¹ ‘The structure of the royalist party, 1642–1646,’ Historical Journal, xxiv, 3 (1981), 553–69Google Scholar. (On account of frequency of reference, pagination from the article will be indicated in parentheses, usually in the text.) DrHutton's, other works on royalist affairs are The royalist war effort 1642–1646 (London & New York, 1982)Google Scholar and‘Clarendon's history of the rebellion,’ English Historical Review, xcvii (1982), 70–88Google Scholar.

² Hobbes, , Behemoth, English works, ed. Molesworth, W. S. (London, 1840), VI, 309Google Scholar. It is scarcely necessary to document Queen Henrietta Maria's angry impatience with constitutional limitations on her husband's actions.

³ BL Add MS 5460, fo. 375v. On Bristol, see DNB. Even the warrior Rupert could on another occasion accuse Digby of being against negotiations which he himself favoured, (p. 556)

⁴ Clarendon, , History of the rebellion (Oxford, 1888), iv, 74–5Google Scholar; the king to Rupert, 5 Aug. 1645. Clarendon state papers (Oxford, 1773), II, 237Google Scholar; Hyde to Sir Edward Nicholas, 1 June 1646.

⁵ The most bewildering example is on pp. 563–4, in which the extremists try for negotiation, are sent packing by Charles, and yet remain to rejoice in the failure of negotiation, and continue their march toward victory, virtually in one paragraph. This is the sort of thing found intertwined with what is often the soundest scholarship.

⁶ Collins, Arthur, Letters and memorials of state (London, 1746), pp. 667–71Google Scholar; DNB.

⁷ HMC 4th report, p. 309. Bath's troubles with the cattle-stealing Sir Richard Grenville the previous year are mentioned on p. 304. Hutton, ‘Clarendon's history’, p. 79.

⁸ CSPD, 1641–3, p. 510; Digby to duke of Richmond, Dec. 1643. HMC 4th report, appendix, p. 308; Joseph Jackman to Bath, 28 Dec. 1643. Bodleian Library, Carte MSS, vol. ix, no. 2, fo. 3; Arthur Trevor to earl of Ormonde, 19 Jan. 1644, Bailey, J. E., Life of Thomas Fuller (London, 1874), pp. 282 ffGoogle Scholar., 304, 308. DrHutton, seems to have second thoughts about this, but not very clearly: pp. 559–60Google Scholar.

⁹ The life and times of Sir William Dugdale, ed. Hamper, William (London, 1827), p. 59Google Scholar.

¹⁰ DNB and Lords journals, VI, 542, 604.

¹¹ Royalist war effort, pp. 118–19 and article, pp. 561–2. Newman, P. R.Royalist officers in England and Wales, 1642–1660; a biograpical dictionary (New York & London, 1981), pp. 46–7, 284Google Scholar. L.J., VI, 518, 577–80. 647, 711.

¹² SirDering, Edward, A collection of speeches…for the vindication of his name (1642), p. 26Google Scholar; A declaration, 14 Feb. 1644; A [second] declaration, April 1644. See also BL Stowe MS 194, fos. 61–90, and DNB (article by S. R. Gardiner).

¹³ Haley, K. H. D., The first earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford, 1968), pp. 36–8, 47–9Google Scholar.

¹⁴ CSPV, 1643–7, PP. 61, 124, 129–30; Agostini to the Doge, 29 Dec. 1643, 26 July and 16 Aug. 1644. BL Add. MS 5460, fos. 124, 284 fos.; Sabran and Brienne, 12 July and 26 Sept. 1644.

¹⁵ Hutton, pp. 565–6. Roy, Ian, ‘The royalist council of war, 1642–46,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXXV (1962), 166–7Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Roy, , ‘Royalist council of war’, pp. 162–8Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Hutton, , Royalist war effort, pp. 144, 104Google Scholar. The spadework for this interesting subject was done in the well known thesis of DrRoy, , ‘The royalist army in the first Civil War,’ Oxford D. Phil. (1963)Google Scholar. Cf. ‘Clarendon's history’, pp. 71, 76, 87, where the same opinion is expressed, but Clarendon is to some extent blamed for exaggerating it.

¹⁸ The upward movement of the professionals is especially stressed by Roy, , ‘The royalist army’, pp. 183–5, 205–6Google Scholar. There are also numerous examples, especially of the attrition factor, in Newman, Royalist officers.

¹⁹ Newman, , Royalist officers, p. 222Google Scholar. Since the careers of so many of the men here mentioned are well known, references in this section will be kept to a minimum.

²⁰ Hutton, 556. Newman, , Royalist officers, p. 27Google Scholar.

²¹ Newman, , Royalist officers, pp. viii, xviGoogle Scholar. Dr Hutton refers to Dr Roy's evidence given in note 18 above, and adopts his emphasis on officers rising ‘from the ranks’. It is a misleading term. They were not common soldiers, but experienced officers from at least the fringes of the gentry. No royalist private marched with a marshal's baton in his knapsack.

²² Hutton, p. 556. Yet he can allow himself to describe Rupert as a ‘foreign-born professional soldier’ Royalist war effort, p. 129.

²³ As Dr Hutton shows; Royalist war effort, pp. 131–2, 136–7, 153, 167–9.

²⁴ Dr Hutton supplies a reason for the army's continuance in the need to reconquer Scotland and Ireland (p. 569). Aside from the heavy taxation which would have demanded large-scale civilian co-operation, this would have kept the army out of England and England out of the clutches of the gentry-turned-feral. In any case, the supposition is based on the application of the later Cromwellian situation. Given the still-victorious Montrose in Scotland, whose efforts a victory at Naseby might well have saved, and the confused position of the truces with the Irish rebels, we simply cannot assume the need for a Cromwellian campaign by royalist armies.

²⁵ Daly, James, ‘The royalist constitutional position, 1641–1645,’ unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto (1963), pp. 324–9, 335–7, 343Google Scholar. Much of this thesis has of course been superseded, but parts remain useful.

²⁶ It is probably indicative of Dr Hutton's comparative lack of interest in the implications of the term that he incautiously refers to the ‘Oxford parliament’: (p. 559) and Royalist wareffort, pp. 92, 106.

²⁷ I tried to give some extended account of its activities in my ‘Royalist constitutional position’, pp. 330–47. Both Dr Hutton and Dr Roy show that much more can be done in this direction.

²⁸ Even though not technically a parliament, it carefully excluded bishops from the Lords' meetings, since they had been deprived of their seats by the last bill which Charles signed in 1642. It also reaffirmed the legal inviolability of the No-Dissolution Act, and thus, a fortiori, of the reform legislation of 1641. Roberts, R. Dew, Mitre and musket; John Williams, lord keeper, archbishop of York (Oxford, 1938), p. 204Google Scholar. The declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Oxford, 19 March 1644, BL E. 38 (3), pp. 24–5.

²⁹ HMC 5th report, appendix one, p. 99. Clarendon, , History, III, 136–8Google Scholar. The letters and journals of Robert Baillie, ed. Laing, David (Edinburgh, 1841), II, 99Google Scholar. Hexter, J. H., The reign of king Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), pp. 212–13Google Scholar. A complaint to the house of commons (1643), BL E. 244 (31), pp. 10–12. Considerations upon the present state… (1642), BL E. 83 (38), pp. 22–4. The works of king Charles the martyr (1662), I, 420.

³⁰ Hutton, , Royalist war effort, pp. 172–3Google Scholar. Roy (ed.), The royalist ordnance papers, 1642–1646, Oxfordshire Record Society, XLIII (1964), 45Google Scholar.