Henry Parker and the English Civil War: The Political Thought of the Public's 'Privado'

Henry Parker and the English civil war is the first full study in fifty years of the author of the most celebrated political tract of the early years of the English civil war, Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses. Professor Mendle situates each of Parker's significant tracts in its polemical, intellectual, and political context. He also views Parker's literary work in the light of his career as privado, or intimate adviser, to leading figures of the parliamentary leadership. Parker emerges as a fierce opponent of clerical pretension from any quarter, a strikingly brutal critic of the common law mind, and a leading proponent of parliament's most uncompromising position, a claim to a species of executive power so encompassing (and so like the claims of Charles I) that it can fitly be called parliamentary absolutism.

Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History

HENRY PARKER AND THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History Series editors ANTHONY FLETCHER

Professor of Modern History, University of Durham JOHN GUY Professor of Modern History, University of St Andrews and JOHN MORRILL Reader in Early Modern History, University of Cambridge, and Fellow and Tutor of Selwyn College This is a series of monographs and studies covering many aspects of the history of the British Isles between the late fifteenth century and the early eighteenth century. It includes the work of established scholars and pioneering work by a new generation of scholars. It includes both reviews and revisions of major topics and books, which open up new historical terrain or which reveal startling new perspectives on familiar subjects. All the volumes set detailed research into our broader perspectives and the books are intended for the use of students as well as of their teachers. For a list of titles in the series, see end of book.

HENRY PARKER AND THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR The political thought of the public's "privado"

MICHAEL MENDLE University of Alabama

HI CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon 13,28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Cambridge University Press 1995 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1995 First paperback edition 2002 A catalogue recordfor this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Mendle, Michael, 1945Henry Parker and the English civil war: the political thought of the public's "privado" / Michael Mendle. p. cm. - (Cambridge studies in early modern British history). ISBN 0 521 48227 5 1. Great Britain - Politics and government - 1642-1649. 2. Parker, Henry, 1604-1652. 3. Political science - Great Britain - History - 17th century. 4. Great Britain. Parliament - History - 17th century. 5. Pamphlets - Authorship - History - 17th century. I. Title. II. Series. DA415.M46 1995 941.06'092-dc20 94-43021 CIP ISBN 0 52148227 5 hardback ISBN 0 521521319 paperback

For Chris, Nicky, and Jane Elizabeth

CONTENTS

Preface Acknowledgments List of abbreviations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

page xi xvi xviii

The public's privado The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony Religio laid Observations and the political theory of the emergency The Observator observed "Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds Diverse urgent emergent considerations Disputable and visible politics Conclusion: contrary points of war

1 32 51 70 90 111 137 160 180

Appendix: The writings of Henry Parker Index

191 197

IX

PREFACE

More than fifty years have passed since Wilbur Jordan yoked Henry Parker and Henry Robinson in Men of Substance.1 Since then Parker has not been the focus of a book, not even a large part of one. To be sure, Parker has not been forgotten. Margaret Judson continued her remarkable readings of Parker across six decades.21 have attempted some preliminary studies of my own.3 Recently Robert Zaller has added an overview.4 Many writers have looked at Parker's most famous tract, Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses, and some have read more widely. Now there are signs of a renewal of serious interest. Parker figures significantly in John Sanderson's "But the People's Creatures," and Richard Tuck's Philosophy and Government 1572-1651 brings his great learning in continental ideas to bear on a central aspect of Parker's thought, the twinned notions of necessity and the public good.5 All things considered, however, the simultaneous neglect and interest is perplexing. By general concession, Parker was the most aggressive, thoughtful, and provocative parliamentarian writer in the early years of the Long Parliament and civil war era.6 While his later writings are less celebrated, they 1 2

3

4 5

6

W. K. Jordan, Men of Substance (Chicago, 1942). M. A. Judson, "Henry Parker and the Theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty," in Carl Frederick Wittke, ed., Essays in History and Political Theory in Honor of Charles Howard Mcllwain (Cambridge, Mass., 1936); idem, The Crisis of the Constitution (New Brunswick, 1949); idem, From Tradition to Political Reality: A Study of the Ideas Set Forth in Support of the Commonwealth Government in England, 1649-1653 (Hamden, Conn., 1980). Michael Mendle, "The Ship Money Case, The Case of Shiptnony, and the Development of Henry Parker's Parliamentary Absolutism," Historical Journal, 32 (1989), pp. 513-36; idem, "Henry Parker: The Public's Privado," in Gordon Schochet, ed., Religion, Resistance, and Civil War, Proceedings of the Folger Institute Center for the History of British Political Thought, vol. 3 (Washington, DC, 1990), pp. 151-77. Robert Zaller, "Henry Parker and the Regiment of True Government," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 135 (1991), pp. 255-85. John Sanderson, "But the People's Creatures": The Philosophical Basis of the English Civil War (Manchester, 1989); Richard Tuck, Philosophy and Government 1572-1651 (Cambridge, 1993). For a long list — but never complete, for it keeps growing - of such appraisals, see my "Henry Parker," pp. 151-2.

xi

xii

Preface

are hardly a secret. In a crowded scholarly world, where the great minds and happenings are studied continuously, the near-great repeatedly, and the rest more often and more intensely than anyone would have imagined when Professors Judson and Jordan first shared their Parkerian labors, one would have supposed that Parker would have generated at least a small cadre of publishing students. Yet this has not happened; apparently Parker has scared off nearly as many scholars as he has attracted. A very fine scholar of early modern political thought once told me- after I had begun this project- about the "curse of Parker." As these words are written, I am not yet its victim. But my own lively sense of the difficulties facing other students of Parker, actual and prospective, has shaped this volume. To an extent that I did not fully appreciate when I began the project, I have had to ask and answer the most elementary questions about Parker and his writings to make much sense of them; there were few helps along the way. Some questions were bibliographical. No two lists of Parker's writings are the same; I had to make my own decisions and, to an extent, devise reasonably consistent grounds to do so. In the chapter devoted to the controversy Observations generated, I needed to clear other bibliographical thickets just to make my way. Other questions were biographical and circumstantial. Along with the contexts provided by the wider world, Parker's own struggles shaped what he said and how he said it. He had to work for a living, and often was his master's voice; experience taught me always to ask, cut bono? But Parker also became adept at using others' pulpits to preach his own sermons. This was true of tracts he wrote on behalf of the Vintners, the Stationers, and the Merchant Adventurers - each of which bears upon Parker's political thought - as well as of tracts like A Discourse Concerning Puritans and Scotlands Holy War, which, though rich in Parker's own ideas, were not the freestanding meditations of a disengaged mind, but pieces written on behalf of narrow political interests. Other problems led from text to context, and from one text to another. For example, Parker wrote a tract called The Contra-Replicant. Who was the Replicant, and why did Parker see the need to answer him? Were Parker as studied as, say, James Harrington, not to mention Milton or Hobbes, answers would have been quickly available at the bottom of the page of a fine modern edition. My own search plunged me into a moment early in the war when it seemed that London was about to fall to a royalistfifthcolumn. That sort of outcome proved to be typical. Almost all of Parker's writings were reactive and controversial - most often he "observed" others' views in order to state his own, and seemed to be goaded to the inkhorn by something he had read. Routinely I needed to answer questions about the tracts to which Parker responded or about the immediate political situation as a precondition to other labors.

Preface

xiii

All this is to say that I hope the strength (and I fear to some readers the weakness) of this book will be its elementary character. Perhaps it will foster sustained interest in Parker, in part by clearing the reader's path of obstructions, and making the tracts more accessible. Perhaps also it will pull Parker out of the conceptual ruts in which some modern scholarship has left him. One wonders, for example, whether the modern scholarly stress upon Parker's notions of popular sovereignty and consent owes something to their being easier to understand than Parker's views on the logic of the royalist judges in the ship money case, although the latter may be quite as important as the former. With those concerns in mind, I have preferred to make the book more useful than clever. The design is essentially chronological, the better to develop short-run contexts and to see some longer-term transformations, and proceeds from tract to tract rather than from theme to theme. Although I have not tried to summarize each tract, the reader at least should be able to determine what it was about and - often very much the same thing - what provoked its appearance. Characteristically this task has depended on the establishment of polemical and political contexts. To return to an earlier example, the reader will at least know why it was The Contra-Replicant. He or she will also discover that the tract's secondary agenda was to reply to some of the critics of Observations, and as such was among the most impassioned and revealing of Parker's writings. Of course, thematic treatment is also valuable. I have chosen to arrive at it through a narrative and tract-centered route. Thefirstchapter, a contribution towards a biography, establishes something about Parker's circumstances and activities, raising themes pursued in the chapters beyond; the most important are Parker's role as counsellor or "privado" and his connections to the parliamentary and army leadership. This chapter also discusses a few writings, mostly minor, of greater biographical than conceptual significance, as well as one smuggled tract of the 1630s, Divine and Politike Observations, in which I detect Parker's hand. The chapters that follow are generally though not slavishly chronological. For example, I have grouped Parker's early religious and ecclesiastical tracts together and I wait until a chapter devoted primarily to the later 1640s to discuss two commercial tracts from the early 1640s. In the main, however, George Thomason's description of the organizing principle of his collection of pamphlets serves as my guide: "the Method . . . is Tyme."7 Readers more indifferent to circumstances and individual tracts will find occasional remarks and notes and the index helpful in linking or contrasting key themes beyond the capitular walls. In the concluding chapter, I consider some long-term dynamics of Parker's writings. Although it concludes my study, it is hardly the last word on its subject. 7

Cited in Lois Spencer, "The Professional and Literary Connexions of George Thomason," The Library, 5th series, 13 (1958), p. 114.

xiv

Preface

Nowhere am I more acutely aware of this study's provisionality than in the matter of the backgrounds and sources (in the conventional, cruder sense) of Parker's ideas. In a few instances, I have quoted or emphasized passages in the hope that another student will be able to peer beyond my own horizon, and show "where they came from." But my failure (and, I gather, others') may be the real curse of Parker, the more cruel because it runs exactly counter to early expectation. In the initial stages of research, some quick successes led me to expect that Parker's sources and inspirations would leap off the page, and that Parker would be exposed as a highly derivative, indeed a source-dependent writer. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, for example, relied surreptitiously upon Paolo Sarpi, and the still-unprinted eighth book of Hooker's Of the haws of Ecclesiastical Polity bore heavily, it had already been noted, upon Parker's The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment. Virgilio Malvezzi (and perhaps Machiavelli) provided a little more grounding for A Discourse Concerning Puritans.8 Buoyed by these initial findings, I confidently awaited others, only to be disappointed at the meager yield. Richard Tuck's suggestion that Parker's inspiration may have been Hugo Grotius proved hard either to develop or dismiss. Parker read De Jure Belli ac Pads attentively, but also quite critically. Continuing along a furrow earlier opened by Tuck, I discovered that Jus Populi, the tract most nearly in the grand manner of "high" political thought, used Bodin to attack Grotius and Grotius to tame Bodin. 9 Yet en bloc those results fell so well short of expectation that I was forced to revise my original view. While Parker's first tracts of the 1640s showed signs of a reading program, I could find little additional evidence of other silent partners. Perhaps the highly reactive, rather than constructive and initiatory, temper of Parker's intellect as well as the press of affairs kept Parker from his books - or, rather, led him away from some books and towards others. In 1643, writing on behalf of the Stationers, Parker disparaged the canaille of pamphlets that had overrun the press, but he was no less caught up in it as reader and author than the publishers who had abandoned grander and more ambitious projects in favor of the instant returns of ephemeral little tracts. 10 Increasingly, therefore, I was led to seek Parker's primary contexts in the flows and lurchings of political events and the pamphlet culture. Scarcely less importantly, I have tried to situate Parker within the broader linguisticconceptual matrices of his day and in a biographical-conceptual space 8

9

10

Chapter 3, pp. 53-4 and 63-4; Michael Mendle, Dangerous Positions: Mixed Government, the Estates of the Realm, and the Making of the Answer to the XIX Propositions (University, Alabama, 1985), pp. 132-3, 213-14 (n. 54^. See Chapter 6, pp. 131-2; Richard Tuck, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 146-7, and idem, Philosophy and Government, pp.204, 231. See Chapter 7, p. 148.

Preface

xv

peculiar to him, the role of the public's "privado." For these labors I have felt appropriately rewarded. Nevertheless, I will wonder until shown by another student what very obvious (or it may be, very obscure) connections I have missed. The reader will discover that these researches into Parker, however basic, reveal a sophisticated and complex mind. Perhaps too much so: for many tastes and prejudices, Parker will seem contradictory and not always sympathetic. That may be another reason why Parker has received less attention than might have been expected. He was a parliamentarian and an absolutist, a spokesman for the self-proclaimed defenders of liberty and property and a brutally dismissive critic of the ancient constitution and the common law, a voice for popular sovereignty and a sneering contemner of the poor and unlettered. In religious and ecclesiological matters he combined or at least conjoined the most extreme sort of anti-Catholicism with equally virulent hostility to episcopacy and presbyterianism. While Parker ran with the Independents, he was a state supremacist pushing an updated and reworked version of the Henrician and Elizabethan supremacy. He never had a good word for indefeasible individual liberty and usually had a cynic's suspicion of the claims of "conscience"; one of the few complimentary things he had to say about Catholics was that he admired their ability to control the press and censor books. These contradictions and failures to conform to an unambiguously heroic model were not what I anticipated when I first became acquainted with Parker, the "man of substance." For a while they threw me off, as I resisted seeing the obvious in favor of the expected. Eventually these conundrums of ideological inconsistency came to intrigue me, and to challenge me to examine my own assumptions. I hope readers will be able to follow my lead to the second position.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My first acknowledgment must be to my predecessors in Parker studies. Like many others, I marvel at Margaret Judson's incisiveness and good sense every time I re-encounter it. If scholarship were not in part a virtuoso activity (like playing the violin) that needs to be practiced in each generation simply to perpetuate the skill, there might be little reason to redo her work. On the face of it, Professor Jordan's work has not held up as well. Published in 1942, the dawn after the darkest hour, it tried to make Parker a good Whig or apologize for him when he was not. Perhaps war-time conditions also made it hard for Jordan to ensure that his text met the highest standards of scholarly accuracy and completeness. Inevitably, too, the post-war boom in seventeenth-century studies superannuated even the sounder parts. The obvious deficiencies of Men of Substance were one inducement to begin this study. Having completed it, however, I am left with more admiration for Jordan than when I began. More than once his light illumined my path when no other would. Having also stumbled where he stumbled I inevitably feel a bond of kinship with any survivor of the "curse of Parker." This project has benefited enormously from the support of other scholars. Across the years my greatest debt remains to John Pocock, whose encouragement at several stages was vital. Particularly, at his invitation I delivered a paper on Parker to William Lamont's seminar on mid-seventeenth-century British political thought, sponsored by the Folger Institute Center for the History of British Political Thought. In time that paper grew into this book. I also owe a great deal to the interest and prodding of John Morrill. Wearing his Historical Journal hat, he saw fit to publish a highly technical article I wrote on Parker's The Case of Shipmony; as an editor of the series of which this volume is a part, he encouraged me to submit the manuscript and generally performed the office of bonus pastor. On both accounts I am quite grateful. Some parts of this book draw upon studies I have published elsewhere. Biographical material in Chapter 1 first appeared in "Henry Parker: The xvi

Acknowledgments

xvii

Public's Privado," in Gordon Schochet, ed., Religion, Resistance, and Civil War, Proceedings of the Folger Institute Center for the History of British Political Thought, vol. 3 (Washington, DC, 1990), pp. 151-77. Parts of Chapter 2 first appeared in "The Ship Money Case, The Case of Shipmony, and the Development of Henry Parker's Parliamentary Absolutism," Historical Journal, 32 (1989), pp. 513-36. Some pages of Chapter 4 draw upon a propadeutic essay, "The Great Council of Parliament and the First Ordinances: The Constitutional Theory of the Civil War," Journal of British Studies, 31 (April 1992), pp. 133-62. For permission to use these studies I am grateful to the publishers. I also wish to thank the Research Grants Committee of the University of Alabama for support at an early, crucial phase of the project.

ABBREVIATIONS

BL Bodl. CJ CSPD CSPIreland LJ OED Private Journals I Private Journals II Private Journals III PRO SP ST STC

Works

British Library Bodleian Commons Journal Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series Calendar of State Papers relating to Ireland Lords Journal Oxford English Dictionary Willson H. Coates, Anne Steele Young, and Vernon F. Snow, eds., The Private Journals of the Long Parliament, 3 January to 5 March 1642 (New Haven, 1982) Vernon F. Snow and Anne Steele Young, eds., The Private Journals of the Long Parliament, 7 March to 1 June 1642 (New Haven, 1987) Vernon F. Snow and Anne Steele Young, eds., The Private Journals of the Long Parliament, 2 June to 17 September 1642 (New Haven, 1992) Public Record Office State Papers Thomas Bayly Howell, ed., A Complete Collection of State Trials, 33 vols. (London, 1809-26) A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, A Short-Title of Books . . . 1475-1640, 3 vols., 2nd edn., revised and enlarged by W. A. Jackson, F. S. Ferguson, and completed by Katherine F. Pantzer (London, 1976-91) W. Speed Hill, gen. ed., The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker (Cambridge, Mass., 1977- )

Note: references to tracts often include the British Library Thomason collection shelfmark or Wing or STC numbers within square brackets. xvin

Abbreviations

xix

Dates: while I have taken the year to begin on 1 January, George Thomason did not. To avoid misunderstanding, Thomason dates are double-dated between 1 January and Lady Day.

(«* I <»i The public's privado

Amongst his other activities, Henry Parker was a political writer. He was celebrated in his own day (though anonymously) as the Observator, the author of Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses of June 1642, a widely read and attacked reply to recent royalist declarations.1 Parker's reputation today is much the same. To notice just a few recent and more or less interchangeable remarks, Parker was "the most formidable parliamentary apologist of the First Civil War," "the most important of parliament's proponents," and "the most original and daring of all Parliament's pamphleteers in grasping the fundamental issue of sovereignty."2 Observations was "perhaps the most influential pamphlet of the entire civil war."3 Then and now, pamphleteering gained Parker much the greater part of the regard he had in the world. Yet for Parker's own day this is necessarily a sardonic comment. Much of what Parker wrote appeared anonymously, and not many people seem to have been well informed of the particulars. Apparently none of the many critics of Observations knew the baptismal name of the Observator. And although there was at least one published revelation of the Observator's identity in 1649, 4 Parker (like John Locke with respect to the Two Treatises) never admitted his authorship. Indeed the fullness of Parker's contribution to political thought might not have come to light, were it not for the accidents of Parker's friendship with the publisher and collector 1

2

3 4

[Henry Parker], Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses [London, 1642], repr. in William Haller, ed., Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution, 1638-1647,3 vols. (New York, 1934), II, pp. 167-213. For ease of reference to any text, the original page numbers will be used. J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, 1975), p. 368; Lois G. Schwoerer, "No Standing Armies!" The Anti-Army Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England (Baltimore, 1974), p. 39; Austin Woolrych, "Political Theory and Political Practice," in C. A. Patrides and R. B. Waddington, eds., The Age of Milton (Manchester, 1980), pp. 44-5. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories, p. 146. "Henry Parker the Observator is Returned from Hamborough" in Clement Walker, Anarchia Anglicana or, the History of Independency. The Second Part (London, 1649), p. 199.

2

Henry Parker and the English civil war

George Thomason, and, to a lesser extent, his Oxford degrees, which made him a target of the antiquarian labors of Anthony a Wood.5 Had his friendships or his university been different, Parker might be remembered primarily for a different sort of achievement. Scholars of Stuart administrative history would briefly note Parker as one of the indispensable though replaceable minor men who make government work, a mechanic of the wheels of state.6 His pamphleteering, to the extent that it would have come to light, would have made him a bit more interesting, a reversal of the situation obtaining with Milton and Marvell, men of letters who also engaged in political and bureaucratic activities. The reason for this state of affairs - the indirect cause of tumescent bitterness in Parker's later years - is not hard to find. In the seventeenth century, men of Parker's social rank left shallow footprints, unless deeds supplied what fortune did not. The achievement certainly was not lacking; nearly whatever Parker did, he did well. But by a cruel stroke, Parker's non-literary activity conspired against his fame and, for that matter, his fortune. Parker's functions in the world of affairs, both public and private, were precisely those of a man called on to be nameless and faceless to the outside world. Often his literary efforts were an extension of his semi-secret career; sometimes Parker was simply a ghost-writer or an anonymous spokesman. In each case, revelation of Parker's authorship would have been embarrassing, counter-productive, or even dangerous. Thus not only did many of his most valuable pamphlets appear anonymously; that fact also reduced Parker's literary visibility, even with respect to writings Parker initialed, signed, or later acknowledged. The Observator was famous; Parker was not. Parker's two masks - the quiet behind-the-scenes doer, the public, though often anonymous, writer- should not obscure from us the single mind behind them. One way or another Parker managed to have his say, even in his most mercenary efforts; part of the price of his pen was that Parker used the occasion to pursue his own agenda. However, it would be insensitive simply to look for the "real" Parker lurking in the shadows of his hired quill, or to dismiss some of what he said on the grounds that he was only doing 5

6

Thomason's contribution can be gauged by comparing his bibliography of Parker with Wood's. For an approximation, see G. K. Fortescue, ed., Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers, and Manuscripts Relating to the Civil War, the Commonwealth, and Restoration, Collected by George Thomason, 1640-1661, 2 vols. (London, 1908), index sub Parker, Henry; compare that with Anthony a Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. with additions by Philip Bliss, 5 vols. (London, 1813-20), III, pp. 451-2. Some of the Parker bibliography is deducible from title pages, prefaces, and occasional self-references. It is not clear, however, that the whole would ever have been put together from its very scattered parts without Thomason's guidance. For a list of Parker's writings, see the Appendix. In this context see the biographical sketch in G. E. Aylmer, The State's Servants: The Civil Service of the English Republic, 1649-1660 (London, 1973), p. 261. Professor Aylmer, of course, cannot divorce his treatment from his knowledge of Parker's importance as a writer.

The public's privado

3

somebody else's business. In some respects we are never closer to his heart; it turns out that the political thought of a professionally inconspicuous man was at times hauntingly personal. Parker's work as counsellor, secretary, agent, or - to use a favorite exoticism - "privado" provided the spectacles of his political vision, the lens that mediated his views of king, of parliament, of the people. It would not be a complete caricature to suggest Parker fashioned his concept of parliament (or more generally, government) in his own image, the image of the counsellor. So it is best to begin with Parker's life, albeit a life about which we sometimes know little and must infer much. Yet the historian's disappointing little hoard of fact and supposition may be larger than nearly any of Parker's contemporaries thought he merited.

Henry Parker was born in 1604. It is symptomatic of Parker's natural lack of consequence and of the general obstacles to the study of Parker that the authorities disagree amongst themselves about the next line of the infant's curriculum vitae. Some say Parker was the fourth, others the fifth son of Sir Nicholas Parker, of Ratton, Sussex. At least this inconsequential yet revealing puzzlement can be resolved - Henry was the fifth (and last) son, by his father's reckoning.7 The Parkers were one of those Sussex families who had turned out for Jack Cade and later became the very essence of the ranking county gentry.8 Henry's father, Sir Nicholas Parker, was a distinguished man in the county and his heir, Sir Thomas, a prominent one. Sir Nicholas had a long career as deputy lieutenant, and also served his county as a sheriff and a shire knight. Sir Thomas sat for Seaford in the Long Parliament and more or less continuously involved himself in county affairs from the 1620s through the Restoration, no matter the regime, save for afitof scruple after the death of Charles

7

8

Fourth son: William Berry, Pedigrees of the Families in the County of Sussex (London, 1830), p. 12; John Burke and John Bernard Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England, Ireland, and Scotland (London, 1864; repr. Baltimore, 1964), p. 400; The Records of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn, 5 vols. (London, various dates), I (Admissions, 1420-1799), p. 210. Fifth son: H. R. Mosse, The Monumental Effigies of Sussex (Hove, [1931]), p. 161. Jordan, Men of Substance, pp.25,29, hedges his bet. I take Sir Nicholas Parker's word, following H. R. Mosse, who describes Sir Nicholas' own alabaster monument, showing his wives and listing his children. Henry is fifth and last among the sons, who are otherwise known to be in birth order. The confusion probably was caused by the death, in 1618 or 1619, of the third son, Robert, whose name is the one omitted in the shorter lists; see Mrs. C. E. D. Davidson-Houston, "Sussex Monumental Brasses, Part V," Sussex Archaeological Collections, 80 (1939), p. 140. Mark Anthony Lewis, "Notes on Jack Cade and his Adherents," Sussex Archaeological Collections, 18, pp. 37-41.

4

Henry Parker and the English civil war

I.9 In religion, Sir Nicholas Parker appears to have drifted from a mere conformity accompanied by Catholic connections to a politically reliable Protestantism. While Henry's childhood culture was solidly gentle and Protestant, it is hard to call it puritan according to any definition.10 The family was ideologically relaxed, dappled with complaisance, lukewarm adherence to the powers that be, and, later, with royalism.11 The Parker heritage was a handsome one, and had it been his, Henry would have been able to share the substance as well as the prejudices and manners of the ranking gentry. Matters did not fall out that way. In 1619, shortly before his death, Sir Nicholas made over the bulk of his estates to Sir Thomas, who also was overseer of his father's will. This made Henry, a much younger son, standard-grade fuel for the engine of downward social mobility required by the hierarchical but partly open society of the first half of the seventeenth century. We have no knowledge of Henry's relationship with his oldest brother. Perhaps it is an eloquent silence, perhaps only another marker of ignorance. But it is notable that Parker's most theoretical work, Jus Populi, contemptuously dismissed the role of primogeniture in the origin of political power. It was "supposed by some" that after the death of the "Father" the eldest son inherited "dominion" or "at least some superioritie over his younger brethren." Parker disposed of that purported outcome as a "fond dreame." According to "philosophic" the fraternal tie was "no sure preparation for superioritie."12 Probably Sir Thomas Parker never much wondered what philosophy told of his inheritance. For his part, Henry had to live by his wits, making the most of the education and entree his birth did afford him. He proceeded BA (St. Edmund Hall) in 1625, MA in 1628. In 1630 he was admitted to Lincoln's Inn, and called to its bar in 1638. Probably Parker received communion within the Church of England in connection with his call, being in the first 9

10 11

12

The hefty account of Sir Nicholas Parker in Jordan, Men of Substance, pp. 13—25, is corrected by P. W. Hasler, ed., The House of Commons, 1558-1603,3 vols. (London, 1981), III, pp. 172-3. For Sir Thomas Parker, see Mary Keeler, The Long Parliament 1640-41 (Philadelphia, 1954), pp. 295-6, and Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600-1660 (London, 1975), passim. The monument that Sir Nicholas installed in Willingdon church (see n.7) was the sort that puritans did not favor. On Sir Thomas Parker's trimming career, Fletcher, A County Community, p. 295. The Parker circle included several lukewarm parliamentarians: the Temples of Stowe, Sir Alexander Denton, and Lord Dacres, Sir Thomas's father-in-law. Sir Thomas' daughter Grace married a royalist officer, Sir William Campion. For Sir Thomas' son George, a royalist, see Fletcher, A County Community, p. 291, and anon., "A Willingdon Petition to Parliament, 1648," Sussex Notes and Queries, 1 (1927), pp. 191-2. [Henry Parker,] Jus Populi (London, 1644), p. 35. On the culture of the younger son, Joan Thirsk, "Younger Sons in the Seventeenth Century," in Thirsk, The Rural Economy of England (London, 1984), pp. 335-57.

The public's privado

5

class of barristers to be called under a recent reiteration of the old rule.13 This should help dispose of the canard, based upon a misidentification and belied by all Parker had to say on the subject in later years, that at this time Parker was a separatist, supposedly in a circle that included the Chidleys and John Lilburne.14 Parker's other activities in the 1630s are a mystery. There is a prima facie case that he must have been up to something: Parker'sfirstknown pamphlets, which are dated 1640 and 1641, appear to have been composed for or in the interest of William Fiennes, Viscount Say and Seale, Parker's uncle and his one indubitably puritan connection.15 It strains belief that Parker was deputed these important tasks without earlier development and recognition of his character and talents; Parker's lack of independent means, his marriage (in 1634),16 and his age also point to an earlier career. But the evidence of earlier activity is scanty, conjectural, and, of course, tantalizing. The Folger Shakespeare Library possesses a manuscript text of an epistolary poem by one "Henerie" Parker to Philip Massinger, consoling the dramatist on a recent stage failure.17 It is likely but not certain that the Henry Parker who wrote this poem is the subject of this book. The Folger text is not in Parker's hand and "Henerie" is not a form that Parker used.18 The possibility remains, however, that the text is a true copy; and the Folger catalogue and several Massinger scholars conclude, without explanation, that "Henerie" Parker is the political writer.19 On at least one other occasion 13 14

15 16 17 18

19

The Records of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn, II (Black Books, 1558-1660), pp. 344-5. Ian Gentles, "London Levellers in the English Revolution: The Chidleys and their Circle," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 29 (1978), p. 283. Gentles mistakes a Henry Parker (n. 15) and his wife mentioned in Champlin Burrage, The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1912), I, pp. 322,326; II, pp. 299,302,318, for Parker the political writer. But our Parker was almost certainly not married in 1633, as was the one noted in Burrage's sources. For Parker's marriage in 1634 (I follow Jordan's spadework in Men of Substance, p. 30), A Calendar of the Marriage Licence Allegations in the Registry of the Bishop of London, 1597-1700 (London, 1937), I (1597-1648), p. 116. A marriage allegation was preparatory to a dispensation by the bishop from the usual requirement of the banns; it was frequently used when the marriage was to be celebrated in a church other than the parish church of either of the parties. So it appears that Henry Parker and Jane Cannon married in a setting unconnected to either family. Sir Nicholas Parker and Lord Say both married daughters of Sir John Temple of Stowe; Katherine Temple was Henry's mother. Seen. 14. In a possibly cruel comment, the poem also notes the "censure" of "hee w ch hath a Clearer iudgm1." Folger Shakespeare Library MS X d.245 (b). The verses were printed in G. Thorn-Drury, ed., A Little Ark Containing Sundry Pieces of Seventeenth-Century Verse (London, 1921), pp. 2-3. The poem is found amongst some Ben Jonson ephemera, which makes it less significant that the piece is not in Parker's hand. Donald S. Lawless, Philip Massinger and his Associates (Muncie, Ind., 1967), p. 35 and n. 103; Philip Edwards and Colin Gibson, eds., The Plays and Poems of Philip Massinger, 5 vols. (Oxford, 1976), I, p.xl.

6

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Parker succumbed to the verse bug that bit so many of his contemporaries.20 Both texts were graced by only a fleeting appearance of the muse, both used classical allusions in an academic way and proceeded by contrasts and paradoxes - but this is true of much verse of the day. To say the least, a friendship with Massinger cannot be excluded from Parker's curriculum vitae; and membership in or dalliance with literary London was fairly common amongst political writers in the 1640s. The future earnest defender of Protestants and the crypto-Catholic Massinger made for an odd friendship, perhaps; but Massinger also protested illegal taxation, as would Parker (by his lights) in The Case of Shipmony.21 Another prospect totters between the plausible and the fantastic. In August 1638 the privy council wrote to Sir William Uvedale commending Mr. Henry Parker's "ffitnes & abilitye" to execute the place of deputy clerk of the Star Chamber.22 Given Parker's ideological commitments in the 1640s, given also the possibility that he was active in the anti-Laudian movement of the later 1630s (of which more momentarily), the supposition must be that the privy council's favor was bestowed upon another Henry Parker, perhaps the one who in 1625 showed interest in collecting fines for the Star Chamber.23 However, this was precisely the sort of job Parker held in the 1640s; the equivocations and ambivalences attending very disparate roles would in fact correspond to features of Parker's later political thought. Of Parker the writer there is no direct evidence before 1640. But the magnitude and range of Parker's pamphleteering enterprise in 1640 and 1641 strongly suggest prior development or experience. And, indeed, a tract of 1638 is suspiciously close in themes, manners, and style to the later Parker - and sufficiently unlike other productions of writers known to have been active in the 1630s - to merit a closer consideration. This is Divine and

20 21

22 23

An elegy upon the death of Parker's current patron, the earl of Essex, is found in manuscript in the Thomason collection, BL E. 358 (1). It is discussed below, p. 23. Lawless, Philip Massinger^ p. 34, notes Massinger's comments against illegal taxation in a lost play, "The King and the Subject." See also Douglas Howard, "Massinger's Political Tragedies," in Douglas Howard, ed., Philip Massinger: A Critical Reassessment (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 117-38. Given the paucity of information, it is impossible to say when Parker developed his characteristic political attitudes. Unsurprisingly, the poem sheds little light on the political attitudes of its author. Poor Massinger should not allow himself to be dragged down by the "hissing crowde" or the dislike of the "Gallantes." The mature Parker had little use for either group; but most likely the figure merely refers to the dislike of the play throughout the house. Privy Council Registers Preserved in the Public Record Office Reproduced in Facsimile, 12 vols. (London, 1967-8), IV, p. 394 (19 August 1638). PRO SP 16/13/38, 16/13/39. The hand in these documents is not that of our Parker.

The public's privado

7

Politike Observations, a review of Archbishop Laud's apologia at the sentencing of Prynne, Bastwick, and Burton in the Star Chamber.24 Divine and Politike Observations issued from the so-called Richt Right Press, the English separatist press in Amsterdam operated by John Canne. 25 Of late the press had pursued the tactics of the common front, partly for political reasons, partly to pay the bills, joining to its separatist fare works of general puritan divinity, news of presbyterian triumphs in Scotland, works of Prynne and Burton (who were not yet outright root-and-branchers),26 and this emphatically national-church critique of Laud. Even with the press's attempt at puritan latitudinarianism, Divine and Politike Observations may have given Canne some trouble, which might account for the tract's clumsy attempt at self-misrepresentation. The title page and two prefaces by a supposed translator played a small charade of presenting the tract as the work of a Dutch divine. No one was long fooled. By the second page of the tract itself, detailed knowledge of English affairs dropped the corner of the veil; in quick steps the English king was "his Majesty," the Bible was in the translation of "K. lames," and the concern was for the purity of the Book of Common Prayer. Moments later the veil fell unceremoniously to the floor, with the appearance of the phrase "here in England." A contemporary hand somewhere close to the source amended some copies of "The Translators [sic] Dedicatory Epistle" to read "the Authors Dedicatory Epistle." Had these giveaways been missing, the English ethos and uncompromisingly laic and political orientation of the tract still would have given the lie to the authorship of a Dutch divine.27 In texture and tone, Divine and Politike Observations was unlike the other English smuggled books of the decade. Set amongst Canne's other English offerings and the general effusion of pro-martyr writings, Divine and Politike Observations was a debutante in a doss house - urbane, controlled even in anger, unmoved by the apocalyptic fervor of the puritan enrages. In fine, it followed the rhetorical conventions of country-house politics rather than those of an extremist fringe never more happy than when in misery. Unfailingly, Laud was "his Grace" or "your Grace"; Parker followed this style as

24 25

26 27

Divine and Politike Observations ([Amsterdam,] 1638); William Laud, A Speech Concerning Innovations in the Church (London, 1637). John F. Wilson, "Another Look at John Canne," Church History, 33 (1964), pp. 4 0 - 1 . C. E. Sayle, Early English Printed Books in the University Library, Cambridge (1475 to 1640), 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1900-7), III, pp. 1433-5. For the ancestry of the press, A.F. Johnson, "The Exiled English Church at Amsterdam," The Library, 5th series, 5 (1951), pp. 219-42. William Lamont, Marginal Prynne 1600-1669 (London, 1963). Divine and Politike Observations, "The Translators Dedicatory Epistle," pp. 2 , 3 , 4 , 1 0 . The copy in the British Library (found in the STC films), the Folger copy, and the copy described by Sayle, Early English Printed Books, III, p. 1434, have the author/translator emendation.

8

Henry Parker and the English civil war

late as 1644 and 1645.28 Politesse was no accident; "good manners" was a political category, a precondition of acceptable utterance. 29 It gave authority to the writer (an odd ploy considering this was a smuggled book), putting a little distance between the fiery puritan martyrs and this cool opponent of their tormentor. "Good manners" was also a weapon, capable of highlighting the archbishop's own descent into vulgarity.30 Figures and themes in Divine and Politike Observations match those of Parker in 1640-1. Divine and Politike Observations defended those "nicknamed" puritans from calumny, but also was reluctant, in a way common among the so-called puritan gentry, to use the term in self-description — a theme and manner of A Discourse Concerning Puritans.31 There was a sense that parliament was the real target of the puritans' calumniators, and that parliament was the best means to combat the vague plot hatched by the anti-puritans, a perspective shared by A Discourse Concerning Puritans and The Case of Shipmony.32 Conversely, there was great sensitivity to Laud's charge that the opponents of the bishops sought to "strike through" the bishops' "sides" at the king; the same figure is found in Parker's 1641 pamphlets.33 In common with writings undoubtedly Parker's, Divine and Politike Observations was intensely interested in, even fascinated by, Constantine and Theodosius. As in Parker's Long Parliament pamphlets, the conventional image of Constantine the heroic imperialist caesar-pope gave 28

29

30

31 32

33

Divine and Politike Observations, "The Translator to the Reader," pp.25, 32, 55. Cf. H[enry] P[arker,] The Altar Dispute (London, 1641[/2]), p. 2. Parker dedicated H[enry] P[arker,] The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated (London, 1641), sig.A 2 recto, to Archbishop Ussher, "the most Reverend and Gracious Father in God, my Lord Primate of Ireland.'* In Jus Populi, p. 65, Ussher is styled "his Grace." In [Henry Parker,] Jus Regutn (London, 1645), pp. 1, 8, 37, Laud is "my lord of Canterbury." "Good manners" are invoked three times: "The Translator to the Reader," pp. 25, 32; later (p. 55) Laud's "passionate expressions" were held to lead to a "diminution of the Respect due" to the archbishop's speech. In H[enry] P[arker,] The Altar Dispute, p. 2, Parker thought the "venomous raylings and distempers" of the clergy "when they are treating matters of Religion" disgraced the age, the country, and the religion; in [Henry Parker,] A Discourse Concerning Puritans ([London,] 1641), p. 8, Parker defended Henry Burton's loyalty, but did not contest the court's view that Burton's "style" was seditious. Laud complained that it was considered superstitious to come into church with greater reverence than a "Tinker & his Bitch come into an Ale-house": A Speech Concerning Innovations in the Church, p. 46; cf. the use made of this figure in Divine and Politike Observations, pp.41, 42, 46, 47. Divine and Politike Observations, pp. 14, 5 1 , 55; cf. p. 22. "Nicke-name" is also used in A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 56. Divine and Politike Observations, pp.14, 15, 3 1 , 34; A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 4 1 , 4 7 ; [Henry Parker,] The Case of Shipmony ([London,] 1640), pp. 3 1 , 3 2 , 3 4 . Cf. The Altar Dispute, pp. 1,2; Jus Regum, pp. 9 , 2 6 - 7 . See also Caroline Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, 1983). Divine and Politike Observations, pp. 2, 3, 25; A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 6; The Altar Dispute, p. 22.

The public's privado

9

way to a more sophisticated and timely image of the emperor as the dupe of his clergy.34 Such similarities are reinforced by more idiosyncratic parallels, and by further similarities of design and structure. Among Parker's deepest and most characteristic ideological commitments in the 1640s were a conception of parliament that emphasized its role as council (rather than its activity as a court and a legislature) and an unrelenting hostility to "churchmen" as a private interest group. Both attitudes were present in Parker's earliest pamphlets of the Long Parliament era and both attitudes are to be found in Divine and Politike Observations, Parker's anti-clericalism was so visceral and so highly developed in early 1641 that he stands quite alone amongst his publishing contemporaries; the similarity of Divine and Politike Observations with the later Parker is therefore quite striking. "Churchmen" tricked Constantine, another one tricked Henry V, and they are at it still, machinating not only against the prince but "the state." 35 And in seeing the role of parliament as that of a great council, the author of Divine and Politike Observations also adopted as his own another highly characteristic Parker trait. A phrasing such as "the honourable Court of Parliament that representative body of the Kingdome, his Majesties most faithfull and least corruptible counsell" could have appeared in any Parker pamphlet of the 1640s, and was never "boilerplate" but a straightforward emphasis upon the conciliar - rather than judicial or legislative - aspect of parliament; indeed Jus Regum, a reply to Laud's scaffold speech, had parliament "the Kings great Councell, and the representative body of his Kingdom."36 Divine and Politike Observations is also in line with the title and form of a number of Parker pamphlets. The motif of "observations" is found, of course, in Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses and its predecessor Some Few Observations. It is present or implicit in the long titles of other Parker pamphlets, the apparent motive of others still, and a common formal

34

35

36

Divine and Politike Observations, pp.2, 24, 25. Constantine and the related history of Theodosius and Ambrose figure widely in Parker's 1641 pamphlets: A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 6, 12,16, 2 3 - 4 , 3 2 - 3 , 35, 43; The Altar Dispute, pp. 17-19, 29, 61-2; [Henry Parker,] The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment (London, 1641), pp. 11, 16, 48—50, 56, 61, 65, 76, 83. The importance of Constantine is stressed by Lamont, Marginal Prynne, and idem, Godly Rule: Politics and Religion, 1603-60 (London, 1969). Divine and Politike Observations, pp.24-5 (Constantine), 45 (Henry V), 8, 10, 18-19, 21, 4 1 , 6 0 (other usages, mostly contemporary). "State" (a favorite Parker term) is counterposed to churchman directly on p. 21, and implicitly through the congruence of state and parliament. "Minister" was reserved (pp. 32,37) for the modest divine; that "churchman" was the generic term is clear from p. 13, where Laud is lumped with "others of your Coat." Parker used "churchman" in the same way; see, e.g., A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 35, and Jus Regum, p. 11. Divine and Politike Observations, p. 13; Jus Regum, p. 35, cf. p. 37.

10

Henry Parker and the English civil war

element throughout the ceuvre?7 All of these are features common to many writings of the period, but their presence in this early pamphlet, which had fewer models to draw upon, as well as in Parker's earliest efforts in 1640-1 point to Parker as a likely author. The question of authorship can be attacked from both ends. Nothing has ever been written by "Anonymous"; if not Parker, then who? The approach is not nearly as remote as it might appear; most thoughtful authors appeared more than once in the lists in the 1640s, and it is more than fair to ask which authors active in the 1630s and early 1640sfitthe composite. Thefirstcrew to be excluded are the usual suspects of the day - Prynne, Bastwick, Burton, Lilburne, the separatist emigres - whose manner was so very different. The rampant anti-clericalism and a laudatory mention of The Holy Table cast doubt upon John Williams, who otherwise might have matched the description,38 as well as upon the rest of the learned pamphleteers active in 1640-2. But if Parker's authorship of Divine and Politike Observations must remain a conjecture, the attribution does fit in well with what is known about the attitudes and activities of some other Lincoln's Inn men in 1638. William Prynne, after all, was one of their own, and while his mien and manner were not universally admired, he had his local partisans. The court suspected another Lincoln's Inn barrister, Oliver St. John, of providing legal advice underhandedly to Dr. John Bastwick.39 Another index of Lincoln's Inn opinion in 1638 is a private letter found there on the ground and transmitted to Secretary Windebank for its supposedly seditious content. Laud had "subdued the puritane faction" and in the process had intimidated even the "Nobility." The council "for the most parte are novi ho[m]ines," and the "auntient happie gouver[n]ment by pfarjliam* is alltogether dispised."40 37

38 39

40

[Henry Parker,] Some Few Observations ([London, 1642]). For use in extended titles, see jus Regutn. Parker noted a desire in The Altar Dispute, sig. A 2 verso, to make his "observations more publike." [Henry Parker,] The Contra-Replicant [London, 1642/3], in the title and initial remarks, and H[enry] Parker, Scotlands Holy War (London, 1651), p. 1, for example, announce themselves as responses to other pamphlets. The form underlies A Discourse Concerning Puritans, which is primarily a response to Henry Leslie, bishop of Down and Connor, A Speech, Delivered at the Visitation of Downe and Conner, Held in Lisnegarvy the 26th of September 1638 (London, 1639), a vitriolic attack upon puritans from the days of Elizabeth to the present, as well as The Case of Shipmony, a response to royalist opinions in the ship money case. Divine and Politike Observations, p. 51. Privy Council Registers, I, pp.37, 40. This corrects Rossingham's impression that Henry Burton was the beneficiary of St. John's advice: S. R. Gardiner, ed., Documents Relating to the Proceeding against William Prynne in 1634 and 1637, Camden Soc. Publ. 2nd ser., 18 (London, 1877), pp.77, 78, reproducing PRO SP 16/363/31. PRO SP 16/401/19 and 19.1. Cottington, who transmitted the letter to Windebanke, demonstrated his isolation in presuming the letter to be Scottish in origin. For the politics of Lincoln's Inn, Wilfrid R. Prest, The Inns of Court under Elizabeth I and the Early Stuarts

1590-1640 (Totowa, N.J., 1972), pp. 206-7, 213.

The public's privado

11

II

The trail is longer and sometimes clearer in the Long Parliament. Parker's writings provide one valuable source of information, largely because of George Thomason's for-personal-use attributions. From mid-1642, Parker's hand is occasionally to be found in the public records. Other sourcesfleshout the portrait of the pamphleteer-privado. The admixture of roles is clear from the first. On the title page of A Discourse Concerning Puritans Thomason wrote "By Henry Parker a Cou[n]cellor."41 By this Thomason might have made reference to Parker's legal standing, since counsellor could mean barrister; it could also carry a more general sense of adviser, as in "cabinet counsellor."42 Probably Thomason had the latter sense in mind. Nothing suggests Parker ever developed a successful conventional practice in the common law. Parker made small display of his legal learning throughout his career, viewed the nuts and bolts of the law with contempt, dismissed its higher values, and strove for years to obtain a position in the prerogative office (the former Prerogative Court of Canterbury), for which a common law background was irrelevant. Another word for Parker's trade was "privado." Buckingham's inner circle had been known by that strange term in the 1620s, and Parker himself so labeled his opposite numbers on the other side. While writing anonymously on behalf of some Vintners, Parker scornfully noted the "privadoes" of their enemy, William Abel.43 In his first pamphlet of the Long Parliament era, Parker dubbed the courtier-advisers of Charles "an inconsiderable number of Privadoes" at odds with the whole kingdom.44 On the eve of civil war, Parker laid out the grounds of war as a "Crisis of seducement" in which the king had been seduced by "Privadoes."45 Later, using synonyms, Parker insisted that the king's promises meant little, because he merely swore for himself, "not his Favourites and Counsellors," who were more to be feared.46 But more than once, royalist writers used the term to describe the anonymous author of Observations,47 In Spanish, "privado" is "favorite," as the favorite of a prince. But in the 41 42

43

44 46 47

On his copy of The Case of Shipmony, Thomason wrote "By y e same mr Henry Parker." J. H. Baker, "Counsellors and Barristers: An Historical Study," Cambridge Law Journal, 27 (1969), pp. 205-29, esp. 205-9; D. S. Bland, The Vocabulary of the Inns of Court (Liverpool, 1964), pp. 5-6. Richard Cust, The Forced Loan and English Politics 1626-1628 (Oxford, 1987), p.24. [Henry Parker,] The Vintners Answer to Some Scandalous Phamphlets (London, 1642), pp. 10, 14, 16. 45 The Case of Shipmony, p.35. Observations, p. 30. [Henry Parker,] The Oath of Pacification (London, 1643), p. 10; see also pp. 14-16, for history of favorites from Gaveston to Strafford. A View of the Observations (Oxford, 1642), p. 4. An Answer or Necessary Animadversions (London, 1642), t.p., sig. A l verso, pp. 17, 23, 28.

12

Henry Parker and the English civil war

seventeenth century, the word leaned as much to the political as the precious, and pointed to the agent as much as to the minion. Bacon described this raising of "Servants" to the rank of political friend: "Princes ... raise some Persons, to be as it were Companions, and almost Equals to themselves ... The Moderne Languages give unto such Persons, the Name of Favorites, or Privadoes... But the Roman Name attaineth the true Use, and Cause thereof; Naming them Participes Curarum"** The privado of a prince might be a Buckingham; equally, he could be a Sir Julius Caesar or a Burghley; and such men had their own associates in care. In this way, a privado could be, or have been, a secretary, or agent, or ghost-writer, and might have others performing for him the services he performed for another. Such a figure could easily appear aulic and sinister, and Parker, who loved to manipulate exotic terms, usually used the word in that way, playing as well on the opposition of private and public that was the dominant polarity in his thought. However, as Parker put it on one occasion, parliaments were more "knowing then any other privadoes."49 Parker's hostility to the role was to its privacy, or antipathy to the public good. But otherwise he performed the function and at times revered it. This tension would pull a train of conflicts, ambivalences, and contradictions that are in substantial measure the theme of this study. Parker would be the public's privado. The privado had its apologists. The reigning expert - the author of an enchiridion on the subject and a proud exemplar of the role - was resident in England in 1640 as one of the three ambassadors of Philip IV.50 This was Virgilio Malvezzi, a Bolognese marquis in the service of the king of Spain.51 Henry Parker opened A Discourse Concerning Puritans with an extended quotation from one of Malvezzi's works, a circumstance, along with Parker's temporary fascination with the term, that serves to introduce the improbable tangle of connections known to exist in the early 1640s between Parker's uncle and patron, Lord Say, Malvezzi's English publisher, Richard Whitaker,

48

49 50

51

Sir Francis Bacon, The Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morally ed. Michael Kiernan (Oxford, 1985), "Of Frendship," p. 82. For other usages, several of which serve to link closely the privado and the cultivated "servant," secretary, agent, or minister, see s.v. OED; C. A. M. Fennell, The Stanford Dictionary of Anglicised Words and Phrases (Cambridge, 1964); Robert Nares, A Glossary ..., "new" edn., with additions by J. O Halliwell and Thomas Wright, 2 vols. (London, 1859). Some Few Observations, p. 5. // Ritratto del Privato Politico Christiana (Bologna, 1635). Like all of Malvezzi's works, it was translated throughout the principal European languages. The English edition did not appear until 1647: The Pourtract of the Politicke Christian Favourite, trans. Thomas Powell (London, 1647). On Malvezzi, see Rodolfo Brandli, Virgilio Malvezzi, Politico e Moralista (Basel, 1964), and Virgilio Malvezzi, Historia de los Primeros Anos del Reinado de Felipe /V, ed. with introduction by D. L. Shaw (London, 1968), pp. ix-xxviii.

The public's privado

13

George Thomason, and Henry Parker.52 Thomason was Parker's friend, and a Stationer of the same circle as Whitaker.53 Whitaker dedicated his massive edition of Malvezzi's Discourses upon Cornelius Tacitus (1642) to Say, thanking him for a personal favor and implying some sort of relationship between the marquis and the viscount.54 In 1643 Parker was an agent of the Stationers, at a time when Whitaker was warden. Meanwhile Malvezzi's mission in England had been to block the marriage of Princess Mary to William of Orange (the marriage took place in December 1640), a prospect that for different reasons was undesirable to Say and other parliamentary leaders, who feared it would strengthen the king.55 Malvezzi's subsequent assignment in France may help elucidate aspects of his mission in England: he assisted the frondeurs, a role that delicately balanced his loyalty to the Spanish monarchy and his high aristocratic sensibilities, and allowed him to play the aristocratic constitutionalist abroad and the absolutist at home. But although Parker's awareness of the privado probably owed something to Malvezzi, there was no need to rely on a foreign model. The role was well described, for example, in a manuscript treatise dedicated in 1633 to James Stewart, the fourth duke of Lennox. The long concluding chapter on how the "courtier trains up his servants in state matters" discussed the steps by which the "secretary" or "minister" rose from the private service of the master to the loftier office of "agent for the state." 56 Though this treatise was rabidly aulic, the description, mutatis mutandis,fitsParker well. The secretary writes 52

53

54

55

56

Virgilio Malvezzi, Romulus and Tarquin, trans. HCL [Henry Carey, by courtesy at the time Lord Lepington, later earl of Monmouth] (London, 1637), pp. 196—8; cf. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 1, where the author is identified as "Marquis Malvezzi." Both did business in St. PauPs Churchyard. In 1 6 4 8 , Thomason's neighbor, the prominent stationer John Parker, left rings for Richard and Thomas Whitaker as well as for Thomason's partner, Octavian Pulleyn; see Henry R. Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers

Who Were at Work in England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1641 to 1667 (London, 1907; repr. 1968), p. 144. Virgilio Malvezzi, Discourses upon Cornelius Tacitus, trans. Sir Richard Baker (London, 1642), dedication by Whitaker to Say, sig. A2: "the great service I owe you" and "no lesse then the Argument of the Booke thereof invites me to [make the dedication]; for being a learned Lord of Italy, none more fit to entertaine him then some learned Lord of England." The translator, the financially hard-pressed Sir Richard Baker, was remotely connected to Henry Parker: Sir Nicholas' second wife was Sir Richard Baker's sister. Malvezzi's activities are the subject of repeated comment in Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, vol. 25 (1640-2). See index sub Malvezzi; see especially p. 116, and the editor's introduction, pp. v-xiv. See also the extremely valuable collection, Henri Lonchay and Joseph Cuvalier, eds., Correspondance de la Cour d'Espagne sur les Affaires des Pays-Bas, 4 vols. (Brussels, 1923-33), III. Beinecke Library, Yale University, Osborn Shelves f b 60 [misc. seventeenth-century political tracts], "A Discourse of Court and Courtiers," fols. 13—99. Ch. 14 runs from fol. 93 recto to end; this quotation is from the chapter heading, fol. 93 recto. On this tract (attributed to Sir Edward Peyton) and more generally the culture of the secretary, see Harold Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford, 1993), pp. 97-9; see also Jonathan Goldberg, Writing Matter: From the Hands of the English Renaissance (Stanford, 1990),

pp.67, 131-2,265-72.

14

Henry Parker and the English civil war

a fair hand, "Roman, Italic, and Secretary." Parker's graceful italic and secretary hands are a reminder that he was, in part, an amanuensis and that the humble, clerkly origins of secretaries of state were not wholly obliterated from practice. He writes in "characters" if need be, and serves as an "intelligencer" of the disposition of the "people" and "the [great] ones" towards the "present government." He applies "an alluring, stately and grave style" to what "his master dictates to him." 57 No less importantly, he manages the finances of his master. At various moments Parker was a fiscal official, paymaster to parliamentary spies, an intelligencer, and a ghost-writer. In the first half of the seventeenth century, this state of affairs was in no sense surprising. The circle of "learning" covered activities that are today disparate, as, for example, bureaucratic activity and literature. The more or less open press of the 1640s and 1650s enhanced the importance of writing. Thus the work of men as different as Walter Frost and John Milton can be placed on a single continuum of activity, that of state servants whose literary activities enhanced their suitability for their posts or grew outwards from them, or were expressions of the same driving force; in this, too, one ought not arbitrarily to divide the labors of John Rushworth, parliamentary secretary and compiler-editor. Similarly, amongst the serious writers of 1641 joining Parker and Milton is Calybute Downing, a divine but also, as penman, a political analyst with a bent for foreign policy, whose pamphlets sometimes read like reworkings of private briefings.58 In 1640-2, when the alloy of talents was still in the molten stage, Parker's activities most nearly resemble those of Edward Hyde, a relation obscured by the later divergence in fortune of the two men. Both came from the same slice of social England, the ranking gentry. They were near-contemporaries whose days at Oxford overlapped, who made their way in London, and, if our Parker was indeed Massinger's friend, who mixed career with literary dabblings. Both were younger sons. Hyde eventually came to an inheritance. While it changed his life, fortunately it arrived too late to spoil his ambition. His self-description could as well have been Henry Parker's - he was "to expect a small patrimony from his father, but to make his own fortune by his own industry."59 Unlike Parker, Hyde developed a lucrative legal practice and with it a lifetime veneration of the common law. He also had a public platform through his seat in parliament. But Hyde gave both up, the legal 57 58

59

"A Discourse of Court and Courtiers," fols. 94, 96 verso. Calybute Downing, A Discoursive Coniecture upon the Reasons that Produce a Desired Event of the Present Troubles of Great Britaine, Different from Those of Lower Germanie (London, 1641), and idem, A Discoverie of the False Grounds the Bavarian Party Have Layd (London, 1641). More than a little of this sensibility informs his famous sermon to the Artillery Company. Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion ... Also, His Lifey 2 vols. (Oxford, 1843), II, p. 916.

The public's privado

15

practice in 1640 for politics, and his parliamentary place for service as an unofficial, indeed a secret, counsellor. Hyde's word for what he did was "business," a term bearing humanist overtones (negotium = un-leisure) but also full of the ethos of counsellors, secretaries, and privados. Hyde contrasted himself with his dear Falkland, who was "totally unacquainted with business" and adverse to being a "counsellor" when it meant spying upon other people and opening their letters.60 Neither Hyde nor Parker had such scruples. And Hyde no less than Parker was a ghost-writer.61 in Like Hyde, Parker was a facilitator of others' business, public and private. In some respects Parker's work for private interests provides the template to measure his service as privado in the public interest. In either case, Parker managed both to represent his client and to promote some political interest or notion dearer to him. The first occasion came amidst the great cascade of his political and religious pamphlets in 1641-2. Parker found time to write a long apologia on behalf of members of the Vintners' Company seeking to dissociate their own activities from those of the prime wine patentees, the ecclesiastical lawyer and courtier Richard Kilvert and a prominent member of the company, Alderman William Abel. The financial and political repercussions of the case were substantial; Parker was one of a small army of counsellors and lawyers representing the various parties. Parker's pamphlet, an attempt to lobby parliamentary opinion through the press, was a tactic in what amounted to a plea bargain; no less important, it also served to head off anti-parliamentary sentiment in the City.62 Another compromised group, the Stationers' Company, engaged Parker in 1643. Like the Vintners, the Stationers were sorely exposed for the activities in the 1630s; they faced further challenges, even unto their economic survival, in the breakdown of the system that for a century had protected Stationers' copyrights by securing their cooperation in a licensing regime for printed books. Notably, the warden of the company in 1643 was Richard Whitaker, the publisher who had thanked Parker's uncle, Lord Say, for certain unspecified favors. Parker's work for the company, The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers, was again part of a lobbying effort, in this case on behalf of the ordinance that would restore to the Stationers a version of the 60

61 62

Edward Hyde, carl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England* ed. W. Dunn Macray, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1888), I, p. 458; III, pp. 183, 184, 185. On this, see Michael Mendle, "The Convivium Philosophicutn and the Civil War: A Country House and its Politics," in The Fashioning and Functioning of the British Country House, ed. Gervase Jackson-Stops, Studies in the History of Art no. 25 (Washington, 1989), pp. 289-98. Hyde's pamphleteering, a neglected subject, receives examination in Graham Roebuck, Clarendon and Cultural Continuity: A Bibliographical Study (New York, 1981). See below, pp.

16

Henry Parker and the English civil war

old copyright system, and bring back to the state a parallel apparatus for pre-publication censorship.63 Parker's service to private interests continued throughout the 1640s. In 1645, Parker wrote an account of the tribulations of William Wheeler, apparently for presentation to the Dutch States-General, though obviously of interest to a general readership.64 Not least of the little pamphlet's curiosities is its use of the first person throughout; the tale, virtually a documentary of early capitalism, was told from Wheeler's mouth. A hydraulic engineer working in the Netherlands, Wheeler claimed that a group of rogue competi-. tors, including Orangist elements, Sir William Boswell (Charles' resident in the Netherlands), and agents of the English queen had gone to extraordinary lengths to steal his technical secrets. First he was befriended by the villains. Once in their sights, Wheeler was successively spied upon, assaulted, drugged into hallucinations, and incarcerated in a madhouse because of his apparent insanity. There he languished for nine months. "The place [being] solitary, and far from resort of people," Wheeler's "loud calling or hollowing" for help was taken by his unknowing Dutch keepers "as the symptome of my distraction."65 At intervals his tormentors visited him, ostensibly moved by pity, but actually to beat him with clubs until Wheeler consumed further potions to renew the delusional state.66 His release came because his tormentors found they could not operate his machines without him. Eventually Wheeler made his way to England, and to Parker, who at this time was in various ways involved in Anglo-Dutch affairs. Less dramatic though in its way no less interesting is Of a Free Trade, an attack upon unlimited competition, which Parker wrote, this time openly, for the Merchant Adventurers while serving as their secretary in Hamburg. 67 Once again Parker's political credentials and outlook were used to justify the private advantage of a suspect group; and as he had with the Vintners and the Stationers, Parker linked his clients' interests with those of the polity at large. The welfare of the incorporated merchants was itself a public good, since its members were among the most valuable members of the commonwealth. 63 64

65 66

67

See below, pp. 144-8. [Henry Parker,] Mr. William Wheelers Case from his Own Relation (London, n.d.). Thoma-

son dated his copy 18 January 1644/5. P. 12 indicates the tract to be a "Request to the High and Mighty States." But Wheeler is clearly in England at the time of writing {ibid.). This cannot be the William Wheeler who sat for Westbury, Wiltshire, in the Long Parliament. Though he was probably born in Holland, the parliamentary Wheeler shows no further evidence of a Dutch connection (see Keeler, Long Parliament, pp. 386-7); the engineer Wheeler's ordeal took place in the Netherlands from 1639 to 1643 or 1644. Mr. William Wheelers Case from his Own Relation, p. 9. Among other lurid details, Wheeler claimed he was also forced to consume his own excrement and "to take some purgations when my body was empty": Mr. William Wheelers Case from his Own Relation, p. 10. Henry Parker, Of a Free Trade (London, 1648), A 2 verso: Parker signed the epistle dedicatory from Hamburg, 30 December 1647.

The public's privado

17

Equally, their opponents were its enemies: the deeper significance of Of a Free Trade was its role as a vehicle of opposition to the Levellers, whose objections to the company Parker sought to rebut.68 In onefinalinstance, in 1650, Parker served as his own ghost-writer, and as in his work for the Vintners, the Stationers, and the Merchant Adventurers, Parker attempted to persuade the policy-makers that in spite of appearances the private interest he advocated was in fact the public's. Amongst many schemes of law reform were those having to do with the prerogative office, which had the lucrative and ever unpopular responsibility of the probate of wills. One reform proposal would have transferred the business to other courts, thus effectively abolishing the practice of civil law in England. Another would have destroyed the prerogative office through decentralization. Parker proposed instead that the prerogative office be given coercive power (in effect resurrecting a widely disliked aspect of the old regime) and that the civil law (which Parker saw as producing "more eminently accomplisht Learned Polititians" than any "other study, or breeding") be encouraged, though not to excess, through this establishment for its practice.69 In yet another respect Parker was arguing for the carry-over or the toleration of some aspect of the status quo ante bellutn. A principal beneficiary was the recently chosen joint holder of the registrarship of the prerogative office, Henry Parker. IV

The usually anonymous advocate of commercial interests was also the public's privado; indeed Parker's utility to his clients grew out of his importance as an authoritative and informed political operator. One instance is embarrassingly clear and needs little comment. According to Thomason, Parker wrote The General Junto, or the Councell of Union (1642) for Sir John Danvers, a future regicide then promoting a scheme of union for the three kingdoms.70 This extravagantly produced paper monument to one man's political ambitions was another instance of lobbying through the press; although Parker signaled his authorship through his initials, and parts of the tract resonate with Parker's own views, Parker never developed further the actual scheme of union, and indeed showed himself indifferent or hostile to the claims of the other kingdoms. The General Junto, or the Councell of Union does at least establish that Parker's pen was not necessarily disinterested when he moved from private 68 69 70

See below, pp. 148-53. [Henry Parker,] Reformation in Courts in Cases Testamentary [London, 1650], p. 4. For the context, Donald Veall, The Popular Movement for Law Reform, 1640-1660 (Oxford, 1660). See Thomason's note to his copy, BL 669 18 (1); the epistle dedicatory carried Parker's initials. For more on the tract see below, pp. 134-5.

18

Henry Parker and the English civil war

business to the respublica. And indeed a strong circumstantial case can be developed that Parker's first two pamphlets of the Long Parliament era, The Case of Shipmony and A Discourse Concerning Puritans, were written in the interest of his uncle, Lord Say.71 The ship money case, known to posterity as Hampden's Case, was really Say's own pet project. Only at a late date was the target of the test case shifted from Say to Hampden.72 The Case of Shipmony also conspicuously promoted the scheme of the mixed constitution of the three "estates" of king, Lords, and Commons, another of Say's interests in the year or so before the appearance of The Case of Shipmony.73 The circumstantial case for A Discourse Concerning Puritans is matched by some later, more nearly direct evidence. In form A Discourse Concerning Puritans was a defense of puritans from calumny, opening with an extensive, largely unacknowledged borrowing on that theme from the expert privado, Virgilio Malvezzi.74 Say had been a prime target of anti-puritan animus in 1639 and 1640. In the Short Parliament, Joseph Hall, bishop of Exeter, said the viscount "savoured" of a Covenanter and in the same year an attempt was made to trap Say into admitting that he would not fight the Scots.75 A Discourse Concerning Puritans mentioned Say three times (more than anyone else); the author claimed to know the viscount.76 Shorn of its digressions, the tract looks much like a defense of Say against his enemies. Some months later Parker let down the mask. In an unusual aside to The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, Parker acknowledged authorship of A Discourse Concerning Puritans.77 In another pamphlet of the same months, The Altar Dispute, "H. P." freely owned up to his connection with Say. In a dedication to the viscount, Parker, styling himself 71 72 73

74 75

76 77

The following reviews matters discussed in Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 129—34. Nelson P. Bard, "The Ship Money Case and William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele," Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 50 (1977), pp. 177-84. The Case of Shipmony, p. 38. See Say's July 1640 letter to John Cotton in Allyn Bailey Forbes, ed., Winthrop Papers, 5 vols. (Boston, 1929—47), IV, p. 266; see Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 126-8, 130. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 1; Malvezzi, Romulus and Tarquin, trans. HCL, pp. 196-8. Mendle, Dangerous Positions, p. 128. Proceedings of the Short Parliament in 1640, ed. Esther S. Cope, Camden Soc. Publ. 4th ser., no. 19 (London, 1977), pp.65, 99, 236. The attempt to trap Say (and Lord Brooke) is recounted in BL Harl. 1219, fols. 1, 2. Parker was also responding to a more general calumny, the offensive, knowledgeable attempt by Henry Leslie, the bishop of Down and Connor, to link English puritans and Scottish Covenanters, A Speech, Delivered at the Visitation of Downe and Conner. Parker refers repeatedly to the sermon in A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp.5, 39, 40, 42, 50, 51, 57. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 10, 52, 53. The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, sig. A 2 recto. This acknowledgment should dispose of the often repeated error that Parker did not write A Discourse Concerning Puritans; apart from a common, though mistaken, library catalogue attribution to John Ley, the perpetuation of the error owes to Jordan, Men of Substance, p. 69 n. 1. See also Lamont, Marginal Prynne, p. 171 n. 2.

The public's privado

19

Say's "servant and Allies-man," remembered "all your former favours."78 Later, at the time of Observations, Sir Simonds D'Ewes may have suspected a connection between its author and Nathaniel Fiennes, Lord Say's talented son. D'Ewes charged in the Commons that a slow-to-appear answer to the king's declaration of 26 May, then tardily being assembled by a committee headed by Nathaniel Fiennes, was in "great part ... already printed in a pamphlet of observations."79 D'Ewes may have been accurate beyond his own knowledge. Observations appeared at a moment when parliament could not keep up with the king's spokesmen — principally Edward Hyde - in the war of words; it was also a time when Parker's relation to the parliamentary leadership became official. Shortly before D'Ewes' remark, Parker had been appointed secretary to the army placed under the earl of Essex. Shortly after, Parker began his tenure as secretary to the Committee of Safety.80 It was a privado's triumph. With these more public positions it becomes possible to trace Parker through the appearance of his hand in the public records, and to bring precision to the nature of his relationships with the parliamentary leaders. The major source of information is what remains of thefinancialrecords of the Committee of Safety; these consist almost entirely of payment warrants, interspersed erratically by internal memoranda, parliamentary orders, and a few other items. As sources for the history of political thought, warrants - in essence, government checks - hardly seem promising. But these and other remains of the paperwork of the committee reveal how the political writer actually spent much of his time and how from the beginning of his tenure he was the completely trusted servant of Pym, Say, Essex, Holies and other committee stalwarts. About 1,500 warrants survive, almost all from the period July 1642October 1643. Warrants had their own protocol. A warrant of the Committee of Safety was drawn up and signed in the committee, nearly always by several members of the committee, ordering the treasurer-at-war to pay a specified sum to the payee. (On some days, when dozens of warrants were issued, the chore of round-robin signing would have been a nuisance.) Usually, though often optimistically, the warrant was to be paid "forthwith." It was transferred to the payee, who presented it for payment to the army 78

79

80

The Altar Dispute, sig. A 2 . The highly oblique language of this dedication hinted that Parker, w h o acknowledged himself to be out of his "profession" and "interest," was assisted in making his "observations more publike" by Say's great desire to "diffuse g o o d . " Private journals III, p. 2 5 6 . D'Ewes was roundly set upon for his indiscretion. See also CJ, II, pp. 687—8. In fact, Francis Rous had recently complained of the earliest replies to Obser-

vations (Animadversions upon Those Notes Which the Late Observator Hath Published (London, 1642)), the existence of which had also caught D'Ewes' eye: Private Journals III, p. 249; CJ, II, p. 685. For some further discussion, see below, pp. 91-2. LJ, V, pp. 206, 208. Lotte Glow, "The Committee of Safety," English Historical Review, 80 (1965), p. 291 n.8.

20

Henry Parker and the English civil war

treasurer or, in practice, his deputy. Sometimes payment was partial, each amount being receipted, until the whole was paid off. Then, like a modernday check, the payee surrendered the warrant, which made its way back to the payer, completing the transactional circle. At some point- the logical guess is at the issuance - each warrant received scrutiny by an official of the committee, and was probably docketed: this is the significance of the signature or initials on the bottom edge of the warrant, frequently preceded by the notation "Intr." At the beginning almost unfailingly and later not infrequently the bottom of the page bears the holograph name or initials of Henry Parker. The fact that the others who joined Parker in registering warrants, and who later did the lion's share of this work, were financial officials shows that Parker's responsibilities as secretary were in large partfiscal.At the beginning warrants without Parker's signature or initials were accompanied by the notation by the signer that this was done in Parker's absence.81 Later the burden became too great and Parker assembled a larger staff to assist him. 82 Parker's initial total involvement at this operational level and his continuing supervisory role (attested by his occasional signature at the bottom of the warrants) establish that there were few pieces of the committee's business that Parker was not likely to know. The work of secretary to the committee was never limited to keeping the books. A significant number of the committee's warrants themselves are in Parker's hand. Two early ones show the committee's extraordinary trust in Parker from thefirst.The committee gave to him, albeit on a fairly small scale, power that, with one exception, they never gave to themselves individually on any scale - authority to issue warrants on a single signature.83 In effect, parliament's checkbook was put in Henry Parker's hands. This potentially dangerous practice soon stopped, but Parker frequently changed payment amounts in warrants already drawn and signed, on no other stated authority than his own memorandum.84 No other official seems to have done the like, although there is a single instance of a warrant having gone out with the payment amount left blank.85 It takes little imagination to see that Parker and those who worked for him were in a position to influence strongly the timing and amounts of repayments; Parker later emphasized he passed up the opportunity to take advantage of payees.86 The warrants in Parker's hand do not follow a single pattern of amount or 81 83

84 85 86

82 PRO SP 28/262/253, 304, 317, 458, 466, 472. PRO SP 16/503 pt.2/28. The only exceptions to this rule seem to be warrants signed by Essex: PRO SP 28/262/75,250; SP 28/264/11. As general of the army, Essex may have had rights distinct from those of ordinary members of the committee. This is implied by a statement in SP 28/264/222. PRO SP 28/261/61; SP/262/8, 18, 333, 348, 372, 373, 394, 403, 404-7, 413. PRO SP 16/263/90. MewonW/of4Mayl647[BL669f.ll(8)].Seealsothesecondmemorial,BL669f.ll(101); for its date see n. 115 below.

The public's privado

21

use. Nevertheless, some of Parker's warrants are distinctive. A clearly disproportionate number of those made out to intelligence agents and political operatives as well as to those rather obscurely identified as doing the "service of the state" are in Parker's own hand.87 Parker's hand is also found attending to warrants involving committee members or their kin. One unusual warrant was for £100 to John Pym to dispense as "Hee shall in his discretion thinke fit."88 Others had to do with the tangled finances of the young earl of Bedford, and with Nathaniel Fiennes and Lord Say. Clearly the most interesting for the study of Parker was a £3,000 warrant he drew up in favor of Say, even for a viscount a lordly sum; oddly, Parker also wrote out, though Say himself signed, the receipt. The implication is that Parker "walked through" the entire transaction, most likely with Say's signature already on the receipt in advance of the actual disbursement of the money.89 The records of the committee and other state papers shed a little more light on Parker during his tenure as secretary to the committee. A warrant to Parker in the amount of £100 for payment of the costs of "posts" and "other [serjvices" shows him in an administrative role. 90 He dispensed at least some of the patronage of the committee, hiring a mere messenger at 15s. per week and a key bureaucrat, the auditor Henry Broade, "to audit businesses here and help mee in paymt of accounts." Parker could not "tell" in a later deposition whether he had hired Broade on a committee order or not. 91 A miscellany of other documents in Parker's hand elsewhere in the public archives show him engaged in a wide variety of affairs. Some merely record his work for the Committee of Safety, in his notations upon petitions or orders.92 A notable trio of drafts of July and September 1642 in Parker's hand, two with annotations of parliamentary acceptance in hands found throughout the papers of the House of Lords, show Parker's involvement in military matters, and very possibly his draftsmanship as well as his penman87

88 89 90 91 92

The most obvious instance of a warrant in Parker's hand in favor of a spy or operative is PRO SP 28/264/323, made out to Thomas Smith for "a secret imployment." This is probably the Thomas Smith, secretary to the navy, who was disbursed £10 for the "secret service of the state" on another occasion: SP 28/264/177 (this warrant not in Parker's hand). Cf. PRO SP 28/264/30, in Parker's hand, to John Corbet for expense incurred in a journey to Scotland "upon some special service of the state." Other likely candidates, all in Parker's hand, are PRO SP 28/261/170; SP 28/262/141,333; SP 28/264/192. Less certain, but suspicious are SP 28/261/149, 394, and SP 28/264/192. There is another warrant, not in Parker's hand, for payment to a "Mr. Thomkyns" for "his late speciall service for the State" in discovering a plot against "the parliament and Citie": SP 28/264/129. Glow, "The Committee of Safety," first called attention to this aspect of Parker's work. PRO SP 28/261/418. Pym made the sum over to John Dillingham, the newsletter writer and journalist. PRO SP 28/261/63. PRO SP 28/264/62. The warrant is damaged; the letters in brackets are supplied on conjecture. PRO SP 28/263/255; SP 16/503 pt.2/28. PRO SP 16/539 pt.1/100; SP 16/539 pt.2/129.

22

Henry Parker and the English civil war

ship.93 In December 1642 Parker also wrote out a draft of a letter from parliament to William of Orange; Parker's role in 1645 in Anglo-Dutch affairs may well have had an earlier history.94 Parker did not entirely forsake his private interests during his tenure. It will be remembered that Parker wrote on behalf of the Stationers in April 1643; in May he penned the petition of Joseph Hunscott to the House of Lords, in which Hunscott, the beadle or chief "bloodhound" of the company, sought to stay a suit about to be brought against him and other Stationers in the King's Bench.95 Meanwhile, Parker was secretary to the army and Essex. How Parker managed both positions is a mystery; neither was a sinecure.96 But a clue resides in the fact that several other officials — Henry Broade and Richard Chambers - shuttled between the two staffs, as did Essex himself on another level.97 The routing of the warrants also makes clear that in effect the paper was shuffled between two departments of the same state "treasury," a procedure not radically different from that of the medieval exchequer. Parker himself makes it quite clear that he forged an attachment to Essex as close as any he had to Say. In The Contra-Replicant, which was published early in January 1643, Parker actually promoted Essex ("the worthiest man of Trust amongst us") as a "temporary Dictator" and compared him to David under Saul, perhaps hinting at a more permanent role.98 As the Committee of Safety wound down, Essex emerged as Parker's champion, writing on Parker's behalf to the Speaker of the House of Commons, commending him for the office of "Registrar of the Prerogative Court," afirstday's toil in what Parker later described as the torture of Sisyphus. Simonds D'Ewes, who had earlier fallen afoul of the leadership for his remark about "a pamphlet of observations," this time bit his tongue. Parker, he noted, was "clarke" to the Committee of Safety and "had a hand in" - D'Ewes retreated into his cipher"many seditious pamphlets."99 Essex's death in 1646 proved a profound blow to Parker. Parker addressed 93

94 95 96 97

98 99

House of Lords Main Papers, 26 July 1642: order for preservation of the magazines of the counties by force; 28 July 1642: letter from the Committee for the Defense of the Kingdome [i.e., the Committee of Safety]; 1 September, 1642: draft order for the treasurers for the subscriptions of plate and money. House of Lords Main Papers, 14 December 1642. House of Lords Main Papers, 12 May 1643: the petition of Joseph Hunscott to the House of Lords. This is the only sustained example I have found of Parker's secretary hand. On the difficulty of distinguishing the sinecure from job-related pluralism, Aylmer, The State's Servants, p. 100. PRO SP 16/503 pt.2/28; Vernon Snow, Essex the Rebel (Lincoln, Nebr., 1970), p. 314. In this connection it is curious to note a conjuncture of administrative and women's history. A number of warrants of June-August 1643 were entered by Broade and "Mrs Broade," sometimes described as "Aud tris ." See PRO SP 28/264/, 192, 213, 220, 222, 224, 225, 228, 234, 236, 238, 268, 323, The Contra-Replicant, pp. 19, 27. BL Harl. 165, fol. 210 verso; Reformation in Courts in Cases Testamentary, p. 9.

The public's privado

23

his feelings in "An Elegie upon ?Q Death of my most Noble Lord 6c Most honorable Master, Robt Earle of Essex," a manuscript of which found its way into George Thomason's collection.100 In its way, it is a touching testimony. Parker not only paid tribute to Essex but wrestled mightily with the sea-beast of all his political reflection - the dichotomy of public and private interest. He wondered whether his private grief was greater than that of the three kingdoms, or whether the common misery abated his own. He had infinitely greater private motive - his tears "dewe that grave wherin lye buried / My cheifest worldly hopes." But "a Thousand cries" replied they had "a private right" to Essex as well; "I hear them issue groanes as deepe as mine." The "Countries bravest Guardian / And my Religions Noblest Champion" had been even more to Parker than to them, but Parker had to bear the public grief as well: This is the Burden of my private Woe, That 'tis not private but doth boundlesse growe: That none can shed a Teare with mee, but I Must weep for Him with equall sympathy. As the Committee of Safety gave way to the Committee for Both Kingdoms, and as Essex's falling political fortunes, declining health, and, at last, his death, changed Parker's world of connections, Parker continued his work on a different basis. Royalists certainly knew him as an important man. In 1644, Parker and Sir Ralph Verney exchanged letters that ripple with the tension of Verney's superior social position and Parker's current importance. In a lost letter to Parker, the contents of which are clear from Parker's reply, Verney, in France, professed neutrality and sought Parker's advice as to how he might protect his interests. Parker in reply to his "Freinde, and Kinsman" began mildly but grew increasingly censorious. Verney's indecision gave him "almost no hope of indemnity on either side." A choice had to be made "in these publike divisions where religion and liberty is indangered." Parker's advice was to adhere to the better cause "by ye light of nature, and the most forcible inductions of reason." One can wonder if Parker was again using "philosophy" to make his point to an heir to a great fortune; Parker's manners told him he might have gone too far: "I could inlarge myselfe much upon this subiect ... and transgresse ye verge of a letter." In reply Verney held his ground, though he seemed willing to re-study the issues with "all ye Wit I haue." 101 Parker's continuing reputation, and yet another side of 100 101

BL E. 358 (1). Verney Papers, Claydon House [Yale Center for Parliamentary History microfilm copy, reel 6], Parker to Sir Ralph Verney, 21 November 1644; Verney to Parker, 6/16 December 1644. On the first letter, Verney wrote the names "Susan Denton" (a Parker cousin), "Francis Giborne," and "Jane Parker" (Henry's wife), using both letters and his numerical cipher. A postscript to his own letter to Parker begs Parker to transmit Verney's "best loue, 8c servis to the 3 good women."

24

Henry Parker and the English civil war

the work of a privado, is attested by a report to the king in August 1645 by Charles' own secretary, Sir Edward Nicholas. Nicholas identified Parker as the former "secretarie to the Close Committee" and "an intimate freind of the Lord Saves." Parker had been in "private Conference" with the brother of the governor of the royalist-held Boarstall House.102 In fact Parker was trying to "turn" a relative by marriage. The governor of Boarstall was Sir William Campion, who had married Henry Parker's niece (Sir Thomas Parker's daughter, Grace).103 Parker had become a man to be feared, indeed even hated, in the royalist world. As Essex put it in a letter on Parker's behalf, Parker's service to the Committee of Safety and to Essex and "his ingenious endeavours otherwise" had made him "obnoxious to the other side." In an echo, Parker described himself as "odious to the other side." But this had not translated fully into love from his own. After the triumphant months at the Committee of Safety, the glow around Parker gradually evanesced; in increasingly strident terms he appears as another disappointed suitor for place. The registrarship of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (later the prerogative office) came up for grabs when the incumbent, John Abbott, left for Oxford. Parker's initial suit for the prerogative office, supported by Essex, received a favorable, though not definitive, answer. Parker's petition was referred to the consideration of John White, John Selden, Oliver St. John, Edmund Prideaux, and Samuel Browne; but not to leave matters utterly uncertain, the house ordered "that this House doth declare, that they are sensible of the good Services Mr. Parker hath done to the Commonwealth and they will, in this Particular mentioned in the Petition, or in some other thing as advantageous, consider him for his said services." Not unreasonably Parker thought that Essex's support had sufficed, and turned to other business, including helping with institutional arrangements for the remodeled prerogative office. But Parker was surprised to learn in midsummer 1644 that an MP, Michael Oldisworth, had become his competitor (Abbott also returned, though his claims were easier to brush aside). A timely intervention by the elder Sir Henry Vane - who may well have had reason to speak for Parker- balked Oldisworth, but Parker asked Essex for further aid. Almost a year after his first letter, Essex produced another, to accompany another petition for the registrarship by Parker. According to his own account, Parker's maneuver came too late; Oldisworth, the long-time secretary of the earl of Pembroke, had just procured an ordinance on his behalf.104 102 103

104

PRO SP 1 6 / 5 1 0 / 7 9 . On Campion, see P. R. N e w m a n , Royalist Officers in England and 'Wales, 1642-1660 (New York, 1 9 8 1 ) , p. 5 7 . For the marriage, John Comber, Sussex Genealogies, 3 vols., (various places, 1 9 3 1 - 3 ) , III, p. 3 6 . C / , III, pp. 6 8 7 - 8 ; Parker's second Memoriall [BL 6 6 9 f. 11 (101)]. See Chapter 4 , p . 7 4 below.

The public's privado

25

By 1645 Parker's position had deteriorated to the extent that casual and ad hoc labors replaced his offices; equally, for thefirsttime he was officially and openly employed by the "state" as a writer. His opportunity came as necessary but burdensome literary chores threatened the workload of the lower house. Parker joined John Sadler as an official draftsman; later Thomas May was added. The need to get out a story concerning the failed Treaty of Uxbridge, the capture of the king's papers in the aftermath of Naseby, and the similar cache taken at the fall of the Digbys' Sherbourne Castle created work of analysis and propaganda. Digby's papers also pointed to royalist connections with Dutch agents actively seeking to mediate the English conflict; these also required a response, though of a different sort. 105 The initial commission, 26 June 1645, made Parker and Sadler "Secretaries for the Preparing of the Declaration upon the Breach of the late Treaty at Uxbridge" and for "the Preparing of such other Declarations, or other Matters, as shall be intrusted to their care by this House." One of these was "to give Satisfaction of the Justness of this Cause of Religion and Liberty defended by the Parliament." A "fit Salary" was to be allowed them, and "upon Occasion" they were to use the papers captured at Naseby. The Naseby papers became increasingly the focus; Parker and Sadler were to be given transcripts "to make Observations upon, and to make use of" in the "Great Declaration upon the Breach of Treaty." The result of the collaboration was The Kings Cabinet Opened. Meanwhile, Francis Rous (John Pym's half-brother) and Anthony Nicholl (Pym's nephew) were ordered to peruse Pym's papers and supply to Parker and Sadler those papers helpful to the composition of the declaration concerning the justness of the cause.106 In January 1646, Parker received £100 for his services; possibly he was the Parker voted £50 for bringing the news of the surrender of Chester.107 The Kings Cabinet Opened rivaled Observations in its effects upon the opinion of the day. Charles' and his queen's private thoughts managed to do more to hurt their cause than ever the parliamentarians did. Forty-three of the sixty pages of the tract were simply transcripts of the papers found at Naseby. Four pages were an introduction, pointing especially to the main matter revealed by the papers: that Charles had secretly encouraged the Irish rebels. At the end were some self-proclaimed annotations. 105 T h e Digby papers led to [Henry Parker,] The Speech of Their Excellencies the Lords Ambassadors Extraordinary ... Together with a Moderate Answer by a Private Gentleman (London, 1645) [BL E. 278 (9)] and [Henry Parker,] "Points of Consideration," MS [BL E. 286 (16)]. The former speech without Parker's reply was also available as BL 669 f. 10 (28). For attribution of the latter (at least the concluding remarks directed to States-General), see Thomason's note at the end of the MS. For background and circumstances, Peter Geyl, Orange and Stuart, 1641-1672, trans. Arnold Pomerans (New York, 1969), pp. 2 3 - 8 , 38 nn. 1 0 0 - 5 , 111, 121. 106 107 C/, IV, pp. 189, 190 (30 June 1645). L/, VII, pp. 121, 147.

26

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Parker undoubtedly had a lot to do with The Kings Cabinet Opened. His friend Thomason regarded him as the author of the annotations. The tract was printed for Parker's usual publisher, Robert Bostock, and was entered into the Stationers' Registers by "special Comand under the hands" of Parker and May.108 But it is hard to say exactly where his work ended and the others' began. The introduction, brief and effective but no show-stopper, could well be his. The concluding annotations were the product of a collaboration; the tell-tale is an abrupt shift from one convention of citation of the originals to another. Initially, in a quick summary of key points, the documents were cited by their assigned number in the series.109 Then an extended and very detailed historical treatment cited the same papers only by their dates. This section most likely was Thomas May's contribution.110 To what extent the introduction and earlier annotations were Parker's alone or in collaboration with Sadler and May cannot be determined. In any event, full attribution to Parker would add nothing to the evaluation of his political and religious thought.

In 1646 this work dried up, and sheer want seems to have driven Parker out of England, into the service of the Merchant Adventurers at Hamburg.111 But he was not entirely removed from the scene. Though resident in Hamburg, Parker by his own account was "often" in England.112 In May 1647 Parker returned, primarily to continue his struggle to gain the registrarship of the prerogative office, to which avail he drew up a printed Memoriall pleading his case, the first of two such broadsides.113 The political press also caught his 108 Thomason's attribution to his copy [BL E. 2 9 2 (27)], The Kings Cabinet Opened (London, 1645). Stationers' Company Registers, I, p. 181 (9 July 1645). The general estimation of The Kings Cabinet Opened is discussed in Lois Potter, Secret Kites and Secret Writing: Royalist Literature, 1641-1660 (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 5 9 - 6 4 . 109 The Kings Cabinet Opened, p. 4 3 , line 1 to p. 47, line 2 . 110 The Kings Cabinet Opened, p. 4 7 , line 3 to end, or perhaps only to p. 54, line 3 (where the dated citations of the Naseby papers end), the remainder being another distinct section. Thomas M a y was a contemporary historian; by contrast, Parker's occasional forays into history were never so precise and organized. 111 Parker's departure may have been late in the year. An anti-presbyterian tract, The Trojan Horse of the Presbyteriall Government JJnbowelled ([London,] 1646), is dated by Thomason 1 September and weakly ascribed to Parker [BL E. 353 (1)]. Thomason also supplies London as the place of publication (not his usual procedure for London-printed tracts). Thomason, a staunch presbyterian, could not have been happy with his friend's effort this time out, and Parker (if he wrote it) doubtless did not push this pamphlet on the bookseller. Thomason downgraded his attribution according to a formula seen occasionally elsewhere in the collection: "supposed to be written by Henry Parker Esq." See below, pp. 140-1. 112 Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Advance of Money, 1642-1656, ed. M. A. E. Green (London, 1888), p. 687. 113 BL669f. 11 (8).

The public's privado

27

eye - the irrepressible royalist judge David Jenkins received Parker's attention in May and June. By the end of September, Parker was back in Hamburg, to judge from a copy of a letter he wrote to George Thomason, who had supplied him with a tract for comment.114 Most likely Parker was again in England very late in 1647 or early in 1648. About that time he published a much extended version of his earlier Metnoriall, in continuance of his struggle to win the registrarship of the prerogative office.115 Mounting frustration led Parker to a much broader defense of his claims than he had attempted before, and he resorted to an uncharacteristically overt autobiographical mode. He confronted directly the limitations of his rank. To answer the objection that "Mr. Oldisworths merit is greater then mine," Parker distinguished between "suits meerly honorary," which he conceded to Oldisworth, and "suits of a pecuniary nature" for which Parker deserved "a due entertainment or pay" for his "ordinary attendance and Travail" in "a place of Eminence." In addition he had "done extraordinary Offices also to the whole State, which have not been altogether unacceptable; and which, I hope, were in part pointed in the Houses Order [of 18 November 1643]." By contrast, Oldisworth had sat in parliament, for which his reward ought to have been his maintenance by those who sent him; tactfully Parker did not note that Oldisworth owed his seat and almost everything else that was his to the earl of Pembroke, although the implication was clear. Parker went on to insist that although he had enjoyed a "place of great profit," he had refused to accept any gratuity or to charge "poor Souldiers" for his services, had required his servants and clerks to conduct themselves in a similar fashion, and had lost much by his own gift, by loan, and by plunder. He explained his removal to Hamburg as the result of "necessity" and not a "want of zeal." Even in this plea for office, public good and private interest played as usual at tug-of-war. The public held its own; Parker was prepared to acknowledge that the rewards of the prerogative office were excessive, and that he would be happy to see the abatement of his fees become a precedent "to other Officers either to moderate their fees, or assist the publick by them." Nevertheless, he took scathing note of an attempt by his old antagonist, the former wine patentee Richard Kilvert (by trade an ecclesiastical lawyer), "who is Mr. Oldisworths friend, and my enemy," to cut the office in pieces if Parker were to have it, and keep it entire for

114 115

A copy of a letter from Henry Parker to George Thomason (dated 24 September 1647 and from Hamburg) is in the Thomason collection: BL E. 408 (6). See below, pp. 157-9. BL 669 f. 11 (101). Thomason's own date for this piece, in error, is "January 1646" (viz, 1647). However, the second memorial carries events beyond June 1647 (see 13 lines from bottom) and the place-order of the second Memoriall amongst the folios gives a date between 21 December 1647 and early January 1648.

28

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Oldisworth. Parker's efforts remained unsuccessful. He returned to Hamburg. The execution of the king and the remodeling of the English government provided new opportunity for Parker. In February 1649 Parker submitted an intelligence report on the foreign reaction to the king's execution, an event that Parker himself took in his stride. His correspondent, the Speaker of the House of Commons, William Lenthall, had apparently received earlier reports from him, and was led to expect more. 116 Lenthall turned the letter over to the new council of state, which urged Parker to continue his intelligence efforts. 117 Parker's fortunes markedly improved from this time. Sometime in the spring he crossed over again to England, and was apparently in London before 18 May. 118 On 26 May the Council of State had Sir Henry Mildmay report favorably to the House on a petition of Henry Parker. This is almost certainly the petition of 25 May held in the papers of the Committee for the Advance of Money, in which Parker reiterated his tale, and asked once again for the place that had been in the hands of Oldisworth. Finally, on 18 July 1649, the parliament with Solomonic wisdom divided the office in two, the registrarship henceforth to be shared between Oldisworth and Parker. Within a year, the two men seem to have been able to cooperate at least to the extent of trying to beat back a challenge from John Wildman. 119 As the partially successful outcome of his long struggle suggests, Parker had returned to political favor. About the middle of June, Clement Walker, a royalist journalist with some short-term Leveller sympathies, commented that "Henry Parker the Observator is returned from Hamborough, and highly preferred to be Brewers Clerke, (alias Secretary) to Cromwell; to whose Designes he hath prostituted his pen." 120 Henry Ireton seems to have been Parker's patron of the day, 121 although Parker's good fortune had come about in part because Cromwell's previous secretary had been discovered 116

117 118

119 120 121

Henry Parker to William Lenthall, The Gentleman's Magazine, 25 (March 1765), p. 109. It is here appropriate to note the corresponding file of the State Papers, Foreign, is missing for these years; Descriptive List of State Papers, Foreign: Hamburg and Hanse Towns (S. P. 82) [1588J-1659 ([London,] 1936) shows a gap between 26 April/6 May 1641 and 2 April 1649. In Of a Free Trade, p. 10, Parker listed the ability "to procure right, and timely intelligence" as a public benefit supplied by the Merchant Adventurers. CSPD, 1649-50, pp. 34-5. Parker wrote out a statement from David Hochstetter to the Council of State in corroboration of the merchant Isaac Lee's desire to be excused from further public service, dated Hamburg, 19 April 1649 (PRO SP 18/1/121; see also PRO SP 18/1/122). Perhaps he carried the documents to England with him. For the terminis ad quern of Parker's return to England, Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Advance of Money, 1642—1656, p. 215: Parker was to be examined with reference to charges of corruption raised against John Glynn. Parker's deposition was made in November (p. 216). CSPD, 1649-50, pp.158, 185, 238; Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Advance of Money, 1642-1656, pp. 686-9. Seen.4. Aylmer, The State's Servants, p. 261. See also below, p. 160.

The public's privado

29

using Cromwell's seal to forge highly vendible passes and protections. 122 Traces remain of Parker's work in Ireland, some preserved in Speaker Lem thall's papers. 123 More significantly, Parker returned to the press, hammering out several tracts that show much of the old gift, a little of the old fire, and that adaptability to circumstances (notably the remade English polity) that Parker had always thought requisite in public counsellors. The volume of writing, and Parker's ongoing struggles to hold on to the prerogative office, indicate that Parker may have been in London as well as in Ireland for part of the time remaining to him; he seems at least to have visited London sometime between October 1649 and June 1650. 124 Parker had health problems at least from the time he returned to England in 1649. In his petition of 25 May 1649, Parker remarked that he doubted whether he would live long enough to make a profit from the office. Perhaps surprisingly, Parker all but told the world of the nature of his bodily difficulties, in a tract ostensibly having to do with law reform: but what else is to be expected from a privado who had managed to speak his mind and heart for more than a decade, anonymously or in the service of other people? In Reformation in Courts in Cases Testamentary', Parker employed a conventional figure that he had vehemently discarded earlier, the comparison of the body natural and the body politic. Earlier, he had wanted to sever the interest of the king from that of the state; in these latter days, ostensibly he wanted to "shew that there is lesse publike prejudice in too many Courts, then in too few." He continued: Tis with the politick, as with the natural body: bothfindeobstructions more fatal than fluxes, and both receive more torture from a defect in the expulsive faculty, then from a defect in the relentive [sic] faculty. Too much vexation from many Courts may be compared to dissentery: but want of expedition by reason of too few Courts is like the nephriticall malady, and kils us with pangs inexpressible.125 Two pages later, Parker changed the comparison, but not the image of suffering. Now the topic was lack of access to parliamentary committees 122 123

124

125

W. C. Abbott, ed., The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1937-47), II, p. 85. CSPDy 1 6 4 9 - 5 0 , p. 364; it is unlikely that our Parker is the "Mr. Parker" or "Parker" noted or mentioned in CSPD, 1 6 4 9 - 5 0 , p. 385; CSPD, 1651, 258; CSPlreland, 1647-60, III, p. 378. Parker's hand is seen in Bodl. Tanner MS 54, fols. 5 0 recto-52 verso, 7 4 recto-75 verso, 81 recto-82 verso and in Tanner MS 56, fol. 9 2 verso (noticed by Aylmer, State's Servants, p. 261 n). H[enry] P[arker,] A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution to Lieut. Coll: John Lilburne (London, 1650), p.41: "I had sooner drest, and speeded these ... Animadversions, had I been in England at your Arraignment, or if I had sooner recovered my health after my coming into England." Thomason dated his copy 21 June 1650; Lilburne was arraigned in October 1649. By this time the friendship had cooled: Thomason expanded the "H.P." after the concluding remarks cited above to read "Henry Parker Crom: Serv1". Reformation in Courts in Cases Testamentary, p. 7.

30

Henry Parker and the English civil war

(about which Parker knew more than most): "want of expedition" of business was "like the stoppage of the stone in the uritories." 126 Parker died in 1652. Characteristically we do not know where. The standard authorities say it was in Ireland. It may well have been London; the Kensington parish registers report the death on 21 May 1652 of "M r . Henry Parker Esqr."127 Anthony a Wood was informed by Fabian Philipps that Parker "died distracted."128 There is no confirmatory evidence, although Reformation in Courts in Cases Testamentary, written well before his death, does show Parker in some distress. After his death, Jane Parker collected arrears of pay due to her husband for service in Ireland129 and fought the war without end for the registrarship of the prerogative office. An attempt in parliament came to naught,130 but the council of state later accepted the joint arrangement with Oldisworth in October and December 1653.131 Even so, her position was precarious; at no point were the family finances secure.132 Although Parker may have acquired an estate in North Wales, 133 the private man did not enrich himself by his service as privado to the public. This may be Parker's truest entitlement to be, as Wilbur Jordan styled him, a "man of substance." VI

Enough has been seen of Parker's activities to gather that he was not an armchair pamphleteer - a country gentleman with a point of view, like Sir Robert Filmer, or a creature of the press like the Ranter Abiezer Coppe. For Parker, political writing was part of a continuum of action of a man who would not deviate from his role as insider, agent, secretary, privado. Often enough, pamphleteering was simply one facet of Parker's work for his employers or retainers. Even when a connection between a pamphlet and a second party cannot be established, indeed even when it is not suspected, the same insider's sense of the issues, the same expert calculation of opportunity and risk informs Parker's writing. Though he found ample occasion to say what he wished, he seldom seems to have come to the press simply to express 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

Reformation in Courts in Cases Testamentary', p. 9. F. N . Macnamara and A. Story-Maskelyne, eds., The Parish Register of Kensington, Co. Middlesex, from a.d. 1539 to a.d. 1675 (London, 1890), p. 122. Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, III, pp. 451-2. CSPD, 1652-3, p. 108 (18 January 1653). C/, pp. 268-9 (17 March 1653), VII, p. 326 (29 September 1653). CSPD, 1653-4, pp.217 (26 October 1653), 280 (1 December 1653). Jane Parker continued to petition the Council of State: CSPD, 1654, p. 162. Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, &c, 1643-1660,4 parts, ed. M. A. E. Green (London, 1889-92), II, p. 1602. This a a discharge from sequestration, dated 26 October 1652, of Bodvile House, Llanor parish, Co. Carnarvon, bought from the Treason Trustees by "Henry Parker, of London." Another parcel of Col. John Bodvile's estate was purchased by John Wildman.

The public's privado

31

himself. Most of his tracts are reactive, and imbedded in circumstances exercises, one is tempted to say, in damage control. Whether or not his tracts were part of the package of "extraordinary, acceptable service" (as Parker put it), or "ingenious endeavours" (as Essex wrote) that Parker performed beyond his official duties at the Committee of Safety or for Essex, the Parker who wrote them was at one with the public servant. This does not in the least derogate from either the intellectual value or the personal achievement of Parker's political writing. For, as it will be seen, there was courage - intellectual and sometimes personal - about Parker's writings, a temperamental radicalism the more remarkable for its admixture with high factional politics, conventional snobberies, and surreptitious service of private interests and well-placed patrons. The hard-bitten privado and the visionary shared the same soul. At times the joint tenants fought for sole possession, a conflict characteristically expressed by the categories of public and private, which did their work as much in Parker's life as in his tracts. However, there was also fusion; Parker's political outlook was distinctly an insider's radicalism, and bloomed rather than wilted with power. Parker dared to do the dirty business, think the unthinkable thoughts on behalf of the English people. On both accounts Parker was the public's privado.

<«* 2 **> The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

A Discourse Concerning Puritans and The Case of Shipmony were Henry Parker's first two pamphlets of the Long Parliament era. Their place order in the Thomason collection shows them to be amongst thefirsttracts Thomason collected; Thomason probably acquired, or at least annotated, them at about the same time, most likely early in 1641. Though the two pamphlets overlap, notably in their appreciations of the role and the enemies of the parliament, they also inaugurate two separate lines of Parker's reflection, one more or less "divine" and the other unabashedly "politic." The Case of Shipmony is the headwater of the political stream. As such it occupies a special place in the history of English political thought: The Case of Shipmony may be the first intellectually significant printed political pamphlet of the Long Parliament era. For a long time, there was nothing quite like it, apart from Calybute Downing's several efforts and a private person's reply to a parliamentary speech that may well be by Parker.1 The pure, freestanding printed political tract (so familiar in mid-1642 and after) was not a natural mode of expression in 1640-1. Of course, this is not to deny that political reflection of a fairly high order went on in England in the 1620s and 1630s. But it did not take this form. Printed publication was apparently a critical, and initially inhibiting, factor. The difference is attested by the fact that the political dialogue — the received form of serious manuscript political reflection amongst the political elite of the early seventeenth century — did not translate into print in 1640-2. From the days of the Short Parliament until the preparations for war, politics-in-print was commonly approached from a multitude of perspectives and genres, none of them direct. Either the concern with politics emerged as a by-product of some other concern, or some special excuse or genre was needed to launch political observation or reflection at the public. Religious issues received attention from armies of competing clerics and from a good many interested and talented laymen. These impinged upon politics, sometimes were swallowed by politics - but they were not the same thing, and the existence of the 1

For this tract see below, pp.72—4.

32

The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

33

distinction was what made an approach to the public through the press possible. Christian liberty was in some ways broader than civil liberty. Fairly concrete political concerns were ripe for printed publication in the form of dressed versions of parliamentary speeches; these, however, purported to be printed versions of speech by those authorized to assist in the making of the laws. Various historical tracts and manuals or monographs on parliamentary practice were printed or reprinted in 1640 and 1641; what these meant for contemporary affairs was a matter of inference. Printed sermons addressed political matters in one oblique fashion; rude satires, ballads, and woodcut cartoons in another; little quartos of news and supposed news in yet a third. Still, none quite qualifies as a political tract; political reflection rode piggyback on another genre. Commercial interests made their pitch in the press (of which Parker's The Vintners Answer is an example), but though politics and business, like politics and religion, were intertwined, obviously they were not the same. Not the least of the differences was of standing. The businessman seeking parliamentary remedy sought to link his interest and the public's as a rhetorical ploy; yet the tolerance of his speech came paradoxically from his status as an interested party, a petitioner or would-be petitioner. The innumerable printed petitions to parliament, which strike the modern student as "media placements" in well-managed campaigns of public relations, are another index of this same back-door approach to purely political utterance. One needed a specific grievance to have a specific political thought; (political) beggars had standing that citizens did not. The Case of Shipmony differed from all these. It took a current issue and discussed it in a way that led to practical prescription (Parker proposed a political program to the parliament) as well as to a broader political vision leading well beyond that extra-parliamentary levy and the judges who supported it. No claim was made of special standing; the tract was anonymous and Parker offered no excuse for his discussion of the case on the grounds (as the title page had it) of "Law, Policy, and Conscience." Had Parker done no more than break through the conventions of discourse (which continued to dominate for over a year to come), The Case of Shipmony would be entitled to considerable respect. Parker not only did his work first; he also did it well, in what was an extremely complex conceptual situation. Parker wrote in opposition to the royalist majority in John Hampden's celebrated test case of 1637. However, his carefully circumscribed objections in The Case of Shipmony to ship money show his opposition to have been quite of a different sort than that heard in the House of Commons in 1640 and 1641. Equally, his antagonism was strangely resonant with the royalist arguments he professed to reject. The embrace of royalist argument was not a result of political timidity. Rather, it was the first step in the development of his most characteristic and boldest

34

Henry Parker and the English civil war

political doctrine, the absolute power of the two houses of parliament. The Case of Shipmony was no more than a beginning: Parker developed a modest notion of parliamentary sovereignty, as notable for its limitations and qualifications as for its assertions.2 The full doctrine of bicameral parliamentary absolutism emerged only in mid-1642, a striking feature of Parker's most famous pamphlet, Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses, as well as of others of that same time and later. Yet the developmental sequence serves to underline the ongoing significance for Parker of the categories and arguments in the ship money case; as Parker grew bolder and as his notions were tested and matured by the unfolding circumstances of 1640-2, his views and those of the royalist counsel and judges, mutatis mutandis, became even more congruent. The Case of Shipmony began the process; despite its occasional tentativeness, The Case of Shipmony was an achievement at least equal to Parker's later andfiercertracts, for in it Parker first explored an inversion of the categories and assumptions that had shaped political discourse in the early Stuart decades.

Like many of Parker's other writings, The Case of Shipmony was a set of "observations" upon some texts. While Parker did not wrestle with his chosen texts in the academic and disputative manner of Observations, he never lost contact with his textual base. The opinions in the case gave Parker both his opening thought and his organizing principle: "Such strange contradiction there hath been amongst the pleaders, and dissent amongst the Judges, even in those Lawes which are most fundamental^ that we are left in a more confused uncertainty ... then we were before." Some viewed prerogative (for Parker, the key notion) along jusnaturalist lines ("the Prerogative naturall of all Kings"); others took it to be part of the municipal law ("the Prerogative legall of the Kings of England"). "Sometimes it 2

Parker's embrace of some form of parliamentary sovereignty has been widely appreciated, since Margaret Judson's pioneering and still-useful essay, "Henry Parker and the Theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty." Some scholars who see legislation as the ultimate test of sovereignty dissent from this view; e.g., M. M. Goldsmith, "Hobbes's 'Mortall God*: Is There a Fallacy in Hobbes' Theory of Sovereignty?" History of Political Thought, 1 (1980), p. 46. The error is that Parker himself regarded legislation as inferior to counsel; see p. 118. Parker also did claim that the two houses had an absolute power to "declare" law {Observations, p. 45). But Parker's engagement with absolutism, with which, since Bodin, sovereignty has been yoked has yet to be explored; see Julian H. Franklin, jean Bodin and the Rise of Absolutist Theory (Cambridge, 1973). Ultimately the absolutism is more revealing of Parker and his sense of the cause. In this respect a useful distinction can be made between Parker's initial and tentative parliamentary sovereignty in The Case of Shipmony and its fullest articulation in bicameral parliamentary absolutism.

The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

35

[prerogative] is taken for the altitude of Honour [an emperor has a greater prerogative than a mere king], sometimes for the latitude of Power [one king's prerogative could be greater than another's]." Sometimes it "signifies as much as Soveraignty," on the surface a position uncongenial to an opponent of ship money, though Parker did not disavow it, allowing it to slide into a favorite assertion, "the supreame of all humane lawes is salus populi."3 The intellectual and political task of The Case of Shipmony, therefore, was to reestablish order amidst the confusion. Parker laid out the contradictions of counsel and judges along four axes: the legal foundation of ship money, the determination of the common danger upon which the exaction professedly rested, the "method" of the aid (actually an exploration of its necessity), and the nature, pecuniary or personal, of the aid.4 This intellectual agenda was joined to a policy recommendation - that the newly called parliament determine what the judges could not.5 Parker made frequent, often precise use of the opinions in the case. He referred directly to the arguments of Sir George Croke and Sir Richard Hutton,6 whose judgments for Hampden had made them the darlings of the "country," as well as to those of Sir John Bramston, Sir Edward Crawley, and Sir William Jones,7 who supported the king. Once Parker noted the opinion of the king's counsel, either that of the solicitor-general, Sir Edward Littleton, or that of the attorney-general, Sir John Bankes.8 Parker also adverted to the views of Thomas Harrison, a clerk, whose own trial for words spoken in derogation of Sir Richard Hutton's opinion was a coda to Hampden's case.9 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, two to Crawley trace back to one place in Crawley and another where Crawley is noted by Croke. 10 Two widely separated notices of Croke return to the same bit of text. 11 Seven discrete references to Jones track back to the same passage (parts of two columns, as they are printed in State Trials).12 But Parker's familiarity with the arguments in the ship money trial extended beyond these easily verifiable topoi. He also alluded - imprecisely, but 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

The Case of Shipmony, pp. 1-3, 6, 7. These matters dealt with successively: The Case of Shipmony', pp. 3-16,16-30,30—40,40-4. The Case of Shipmony•, pp. 47-8. The Case of Shipmony, pp. 17, 32 (Croke); pp. 11, 34 (Hutton). The Case of Shipmony, pp. 18,42 (Bramston); pp. 15, 31-2 (Crawley); pp. 6,11-12,15-16, 21,28-9, 43, 44 (Jones). The Case of Shipmony, p. 6. The reference most likely is to Littleton: ST, III, col. 948. The Case of Shipmony, p. 34; ST, III, cols. 137-8. Bramston: ST, III, pp. 1248-9. Crawley: ST, III, cols. 1085, 1158-60. 12 ST, III, cols. 1158-60. ST, III, cols. 1189-90.

36

Henry Parker and the English civil war

not inaccurately - to the broader corpus. Twice he noted the views of the counsel in the case as well as those of the judges; repeatedly he adverted to "some" or "many" or "most" of the judges.13 Other passages corroborate a wide if casually documented reading in the opinions. The opening sentence of The Case of Shipmony awkwardly compared the pulling down of contiguous but as yet unburnt houses to stop the spread of fire to the rippling outward of damage from the majority opinion in the ship money case, afigureprobably suggested by argument in the case. Both Holborne (arguing for Hampden) and Littleton (for the king) had adverted to this ancient expression of the public right of eminent domain.14 Later Parker quoted a "maxim" of Charles' (made in the king's official acceptance of the Petition of Right); Parker might have taken the quotation from an "outside" source, but it is simpler to believe that he noticed it in Sir Robert Berkeley's opinion, which otherwise Parker did not specifically mention.15 Parker's treatment of Danegeld also suggests broad contact with opinion in the case. Parker was no antiquarian, but he became caught up in the arcane but not impertinent question whether Danegeld was levied by consent or whether it had been a prerogatival exaction of the Anglo-Saxon kings. Since Parker wished to argue that an act of parliament could change the prerogative, and since (it was believed) Danegeld had been abolished by statute, Parker tacitly adopted the view of Littleton and Berkeley (who sided with the king) that Danegeld was not a tax, properly so-called, and thus not subject to the limitations appropriate to that means of supply.16 Parker's reading in the literature of the trial, it turns out, was broader, though indeterminably so, than his direct citations suggest. An appropriate strategy of understanding Parker's use of the argument in the case would be to include the full trial record along with the arguments and opinions identified clearly by name. Other materials, however, should only be used as corroboration of points made from sources cited by Parker, or when they are the unmistakable preponderance of the evidence. 13 14 15

16

The Case of Shipmony, pp. 1, 40 (counsel); pp.9, 14, 31, 41 (judges). The Case of Shipmony, p. 1; ST, III, col. 927, 1012. The Case of Shipmony, p. 4; ST, III, col. 1090. See The Kings Speach in Parlament the 7. Day oflune. (1628) [STC 5019], single sheet and Lords Proceedings 1628, ed. Mary Frear Keeler, Maija Jansson Cole, and William B. Bidwell (New Haven, 1983), p. 597 and n. 13. There are some minor differences in wording amongst the several variants. The Case of Shipmony, p. 11; ST, III, cols. 931 (Littleton), 1091 (Berkeley). 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-^ (Hutton), 1215 (Davenport) 1247-8 (Bramston).

The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

37

II

Although Oliver St. John later denied it, counsel on each side at the trial had ample time for their presentations.17 The judges also needed to declare their opinions. Between the four lawyers who, in their way, desired to address every possibility and the twelve judges who, in their way, sought to reduce the case to its essence, there was a lot of talk. It cannot easily be summarized.18 But one can recognize, beyond divisions of partisanship, two families of argument, an historico-legal one largely identified with the common law and a more political probing of the relation of law to necessity. To this extent Hampden's Case was as much a case of politics as of law, as Parker realized: the title page of The Case of Shipmony promised a discussion according to "the Grounds of Law, Policy, and Conscience." Some resented or affected to resent the drift to extra-legal argument. Jones claimed to decide the case according to "fundamental laws, common law, and statute laws, and by the precedents," derisively leaving "divines to talk of the king's power" in more abstract terms. Sir John Finch distinguished the "fundamental laws and policy [i.e., polity or constitution] of the kingdom," which was matter fit for a judge, from poets' speculations about the origins of the kingdom or general discussions of "this monarchy" indulged in by civilians, historians, and divines. (Both men resorted to the very modes they decried.) While St. John tried to make a comprehensive case, Holborne generally eschewed political argument, presumably because its looseness under the present circumstances favored the king, but perhaps also because he feared to speak his mind on the point. 19 Sir Humphrey Davenport (and, trailing him, Sir John Bramston) allowed the political argument to go for the king, but decided for Hampden on a common law technicality.20 While their posture was personally prudent - for they could claim their hearts were with the king even as they decided against him - it also put the legal and political approaches in the balance and found the political mode wanting. Yet much argument was of the political kind. Most prominent was an idiom centered upon the imperative of necessity and the allied notions of 17

18

19 20

The Speech or Declaration

of Mr. St.-Iohn ...at

a Conference of Both Houses of

Parliament,

HeldU. Carolit 1640 (London, 1641) [BLE. 196(1)], pp. 10-11. St. John's complaint seems to be that he was not allowed the usual dilatory maneuvers of the common law; since Hampden and his backers were eager to push the case forward, the argument is somewhat hollow. The best attempt remains D. L. Keir, "The Case of Ship-Money," Law Quarterly Review, 52 (1936), pp. 546-74. Valuable context and exploration of the precedents is provided in W. S. Holdsworth, "The Power of the Crown to Requisition British Ships in a National Emergency," Law Quarterly Review, 35 (1919), pp. 12-42. ST, III, cols. 969-71, especially the unnerving exchanges between Holborne and a testy Finch, who found fault with Holborne's disclaimers of meddling in matters above him. See the analysis of Conrad Russell, "The Ship Money Judgements of Bramston and Davenport," English Historical Review, 77 (1962), pp. 312-18.

38

Henry Parker and the English civil war

extreme danger, public safety, reason of state and equity. As Richard Tuck has recently shown, this language had a vast and contemporaneous currency in continental political thought, as well as a growing importance in English, especially royalist, conceptualization.21 Indeed, it had been built into the case from the beginning.22 The August 1635 writ to the sheriff of Buckingham pretended danger, and, as is well known, Charles canvassed the judges twice, in December 1635 and February 1637, seeking to ascertain their willingness to see the case from this perspective. The first approach to the judges gained their concurrence with the proposition that when the "whole kingdom is in danger" the "charge of defence ought to be borne by all in general." Dissent from the further qualification that the king was "the only judge" of the danger was dangerous and perhaps unnecessary, given the casuistical possibilities inherent in the Fortescuean distinction of the regal and politic powers of the king.23 The second approach brought the same terms into play with specific reference to the ship money writ. This time some judges bridled before swallowing their objections in a feigned show of unity.24 In the trial, every judge except Denham (who said very little at all) addressed the theme. Among the lawyers only Sir John Bankes omitted it; his ultra-royalist view that the king possessed sovereignty ("jura summae majestatis") in his "royal" (viz, not his "politic") capacity made the argument from necessity irrelevant.25 The ubiquity of necessity is attested by the fact that Oliver St. John, Hampden's lead counsel, spoke to necessity in his first day's argument, before the matter was raised by the king's attorneys, to whom the argument was proprietary. The common royalist position was first stated by Littleton. Ordinary law, being but "tributary" to the "law of necessity," must yield when "the keeping of the laws" would "end the commonwealth."26 Amongst the judges, Weston argued that acts of parliament gave way to necessity, Crawley found that in time of danger the jus gentium and equity (the "exception" made by the laws of God and nature to 21

22

23

24 25

Tuck, Philosophy and Government. My major dissent from Tuck's magisterial account is in the extent to which English legalist opinion mobilized against necessity, reason of state, and (even) the common good; although Tuck well recognizes resistance (p. 119), I believe he underplays the continuing exoticism and identification with absolutism of necessity and reason of state. 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": R. J. W. Swales, "The Ship Money Levy of 1628," Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research, $0 (1977), pp. 164-76. Sir George Croke's agreement on this point was later explained in this way. Sir Simonds D'Ewes, 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. Wallace Notestein (New Haven, 1923), p. 122 n. 14: "he meant the King was sole judge of danger in Parliament, where he has a negative voice." ST, III, cols. 844-5, 1144-5, 1198; see also D'Ewes, Journal, ed. Notestein, pp. 122-4. 26 STy III, cols. 1014-33. ST, III, cols. 927-8.

The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

39

"the law of man") justified charges upon the subject that in other circumstances were illegal, while Berkeley suggested that along with equity or necessity in general a "necessity in point of government" gave the king a right to the ship money: salus populi is "lex legis."27 Their views were seconded by Vernon, Trevor, Jones, and Finch,28 who decided against Hampden, as well as by Davenport and Bramston, who gave their voices for him. Davenport, echoing Crawley, even argued that a blanket statutory prohibition against extra-parliamentary aid in times of "danger apparent" (in effect, then, a law against ship money) was "felo de se" and thus void.29 Bramston joined Crawley in pointing to Doctor and Student on the primacy of equity.30 These pronouncements provided a theoretical underpinning for royal actions far broader than the rather modest ship money. Rejecting a frontal assault, Hampden's friends sought by several means to evade, rather than void, the claims of necessity. Hutton found his salvo in simple fact. He could determine no actual necessity for the extra-parliamentary levy; were there such necessity, subjects would be obliged to pay. 31 Earlier Holborne had argued similarly, but he, St. John, and Croke explored a philosophically more agile evasion of the claims of necessity, pushing the threshold of necessity out towards the state of nature. Holborne spoke of an "instinct of nature" that would compel subjects as well as kings to suspend the usual rules, adding that not only could a king seize the subject's property but also that a subject with equal right could seize his king's. 32 St. John defined necessitous times as those "when we are not tied to any rules of law" and property rights dissolve into the "common principles of nature." 33 Croke, while arguing that no necessity or danger could "give cause" for ship money, allowed that the king could command the persons of his subjects (and perhaps inconsistently, that a subject was obliged to hand over se et sua) in 27 28 30

31

32

ST, III, cols. 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 8 2 - 3 , 1 0 8 5 - 6 , 1 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 5 . 29 ST,III,cols. 1 1 2 5 - 7 , 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 6 , 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 4 - 5 . ST, III, col. 1216; cf. Crawley, 1 0 8 5 . ST, III, cols. 1 2 4 8 - 9 ; cf. 1 0 8 5 - 6 and Christopher St. Germain, St. German's Doctor and Student, ed. T. F. T. Plucknett and J. L. Barton, Selden Soc. Publ. 9 4 (London, 1974), pp. 9 4 - 8 . Beneath the great din of concord, a few notes of disagreement are to be discerned. For example, while Finch and 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 of Shipmony, p. 3). See ST, III, cols. 1 0 8 3 (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); 1 2 2 4 (Finch, that ship money be borne by the whole kingdom by the law of nature); 1 2 1 6 (Davenport, that the king can respond "legally" to danger). ST, III, col. 1 2 0 1 . Matter of fact ought not to have arisen at all, since Hamden's demurrer precluded it (Keir, "The Case of Ship-Money," pp. 5 4 9 - 5 0 ) ; nevertheless it appeared repeatedly. 33 ST, III, cols. 9 7 4 - 5 ; cf. 1012. ST, III, cols. 8 8 1 , 9 0 3 - 4 .

40

Henry Parker and the English civil war

times of martial law.34 His position did not move necessity into the territory of lawlessness, but it put necessity well beyond the nearly normal state of affairs that the king's partisans favored. Counsel skirmished considerably over this point; Bramston's dictum that "there is a necessity to prevent a necessity" summarizes the overwhelming view of the court.35 One did not have to wait for Hannibal to be at the gates.36 A striking feature of the argument from necessity was justification of ship money in "republican" rather than "royalist" terms- in terms, that is, of the common good and safety rather than of the particular advantage of the king or the particular obligations inherently owing to him. Only Sir John Bankes, the attorney-general, resorted routinely to the extreme sort of royalist political theology. Even Crawley, who believed the king's prerogative power included legislation, with or without parliament, based his absolutism on the jus gentium.37 In the main, the royalist judges did not so much conceive of the king as having a right to collect ship money as having an obligation to do so, as executor of the common good; the justification of the levy lay in its general utility, and the obligation to pay it arose from commonwealth principles rather than theologies of obedience or theories of sacral kingship. Salus reipublicae suprema lex, as Berkeley put the common maxim, a theme reprised by Weston's recollection of quod omnes tangit per omnes debet supportari, by Jones' addition of qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus, and by a host of similar remarks.38 Ship money was good for the kingdom, not for the king. Such notions avoided the unprofessional and unpleasing postures of slavish royalism and accorded with the language in the ship money writs and in Charles' extra-judicial canvasses.39 But the judges' republican logic cannot

34

35

36 37 38

39

ST, III, cols. 1129, 1134, 1149-50, 1162. The correlative references in "Notes of the Judgement Delivered by Sir George Croke in the Case of Ship-Money,** ed. by S. R. Gardiner, Camden Society Miscellany, 7 (London, 1875), pp.2, 5-6, 9-10. Littleton {ST, III, col. 959) attacked the extremism of St. John's standard of tetnpus belli {ST, III, cols. 903—4) and 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 of judaizing 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. 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. ST, III, col. 1083. ST, III, cols. 1075 (Weston), 1102 (Berkeley), 1184 (Jones); cf. Crawley, 1079. For other uses of salus populi or salus reipublicae, pro bono publico, public safety or related terms: ST, III, cols. 926-8, 966, 1005, 1011, 1012, 1061,1066-7, 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 4 9 - 5 0 , 1 1 8 9 , 1224-5, 1248. 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, II, col. 389.

The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

41

be put down to mere face-saving and prudence.40 Some teased broader republican and communitarian implications out of their positions than were required. In these obiter dicta, the judges viewed Hampden's case as pitting the rights of the individual against the community (not the king, as such); and the community's rights were precedent. This was the logic behind pontage, murage, the building of bulwarks against floods and the pulling down of houses to arrest fires, all violations of individual rights. Salus reipublicae "takes away particular interests," said Berkeley, with Vernon in echo. 41 Finch urged that every man has not only "a particular property in his own goods" but also "a property in general in another man's goods, for the common good." And again, "all private property must give way to the public."42 In Jones' opinion the king was not exempt; if ship money were justified, the king was obliged to "bear a part of the burden." 43 ill

If, as seems likely, The Case of Shipmony was a factional piece written in the political interest of Parker's uncle, Lord Say,44 it was not the occasion to pick a fight with one's political friends. Parker's usual way, in any event, was to make his bombs from kitchen chemicals. Nevertheless, Parker's argument diverged subtly but crucially from garden-variety hostility towards the judgment in 1640-1. The crucial terms of the common response had already been set, in the emergence of a response to the first royalist development of an absolutism based on the arguments from necessity and the discretionary powers inherent in the dominium regale. "Reason of state" had been bandied about by the royalist lawyers in the Five Knights' Case;45 in 1628, the debates on the Petition of Right show the most uncompromising advocates of liberty and property unwilling to cede any ground to "sovereignty," necessity, or reason of state, terms they regarded as Trojan horses within the city of law. 46 So 40 41 43

44 45 46

Cf. the wise remarks about the professionalism of the judges in Keir, "The Case of ShipMoney," pp. 5 4 7 - 8 , 550, 573. 42 ST, III, cols. 1102, 1127. ST, III, cols. 1225, 1231. ST, III, col. 1183. This is not far removed from Holborne's contention, noted earlier, that in an emergency a subject could as much seize the king's property as the king could a subject's; perhaps Holborne's reductio had been more suggestive than absurd. See pp. 18-19. Paul Christianson, "John Selden, the Five Knights' Case, and Discretionary Imprisonment in Early Stuart England," Criminal justice History, 6 (1985), pp. 66, 72. For comment on these debates, John Guy, "The Origins of the Petition of Right Reconsidered," Historical Journal, 25 (1982), pp. 298-311; Christiansqn, "John Selden, the Five Knights' Case, and Discretionary Imprisonment," pp. 72-82; J. G. A. Pocock, The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Reissue with a Retrospect (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 2 8 9 305 passim. For more general consideration of this outlook, see the essays in J. H. Hexter, ed., Parliament and Liberty from the Reign of Elizabeth to the English Civil War (Stanford, Calif., 1992).

42

Henry Parker and the English civil war

intransigent a stand was difficult in the 1630s, as pro-Hampden opinion from the case shows. But when the conventions of discourse changed, hatred of the arguments from necessity and the common welfare bubbled up, free of the constraints of the era of personal rule. In parliament reasoned rebuttal was unneeded. It sufficed to condemn and mock the royalist arguments, sometimes merely invoking the offensive terms - necessity, salus populi, and so forth - as if they were transparent codes for political vice. Oliver St. John, who in 1637 had wrestled manfully with necessity and the general welfare, was more dismissive of them in the Short Parliament. His papers, seized at the end of the parliament, were said to prove that ship money could not be levied without consent of parliament "upon any necessity, or pretended necessity whatsoever." In debate, he said that "under pretence that salus regni periclibatur" the king could "make a charge, as for land soldiers" or construct banks "to keep out the sea, alledging it was pro bono publico and such like."47 Holborne and Sergeant Glanville both condemned the opinion that the right to collect ship money was inherent in the crown.48 Glanville also blamed evil counsellors for misleading a good king "by these spetious false pretences of publique good."49 But Secretary Vane could find no other defense: "Sir Edward Cooke," he said, "delivered that his Majestye might in case of danger throwe downe any howse to build a castle."50 Amongst the opponents of ship money, only John Pym (who was more prepared to rule than to oppose) conceded any validity to the case made by the royalists. Measuring his words, he found ship money "disproportionable to the case of necessitie which is pretended to be the ground of it." 51 The scornful hostility continued into the Long Parliament.52 St. John continued to dismember the arguments from necessity and the public welfare. The Petition of Right, he said, wisely omitted a saving clause for "publike danger" or "necessitie of the defense of the realme," lest the exception make the Petition of Right "void of itself."53 Mocking the language he had endured 47

48 49 50 51 52

53

Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640, ed. Esther S. Cope in collaboration with Willson H. Coates, Camden Society Publications, 4th Series, 19 (London, 1977), pp. 185 n. 2, 209. Proceedings of the Short Parliament, pp. 195, 208. 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. 6. Proceedings of the Short Parliament, p. 196. J[ohn] P[ym], A Speech Delivered in Parliament, by a Worthy Member Thereof(London, 1641), p. 2 1 . 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. D'Ewes, Journal, ed. Notestein, p. 114.

The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

43

in the trial, St. John declared that ship money had threatened to turn "bonum publicum" into "malum publicum."54 Lord Falkland attacked the judges' resort to non-legal argument, "they being judges, and neither philosophers, nor politicians." In January 1641, William Pierrepont called the writs "monsters of necessity." Edmund Waller, in July, urged that ship money made "necessity inherent in the crown and slavery to the subjects" and pondered "the strange force ... in the sound of the word necessity, that like a charm it should silence the laws." 55 His friend Edward Hyde cruelly disposed of Davenport's fence-straddling: "how he [Davenport] failed in making his conclusion from his owne premisses, he onely can informe you." 56 But unlike the parliament men, in The Case of Shipmony Parker accepted the arguments from necessity and the common welfare. By the "law of nature" the king "ought to have aid of his subjects in times of danger, and common aid in case of common danger." A king's defense of his subjects "is a duty belonging to the Office, not a priviledge belonging to the Crowne of a King"; the subjects' reciprocal assistance "is a duty arising from the allegiance of the people, and not an honor redounding only to the Prince."57 Far from being reviled, necessity and the general welfare received all the obeisance the royalist judges and counsel had paid to them. "The supreame of all humane lawes is salus populi... God dispences with many of his lawes, rather then salus populi shall be endangered, and that iron law we call necessity, is but subservient to this law: for rather then a Nation shall perish, any thing shall be held necessary, and legall by necessity."58 Private rights disintegrated before the public. The king's building of bulwarks was justified by the necessity of avoiding "publick mine." The consequence was unmistakable: in principle ship money was allowable.59 Parker's respectful treatment of necessity and the general welfare was not akin to the defensive postures of Hampden's counsel and Hutton and Croke; Parker did not drag a mind set of 1637 into late 1640, at a time when others had abandoned it. What set Parker apart from his pro-Hampden colleagues as well as those who favored ship money was his ability to f>robe assumptions that had governed discourse in the case, and, more generally, the key constitutional questions of the later 1620s. The parliament men of 1640-1 thought they had made bold by shouting their disgust with the republican and necessitarian logics of ship money, whereas before they had muttered in their cups. Parker, by contrast, exploited the natural proclivities of these 54 55 56 57 58

D'Ewes Journal, ed. Notestein, pp.74 and n.9, 543. ST, III, cols. 1260, 1293, 1302, 1303. Mr. Edwards Hydes Speech at a Conference betweene Both Houses, on Tewsday the 6th of July, 1641 (London, 1641) [BL E. 198 (36)], p. 4. The Case of Shipmony, pp. 2 (cf. 3), 9. 59 The Case of Shipmony, p. 7. The Case of Shipmony, pp. 13-14.

44

Henry Parker and the English civil war

languages, turning them back on their promoters, like a longbowman counterattacking with the arrows unavoidably supplied by the enemy. One assumption Parker opened to scrutiny was that the king's resort to prerogative power or, alternatively, his justification for his action by the law of necessity was a consequence of his public role. Accordingly, the king's interest was the same as the commonwealth's. But Charles gained from ship money in a way his subjects did not, even if ship money was carefully segregated from other crown receipts. The problem with objection, however, was that any counter-assertion seemed to be worse. If the king was not the state, a more thorough reevaluation of the constitutional situation was called for than most men were prepared to allow. Still, it is suggestive of the potential of the situation that Jones only supported ship money "with this limitation and condition, that none of it comes to the king's purse." 60 Another unexamined proposition was that Hampden stood, nobly or misguidedly, for the subject's rights - subject's, not subjects'. Thus his challenge pitted the (largely passive) rights of the individual against the kingstate. Berkeley initially tried to dissolve the apparent tension between the "peculiar interest" of the subject and the general good, though later he gave up. 61 Croke held that the case concerned the king "in his prerogative and power royal" and the "subject, in his lands, goods, and liberty," a view different only in phrasing from that of Finch. 62 Of course, the juxtaposition of private and public prejudiced the outcome, and made Croke and Hutton seem to genuflect towards the general good while defending selfishness through technicalities and dodges. In examining these assumptions, Parker took a different and devious route. Resorting at times to the characteristic idiom, he too counterpoised the "Kings prerogative" and "the liberty of the subject." In choosing the latter, Parker might be mistaken for a liberal, a proponent of individual rights and the limitation of state power. But this was a matter of words, perhaps misused, not of sense. In the same passage, Parker glossed "the liberty of the subject" as "the peoples liberty."63 That slight shift from the single subject to the whole signaled a different approach to ship money and its constitutional import. The "peoples good and profit"64 crept from passive, individual rights to active, republican power: by the true fundamentall constitutions of England, the beame hangs even between the King and the Subject: the Kings power doth not tread under foot the peoples liberty, nor the peoples liberty the King [sic] power. All other Countries almost... differ ...: some, but very few, allow a greater sphaere of Soveraignty to their Princes; but for the 60 61 63

ST, III, col. 1191. Charles was careful to keep ship money out of the Exchequer. 62 ST, III, cols. 1090, 1102; cf. Trevor, 1127. ST, III, cols. 1217, 1225. 64 The Case of Shipmony, p. 4; cf. pp. 7, 8, 40, 41. The Case of Shipmony, p. 5.

The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

45

most part now adaies the world is given to republists, or to conditionate and restrained forms of government.65 Prerogative existed "for the perfection, and good of the people." 66 The king's role was instrumental to the general good, but his welfare was not necessarily coextensive with it. The essential question about ship money was whether it did in reality enhance the general welfare; ship money provided opportunities for profit, and a king, Parker pointedly observed, was as greedy as the next man and no more inoculated against error. While kings required a "munitie" from prosecution, "the State" needed to protect itself, "whether evill proceed from the King mediately or immediately, out of malice, or ignorance." If anything, the odds were against royal innocence. A prince "not seduceable" was "a thing most rare." 67 The current line ("our best Kings") from Elizabeth to Charles had done "undue illegall things at some times" (later corrected in parliament), and the really difficult creatures, the "ill disposed Princes" (John, Henry III, Edward II, and Richard II) "made England miserable."68 As Parker separated king from people, he hardened the latter category, by heavy use of the "state" as a rough equivalent of "people" in contradistinction to "king." The royal prerogative was "(perhaps) profitable for the State," "the whole state" was to be preferred before "the King."69 It was indifferent to the "state" (as was noticed before) whether kings erred from malice or ignorance; Elizabeth's approach to the crisis of 1588 was good "for her and the State," in contrast to ship money, a "fraudulent practice contrived against the State," the same "state" that Parker glossed as "we." 70 Parker's most provocative use of "state" was in his argument that "where the whole state is grantee, that grant shall have the force of a Statute, because it is pro bono publico, and because the whole state is in value and dignity as much to be preferred before the King, as the King is before any private grantee."71 The immediate context was the interpretation of the scope of statutes; but any reader of Observations recognizes in it Parker's famous assertion that the king was singulis major, universis minor. The fusion of people and state allowed Parker to embrace with advantage the royalist judges' arguments from necessity and the common good. Opposition to ship money could assume an offensive posture. Hampden was now on the side of the public good, and Parker was able to brand the opponents of parliaments - by implication, the favorers of ship money - as private

65 67 69 71

The Case of Shipmony', The Case of Shipmony, The Case of Shipmony, The Case of Shipmony,

pp. 7 - 8 . pp. 22, 43, 70. pp. 11, 16. p. 26.

66

The Case of Shipmony, p. 7, also see pp. 13-14. 68 The Case of Shipmony, pp. 21, 25. 70 The Case of Shipmony, pp. 22, 27, 40, 41.

46

Henry Parker and the English civil war

interests, the "three noted factions" of papists, prelates, and "Court Parasites" or "Projectors."72 Parker was also able to clothe himself in a favorite royalist raiment, reason of state. Littleton and some judges had taken this low road, with the relish of men impatient with excessive scrupulosity. Littleton sneered at those who demanded a declaration of war as a precondition of ship money, since "in this latter age" wars "begin by the sword, not by the trumpet or herald." Crawley thought that "no well-advised man will think it fit" to call a parliament in a real emergency; " 'Quando Hannibal ad portas,' for the senators then to sit down in their robes is rather a charge to the commonwealth, then aught else." Berkeley called parliamentary assent to emergency taxation "fancied policy" and "a kind of judaizing opinion." 73 This sort of ridicule misconstrued the sophisticated logic of a St. John, but it did not entirely miss in its caricature of the "common law mind," at its worst a one-issue mentality.74 Given the dominant English sensibility that the king conducted his affairs both regaliter and politice, many men - the judges amongst them - were prepared to concede that the common law either did not apply to every transaction of state or, in a gentler formulation, that the common law wisely left a territory, often denominated as policy or government, out of its direct purview. Parker did not disagree. His scepticism about the self-evidence of the law was the starting point of The Case of Shipmony; it matched his predilection for rhetoric and argument drawing far more from statecraft than from jurisprudence. Ignoring legal terms, Parker sprinkled The Case of Shipmony with the exotic argot of another prudence ("intradoes" and "avisoes" and "privadoes")75 and provocatively discussed England's constitutional arrangements, not always to England's obvious advantage, in comparative terms.76 Parker also employed "state" and its derivatives to associate himself with the language of realpolitik, just as had many of the royalist judges. It was his turn to ridicule. Thus the dominion of the seas (which was a secondary theme in the trial), in its ceremonial aspects, was "a glory fitter for women and children to wonder at, then for Statesmen to contend about." 77 Manner bespoke matter. "Matters of state" - which Holborne had eschewed in his argument in 1637 — were as much a public concern as "matters 72 73 74 75 76

77

The Case of Shipmony, pp. 32, 39; cf. p. 34, where the third group is defined as "Court dependants, and projectors." ST, III, cols. 959, 1082, 1097, 1098. The term, of course, was developed by Professor Pocock in The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law. The Case of Shipmony, pp. 16, 29, 35, 46. A traditional element is that England always wins the comparison with France. Otherwise the comparisons suggest that the English might learn from their neighbors: The Case of Shipmony, pp. 6-8, 2 2 - 3 , 3 7 - 8 , 4 4 - 5 . 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.

The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

47

of Law, or points of Theology."78 The public business was precisely the business of parliament, which was to assume the role hitherto identified in the logic of the trial as the king's alone, the maintenance of the general welfare through the exercise of political prudence. "Parliament" thus became the bridge between the vague, jusnaturalist "people" and the institutional, sometimes nasty "state." Using a slightly alien sense of the word Parker spoke of the "States in Parliament"; in a more native vein he described parliament as the "States best physick, nay almost its naturall necessary food." Equally, parliament was vox populi, and a king "which is potent in Parliament... is as it were inskonsed in the hearts of his subjects."79 Parker used these cliches to make a radical point - that parliament was better able to do the public business than were the self-serving counsellors of the king: but this was to say that policy belonged to the dominium politicum, and, what was more, parliament possessed the power presumed in the arguments from necessity and the general welfare. That was what the royalist judges denied and what Hutton alone very tentatively suggested: "I do not say that parliaments is the government [in the technical sense], but kings have governed by them ... I do not prescribe power to the parliament to govern the realm, but the public have been governed by parliament."80 The predominant sentiment at the trial was that parliament, venerable as court and legislature, was unfit for government and policy. "Many times things are impossible, and inconvenient to be done by parliament," said Littleton, noting that parliaments were often too slow. Berkeley concurred, adding that parliament men could have "sinister ends." In a passage that greatly irritated Parker, Crawley found parliaments slow and too public for a king prudently to reveal secrets. A parliament man might be only "a friend, in shew" or an undiscovered "neuter."81 The charges of slowness ("so most of the Judges alledge") and perversity ("so Crawly boldly suggests") gave Parker motive and occasion to argue parliament's superiority as a policy-making council because of its public character. Once again eliding from the trite to the extraordinary, Parker noticed "three things wherein parliaments excell all other Counsells." Parliaments were wiser: that "an inconsiderable number of Privadoes should see or know more then whole Kingdomes, is incredible." Their advice was more trustworthy: "private men may thrive by alterations: and common calamities, but the common body can affect nothing but the common good, because 78 79 80

81

The Case of Shipmony, pp. 2 0 - 1 ; ST, III, col. 969. The Case of Shipmony, pp. 21, 3 4 - 5 , 38. STy III, col. 1196. Holborne spoke with exceptional opacity about a potentially sensitive time, the minority of Richard II (994); Croke asserted that parliaments were "most fit to consult de arduis regni" (1135, cf. 1154) but limited his discussion of this consultation to the giving of money. ST, III, cols.960, 1083, 1096, 1101. The Case of Shipmony, p p . 3 1 , 32.

48

Henry Parker and the English civil war

nothing else can be commodious for them." Finally, parliamentary advice was more "effectuall for the publicke welfare" than other counsel, including that of "Cabinet Counsellors."82 The moral was that Charles ought "to adhere to Parliaments, and to abhorre the gross delusive suggestions of such as disparage that kinde of Councell." Parliaments would not deny aid when "publicke danger is truly imminent" and the charge "fairely exacted"; "no Nation can unnaturally seek its own ruine." Nothing remained but for Parker to claim the benefit from the arguments from necessity and the public welfare that he carefully refused to trample. Necessity is "ill-pretended, when the meer doing of the thing is as dangerous as that for which it is done." "For the good of the Kingdome there is more necessity that Ship-money be damned than maintained." It was for the king's good as well. Flatterers talked up "this shadow of immoderate power ... to poison the phantasies of weake humours, undiscerning rash Princes," but "if Kings did rightly understand their owne good, none would more shunne uncontrollable absoluteness then themselves."83 The general welfare, state necessity, and the parliamentary way in matters of policy as well as law were inseparable: such was the message of The Case of Shipmony.

IV

The Case of Shipmony was a tour de force. Training the arguments from necessity and the common good back upon their royalist promoters, Parker damned the royalists for the sins they had charged to Hampden's side, anti-social individualism and naivete. Yet The Case of Shipmony was more than a tactical triumph. The determinative features of Parker's mature political thought were present, in a sort of genetic code. They would lead to the full-blown bicameral parliamentary absolutism of 1642 and 1643. In The Case of Shipmony^ they generated an implicit and unexplored notion of parliamentary sovereignty. Even this requires qualification. Parker saw the parliament as superior to the king alone, but the king was considered to be a part of the parliament. Without apparent strain Parker upheld monarchy as part of Lord Say's vision of a balanced constitution of three "estates" of king, Lords, Commons.84 Because the parliamentary way was cast in terms of power-sharing and because power itself was regarded as inherently dangerous, Parker could make it appear that parliamentary sovereignty was the solution to the absolutism problem, rather than (as it became) the appropriate form of absolute power. Similarly, Parker avoided the hard cases that a 82 84

83 The Case of Shipmony, pp. 35-6, 38. The Case of Shipmony, pp. 27-8, 39, 44, 46. Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 128, 130; The Case of Shipmony, p. 38.

The ship money case and The Case of Shipmony

49

theory of sovereignty is designed to handle; The Case of Shipmony was a persuasive to unity, not a justification of conflict or an analysis of the constitutional causes of civil collapse.85 Policy suggestions at the end of The Case of Shipmony best show Parker's sense of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament should reverse the judgment in the ship money case, reward the good judges, and punish the bad. It should declare "the meaning of our Lawes & Charters" and clarify the issues raised in the case about necessity and prerogative power. Those who in future should "attempt to lay the like taxes" should be punished as "Felons, Traytors, or forcible Intruders" while provision should be made "against a military kinde of government." Finally, parliament should "settle" the way of providing for war and the king's true needs.86 Little room was left by this for an independent dominium regale. In particular, parliament was to exercise control over the executive, largely by threatening retribution upon judges and officeholders for deviating from parliament's sense of the laws and of the relation of law to policy. This was the technique by which Pym, Say, Essex, and their allies cowed the Caroline government into partial submission in 1641. When raised to a point of principle in the Nineteen Propositions, this demand joined the militia ordinance in leaving Charles no alternatives other than capitulation or civil war. However, Parker pulled up well short of bicameral parliamentary absolutism. He did not examine closely the relation of parliamentary power to law. Parker did remark that the "Medes and Persians had a law, that no Law once past, should ever be repealed; but doubtlesse this Law being repealedfirst,all 85

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," w h o "purchased their charters of freedome with so great an expence of bloud" {The Case of Shipmony, p. 2 4 ; 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. 3 6 - 7 ; [Sir Robert Cotton], A Short View of the Long Life and Raigne of Henry the Third, King of England Presented to James (n. p., 1627) [STC 5 8 6 4 ] , p. 2 8 . 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. 2 4 - 5 ) ; for this issue in the trial, see ST, III, cols. 1 0 5 1 - 2 (Bankes), 1 1 0 6 (Berkeley, that Magna Carta is only a statute in the form in which it was confirmed), and 9 8 2 - 4 (Holborne's defense of Magna Carta). 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 neighbors, the Volscians; The Case of Shipmony, p. 2 8 . 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' fable of the belly.

86

The Case of Shipmony,

pp. 46—9.

50

Henry Parker and the English civil war

others might suffer the same alteration."87 Yet it is some distance from this comment to a fully developed idea of parliamentary absolutism, and no reason to suppose it should have been otherwise. No circumstance was present to test if Parker would invoke necessity to justify his own side's deviations from legality; the other side had broken the law, and Parker was not about to let them forget it. They, not he, had been seduced by power; they, not he, had been able to use public power to serve their private ends. The critical period for further development was from mid-1642 to early 1643, when a dramatically changed situation - the assumption of government by the two houses of parliament on the grounds of an emergency - led Parker to draw out the implications of his own position. However, in 1641 two kinds of discourse might have led Parker to explore matters he had evaded in The Case of Shipmony. One was occasioned by the execution of Strafford, the one great illegality (to some minds) that the parliament had allowed themselves in the first months of the Long Parliament. The other was a consequence of Parker's approach to church-state relations. Here Parker faced another challenge to conventional ways of thinking, similar in scope and shape to the problem addressed in The Case of Shipmony. In both cases Parker needed to devise a way to accept the royalist arguments without accepting the royalist conclusions. Thus Parker's tracts on religion and the church, full of interest in themselves, are also foundations of his parliamentary absolutism. 87

The Case of Shipmony, p. 15.

Religio laid

A bibliographer could be forgiven for concluding that in 1640-2, some of his most active years, Henry Parker was primarily a religious pamphleteer. According to the standard reckoning, Parker took leave of "pure" politics after the The Case of Shipmony (which appeared in late 1640 or early 1641), not returning to the subject until mid-1642, in Some Few Observations and Observations. In the same interval, Parker wrote A Discourse Concerning Puritans (which appeared about the time of The Case of Shipmony), The Altar Dispute, The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, and The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment. While the received view probably understates Parker's involvement in "political" pamphlets,1 by any calculation Parker devoted well over half his literary activity in 1640-1 to religious and ecclesiological questions. Nor did he neglect these topics later; they engaged him at intervals throughout his literary career. But the bare bibliography is misleading. Theological disputation was not Parker's metier, and he knew it. By Parker's own reckoning, he wrote The Altar Dispute only by ignoring the "dissuasions" of his "owne particular professions, interest, and want of learning."2 Parker approached his religious pamphlets gamely, and his quick but steady scholarship and his cleverness served him well. Yet Parker was not prepared to do battle with his intellectual equals in the ecclesiastical structure on their own ground - no more than the churchmen were suited to combat with Parker when armed with the weapon of his choice, the political analysis of clerical pretension. In early 1641, Parker's religious and political pamphlets occupied different locales in the tableau of public affairs. While The Case of Shipmony was a lonely effort in pure political argument, from the beginning of the Long Parliament era Parker's religious writings jostled for space in the throng. Hosts of clerics-English and Scottish, conformist and puritan, episcopal and root-and-branch - rushed to press, some to shore up existing positions, others to use the prestige of publication in the scramble for place and power 1 2

See pp. 72-4, 82-3 for my ascription of other writings to Parker in these years. The Altar Dispute, sig. A 2 verso.

51

52

Henry Parker and the English civil war

launched by the summoning of the Long Parliament and the attendant collapse of the Laudian church and the old Star Chamber-based licensing structure. A number of talented and well-placed laymen took advantage of the new freedom, or sought, as did Sir Thomas Aston, to condemn it and to staunch the flow of anti-episcopal ink. The output of the alehouse crew and the printed petitions from the localities often dwelt on religious and ecclesiological matters. If it is a pardonable exaggeration to say that Parker reinvented the political pamphlet in the England of the Long Parliament, with respect to his religious pamphlets, Parker's was a voice amidst the clamor. From the beginning, however, Parker's voice could be heard. At the time, there was nothing quite like it in the religious press, though that would change. The uniqueness is the more surprising in that Parker fused his position out of several strands of argument, none of which was unusual and some even passe amongst critics of the Laudian order. What immediately caught the eye in Parker's religious writings was their highly political sensibility. That is not to say they were "secular." God suffuses Parker's world, and Parker was not ashamed of a robust, practical spirituality. But as Parker's characteristic concerns and modes of argument in his political pamphlets had little to do with theology and heavily prescriptive uses of Scripture (the intellectual provinces of the clergy), his religious pamphlets had much — for critics too much — to do with politics. Parker's perspective was always the layman's, his spiritual sensibility ever yoked to a political agenda. Within this sub-genre Parker excelled. Amongst well-known contemporaries only Harrington, Hobbes, and Selden (in some of his moods) matched Parker in exuberant, visceral, and unrelenting suspicion of the clergy; and in the main, with respect to priority of publication of the theme, they followed him.3 Parker's ideological examination of religious viewpoints as the expression of clerical self-interest is sparkling, his brutal cynicism on this score markedly at odds with his remarkable though doubtless cultivated naivete about the benevolence of the parliament. 3

Harrington: James Harrington, The Political Works of James Harrington, edited with an introduction by J. G. A. Pocock (London, 1977), pp. 77-99; Mark Goldie, "The Civil Religion of James Harrington," in Anthony Pagden, ed., The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 197-222. Hobbes: J. G. A. Pocock, "Time, History and Eschatology in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes," Politics, Language and Time (New York, 1973), pp. 148-201. Selden: John Selden, Table Talk, ed. Sir Frederick Pollack (London, 1927); Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 149-55, 159. Selden in the early 1640s was a defender of the bishops, though on political grounds; his religious and ecclesiastical views at this time merit the sort of careful study that his political and constitutional writings are now receiving. For this see Richard Tuck, '"The Ancient Law of Freedom': John Selden and the Civil War," in John Morrill, ed., Reactions to the English Civil War 1642-1649 (London, 1982), pp. 137-62; Paul Christianson, "Young John Selden and the Ancient Constitution, ca. 1610-18," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 128 (1984), pp.271—315; J. P. Sommerville, "John Selden, the Law of Nature, and the Origins of Government," Historical Journal, 27 (1984), pp.444—5.

Religio laici

53

For all his sharpness, though, Parker's doctrinal orthodoxy and conventional piety were above suspicion.4 This was a rare mixture and consequently a valuable one. No one knew quite where Selden stood (it did not help that he shifted), and Hobbes' despiritualized religiosity or his atheism (it does not much matter which is the case) damned his anti-clericalism. By contrast, the little Parker had to say about doctrinal and liturgical matters reveals a fairly conventional Protestant, if anything a little too comfortable with mid-Anglican practice for many puritan tastes. Parker's melding of advanced anticlericalism and the manner of the "downe-right Protestant" was probably sincere.5 Conveniently, it was also a surpassing tactic in the war of words.

Parker's first religious pamphlet of the Long Parliament era, A Discourse Concerning Puritans, delivered what its title proclaimed and more. The discourse divided the puritan flock into four varieties - the ecclesiastical puritan (the original kind, who "did not like a pompous or ceremonious kinde of discipline in the Church" and whose opposition elided naturally from ceremonies to "church policie"), the religious (or dogmatic) puritan, the puritan "in State" or "political Puritan," and the ethical puritan or puritan "in morality."6 Along with a parallel if shorter typology of "Antipuritans," the anatomy of puritanism was put to prescriptive use, for, as the title page had it, A Discourse Concerning Puritans was a "vindication" of those who suffer by the "mistake, abuse, and misapplication of that Name." Less predictably, given the title and initial thrust of the work, Parker used a book of the Servite priest and Venetian polemicist, Paolo Sarpi, to launch into a fierce tirade against clerical pretensions from any corner.7 In the normal flow of thought, the use of a Catholic to damn Laudians as well as Catholics was appropriate to a vindication of the puritans. Extraordinarily, though, 4

5 6

7

Parker's liturgical stance is mainstream reformist throughout, though not without a strong streak of acceptance of traditional worship forms. A later pamphlet, Jus Regum, pp. 12, 15, does hint at a theological stance far more comfortable with free will and works than most Protestants would accept. But whether this should be read back into the 1640-2 context is doubtful, as is how much stress should be laid upon these words as a considered statement of soteriological doctrine, as opposed to remarks designed to minimize the minister's and maximize the individual's role in religious life. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 58: "if thou art a downe-right Protestant, and no more, I am the same, and no more." A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 10; see also pp.11, 41, 49-50. This scheme was not original to Parker. Professor William Hunt read a paper presenting some of his research on this subject at the December 1985 meeting of the American Historical Association. For the Arminian inclusion of Calvinist doctrine as a mark of puritanism, see Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590-1640 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 140-1, 156, 167, 186. On Parker's use of Paolo Sarpi, History of the Inquisition, trans. Robert Gentilis (London, 1639), see Mendle, Dangerous Positions, p. 132 n.54.

54

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Parker subjected the presbyterians to the same scourge: the vindication turned into an attack. What was lacking in coherence and symmetry was compensated by boldness and vision. In a few pages Parker put himself beyond several levels of debate as they were being worked out in 1641 and 1642, and would be again in 1643-5, in the controversies first amongst episcopal and anti-episcopal partisans and later amongst religious or ecclesiastical Independents and presbyterians. The defense of puritans from calumny began with an extensive borrowing from Virgilio Malvezzi on the theme (also prominent in Machiavelli) of the perniciousness of calumnies to a state.8 Parker had several objects in mind. Probably Lord Say, who is mentioned by name on three occasions, was in a special sense to be defended.9 Parker's high indignation was also goaded by a printed visitation sermon of Henry Leslie, the Scottish-born bishop of Down and Connor.10 Parker often wrote when he judged an artifact of the press particularly dangerous; most likely Leslie's syllabus of puritan errors and misbehavior served that role in prompting A Discourse Concerning Puritans. And again, as he would later, Parker had also his own agenda, the examination of the hidden motives of the calumniators, a task that elided into the startlingly generic attack upon the clergy. In this attempt to enlist gentry anti-clericalism in the real if limited defense of puritans, manner was essential to matter. A mistake in tone could lose all. Despite its anonymity, A Discourse Concerning Puritans advertised its social milieu, Parker's easy first-person urbanity establishing a cultural distance from the tedium of academic ecclesiological polemic as well as the hysteria of the persecuted and fanatic. Since gentlemen rarely described themselves as puritans (even in the face of the consensus of contemporary opponents and modern scholars), the mood required a genial denial that the author himself was a puritan. "Some Antipuritans are so termed because they are no Puritans, but such I dislike not, for I my selfe am neither the one nor other." And again: "I am not scrupulous or precise, in my life I am not strict, or austere." Non-puritans, therefore, were put at their ease. Parker further refrained from attacking those anti-puritans who held "Puritans in very many things erroneous" but did so without hatred to their persons: "from these men I am but little removed." Of course, generosity had its purpose - to isolate the "Antipuritan of the worst sort," who hated the persons as well as the opinions of puritans and condemned "the good things in those which are 8 9 10

For the borrowing from Malvezzi, seech. 1 n.52. Cf. Machiavelli, Discourses, bk. l,chs. 7,8. Parker made a reference to Machiavelli on p. 36: cf. Machiavelli, Discourses, bk. 3, ch. 1. See above, p.xiv n. 8. Leslie, A Speech, Delivered at the Visitation of Downe and Conner. The address was published by George Thomason and his partner, Octavian Pulleyn. Parker notes the speech specifically in A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp.5, 39, 40, 42, 5 0 - 1 , 57.

Religio laici

55

Puritans" along with the bad. To the anti-puritan extremist, Parker said "hate me as a professed Puritan."11 Leslie's sermon took the long view of puritanism, and not unnaturally Parker did the like. The word, Parker said, "sprang up almost with the Reformation." But while Leslie sought to link the Elizabethan puritans and those of his own time in a rising tide of indiscipline, and to find the wolf of sedition masquerading as a lamb of tender conscience, Parker found current puritans a beaten, harmless crew. The old puritans were "more fiery than now"; modern puritanism was but "the breathlesse carkas" of the Elizabethan movement. For "want of Sectaries living in these days," the antipuritans paraded the tired trio of Elizabethan bogey men, the mentally unbalanced Hacket and Coppingef and the separatist Robert Brown.12 Deploying the same debunking strategy* Parker tried to cut the chain of mistaken inference that turned Lords Say and Brooke into puritans for their "scrupulous opinions," turned puritanism into mutiny and mutiny into a blanket condemnation of the puritans' every thought and deed. By means of this "confused imposture" the bishops were able to "inferre" the "seditious" out of the "scrupulous" puritan.13 Parker argued that the objection to puritans reduced itself to three heads: "fury, faction, and hypocrisie." The puritans' defense lay partly in direct refutation; but employing a favorite strategy, Parker also set out to tar the anti-puritans with their own brush. Fury, it has been seen, Parker conceded for puritans of earlier days, but not for the modest, mainstream Protestants (as Parker saw modern puritans) of his own time. And "in truth, the World has not any thing more furious then such as most pretend against" puritans. Hypocrisy, charged against the ethical puritan whose "severe life" set him off from "the common vanities of the time," was also dismissed: "our Saviour himselfe will hardly escape this description." In Christ's time, the accusation came from the "the High Priests and Pharisees," whose "owne fayned sanctity" made them "more apt to suspect the same in others." 14 The charge of "faction" drew Parker into his first Long Parliament-era denunciation of the clergy. "Faction" was far more serious business than the 11 12

13 14

A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp.2, 57. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp.5, 37-8. Similarly, Parker argued that anti-puritans made much of King James' hostility to puritans in Basilikon Doron but ignored the late king's "second thoughts" distinguishing seditious and scrupulous puritans in the English edition; A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 13-15. In this, Parker was either a little disingenuous or misinformed. The revised treatment of the English edition was a political response to English conditions. See the account in Basilikon Doron, ed. James Craigie, 2 vols., Scottish Text Society Publications no. 16, 18 (Edinburgh, 1944, 1950), and Jenny Wormald, "James VI and I, Basilikon Doron and The Trew Law of Free Monarchies: The Scottish Context and the English Translation," in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, ed. Linda Levy Peck (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 36-54. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 10, 15; cf. p. 52. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp.7, 38, 51; cf. p.53.

56

Henry Parker and the English civil war

petty politics of the palace backstairs of some current historiography. While some modern usage makes "faction" the lowest level in a rising hierarchy of activity-faction, opposition, rebellion-Parker's "faction" was factio, a term not far away from seditio.15 Thus the defense from the charge of faction was necessarily a defense from the charges of sedition and mutiny, from "setting the World on fire."16 In addition, faction was private interest pursued at the expense of the public, pars in opposition to universis. To counter the charge, Parker identified the puritan with the centrist figure of the "downe-right" Protestant, the "civill honest Protestant which is hearty and true to his Religion."17 The category of "political" puritan was similarly exploited to move puritans to the middle and their opponents to the fringe. Parker did not immediately own the term; his convention required that the "Puritan in State" be a "new enlargement of the name," the illegitimacy of which was evidence of the breadth of the "devils net." Still, the expansion of meaning amounted to an admission that parliament was puritan, in the debased sense; and the "blame of a parliament, is the blame of a whole kingdome."18 Conversely, Parker set out to show that the anti-puritans were themselves guilty of faction in both of its aspects - that they constituted a private interest group conspiratorially at odds with king and kingdom. Here Parker made a crucial elision. Anti-puritans of the worst sort were "the greatest of the Clergie,"19 a phrasing that linked anti-puritanism to the ladder of preferment and, hence, episcopacy. But from this notion Parker slid to a more general set of accusations against "clergymen" and "churchmen," even unto John Calvin.20 By these steps the problem became generic, or at least quasi-generic, for Parker introduced an important distinction between theory and practice. No less than the Catholics, Protestants "attribute[d] too much" to priests, and so were quite as apt to suffer from clerical tyranny. But in the doing Protestants 15

16 17 18 19 20

Cf. Sir Robert Filmer, Patriarchy in Patriarcha and Other Writings, ed. Johann Sommerville (Cambridge, 1990), p. 27: all democracies "secretly crept in by the back door of sedition and faction." The usage received comment from Algernon Sidney: Filmer "has recourse to the ugly terms of a 'back-door sedition' and 'faction'," Discourses Concerning Government (1698), in David Wootton, ed., Divine Right and Democracy (New York, 1986), p. 428. For another example from Parker, Jus Regum, p. 24. Some recent scholarship has sought to reintroduce an ideological or principled dimension to high factional politics: e.g., David Starkey, The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics (London, 1985), and Neil Cuddy, "The Conflicting Loyalties of a 'vulger counselor': The Third Earl of Southampton, 1597-1624," in John Morrill, Paul Slack, and Daniel Woolf, eds., Public Duty and Private Conscience in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford, 1993), pp. 121-50. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 52. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 9, 58. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 9, 10. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 2. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 12, 16, 22-3, 28, 31.

Religio laici

57

violated their nature. In principle "Protestants ... have no other ayme but to diminish ecclesiasticall authority," in contrast to the "court of Rome which hath no other ayme, but to increase it, and to make the Temporall her servant."21 Protestantism, accordingly, was laymen's religion. By implication, opposition to clericalism in itself was a species of piety. It was, however, a specially focused piety. Following an already worn path that he would retrace at intervals throughout the 1640s, Parker cast the layman's case as the king's. He chose to work under the broad canopy of the Tudor royal supremacy, a tradition that had itself exploited imperialist and Marsilian idioms of earlier centuries. In later pamphlets in 1641, Parker relied heavily upon Richard Hooker and Thomas Bilson, whose works gave entree to the English imperialist tradition, and it is not unlikely that Parker drew loosely upon them here.22 However, in A Discourse Concerning Puritans Parker provided no precise intellectual itinerary. Sarpi was useful in castigating Rome, but ultimately Parker had to break with the "learned Papist" over the role of the clergy.23 "Our reverend" Launcelot Andrewes provided a text, and perhaps more, but Parker shared neither his cast of mind nor his doctrine.24 Whatever the source, if determinate source there need be, the message was unmistakable. "My beliefe is, that the Prince is the Head, the Fountaine, the Soule of all power whatsoever, Spirituall, or Temporall." 25 To a degree this was simply the language of sovereignty, hostile to independent loci of power of any sort: "there can be but one Head which ought to have command." 26 Without a single head of state and church, "humane nature must needs be destitute of those remedies which are necessary for its conservation, since power cannot be divided."27 But such magniloquence on behalf of kingship carried obvious danger when brought outside the church-state arena. So did high-flying remarks about the "spiritual unction" of princes that brought them "divine graces" higher than "the sense of Laick or Secular will beare."28 How Parker managed the political exposure that this sort of language entailed is a matter to be examined shortly; at present, it suffices to see that 21

22 23 24

25 26 27 28

A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p p . 2 1 , 2 8 . This is taken almost verbatim from Sarpi, History of the Inquisition, trans. Gentilis, p. 67. See pp. 64-6. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 2 0 , 2 6 . A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 3 1 ; cf. The Works of Launcelot Andrewes, Sometime Bishop of Winchester, 11 vols. (Oxford, 1 8 4 1 - 7 2 ; reprinted N e w York, 1967), V, p. 150: Moses, as chief magistrate, "was made custos utriusque tabulae-, so he is made custos utriusque tubae." A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 3 5 . A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 2 9 . A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 17. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 1 7 - 1 8 .

58

Henry Parker and the English civil war

sovereignty and spiritual unction were yokemates in service to a passion that would take nearly any risk in pursuit of its goal. That objective was the discrediting of the organized clergy as an interest group whose very being posed a threat to the whole community, and whose unfettered workings spelt disaster. This, for Parker, was the lesson of medieval history, taught to the "Emperour of Germany" as also to "England, and some other Potentates sometimes."29 But the roots of the problem lay in an even remoter past, in mistakes and defects incident to the establishment of Christianity in the Roman empire by Constantine and Theodosius: the "gowned Empire" had been abusing its power "ever since Constantine almost." Constantine, as Parker said of princes in general, had been "hoodwinkt." The "pious Emperor" heaped wealth upon the church "as if some other Ruler more sacred and competent then himselfe were necessary." But the gifts proved to be "poyson ... not balme," and led to wars, schism, and a millennium of spiritual decline.30 Parker understood that action had an indirect and symbolic component as well as a direct effect, and so, for example, the use of altars and submissive postures of worship had not only directly to do with styles of reverence but had also indirectly provided "a further reach ... of benefit to the clergy." In the reign of Theodosius, the clergy had used such tactics as part of their "mysticall way of deceiving."31 They hounded the emperor himself out of the chancel, "to let him understand that none but men in holy Orders might presume to set their feet on sacred ground." 32 Even worse, however, was St. Ambrose's censure and excommunication of Theodosius (in 390, for the emperor's responsibility for a massacre in Thessalonica), "so confidently cited alwayes" by episcopal and presbyterian partisans alike.33 Remarkably,

29 30

31 32 33

A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 25. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 16, 22, 24; cf. p. 25. By identifying "Churchmen" and the Pharisees (p. 16), Parker implied an even more remote ancestry of ecclesiastical corruption. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 22. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 12. The Ambrose—Theodosius confrontation provided what has been called a "litmus test'* for Elizabethan values: Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker (London, 1988), p. 224. As Lake notes, Patrick Collinson has called attention repeatedly to the theme. See Patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559-1625 (Oxford, 1982), pp. 24-7, 29-34; idem, Archbishop Grindal 1519-1583 (Berkeley, 1979), pp. 242-6; idem, "If Constantine, then also Theodosius: St Ambrose and the Integrity of the Elizabethan Ecclesia Anglicana,iy in Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London, 1983), pp. 109133. Parker underestimated the extent to which Elizabethan churchmen were discomfited by the dual implications of the Ambrose-Theodosius confrontation; Ambrose's actions could neither be embraced without qualification nor utterly disavowed.

Religio laici

59

Parker here uncovered a Thucydidean mode, replying to Ambrose in the voice of "pious penitent" Theodosius himself. Parker's Theodosius, unlike the actual emperor, visibly resented the punishments of the archbishop of Milan.34 The language of sovereignty provided a general, political rationale for the emperor's position. The image of the holy commonwealth, Israel, conjoined the sacred to the temporal. Allowing for the sake of argument the full guilty responsibility that he otherwise denied, Parker's Theodosius wondered why he ought "to suffer more than" Saul, David, Solomon, and Manasseh, whose crimes were no less serious than those charged to the Roman, and why he and not they should be subjected to a "new coercive, vindicative [sic: vindictive?]" power of excommunication not in use before Christ. "We read of none such" independent spiritual power in those days, temporal power having "of its owne nature a competent force and habitude to restraine all things repugnant to publike quietnesse, and honesty." "We cannot imagine that Christ came to take away any of this authority from Magistrates."35 The establishment of Christianity had been, therefore, a decidedly mixed blessing. Parker never suggested that it should be undone- he never adopted a separatist position - and indeed by his own principles he could not. The language of sovereignty insisted that power has its locus. If power did not lie in the hands of the prince—state—people, then, dangerously, it resided elsewhere. Scriptural history contained a similar burden. Under the old covenant Israel did not know the sort of ecclesiological problems that plagued God's people after their establishment under the new covenant; this Parker took as proof that there was nothing inherently illegitimate about the supremacy of public authority over the clergy. Moreover, Parker believed that in principle, the establishment, which Parker associated as much with Constantine as with

34

35

See A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 35, where Parker acknowledges the fact of Theodosius' submission to Ambrose, but has Theodosius argue that his action is not a "president for the time to come" and worry prophetically that his submission would "likely" lead to "perpetuall conflicts and contestations betweene Princes and Prelates." The existence of this admittedly contrived speech, and others like it, has some methodological significance for the study of seventeenth-century political ideas. Formulations redolent of games and strategy are now common in the analysis of political thought; the existence of these speeches suggests that seventeenth-century participants saw their activities in a cognate way. Parker resorted to a Thucydidean speech in Jus Populi, p. 65 (mispaginated, for sig. 14 recto) and a string of them in Scotlands Holy War, p p . 3 7 - 4 3 . John Lilburne used one in Legall Fundatnentall Liberties (London, 1649), pp. 29-30, and again at his 1649 trial: Theodorus Varax [Clement Walker,] The Triall of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne (London, [1649]), p. 4. For the language of games in the study of political thought, J. G. A. Pocock, Virtue, Commerce, and History (Cambridge, 1985), p. 5. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp.32, 34—5.

60

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Theodosius, translated into Constantine's hands the dignity and such meager power as bishops wielded in the days of persecution.36 The flawed establishment, however, had been costly. Constantine's pious folly had led to endless subsequent broils of church and state and to a decline in clerical spirituality. The "wooden Chalices" and "golden Priests" of the heroic age were replaced by "wooden Priests" and "golden Chalices." The clergy grew "more glorious, but lesse gracious." 37 Before the "installment of Christian Princes" bishops were more "Arbitrators" than "Judges" and did not "intrench ... upon the Lay power" in matters of pecuniary and corporal punishment. Yet those bishops did not err in their spiritual judgments "whilst God did inspire (according to his promise) a miraculous power of binding and loosing infallibly."38 Establishment, therefore, inaugurated 900 years of decline in the church as in the state, a process only reversed by the resistance of temporal powers after 1200 and by the Reformation. Restoration of temporal authority had proceeded unevenly. Some Catholic states had done in practice as much as many Protestants.39 While by its nature Protestantism sought to diminish ecclesiastical authority, it had not been altogether successful in combating the resistance of the clergy, whose intrenched interest overrode the suasions of their own confession and of secular policy. On the critical issue of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and, more narrowly, the power of the keys, Protestants - "not only the Episcopall, but the Presbyteriall side also" - continued to "attribute too much" to "Priests." If Protestants still upheld priests (note the Catholic term), "Divines" (note the Protestant term) of all persuasions "have trumped the World" about "the true bounds and limits of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction." 40 Within the Protestant camp, degrees and times of transgression

36

37 38

39

40

A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 24. Parker distinguished between the sacred "dignity" of the bishops in the church'sfirst300 years and the equally sacred "honour, and power" of Constantine. But this distinction, though important, is relative rather than absolute, for Parker also recognized that the "poore persecuted Bishops" of the pre-establishment period did "feebly" exercise some "authority" and provided some "protection," both of which "devolve[d]" into Constantine's hands. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p . 23. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 23; cf. p. 20 on the "temporary" and "miraculous" nature of the power of binding and loosing in the Petrine commission. Parker associates, but does not absolutely assert, a causal link between spiritual decline and establishment. Parker's views of the power of the keys imply an aboriginal but latterly forfeited or lost clerical right of excommunication; this is to be contrasted with the wholesale rejection of excommunication in Jus Regunt; see below, p. 139. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 25. Parker saw the propensity to revolt from Rome in terms of geographical distance. Nearer states like Venice, France, and Spain gave "in words" what they denied in practice. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 28.

Religio laici

61

varied. "Presbytery has indeed heretofore passed her bounds, yet not of late," while episcopacy claimed an independent divine right from Constantine's time "till this instant." 41 Such was the setting for Calvin's drubbing in this self-professed vindication of puritans. Parker prepared the way by noting jocoseriously that while it was said that Calvin in Geneva "wanted Nothing but Name of Bishop" the bishops of the pre-Constantinian church "wanted all but the Name."42 There was nothing playful about Parker's main treatment of "that great Archprelate" Calvin. Like any other churchman, Calvin argued "according to the Popish ground" that temporal jurisdiction was "assistant" to the spiritual, and that both had their "several" ends and means.43 These assumptions ran counter to the royal supremacy, and Parker rejected them outright. If the prince's aim, "true Religion," was the same as "prelate's," then his "Power" was as "sacred to effect these ends" as the churchman's - that is, the prince had a divine right in religious matters at least equal to the clergy's. In fact, a prince's right was necessarily greater than that of his "surrogates." 44 Calvin's notion of two separate jurisdictions, thus, was "a way to erect regnum in regno." In the church universal priests and kings were equally the sons of Christ, but in the "Nationall, Locall Church" the clergy were "part" of the prince's "charge, and under his protection." The relation of king to clergy was no different than that of king and his other clerisy: "the Priest... may learn a limitation from the Lawyer." For although both sorts of men could serve as judges and decide cases against the king, where the king was a party, they were not permitted to "harm the royal dignity of his calling" or to call the king himself to punishment.45 II

Parker's remaining pamphlets on church affairs were mainly in the anticlerical mode that had very nearly swallowed the defense of puritans in A Discourse Concerning Puritans.46 First to appear was the brief effort at self-interpretation, The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated. As Parker explained it, James Ussher, the archbishop of 41

42 44 46

A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 43. It is hard to follow Parker here about Protestant episcopacy: the more recent development in the episcopal camp was the notion of a jus divinum for episcopacy (parallel to the presbyterian claim). This supplanted earlier jure humano justifications of episcopacy. Parker may have taken a longer perspective, viewing the jure humano argument associated with the Elizabethan establishment as a discontinuity with the longue duree of Catholic episcopacy. 43 A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p. 23. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 28-9. 45 A Discourse Concerning Puritans, p.30. A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp.31—2. The Altar Dispute has a different thrust, but its decisive (because distinctive) contribution is to anti-clericalism.

62

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Armagh, had found the arguments against jure divino episcopacy in A Discourse Concerning Puritans "weak." The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, dedicated to Ussher, was Parker's response. The cultivated gentility of A Discourse Concerning Puritans now was handsomely repaid. Parker's claim to a dispassionate, disinterested approach to the problem had not been belied by a false step in A Discourse Concerning Puritans. His hostility to presbyterian clericalism proved equally handy; for were he wrong, Parker could not be accused of "private interests" but only of simple "error." 47 In this modest tract Parker insisted upon, rather than argued for, a royal, lay, and political supremacy over the church. Ussher's reservations were hardly to be stilled by Parker's rather relaxed approach. Greater interest attaches to a series of throw-away asides, in which Parker formulated a more concrete statement of the relation of king, parliament, and clergy than was to be found in A Discourse Concerning Puritans. Parker claimed to be willing to abide by the "precept" of Scripture or by "any Canon extending to all places and times" in matters of church government. However, "Divines were [n]ever yet agreed upon any such," and thus - the coyness is notable - "it seems" that "under the King, that Junto of Divines, Statesmen, and Lawyers in Parliament, which hath a Legislative power over the State, hath the same over the Church."48 In the same sidling manner, Parker thought "no man" would deny that the "fittest policie" for the king's government of the church was "the same pattern by which he governeth the State."49 Attempting an end run around the power of bishops in matters of doctrine, Parker blithely tossed out (with another "it seemes") a new mechanism to promote doctrinal conformity: "our two famous Vniversities" should be consulted, and in case of their disagreement "a Junto" of divines from London, "our third Oracle," should "arbitrate." 50 In his conclusion, Parker expected that discussion of the issues would lead to a resolution of the ecclesiological question, and the 47

48

49

50

The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, sig. A 2 recto; the presbyterians (and Calvin in particular) are yoked with papists elsewhere (p. 3, cf. p. 9) and their scheme (p. 20) is dismissed as "not so adequate and conformable to Monarchy." The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, pp. 2 - 3 . Parker was a little disingenuous; by this time he clearly could not have favored the presence of the bishops in the House of Lords, yet their presence in the parliamentary roster gave weight to the claim of ecclesiastical legislative power. In The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, Parker does not directly address this question, but see p p . 5 , 8, and, especially, 10 ("the solemn use of Synods, Counsels, and Parliaments does not at all depend upon episcopacy"). The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, p. 3. This was a Marsilian proposition (pp. 3—4): "it is the same body of men now, of which both State and Church are compacted, and so it was not in the Apostles times; and the same body hath the same head now, as it had not in the beginning." The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, p. 10; the point is remade on p. 1 1 .

Religio laici

63

"new module of government which so many have so variously phansied" would "open it self, and offer it self to us of its own accord."51 Parker did not doubt the result. The "pattern of the State would be sufficient to present to us afit8c harmonious pattern for the Church."52 This was, of course, an aggressively laic credo. Parker did not directly say so - he did not have to - but his view of the original-copy relation ran directly counter to a famous high puritan slogan. For the Elizabethan archpresbyter Thomas Cartwright as for the New England divines Thomas Hooker and John Cotton (who shared this view in a letter to Parker's friend and patron Lord Say), the state should follow the church, even as the "hangings" should be cut according to the "house." In rejecting this outlook, Parker again combated episcopacy with a weapon equally lethal to the clerical puritans. 53

in

The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment probably appeared in November 1641. A different half-title ("The Divine Right of Episcopacie Refuted") suggests kinship with The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated. Apparently True Grounds was the full-dress reply that Ussher did not really receive in The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated.54 In this respect True Grounds did its work thoroughly, Parker drew heavily upon Bilson and Hooker, and showed considerable acquaintance with Laudian and Catholic polemic and with proof-texts of the patristic literature. The eighth book of Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, not yet in print but circulating in manuscript, was particularly influential: its strongly Marsilian thrust was useful to Parker not only for its content but for the implied imprimatur it lent to Parker's own opinions.55 In most respects, though, True Grounds added some needed ballast, but little more, to Parker's position as it had been developed in A Discourse Concerning Puritans. 51 52 53 54

55

For these forms, see Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 1 4 0 - 7 and refs. there cited. Ussher himself had a share in such schemes. The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, p. 11. Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 67,128. Parker mentions Cartwright in The Altar Dispute, p. 13. The physical form is slightly irregular. Though a major pamphlet of ninety-nine pages, expensive of the time and resources of author and publisher, True Grounds appeared without dedication or preface, and the first page after the title bore the signature B[l verso], suggestive perhaps of some late changes. The use of Hooker was noted by Donald Lawless, "Book VIII of Hooker's 'Ecclesiastical Polity'," Notes and Queries, n.s. 3 , no. 5 (May 1956), pp. 2 2 4 - 5 ; see also n . 6 1 below. The many references to Bilson {The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 13,16-18,21,

31, 32, 35, 48, 59, 63, 96) seem to relate to Thomas Bilson, The True Difference (London, 1586); the extensive passage quoted by Parker on pp. 17-18 corresponds to The True Difference, pp. 67-8.

64

Henry Parker and the English civil war

There was, however, a significant exception. Parker took what appears to be a highly unusual approach in True Grounds toward the common clerical argument - as presbyterian as it was Catholic - that spiritual matters ranked above secular ones. Commonly secularists resisted it by adding the sacred to the temporal, hedging kingship with divinity. Parker certainly did this. But Parker also argued that the secular powers were more sacred than the "spiritual" authorities precisely because kings possessed power. It was not what kings shared with the clergy but what the clergy lacked that gave kings their higher spirituality. On this point Parker saw his own approach as distinctive, even to the point of breaking with the Tudor royal supremacists. With considerable perceptiveness Parker espied the residual, reflexive clericalism of staunch Anglican (and clerical) "defenders of [royal] supremacy." Bilson and even Hooker (who otherwise wrote so "judiciously" and "profoundly") placed the "Crosier ... in Honour, and Sanctitie, before the Scepter."56 Like the Constantinian foundation discussed in A Discourse Concerning Puritans, the ballyhooed Elizabethan establishment had its inner, clericalist flaws. Parker, whose rejection of the Catholics and presbyterians seemingly made him not unlike an Anglican faute de mieux, now distanced himself even from the most satisfactory clerical polemicists. To "detect the errour of Divines" about the spiritual superiority Parker first attacked the conventional assumptions linking patristic clericalists like Ambrose and Athanasius, the sixth-century patriarch of Constantinople Gregorius Nazianzus, and Erastian Anglicans like Bilson. Then he launched his own counter-thesis: princes were holier than priests, precisely because of their worldliest attribute. Correlating the three attributes of power, wisdom, and goodness with the three Persons of the Trinity, Parker found that "Power and Dominion of it selfe is divine," and, indeed, the more divine as the power is more absolute. The quest for power was "the first and greatest sin of men and Angels" alike, but was almost excusable in its inevitability: "Nothing is more desirable to man, or more adequate to the aymes of intelligent creatures then power." Heaven itself was "differenced by Power." It was "hard to say" that angels and saints differed much in wisdom or goodness, but that "they differ in power and glory we all know," a fact witnessed by the power-based vocabulary (e.g., the "Thrones, and Principalities") of Neoplatonic angelology.57 "Absolute power," the Father, gave being to absolute wisdom, the Son, and they in turn gave being to absolute goodness. The heavenly subordination was reflected in earthly arrangements. Wisdom and goodness were "blessed graces" and a clergy, Parker barely conceded, might have a greater share of them than a prince. But "in regard of 56 57

The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 12-13, 43. Peter Lake stresses the renascence of conformist clericalism in Anglicans and Puritans?, pp. 114-19, 213-25. The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 18, 35—6.

Religio laici

65

that civill sanctitie which is visible to mans eye, Caesar is to be worshipped more then Peter." Power "is an excellence more perfect, and publike and visible."58 Power, that "Glorious, Divine thing," had wrought the Reformation; power made the "Proclamations of Princes ... more efficacious Sermons" than the pulpit variety.59 Accordingly, "Power in the State," like the sacred ark of the Hebrews, is "priviledged from common sight, and touch" and ought to be "united in some one person only" and so "lineally intayled" that the power can never die or cease or "suffer any violent motion, or alteration." Power, Parker put it apothegmatically, "is as the soule of Policy."60 High-flown praise of the prince was part of the English imperialist tradition, and it might be argued that Parker had not done much more than grab the best of its wind with his sails. But there was an obvious risk to the author of The Case of Shipmony and the future author of Observations. Would not the glorification of princes, even unto idolatry, vis-a-vis the clergy have unfortunate consequences with respect to the laity and to parliament? Parker's response was to enunciate with exceptional clarity the counterposing doctrine — that human power was founded in consent. Richard Hooker, whose ineradicable residual clericalism had shown to Parker the limitations of men of that coat, had resoundingly discussed consent, the basis of power in the public good, and the happiness of a legal rather than arbitrary monarchy in the eighth book of Ecclesiastical Polity. While Hooker allowed that not all civil power was founded in consent, he urged that it certainly could be, and in the best of worlds, ought to be. Deploying the Marsilian logic that the state and church were different expressions of the same community61 and the propositions that the laity were coactors in church legislation and governance and that a church was a non-compulsive community based on faith, Hooker squeezed together the role of consent in church and in the state in a vise of tightening implication. Parliament was a court "not so meerly temporall" that "it might meddle with nothing but only leather and wooll." Equally, "for the devising of lawes in the Church it is the generall consent of all that giveth 58

59 60 61

The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 36; cf. p. 4 0 , on the limitations of clerical excellence and p. 8 5 , for a restatement that it is "absurd" to make power servile to wisdom. The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 6 0 - 1 . The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 8 5 . The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 4 3 . This was the passage Parker found particularly valuable. Parker quoted and paraphrased a substantial excerpt (pp. 4 2 - 3 ) , ending the passage, "Thus farre Hooker, most judiciously and profoundly." Cf. Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Books VI, VII, VIII, ed. Peter Stanwood (Cambridge, Mass., 1 9 8 1 ) , vol. Ill of Works, pp. 3 1 9 - 2 2 . Other instances, not otherwise mentioned here, of direct quotation or substantial paraphrase: The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 3 1 , and Works, III, pp. 3 1 6 - 1 7 ; The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 5 7 - 8 , and Works, III, pp. 429—30; The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 87, 8 9 - 9 0 , and Works, III, p p . 4 0 2 , 403^4; The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 9 1 , and Works, III, p. 4 0 1 .

66

Henry Parker and the English civil war

them the forme and vigor of lawes."62 Thus Hooker had no trouble urging with respect to Christian kings a proposition that Parker would insist upon as fundamental in his political writings: that the king was "major singulis universis minor."63 Parker followed, invoking general consent to cage the high claims for kings he had otherwise advanced. The "supreame civill Magistrate has this power [of command and of "forcing obedience"] grounded upon the common consent of Mankinde, and is as strong as is the politicall consent of humane nature in its supream Law of publike conservation."64 The supreme magistrate's power was not the result of some remote and irreversible act of consent, a statement of principle without practical application. Princes in parliament had greater majesty than princes alone, common consent "having not derived all power into the King" but "reserved much thereof till a full union be in Parliament."65 Apart from the presence (or absence) of divines, parliaments were more fit than either princes alone or clerical synods in matters spiritual, and as competent to treat of doctrine and discipline as (in an echo of Hooker) leather and wool.66 Indeed by implication parliament was the true Constantine. For admitting the Roman maxim that whatever pleased the prince had the force of law but also that "Princes had this power by common consent" and, further, that this same common consent in latter ages when "policy" became "perfect" had restrained princes through sovereign laws, the power that in earlier ages had been vested in princes and synodal councils was now vested in princes and "the highest of all Counsells, viz. Parliaments."67 IV

Parker had sensed in The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment as he had earlier in A Discourse Concerning Puritans the symbolic and evocative power of words in themselves - simply to use certain words was to make an argument, to persuade. It was in The Altar Dispute that Parker most tellingly explored this theme, providing his most direct and cutting analysis of clerical language as promoter of clerical interest, and, incidentally, laying a claim as a Long Parliament-era originator of the "ideological" analysis of clerical pretensions that would be followed by a diversely radical group including the Leveller and freethinker William Walwyn, the absolutist Thomas Hobbes, 62 63 64 65 66 67

Works, III, pp. 4 0 1 - 2 . Works, III, p. 337. Parker used this notion in a different context in The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment; see p. 64. The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 24-5. The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 91. The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, pp. 88,91-2. Hooker is used in both passages; cf. Hooker, Works, III, p p . 4 0 1 - 3 . The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, p. 94.

Religio laici

67

the anti-clerical republican James Harrington, and the Digger leader Gerard Winstanley. The Altar Dispute was Parker's somewhat tardy contribution to a large if waning debate on the propriety of the Laudian innovations in the eucharistic service. In calling for several reversions to earlier forms, Laud and his followers had rejected advanced reformed practice. The table was to be called an altar; it could be made of stone; its placement in the church was changed to reflect its prominence; the rite itself was allowed to be a sacrifice. From the onset, the altar dispute, as Parker aptly dubbed the whole controversy, was a combat over symbols, verbal and non-verbal. Both sides, unlike the Elizabethan adiaphorists, thought that names could hurt as much as sticks and stones. The title of John Williams' anti-Laudian tract identified the kernel of contention: The Holy Table, Name and Thing.68 Parker entered the fray at several levels, but the most significant was his carefully modulated analysis of the politics of the vocabulary and postures of worship — the ideological bearing of symbolic action. Whereas a rejection of the word or name might be taken to imply an automatic rejection of the thing for which it stood, Parker insisted that this was not his position. He could accept the thing; what he would not abide was the secondary level of implication - the "subtext" - of the name: "if we did reject the Priest utterly as lesse proper then Minister ... yet we reject not the thing with the name." 69 Even "altars" themselves, the most provocative of the Laudian symbolic innovations, were not "necessary causes" but only "possible occasions of superstition"; the Fathers used the words "Altar, Sacrifice, Sec. harmlessly to themselves."70 This was, of course, a tacit acceptance, though by no means an endorsement, of common Anglican practice insofar as it could be shorn of ideological trappings. However, terms were seldom innocent. There were grounds of "policie" as well as "conscience" to shun "words in themselves offencelesse, where better choyce may be had, and where great abuse has beene offered."71 While patristic usage had been innocuous, others purposefully misconstrued it; and on Parker's reading, heathenism as much as popery lurked even where there was "no sinne in the bare words." The "very word Altar foments superstition."72 Without any great precision, yet unmistakably withal, Parker linked the Ambrose—Theodosius confrontation with the use of altars: both 68

69 71 72

John Williams, The Holy Table, Name and Thing ("Printed for the Diocese of Lincoln," 1637). See the treatment in Tyacke, Anti-Calvinism, pp. 2 0 0 - 1 6 , 2 2 1 (on the identification of the altar's space as a specifically sacerdotal space). 70 The Altar Dispute, p. 14. The Altar Dispute, pp. 26-7. The Altar Dispute, pp. 32-3. The Altar Dispute, pp. 27, 32, 40 (viz, sig. F8 verso). The last point Parker claimed to have learned from Bilson.

68

Henry Parker and the English civil war

were the first stages of "Antichrists entrance." As the one showed how "the Hierarchy" was "advanced" even "in good times," so the other brought "factious" terms into play even before the height of their abuse in the form of a stone altar and "an immolating Priest."73 The early English reformers could not abolish these uses in a stroke. They were, after all, the "common" terms and first-generation Protestants "were necessitated to use these words conversing with Papists at that time when no other words were current." In the prayer book issued in the first year of Edward VPs reign, the old words were used, for "neither was the tide of language yet turned, nor the reformation in any degree perfected." The second Edwardian prayer book, however, removed the words sacrifice and altar, reflecting "the better judgement, and more setled practise of the State." And so, by difficult stages, the English reformers began the hard job of "extirpating] a sensuall Religion of great antiquity."74 But the process was not yet complete. In Edward's day it had been resisted even "by the holiest of Prelates," whose residual clericalism caused them to oppose the anti-ceremonialism of Miles Hooper: ceremonies were "the darling of Episcopacie" and their preservation was of high "concernment to Hierarchy."75 "Altar-worship," as Parker called it, had become inseparable from priest-worship. In antiquity the formula was "Presbyterii &c aris advolvi." By means of that fateful linkage "not onely excessive honours, but also all the revenues and treasure of Churchmen were first raised and advanced ... It is not to be wondred therefore, if ambitious and covetous Prelates did so much magnifie, and extoll that, which did so much magnifie and extoll them."76 Despite the Laudians' "pretenses of zeale and devotion ... to royalty," altar-worship led to "conclusions that are very dangerous, and prejudiciall to Princes." Parker pointed to Ambrose's exclusion of Theodosius from the chancel. If altars possessed sanctity, the priesthood gained from the proximity. If the sacrament were a sacrifice, priests were the sacrificers: but "how many Kings ha's this doctrine dethroned?"77 Theodosius, like Constantine before him, had been undone by his own misdirected piety. He swallowed one of Rome's "most powerfull intoxications," the very argument that did and "will still convince, and confound, and degrade all Christian Princes whatsoever."78 73 74 75

76 77 78

The Altar Dispute, p. 19. The Altar Dispute, p. 20. The Altar Dispute, p. 23. Parker asserts this link in refutation of Peter Heylyn's claim that the reformers only accepted the abolition of the terms altar and sacrifice out of a misguided and un-English desire to humor John Calvin. The Altar Dispute, p. 59. The Altar Dispute, pp. 60-1, 62; cf. p. 54. The Altar Dispute, p. 63.

Religio laici

69

The juxtaposition of The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment and The Altar Dispute shows the crux of Parker's political-religious thought as it emerged in 1641-2. On the one hand, Parker evidently perceived by the time of The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment that the fulsome praise of princes in the ecclesiological context brought an unwelcome entail to the civil. But, equally, Parker scarcely knew how to combat clerical pretensions without recourse to the idiom. Even in The Altar Dispute (which appeared shortly before Parker enunciated the full form of his political doctrine of parliamentary absolutism), Parker responded to the Anglican pride in the unbroken continuity of episcopal ordination across the Reformation divide by calling it the accidental and unnecessary result of the fact that some of the "Romish clergy"-Parker named Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper-had gone over to Protestantism. Had they not cooperated, ordination might well have come from "the sacred hands" of Edward VI.79 The tension between the political vision of parliamentary supremacy and the ecclesiological vision of the royal supremacy did not disappear. As late as 1645, Parker argued against the clergy by arguing for the king, as the title Jus Regum suggests. In spring 1642, however, the urgent need was to address the other side of the great conundrum. It is not surprising that shortly after the publication of The Altar Dispute Parker turned to a similar debunking, demythologizing examination of the idiom surrounding civil kingship. There was another continuity. As in the religious and ecclesiological writings, Parker's emergent political vision took it for granted that Constantine was a dupe. 79

The Altar Dispute, p. 65. It would be interesting to know if any other writer ever referred to such stalwarts and martyrs (as they were conventionally held to be) of reform as erstwhile "Romish clergy."

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

To this point, we have seen Parker twice entering the nurseries of royalist thought. Both times he stepped gingerly, lest he crush the flowers as he trampled the weeds. In The Case of Shipmony, Parker deployed the royalist judges' own logic to damn the promoters of ship money, and to proffer the parliament as the repository of conciliar wisdom as well as the common good, against the individual interest of evil counsellors. In his religious pamphlets Parker used the Tudor royal supremacy to disarm the clerics' formidable arsenal, advancing the king's cause as the layman's. Parker's use of imperialist political idolatry drove him to clarify parliament's role with respect to the king. Yet it is surprising to see the extent to which Parker committed himself to such a dangerously double-edged weapon as Tudor imperialism. Had Parker gone no further with these royalist idioms, he might be seen as a mainstream thinker, clever in his use of traditional and, at least by some reckonings, conservative arguments to make damning but ideologically modest points against the seeming proprietors of those arguments. This evaluation corresponds to Parker's ostentatious parade of his gentility (even when it was that oxymoron, anonymous gentility), which served to reinforce the appearance of moderation. Of course, this was a pose - not a falsehood but a staged representation, psychologically as well as rhetorically useful. Parker did develop his ideas further - it was this that made him famous as the Observator - so it remains to follow along his path. In the standard reckoning, which is not wrong, this path is denominated "parliamentary sovereignty." It is in several ways more revealing, however, to call Parker's position (and the position of the houses of parliament in whose interest Parker wrote) "parliamentary absolutism." The locus classicus of the emergence of parliamentary absolutism was the political crisis associated with the militia in the spring and summer of 1642, when the two houses found reason to break with the letter of the law and the traditional constitution in order to preserve themselves, in accord (so they claimed) with a law that was at once higher and less knowable. Like the 70

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

71

royalist absolutism upon which it drew, parliamentary absolutism was a theory predicated upon the existence of emergencies, which were the necessary, validating preconditions of the exercise of absolute power. The emergency thus was in a curious position of being both the essence of the matter and a most misleading feature. There had to be an emergency, understood and, better, felt as such. Equally, though, parliamentary absolutism (again like its royal progenitor) was a doctrine about latent or sleeping power; and while the requisite emergency appeared as a spontaneous and contingent complex of events, many of the thoughts and actions had already been scripted by a theory as much in need of an emergency to activate it as the emergency was in need of a theory of action to deal with it. Before turning to Observations, therefore, the elements of the political theory of the emergency need some treatment.

The constitutional and legal breach over the militia was the greatest crisis of the Long Parliament before the civil war. But it was not thefirstsuch moment. To some observers at the time (and doubtless to more in retrospect), there had been an earlier occasion when law had been pitted against an emergency and self-preservation, and when parliament had chosen the illegal course. This was in the attainder of the earl of Strafford in the spring of 1641, which followed hard upon the failed impeachment trial against him. While Strafford's stunning defense in the House of Lords had overcome the accusations of his enemies, it did not suffice to save him. Justifiably more fearful of the man than ever, the parliamentary leadership adopted the bullying tactic of attainder. By a retrospective statute Strafford was declared guilty of the treasons the managers of the impeachment could not prove at law. If the argument itself was barren, the emotional manipulation and physical intimidation at the time and in the next weeks were rank: appeals to fear and the conveniently discovered army plot, threats to the bishops, and an unholy coordination of parliamentary maneuvering and the behavior of the London crowd. The tactic worked. The Commons accepted the leadership's ploy with only fifty-nine dissentient voices (their deviance was duly recorded by their enemies). With jostling crowds outside Westminster, the Lords caved in, and Charles, heeding Strafford's and the crowd's warnings that the minister had to be sacrificed to save the king, reneged on his earlier undertakings to Strafford and signed the attainder. In the attendant near-hysteria, Pym got his bill to prevent the present parliament from being dissolved without its own consent, virtually a perpetual parliament act. He and his friends also got the Protestation, a loyalty oath that was so platitudinously vague as to be equally (if but potentially) dangerous to those who subscribed as to those who

72

Henry Parker and the English civil war

did not. The introduction in late May of the root-and-branch bill and Pym's Ten Propositions in June 1641 rode the same political snowball, though events would show that the ball had reached the bottom of the slope. It is testimony both to the leadership's residual political strength and Charles' continuing political debility that the leadership's aggression was not more widely condemned at the time. But the period from late April into June 1641 was a hinge period, and though the hinge was sticky, the shifting energies eventually forced the door to move. Amongst the earliest to push was George Digby, the son of the earl of Bristol. Like his father, Digby had been notable as an opponent of personal rule-perhaps the more so as afigurewell on the flanks of the reformist common front. It did not take long before Digby began to shake free. When the clamor for religious reform was all but universally voiced, Digby was amongst thefirstto become unnerved publicly about the banausic element amongst the root-and-branchers. Political disaffection took a little longer to jell; for the moment Digby continued to cooperate in the impeachment case against Strafford. But quitting his erstwhile colleagues on 21 April 1641, Digby declared Strafford's provable misdeeds did not deserve a sentence of death, that the parliament was proceeding illegally in condemning him for acts not defined as crimes at the time of their commission, and that the most serious charge against the earl hung upon untrustworthy evidence. Digby's speech, surreptitiously printed and publicly condemned, amounted to a manifesto for a nascent constitutional royalism, in which Charles' errors were not defended, but his opponents' were judged worse.1 In July, partly to protect him from the mounting wrath of the parliamentary leadership, partly to strengthen an anti-opposition group in the Lords, Charles elevated Digby to the peerage. Now that Digby was safely beyond the Commons' reach, the speech was reprinted. The message may have been more menacing the second time around, for the political re-evaluation it had called for was too great to have been made in a day or week, though for some nervous onlookers it had to be made, and the reprinting created the occasion. The reprinted speech appeared at an uncomfortable time for the parliamentary leadership. Pym and his friends faced mounting difficulties over church policy, residual shock over the seeming alliance with the London mob in pushing the attainder through the House of Lords, and with a growing sentiment that while Charles had purged his government of its corruptions, the reformers themselves might need a similar cathartic. Inside the Commons, the republication of Digby's defection speech caused considerable commotion.2 The opposition cause needed a literary counterploy, which was exactly the mission of An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech in the House of Commons, a polished and well-mannered 1 2

The Lord Digby His Last Speech against the Earle of Strafford ([London,] 1641). C/, II, pp. 207, 208-9; BL Harl. 479, fol. 57 a and b.

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

73

exercise in damage control. Its anonymous author, though a "private man," had an "interest" in "the King and State" and so sought to relieve Digby of the burden of his new-found scruples.3 Digby had objected fiercely to the retrospective nature of the attainder. Most interestingly, An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech did not try to make a legal case for it. Rather, An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech employed idioms seen in The Case of Shipmony and Parker's religious pamphlets to deny the need to find a legal justification for killing a political opponent. The "safety of the people is the supreme Law." To change their government "without their consents" was "the highest Treason [that] can be committed against a State." This was the present case, which, as in writings in the established Parker canon, juxtaposed private and public interests. "Wicked Iudges and Counsellors" could transform a "a free mighty Monarchy" into a "slavish, and impotent tyrannie," and "bee Instruments of overthrowing the Common-wealth," because they believed they had more to gain "in their private fortunes" than they had to lose "in their parts of the publike." 4 In this emergency, parliament was the public's protector: "the representative Body, the High Court of the Kingdome" had "a liberty to doe any thing not unjust in it selfe (though not as yet legally declared to bee just) for the preservation of the greater body it represents." In such a situation, if "Prudence, and Policy" found the "Lawes already made" inadequate, the parliament was not bound by the laws of nature, the land, or of God to adhere to existing laws in a case "where the safety of the whole commeth into question." Scripture permitted ex post facto definitions of crime; and what God did, so could "the Assembly of Gods on Earth."5 The trappings of the imperial, sacral kingship devolved to the parliament, quite as one would expect from the efforts at clarification in Parker's religious tracts. In arguing that parliament had a latitude in dispensing with "punctilios of Lawes" that Parker never allowed the king alone, An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech fell but a little short in expressing the full contempt for the common law mind that was a hall-mark of the mature Parker.6 But was Parker the author? If so, then this was a tract that Thomason failed to attribute to his friend. The similarities, while more than suggestive, are not conclusive. There is one further bit of evidence, an episode later in Parker's career that may reflect upon this tract. An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech dwelt much on a matter raised by Digby, the critical role played by a written 3

4 5 6

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, 26. Thomason acquired another reply, slighter and less distinguished: An Aproved Answer to the Partiall and Vnlikt of Lord Digbies Speech ([London], 1641). An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech, pp. 12-13, 15. An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech, pp. 17, 21, 24. An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech, p. 21.

74

Henry Parker and the English civil war

note and testimony by the secretary of state, the elder Sir Henry Vane. These were thought to prove that at a meeting of the council Strafford had advocated the invasion of England by Irish troops. If the remarks were accurately reported, Stafford's treason was clear. However, Vane's puzzling recovery of memory after twice having confessed to having no recollection of the remarks at all, as well as suspicious shufflings of the key document by the younger Vane and by John Pym, left matters open to doubt. An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech rousingly defended the elder Vane, whose credibility had been shaken severely.7 While this was inevitable, given Digby's attack, and of no help in attribution, the tract's defense of Vane may impinge upon an otherwise murky episode in 1644. Upon completion of his service as secretary to the Committee of Safety, Parker sought the newly vacant post of registrar of the prerogative office. In June 1644 the MP Michael Oldisworth nearly wrested the office away from Parker, but was prevented - according to Parker's later account - only by a timely intervention by old Sir Henry Vane, who otherwise is not known to havefiguredin Parker's life.8 If An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech was in fact the work of Henry Parker, it would establish a way station between the position of The Case of Shipmony and the later fully developed hostility to legal scruples seen in Parker's tracts of 1642 and 1643. If not, then An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech becomes part of the "context." But without Parker, in July 1641, that part of the contextual terrain is almost unrelievedly barren. In the next year the situation changed dramatically.

II

It is one thing to violate the structure of law protecting the subject, another to lay claim to power historically and legally understood to be the king's. Well before the militia ordinance and the crisis it provoked, the houses of parliament without arousing any commotion at all had laid the claims that would later bring England to an impasse and, ultimately, war. Characteristically an emergency lay at the center of things, providing occasion, rationale, and cloak for a species of emergency action that soon enough would become the object of intense scrutiny: the parliamentary ordinance.9 The requisite precondition was the king's departure into Scot7 8 9

An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech, pp. 4-10. Henry Parker, Memorial! {n.p.,n.d.) [BL 669 f. 11 (101)]; this is the second memorial. See p. 24 and n. 104. This section and the next draw from my treatment of the same matters in "The Great Council of Parliament and the First Ordinances: The Constitutional Theory of the Civil War," Journal of British Studies, 31 (April 1992), pp. 133-62, to which the reader is referred for more extensive treatment and more detailed documentation.

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

75

land in August 1641. The prospect was fraught with real-enough peril. No one was quite certain what a settlement with the Scots might amount to, and to get to Edinburgh the king had to pass by temptation twice, as he made his way through both the English and the Scottish lines in the north. The news was contradictory but unreassuring. The earl of Holland, the English commander, sent a series of ominous, even frantic messages to his fellow peers about a sudden reversal of Covenanter allegiance; Holland himself was the target of other rumors, as was nearly anyone with command of or access to arms. Even after Charles made his way to Edinburgh, and the Scots left England, both without incident, fears were recycled as Charles and the Scottish parliament began negotiations in earnest.10 In this climate, with the king out of the country and the privy council a shadow of its former self, the two houses transacted some of their business in the form of five "ordinances." The first established a protocol for "committees" to attend upon the king in Edinburgh (and less officially to keep an eye out for danger coming from the parliament in Scotland). Others established a day of thanksgiving for the peace between the kingdoms, made administrative adjustments to payment procedures for poll money, attempted to disarm recusants and their families, and stopped the departure of troops into foreign service.11 There was real doubt about what the houses had done. Precedent provided little help, and recent parliamentary usage, almost none. But although there was some heated (and revealing) debate about the ordinance disarming recusants, in no sense were these ordinances a matter of contention between the king and his friends, and the parliamentary leadership. Charles himself, when informed simultaneously about an ordinance and the poaching of royal deer, reserved all his indignation for the latter; Hyde and Falkland, who would be amongst thefiercestcritics of the militia ordinance, did their share to promote the ordinance to prevent soldiers from entering foreign service.12 However ravenous the parliamentary wolf and his ordinances were to become in the not-so-distant future, the August-September ordinances found their sheep's clothing in a melange of received ideas. Of these most important was the seeming platitude that parliament was the "great council" of the king and kingdom. This, it will be remembered, was Parker's insistent theme in The Case of Shipmony, a leitmotif through his other known works, and, in the early years of Parker's pamphleteering before thefigurebecame a public commonplace, a possible indication of Parker's authorship of unattributed tracts. Even in 1640 and early 1641 Parker could not have been unaware of its latent implications. But for many of Parker's readers, the claim that 10 11 12

"The Great Council of Parliaments and the First Ordinances," pp. 140-3. L7,IV, pp.372, 375, 383, 385,394. Mendle, "The Great Council of Parliaments and the First Ordinances," pp. 149-50.

76

Henry Parker and the English civil war

parliament was the great council probably meant little or nothing; it was a visible emblem of a hidden agenda. The great council figure had a history. Modern scholarship and seventeenth-century opinion concur that there is a family resemblance between medieval parliaments and great councils, although scholars now and then do not agree on the precise lines of affinity. In the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the great council identification had become, at the least, a marker for the claims advanced in the Commons to have a free advisory interest in any of the kingdom's affairs, particularly those having to do with the king's government and prerogative authority. The parliament-asgreat-council formula pointed to a realm of competence distinct from parliament's legislative and taxing role, for which the slogan was often "the representative body of the kingdom," and its judicial activity (the "high court of parliament"). Thus from Wentworth's case in 1576 to James Vs wrangle with the parliament of 1621, the great council theme had been yoked to the claim of liberty of speech in parliament, the right to discuss affairs belonging, so it was usually held, to the king's executive competence within the dominium regale. Before 1640, there is little indication that anyone in parliamentary circles, with the exception of James Whitelocke, thought systematically in terms of anything other than proffering advice in executive matters, or, at most, holding executive matters hostage to parliament's other, undoubted functions. Direct "determination," as opposed to non-compulsory advice, lay with the king alone, a phrasing that usually meant the king with the advice of his own council. This does not mean that those fearful of an unchained dominium regale had no language to state their concerns. When opponents of early Stuart absolutism made their case, usually they did so in terms of the law. The law, they argued, made no exception for one obnoxious manifestation or another of the dominium regale; the prerogative and the king's discretionary power worked within the law (by which purists meant the common law), not beyond it. The king could do no wrong, so wrongful acts undertaken in the name of the king's government needed a bridle of legal restraint. Of course, no one admitted to wanting the reins in his own hands. 13 The summoning of the Long Parliament saw new developments. Charles' dominium regale was in disarray. Much of its personnel was incarcerated, in exile, under investigation or the threat of it, or desperately seeking new parliamentary masters. The privy council itself functioned after a fashion, but the much-heralded bridge appointments and a new political climate limited its effectiveness. Unsurprisingly, and without theory or coordination, the two houses stepped into the conciliar breach, not only advising, but also in many instances determining; for example, both the Commons and the Lords simply took over censorship functions earlier accorded to the Star Chamber. The 13

Mendle, "The Great Council of Parliaments and the First Ordinances," pp. 134-9.

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

77

constitutional significance of these actions was generally not raised, and their propriety not questioned. Especially after the royal assent to the non-dissolution act, the two houses became the great council in a way that had not been true before. According to prevailing theory, royal councils supplied remedies for the inevitable "defects" of the person (or natural body) of the king.14 Ordinarily in political matters they supplied advice which a sage king followed or, upon the most excellent and rare reasons, rejected, presumably in favor of another counsel (as in the royal formula of denial of a public bill, le roy s'avisera, the king will take advice). In legal matters, the advice of the king's judges was virtually binding upon him. There were also special cases when the defects incident to a situation required a council to do more than advise. The defects of royal minority or physical or mental incapacity created one peril, the absence of the king from the realm another. Charles' departure to Edinburgh thus created a constitutional opening as well as a danger. One approach to this situation was the request for the appointment of a custos regni during the king's absence. The custos' military responsibilities were not an issue of contention; the proposal foundered upon the custos' authority to give the royal assent to legislation. The Lords were suspicious of a blanket commission, fearing that this would shift the whole constitutional burden on to their house. Equally, though, some members of the lower house saw the need of the moment in non-legislative, executive terms: they called for a provision adequate to "emergent Occasions for the Safety of the Kingdom."15 Falkland noted specifically the need to cover "occasions of passing proclamations," 16 which were, of course, issued by the king and his privy council, and might conceivably be issued by that council alone upon a suitable emergency created by the absence or other defect of the king. And that leads precisely to the nature of thefirstparliamentary ordinances - the parliamentary analogues of proclamations and other actions of the privy council, many of which (including proclamations) were technically still known as ordinances. Thus while Sir Simonds D'Ewes went looking for a specifically parliamentary precedent for the summer 1641 ordinances (probably chasing a will-o-the-wisp of Sir Edward Coke), what was predominantly at work was a kind of analogical thinking and, with it, a transfer of power. The great council would act as a more assured privy council would in a similar situation. Thefirstordinance establishing the committees to attend the king in Edinburgh did nothing so remarkable as to require the special term; but earlier, franker versions had referred to the "committees" as "commission14 15 16

For the theory of defects, see Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Matthew Wale's Prerogatives of the King, ed. D. E. C. Yale (London, 1976), pp.93, 106-32. BL Harl. 479, fols. 140b, 141a (9 August); ZJ, IV, p. 356 (10 August). BL Harl. 5047, fol. 55a.

78

Henry Parker and the English civil war

ers" and had addressed openly the need to conduct a direct diplomacy with the Scots - and that was certainly matter for an ordinance. The printed version of the ordinance declaring a day of thanksgiving (a traditional matter for proclamation) was in fact closely modeled on a royal proclamation, and was distributed through the same channels.17 The other ordinances followed paths pursued earlier by proclamations, not statutes. Indeed, the one nearexception proves the rule. D'Ewes and John Selden, both careful legal thinkers, objected to the ordinance disarming recusants because they believed it went beyond the enforcement of old law into the making of new law in matters of life and property - thus straying into what had long been regarded as illegitimate activity for a proclamation.18 Neither they nor anyone else on record objected to the propriety of bicameral ordinances as such. The issue was simply whether the ordinance (an executive action, whether undertaken by king and council or, exceptionally but appropriately, the great council alone) had moved into the terrain of life and property- matters of legislation, taxation, and jurisprudence. The process by which this had occurred was unexceptionable, although matters had drifted far from the freedom of speech of Elizabeth and James I: "instructions" sent to the committees in Edinburgh justified the ordinance prohibiting foreign military service in terms of the "Duties" of "Counsellors to His Majesty's Great Council of Parliament," which had led them to consider matters involved in "the making or strengthening of Alliances Abroad" and "Reason of State."19 ill

If all this was the embryo of constitutional revolution, no one in the autumn of 1641 noticed the conception. The next time around, however, matters would dispose themselves quite differently. Another emergency, another absence (of sorts) of the king, another ordinance of the great council - but this time the king objected vigorously, and his growing party grafted newfound constitutional and legal scruples to their now already well-rooted fears of a puritan takeover of the church. This time, too, the full weight of assumption bore upon what the houses did, and why they and their opponents said they did it: what emerged was bicameral parliamentary absolutism. If there had been an inkling of this before, it had been in the interstices of Parker's Case of Shipmony, and, so it has been suggested, in the remarkable reply to Digby's speech on Strafford's attainder. When the houses needed further support for their position, they would find it Parker's Observations. 17 18 19

BL 669 f. 3 (12); Mendle, "The Great Council of Parliaments and the First Ordinances," pp. 145, 148. BL Harl. 164, fols. 70a, 78b-79a. L/, IV, p. 394. The instructions stated that the king had earlier given the houses the power of consent in the matter of the Spanish troops.

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

79

The new emergency was not an event, but rather an increasingly desperate public mood following a good many frights. The Irish rebellion, the "Incident" in Scotland, and the parliamentary leadership's aggressive maneuvering after the September recess led to marked heightening of fears and tensions in November 1641. For both royalists and their opponents, security concerns became all but obsessive. The need for a "posture of defense" (a cry that was bound inextricably with questions of command and control) joined the other elements of an already ugly and rapidly deteriorating political environment. The Grand Remonstrance and the petitioning and crowd campaigns accompanying it; mounting intimidation, some of it physical, upon bishops and (so they were dubbed by the faithful) "bad lords"; and street scuffles between parliamentarian supporters and young royalists were succeeded by the overthrow of the effectively royalist government of the city, by Charles' attempt to arrest the Five Members, and by the removal of the Commons from Westminster into the bowels of puritan-controlled London. This led to Charles' own departure from London on 11 January, a removal that became part of the logic of the militia ordinance. As early as 18 January, there was talk of executing the much-desired posture of defense by means of a militia "ordinance." On 25 January the Commons presented a petition to the king to this general effect, stating that since the upper house had as yet refused to join with the Commons in a petition to the king to put the Tower and armed forces under the control of personnel approved by parliament, the Commons would appeal to the king directly.20 Charles easily parried the demand, waiting for a more regular course; the Lords were then subjected to extreme pressure, even unto talk of their abolition as a distinct chamber. Voting Charles' earlier maneuver a denial, on 31 January the Commons drafted the first version of the militia ordinance, and awaited the acquiescence of the now-diminished upper house.21 This came in stages, although the outcome was not in doubt by the first days of February. On 16 February the Lords agreed to a revised militia ordinance, amended at their insistence to make the enforcement procedure somewhat less arbitrary, a matter that had long bedeviled royal proclamations and had been a barely subcutaneous concern with the August and September ordinances. Like the Commons' petition to the king of 25 January, the militia ordinance that emerged from these debates envisioned action by the king as well as the houses of parliament. The exclusion of the king, though contemplated in some quarters, was not part of the ordinance's wording or in any sense its essence. The ordinance differed from an act not in respect of the number of constituent parts assenting to it, but in the kind of action it contemplated: an 20 21

Private Journals /, p. 105; C/, II, p. 395. C/, II, p. 406; Private Journals /, pp. 551-2.

80

Henry Parker and the English civil war

emergency response to a situation (it was argued) so desperate that the normal legal courses simply could not be followed. Interestingly, on the same day that the Lords accepted this tripartite version of the militia ordinance, both houses without the king tended to naval procurement; the Lords called it an "order," the Commons an "ordinance," while the king took no notice of it all, presumably because this emergency funding measure crossed no Rubicon.22 The militia ordinance was different. Charles refused to do what was asked, give "the Royal Assent," and insisted that only an "Act of Parliament" could do something so fundamental as change the law - yet another indication that an ordinance was distinguished from an act of parliament by its matter and function, not the number of parties assenting to it. 23 This rejection provoked the bicameral version of the ordinance. To the houses, the king's denial proved that the king was the pawn of the "evil counsellors" whose enmity to "the State" threatened its very existence. The king's going into "any remote Parts from his Parliament" exacerbated the emergency, and created a kind of absence. The bicameral ordinance was the appropriate "speedy Remedy."24 Debate showed that the great council had understood itself to have moved from "advice" to determination, even to taking a self-menacing weapon out of the king's hands or taking his hands off the helm of the ship of state.25 Even before the bicameral ordinance was adopted on 5 March, the king's position had been defined, as the so-called constitutional royalists writing for the king saw the houses' actions as exercises of "arbitrary Power" in defiance of the traditional constitution and the rule of law.26 The elaborations and amplifications of the war of words never muted the original theme. Bicameral ordinances destroyed both the subject's "title to Magna Charta"27 as well as the ancient constitution that had encased certain of the king's rights within the dominium regale. Parliament may have been the great council, but that did not divest the king of his right to hear their advice and not act upon it. 28 The Answer to the XIX Propositions, whatever else it may have been, was a lecture on the independent right of a king and on the limits of the power of both houses in matters of "government." 22 23 24 25

26

27 28

C/, II, pp. 434-5; LJ, IV, pp. 609-10; Private Journals /, p. 397. C/, II, pp. 4 5 9 - 6 0 . C/, II, p. 460. The Lords accepted these resolutions in the afternoon; L/, IV, p. 620. Private journals /, p. 482. Sir Ralph Verney, Verney Papers. Notes of Proceedings in the Long Parliament temp. Charles /, ed. John Bruce, Camden Society Publication no. 31 (1st series) (London, 1845), p. 184; this entry is in cipher. For the key, see Mendle, Dangerous Positions, p. 224 n. 24. C/, II, p. 476; Edward Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection (London, 1642[/3]), p. 91. This point closely mimicked debates within the house and probably reflected Hyde's judgment of the most effective form of resistance. Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection, pp.250-1; see also pp.285, 287. Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection, p. 146.

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

81

Parker wrote in support of the houses' responses to the king's spokesmen. It is sometimes thought that all the quires of parliamentary verbiage in the public exchanges provided no very coherent response to the king's charges. This is not so. Notwithstanding the boilerplate expressions of gratitude and duty to the king, the houses did not shrink from the most forthright statements of their own position. Perhaps for those expecting or hoping for some other case than the houses offered, the declarations are mystifying. There is precious little to smack of resistance theory and monarchomach notions; and tight little nods to the commonplaces about the common good do not lead to deep obeisance to democratic or populist ideals. Even suitably aristocratic notions such as Tacitean republicanism or classical mixed government are at most mists in the air. And for those who following Bodin's lead make legislative action the principal manifestation of sovereignty, the houses' continuing insistence that the militia ordinance was not a change of the law nor an attempt to legislate without the king seems an evasive denial of responsibility. There is an element of truth to this last point, at least insofar as it reflects some royalists' fears and some parliamentary supporters' hopes. However, it quite misses what the houses actually claimed, which is probably what a good many leaders in thought and action actually intended. And it also does not account for what the houses' royalist opponents charged them with - seizure of executive authority, and its use in a manner reminiscent of what opponents of the early Stuarts had always considered absolutism. Parliament's own declarations, far from rejecting the language and style of Stuart absolutism, appropriated them; it will be remembered that Parker's The Case of Shipmony had adopted a surprisingly accommodating posture towards the absolutism of the ship money judges. Thus the king's charges of arbitrary government were denied halfheartedly and justified with full vigor. When the king condemned the bipartite version of the ordinance, the houses replied that the bipartite version had become even more necessary as a result of the king's earlier denial of assent to the tripartite version, and that the ordinance was justified "by the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome," a phrasing that to those who urged it meant the laws of God, nature, and necessity.29 When the king replied in a vein similar to worried legal conservatives in both houses, that England's laws were not so lightly known or established, the houses produced the claim that they alone constituted the supreme judicature, thus becoming judges of the legality of their own bicameral actions.30 In the declaration or remonstrance of 19 May 29 30

C/, II, p. 479. Private Journals II, pp. 41-4. See also ZJ, IV, p. 646.

Some members tried fruitlessly to include the king by speaking of "parliament" rather than the two houses; CJ, II, pp. 481, 486-7; LJ, IV, p. 650; Private Journals U, pp. 48, 55-6, 60; Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection, p. 114.

82

Henry Parker and the English civil war

1642, the houses provided the fullest synthesis of their position to date. Constituting "the supream court and highest Councell," the houses undertook the self-preserving action required by the king's "dangerous absenting" himself from the great council. This was not a law, but an ordinance, a way "more speedy, more easily alterable,... more proper and more applicable to the present occasion, then a Bill." While the power to save the kingdom was "by the Constitution of this Kingdome, ... in his Majestie, and in his Parliament together," the "Wisdome of this State" gave "the Houses of Parliament ... a power to supply what shall be wanting on the part of the* Prince." And the king's absence and his unwillingness to do what was "necessary" were sufficient evidences of his failure to follow the "advice and direction" of the great council.31 The defense of this position from royal attack was the raison d'etre of Observations and its immediate predecessor, Some Few Observations. IV

Certainly once, perhaps twice, before Observations, Parker wrote on behalf of parliament in the war of words. Some Few Observations, attributed by Thomason to Parker, was a tune-up for the major tract to follow. A Question Answered: How Laws Are to Be Understood, and Obedience Yielded? is very possibly by Parker, an anonymous broadside that preceded Observations by almost three months but which shared nearly identical phrasing with it. 32 Whoever was its author - and Parker must remain at the top of the list - this slight single sheet attracted a great deal of attention. In a furious message to the Lords of 22 April 1641, the king singled it out to the House of Lords as rank "Sedition" worthy of "exemplary Justice."33 Conversely, A Question Answered became almost a proof-text to the Levellers, an antidote to Romans

31 32

33

Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection, pp. 205-8. [Henry Parker?], A Question Answered: How Laws Are to Be Understood, and Obedience Yielded? [London, 1642] [BL 669. f. 6 (7)]. For the attribution, see Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 179, 187-8, 224 nn. 29, 30. Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection, pp. 150-1; PRO SP16/490/12,16/490/12.1; BL 669 f. 5 (6). For Parker's avowal of the doctrine in other places, see Observations, pp.4 and 44, and Scotlands Holy War, p. 25. A trio of crises c. 11—15 April may have precipitated A Question Answered: the earls of Essex and Holland were faced with contradictory orders of attendance from the king and the Lords, the situation at Hull had suddenly worsened, and (most seriously) the houses had directly countermanded the king's efforts to raise troops for Ireland, raising precisely the issue of A Question Answered; See CJ, II: pp. 529-32 (13,14 April 1642); Private Journals II, pp. 163-5, 169-70, 177; LJ, IV, pp. 710, 712, 720; V, pp. 3, 4.

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

83

13:1 cited in tract after Leveller tract simply by its place (p. 150) in Edward Husbands' An Exact Collection.34 The eponymous question was whether a subject could disobey the king's command to disregard the militia ordinance. As the question was phrased, the case addressed the dilemma of individual obedience more than the collective right of the people, but Parker (to accept his authorship) elided from one position to another. The constitutional right of the king was blandly conceded: "His Majesty (let it be granted) is intrusted by Law with the Militia" But this trust contained the implicit condition that it be used for the good of the kingdom; if that understanding were violated, the letter of the law turned against its spirit and equity. If a general pointed his artillery at his own troops "it did ipso facto estate the army, in a right of disobedience." Parker moved from individual disobedience to active collective assumption of power in Some Few Observations, a reply to the king's answer to the declaration of both houses of 19 May 1642. A polemical rebuttal of the king's hard-hitting answer was undoubtedly useful, but for the houses to have responded on that level would have appeared both scholastic and undignified. That circumstance joins with another in the genesis of Some Few Observations. Much as A Discourse Concerning Puritans shows signs of being written in the interest of Lord Say (specifically to defend him from the accusation of being an incendiary), Some Few Observations took special care to defend John Pym, particularly (as Parker scornfully put it) from the accusation that Pym was a political enchanter or "nigromancer." 35 The royal answer to parliament's 19 May declaration targeted the factual assumptions of parliament's case: the militia ordinance was undertaken to prevent a plot by the kingdom's enemies - but there was no plot; the king's absence was generated by the tumults - not the evil counsel of malignants. 36 The houses' insistence that they were supreme court and great council gave them what amounted to a dispensing and suspending power; by the same logic as the houses employed in the militia ordinance, they might declare that the younger brother inherited. The houses were headed to "the exercise of such an Arbitrary power as before they complained of." None of this could be cloaked by calling parliament the great council, for the rules had not yet changed: parliament's "advice" would always be welcomed, but "determi34

35

36

Amongst the many citations, one stands out because it explicitly connected A Question Answered and Observations: John Lilburne, Innocency and Truth justified (London, 1645 [1646]), p. 57. Lilburne says the position of A Question Answered is "notably discussed by the Author of the printed observations upon some of his Majesties late answers and expresses (who is commonly reputed to be one in a speciall manner to be imployed by the Parliament).*' For more on the Leveller appreciation of Parker, see below, p. 153. Some Few Observations, p. 4, cf. p. 6. In a matter of weeks, Parker would become, in effect, Pym's employee as secretary to the Committee of Safety, in which Pym played his usual leading role. Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection, pp. 240-2.

84

Henry Parker and the English civil war

nation" belonged to the king.37 This applied to all matters of state, those addressed by ordinance as much as by bill.38 Parker's task in Some Few Observations was to refute the king's rejoinder. Readers of Observations have no trouble rinding in Some Few Observations clear antecedents of the more famous tract's doctrines. When pushed by the king's charges to face up to the nature of parliament's actions, Parker claimed for the two houses of parliament what the earlier royalists had claimed for the king alone. As the ship money judges had earlier accepted that in ordinary times the king had to go through parliament for taxes, Parker did not deny the king's right "to order the Militia in times of no extraordinary danger." But in extraordinary danger parliament (or the two houses or "whatsoever name is due") can do what "the Kingdome thinkes most safe."39 In so doing, parliament, acting on grounds of "extraordinary necessity of State," functioned as a council rather than a court or a legislature. It was supreme: the "judgement of the major part in Parliament, is the sence of the whole Parliament; and ... the whole Kingdome; and ... is more vigorous, and sacred, and unquestionable, and further beyond all appeal, then that which is the judgement of the King alone... or... with any other inferiour Clandestine Councell."40 To the objection that the usurpation of the king's rights was the epicenter of a wider attack upon individual rights, Parker replied that the king's "interest in the Militia" was "not privileged more then a subiect['s], for the States proprietie cannot be excluded out of eyther." No individual rights were "pure and unconditionall." All were subject to "common right." 41 For all the bravado, Parker had little to say about the relation of the great council to the law and about the similarities of his position, and the parliament's, to the absolutism of the 1630s. Much could be inferred, as the king's writers had done with parliament's own declarations, but little was stated. Whether the silence owed more to indifference than to a more politic sort of reticence is unclear, but it was precisely in its forthrightness in this matter that Observations differed from Some Few Observations, Otherwise, the two tracts were scarcely distinguishable in point of doctrine. Observations, 37 38

39 40 41

Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection, pp. 250-4. Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection, p. 250. In a brief but important remark, the king declared his view of the constitutional status of the ordinance: "We never said, There was no such thing as an Ordinance (though Wee know that they have been long dis-used) but there was never any Ordinance, or can be without the Kings consent." This encapsulated both the previous and future sense of an ordinance. The king's remarks conceded the central point of the great council-executive action identification, while insisting that no action of the monarchy proceeded apart from the king. No royalist declaration ever dealt with the AugustSeptember 1641 ordinances. Some Few Observations, pp. 2-3, 5. Some Few Observations, p. 9; for the counciliar aspect, see also p. 4. Some Few Observations, p. 8.

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

85

however, could not afford to have ducked the question. The king's answer to the houses' remonstrance of 26 May (which appeared too late for Some Few Observations to address) made discretion impossible. In a brutal exegesis of the parliamentary position, an extraordinary conclusion moved beyond ironic charges of absolutism to a simple reduction of the parliamentary case to its absolutist essence. Four of seven propositions made the point piecemeal: (1) the houses had "an absolute power of declaring the Law," (2) the houses were bound by "no Presidents" and "may doe what they please," (3) the houses without the king could "dispose of any thing" for the sake of "the publike good," of which they alone were supreme judge, (4) the houses alone were to judge of the treason of their members. The fifth drew the theoretical conclusion: "the Sovereigne Power resides in both Houses of Parliament, and that we have no negative voice ... We Our Self must be subject to their Commands."42

As the king's answer to the houses' remonstrance of 26 May ended with these startling reductions, Parker ended Observations with their defense. To be sure, Parker denied some matters (notably, that the houses desired a power to depose the king). In the main, though, Parker used Observations to provide the underpinning for the triumphant acceptance of the very worst accusations the king's spokesmen could make against the houses, and for a comparison of them with a similar list that Parker compiled from the king's arguments. The rest of the tract was to sustain these conclusions, which were not a contrived exit, but the raison d'etre of the entire exercise. As its title indicates, the bulk of Observations was in the fashion of Some Few Observations and, indeed, most of Parker's oeuvre: a point-by-point rebuttal of opponents' arguments. Nevertheless, Parker had greater ambitions, and began his tract with some general considerations "for methods sake." The "contestation" of "Regall" and "Parliamentary" power could be understood through an examination of each power's efficient and final causes. The king's power, like all power, came from God, but this proved nothing. Nor did the king's parallel claim that his power came from the law, because law was "nothing else but the Pactions and agreements of such and such politique corporations," confirmed by God. Grounded, then, neither in direct divine grant nor a preexistent law, "power," regal or otherwise, "is originally inherent in the people, and is nothing else but that might and vigour 42

Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection, pp.297—8. The sixth conclusion attacked the parliamentary claim that it was not levying war against the king (with respect to Hull) but upholding his authority; the seventh unfairly accused the houses of claiming a right of deposition.

86

Henry Parker and the English civil war

which such or such a societie of men containes in it selfe."43 The people might make a law placing that power into "such and such hands." This granted, Parker derived the two subordinate maxims from this argument about the source of monarchical power. This first is that though the king "be singulis Major, yet he is universis minor" This commonplace of later medieval and early modern political thought was referred to a much less common maxim: "if the people be the true efficient cause of power, it is a rule in nature quicquid efficit tale, est magis tale [the cause of something is the greater thing]."44 The "same people" that was the efficient cause was also the final, cause of "Regall Authortitie," and salus populi was thus the "Paramount Law" of "all Politiques." The people were the efficient cause of parliaments as well as of kings. The relationship was even tighter, because parliaments were not, as were kings, mere agents or ministers of the people, but rather the same thing in a different mode. Cause and effect were the same.45 Similarly, although monarchs and parliaments also shared the same final cause, "publike safety and liberty," parliaments were more closely bound with the public good, which had not been "so effectually-provided by Monarchs till Parliaments were constituted, for the supplying of all defects in that Government."46 In short, as Parker had it later in the tract, parliament was "the whole kingdome it selfe" and "the State it self."47 Modern scholars have often settled upon these contributions to the flow of England's public discourse, marking them out as the central matter of Observations, and of Parker's place in civil war political thought. There is, perhaps, a less-than-optimal reason for the attention: these essays in natural law theorizing, occurring at the beginning of the tract, are rather more accessible than the constitutional, historical, and political back-and-forth that comprises the bulk of Observations-, particularly to American scholars, who are 43 44

45

46

Observations, p. 1. Observations, p. 2. On singulis major, universis minor, Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, II: The Age of Reformation (Cambridge, 1978), pp.41, 45, 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 3 , 1 8 1 - 2 , 3 3 3 ^ , 3 4 2 , 3 4 7 . Quicquid efficit tale, est magis tale (also phrased as quod efficit tale est magis tale) is more mysterious, and attracted a good deal of contemporary notice. One critic thought Parker derived it from Suarez. I have found some close but verbally inexact parallels: Francisco Suarez, Selections from Three Works of Francisco Suarez, S. ]., 2 vols., trans. Gladys L. Williams, Ammi Brown, and John Waldron, intro. by James Brown Scott (Oxford, 1944), pp.39-40, II, pp.93 {=l:De Legibus, pp.39-40), 386 (=l:Defensio Fidei Catholicae, pp.207-8), 855 {=l:De Triplici Virtute, p. 821). Another parallel is to Althusius, The Politics of Johannes Althusius, trans, with intro. by Frederick S. Carney (Boston, 1964), pp.68, 117. See also below, pp.24-5. The passage is less than transparent. Observations, p. 5: "the whole Kingdome is not so much the Author as the essence it selfe of Parliaments, and by the former rule tis magis tale, because we see ipsum quid quod efficit tale." 47 Observations, p. 5. Observations, pp. 28, 34.

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

87

attuned by their own seminal (and eighteenth-century) texts to expect grand thoughts and sentiments to accompany grand events, Parker's remarks seem to cut to the core. Even allowing for such bias, Parker's introduction remains significant. In the first place, by bringing such theorizing to bear on the constitutional debate, Parker did much to open the discourse to a far wider range of notions than the original participants (viz, "king" and "parliament") deployed. In the debates following Observations, several participants found this aspect of the emergent controversy congenial, and Parker himself attempted a general theory of politics in Jus Populi. Unquestionably, Parker's maxims joined his absolutism as foci of the grand debate. In the second place, Parker's invocation of the people as the source of all power amounted to an adequate, if brief, grounding for a theory of popular sovereignty; the identity of parliament and people made Parker's popular sovereignty also a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Finally, the reduction of human law to "pactions" of particular corporations brutally demystified the relation of law to king and polity. Parker was now fully prepared, as with The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment he had not been, to "dispell umbrages" - to confront and dismiss the theology of kingship. Hierarchical analogies and arguments from descending theories of royal power, though "most pleasant," were false. Kings were not fathers, except to their own children. The patriarchal tie did not apply to the bond of "man and man... for civill ends." Nor were kings heads; the metaphor of the body politic was equally unhelpful. In the natural body, head and members lived and died together; in the body politic, the head needed the members, but the body could survive the "dissolution" of the head.48 Nevertheless, these opening passages and a few other remarks in a similar vein amount to only a small fraction of Observations. The sting of the king's bill of indictment may have sharpened Parker's tongue (and, some might argue, have led Parker to resort to the extreme remedy of natural law). But once Parker identified parliament and people, he felt free to return to the specifics of his case and the king's, and to return to political and constitutional controversies as they were commonly understood. Observations thus rehearsed familiar ground. It did so with a new-found anger, restating positions stated or implied in the parliamentary declarations and Some Few Observations in the most aggressive manner possible - viz, by owning the label and language of the royalist criticism. Thus the names of "arbitrary" and "absolute" power were no longer to be shunned: it was "necessary" for "every State somewhere" to have arbitrary power, just as each man

48

Observations, pp. 18—19. Cf. the remark, p. 41, about the "imaginary grandour" promoted by misguided monarchists.

88

Henry Parker and the English civil war

appropriately "has an absolute power over himself." Neither man nor state could hate itself, so this power held no danger - and, predictably, Parker added here that parliament was the state. 49 The selfsame "Arbitrary supremacy of Parliaments" applied also to the declaring of the law. 50 The finale followed seamlessly. The king charged the houses with assuming "an absolute indisputable power of declaring Law." Parker said the power must reside somewhere. The king charged the houses with abandoning the binding force of precedent; Parker concurred. Royalists had damned the houses for judging of "publike necessity without the King" and for claiming the right to "dispose of anything." Parker thought the role fit "by the vertue of representation, as the whole body of the State." When the king charged that the houses claimed "Soveraign power," even in the face of the king's "negative voyce," Parker replied in the idiom of executive supremacy: "This power is not claimed as ordinary; nor to any purpose, But to save the Kingdom from ruine." If these claims seemed terrible, Parker suggested, their opposites were worse. Parker finished by a list of counterpropositions, "drawn from the king's papers." The subject had a choice. Parker had made his. VI

Not quite yet had Parker finished his observing. Twice in July, under two different and misleading titles, Parker issued what purported to be a petition to the king from the inhabitants of London. Both titles, in various ways, revealed that the petition format was a cover. The first ignored the London connection; the second edition further lowered the veil of pretense from the title, which was now (in short form) The Danger to England Observed.51 Parker's imaginary petitioners responded to the king's recent "severall messages and commands" for "concurrence" with his plan "to invade his Great Councell." Following the now established Parkerian line, the petitioners declined, since parliament was a "sacred Court" and the kingdom's "representative, elected, intrusted Councell," superior to all "private" councils whatsoever.52 Conjoined with what were now cliches of parliamentarian

49 51

52

50 Observations, p. 34. Observations, p. 36. The first edition [BL E. 107(29)], dated by Thomason 17 July 1642 and attributed by him to Parker, is A Petition or Declaration, Humbly Desired to Be Presented to the View of His Most Excellent Majestie; by All His Majesties Most Loyall and Dutifull Subjects (London, 1642). The Danger to England Observed, Upon Deserting the High Court of Parliament. Humbly Desired by all Loyall and Dutifull Subjects to Bee Presented to His Most Excellent Majestie (London, 1642); the tract is self-dated 28 July 1642, and bears the BL shelfmark, E. 108 (17). Except for changes made to the title pages and the headline and block initial on p. 1, the editions used the same undistributed type. The Danger to England Observed, p. 1.

Observations and the political theory of the emergency

89

discourse were some of the sharper insights that Parker had more recently been making. The King's "manifestoes," he said, were admirable enough in "generall Expressions" but belied by the particulars, the "strange persecution of a Parliament." "Professions" of "law, right, and limited power" could not obliterate the absolutist positions "intermingled" with them. While Parker derided the king's brutal exposure of the convolutions of parliamentary claims as "meere merriment," his pseudo-petitioners begged that the king concede "the Parliaments arbitrary power in declaring Laws, Sec." outside "any ground of charge."53 In 1642 there could be no more extraordinary demand. 53

The Danger to England Observed, pp. 4, 6.

<«* 5 ^ The Observator observed

Observations made Parker the Observator (or, sometimes, the Observer), the celebrated but nameless author of the most notorious pamphlet of the day. For an astonishingly long time, well into 1643, royalist authors queued to refute Observations, which they still thought of as being dangerous. As late as 1648, Sir Robert Filmer's attacks on the "Observator" required no special justification or explanation.1 In his own camp, Parker did not altogether lack defenders — although they were less numerous than one might have anticipated from the number of attacks. To an extent this probably reflected confidence that the Observator could take care of himself. But others sought to make parliament's case on grounds other than Parker chose, and in so doing implicitly passed judgment on Parker. In both cases, the most significant point is the degree to which Observations gave shape to subsequent debate. Along with parliamentary absolutism itself, the Observator's slogans and formulas, particularly the maxims that the king was singulis major, universis minor and the obscure quod efficit tale est magis tale (or quicquid efficit tale est magis tale), were the special targets of Parker's opponents, and in that sense bound the emerging debate. Equally, though, Parker's drift from known law and constitution into equity, popular sovereignty, and the law of nature released what had been the constitutional stream of the official war of words into broader political, religious, and (in several senses) moral waters. Eventually Observations9 currents were scarcely distinguishable in the increasingly vast river of pamphlets and issues. But very largely at the beginning of the war, and in a diminishing but still significant fashion for months thereafter, the history of political and constitutional thought is largely a matter of attacks on, and defenses and alternative statements of, the positions of the Observator. 1

The Anarchy of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy', in Patriarcha, ed. Sommerville, pp. 163—70; according to Sommerville, while The Anarchy was first published in 1648, internal evidence suggests its completion by 1644 (p. xii). Filmer also silently quoted a brief passage of Observations in Observations upon Aristotles Politiques (1652); see ibid., p. 251.

90

The Observator observed

91

The first reply to Observations appeared on or before 9 July 1642, the date Thomason purchased Animadversions upon Those Notes which the Late Observator Hath Published. The tract focused on Parker's table-turning of the seven positions "by way of recapitulation" of the king's answer to the houses' remonstrance of 26 May.2 This had been the polemical as well as the political core of Observations, the Animadvertor wasted no time or energy on peripherals. Rebuttal took triadic form - the king's position, Parker's rejoinder, and the animadversion. To royalists and legalists, Parker's most forward propositions about the locus of absolute or arbitrary power in the state were sufficiently damned by their mere assertion, and here the Animadvertor had little more to do than comment upon his own quotations. To Parker's assertion that absolute power of declaring law could not "rest more safely than in Parliament," the Animadvertor posed a distinction: if parliament included the king, it was true; if parliament amounted only to the "major part of the present sitting Parliament" without the king, it was not, not least because Parker had confessed that parliaments were no more bound by precedents than by statutes.3 To rely on the honor and justice of a parliament itself not willing to be bound by unrepealed statutes and by precedents ("the best warrant") was to place in parliament a trust indistinguishable from that Catholics placed in the Council of Trent. Indeed, the logic of singulis major, universis minor presumed "Parliament is the Vniversall unerring and unpervertibly just body of the Kingdome."4 Quod efficit tale est magis tale received its drubbing in the Animadvertor's assault upon Parker's assertion that the parliament, if deserted by the king, could save the kingdom on its own, as the "whole body of the State" by representation. In plain English, quicquid efficit tale est magis tale amounted to the assertion that "If a People make a King, they are more King themselves," a proposition that the Animadvertor thought Parker had learned from "Suarez, the Iesuite." This claim also was linked to the attack on parliament's claim of power over private goods; salus populi, while the highest law, never was intended "to uphold the publike with private injury." When the Animadvertor finally reached Parker's admission of the extraordinary sovereignty of the houses of parliament, he felt he (and Parker's own admissions) already covered his case.5 2

3 4 5

Animadversions upon Those Notes which the Late Observator Hath Published (London, 1642); purchased by Thomason on 9 July [BLE. 107(22)]. For the king's reply seep. 85 above, and for Parker's response and its role in Observations, see pp. 85, 87-8. Animadversions upon Those Notes was republished later in 1642 as pp. 13-22 of An Appendix to the Late Answer ([Oxford?,] 1642); see below, Appendix, p. 194. Animadversions upon Those Notes, pp. 1, 2. Animadversions upon Those Notes, pp. 3, 4. Animadversions upon Those Notes, p. 10.

92

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Animadversions upon Those Notes was probably the pamphlet attacked by Francis Rous in the Commons on 22 July 1642, and remarked by D'Ewes the next day.6 It attracted a rebuttal, The Observator Defended, a tract that Thomason also knew as Animadversions Animadverted Or The Observator Defended.7 Most likely, this was not Parker's own work, but a competent if sometimes flat restatement of the Parkerian line, combined with a few unmistakable indications pointing to where the Animadvertor's lash had most stung. William Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants was rather mischievously quoted to deflect the assault upon parliament's supposed infallibility; the king (whose pre-1640 conduct was recalled), not the houses, deserved the rebuke. Parker's extravagant, easily ridiculed claims for parliamentary omniscience were ratcheted down to a mere "probability of lesse erring ... than a particular Individual."8 Observations' immediate impact can also be seen within the parliamentary camp. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Parker did not lack flatterers. Thomason carefully noted that a tract entitled Some More New Observations was "not written be ye former Author of ye observations."9 And if plagiarism is the sincerest form of imitation, Parker did not lack imitators either. An Appeale to the World in these Times of Extreame Danger, an interesting and informative print-shop pamphlet that Thomason dated on 12 July 1642, began with large, nearly verbatim quotations from Observations.10 About a month later, Thomason purchased the somewhat similar Considerations for the Commons in this Age of Distractions-, its more religious tone also had room for a number of brief but direct and unmistakable borrowings from Observations.11 Even into October, Parker's tract 6

7

8 9 10 11

See chapter 1 n. 79 above. Some doubt arises from the date. Thomason dated his copy of the pamphlet 9 July 1642; Rous referred to a pamphlet that "was come out this morning." But no other pamphlet otherwise fits the description; D'Ewes' charge that the houses' reply to the king's declaration of 26 May had been anticipated by Observations, and that "parte" of Observations in turn had been "confuted in print by him that hath answeared that observator" points strongly to Animadversions upon Those Notes. Thomason added in manuscript the words "Animadversions Animadverted Or" to his copy, titled simply The Observator Defended. Thomason dated his copy 26 August 1642 [BL E. 114(19)]. The Observator Defended, pp. 5, 6, 11. Some More New Observations (London, 1642) [BL E. 239 (2)], t.p. An Appeale to the World in These Times of Extreame Danger (n.d., n.p.) was dated by Thomason 12 July 1642 [BL E. 107 (26)]. Cf. pp. 1, 2 with Observations, pp. 1, 2, 30. Considerations for the Commons in This Age of Distractions (n.p., n.d.); Thomason's copy is dated 17 August 1642. Cf. Considerations, sig. A3 recto ("There is not any age that can produce a story of a Parliament, freely elected and held, that ever did injure a whole Nation") and Observations, p. 22 ("no age will furnish us with one story of any Parliament freely elected, and held, that ever did injure a whole Kingdome"). Similarly, see Considerations, sig. A3 verso and Observations, p. 21; Considerations, sig. A4 recto and Observations, pp. 16, 17.

The Observator observed

93

lay before other men's eyes: The Vindication of the Parliament cited other tracts favorably, but lifted a key passage from Observations without acknowledgment.12 II

The most startling aspect of Parker's approach was its indifference or, worse, thinly veiled hostility to the rule of law, when the rule of law ran against the grain of politics. In Observations Parker never conceded or professed outright the illegality of the houses' activities (though he did so if he were indeed the author of A Question Answered), but his defense of illegality in terms of necessity and higher law so mimicked the court absolutists that constitutional royalists could scarcely conceal their gleeful horror. Had Parker sought cover — as emphatically he did not - he would have found it in the houses' own justifications, which were occasionally more "political" and less legal and constitutional than one might have expected from the self-styled heirs of the Petition of Right. Nevertheless, many supporters of the houses were doubtless discomfited by the Parkerian line, as much in its lawyer-author's indifference to legal argument as in its actual avowal of parliamentary absolutism. A good handful of parliamentarian tracts appearing in the wake of Observations set out to repair the omission. They did not attack, indeed did not often mention Observations, and their arguments often reverted to the categories exploited by Parker, including necessity and the general welfare. But if these tracts were politically complementary to Parker's position, they nevertheless made clear that Parker's was neither many parliamentarians' dernier nor their preferred en. William Prynne may have been first in the series. His Soveraign Antidote set out specifically to show that Sir John Hotham's actions at Hull as well as the parliament's in that matter and the militia were "neither Treason, Felony, nor Trespass by the Laws of the Land."13 Prynne's central contention was lawyerly, even legalistic. Hotham's action, Prynne argued, was not clear treason by the law of the land, and by the law of the land, doubtful cases were to be taken to parliament. That principle established, Prynne moved comfortably into the idiom of public necessity and

12

13

The Vindication of the Parliament (London, 1642), p. 30: "The transcendent [acme] of all politicks, or the Law Paramount, which gives Law to all humane Laws whatsoever, is Salus Populi"; virtually the same words occur in Observations, p. 3. [William Prynne,] A Soveraign Antidote to Prevent, Appease, and Determine our Vnnaturall and Destructive Civill Warres and Dissensions (London, 1642), t.p.; see also p. 29. The attribution to Prynne in the Thomason catalogue is accepted by Lamont, Marginal Prynne, p. 113 n.2. Thomason's copy was dated 18 August.

94

Henry Parker and the English civil war

equity, even to outright resistance.14 Though differently outfitted, Prynne's massive serial tract, The Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes, pursued a similar course, using the kingdom's records to support the parliamentary case that Parker believed he had adequately defended through his political science.15 Two full-blown law-based defenses of parliament's actions appeared late in September 1642. Peter Bland, of Gray's Inn, contributed Resolved vpon the Question. Like Prynne's Soveraign Antidote and several others (including Observations), Bland's pamphlet targeted two adjacent birds - the royalists' attacks upon Sir John Hotham's refusal to allow the king access to Hull, and the militia ordinance that in some sense underlay Hotham's actions. As Bland explained in his dedication, significantly, to Pym, parliament in general and Pym in particular had been subjected to the "scandalous imputations" and "opprobrious language" of malignants who denied parliament's "iust intents and actions." The precise problem, Bland revealed in a preface to the reader, was of public relations: while parliament doubtless had "law sufficient to iustifie their own actions," some had wondered why "the Parliament did not prove their own acts by visible Law, as well as disprove the Kings." That defect, which Parker had done nothing to remedy, provided Bland with his task. . Bland's "legal" case was no less radical than Parker's. Parker had stepped delicately about the matter of depositions; Bland diverged sufficiently from his eponymous character to allow the medieval depositions of kings an exemplary value of parliament's power in an extremity, even as he disclaimed any intention of the deed in the present.16 So far as he could, though, Bland made his case within the legal tradition, using Coke and, more often, Fortescue as often as served his turn. Where substantive law seemed to be with him - as in Bland's view, Hotham's actions at Hull stood outside "the letter" of 25 Edw. Ill - he plunged into it; where his lawyerly instincts told him it did not - notably in the matter of the irrevocability of a trust- Bland went behind the law, distinguishing between "private" trusts which were irrevocable and the public trust of a king, which could not be irrevocable without destruction of the right of property.17 By the end of the tract, Bland all but confessed his 14 15

16

17

Prynne, A Soveraign Antidote, sigs. A3verso-Blrecto (irregular pagination). The four parts were issued under different titles in March-August 1643. Thomason bound them together in BL E. 248 (1-4). Lamont's otherwise perceptive discussion of Soveraign Power in Marginal Prynne, pp. 85-119, needs to be supplemented by a recognition that in the respects that Lamont found Prynne perplexing, Prynne was largely following the official line. Peter Bland, Resolved vpon the Question (London, 1642), p. 16. Cf. Parker, Observations, p. 32, that "it may iustly be denyed that free Parliaments did ever truely consent to the dethroaning of any King of England." Conceivably Parker's language does not utterly disavow the possibility of a deposition. Bland, Resolved vpon the Question, pp.5, 9-12, 13, 14.

The Observator observed

95

inability to make a purely legal case, except by invoking a "necessity" indistinguishable from Parker's; the wish, however, may be more significant in this instance than the deed. 18 More substantial and successful was the contemporaneous contribution of John Marsh, An Argument or, Debate in Law, which set out to prove "the Legalitie" of the militia ordinance, and its warrantability "by the fundamentall Laws of the Land." 19 Marsh, the chancellor of Lincoln's Inn, adopted an apparently conservative posture, initially conceding the king's prerogative right to "sole and onely power" over the militia. This right, however, was in the nature of a "trust," and as the subject was bound to obey, so too the king was "bound to protect." 20 Accordingly, a crux arose if the king failed to protect: could the houses make an ordinance without the king in time of "imminent danger"? Marsh's answer was to find in the common law itself doctrines of necessity and the superiority of the common good; willfully disregarding the facts, he supported his position by claiming that the judges "always" adjudged "all Grants of the King, of Monopolies, or Impositions" to be against law because they were "against the good of the commonwealth." 21 While like Parker and most other parliamentary apologists, Marsh claimed that the houses acted as the king's great council, more to his own mettle he argued that the houses' actions bound the king "by an indirect judgement" in the same way that the king was bound by the decisions of inferior courts. 22 These attempts at a "legal" rather than political case for the houses' actions were only partially successful. Each of them ultimately had to accommodate the new order of parliamentary argument, and so had to make room, however grudgingly, for equity, necessity, salus populi and the like. This is testimony to the inherent limitations of parliament's case, as well as to the paradox (for so it had become) that partisans of the old legal order needed to find their way within the parliamentary camp. In this circumstance it might be thought that Parker's message was either imperfectly understood or willfully misunderstood by those of his own side, that only royalists understood Parker. This intriguing possibility is not sustained, however, by another of 18 19

20 21

22

Bland, Resolved vpon the Question, pp. 15-16. J[ohn] M[arsh], An Argument or, Debate in Law (London, 1642), t.p. Thomason's copy is dated 30 September 1642. Marsh's tract has received some treatment from Ernest Sirluck, ed., Complete Prose Works of John Milton, II (New Haven, 1959), pp. 18, 38; but cf. Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 187-8. [Marsh], An Argument or, Debate in Law, pp. 1,3. [Marsh], An Argument or, Debate in Law, pp. 7, 8; cf. pp. 9-10. Marsh's argument can only be sustained by threading a small needle with a large thread: royalist judges, in support of impositions or ship money, did argue that such grants were to be justified because they served the common good, and even implied that they would not be legal if they only served private interests. As it stands, and in the plain sense of his words, Marsh's position is counterfactual. [Marsh], An Argument or, Debate in Law, pp. 32, 3 4 - 7 . Marsh was well aware of obvious rejoinders to this argument; see pp. 3 8 - 9 .

96

Henry Parker and the English civil war

the important tracts of the militia controversy and its aftermath, Touching the Fundamentall Laws.23 An advanced if brief exercise in constitutional speculation, Touching the Fundamentall Laws sought to define the fundamental laws as simultaneously the structure and the source of the constitution. The "Common-wealth" was not "like a Corporation created by Charter" but possessed of the ability of "creating it selfe." The king was not a "party" to the fundamental agreement but a "part" of it. And both king and parliament were laws in themselves "giving law to Laws themselves." Consequently, the fundamental laws of the kingdom were "not (or at least need not be) any written agreement," nor were they "things of capitulation" between strangers (a rejection of any form of conquest theory). Rather, they were "things of constitution," giving "an externall Polity" to both king and members. Therefore a measure of indefiniteness was necessarily part of the order of things: putting the fundamental laws to writing was "the next way to bring all to confusion," since king and parliament would demand written "proof" for the other's inherent powers.24 To a degree Touching the Fundamentall Laws used an idiom identified with the ancient constitution, preferring the law "written in the very heart of the Republique" to the law of "pen and paper." Nevertheless, as the author well knew, his intent and his critics' understandings lay in another direction. To the objection that his formulation made "our Government to be founded in Equity, not in Law, or upon that common rule of Salus populi, which is alike to all nations," the author pleaded guilty as charged: England's fundamental laws were but "a particular way of policy" founded upon the universal principles of common good and equity; at most they were a successful realization of the "common right" of all mankind, and never to be judged apart from this standard. The fund of written precedent had to yield before the "lex legum" of salus populi, for "in process of time," written laws had diverged from aboriginal equity.25 Far from being "guilty of exercising an arbitrary power," parliament in its refusal to abide by "written laws" had avoided a "destructive and absurd" course that would have the power that gives laws "to receive laws." 26 Before this juggernaut, the king's claims to a negative voice and control over the militia had to give way, as did the need to obey the king in matters of public controversy. Echoing Parker's formula of singulis major, universis minor ^ Touching the Fundamentall Laws argued that while men divisim were bound to obey the magistrate (in public business 23 24 25 26

Touching the Fundamentall Laws (London, 1643); Thomason dated his copy 24 February 1642/3. Touching the Fundamentall Laws, sig. A2 recto and verso (paging irregular). Touching the Fundamentall Laws, sig. A3 recto. Touching the Fundamentall Laws, sig. A4 recto and verso. An exception of sorts was made for private right, which ought to follow known rules; equally though, a counter-exception was made to exclude parliament's own violations of the Petition of Right.

The Observator observed

97

only), men conjunctim were not, if the prince's command departed from the common good.27 ill

Parker's relation with Lord Say and prevailing political attitudes made all but inevitable some gesture towards the ideal of a mixed or classically balanced constitution of king, Lords, and Commons. In The Case of Shipmony, which Parker probably wrote at a time when the connection to Say was at its strongest, the mixed constitution was strongly advocated; only a closer, highly contextual reading reveals the shallowness of Parker's commitment.28 In Observations, Parker wrote partly with an eye towards the Answer to the XIX Propositions, whose celebrated royalist statement of the virtues of the balanced constitution was an attack upon the sort of parliamentary absolutism that had been enunciated by the houses in their declarations and defended in full vigor by Parker. But this time Parker had little to say one way or the other about mixed government, completely ignoring the often quoted parts of the Answer to the XIX Propositions, Meanwhile, as has been seen, Parker's aggressive ownership of bicameral parliamentary sovereignty — itself a revival-cum-reversal of royalist absolutism - took him far from the spirit of the balanced constitution, even as he was silent as to the letter. So he was taken by hisfirstcritics, already examined here, as well as those to follow. Parliamentary opinion, of course, had room for its constitutionalists as well its legalists; it is instructive to see how they approached Parker, whose cause was right but whose arguments were suspect or worse. One expositor of the balanced constitution was Charles Herle, a Presbyterian divine, whose pamphlet, A Fuller Answer to a Treatise Written by Doctor Feme, compelled Herle to consider Parker, since Henry Feme's treatise, The Resolving of Conscience, responded primarily to the "Observator, and all others that plead" in similar fashion.29 On Parker, Herle was equivocal. On the one hand, he felt compelled to intervene against Feme's attack on the "position of the Observator" of singulis major, universis minor, "by this Resolver and others so much exploded," and similarly to uphold Parker's emphasis upon safety as the highest 27 28

29

Touching the Fundamentall Laws, sig. B4 recto. The Case of Shipmony, pp. 38—9. See also Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 130-1; idem, "The Ship Money Case, The Case of Shipmony, and the Development of Henry Parker's Parliamentary Absolutism"; and Tuck, Philosophy and Government, pp. 2 3 0 - 1 . [Charles Herle,] A Fuller Answer to a Treatise Written by Doctor Feme, "enlarged" edition (London, 1642). This text was purchased by Thomason on 10 January 1642/43 [BL E. 245 (3)]; on 29 December 1642 Thomason purchased the earlier edition [BL E. 244 (27)]. Henry Feme, The Resolving of Conscience (London, 2642[sic]), B3recto (paging confused). In this passage and elsewhere, Feme tried to transmute or reduce Parker's and parliament's position to that of resistance theory.

98

Henry Parker and the English civil war

goal of the state.30 And since Herle wished to defend parliament as fully as ever did Parker, and since he worked from the same constitutional base of the declarations, other propositions are strongly coincident with Parker's views: that an ordinance was "not an Act of Parliament, or Law ... but an occasionall supply" through "coordination" of a defect of the whole, and that the two houses were the supreme authority of the state both for safety and law, if the king failed to join with them. Herle even gestured towards the most aggressive of Parker's thrusts, acknowledging without shame that majority rule was as "arbitrary" as any other - the difference was that the "great council" was the best repository for the "States use" of the "will" inevitable in any system of government.31 On the other hand, Herle's own agenda differed markedly from Parker's. Despite the color of his own gown, Herle's whole case against his fellow cleric Feme (who played the divine against Parker) was constitutional. He argued that England was a coordinate and mixed, not a subordinate and absolute, monarchy, and drew upon Fortescue and Bracton, sources of the old legalconstitutional tradition now as often cited - almost in a proprietary way - by the constitutional royalists as by parliamentarians. It was ultimately a municipal constitutional arrangement that devolved the power of law into the hands of the members of two houses, not one that obtained no matter what the local, actual facts may have been (as Parker had at least implied). Law and history were on parliament's side. Herle's approach, then, was at least different from Parker's. Perhaps Herle himself would have described it not as antagonistic but complementary to Parker's, much as Prynne's massive Soveraign Power had used the records of the kingdom to defend the same propositions that Parker had developed independently of history. As will be seen, Herle was criticized by Philip Hunton - that is, from within his own camp - for endorsing a proposition that Parker had done much to promote. The difference remains: would Parker have thought either Herle's efforts or Prynne's necessary? Another constitutional defense of parliament was far more aggressive in pursuing its differences with Parker. Philip Hunton's Treatise of Monarchies arguably, was an attempt to construct a non-Parkerian, even an anti-Parkerian defense of parliament - in particular, a defense that did not rely on but rather positively repudiated the key elements of Parker's case. This was suggested in Hunton's preface, which apologized for the book's anonymity with a crack probably directed at Parker - the "now common Liberty to goe namelesse" was taken by "many ... for worse ends." Hunton's claim to a "thanklesse Moderation 'twixt two extremes," albeit that moderation 30

[Herle], Fuller Answer, pp.3, 9.

31

[Herle], Fuller Answer, pp.7, 13, 15-16.

The Observator observed

99

was a conventional pose, was this time to be taken seriously: at one extreme, it turned out, sat Parker.32 Hunton's world and, hence, his argument were intrinsically constitutional. England was, he insisted, a limited monarchy; the "Soveraignty of our Kings is radically and fundamentally limited," in the making of law and the exaction of taxes, as well as in the matters of governance, the structure of courts, and the succession. Moreover, it was also a mixed monarchy "in the very Root and Essence": the nature of the limitation itself was the concurrence of the two other "estates" with the king. This was demonstrated by reference to the Answer to the XIX Propositions, amongst other sources.33 Now while this analysis gave grounds to the houses of parliament, it equally gave grounds to the king. Hunton accepted as negotiable the very proposition that Bodinians ruled inadmissible: that sovereignty could be divided. And so it was in England, where the houses could no more claim sovereignty without the king than the king could without the houses. If the parts possessing sovereignty conjointly fell out amongst themselves, there was no judge of the controversy either inside the government or out of it. In this "transcendent case beyond the provision of that Government," the people previously bound by the government were now "unbound" into a pre-political condition.34 Each man became his own judge, an existential quandary addressed sensitively by Professor Pocock. All that Hunton could recommend was for each individual to decide which of the sovereignty-sharing constituents bore primary responsibility for the breakdown - and since Hunton accepted the existence of an absolutist conspiracy around the king, Hunton's practical solution was to incline towards parliament.35 The tilt, however, was modest, and Hunton took pains to dissociate his case from Parker's, from Herle's, and (although Hunton did not directly say it) from the declarations of the houses. Very early on, Hunton took on both of Parker's maxims, singulis major, universis minor and quod efficit tale est magis tale. The latter maxim was "even in naturall causes ... lyable to abundance of restrictions: And in the particular in hand it holds not." A "Community whose consent establishes a Power" over itself alienates its interest in government, as the conveyor of an estate alienates rather than gains a property interest by his transfer.36 Hunton also took Herle to task for his defense, against Feme, of Parker's avowal of singulis major, universis minor, "this is a very overthrow of all Monarchy, and to reduce all Govern32 33 34 35 36

[Philip Hunton,] A Treatise of Monarchie (London, 1643), sig. A3 verso. [Hunton], A Treatise of Monarchie, pp. 37—40. [Hunton], A Treatise of Monarchie, p. 17; cf. pp. 7 3 - 5 . [Hunton], A Treatise of Monarchie, pp.73-5. Pocock, The Machiavellian pp. 3 6 7 - 8 . [Hunton], A Treatise of Monarchie, pp. 15, 16.

Moment,

100

Henry Parker and the English civil war

ment to Democracy."37 Herle had also adopted Parker's doctrine of necessity and reason of state; Hunton condemned it unequivocally, as the giving "all that to the two Houses which ere while they would not suffer when the Judges in the case of Ship-Money had given it to the King."38 IV

With critics in one's own camp as sharp as Hunton, Parker hardly needed enemies as well. These, however, he had in abundance. Parker himself commented with understandable irritation upon the phenomenon. In The Contra-Replicant he noted the very unequal distribution of literary talent: "Scholars" were "not active on both sides alike" because the king's side shrewdly linked the interests of pen and sword. Later, an embattled Parker began Jus Populi by remarking upon the "multitudes of opponents" sent out by the royalists to do battle with "Observator (so he is stiled at Oxford)."39 The army against Parker took time to mobilize, and, apart from the immediate and effective response provided by Animadversions, the earliest missiles were scarcely to be feared. One early response, entitled An Answer or Necessary Animadversions, upon Some Late Impostumate Observations, initiated several promising angles of attack. The Observer, as he was tagged here, was called to task repeatedly for his resort to "cunning inference" and "scolding termefs]." Anticipating a piercing if rare motif in the royalist antiphony, the author defended the privy council's role as even more vital in the current distractions than before the parliament met.40 Unfortunately nearly all was lost by a style frequently on the wrong side of coherence. William Ball's A Caveat for Subjects, Moderating the Observator was clearer but pedestrian, attacking Parker's "chiefest Arguments" (the first principles of salus populi, singulis major, universis minor, and quod efficit tale est magis tale) from the perspective of a partisan of England's monarchy, limited by a long line of "acts of grace conferred on this Nation by his Majesties predecessors in severall ages ... some of them lately by his Maiesty himselfe," but not by an external human agency.41 Some months elapsed before the full thrust of the counterattack was felt, but when it arrived its effect was unmistakable. Two early responses proved particularly important: Henry Feme's The Resolving of Conscience and 37 38 39 40

41

[Hunton], A Treatise of Monarchic, pp. 42-3; similar remarks at pp. 16, 26. [Hunton], A Treatise of Monarchic, p. 70. The Contra-Replicant, p. 1; }us Populi, p. 1. An Answer or Necessary Animadversions, pp. 1,12-13. This tract has been attributed to the Restoration-era author Richard Burney; Thomason dated his copy [BL E. 108 (39)] 3 August 1642. William Ball, A Caveat for Subjects, Moderating the Observator (London, 1642), p. 6; see also pp. 8 , 9 , 1 6 . Thomason dated his copy [ BL E. 118 (7)] 19 September 1642. This tract was reprinted in An Appendix to the Late Answer (see n.2 above), pp. 1—12.

The Observator observed

101

Dudley Digges' An Answer to a Printed Book, Intituled, Observations vpon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses. Feme's The Resolving of Conscience did much to reorient the debate away from Parker's chosen ground. Although ostensibly not a reply to any particular tract or declaration, Observations' presence was felt throughout The Resolving of Conscience, and at one point the "Observator" was singled out as the exemplar of "all other that plead" for a right of resistance from the "originall of power" in "the people."42 Parker's argument, in fact, steered as far from resistance theory as possible; while he considered the prospect of disobedience to kings, in Observations Parker did not countenance the use of force against them. Instead Parker's case, while owing some of its idiom (including the maxim singulis major, universis minor) at least indirectly to the monarchomachs, was about parliament's independent claim to power, and about the people as the efficient andfinalcause of power. But Feme sought to redirect the debate, and The Resolving of Conscience strove mightily to transmute the arguments of the parliamentary declarations and Observations into the categories of rebellion and resistance. In parallel fashion, The Resolving of Conscience tried to turn from the quietly secularist (or rather, tacitly non-Scriptural) mode of the "popular Statesmen" back towards the moralistic mode of the divine. While the former might judge non-resistance "impolitick and unreasonable," the latter held non-resistance the only course allowable by "God's Law."43 The arguments from necessity and salus populi - "weapons sharpened ... at the Philistins forge" - entered only when the arguments of "right and just" failed.44 Feme's appeal to conscience was well alloyed with the other controversial metals. To combat tne arguments from danger to the state and the supposed failure of the king to discharge his trust, Feme deployed fact as well as principle; to break down the appeal to unwritten "Fundamentals of this government," as Parker had done, Feme insisted upon the historic constitution of "that excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament." 45 Confronting the propositions that "the King is Vniversis minor" and that the houses constituted the "whole Body" or "whole State" in resisting the king on the militia, Feme pointed to the obvious: the two houses, shorn of many members and rent by divisions, could hardly be said in "conscience" (rather than "formality of Law") to have concluded "the iudgment of the whole kingdom." Siding with parliament replaced the danger supposed to be in the king with the danger of "every prevailing faction."46 An Answer to a Printed Book is variously attributed, but is almost certainly 42 43 44 45 46

Feme, Feme, Feme, Feme, Feme,

The The The The The

Resolving Resolving Resolving Resolving Resolving

of of of of of

Conscience, Conscience, Conscience, Conscience, Conscience,

sig. B3 recto (paging irregular). sigs. Al verso-A2 recto; see also sig. Cl recto. sig. Cl recto. sigs. B2 verso, Cl verso. sigs. C3 verso, C4 recto.

102

Henry Parker and the English civil war

the work of Dudley Digges, the son of the Caroline judge, Sir Dudley Digges. Thomason's copy (which he acquired in November 1642) bears his own attribution: "ffalk. Chilgw. Digges and ye rest of ye university." While this probably overstates the extent of others' involvement, some gossip or perhaps truth may lie behind it. Francis Cheynell, a not entirely reliable witness, claimed to have seen "a letter under Mr. Chillingworths own hand" to Gilbert Sheldon and Dean Potter, urging them to "stir up ... the young laddes of the University ... to oppose the Parliament." On the other hand, in his signed tract, The Vnlawfvlnesse of Subjects Taking up Armes against their Soveraigne, Digges referred to "my Answer to the Observations."47 An Answer to a Printed Book, like the earlier though limited Animadversions, attacked Parker using his own categories. Feme - despite some important comments on the balanced constitution - had sought to turn the debate from statecraft to conscience, and from the calculus of power to the crime and sin of rebellion; divines are no less prone than generals tofightthe last war. Digges, however, tacitly accepted one of Parker's underlying premises: that the issue was not rebellion but power. Digges also accepted Parker's essentially aristocratic program: for all that Parker derived power from the people, democracy was no part of his agenda. According to Digges, the goal of the king's opponents in attacking the king's great officers was to use the "affections" of the people to "make roome for themselves" - a point also reflected in the consideration of the Nineteen Propositions as a would-be scramble for place.48 Indeed, the intellectual, political, and social symmetry of the two tracts and their authors provided An Answer to a Printed Book with its special, sometimes rather catty bite. Parker's placing of the final and efficient cause of power in the people was simply scorned, as if it were a transparent fraud. Salus populi, though the "prime end" of all government, was "notwithstanding" the resort of "crafty men, who seeme to pitty their [the people's] sufferings." Parker's use of the rule that quod omnibus tangit, ab omnibus approbari debet was similarly exploded: even the "most popular State" could not "punctiliously observe it." Women, the young and the poor, "all these having lives to loose," were excluded; and England went further in excluding the clergy.49 Digges was especially savage in his attack upon the two slogans.

47

48 49

An Answer to a Printed Book (Oxford, 1642), t.p. in Thomason edition [BL E. 242 (16)]; Francis Cheynell, The Rise, Growth, and Danger of Socinianistn (London, 1643), p. 76; Dudley Digges, The Vnlawfvlnesse of Subjects Taking up Armes against their Soveraigne (London, 1647), p. 62. The first edition in 1643, was dated by Thomason 15 January 1643/4; the 1647 edition is a paginary reissue. An Answer to a Printed Book, pp. 10, 28. An Answer to a Printed Book, pp. 9, 15.

The Observator observed

103

Singulis major, universis minor failed for two reasons: if the people did grant their power to the king, it was irrevocable or no grant at all, and if "by universis" Parker meant the "the representative all," then the two houses had all the king's power, and the government was an aristocracy. "For if they give his voice, 'tis all one, as if he had no voice." As for quicquid efficit tale est magis tale, that "palpable sophistry" was at best true before the effect was produced, "not alwaies after." The spark that set fire to the city was "once, more fire than the houses" but "not so, after the whole towne is become one flame."50 The primary objective of An Answer to a Printed Book was to display the absolutism of the parliamentarians for what it was. To this end Digges developed a model of an emerging reign of terror. A "certaine body of men" would be empowered to "breake all inferiour lawes" in the name of "the good of the people, 6cc." Initially they would be supported by "the greater part of the people," who were attracted "by faire promises of a perfect Reformation." In time, though, the new masters would discover in their own fear "sufficient motive" to seize the estates of their opponents. "Is it not just," they would ask, "to take away from enemies of the State, the power of hurting it?" 51 Similarly, Parker's logic was repeatedly compared to the logic of absolutism in general and the king's partisans in the ship money controversy in particular. The attempt to turn the houses' right to a veto into a demand that the king assent to whatever they requested was to deny a joint tenant his ownership. Did not "Shipmony destroy our Propriety but by this very consequence?" The doctrine of necessity, used to justify the militia ordinance, was "the very case of Shipmony." The major difference between the two situations was that the head without the body claimed to be the "state before, now it is the body without a Head." Both were wrong; the king was part of the state.52 Digges relished the irony of the situation, although to those who thought they knew Charles well, Digges had indulged in a self-defeating exercise in rhetorical overkill: "Could our Ancestors ever have beleeved, there should come a King, who would plead for Magna Carta ... and desire nothing more, then the utter abolition of all Arbitrary rule?" 53 But as the new absolutism was scarcely to be distinguished from the old, the remedy remained the same. Law was to be preferred to the deceptive reasoning of

50

51 52 53

An Answer to a Printed Book, pp.5, 18. Quod efficit tale est magis tale received Digges' further withering attention in The Vnlawfvlnesse of Subjects Taking up Artnes against their Soveraigne, pp.63, 87, 101, 113, 151-2. An Answer to a Printed Book, p. 45. An Answer to a Printed Book, pp. 23, 3 3 , 4 4 - 5 . An Answer to a Printed Book, p. 25.

104

Henry Parker and the English civil war

"ambitious cholerick men." "The Prudence of our Lawes" provided remedy against both kinds of arbitrary rule, monarchical or aristocratic. Digges added that if forced to accept one form or the other, he preferred the known and less expensive royal variety. But so far as remedy was possible, the "Peoples safety" was best secured "by prohibiting all illegal executions of power."54

An Answer to a Printed Book was the first salvo in a new and sudden barrage. In early and mid-1643, at least four other replies to Observations pressed what seemed to royalists a winning case; still other royalist tracts more indirectly engaged the debate. Some were anonymous, and some have been misattributed. A little can be done to straighten bibliographical matters out; the reward is a clearer picture both of the responses that Observations generated and the talented royalist writers who challenged the Observator. The most serious problems and greatest opportunities surround tracts commonly attributed to the king's two ablest pamphleteering apologists, Dudley Digges and Sir John Spelman (son of the great antiquary Sir Henry Spelman), both of whom perished in the Oxford camp fever of 1643. Digges has already been seen as the author or principal author of An Answer to a Printed Book. He acknowledged his authorship in The Vnlawfvlnesse of Subjects Taking Up Arms Against Their Soveraigne, a tract of what might be called the post-Observations phase of royalist polemic.55 While Vnlawfvlnesse repeatedly attacked the Parkerian slogans, Observations itself was not mentioned. Several other parliamentarian tracts were addressed, however, and Digges' intended victim was not so much a tract or tracts as an ethos. Digges, however, is also generally credited (apparently on the authority of Anthony a Wood's nineteenth-century editor, Bliss) with another reply to Parker, A Review of the Observations.56 Spelman was all but certainly the author of The Case of Our Affaires, which appeared in January 1643/4. Like Digges' Vnlawfvlnesse, The Case of Our Affaires breathed post-Observations air, and also like it, it was in no direct sense a reply to Parker, its prime target being Prynne's Soveraign

54 55 56

An Answer to a Printed Book, pp. 35, 44, 50, 52. The Vnlawfvlnesse of Subjects Taking up Armes, pp. 62, 64. A Review of the Observations (Oxford, 1643). Thomason dated his copy 15 April 1643; a printer's note (p. 29) asserts the manuscript was received before Christmas (1642) and was kept from the press by "our full imployment ever since." Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis, III, col. 66; cf. the skepticism of F. Madan, Oxford Books, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1912), II, p. 250.

The Observator observed

105

Power.57 But Spelman is also credited, on the excellent authority of the Bodley librarian Thomas Barlow, with the authorship of a tract with a title uncomfortably similar to Digges' supposed second reply to Observations. This tract is A View of a Printed Book Intituled Observations upon His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses.58 As Madan remarked long ago, it surpasses all understanding why Digges would write nearly at the same time two replies to Observations. Since Digges did not acknowledge A Review (unlike An Answer, if only to disavow one of its positions), and since A Review bears no very great resemblance to Digges' other writings, there is little reason (other than Bliss' authority) to attribute A Review to Digges at all. But a very easy and compelling case can be made for attributing it to Spelman. A Review and The Case of Our Affairs share a number of stylistic eccentricities and, more importantly, a signature doctrine. Both tracts refer to the "Observer" (rather than the Observator or something more circumlocutory), to the "Book of Observations," to the "formal parts" of parliament, to the king's "sworn council."59 Both repeatedly invoke "the Law" as an actor seemingly possessed of a will: "our law ... judged" or "the Law restraining."60 And both have a great deal to say in response to the Parkerian—parliamentary vision of the houses as the king's and kingdom's great council, possessed if need be with independent executive authority. In this topic Spelman had a personal investment. Summoned to Oxford, he had advised the king in a private capacity (as one of the unsworn counsellors so despised by parliamentarians), and was in line for a secretaryship of state at the time of his death. Insofar as he was not taken up by his historical and legal scholarship (he turned out a life of King Alfred while at Oxford), therefore, Spelman was an unsworn counsellor about to become a properly sworn member of the privy council. And both A Review and The Case of Our Affairs stress the fundamental role of non-parliamentary counsel - indeed almost in the same words: 57

58

59

60

The Case of Our Affaires ([Oxford,] 1643 [/4]). Thomason's copy is dated 29 January

1643/4. The earliest Bodley edition (shelf mark C. 14.4) has an ascription in a contemporary hand; see the photographic facsimile published by The Rota (Exeter, 1975). The Rota edition is mistaken, however, to consider The Case of Our Affaires as primarily a response to Observations. Prynne, as author of the first part of Soveraign Power [The Treachery and Disloyalty of Papists to their Soveraignes (London, 1643)], is attacked by Spelman on pp. 13-19, and is held (for his open endorsement of depositions) to be worse than Parker, who was more reserved in the matter: Prynne (p. 17) was "not ashamed to licke up what his fellow [Parker] vomited out." A View of a Printed Book Intituled Observations upon His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses (Oxford [sic], 1642). Thomason dated his copy 26 January 1643. For Barlow's attribution, Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis, and Madan, Oxford Books, II, p. 214. A Review of the Observations, pp. 11,13,18,24; The Case of Our Affaires, pp. 2,5,12,27. Were An Answer or Necessary Animadversions (see above, p. 100) more intelligible, it might be possible to view it as in the mold of these tracts; it too referred to the Observer, and also reflected on the privy council's role in parliament time (p. 13). E.g., A Review of the Observations, p. 9; The Case of Our Affaires, p. 12.

106

Henry Parker and the English civil war

To [the king] alone, the Law having committed the Soveraign Government, ordained him withall, a body of sworne privy Councell to advise with therein, and a sworne Counsell at Law to advise Him of the Rights and Priviledges, that belong unto Him as supream Governour, and the first of the three States of Parliament... if without legall proof of particulars, such Counsailers shall by generall vote of the Subject, be censured private whisperers and seducers of the King... then shall the King at once be dangerously deprived of the constant meanes which the Law hath especially ordayned Him, for support of His Right against the other two opposed powers, and for the good discharge of His Kingly office.61 the Law ... considering the person of the Soveraigne to be single, and his power counterpoised by the opposed wisedome of the two numerous Bodies of the two Houses, it allowed unto the King power to sweare unto himselfe a Bodie of Councell of State (which our Lawes sometime call His Grand Councell) and to sweare unto him also Counsellors at Law ... faithfully to advise him in his Government... And if upon a generall pretence of evill counsell, without any instance in what, his Majestie be deprived of the use and assistance of ... his sworne Counsell (especially in Parliament time, when the Soveraignitie [sic] may be so easily overmatched) it will make such a breach of the priviledge of the first of the three Orders in Parliament, as will destroy the true frame of Parliaments, [and] diminish the power of the Crown.62

A Review had more to say than this: it began with a direct assault on Parker'sfirstprinciples, rejecting singulis major, universis minor, the popular sovereignty for which it stood, and Parker's view that God was no more the author of monarchy than any other form of government. To these A Review opposed a jus divinum of a naturalistic patriarchalism.63 This was tempered, however (as Filmer's absolutist patriarchalism was not), by a fervent attachment to "our Lawes and the auncient setled frame of Government," and it was in that vein that A Review insisted upon the king's council's independence from parliament.64 As the passages above from A Review and The Case of Our Affairs intimate, the privy council's function was not merely impeded by parliamentary meddling; since the council was precisely "the constant meanes which the Law hath especially ordayned Him, for support of His Right against the other two opposed powers," to "barre Him of the use of His Counsells advice" was to destroy "the tripartite frame."65 Save for the very similar sentiments of The Case of Our Affairs, this was not the common fare of responses to Observations. There was one echo in Transcendent and Multiplied Rebellion and Treason, an anonymous tract

61 63

64

6Z A Review of the Observations, p. 24. The Case of Our Affaires, pp. 12-13. A Review of the Observations, pp. 1-7. This point also argues against ascription to Digges, since Digges' other writings do not own such a doctrine, and The Vnlawfvlnesse of Subjects Taking up Armes against their Soveraigne, pp. 14-15 specifically disavows it as "not much pertinent" to "moderne controversies" since no modern king holds his crown "by that title"; a king is no more immediately "kindred to Adam, then all the rest of mankinde." 65 A Review of the Observations, p. 8. A Review of the Observations, pp. 17-18, 24.

The Observator observed

107

recently attributed to Edward Hyde, which in terms reminiscent of The Case of Our Affairs considered the privy council as a grand council.66 Therefore it seems safe to remove A Review from Digges' column and place it in Spelman's. However, this means contesting Bishop Barlow's attribution of A View to Spelman on the same grounds as A Review was severed from Digges: without compelling logic to the contrary, it is unlikely that an individual would have written two considerable, different replies to the same pamphlet. Some assistance comes from Madan. While he noted Barlow's attribution, Madan also remarked that Barlow's copy (like Thomason's) was a London counterfeit of an Oxford imprint and that "there appears to be no genuine Oxford edition" at all.67 Probably Barlow confused, after many years, two pamphlets with identical missions and very similar names, and credited Spelman with A View when he should have attributed to him A Review. If so, A View then joins a number of other authorially miscellaneous or anonymous replies to Observations. Appearing late in January 1643 with an apology from the printer for coming "forth now, so long after the publishing of those Observations," A View hammered Parker hard in ways that, had the tract appeared earlier, would have given A View a high perch in the tree of discourse.68 Appearing when it did, its best points had already been made. The "privado" author of Observations had taken a "King and His Answers" even higher, "unto the head and origen both of regall and Parliamentary Power." The "vulgar" had been intoxicated; worse, "the more understanding" had been "intangled" in a "Laborinth of implicatory and inextricable Errours."69 Parker's high-flying maxims were the "reasons" offered to make the houses capable of determination and to take from the king his executive power or "government."70 The result disabled the king, but only at the cost of erecting the houses as a new arbitrary government, and exchanging the former contest of prerogative and the "Subiects libertie" for a new one of liberty against ochlocracy.71 Against Parker's insistence that the militia ordinance was only for the duration of the emergency, the Viewer placed the story of Semiramis, the queen who asked for her husband's sovereignty for a day, only to use it to kill him and rule ever after.72 66

67 68

69 70 71

[Edward Hyde,] Transcendent and Multiplied Rebellion and Treason ([Oxford,] 1645), pp.4—5. The attribution is made by Graham Roebuck, Clarendon and Cultural Continuity', pp. 8 7 - 8 . See also n . 5 9 above. Madan, Oxford Books, II, p. 214. A View, p. 4, seems to refer to Animadversions upon Those Notes ("those Animadversions formerly made") as a predecessor tract and anticipates that "some able Pen will undertake" to give Parker a "sharp and just Answer". This suggests rather an early date of composition. A View, pp. 3 ^ . A View, p p . 7 - 8 ; for more on the maxims, p p . 1 1 , 13, 14; for the dangers of making the "charter of nature" the "supreme law," pp. 3 4 - 5 . 71 A View, p. 37. A View, p. 44.

108

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Other tracts continued to emerge. Certain Materiall Considerations, a short reply to Observations, focused upon the parliamentary claim of necessity, accepting it in principle, but only if every remedy offered by positive law had been exhausted, and the emergency were at hand. Neither condition obtained in the houses' seizure of the militia; furthermore, the claim that the king did not harken to the "advise of his great Councell" and did not accept them "as Ingenuous and Equall Counsellors" (which had been a major component of the supposed emergency) collapsed in the face of the parliamentary view of the king as an "enemy."73 Christus Dei, or The Lords Annoynted actually managed to find a new angle, if not new criticisms. Like most of the other rebuttals, it focused on the maxims, announcing even on the title page that God, not the people, was the "sole Efficient cause" of regal power, and that the king was, pace Parker, "not onely Major Singulis, but Major Vniversis."74 That conventional mission was sustained by a ploy not available to the more constitutionally and legally minded of Parker's critics: a full acceptance of the principle of salus populi, not as the primary goal of man (which was the love and service of God), but as the "maine naturall and secondary end of man." For their different purposes, court absolutists and Parker had used salus populi as a justification for overriding the constraints of positive law; while Parker's constitutionalist critics chided Parker for his parliamentary absolutism, the author of Christus De/'s "Theologicall Discourse" sought to reclaim for the king a sophisticated and humane absolutism based on the general welfare. As Christus Dei would have it, the species (not the individual) is possessed with a drive towards self-preservation: "Every Creature ... strives to preserve its own kind." God having given man understanding, will, and language, the natural outcome of the divine benevolence was that men unite "into Civill Societies and Communities, that so they might preserve their Kind." 75 Civil society was not, as Hobbes would have it, artificial; civil power was both "natural" and "inherent" in the species. But it did need to be "absolute." While the "Observer saith truly" that no particular form of government was intrinsically divine, once choice was made it was irrevocable and unlimited. In that sense, as the humanly unchangeable agent of a divine and 73

74

75

Certain Materiall Considerations (London, 1642), pp. 6-9 (quotations, p. 9). Thomason dated his copy [BL E. 246 (4)] 6 February 1642/3. The role of the privy council is addressed on p. 11. Christus Dei, or The Lords Annoynted (Oxford, 1643). The tract has been attributed to John Jones. Thomason dated his copy [BL E. 92 (4)] 7 March 1642/3. Another edition is bound with Thomas Morton, The Necessity of Christian Subjection (Oxford, 1643). Thomason's copy, dated 15 March, does not contain Christus Dei, although that is promised on the title page[BLE.93(ll)]. Christus Dei, t.p., pp. 3-5.

The Observator observed

109

natural purpose — the preservation of the species - the king was indeed the Lord's anointed.76 John Bramhall, bishop of Derry and later Ussher's successor as archbishop of Armagh, also took aim at Parker, in his massive The Serpent Salve. The title page promised an examination of the "Observators Grounds." 77 In a sense the promise was redeemed, although BramhalPs personal agenda led him into long digressions, particularly on matters of the church; moreover, the serial passage-and-answer format dictated that Parker formulate the terms of Bramhall's response.78 Nevertheless, BramhalPs persistent probing located several of Observations* tenderest spots. Because of the "Observator, and such Incendiaries" we "idollized Parliaments." But instead of preserving the law, the king's opponents in a "fine hocas pocas" turned their own version of "Arbitrary Government" into a "necessity of State." 79 The maxims singulis major, universis minor and quod efficit tale est magis tale were effectively exploded by an application of the golden rule. No father, no master would apply these rules in his own house, no husband would suffer coordination from his wife.80 Bramhall also saw through the imposture of Parker's bornagain cult of Elizabeth, which was abandoned when inconvenient (as in her silencing of Peter Wentworth).81 The best of Bramhall's response deserves more notice than it has received; but it was entirely Bramhall's own fault that he screamed into a pillow. VI

It is testimony to the impact of Observations that even a year and a month after its appearance, Oxford writers still thought it worth rebuttal. An Examination of the Observations took readers over too-familiar ground, once again exploding the maxims; perhaps readers could still be moved by attacks on Parker's apparent secularism, his preference for the argument drawn "from the fundamentals of nature" rather than from Scripture, the "true Lydian stone" for a Christian Writer.82 However, for some time 76 77

78 79 80

81 82

Christus Dei, pp. 5, 6, 10; see also p. 13. [John Bramhall,] The Serpent Salve, or a Remedie for the Biting of an Aspe (n.p., 1643). Thomason did not acquire this tract. Internal evidence provides no further clues as to dating. "Observator" is used only on the title page and on an unsigned leaf in the Epistle to the Reader; elsewhere "Observer" is used. For the church, see especially [Bramhall], The Serpent Salve, pp. 200-31; see also pp. 20, 34-5. [Bramhall], The Serpent Salve, Epistle to the Reader, unsigned and sigs. B3 verso, C2 verso. [Bramhall], The Serpent Salve, pp. 18, 58,119; see also pp. 231-2. Although Parker seems to have taken no notice of The Serpent Salve, in Jus Populi Parker saw the need (with respect to John Maxwell's Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas) to rebut these arguments; for this, see pp. 127-9. [Bramhall], The Serpent Salve, pp. 86, 106-7. An Examination of the Observations ([Oxford,] 1643), p. 2. Thomason's copy is dated 14 August 1643 [BL E. 65 (7)]. The maxims are treated pp.2, 6, 8, 11, 12.

110

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Observations had been creating the conditions for its own supersession. Some controversialists turned the storm over Observations into a cottage industry in its own right. John Marsh, who despite his legalist cast of mind hewed closest to Parker's line, picked every nit he could find out of Digges' An Answer to a Printed Book.83 Henry Feme felt obliged to respond to Charles Herle's attack upon him; Herle replied in kind. Others moved into the political debate with statements of their own. On the parliamentarian side, Prynne's Soveraign Power and John Goodwin's Anti-Cavalierisme attracted the greatest attention.84 Some royalists clearly saw Prynne as the more extreme opponent.85 As has been noted, both Digges and Spelman turned from replies to Observations to larger surveys of the political scene. Royalists who followed Feme and tried to press as much parliamentarian thought as possible into a monarchomach mold had no other reason to engage Observations. For example, Peter Heylyn, firmly within that tradition, had very little to say about Observations in his The Rebells Catechisme.86 Meanwhile, new concerns, many of them connected with the church issue, took center stage. Nevertheless, the controversy was not yet over. Parker had not yet responded to the storm over Observations. Even after he did, in The ContraReplicant, afinalroyalist salvo came too close to Parker's bow for him not to respond. 83

84 85

86

J[ohn] M[arsh,] A Reply to the Answer (London, 1642). Thomason's copy [BL E. 2 4 5 {35)] is dated 3 February 1 6 4 2 / 3 . John G o o d w i n , Anti-Cavalierisme (London, 1642) [BL E. 123 (25)]. For Spelman's view, see n. 55 above. See also Griffith Williams, The Discovery of Mysteries ([Oxford,] 1 6 4 3 ) , p. 1 0 7 , on the licensing of Prynne's book as proof in itself of a design against monarchy. [Peter Heylyn,] The Rebells Catechisme ([Oxford,] 1643). Thomason's copy [BL E. 35 (22)] is dated 6 March 1 6 4 3 / 4 . Observations is briefly considered on the matter of coordination on

p.21.

«e* 6 ^ Maine Confidence in the Law' the Observator responds

Observations opened the flood gates to a new kind of political reflection. The royalist counterattack and even the less than enthusiastic response that Observations received in some parliamentary circles raised a question: would Observations be swept away by torrents of its own making? Twice Parker gave in to the urge to answer his critics, first in an occasional pamphlet, The Contra-Replicant, which Parker used as a vehicle for the expression of a far broader set of concerns (which he further developed in The Oath of Pacification), and later in Jus Populi, Parker's most extended excursion into speculative political thought.

The Contra-Replicant was a piece de cirConstance. At a time when Parker's behind-the-scenes activities at the Committee of Safety would have been easily more than one man's labor, a well-conceived and quite massive royalist "peace" campaign to stir up trouble in London drew Parker back into the public fray. As Parker later remembered the situation, "About the beginning of 1643 [actually December 1642—January 1643] another black desperate designe against the City of London was discovered, scarce inferiour to any of those former impregnations of the Kings inraged brain."1 The urgency of the mission was not only political. The peace campaign's slogans pierced Parker's ownflesh;in reaction The Contra-Replicant allowed itself an unusually long tether, and proved to be amongst the most impassioned and self-revelatory of Parker's writings. Although Parker was probably not aware of it, his tormentors of the moment and his opponents in the past were one and the same: Edward Hyde and William Chillingworth, whose earlier efforts (if we credit Chillingworth with some share in Digges' An Answer or other royalist tracts) had nettled Parker. 1

Scotlands Holy War, p. 5. Ill

112

Henry Parker and the English civil war

The immediate context of The Contra-Replicant is complicated. The Contra-Replicant was Parker's parliamentarian counter to a royalist "reply" to a parliamentarian "answer" to a royalist "petition" for peace.2 The original petition — dubbed by its opponents the "frivolous" petition - kicked off a vigorous royalist campaign, conducted both in the press and in the streets, to challenge the parliamentary ascendancy in London; this new assault followed hard upon the frights of Brentford and Turnham Green, when Rupert and Charles seemed poised to reclaim the capital. The petition, directed to both houses of parliament from the "most substantiall inhabitants" of London (according to a royalist text) or "a disaffected party" (according to a critic), decried the war and the "inevitable Ruine" ensuing both to church and to commonwealth. The petition's plea was in itself a royalist gesture, which the petition developed in an assiduously moderate royalist manner. Crediting the current parliament's predecessors with the preservation of religion, liberties, and property by a "known Law," the petitioners implicitly indicted more recent courses. The petitioners' hopes for a "speedy Peace and happy Accommodation" lay in parliament's forsaking its war party ("any Fomenters of the present Warre under what pretence soever") and submitting to the king "such Propositions for Accommodation as hee may with Honour and safety to the whole Kingdome accept."3 The petitioners never were able to deliver the petition (although it was read in the Commons by pro-parliamentary counter-petitioners). Word of its circulation led to a disavowal and counter-petition from pro-parliamentary Londoners; there were ugly, tumultuous scenes on 8 December at Haberdashers' Hall (where the Committee for the Advance of Money was meeting) and at the Guildhall on 12 December. Even before the second altercation, the matter had been brought to the Commons' attention by the pro-war counter-

2

3

The sequence is derived from pleading. An accusation, which could be made by complaint or petition, received an answer from the accused, which was in turn met by a reply or replication from the accuser. For an example of the terminology brought into the political arena, Henry Elsynge, Judicature in Parlement, ed. Elizabeth Read Foster (London, 1991); see "The Table," pp. 3-4. The royalist version is The Petition of the Most Substantiall Inhabitants of the Citie of London ... for Peace (Oxford, 1642), dated by Thomason 6 January 1642/3 with an annotation noting an earlier Oxford edition and an ascription to Chillingworth, at least with respect to the reply to An Answer to the London Petition [London, 1642]. The text otherwise quoted is A Frivolous Paper, in Forme of a Petition: Framed and Composed by a Disaffected Party (London, 1642), dated by Thomason 13 December. Thomason repeatedly refers to the petition as the frivolous petition; see his notes on A True Copie of the Remonstrance and Petition (London, 1642), t.p., An Exact and True Relation of that Tumultuous Behavior (London, 1642), t.p., An Answer to the London Petition, p. 1, and The Londoners Petition (London, n.d.) [BL 669 f. 6 (95)]. The last probably was printed at the behest of the petitioners.

"Maine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

113

petitioners. For days the business smoldered on, and was soon fanned again into flame by new blasts from the royalists' expansive bellows.4 Parliamentarian writers took this "frivolous" petition with the utmost gravity. Hostile news accounts of the petition and its promoters were joined by direct rebuttals. One report, A Frivolous Paper, also contained some very well targeted "Considerations ... by way of Advertisement and Caution" The motives of the peace petitioners were impugned, not least by an examination of the craft and manipulativeness of the petition's language. The petition's seemingly bland use of the phrase "known law" was a code for an attack upon parliament's knowledge of the law and its pretensions to power, as if the houses could not "repeale or alter" laws made by their predecessors. Similarly the linking of "Papists and Sectaries" as equal menaces to the church was a ploy to discredit "every man that in any thing hath differed from the Bishops Innovations, and superstitious Ceremonies." The unfortunate result was that "many" signed the petition "not discerning" its "malignity." 5 But if properly instructed, Londoners would perceive the evil and destructive intentions of the petitioners, and abandon the blandishments of "peace" without "truth." 6 Londons Desire and Direction spoke in the voice of the city "to all Her dear, and to some of her discontented Children," again counterposing truth to peace. The wish for peace could "create a War from Heaven against us" as well as an opening to the malignants for "a fearfull design." Peace upon the wrong terms was beyond parliament's capacity, as a "breach of trust reposed in them" and an undoing of all their "unwearied paines" for true peace.7 Another response took the form of a third way, A Modest Petition for a Happy Peace, which its promoters hoped might be carried to parliament by a "considerable number of such as are resolved upon such a Course." That route was almost exactly to split the difference between the two groups of petitioners, urging peace, though on terms more advantageous to parliament than the crypto-royalists were advocating. Probably representing a genuinely unattached interest, and almost certainly a spontaneous response to the recent events, this Modest Petition sought for a peace settlement seemingly 4

5 6

7

C], II, p. 887 (9 December 1642); also pp. 888, 889, 891-2, 898-9. The story can otherwise be pieced together from the pamphlets cited n.3 above and The Lord Whartons Speech, to the Petitioners for Peace on the Eighth of December (London, 1642), Some Special Passages, 6 Dec. 1642-19 Dec. 1642, pp. 152-3; The Image of the Malignants Peace (London, 1642), and The Humble Petition and Remonstrance of Divers Citizens ... for an Accommodation of Peace (London, 1642). A Frivolous Paper, t.p. and pp. 4, 5, 7. A Frivolous Paper, pp. 4,8. The need to reconcile the claims of truth and peace was a homiletic and political commonplace, stemming ultimately from Ephesians 4. In this debate, the royalist persuasion to peace was rebutted by the war party's insistence upon truth. Londons Desire and Direction to All Her Dear and to Some of Her Discontented Children

(London, 1642), t.p., pp.3, 4, 6.

114

Henry Parker and the English civil war

along the lines of Magna Carta or the Petition of Right: "a Treaty ... such as our wary Predecessours used to confirme what their Princes had granted." That done, the houses could walk away secure at least in their historical reputations; if the king violated the arrangement, "posterity" would "take off all blame from you."8 The response that caused the reply against which Parker set himself in The Contra-Replicant was titled An Answer to the London Petition^ and masqueraded as an official, presumably parliamentary, response, although, as has been noted, there was none since the petition was never presented by the petitioners to either house.9 Initially pretending to honor the petitioners and their motives, An Answer to the London Petition nevertheless put the initiative and responsibility for peace back upon the king's side, urging the petitioners to "seeke not Peace nakedly, except it come along with Truth, Righteousnesse, and Honour." The impediment to peace was less in the king himself than those in his "partie ... that have a strange power in his affection," and who were "diametrically opposite in Religion and State both" to the parliament. Soon casting aside its mask of cordiality, the answer urged the petitioners to take theirs off as well: "if you prefer their cause and beeing before ours, speak it out more plainlie." Otherwise, be "wary of such Accommodation."10 Chillingworth's contribution, the "Reply of the London Petitioners," continued the game, even as it seemed to recognize that the answer to which it responded was not really by "the authority of the House." 11 Chillingworth rebutted accusations of violence with counter-references to the pro-parliament tumults, and turned the language of truth and peace into an occasion for abuse of the sectaries.12 But Chillingworth was insistent unto shrillness on one matter alone: that the houses were reckless in their violation of "known Law," without which not only the king but the subject as well were left defenseless before the houses' newly arrogated "arbitrary power." 13 The Answer to the XIX Propositions had been a most forceful statement of this case; the Reply came closer to it than almost any other later royalist effort. It mocked the promoters of the Answer to the frivolous petition as "journeymen-rebells" as the Answer to the XIX Propositions had railed against the houses' radical supporters, who would tire of doing the houses' "Journey8 9

10 11 12 13

A Modest Petition for a Happy Peace (London, 1642), p. 5. An Answer to the London Petition begins "Both you and your request are welcome to Us, and cannot faile of a kind reception here." The answer also speaks (p. 2) in a parliamentary voice in claiming that "Wee are intrusted . . . by the whole Kingdome." This answer was also printed in The Petition of the Most Substantiall Inhabitants, cited n.3 above. An Answer to the London Petition, pp. 2-5 (p. 5 [sig. A3 recto] mispaged as p. 3). The Petition of the Most Substantiall Inhabitants, sig. A4 recto (= p.5). The Petition of the Most Substantiall Inhabitants, pp. 6—7. The Petition of the Most Substantiall Inhabitants, pp. 1, 14; see also pp. 7-10.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

115

work" and set up for themselves. 14 In a conclusion that stung Parker to an impassioned response, the Reply juxtaposed law to "reason of State" and "policy": "There cannot be imagined a more absolute Power and Government according to bare Will, then to determine the same action right or wrong, as they shall please to call it necessary or convenient." 15 The Contra-Replicant directly addressed only this reply. But the tract's extended title (The Contra-Replicant, His Complaint to His Majestie) alluded to another celebrated and even more recent missile in the "peace" campaign, Edward Hyde's A Complaint to the House of Commons . . . by the Free Protestant Subjects of . . . London and Westminster.16 A Complaint was a masterly amalgam of London political gossip, neo-Elizabethan Anglicanism, and constitutional royalism. It began with a long litany of the civil and ecclesiastical misdeeds of the unreformed Caroline regime, not only to establish its author's moderation, but also to lay the groundwork of the complaint against the parliament: the new regime's misdeeds made it appear that "all the evils of former times had been epitomized into the Volume of a yeare last past or thereabouts, and the quintessence of ours and the former Ages grievances extracted and given us in your draught." The Lords had become the new Star Chamber, and a less merciful one than the old; the appeal to necessity put us in "far worse condition then the Ship money businesse." 17 The root of all the evil was the violation of law - that is, the "known Law," the highest manifestations of which were Magna Carta and the Petition of Right particularly by means of ordinances. Such power in the two houses was tantamount to "Law by Proclamation." 18 II Despite its seemingly narrow focus - almost a parody of pamphlet controversy - as a counter to a reply to an answer to a petition, The ContraReplicant surveyed a vast and important terrain. The short-term challenge to parliamentary control of the metropolis was itself no mean matter; not only pamphlets but disorders continued right to the moment of publication. The 14

15 16

17 18

Similarly, the "third Estate" could not destroy "the other two, or either of them," at least so long as the "People" could not transfer to the Commons "what they had not in themselves, a Priviledge to break the Laws." The Petition of the Most Substantiall Inhabitants, sig. A4 recto, p. 7; see also p. 13 for another consideration of the three estates of king, Lords, and Commons. The Petition of the Most Substantiall Inhabitants, p. 14. [Edward Hyde,] A Complaint to the House of Commons ...by the Free Protestant Subjects of... London and Westminster (Oxford, 1642); Thomason's copy is dated 2 January 1642/3. For the complicated history of the tract, its authorship, and the responses it created, see Roebuck, Clarendon and Cultural Continuity, pp. 75-9, and Madan, Oxford Books, II, pp. 199-200 (nos. 1148-53). A Complaint to the House of Commons, pp.7, 9, 19. A Complaint to the House of Commons, p. 23; see also pp. 14—20.

116

Henry Parker and the English civil war

fact that the Reply and A Complaint raised matters so central to Parker's own outlook unavoidably recalled the war of words of the declarations and the royalist replies to Observations. Not surprisingly Parker began The ContraReplicant by placing the Reply (and the Contra-Replicant himself) in a setting that was both much larger than the immediate controversy and, not coincidentally, intensely personal. While making the observation common to the critics of the original, "frivolous" petition that the peace campaign was longer on oratory than truth, Parker shifted to a parade review of the troops engaged in the paper war. The scholars' "partiality, and interest" lay with the king, who further had the organizational advantage of having "the Pen and the Lance ... in the same hand." Parliamentary stalwarts might brand the royalist product as "effeminate Rhetorick" likely only to sway the "duller sort of people." Yet sheer quantity had its effect: "the multitude of writings, invective and Satyricall" pouring out of the universities (now turned into "mints of defamatory disgracefull papers") could not be matched by the other side. Parker was as much troubled by the quality of the parliamentarian response. The "Kings [pamphlets] are most of them serious, and done by able men, whereas those of the Parliaments side for the most part are ridiculous done by Sots, or prevaricators to the disadvantage of the partie." 19 The frivolous petition itself, the Reply in its defense, and A Complaint to the House of Commons had played the legal theme as loudly as royalist hands could pound the keys, and in so doing they reprised what was already a very familiar motif. The endless repetition apparently struck a raw nerve. Parker's response was at once furious and proud, challenging those who "upbraid us for declining of law": "I shall like that best which they dislike most in us." 20 Parker began his full frontal assault upon the hegemony of law with an elaboration of a position first revealed in The Case of Shipmony. There Parker, in a skeptical mode, wondered whether the law of prerogative was known to the "pleaders, and ... Judges" and concluded by leaving it to parliament to declare the "the meaning of our Lawes & Charters." 21 Given the usual assumptions about the common law as the guardian of liberty and property, these were challenging views. In The Contra-Replicant Parker took them much further. The laws, he now argued, had failed; moreover the common law was no different than any other. The Replicant had claimed that the laws were the subjects' "best security," but the experience of "these 17. yeares last past" (viz, since 1625, the year of Charles' accession) had shown the different laws of Scotland, Ireland, and England equally inadequate to the 19

20 21

The Contra-Replicant, pp. 1-3. Parker's judgment of the two sides' writers is perhaps predictably defensive, but probably more arguable than its opposite, although the differences were narrowing. The Contra-Replicant, p. 19. The Case of Shipmony, pp. 1-2, 47.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

117

religious and political needs of "loyall Protestant" subjects.22 While royalists "alwayes boast[ed] of the knowne Lawes," the laws were far from being clear, and could be turned "against our selves" by corrupt judges.23 Ireland had been undone by a "a vaine confidence in the Law," and England, where both sides to the civil conflict cloaked their cause in "Religion, Liberty, and parliamentary priviledge," couldfindin that agreement only "a strange kinde of assurance."24 Taking an approach close to that of the modern school of legal realism, Parker argued this outcome was inevitable. Laws were operationally or effectively neutral, employable "either to the benefit or prejudice of any Nation." What told the difference were "further Lawes" of a higher order.25 These, for the moment, Parker was not prepared to reveal. Instead he explained why even good law (the people's "chiefest portion and best patrimony")26 was so fragile and easily subverted. Parker carefully distinguished powers, but not to separate them. "No Nation can be free without a threefold priviledge." The first was "in the framing and passing of Lawes"; the second lay in "declaring and interpreting" them; the last in "executing and preserving Lawes in force." Any of the three could subvert the others: "For my part I hold it an equall thing, whither just men make Lawes and unjust interpret them, or unjust men make Lawes and just interpret them." And placing the "sole power of inforcing and executing Lawes ... in the king" made "invalid" and "frustrate" the people's "interest" in legislation and adjudication.27 This, of course, was to reject entirely the fundamental, irrevocable separation of powers stressed by royalists, most notably in the Answer to the XIX Propositions. In that statement, execution ("government") had been left entirely in the hands of the king. The Answer also rebutted the parliamentary claim that the two houses (apparently conjointly) were the supreme court with the historically better founded view that the Lords alone possessed a "judicatorie power." But according to Parker, political forms, while they varied "in degree" in the amount of power the people entrusted to others, did not differ in their fundamental characteristic - power passed from the people "by way of trust." Absolute monarchies took one extreme, "absolute Democracies" another, "mixt" forms of monarchy and democracy intermediate positions. "Holland, the most exact Republicke" and England, "the most exact monarchy" had "expediently]" entrusted to their single persons in case of foreign war a "greater and more extraordinary trust" than ordinarily

22 24 26

The Contra-Replicantyp.5. TheContra-ReplicantypA3. The Contra-Replicant, p. 7.

** The Contra-Replicant, p. 8. The Contra-Replicantyp.6. The Contra-Replicant, p. 6.

25

27

118

Henry Parker and the English civil war

obtained. Nevertheless, the power that passed by trust could be resumed upon its violation, in which category Parker unflinchingly included a king's making civil war against his subjects.28 By this route Parker moved towards his most detailed theory of parliamentary sovereignty, which emphasized not the legislation central to Bodinian theory but the judicial and, most of all, the executive authority which the houses also claimed as theirs by right. Parker smashed head on into the royalist attempt to segregate the Lords' judicial role from the Commons'. The two houses made "one entire Court." Their "sitting ... in severall Houses" did not prove them "separate Courts." Only a "fatall want of policy" would "diminish their mutuall love and correspondence."29 But the houses' claim to executive authority most passionately engaged Parker, and led him to reveal the "further" laws that regulated the ordinary ones. "Lawes ayme at Iustice, Reason of state aimes at safety," he began. The realm of law was partly private, protecting subject from subject, and partly public, protecting the subject from the "insolence" of the prince, the prince from "sedition of Subjects." The law, though, had its limits, going no further than where "certaine rules may be given and written." Reason of state was not so narrowly bound, using "emergent Counsels and unwritten resolutions" to defend the "being, [rather] then well being of a State." 30 Parker, the lawyer by training, left no doubt where his heart lay. "Reason of state is something more sublime and imperiall then Law:... the Statesman begins where the Lawyer ceaseth." War silences law, and then "Policy is to be observed as the only true Law, a kind of dictatorian power is to be allowed to her." Parker turned away from the Replicant and, indeed, the whole army of constitutional royalists to speak to his own side. "Nothing has done us more harme of late, then this opinion of adhering to Law only for our preservation." Lawyers, he knew, disagreed, but the renunciation of reason of state in emergencies was as dangerous as the renunciation of law in peace. To think otherwise was to fall into the royalists' trap: they who were "too wise themselves to observe Law" were able to work upon "the simpler sort of our side by objecting against us neglect of Law." 31 As blithely as he had walked away from history to assert the joint judicature of the Lords and Commons, Parker simply refused to argue the houses' role as a "Counsell of State": "tis impossible that any man should doubt of it." 32 Nor should anyone fear it. For all that "our [royalist] Academicians" in their "innumerable pamphlets" made "great noise and boast of Arbitrary power," it was dangerous only in the hands of one or a few. In the hands of 28 30 32

The Contra-Replicant, p. 7. The Contra-Replicant, pp. 18-19. The Contra-Replicant, p. 19.

29 31

The Contra-Replicant, pp. 16, 17. The Contra-Replicant, p. 19.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

119

the two houses of parliament, arbitrary power could "repeale our great Charter, the Charter of Forrests and the petition of Right," could indeed "subject the Kingdom for ever to the same arbitrary rule as France groanes under." Yet there was no cause for terror or danger. Arbitrary power was simply "naturall and expedient," and in times of war, "absolutely necessary." The only alternative was to be without the means of self-defense.33 This was an assertion of practical bicameral parliamentary sovereignty. While Parker did not assert the houses' independent right to make laws, true legislation, which required the king's assent, was not necessary to effect any course of action the houses decided. In this respect The Contra-Replicant said little that had not been said before and nothing that could not have been inferred from the composite of The Case of Shipmony, The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, and Observations. Yet the tone was startling and petulant. Parker's assumption that making, interpreting, and executing the law were essentially equivalent activities in their potential consequences, and his fearlessness in promoting reason of state as the ultimate arbiter of action coincided with the abandonment of all pretense to manners, to the ethic of gentle discourse. Those who did not agree with Parker's self-evident truths were "foolish," or "childish and ridiculous."34 Charles himself was not spared. It has been seen that Parker claimed that the serious rot began with the accession of Charles; Parker also dismissed the royalist insistence that the king had to be trusted as fully as "our Parents" had trusted Queen Elizabeth with the tart remark that the king could not be as trusted as the old queen "until we are assured as fully of his protection." The odds were against it: it was "not so common or probable in nature, for Nations causelessly to rebell, as for Princes wickedly to oppress."35 It is hard not to relate The Contra-Replicanfs anger, lack of reserve, and nervous energy to yet another sense in which it inhabits a "time of extremity."36 Parker let drop a large number of hit-and-run historical and typological allusions; in one way or another they pointed to the present as a moment of historical significance, a hinge of time. Two such references were within what James Harrington would call "modern" prudence, and set within what was more rather than less a desacralized time. One was the lesson to be drawn from the errors of Philip II, whose severities cost him the "totall defection of so many goodly Provinces in the Netherlands." Closer to home was the elaborate contrast drawn between Henry IV, "as valiant, and as just a Prince as ever was crowned in England," and Richard II, his "unpolitick Kinsman and predecessor," whose "woeful deposition" contrasted utterly with Hen33 35 36

The Contra-Replicant, The Contra-Replicant, The Contra-Replicant,

34 pp. 29, 30. The Contra-Replicant, pp. 19, 30. p. 24. p. 30, used to describe the occasion of "temporary Ordinances."

120

Henry Parker and the English civil war

ry's "prosperous and glorious Raigne." While remaining utterly silent about the means by which the better king came to rule in place of the worse, Parker wished that Henry might be "summoned from his peacefull Monument" to whisper the truths of good government in "our Soveraignes eares." 37 The idiom of secular historical allusion lay primarily within the province of political or moral example- the followers of the father of Parker's current patron attended a performance of Shakespeare's Richard II shortly before their revolt in 1601. Parker carefully stayed within the realm of prudence: Charles would do well to see where princes of unfortunately similar temperament had gone astray. But the use of examples from sacred history carried an additional burden. Though Scriptural history could be mined for the merely prudential example, sacred history was also inescapably a history of Providence, and allusions to it were tinged with prophecy. When the sacred and secular examples were mingled, the effect was to create an occasion in which human politics were the tracings of the digitus Dei: a "Machiavellian moment."38 Thus the example of Philip II was preceded by one in which it was harder not to see the divine fingerprint. Like Philip, Rehoboam, the son of Solomon - James I was the British Solomon - had a tongue too sharp for his own good and policies to match.39 It caused him a civil war and the forfeit of part of his kingdom, as Rehoboam disdained that "Complyance which should gaine a scepter" in favor of "that Contestation which should absolutely forfeit one." 40 But the most suggestive of the Biblical allusions concern Saul and David. Saul unjustly set upon David, who defended himself by flight and defense against Saul's soldiers, though not against Saul's sacred person. While that was conveniently in accord with the sophistications or sophistries of parliamentarian doctrine, David was chosen by God to succeed Saul. Even the slightest comparison of the king to Saul and virtually anyone or anything to David held the deepest meanings not only for the moment but for the future. And twice Parker cast Charles as Saul. Thefirsttime Parker implicitly molded David's defenders into the parliamentary army.41 The second time he pounded home his point: if Saul "had fallen by rushing ... upon offensive weapons," the "horrid guilt of his death" could only have been "imputed to ... himself." And while Parker eschewed the boldness (so he claimed) of the 37 38

39

40

The Contra-Replicant, pp. 2 5 - 6 . Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment. Professor Pocock's treatment of Parker's Observations (p. 369) correctly does not find in that tract the faint but unmistakable resonances of prophetic and classical themes that are to be heard in The Contra-Replicant. See I Kings 12:3-14. The old advisers of Solomon urged Rehoboam to "speak good words" to the people to have them "be thy servants for ever." Rehoboam preferred to take counsel from "the young men who were grown up with him," telling Jeroboam and his delegation that Solomon had "chastised you with whips, ... I will chastise you with scorpions." 41 The Contra-Replicant, p. 25. The Contra-Replicant, p. 12.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law'3: the Observator responds

121

Replicant, he did aver that "the E. of Essex and his Army may far more lawfully fight in defence of that supreame Court, than David and his followers did for the protection of one innocent private man." 42 If the parliament stands, therefore, as a David or a quasi-David, the logic of the emergency and reason of state may be something more than an unfortunate but necessary interval between long stretches of an enduring order: the emergency may be the gestation of something else. And in that spirit, perhaps, we should take the most striking of all allusions in The ContraReplicant, not least because it inescapably suggested that the pretensions of the father might be visited upon the son. When Parker was most furiously dismissing the claims of the law, he added, seemingly gratuitously, that "it would be well" to add to the earl of Essex's power "till I see him lookt upon, and served as a temporary Dictator."43 Ill

Nine months later, Parker returned to some of the same themes and tropes in a slight but pungent and occasionally telling tract, The Oath of Pacification. The goad this time was a royal declaration of 30 July 1643, in which the king, professing adherence to Protestantism, law, and parliament, promised a pardon to those who brought in men and materiel. Cutting through the irenic rhetoric, Parker understood the offer as the terms of capitulation offered by a near-victor. The soldiers were not fooled; it only "put more courage into the lovers of Parliaments." And by God's grace the "face of things [had] changed." Parliamentary armies began at least to hold their own. Now it was time for the parliament to give terms. 44 What Parker proposed was an addendum to the king's general profession of 30 July. Its first new provision was to make good the promise to observe the laws, by the king agreeing to accept law from the "supream Iudicatory of the Kingdome."45 Its second was a sort of test act: the king was to swear to "exclude from my publike Counsaile, and from all direct, and indirect power in State affairs ... all that are not of the Protestant Religion, of the British Nation, of the Masculine sex [viz, Henrietta Maria]" and generally all those not "reputed vertuous, and sworne to be faithfull servants to the State, as well 42 43 44 45

The Contra-Replicant, p. 27. David at that time was only a private man, although the accounts make clear that he was already marked by God as the next of the Lord's anointed. The Contra-Replicanty p. 19. [Henry Parker,] The Oath of Pacification, p. 2. The Oath of Pacification, pp. 4-5. Although this coda to the oath carefully avoided defining that judicatory and left it to be determined by the "best and most impartiall advice that can bee gotten," Parker later (pp. 19-20) identified parliament as the body he had in mind. Later (p. 28), he spoke of parliament or "some other Judicatory out of Parliament, if the king would referre it [the justice of the king's cause] to such a decision."

122

Henry Parker and the English civil war

as to the Court." The king's oath was to be matched by similar, self-denying professions by the queen and "all suspected Papists, Aliens, 8cc." 46 As in The Contra-Replicant, the son of Solomon stood in for the son of King James. Rehoboam may have been blameless in law, since the king can do no wrong, but not in "nature" or "policy," where the king was held responsible for his own choice of counsellors. Rehoboam sought out "vaine Consorts, fit onely to comply with his owne folly" and paid the price. The young "green headed Statists" encouraged the king to measure his gain by his people's loss, even to the "imminent hazard of his owne Crowne." But ultimately the blame was the king's, and in his "will" rather than his "understanding": "it does not seeme so probable, that Rehoboam did take preposterous courses, because he hapned upon preposterous Counsellors, as that hee did chuse preposterous Councellors, because he did affectedly addict himselfe to preposterous Courses." 47 Once again the issue was counsel - although this was counsel that a king could not reject. The "vast businesse of Government" was beyond a single man's capacity; all depended upon the ruler's supporting cast. 48 Unsurprisingly, the best advice was to be had from parliament. To it the king was to defer even when it advised the king to lay down his prerogative. Parker all but conceded the narrow illegality of the houses' actions, even as he contended that legality did not matter. "The Law of publicke safety is above all Lawes of Prerogative, or any other laws whatsoever." The "more generall knowledge" supplied by "the intrinsecall Rules of State" was always to be preferred to the book knowledge of lawyers and divines. Was the country to defer to the judgment of "one Bishop or one Barrester," was justice denied "all equitable distinctions, and interpretations except such as we find in in ¥itzHerbert, Cooke, and Plowden?"49 As in The Contra-Replicant, a providential sensibility laced the otherwise cold anger of The Oath of Pacification. Parker concluded his effort with an examination of three possibilities: that the king was right, that he was wrong, that he was partly right. The first instance, Parker insisted, was extremely remote; even so, the best rule was Christ's: Bonus pastor ponit vitam pro ovibus (John 10:11). In the second case, which Parker thought "neither impossible, nor improbable," he wondered "what a formidable day is that to be, wherein the king shall render a strict account for all the English Protestant blood" already shed and yet to come. The crime was worse than Manasseh's, worse than the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Its perpetrator would be "perpetually abominated as a plague of humane kinde more monstrous" 46 47 48 49

The The The The

Oath Oath Oath Oath

of of of of

Pacification, Pacification, Pacification, Pacification,

p p . 5 , 6. sigs. B3 verso-B4 recto (paging irregular). sig. B4 recto (paging irregular); see also p. 8. pp. 18-19.

"Vaine Confidence in the haw3': the Observator responds

123

than produced in any previous age.50 The third case, which Parker refrained from finding more probable than the second, provided the king no more comfort. Even if the king had some right, it could not overbalance the harm of the war. Parker turned apocalyptic: if it was not apparent that the king fought for Antichrist, "y et tis most apparent the Antichrist doesfightfor the King." And similarly "it seems very probable that Christfights"for the earl of Essex. God had given His judgment on the field.51 IV

Parker's manic mood in The Contra-Replicant and The Oath of Pacification was not unique; similar sensibilities later flitted about Scotlands Holy War, written after the king's execution. But Parker usually struck contemporaries as a more cold-blooded creature, and perhaps he welcomed an occasion to return to the icy waters of the analyst. In the event, it was hard for him to ignore an anonymous but ponderous tract purchased by Thomason on 30 January 1644, Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas. Though it was not properly an answer to Observations, Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas did lavish attention on it as the prime example of the views of the "new Statists," whose politics recapitulated a hoary syllabus of errors. Published in Oxford, and dedicated to the marquis of Ormonde, this extended essay on "the sacred and royall prerogative of Christian kings" came without other obvious clues as to the author's identity. Parker, suffering the fate of the critics of the Observator, was forced to call his antagonist simply a "loud Royalist" and a proponent of "Oxford Divinitie." Perhaps the Irish link led Parker also to attack a sermon of Archbishop Ussher's. Thomason followed a similar path. His copy contained a note that Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas was "said to be written" by Ussher. However, Thomason preferred to attribute it to Henry Leslie, bishop of Down, or to Griffith Williams, bishop of Ossory, or to both. But apparently unknown to Parker at the writing of Jus Populi, Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas had recently been exposed by Samuel Rutherford as the product of John Maxwell, then bishop of Killala and Achonry.52 Oxford divinity it may have been, but the considerable learning of Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas had been acquired at St. Andrews. In many ways Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas was just another straw in the 50 51

52

The Oath of Pacification, pp. 25, 26, 27. The Oath of Pacification, p. 28. Parker dismissed the prospect that God favored neither side: "in these latter dayes" it would be "strange" to see Christ and Antichrist "unite their battailes in the same expedition." [James Maxwell,] Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas (Oxford, 1644), t.p., p. 92. Jus Populi, pp. 7, 55—6, 65. James Ussher, The Soveraignes Power, and the Subjects Duty (Oxford, 1644). Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex (London, 1644). Thomason's date for Lex, Rex (7 October 1644) suggests that it probably appeared while Jus Populi was in press.

124

Henry Parker and the English civil war

royalist wind. Evidently, though, when it alit, this was the straw that broke the back of Parker's forbearance. What Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas did best was contextualize. With a range of vision at times reminiscent of Professor Skinner, Maxwell sought to situate the new statists and their "specious generall maximes" within the broadest flow of history. A large part of his enterprise was the familiar, even tiresome identification of the antimonarchical sympathies linking Jesuits and puritans. Naturally this proved a more successful enterprise when the clerical presbyterians were put into the equation, rather than the more erastian Independents (whom Maxwell identified as latter-day fraticelli) or the quasi-antinomian sectaries. Beyond that, however, Maxwell sought to link the Parkerian maxims to writers antedating the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, especially the conciliarists and, behind them, William of Ockham and John of Paris, who joined Marsilius of Padua in the promotion of the imperialist claims of Lewis of Bavaria.53 Seeking laudably to assert the independence of kings from the pope, they "bent too much to the other side" in asserting that the "communitie of the People" was the "prime, first, proper, and immediate subject of all Civill Power." 54 In spite of his correct hunch that the Observator was "a Lay Gentleman" without a particular attachment to any form of church government, the Observator served Maxwell as the exemplum of modern "Miso-monarchicall Statists and Sectaries."55 To rebut Parker was to expose the "grand Imposture" of his maxims or principles, and that task in part was to reveal their dishonorable pedigree.56 So, notably, Maxwell devoted a chapter of some six pages to quod efficit tale est magis tale. It was, he said, a garbling of Aristotle, and in a different form (constituens constituto potior) found in Rossaeus and the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos.57 Maxwell naturally denied the implicit minor, that the people were the "efficients, or constituents, or donors, or authours" of sovereignty; while that ought to have been sufficient, Maxwell nevertheless could not resist exploding the maxim further. As had others earlier in the debate, he found instances in which the maxim seemed to make no sense: that a spark was greater than thefirethat ensued, that the wine was more drunk than the imbiber. He added one apparently of his own devising. On the logic of quod efficit tale est magis tale, "there is no better way for the Observator to improve his wealth, than to make over the right of all he 53 54 55 56 57

Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas, pp. 1, 12, 16. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas, p. 12. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas, pp. 139, 158. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas, p. 178. The words are used particularly to describe the abuse of salus populi. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas, chapter xiii, pp. 127-33. The quotation is from p. 127. On p. 128 Maxwell recollected the maxim as he learned it "in the Schoole." Rutherford (Lex, Rex, p. 154) derisively said that Maxwell never learned it at St. Andrews; though educated at Edinburgh, in 1638 Rutherford became principal of St. Mary's College, St. Andrews.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

125

hath to me." Maxwell also saw that the maxim was potentially a threat to parliamentary sovereignty, since it could well be used to devolve parliamentary power to the counties and corporations.58 Singulis major, universis minor, another of the Observator's catchphrases, predictably came in for abuse, in this case as anti-Scriptural.59 But to Maxwell that slogan was merely a rephrasing of assumptions even more fundamental to Parker's new statism. These included Parker's opening remarks in Observations — notably, that royal authority resided in the people, that God no more created regal than aristocratic or democratic power, and that power passed to kings by way of trust.60 Maxwell set out to refute these positions and their corollaries (for example, that the goal of monarchy was the happiness of the people) both by the assertion of a Scriptural, radical divine commission to monarchical rule and by a thorough if miscellaneous and scattered dissection of almost all of Parker's slogans. In passages that apparently focused Parker's response in Jus Populi, Maxwell not only asserted the claims of monarchy but linked them to the natural order of human relations, deploying elements both of the great chain of being and patriarchal theory. God set "all the creatures... in a subordination one to another." That included Eve in her relation to Adam, and Adam's sons to their father. So far from being born free of subjection, mankind has a "naturall necessary and vehement inclination and desire to submit to Government." Parker's voluntary consent of the people in erecting government was for Maxwell a divinely programed reflex to do what God had intended anyway.61 Maxwell's most extended treatment of the Observator's intellectual underpinnings came in a chapter devoted solely to the "abused and perverted" and "vulgar Maxime" that salus populi suprema lex esto.62- Parker (who for his part never cited the maxim with the qualifying "esto") was quoted and taken to task for his "superlatively excessive commendations" of a maxim that was not, as Parker had it, a "Paramount Law" but at most a "prime end." For Maxwell the "sole and adequate end" was salus regis et populi.63 The two interests were united; but Maxwell also insisted that one of the Observator's ramifications of salus populi - that the king was obligated to provide for the subjects' happiness - was impossibly demanding. "God is not so rigorous a Taske-master."64 Properly understood, salus populi suprema lex esto was a 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Sacro-sancta Regum see above, p. 99. Sacro-sancta Regum Sacro-sancta Regum Sacro-sancta Regum Sacro-sancta Regum Sacro-sancta Regum 20, 27. Sacro-sancta Regum

Majestas, pp. 128—30. Philip Hunton made a somewhat similar point; Majestas, Majestas, Majestas, Majestas, Majestas,

pp. 24-5; see also p. 168. p. 4; cf. Observations, pp. 1-2, 5. pp. 83-4, 91—2. pp. 157-80; quotation from pp. 157-8. pp. 159, 164; see also p. 177. Cf. Observations,

pp.3, 8, 16,

Majestas, pp. 165—6, 172. Cf. Observations on happiness, pp.3, 19.

126

Henry Parker and the English civil war

counsel of necessity: it absolved the sovereign of following laws subordinate to it, but it was "onely Lex, a Law; it is not transcendent above Rex."65

Maxwell also attacked the guile and ambition of the populist reformers, who in the name of reformation seized and utilized the very "arbitrarie power" they so recently "abhorred." 66 This sort of taunt, which had clearly goaded Parker in The Contra-Replicant, seems not to have much moved him now. Rather Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas forced Parker into the reflective and formal vein found in parts of Observations, and before that in the passages on sovereignty in The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment. But in Jus Populi Parker did not simply restate his position. Maxwell's attack led Parker to reformulate his notion of popular sovereignty, a task which, it may be surmised though not proven, led him to read or reread Grotius and Bodin with an eye to the task before him. Those readings eventually bore as heavily upon Jus Populi as the "loud Royalist" author of Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas. Jus Populi was anonymous; Thomason, usually meticulous in his ascriptions to Parker, left his copy blank. Nevertheless, there is little reason to doubt Parker's authorship. Parker's usual publisher, Robert Bostock, registered the tract (though without indication of authorship) at Stationers' Hall on 9 October 1644, providing both for his own copyright protection and compliance with the licensing ordinance. The entry was made under the hand of Richard Whitaker, an important and politically astute company leader with whom Parker had worked as a publicist for the company. Thus the title page assertion that the tract was "published by authority," a phrasing which was sometimes a dodge, rings true in this instance.67 Parker began by restating the "three main Assertions" of the Observator, "so he is stiled at Oxford": that princes derived their power from the people, that they were instituted "merely for the peoples benefit," and that the laws of "well-formed States" favored "liberty [more] then Prerogative."68 These, obviously, confronted directly the Oxford divinity that Parker saw in Ussher's sermon on Romans 13:1, in Feme, and, above all, in Maxwell. Parker saw the three "grounds" as entailing his maxims. The proposition that the king was singulis major, universis minorflowedfrom them, as did the supremacy 65 66 67

68

Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas, p. 175. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas, pp. 153—4. A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers from 1640 to 1708 A.D.y ed. G. E. Briscoe Eyre and C. R. Rivington (London, 1913; repr. 1950), 3 vols., I, p. 133. On Whitaker's relations with Parker, see above, p. 15, and below, p. 146. ]us Populi, p. 1.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

127

of salus populi and bonum publicum (a gloss for the political happiness that Maxwell had ridiculed). 69 Even quod efficit tale est magis tale, which might sensibly have been forgotten, was defended, specifically against Maxwell's critique. 70 But what made Jus Populi most notable was a frontal assault upon the organic and patriarchal assumptions about the naturalness of government hence, subjection - that had been so fiercely stated by Maxwell, and were themselves a staple of virtually all early seventeenth-century political thought. Earlier, in Observations, Parker had chafed at the political consequences of patriarchal and organicist ideas. Yet he did not attack the ideas themselves. Setting out to "dispell umbrages," Parker resisted the analogy of the body politic, insisting, for example, that natural and political bodies operated by different rules. Rather less decisively, Parker also resisted the implications of patriarchal theory; but he could not yet dispose of its assumptions. He agreed that a son was "wholly a debtor to the father," that the wife was "inferior in nature, and . . . created for the assistance of man," and that servants were "hired for their Lords meere attendance." What he rejected was the consequence, for "it is otherwise in the State betwixt man and man." 7 1 The approach of Observations solved one problem only to cause another. Not the least of the attractions of organic and patriarchal theories was their apparent naturalism, and their rootedness in history. Why civil power should be given an exemption from nature and history was not clear; royalist critics took it as a given that the sauce that dressed the domestic goose was equally fit for the public gander, and vice versa. When Parker trotted out singulis major, universis minor in Observations, John Bramhall wondered if Parker would "be contented" that his own servants "had the power to turne you out of your Mastership" or that his children could "depose you from your fatherhood." 72 Maxwell's strong assertion of the naturalness as well as the divinity of monarchy (and, equally, of all subjection) provoked Parker in Jus Populi to attempt the more radical position of rejecting any decisive sort of natural (or Scriptural) subjection, whatever the guise or form. Having replied in his standard controversial style to Maxwell's argument that royal power flows wholly from God, 73 and having reasserted the people as both the efficient and final cause of all power, largely with Maxwell on his mind, Parker turned to his own examination of the foundations of power, trying to show that no 69 70 71 72 73

Jus Populi, p. 2; see also pp. 2 4 - 6 . Jus Populi, pp. 15-16; see also p. 19; cf. Sacro-sancta Regutn Majestas, pp. 127—8. Observations, pp. 18-19. On patriarchalism, see Gordon Schochet, Patriarchalism in Political Thought (New York, 1975). [Bramhall], The Serpent Salve, p. 18; see also pp.58, 119, 231-2. Jus Populi, pp.7-12; cf. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas, pp.45-54.

128

Henry Parker and the English civil war

"species" of power known to Scriptural and later history amounted to the royal absolutism that the royalists detected in it. The first power was "Maritall."74 Power, Parker had already suggested, had two meanings: "order" and "jurisdiction." The former was built into creation in its perfection and entailed no painful subjection; the latter was necessary because of sin, and came with obvious "defects and inconveniences."75 And as it turned out, marital power was "something more then meer order, but not so much as jurisdiction." That is to say, it was not a "coercive" relationship, and "nothing" about it gave color to "arbitrary rule in the State."76 To be sure, "Nature teaches wives" to submit to their husbands in respect of order- God had endowed men with greater "majestie, strength, and noble parts." But a husband had no unilateral right of judgment or enforcement; Parker suggested that disputes between man and wife had to go a third party, "an impartiall Judicature."77 The next species of power was paternal. The power of "Parents" (Parker was careful to say) over their children, like marital power, exceeded "meer Order" without amounting to "Jurisdiction, or at least absolute Jurisdiction." Paternal power was also conjoint. The "power of the Mother does participate with the power of the Father," subjecting the latter (which pure patriarchal assumptions held to be absolute) to "mixture and co-ordination." Moreover, against the supposed inherent naturalness of paternal power ran a counter-force, "a very strong instinct" that broke "Paternall empire." This was the love that fathers bore for their children - Parker's argument, clear though implicit, was that when the son turned father, his own children succeeded to the primacy of affection that may earlier have been accorded to the father. Parker also thought that "Civill Countries" had laws to "over-rule Parents as well as Children, and to provide for the safetie of Children as well as Parents." No less than with marriage, the right of parents was subject to "the interposition of Publique Authoritie."78 Parker, husband and father, was also a younger son. Whatever the mixture of political and personal sensibilities that had driven him to derive his highly qualified notions of marital and paternal power surely drove him to look at "fraternall" power in the same light. His skepticism was obvious. Parker did not even deign to accord a primacy of order to the "eldest Son." Such preeminence was merely "supposed by some," but "much might be said" to the contrary. The love of man and wife was "equall, yet not naturall [viz, the result of a blood tie]," the love of father and son "naturall, yet not equall." 74 76 77

78

7S Jus Populi, p. 31. Jus Populi, pp. 3-4. Jus Populi, pp.31, 32. Jus Populi, p. 32. Parker specifically noted that while the Old Testament allowed for a man's right of divorce, that form of coercion (as Parker thought it was) was repudiated in the Gospel, except for adultery (p. 31). Jus Populi, pp. 32, 33, 34.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

129

Brothers alone were tied by an "amitie" both natural and equal. Such love and majesty or superiority could not be conjoined. 79 There was finally "despoticall" or "herile" power, the power of "Masters or Lords" over their "slaves." It amounted to "an absolute, arbitrarie interest." Parker would not call it jurisdiction, for such power served "no ends of Justice." Here Parker had to develop a new strategy. Marital, paternal, and fraternal power, Parker had concluded, provided no model for absolute rule. The first two distinguished by way of order, but limited the extent of the superior's jurisdiction; the last lacked even the precedence of order. But the model for absolutism provided by slavery was only too clear, and Parker himself confessed that he had no direct answer to Aristotle's doctrine of natural slavery, choosing not to dispute that some were "servile by nature" and "nearely approaching to bruit beasts." 80 Rather, Parker chose to argue that while the servile nature of some men was an argument for their governance, "Dominicall power" served no end of justice, no public good. Neither beasts nor infants had need of "Arbitrarie subjection"; even the most abject servant retained his human identity, which checked the "insolence" of the master's right to "domineer." Finally, no less than with wives and children, civil states retained their "publike Interests," which not only led states to protect slaves in respect of their humanity but might further smile upon their emancipation, since "liberty" conferred a public benefit.81 Thus Parker cleared from the field the pre-civil power of the household. Men were born free. If "God and Nature" had provided for "libertie in Families," it could not be supposed that "Man would introduce, or ought to indure slaverie, when it is introduced upon whole States and Generalities." Nevertheless, the introduction of jurisdiction was not uniform. There was "latitude . . . some have been more absolute, others lesse." Parker turned to the history, therefore, of jurisdiction - a history, otherwise put, of popular sovereignty and its enemy. 82 Jurisdiction came with the Fall, which made man equally "unfit... to live with, or without societie." But Parker found no model in thefirstages' "small petty Principalities" for absolutism; "Regiment... was rather too milde and sinewlesse, than too violent and rigorous."83 Parker chose to pass over Nimrod and other "dark Labyrinths of our primative Records" of the anteand immediate post-diluvian ages, turning instead to the patriarchs and judges. In spite of their divine commission, they were contented with "moderate Prerogatives." The turn to monarchy was the result of an "impious and stupid ... Frenzie," and more a rejection of "Gods Headship" than an 79 81 83

Jus Populi, p. 35. Jus Populi, pp.3S-A0. Jus Populi, pp. 43,44.

80 82

Jus Populi, pp. 36-7. Jus Populi, p. 42.

130

Henry Parker and the English civil war

election of a new form of government. Even so, the "very composition of that Monarchy was not without qualifications of mixture, and other Limitations." 84 In the post-exilic era, the deterioration from sound government accelerated. Following Aristotle, Parker took the "Asiatics" as more disposed to tyranny than the Europeans; and as Alexander became "tainted with luxury of Persia," he acquired a double inducement to "be insolent": contact with despotism itself, and the vicious effects of "largenesse of Dominion," which demanded a "proportionable Prerogative."85 This was a principle, as it were, of cultural physics. As "Great Bodies cannot be moved, but with great Engines," so "extensive Monarchies" required "extensive Prerogatives," for "Gravitie and Policie ... in this keep a just correspondency." Yet Parker also insisted that might did not confer right; empires of "meer force" could be destroyed by the same means with "equality and reason." 86 This brought Parker to Roman times, a clear crux in his argument. For while political sin was now unmistakably about in the world, the question was whether the government of Rome in the time of Augustus was absolute or not - upon the outcome of that question hung the interpretation of Romans 13:1. Who were the "higher powers?" Were they absolute? Parker ran into difficulties. He had constructed a theory linking extensive (especially extra-national) empire with grasping monarchy, in particular with "Military arbitrary Empire."87 It was well nigh impossible to exclude Rome in the time of Caesar, let alone Augustus and his immediate successors from this absolutist umbrella.88 But Parker needed to do so nonetheless, and decided at this juncture to follow the lead of Jean Bodin, denying that the principate was monarchical in a full sense, and insisting that the lex regia appeared only in Vespasian's time.89 Even then it was not binding, for it was conceded by an "over-awed" Senate and a "depraved, and evirtuated" comitia tributa.90 Ussher and Feme, then, had yoked Romans 13:1 to the wrong plough. It was well to submit to the supreme powers, but Paul left "no certaine rule, whereby to discern what that supreme power is in all Countreys."91 VI

In the main Parker chose to meet Maxwell and Ussher on his own ground. Unlike Rutherford, who engaged Maxwell in the idiom and learning they 84 86 88

89 90

85 Jus Populi, pp. 44, 45, 46. Jus Populi, pp. 48-9. 87 Jus Populi, pp. 50-3. Jus Populi, p. 52. Jus Populiy pp. 61—60 (sic; mispaged, sig. 12 recto and verso), on Sulla and Caesar shows the pressure of the argument on Parker's own thinking; see also p. 61 [sic, for sig. 13 recto) and p. 6 4 (s/c, for sig. 13 verso) on Augustus, although Parker combats the implication of p. 64. Jus Populiy p p . 6 1 (sig. 13 recto), 62 (sig. 13 verso). 91 Jus Populiy p. 65 (s/V, for sig. 14 recto). Jus Populi, p. 67'; for Feme, pp. 55, 57.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

131

shared, Parker was unwilling or unable to contest Maxwell's sometimes shrewd, sometimes dubious pedigree of the Observator's ideas. But that is not to say that Parker simply wrote without books. Among Parker's earlier writings, A Discourse Concerning Puritans and The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment reveal the traces of a reading or browsing program for the task at hand, Paolo Sarpi, notably in the former case, and Richard Hooker in the latter.92 In Jus Populi Parker did the like. Bodin and Grotius both addressed concerns central to Jus Populi, particularly the origin of the state and the nature of sovereignty. The consultation, however, had decidedly mixed, and perhaps in some sense paradoxical, results. On the face of it, Bodin's Republic had little to commend it to Parker. In Jus Populi, Parker entertained notions of coordination and mixture; Bodin had regarded such ideas as theoretical nonsense and practical treason. Moreover, Bodin was fierce in his determination to justify and restore the old Roman paternal right of life and death over the children.93 Parker had no choice but to find Bodin an obstruction (although of course Parker could have chosen simply to ignore him). However, his refutation was surprisingly temperate. Parker reduced Bodin's multifaceted argument to a single issue- that the loss of paternal control led to the clogging of the courts with family disputes - as if Bodin was to be attacked only with minimum force.94 A later passage helps explain why. Parker's extended treatment of herile or despotical power drew generally but unmistakably from the parallel discussion by Bodin, who at one point was specifically cited.95 That sort of help, in which Bodin was used to combat Grotius, earned Parker's highest commendation - "a Grave Statesman" as well as a "learned Lawyer." And it was also as a historian that Bodin aided Parker, in providing the critical argument that the lex regia was unknown to Rome until the Flavians.96 Against Parker's admiration for Bodin must be set his annoyance with Grotius, whose notion of fundamental sociability must otherwise have attracted Parker. Initially, Parker took comfort from the Grotian distinction between imperium and imperii habendi modum. That paralleled similar English distinctions (much attacked by royalists) between the king's private 92 93 94 95

96

See Chapter 3 , pp. 53, 65-6. Jean Bodin, The Six Bookes of a Commonweale, ed. Kenneth Douglas McRae (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), Book I, ch. IV. I have not tried to determine the editions Parker used. Jus Populi, p. 34; cf. Bodin, Six Bookes, p. 24. Cf. jus Populi, pp. 3 8 ^ 2 , and Bodin, Six Bookes, pp. 3 2 - 4 6 (Book I, ch. IV). Among other matters Parker drew on Bodin's discussion of Aristotle's notion of natural slavery, his recital of the story of Augustus' rebuke to the cruel slave-owner Vedius Pollio, and his recital of arguments about the utility of slavery and danger of manumission. Bodin is specifically noted on p. 39. Jus Populi, p. 64 (sig. 13 verso); cf. Bodin, Six Bookes, pp. 98 (Book I, ch. 8); 1 9 6 , 1 9 7 (Book

II, ch.l).

132

Henry Parker and the English civil war

and public bodies and between his authority and his person, and it also prefigured Parker's reading of Romans 13:1. 97 The same passage probably helped Parker to conclude that even Barclay (and, Parker added, Grotius and the lawyer Arnisaeus) recognized at least some extremities in which resistance was justified.98 Yet Book I of De Jure Belli ac Pads must have made difficult reading for Parker. Scarcely less than Bodin, Grotius thought parents were gods to their children.99 But most disturbing was Grotius' view that sovereignty did not always reside in the people, a prospect that Grotius first discussed as a result of voluntary enslavement. This is where Parker set into play Bodin's views against slavery, and although Parker did not mention Grotius at that point in his exposition, he later cited, and attacked, Grotius' prime example: the total surrender of the Campanians to the Romans, which Parker refused outright to accept, since "no Nation yet did voluntarily or compulsorily embrace servitude."100

VII

As the most ambitious and mature statement of Parker's political outlook, Jus Populi deserves rather more notice than it has received. In two respects, at least, Parker used the occasion Maxwell afforded him to clarify, even to himself, his own sometimes less than pellucid conceptions. One of these was the primitive, radical sovereignty of the people. Well in advance of Locke, Tyrrell, and Sidney, Parker saw that no positive statement of popular sovereignty could succeed without clearing the ground of its deeply rooted patriarchal and organicist furze. Filmer seems to have had no direct part to play in Parker's version of this story, although indirectly the private circulation of Patriarcha may have influenced the royalist circles populated by the likes of the younger Digges and Spelman; but Maxwell, pursuing with energy and system these themes common in royalist and clerical polemic, served Parker's purpose admirably. The fact that Parker had to overrule Grotius with respect to contractual slavery and Bodin with respect to patriarchy can only have deepened his commitment to aboriginal popular sovereignty. Jus Populi also clarified what Parker meant by "liberty," which Parker

97

98 99 100

Jus Populi, p. 7; cf. Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacts, Book I, ch. 4; English trans. Francis W. Kelsey, et al. (Washington, DC, 1925; repr. 1964), vol. I, pp. 157, 158, 159; see also pp. 113-14, 123, 137. Jus Populi, p. 67; De Jure Belli ac Pads, Book I, ch. 4; English trans., vol. I, pp. 150,157-8. De Jure Belli ac Pads, Book I, Prolegomena; English trans., vol. I, p. 14. Jus Populi, p. 66. Cf. De Jure Belli ac Pads, Bk. I, ch.3. English trans., vol. I, p. 104.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

133

earlier counterpoised to prerogative or had entrusted to parliament. 101 Parker's commitment to parliamentary absolutism and his failure to concede an inch of it to thefierceconstitutionalist onslaught of the royalists - culminating in the petulant aggressiveness of The Contra-Replicant - might suggest that Parker's incantation of liberty was a verbal slip or a careless habit, like an atheist's "God bless you" to his sneezing friend. In Jus Populi liberty emerges with greater clarity than before, as the aboriginal freedom from absolute subjection to a natural or divinely established superior, be he husband, father, elder brother, master, or king. Lot's separation from Abraham was a token of the original condition of mankind: "Independent liberty" was not "a sin against God" or "a transgression against the constitution of power." In the beginning, before the constitution of government by consent, government was one choice amongst others no less desirable. It was "good," but so was "freedome[,] being in itself good, and acceptable to Nature." 102 That granted, Parker had only to insist once again on the virtual identity of parliament and people, parliament being "the very people it self artificially congregated."103 Freedom, properly understood, was the general will. One matter, though, defies clarification. Parker's linkage of extensive empire and internal despotism could not but resonate in the context of English hegemony or would-be hegemony in the three kingdoms. In truth, though, the resonances were multiple and cacophonous. At one point Parker set out and tipped a chain of falling dominoes; and inferentially the last domino, if not Charles, was Strafford: "Where many States are subjugated to one Seignior, War can never be absent; where War is, Military rule must needs predominate; where Military rule is, Law must needs give place to Discretion; and what that bloody fatall Train is, which ever attends War and a Military arbitrary Empire, is sufficiently known to all." 104 Parker was never reluctant to make a comparison, and both the length and intensity of Parker's theory of imperial despotism almost certainly had some object in mind. Perhaps it is to be found in a delphic little geography lesson: "Nature seems to have chalked out the just dimensions of a compleat Monarchic, by Mountains, Seas, or other lines: Spain, Italy, France Sec. seems [sic] to be cut out as proportion101

The Case of Shipmony, pp. 4,7, 8,37; Observations, p. 5 ("publike safety and liberty*'). For the notion of liberty in the early and mid-seventeenth century, Hexter, ed., Parliament and Liberty, and J. C. Davis, "Religion and the Struggle for Freedom in the English Revolution," Historical Journal, 35 (1992), pp. 507-30. Parker's purpose-skewed but extended treatment of liberty in Of a Free Trade bears a secular resemblance to the religious notion explored by Davis; Of a Free Trade, pp. 5-8 and below, p. 152. See also the remarks in Scotlands Holy War against an individualistic conception of liberty (p. 69), and on Christian liberty (p. 75).

102

Jus Populi, Jus Populi, "Artificall Jus Populi,

103

104

p. 5. p. 18. See also The Oath of Pacification, body" of the whole state. p. 5 2 .

p. 2 0 , where parliament is defined as an

134

Henry Parker and the English civil war

able Paterns: and few Nations have ever prospered, when their pride had transported them beyond their native Barricado's." 105 These passages seem to demand a "little England" conclusion - that England's troubles emerged out of its monarch's attempt to rule in three kingdoms. Yet Parker never made the connection. Nor did he ever hint at second thoughts about the imperial foundations of the Tudor state. A possible solution to the riddle of his position in 1644 seemingly might be found in his little-studied The General Junto, or the Councell of Union, a tract on the union of the three kingdoms written at Sir John Danvers' behest for private circulation, and published at some point in 1642, probably before the onset of war.106 But difficulties abound: The General Junto's origin as a sponsored publication may have made it more a mirror for Danvers' views than Parker's; Parker was tactically and rhetorically labile on matters indifferent; and most of all, The General Junto itself can be read in more than one way. The General Junto proposed a "constitution" (as Parker termed it) for the common affairs of the three kingdoms, which Parker thought were currently decided in the "Kings sole Brest" if they were decided at all. 107 The junto was to be composed of a "convenient" number from each kingdom, selected by their respective triennial parliaments to serve from parliament to parliament. Voting in the junto was to be by "Plurality of Kingdomes" rather than "Plurality of voices in grosse." While the council was not to have jurisdiction over the internal affairs of each "Nation," particularly when the parliaments were not in session, the junto was to serve as a legislature for common concerns, a court for disputes between the nations or their members, and a council of state for war and foreign policy. In some respects, it bears an uncanny likeness to the Committee of Safety of the early war years, and its Anglo-Scottish successor, the Committee for Both Kingdoms; it also corresponds closely to Parker's notion of parliamentary omnicompetence.108 Parker's argument for the council in The General Junto would seem to bear

105 106

JusPopuli,p.50.

The evidence for the date, beyond the title page's printed 1 6 4 2 , is two-fold. The fact that Thomason did not enter a day-date strongly suggests, though it does not prove, a date prior to July 1 6 4 2 , since that is when Thomason began to date his tracts. T o much the same effect is a passage noting recent war in Scotland and Ireland, and fearing the like might occur in England; The General Junto, or the Councell of Union ([London,] 1642), p. 2 5 . r Junto, unpaged and unsigned dedication, p. 2 4 . 107 f]oe Qenera\ 108 The council is described in The General Junto, pp. 2 7 - 3 1 . Parker used "kingdom" and "nation" interchangeably, preferring the latter. Parker was utterly silent over the king's veto, if any, in legislation or his right, if any, to reject the junto's counsel in matters of policy; it does seem that while existing parliamentary chambers or orders in each kingdom chose their council members separately, the junto members of each nation, whether noble or not, voted as if in a single chamber. The General Junto does echo Parker's views on the sovereignty of the people; see p. 16.

"Vaine Confidence in the Law": the Observator responds

135

on the imperial question of Jus Populi. "Unity" is harder to achieve in large kingdoms and multiple nations, he began, but "Art" can "overcome" nature. Philip IPs severity cost him the Netherlands; by contrast England, Scotland, and Ireland have been "as much remisse, Philip was too intense."109 Seeming to recognize the problem later noticed in Jus Populi, but with hope for a solution, Parker argued that a common regime of justice and equality would make union workable and legitimate. Particularly with respect to Ireland, but with an eye also on its significance for English affairs, Parker dismissed fears of absolutism arising from conquest, which did not in even the most extreme case absolve kings from divine and natural law; as in The Contra-Replicant, though with a very different mood, he pricked at English common law chauvinism in a deflation of Magna Carta, which did not go as far to protect liberty as did either divine or natural law. 110 The specific voting rules as well as the texture of the proposal suggest that Parker sought to create a genuinely multinational monarchy; the notion that Ireland and Scotland could effectively veto any English initiative pertinent to them was little less than extraordinary. As Parker put it, the goal was to replace the "Tritarchy" of England, Scotland, and Ireland as fully as the old heptarchy of England had been replaced by a single, united monarchy.111 Yet the other nations would have quickly detected the limits of Parker's generosity. They would not have had to look hard to find acute Anglocentrism in Parker's understanding of a desirable model of English-Scottish and English-Irish unity - in the relation of Brittany to France and Wales to England; they would have protested Parker's blithe assumption that the junto should be where the king was - for all practical purposes, in England.112 The Irish would have had little tolerance for Parker's attempt to cast the Irish rebellion wholly in a religious mold.113 Nevertheless, from Parker's view the general council satisfied the basic requirement of equity: each nation "had equal Consent and concurrence" in the joint affairs of the three nations. Given this, Parker might have been able, had he so chosen in Jus Populi, to state why England's relation to Ireland and Scotland was not, or was not necessarily, destructive to England's own liberties. Probably it is useless to speculate why he did not. The problem of the three kingdoms remained an indeterminate element in Parker's thought. What Jus Populi did not leave uncertain was a growing impatience with both the monarchy and its current occupant; in this Jus Populi in its very different way reprised the hostility of The Contra-Replicant and The Oath of 109 111 113

n0 The General Junto, pp. 2-3. The General Junto, pp. 5, 14, 15-16. 112 The General Junto, p. 29. The General Junto, pp. 26,28, 31. The General Junto, pp. 19—20,22. The corollary to the religious axiom is that it is perfectly acceptable to force the Catholics to the true faith.

136

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Pacification.11* Parker wrote another Thucydidean speech, this time on the supposition that the "major part of the Patricians, and Plebeians" had become Christians in the days of Domitian, who like his father Vespasian was an absolutist, and who also was a well-known persecutor of Christians. Charles, of course, was Domitian, and the Senate and people's address to him was the purest Parker, a contribution indeed to the war of words.115 If the Senate and people had resisted Domitian, it was by warrant of the "extraordinary law of generall necessity" to protect their "Lives, Liberties, and Religion." The first step to a solution lay with the emperor, not his people: "let us have hopes to remaine safe, and you shall have assurances to remain Caesar."116 Parker was now ready to revise his much criticized remark in Observations that God was no more the author of regal than aristocratic or democratic power. In Jus Populi the message was clear: both monarchy and aristocracy were mere "derivative formes" that "owe a dependance upon Democracy." Rule by the people was always "the most naturall, and primarily authenticall" in principle. Practice was more variable; at least occasionally democracy was the "most beneficiall." Parker implied that was the present case, in a heavy-handed analysis of Rome's limitations. Roman republican politics had collapsed because a "vast, rude, confused, indigested heap of the vulgar" and the optimates missed their chance to construct a democracy "so wisely and exactly regulated, as it ought to be." And what was the Romans' mistake? They had failed to create the English parliament and English social relations, where the comitia tributa was not "too adverse to the Patrician Order," and where the "whole State" had "just influence of consent in them by right of election or representation."117 114

115 116 117

In addition to the difference in tone, there is a major difference in the treatment of the figure of the dictator, who in The Contra-Replicant is seen in largely salubrious, Machiavellian terms (witness the proposal for Essex), and in Jus Populi far less enthusiastically (pp. 61,64). Jus Populi, p. 65 (mispaginated, sig. 14 recto). The Senate and plebeians first petition the king, then "publish the justice" of their resolution to resist. Jus Populi, pp. 64,65. Jus Populi, p. 61 (mispaginated, sig. 12 recto).

««* J •£*

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

Parker's political and religious writings in the opening years of the Long Parliament and civil war will probably always be of first interest to his students; it is, after all, the Observator to whom they are drawn. Nevertheless, Parker's efforts on behalf of commercial interests and his later political and religious writings have received less attention than they merit. In the case of the commercial pamphlets, reasons are not hard tofind:undoubtedly they are too mercenary for some tastes, and suffer (for casual modern readers) from immersion in the very details and circumstances that provoked their commissioning and made them effective. Less obvious is the general neglect of the later political and religious writings.

With the approach of war in 1642, Parker abandoned the religious pamphleteering that had occupied him in 1641-2. But in 1645, certainly, and in 1646, perhaps, he returned to this old stand. Friend and foe judged William Laud more by his deeds than his words. Ironically, though, the crisis of his career was bracketed by two speeches and, it seems, Henry Parker set out to answer both of them. Divine and Politike Observations, which we have argued was possibly by Parker's hand, responded to Laud's speech in the Star Chamber at the trial of Prynne, Bastwick, and Burton;1 the archbishop's scaffold speech at his own execution in January 1645 was the other. Laud planned his final moment with care, leaving a text of his remarks with John Hinde, who used them and his own notes and observations to produce an authorized addition, so it was assumed, to the English martyrology.2 Laud did not shrink from pleading his own case. He compared his situation to Christ's, to John the Baptist's, to Paul's, to Stephen's, to St. Cyprian's, and also to that of Simon of Sudbury, the archbishop 1 2

See Chapter 1 above, pp. 7-10. The Archbishop of Canterburys Speech: or His Funerall Sermon, Preacht by Himself on the Scaffold (London, 1644/5). Thomason's copy [BL E. 24 (15)] is dated 13 January 1644, the Monday after the execution on Friday, 10 January.

137

138

Henry Parker and the English civil war

of Canterbury murdered in London by the rebels of 1381.3 He protested his king's innocence and his own of the charge of popery and accused the sectaries of doing the pope's bidding in destroying the English church. He also insisted that he had never "endeavoured the subversion of the Laws of the Realme."4 Whatever may have been their author's motives, Laud's remarks drew out a great many responses. Parker's Jus Regum came late in the series,5 and probably reflected Parker's sense of the continuing need to resist Laud's attempts at self-beatification; Parker also naturally used the occasion to pursue a secondary agenda. Affecting not to dance on the archbishop's grave, Parker nevertheless combated Laud's self-promoting comparisons of his sufferings to those of the martyrs, claiming to detect in them "want of charity" and "presumption"; he also sought to expose the "sting" of reproach in Laud's prayers for his enemies.6 Yet when he came to consider Laud's guilt or innocence, Parker was surprisingly guarded. He all but acknowledged Laud's claim that he had not favored, let alone introduced, "Popish superstition" of "the grosse and absurd" sort (as Parker put it) into the church.7 And in regarding Laud's parallel insistence that he had not subverted the "Laws of the Realme" as a verbal evasion of a more abstract crime of subversion of "Law" in general, Parker tacitly conceded the difficulty of a narrow legal case against the prelate.8 But Parker's scruples were merely an accompaniment of his deeper charge against Laud, the one that led Parker into his secondary agenda, described on the title page as "A Vindication of the Regall Power: Against All Spirituall Authority exercised under any Form of Ecclesiasticall Government" Laud's crime was popery - in the widest sense. For Parker, popery "consiste[d] neither in this or that superstition nor Idolatry, nor in this or that erronious Doctrine, nor in all together, principally and chiefly." Rather it lay in "absolutnesse of spirituall [i.e., clerical] authority commanding Implicite obedience." If Laud did not care for the superstitions of popery, yet "he courted and ambitiously coveted that honour and authority which did establish that superstition," using "Superstition and Ignorance as a principall means" to produce "blinde devotion" to the clergy.9 And that, in clear derogation of the 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

The Archbishop of Canterburys Speech, pp.7, 9, 10. The Archbishop of Canterburys Speech, p. 14; see also pp. 9—13. Thomason acquired Jus Regum on 21 May 1645. It was registered by the publisher Bostock at Stationers' Hall on 19 May; Parker's name was not used in the entry (as it was not on the title page, which claimed the tract was "Published by Authority"). See A Transcript of the Registers; ed. Eyre and Rivington, I, p. 170. Jus Regum, pp. 1, 20; see also pp. 7-8. Jus Regum, p. 34; The Archbishop of Canterburys Speech, p. 14. Jus Regum, pp.22—3. Cf. The Archbishop of Canterburys Speech, pp.9 (denial of violation deserving death of "any known Law of the Kingdome"), 14 ("Laws"). Jus Regum, pp.29, 34; see also the similar definition, pp. 10-11.

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

139

regal power (despite all that was said about the support of episcopacy for monarchy), was treason.10 Parker's definition of popery cast so broad a net that it caught other fish than the archbishop. In the conventional geography, these other creatures were not even in the archbishop's side of the pond. They were presbyterians, who no less than Roman Catholics and episcopalians claimed the power of coercion in spiritual matters - in particular, that power in its utmost extension, excommunication. To be sure, Parker mentioned the presbyterians (and the Independents) only once, and even then indirectly, warning that the fundamental "errour" of independent clerical authority endangered the souls of all those subject to it, "whether it be derived from the supremacy of one, or a superiority onely of others, or from the Democracy of all the Clergy assembled together, or from the Independencie of every one within their severall Congregations."11 However, in the context of 1645, and what Professor Lamont has described as the "Erastian revival," the question of excommunication was at the center of the debate over the English church then being fought out amongst presbyterians and their antagonists in the Westminster Assembly and beyond.12 Did the clergy have that power or not? For Parker, who saw excommunication primarily as a clerical instrument of "great terror," the answer was simple: "no Clergyman ... can say [with effect], enter thou into heaven, and goe thou into hell." 13 On this question he stood with the greater and more powerful segment of national opinion. At no time in England's flirtation with a pseudo-presbyterianism in the 1640s did the power of the keys ever leave the hands of those delegated by "Parliament, where onely the Supremacy of all Authority in England doth rest, with the King, and in the King."14 On the church question, Parker was comfortably consistent in principles and outlook. Little in Jus Regum was unanticipated in A Discourse Concerning Puritans and The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, including the slap at the presbyterians. Except for the necessary modification after the execution of the king, Parker had no need to revise his highly portable opinion later. In a tract on Irish affairs on 1646, The Irish Massacre, he claimed that the Irish rebellion of 1641 was fomented by the Catholic clergy, whose real motivation was not religion but "the many civill advantages which seemed attendant upon it." Popery was simply a "slie sophisme, to establish Empire in the long Robe, and wrest it from such as they account secular 10 12

13

ll Jus Regum, pp. 6, 19-20, 37. jus Regum, p. 30. Lamont, Godly Rule, p. 113; see more generally, ch.6. For a survey of the ecclesiological context, John Morrill, "The Church in England, 1642—9," in Morrill, ed., Reactions to the English Civil War 1642-1649, pp. 89-114. 14 Jus Regum, p. 12. Jus Regum, p. 38.

140

Henry Parker and the English civil war

men."15 It would seem straightforward, therefore, to admit to the Parker canon another strongly statist tract conventionally ascribed to him, The Trojan Horse of the Presbyteriall Government Unbowelled. The basis for the attribution, apart from whatever evidence is provided by the text itself, is Thomason's title page comment, "supposed to be written by Hen. Parker Esq."16 The question is more complex than at first seems. The Trojan Horse shares many points of contact with Parker's undoubted religious tracts. But other views are harder to square with Parker's outlook in 1646, and there are notable (if not quite conclusive) differences in style and method. The tract also appeared by means of a different distribution channel: throughout these years Parker had used Robert Bostock, while The Trojan Horse came without an imprint. Finally, there is the matter of Thomason's attribution itself; Thomason used the formula "supposed to be" to mark second-hand or unconvincing attributions; it is a signal of doubt more than the reverse. Given the tract's contents, Thomason had a personal motive for denying Parker's authorship, for the fierce anti-presbyterianism of The Trojan Horse would surely have strained their friendship.17 The internal evidence is not clear. The tract deploys a method that Parker never used in extenso, using long transcripts from the two books of discipline and the presbyterian psalter to condemn the scheme out of its own mouth. The style lacks the common Parker flourishes. More troubling, at least for a supposedly finished tract, are several inconsistencies and lapses. In a short space, presbyterianism's use of lay elders is said to promote men of the "field, or the shop" into a "Judges seat" for which they are notfit,and then said to be likely to allow the "men of great estates and dealing in the world" to "enthrall" their "Inferiours."18 While The Trojan Horse joins Parker's undoubted tracts in using the traditional language of the royal supremacy, unlike the others it does not provide a parliamentary or populist gloss on the royal supremacy, except a very tangential observation that the "generall disaffection to Regall Power" may have led some mistakenly to view presbyterianism as but another means "to clip the wings of Royall Prerogative." 19 Finally, there are hints of a greater tolerance for episcopacy than Parker had 15

16 17 18 19

[Henry Parker,] The Irish Massacre (n.p., n.d.) Thomason acquired this incomplete tract [BL E. 353 (15)] sometime in September 1646. His note reads, "by Hen. Parker Esq begun before he made over to Hamb[urg] but not finished." The tract breaks abruptly on p. 24, after concluding only one of five observations announced and begun on p. 20. The Trojan Horse of the Presbyteriall Government Unbowelled. Thomason's copy is dated 1 September. On Thomason's presbyterian commitments, Lois Spencer, "The Politics of George Thomason," The Libraryy 5th series, 14 (1959), pp. 11-27. The Trojan Horse of the Presbyteriall Government Unbowelled, pp. 13, 14. The Trojan Horse of the Presbyteriall Government Unbowelledt p. 6; see also pp. 3, 5, 20.

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

141

revealed in 1645, including a distaste for a system that "admits of no Superiority of one above another," an altogether unlikely proposition for the defender of parliamentary government, let alone an Independent.20 Nevertheless, Parker used the very figure of presbyterianism as a Scottish Trojan horse in his final view of the matter, in Scotlands Holy War.2-1 And whether he wrote it or not, much of The Trojan Horse expresses Parker's own views - for example, the analysis of the presbyterian party not as holders of a mistaken theory of Scripture-based ecclesiology but as schemers seeking to overwhelm the state and to put "their hands into mens purses." 22 The Trojan Horse may well have been Parker's; if so, it is among the least distinguished of his tracts. II

Apart from Mr. William Wheelers Case from his Own Relation?3 Parker wrote three pamphlets on behalf of commercial interests: The Vintners Answer to Some Scandalous Phamphlets, The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers, and Of a Free Trade. All were designed to influence public policy. Early in 1642 Parker wrote lengthily on behalf the Vintners, whose involvement since 1637 in a notorious project combining elements of monopoly and the farming of non-parliamentary impositions brought the company to the edge of disaster. In outline the facts are relatively straightforward. On an official level, the company, both at general meetings and through its court of Assistants, had joined with William Abel (a City alderman as well its master) and Richard Kilvert (a High Commission and Star Chamber functionary) in a patent for French and Spanish wines in return for collecting an import duty of 40s. per tun. The Vintners were allowed to raise their price accordingly (and, it was later charged, were tolerated in enhancements well beyond what the impost justified); moreover, leaders within the company joined Abel and Kilvert in a tax farm that brought further profits to everyone concerned in it.24 Courtiers had their cut as did the king himself; even the theoretical losers, such as the importing merchants and the interloping Coopers, were salved out of the public's loss. In its crass way, the project 20 21

22 23 24

The Trojan Horse of the Presbyteriall Government Unbowelled, p. 13; cf. pp. 2 1 - 2 . Scotlands Holy War, p. 34: the Solemn League and Covenant was used by the Scots "like the Grecian wooden horse." Cf. The Trojan Horse of the Presbyteriall Government Unbowelled, p. 20, on presbyterianism: "they would bring it in upon us like the Trojan Horse with the belly full of armed men." The Trojan Horse of the Presbyteriall Government Unbowelled, p. 18. See Chapter 1 above, p. 16. Robert Ashton, The City and the Court 1603-1643 (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 145-7, and Valerie Pearl, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1961), pp. 2 8 9 - 9 1 , contain the most reliable discussions.

142

Henry Parker and the English civil war

worked. Like hyenas feasting upon a carcass, antagonists and rivals got along well enough as long as their mouths were full. No other project, not even that of the soap-boilers, attracted as much resentment in the Long Parliament. The profits had been obscene; the last official Commons estimate was nearly £152,000.^ Moreover, the scheme had the considerable misfortune, in the new order of things, to have burdened most heavily the well-to-do: the prosecutors in the Commons had been, in effect, among the victims. One other group, it seems, also had an unusual interest in the proceedings: the pamphlet-writing "poore Schollers" or "poets" whose aristocratic tastes did not match their plebeian budgets and who "dy'd for griefe when prices of Wines rose."26 Their railing efforts as well as the scheme's metropolitan focus ensured that members of parliament would not forget the Vintners. That was most unlikely anyway. Deep pockets elicit long fingers, and from early on the Commons saw Abel, Kilvert, and the Vintners not only as delinquents deserving punishment but also as a much-needed source of revenue. Kilvert, especially, tried to curry favor with John Pym by showing where the money was.27 The high stakes also drew out a small army of lawyers and publicists; most literary sources mention them, and Kilvert claimed that at one moment before the Commons committee the Vintners appeared with seven "Counsellors."28 Predictably, in the examinations in the Commons' committee for the customers and in the press, an orgy of mutual recrimination replaced the principals' earlier greedy collegiality. At least four voices can be detected. Kilvert and Abel, now at odds, had their own selfserving versions of the story.29 Two groups of Vintners offered different versions of the same exculpatory tale. Both blamed Abel and Kilvert for leading the company on, but whereas A True Relation of the Proposing, Threatening, and Perswading the Vintners claimed that the company's lesser elements either stayed away or deferentially acceded to the "ancient and 25 26

27

28 29

Private Journals /, pp.284, 287. For other estimates, at different times and to different purposes (ranging from £141,000 to £200,000), see n.27 below. A Dialogue or Accidental Discourse betwixt Mr. Alderman Abel, and Richard Kilvert (n.p., 1641), p. 2. An Exact Legendary Compendiously Containing the Whole Life of Alderman Abel (n.p., 1641). The Copie of a Letter sent from the Roaring Boyes in Elizium (n.p., 1641), sig. A3 verso. 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 (New Haven, 1923), pp. 351,357. See also one of the tracts written in Kilvert's interest, A Reply to a Most Untrue Relation (n.p., 1641), pp. 17-18. A Reply to a Most Untrue Relation, p. 8. For Kilvert, A Reply to a Most Untrue Relation and, earlier, A True Discovery of the Proiectors of the Wine Proiect (London, 1641). Parker notes a separate voice for Abel in The Vintners Answer, pp. 1, 15; I have been unable to locate a surviving text or texts. The lesser Vintners made their case in A True Relation of the Proposing, Threatning, and Perswading the Vintners (London, 1641).

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

143

chiefe of the company" who expected to share the profit, Parker's effort on behalf of the traditional company leadership {sans Abel of course) insisted that the company members who joined with Abel and Kilvert were the "Suburbian retaylers, poor men ... the loud and turbulent part." Parker's pamphlet came late in the story, as an attempt to mitigate the inevitable outcome for his clients. Thomason seems to have come by his copy towards the end of the third week of March 1642, to judge from its placeorder in the collection, right on the eve of an important turn in the case, the outcome of which The Vintners Answer was trying to influence. By February 1642 there was no longer a doubt whether compromised Vintners would pay for their defalcation. The only question was how much. On 5 February a bill to force restitution from the Vintners was twice read and committed; the purpose of the commitment was to attend to the details of restitution to be made by individuals. John Pym suggested that the committee be given power to "compound with the vintners." The house balked at this delegation of authority, as "against the honor of the house." Nevertheless, the committee did receive authority to "treat" with Vintners; as events unfolded, those negotiations set the terms of settlement. By 17 February, some members of the company had already agreed to settle.30 But others resisted; Giles Green, the chairman of the customers committee, reported on 22 March (shortly after The Vintners Answer appeared) that the "said vintners refused to come in and compound."31 This was probably simply a delaying tactic. The Commons took no special interest in what it might have construed as contempt. In fact, the Vintners had found friends in high - and radical - places. Alderman Penington and Henry Marten had spoken against proceeding with the bill against them, Penington was sympathetic to his erstwhile aldermanic colleague Abel, and it is to be suspected that Pym may have kept an eye out for Kilvert.32 If, as it has been well put, the mood of the Commons was "not to spread responsibility for such acts of economic delinquency over too wide an area of the business world," The Vintners Answer served that purpose perfectly, even as it sought to protect Parker's Vintner clients.33 Repeatedly it as much as admitted Vintner involvement in the project; the goal was simply to extenuate their guilt. This reversed Kilvert's strategy. He had sought to protect himself by stressing the company's complicity; Parker's difficult task was to dispute Kilvert's publication of large self-convicting excerpts of the Vintners' own records. So Parker suggested the company had initially resisted the project, and then had been blackmailed, tricked, and, in the standard way, manipu30 31 32 33

Private journals 7, pp. 280-1, 284-5, 287, 405. Private journals //, p. 71. C/, II, p. 492 (22 March 1641/2). Private Journals 7, pp. 280-1, 300; Pearl, London and the Outbreak, p. 291. Ashton, The City and the Court, p. 146; see also p. 153.

144

Henry Parker and the English civil war

lated with "Benefit" as the "bait," and "Terror ... the hook." Even the benefits, as Parker had it, were laced with menace, "obtruded rather to make [the Vintners] guilty, then to make them gainers." 34 The reluctant patentees were victims of "calamitous, irregular times" as well as of "necessity, and force, and fraud."35 The Vintners Answer thus sought to broker a composition or plea bargain. As Parker put it with respect to one element in the proceedings, but which might have stood for all, "The Vintners hope to be excused, if not a Toto, yet a Tanto" While few could be expected to accept Parker's boilerplate protestations of his clients' poverty, he claimed that even Giles Green and the committee saw them at least as partial victims. Certainly, he said, they should not be fined or forced to restore anything approaching £200,000, the figure with which Kilvert had tantalized the Commons. Above all, individual profits and levels of complicity varied; Parker clearly thought his clients would fare better severally than together. He also raised the political cost of punishing them. The project, he said twice, was like ship money: a great many had been implicated by "violence and subtilty." "If all delinquents ... were now questioned, it would shake the foundations of the State, and disturb the common peace."36 At a moment when parliament was desperately seeking to rally support for the militia ordinance, this last argument was as self-evident as necessity itself. On 9 April 1642 Green reported that Abel's offer of £2,000 to settle his case had been accepted; others had made similarly acceptable offers ranging from £25 to £425; most paid about £100. Their names were left out of the bill to force restitution. Others continued to plead their case. Since the bill was dropped, apparently the Commons decided it had gotten from the Vintners as much as it cared or dared to. 37 The term "privado" was much on Parker's lips in The Vintners Answer; he used it of Abel's creatures. One can only wonder if it bore any trace of self-reflection.38 Ill

The same job of pleading the case of a compromised group came to Parker in 1643, when he wrote on behalf of the Stationers. As with the Vintners, Parker engaged opinion at a tactically significant moment; The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers was part of the Stationers' lobbying effort to secure a printing ordinance to their liking. 34

35 37 38

The Vintners Answer, pp. 5, 6; on AbePs and Kilvert's efforts to force the company to share the guilt, see also pp. 14, 17, 20. For the allegations of blackmail, p. 3, for trickery, misrepresentation (including the company's records), and fraud, pp.6, 8, 11, 12. 36 The Vintners Answer, pp. 19, 30. The Vintners Answer, pp. 19, 2 0 - 1 , 30. Private Journals U, pp. 148, 173. CJ, II, pp. 523-4 (9 April 1642), 532 (15 April 1642). The Vintners Answer, pp. 10, 14, 16.

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

145

The six years from 1637 to 1643 had been a tempest for the Stationers, who were forced to steer their way through roiling and unfamiliar waters. It had not begun that way. The Star Chamber decree regulating printing of 11 July 1637 seemed to reprise and in significant ways strengthen a century-old partnership between the Stationers and crown. From the middle of the sixteenth century forward, copyright (the primary interest of the Stationers) and censorship (the primary interest of the state) were both secured by a process that ended with registration at Stationers' Hall. The company's powers of search and seizure had served not only their own interests; their expertise in sniffing out illicit or smuggled books was valuable to the state. The Stationers were not at all coy about their role; in 1623, for example, they observed that printing belonged in London "in the eye of gou'mV where it was less likely to cause "danger and disturbance in the State." 39 In restating this partnership, the 1637 decree made non-registration for the first time a direct violation of the Court of Star Chamber.40 But the century-old institutional instincts that led Stationers to cooperate with authority carried liabilities. Some individual Stationers certainly compromised their religious beliefs in cooperating with Laudian authorities; and the fact that the 1637 decree had been drawn up in the wake of the BurtonBastwick-Prynne episode made the Stationers seem, as perhaps they were, beneficiaries of that smuggling trio's suffering. Nor was that all. From the outside, the Stationers faced attack as an overpriced, high-handed monopolistic purveyor of often poor-quality goods; from within, the Stationers had to contend with severe structural imbalances that made many of its members more antagonists than confederates. In 1641, the situation utterly disintegrated. The company's links to prerogative authority became a liability; interlopers and disgruntled company members alike repeatedly scorned the company's discipline, which they knew no longer had sure legal warrant. The Commons took a lively interest in the Stationers' early misdeeds, regarding them as one limb of the Laudian Beast.41 Well before Star Chamber was abolished in July 1641 the old system had virtually collapsed. By March 1641 the press appeared out of the control of any of the erstwhile authorities, overrun with rude, even sadistic satires upon the great ones. These were joined in increasing numbers by unauthorized or false news, speeches, and petitions, as well, of course, as by sermons and ecclesiastical controversy, and an occasional serious political tract. Few were registered; to the new writing and distribution system created by a few 39 40 41

W. W. Greg, A Companion to Arber (Oxford, 1967), p. 196. For a more extended treatment, see my "De Facto Freedom, De Facto Authority: Press And Parliament, 1640-1643," Historical Journal, 38 (1995). Sir Edward Dering's Committee on Printing was originally established as a subcommittee of the Grand Committee on Religion.

146

Henry Parker and the English civil war

devil-may-care printers, "poets" (many of whom were recent university dropouts), and hawkers (many of whom were impoverished women), copyright was an irrelevancy. But what had not disappeared was the logic of the old partnership. Despite the "liberal" misgivings of some members of the Commons and queasiness in the Lords about the legal foundation of the Stationers' powers of search and seizure, the new powers-that-would-be could not help but see the point of the old partnership, provided they were its beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the Stationers, encouraged by puritan authors eager to get into print and by parliament members no less happy to see their speeches printed in authorized versions, continued to press for a renewal of an effective copyright system; that, it was understood, entailed a reformulation of the old partnership in new terms. The opposing vectors tugged to a near-standoff in 1641 and 1642. Doubtless partly because of their readiness to cooperate with new masters as they had with the old, the Stationers beat back attempts to punish them for their role in the seizure of smuggled, Dutch-printed Bibles in the 1630s. Since these interloping products were better printed and cheaper than the domestic kind, and since they came with Geneva notes, the Stationers faced a formidable combine of revenge-seeking (and money-seeking) forces. Prominent among the reprieved was Richard Whitaker, a company spokesman who was lately advertising ties to Viscount Say, whom he thanked in a dedication in 1641 for unspecified favors.42 Parker's efforts on the company's behalf took place when Whitaker was Warden.43 But although the Commons, which increasingly took the lead in press regulation from the Lords, grew comfortable in expecting the Stationers to perform their accustomed role of searchers and informants, not until 1643 was it ready to reestablish a comprehensive licensing and registration system. Parker's visible contribution, The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers, was a printed - one does not know how public - attempt to lobby for an outcome wholly to the Stationers' liking. Unlike The Vintners Answer, though, Parker did not have to strain tofindan idiom congenial to the private 42

43

PRO SP 16/478/54. Greg, A Companion to Arber, pp. 307-9. BL Had. 163, fols. 62 b, 199a. CJ, II, p. 181. Malvezzi, Discourses Upon Cornelius Tacitus, sig. A2 recto. Shortly after Whitaker's close call, Henry Hexham petitioned the Lords against Whitaker in a related case concerning the importation of Dutch atlases: House of Lords Record Office, Main Papers, petition of Captain Henry Hexham, 24 June 1642; for the background, Greg, Companion to Arber, pp. 310-18. [Henry Parker,] To the High Court of Parliament: The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers (London, 1643), repr., inaccurately, in Edward Arber, ed., Transcripts of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554-1640, 5 vols. (London, 1875-84), I, pp. 584-8. The petition to the Lords of Joseph Hunscott, the Beadle in 1643, is also in Parker's hand; House of Lords Record Office, Main Papers, petition of Joseph Hunscott, 14 May 1643.

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

147

and public interests he attempted jointly to serve. While he wrote on behalf of the Stationers, the proponent of parliamentary absolutism would probably have taken a similar line on purely political grounds. The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers began with a little historical sociology. China, having "had the use of Printing and Guns, long before they were invented in Europe" took them as marks of cultural superiority; in Europe, the "ingenious Craft" of printing was esteemed proportionably as "each Countrey" was "the more civill and knowing." Only "Barbarians" suppressed it. But "meere Printing" was to be distinguished from "well ordered Printing." In a tacit echo of a frequent but safe antimonarchical line (corruptio optima pessima est), the abuse of this "precious and excellent" art was "as dangerous, as the use is advantagious." Abuse led to twin defects. "Want of regiment" led to poor printers and "undervalued" goods; "and commonly where Printing droops ... errors and heresies abound." Parker, ever the Protestant champion, nevertheless saw this affliction as a Protestant disease: "We must in this give Papists their due . . . we [Protestants]... take not so much care to preserve the true Religion as they do the false." 44 The key to suppression of the recent "enormious disorders" was a return to "due and Politick regulation." If appointment of "severe Examiners" for licensing was "the maine care," the "next care" was providing for the well-being of the enforcers, the Stationers. They had lacked "full authority" and "true encouragement." 45 The company wished nothing of "judgement or punishment" or any authority not consonant with the company's earlier powers, the public good, or the law of the land. But Parker could not resist being the proponent of necessity here as elsewhere. For "abuses . . . likely to arise emergently" the company needed "power" in the "kind" suitable to suppress them - "extraordinary provisions pro re nata"46 The problems, Parker insisted, had grown nearly to the point of insolubility. The Stationers needed power to reduce the number of presses and apprentices to former dimensions, and to root out the rank and luxuriant undergrowth of interlopers tolerated in "the last four years." This would beat down the "stranger" presses in "divers obscure corners of the City, and Suburbs," the antiparliament propaganda pouring out of them, and "the shamefull custome of selling Pamphlets by Sempsters, 8cc." 47 Obviously, these measures benefited the Stationers as well; Parker did not shy from claiming that the Stationers had lagged in their "service of the state" because the state had neglected their 44

45 46 47

The Humble Remonstrance of the Company also approvingly noted (sig. A4 verso) the Geneva. The Humble Remonstrance of the Company The Humble Remonstrance of the Company The Humble Remonstrance of the Company

of Stationers, sig. A2 recto and verso. Parker French efficiency in seizing books printed in of Stationers, sigs. A l verso, A2 recto. of Stationers, sig. A2 verso. of Stationers, sigs. A2 verso—A3 recto.

148

Henry Parker and the English civil war

interest in copyright. A Stationer who reported the malfeasance of another would come to regret it, as his copyrights were violated "out of spite." This led Parker to a defense of copyright as a beneficial, necessary monopoly. Without it, expensive projects would not be undertaken: already many Stationers' "utmost ambition" had shrunk to "the Printing of Pamphlets." 48 Thomason dated his copy of The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers April 1643. By June the order it contemplated for the "publike good of the State, by the private prosperity of the Stationers Company" 49 was ready for implementation; in fact the printing ordinance merely completed a partial rehabilitation of the old regime that had been begun in several earlier orders. Parker and the company had to have been pleased at the final outcome. Their members were indemnified for their services to the state, a new licensing system was established, registration again became the norm. Even The Humble Remonstrance's petulant complaint about spiteful copyright violation was subsumed into the ordinance, when it noted that the leading Stationers' books had been pirated by rogue operators "by way of revenge" for their zeal.50 IV

Of a Free Trade, Parker's tract on behalf of the Merchant Adventurers (written while he was secretary to the company at Hamburg), might have been more accurately titled against a free trade. Once again Parker was called upon to justify the privileges of a group long regarded as having an interest inherently at odds with the common good. And it might seem that Parker by this time almost produced such tracts by formula: as The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers began with a paean to printing, turning then to well-ordered printing, Of a Free Trade placed an encomium to merchants before its arguments against unrestricted commercial activity. But Of a Free Trade was not simply a counsellor's brief. Just as The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers drew upon - and in a way constituted a test case for - Parker's parliamentary absolutism, Of a Free Trade provided a particular setting for more general concerns. In this case, Of a Free Trade was Parker's first occasion to confront the London radicalism that drew much of its inspiration from the themes Parker had declared in the early 1640s; Of a Free Trade apparently took its opponent to be the Levellers. Support for free trade was less a response to mercantilist assumptions than 48 49 50

The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers, sig. A3 recto and verso. Parker added that only one pamphlet in three produced a profit. The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers* sig. A4 verso. An Order of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament. For the Regulating of Printing (London, 1643) [BL E. 106 (15)], p. 4. C/, III, p. 138. House of Lords Record Office, Main Papers, 14 June 1643, explanation of the ordinance of 14 June 1643.

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

149

an expression of hostility to monopoly.51 From early in James' reign the growing late Elizabethan hostility to monopolies was expressed partly in terms of a liberty of trading and livelihood; sometimes this liberty was related to more expansive notions.52 It was easy - perhaps too easy - for the lawyers and consuming gentry of the early seventeenth century to wax to grandiloquence in opposition to something that seldom brought advantage to them and that united them in hardship (in a relative sense) with their less fortunate neighbors. This general language of hostility to monopolistic privilege, which was ready to see trading as a property founded in birthright, migrated easily to the lips and pens of the 1640s radicals. The Merchant Adventurers had long felt the scourge of anti-monopoly rhetoric. Though now eclipsed in the hierarchy of privileged trading combines by the Levant and East India Companies, the company remained formidable. Perhaps a sense of relative debility as much as the political and religious leanings of some of its members led the Merchant Adventurers, in contrast to the high royalists of the other leading companies, to make a successful accommodation to parliament. That had secured for them in 1643 an important ordinance confirming their otherwise prerogative-based privileges.53 Of course, parliamentary allowance did not endear the Merchant Adventurers any more to the radicals, who were ready in this case as others to find their old grievances unrelieved in the aborted new dispensation of the parliamentary regime. They were joined in opposition to the Merchant Adventurers by those whom Professor Brenner dubs the "new merchants."54 The intense but measured and economically shrewd attack upon the Merchant Adventurers of a 1645 tract, A Discourse Consisting of Motives for the Enlargement and Freedome of Trade, may represent the new merchants' outlook. Along with an extensive legal analysis and historical expose (based largely upon the company's records) of the Merchant Adventurers' misdeeds, A Discourse Consisting of Motives took on the company at its tenderest spot - that it did not serve the general good. For example, the company argued that its control of the supply and sale of English cloth in Germany and the 51

52

53

54

To be sure, there is a point of connection. Patents of monopoly were in principle delegations of the royal power to promote the common good. But the argument was not over the legitimacy of this power but whether it had been abused or perverted, or whether its exercise was solely within the discretionary universe of the dominium regale. For two useful recent treatments, see David Harris Sacks, "Parliament, Liberty, and the Commonweal," and Clive Holmes, "Parliament, Liberty, Taxation, and Property," in Hexter, ed., Parliament and Liberty esp. pp. 95-109, 138, 139. For the Merchant Adventurers in the 1640s, Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London's Overseas Traders, 1550-1653 (Princeton, 1993), pp. 347, 381-7. Parker reprinted the 1643 ordinance in Of a Free Trade, p. 39 (mispaged, sig. F2 recto); for a printed text, BL 669 f. 7 (50). Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, passim.

150

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Netherlands kept prices high, to the advantage of English sellers. By contrast, A Discourse Consisting of Motives attributed part of the price increase to the general effects of American silver, debasements, and price rises in other goods. The rest came from the company's actions, but not to the generality's benefit: the company's inconvenient and costly sales system had driven customers away, creating the precondition for rival Dutch manufacture. There was "no way under Heaven" to remedy that than "by devising wayes to sell our Manufactures at cheaper rates," which would be accomplished by "a free Trade, and multitudes of Merchants." 55 A Discourse Consisting of Motives was cited with approval by the Leveller author, probably Richard Overton, of Englands Birth-Right Justified and used extensively by John Lilburne in Innocency and Truth Justified.56 Yet this well-printed tract needed to be introduced with some care to the readers of Lilburne's and Overton's crabbed pages; it was a friendly but ultimately distinct voice. While the Leveller attack on the Merchant Adventurers shared the legal apparatus common to A Discourse Consisting of Motives and the anti-monopolism of the early seventeenth century (particularly, the claims of birthright and fundamental law), Leveller polemic revealed other dispositions and agendas even in appropriating the older and more established idiom. One element was a sense of personal victimization. Lilburne himself began his attack on the Merchant Adventurers by a revelation that he had abandoned a plan to enter the cloth trade because of the company's stranglehold. Thomas Johnson, attacking the Eastland Company that had ruined him for his refusal to take their "diabolical" oath and abide by their rules, tried to warn his countrymen that they were being "cozened" of their "native freedome" by "wicked patents." Lilburne promoted Johnson's cause, and Johnson returned the favor, finding the Eastland merchants and Merchant Adventurers "all one in nature." 5 7 The Golden Fleece Defended, another attack on the Merchant Adventurers, complained generally of the company's inegalitarianism, and particularly that the company's "inferior Members" could not hope to compete against the "great ones." The latter's economies of scale allowed them to profit handsomely on small margins while the "inferior trader" was "worne to nothing." This was the language of envy: the rich 55

56

A Discourse Consisting of Motives for the Enlargement and Freedome of Trade (London, 1645), pp. 23, 38; see also p. 49 for the Dutch market's price sensitivity. I find no evidence to support the contention of George Burton Hotchkiss (John Wheeler, A Treatise of Commerce, ed. George Burton Hotchkiss [New York, 1931], p. 104) that Parker was aware of or responding to this tract in Of a Free Trade. Hotchkiss also mistook the imprimatur of the licenser, Nathaniel Brent, for an indication of the authorship of the tract. Englands Birth-Right Justified (1645), p. 9; repr. in William Haller, ed., Tracts on Liberty in

the Puritan Revolution, 1637-1647, 3 vols. (New York, 1934), II, pp. 257-307. Lilburne,

57

Innocency and Truth Justified, pp.47—51. Lilburne, Innocency and Truth justified, pp. 53-4; Thomas Johnson, A Plea for Free-Mens

Liberties (London, 1646), sigs. Al verso, A4 recto and verso.

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

151

members sported the "fashions, diet, housing, and householdstuffe" of "a Noble man or Gentleman" at the expense of the "ancient Moderation of the City" Thomas Johnson concurred: it was "very strange" that "one man should do the work, and another man receive the wages."58 No wonder that the abolition of the Merchant Adventurers was a stock Leveller position. 59 This accounts for much of the texture and logic of Of a Free Trade, To be sure, Parker developed some broader themes. He sought to cast the Merchant Adventurers as friends of the public interest and their trading rights as conducive to the public good.60 He insisted that the 1643 ordinance reiterated and absorbed a proclamation of 1634 requiring the company to accept as members all those who paid the entry fines.61 Parker also dealt briefly with the broader philosophical issue, conceding that freedom of trade would make some sense if the "world were not spatious enough for all our Traders." However, he continued, every man can trade somewhere.62 Mainly, though, Parker cast his employers as the natural aristocrats of republics and similar societies, and his opponents as the "ruder sediment of the people" driven by "emulous desire to interfere with others." 63 Merchants, Parker argued, contribute more to the "puissance, and magnificance" of states than the "Husbandman, souldier, or Scholler." This was particularly true of "popular States" where the merchant "usually has more share in the administration of publike affaires." Monarchies also could gain from the merchant's leadership; Parker found Solomon's commercial exploits the equal in value of Alexander's and Caesar's conquests, and their morality superior: the Romans' "tragicall exploits" were best "accounted magna, & splendida Latrocinia."64 Parker's merchants were the Renaissance men of the vita activa: their training, though more specific and technical than that of divines and soldiers, gave them "something" of both, a "something ... [that] better qualifies them to serve the State." They certainly had no need to shrink before "our young gallants" who go to France to learn "to weare ribbons" and to Spain and Italy to "be perfidious."65 Perhaps it is only mildly surprising to see Parker's merchants placed into the same relation between the 58

59

60 61 62 64 65

Lilburne, Innocency

and Truth

justified,

p. 47; The Golden

Fleece Defended

(n.p., n.d.

[Thomason date, 19 March 1646/7]), sigs. Al verso, A2 recto; Johnson, A Plea for Free-Mens Liberties, sig. A2 verso. For 1647 and 1648, see in Don M. Wolfe, Leveller Manifestoes of the Puritan Revolution (New York, 1967), pp. 139, 193, 215, 268; Haller, ed., Tracts on Liberty, II, pp. I l l , 113, 152, 153. Of a Free Trade, pp. 8-10, 13, 15-17, 3 0 - 1 (sigs. El verso-E2 recto). Of a Free Trade, p. 22, pp. 3 1 , 30, 45, 34 [consecutive pages, all mispaged; sigs. Fl recto—F2 verso]. 63 Of a Free Trade, pp. 13-14. Of a Free Trade, pp. 6, 14. Of a Free Trade, pp. 3, 34. Of a Free Trade, p . 1 5 . For current fashions in wearing of ribbons, The Picture of an English Antick (n.p., n.d., T h o m a s o n ' s copy dated 18 N o v e m b e r 1646) [BL 6 6 9 f. 10 (99)].

152

Henry Parker and the English civil war

ordinary clothier and the "merchant stranger" as the Answer to the XIX Propositions placed the peerage with respect to king and people: "a good skreen, or bank." It followed naturally that such men, now compared to the "learned men" of Plato's Republic, be brought into the inner councils of state, as privy counsellors or advisers.66 The opponents of these leaders of society were the advocates of free trade. Parker thus chose to confront free trade primarily as a social issue, and liberty as a political and social category rather than as an element of an economic policy. Liberty - by which Parker in this context meant individual liberty, not the collective liberty of Jus Populi - was a siren of disorder, at least when misunderstood. "Sheere, unmixt freedom" was likely "to intoxicate us, and to bring detriment, and danger." But not to all alike: the "ruder sort" were those especially apt to be "inebriate[dj" by the "misnomer of Liberty," seduced "by the meer sound of its name." The "shadowy ghost of freedome" was a thief of privilege; "confusion under the Name of Liberty is now more than ever pleaded for."67 He offered an example: were enclosures to disappear, "many poore men would expect to have their conditions meliorated." They would not know until it was too late that "community of all things" would lead to "the fatall destruction both of poore and rich." 68 Parker, who refused to have his own politics shoehorned into a constricting organic slipper in Observations and Jus Populi, had no problem in Of a Free Trade reciting born-again home truths about the "Luminaries in Heaven" and their reflections on an ordered earth defined by "severall distances of power, place, and office."69 Freedom did have a place. Parker addressed it in two ways. According to one puritan-shaped formula, proper liberty was a power to do good. As Parker had used this formula to chain royal power, now he used it to disabuse the envious. The other notion was of a moral calculus of the relative benefits of liberty and order. Whatever benefits flowed from freedom of trade had to be balanced against the loss of government and the risk of anarchy.70 He seemed more to hope than expect that "men of Mechanicall education" would see the point. At the moment, Parker (who dated the dedicatory epistle of Of a Free Trade from Hamburg on 30 December 1647, but who was apparently in and out of England in 1647) sounded very much as his future patron Henry Ireton had at Putney in October 1647. Both had an eye to property. Ireton thought it challenged by a universal franchise, Parker through an unrestricted right to pursue any living whatsoever. Perhaps Parker went further than Ireton, who had conceded a birthright to air and the 66 68 70

67 Of a Free Trade, pp. 32, 36. Of a Free Trade, pp. 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 36. 69 Of a Free Trade, p. 7. Of a Free Trade, p. 6. Of a Free Trade, pp. 5-6, 14; see also Chapter 6, n. 101.

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

153

common highway. But Parker thought that if "neither Aire, Water, nor Land resist the Laws of Propriety, we cannot think the trade of Merchants is a thing more ... uncapable of limits and rules, then any of the elements."71 The vehemence of Parker's response may owe something to Parker's exposed position in the development of Leveller thought. The secretary to the Merchant Adventurers was compromised by the Levellers' extensive and by no means mistargeted admiration for the Observator. Perhaps the most common of all Leveller citations, even exceeding the references to Magna Carta and the Petition of Right, is to page 150 of Edward Husband's An Exact Collection — that is, to A Question Answered, which I have suggested is probably Parker's work. Lilburne connected A Question Answered with Observations, whose author "is commonly reputed to be one in a speciall manner to be imployed by the Parliament."72 That remark was sandwiched between the two extensive treatments of monopoly in lnnocency and Truth Justified. It was followed by such an extensive resort to Observations that another Leveller tract, Regall Tyrannie Discovered, described the passage as "the abridgement" of Observations' "marrow." The author of "those most excellent observations" doubtless had much to ponder.73

The year of the writing of Of a Free Trade, 1647, was a busy one for Parker personally and politically. He shuttled to England to pursue his claim to the prerogative office; he also reimmersed himself in English affairs. The same year the dangers of war were replaced by those of victory. War indeed proved easier; the second civil war of 1648 momentarily-dissipated the sulfurous and explosive vapors of peace. One threat came from the Levellers; it has been seen how Parker used his service to the Merchant Adventurers to swipe at them, who had so recently menaced the stability of the victorious army. But there were other threats to the cause - royalist from without, and serious fragmentation from within. It did not help matters at all that it grew increasingly hard to tell where one threat ended and the next began, or who was friend and who was foe. Some royalists and Levellers were beginning their superficially strange and (to many observers of all persuasions) unseemly pas de deux. "Presbyterian" parliamentary critics of the "Independent" army and their allies amongst the London oligarchs by degrees shaded into another sector of royalism. But the Independent grandees at Putney and before had made it quite clear that they were also ready to ditch their erstwhile allies (in their case, Levellers and presbyterians) and cut their own deal with Charles. 71 73

72 Of a Free Trade, p. 21. Lilburne, lnnocency and Truth justified, p. 51. Lilburne, lnnocency and Truth Justified, pp. 57-61; Regall Tyranny Discovered (London,

1647), pp.40, 41, 42.

154

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Apart from his passing shot at the Levellers, Parker took aim at royalist legalism and at presbyterian attempts to disband the army. The first came in a fight that Parker decided to pick with a royalist judge, David Jenkins. Jenkins'fiercerefusal to acknowledge the criminal jurisdiction of the House of Commons led to his imprisonment in the Tower- and that in turn provided Jenkins the leisure and motive to make himself even more of an irritant. Coached in the gadfly's art by none other than John Lilburne, also at that time resident in the Tower, Jenkins pursued a course designed to promote a reconciliation of the king and the army, on terms and principles decidedly hostile to the parliament.74 While Parker betrayed no awareness of the Leveller-royalist connection (although he did do so in 1650), Parker's frustrated bewilderment at what he called Jenkins' "weekly" pamphlets hints at the considerable outside help that Jenkins must have relied on to get his message out.75 Newly returned to England and the daily drama of public affairs, Parker could hardly have ignored Jenkins. Jenkins had disputed the very foundations of parliament's claims to rule, and had done so by means no less immaculate than the common law and the statute book. And in one of those "weekly" tracts that Parker carped at, Jenkins insisted upon his credentials as a disinterested critic of the abuse of power. "I ever detested the Shippe-mony, and Monopolies," he claimed, adding that "for opposing the excesses" of a bishop he paid the price of excommunication and proceedings in High Commission.76 In the first tract to set Parker's teeth on edge, The Vindication of Judge Jenkins, Jenkins denied that the king was "vertually in the two Houses," a 74

75

76

Pauline Gregg, Free-Born John (London, 1961), pp. 169, 197. Cato-like, Jenkins concluded virtually all his writings at this time in the same way - with an insistence upon payment of arrears, a promise of religious toleration, and a secure act of indemnity. See also the full-dress treatment in [Jenkins,] The Armies Indempnity [London, 1647], which Thomason dated 31 May [BL E. 390 (10)]. [Clement Walker,] The History of Independency (London, 1648), p. 34, claimed that Jenkins was put up to it by the "Agitators"; but Walker also thought that the Agitators were fronting for Cromwell. For other rumors of royalist-agitator machinations, see Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 201 and n. 8 2 , 2 0 8 - 9 (Professor Kishlansky does not credit the rumors); Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland, and Scotland, 1645-1653 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 3 3 ^ , 8 8 , 1 5 3 ^ , 180; Austin Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen: The General Council of the Army and its Debates, 1647-1648 (Oxford, 1987), pp.57, 91-2, 142. H[enry] P[arker], Severall Poysonous and Sedtcious Papers of Mr. David Jenkins Answered (London, 1647), p. 1. H[enry] P[arker,] A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution to Lieut. Coll: John Lilburne, p. 12: "Judge Jenkins never read this maxime of the Law to you." To the Honorable Societies of Gray's-lnne, and of the Rest of the Innes of Court (commonly known as Lex Terrae) ([London,] 1647), sig. Al recto. Thomason dated his copy 3 June 1647; an internal date of composition is April 1647 (see p.35). Lex Terrae is the fullest version of Jenkins' argument in spring 1647. In A Looking-Glasse for the Parliament ([London,] 1648), p. 14, Jenkins admitted a preference for the notes of the Geneva translation. Despite these positions, Jenkins was a firm defender of episcopacy and the prayer book.

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

155

proposition that he linked to the parliamentary notion that the king's political and natural bodies could be separated. The king's political body was found with his natural person and not otherwise.77 On those grounds Jenkins denied that Charles could be guilty of treason. Jenkins also argued that he could not respond to questions put to him by the Commons' committee for examinations. To make his case the judge simply cited the statutes and the reports; what the law was, was. The Vindication of Judge Jenkins was scarcely abroad a week before Parker, styling himself ironically "H. P. Barrester of Lincolnes Inn," made his reply, An Answer to the Poysonous Sedicious Paper of Mr. David Jenkins.7* He summarized Jenkins' argument well and fairly, and responded to it with no less clarity. But Parker would not conceal his impatience with Jenkins' use of what he dismissively called "Book cases," and wondered if Jenkins had been reading the right books: "If the Law of this Land bee appealed to, what Books has Mr. Jenkins read, whereby the people of England have given away from themselves all right in themselves?" He suggested, though without specifics, another curriculum. "Some of our books tell us we are more free than the French ... other books tell us that the safety of the people is the supreame law ... but all of this is nothing to learned Mr. Jenkins." Parker closed with a notably dyspeptic challenge, wishing that Jenkins would "call in &c lick up againe his black infamous execrable reproaches so filthily vomited out against the Parliament."79 Jenkins soon replied, offering a "cordiall" to the "good People of London," presumably to calm their stomachs; it was, he went on, "in Reply to a thing, called An Answer to the Poysonous Seditious Paper of Mr. David Ienkins." As his margin grew to Prynne-like dimensions, the unrepentant Jenkins threw even more cases and statutes back at Parker. He also refused to allow himself to be characterized as an absolutist for any thing but the law. "We hold only what the Law holds"; the rights of king and subject alike "are determined, and bounded, and admeasured by the written Law." 80 Again Parker was quick to the bait. He and his publisher Robert Bostock reprinted the controversy as it stood to this point, and added Parker's reply to Jenkins' Cordiall. The whole compilation was Severall Poysonous and Sed77 78

79 80

The Vindication of Judge Jenkins Prisoner in the Tower, the 29. of April 1647 (n.p., n.d), pp.3, 6. H[enry] P[arker,] An Answer to the Poysonous Sedicious Paper of Mr. David Jenkins (London, 1647). Thomason's copy [BL E. 386 (14)] is dated 12 May 1647; Thomason dated his copy of Jenkins' Vindication [BL E. 386(6)] 6 May. Thomason's dates are usually dates of receipt, which at this time were usually 0—3 days after publication; given that Jenkins dated his manuscript 29 April, and that at least a day or two had to be allowed for production, Vindication was not likely to have appeared before 3 or 4 May (2 May was a Sunday). An Answer to the Poysonous Sedicious Paper, pp. 1, 6. The Cordiall of Judge Jenkins, for the Good People of London; in Reply to a Thing, called, An Answer to the Poysonous Seditious Paper of Mr. David lenkins ([London,] 1647), p. 20.

156

Henry Parker and the English civil war

icious Papers of Mr. David Jenkins Answered*1 Parker used the occasion to insist upon the home truths of his politics as they had developed from The Case of Shipmony or even before. The barrister of Lincoln's Inn (so he styled himself again) was particularly emphatic in his contempt for Jenkins, who would not make a distinction, be it "never so pregnant," without "some book authority." Such stolidity was typical of what Parker called "meer Lawyers," those who made "no improvement of their reason by Logick, Policie, or other humane literature." For that crew, law was a "dull ... study" about the "ordinary actions and pleas of /. a Nokes and /. a Stiles, about a carve of ground." Parker offered a more appealing vision of law. Its "basis" was "reason improved with Logick," while "its pyramis [was] policy crowned with History and Philosophy." Law, he averred, was "to be improved by policie," at least when emergencies dictated the submission of law to "reason of State."82 Such principles of absolutism were not at the disposal of kings, who had power only to do good, and who were in no true sense heads of their political bodies.83 But they did belong to parliament (by this Parker insisted he meant the two houses "abstracted from the king"), whose actions, warranted by "the generall lawe of publike safetie," might otherwise be construed as "strange deviations from the common practice and rule of Law." In an emergency, water might run uphill, and so might parliament have recourse to "extraordinary meanes."84 When "the greater Law of publike safety" confronted "Law of an inferiour nature" (viz, the sort that Jenkins produced to claim the illegality of his imprisonment and the impossibility of his having committed treason), "a new seal may be made, new Judges, new Officers may be created, and either a former Parl. may be continued, or a new one summoned."85 VI

Not the least reason to hear Parker's now familiar litany once again, in his voice of June 1647, is that it proved to be the last time he could possibly express himself so unreservedly and unqualifiedly about parliament. Even as he was at work replying to Jenkins, "diverse urgent emergent considerations" (to use a phrase he later used to describe another moment of crisis) were dynamiting the ground beneath his feet.86 The summer of 1647 saw not only the brief, piercing moment of truth within the New Model Army, when the 81

82 83 84 85 86

H[enry] P[arker,] Severall Poysonous and Sedicious Papers of Mr. David Jenkins Answered. Thomason's copy [BL E. 393 (8)] is dated 19 June 1647; Thomason dated his copy of Jenkins' Cordiall [BL E. 391 (11)] 8 June 1647. Severall Poysonous and Sedicious Papers, pp. 2, 26, 27. Severall Poysonous and Sedicious Papers, pp. 1, 7, 14-15, 19-20. Severall Poysonous and Sedicious Papers, pp. 15, 18, 19. Severall Poysonous and Sedicious Papers, p. 29. Scotlands Holy War, p . 61.

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

157

price of unity was acceptance of a momentarily radicalized soldiery; it also witnessed months for the army, parliament, and city every bit as terrifying as the days of tumults and rumors of winter 1641-2. By June parliament and army entered their own war of words, which with astonishing speed seemed headed for the "real" thing. On 14 June the army headquartered in St. Albans, only a day from London, having recently purged itself of many officers more accommodating to the parliament. Meanwhile, London was aswarm with reformadoes (disbanded soldiers from the pre-New Model era) prepared to serve parliament or the London Militia Committee (purged, for the moment, of Independent, pro-army officers). In parliament, eleven presbyterian members, including the party leader Holies, were forced to sequester themselves. Then, in scenes far more sustained and perhaps less controlled than their counterparts in 1640-2, petitioning crowds and mobs traded terror; the dominating element was the presbyterian-city mob, who sent two speakers and some forty members scurrying to the army for safety. Once again the army marched on London (6 August), this time entering the city. While worse was adverted, by the end of the summer that was perhaps small consolation.87 All this left Parker in an exquisitely painful position. Given his hostility to presbyterianism and his commitment to at least the general outlines of an Independent position, the naive version of his parliamentarianism was severely challenged. There were alsofirst-magnitudepractical concerns. His current employer, the Merchant Adventurers, was apparently committed to the presbyterian cause.88 No less unsettling, Parker had come back to England in 1647 to pursue with the parliament his claim to the prerogative office. Now that cause was probably hopelessly compromised by his political and religious commitments. That may be why Parker apparently skirted these matters in print in 1647. But George Thomason drew out Parker's opinions in a private correspondence. A coy and cloying anti-army presbyterian pamphlet, A Religious Retreat Sounded to a Religious Army, caught his fancy, and he sent a copy to Parker, who had returned to Hamburg.89 Adopting the pious tone of brother admonishing brother, A Religious Retreat thanked the army for its many services but then faulted it for not getting out of the way. Noting with concern the influence of the agitators upon the army, the tract pled with the army to allow its reformation into a compact force that would be "neither a terror nor 87

88 89

Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army, chs. 7, 8; Kishlansky, "The Army and the Levellers: The Roads to Putney," Historical Journal, 2 2 (1979), pp. 7 9 5 - 8 2 9 ; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, ch. 7; Gentles, New Model Army, chs. 6, 7. Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, p. 4 8 9 . A Religious Retreat Sounded to a Religious Army (London, 1647). Thomason's copy [BL E. 4 0 4 (34)] is dated 2 7 August 1647; this puts a rough terminus ad quern on Parker's visit to England in 1 6 4 7 .

158

Henry Parker and the English civil war

a burthen" to the country, and would "leave us a free Parliament."90 The pamphlet grew uglier by the page. Soon the "religious" army was a mere army, as its reprover found no "Religious or rationall ground" for "its late proceedings." It did list six current theories: that the army's actions were motivated by the desire of some unspecified individuals to rise "to great heights," that the army was hot-headed ("carryed on by ... a more than ordinary impulsion of Spirit"), that it was guided by the "Dictates of Providence," that "God hath now given the Dominion into the hands of his Saints," that the army played the conqueror, and that it was responding to plots to ruin the kingdom. Thefirstfour were dismissed as "vagabond tales," the last turned into a challenge - "make it good by honest and honorable testimony," though not by the testimony of the army alone.91 Only the charge that the army claimed a right of conquest was left on the table. Much was made of the army's arrogance in recent events, and most of all, of its behavior as "the soveraigne Power of the Land." "Multitudes" now petitioned the army (as they would the parliament), and pamphleteers referred to the "sense of the Army, as if the sense of the Army were the supreme Law of the Land." And if the army's conscience still rejected the constitutional implications of such courses, it was nevertheless driven by the institutional imperatives and self-interest that would bring that outcome to pass: "Long warres have ever begat a trade of warre." 92 Meanwhile the army's dependence upon those "very hungry of prey, extreamely poor and rude, shiftlesse for livelyhood, weary of labor and honest callings" and its excessive regard for tender consciences would endanger the public peace as well as the soul.93 Parker's epistolary response to "Honest George," copied and bound into the Thomason collection, caught the pamphlet's schizophrenia: it was "very uncertaine" whether it aimed to "bespatter with Dirt, or besprinkle with Court-holy-water."94 Parker also decided to confront the matter of the plots and, collaterally, the army's use of force, insisting that if it were "plaine" that the army "causelessly or ... for sinister ends" used the threat of plots as a pretext for its actions, Parker would "as much professe my abhorrence of them as any man." 95 Yet that had not been demonstrated; "many good, unbyast men" found a "seeming concatenation of designes" in the actions of parliament and in London and Westminster sufficient to suggest the army was resisted by those with "very mischievous ends." 96 Parker closed with echoes 90 92 94 95

91 A Religious Retreat, p. 4. A Religious Retreat, pp. 5-7. 93 A Religious Retreat, pp. 12, 13. A Religious Retreat, pp. 9, 15. "Henry Parkers Answer to the Retreate of the Armie. September 24 1647," manuscript bound in BL E. 408 (6), four unnumbered pages. 96 "Henry Parkers Answer," [p. 2]. "Henry Parkers Answer," [p. 3].

Diverse urgent emergent considerations

159

of his first pamphlets. He denied having a partisan interest. But Parker refused to believe that the army was "so guilty as their profest Enemies proclaime: or their profest Enemies so [innocent] as those which assume the name of Presbyterians factiously would have believed."97 As he disclaimed being a puritan in A Discourse Concerning Puritans, now Parker denied being an Independent. Yet he would defend the Independents from their accusers, even as he insisted that he was no more an enemy to "Presbyterian discipline, then the stricktest in the Church of Scotland."98 Could Thomason have believed him? Perhaps an answer lies in the next tract that Thomason attributed to Parker. Underneath his expansion of H. P. in A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution to Lieut, Coll: John Lilburne, Thomason added "Crom: Servent."99 97

98 99

"Henry Parkers Answer," [p. 4 ] . The word in brackets is "ignorant" in the manuscript. I take this to be an error of transcription. T w o sentences earlier, Parker sarcastically noted presbyterian attacks on the "Armies wicked pretensions" and assertions of the "Innocencie of the other partie." "Henry Parkers Answer," [p. 4 ] . A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 41.

*fr 8 ^

Disputable and visible politics

Parker's return from Hamburg led him back to the press, now as a defender of the commonwealth; he grew particularly close to Henry Ireton. Apart from a brief and unilluminating recounting of Irish affairs early in 1652, 1 Parker published three major tracts after the king's execution and the declaration of the commonwealth, all within seven months in 1650-1. Whatever they intended to do, they must serve as his valedictory.

A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution was Parker's response to the treason trial of John Lilburne in October 1649, which was only marginally less dramatic than the king's. For Lilburne the trial was perhaps too many things at once - a publicity opportunity for his cause, an exercise in persuasion of the jury, an opportunity to free himself from an extended captivity, and, withal, a very real threat to his life. His acquittal led to a chaotic scene in the Guildhall (where he was tried), and street celebrations thereafter. This moment of challenge for the commonwealth regime was extended when, two months later, the trial transcript was published. Parker, who was not an eyewitness, relied on this full and entirely sympathetic account, which was written by Lilburne's royalist friend, Clement Walker. 2 Lilburne chose to defend himself by contesting everything and conceding 1 [Henry Parker,] The Cheif Affairs of Ireland Truly Communicated (London, 1651). Thoma-

2

son's copy, with the usual attribution, is dated 2 February 1651/2 [BL E. 652 (14)]. The tract is at least an attempt to justify Ireton's activities; see pp. 12 (mispaged; sig. B4 verso), 12 (again mispaged; sig. C2 verso). Theodorus Verax [Clement Walker,] The Trialls of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne (London, 1649). The trial took place on 24-6 October; Thomason's text [BL E. 584 (9)] lacks an acquisition date but appeared c. 1 December 1649, according to its place order. The title page represents the text as a transcription of shorthand notes. Verax "published" the account; he described the task as "writing and transcribing"; see t.p. and p. 154. In fact the first day's proceedings (viz, 24 October) were not included; see The Second Part of the Triall of Lieut. Col. John Lilburn (London, "March 1649 [and] and 1650"). Thomason's copy [BL E. 598 (12)] has two dates. One is 22 April [1650]; the other notation - "March 24—6" - is a further indication that the tract appeared near the divide of the legal year.

160

Disputable and visible politics

161

nothing — the special commission of oyer and terminer under which he was tried, the indictment itself, the roles of the judges and the jury, his right to a written copy of indictment and to independent counsel, the "hugger-mugger" conferences of the judges and the prosecutors,3 the nature of the laws of the land, the most minute facts of the case, whether he had to enter a plea, even whether he ought to raise his hand when his name was called. Inevitably, and perhaps calculatingly, he infuriated the judges (as he certainly angered Parker). But Lilburne brilliantly used his informed lay sense of the law to play out every opportunity afforded him by the cranky spirit of the common law, even as he incessantly insisted that he feared "throwing] away my own Life upon a punctillio or nicity, that I am ignorant of."4 For half a century the common lawyers had argued that their craft (not least in its punctilios) defended the subjects' liberty. Lilburne had chosen to believe them, resting his case on the "good old Lawes of England"5 Now he would make it seem churlish for the legal fraternity to object that Lilburne dressed them with the same sauce. Thus he defended himself from a charge of treasonous words not by arguing against the treasonableness, but by an endless series of technical objections: that words written, said, or acknowledged in Middlesex or Surrey or a London liberty were beyond the cognizance of the London jury, that the prosecutor had not established that the words in question postdated the relevant treason acts of May and August 1649, that the treason acts had not been properly proclaimed because the House of Commons - as he called the unicameral parliament — was not a court of record (an argument long made by royalists), that the charges were not proven by the required two witnesses.6 When he needed a punctilio he found it: "in the exact eye of the law" he was not guilty.7 Probably unintentionally, A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution began its response to Lilburne with two different, even fundamentally inconsistent, sensibilities. The title itself and the opening pages of text used exactly the approach that Parker had found so annoying in A Religious Retreat Sounded to a Religious Army, claiming only a Christian desire to "reprove sin" and recall a straying brother.8 Were that the case purely and simply, it would be hard to see why Parker needed to devote some forty-one pages to the task. But the title page's Scriptural epigraph (2 Samuel 16:5-11) and some opening 3 4

5 6 7 8

The Triall, of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne, pp. 35, 36. The Triall, of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne, p. 21. Punctilios, niceties, and formalities - here interchangeable terms — recur so often it is useless to cite them. H[enry] P[arker,] A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 27, claimed he found "more then 20. passages ... to this purpose.'* I have a few less. This is another frequently recurrent phrase; see The Triall, of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne, p. 4 and passim. The Triall, of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne, pp.78, 86, 115, 129-33, 135, 143. The Triall, of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne, p. 140. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 1.

162

Henry Parker and the English civil war

verses established a different motive. Parker cast Lilburne as Shimei, a Benjamite supporter of the former king, Saul/Charles, who cursed at and stoned David/commonwealth/Cromwell. Such people sought to "limit God by [their] intayles, and spight/Scepters transported by his soveraigne right."9 Lilburne was a menace not only in his own right but also as the "head ... of a dangerous, and desperate faction ... willing to combine with Royalists" and "imbroyl this Nation in a third Civill war." This was not far-fetched. Lilburne had freely admitted to having been in correspondence with Charles II (whom he saw as having a "large pretense of Right" if the nation had to have a king) and contrasted his current judges with Sir Robert Heath, the judge at his Oxford treason trial in 1643, whom Lilburne now viewed as a model of legal rectitude.10 As an adversary, Lilburne was often unintentionally generous: he amply supplied his enemies with ammunition. Much of A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution revived in print the indignation of the judges. As one of the judges not unreasonably complained that he did not sit to "hear you to tell the story of all your life," Parker complained of the utter endlessness of Lilburne's cavils, railing, and violent language.11 The opportunity to mock Lilburne's naive enthusiasm for the "primitive" parliament of 1641 was too open to resist, Parker ironically calling the early Long Parliament "undeflowred" and its later, fallen state "devirginated."12 Lilburne's sins of self-love and envy were also easy prey, Parker accusing Lilburne of preferring himself, "the most exquisite peice of mankinde," to "whole professions, whole States, nay and whole Ages."13 Lilburne, however, was a much more problematic figure for Parker than either the ad hominem attacks or even the association with the royalists suggest. Much of the difficulty lay in the relationship of the Leveller leaders and the parliamentary and army leadership, with whose interests Parker identified. On the one hand, Lilburne's naive, almost Whiggish, enthusiasm for what he took as the promise of 1641 (and its leaders) had long since been overlaid by a sense of betrayal and recrimination. On the other hand, though the friendships of 1641 had turned into the animosities of 1649, the residue of affection that made the controversy so bitter might have led (such is the nature of things) to an instantaneous renewal. Mutatis mutandis, the same 9 10

11

12 13

A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, t.p. and sig. Al verso. The Triall, of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne, pp. 4, 14, 32-4, 36-9, 41, 52 (Heath); pp. 47, 59, 60,101-2 (Charles II). A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 12; see also pp. 29, 39. The Triall, of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne, p. 139. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, pp.2,3 (prolixity); pp.3, 6-8, 17-18, 20 (legal quibbling); pp.3, 9, 18, 22, 31 (railing); pp. 25-7 (verbal violence). The Triall, of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne, p. 8, (where Lilburne himself uses the word "virginity"). A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 11. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 39.

Disputable and visible politics

163

complex of feelings was found on the other side; the pain at Putney was mutual. And whether Parker knew precisely the Observator's place in the Leveller pantheon, he could not help but find something of himself in the Levellers.14 Thus, for example, Lilburne's fear of being undone by the formalities of a form-obsessed law meshed very well with Parker's own indifference to the common law's nuts and bolts. This difficulty was fairly easily finessed by attending to Lilburne's own stubborn insistence upon the very punctilios and niceties he otherwise derided; and this Parker comfortably did by contrasting the private rights protected by legal stickling with the public good represented by the judges.15 More troubling was Lilburne's indifference to the inconvenient claims of history and authority, which closely resembled Parker's own blithe refusal to be bound by precedent. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution actually put Parker in the position of speaking for the ancient constitution, for the tradition of judicial interpretation of Magna Carta rather than its apparent sense, for the legislative record put together "for six hundred years" by "our Ancestors, assembled in Parliament."16 Whatever the discomfort of this position, Parker was forced into it by another of the ways in which Lilburne impressed himself upon Parker. Though it would have been more than sufficient to damn Lilburne as a royalist or royalist dupe and as an envious disappointed careerist, Parker's Lilburne was more. One yet-missing element is predictable. Parker played out his social trumps: Lilburne "had the breeding of an Apprentice," and wanted to subject the gentleman to the "pezants discretion." Yet adding Wat Tyler to Perkin Warbeck (to use Parker's figure) still did not quite compass Lilburne, and did not really make him any more disturbing.17 The unsettling residue was atavistic anarchism, in Parker's view worse than levelling - as it must have been for any absolutist, parliamentary or otherwise. The Leveller's ultimate goal was "extreame Ataxie," contrasted with the "most excellent, harmonious eutaxie in Heaven."18 Lilburne's legal "toyes" were a means to "subvert settled Government," his "filthy upbraidings and sarcasms" derived from a self-granted license "to oppose Authority; to oppose all manner of Authority."19 The proposals to decentralize justice were for the "better cantonizing of the Commonwealth," and liberty was to be stretched beyond "all rationall politicall bounds" - that is, to 14 15 16 17 18 19

See Chapter 7 above, pp. 150-3. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, pp. 11, 13 (including a qualified defense of Star Chamber!), 18. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, pp. 10, 31. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, pp. 22, 23, 39 (Lilburne was "as far short of Perkin Warbeck, as you are beyond Wat. Tyler"). A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 23. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, pp. 18, 32-3.

164

Henry Parker and the English civil war

making taxes and criminal responsibility voluntary.20 There was, therefore, some method in Lilburne's madness. The goal of his obstreperousness was to tear down the whole public culture: "our ancientest Laws, and Customs, and the Powers from whence they were derived ... our high Court of Parliament ... the whole Bench." Let the world declare "if any thing can be invented more destructive to society, and the congregative disposition of mankinde."21 However unfair, Parker's vision of Lilburne and his "Myrmidons ... in ambuscado" exposed the fear of social collapse as one dimension of the commonwealth's need to establish the basis of its own authority. 22 The centerpiece of this effort was an oath or Engagement to the present government, to be taken by all those who held office and, later, all those who wished the protection of the courts. Although the Engagement controversy developed mostly as a triangular argument among Independents (or supporters of the commonwealth), presbyterians, and royalists (to the extent that the latter two were different), some of its inspiration and many pro-Engagement arguments show an anti-Levelling, anti-anarchy lineage.23 It has been noticed that Parker wrote a pro-Engagement pamphlet, appended to Scotlands Holy War.24 But in A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution Parker had already entered the debate, combining his worries about Lilburne with the themes of the Engagement controversy. Public and private — the warp and woof of Parker's thought - now were woven a new way. Along with his usual contrast of public good and private interest, Parker added the common Engager distinction between the limited moral responsibility of the private person and the greater responsibility of those on the public stage; when the compass of the Engagement was enlarged to include all males not in service and over the age of eighteen, pro-Engagers insisted that private persons had no need to judge the legitimacy of the governors' titles. Lilburne, a "private person," had no private reason to assume a "censorian" power "against the government of a State." "By Gods Law, every soul is to be subject to higher Powers," urged Parker with the words of the old royalists' 20 21 22 23

24

A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 40. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, pp. 33, 40. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 37. The precise reference is to Lilburne's claque at the trial. For the connection between the origins of the Engagement and Leveller unrest, John M. Wallace, "The Engagement Controversy 1649-1652: An Annotated List of Pamphlets," Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 68 (1964), p. 386. On the Engagement controversy, see also Wallace, Destiny His Choice: The Loyalism of Andrew Marvell (Cambridge, 1968), and the several related articles of Quentin Skinner: "History and Ideology in the English Revolution," Historical Journal, 8 (1965), pp. 151-78; "The Ideological Context of Hobbes' Political Thought," Historical Journal, 9 (1966), pp.286—317; "Conquest and Consent: Thomas Hobbes and the Engagement Controversy," in G. E. Aylmer, ed., The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646-1660 (London, 1973), pp. 79-98. See pp. 177-9 below.

Disputable and visible politics

165

favorite proof-text. Parker anticipated Lilburne's reply: the "usurpers" at Westminster could not be said to "represent God, or do Gods businesse." But Parker argued that determination of sovereignty "belongs not to you being a private person."25 Christ had not claimed so much: "Herod usurped over the Jews, the Romanes had usurped over Herod, Caesar had usurped over the Romans, yet our Saviour shews himself submissive upon all occasions to all these Powers." To oppose a "setled Usurper" was to threaten the "common Peace" that even public persons were to prefer to private right. 26 Parker's position here was indistinguishable from Anthony Ascham's, whose Of The Confusions and Revolutions of Governments had declared "Possession is the great Condition for our Obedience or Allegiance." If a state performed its defining functions of providing protection and doing justice, it mattered not to subjects how the governors acquired their power.27 The de facto theory of power, as it has been called, that runs through Ascham's and others' arguments for acceptance of the commonwealth shades by degrees into other positions. One is providentialism; the perplexed subject of the confusions and revolutions may be witnessing the tracings of the finger of God. Parker himself was not above claiming that his party had "the decision of the Sword" on its side, which "in dubious cases after the last appeal hath been made to it, is no contemptible plea."28 Another outlet for de facto theories is absolutism. A curiosity of the Engagement debate is the presence in it on the commonwealth's side of the old royalists, Hobbes and Filmer.29 As it turned out, their absolutism demanded a new resting place when the royalist nest was destroyed. Parker too has a place in this story. But his chickens, unlike theirs, never had to leave the roost. II

As a writer most comfortable in controversy, Parker drew upon whatever resources of knowledge, values, and prejudice fit the case at hand. Even when he enlarged his brief to pursue items on his own agenda, it was inevitable that Parker's apparent position shifted with his antagonist - the radicals drew out one side of him, the court royalists another. In this he mirrored the regimes he served. Both parliament and commonwealth had been headed by those who 25 26 27

28 29

A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, pp. 28, 29. A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, pp.30, 31. Anthony Ascham, Of The Confusions and Revolutions of Governments (London, 1649), p. 95; see also pp. 108-9. For another example of this line of argument, Richard Saunders, Plenary Possession Makes a Lawfull Power (London, 1651). A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 29. See Observations Upon Aristotles Politiques (1652) in Filmer, Patriarcha, ed. Sommerville,

pp. 281-6.

166

Henry Parker and the English civil war

(if not as moderate in means or ends as is sometimes portrayed) were tugged at and pulled by perpetually disgruntled minorities at the extremes. One reason for these dissentient groups' durability is that they espoused one side of dilemmas that the leaders found within themselves: part of Cromwell was a sectary and even something of a Leveller, part of him a nervous gentlemen and even a constitutional royalist. Parker was no different. As he had in the anti-Leveller polemic of Of a Free Trade, to combat Lilburne Parker took what he needed from a pantry that was not bare of social fears, cultural snobberies, and political authoritarianism. Yet if this was part of him and part of the cause he represented, it was not all. Within two months of A Letter of Due Censure and Kedargution Parker appeared in entirely different habit, preaching something very close to the gospel of the Norman Yoke. The True Portraiture of the Kings of England was Parker's contribution to the literature of a newly kingless England, an attempt to restate his long-developed themes of popular sovereignty in the new context of victory. Parker sensed, however, that the triumph was not as complete as it seemed. Before Parker's views can be developed further, they must first be established as his own. True Portraiture appeared in August 1650, its title page proclaiming its unnamed author "an impartial Friend to Iustice and Truth." The preface "to the Reader" was indeed signed (as so few of Parker's writings were) by "Henry Parker." But Parker claimed that "the Author of this Book" was "unknown," and that the "Book it self came casually" to his hands. Judge the author, he said, "by the Work rather then report." Parker advertised its distinction: "it invites thee not to Precepts, but Precedents, not to Disputable but to visible Politicks."30 Despite his asseveration to the contrary, the whole of True Portraiture is probably Parker's work. The contrivance of unknown authorship, of course, is a common one; but its use leads one to ask why Parker did not admit authorship, if in fact he did write the tract. No political explanation will work. Having commended and "publishfed]" it, Parker had damned himself as much as if he had acknowledged authorship. Another explanation comes readily to hand - vanity. Parker was always a scholar in his own reckoning; the self-proclaimed centerpiece of True Portraiture was a modest compilation of the "Titles, Successions, Raigns, and Ends" of the post-Conquest

30

[Henry Parker,] The True Portraiture of the Kings of England (London, 1650), t.p., sig. A2. Thomason's copy [BL E. 609 (2)] carries no other attribution. The tract was republished in 1688, in a text that also included the Political Catechism sometimes erroneously ascribed to Parker. There are a few internal changes (e.g., pp. 28, 39) and a new ending (pp. 40-8) to accommodate the Restoration and late Revolution. For further publication details, see Appendix.

Disputable and visible politics

167

monarchs drawn largely from Speed and Daniel. Parker well might have preferred not to own it.31 Several sighting lines converge to suggest Parker's authorship of the whole tract. One is a matter of content. The preface announced that True Portraiture was to be appreciated as a work of "visible Politicks," deploying "demonstration, and sensual proof" rather than "Syllogisms, and logical Inductions." The implication was that True Portraiture was a welcome exercise in common sense. But the opening pages of True Portraiture make exactly the same claims, indeed shadow the preface very closely. The preface began by disclaiming the possibility of distinguishing between the forms of government taken in the abstract, and then turned to the solution of counting facts, which Parker said tilted in favor of popular states. Similarly, the first page of True Portraiture called such ungrounded discussions of forms "useless," and rejected "methods" it called "controversiall, or definitive of the nature of things" in favor of those "meerly practical and demonstrative."32 This looks suspiciously like a slap at Hobbes, whose De corpore politico had just appeared.33 Curiously, however, the naively factual demonstration promised ab initio did not kick in for another ten pages (out of a total of forty-two), while the last two pages reverted entirely to a literary-philosophical texture at odds with professed design. Thus the beginning pages did just what the preface and beginning claimed would be avoided, with the lame excuse that what was said "in generall" was "to prepare the way for the particulars." Even when True Portraiture seemed to honor its agenda, frequent interjections and asides show more reflectiveness than the tract claimed to offer. Two other details stick out. One is the heavy use of a fairly recently published pamphlet reproducing Francis Thorpe's charge to a grand jury at York. Its first pages were thick with the idiom of popular sovereignty, developed along Parkerian lines, to construct a short theory of justice for the newly kingless commonwealth.34 The other detail is easy to pass by, but once seen is impossible to ignore. Discussing the struggle of Henry III and Simon de Montfort, the author took the trouble to open a parenthesis to describe the site of one of the major battles: "the Earls of Leicester and Glocester, seeing 31

32 33 34

True Portraiture, t.p.; see p. 12 on Speed ("too Royall a Writer") and p. 28 on Daniel ("that impartiall and witty Historian"). Samuel Daniel's The Collection of the History of England, with the continuation by John Trussell through Richard III, was republished in London in 1650; the text grew with new editions from 1618 to 1634. John Speed's History of Great Britain was first published in 1611. True Portraiture, sig. A2, p. 1. Thomason's copy of De corpore politico is dated 4 May 1650. Sergeant Thorpe Judge of Assize for the Northern Circuit, His Charge (London, 1649). The charge was delivered 20 March 1649; Thomason's text [BL E. 558 (6)] is dated 4 June. There was also an edition printed at York. Thorpe was later appointed baron of the Exchequer, and was one of the judges at Lilburne's trial. True Portraiture, p. 12, called him "Baron Thorpe."

168

Henry Parker and the English civil war

no other means but to put it to a day, supply their want of strength by their wit and diligence, and carefully and artificially pacing their battel (which was fought at the Town of Lewis in Sussex) overthrew the Kings Army."35 Parker, it may be remembered, was raised at Ratton, just outside of Lewes; the man of affairs and of London, Hamburg, and, soon, Ireland, was indulging himself in a little local chauvinism. Although Parker relied on Speed and Daniel for much information, the tract bears a formal resemblance to, and may be considered an expansion of, the preliminaries of Thorpe's charge to a grand jury at York. Indeed, if True Portraiture did not cite and commend Thorpe in the third person ("as Judge Thorpe well expresseth it") and were there not some significant differences in factual treatment, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Thorpe was author or part-author of True Portraiture.36 Thorpe's address to his jurors recognized that the change from monarchy to commonwealth (with its attendant change in the style of commissions from Carolus Rex Angliae to Custodes Libertatis Angliae Authoritate Parliamenti) was received variously as political temperaments differed. Royalists "looking thorow the false Glasse of their own self-Interest" saw nothing but "shakings of Foundations, overturning of Laws, and confused heaps of Ruines and Distractions." Others lacking "solid Principles of their owne" felt helpless in "the Wind which blows from others mouthes." A third sort, however, used their Godgiven reason to "apprehend the sense of their own future happinesse."37 The home truths of the last position were Parker's. God gave the principles of self-preservation and salus populi to organize social life. For order's sake, the people appoint rulers, but only on trust. Governors, of course, often fail to honor their trust; when that occurs "the people betake themselves to thoughts of Reformation." Since the form of government is not "tyed by any Scripture Rule," the people, as "the Originall of all just Power," are free to change the form for a better one. Coming to England, Thorpe echoed the idiom of An Answer to the XIX Propositions, acknowledging the theoretical elegance of the mixed form of government. However, the "practicall part" was quite different, a tale of kings and lords "incroaching upon the peoples Liberties and Rights, and incroaching to themselves superlative Prerogatives and Dominion over them."38 Thorpe then turned to a brief survey of such tyranny, concluding with an assault upon the negative voices of kings and 35 36

37 38

True Portraiture, p. 25. The phrase "put it to a day" is found in Daniel, The Collection of the History of England, p. 180; in other respects the accounts differ substantially. True Portraiture, 18. One significant difference in treatment pertains to Magna Carta. Thorpe {Sergeant Thorpe Judge of Assize for the Northern Circuit, His Charge, p. 5) did not allow that name to the "Articles of Renymeed" but only to its confirmation in the reign of Henry III; by contrast True Portraiture, p. 22, considered John's charter to be Magna Carta. Sergeant Thorpe Judge of Assize for the Northern Circuit, His Charge, pp. 1, 2. Sergeant Thorpe Judge of Assize for the Northern Circuit, His Charge, pp. 2, 3, 4.

Disputable and visible politics

169

lords as the cornerstones of all oppression. In a passage that impressed Parker, Thorpe treated the form of royal denial (le rot s'avisera) as a "Royall Complement" that in practice amounted to a refusal "in plaine English" to "release the unjust Burthens and Oppressions I have laid upon you." Thorpe concluded this part of the charge with a parallel comment about royal titles: since the Conquest, only seven kings "could pretend Legally to succeed their former Predecessors."39 True Portraiture, despite its professions, also began with general considerations; only after they were established did the tract address the matters of succession and justice raised in the tract's full title. Indeed True Portraiture had more to say on the foundation of power than Parker had shared since Jus Populi and Observations. The "foundation and originall of Government" was coeval with "the generation and multiplication of mankind" and as vital to the "well being of man" as "exact proportions and orderly motions of the Heavens are to the preservation of the Globes."40 Without government the world would return to its "first chaos." Nevertheless, the avoidance of anarchy was not the only benefit of government. Government also could develop "the just liberties and freedoms of societies" and the "Commonwealth of mankind." Unlike the laudable but insufficient goal of mere stability, which could be met by any regime, the second aim depended upon a proper knowledge of the people's "primitive privileges," above all that "none can rule over them but whom they appoint." 41 In a close (and in this case unacknowledged) paraphrase of Thorpe, Parker noted the deviation of theory from practice. Unlike the overt tyrannies of Turkey, Russia, and "the Moors," the English monarchy "in the theory, and System" was "limited, and bounded by good and distinguishing Laws." Yet "in the exercise and practique part" it was quite as bad as those "called most absolute."42 The deeper mission of True Portraiture - and the point at which it left both Daniel and Thorpe behind, although the latter provided a hint in a well-chosen word - was the detailed analysis of the failure of the English system. The tyranny of its kings, so Parker insisted, was an experiential reality, as was the usual failure of hereditary succession, Parker citing Thorpe to make his point.43 But why had the English been blind to the facts of their experience? Parker's forked answer was that the English were stupid and, were that insufficient, they were tricked - on both grounds victims of what Marxists would later call false consciousness. The "temper of this Nation," he began a stream of exasperated invective against the selfsame people who, Parker had 39 40 42 43

Sergeant Thorpe True Portraiture, True Portraiture, True Portraiture,

Judge of Assize for the Northern Circuit, His Charge, pp. 7, 9. 41 pp. 1-2. True Portraiture, p. 2, 3. p. 16. p. 12, citing the passage (p. 9) noted above at n. 39.

170

Henry Parker and the English civil war

argued, possessed the sovereignty, is to "be pleased with any thing that is stately, and costly, though never so dangerous and miserable." Nothing was accounted more "politicall" - that is, of interest to subjects rather than kings - than "the Ceremoniall way of Government."44 One cause of the people's "servitude" was their "ignorance and sloath," a condition that Parker later glossed as "stupidity, and ignorance" and "stupidity, and blindness."45 Even while lambasting the people, Parker simultaneously pitied, praised, and partly excused them. They had "mortgaged their understandings, and freedom, as bankrupts do their lands" not only on account of their limitations, but also in spite of their virtues. Their "good nature" had been abused; we also learn (in a strikingly Machiavellian phrasing) that the "people have always been the same, who are capable of small or no variation or change, but as higher, and supream influences move them." The influences were subtle; Parker wrote of "insensible encroachment" and an essentially psychological process of tricking the people into believing that "the Prince [was] not onely the[ir] civil, but natural Parent," as if they were "as so many Bastards to obey," rather than themselves the begetters of "one lawfully to raign over them."46 Putting "Royal notions" in "most mens hearts" was accomplished by the fraud of flattery. Thorpe's comment about the "Royall Complement" of the veto formula struck home; no less than five times Parker mimicked it. The fraud of the coronation oath turned the subject's birthright into "Priviledges ... but complementally granted." Subjects' meager gains were lost as they were "complemented into their old miseries." "Complementall engins," "complemental expressions," and grievance redressed "as in a complement" served the same purpose: to "move up the peoples affection" while princes "more easily, and insensibly drain out their blood, and purses." 47 No "principle," though, "more hindered the advance of Government" than hereditary succession. That "fatall Custom" of abandoning choice for "blinde Fate" was "nothing else but a continuation of conquest."48 Security of succession made newly crowned kings forget the promises of their coronation oaths "ere they come from Westminster to Whitehall" and led subjects to adore "tyranny and Usurpation ... if it have but a royall name added to it." But if the hereditary principle were rejected, all things became possible. To one good 44 46 47

48

45 True Portraiture, pp. 1, 3. True Portraiture, pp. 2, 3, 39. True Portraiture, pp. 5, 8, 9. True Portraiture, pp. 16,17, 2 1 , 2 2 , 3 2 . Though the term was not used, Samuel Daniel made much of the thought: see The Collection of the History of England, p. 43, that William of Normandy made "a shew of the Continuation" of "ancient customs and liberties," to hide the real changes he made, and p. 60, that Henry I's "first actions . . . tended all, to baite the people, and sugar their subjection." True Portraiture, pp.4—5.

Disputable and visible politics

171

question — "What right had William the Conqueror?" - Parker added another - "What right had all the rest?"49 The recent royal execution was a providential opportunity "to reduce affairs to their first naturall and right principle." Yet Parker feared that the old "delusion and deceit" threatened to squander the moment "for the personall glory of a young Pretender." The son "suckt both brests," his father's "principles" of episcopacy and his mother's "milk" of popery. "Can reason think or dream, that Majesty will not eat out sincerity?"50 To whom, then, did the title descend? Parker's answer must have brought him intense satisfaction: the "just heirs" were the "Parliament of England (cloathed with the Authority of the People, and carrying all the Libertyes of England with them) backt with the power of a faythfull Army." One Charles had gone to his "own place," another to "his own proper Nation, Scotland." For all that it bucked the nation's history, the republican prospect thrilled Parker in a distinctly English way. It constituted a new Act in Restraint of Appeals: "let England disdain to be under the domination any more of any forraign power for the future... we have conquered the Conqueror, and got possession of the true English title, by justice, and gallantry."51

ill

Scotlands Holy War and its appended tract on the Engagement are Parker's last significant writings. Both emerged as so many of Parker's had before, as controversial responses to others' writings. Scotlands Holy War (considering it as distinct from the Engagement tract) has a curious contextual pedigree. Cromwell's Scottish campaign, begun in July 1650, had sputtered until the remarkable victory at Dunbar on 3 September 1650. As soon as word reached London, the Council of State ordered an official narrative.be published as soon as possible, in anticipation of the certain order for a day of thanksgiving to follow. This was duly called for 8 October. However, the commonwealth, having recently embarked upon a new regime of "public celebration and lamentation" timed "to suit its political convenience," discovered that one man's thanksgiving was another's fast. Reports, including a "dangerous" one from Hull, indicated that presbyterian ministers either refused to celebrate the day or used it to "deprave the present Government."52 49 51

52

50 True Portraiture, pp. 8, 15. True Portraiture, pp. 15, 39, 40. True Portraiture, pp.41, 42. Cf. Parker's ambivalent treatment of Henry VIII, whose best action was "the discovery of the wickedness of the Clergy, and casting off the Popes Supremacy." CSPD, 1650, pp.331, 373, 390, 421. Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1974), p. 83.

172

Henry Parker and the English civil war

The sullen reaction of English presbyterians to the great English victory was yet another indication of enduring infection in the body politic. Parker intervened at a point when the infection had begun to spread into the press, in William Prynne's Sad and Serious Politicall Considerations. Prynne held nothing back in this "apology" for the ministers and others who refused to join in the thanksgiving. The "invasive War" against the Scots amounted to a "great slaughter" of presbyterian brethren, a matter not for "publike joy, thanksgiving, and triumph" but for "publike lamentation, Humiliation, and mournings."53 Indeed, Prynne tried to establish that the victory at Dunbar, far from being a sign of divine favor, was more likely a part of a cascade of ruin, the evidence of which, from division and heresies to taxes, poverty, and plague, Prynne had no trouble finding.54 Casting aside his antiquarianism, Prynne indulged himself in a little history of recent Anglo-Scottish relations. He began with a conventional recounting of the popish plot and the Protestant response. England and Scotland together constituted the largest and strongest Protestant community in Christendom; the papists knew that the destruction of Protestantism in Britain was the "readiest way" to "extirpate the Protestant Religion" elsewhere. The "neare compleated Work" was thwarted only by the efforts of those "branded ... Puritans and Presbyterians" in both kingdoms. In England, "onely private opposition ... by particular persons" remained after the Laudian terror; in Scotland, though, the presbyterians provided "a publique check" to the plot, which occasioned the first Bishops' War and the Short Parliament.55 With quick strokes Prynne added singular features to this standard outline, always putting the godly Scots at the center of the English story. The Scots undertook the second Bishops' War to save "themselves and their English Brethren from slavery and mine." The "assistance of the Scots Commissioners, and countenance of their Army" enabled the Long Parliament to do its work. Despite the efforts of the "Jesuiticall and Prelaticall party" to foment disunity between the Covenanters and the English parliament, union was maintained.56 Astonishingly, Prynne claimed that even in 1641-2, such concord involved "the establishing of a Presbyterian Government and Uniformity in Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline in both Kingdomes," at least in principle. In Prynne's view, the civil war was the papists' and prelates' attempt "to hinder the settlement of Presbyterian Government" in England as much as in 53

54 55 56

Sad and Serious Prynne was the Sad and Serious Sad and Serious Sad and Serious

Politicall author. Politicall Politicall Politicall

Considerations

(n.p., 1 6 5 0 ) , t.p., p . 1 1 . Parker w a s u n a w a r e t h a t

Considerations, Considerations, Considerations,

pp. 18-20. p p . 1, 2 , 3 . p p . 3 , 4.

Disputable and visible politics

173

Scotland.57 "Out of their brotherly love, and Christian affection" the Scots "did readily and chearfully assist us with their Forces." The two kingdoms expressed the new partnership in the Solemn League and Covenant, "a more sacred and stricter union then formerly."58 The vow was "followed with many Glorious Victories and Successes" and the near-completion of a treaty with the king at Newport. Only the English army ("who love to make a Trade of War") and a few confederates in the Commons opposed "this Peace and Settlement" In violation of all their oaths (including the Solemn League and Covenant) they purged the parliament, beheaded the king, eliminated the upper house, and generally reviled and excluded "all or most zealous Presbyterians." Declaring the Solemn League and Covenant "expired," the new authorities constructed an "Anti-Covenant Engagement" in its stead. 59 The final chapter began as Cromwell was recalled from Ireland and sent into Scotland "without any real provocation" on the Scots' side - one would barely know from Prynne that the Scots had proclaimed Charles II, who had taken the Covenant. It concluded with the hideous butchery of Dunbar and the recently declared thanksgiving, "to involve the whole Nation in a double guilt of their bloud," first byfinancingthe slaughter and then by triumphing over it.60 In Scotlands Holy War Parker answered these "heavy and bitter charges ... against the Power now Governing" with a counter-history of his own.61 Unlike Prynne's brief history, which was annotated with and seemingly developed from official declarations, Scotlands Holy War retailed a long and elaborate concoction of high political gossip, English national pride, sophisticated policy analysis, and a trio of Thucydidean speeches. All of it was designed to show that Covenanters' motives were more complex and usually less honourable than Prynne had allowed, and that the English expedition into Scotland was essentially defensive.62 Along the way, Parker defended the English rejection of presbyterianism as well as the adoption of a new form of government. For Parker as for Prynne, the central (though in Parker's view misunderstood) event was the taking of the Solemn League and Covenant; his treatment of the earlier history of Anglo-Scottish relations, though more cynical and much more anti-royalist than Prynne's, agreed substantially upon the 57

58 59 60 61 62

Sad and Serious Politicall Considerations, p. 5; Prynne is rather opaque with respect to what actually transpired; the passage can be read either to suggest that "Parliaments" of both nations committed to presbyterianism as "the readiest" way to establish religion (which of course never occurred), or that this was merely the belief of the "most religious Protestant party." Sad and Serious Politicall Considerations, pp. 5, 6. Sad and Serious Politicall Considerations, pp. 7, 8. Sad and Serious Politicall Considerations, p. 9. Scotlands Holy War, p. 1. For earlier Thucydidean speeches, see A Discourse Concerning Puritans, pp. 32-5, and Jus Populiy p. 65.

174

Henry Parker and the English civil war

facts.63 In Parker's analysis the Covenant was at the conjuncture of two developments. One was the "new religious guard of Vowing." Charles had "stomacht much" the Protestation, the first English instance of "imbodying the people in leagues." The king had understood that although the oath supposedly was to defend him as well as religion and the laws, it had been intended "against his unlimited pretensions." Another oath was taken in the London crisis of 1642-3 which had provoked The Contra-Replicant. The other element was the houses' poor military results. Both prepared the way for the Solemn League and Covenant, which could not be understood apart from the "great summe of ready money" and the share in English affairs ("as if they were our joynt tenants") the Scots demanded as the price of their "mercenaries."64 Parker's argument about the Covenant hung upon his insistence that from the beginning the Scots no less than the English saw the agreement as "primarily, and ultimately" for the protection of religion and liberty from the assaults of the king ("the principall Enemy of the Covenant"). The clauses concerning the king and his prerogative were at most "last and lowest." 65 The Scots and their English allies could not now urge the Covenant against the commonwealth. Parker also mocked the lot of such "political Sacraments." No amount of "superstitious vowing, and swearing" won the war — "twas not a new Oath but a new modeld Army." As an oath, the Covenant was to be taken seriously. But it was no "idol." 66 Parker further derided the religious and constitutional assumptions behind the presbyterian-Scottish reading of the Covenant. He rejected outright the "strange insufferable arrogance" that led the Scots to assume that the Covenant established a "union" in which the Scots and English were "incorporated into one State."67 He defended the integrity of the English church, adopting a strongly nativist line in response to Scots' "most heynous charge" that "we follow not the modell of Scotland." While he did not retreat from anti-episcopalianism, Parker stressed the doctrinal continuity of the English church, as well its continuing rejection of the "uncontroulable dominion of Priests." The bishops "never claimed halfe so much" on their own behalf as presbyterians do for a "convention of Clergy-men."68 In a similarly Erastian vein, he made a case for toleration, defining it as "a nonpersecution in its most 63 64 66 67

68

Parker did not address the one grossly counter-factual element in Prynne's account, the supposed concurrence of the two kingdoms in 1642 to establish presbyterianism. 6S Scotlands Holy War, pp.3, 5. Scotlands Holy War, pp. 16, 17. Scotlands Holy War, pp.3, 5, 6, 7, 10. Scotlands Holy War, pp. 13, 14, 15. The proposal made in The General junto, or the Councell of Union for a three-kingdom council finds a distant echo in Parker's rejoinder (p. 14) to the claim that the nations were united: "where is that one and the same supreme Tribunall?" Scotlands Holy War, pp. 10,11, 26, 29.

Disputable and visible politics

175

intensive degree" for those who "comport themselves civilly, and inoffensively towards their neighbours." The magistrate retained and exercised the power to punish "grosse sins." 69 For all his reservations, Parker acknowledged that initially the two parties maintained a "good correspondence." Even after tensions arose, Alexander Henderson, a man of "Apostolicall spirit," kept both sides from "further jars" as long as he lived. In 1646, however, when the king's war effort collapsed and he was forced to negotiate seriously, the victors went their separate ways. In Parker's reckoning the Scots, still formally allied with the English parliament, began "to dispute the Kings interests, & their own against us," and to "expound the Covenant in favour of the King." England was forced to pay two armies, "the Scotch to prevent a new war if that were possible, the English to sustain a new war, if prevention proved impossible." 70 Nor could the war be avoided; Parker resorted to three Thucydidean speeches to represent the varieties of Scottish thinking that went into the second civil war. 71 If Parker's reading of the Scots was no less tendentious than Prynne's reading of the Independents, Parker was nevertheless illuminating on the alternations of despair and exhilaration amongst the Independents, especially in 1648, "that memorable year." Menace in Ireland, a war with Scotland, and the isolation of the army at home from London, the country, and much of the parliament were "unparralle'd dangers" overcome only by "the unspeakable mercies of God." England never "strugled through such gasping agonies since She was first a mother." For the army to kill the king and destroy the monarchy was "to expose themselves to a thousand hazards." To spare Charles and "submit to the Sco.tch Presbyterian faction, was to perish inevitably."72 England's success led Parker to providential conclusions; he even allowed that "the Chiliasts" may have had a case. Certainly more was at work than general providence, more than even the special providence of "thefingerof God, when the effects are lesse supernaturall." In the "wonderfull dispensations" Parker could see "the stretching forth of Gods arme," proportionable to effects "stupendious and beyond reason." 73 God had worked through the army, "inspirde with strange courage but stranger counsell from above." "Parliaments in future ages" would understand; yet Parker wanted to convince those about him not yet reconciled "to the late egregious proceedings of God in the world." Parker did not shy from stating clearly what the army did: fearing for itself the army "[laid] a hand of

69 71 73

Scotlands Holy War, pp. 32, 33. Scotlands Holy War, pp.37-43. Scotlands Holy War, p. 23.

70 72

Scotlands Holy War, pp. 20, 35, 36. Scotlands Holy War, pp.22, 36.

176

Henry Parker and the English civil war

force" upon its opponents in parliament and brought the king to trial. 74 His justification shows the lability of the de facto arguments then much in the air: the strong arm of the Lord and the strong-arm tactics of His agents were inseparable. As Parker had it, God is "tempted, not trusted when we leave the use of hopefull meanes on Earth, and rely upon unprovnist [sic] succour from Heaven." In the case at hand, the army had no choice. Facing "extreme, eminent, and otherwise insuperable dangers" they used the "extraordinary warrant" of self-defense and necessity; "there was no other Iudge, or hand on Earth that could hear and relieve them." 75 In similar terms Parker justified the invasion of Scotland by "a preventing Army" in 1650. It was a necessity to prevent a necessity - "the party which surprizes not is sure to be surpriz'd."76 Parker never abandoned his program of demonstrating Scottish "doubledealing."77 Yet as the tract drew to a close Parker seemed as interested to assert England's own autonomy, combining old languages with new events, searching for a synthesis. As in A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution and True Portraiture, he seems to have sought, if not quite to have found, a moral to the whole story, by reciting home truths to one party that he could not to the other. In A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution he lectured Lilburne on the need for obedience to the higher powers; in True Portraiture he offered a nativist version of English history, condemning William as a conqueror, and rejecting Charles II as another foreigner. In Scotlands Holy War, he did both, and also sketched a hasty but unmistakable outline of a more comprehensive treatment that he never wrote. The abolition of the monarchy and the "choice of Democracy" may have been done only upon "diverse urgent emergent considerations."78 But the change had occurred. "Government" had "devolved, and as it were naturally resolved into the hands of the people." Now the commonwealth was the "present, setled forme," defended by armies of "our sectarian Party" in Scotland, Ireland, and England and by "a puissant Armado at Sea." The alternative to the commonwealth, Parker argued, was even more alien. By the terms of the Covenant, not only would the young Charles enter upon "the most servile, odious conditions," but England would also be "forced into a hew Module of Government, that was never before in England knowne, or heard of." That was the "uncooth innovation" of "partition" of the "supreme power of England" into "two severall Councells; the one Ecclesiasticall, the other Civil." 79 Were the English to agree, they would have submitted, as it were, to three 74 75 76 78

Scotlands Holy War, pp.22, 23, 24. Scotlands Holy War, p. 25. Parker also (p. 50) glossed the army's actions as countenanced by "justice, and Reason of State." 77 Scotlands Holy War, p. 57. Scotlands Holy War, p. 53; see also 56-7. 79 Scotlands Holy War, p. 61. Scotlands Holy War, pp. 63-4.

Disputable and visible politics

177

foreign powers at the same time: an un-English king (no matter whether he was considered Scottish or Norman), Scotland, and an ecclesiastical regime that Parker had long thought indistinguishable from popery. Parker had his eye only on the Scots, but his language implicated them all. In his rejection of "vassalage under a foreign Power," in his astonishment that "any liberty under a Parliament of England should be thought worse by Englishmen then any servitude under the Kirk, and state of Scotland" he came close to recovering the breezy confidence of 1641-2.80 IV

Scotlands Holy War concluded with a freestanding tract headed simply "Of the Engagement." It was a response to a thoughtful pamphlet against subscription, Some Considerations In Relation to the Act of 2 January, 1649. for Subscribing the Engagement, that had appeared at about the time of the dispute over the Dunbar thanksgiving.81 Although Parker described its author (the "Considerator") as "a Presbyterian of the Scotch Faction," his subtle and thoughtful objections to the Engagement had little to do with presbyterianism or with Scotland; perhaps that is what made the tract seem dangerous.82 The Considerator's objections can best be described as liberal. They addressed the moral and political implications of forced oaths more than the religious and constitutional issues raised by subscription to the Engagement in particular. The Considerator argued that the Engagement was a snare to the conscientious, who felt entangled by previous oaths and who were not permitted to make any individual qualifications or interpretations. By contrast, "malignants, men of no conscience, men dis-affected to the present Government, men of prophane lives ... subscribe readily and without scruple." 83 The Engagement also marked a retreat from earlier freedom, because it imposed a condition upon the individual's "birth-right" to legal protection and because it "contradict[ed] the former endeavours after liberty of Conscience of the present Authority, when they were over ballanced in the Government, by men of another judgement."84 Nor were the penalties imposed by the oath proportionable to the fault: non-subscription was at most an error, not "sedition," at least for the conscientious, who were likely 80 81

82 84

Scotlands Holy War, pp. 64, 65. Some Considerations In Relation to the Act of 2 January, 1649. for Subscribing the Engagement (n.p., n.d.). Thomason's copy is dated 23 October 1650. On the tract, and for the first identification of Parker's response, Wallace, "The Engagement Controversy," p. 400 (item 49). 83 Scotlands Holy War, p. 66. Some Considerations, p. 1. Some Considerations, p. 2.

178

Henry Parker and the English civil war

to be the only men not prepared to subscribe.85 The Considerator thought the Engagement bagged the wrong game, making subscribers of "Malignants" and "carnall wretches" while alienating scrupulous individuals who nevertheless believed "they must stand or fall with the present Government, and are wholly for them in their judgements."86 Parker could not have had an easy time with these objections, not least because he had raised some of them in the context of the Solemn League and Covenant. Parker's sneers at political oaths in Scotlands Holy War differed in texture but not in substance with the Considerator's more high-minded objections; Parker himself had wondered who was the "greater enemy" of the Covenant - Charles I, who refused to take the Covenant because he thought he did not have to, or Charles II, the terrified dissembler who did? 87 Nevertheless, Parker hit back where he could. His refusal to accept that good and essentially loyal men refused to subscribe - if not actual malignity, it "must be peevishness" - reflected an old privado's ingrained suspicion. There was, Parker said, "no third thing betwixt being a Friend, and an Enemy."88 He covered familiar ground in insisting that when necessity authorized changes in the "form" of a "State," oaths of allegiance to the old form could not be kept without violation to the "substance." The "Common-wealth of England" is "the same now under this form of Regiment, as it was before under Monarchy."89 More notable (and unsettling) are Parker's responses to the Considerator's conscientious individualism. Lilburne's posturing was bound to bring out the authoritarian in Parker, but it is somewhat painful to see the Considerator's quiet questions repeatedly dismissed by the injunction of the higher powers. 90 To the Considerator's well-conceived objection that the Engagement placed a new condition on native freedom, Parker all but admitted that the Engagement had changed the rules, and there was nothing to do but accept the new situation. Liberty, he claimed, had "bounds, and rules." One constraint was that a man could "voluntarily renounce, or maliciously forfeit" it for what he "does, or saies." Moreover, "the Liberty of the whole State must supersede the Liberty of every particular subject," an old Parker theme now turned to a new use, as Parker declared the Engagement to be a "constitution, upon which publike right, and freedom is founded." 91 To the Considerator's complaint that the jeopardy to the property of non-subscribers made the Engagement even more onerous than the practices of "the times of the power of Prelacie," Parker responded with the non sequitur that "The Common-wealth is in the place of a Mother, and every particular man is but 85 87 89 90

86 Some Considerations, pp.3, 4. Some Considerations, pp.3, 5. 88 Scotlands Holy War, p . 61. Scotlands Holy War, p. 71. Scotlands Holy War, pp.67, 68; see also the similar considerations on p.77. 91 Scotlands Holy War, pp.70, 71, 75. Scotlands Holy War, p.69.

Disputable and visible politics

179

in the place of a son," a phrasing that rings oddly from a writer who had recently poured scorn on the notion that the king was a father, and who had in Jus Populi torn the notion to shreds.92 As Parker in this last sustained exercise in political reflection resorted once again to the terms and slogans he had worked out in 1641-2, his reader may sense that Parker had lost his way in a conceptual thicket of his own devising. As Scotlands Holy War drew to a close, Parker one last time pitted "temporary" against "perpetuall" laws, and the "conditionall" and "mediate" against the "absolute" and "finall." But who could say which laws were which? Parker thought he knew, when he remarked that "in politicks" we are to take our cue from nature, which "permits heavie bodies contrary to the Law of heavy bodies to ascend, for the prevention of some greater breach of some Law that concerns all the Elements, and the peace of the universe."93 He doubtless meant that the exception was permitted by the highest law, salus populi. Others might have concluded that he was making the rules as he went along. They preferred to believe that Parker had gotten it backward, that the Engagement was temporary and mediate, and birthright, perpetual and final. Perhaps Parker was fortunate not to see whose opinion was endorsed by the grand arbiter of time. 92

93

Scotlands Holy War, p. 74; Some Considerations, p. 6. For Parker's recent rejection of the identification of king and father, see above, p. 170; for Jus Populi, see Chapter 6 above, pp. 127-8. Scotlands Holy War, p.77. Cf. the remark of Severall Poysonous and Sedicious Papers, pp. 18-19, that water might run uphill.

Conclusion: contrary points of war

"So many contrary points of warre doe our Trumpets sound at once," Parker complained of the judges' opinions about prerogative in The Case of Shipmony, that "either side take that for granted, which by the other is utterly denied." A tumultuous decade later Parker described the "doubts, fears, and scruples" of a distressed and confused mind as a trumpet sounding "points of war so contrary" that quiet submission to the higher powers was the only sound course.1

Of course, Parker's own trumpet sounded not a few contrary commands. It is not unreasonable or unhistorical to ask why. Some explanations come readily to mind. When Parker wrote on others' behalf - notably the commercial tracts and The General Junto, or the Councell of Union, almost certainly developing a scheme dearer to Sir John Danvers' heart than his own - we should not suppose Parker was committed to every view he expressed. In one case, self-evidently he was not: Mr. William Wheelers Case from his Own Relation, a tract that only money or friendship, perhaps, could buy. The proposal of The General Junto, or the Councell of Union for an extraparliamentary council of the three kingdoms is hard to square with all Parker wrote about parliamentary supremacy in 1642; moreover, Parker's later resistance to cessions of English sovereignty (notably in Scotlands Holy War) combined with the constants of his analytical ability and his sensitivity to questions of sovereignty make it unlikely that he merely outgrew an earlier commitment. With the three commercial tracts, The Vintners Answer, The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers, and Of a Free Trade, only the accident of commission or employment seems to explain why Parker found 1

The Case of Shipmony, p. 4; Scotlands Holy War, p. 76; Parker refused to consider these doubts the promptings of conscience, since conscience, "Gods resident in the Soul," would not err. Parker also used (and glossed) the figure in Of a Free Trade, p. 12: "If the Trumpets sound contrary points of warre, if the superior Commanders give contrary Orders."

180

Conclusion: contrary points of war

181

himself on one side or the other of the particular disputes that these pamphlets address — although it surely matters that Parker was willing to represent these compromised and attacked interests, and to attach their cause to the public's. But nothing in Parker's political and religious outlook determined which side he might take. Although Parker could not have argued Kilvert's case, and probably not Abel's, Parker might as easily have written a brief for the Vintners' Company's enemies as for its friends. Parker's writing and publishing activities might have tilted his sympathies towards the Stationers; equally, though, Parker could not have been unaware in 1643 that an open press was more useful to Independents and war party types than presbyterians and accommodationists. He might have taken the sympathetic line of Scotlands Holy War towards toleration "in its most intensive degree."2 Of a Free Trade scattered a few hints of sympathy for the free trader's point of view, some recognition that trade restrictions apparently contradicted his basic political principles.3 Yet this is not to say that Parker's was a mercenary intellect. Parker's partisanship led him to strain some of his principles, but not to violate them. The same partisanship could also serve Parker's other values or critical political objectives. His argument, on the eve of the militia ordinance, that the parliament could ill afford to make new enemies in the City cannot be dismissed simply as special pleading for his clients - it also happened to have been politically shrewd.4 Parker's vigorous defense of the Stationers' monopoly and their traditional role as agents of the state matched his parliamentary absolutism, even if it ill comported with some of his religious and cultural sympathies. Of a Free Trade provided Parker an occasion to differentiate his views from the those of the Levellers, a sensitive matter since Parker's insistence upon equity, salus populi, and popular sovereignty had been greedily absorbed (and quite liberally acknowledged) by these cadet cousins of the Observator.5 Parker was also inconsistent when he wrote on his own account. Sometimes he minimized or concealed objectives later to be emphasized or revealed. Parker himself commented on this common practice: a decade after the fact Parker wrote that in the war of words of 1642, the parliament "pretended to stand for ... the Kings rights as well as the subjects Liberties," which the king matched with a show of concern for "the Subjects Liberties, as 2 3

4 5

Scotlands Holy War, p. 33; see Chapter 8, pp. 174-5. Of a Free Trade, pp. 13-14 (that free trade would be justified if world were not large enough for all traders to find a spot), pp. 19-20 (that trade is in general good for the commonwealth, and therefore should not be restricted), p. 32 (that trade restriction favors a private interest at the expense of the public's). See Chapter 7, p. 144, above. See Chapter 7, pp. 152-3, above.

182

Henry Parker and the English civil war

well as his own rights."6 Parker's disclaimers of hostility to all bishops in 1641 and to presbyterian discipline in 1647 are probably in that vein. 7 Nor can inconsistency always be dismissed as a matter of drift or political development, although that too certainly took place. At least in some cases Parker was guilty of egregious eristic opportunism, of using arguments that he would never have allowed to pass against him and his cause. How could Parker, the great anti-legalist of his age, and a scoffer at the altars of tradition and history, seriously have entertained the arguments from tradition and history he tossed at John Lilburne in A Letter of Due Censure and Redargu-tion? Parker did not undergo a latter-day conversion: his characteristic chilliness toward law is visible in True Portraiture and in Scotlands Holy War, both published within months of the reply to Lilburne.8 Parker's occasional willingness to resort to organic and natural-hierarchical notions is no easier to explain away; in Jus Populi, after all, Parker had labored mightily to explode the lot of them.9 Yet after the battle was won, Lilburne was chastised for not respecting the model of the divine "eutaxie," and Parker allowed himself an offensive, bullying comment about the commonwealth as mother. Similarly, Parker, who had wreaked havoc upon the royalist reading of Romans 13:1, later enjoined obedience to higher powers, even usurpers, even the likes of Herod and Caesar, even when the sole title offered was "secret reason of State" above a simple private person's - or to use a word forbidden by the political vocabulary of the commonwealth, a subject's head. 10 Some of these inconsistencies are venial transgressions. Even the serious ones can be understood if not quite excused as the inevitable tears in the fabric of mind when it is tugged and pulled by coincidentally contrary values religious solidarity and social order, for example. There is another sense in which Parker's trumpet blared contrary commands. Here the issue is one not of laziness or duplicity but of an open yoking of contraries, an oxymoronic turn of mind. From the beginning Parker had refused to condemn out of hand the notion of a supreme and indeed absolute state; but from the beginning Parker had been the agent of liberty and property, or at least of those who thought they stood for it. Equally, the trouvere of parliaments was the derider 6 7 8

9 10

Scotlands Holy War, p.4. The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, sig. A2 verso. "Henry Parkers Answer,** [p. 4]. For A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution and Scotlands Holy War, see Chapter 8, pp. 163 and 176, 178-9; see also Scotlands Holy War, p. 77: "ancient rights, usages, and Statutes of the Lands** can be changed for the common good, even by those sworn to uphold them. Cf. True Portraiture, p. 16, on the practical failure of English law; see Chapter 8, p. 169 above. See above, Chapter 6, pp. 127-9. Scotlands Holy War, pp.70, 71, 74, 75, 78; A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, pp. 28-31 passim.

Conclusion: contrary points of war

183

of the common law — yet the rule of law had been a staple of the parliamentary cause. Finally, the qualified friend of puritans and, later, Independents was an unqualified supporter of the royal and, later, the magisterial supremacy in the church, and quite as fierce as an anti-clericalist as Hobbes, Selden, or Harrington. Some of the difficulty may be our problem, not Parker's. He was a poor Whig, and so perplexes and, in many cases, disappoints us, a circumstance which explains much of the diffidence and neglect of later scholarship. While royalists and traditionalists can hardly have much use for him, liberals have not found Parker an entirely congenial hero. Even Wilbur Jordan, his most sympathetic and thorough student, showed some discomfort with his "man of substance." One searches in vain in Jordan's treatment for an appreciation of Parker's hostility to the common law. One can detect (but one can also miss) Jordan's occasional remarks that Parker condoned parliament's violations, but Jordan nowhere shows how much Parker reveled in such illegalities.11 Robert Zaller, a more recent student, properly notes Parker's absolutism and coldness toward the law, but also seems to regret it; if Parker had fallen in with the royalists, he suggests, "his political position might have been closer to Hobbes'." 12 Whatever exactly this means, it should be clear that Parker's position in all its absolutism was savaged by many royalists and that by 1650 Hobbes' and Parker's practical positions were rather close, albeit Parker professed a difference in method, and it was Hobbes who sidled to Parker's camp. A more useful approach might ask what bound these contraries together. Undoubtedly, the central term joining all other key notions and values was parliament. So long as, and to the extent that,- parliament remained the hub, Parker's jerry-built contraption seemed to work. But as spokes came loose and finally the hub itself cracked, the scattered parts looked more incongruous than ever. From The Case of Shipmony through Jus Populi and even to Parker's controversy with Jenkins in mid-1647, parliament was the mediating term in Parker's thought: no other concept or notion could be understood apart from it. In 1641-2, Parker's ongoing attachment to the royal supremacy over the church, which might have threatened the integrity of his political vision, was yoked firmly to a notion of the parliamentary sovereignty; arguably, The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment provided Parker with the opportunity to sort out the relations between his political and ecclesiastical visions. His critique of the prerogative in The Case of Shipmony showed even at that early stage a reluctance to destroy the ordnance of what

11 12

Jordan, Men of Substance, pp. 162,163,166,167, 170. Zaller, "Henry Parker and the Regiment of True Government," p. 284.

184

Henry Parker and the English civil war

might very well become a parliamentary arsenal; in Observations Parker was frank about the peril to the general welfare in disabling kings to do evil when it also meant incapacitating them from doing good.13 Indeed, the germ of Parker's (and the parliament's) emerging doctrine of parliamentary absolutism was the parliamentary adoption (rather than the abolition or regulation) of the executive powers of the dominium regale. Parliament was not only a legislature and court but also, newly, a body operating within the dominium regale, the "great council," a vision that was immensely satisfying to this professional privado. But parliament was also a public privado and, no less importantly, a Protestant privado, freed of the corruption, partiality, and endless scheming of courtiers, prelates, and papists. Meanwhile the menace of Parker's hostility to the law and his theoretical commitment to popular sovereignty, both of which were as bold as primary colors by the time of Observations, were nonetheless muted by the aura of old assumptions and new hopes that clung to the houses well into 1642 and, for parliament's partisans, beyond. In an emergency, whom else could the subject better trust? If the terrible power of breaking the rules had to reside somewhere - of course, only for a little while and in order to preserve the rules over the long term - what better repository could there be than a parliament whose members and their constituents had smarted under a decade of wholesale illegalities? Where was the menace to law and property posed by a body of landowners and lawyers? And when Parker played the stirring but also unnerving chords of popular sovereignty, what was there to fear when the power of the people was tied completely to the traditional elites who decided for them in the houses of parliament? Perhaps the public mood accompanying the first months of the Long Parliament (which met first on 3 November 1640) corresponds most closely to Parker's unlimited faith in parliament, although most political onlookers would not have admitted Parker's tacit or latent sense of bicameral parliamentary omnicompetence. But for those who shared Parker's sympathies, the need for such a faith in parliament's possibilities was greatest in the summer of 1642, when England braced for war. That is also to say that Observations was as much a sermon to its own anxious choir as an attack upon its enemies. Observations enlarged the discursive scene of the war of words between the king and the houses in spring and early summer 1642. That debate, it will be remembered, developed out of the militia ordinance, which the houses had not justified as a new form of legislation but as an executive action undertaken to save the kingdom from a suddenly emergent catastrophe. The contribution of Observations was first to accept and absorb this position uncompromisingly, and then to set it like a gem in a ring inside a larger, complementary matrix: salus populi and the much-rebutted maxims (quod 13

Observations, p. 14.

Conclusion: contrary points of war

185

efficit tale est magis tale and singulis major, universis minor), and the practical, English, Fortescuean absolutism of the emergency. To do this, however, Parker had to enlarge his list of targets. Until the spring of 1642, Parker's political prey were the anti-parliamentary, popish villains of the old regime of personal rule; his only enemies were ones he had chosen, and at least superficially, Parker spoke to and for the broad common front that had greeted Charles so stonily in November 1640. That changed with the war of words, and Parker's engagement with the royalist position in Observations. Broadly speaking, the Observator's royalist opponents (and later the critics of Observations) came from two camps - the old group that Parker had already attacked and a new crew of parliamentary and legalist types who had taken the king's side in the militia controversy. The old royalists, generally clericalists (Feme and Maxwell are representative), chose to regard Parker's and parliament's case as so many fig leaves. The issue as they saw it was disobedience and rebellion against divinely constituted authority; Parker made his reply to those critics in Jus Populi, attacking their notions of divine and natural right. But the new, more central group attacked Parker more on his terms, fearing what Parker actually said more than what the clericalists assumed he had really meant. Their Parker was less a rebel against an absolute though benevolent monarchy than an agent of lawless parliamentary absolutism. That group - the younger Digges of An Answer to a Printed Book and Sir John Spelman will serve to identify these "constitutional royalists" - were the first to dismantle Parker's conceptual contraption. They picked out of it the absolutism and the hostility to the common law and the burden of English history. Then they followed along the path trod by the king's papers in the war of words, associating the king not so much with a divine dispensation from the wills of men as with an orderly regime that preserved the king's liberty and property and his subjects' at the same time, in the same way, and to the same ends. These defections from the broad common front were obviously much more troubling to Parker. The constitutional royalists threatened to snatch the parliamentary halo from the heads of Parker and the two houses and pull it over their own. Dozens of peers and hundreds of those who had sat in the Commons had made that choice or at least had stayed away from Westminster; they and those who thought like them would no longer accept that parliamentary absolutism and parliamentary illegalities in the name of the state differed materially from the old royalist kind. By the time of Observations Parker had already accounted for these defectors from the parliamentary mandate, since their voice had become the king's in the war of words; that constitutional royalism would provide its own crushing critique of Observations was only to be expected. For the parliament's own faithful,

186

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Parker's cocktail of parliamentarianism and realpolitik remained potent; Parker himself shows every sign of being intoxicated by it. Even in 1643, though, Parker was aware of new opponents from within. Quietly yet unequivocally Philip Hunton's Treatise of Monarchy repudiated Parker's maxims and his manipulations of reason of state. Hunton's tract lay a little in the future when Parker in The Contra-Replicant somewhat testily rebuked supporters of the houses naive enough (in Parker's view) to insist upon adherence to law. The additional tension begs to be linked with The Contra-Replicanfs quick sallies into a more providentialist mode than Parker had yet revealed - a foreshadowing of things to come.14 Nevertheless, in The Contra-Replicant, Jus Populi, and even in the controversy with Jenkins, Parker remained comfortable with the parliamentary hub. It still worked. But by the autumn of 1647, Parker could not ignore the antagonistic courses of the army and the parliament. His letter to Thomason allowed that if the army's suspicions of plots were fraudulent, its actions would have been wrong. The presbyterians' case had not been proven, and Parker was a good deal more suspicious of them than of the army. This was far from a ringing endorsement of the army. Parker even left the door slightly ajar for the army's opponents to make their case; he would be convinced by "anie rationall evidence." But Parker's silence spoke as loudly as his words. He could not now call the parliament either vox populi or vox dei; it could no longer be the center of his political universe. The infallible parliament of 1642 had given way to one controlled by a "partie" with "selfe ends against Gods glory and the good of our Church and State."15 Parliament, for the moment at least, had become another private interest. Meanwhile, the fragmentation of Levellers and other populist radicals from the groups dominating parliament and the army leadership destroyed the easy union of either with popular sovereignty; Of a Free Trade articulates Parker's discomfort with old allies. The voice of parliament, seemingly so clear and unified in 1641, had fractured into a cacophony of contrary trumpets: royalist, presbyterian, Independent, Leveller, to name only the loudest. The Observator of the king's answers and expresses, the parliament's alter ego, had become a lonely ideological sentry patrolling a shrinking perimeter, firing at old enemies, new deserters, and even would-be friends, if we believe the professions of loyalty of Parker's anti-Engager antagonist, the Considerator.

14 15

For Hunton, see Chapter 5 above, pp. 98-100; for The Contra-Replicant, see Chapter 6 above, pp. 115—21. "Henry Parkers Answer," [p. 4].

Conclusion: contrary points of war

187

II

Afterwards, Parker read into the events of 1647-9 the argument from success. Using providence partly to replace, partly to reconstruct, the shattered parliament, Parker attempted to recover the world he had lost. This was not entirely a new development: The Contra-Replicant and The Oath of Pacification deployed highly suggestive Biblical typologies as well as arguments from success. But Parker in 1643-5 was neither entirely comfortable with providential arguments nor as desperately in need of them as later. While Jus Populi allowed for the possibility of extraordinary providential interventions into human affairs, Parker stressed instead God's usual course of operating "gently" through "second causes." Parker's intention was to restrict claims of divine action independent of human coaction; the same motive led him later to insist to Jenkins that the age of miracles and oracles had ceased.16 Yet by 1650 Parker had forgotten his earlier misgivings. True Portraiture described Charles' defeat as a "miraculous" intervention of "Divine Providence."17 Scotlands Holy War saw the army's "hand of force" upon the parliament and the king's trial as an agency of a translatio imperii, in which the army, saving itself, became God's "Instrument" to "preserve all our Laws, and rights."18 According to Parker's physics, if necessary water might flow uphill and bodies might ascend, and then resume their wonted courses; in such terms we are to think of Parker's sense of the army's role. By its use of the sword against the parliament as well as the king, the army had opened the •>rospect of a wholesome order of purer days - of 1640-2, when people and •arliament were in harmony; of the time before the Norman Conquest; of the ime before kings. "Providence hath given us our own choice; If we take it we are made; if not, the old judgement of God lies on us for our stupidity, and blindness." Power now ought to go the "just heirs," a parliament founded upon "the first principle for the liberty of the people" and clothed with the people's "Authority." Of course, there was a catch. It was now a parliament "backt with the power of a faythfull Army."19 In the crudest of revenges, the Fortescuean division of power had reasserted itself, precisely when it had been formally abolished. England had become a dominium politicum et militare. The hardest part to swallow remained the mysterious, mischievous 16 17 18

19

Jus Populi, p. 6; see also p. 13. Severall Poysonous and Sedicious Papers, p. 3. True Portraiture, p. 38: Charles' absolutist designs would have succeeded "if Divine Providence had not miraculously prevented." Scotlands Holy War, p. 24. Cf. Professor Zaller's discomfort ("Henry Parker and the Regiment of True Government," p. 281) at Parker's providentialism. I concur that Parker was not a millennarian; I disagree that Parker was "particularly anxious ... to avoid the imputation that the torch of grace passed from Parliament to the army." That, it seems to me, is inescapably what Parker thought had occurred. True Portraiture, pp. 39, 41, 42.

188

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Fortescuean "et." In what sense, indeed, had the army "back*" parliament? Who had "backt" whom? In his providential optimism, Parker overlooked the problem. At times he sounds like the Henry Parker of the early 1640s, the indignant political younger son brimming with confidence about the triumph of the "greater, and better party, that stands for the Majestie of Parliaments." Levellers and royalists had tried but failed to separate the people from parliament; even London was coming around.20 Alas, Parker could not quite believe himself; the public's privado remained, as a privado must ever be, cynical. He pricked his own bubble of hope, all but simultaneously fretting about the selfsame people's capacity to be fooled - by the divine right of kings, by the crowdpleasing antics of Lilburne, by the pseudo-scruples of the presbyterians. So Parker hedged his bet, advising the commonwealth's old and new enemies to submit to the higher powers, to the "last appeal" of the "decision of the Sword." Parker was not permitted to learn that the game was not yet over- or perhaps he was spared that sorrow. But the irony that his cause was undone not by the sword but by the contrary trumpets of the never-ending war of words would not have been lost upon the public's privado. Ill

As befits a privado, Parker remains elusive at the end of this study. One wonders where he would have pitched his tent in the treacherous, shifting terrain of the 1650s. Parker had already allowed the holy sword to compromise his parliamentary conscience; almost certainly he would not have been a die-hard Rumper. Probably, though, he would have found some relief, even solace, in the Protectorate; its seeming stability and practicality would have appealed to him. Equally, the Protectorate's blithe disregard for history and ancient constitutional form, which made it ridiculous to those conservative spirits to whom it was supposed to appeal, would have commended it all the more to Parker. The one indubitable point is that the Parker of 1642—4 and 1649—51 could not have accepted the Restoration, any more than the Restoration had room for Henry Parker: Parker's notions and writings figured prominently in Roger L'Estrange's catalogue of "Books, Libels, and Positions, which are to be supprest" in his Considerations and Proposals in Order to the Regulation of the Press.21 Of course, some of the fog about the man might burn off under the sun of newly discovered evidence: a portrait (most unlikely, given Parker's rank) or 20 21

A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, p. 29. Roger L'Estrange, Considerations and Proposals in Order to the Regulation of the Press (London, 1663), objected by title to Parker's True Portraiture, Observations, and Jus Populi, and devoted a section to the maxim Parker popularized, singulis major, universis minor, pp. 13, 18, 19—20; the words quoted above are from the running head on pp.8—9.

Conclusion: contrary points of war

189

(rather likely) letters and further tell-tales of Parker's hand in England's public and private archives. But perhaps not. It may be that we know as much or as little as ever we will about the ultimate irreconcilability of the roles assumed by the public's privado, a tension that a better-placed man of an earlier generation described as the predicament of a "vulger counselor." 22 Parker - the servant of Say, Essex, Pym, Cromwell, and Ireton - must have gained their trust in all the usual ways: by doing their bidding well and discreetly, by not betraying resentment through shirking the menial chores (in Parker's case of an amanuensis), by keeping eyes and ears open and lips sealed, and, no less importantly, by putting his masters at their social ease. Parker could not have served so many had he not served them well. Yet why did he serve so many? Essex, of course, died while Parker was in his service, and perhaps the best testimonial to Parker's work at the Committee of Safety died with Pym. But Parker's off-and-on tie to Lord Say and his falling fortunes in the middle and later 1640s - the failure to gain the prerogative office and the virtual exile to Hamburg- hint at incompatibilities intimated elsewhere. Had Henry, the child of a leading Sussex family, burned family bridges in becoming a metropolitanfigure?What experiences impelled the barrister of Lincoln's Inn to abandon and then contemn the common law? To ask such questions is to confess the hopelessness of answering them. But it is suggestive that the younger son who was forced to live by his wits ridiculed the foppish "young gallants" of his own social milieu, lectured Sir Ralph Verney on the imperative of making political choices by the lights of nature and reason, and could not accept that he was not by "philosophy" the equal of his elder brother.23 These views connect, one suspects, with perhaps the most revealing of Parker's autobiographical comments: that he passed by opportunities to enrich himself while at the Committee of Safety.24 The point, of course, is that nearly everyone else about him managed to serve himself as much as or more than the public. For men of the sort whom Parker served, religion was non-negotiable; the rest, however, had its price. Politically, they were willing to compromise - Verney in seeking some sort of composition, Essex in seeking peace, Pym in seeking to hold together his coalition, and Say, Cromwell, and Ireton in trying to stave off the social consequences of the equality of consciences in which they believed. And they let their private interests temper their public values, finding ways to feather their own nests as they feathered others'. If this was wrong by one logic, it was right by another: what else was a leader or a father supposed to do on behalf 22

23

See Neil Cuddy, "The Conflicting Loyalties of a 'vulger counselor': The Third Earl of Southampton, 1 5 9 7 - 1 6 2 4 , " n. 15. See above, p p . 4 , 2 3 , 128—9, 1 5 1 . Also see Parker's poem to Massinger, quoted above p . 6

n.21. 24

See above, p. 2 0 .

190

Henry Parker and the English civil war

of those particularly dependent upon him? Whatever the reasons, Parker could not go along. He had greater faith in his patrons and the parliament (and later, the army) than they merited, more even than they thought they merited. What did Essex really think of Parker's promotion of him as dictator? How many members of parliament were as convinced as Parker of their rectitude, or willing as he to free themselves from the bonds of law? Whatever orders the contrary trumpets blared in his head, they never distracted Parker from putting the publicfirst;that was the point of his elegy on Essex. The public's privado took his cause and his job seriously. And maybe we glimpse Parker's problem with those who knew him best: he cared too much.

Appendix: the writings of Henry Parker

The most important lists of Parker's writings are in the index to G.K. Fortescue, ed., Catalogue of the Pamphlets ... Collected by George Thomason, 1640-1661, 2 vols. (London, 1908), and in Donald M. Wing, ed., Short-Title Catalogue ... 1641-1700, 2nd edn., revised and edited by John J. Morrison, et al. (New York, 1988). The Thomason tracts include a number of Parker manuscripts (which fall outside the compass of Wing); Thomason's title page attributions, though not infallible, vastly enlarge the Parkerian corpus. The second edition of Wing significantly emends the list in the first edition, and (apart from the manuscripts) is now the best available enumeration, as far as it goes. 1 Neither list is entirely satisfactory. Both include a number of tracts that I do not believe Parker wrote, or are at best doubtfully ascribed to Parker; Wing omits post-1640 tracts Parker certainly did write, and Fortescue does not keep up with variant titles. In the following, I have used the Thomason collection as a basis. That is because all of Parker's authentic printed writings from 1640 to Parker's death are to be found in one form or another in the collection. I have included the Thomason shelfmark and the Wing or STC number for each item for which it is available. Further comments (e.g., about multiple editions, reissues under different titles, and modern republication) are made as is appropriate. Where I have indicated that Thomason attributed a tract to Parker, I refer to Thomason's manuscript note on the tract, and not necessarily to Fortescue's catalogue. Where the author's name or part of his name is not in brackets, it is found on the title page or elsewhere in the tract (I have silently expanded the form "Hen." to Henry). Within categories, items are listed in chronological order. With Thomason items, I follow the Thomason dates or place-order in the Thomason collection. I also include a list of three anonymous and otherwise unattributed tracts that I have tentatively ascribed to Parker, and a list of manuscript writings of direct significance for Parker's political outlook. PRINTED WRITINGS IN THE T H O M A S O N COLLECTION [Parker, Henry.] The Case of Shipmony. [London,] 1640. BL E. 204 (4); Pollard and Redgrave STC 19215, 19216, 19216.5. Thomason ascribed this to Parker. [Parker, Henry.] A Discourse Concerning Puritans. [London,] 1641. BL E. 204 (3); Wing L1875; 2nd edn. L1876. Thomason ascribed this to Parker, the first Parker 1

Other lists of primary research value include the British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books (valuable for its extensive cross-references), the Parker entry in the Dictionary of National Biography and (for clearing of some misattributions) Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, III, pp. 451-2. 191

192

Appendix: the writings of Henry Parker

tract in his collection. Wing still ascribes it to John Ley. Parker acknowledged it as his own (see p. 18). P[arker,] H[enry.] The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated. London, 1641. BL E. 162 (4); Wing P418. Preface signed by "H.P." Thomason notes Henry Parker. [Parker, Henry.] The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment. London, 1641. BL E. 176 (18); Wing P428. Thomason attributed this to Parker. [Parker, Henry.] The Vintners Answer to Some Scandalous Phamphlets. London, 1642. BL E. 140 (1); Wing P431. Thomason ascribed this to Parker. P[arker,] H[enry.] The Altar Dispute. London, 1641[/2]. BL E. 140 (19); Wing P393. Thomason expanded the title page initials; on sig. A2 verso "H.P." describes himself as Lord Say's "Allies-Man." [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, 1642.] BL E. 151 (23); Wing P424; another edn.: Wing P423. Thomason ascribed this to Parker. [Parker, Henry.] Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses. [London, 1642.] BLE. 153 (26); Wing P412. Thomason attributed the tract to Parker. Wing lists another edition, P412A and a second corrected edition, P413. P413 was reprinted in photographic facsimile in Haller, ed., Tracts on Liberty, II, pp. 167-213. A modernized, abridged, and annotated text was published in Howard Erskine-Hall and Graham Storey, eds., Revolutionary Prose of the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1983), pp.35-63. [Parker, Henry.] A Petition or Declaration, Humbly Desired to Be Presented to the View of His Most Excellent Majestie; by All His Majesties Most Loyall and Dutifull Subjects. London, 1642. BL E. 107(29); Wing P415. Dated by Thomason 17 July 1642 and attributed by him to Parker. With changes only to the title page and p.l, the same undistributed type was used in The Danger to England Observed, Upon Deserting the High Court of Parliament. Humbly Desired by all Loyall and Dutifull Subjects to Bee Presented to His Most Excellent Majestie (London, 1642); the tract is self-dated 28 July 1642, and bears the BL shelfmark E. 108 (17); Wing P401. P[arker,] H[enry.] The General Junto, or the Councell of Union. [London,] 1642. BL 669 f. 18 (1); Wing 402. Thomason wrote a tipped-in note of attribution at the beginning of the volume in which the tract appears; he also expanded the initials of the epistle dedicatory. [Parker, Henry.] The Contra-Replicant. [London, 1642/3.] BL E. 87 (5); Wing P400. Thomason attributed The Contra-Replicant to Parker. Tract was reissued in 1642[/3] [Wing P392A] and 1643 [P392B; BL E. 101 (23)], without a Thomason attribution under the title Accomodation Cordially Desired, and Really Intended. [Parker, Henry.] To the High Court of Parliament: The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers. London, 1643. BL E. 247 (23); Wing P425. Thomason supplied only a month date (April 1643) and an attribution. Reprinted, inaccurately, in Edward Arber, ed., Transcripts of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554-1640, 5 vols. (London, 1875-84), I, pp. 584-8. [Parker, Henry.] The Oath of Pacification. London, 1643. BL E. 70 (27); Wing P410. Though ascribed to Parker in the printed index, not attributed to Parker by Thomason. [Parker, Henry.] Jus Populi. London, 1644. BL E. 12 (25); Wing P403. Though ascribed to Parker in the printed index, not attributed to Parker by Thomason. [Parker, Henry.] Mr. William Wheelers Case from his Own Relation. [London, 1644/5.] BL E. 25 (8); Wing P408. Thomason dated his copy 18 January 1644/5, attributing it to Parker.

Appendix: the writings of Henry Parker

193

[Parker, Henry,] The Speech of Their Excellencies the Lords Ambassadors Extraordinary ... Together with a Moderate Answer by a Private Gentleman. London, 1645.

BL E. 278 (9); Wing S4867. Thomason credited Parker with the "Moderate Answer." The single-sheet versions of the ambassadors' speech [BL 669 f. 10 (28); Wing S4866 and Wing S4867A] do not contain Parker's response. [Parker, Henry.] Jus Regum. London, 1645. BL E. 284(24); Wing P404. Thomason made a title page attribution. [Parker, Henry, and Thomas May and John Sadler, eds.] The Kings Cabinet Opened. London, 1645. BL E. 292 (27); Wing C2358. Underneath the title page's line "Together, with some Annotations thereupon" Thomason indicated Parker's authorship. [Parker, Henry.] The Irish Massacre. [London, 1646.] BL E. 353 (15); under the title, Wing cross-references The Irish Massacre to Parker, in which place there is no entry. Thomason acquired this incomplete tract sometime in September 1646. His note reads, "by Hen. Parker Esq begun before he made over to Hamb[urg] but not finished." The tract breaks abruptly on p. 24, after concluding only one of five observations announced and begun on p. 20. Parker, Henry. Memoriall, 4 May 1647. BL 669 f. 11 (8). Not listed in Wing. Thomson notes the memorial was "presented" 4 May. Not signed by Parker but self-evidently his. P[arker,] H[enry,] "Barrester of Lincolnes Inn." An Answer to the Poysonous Seditious Paper of Mr. David Jenkins. London, 1647. BL E. 386 (14); Wing P395. Thomason expanded the title page initial "P" to Parker. P[arker,] H[enry.] "Barrester of Lincolnes Inn." Severall Poysonous and Seditious Papers of Mr. David Jenkins Answered. London, 1647. BL E. 393 (8); Wing P422. Thomason expanded the title page initial "P" to Parker. Parker, Henry. Memoriall [the second memorial]. [London, 1648?.] BL 669 f. 11 (110); Wing P407. Signed by Parker. Thomason's own date for this piece, in error, is "January 1646" (viz, 1647). However, the second memorial carries events beyond June 1647 (see thirteen lines from bottom) and the place-order of the second Memoriall amongst the folios gives a date between 21 December 1647 and early January 1648.2 Parker, Henry. Of a Free Trade. London, 1648. BL E. 425 (18); Wing P414. Sig. A2 verso: Parker signed the epistle dedicatory from Hamburg, 30 December 1647. P[arker,] Hfenry.] A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution to Lieut. Coll: John

Lilburne. London, 1650. BL E. 603 (14); Wing P405. Thomason supplied Parker's name to the title page, and (p. 41) expanded the initials at the end of the tract (which is, as the title indicates, in the form of a letter) from H. P. to "H.Parker. Crom: Servant."

[Parker, Henry.] The True Portraiture of the Kings of England. London, 1650. BL E.

609 (2); Wing P429. Thomason's copy carries no other attribution. In the preface, signed "Henry Parker," Parker disavowed writing the balance of the tract; my reasons for assigning the whole to Parker are given on pp. 166-8 above. The tract was republished in 1688 [Wing P430], in a text that also included the Political Catechism sometimes erroneously ascribed to Parker; a few internal changes (e.g., pp. 28, 39) and a new ending (pp. 40-8) accommodated the Restoration and late Revolution. True Portraiture was included in the Somers tracts (1809). A Short

2

Priority of publication of this item and the next cannot be determined.

194

Appendix: the writings of Henry Parker

History of the Kings of England (London, 1692) is a reissue, though without Parker's signed preface or other identification to Parker, of the 1688 edition (including the Political Catechism) with a new title page; it has two Wing numbers, P422A and S3601. The still unsold sheets of the 1688 edition were reissued with a variant of the 1692 title page in Dublin in 1715. For this and Jonathan Swift's marginalia upon a copy of the 1715 edition, see Michael Treadwell, "Swift and A Short History of the Kings of England," in John Irwin Fischer, Hermann J. Real, and James Woolley, eds., Swift and his Contexts (New York, 1989), pp. 176-89. [Parker, Henry.] Reformation in Courts in Cases Testamentary [London, 1650.] BL E. 616 (5); Wing P419. Thomason dated the first page 14 November, and on p. 11 added a note attributing the tract to Parker, dated 15 November. Parker, H[enry]. Scotlands Holy War. London, 1651. BL E. 621 (16); Wing P420. [Parker, Henry.] The Cheif Affairs of Ireland Truly Communicated. London, 1651. BL E. 652 (14); Wing P398. Thomason's copy has the usual attribution, and is dated 2 February 1651/2.

TRACTS PERHAPS BY PARKER Divine and Politike Observations. [Amsterdam,] 1638. Pollard and Redgrave STC 15309. See pp. 6-10 above. An Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech in the House of Commons ... Now Printed in Regard of the Reprinting of that Speech. [London,] 1641. BL E. 198 (3); Wing A3420. See pp. 72-4 above. A Question Answered: How Laws Are to Be Understood, and Obedience Yielded?. [London, 1642.] BL 669 f. 6 (7); Wing Q179. For the attribution, see Mendle, Dangerous Positions, pp. 179, 187-8, 224 nn. 29, 30.

MISATTRIBUTIONS AND DOUBTFUL WORKS Animadversions Animadverted Or The Observator Defended. London, 1642. BL E. 114 (19); Wing P394. Doubtful. Although listed in the Thomason index under Parker, Thomason himself was silent, providing only the date, 26 August 1642. This reply to the early 3.nti-Observations tract Animadversions upon Those Notes could be by Parker, but is more likely the work of another hand. An Appendix to the Late Answer. [Oxford?,] 1642. Not in Thomason; Wing P397. This royalist compilation reprints William Ball's A Caveat for Subjects, Moderating the Observator (pp. 1-12) and the early a.nti-Observations tract Animadversions upon Those Notes (pp. 13-22), supposedly by way of an appendix to Digges' An Answer to a Printed Book. There is no reason to include An Appendix to the Late Answer in any list of Parker's works. See Madan, Oxford Books, II, p. 181 (item 1081). H. P. The Manifold Miseries of Civill Warre and Discord in a Kingdome. London, 1642. BL E. 153 (3); Wing P406. Misattributed. Although listed in the Thomason index under Henry Parker (and followed by Wing [P406]), Thomason himself did not so attribute this tract. It is unlike all that Parker is known to have written in manner and treatment, and does not correspond to Parker's political mood at the time of its publication, 2 July 1642. The title is somewhat misleading: the tract

Appendix: the writings of Henry Parker

195

recounts in some detail Catholic atrocities - in Germany in the Thirty Years War, in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in Paris, and in Ireland. Though Parker's anti-Catholic animus was palpable, this sort of human-interest approach was foreign to him. Manifold Miseries could be the work of Henry Peachum. The tract was printed "for G. Lindsey," who collaborated with John Gyles in the publication of another work of Peachum's, Square-caps turned into Round-heads. The attribution to Parker seems first to have been made by Bliss, Anthony a Wood's editor. Maximes Unfolded. [London, 1642/3.] BL E. 94 (3); Wing M1375. Seemingly attributed to Parker, probably by virtue of a typographical error, in the British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books (180:648). Though not recognized in Wing or the Thomason catalogue, Maximes Unfolded was accepted as Parker's by Robert Zaller, "Henry Parker and the Regiment of True Government." But the item as it appears in the catalogue, although set flush left with the principal Parker entries, is prefaced by the cross-reference indicator "See" and is also out of proper alphabetical order for the main entries. Maximes Unfolded is a complicated puritan political miscellany, perhaps of multiple authorship; it includes a defense of Observations (which is why it was cross-referenced to Parker), but is certainly not Parker's work. A Political Catechism. London, 1643. Two editions in Thomason: BL E. 104 (7*), Wing P416; BL E. 104 (8), Wing P416A. Misattributed. Sometimes ascribed to Parker on the authority of Anthony a Wood, but clearly at odds with Parker's sense of parliamentary absolutism. The tract is discussed by C. C. Weston, English Constitutional Theory and the House of Lords 1556-1832 (London, 1965), pp. 37-41; see especially p. 40 n.54 on attribution. The Trojan Horse of the Presbyteriall Government Unbowelled [London,] 1646. BL E. 353 (1); Wing P426. Doubtful. Thomason's weak attribution (see p. 140 above) reflects doubt about Parker's authorship, which I share. WRITINGS NOT PRINTED DURING PARKER'S LIFE AND LETTERS SIGNIFICANT TO PARKER'S POLITICAL THOUGHT 3 Folger Shakespeare Library MS. X d.245 (b). An epistolary poem by "Henerie" Parker to Philip Massinger. Printed in G. Thorn-Drury, ed., A Little Ark Containing Sundry Pieces of Seventeenth-Century Verse (London, 1921), pp. 2-3. Verney Papers, Claydon House [Yale Center for Parliamentary History microfilm copy, reel 6]. Letter of Parker to Sir Ralph Verney, 21 November 1644. Thomason collection, BL E. 286 (16). "Points of Consideration" (manuscript in seven unnumbered pages on Dutch affairs, reproducing printed material touching upon negotiations between the States-General and Charles I, and introducing a reply, in the form of a response by the houses of parliament). On the last page, Thomason noted Parker's authorship of the parliamentary reply. A Dutch version of the exchange between the ambassadors and Charles is in the Thomason collection, BL E. 281 (2). Thomason collection, BL E. 358 (1). Elegy upon the earl of Essex (manuscript). Thomason collection, BL E. 408 (6). "Henry Parkers Answer to the Retreate of the Armie. September 24 1647," a letter to George Thomason (manuscript copy in four unnumbered pages). 3

I do not include here the records of the Committee of Safety, or the Parker holographs in the House of Lords Records Office and the Public Records Office discussed in Chapter 1.

196

Appendix: the writings of Henry Parker

Henry Parker to William Lenthall, February 1649. Printed in The Gentleman's Magazine, 25 (March 1765), p. 109.

INDEX

Appeale to the World in these Times of Extreame Danger, An, 92 Aristotle, 124, 129, 130, 131 n.95 Arnisaeus, 132 Ascham, Anthony, 165 Aston, Sir Thomas, 52 Athanasius, St., 64 Augustus, 130

Bibles, Dutch-printed, 146 Bilson, Thomas, 57, 63-4 Bishops' Wars, 172 Bland, Peter, Resolved upon the Question, 94-5 Bliss, Philip, 104 Bodin, Jean, xiv, 81, 130, 131-2 Bostock, Robert, 26, 126, 140, 155 Boswell, Sir William, 16 Bracton, Henry, 98 Bramhall, John, 127 Serpent Salve, The, 127 Bramston, Sir John, 35, 37, 39, 40 Brenner, Robert, 149 Bristol, first earl of, see Digby, John, first earl of Bristol Bristol, second earl of, see Digby, George, second earl of Bristol Broade, Henry, 21, 22 Broade, "Mrs," 22 n.97 Brooke, Lord, see Greville, Robert, second Baron Brooke Brown, Robert, 55 Browne, Samuel, 24 Buckingham, duke of, see Villiers, George, first duke of Buckingham Burton, Henry, 7, 10, 137, 145 Butler, James, twelfth earl, marquis, and first duke of Ormonde, 123

Bacon, Francis, Viscount St. Albans, 12 Ball, William, 194 A Caveat for Subjects, Moderating the Observator, 100 Bankes, Sir John, 35, 38, 40 Barclay, William, 132 Barlow, Thomas, 105, 107 Bastwick, John, 7, 10, 137, 145 Bedford, earl of, see Russell, William, fifth earl and first duke of Bedford Berkeley, Sir Robert, 36, 39-41, 44, 46, 47

Cade, Jack, 3 Caesar, Julius, 130, 151 Calvin, Jean, 56, 61, 62 n.47, 68 n.75 Campion, Grace, 4 n. 11, 24 Campion, Sir William, 4 n. 11, 24 Canne, John, 7 Cartwright, Thomas, 63 Cary, Lucius, second Viscount Falkland, 15, 43, 75, 77, 102 Certain Material Considerations, 108 Chambers, Richard, 22

Abbott, John, 24 • Abel, William, 11, 15, 141-4, 180 Abraham, 133 absolutism parliamentary, 81, 82, 85, 88, 98, 115 royal, 33, 40, 76, 81, 84, 108, 185 see also Parker, Henry, views, absolutism, parliamentary Act in Restraint of Appeals, 171 agitators, 157 Alexander the Great, 130, 151 Alfred, king of England, 105 Ambrose, St., 58, 64, 67-8 Andrewes, Launcelot, 57 Animadversions upon Those Notes, 19 n.79,

91-2, 194

Answer or Necessary Animadversions, upon Some Late Impostumate Observations, An, 100 Answer to the XIX Propositions, 80, 97, 99,

114, 117, 152, 168

197

198

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Charles I, king of England, 3-4, 36, 45, 7 1 - 2 , 1 0 3 , 112, 155, 171, 175, 178, 185 and ordinances, 75-77, 79-80 attacked or discussed by Parker, 116, 119, 120-1, 122, 133, 136, 162 Charles II, king of England, 162, 171, 173, 176, 178 Charta de Foresta, 119 Cheynell, Francis, 102 Chidley, Katherine, circle of, 5 Chillingworth, William, 92, 102, 111, 114 Christus Dei, 108-9 Clarendon, earl of, see Hyde, Edward, first earl of Clarendon Coke, Sir Edward, 42, 77, 94 Committee for the Advance of Money, 28, 112 Committee for Both Kingdoms, 23, 134 Committee of Safety, 19-22, 23, 24, 30, 74, 8 3 n . 3 5 , 134, 189 warrants of, 19—21 conciliarists, 124 Considerations for the Commons in this Age of Distractions, 92 Constantine, 8, 9, 58-60, 64, 66, 69 Coopers* Company, 141 Coppe, Abiezer, 30 Coppinger, William, 55 Cotton, John, 63 Council of State, 28 Covenanters, 18, 75, 173 see also Solemn League and Covenant Cranmer, Thomas, 69 Crawley, Sir Edward, 35, 38, 39-40, 36, 47 Croke, Sir George, 35, 39, 43, 44 Cromwell, Oliver, 28-9, 159, 162, 171, 173, 189 custos regni, 77 Cyprian, St., 137 Danegeld, 36 Daniel, Samuel, 167-8, 169 Danvers, Sir John, 17, 134, 180 Davenport, Sir Humphrey, 37, 39 David, 22, 59, 120-1, 162 Denham, Sir John, 38 Devereux, Robert, second earl of Essex, 120 Devereux, Robert, third earl of Essex, 19, 22-3, 24, 31, 49, 82 n.33, 120, 121, 189-90, 195 D'Ewes, Sir Simonds, 19, 22, 77, 78 Digby, George, second earl of Bristol, 25, 72 Digby, John, first earl of Bristol, 72 Digges, Dudley, 110, 132

Answer to a Printed Book, An, 101-4,

111,185,194

Unlawfulnesse of Subjects Taking up Arms Against Their Soveraigne, The, 103 n. 5, 104 see also Spelman, Sir John Digges, Sir Dudley, 102 dominium politicum et regale, 38, 41, 46, 47, 49, 76, 80, 149 n.51, 184, 187 see also Fortescue, Sir John Domitian, 136 Downing, Calybute, 14, 32 Dunbar, battle of, 171-2, 177 Eastland Company, 150 Edward II, king of England, 45 Edward VI, king of England, 68 Elizabeth I, queen of England, 45, 78, 109, 119 emergency, see necessity and Parker, Henry, views, necessity Engagement, 164-5, 171, 173, 177-9, 189 equity, 38-9, 95, 96 Essex, second earl of, see Devereux, Robert, second earl of Essex Essex, third earl of, see Devereux, Robert, third earl of Essex Examination of the Observations, An, 109 Falkland, Viscount, see Cary, Lucius, second Viscount Falkland Feme, Henry, 102, 110, 126, 130, 185 Resolving of Conscience, The, 97-9, 100-1 Fiennes, Nathaniel, 19, 21 Fiennes, William, first Viscount Say and Seale, 21, 22, 24, 63 Parker writes on behalf of, 5, 18-19, 41, 48, 54-5, 83, 97, 189, 192 and Malvezzi and Whitaker, 12, 13, 15, 146 Filmer, Sir Robert, 30, 90, 132, 165 Finch, Sir John, Baron Finch of Fordwich, 37, 39, 41, 44 Five Knights' Case, 41 Five Members, 79 Fortescue, G. K., 191 Fortescue, Sir John, 38, 94, 98, 187-8 see also dominium politicum et regale free trade, 148-53 "frivolous" petition, 112-14, 116 Frost, Walter, 14 Glanville, Sir John, 42 Goodwin, John, Anti-Cavalierisme, 110 grand council, 105-6, 107

Index see also privy council Grand Remonstrance, 79 Green, Giles, 143-4 Greville, Robert, second Baron Brooke, 35 Grotius, Hugo, xiv, 131-2

Johnson, Thomas, 150-1 Jones, John, 108 n.74 Jones, Sir William, 35, 39-41 Jordan, Wilbur, xi-xii, 30, 183 Judson, Margaret, xi-xii

Hacket, John, 55 Hall, Joseph, 18 Hampden, John, 18 see also ship money Hannibal, 40, 46 Harrington, James, xii, 52, 67, 119, 183 Harrison, Thomas, 35 Heath, Sir Robert, 162 Henderson, Alexander, 175 Henrietta Maria, queen of England, 121-2, 171 Henry III, king of England, 45, 49 n. 85, 167-8 Henry IV, king of England, 119-20 Henry V, king of England, 9 Henry VIII, king of England, 171 n.51 Herbert, Philip, earl of Montgomery and fourth earl of Pembroke, 24, 27 Herle, Charles, Fuller Answer to a Treatise Written by Doctor Feme, A, 97-9, 110 Heylyn, Peter, Rebells Catechism, The, 110 High Commission, 154 Hinde, John, 137 Hobbes, Thomas, xii, 52-3, 66, 165, 167, 183 Holborne, Sir Robert, 36, 37, 39, 42, 46-7 Holland, earl of, see Rich, Henry, first earl of Holland Holies, Denzil, Baron Holies of Ifield, 157 Hooker, Richard, xiv, 131 Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, xiv, 57, 63-6 Hooker, Thomas, 63 Hooper, Miles, 68, 69 Hotham, Sir John, 93-^ Hunscott, Joseph, 22, 146 n.43 Hunton, Philip, 186 Treatise of Monarchic, A, 98-100 Hutton, Sir Richard, 35, 39, 43, 44, 47 Hyde, Edward, first earl of Clarendon, 14, 19,43,75,107,111,115-16

Kilvert, Richard, 15, 27, 141-4, 180

Ireton, Henry, 28, 152, 160, 189 James I, king of England, 55 n. 12, 76, 78, 120, 122 Jenkins, David, 27, 154-6, 183, 186, 187 John the Baptist, 137 John, king of England, 45 John of Paris, 124

199

Lamont, William, 139 Latimer, Hugh, 69 Laud, William, 7-9, 67, 137-9 law, "known," 81, 112-15, 117, 138 n.8 see also Parker, Henry, views, law Lennox, duke of, see Stewart, James, fourth duke of Lennox Lenthall, William, 28, 29, 196 Leslie, Henry, 18 n.75, 54-5, 123 L'Estrange, Roger, 188 Levellers, 17, 29, 82-3, 150, 153-4, 186 see also Parker, Henry, views, Levellers Lewes, Sussex, 168 Lewis of Bavaria, 124 Ley, John, 18n.77, 192 Lilburne, John, 5, 150, 154, 60-5, 182, 188 see also Parker, Henry, writings, A Letter of Due Redargution and Censure Lincoln's Inn, 4, 10, 155-6 Littleton, Sir Edward, Baron Littleton, 35, 46,47 Locke, John, 1, 132 Lot, 133 Machiavelli, Niccolo, xiv, 54 Madan, Falconer, 105, 107 Magna Carta, 49 n. 85, 80, 103, 114-15, 119, 135, 153, 163, 168 n. 30 Malvezzi, Virgilio, xiv, 12-13, 18, 54 Manasseh, 59,122 Marsh, John, 110 Argument or Debate in Law, An, 95 Marsilianism, 57, 62 n.49, 63, 65 Marsilius of Padua, 124 Marten, Henry, 143 Marvell, Andrew, 2 Massinger, Philip, 5-6, 14, 195 Maxwell, James, 185 Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestas 123—6, 127, 130-1, 132 May, Thomas, 25-6, 193 Merchant Adventurers, xii, 16-17, 148-51, 153, 157 Mildmay, Sir Henry, 28 militia ordinance and controversy, 49, 70-1, 79-80, 82-3, 84, 93-5, 103, 107,144, 181, 184 Milton, John, xii, 2, 14

200

Henry Parker and the English civil war

mixed government, 81, 98, 99, 168-9 see also Parker, Henry, views, mixed government monopoly, 141-2, 145-6, 148, 149-51, 181 Montfort, Simon de, 167—8 Naseby, battle of, 25 Nazianzus, Gregorius, 64 necessity, 95, 168 attacked, 108, 115 in ordinances, 71, 77, 78, 80 in parliamentary declarations, 93 in ship money case, 37—41, 42, 84 see also Parker, Henry, views, necessity New Model Army, 156-8, 171,174-5, 186, 197-8 see also Parker, Henry, views, New Model Army Nicholas, Sir Edward, 24 Nicholl, Anthony, 25 Nimrod, 129 Nineteen Propositions, 49, 102 Oldisworth, Michael, 24, 27-8, 30, 74 Ormonde, marquis of, see Butler, James, twelfth earl, marquis, and first duke of Ormonde Overton, Richard, 150 Parker, Henry Anglo-Dutch affairs, involvement in, 16, 22, 25, 95 amanuensis, 14, 22, 189 birth, 3 Church of England, communion in, 4—5 education, 4 gentility and "good manners,*' 7-8, 53, 62,70 abandoned, 119 health problems, 29 letters to Lenthall, 28, 196 to Thomason, 158-9, 186, 195 to Verney, 23, 189, 195 Observator (or Observer), 1, 2, 90, 100-1, 104, 105, 109, 123-6, 131, 153,185 parliamentary orders and letters, draftsman of, 22 prerogative office, suit for, 11, 17, 22, 24, 27, 29, 74, 153, 184 privado, xiii, xv, 3, 11, 13, 19, 24, 30-1, 107, 188, 189 see also privado relation to Lord Say, 5 see also Fiennes, William, first viscount Say and Seale

secretary to Merchant Adventurers in Hamburg, 16,26,27, 189 secretary to Committee of Safety, 19-22, 24, 31, 74, 111, 189 {see also Pym, John, relations with Parker) paymaster to spies, 21 refused to enrich himself, 20, 27, 30, 189 {see also Parker, Henry, views, private/public) secretary to earl of Essex, 19, 22 Star Chamber, recommended (?) to deputy clerkship of, 6 Thucydidean speeches, use of, 59, 136, 175 views absolutism, parliamentary, xv, 34, 48, 50, 70, 71, 82, 85, 87-8, 89,118-19, 133, 148, 181, 1 8 3 ^ ; attacked, 91, 103, 109,185 anti-clericalism, xv, 9, 51, 53—61, 64-6, 69, 138-9, 140-1 {see also Parker, Henry, views, episcopacy and presbyterianism) contradictions of, xv, 180-3, 190 Charles I, see Charles I, king of England, and Parker, Henry, views, monarchy, abolition of emergency, see Parker, Henry, views, necessity episcopacy, xv, 59-61, 62-3, 64, 68-9, 139, 150-1, 174,182 excommunication, 139 higher powers, obedience to (Rom. 13:1), 82-3, 126, 130, 1 6 3 ^ , 176, 178, 180, 182 law, xv, 11, 73, 93, 116-17, 135, 155-6, 163, 182-^, 189; civil law, 17 Levellers, 17, 82-3, 148, 152-3, 154, 162-4, 181, 188 liberty, xv, 44-5, 132-3, 152, 163-4, 169, 178 mixed government, 18, 44-5, 48, 97, 117,130-1,136 monarchy, abolition of, 28, 166, 171, 175-6, 178,187 necessity, 42, 48, 73, 82-4, 88, 93, 95, 118-19, 120-1,122,147,156, 176, 178; attacked, 101, 103, 107, 108, 109 New Model Army, 158-9, 174-6, 186, 187-8 parliament: centrality of, 133, 156—7, 180-6, 187-8; council/great council of, 9, 47-8, 84, 88, 118, 122 {see also parliament); judicial role, 88, 89,

Index 117-18, 121 {see also parliament); sovereignty of, 34, 48-50, 62-3, 69, 70, 73, 118-19, 138 {see also Parker, Henry, views, absolutism, parliamentary and sovereignty, popular) patriarchalism, 127, 132, 170, 178-9 {see also patriarchalism) people's stupidity, 169—70 popery, 57, 67, 138-40, 177 {see also Parker, Henry, views, anti-clericalism) power, 64-5, 85-6 prerogative, 35-6, 39 n.30, 44-5, 122, 126, 129-30, 136 presbyterianism, xv, 60-1, 139-41, 154, 157-9, 172,177,181,182, 186, 188 {see also Parker, Henry, views, anticlericalism); 'political,' 158-9 primogeniture, 4, 128-9, 189 private/public, 12, 16, 23, 31, 43-6, 48, 50, 56-7, 73, 118, 163, 164-5, 178, 190 providence, divine, 120, 122—3, 165, 171, 175-6, 187 puritans, 8, 53—5, 61 quicquid (or quod) efficit tale est magis tale, 86, 90, 127, 184-5; attacked, 90, 91, 99, 100, 102-3, 108,109, 124-5 reason of state, 100, 118-19, 156, 182 {see also Parker, Henry, views, necessity) religion: orthodoxy of, 4-5, 53, 67; political outlook on, 52, 57, 62—3, 64-5, 140 {see also Parker, Henry, views, anti-clericalism and royal supremacy) resistance, 101, 120-1, 132 royal supremacy, xv, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64-6, 69, 70, 139-40, 183 salus populi, 35, 43, 45, 73, 87, 122, 127, 155-6, 179, 181; attacked, 100, 101,102, 125 singulis major, universis minor, 43, 86, 87, 90, 185; attacked, 91, 97, 99-100, 101, 102-3, 106, 108, 109, 125, 127; defended, 97 slavery, 129, 132 sovereignty, popular, xiii, 65—6, 85—7, 90, 106, 126, 129-30,132, 167, 169-70, 181, 184,187 {see also Parker, Henry, views, singulis major, universis minor); attacked, 108 toleration, 174-5, 181 writings generally recognized and published in lifetime

201 Altar Dispute, The, 18, 51, 66-9, 192 Answer to the Poysonous Sedicious Paper of Mr. David Jenkins, The, 155,193 Case of Shipmony, The, 6, 8, 18, 32-7, 41, 43-50, 51, 65, 70, 73, 75, 78, 81, 97, 116, 119, 180, 183,191 Cheif Affairs of Ireland, The, 160 n. 1, 194 Contra-Replicant, The, xii, xiii, 22, 100, 110, 111-12, 114-21, 122, 123, 126, 133, 135, 174, 186, 187, 192 Danger to England Observed, The, see A Petition, or Declaration Discourse Concerning Puritans, A, xii, xiv, 8,11, 12, 18, 32, 51, 53-61, 62, 64, 66, 83, 131,137, 159,191-2 General Junto, or the Councell of Union, The, 17, 134-5, 180,192 Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers, The, 15, 141,144, 146-8, 180, 192 Irish Massacre, The, 139-40, 193 Jus Populi, xix, 4, 87, 100, 111, 125-36, 152, 169, 179, 182,183, 185, 186,187, 192 Jus Regum, 9, 137-9,193 (with Thomas May and John Sadler,) Kings Cabinet Opened, The, 25-6, 193 Letter of Due Censure and Redargution, A, 159, 160-5, 166, 176,182, 193 Memoriall (first), 26, 27,193 Memoriall (second), 26, 27,193 Mr. William Wheelers Case from his Own Relation, 16, 141, 180, 192 Oath of Pacification, The, 111, 121-3, 135-6, 187, 192 Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses, xi, xiii, 1, 9, 34, 35, 45, 51, 65, 78, 82, 84-9, 90-110 passim, 111, 119, 123, 126, 127, 152, 169, 183-5, 192, 195; plagiarized by or borrowed from, 92; replies to, 90109 Of a Free Trade, 16-17,141,148, 151-3,166, 180, 181, 186,193 Petition, or Declaration, A, 88-9,192 Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated, The, 18, 51, 61-3, 192 Reformation in Courts in Cases Testamentary, 17, 29, 194 Scotlands Holy War, xii, 123, 141, 164,

202

Henry Parker and the English civil war

171, 173-7, 180,181, 182, 187, 194; tract on Engagement, 177-9 Severall Poysonous and Seditious Papers, 155-6, 187, 193 Some Few Observations, 9, 51, 82-5, 192 Speech of Their Excellencies the Lords Ambassadors Extraordinary ... Together with a Moderate Answer by a Private Gentleman, The, 25 n.105, 192-3 To the High Court of Parliament, see Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers, The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment, The, xiv, 51, 63-6, 69, 87, 119, 126, 131, 139, 183, 192 True Portraiture of the Kings of England, The, 166-71, 176, 182, 187, 193; Parker's authorship of whole, 166-7 Vintners Answers to Some Scandalous Phamphlets, The, 33, 141-4, 180, 192 writings, possible Answer to the Lord Digbies Speech in the House of Commons, An, 72—4, 78, 194 Divine and Politike Observations, xiii, 7-10, 137, 194 Question Answered: How Laws are to Be Understood, and Obedience Yielded?, A, 82-3, 93, 153, 194 writings, unprinted in Parker's lifetime elegy upon Essex, 23, 195 poem to Massinger, 5, 195 'Points of Consideration,' 25 n. 105, 195 see also Parker, Henry, letters writings dubiously attributed to Animadversions Animadverted Or the Observator Defended, 92 n.7, 194 Trojan Horse of Presbyteriall Government Unbowelled, The, 26 n . I l l , 140-1, 195 writings wrongly attributed to Appendix to the Late Answer, An, 194 Manifold Miseries of a Civill Warre and Discord in a Kingdome, The, 194—5; see Peachum, Henry Maximes Unfolded, 195 Political Catechism, A, 166 n.30, 193-4, 195 Parker, Jane, 5 n. 14, 23 n. 101, 30 Parker, Sir Nicholas, 3, 4 Parker, Sir Thomas, 3-4, 24

parliament council, great council, 70, 75-8, 82, 83, 108; determination vs. advice, 76, 80, 83-4, 107, 122 judicial role, 9, 76, 81-2, 83, 117, 121 ordinances of, 75, 77-8, 98, 115 remonstrance of 19 May 1642, 81-4 remonstrance of 29 May 1642, 85, 91 supplies defects of king, 77, 86, 98 sovereignty of, rejected by Hutton, 99 patriarchalism, 101, 106, 125 see also Parker, Henry, views, patriarchalism Paul, St., 130, 137 "peace campaign" of 1642-3, 111-15, 116, 174 Peachum, Henry, 195 Pembroke, earl of, see Herbert, Philip, earl of Montgomery and fourth earl of Pembroke Penington, Sir Isaac, alderman, 143 Petition of Right, 36, 41, 42, 93, 114, 115, 119,153 Philip II, king of England, king of Spain, 119,120, 135 Philip IV, king of Spain, 12 Philipps, Fabian, 30 Pierrepont, William, 43 Plato, 152 Pocock, J. G. A., 99, 120 n.38 Potter, Christopher, 102 Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 11, 22, 24 see also Parker, Henry, prerogative office, suit for Prideaux, Edmund, 24 printing ordinance, 144, 146-8 privado, xiii, xv, 3, 11-13, 46-7, 144 see also Parker, Henry, privado privy council, 75-7, 105-6, 108 n.73 proclamations, 77, 115 see also parliament, ordinances of Protestation, 71, 174 Prynne, William, 7, 10, 93-1, 137, 145 Sad and Serious Politicall Considerations, 172-3, 175 Soveraign Antidote, 93 Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes, 94, 98, 104-5, 110 Pym, John, 42, 49, 71-2, 74, 94, 142-3 relations with Parker, 19, 21, 25, 83, 189 Ratton, Sussex, 3, 168 reason of state, 38, 41, 46, 48, 78, 100, 115, 121 see also Parker, Henry, views, reason of state

Index Rehoboam, 120, 122 resistance theory, 81, 97 n.29, 101-2, 185 Review of the Observations, A, see Spelman, Sir John Rich, Henry, first earl of Holland, 75, 82n.33 Richard II, king of England, 45, 119-20 Richt Right press, 7 Ridley, Nicholas, 69 Robinson, Henry, xi Rossaeus, 124 Rous, Francis, 19 n.79, 25, 92 royalism, constitutional, 72, 80, 93, 98, 101, 106, 115, 118, 121, 133, 166, 183, 185 Rupert, Prince, 112 Rushworth, John, 14 Russell, William, fifth earl and first duke of Bedford, 21 Rutherford, Samuel, 123, 124 n.57, 130 Sadler, John, 25-6, 193 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, 122, 195 St. Germain, Christopher, 39 St. John, Oliver, 10, 24, 37-9, 42-3, 46 salus populi, 3 9 ^ 2 , 95, 96, 102, 108-9, 168 see also Parker Henry, views, salus populi Sanderson, John, xi Sarpi, Paolo, xiv, 53, 57, 131 Saul, 22, 59, 120, 162 Say and Seale, Viscount, see Fiennes, William, first Viscount Say and Seale Selden, John, 24, 52-3, 78, 183 Semiramis, 107 Shakespeare, William, 120 Sheldon, Gilbert, 102 Shimei, 162 ship money, 18, 32-50 passim, 84, 100, 103, 115, 144, 154 Sidney, Algernon, 132 Simon of Sudbury, 137—8 singulus major, universis minor, 60, 96—7 see also Parker, Henry, views, singulus major, universis minor Skinner, Quentin, 124 Solemn League and Covenant, 173—5, 178 Some Considerations in Relation to the Act of 2 January, 1649, 177-8, 189 Some More New Observations, 92 Speed, John, 167-8 Spelman, Sir Henry, 104 Spelman, Sir John, 110, 132, 185 Case of Our Affaires, The, 104, 106 Review of the Observations, A, probable author of, 105, 106, 107 View of a Printed Book, A, not author of, 107

203

Star Chamber, 52, 76, 115, 137, 145 Stationers' Company, xii, xiv, 13, 15-16, 22, 144-8, 180 Stephen, St., 137 Stewart, James, fourth duke of Lennox, 13 Strafford, earl of, see Wentworth, Sir Thomas, first earl of Strafford Suarez, Francisco, 86 n.44, 91 Swift, Jonathan, 194 Temple, Sir John, 5 n. 15 Ten Propositions, 72 Theodosius, 8, 58-60, 67-8 Thirty Years War, 195 Thomason, George, xiii, xix, 1-2, 11, 13, 17, 23, 26 n. 110, 54 n. 10, 107, 157-8, 159 attributions and dates, 32, 73, 88-108 passim, 112 n. 3, 115 n. 16, 123, 126, 134 n. 106, 137 n. 2, 138 n. 5, 140, 143, 148, 151 n.65, 154 nn.74, 76, 155 n.78, 160 nn. 1,2, 177 n. 81, 190-5 Thorpe, Francis, 167-70 Touching the Fundamentall Laws, 96-7 treason, 94 Trent, Council of, 91 Trevor, Sir Thomas, 39 Tuck, Richard, xi, xiv, 38 Tyler, Wat, 163 Tyrrell, James, 132 Ussher, James, 61-2, 109, 123, 126 ,130 Uvedale, Sir William, 6 Uxbridge, Treaty of, 25 Vane, Sir Henry (the elder), 24, 42, 74 Vane, Sir Henry (the younger), 74 Verney, Sir Ralph, 23, 189, 195 Vernon, Sir George, 39, 41 Vespasian, 130, 136 View of a Printed Book, A, see Spelman, Sir John Villiers, George, first duke of Buckingham, 11,12 Vindication of the Parliament, The, 93 Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, 124 Vintners' Company, xii, 11, 15, 16, 141-4, 180 Walker, Clement, 28, 160 Waller, Edmund, 43 Walwyn, William, 66 Warbeck, Perkin, 163 warrants, see Committee of Safety Wentworth, Peter (Wentworth's Case), 76, 109

204

Henry Parker and the English civil war

Wentworth, Sir Thomas, first earl of Strafford, 50, 71-2, 74,133 Weston, Sir Richard, 38, 40 Wheeler, William, 16 Whitaker, Richard, 12-13, 15,126, 146 White, John, 24 Whitelock, James, 76 Wildman, John, 28 William I, king of England, 171, 176 William of Ockham, 124

William of Orange, 22 Williams, Griffith, 123 Williams, John, 10, 67 Windebank, Francis, 10 wine patent, 1 4 1 ^ Winstanley, Gerard, 67 Wood, Anthony a, 2, 30, 195 Zaller, Robert, xi, 183, 195

Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History Titles in the series The Common Peace: Participation and the Criminal Law in Seventeenth-Century England* CYNTHIA B. HERRUP

Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire,

1620-1660

ANN HUGHES

London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration to the Exclusion Crisis* TIM HARRIS

Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I* KEVIN SHARPE

Central Government and the Localities: Hampshire,

1649-1689

ANDREW COLEBY

John Skelton and the Politics of the 1520s GREG WALKER

Algernon Sidney and the English Republic, 1623—1677 JONATHAN SCOTT

Thomas Starkey and the Commonwealth: Humanist Politics and Religion in the Reign of Henry VIII THOMAS F. MAYER

The Blind Devotion of the People: Popular Religion and the English Reformation* ROBERT WHITING

The Cavalier Parliament and the Reconstruction of the Old Regime, 1661-1667 PAUL SEAWARD

The Blessed Revolution: English Politics and the Coming of War, 1621-1624 THOMAS COGSWELL

Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule L. j . REEVE

George Lawson's "Politico," and the English Revolution CONAL CONDREN

Puritans and Roundheads: The Harleys of Brampton Bryan and the Outbreak of the English Civil War JACQUELINE EALES

An Uncounselled King: Charles I and the Scottish Troubles, 1637—1641 PETER DONALD

Cheap Print and Popular Piety, TESSA WATT

1550-1640*

The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London IAN W. ARCHER

Prosecution and Punishment: Petty Crime and the Law in London and Rural Middlesex, c. 1660-1725 ROBERT B. SHOEMAKER

Algernon Sidney and the Restoration Crisis, 1677-1683 JONATHAN SCOTT

Exile and Kingdom: History and Apocalypse in the Puritan Migration to America AVIHU ZAKAI

The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and its Enemies, 1660-1730 J. A. I. CHAMPION

Stewards, Lords and People: The Estate Steward and his World in Later Stuart England D. R. HAINSWORTH

Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: The Career of Randal MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim, 1609-1683 JANE H. OHLMEYER

The Family of Love in English Society,

1550-1630

CHRISTOPHER W. MARSH

The Bishops' Wars: Charles I's Campaigns against Scotland,

1638-1640*

MARK FISSEL

John Locke: Resistance, Religion and Responsibility* JOHN MARSHALL

Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640-1649 DAVID L. SMITH

Intelligence and Espionage in the Reign of Charles II, 1660-1685 ALAN MARSHALL

The Chief Governors: The Rise and Fall of Reform Government in Tudor Ireland, 1536-1588 CIARAN BRADY

Politics and Opinion in Crisis, 1678—1681 MARK KNIGHTS

Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1604-1640 ANTHONY MILTON

Sir Matthew Hale, 1609—1676: Law, Religion and Natural Philosophy ALAN CROMARTIE

Henry Parker and the English Civil War: The Political Thought of the Public's "Privado" MICHAEL MENDLE

Protestantism and Patriotism: Ideologies and the Making of English Foreign Policy, 1650-1668 STEVEN C. A. PINCUS

* Also published as a paperback