Content area
Abstract
[...]it builds upon a long-standing scholarly fascination with specific printing presses, particularly those committed to political causes and engaged by underground movements.2 It also develops more recent attempts to integrate studies of print culture into analysis of Civil War politics, to shed light upon particular tracts with knowledge regarding the political views of those responsible for their printing and publishing, and to explore the output of particular radical presses.3 Furthermore, it adopts practices by which typographical evidence is employed to identify stationers, to uncover contacts between printers and public figures, and to demonstrate the uses made ofthe press by politicians.4 It demonstrates the value of bibliographical analysis for enhancing our understanding of the role of print and polemic in the political life of the 1640s, and the techniques for exploiting its potential. [...]that this operation was more than just about Parker is evident from the way in which these tracts drew attention to the works of other authors produced by the same press.48 An Appeale to the World comprises little more than passages lifted from Parker's tract relating to the nature of political authority and the origins of government.49 The Answer to the London Petition asserted that Parliament was 'entrusted ... by the whole kingdom ... and we, according to our trust, must look upon the whole kingdom'. First for the king, to reduce him from that seduced condition wherein he is. [...]Parker's works reflected a new appreciation of the importance of public opinion, which was considered essential to ensure the circulation and impact of his particular message.
Full text
Understanding the political literature of the seventeenth century involves more than the intellectual contextualization of John Pocock and the 'Cambridge school'.1 It requires political contextualization of authors and texts, and the application of bibliographical skills, archival research and historical detective work, as much as it does hours of scrutinizing texts. This paper demonstrates the importance of both political contextualization and bibliographical detection for enhancing our understanding of polemical literature and the political process in the mid-seventeenth century. In doing so, it draws upon a number of historiographical trends. Firstly, it builds upon a long-standing scholarly fascination with specific printing presses, particularly those committed to political causes and engaged by underground movements.2 It also develops more recent attempts to integrate studies of print culture into analysis of Civil War politics, to shed light upon particular tracts with knowledge regarding the political views of those responsible for their printing and publishing, and to explore the output of particular radical presses.3 Furthermore, it adopts practices by which typographical evidence is employed to identify stationers, to uncover contacts between printers and public figures, and to demonstrate the uses made ofthe press by politicians.4 It demonstrates the value of bibliographical analysis for enhancing our understanding of the role of print and polemic in the political life of the 1640s, and the techniques for exploiting its potential. Specifically, it identifies and examines a short-lived and radical political press, or rather a print campaign, operating in London in the second half of1642. It identifies, and seeks to understand, a corpus of more than a dozen briefpamphlets, and it does so by investigating their authorship and message, the identity of those responsible for their printing, the reason for their published form, and the local context for their appearance. Only on the basis of such holistic analysis will it be possible to understand fully their significance in the emergence of political print culture in the seventeenth century, and to demonstrate that this was a carefully calculated political operation, sanctioned by elements within the parliamentarian ranks at Westminster, with the aim of advancing in the public domain a radical and aggressive political agenda, and one with which the press's backers felt unable to associate themselves overtly.5 As such, it facilitates an enhanced appreciation of an early phase in the development of sophisticated techniques for exploiting the print medium and controlling the terms of public debate in the early modern period.
I
Henry Parker's Observations is one of the most well-known pamphlets of the 1640s; famed for its importance in the history of political thought, and for its statement of parliamentary sovereignty.6 Its significance was recognized by contemporaries such as Archbishop William Laud, who likened Parker to the author of the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, and by Charles I himself, who singled it out in a complaint about the failure to take action against the authors of 'pamphlets published against his crown, and against monarchy itself.7 The royalist Sir John Spelman affirmed that no book had done more to 'entangle and intoxicate the vulgar', while a less hostile witness, Richard Baxter, claimed that it was 'the principal writing, which very much prevailed'.8 Parker's pamphlet attracted a great deal of attention from contemporary royalist authors, who produced a stream of pamphlets in response; and for its ideas and contemporary impact Observations continues to attract extensive scholarly attention, most recently and perceptively by Richard Tuck and Michael Mendle.9 Nevertheless, such interest has not extended into the realms of bibliography, and, despite the reproduction of Parker's tract in facsimile, little attention has been paid to the fact that it is one of the most visually distinctive works of the early 1640s.10 While in no sense crudely produced, it was far from sophisticated. Its 'headband' consists of a basic pattern created by simple ornamental devices, and its drop initial letter is a simple and inexpensive woodcut.11 Unusually for tracts of this period - if not for the later 1640s - the work lacks a title-page.12 Such observations are of more than passing bibliographical interest. The physical appearance of Parker's work provides an important clue regarding the existence of a radical, if short-lived, press operation in the second half of 1642. A search through George Thomason's collection of Civil War pamphlets reveals twelve parliamentarian tracts which share its typographical features, and which appear to have been produced under the same imprint. If these tracts do not have the initial 'I' used on the Observations, then they generally employ for their initial letters 'factotums' - simple decorative devices into which any standard letter could be inserted.13 A further six works can be included within this corpus which differ only in having been produced with title-pages, albeit without betraying specific or significant information. This imprint operated from May to December 1642, after which no similar works have been discovered.14 All but two of these pamphlets were anonymous, although internal evidence betrays the identity of Edward Browne, while Thomason and subsequent scholars have conspired to unmask not merely Parker but also the future Leveller, William Walwyn.15
In addition to having been produced by some of the most important political pamphleteers of the Civil War period, these distinctive tracts were all resolutely 'parliamentarian', whether offering news reports or speculative statements, and whether substantial or ephemeral.16 Parker's Some Few Observations and later Observations represent detailed responses to Royal statements during the 'paper war' in the months before the outbreak of hostilities.17 A Letter Sent by a Yorkshire Gentleman contains an account of proceedings at a meeting of the Yorkshire gentry summoned by the King to Heworth Moor on 3 June 1642, and details the royalists' refusal to receive, and their violent response to, a parliamentarian petition calling for the dismissal of 'evil counsellors'.18 What Kinde of Parliament Will Please the King distills the extremism of Royal attitudes towards Parliament from Charles's public statements, and the extent of his animosity towards the institution, its privileges and its powers.19 A Perfect Diurnall of the Severall Passages in our Late Journey into Kent presents a news report regarding attempts to disarm and arrest royalists and recusants, and to destroy popish icons, while The Copy of a Letter Sent to an Honourable Lord reassures readers that parliamentarian hotheads in Kent were being kept under control by their officers.20 Queene Elizabeths Bishops contains a short but stinging attack upon the character and policies of the episcopate since the mid-sixteenth century, while The Fore-Runner of Revenge recycles George Eglisham's charges regarding the poisoning of James I, published controversially in 1626, which exposed the danger of monarchs being seduced by 'evil counsellors'.21 An Appeale to the World, on the other hand, bemoans the threat to Parliament, as well as royalist complicity in the Irish rebellion.22 A Petition or Declaration complains about royalist preparations for war and plans for the invasion of the 'Great Council', and levels accusations regarding the King's 'evil' advisers.23 Walwyn's Some Considerations champions those who had been 'trodden under foot' before 1640 - Puritans who were forced to break the Sabbath, flee the country, and disperse; opponents of ceremonies 'too pressed upon us'; and those who suffered under corrupt lawyers and monopolists. He also attacks the 'advance ofprerogative', plots to 'destroy the Parliament', and the 'preaching for obedience to all commands, good or bad'.24 Walwyn also lambasts measures taken by the King to raise troops, which also came under fire in The Case of the Commission of Array Stated.25 A Discourse Betweene a Resolved, and a Doubtfull Englishman, on the other hand, seeks to convince those doubters and 'malignants' who refused to contribute money to the parliamentarian cause, a theme similar to that pursued by the Answer to the London Petition. Likewise, The Way of Reconcilement, the final tract in the series, stresses that it was 'impossible that the present distempers can ever have an end, until all men in general do take part with the Parliament, and freely tender their estates'.26
A key theme uniting these tracts was their fear regarding the impact of royalist literature.27 They argued that the burning of books by Henry Ferne was essential 'before the Parliament can prevail upon [the]judgments of the deceived people'.28 They also expressed horror at the way in which Parliament's reputation had been scandalized and traduced by such books and pamphlets. Walwyn argued that 'deceits and delusions are the principal weapons with which the evil counsellors now fight, by which they subdue and captivate the understandings and affections of men'.29 In the face of this threat, attempts were made to defend the parliamentary record, both from the claims of its opponents and the reservations expressed by some of its lukewarm supporters. The authors denied that Parliament had protected seditious pamphleteers, and pleaded with readers to remember conditions before 1640, and 'the faithful endeavours of this Parliament ... and what they have done for us already, and at how little a charge, considering the great burdens and slavery they have freed us from'. Readers were told that 'long discontinuance of parliaments hath filled this kingdom so full of diseases that we grow weary of physic before our physicians can perfect the cure', and lectured upon the justification for the defensive taking up of arms, and for higher levels of taxation, because 'extraordinary diseases require extraordinary cures'.30
Moreover, these pamphlets were also united by a rhetoric that was political rather than religious in nature. This is particularly noteworthy given that they appeared at a time when political theory was still fairly uncommon in parliamentarian tracts, which were dominated by events and religious polemic rather than constitutional thinking.31 An Appeale to the World contains a passage which rails against prelates, especially John Williams, Archbishop of York; and Queene Elizabeths Bishops quotes from attacks by Martin Bucer and John Fox on Edward VI's episcopate, and reprints a notorious Elizabethan Puritan attack upon prelacy, before outlining the outrages for which the Caroline bishops were held responsible, arguing that, by attempting to bring in popery, the bishops were responsible for the growth of schism. Nevertheless, the focus was political rather than religious, and the purpose was to demonstrate their undesirable impact on the body politic, not simply by provoking the schismatics, but by causing the Bishops' Wars, inflicting unpopular policies such as Ship Money, and supporting measures that led to the 'impoverishing of the commonwealth'.32 Furthermore, religion was generally discussed in such a way as to belittle its significance, and to persuade readers that religious concerns should be relegated below the preservation of law and the protection of liberties. Walwyn defended the Puritans for having done so much towards 'freeing us and our posterity from loathsome tyranny and oppression', and argued that royalist atrocities had received less attention than Puritan iconoclasm. 'We hear', he wrote,
of daily plunderings, rapes and murders of the cavaliers, women and child run through, and many other butcheries, and yet we pass by these, as if by no interest they concerned us, and let fly our speeches only against the Puritan for plucking a rail down, or a pair of organs, a surplice, crucifix, or painted window.
He argued that religious disputes were being fostered by the King's 'evil counsellors' in order to promote divisions among parliamentarians, and he implored his readers to concentrate upon securing freedom from slavery rather than being sidetracked by wrangling over the Church.33 Another author went so far as to dismiss the justificatory force of religious argument,
for the scripture is not the rule of our government, and so neither of our obedience: the government of England being a compact of the people within themselves, and the scripture commandeth all covenants and compacts amongst men to be kept inviolably.34
The second half of 1642 therefore saw the publication of a group of parliamentarian tracts, which appear to have been produced on the same press, and which portray a unity of purpose and cohesion of thought. Their concern with political rather than religious arguments serves to increase their distinctiveness, and provides an interesting contrast to much literature of the period, not to mention recent historiographical trends.35 In order to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of these works, and the motives of those involved, it is necessary to establish something further regarding the identity of the stationers responsible for their printing and publication.
II
What is immediately apparent is the lack of bibliographical evidence available either to contemporary readers or subsequent scholars with which to identify those responsible for these pamphlets. Their strippeddown visual simplicity seems intended to protect the identity of those involved, and the campaign appears to have been operated and backed by printers and publishers who shared their clients' desire for anonymity. It is generally internal evidence alone that establishes their year ofpublication, and only Thomason's notations permit more precise dating. The prevailing absence of title-pages and complete lack of colophons seem to have been designed to cover their tracks, since these would have been the obvious places for displaying information regarding the imprint. The absence of such information indicates that we are not dealing with publishers and printers driven exclusively by the profit motive.36 Moreover, the lack of title-pages was in contravention of Orders issued by Parliament in the spring of1642, which required books to provide details of both printer and author.37 Such Orders were not always obeyed, of course, and there are some false, vague and misleading imprints, and many more that give no meaningful information at all. But few tracts were so denuded of bibliographical evidence as the tracts being considered here. They lack the printing devices, borders and initial letters that were often unique to particular printing-houses, which could reveal the identity of those responsible for a pamphlet's production.38 Moreover, Thomason either lacked inside knowledge, or chose not to record what he knew, about the printing of such works.39
As a result, the process of unravelling the publishing provenance of these works requires scrutiny of the printing 'ornaments' and 'factotums' employed. In the absence of a full title-page - the bibliographical equivalent of the detective story's smoking gun - such ornaments can at least provide some telling fingerprints elsewhere. With the pamphlets in question, the printer used, and created designs from, simple woodcuts representing a stylized leaf, flower and acorn.40 However, the identification of these particular ornaments proves to be a less than decisive lead in the hunt for the printer of these tracts. Not only does one lack a thorough cataloguing of printers' ornaments, but also these particular examples were far from unique to any particular printing-house in the mid-seventeenth century.41 In 1642 and 1643 they were employed by Thomas Fawcet and Richard Bishop, and they were used throughout the 1640s by such leading royalist printers as Roger Daniel of Cambridge and Leonard Lichfield of Oxford.42 It would be easy to conclude that there is no way of determining the identity of the printers of these tracts, and this was probably what the publishers intended. Nevertheless, among parliamentarian printers, such ornaments were only used regularly during the early 1640s by George Miller and the partnership of George Bishop and Robert White. Miller concentrated on works concerning Church politics, notably 'fast sermons' and works emanating from the Westminster Assembly of Divines.43 Bishop and White, on the other hand, operated one of the most important parliamentarian presses of the early 1640s, and emerged as the pre- eminent printers of parliamentarian newspapers before their partnership split up, probably over political differences, in 1644.44 Significantly, they are the only printers who can be identified as having deployed such ornaments to create the kind of decorative headbands that are found on the tracts under discussion.45 Moreover, they are also the only identifiable printers who combined the use of such devices with those of the simple, ornamental initial letters and 'factotums' that are common to many of these tracts, including the initial letter 'I' used on the Observations, etc.46 Such evidence suggests that it was on the Bishop and White presses that the pamphlets were produced.
Having identified therefore a corpus of pamphlets from the second half of 1642 with a distinctive, 'minimalist' appearance, and having established, with at least some degree of confidence, the identity of their printers, it is now possible to take the next step in advancing our understanding regarding the purpose of this press operation.
III
One of the most important keys to the interpretation of these tracts is the distinctive and radical nature of the ideas that they contained. They set out a philosophy far in advance of contemporary tracts and the official parliamentarian literature. This is most clear from the works that can be attributed with confidence to Henry Parker. Some Few Observations and Observations developed the idea of parliamentary sovereignty, and the belief that Parliament had the power, in times of crisis, to do whatever it thought fit, based on necessity of state; and that Parliament was representative of the 'whole kingdom', and of being 'the state itself. Parker drew out the unstated but logical implications of the views of the most advanced Members of Parliament; and in justifying Parliament's constitutional power, by virtue of its representative nature, he made a crucial philosophical development, even while viewing the sovereign power of Parliament, and its rejection of the King's negative authority, as merely an extraordinary and temporary power to save the kingdom from ruin.47 However, Parker's works are not the only tracts to emerge from the presses that are of interest in this regard. That one is dealing with a concerted campaign, rather than merely a collection of tracts by disparate authors, is suggested by the fact that Parker's theories were duplicated in other pamphlets emanating from Bishop and White's press, many ofwhich were united by their concern to defend and publicize the 'Observator'. It is possible that Parker produced some of these works himself, but others may also have been written by his acolytes and collaborators. Moreover, that this operation was more than just about Parker is evident from the way in which these tracts drew attention to the works of other authors produced by the same press.48
An Appeale to the World comprises little more than passages lifted from Parker's tract relating to the nature of political authority and the origins of government.49 The Answer to the London Petition asserted that Parliament was 'entrusted ... by the whole kingdom ... and we, according to our trust, must look upon the whole kingdom'. The institution was likened to a physician, and by arguing that 'it is natural in the patient to seek cure of his disease, and to move the physician to use his best skill', readers were implored to be patient while undergoing their course of treatment.50 Furthermore, the representative nature of Parliament provided a foundation on which to build statements relating to its authority and power. The Oath of Supremacy was thus 'never intended to prove the king a supreme above the Parliament, but only the supreme magistrate in opposition to the Pope', and the Oath of Allegiance was never intended to 'bind the subject from obedience to the Parliament, the maker thereof. Furthermore, Parliament's representative status was used to justify 'arbitrary power' over persons and estates, and to legitimize parliamentary taxation, for 'though we may plead poverty in respect of the king's taxing without law, yet we can plead no property to the Parliament, in a time of iminent danger, into whose disposal we have committed our estates and all that we have, which we never did unto the king'.51 It was argued that 'the kingdom cannot be safe except they both have and exercise such a power: for how else in case of danger (to them appearing) should the people be provided for'. It was also claimed that Parliament was 'entrusted with the preservation of the people', and needed to be the sole judge of the public good.52 When considering the safety of the people, it was suggested that the will of the many in Parliament was superior to that of one man.53 An Appeale to the World argued that Parliament:
hath not only power and authority to preserve good laws being made, but also to create such new laws . and also to repeal such laws as are opposite to the peace and prosperity of the same, all laws lying at their feet, to use them for the best advantage for the king and kingdom. First for the king, to reduce him from that seduced condition wherein he is. And secondly, for the kingdom, to rescue and deliver it from those dangers and miseries it is liable to at this time, by reason of his majesty so seduced. 54
Other works similarly justified 'Parliament's arbitrary power in declaring law', and stated that 'the parliament hath a power to declare law without the king's consent, nay, against it (though not to make it without him)'.55 Such extensive parliamentary authority was generally discussed in terms of judging in times of danger and unrest:
if there be any benefit to laws to limit princes, when they are seduced by wicked counsels, and will not hearken to the great council of the land, doubtless there must be some court to judge of that seducement, and some authority to enforce that judgment, and that court and authority must be the Parliament.56
Indeed, as the supreme court, Parliament could not be subject to the judgment of any other court or to any one person without creating absolutism.57 Elsewhere, it was stated that 'the king is only the supreme magistrate, but the Parliament is the supreme power, from which there is no appeal'. Ultimately, this notion of Parliament as the supreme court of judgment was reflected in the idea, expressed in A Discourse Between and Resolved and a Doubtfull Englishman, that the King was 'accountable' to Parliament 'for performance of his office'. If the Observations represented the cutting edge of parliamentarian thought in the summer of1642, then A Discourse... should be regarded as part of a process of raising the political stakes yet further in the following winter.58
Such ideas had profound implications for the position and powers of the King. Charles himself faced determined criticism in a number of the tracts. It was claimed that he had effectively commenced warfare by midJuly 1642; that he had personally refused to receive a petition from Sir Thomas Fairfax; and that he had offered protection to popish priests.59 The authors suggested that the King was 'addicted to papists, and malignant haters of parliaments', and questioned how far it was possible to trust a king who was surrounded by men who had 'a strange power in his affection', and who were 'deeply enraged papists'.60 The republication of Eglisham's tract had made public the serious doubts about the King's judgement. Eglisham had not only bemoaned the idea of a monarch being misled by a favourite but had also suggested that Buckingham had been someone 'by whom your Majesty suffereth yourself so far to be led, that your best subjects are in doubt whether he is your king or you his'.61 Another tract went so far as to argue that Charles was a deluded king who could no longer be believed.62 More generally, they argued that it had proved necessary to restrict the monarch's power because it had 'swallowed the law, which this parliament caused to be vomitted up again, and restored to the people, when the malignant party thought it had been digested and converted into the very nature of the prerogative'.63 Moreover, efforts were being made to undermine specific Royal powers, not least in relation to Commissions of Array. Although it was conceded that these powers might have had some ancient precedents, they could nevertheless not be used as the King believed,
with a legislative power in the commissioners to impose what arms they think fit upon the persons and estates of men at their pleasure, for they are only to see that the king be not deceived in his arms, nor the commonwealth wronged for want of defence and protection by the withdrawing of any services due.
Ultimately, the authors denied that the King possessed the prerogative power of 'imposing arms' without 'some act of Parliament'.64 More importantly, they dismissed the suggestion that the monarch was part of the Parliament as an idea intended merely to dissuade people from contributing money to an institution that the King had made illegitimate by his absence. While the King might be the highest magistrate, it was denied that he 'hath any place in Parliament by virtue of his magistracy'.65 One author berated the fact that 'there are books lately published of purpose to possess the people, that the king is a part of the Parliament, and by his negative voice able to oversway all the rest'.66 Walwyn, meanwhile, argued that if the monarch had a negative veto and the power to dissolve Parliament, he would be liable to blame and censure from the people, and 'must of necessity lie under their hard opinions, should the neglect of calling Parliaments bring oppressions upon the people, or the too soon dissolving them without consent of the House before their business were fully despatched'. He suggested that the King had realized as much by approving the legislation of1641, and argued that royalists who sought these powers would 'make the safety and freedom of the people to depend upon one man's will and understanding', which was 'an absurdity in government'.67
Analysis of the political content and theoretical arguments in these tracts helps to explain their determination to produce such untraceable works. The presses of Bishop and White were used as vehicles for spreading the most radical views within parliamentarian ranks, and writers turned to them because of their confidence that they were reliable and discreet collaborators. Given that the King expected Parliament to arrest those who promulgated radical ideas, authors and stationers alike would probably seek to ensure that they left no paper trails. What needs to be determined next, however, is the extent to which this press, with its concentration on radical printing, operated in special political circumstances. The evidence from Bishop and White's other clients, most notably John Dillingham and Marchamont Nedham, together with our knowledge of the politics of the newspaper business in the early 1640s, and the political backing which such works received, certainly indicates that they were among the most well-connected parliamentarian printers of the decade.68 Moreover, they were clearly engaged in printing for, rather than merely in support of, the parliamentarian leaders.69 Indeed, by exploring in greater detail the political context of each pamphlet and the circumstances surrounding their publication - in terms of identity of authors, timing of appearance and precise political context - it becomes clear that they formed part of a concerted literary campaign, directed from within Parliament.
IV
In undertaking this process of detailed political contextualization, the most obvious place to start is with the status, role and career of the most prominent of these authors, Henry Parker. It is vital to recognize, for example, his family ties to the leading parliamentarian grandee, William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, and his earlier literary efforts in support of the political and religious policies of Saye's Puritan allies. It is also necessary to explore the circumstances in which his works appeared, and to note that Parker was fulfilling the requirements of his patrons, who were becoming more reliant on such tracts because of parliamentary politicking and the wider battle for hearts, minds and pockets.70 Parker's Some Few Observations appeared around 22 June 1642, and offered a pointby-point response to the King's reply to Parliament's declaration of19 May. Parliament had already answered the King's declaration, but rather than deal with the subsequent Royal riposte both Houses had become preoccupied with the development of the famous 'Nineteen Propositions'. In the meantime, Parker's tract kept radical parliamentarism at the front of people's minds. This, together with the rarity of such public discussion of constitutional issues and the appearance of a copy in the official archives, suggests that Parker was working closely with Members of Parliament.71
This conclusion is reinforced by considering the Observations, in which Parker responded to the King's answers to the Remonstrance of 26 May and the Nineteen Propositions.72 Parliament had shown its concern to secure replies to such Royal statements, and the Commons had appointed a Committee of the Whole House to consider a detailed rejoinder, as well as a select committee to prepare a more wide-ranging vindication ofParliament, in order to 'stir up the people'.73 The Commons clearly wanted a powerful statement of its position, but progress proved slow, and there was no guarantee that agreement would be reached on the text ofsuch a 'manifesto'. Indeed, given that detailed consideration of the King's answer revealed a willingness to compromise on the part of some MPs, Saye and John Pym - the leading figures among those who would be styled by Sir Simonds D'Ewes as the 'fiery spirits' - probably regarded Henry Parker's pen as the easiest means of promulgating their views. It is probably no coincidence that the Commons ceased their scrutiny of the matter on 2 July, the day that Parker's Observations reached the bookstalls.74 Furthermore, suspicions that this work appeared with official sanction surfaced almost immediately amongst the opponents of the 'fiery spirits' within Parliament. When Nathaniel Fiennes (one of Saye's sons) eventually reported on 23 July from the committee that had been ordered to respond to the King's answer to the Nineteen Propositions, Sir Simonds D'Ewes spoke out against 'this long, impertinent, and dangerous declaration', and said that he was 'very much afraid' that 'a great part ... is already printed in a pamphlet of observations', adding that it would be 'much to the dishonour of this House to put out that for their declaration which is already to be had in a published pamphlet, and so be taken out of a budget or a pocket'. D'Ewes's comments provoked a reprimand sufficiently severe for him to withdraw temporarily from the Commons, which suggests that he was too close to exposing the background of Parker's tract. Together with the fact that the Commons sought to investigate the appearance of at least one royalist reply to the Observations, this reinforces the impression that Parker was writing in special circumstances.75
The parliamentary radicals, in other words, needed polemical exposition of their ideas but could not rely upon their Houses to provide them officially. That such views were given their clearest expression in Parker's tracts, the appearance of which appear to have been carefully and precisely timed, suggests the involvement of certain parliamentarian grandees in their publication.76 Seeing Parker's works in terms of their receiving political backing from within Westminster, and especially from the coterie of 'fiery spirits' around Viscount Saye and John Pym, brings a closer understanding of the campaign undertaken on the presses of Bishop and White. It suggests that their machines were set in motion to print tracts that reflected the views of certain political figures within Westminster, but which could not possibly be published under the auspices of Parliament; and which also needed to be produced in such a way as to minimize the risk of the public, and the King, establishing their provenance. Moreover, Parker's works reflected a new appreciation of the importance of public opinion, which was considered essential to ensure the circulation and impact of his particular message. There appears to have been some awareness that the odds of persuading the public of such constitutional claims could be shortened by their frequent repetition, and by their appearance in a variety of different works. This explains the appearance of An Appeale to the World on 12 July and of Reasons Why This Kingdome Ought to Adhere to the Parliament on 1 August, both of which were little more than distillations of the Observations. As pamphlets began pouring out of the printing-machines, in other words, the radical press was used to keep the unorthodox views of the 'fiery spirits' (a minority within Westminster) to the fore and act as their tool. This conclusion is reinforced by consideration of Parker's subsequent career. Within weeks of the appearance of the Observations he was working for Parliament in a much more transparent manner, as secretary to the new Committee of Safety and as Lord General Essex's London secretary. As his duties there probably included the drafting of official declarations, this provides another element of the political contextualization of the works that were emerging from his pen during the second half of1642, and from the presses of Bishop and White.77
The suggestion that Bishop and White were in collusion with Saye and Pym is supported by exploration of the authorship, timing and context of many of the other works produced by the radical press - each for a precise local purpose; many addressing issues of profound importance to the 'fiery spirits'.78 The first aim was to place concerted political pressure upon the King, and to undermine the prospects for peace until the royalists had been seriously weakened, not least by damaging Charles's personal standing. The events outlined in the Letter Sent by a Yorkshire Gentleman, for example, proved politically explosive in the first week of June 1642, and on 6 June Parliament declared two ofthe royalists involved, Lords Savile and Lindsey, to be enemies of the state and incendiaries between the King and his people. They also ordered the publication of the Yorkshire petition, as well as a 'true and perfect' relation of the affair.79 The Letter not only served this purpose, but also was published to coincide with, and reinforce the purpose of, Parliament's address to the King in support of the frustrated Yorkshire petitioners.80 Furthermore, its official origin is indicated by the fact that it was probably penned by the Clerk-Assistant of the Commons, John Rushworth, who was then travelling frequently to the North on parliamentary business, and who was awarded ?100 for his relation of events at Heworth on 6 June.81 The need to maintain pressure on the King in the summer of 1642 is also evident from the appearance of What Kinde of Parliament Will Please the King in mid-July, which revealed the extreme nature of the King's views, as well as Parker's A Petition or Declaration on 17 July. The latter was timed to coincide with the presentation to the King of a petition which had been ordered on 12 July and entrusted to John Pym.82 Both pieces opposed any accommodation with Charles, although Parliament's statement was slightly more conciliatory.83 Once again, Parker's pen and the radical press had produced a polemical statement of Parliament's position, stated in a way that was subtly but importantly different from official accounts, which might not have secured approval on the floor of the House. Furthermore, when Charles responded by mocking the 'specious pretences' displayed by Parliament, the Committee of Safety was ordered to produce both a reply and a declaration 'to the people'. On 28 July the official response, which was little more than a restatement of earlier views, was ordered to be printed and published. On the same day Parker issued a restatement of his own petition by simply substituting a new title to his existing text to create The Danger to England Observed, a work that effectively re-presents the address 'to the people' commissioned by Parliament.84
Eventually, Bishop and White's presses were also used to outline the position of the 'fiery spirits' regarding the peace talks in late 1642. Walwyn's work, published amid rumours of negotiations in the second week of November, made a bold statement against peace:
there is peace in a dungeon, yet I think no man can be heartily in love with such a kind of peace, no certainly, if our liberty and our religion be much dearer to us than our lives, as I think they are to every wise man, then sure they must be dearer to us than our rest. Our swords are drawn for them, and so long as they are violated, what peace? What peace, so long as the insolencies and conspiracies of unjust men, and their usurpations are so many? What peace, so long as those that would free us from former oppressions and would provide for our future liberties, are in no safety, but in continual hazard of their lives.85
Walwyn was a lowly but zealous Puritan parish activist, but he was emerging as an enthusiastic parliamentarian administrator in London, who may have been personally familiar with the grandees at Westminster. His tract certainly suited well the purpose of the minority of 'fiery spirits' within Parliament, who could not afford to make public their opposition to peace.86 However, pressure for peace was never far away, and it resurfaced with the London petition presented to Parliament on 19 December 1642. This 'frivolous' petition, as it came to be known, had been presented at Guildhall a week earlier amid tumultuous behaviour, reflecting the tension between London's hawks and doves. But it brought forth an official answer and plans for a parliamentary petition, to match that which the Common Council intended to send to the King.87 But before the petition even reached Parliament, Parker's response appeared. Written in the first person plural - as if to suggest that it represented Parliament's answer - it warned against seeking peace while the parliamentarian remedy for the diseased polity had yet to take effect, and against accepting peace 'nakedly' and without 'truth, righteousness, and honour'. It also argued that compromise with the King was impossible whilst he was surrounded by 'deeply enraged Papists' and 'violently engaged delinquents'.88 Parker, like Walwyn, was expressing the views of the 'fiery spirits' within Parliament who might have been voted down by the peace party - dominant at Westminster during the winter of 1642-43 - and who could not begin to consider a formal, official response before the petition was presented. Once again, therefore, Bishop and White provided a substitute for a declaration whose passage through both Houses would most probably have proved difficult. It is clear that the appearance of this tract before the petition had been presented to, or considered by, Parliament aroused the indignation of the pacifists within the House of Lords.89
However, there were other voices that were even more hostile to peace talks. A counter-petition was prepared by three Puritan clerics - Jeremiah Burroughes, Hugh Peter and John Goodwin - and presented by the civic grandees, Sir David Watkins and Richard Shute. Another opponent of peace issued a work called A Frivolous Petition, which claimed that the petitioners represented the disaffected party within the City.90 Much as Pym and his colleagues opposed the demands for peace, they yet strove to maintain unity between the City and Parliament lest differences over strategy should prompt defections to the King at Oxford. It was probably at this moment that the radical press issued The Way of Reconcilement. The aim was certainly to express their opposition to peace plans, and the author warned 'all sorts of men to mark those that cause divisions amongst us, especially those that do it with peace in their mouths'. Nevertheless, the tract took exception to the manner and style of the counter-petition, and rejected its dismissal of the London petition as 'frivolous' before it had even been considered by Parliament.91 This treatment of the peace negotiations reveals that the presses could be used to reassure the public regarding Parliament's intentions and to bolster its popular image. This is also apparent from the two tracts relating parliamentarian activities in Kent, which appeared simultaneously in early September. These were clearly aimed at reassurance in the wake of accounts of atrocities and outrages committed by over-zealous soldiers. When the Commons considered such stories on 9 September, Pym expressed concern that 'this report was now far spread' and that 'some believed it', while another 'fiery spirit', Sir Henry Vane, called for a report to be made of proceedings in the county, which was duly delivered to the House.92 The tracts not only served these members' purposes but they can also be attributed to men who had strong links to Parliament. Thomas Paske's letter was almost certainly sent to the Earl of Holland, who evidently 'leaked' it to the press; while the Perfect Diurnall was probably penned by one of the Kentish parliamentarians who had participated in the sweep through the county and corresponded with the Earl of Essex, and who related their conduct to the Commons.93
In addition to the need to pressurize the King, undermine calls for peace and defend the public reputation of Parliament and its supporters, another key aim of those parliamentarians most eager for the vigorous pursuit of the War was the need to raise men and money, within a British as well as an English context. It was relations with potential Scottish allies, indeed, which supplies the context and timing for Queene Elizabeths Bishops. Although the work reads like a tract written during the 'exclusion crisis' over the bishops' role in the Lords during the winter of 1641-42, its appearance at the end of July 1642 coincided with attempts by the 'fiery spirits' to secure Scottish support and assistance. It prepared the way for Parliament's resolution to abolish the episcopacy (7 September) and mirrored a declaration drafted by Nathaniel Fiennes for presentation to the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk: both were intended to convince the Scots of the anti-episcopal credentials of at least some parliamentarians. At a time when nominations for the projected Westminster Assembly of Divines revealed that the Lords were seeking to propose not just Episcopalians but also Arminians, this seems an attempt to placate and encourage the Scots with the message that others were intent on dismantling the existing Church government, while preserving a national system the shape of which would be decided by a commission of divines.94
In an English context, meanwhile, the need to secure military supremacy obviously involved persuading the public of the illegitimacy of royalist policies. This explains the appearance of The Case of the Commission ofArray Stated, which Thomason acquired on 20 October. The King's use of such commissions to raise troops had been causing concern at Westminster since June 1642, when a committee had been charged with considering their legality and with framing a response. Parliament wanted to announce their opposition in print on more than one occasion, and drew upon the services of lawyers such as John Selden and Sir John Borough in doing so. As late as November, committees were involved in preparing further statements on the issue.95 However, the political context of this tract's appearance was the frantic attempt by both sides to secure troops in October 1642, as the King headed for Shrewsbury before moving against London, and Parliament ordered the mobilization of the trained bands and announced the raising of an army of16,000 men under the Earl of Warwick in the weeks before Edgehill. During this month, more than at any other time, Parliament needed to convince the people of the superiority of Parliament's claim to be able to raise an army and of the illegality of the King's tactics.96 Once the armies were in the field, of course, they also needed to be maintained financially, and by mid-November it was clear that Parliament could no longer rely upon voluntary contributions to fund the war effort. Plans were implemented, therefore, for raising loans from the City of London and for levying general taxation. The constitutional novelty of the latter, as well as the opposition resulting from it, which fuelled further demands for peace, clearly created a need for literature to persuade the public regarding the necessity of such supplies. This not only explains the way that the Answer to the London Petition and The Way of Reconcilement justified Parliament's power to raise money, it also provides the context for the Discourse Betweene a Resolved, and a Doubtfull Englishman, which appeared as the ordinance for a general tax was passing through the two Houses.97
Works from the radical press can be shown, therefore, to have appeared in co-ordinated fashion with the key political goals of a particular group at Westminster, when parliamentary procedure was a problematical medium for the promotion of radical ideas, either because of the need for speed, or the extra-parliamentary nature of the debate, or that the factional balance within Parliament militated against the efforts of the 'fiery spirits'. More generally, these tracts could convey messages that were sufficiently contentious to make their public avowal politically suicidal. Eglisham's accusations against the Duke of Buckingham were redeployed once war had broken out in the autumn of 1642 in order to harden the language in which the King was being discussed. Eglisham, after all, had said that 'it is justice that maketh kings, and injustice that bringeth both kingdoms and kings to destruction, to fall in misery, to die like asses in ditches, or more beastly deaths, [with] eternal infamy after death'.98 This statement could have been read as a conditional threat when it was first published, and as a plea for the King to take action, but by 1642 it represented something a great deal more serious. Having neglected to ensure that justice was done, Charles's actions could be construed as having destroyed Royal legitimacy, becoming what Eglisham had warned against: 'false and perjured'.99 Those who republished Eglisham's tract in September 1642 almost certainly realized that his words were now far more radical than they had been in 1626.
The use of print to raise the political stakes becomes explicit in A Discourse Betweene a Resolved, and a Doubtfull Englishman, which not only delivered another dose of advanced parliamentarian remedies but also stated that, when such views were expressed to the people, 'they grow angry, and are offended, and think it to be no less than treason'. The author bemoaned the fact that the parliamentarians had used too moderate language 'lest the people should have thought they had usurped an authority above what was their due'. Acknowledging what commentators had perceived - that parliamentarian theory seemed only to justify what was being done in practice - the author argued against what has been described as 'functional radicalism', stressing that parliamentarians had been over-cautious in expounding their views for fear that they would prove unpalatable. He stated, therefore, that Parliament had:
revealed their power but by degrees, and only upon necessity, that necessity might make the people know that the power was just and reasonable, as fearing the people's weakness could not digest those strong and sinowy truths, whereunto their stomachs had not of long time been accustomed, though indeed it be the only food that makes us firm and resolute and true Englishmen.
However, the author also argued that, as well as fearing the unfavourable reception of advanced ideas, there had been concern about unleashing a radical train of events. Reference was made to 'the general indulgence of parliaments towards their kings, using them as indulgent parents do a son whom they love, endeavouring by all means to preserve their honour and great esteem with the people, passing over years ofjarrings'. This was said to result from the inclination to hide
their own just power under humble and low expressions, lest the people, knowing their great interest therein, should too hastily call for justice, and grow implacable for injuries received, and so prevent them in their more mild intentions of keeping open a passage for an erring prince to return with honour.
He concluded with an appeal for such reticence to be laid aside in favour of a more open admission of their demands and a clearer statement of Parliament's power, and the assertion that the King was 'accountable to them for performance of his office'.100
In effect, therefore, the Discourse outlined the rationale behind the radical press. It called for the full exposition of the views which parliamentarians sincerely held, and had always held, but which they felt nervous about owning up to publicly. This was essentially what the other tracts, with which this author shared an imprint and a radical outlook, were trying to do. The Discourse represents the final piece of evidence with which to establish the purpose of the radical press and the identity of its patrons.
V
The second half of 1642 saw the appearance of a series of distinctive pamphlets that were designed to achieve maximum anonymity, but which can be shown to have been printed by two of the most important and wellconnected parliamentarian printers. They contain statements of the most advanced parliamentarian political theory then available to the public, and the very nature of such ideas required authors' and stationers' names to be kept unknown. The existence and activity of the press sheds important light on Parker's Observations, by revealing how appreciation of such works can be enhanced by their political contextualization, situated within a corpus of other works from the same printer. However, by exploring the circumstances in which such works appeared, one can suggest that this imprint was not just a venture of ambitious publishers and independent parliamentarian polemicists. Although anonymous, the personal circumstances of one author, the press's most important contributor, together with the timing and context of their appearance, indicate that these tracts appeared with support from inside Parliament - from the 'fiery spirits' around John Pym and Lord Saye. In other words, the press was used to promulgate the opinions of the most radical parliamentarian grandees, whose other avenues of publicity were curtailed by the delays in parliamentary procedure and factional differences that made access to official printing difficult. Whatever the extent to which Parker dominated the press's output, the operation was about more than merely his pamphlets or the views of the other authors. The strenuous efforts to maintain these pamphlets' anonymity were prompted not only by the need to protect the printers, publishers and authors, but also by the necessity of defending the position of these political figures. Their patronage and influence can be traced through the bibliographical evidence.
The radical press may be regarded, therefore, as a prototype in propaganda techniques used by a parliamentary faction, and as an early instance of the growing sophistication of the political press during the 1640s and 1650s. It reveals the ways in which such political figures began to engage with, and 'stir up', the public, and assists in distilling the nature of their agenda, which involved putting pressure upon the King and opposing peace, as well as securing military and financial support throughout the three kingdoms. It also indicates the extent to which their strategic goals were centred on issues of constitutional power, since the arguments they deployed were based on pre-eminently political rather than religious or doctrinal disputes, and on a political philosophy of parliamentary sovereignty that was very advanced and ahead of its time. One can therefore look to the radical press in 1642 for evidence that the 'fiery spirits' among the parliamentarians were more ideologically driven than recent historiography has suggested.
NOTES
1 I am grateful to members of the Seventeenth Century British History seminar at the Institute of Historical Research [IHR], University of London, for comments on an earlier version of this paper.
2 See M. Bell, 'Hannah Allen and the Development of a Puritan Publishing Business, 1646-51', Publishing History, 26 (1989), 5-66; A. F. Johnson, 'The "Cloppenburg" Press, 1640, 1641', The Library, 5th ser., 13 (1958), 280-2; id., 'The Exiled English Church at Amsterdam and its Press', The Library, 5th ser., 5 (1951), 219-42; id., 'J. F. Stam, Amsterdam and the English Bible', The Library, 5th ser., 9 (1954), 18593; id., 'Willem Christiaans, Leyden, and his English Books', The Library, 5th ser., 10 (1955), 121-3.
3 P. Lindenbaum, 'Authors and Publishers in the Late Seventeenth Century II: Brabazon Aylmer and the mysteries of trade', The Library, 7th ser., 3 (2002), 32-57; id., 'John Playford: Music and politics in the Interregnum', Huntington Library Quarterly [hereafter cited as HLQ], 64 (2001), 124-38; J. Morrill and P. Baker, 'The Case of the Armie Truly Re-Stated', in The Putney Debates of 1647, ed. M. Mendle (Cambridge 2001), p.110; M. Mendle, 'Putney's Pronouns: Identity and indemnity in the Great Debate', in ibid., pp.128-30.
4 E. Evendon, 'The Michael Wood Mystery: William Cecil and the Lincolnshire printing of John Day' (London: IHR seminar, 26 Nov. 2001).
5 A. Weiss, 'Bibliographical Methods for Identifying Unknown Printers in Elizabethan/Jacobean Books', Studies in Bibliography, 44 (1991), 184-228.
6 [H. Parker], Observations ([London, 2 July, 1642], E153/26, 'per H. Park'). Catalogue numbers and dates are, unless otherwise stated, taken from copies in the Thomason Collection in the British Library [BL].
7 W. Laud, The Works, 7 vols (New York 1975), iii. 333-4; Edward [Hyde], Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, ed. W. D. Macray, 6 vols (Oxford 1888), ii. 234-5.
8 R. Baxter, ReliquiaeBaxterianae, ed. M. Sylvester (London 1696), p.41; Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution, 1638-1647, ed. W. Haller, 3 vols (New York 1965), i. 26.
9 J. T. Peacey, 'Henry Parker and Parliamentary Propaganda in the English Civil Wars' (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1994), pp.78-84, 271-4; M. Mendle, Henry Parker and the English Civil War (Cambridge 1995), pp.90-136; R. Tuck, Philosophy and Government, 1572 1651 (Cambridge 1993), pp.202-78.
10 Parker's entire tract was reproduced in Tracts on Liberty, ed. Haller, ii. 165-213.
11 P. Blayney, The Texts of King Lear and Their Origins. Vol. 1 (Cambridge 1982), pp.447-9.
12 This is not simply a question of survival, since no known copies of the work contain a separate title-page, and the printers' signatures indicate that it was not intended to have one, since the first page is signature A, rather than A2. The lack of a title-page was unusual at this time (if not in the later 1640s), and it is interesting that among the few other examples from 1642 were works which sought to mimic, and exploit the popularity of, the Observations - Observations Upon the Times ([London, 10 Nov. 1642], E126/40); Observations Upon the Prince of Orange ([London, 11 Nov. 1642], E126/49); Observations Upon the Effects of Former Parliament ([London 1642], E107/13).
13 Blayney, pp.445-6. These factotums were not absolutely identical, but were extremely similar in design.
14 See Appendix.
15 A Paradox can be attributed to Edward Browne from its references to Browne's other works and to his employer, Sir James Cambell, and from Browne's later mention of it: A Paradox Usefull for the Times ([London, 5 Nov. 1642], E126/21), sigs. A3, A3v; E. Browne, A Description ofan Annuall World (London 1641); id., A Potent Vindication ([London, 16 Nov. 1642], E242/13), p.5. Attributions to Parker are based on evidence from his friend, Thomason. Walwyn has been credited as author of Some Considerations Tending to the Undeceiving ([London, 10 Nov. 1642], E126/45), reprinted in The Writings of William Walwyn, ed. J. R. McMichael and B. Taft (London 1989), pp. 62-77. However, the Cambridge University Library catalogue attributes this work to Parker, and their copy is in a volume once owned by the contemporary parliamentarian grandee, Arthur Annesley, Earl of Anglesey, which contains four Parker tracts, and three attacks upon him: CUL, Syn 7.64.118.
16 The one exception may be Browne's Paradox, a curious and ambiguous work in itself, which describes the government of the English as 'a free state', whose people 'fear as great a tyrannical jurisdiction in an aristocratical, or democratical government, as they do in the known monarchical state of the kingdom', and favoured 'a well composed monarchical government' ([Browne], Paradox, sigs. A, A2v, A3). Browne's other works betray at best neutralist, and at worst, royalist sympathies (Browne, Potent Vindication, pp.5, 7). This work also contains a more distinctive initial letter 'A'.
17 [H. Parker], Some Few Observations ([London, c.22 June 1642], E151/ 23, 'by Mr Hen: Parker'). The second edition is slightly different in appearance, albeit only in employing different printing ornaments: National Archives, Public Record Office, Kew, State Papers, SP 16/ 490, fols. 150-153v; Calendar of State Papers Domestic [hereafter cited as CSPD] 1641-3, p.327. The same applies to the second edition of Parker's Observations.
18 A Letter Sent by a Yorkshire Gentleman ([London, c.15 June 1642], E150/5). The dating of this tract has been extrapolated from other items in Thomason's volume.
19 What Kinde of Parliament Will Please the King (London, [July] 1642, E155/12), pp.1-5.
20 A Perfect Diurnall of the Severall Passages in our Late Journey into Kent ([London, 10 Sept. 1642], E116/33), pp.1-8; T. Paske, The Copy of a Letter Sent to an Honourable Lord (London, [9 Sept.] 1642, E116/22). The latter deployed neither an initial letter device nor a factotum.
21 Queene Elizabeths Bishops (London, [c.30 July] 1642, E108/23); G. Eglisham, The Fore-Runner of Revenge (London, [30 Sept.] 1642, E119/15). The dating of the first tract has been extrapolated from other items in Thomason's volume. For Eglisham's tract, see A. Bellany, 'Poisons, Pamphlets and Politics: The case of George Eglisham's Forerunner of Revenge' (Baltimore: paper delivered at North American Conference on British Studies conference, 2002); id., 'The Poisoning of Legitimacy: Court scandal, news culture and politics in England, 1603-1660' (PhD thesis, Princeton University, 1995), pp.681-3. I am extremely grateful to Dr Alastair Bellany for providing me with copies of his paper and thesis.
22 An Appeale to the World ([London, 12 July 1642], E107/26), pp.3-5.
23 [H. Parker], A Petition or Declaration (London, [17 July] 1642, E107/ 29, 'by Hen. Parker esq.'), pp.1, 2-4, 4-6.
24 [Walwyn], Some Considerations..., pp.1-2, 10, 12.
25 Ibid. 4; The Case of the Commission of Array Stated ([London, 20 Oct. 1642], E123/18).
26 A Discourse Betweene a Resolved, and a Doubtfull Englishman ([London, 3 Dec. 1642], E128/41), sig. A4v; An Answer to the London Petition ([London, 14 Dec. 1642], E130/18); The Way of Reconcilement ([London, Dec. 1642], BL Catalogue, 8122.d.48), p.4.
27 An Appeale., pp.3-5.
28 Way of Reconcilement, p.2.
29 Reasons Why this Kingdom Ought to Adhere to the Parliament ([London, 1 Aug. 1642], E108/30), p.4; [Walwyn], Some Considerations..., pp.3-4.
30 An Appeale., p.4; [Parker], Petition or Declaration, pp.1, 2-4, 4-6; Reasons Why this Kingdom..., pp.2, 3, 4-5, 9.
31 M. Mendle, 'Politics and Political Thought, 1640-1642', in The Origins of the English Civil War, ed. C. Russell (Basingstoke 1973), p.226.
32 An Appeale., p.3; Queene Elizabeths Bishops, pp.1-9, 11, 12. The bulk of this tract is a reprint from John Udall, A Parte of a Register (Middleburg 1593), pp.1-5. I am grateful to Tom Freeman for assistance on this point.
33 [Walwyn], Some Considerations..., pp.5, 6, 9.
34 Way of Reconcilement, p.5.
35 See J. Morrill, 'The Religious Context of the English Civil War', in The Nature of the English Revolution, ed. Morrill (London 1993), 45-68; id., 'Sir William Brereton and England's Wars of Religion', Journal of British Studies, 24 (1985), 311-32; I. M. Green, '"England's Wars of Religion"? Religious conflict and the English Civil Wars', in Church, Change and Revolution, ed. J. van den Berg and R. G. Hoftijzer (Leiden 1991), 100-21. Nevertheless, see also G. Burgess, 'Was the English Civil War a War of Religion? The evidence of political propaganda', HLQ, 61 (2000), 173-201.
36 F. Bowers, Principles of Bibliographical Description (Princeton, NJ, 1949), pp.135-86.
37 House ofCommons Journals [hereafter cited as CJ], II (1640-43) pp.611, 624, 734, 736, 739; Historical Manuscripts Commission [HMC], 5th Report (London: H.M.S.O., 1876), p.16; House of Lords Record Office [HLRO], Main Papers, MP 5/4/42; A Declaration ... Concerning Irregular Printing (London 1642); The Private Journals of the Long Parliament, ed. W. H. Coates, A. S. Young and V. F. Snow [hereafter cited as Private Journals], 3 vols (New Haven, Conn., 1982-92), iii. 314; House of Lords Journals [hereafter cited as LJ], IV (1628-42) p.700; V (1642-43) pp.156, 321.
38 See Blayney, pp.435-51; R. B. McKerrow, Printers' and Publishers' Devices in England and Scotland 1485-1640 (London: Bibliographical Society, 1913); McKerrow and F. S. Ferguson, Title Page Borders Used in England and Scotland, 1485-1640 (London: Bibliographical Society, 1932). Both Puritans and Roman Catholics had, since the late sixteenth century, endeavoured to employ new and distinctive fonts and devices in order to evade capture, and these attracted official attention. See P. Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford 1967), p.391; J. Peacey, 'The Paranoid Prelate: Archbishop Laud and the Puritan plot', in Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Britain and Europe 1500-1800, ed. B. Coward and J. Swann (Aldershot 2004); F. Isaac, English Printers' Types of the Sixteenth Century (Oxford 1936), pp.47-52.
39 On other occasions, Thomason recorded precisely such information: [W. Prynne], Aphorismes of the Kingdome ([London], 1642, E240/26: 'printed 6 October 1642 at London by Allen in Popes Head Alley'); The Declaration of the Convention of Estates (London 1643, E71/27: 'printed by Mr Griffin for Richard Whitaker').
40 Bowers, pp.148-80; Blayney, p.451.
41 E. C. Reilly, A Dictionary ofColonial American Printers' Ornaments and Illustrations (Worcester, Conn.: American Antiquarian Society, 1975). Blayney has warned of the importance of care in avoiding the 'pitfalls awaiting the unwary ornament-hunter': Blayney, quoted in Weiss, p.197. For examples of their use, see A Miracle: An Honest Broker (London 1642, E246/34); [T. May], A Discourse Concerning the Successe of Former Parliaments (London 1642, E154/51). For tracts where the publisher is known: C. Downing, Considerations Towards a Peaceable Reformation in Matters Ecclesiastical (London, for R. Hearn, 1641, E179/7); The Resolution of the Gentry and Commonalty in the County of Nottingham (London, for H. Fowler, 1642, E117/7); A Relation from Belfast (London, for J. Bartlet, 1642, E112/23); The Humble Petition of the Scottish (London, for J. Bartlet, 1642, E112/24); H. G., Englands Present Distractions (London, for F. Wright, 1642, E126/19); Exceeding Ioyfvll Nevves (London, for H. Hutton, 1642, E121/28); G.B.C., Plots, Conspiracies, and Attempts (London, for R. Rounthwait, 1642, E121/29); A Letter Sent out ofHolland (London, for T. Johnson, 1642, E121/42); A True Relation of the Taking of the City of York (London, for T. Cooke, 1642, E118/14); A Plea for Peace (London, for F. Coles, 1642, E118/23); T. Jordan, Rules to Know a Royall King from a Disloyal Subject (London, for R. Wood and E. Christopher, [28 July] 1642, E108/14); The Churches Thank-Offering (London, for T.U., 1641, E122/1); W. Carter, Israels Peace with God (London, for G. Calvert, to be sold by C. Meredith, 1642, E118/6); The Somerset Petition (London, for G. Lindsey, 1642, E155/16); The Round-Head Uncovered (London, for G. Lindsey, 1642, E108/2); W. L., The Courts of Justice Corrected and Amended (London, for G. Lindsey, [1 Aug.] 1642, E108/30).
42 A True Relation of the Late Expedition into Kent (London, by T. Fawcet, 1642); The Commission ofArray Arraigned and Condemned (London, by T. F. for H. H., 1642, E118/8); A Looking-Glasse (London, by G. W., 1642, E88/9); J. Mede, A Paraphrase (London, by R. Bishop for S. Man, 1642, E136/11); O. Bowles, Zeale for Gods House (London, by R. Bishop for S. Gellibrand, 1643, E63/6); A Revindication of Psalme 105.15 (Cambridge, by R. Daniel, 1643, E245/28); His Majesties Answer to the Declaration of Both Houses... Concerning the Commission ofArray (Cambridge, by R. Daniel, 1642, E114/20); R. Cudworth, A Sermon (Cambridge, by R. Daniel, 1647, E383/7); The Copy of a Letter From Colonell Francis Anderson (Oxford, by L. Lichfield, 1643, E32/ 10); M. Pricket, An Appeale (Oxford, by L. Lichfield, 1644, E4/26); Private Formes of Prayer (Oxford, by L. Lichfield, 1645, E1176/3).
43 J. Ley, A Comparison (London, G. M. for T. Underhill, 1641, E176/9); O. St John, An Argument ofLaw Concerning the Bill ofAttainder ofHigh Treason of Thomas Earle of Strafford (London, by G. M. for J. Bartlet, 1641, E208/7); A. Grosse, Sweet and Soule Perswading Inducements (London, by G. M. for J. Bartlet, 1642, E120/1); A True Extract of SeverallLetters (London, by G. Miller, 1643, E60/16); W. Gouge, The Saints Support (London, by G. M. for J. Kirton, 1642, E107/1); A Disclaimer and Answer (London, by G. M., 1643, E100/23). D. Wing, Short Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England... 1641-1700, 4 vols (New York: Modern Language Society of America, 1972-98), iv. 61516.
44 D. F. McKenzie, Stationers' Company Apprentices 1605-40 (Charlottesville, Va: Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia, 1961), pp.15-16; A Briefe Discourse of the Troubles Begun at Frankeford (London, by G. B. and R. W. for T. Underhill, 1642); J. Goodwin, Anti-Cavalierisme (London, by G. B. and R. W. for H. Overton, 1642, E123/25); E. Reynoldes, Israel's Petition (London, by G. Bishop and R. White for R. Bostock, 1642, E110/12). They were responsible for John Dillingham's Parliament Scout and Moderate Intelligencer, as well as The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer and MercuriusBritanicus. See J. B. Williams, The History ofEnglish.Journalism (London 1908), pp.223-30; H. R. Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers ... 1641-1667 (London: Bibliographical Society, 1907), p.24; CSPD 1641-3, pp.563, 566; 1644, p.562; J. Peacey, 'The Struggle for Mercurius Britanicus: Factional politics and the parliamentarian press, 1643-6' (forthcoming).
45 An Answer to an Impertinent Pamphlet Lately set Forth by John Spencer (London, by G. B. and R. W. for W. L., 1641, E135/29); The Pathway to Peace (London, by G. B. and R. W. for G. C., 1643, E1181/1); The Souldiers Pocket Bible (London, by G. B. and R. W. for G. C., 1643).
46 Goodwin, Anti-Cavalierisme; J. Ley, A Learned Treatise (London, by G. Bishop and R. White for H. Shepheard, 1642); W. Scotten, A Desperate and Dangerous Designe (London by G. B. and R. W. for R. Constable, 1642); W. Whittingham, A Briefe Discourse (London, by G. Bishop and R. White for T. Underhill, 1642); An Alarme for London (London, by G. B. and R. W., 1643). For the initial 'I', see Answer to an Impertinent Pamphlet, sig. A2; Desperate and Dangerous Designe, sigs. A2, A3.
47 Mendle, Henry Parker, pp.82-5, 87; Tuck, p.230. See also Clarendon's History, v. 118-20, 157-201, 217-48; D. Hirst, The Representative of the People? (Cambridge 1975).
48 For references to the Observations and Some Few Observations, see [Browne], Paradox, sig. A; Reasons Why This Kingdom..., pp.2-3, 11. The latter was itself the target of a royalist work which, interestingly, also sought to argue against 'the Observer' - Reasons Why This Kingdom ... Ought to Adhere to Their King (York 1642). The author of The Way of Reconcilement complained that 'there are books lately published of purpose to possess the people that the king is a part of the Parliament, and by his negative voice able to oversway all the rest, witness the answer to the Observator' (Way of Reconcilement, p.4). Furthermore, An Appeale to the World cited the Letter from Yorkshire: An Appeale, p.6.
49 An Appeale..., pp.1-2; see Mendle, Henry Parker, p.92.
50 Answer to the London Petition, pp.1, 2; see Peacey, 'Henry Parker', p.87.
51 Way of Reconcilement, pp.3-4, 6; see Peacey, 'Henry Parker', pp.87-8.
52 Way of Reconcilement, pp.5-6.
53 Discourse..., sig. A2.
54 An Appeale..., pp.1-2.
55 [Parker], Petition or Declaration, pp.1, 2-4, 4-6. For this tract, see Mendle, Henry Parker, p.88; Reasons Why this Kingdom., p. 10. For the latter, see Peacey, 'Henry Parker', pp.85-6.
56 An Appeale., p.2.
57 Reasons Why this Kingdom., p.11.
58 Discourse., sig. A3v; D. Wootton, 'From Rebellion to Revolution: The crisis of the winter of 1642/3 and the origins of Civil War radicalism', English Historical Review, 105 (1990), 654-69 (p.661).
59 An Appeale..., p. 5; Letter Sent by a Yorkshire Gentleman, passim.
60 Answer to the London Petition, pp.3-4.
61 Eglisham, Fore-Runner of Revenge, sigs. Av-A2.
62 An Appeale..., pp.6-7.
63 Reasons Why this Kingdom..., p.7.
64 Case of the Commission of Array..., pp.5, 6.
65 Discourse..., sig. Av.
66 Way of Reconcilement, p.4.
67 Some Considerations..., p.15.
68 See J. Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the Civil Wars and Interregnum (Aldershot 2004).
69 A Declaration of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament (London, [by G. B. and R. W.] for H. Fowler, [24 Sept.] 1642, E118/ 36).
70 Mendle, Henry Parker, ch. 1; Peacey, 'Henry Parker', ch. 2.
71 His Majesties Answer to a Book (London 1642); An Exact Collection ofall Remonstrances (London 1643), pp.263-99; LJ, V. 78; [Parker], Some Few Observations. The receipt of a message from York on 30 May prompted the Commons to nominate Fiennes, Pym and Hampden (and three others) to prepare an answer, which formed part of the paperwork for a conference, managed by Lord Wharton, which formalized the Nineteen Propositions, accepted on 1 June: LJ, V. 80, 89-91,96-9; CJ, II. 593, 595-7; Private Journals, ii. 386-7, 388-402; for the Nineteen Propositions, see Exact Collection..., pp.307-10.
72 Ibid. 311-27; [Parker], Observations, passim.
73 LJ, V. 141. The second of these, the more important committee, became yet more vital in the wake of the receipt (25 June) of the King's answer to the petition of 17 June. The Commons considered this 'the most dangerous and highest message that is come to us, whereby it appears the divers scandalous and false informations are come to His Majesties ears', and a committee was ordered to 'collect the falsities and scandals contained in this and the other messages, and to set them forth together in one declaration, and to show the several violations of the law, since the profession to the contrary', and to 'stir up the people': CJ, II. 635-48; LJ, V. 153, 161-3.
74 J. H. Hexter, The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), p.90; HMC, Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleuch., 2 vols (London 1897), i. 306; P. Crawford, Denzil Holles, 1598-1680 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1979), p.70; BL, Harleian MSS 163, fol. 252v; CJ, II. 642; Private Journals, iii. 254-9. The best treatment of parliamentarian politics and factions during this period is C. Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies, 1637-1642 (Oxford 1991).
75 Given that the similarities between the Observations and the new declaration were not great, D'Ewes appears to have been demonstrating his knowledge of a connection between 'the Observator' and the committee, without actually levelling a slanderous and scandalous accusation. The 'fiery spirits' probably protested too much in demanding the withdrawal of D'Ewes's statement. His version can be verified from other sources. D'Ewes was 'commanded to withdraw' from the chamber, and the House resolved that he should ask pardon 'for the imputation he has laid upon the committee by these words; and the offence that he has done to the House thereby; and that he should acknowledge his offence'. The House also resolved that he should receive official censure from the Speaker. D'Ewes duly received the rebuke from Lenthall and expressed his sorrow. The declaration, meanwhile, was re-committed for further consideration: CJ, II. 685, 687-9; Private Journals, iii. 249, 254-9; BL, Harleian MSS 163, fols. 291-2; M. Mendle, Dangerous Positions (Tuscaloosa, Ala., 1985), pp.181-2; Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, 36 vols (London 1806-20) [hereafter cited as CPH], ii, cols. 1433-40 (2 Aug. 1642); To the King's Most Excellent Majesty: the Humble Desires of the High Court of Parliament. Declaring the Grounds and Chief Motives That Induce Them to Proceed in This Course ofRaising a Guard (London 1642); J. Morrill, 'Paying One's D'Ewes', Parliamentary History, 14 (1995), 179-86. Cobbett misidentified the declaration of the committee responding to the King's answer to the Nineteen Propositions. For the attacks upon Parker, and his and others' replies, see Mendle, Henry Parker, pp.90-121; [H. Parker], The Observator Defended ([London, 26 Aug. 1642], E87/5, 'by Mr H. Parker esq.').
76 The ideas in Parker's work mirrored those appearing in more official pronouncements, particularly the often overlooked response to the King's declaration of 26 May, which for some reason was not published until Nov. 1642. An Exact Collection..., pp.686-730; BL, Hargrave MSS 98, fols. 68r-80v.
77 Peacey, 'Henry Parker', ch. 2; Politicians and Pamphleteers, passim.
78 Detailed attention to the machinations within Parliament after the outbreak of War has been remarkably slight. Nevertheless, it is possible to supplement old works with some very recent scholarship; see S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, 4 vols (London 1893; repr. 1987); D. Scott, Politics and War in the Three Stuart Kingdoms, 1637-1649 (Basingstoke 2003).
79 Private Journals, iii. 27-34; LJ, V. 107-11; CJ, II. 607-8; Two Petitions of the County of Yorke ... And a Perfect Relation of the Particular Passages at Yorke on Friday the 3 of June 1642 (London 1642). On 8 June, the Commons sought to investigate the subsequent appearance of the 'true and perfect relation' as a separate broadside. A True and Perfect Relation (London 1642); Private Journals, iii. 42.
80 Private Journals, iii. 83-4; CJ, II. 625; LJ, V. 137-8; The Humble Petition of the Lords and Commons ... Sent to His Majesty at York, 18 June 1642 (London 1642).
81 Private Journals, iii. 28-9, 32-4; CJ, II. 607; for an earlier exposition by Rushworth, similar in tone, see Private Journals, ii. 258-60. Few can have rivalled Rushworth for his knowledge of the events, both at Hull and York, contained in this tract. I am grateful to David Scott for discussion of this point.
82 Russell, Fall ofthe British Monarchies, pp.517-9; CJ, II. 666-9; LJ, V. 2048; [Parker], Petition or Declaration, pp.1,2-4, 4-6; CPH, ii, cols.1419-20; B. Donagan, 'A Courtier's Progress: Greed and consistency in the life of the Earl of Holland', Historical Journal, 19 (1976), 317-53.
83 [Parker], Petition or Declaration, pp.1, 2-4, 4-6.
84 In fact, Parker simply changed the header on the first page, and gave it a new title-page; CPH, ii, cols. 1420-9; CJ, II. 682, 689-90, 692-3; LJ, V. 222-4, 234-7, 242-4; [H. Parker], The Danger to England Observed ([London, 28 July], 1642, E108/17).
85 [Walwyn], Some Considerations..., p.3; see LJ, V. 430,431,434, 442,444.
86 Writings of William Walwyn, pp.1-2; Biographical Dictionary of British Radicals in the Seventeenth Century, ed. R. L. Greaves and R. Zaller, 3 vols (Brighton 1982-84); K. Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot 1997), pp.56, 72; Peacey, 'Henry Parker', pp.89-90.
87 HLRO, MP 22/12/42; The Londoners Petition (London 1642); A Modest Petition for a Happy Peace (London 1642); An Exact and True Relation of That Tumultuous Behaviour of Divers Citizens and Others at Guildhall (London 1642); The Petition of the Inhabitants of the City of Westminster ... Together with the Answer of the House of Peers ... the 20 of December 1642 (London 1642); CPH, iii, cols. 43-5; CJ, II. 883, 885, 894.
88 Answer to the London Petition, pp.1-4. Thomason adds that it was an answer to the 'frivolous petition of London 'presented the 13 Decemb: 1642'.
89 LJ, V. 496, 500; Peacey, 'Henry Parker', pp.86-8.
90 The True and Originall Copy of the First Petition (London 1642); BL, Harleian MSS 164, fols. 175v, 245v; A Frivolous Paper in Forme of a Petition (London 1642).
91 Way of Reconcilement, pp.2-3.
92 Private Journals, iii. 338-40.
93 Paske's letter appears to have been directed towards the Chancellor of Cambridge University, the Earl of Holland; T. Paske, Copy of a Letter., p.3. The Diurnall was probably the work of Col. Edwin Sandys, Sir John Seaton, Sir William Brooke, Sir Michael Livesay or Richard Lee; Private Journals, iii. 338-40; CJ, II. 760; CSPD 1641-3, pp.374-5.
94 CJ, II. 754; Private Journals, iii. 244, 319n, 329, 335; Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, pp.518-22; LJ, V. 229; BL, Harleian MSS 164, fol. 284b; Queene Elizabeths Bishops, pp. 10-12. See also N. Fiennes, Unparallel'd Reasons for Abolishing Episcopacy (London, [12 Oct.] 1642, E121/39). For attempts to secure Scottish support, see C. Russell, 'The Scottish Party in English Parliaments, 1640-2, or, the Myth of the English Revolution', Historical Research, 66 (1993), 35-52. For the use of print, and Parker, in such plans, see J. Peacey, 'Junto Practices: Printing and publishing and the meaning of texts in the 95 English Civil War' (London: SHARP conference, July 2002).
95 Two Proclamations by the King (London 1642); A Copy of the Commission of Array (London 1642); Private Journals, iii. 95, 99-100, 108, 110, 145, 147-8, 149-50, 153-4, 173, 238, 241,263, 333; CJ, II. 630-2, 643, 645, 6812, 689, 752-3; LJ, V. 148-51, 170, 172, 339, 446, 533-5; A Declaration of the Lords and Commons ... Upon the Statute of 5.H.4 Whereby the Commission of Array is Supposed to be Warranted (London 1642); Two Declarations of the Lords and Commons (London 1642); His Majesties Answer to the Declaration of Both Houses ... Concerning the Commission of Array (Cambridge 1642); A Declaration of the Lords and Commons ... That it Shall be Lawfall for Any of His Majesties Subjects to Seize Upon the Persons of All Such as Shall Execute the Illegal Commission of Array (London 1642). Selden explained his role in drafting declarations to Falkland in June 1642, and his papers contain extensive legal notes regarding the commissions of array, annotations on royal declarations, and draft declarations; Bodleian Library, MS Selden supra. 123, fols. 4-5, 7-15v, 63-74, 96-9v, 100-3, 118v-19, 120-51v, 160, 176-91v; id., supra. 124, pp.1-135.
96 Gardiner, i. 39-40.
97 Discourse..., sig. A4v; Answer to the London Petition, passim; Way of Reconcilement, p.4; Gardiner, i. 64-5, 72.
98 Eglisham, Fore-Runner of Revenge, sig. Av.
99 Ibid.
100 Discourse., sigs. A2v-A3, A3v.
APPENDIX
(a) Works without title-pages:
A Letter Sent by a Yorkshire Gentleman ([c.15 June 1642], E150/5).
[H. Parker], Some Few Observations ([c.22 June 1642], E151/23,'by Mr Hen: Parker').
[H. Parker], Observations ([2 July 1642], E153/26, 'per H.Park:').
An Appeale to the World in These Times of Extreame Danger ([12 July 1642], E107/26).
Reasons Why This Kingdom Ought to Adhere to the Parliament ([1 Aug. 1642], E108/30).
A Perfect Diurnall ofthe Severall Passages in our Late Journey into Kent ([10 Sept. 1642], E116/33).
The Case ofthe Commission of Array Stated ([20 Oct. 1642], E123/18).
[E. Browne], A Paradox Usefull for the Times ([5 Nov. 1642], E126/21).
[W. Walwyn], Some Considerations Tending to the Undeceiving ([10 Nov. 1642], E126/45).
A Discourse Betweene a Resolved, and a Doubtfull Englishman ([3 Dec. 1642], E128/41).
An Answer to the London Petition ([14 Dec. 1642], E130/18).
The Way of Reconcilement ([Dec. 1642], 8122.d.48).
(b) Works with title-pages
[H. Parker], A Petition or Declaration ([17 July] 1642, E107/29, 'by Hen. Parker esq.').
[H. Parker], The Danger to England Observed ([28 July] 1642, E108/17).
Queene Elizabeths Bishops ([c.30 July 1642], E108/23).
What Kinde of Parliament Will Please the King (London, [July] 1642, E155/12).
T. Paske, The Copy ofa Letter Sent to an Honourable Lord ([9 Sept. 1642], E116/ 22).
G. Eglisham, The Fore-Runner ofRevenge (London, [30 Sept.] 1642, E119/15).
Copyright Chadwyck-Healey Ltd 2004