star Chamber proceedings, June 1630, Folger, X.d.377, fol. 7v.

154 Sharpe, Personal Rule, 655–56, and Sir Robert Cotton, 180.

155 Star Chamber proceedings, June 1630, Folger, MS X.d.377, fols. 9v–10r; Sanderson, Robert, ed., Rymer’s Foedera, 20 vols. (London, 1704–35), 19:198–99Google Scholar.

156 “An Abstract & all the Proofes of the Conspiracy of Stevenson and other against S[i]r Robert Cotton,” 1630, BL, Add. MS 14,049, fol. 36r.

157 Sir Thomas Puckering’s abstract of John Pory’s letter, 12 May 1631, BL, Harley MS 7000, fols. 309r–v; Sharpe, Personal Rule, 656; Halliwell, Autobiography of D’Ewes, 1:42.

158 Star Chamber proceedings, June 1630, Folger, MS X.d.377, fol. 9r.

159 Sebastian Benefield’s notebook, ca. 1629, BL, Sloane MS 1199, fols. 103r–v.

160 Copies in the Brititsh Library include: Add. MS 23,967, fols. 24–33; Add. MS 69,909, fols. 50r–53v [fragment of “S[i]r R[obert] D[udley] Project” sent to Sir William Fitzer in Frankfort]; Add. MS 72,421, fols. 140–47; Hargrave MS 311, 210r–214v; Hargrave MS 489, fols. 17–25, 26–41, and 42–57 [three copies]; Harley MS 597, fols. 178–84; Harley MS 2,217, fols. 102–7; Harley MS 3,791, fols. 119–30; Stowe MS 152, fols. 40–43; Sloane MS 1,199, fols. 103r–v [fragment in Benefield’s notebook]; Sloane MS 1,200, fols. 77–85; Stowe MS 153, fols. 41–46; Stowe MS 156, fols. 219r–235v; Stowe MS 159, fols. 16r–27.

161 Copies beyond the British Library include: Beinecke, Osborn fb150, fols. 55r–64v; Bodleian, MS Carte 77, fols. 105r–108v [abstract of “Certaine p[ro]posicons made unto King James as it was thought by S[i]r Robert Dudley knight”], fols. 304r–309v [“In Micha[lmas] terme last”], fols. 332r–341 [three copies]; Bodleian, MS Eng. d2912, fols. 159–74; Bodleian, MS Rawlinson A 127, fols. 55–68; Bodleian, MS Rawlinson C 674, fols. 68r–74r; Bodleian, MS Tanner 299/24; Bodleian, MS Tanner 395/23 [abstract]; CUL, MS Gg.4.13, 129–30; Centre for Kentish Studies, U269/1/Oo231 [fragment]; Folger, MS V.a.116, fols. 122r–141v; Folger, MS V.b.277, fols. 232r–240v; Free Library of Philadelphia, Carson Collection, MS LC 14.87, fols. 3r–17r; HALS, MS XII.B.4; HALS, MS XII.B.30 [fragment]; Huntington Library [HL], Hastings Legal Box 4/2; HL, Hastings Military Box 1/9; NRO, FH 2825; NRO, IL 3405; Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 121, fols. 322–328 and 344–51 [two copies]; TNA, SP 16/151/69; Woburn Abbey, MS 33, fols. 2–21.

162 A Machavillian Plot; scribal copies of the Propositions, BL, Hargrave MS 489, fols. 26–41 and 42–57.

163 Isham’s copy of the Propositions, NRO IL 3405.

164 Drake’s notebook, 1630s, University College, London, Special Collections, Ogden MS 7/7, fol. 100v; Sharpe, Reading Revolutions, 83.

165 Sharpe, Personal Rule, 714–30.

166 Ibid., 727–28; Fincham, Kenneth, “The Judges’ Decision on Ship Money in February 1637: The Reaction of Kent,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 57, no. 136 (November 1984): 230–36, esp. 236CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

167 Heath’s bill, 16 November 1629, BL, Add. MS 23,967, fol. 31.

168 I thank David Como for this reference. Rawdon’s miscellany, 1630s, Beinecke, Osborn fb150, fols. 55r–57v; Appleby, Joyce, “Roydon [Rawdon], Sir Marmaduke,” ODNBGoogle Scholar. This is probably also the appropriate reading of the abstract of the Propositions in Bodleian, Tanner MS 395/23.

169 See Sharpe, Kevin, Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (Cambridge, 1987), espGoogle Scholar. 16, 39, 93.

170 Drake’s notebook, 1630s, HL, HM 55603, inside flyleaf.

171 Reeve, Charles I, 91; Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, 416.

172 Cogswell, “Underground Verse,” 294.