The ship money case, the case oh shipmony, and the development of henry parker’s parliamentary absolutism

The Historical Journal

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 1989, Pages 513-536

  Mendle, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84959626499     PISSN: 0018246X     EISSN: 14695103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0018246X00012401     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Henry Parker, The Case of Shipmony Briefly Discoursed, According to the Grounds of Law, Policy, and Conscience. And Most Humbly Presented to the Censure and Correction of the High Court of Parliament, Nov. 3 1640.
2. W. K. Jordan, Men of substance: A study of the thought of two English revolutionaries, Henry Parker and Henry Robinson (Chicago, 1942).
3. Henry Parker, Observations upon Some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses (London, 1642).
4. William Haller, ed., Tracts on liberty in the puritan revolution, 1637–1642, 3 vols. (New York, 1934), II, 167–213.
5. M. A. Judson, ‘Henry Parker and the theory of parliamentary sovereignty,’ in Essays in history and political theory in honor of Charles Howard McIlwain, ed. Carl Wittke (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), pp. 138–67.
6. M. M. Goldsmith, ‘Hobbes’s “Mortall God”: is there a fallacy in Hobbes’s theory of sovereignty?’ History of Political Thought, 1 (1980), 46.
7. Moreover, although he was inconsistent on this point, on one occasion Parker did claim that the two houses had an absolute power to ‘declare’ law (Observations, p. 45).
8. Julian H. Franklin, Jean Bodin and the rise of absolutist theory (Cambridge, 1973).
9. These matters dealt with successively: The Case of Shipmony, pp. 3–16, 16–30, 30–40, 40–4.
10. Thomas Bayly Howell, ed., A complete collection of state trials [hereafter cited as ST], 33 vols. (London, 1809–1826), III, col. 948.
11. Mary Frear Keeler, Maija Jansson Cole, and William B. Bidwell (New Haven, 1983), p. 597 and n.13
12. D. L. Keir, ‘The case of ship-money,’ Law Quarterly Review, LII (1936), 546–74.
13. W. S. Holdsworth, ‘The power of the Crown to requisition British ships in a national emergency’, Law Quarterly Review, xxxv (1919), 12–42.
14. Conrad Russell, ‘The ship money judgements of Bramston and Davenport’, English Historical Review, LXXVII (1962), 312—18.
15. R. J. W. Swales, ‘The ship money levy of 1628,’ Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research, L (1977), 164–76.
16. 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. by Wallace Notestein (New Haven, 1923), p. 122 n.14.
17. D’Ewes, Journal, ed. Notestein, pp. 122–4.
18. T. F. T. Plucknett and J. L. Barton, Selden Soc. Publ. 94 (London, 1974), pp. 94–8.
19. S. R. Gardiner, Camden Society Miscellany, 7 (London, 1875), 2, 5–6, 9–10.
20. Michael Mendle, Dangerous positions: Mixed government, the estates of the realm, and the making of the answer to the xix propositions (Alabama, 1985), pp. 128–33.
21. P. Bard, ‘The ship money case and William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele’, Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research, 1 (1977), 177–84.
22. Esther S. Cope in collaboration with Willson H. Coates, Camden Society Publications, 4th Series, 19 (London, 1977), 185 n.2, 209.
23. A Speech Delivered in Parliament, by a Worthy Member Thereof (London, 1641), p. 21.
24. The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Notestein, p. 114.
25. The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Notestein, pp. 74 and n.9, 543.
26. J. G. A. Pocock, The ancient constitution and the feudal law. A reissue with a retrospect (New York, 1987).
27. The Lord Digby His Last Speech against the Earle of Strafford ([London,] 1641).
28. G. R. Elton, Reform and Reformation: England, 1309–1558 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 159, 165
29. J. J. Scarisbrick, Hemy VIII (Harmondsworth, 1968), pp. 505, 510–12.
30. The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment (London, 1641), pp. 42–3.
31. Paolo Sarpi, whose History of the Inquisition Parker used in his A Discourse Concerning Puritans ([London,] 1641).
32. Mendle, Dangerous positions, p. 132, 213 n.54.
33. Hooker and Bilson is strongest in The True Grounds of Ecclesiasticall Regiment. Bilson is cited or mentioned on pp. 13, 21, 32, 35, 59, 63, 96
34. Donald Lawless, ‘Book VIII of Hooker’s “Ecclesiastical Polity”’, Notes and Queries, new series, vol. III, no. 2, cumulative vol. ccr (1956), 224–5.
35. Henry Parker, The Question Concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacie Truly Stated (London, 1641), pp. 1, 3, 5, 7.
36. Henry Parker, The Altar Dispute (London, 1641), pp. 17–19, 29, 61–2.
37. William Lamont, Marginal Prynne 1600–1669 (London, 1963).
38. ‘Factious words’ and on the political manipulation of religious symbols in The Altar Dispute, pp. 19–20, 32.
39. J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian moment (Princeton, 1975), p. 334.
40. Lois G. Schwoerer, “No standing armies.” (Baltimore, 1974), pp. 33–50.
41. S. R. Gardiner, ed., Constitutional documents of the puritan revolution, 1625–1660, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1906), pp. 245, 249.
42. Edward Husbands, ed., An Exact Collection (London, 1643), p. 197.
43. A Declaration of the Lords and Commons [8 July 1642].
44. Mendle, Dangerous positions, pp. 179, 187–8, 224 nn. 29, 30.
45. Henry Parker, Scotlands Holy War (London, 1651), p. 25.
46. Henry Parker, 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.
47. David Jenkins (London, 1647), p. 6
48. Henry Parker, The Cordiall of Mr. David Ienkins: or His Reply to H. P. Barrester of Lincolnes-Inne, Answered (London, 1647), p. 18.
49. Henry Parker, A Letter of Due Censure and Redargution to Lieut. Coll: John Lilbume (London, 1650), p. 20.