Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:11:17.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oliver St. John and the Middle Group in the Long Parliament, 1643-1645: A Reappraisal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

William G. Palmer
Get access

Extract

Since the publication of J.H. Hexter's Reign of King Pym in 1941 the idea of a middle group has been a lynchpin of English Civil War historiography. Before Hexter historians believed that with the coming of the Civil War members of Parliament split into two factions, the war party and the peace party. Hexter, however, demolished this crude dualism by demonstrating the existence of a middle party in the early days of the Long Parliament, a group of hybrid of M.P.s who seemingly defied classification. Members such as John Glynn and John Clotworthy supported measures from both the war and peace parties.

While the composition of the middle group, especially on the fringes, shifted periodically, it maintained a basic core of members and a discernible ideology. Its outlook was moderate and best expressed in the Grand Remonstance and the Nineteen Propositions. The members identified with this middle group steadfastly upheld the constitution and the monarchy, but believed that specific limitations on the monarch must be implemented to preserve the constitution.

Perhaps inspired by the work of Hexter, other historians approached the Civil War era in similar fashion. Hexter believed that the middle group collapsed with Pym's death in 1643; yet Valerie Pearl has argued that it lingered oh through 1644 under the leadership of Oliver St. John. Following Pym's death, Pearl contended, St. John followed the moderate path prescribed by Pym in supporting measures from both the war and peace parties and by supporting the earl of Essex, the consensus choice for military commander.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Spring 1982 , pp. 20 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1982

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 Hexter, J.H., The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941).Google Scholar

2 Ibid., pp. 160-5.

3 Pearl, Valerie, “Oliver St. John and the Middle Group in the Long Parliament: August 1643-May 1644,” English Historical Review 81 (1966): 490–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarUnderdown's, David masterly Pride's Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar, is another work written in the tradition of The Reign of King Pym. It should be noted, however, that there are several dissenters from Pearl, though for reasons different than mine. For these, see Glow, Lotte, “Political Affiliations in the House of Commons after Pym's Death,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 38(1965): 48–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and MacCormick, J.R., Revolutionary Politics in the Long Parliament (Cambridge, Mass., 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar For some lively comments on the entire matter see the review article by Ashton, Robert, “Revolutionaries and Rumpers,” Historical Journal 17(1975): 178–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Pearl, , “St. John and the Middle Group,” p. 502.Google Scholar While I disagree with the central theme of Dr. Pearl's article, it is an admirably sound assessment of St. John's religious beliefs.

5 This is a tendency of recent historians rathe than of Hexter. For example, Mark Kishlansky's attempt to extend consensus politics and, presumably, the middle group into 1647 depends upon equating consensus, moderation, and compromise. (The Rise of the New Model Army, [Cambridge, 1979]Google Scholar, and his “The Emergence of Adversary Politics in the Long Parliament,” Journal of Modern History 49[December, 1977]: 617–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

6 MacCormick, , Revolutionary Politics, p. 1.Google Scholar

7 Baillie, Robert, The Letters and Journals o) Robert Baillie, 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1841–1842), 2:133.Google Scholar

8 Mercurius Britannicus, 11 January 1644, Thomason Tracts, Reel 14, P 81 (20), P. 154.

9 See “A Briefe Discourse on the Impiety and Unlawfulness of the Covenant with the Scots,” in Thomason Tracts, Reel 12, P 73 (1).

10 Four Speeches Delivered at Guildhall… 6 October 1643, ibid., Reel 55, E 338 (1). See also The Parliament Scout, ibid., Reel 12, E 70 (23).

11 Sir Symonds D'Ewes, Diary of Sir Symonds D'Ewes, B.L., Harl. Mss. 165, fols. 162-162v.

12 Kaplan, Lawrence, Politics and Religion during the English Revolution (New York, 1976), p. XX.Google Scholar

13 Holmes, Clive, The Eastern Association and the Civil War (Cambridge, 1974), p. 178.Google Scholar

14 Details on Essex's life and career may be found in Snow, Vernon F., Essex the Rebel: The Life of Robert Devereaux, the Third Earl of Essex, 1591-1646 (Lincoln, Neb., 1970).Google Scholar

15 D'Ewes, Diary, B.L. Harl. Mss. 164, fol. 243.

16 Ibid., fol. 223r.

17 Ibid., fols. 2661, b.

18 Ibid., fols. 228r-230. Journals of the House of Commons 17 vols. (London, 1742), 3: 370.Google Scholar In the end the matter was referred to a committee and Holland was acquitted.

19 Baillie, , Letters, 2: 136.Google Scholar

20 D'Ewes, Diary, B.L. Had. Mss. 165, fol. 266 a, b.

21 Wedgwood, C.V., The King's War, 1641-1647 (London, 1958), p. 293.Google Scholar The composition of the Committee of Both Kingdoms has been analyzed by Hexter, in “The Rise of the Independent Party” (Harvard University, Ph.D. dissertation, 1936).Google Scholar Hexter concluded that the membership of the committee cannot be considered hostile to Essex. Moreover, the exclusion of Denzil Holies from the committee was probably a procedural rather than partisan move. People with known prejudices (as Holies had in favor of Essex) were often excluded from the committee considering that particular issue. (This circumstance often caused members to refrain from speaking on a particular issue they opposed so they could kill it quietly.) As well, there were already plenty of pro-Essex men on the committee without Holies and it consisted almost entirely of lawyers nd generals of which Holies was neither (I am grateful to Mark Kishlansky for pointing all this out to me). Nevertheless, it can still be maintained that the establishment of the Committee of Both Kingdoms had unpleasant consequences for Essex. Even after modification, Essex, Holies, and Stapleton remained adamantly opposed to it.

22 Clarendon, , History of the Rebellion (Oxford, 1876) 8 vols., 5:90.Google Scholar

23 See the excellent discussion of St. John's religious beliefs in Pearl, “St. John and the Middle Group,” pp. 500-01.

24 The choice of the phrase “adversary politics” here is deliberate. For a dissenting view see Kishlansky, , “Adversary Politics,” pp. 617–40.Google Scholar Kishlansky's views have been questioned by Hirst, Derek in “Unanimity in the Commons, Aristocratic Intriques, and the Origins of the English Civil War,” Journal of Modern History 50(March, 1978): 51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Holmes, Clive, “New Light on the New Model,” Historical Journal 24, 2(1981): 505–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Underdown, , Pride's Purge, p. 71.Google Scholar

26 The radical menace necessitated a discernible shift in middle group emphases. They retained their commitment to a constitutional solution. But, in 1642, they were willing to wait for the King to come crawling to them. In 1648 they were willing to go charging after him. See Underdown, , Pride's Purge, pp. 85–105.Google Scholar