¹ Hamilton Papers (1638–1650), ed. Gardiner, S. R. (Camden Society 1880), p. 124.Google Scholar

² Quoted by Shaw, W. A.. A History of the English Church … 1640–1660, 2 vols. (London, 1900), i, 101,Google Scholar from A Collection of Speeches made by …. Dering (London, 1642), pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

¹ Reliquiae Baxterianae: or Mr Richard Baxter's narrative of the most memorable passages of his life and times … ed. Sylvester, M. (London, 1696), p. 63.Google Scholar

² Gardiner, S. R., History of the Great Civil War, 3 vols. (London, 1889-1891), ii, 319, n. 2.Google Scholar

³ Hexter, J. H., ‘The Problem of the Presbyterian Independents’, American Historical Review, xliv (1938), pp. 29–49,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Reappraisals in History (London, 1961), pp. 163–84.Google Scholar

¹ Pearl, Valerie, ‘Oliver St John and the “Middle Group” in the Long Parliament’: August 1643-May 1644', English Historical Review, lxxxi (1966), pp. 490–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Underdown, D., ‘The Independents Reconsidered’, Journal of British Studies, iii (1964), p. 81.Google Scholar

¹ Hexter, J. H., The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), passim;Google ScholarPearl, , op. cit., passim.Google Scholar

² Trevor-Roper, H. R., ‘Oliver Cromwell and his Parliaments’, Essays presented to Sir Lewis Namier, ed. Pares, R. and Taylor, A. J. P. (London, 1956).Google Scholar

³ Yule, G., The Independents in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 65, 50.Google Scholar

¹ Oliver St John, Samusl Browne, William Pierrepoint and John Crewe.

² SirEvelyn, John and Fiennes, Nathaniel. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1647–48, 3 Jan. 1648, p. 1.Google Scholar

³ Pearl, , op. cit., passim.Google Scholar

¹ Gardiner, , op. cit., ii, 481, n. 2.Google Scholar

² [Harris, John] The royall Quarell, or England's Lawes and Liberties vindicated… [by] Sirrahniho (London, 1648), p. 5.Google Scholar Writers on the left of politics, particularly the Levellers, described them as the ‘grandees’ but this was partly a social distinction and included more radical politicians like Sir Henry Vane. The Leveller author of Westminster Projects: Or, the Mystery of the Iniquity of Derby-House Discovered (London, 1648) distinguished between the ‘Royal’ Presbyterians and Independents who would bring back the king on any terms provided they secured their personal safety and private advancement, and the ‘Real’ Presbyterians and Independents who would have the king first secure ‘Religion, Law and Liberties’. As examples of the first, he cited Northumberland, Warwick, Saye, Cromwell, Ireton and the two Vanes (pp. 3–4).Google Scholar

³ [Anon.,] Anti-Machiavell: or, Honesty against Policy (London, 1647), preface (pages unnumbered).Google Scholar

⁴ Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 25, 29 Feb.-7 Mar. 1648 (pages unnumbered).Google Scholar

⁵ The Case of the Kingdome Stated (London, 1647), p. 10.Google ScholarZagorin, Perez in A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution (London, 1954), p. 123,Google Scholar claimed that ‘Independency, contrary to Needham's notion, did imply a political philosophy and this philosophy was essentially inimical to the king's claims’. I think that the strong political evidence at this time for the existence of ‘royal Independents’ as opposed to ‘real Independents’ fully vindicates the analysis made by Needham in this pamphlet: it is quite clear that he is referring to the moderate leadership of the parliamentary Independent party.

¹ Pearl, , op. cit., passim.Google Scholar

¹ Clarendon, , The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England (Book IV, 95), ed. Macray, W. D., 6 vols. (Oxford 1888), i, 444.Google Scholar

² Ibid. (Book IV, 99), Macray, , i. 446.Google Scholar

³ D'Ewes' diary, B[ritish] M[useum], Harl. MS. 163, fo. 382^v.

¹ The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Coates, W. H. (New Haven, Conn., 1942), p. 101,Google Scholar quoting diary of Sir John Holland (Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS. D 932, fos 12b-13b).

² Ibid. p. 357.

³ Notes on the Long Parliament by Sir Francis Gawdy, B.M., Add. MS. 14,827, fo. 123.

⁴ Clarendon, , op. cit. (Book IV, 91),Google ScholarMacray, , i, 440.Google Scholar

⁵ Notes on the Long Parliament, endorsed ‘To Mr Hartlib'. B.M., Sloane MS. 3,317, fo. 29. I am grateful to Professor H. R. Trevor-Roper for drawing my attention to this reference.

¹ B.M., Add. MS. 37,344, fo. 21.

² Ibid., fo. 15^v.

³ Hamilton Papers, pp. 174, 191.Google Scholar Whitelocke described an occasion at this time when he was visited by Pierrepoint, St John, Evelyn and Lord Saye, at his house, Phyllis Court. B.M., Add. MS. 37,344, fo. 142^v, 31 March 1648. The group was obviously canvassing Whitelocke's support.

¹ State Papers collected by … Clarendon …, ed. Scrope, R. and Monkhouse, T., 3 vols. (Oxford, 1767-1786), iii, 441.Google Scholar

² Clarke Papers, vol. IV, ed. Firth, C. H., (Camden Society, 1901), pp. 249–50.Google Scholar

³ Nicholas Papers, vol. IV, 1657–1660, ed. SirWarner, G. F., (Camden Society, Third Series, xxxi, 1920), pp. 193–94.Google Scholar

⁴ Pearl, , op. cit., pp. 500–1.Google Scholar

¹ D'Ewes' diary, B.M., Harl. MS. 163, fo. 312.

² Ibid., Harl. MS. 164, fos 217–217^v.

³ Yonge's diary, B.M., Add. MS. 18,777, fos. 114^v-115.

⁴ Clarendon, , op. cit. (Book III, 32),Google ScholarMacray, , i, p. 246.Google Scholar

⁵ John Harington's diary, B.M., Add. MS. 10,114, fo. 33.

¹ The Works ofSymon Patrick, ed. Taylor, A., 9 vols. (Oxford, 1858), ix, 428. I am grateful to Mr F. Smallwood for this reference. While Chancellor of Cambridge University, St John had appointed Patrick to a post as univer sity preacher.Google Scholar

² John Harington's diary, fo. 28^v. I must thank Professor D. Underdown for this reference.

³ D'Ewes, ed. Coates, p. 16.Google Scholar

⁴ Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 17, 4–11 Jan. 1648.Google Scholar

¹ Pearl, , op. cit., p. 496.Google Scholar

² D'Ewes' diary, B.M., Harl. MS. 165, fo. 224^v.

³ Hull Corporation MSS., Bench Book V, fo. 709. I owe this reference to Dr V. Rowe.

⁴ Whitacre's diary, B.M., Add. MS. 31,116, fo. 224^v; Yonge's diary, B.M., Add. MS. 18,780, fo. 91^v.

⁵ Yonge's diary, B.M., Add. MS. 18,780, fos 56^v, 91^v.

¹ Whitacre's diary, B.M., Add. MS. 31, 116, fo. 270^v.

² Commons' Journal, iv, p. 300.Google Scholar

³ Browne went as one of the parliamentary commissioners to Newport, and was said to have gained the good opinion of the king. Historical Manuscripts Commission, 13th Rep., App., Part 1., p. 593.Google Scholar

⁴ Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 17, 4–11 Jan. 1648.Google Scholar

¹ D'Ewes' diary, B.M., Harl. MS. 164, fo. 217^v.

² Clarendon, , op. cit. (Book VIII, 248),Google ScholarMacray, , iii, p. 497.Google Scholar

³ Yonge's diary, B.M., Add. MS. 18,779, fos 5^v-57; D'Ewes' diary, B.M., Harl. MS. 166, fo. 9.

⁴ Historical Manuscripts Commission, 8th Rep., App. ii, Manchester MSS., p. 61.Google Scholar

⁵ Clarendon, , op. cit. (Book VIII, 248),Google ScholarMacray, , iii, 497–98.Google Scholar

⁶ Mercurius Academicus, 12 Jan. 1645–46 [1646].Google Scholar

¹ Commons' Journal, iv, pp. 421, 486; Bodleian Library, Carte MS. lxxx, fo. 355.Google Scholar

² B.M., Add. MS. 37,344, fo. 129^v.

³ Cal. State Papers Dom., 1648–49, pp. 300, 306–7, 319.Google Scholar

⁴ Hutchinson, Lucy, Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, ed. Hutchinson, J. (London, 1846), p. 118;Google ScholarClarendon, , op. cit. (Book VIII, 248),Google ScholarMacray, , iii, p 497.Google Scholar

⁵ Parthenope, Frances, Verney, Lady, Memoirs of the Verney family during the Civil War (London, 1892), ii, 311.Google Scholar

¹ Yonge's diary, B.M., Add. MS. 18,778, fo. 84.

² Hutchinson, , op. cit., p. 118.Google Scholar

³ [Anon.] Vindiciae Veritatis (London, 1954), Part II, p. 42.Google Scholar

⁴ Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 17, 4–11 Jan. 1648.Google Scholar

⁶ John Boys' diary, B.M., Add. MS. 50,200, fo. 30, printed in Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., xxxix (1966), pp. 141–64.Google Scholar

⁶ Hamilton Papers, pp. 174, 191.Google Scholar

¹ Yule, , op. cit., p. 96. 2 D'Ewes' diary, B.M., Harl. MS. 165, fo. 157.Google Scholar

³ Pearl, , op. cit., p. 517.Google Scholar

⁴ D'Ewes' diary, op. cit., Harl. MS. 166, fo. 125^v.

⁵ Ibid., 165, fo. 157.

⁶ Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 20, 8–15 Aug. 1648.Google Scholar

¹ The History of Independency (London, 1660), p. 124.Google Scholar

² Nicholas Papers, i, p. 119.Google Scholar

³ Commons Journal, iv, p. 93.Google Scholar

⁴ Whitacre's diary, B.M., Add. MS. 31,116, fos 269^v-70.

⁵ Commons Journal, v, pp. 14–17.Google Scholar

⁶ Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 29, 10–17 Oct. 1648.Google Scholar

¹ Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 57 (2), fo. 369.

² Cal. State Papers Dom., 1661–62, 2 Dec. 1661, p. 166;Google ScholarEvelyn, Helen, The History of the Evelyn Family (London, 1915), p. 504.Google Scholar

³ Clarendon, , op. cit. (Book III, 33),Google ScholarMacray, , i, 247;Google ScholarClarendon, , Life, 3 vols (Oxford, 1827), i, 91.Google Scholar

⁴ The Speech of… Lord Fiennes … 20 Jan. 1657 (London, 1657), p. 15.Google Scholar

⁵ Clarendon, , op. cit., (Book III, 32),Google ScholarMacray, , i, 247.Google Scholar

¹ Commons Journal, iv, p. 273,Google Scholar 12 Sept. 1645. C. H. Firth in his article in the D.N.B. mistakenly asserts that Fiennes did not reappear in public life until the autumn of 1647.

² Gardiner, , op. cit., iii, 366, quoting Bodleian Library, Clarendon MS. 2604.Google Scholar

³ Vindiciae Veritads, op. cit., Part II, p. 77.Google Scholar Firth thought it ‘hardly probable’ that Fiennes was the author of the Declaration, but in the Vindiciae Veritatis which was almost certainly written by Lord Saye and Sele and Nathaniel Fiennes it was attributed to Nathaniel. Needham thought that Fiennes was the author. Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 19, 1–8 Aug. 1648. So also did Mercurius Elencticus, no. 15, 1–8 Mar. 1648, p. 1015. The Earl of Lanark's correspondent said that the Declaration was brought in by Fiennes ‘but seemed penned by Sadler’ (Hamilton Papers, p. 155). Clement Walker thought that the Declaration was much modified by the Presbyterians on the floor of the House (History of Independency, Part I, p. 73).Google Scholar

¹ Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. ‘36, 37’, 5–12 Dec. 1648.Google Scholar

² Mercurius Elencticus, no. 55, 5–12 Dec. 1648, p. 527.Google Scholar

³ Monarchy Asserted to be the best, most Ancient and legal form of Government (London, 1660).Google Scholar

⁴ ‘Basilius Anonymous’, The Case of the King Stated (London, 1647), p. 17. For reasons of space, the relationship between the leaders of the Long Parliament and the Scots can only be touched upon. It is a more complex relationship than can be shown here, particularly after 1646 when the Scots themselves divided into parties. This division (apparent earlier) required and gained a subtle response from English politicians. The strength of feeling against the Scots in England in 1647 caused the political Presbyterians to dissociate themselves for a time from the Scots, which again caused afurther realignment of group and policies in both Kinggoms. The conflict between the Scottish war aims and those of the leaders of the Long Parliament remained a constant element in the shifting diplomatic manoeuvres. It is a factor which has been underestimated by historians.Google Scholar

¹ Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 17, 4–11 Jan. 1648.Google Scholar

² The Scots Nut-crackers, to break Crackt Crowns and new-mould Scepters (London, 1648), p. 5.Google Scholar

³ A Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament concerning the Papers of the Scots Commissioners (London, 1648). The demands of the Scots mentioned above were those which they had obtained from the Long Parliament and inserted into the Propositions presented to the king at Uxbridge in February 1645.Google Scholar

⁴ The Scots Nut-crackers, p. 6.Google Scholar

¹ Vindiciae Veritatis; or An Answer to a discourse intituled Truth its Manifest… Published in London in 1654, but on internal evidence written in 1648.Google Scholar

² B.M., E. 811(2), MS. note by Thomason.

³ Bodleian Library, Art. 4⁰. S. 11. BS. This copy which was presented to the Library by the author has a manuscript note in a contemporary hand ‘by Nath. Fiennes Lord Say’. Since Fiennes did not succeed to the title, the inscription is either a slip or suggests a joint authorship. This copy contains manuscript corrections which appear to be those of the author. The hand writing slightly resembles that of Lord Saye and Sele (see his letter to Lord Wharton, Bodleian Library, Carte MS. lxxx, fo. 749). Both this copy of the pamphlet and another in the Library which belonged to Anthony a Wood have a different title page from the copy in the British Museum, and they are entitled The Scots Design Discovered. From bibliographical evidence, it is clear that all copies of the pamphlet were of the same edition. Probably the snappier English title was thought to be more saleable than the original Latin one. Wood's copy contains an attribution to ‘Nat. Fiennes or some journeyman of his’. He added a second thought below—‘rather Old Say, p. 123’, a reference which suggests that the author sat in the Assembly of Divines. But Wood overlooked the fact that Nathaniel also sat there on one occasion at least, as a delegate from the Commons. He and his father shared a very similar view of politics in the period of the Long Parliament. Differ ences between them appeared later under the Protectorate when, as is well known, they were at odds in their attitude to Cromwell's proposed second Chamber.

⁴ On 29 Jan. 1646 Fiennes had been appointed to a committee to discover the author, printer and publisher of Truth its Mani est (Commons' Journal iv, p. 422), a circumstance which strengthens his connexion with the publication of Vindkiae Veritatis.Google Scholar

¹ Mercurius Pragmatkus, no. 25, 12–19 Sept. 1648.Google Scholar

² Vindkiae Veritatis, op. cit., pp. 73–74.Google Scholar

³ Ibid., pp. 20–21.

⁴ Ibid., 1st page of preface, pp. 159, 161–62, 163–64.

⁵ The author suggests in his preface that another reason why he is publish ing anonymously is that ‘it would offend some, whom I would not anger at this time’. Cromwell and the army leaders might not have welcomed such a strong defence of the king-in-Parliament and of the mixed constitution despite their own return to more traditional forms in the Instrument of Government.

⁶ Vindkiae Veritatis, p. 5.Google Scholar

¹ Ibid., p. 6.

² Ibid., p.35.

³ Ibid., pp. 33, 73.

⁴ Ibid., p. 7.

¹ wish to thank Professor H. R. Trevor-Roper for reading this paper and for his valuable suggestions. I am also grateful to him for many other discussions on the Puritan Revolution.