¹ Fletcher, Anthony, The outbreak of the English Civil War (London, 1981)Google Scholarreviewed by Aylmer, G. E., EHR, XVIII (1983), 156Google Scholar. Ashton, Robert, The English Civil War. Conservatism and revolution 1603–1649 (1978), pp. 129—31Google Scholar. Manning, Brian, ‘The aristocracy and the downfall of Charles I’, in Politics, religion and the English Civil War (London, 1973), p. 36Google Scholar.

² Bond, M. F., ‘A Stuart parliamentary processional roll’, House of Lords Record Office report for 1980 (London, 1981), pp. 21–6Google Scholar. The manner of holding parliaments in England (London, 1641), sigs. G3–4Google Scholar. The account given in L[ords] J[ournals], iv, 82 is not so clear and misled Vernon Snow, Essex the rebel (Nebraska, 1970), p. 240Google Scholar. I am grateful to Miss Helen Miller for a valuable conversation on the earlier significance of the cap of estate.

³ Manning, ‘The aristocracy’, pp. 43–9.

⁴ It is very curious that on this and a later occasion of importance in the Strafford case – the final vote on the bill of attainder in the Commons – it seems certain that the tellers in the divisions were appointed on the opposite sides to their own opinions; C[ommons] J[ournals], 11, 21, 125; John Rushworth, Historical collections: Strafford, pp. 1, 54. This of course casts doubt on the whole technique of using the names of tellers to elucidate the course of events in this period. We should collect all the evidence we can find about other incidents in which the names of tellers seem to be ‘mistaken’ in one source or another, to attempt to solve this problem.

⁵ Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 1–8, 16. Similar early divisions on not very important issues were called in the first parliaments of James and the first two of Charles, but not in the other five new parliaments of the early seventeenth century, nor in any of the six prorogued sessions; CJ, 1, 152, 801, 817.

⁶ Russell, Conrad, ‘Parliament and the king's finances’, in The origins of the English Civil War (London, 1973), p. 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The oft-quoted comments that though plain, the speech was well received; that it was based on petitions that were ‘the Scottish Covenant wanting only hands’; and that ‘Mr. Pym gets the reputation to be as wise as Solomon’, all come from Harl. MS 4931; see the discussion of this manuscript in Cope, Esther & Coates, W. H., Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640, Camden 4th ser., XIX (1977), 33–4, 234, 237Google Scholar; for Erie's report, see ibid. pp. 174–5, 300.

⁷ Ibid. pp. 137–8, 142, 146. Crawford, Patricia, Denzil Holies, 1598–1680: a study of his political career (London, 1979), p. 22Google Scholar.

⁸ The documentation for the short parliament was not available to Professor Kenyon, when he contrasted the speeches of April and November to demonstrate a hardening of Pym's attitude: The Stuart constitution 1609–88 (London, 1966), pp. 190, 197—205Google Scholar; cf. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 3, 35–6, 40. Dr Hibbard makes a different contrast of the two speeches, in the context of Pym's contacts with the French agent; however, she also believes that the parliamentary leaders ‘seized power’ in 1640, despite the fact that the worst fears of her ambassadorial correspondents were not realized in either the short or the long parliament: Hibbard, Caroline, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, 1983), pp. 148–50, 166–7, 170–1, 234Google Scholar; see also her valuable discussion, p. 8, of S. R. Gardiner's attitude to Pym.

⁹ Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. xix, xxv, 3, 24, 35–6, 38–9, 50–51, 72; indeed, Fletcher does at one point say that the leadership had ‘never quite’ been Pym's in 1641, and ‘slipped decisively from his grasp' in the autumn’, ibid. p. 242.

¹⁰ Keeler, Mary F., ‘Some opposition committees, 1640’ in Conflict in Stuart England. Essays in honour of Wallace Notestein, ed. Aiken, W. A. and Henning, B. D. (London, 1960), p. 144Google Scholar. Crawford, Holies, p. 54, and below, n. 24.

¹¹ Russell, Origins, pp. 111—15. 21 Jac. I, c. xxxiii. Anderson, Clifford B., ‘Ministerial responsibility in the 1620s’, Jour. Mod. Hist., xxxiv (1962), 381–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² CJ, 11, 28, 29. Pennington, Donald, ‘The making of the war, 1640–42’, in Puritans and revolutionaries. Essays in seventeenth-century history presented to Christopher Hill, ed. Pennington, D. and Thomas, K. (London, 1978), p. 165Google Scholar. This is perhaps the first ‘order for papers’ of the modern kind, though papers on foreign policy had been given to the Commons, via the Lords, in the 1620s.

¹³ The journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Notestein, Wallace (New Haven, 1923), hereafter D'Ewes(N). pp. 30, 33—5Google Scholar. This was essentially the first committee of Ways and Means. Normally the Commons had simply debated how many subsidies and/or fifteenths and tenths should be granted; a bill, drafted nominally by a committee, but actually prepared by the government beforehand, was then brought in accordingly. On this occasion the committee to draft the bill was not a formality, which may account for the additional session of committee of the whole house (unusual by later practice) which was convened after its appointment. At this meeting on 21 November members offered their personal security for loans until the bill could pass, perhaps inspired thereto by rumours of impending dissolution; CJ, 11, 33–4; D'Ewes(N), pp. 51–3.

¹⁴ CJ, 11, 30, 31. The committee is mentioned on 23, 25, 27 Nov. and 4 Dec.; CJ, 11, 34, 36, 37. 45.

¹⁵ CJ, 11, 36, 46, 48–9; D'Ewes(N), pp. 110–11, 134.

¹⁶ D'Ewes(N), pp. 34, 183–6, 189–90. The note book of Sir John Northcole, ed. Hamilton, A. H. A. (London, 1877), P. 54Google Scholar. CJ, II, 57, 58. It was Hotham who made the remark that direct taxes were the fashion of the conqueror, or the Turk, cited by Russell, Origins, p. 112.

¹⁷ 2 to 8 January, CJ, II, 62–5; D'Ewes(N), p. 237.

¹⁸ There were attempts to exclude the lords spiritual from the bill and to exclude the clergy from being commissioners; D'Ewes(N), pp. 209, 211, 219–21,233. For the Oxford and Cambridge debate see Russell, Conrad, Parliaments and English politics, 1621—1629 (Oxford, 1979), p. 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Northcote, pp. 54, 55. The stress placed by Fletcher on the length of time taken to pass the bill is therefore misleading; Outbreak, pp. 22–3. It also ignores the determined attempts made by the Commons to persuade the city to lend. To cite only the formal attempts mentioned in the journal: 21 Nov., the city to be informed of the security offered; 16 Dec., the city to be informed that the bill will be expedited; 15 Jan. and 6 Feb., letters from the Speaker to the city; CJ, II, 34, 51, 68, 80.

²⁰ Hyde's remark that enough had been given to conquer Germany is thus in tune with the speeches of St John, Pye and Whistler, who also averred that much of the irregular income never reached the king, a point that Pye seized on again next day in reference to fines for knighthood: Northcote, pp. 59–60, 65; cf. Russell, Origins, p. 115.

²¹ Ibid. p. III. D'Ewes(N), pp. 75–6, 164, 192, 193–4, 197–9; CJ, II,59, 60.

²² D'Ewes(N), p. 331. CJ, II, 81, 82, 88, 89.

²³ Pearl, Valerie, London and the outbreak of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1961), pp. 199, 202–5Google Scholar. The Scots paper is discussed below.

²⁴ D'Ewes(N), pp. 505, 507 n. 12. CJ, 11, 107, 109–10. For this Scots paper see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 20–1. Crawford has shown that there were 170 conferences during the first ‘session’, 46 of them in August 1641 but as many as fourteen a month before that; Pym's score for the management of these conferences (66) was smaller than that of Holies (72) or Culpepper (73); Holles, p. 54.

²⁵ This joint committee, of which Pym was not a member, consisted of eight peers and sixteen commoners; these sixteen were sent for again to meet the Lords on 30 March, 3 and 6 April, the first meeting being reported by Digby and the last by Pierrepont. CJ 11, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117; LJ, IV, 193, 198, 202, 206, 209.

²⁶ The Speaker's speech is printed in Rushworth, Historical collections, III, i, 274.

²⁷ Penington's statement, CJ, II, 148. The acts, caps, ii and iv, received the assent on 16 Feb. and 13 May. Hotham's report of 17 June, CJ, 11, 177–8. See also below, at note 60.

²⁸ Committee appointed 24 Feb., members added 22, 30 May; Holies reported 22, 24, 29 May; order for the bill, 26 May; CJ, 11, 92, 154, 155, 157, 161, 162. Dealings with the Customers, 25 to 29 May; CJ, 11, 156, 157, 161; D'Ewes, Harl. MS 163, fo. 228r, 283V; Crawford, Holles, p. 42.

²⁹ CJ, 11, 165, 172. The two different accounts of these events given by Russell are not easy to follow and do not seem to be vouched by his evidence: Origins, p. 115; The crisis of parliaments.(Oxford, 1971), p. 335Google Scholar; cf. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 29, who maintains that Pym proposed the higher sum that was accepted; and the collected Diurnall occurrences or dayly proceedings of both houses…to the third of November 1641 (1641), p. 110Google Scholar. The king's speech, LJ, IV, 283; warrant to the King's Printer, Privy council registers (London, 1968), XII, 132Google Scholar. Clarendon erroneously recorded that the grant was made for three years, as had been resolved in March; History, 1, 277–8.

³⁰ Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 408. The committee appointed ‘to confer with such persons as they shall think fit’ is mentioned on 26, 28, 29 May, 5 and 8 June, and what may be a report on 10 June; CJ, 11, 138, 139, 143, 158, 160, 161, 168, 170, 172.

³¹ Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 29, 106. For Pym's absence see below. For the bill, CJ, 11, 138, 143, 145 7, 161, 162, 166, 168, 169, 175–8.

³² Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 49–50, 72. Hotham's committee can hardly be described as ‘hastily summoned’ on 16 June, ‘the subcommittee’ was ordered to produce an estimate of disbanding, and Hotham's accounts, in response to this reference, came from the committee for the king's army: the committee for the army, under Hotham's chairmanship, had been actively engaged in these problems since 21 November 1640 and had appointed a sub-committee to liaise with the Lords Commissioners for the treaty (the Lords at Ripon); Pym had been added to this committee on 11 Feb.; CJ, 11, 34, 35, 39, 83, 177–8. For the bill from December 1641 to March 1642 see CJ, 11, 313, 342, 464–5, 475; LJ IV 674.

³³ Hill, Christopher, God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (1970), p. 55Google Scholar. Russell, Crisis, p. 330. Statutes of the realm, v, 110–13, 116–20, 129–31, 138. Lambert, Sheila, ‘Procedure in the House of Commons in the early Stuart period’, EHR, xcv (1980), 776–9Google Scholar.

³⁴ The details of the analysis upon which this statement is based are much too long to be given here. Hotham's report is printed in Kenyon, Stuart constitution, pp. 216–17.

³⁵ CJ, 11, 112, 113, 115, 161, 162, 171. Phillips, H. E. I., ‘The last years of the Court of Star Chamber, 1630–1641’, TRHS, 4th ser., XXI (1939), 103–5Google Scholar .

³⁶ CJ, 11, 173, 181, 184, 196, 211, 216, 224, 225. Zagorin, P., The court and the country (London, 1969), p. 243Google Scholar, added to the usual list of constructive reforms the Stannary Courts Act (cap. xv) which was committed on 12 Feb., reported on 26 Apr. and passed on 7 July; CJ, 11, 83, 128, 194. Hotham's report, CJ, 11, 162–3.

³⁷ HMC Egmont MSS, 1, 136.

³⁸ 1 July, division 125 to 91, CJ, 11, 195: on the Lords amendments see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 73–4. The subsequent conferences on the Star Chamber bill were managed by Prideaux and Glyn, but Pym headed the committee for the final one on 1 July; LJ, IV, 291, 296; CJ, 11, 191, 194.

³⁹ CJ, 11, 153, 154, 180–1. On 9 June, when Widdrington and Price were sent to the Tower for having interfered with the candles during the debate on Fiennes' report from the close committee the previous day, the division was 189 to 172; CJ, 11, 171.

⁴⁰ CJ, 11, 166–7. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 244, believes that Pierrepont emerged into the parliamentary leadership only in February 1642; see also above, n. 25.

⁴¹ 5 June; D'Ewes, Harl. MS 163, fo. 277; CJ, n, 168. Pym carried up a message concerning the charge on 28 June, CJ, II, 190.

⁴² LJ, iv, 103; CJ, 11, 26, 27, 45, 72, 93. On 23 Jan., Selden, Palmer, Whitelocke and Maynard were added to the committee and in a later reference are described as ‘the four lawyers’. Four lawyers were also added belatedly, on 28 June, to the second close committee, below, n. 62; CJ, 11, 290.

⁴³ Crawford, Holies, pp. 36–40. Wedgwood, C. V., Thomas Wentworth first earl of Strafford 1593–1641 (London, 1961), p. 330Google Scholar .

⁴⁴ Most of the gossip is brought together by Manning, ‘Aristocracy’; see also HMC De Lisle MSS, vi, 351, 359–60, 366–7, 375–6, 378–80, 382–3.

⁴⁵ Manning, ‘Aristocracy’, P. 55; Pearl, London, p. 193.

⁴⁶ The king's speech dated 25 Jan. (the day it was read again in both houses) is in Rushworth, Historical collections, III, i, 154–5 and in Kenyon, Stuart constitution, pp. 19–20; see also Kenyon's comment on the act, p. 192. The Commons discussed the bill on 24, 30 Dec., 19 and 20 Jan.; it returned from the Lords, where it passed nem. con. on 6 Feb. Pym was a member of the select committee on the bill and spoke in committee of the whole on 19 Jan., but was not amongst the managers of the conferences; CJ, II 60, 80, 83; D'Ewes(N), pp. 188–9, 196, 263, 265, 279–80, 282, 331, 354, 355, 359, 360, 361; for the queen's involvement, ibid. p. 393 and n. 16, p. 488 and n. 10, p. 493; and Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 6. For the Lords amendments see Christianson, Paul, ‘The peers, the people and parliamentary management in the first six months of the long parliament’, Jour. Mod. Hist., XLIX (1977), 590Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Wedgwood, Strafford, p. 326; Manning, ‘Aristocracy’, p. 55. Manning and Christianson follow Clarendon in saying incorrectly that Warwick was added two or three days later; see below, n. 56.

⁴⁸ The letters and journals of Robert Baillie, ed. Laing, David (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1841–1842), 1, 274–7, 280, 283–8, 291)Google Scholar. Pearl, London, pp. 213–14. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 91–9.

⁴⁹ Baillie, Letters, 1, 269, 305–6. Ogilvie, James D., ‘The story of a broadside of 1641’, Proc. Edin. Bibl. Soc., XII (1921–1925), 78–83Google Scholar. Gardiner's suggestion that the paper was printed officially is without foundation; History, ix, 296–7; D'Ewes(M), p. 417 n. 11.

⁵⁰ Crawford, Holies, pp. 47–9. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 19, cites Crawford, but ascribes the intervention to Pym. It is noticeable that, although in his first two chapters Fletcher frequently credits Pym or his circle with views or actions for which no evidence is offered (e.g. pp. 88–9), we are not told why Pym took no part in drafting the religious section of the Grand Remonstrance (pp. 82–4 ) and in the chapter on religion Pym's nam e is scarcely mentioned (only pp. 100, 102, 113, 116–17). Like the trial of Strafford and the constructive legislation, the Remonstrance and also the impeachments of the bishops and judges suffered unconscionable delays. See Fletcher's shrewd comments o n the use of religious bills to keep the house occupied, pp. 252 4.

⁵¹ Manning, ‘Aristocracy’, pp. 57–63. But Hibbard makes it clear that the king had no interest in disbanding the armies, see esp. p. 211.

⁵² 19 Nov., CJ, 11, 31. Pearl, London, p. 216.

⁵³ Rushworth, Strafford, p. 59; see above, n. 4, concerning the tellers.

⁵⁴ Christianson, ‘The peers’, pp. 592–5. Wedgwood, Strafford, pp. 36–70. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 10–14.

⁵⁵ Clarendon, History, 1, 320.

⁵⁶ Privy council registers, XII, 127. Baillie, Letters, i, 274.

⁵⁷ Clarendon, History, 1, 328; CJ, 11, 130, 132. Christianson, , ‘The “obliterated” portions of the House of Lords Journals dealing with the attainder of Strafford, 1641’, EHR, xcv (1980), 339–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

⁵⁸ Rushworth gives 331 members on the first day and a total of 429, Historical collections, III, i, 244–8. Baillie, Letters, 1, 313.

⁵⁹ Letter from Vane, , SP 16/480/20. The pamphle t is A brief and perfect relation of the answers and replies of Thomas earl of Strafford. Firth quoted from this at length and discussed the various estimates of voting in The House of Lords during the Civil War (London, 1910), pp. 81–91Google Scholar; for a succinct comment on Firth's methods see Jones, G. F. Trevallyn, Saw-pit Wharton (Sydney, 1967), p. 288Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Hibbard, Charles I, pp. 194–5. The Diurnall Occurrences, pp. 93, 95. Harrison's proposal, endorsed ‘Read 7mo May 1641’ is in the Lords main papers; it does not mention the continuance bill. The whole business needs further investigation in the light of the subsequent negotiations with the customers, who were at odds amongst themselves. This part of the affair is not mentioned in the garrulous, self-justificatory reminiscences written by Harrison after the Restoration, in which he boasted of the Earl of Bedford's interest in his earlier scheme for farming the royal forests; Stowe MS 326, fos. 53–95; cf. Russell, Origins, pp. 111–12; Pearl, London, pp. 205–6.

₆₁ CJ, 11, 136–7, 139, 140; LJ, IV, 239, 241. Christianson, ‘The obliterated portions of the Lords Journals’, p. 353. Clarendon, History, 1, 343. His Majesties Manifest, Thomason tracts E.164(2). Rushworth, Historical collections, III, i, 307–8, 316.

⁶² LJ, IV, 235; CJ, 11, 135, 138. The only other barons who were privy councillors were Lyttelton, whose services were needed in the chair; Goring, whose son was involved in the investigation of the plot; and Newburgh, chancellor of the duchy, who was not to be a member of the regency council either. Of the councillors in the Commons, Roe was away on embassy; Uvedale was probably with the armies; Jermyn, comptroller of the household, was old and ill, and his son was one of the plotters. This left only the elder Vane and Pye, auditor of the exchequer, who had their hands full with official business in the Commons.

⁶³ Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 43–4, 48–9. CJ, II, 184–5. LJ, Iv, 285–7, 290, 291, 305, 306, 308–11, 316, 321.

⁶⁴ Rymer, Foedtra, xx, 436, 439, 479, 481. Privy council registers, XII, 177–80.

₆₅ The Nicholas papers, ed. Warner, G. E., Camden, n.s. 40 (1886), 1, 3Google Scholar. Diary and correspondence of John Evelyn, ed. Wheatley, H. B. (4 vols., London, 1906), IV, 74–7Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ CJ, 11, 274, 276, 278. LJ, IV, 379, 383, 384. The King's Printer's accounts, A.O. 3/1276; I am grateful to Dr Elizabeth Read Foster for this reference.

⁶⁷ LJ, IV, 394–5. Privy council registers, XII, 180–92. CSPDom. 1641–43, p. 135. The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Coates, W. H. (New Haven, 1942), p. 4 n. 10.Google ScholarThe Nicholas papers, 1, 6, 9, 16–17.

⁶⁸ Warrants for payments issued by Pym are in SP 16/484/24, 29–31, 39, 43.

⁶⁹ Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 125–39, especially pp. 127, 129.

⁷⁰ Ibid., pp. 121, 153–5, 164, 184. CSPDom. 1641–43, pp. 194–5, 263. Fletcher says that Essex, Holland and Lyttelton advised the king not to leave, but the source cited states that Essex and Holland offered their resignations, as Lyttelton had done a few days earlier: CSPDom. 1641–43, pp. 252–3.

⁷¹ LJ, IV, 646, 647, 650; LJ, v, 17, 20–1, 32, 76, 283; CJ, 11, 481, 542–4, 550, 581, 715.

⁷² Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 243–4; the account of the origin of the propositions, p. 263, is incomplete and inaccurate. Far from being ‘little noticed’, the January draft was discussed at length as the origin of the Nineteen Propositions by Wormald, B. H. G., Clarendon (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 54–5, 59, 110, 113Google Scholar. The declaration originated in committee of the whole house with Whitelocke in the chair, and was put into shape by the committee at Grocers' Hall; CJ, 11, 379, 382, 384, 385, 386. Pym's prominence in this affair is not in question, but Fletcher's evidence for Pym's authorship is a statement in a diurnal; he does not mention Pym's report of 15 Feb., nor the subsequent debates, which included a division by 117 to 113; CJ, II, 432, 436, 438, 439, 440. Conference was held on 21 Feb., but not reported in the Lords until 1 April, when the whole text of the document, and of Pym's speech, which Fletcher does not mention, are entered in the Lords Journal; CJ, 11, 447; LJ, IV, 602, 689–73.

⁷³ G. F. T. Jones has noticed Wharton's mysterious absence from the Lords throughout the spring; Wharton, pp. 40–2, 47. Hibbard has drawn attention to the importance throughout of the role of Northumberland; Charles I, pp. 33, 74, 131–2, 227–8.

⁷⁴ LJ, Iv, 700. Reminders and orders of the day: CJ, 11, 522, 564; LJ, Iv, 712; LJ, v, 21. Committee to draft proposals and new draftentered, LJ, v, 80, 89–91. Conferences and amendments: CJ, II, 594, 596, 597, 598. Final texts entered CJ, 11, 599–600; LJ, v, 97–9. Cf. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 261–3.

⁷⁵ Mr. Hides argument before the Lords (London, 1641). CJ, II, 127. Daly, J. W., ‘Could Charles I be trusted?’, Jour. British Studies, VI (1966), 32Google Scholar .

⁷⁶ CJ, III, 303. In the wrangle over the appointment after Pym's death, the Lords proposed to appoint ‘a destitute officer’; LJ, VI, 338, 363. For the value of the office, G. E. Aylmer, The king's servants, p. 208; The state's servants, p. 79.

⁷⁷ CJ, III, 334, 336, 337, 338, 355, 365, 399, 489, 499, 517, 523, 568, 661, 662; LJ, VII, 23–4, 256; LJ, VIII, 82–3.

⁷⁸ CJ, VI, 587, 588, 589, 607; CJ, VII, 131.

⁷⁹ For some evidence concerning these suggestions see Adams, Simon, ‘Foreign policy an d the parliaments of 1621 and 1624’ in Faction and parliament, ed. Sharpe, Kevin (Oxford, 1978), p. 144Google Scholar; Clarendon state papers, 11, 94–6; Pennington, ‘The making of the war’, pp. 176, 178; Manning, ‘The aristocracy’, pp. 41–2, 66, 72; Snow, Essex, ch. 9; G. F. T.Jones, Wharton, pp. 31, 35, 40, 43, 78–81, 90–3; Hibbard, Charles I, pp. 81, 177 n. 44, 195;MacCormack, John R., Revolutionary politics in the Long Parliament (Cambridge, Mass. 1973), pp. 102–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 120–1, 139; Crawford, Holles, pp. 70–134 passim. For the sequestration, CJ, III, 29, 38, 43, 59, 83, 87, 89; LJ, v, 367; LJ, VI, 64–5.

⁸⁰ Woolrych, Austin, reviewing Snow's Essex the rebel in EHR, LXXXVII (1972), 625.Google ScholarHexter, J. H., The reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass. 1941), pp. 93, 113Google Scholar. See also Pearl, Valerie, ‘London's counter-revolution’ in The Interregnum: the quest for settlement, ed. Aylmer, G. E. (London, 1972), p. 38Google Scholar.

⁸¹ LJ, VIII, 490, 507, 508, 533, 540, 542, 652, 653–4.

₈₂ Baillie, Letters, 11, 118, 216, 401.