¹ [Parker, Henry], The Case of Shipmony Briefly Discoursed, According to the Grounds of Law, Policy, and Conscience. And Most Humbly Presented to the Censure and Correction of the High Court of Parliament, Nov. 3 1640. ([London,] 1640)Google Scholar [STC 19215; B(ritish) L(ibrary) E.204 (4)]. There is another edition [STG 19216] with some substantive differences, none of which significantly affects the sense. The attribution to Parker is made by George Thomason, on the title page of his copy. I expect to report on Parker's career as an agent, counsellor, or ‘privado’ for public and private interests in a book on Parker; some indication of Parker's activity can be had from Jordan, W. K., Men of substance: A study of the thought of two English revolutionaries, Henry Parker and Henry Robinson (Chicago, 1942)Google Scholar.

² [Parker, Henry], Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses (London, 1642)Google Scholar, is reprinted in William Haller, ed., Tracts on liberty in the puritan revolution, 1637–1642, 3 vols. (New York, 1934), n, 167–213. For ease of reference to any edition, the original page numbers are used.

³ The pathfinding study is Judson, M. A., ‘Henry Parker and the theory of parliamentary sovereignty,’ in Essays in history and political theory in honor of Charles Howard McIlwain, ed. Wittke, Carl (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), pp. 138–67Google Scholar. Some scholars who see legislation as the ultimate test of sovereignty dissent from this view; e.g. Goldsmith, M. M., ‘Hobbes's “Mortal! God”: is there a fallacy in Hobbes's theory of sovereignty?’ History of Political Thought, I (1980), 46Google Scholar. The error is that Parker himself regarded legislation as inferior to counsel; see below. Moreover, although he was inconsistent on this point, on one occasion Parker did claim that the two houses had an absolute power to ‘declare’ law (Observations, p. 45).

⁴ Franklin, Julian H., Jean Bodin and the rise of absolutist theory (Cambridge, 1973)Google Scholar.

⁵ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 1–3, 6, 7.

⁶ These matters dealt with successively: The Case of Shipmony, pp. 3–16, 16–30, 30–40, 40–4.

⁷ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 47–8.

⁸ The Case ofShipmony, pp. 17, 32 (Croke); pp. II, 34 (Hutton).

⁹ The Case ofShipmony, pp. 18, 42 (Bramston); pp. 15, 31–2 (Crawley); pp. 6, 11–12, 15–16, 21, 28–9, 43, 44 (Jones).

¹⁰ The Case of Shipmony, p. 6. The reference most likely is to Littleton: Howell, Thomas Bayly, ed., A complete collection of state trials [hereafter cited as ST], 33 vols. (London, 1809–1826), III, col. 948Google Scholar.

¹¹ The Case ofShipmony, p. 34; ST, III, cols. 137–8.

¹² The scholar who tracks down Parker's direct citations and allusions will be rewarded with a mild surprise. Two scattered references in The Case of Shipmony to Bramston lead to the same place (ST, III, cols. 1248–9), two to Crawley trace back to one place in Crawley and another where Crawley is noted by Crooke (ST, III, cols. 1085, 1158–60). Two widely separated notices of Croke return to the same bit of text (ST, III, cols. 1158–60). Seven discrete references to Jones track back to the same passage (ST, III, cols. 1189–90).

¹³ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 1, 40 (counsel); pp. 9, 14, 31, 41 (judges).

¹⁴ Both Holborne (arguing for Hampden) and Littleton (for the king) adverted to this ancient expression of the public right of eminent domain: The Case of Shipmony, p. 1; ST, III, cols. 927, 1012.

¹⁵ The maxim was made in the king's official acceptance of the Petition of Right; it is of course possible that Parker took the maxim from another source. The Case of Shipmony, p. 4; ST, III, col. 1090. See The Kings Speach in Parlament the 7. Day of lune. (1628) [STC 5019], single sheet and Lords Proceedings 1628, ed. by Keeler, Mary Frear, Cole, Maija Jansson, and Bidwell, William B. (New Haven, 1983), p. 597Google Scholar and n. 13. There are minor differences in wording amongst the several variants.

¹⁶ Since Parker wished to argue that an act of parliament could change the prerogative, and since (it was believed) Danegelt had been abolished by statute, Parker, (The Case of Shipmony, p. 11)Google Scholar tacitly adopted the view of Littleton and Berkeley (who sided with the king) that Danegelt was not a tax, properly so-called, and thus not subject to the limitations appropriate to that means of supply (ST, III, cols. 931, 1091). The conventional view was maintained by St John and Holborne (ST, III, cols. 907, 1001). Littleton's argument, on this point and others, was in fact an exercise in extreme historical revision. Littleton's great work of revisionism was his assertion (sustained by modern scholarship) that de tallagio non concedendo was no statute; ST, III, cols. 954, 956–7. For the responses, almost entirely hostile to or perplexed by Littleton's suggestion, ST, III, cols. 986–7 (Holborne), 1073 (Bankes), 1081 (Crawley), 1107 (Berkeley), 1132 (Croke; cf. 1153), 1189 (Jones), 1193–4 (Hutton), 1215 (Davenport), 1247–8 (Bramston).

¹⁷ The Speech or Declaration of Mr. St.-John… at a Conference of Both Houses of Parliament, Held 16. Caroli, 1640 (London, 1641) [BL E. 196(1)], pp. 10–11Google Scholar. St John's complaint seems to be that he was not allowed the usual dilatory manoeuvres of the common law; since Hampden and his backers were eager to push the case forward, the argument is somewhat hollow.

¹⁸ The best attempt remains Keir, D. L., ‘The case of ship-money’ Law Quarterly Review, LII (1936), 546–74Google Scholar. Valuable context and exploration of the precedents is provided in Holdsworth, W. S., ‘The power of the Crown to requisition British ships in a national emergency’, Law Quarterly Review, XXXV (1919), 12–42Google Scholar.

¹⁹ ST, III, cols. 969–71, especially the unnerving exchanges between Holborne an d a testy Finch, wh o found fault with Holborne's disclaimers of meddling in matters above him.

²⁰ See the analysis of Russell, Conrad, ‘The ship money judgements of Bramston and Davenport’, English Historical Review, LXXVII (1962), 312–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ The ill-fated ship money scheme of 1628 was justified by one of its promoters on the grounds that ‘extraordinary ocasions’ require ‘extraordinary aides’ and explanations according to ‘reason of state’: Swales, R. J. W., ‘The ship money levy of 1628,’ Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research, L (1977), 164–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Dissent from the further qualification that the king was ‘the only judge’ of the danger was dangerous and perhaps unnecessary, given the casuistical opportunities in the Fortescuean distinction of the regal and politic powers of the king. Sir George Croke's agreement on this point was later explained in this way: SirD'Ewes, Simonds, The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes from the Beginning of the Long Parliament to the Opening of the Trial of the Earl of Strafford, ed. by Notestein, Wallace (New Haven, 1923), p. 122 n.14Google Scholar: ‘he meant the King was sole judge of danger in Parliament, where he has a negative voice.’

²³ ST, III, cols. 844–5, 1144–5, 1198; see also D'Ewes, , Journal, ed. Notestein, , pp. 122–4Google Scholar.

²⁴ ST, III, cols. 1014–33.

²⁵ ST, III, cols. 927–8.

²⁶ ST, III, cols. 1075, 1082–3, 1085–6, 1102, 1105.

²⁷ ST, III, cols. 1125–7, 1182, 1186, 1220, 1224–5.

²⁸ ST, III, col. 1216; cf. Crawley, col. 1085. This would also militate against the applicability of the Petition of Right.

²⁹ ST, III, cols. 1248–9; cf. cols. 1085–6 and German, Christopher St, St German's doctor and student, ed. by Plucknett, T. F. T. and Barton, J. L., Selden Soc. Publ. 94 (London, 1974), pp. 94–8Google Scholar . Beneath the great din of concord, a few notes of disagreement are to be discerned. For example, while Finch an d Crawley pretty flagrantly dismissed positive law before the ‘law of nature’ and the ‘jus gentium’, Davenport preferred to discover a facility for dealing with necessity within the limited prerogatival framework as it was generally understood. This difference corresponds to Parker's distinction of ‘Prerogative naturall’ and ‘Prerogative legall’ (The Case ofShipmony, p. 3). See ST, III, col. 1083 (though Crawley claims also that the jus gentium defines the extent of the king's prerogative regale – vs. his prerogative legate – Crawley places legislative power in the first category, virtually eliminating any force the distinction might have had); col. 1224 (Finch, that ship money to be borne by the whole kingdom by the law of nature); col. 1216 (Davenport, that the king can respond ‘legally’ to danger).

³⁰ ST, III, col. 1201. Matter of fact ought not to have arisen at all, since Hampden' s demurrer precluded it (Keir, , ‘The case of ship money,’ 549–50)Google Scholar; nevertheless it appeared repeatedly.

³¹ ST, III, cols. 974–5; cf. col. 1012.

³² ST, III, cols. 881, 903–4.

³³ ST, III, cols. 1129, 1134, 1149–50, 1162. The correlative references in ‘Notes of the judgement delivered by Sir George Crooke in the case of ship-money,’ ed. by Gardiner, S. R., Camden Society Miscellany, 7 (London, 1875), 2, 5–6, 9–10Google Scholar.

³⁴ Littleton (ST, III, col. 959) attacked the extremism of St John's standard oilempus belli (ST, III, cols. 903–4) an d was in turn attacked by Holborne (ST, III, col. 1012). Bramston made his remark (ST, III, col. 1248) as an exposition of the views of Finch. Cf. Berkeley (ST, III, col. 1097) that it was ‘a kind ofjudaizing opinion’ that one had to wait until the ‘weal public’ was exposed to the ‘peril of utter ruin’ before the king could impose ship money.

³⁵ Crawley (ST, III, col. 1082), Finch (ST, III, col. 1223); cf. St John, whose unfortunate remark (ST, III, col. 903) may have set the royalists going.

³⁶ ST, III, col. 1083.

³⁷ ST, III, cols. 1075 (Weston), 1102 (Berkeley), 1184 (Jones); cf. Crawley, 1079. For other uses of saluspopuli or salus reipublicae, pro bonopublico, public safety or related terms: ST, III, cols. 926–8, 966, 1005, 1101, 1012, 1061, 1066–7, 1125, 1149–50, 1189, 1224–5, 1248.

³⁸ As one judge noted, they also corresponded with a logic of public beneficence for the exercise of prerogative to be seen elsewhere, as in Bate's case; ST, III, col. 1186. For the association of absolute power of the king with the general good, see Fleming's opinion in Bate's case: ST, III, col. 389.

³⁹ ‘Republican’, as used here, refers to a species of royalist argument and draws upon the general meaning (as in salus reipublicae) rather than the particular sense of a citizen-based constitutional regime. It would be wrong, however, to exclude every tittle of nuance of the second sense from the judges' positions, particularly in respect of judges' anti-individualism.

⁴⁰ Cf. the wise remarks about the professionalism of the judges in Keir, , ‘The case of ship-money’, pp. 547–8, 550, 573Google Scholar.

⁴¹ ST, III, cols. 1102, 1127.

⁴² ST, III, cols. 1225, 1231.

⁴³ ST, III, col. 1183. Cf. Holborne's contention, noted earlier, that in an emergency a subject could seize the king's property; perhaps Holborne's reductio had been more suggestive than absurd.

⁴⁴ For this see Mendle, Michael, Dangerous positions: mixed government, the estates of the realm, and the making of the answer to the xix propositions (Alabama, 1985), pp. 128–33Google Scholar; Say's role is discussed in Bard, Nelson P., ‘The ship money case and William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele’, Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research, L (1977), 177–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640, ed. by Cope, Esther S. in collaboration with Coates, Willson H., Camden Society Publications, 4th Series, 19 (London, 1977), 185Google Scholar n.2, 209.

⁴⁶ Proceedings of the Short Parliament, pp. 195, 208.

⁴⁷ Proceedings of the Short Parliament, p. 127; The Speech of Sergeant Glanvill, in the Vpper House of Parliament for Peace and Vnitie (London, 1641) [BL E. 198 (32)], p. 6Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Proceedings of the Short Parliament, p. 196.

⁴⁹ P[ym], J[ohn], A Speech Delivered in Parliament, by a Worthy Member Thereof (London, 1641), p. 21Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Technically the Short Parliament provides the most appropriate context, since The Case of Shipmony was completed shortly before or in the early days of the Long Parliament. The title page opaquely says the pamphlet is ‘most humbly presented to the Censure and Correction of the High Court of Parliament, Nov. 3. 1640.’ Whether this means that the pamphlet was published on that date, the first day of the Long Parliament, or slightly before or after is unclear.

⁵¹ The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Notestein, , p. 114Google Scholar.

⁵² The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Notestein, , pp. 74 and n.g, 543Google Scholar.

⁵³ ST, III, cols. 1260, 1293, 1302, 1303.

⁵⁴ Mr. Edward Hydes Speech at a Conference betweene Both Houses, on Tewsday the 6th of July, 1641 (London, 1641) [BL E. 198 (36)], p. 4Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 2 (cf. p. 3), 9.

⁵⁶ The Case of Shipmony, p. 7.

⁵⁷ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 13–14.

⁵⁸ ST, III, col. 1191. Charles was careful to keep ship money out of the Exchequer.

⁵⁹ ST, III, cols. 1090, 1102; cf. Trevor, col. 1127.

⁶⁰ ST, III, cols. 1217, 1225.

⁶¹ The Case of Shipmony, p. 4; cf. pp. 7, 8, 40, 41.

⁶² Ibid. p. 5.

⁶³ Ibid. pp. 7–8.

⁶⁴ Ibid. p. 7.

⁶⁵ Ibid. p. 22; cf. p. 43.

⁶⁶ Ibid. pp. 21, 25.

⁶⁷ Ibid. pp. 12, 22.

⁶⁸ Ibid. pp. 11, 16.

⁶⁹ Ibid. pp. 22, 27, 40, 41.

⁷⁰ Ibid. p. 26.

⁷¹ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 32, 39; cf. p. 34, where the third group is defined as ‘Court dependants, and projectors’.

⁷² ST, III, cols. 959, 1082, 1097 1098.

⁷³ The term, of course, is Professor Pocock's: Pocock, J. G. A., The ancient constitution and the feudal law. A reissue with a retrospect (New York, 1987)Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 16, 29, 35, 46.

⁷⁵ A traditional element is that England always wins the comparison with France. Otherwise the comparisons suggest that the English might learn from their neighbours: The Case of Shipmony, pp. 6–8, 22–3, 37–8, 44–5.

⁷⁶ Selden's Mare Clausum was cited by Littleton, Davenport, Finch, and Bramston; ST, III, cols. 928, 1210, 1226, 1247. The Case of Shipmony, p. 19.

⁷⁷ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 20–1; ST, III, col. 969.

⁷⁸ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 21, 34–5, 38.

⁷⁹ ST, III, col. 1196. Holborne spoke with exceptional opacity about a potentially sensitive time, the minority of Richard II (col. 994); Croke asserted that parliaments were ‘most fit to consult de arduis regni’ (col. 1135, cf. col. 1154) but limited his discussion of this consultation to the giving of money.

⁸⁰ ST, III, cols. 960, 1083, 1096, 1101. The Case of Shipmony, pp. 31, 32.

⁸¹ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 35–6, 38.

⁸² The Case of Shipmony, pp. 27–8, 39, 44, 46.

⁸³ Mendle, , Dangerous positions, pp. 128, 130Google Scholar; The Case of Shipmony, p. 38.

⁸⁴ Conflict was not absent, though it was couched in historical comparisons and references. Parker attacked the ‘bad’ kings of English history and defended their opponents, ‘our ancestors,’ who ‘purchased their charters of freedome with so great an expence of bloud’ (The Case of Shipmony, p. 24; cf. p. 41). The most extended treatment was of Henry III, which Parker came to as a digression upon his point that parliamentary advice was more faithful than private advice. This was provoked by Sir Robert Cotton's A Short View of the Long Life and Raigne of Henry the Third, a staunchly royalist and aulic piece that attacked Henry's opponents, and argued, as Parker had it, ‘according to the Court Doctrine at this present’, that in parliament ‘Princes are ever lesse then they should be, subjects more’. See The Case of Shipmony, pp. 36–7; [SirCotton, Robert], A Short View of the Long Life and Raigne of Henry the Third, King of England presented to James (n. p., 1627 [STC 5864]), p. 28Google Scholar. Parker rejected an attempt at the trial to disallow Magna Carta on the grounds that it was extorted by force [The Case of Shipmony, p. 14, cf. pp. 24–25; ST, III, cols. 1051–52 (Bankes); cf. Berkeley, col. 1106, that Magna Carta is only a statute in the form in which it was confirmed, and Holborne's defence of Magna Carta, cols. 982–984]. Also revealing is a treatment of Anglo-Scottish affairs in light of the unwillingness of the Roman plebs to follow Coriolanus into battle against their Latin neighbours, the Volscians; The Case of Shipmony, p. 28. The same story, presumably from Plutarch or one of its adaptations, may be responsible for Parker's comparison of the ‘Kings power’ to ‘the digestive faculty in nature’, which distributes to the other members of the body nourishment in return for the heat they contribute to it (The Case of Shipmony, p. 20). This is, of course, Menenius's fable of the belly.

⁸⁵ The Case of Shipmony, pp. 46–9.

⁸⁶ The Case of Shipmony, p. 15.

⁸⁷ The Lord Digby His Last Speech against the Earle of Strafford ([London,] 1641)Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech in the House of Commons … Now Printed in Regard of the Reprinting of that Speech ([London,] 1641), pp. 3, 26Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech, pp. 4–10.

⁹⁰ Henry Parker, Memoriall (n. p., n.d.) [BL 669 f. n (101); this is th e second of two such memorials, and to be distinguished from 669. f.n (8), which was superseded by the second memorial].

⁹¹ An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech, pp. 12–13, 15.

⁹² An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech, pp. 17, 21, 24.

₉₃ An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech, p. 21.

⁹⁴ Elton, G. R., Reform and Reformation: England, 1500–1558 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 159, 165, 167, 171Google Scholar; Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII (Harmondsworth, 1968), pp. 505, 510–12Google Scholar. Parker does not seem to have had direct acquaintance with Marsilius. It came indirectly, partly through Hooker; see the passage cited in The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment (London, 1641), pp. 42–3Google Scholar. Another possible conduit of similar notions is Paolo Sarpi, whose History of the Inquisition Parker, used in his A Discourse Concerning Puritans ([London,] 1641)Google Scholar; see Mendle, , Dangerous positions, p. 132, 213 n.54Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Parker's reliance on Hooker and Bilson is strongest in The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment. Bilson is cited or mentioned on pp. 13, 21, 32, 35, 59, 63, 96; Hooker on pp. 13, 31, 32, 34, 42, 43, 58, 88, 90, 92, 96. The dependence on Hooker, particularly the unpublished eighth book of Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, was noticed by Lawless, Donald, ‘Book VIII of Hooker's “Ecclesiastical Polity”’, Notes and Queries, new series, vol. III, no. 2, cumulative vol. CCI (1956), 224–5Google Scholar. The eighth book treats of the royal supremacy. Deeper knowledge of Hooker seems to have come with The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment. In an earlier tract, one very casual mention of Hooker was drowned by reliance upon Bilson: [Parker, Henry], The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated (London, 1641), pp. 1, 3, 5, 7Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 11, 16, 48–50, 56, 61, 65, 76, 83; A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 6, 12, 16, 23–4, 32–3, 35, 43; [Parker, Henry], The Altar Dispute (London, 1641), pp. 17–19, 29, 61–2Google Scholar. The importance of the figure of Constantine was first stressed by Lamont, William, Marginal Prynne 1600–1669 (London, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 17–18.

⁹⁸ The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 74. For this period, the place of a n otherwise undated tract in the Thomason collection (that is, its physical position or position in the still unprinted manuscript catalogues, not the printed catalogue) is usually a reliable indication of its time of publication; by this reckoning, the tract would have appeared in late November 1641.

⁹⁹ A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 17; The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 71.

¹⁰⁰ See for example the remarks on ‘factious words’ and on the political manipulation of religious symbols in The Altar Dispute, pp. 19–20, 32 and, notably, 60–3.

¹⁰¹ A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 48–9.

¹⁰² The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 25, 91, 94.

¹⁰³ The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 30, 37, 63, 75. The concepts of ascending and descending power are developed by Ullmann, Walter in A history of political thought: the middle ages (Harmondsworth, 1965)Google Scholar and other works; for an adaptation to England, Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 509; for their continuing currency in the early seventeenth century Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian moment (Princeton, 1975), p. 334Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 7–8.

¹⁰⁵ The issues attending the militia ordinance are discussed by Schwoerer, Lois G., “No standing armies!” (Baltimore, 1974), pp. 33–50Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Gardiner, S. R., ed., Constitutional documents of the puritan revolution, 1625–1660, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1906), pp. 245, 249Google Scholar; Husbands, Edward, ed., An Exact Collection (London, 1643), p. 197Google Scholar; A Declaration of the Lords and Commons [8 07 1642] (London, 1642)Google Scholar, A2 verso. See also the semi-official The Earl of Warwick's Letter… July 4, 1642 (London, 1642), p. 3Google Scholar, the publication of which was agreed to by both houses. See Commons Journal, II, p. 656 and Lords Journal, V, p. 185 and the copy in the house of lords Record Office, Main Papers, 4 July 1642.

¹⁰⁷ [Parker, Henry?], A Question Answered [London, 1642]Google Scholar [BL 669. f.6 (7)]. For the attribution, see Mendle, , Dangerous positions, pp. 179, 187–8, 224 nn. 29, 30Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ For the king's angry response and the controversy aroused by this dangerous statement, see P.R.O., SP 16/490/12, 16/490/12.1; BL 669 f.5 (6). For Parker's avowal of this doctrine in other places, see Observations, pp. 4 and 44, and, notably, Parker, H[enry], Scotlands Holy War (London, 1651), p. 25Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ [Parker, Henry], Some Few Observations upon His Majesties Late Answer to the Declaration, or Remonstrance of the Lords and Commons of the 19. of May, 1642. [London, 1642Google Scholar; BL E. 151 (23)].

¹¹⁰ Some Few Observations, pp. 2–3, 5.

¹¹¹ Some Few Observations, p. 9; for the conciliar aspect, see also p. 4.

¹¹² Some Few Observations, p. 8.

¹¹³ Mendle, , Dangerous positions, pp. 181–2Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Observations, p. 1.

¹¹⁵ Observations, pp. 18–19.

¹¹⁶ Observations, pp. 2–3. Cf. The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 64, where Parker wrote of the king as singulis major, universis minor with respect to the clergy, a potentially foolish figure in that context.

¹¹⁷ Observations, pp. 3, 5.

¹¹⁸ Observations, pp. 22, 28–9, 34.

¹¹⁹ Observations, pp. 10–11.

¹²⁰ Observations, p. 34.

¹²¹ Observations, p. 45; cf. p. 24, that the people ha d power to ‘preserve themselves’.

¹²² [Parker, Henry], The Contra-Replicant [London, 1643]Google Scholar. I have identified over twenty items in the Thomason collection that are part of the ‘peace’ campaign.

¹²³ The Contra-Replicant, p. 7. Parker continued to insist, however, on the obscurity of the laws; see pp. 6, 8.

₁₂₄ The Contra-Repiicant, pp. 18–19. For the epithet see the pamphlets cited n. 128.

¹²⁵ The Contra-Replicant, p. 30.

¹²⁶ An Answer to a Printed Book, Intituled, Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses (Oxford, 1642)Google Scholar [Thomason's edition used here, BL E. 242 (16)]. Thomason thought the tract was the work, as he put it, of Falkland, Chillingworth, Digges and the ‘rest of the university’. It certainly emerged from the Oxford constitutional royalists; it has been attributed solely to the young Dudley Digges; there are reasons, however, to suspect that An Answer to a Printed Book is essentially the work of Lord Falkland, who, though uncomfortable with the role, was a secret counsellor, a privado quite as was Parker. Falkland's particular interest is suggested by the heavy all but direct quotation from the Answer to the XIX Propositions (see pp. 50–1), which Falkland wrote at least in part, as well as other aspects of the argument. The problem with a simple attribution to Digges is that the various pamphlets ascribed to Digges are so starkly different that they are most unlikely to be all of his pen.

¹²⁷ An Answer to a Printed Book, pp. 33–4; cf. the further parallels of the arguments of Parker an d the proponents of ship money on pp. 23, 43–4 and related discussions of Parker's arbitrary government on pp. 25, 39, 51–2.

¹²⁸ P[arker, H[enry]] ‘Barrester of Lincolnes Inn’, An Answer to the Pqysonous Seditious Paper of Mr. David Jenkins (London, 1647), p. 6Google Scholar; [Parker, Henry], The Cordiall of Mr. David Ienkins: or His Reply to H. P. Barrester of Lincolnes-Inne, Answered (London, 1647), p. 18Google Scholar.

₁₂₉ P[arker], H[enry], A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution to Lieut. Coll: John Lilbume (London, 1650), p. 20Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ Scotlands Holy War, pp. 19, 50, 61. Parker's understanding of democracy here is restricted to the kingless, lordless polity of the Engagement oath; Parker was not a leveller.

¹³¹ Scotlands Holy War, pp. 18, 47. ‘Nation’ allowed Parker to separate the English an d Scots.

¹³² Scotlands Holy War, p. 69 (from the engager pamphle t appended to Scotlands Holy War).