• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

23. For a clear overview of the order of events see Roger Lockyer, The Early Stuarts: A Political History 1603–1642 (London, 1989). Conrad Russell, Parliaments and English Politics 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), offers a detailed outline of the parliamentary politics, but is now criticized for underplaying the importance of ideological conflict and its resonances in the localities. For important studies which re-emphasize these things see Richard Cust, The Forced Loan and English Politics 1626–1628 (Oxford, 1987); Thomas Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution: English Politics and the Coming of War, 1621–1624 (Cambridge, 1989); Thomas Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish Match’, in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics 1603–1642 (Harlow, 1989), pp. 107–33; Thomas Cogswell, ‘Phaeton’s Chariot: The Parliament Men and the Continental Crisis in 1621’, in J. F. Merritt (ed.), The Political World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, 1621–1641 (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 24–46; Richard Cust, ‘Politics and the Electorate in the 1620s’, in ibid., pp. 134–67; Johann Sommerville, ‘Ideology, Property and the Constitution’, in ibid., pp. 47–71. For Russell’s response on foreign policy see Conrad Russell, ‘Sir Thomas Wentworth and anti-Spanish Sentiment, 1621–1624’, in Merritt (ed.), Political World, pp. 47–62. For the interconnection of threats to civil and religious liberties see Alan Cromartie, The Constitutionalist Revolution: An Essay on the History of England, 1450–1642 (Cambridge, 2006), esp. intr. and ch. 8. Thomas Cogswell, ‘A Low Road to Extinction? Supply and Redress of Grievances in the Parliaments of the 1620s’, HJ, 33 (1990), 283–303, argues that Parliament was effective both in securing redress and in granting supplies during the 1620s; for the royal perception that parliaments would not grant enough money see Cust, Forced Loan, pp. 30–31. For Arminianism see above, ch. 1, n. 43.

24. Richard W. Stewart, ‘Arms and Expeditions: The Ordnance Office and the Assaults on Cadiz (1625) and the Isle of Rhé (1627)’, in Fissel (ed.), War and Government, pp. 112–32; Cogswell, ‘John Felton’, pp. 362–4; Cust, Forced Loan, esp. pp. 58–62; Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, pp. 334–76; John Guy, ‘The Origins of the Petition of Right Reconsidered’, HJ, 25 (1982), 289–312, esp. pp. 294–9. The reliability of the accusations on which Guy’s article is based is contested by Mark Kishlansky, ‘Tyranny Denied: Charles I, Attorney General Heath, and the Five Knights’ Case’, HJ, 42 (1999), 53–83. The point here is that they were made, and what that indicates about the political atmosphere of the late 1620s.

25. Stewart, ‘Arms and Expeditions’.

26. Barnes, ‘Deputies not Principals’; Thomas Cogswell, ‘War and the Liberties of the Subject’, in J. H. Hexter (ed.), Parliament and Liberty from the Reign of Elizabeth to the English Civil War (Stanford, Calif., 1992), pp. 225–51.

27. Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, ch. 8, esp. pp. 377–84, and for the subsequent dispute over publication, pp. 401–2. For the printing and legal status see L. J. Reeve, Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule (Cambridge, 1989), esp. pp. 90–91; L. J. Reeve, ‘The Legal Status of the Petition of Right’, HJ, 29 (1986), 257–77, esp. pp. 261–3; E. R. Foster, ‘Printing the Petition of Right’, HLQ, 38 (1974–5), 81–3. The totemic significance of the Petition of Right for those anxious about English liberties is clear in Reeve, Charles I, esp. ch. 5.

28. Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, pp. 391–2; Alastair Bellany, ‘Basting the Lambe: Witchcraft, Court Scandal and the Lynching of the Duke’s Devil, June 1628’, PP (forthcoming).

29. Glenn Burgess, The Politics of the Ancient Constitution: An Introduction to English Political Thought, 1603–1642 (Basingstoke, 1992); Clive Holmes, ‘Parliament, Liberty, Taxation, and Property’, in Hexter (ed.), Parliament and Liberty, pp. 122–54.

30. For fundamental disagreements in Stuart