¹ Sackville-West, V., Knole and the Sackvilles (London, 1922), p. 82Google Scholar.

² Wormald, B. H. G., Clarendon: politics, history and religion, 1640–1660 (Cambridge, 1951Google Scholar; reprinted, 1989).

³ This bias is apparent in Gardiner, S. R., History of the Great Civil War, 1642–1649 (4 vols., London, 1893Google Scholar; reprinted, 1987), and has not been fully remedied since. On political developments at Westminster during the 1640s we now have major studies such as Underdown, D., Pride's purge: politics in the Puritan revolution (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar; Worden, B., The Rump Parliament, 1648–53 (Cambridge, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Yule, G., Puritans in politics (Sutton Courtney, 1981)Google Scholar. The parliamentarian armies are closely analysed in Holmes, C., The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974)Google Scholar; and Kishlansky, M. A., The rise of the new model army (Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar. Similarly, many of the local studies focus more on parliamentarian than royalist areas: see, for example, Everitt, A., The community of Kent and the great rebellion (Leicester, 1966)Google Scholar; Morrill, J. S., Cheshire 1630–1660: county government and society during the English revolution (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar; Morrill, J. S., The revolt of the provinces: conservatives and radicals in the English Civil War, 1630–1650 (Longman edn, London, 1980)Google Scholar; Hughes, A., Politics, society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The less substantial literature on royalism is briefly reviewed in the next note. This historiographical imbalance is also discussed in Hutton, R., The royalist war effort, 1642–1646 (Harlow, 1982), pp. xi–xviGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Apart from Wormald's study, there is only one post-war biography of Clarendon: Harris, R. W., Clarendon and the English revolution (London, 1983)Google Scholar. This compares with four of Prince Rupert: Fergusson, B. E., Rupert of the Rhine (London, 1952)Google Scholar; Thomson, G. M., Warrior prince: Prince Rupert of the Rhine (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Morrah, P., Prince Rupert of the Rhine (London, 1976)Google Scholar; and Ashley, M., Rupert of the Rhine (London, 1976)Google Scholar; and with one of Hopton: Edgar, F. T. R., Sir Ralph Hopton: the king's man in the west, 1642–52 (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar. Rupert's ubiquity owes much to the ready availability of Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the cavaliers, ed. Warburton, E. (3 vols., London, 1849)Google Scholar. In recent years, several works on the recruitment, membership and organization of royalist armies have appeared, notably Newman, P. R., Royalist officers in England and Wales, 1642–1660: a biographical dictionary (London, 1981)Google Scholar; Hutton, War effort; and Malcolm, J., Caesar's due: loyalty and King Charles, 1642–6 (London, 1983)Google Scholar. By contrast, there are no biographies of royalist moderates such as the duke of Richmond, the marquess of Hertford, the earls of Dorset, Southampton and Lindsey, Sir John Culpepper and Sir John Strangeways. Nor do we have any account of their collective involvement in peace negotiations. Mendle, M., Dangerous positions: mixed government, the estates of the realm, and the making of the answer to the XIX propositions (Alabama, 1985)Google Scholar, is valuable on the ideological context, but deals with political theory rather than practice; while our knowledge of the royalist party at Oxford in 1642–6 is limited to a tightly focused debate on its composition, examined below, p. 819. I am currently preparing a monograph on the nature and significance of constitutional royalism before and during the Civil Wars.

⁵ Sumner, A., ‘The political career of Lord George Digby until the end of the first Civil War’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1985)Google Scholar.

⁶ Hyde, Edward, earl of Clarendon, The history of the rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed. Macray, W. D. (6 vols., Oxford, 1888)Google Scholar, I, 76 (book 1, § 131). Clarendon's account is confused in places, and this quotation comes under the heading of Dorset's elder brother, the third earl. But since Clarendon also refers to his sitting in the Commons and the privy council, which the third earl never did, I assume that he must be thinking of the fourth earl.

⁷ See, for example, Nugent, Lord, Some memorials of John Hampden, his party and his times (London, 1854), p. 216Google Scholar; Granger, J., Biographical history of England (4 vols., London, 1775), II, 120Google Scholar.

⁸ Gardiner, S. R., History of England from the accession of James I to the outbreak of the Civil War, 1603–42 (12 vols. in 10, London, 1883–1884), VI, 282Google Scholar. See also VI, 138, 150, 288. But for some qualification, see IV, 69–70.

⁹ , Clarendon, History, ed. , Macray, I, 75Google Scholar (book 1, § 129); Hallam, H., The constitutional history of England (London, 1870), p. 321Google Scholar. , Gardiner, History of England, IV, 70Google Scholar. For some recent references to Dorset as a courtier, see Gruenfelder, J. K., ‘The election to the Short Parliament’, in Early Stuart studies, ed. Reinmuth, H. S. (Minneapolis, 1970), pp. 180–230, at p. 183Google Scholar; Zaller, R., The parliament of 1621 (London, 1971), p. 74Google Scholar; Finlayson, M., Historians, Puritanism and the English revolution (Toronto, 1983), p. 92Google Scholar.

¹⁰ It is worth noting, however, that there are some exceptions to this widespread characterization of Dorset. See, for example, Russell, Conrad, Parliaments and English politics, 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), especially pp. 315, 369–70, 372–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blakiston's, H. E. D. life of Dorset in Dictionary of national biography, ed. Stephen, L. et al. (63 vols., London, 1885–1900)Google Scholar [hereafter cited as D.N.B.], L, 89–91, especially 91; and (most relevant to the concerns of this article), Crummett, J. B., ‘The lay peers in parliament, 1640–1644’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1972), pp. 348–9Google Scholar.

¹¹ P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], SP 14/161/50 (Sir Francis Nethersole to Sir Dudley Carleton, 29 Mar. 1624); B[ritish] L[ibrary], Egerton MS 784 (diary of William Whiteway, 1618–34), fol. 40v. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 68–9Google Scholar.

¹² P.R.O., SP 14/169/55 (commissions to the earls of Arundel and Dorset, 12 Jul. 1624); C 231/4 (crown office docquet book, 1616–29), fols. 169v, 180r; E 163/18/12 (Liber Pads of 1626), fol. 107v; Ind. 1/6746 (privy seal office docquet book, 1619–26), unfol., Jul. 1624; B.L., Add. charter 29276 (commissions to the earls of Dorset and Arundel); Add. MS 33058 (Newcastle papers relating to Sussex), fols. 63–4; Harl. MS 1622 (Liber Pads of 1625), fol. 108v. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 270–87Google Scholar.

¹³ Bod[leian] Lib[rary], MS Ashmole 1132 (papers relating to the Order of the Garter), fol. 122r; B.L., Add. MS 27962 D (Salvetti correspondence, vol. IV, 1625–7), fol. IIIV; Add. MS 37998 (Sir Edward Walker's papers relating to the Order of the Garter), fol. 56r; Trinity College Library, Cambridge, MS 0.7.3 (diary of Edward Whitby), fol. 3r. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 73, 154–5Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Trinity College Library, Cambridge, MS 0.7.3, fol. 5r The acts of the privy council of England, 1542–1631, ed. Dasent, J. R. et al. (46 vols., London, 1890–1964)Google Scholar, XLI (Jun. Dec. 1626), 117; P.R.O., PRO 31/3/64, fol. 122r. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 76–7, 116–30Google Scholar.

¹⁵ P.R.O., LS 13/169 (Board of Green Cloth entry book, 1627–42), p. 42; SP 16/110/31 (Sir Robert Aiton to the earl of Carlisle, 18 July 1628); C[ambridge] U[niversity] L[ibrary], Add. MS 6863 (diary of Judge Richard Hutton, 1614–39), fol. 43r; B.L., Add. MS 64897(Coke papers, vol. XXVIII, 1628), fol. 34r. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 99–100, 130–62Google Scholar.

¹⁶ P.R.O., SP 16/117/40 (commission for the office of lord admiral of England, 20 Sept. 1628).

¹⁷ P.R.O., C 231/4 (crown office docquet book, 1616–29), fol. 258r; Ind. 1/6747 (privy seal office docquet book, 1626–31), unfol., Oct. 1628. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 103, 318–27Google Scholar.

¹⁸ At the request of both houses of parliament, the king appointed seven such commissioners (the earls of Manchester, Hertford, Lindsey, Essex, Bath and Dorset, and Sir Edward Littleton) for the duration of his Scottish visit of Aug.–Nov. 1641: P.R.O., PRO 30/53/9/11 (parliamentary diary of Lord Herbert, 14 Jun. 1641–30 May 1642), fol. 91r–v; SP 16/483/34 (Thomas Smith to the earl of Northumberland, 10 Aug. 1641). For the powers of the office of Custos regni in the reign of Henry VI, see Roskell, J. S., ‘The office and dignity of Protector of England, with special reference to its origins’, English Historical Review, LXVIII (1953), 193–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The revival of such medieval offices during the early 1640s is discussed in Adamson, J. S. A., ‘The baronial context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fifth series, XL (1990), 93–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ See below, p. 818. Dorset also held numerous local offices, including high steward of Barnstaple, high steward of Great Yarmouth, and constable of the castle and captain of the town of Beaumaris: see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 223–6, 309–17, 327–8Google Scholar.

²⁰ Dorset's attempts to secure Suckling's election as member for Great Yarmouth, and their ultimate failure, are fully documented in Palmer, C. J., A history of Great Yarmouth (2 vols., London, 1854–1856), II, 206Google Scholar.

²¹ Clayton, T., ‘An historical study of the portraits of Sir John Suckling’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXIII (1960), 105–26, at 105–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 246–8Google Scholar.

²² Fletcher, A., A county community in peace and war: Sussex, 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 80–1Google Scholar. The best synopsis of Duppa's life is in the introduction to ‘The correspondence of Bishop Brian Duppa and Sir Justinian Isham, 1650–1660’, ed. Isham, G., Publ. Northamptonshire Record Society, XVII (1955), especially xix–xxxiGoogle Scholar. See also D.N.B., XVI, 242–3; and , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 244–5Google Scholar, and appendix 2.

²³ The autobiography of Sir John Bramston, K.B., ed. Bramston, T. W. (Camden Society, first series, vol. XXXII, 1845), 83Google Scholar. It should be noted, however, that this memoir was written by Chief Justice Bramston's son in the 1680s and therefore cannot be regarded as an unimpeachable source.

²⁴ P.R.O., PRO 31/9/19 (transcripts from Rome archives: reports by Carlo Rossetti), fol. 9r. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, p. 210Google Scholar.

²⁵ 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. Notestein, W. (New Haven, 1923), pp. 321–2Google Scholar. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, p. 210Google Scholar.

²⁶ Autobiography of Bramston, ed. Brarnston, , 83Google Scholar. The statute in question was 16 Car. I, cap. 7 (10 May 1641), printed in The constitutional documents of the Puritan revolution, 1625–1660, ed. Gardiner, S. R. (3rd edn, Oxford, 1906), pp. 158–9Google Scholar.

²⁷ , Clarendon, History, ed. , Macray, I, 451Google Scholar (book IV, § 110). For other contemporary accounts, see, for example, P.R.O., PRO 31/3/72 (Baschet's French transcripts: reports by French ambassadors), fol. 642v; Bod. Lib., MS Rawlinson D 932 (parliamentary diary of Sir John Holland, 4 Nov. – 18 Dec. 1641), fol. 56r; and N[orthamptonshire] R[ecord] O[ffice], Montagu MS 4 (Montagu of Boughton Corr., vol. II), p. 6: William Montagu to Lord Montagu, 2 Dec. 1641. For an interpretation of this episode, see below, pp. 806–7.

²⁸ The journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes from the first recess of the Long Parliament to the withdrawal of King Charles from London, ed. Coates, W. H. (New Haven, 1942), pp. 225–6Google Scholar.

²⁹ C[ommons] J[ournal], II, 330. See also Dyurnall Occurrences, or the Heads of Severall Proceedings in this present Parliament (29 11 – 6 12 1641), p. 4Google Scholar (British newspapers and periodicals, 1641–1700: a short-title catalogue of serials printed in England, Scotland, Ireland and British America, ed. Nelson, C. and Seccombe, M. [New York, 1987]Google Scholar [hereafter cited as S.T.C. (newspapers)], 181.102; B.L., T[homason] T[racts], E 201/2).

³⁰ One further element in the traditional view of Dorset which finds some contemporary corroboration is the charge of salaciousness. For this, see The parliament scout, no. 64 (5–13 Sept. 1644), p. 514 (S.T.C. (newspapers), 485.64); B.L., T.T., E 8/34). But for a vigorous rebuttal, see Mercurius Aulicus, no. 37 (8–14 Sept. 1644), p. 1158 (S.T.C. (newspapers), 275.237; B.L., T.T., E 12/18).

³¹ See Smith, ‘Dorset’ ch. 4.

³² I would argue that this is also true of Dorset's political career during the 1620s and 1630s: see Smith, ‘Dorset’, especially chs. 2 and 3.

³³ Miscellaneous state papers, 1501–1726, ed. Yorke, P. (2 vols., London, 1778), II, 168–70Google Scholar.

³⁴ State papers, ed. , Yorke, II, 169Google Scholar.

³⁵ This is discussed at length in , Smith, ‘Dorset’, ch. 2, especially pp. 103–4Google Scholar. But for one instance of this, see P.R.O., SP 16/529/40 (Dorset to the earl of Carlisle, 24 Nov. 1628).

³⁶ See below, pp. 812–14, 819–25.

³⁷ For an important reassessment of noble factions and the emergence of the consiliarii nati, see forthcoming work by J. S. A. Adamson.

³⁸ Downing, Calybute, A Sermon Preached to the renowned Company of the Artillery on 1 September 1640 (London, 1641)Google Scholar, sig. A3[r] (A short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and British America and of English books printed abroad, 1641–1700, ed. Wing, D. [3 vols., New York, 1945–1951] [hereafter cited as Wing], D 2105; B.L., T.T., E 157/4). For Dorset's reaction, see B.L., Harl. MS 383 (letter book of Sir Simonds D'Ewes), fol. 1851–: James Dee to Edmund Calamy, 25 Sept. 1640. I am most grateful to Peter Salt for this last reference, and for help in deciphering the manuscriptGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ This point is somewhat neglected in, for example, Hibbard, Caroline, Charles I and the popish plot (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1983), pp. 165–7Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ C.U.L., Buxton MS (Corr.) Box 1 (miscellaneous correspondence, 1584–1659), unfol.: William Le Neve to John Buxton, 8 Sept. 1640.

⁴¹ The journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. , Notestein, p. 393Google Scholar.

⁴² For an account of this, see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 218–23Google Scholar.

⁴³ See below, pp. 818–19.

⁴⁴ P.R.O., SP 16/466/107 (Secretary Windebanke's notes, 9 Sept. 1640); SP 16/467/28 (Secretary Vane to Secretary Windebanke, 11 Sept. 1640). See also Ceremonies of Charles I: the note books of John Finet, 1628–1641, ed. Loomie, A. J. (New York, 1987), pp. 288–9Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Russell, Conrad, ‘The first army plot of 1641’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fifth series, XXXVII (1988), 85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am most grateful to Professor Russell for confirming Dorset's noncomplicity in a private communication.

⁴⁶ Dorset also continued to discharge conscientiously his ceremonial duties as Henrietta Maria's lord chamberlain. These determined, in particular, his contribution to the negotiations over the marriage of Princess Mary to William of Orange in Jan.–May 1641. See Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague, archives of the states general, MS 8391 (journal of Van den Burch, secretary to the Dutch ambassadors to England, 1641), unfol., especially entries for 19, 29 Jan., 11 Feb., 4 Mar., 14 May 1641. I am most grateful to Simon Groenveld for sending me a transcript of these and other extracts from the journal, and for providing me with a translation.

⁴⁷ These figures are derived from H[ouse] [of] L[ords] R[ecord] O[ffice], house of lords manuscript minutes, vols. VII (11 Jan. – 10 Apr. 1641) and VIII (29 Nov. 1641 – 26 Mar. 1642), passim.

⁴⁸ Only twelve of the thirty-five privy councillors of Oct. 1640 can still be found attending the council meetings between 16 Jul. and 9 Aug. 1641: P.R.O., PC 2/53 (privy council register, 4 Oct. 1640–30 Aug. 1645), pp. 5, 145–77.

⁴⁹ L[ords] J[oural], IV, 175. P.R.O., PRO 31/3/72, fol. 468r.

⁵⁰ L.J., IV, 367.

⁵¹ L.J., IV, 449.

⁵² L.J., IV, 466.

⁵³ L.J., IV, 466.

⁵⁴ Adamson, J. S. A., ‘Parliamentary management, men-of-business and the house of lords, 1640–49’, in A pillar of the constitution: the house of lords in British politics, 1640–1784, ed. Jones, C. (London, 1989), pp. 21–50Google Scholar, especially pp. 21–9.

⁵⁵ Dorset was not among the eleven peers whom Nicholas requested to attend parliament on 8 Oct. 1641: Surrey Record Office: Guildford Muniment Room, Bray Deposit, 85/5/2/11 (Nicholas to the earls of Bath, Bristol, Cumberland, Devonshire, Huntingdon, Newcastle and Northampton, and Lords Cottington, Coventry, Poulett and Seymour, 8 Oct. 1641). Dorset may have been omitted from the list because he – unlike most of these eleven – was a privy councillor. However, it is striking that Dorset was never mentioned in Nicholas's correspondence with the queen during the last months of 1641: for example, Guildford Muniment Room, Bray Deposit, 52/2/19/28 (Nicholas to Henrietta Maria, 22 Oct. 1641).

⁵⁶ For an analysis of Dorset's activities in this office, see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 318–27Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ , Smith, ‘Dorset’, especially pp. 322–5Google Scholar. See also Nagel, L. C., ‘The militia of London, 1641–9’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1982), pp. 26–32Google Scholar. I owe this reference to Keith Lindley.

⁵⁸ For the invasion of the court of requests, see especially N.R.O., Montagu MS 4, p. 6. Perhaps this physical threat explains an apparently abortive attempt in the Lords to commend Dorset's action. Entered in the manuscript minutes for 2 Dec. is the sentence: ‘This House doth allowe and approve of what the E[arl] of Dorsett…’ This has been crossed through, which suggests that it was moved but then rejected. See H.L.R.O., house of lords manuscript minutes, vol. VIII, unfol., 2 Dec. 1641. I am most grateful to Professor Russell for advice on this point.

⁵⁹ See above, p. 803, and below, pp. 812–14, 819–25.

⁶⁰ H.L.R.O., house of lords manuscript minutes, vol. VIII, unfol., 9 Feb. 1641/2. L.J., IV, 572.

⁶¹ P.R.O., SP 16/489/19 (Sidney Bere to Sir John Pennington, 10 Feb. 1641/2).

⁶² L.J., IV, 579.

⁶³ The private journals of the Long Parliament, 3 January to 5 March 1642, ed. Coates, W. H., Young, A. S. and Snow, V. F. (New Haven, 1982), p. 430Google Scholar. The ‘Mr Roper’ referred to here was almost certainly Dorset's tenant Anthony Roper: see P.R.O., SP 23/193/221 (committee for compounding papers, 1646). His son Edward Roper later became Dorset's ward: P.R.O., C 7/103/103 (chancery proceedings, Hamilton's division); C 10/13/105 (chancery proceedings, Whittington's division).

⁶⁴ C.J., II, 467.

⁶⁵ P.R.O., SP 16/489/68 (Elizabeth, queen of Bohemia to Sir Thomas Roe, 7/17 Mar. 1641/2).

⁶⁶ H.L.R.O., house of lords manuscript minutes, vol. VIII, unfol., 7, 9, 12 and 22 March 1641/2. L.J., IV, 664.

⁶⁷ L.J., IV, 665.

⁶⁸ L.J., IV, 693.

⁶⁹ L.J., IV, 709–712

⁷⁰ L.J., IV, 713. Why Dorset's excuse should have been relayed to the Lords through a peer with whom he had frequently disagreed earlier in his career remains somewhat mysterious. It may be that Saye retained close links with the king until a very late stage, as is suggested by the survival of warrants for payments to him ‘in his Majesty's speciall and private service’. See, for example, the warrant to the Exchequer to pay him £1,200 in Dec. 1641 in P.R.O., SO 3/12 (signet office docquet book, 1638–44), fol. 179r. Such continued links with the king may help to explain Saye's public defence of Dorset. I owe this suggestion to John Adamson. For Dorset's attitude to Saye in 1647, see below, p. 826.

⁷¹ L.J., IV, 716. This leave was renewed on 21 Apr.: L.J., V, 8.

⁷² L.J., V, 30, 49.

⁷³ K[ent] A[rchives] O[ffice], Sackville MS, U 269/C7/1 (Lord Willoughby of Eresby to Dorset, 2 May 1642). For Willoughby's service to the king in the summer of 1642, see L[incolnshire] A[rchives] O[ffice], Ancaster MS, 12/A/4–7 (king's commissions to Lord Willoughby of Eresby, July–August 1642); C.U.L., Add. MS 89 (historical collections), fol. 32v; L.J., v 120. For Dorset's friendship with the first earl of Lindsey, see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, p. 227Google Scholar. Willoughby inherited the title on his father's death at Edgehill in Oct. 1642. For Dorset's political collaboration with the second earl, see below, pp. 819–29.

⁷⁴ The exact date of Dorset's arrival in York is at present uncertain. Clearly it was after 2 May, the date of Lord Willoughby of Eresby's letter, cited in the previous note. Equally, Dorset had apparently been in York for some while by 9 Jun., as indicated in William Montagu's letter, cited in the next note. It therefore seems likeliest that he arrived sometime during May.

⁷⁵ N.R.O., Montagu MS 4, p. 9: William Montagu to Lord Montagu, 9 Jun. 1642. See also Henry King's report two days later that Dorset, , Bath and , Clare were ‘moveinge awaye’ from York: Bod. Lib., MS Tanner 63 (letters and papers, 1642)Google Scholar, fol. 64r: Henry King to Martin Calthorpe, 11 Jun. 1642.

⁷⁶ P.R.O., SP 16/491/29 (list of peers and officials engaging to provide the king with forces, 22 Jun. 1642). See also B.L., Egerton MS 2978 (Heath and Verney papers, vol. I), fol. 66r; and A Catalogue of the Names of the Lords that subscribed to levie horse to assist His Majestie…at Yorke, the 22 June 1642 (London, 1642)Google Scholar, Wing, C 1397; B.L., T.T., 669. f. 6 (42). Bath also signed this engagement, agreeing to provide fifty horse. The king had given Clare ‘leave to return to London’: , Clarendon, History, ed. , Macray, III, 153Google Scholar (book VII, § 187). This engagement probably explains why parliament raided Dorset's Kent seat, Knole, in search of arms on 14 Aug. 1642. See H.L.R.O., M[ain] P[apers], 5 Sept. 1642, fols. 27r–29v (true relation of Colonel Edwin Sandys); K.A.O., Sackville MS, U 269/E15 (account of damage at Knole, 14 Aug. 1642). These sources reveal that most of Dorset's arms belonged in a museum rather than on a battlefield. See also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 328–31, 401–2Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ For the authorship of the king's Answer, see The life of Edward Earl of Clarendon, written by himself (2 vols., Oxford, 1817), I, 111Google Scholar (Part II, §§ 66–7); , Mendle, Dangerous positions, pp. 5–9Google Scholar. For the text, see His Majesties Answer to the XIX Propositions of Parliament (London, 1642)Google Scholar, Wing, C 2122; B.L., T.T., E 151/25. Peter Salt has alerted me to the close parallels between my interpretation of Dorset in this paragraph, and Brian Wormald's treatment of Hyde in 1642: see , Wormald, Clarendon, especially p. 85Google Scholar. For further comparison with Hyde, see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 258–9Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ B.L., Microfilm M 485 (Cecil MS, Hatfield House), vol. CXXXI, fol. 182r: Dorset to the earl of Salisbury, 27 Jun. 1642.

⁷⁹ B.L., M 485, vol. CXXXI, fol. 183r.

⁸⁰ B.L., M 485, vol. CXXXI, fols. 182v–183r.

⁸¹ B.L., M 485, vol. CXXXI, fol. 183v.

⁸² B.L., M 485, vol. CXCVII, fol. 127r: Dorset to the earl of Salisbury, 4 Aug. 1642. This letter is misdated to 1640 in the Calendar: H[istorical] M[anuscripts] C[ommission], Salisbury (Cecil) manuscripts, vol. XXII (London, 1971), 318–19Google Scholar.

⁸³ B.L., M 485, vol. CXCVII, fol. 129r–v. My emphasis.

⁸⁴ B.L., M 485, vol. CXCVII, fol. 130r–v. My emphasis.

⁸⁵ B.L., M 485, vol. CXCVII, fol. 128r. My emphasis.

⁸⁶ B.L., M 485, vol. CXCVII, fol. 129v.

⁸⁷ B.L., M 485, vol. CXCVII, fol. 132v.

⁸⁸ K.A.O., U[ncatalogued] C[ranfield] P[apers]: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, Aug. 1642, fol. 1r–v. I am most grateful to Donald Gibson of the Kent Archives Office for his assistance in using this collection. For the marriage agreement of Frances Cranfield and Lord Buckhurst, dated 25 Jan. 1640/1, see K.A.O., Sackville MS, U 269/E298/1.

⁸⁹ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, Aug. 1642, fol. IV.

⁹⁰ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, Aug. 1642, fol. 2r–v.

⁹¹ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, Aug. 1642, fol. 3r.

⁹² K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, Aug. 1642, fol. 3v.

⁹³ His Majesties gracious message to both Houses of Parliament sent from Nottingham the 25 of August 1642, together with the answer of the Lords and Commons to the said message (London, 1642), pp. 2–3Google Scholar (Wing, C 2332; B.L., T.T., E 116/2). For the original of the king's message, see H.L.R.O., MP, 25 Aug. 1642, fol. 19r–v.

⁹⁴ , Clarendon, History, ed. , Macray, II, 299–303Google Scholar (book VI, § 8).

⁹⁵ Scottish Record Office, Hamilton MS, GD 406/1/1689 (Lanerick to Hamilton, 31 Aug. 1642). I owe this reference to Professor Russell. For other contemporary accounts, see, for example, Calendar of state papers Venetian, ed. Brown, R. et al. (40 vols., London, 1864–1940)Google Scholar [hereafter cited as C.S.P.V.], XXVI (1642–3), 145–6; P.R.O., SP 16/492/3 (Sir William Boswell to Sir Thomas Roe, 4/14 Sept. 1642).

⁹⁶ , Clarendon, History, ed. , Macray, II, 305–6Google Scholar (book VI, § 12).

⁹⁷ His Majesties gracious message, p. 5.

⁹⁸ L.J., v, 380. For an account of this letter and of the ensuing negotiations, see Codrington, Robert, The Life and Death of the Illustrious Robert Earle of Essex (London, 1646), pp. 17–18Google Scholar (Wing, C 4877; B.L., T.T., E 358/7). I owe this last reference to John Adamson.

⁹⁹ This letter is printed in L.J., v, 380; and C.J., II, 791. The manuscript may be found in Bod. Lib., MS Tanner 64 (letters and papers, 1642), fol. 19r. Clarendon's statement that Essex's message ‘was not thought worthy of any answer from [the king], and the Earl of Dorset did not think himself obliged by the employment, or by any of the expressions of their good opinion; and so it was concluded that the messenger should return without any answer’ (, Clarendon, History, ed. , Macray, II, 341–4Google Scholar[book VI, § 67]) is thus erroneous.

¹⁰⁰ L.J., v, 380; C.J., II, 791. See also B.L., Add. MS 18777 (diary of Walter Yonge, 19 Sept. 1642 – 7 Mar. 1643), fol. 18v.

¹⁰¹ L.J., v, 384–5; C.J., II, 791. See also Staffordshire R[ecord] O[ffice], Leveson-Gower correspondence, D 868/4/5 (Stephen Charlton to Sir Richard Leveson, Oct. 1642).

¹⁰² L.J., v, 411 – where the letter is incorrectly dated 18 Oct. 1642. For the delivery of this letter to Dorset, see Copley, Lionel, A Letter sent from a Gentleman to Mr. Henry Marten, Esquire (London, 1642)Google Scholar, Wing, C 6085.

¹⁰³ L.J., v, 412.

¹⁰⁴ L.J., v, 412.

¹⁰⁵ C.J., II, 816; L.J., v, 412.

¹⁰⁶ B.L., Add. MS 64923 (Coke papers, vol. LIV, 1642–4), fol. 44r: Sir John Coke the younger to Sir John Coke the elder, 15 Nov. 1642.

¹⁰⁷ B.L., Add. MS 64923, fol. 44r. See also A Continuation of certaine speciall and remarkable Passages from both Houses of Parliament and other parts of the Kingdome (12–18 11. 1642)Google Scholar, sig. B4 (S.T.C. (newspapers), 57.2; B.L., T.T., E 127/21).

¹⁰⁸ For John White as Dorset's secretary, see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 300–3Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ B.L., Add. MS 18980 (Prince Rupert's correspondence, 1642–3), fol. 60r: Nicholas to Prince Rupert, 11 May 1643. I owe this reference to Ian Atherton.

¹¹⁰ William Salt Library, Stafford, Salt MS 509 (Essex to Prince Rupert, 22 Jun. 1643). For Essex's active involvement in peace negotiations during 1643–4, see , Adamson, ‘Baronial context’, pp. 111–12Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ For this quotation, see below, p. 816. For Lindsey's military commissions, see above, p. 808, n. 73; and , Newman, Royalist officers, pp. 26–7Google Scholar. For Hertford, see, for example, P.R.O., SP 16/491/118 (Hertford to Sir Robert Foster, 15 Aug. 1642); SP 16/492/14 (Nicholas to Sir William Boswell, 15 Sept. 1642); H.L.R.O., MP, 25 Aug. 1642, fols. 23r–24v (declaration by Hertford and other commissioners of array for Somerset); , Newman, Royalist officers, pp. 339–40Google Scholar.

¹¹² Staffordshire R.O., Dartmouth MS, D (W) 1778/11/523 (James, duke of York to William Legge, 11 Dec. 1680). Dorset's particular role at Edgehill may perhaps be explained by the fact that his wife had been governess to the king's two eldest sons during the 1630s. See , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 159–61Google Scholar.

¹¹³ ‘The life and times of Anthony Wood, described by himself’, vol. I, 1632–1663, ed. Clark, A., Publ. Oxford Historical Society, XIX (1891), 70Google Scholar. On 3 Nov. 1642, ‘the Kinge's majestie, with all his followers… departed from Oxford… The earles of Dorsett and Bristoll… were left here at Oxford for the defence of the Universitie and towne’.

¹¹⁴ That three of these four speeches are apocryphal may be demonstrated as follows. The first speech – The Earle of Dorset his Speech for Propositions of Peace, Delivered to His Majesty at Oxford on January 18 [1642/3] (London, 1643)Google Scholar, Wing, D 1951; B.L., T.T., E 85/44 – exactly reproduces a speech attributed to the duke of Richmond and Lennox in 1639. See P.R.O., SP 16/537/147–149 (copies of speech by Richmond and Lennox); Bod. Lib., MS Tanner 299 (Archbishop Sancroft's transcriptions), fols. 184r–185r. This last copy bears a later note that Richmond and Lennox disowned the speech. I am grateful to Professor Russell for alerting me to this fact, of which I was regrettably unaware when I completed my doctoral dissertation: see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 368–70Google Scholar. Further evidence against the authenticity of this speech is afforded by the fact that the privy council appears not to have met on 18 Jan. 1643: P.R.O., PC 2/53, pp. 209–15. The second and third speeches were printed as Two Speeches Spoken at Oxford by the Right Honourable Edward Earle of Dorset… The One at his receiving the office of Lord Privy Scale. The other at his being made President of His Majesties Councell (London, 1643)Google Scholar, Wing D 1952; B.L., T.T., E 83/45. This is clearly false because Dorset never held either of these offices. The fourth speech, printed in Two Speeches Spoken at the Councell Table at Oxford. The One, by the Right Honourable John, Earle of Bristoll… The Other, by the Right Honourable Edward, Earle of Dorsett (London, 1642), pp. 6–8Google Scholar (Wing, B 4798; B.L., T.T., E 83/19), was ‘reprinted at London for Iohn Hanson’, ostensibly from an original ‘printed at Oxford by Leonard Lichfield’. Madan, Falconer, Oxford books: a bibliography of printed books relating to the university and city of Oxford (3 vols., Oxford, 1895–1931), II, 197Google Scholar, states that ‘the original Oxford edition probably never existed’. The fact that neither of these speeches bears a date also casts doubt on their authenticity. Sheila Lambert's view (in a private communication to the author) is that ‘whether the speeches were actually genuine or not, the pamphlet may have been officially inspired from Oxford’. I have as yet seen no evidence which proves conclusively whether or not they are genuine. For an analysis of their contents, see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 370–3Google Scholar. I am most grateful to Sheila Lambert and to John Adamson for advice on this pamphlet. For a discussion of similar forgeries during the early 1640s, see Cromartie, A. D. T., ‘The printing of parliamentary speeches, November 1640–July 1642’, Historical Journal, XXXIII (1990), 23–44Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, 8 Dec. 1642, fols. IV–2r.

¹¹⁶ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, 8 Dec. 1642, fol. 2r–v.

¹¹⁷ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, 8 Dec. 1642, fol. 2v.

¹¹⁸ ‘The journal of Sir Samuel Luke’, vol. I, ed. Philip, I. G., Publ. Oxfordshire Record Society, XXIX (1947), 4Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Bod. Lib., MS Clarendon 21 (Clarendon state papers, Mar. 1642 – Mar. 1643), fol. 197r.

¹²⁰ For the appointment of the royalist council of war, see A Catalogue of the Motleys, Men and Worse already subscribed… and undertaken for His Majestyes service (London, 1642)Google Scholar, Wing, C 1385; B.L., T.T., 669. f. 6 (64). I owe this reference to Peter Salt. See also Roy, I., ‘The royalist army in the first Civil War’ (unpublished D.Phil, dissertation, University of Oxford, 1963), p. 55Google Scholar; , Roy, ‘The royalist council of war, 1642–6’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXXV (1962), 150–68Google Scholar, esp. 152–3.

¹²¹ Dorset was present on 5, 14, 28 and 29 Jun., 8 Jul. and 28 Sept. 1643: B.L., Harl. MS 6852 (papers of the royalist council of war), fols. 75r, 85r, g2r, 95v, 117r, 182r.

¹²² P.R.O., C 231/3 (Crown office docquet book, 1643–6), p. 6. This commission was renewed on 25 Jul.: P.R.O., C 231/3, p. 29.

¹²³ P.R.O., C 231/3, p. 14. For Dorset as a signatory of orders by this commission, see B[erkshire] R[ecord] O[ffice], Stephens MS, D/ESv(B)/F1 (letters and orders to Henry Stephens, wagon-master general to the royalist army, 1643–4), fols. 14r, 34r, 137r. Dorset was also appointed to a similar commission for ‘the repayring and finishing [of] the fortificacons of the Cittie of Oxford’ on 7 Jan. 1644: P.R.O., C 231]3, p. 62.

¹²⁴ P.R.O., C 231/3, p. 74. This commission represented a significant hardening of royalist war policy. Dorset and six others were required to find out which parliamentarians ‘have any landes, tenementes or other hereditamentes, goodes, money, plate, cattell or chattells, or any debtes owing unto them within… Ox[fordshire], Berk[shire] or Buck[inghamshire] or any of them, and to seize and sequester the same into the handes of fitt and able persons to be by them assigned and appointed… And the moneys and profittes arising hereby to be paid into the Receipt of the Exchequer’. The commission was renewed on 14 May, and given full authority to compound with delinquents on 9 Nov.: P.R.O., C 231/3, pp. 112, 114. Between 27 Apr. 1644 and 23 Feb. 1646, Dorset paid a total of £3,785 14s. 10d. into the exchequer under the terms of this commission: P.R.O., E 401/1928 (exchequer of receipt, Pells receipt book, 1643–5), unfol., 13, 20 Apr. 1644, 29 Mar., 25 Aug., 27 Sept. 1645, 23 Feb. 1645/6; E 401/1929 (exchequer of receipt, Pells issue book, 1644), pp. 1, 7, 17, 20, 25, 29, 36. For the role of this commission in the king's financial administration, see Engberg, J., ‘Royalist finances during the English Civil War, 1642–6’, Scandinavian Economic History Review, XIV (1966), 73–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 92–4.

¹²⁵ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, 29 May 1643. For parliament's impeachment of the queen, see C.J., III, 98.

¹²⁶ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, 29 May 1643.

¹²⁷ Cf. , Sumner, ‘Digby’, especially pp. 174–83Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ See above, pp. 805–6. Also , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 128Google Scholar, 220–2.

¹²⁹ Mercurius Aulicus, no. 28 (9–15 July 1643), p. 373 (S.T.C. (newspapers), 275.128; B.L., T.T., E 62/3). See also Anthony Wood's history and antiquities of the University of Oxford, ed. Gutch, J. (2 vols. in 3, Oxford, 1792–1796), II, 466Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ The life, diary and correspondence of Sir William Dugdale, ed. Hamper, W. (London, 1827), p. 59Google Scholar. For other contemporary accounts, see P.R.O., SP 16/500/30 (John Jones to Lord Hopton, 1 Feb. 1643/4); B.L., Add. MS 27962 K(i) (Salvetti correspondence, vol. x[i], 1642–4), fol. 222r–v; K.A.O., Sackville MS, U 269/C283/1 (John Jackman to the countess of Bath, 24 Jan. 1643/4). Henry Jermyn replaced Dorset as lord chamberlain of the queen's household.

¹³¹ K.A.O., Sackville MS, U 269/C267/15 (earl of Bath to the countess of Bath, 4 Oct. 1643).

¹³² Cf. , Sumner, ‘Digby’, p. 218Google Scholar. See also Daly, J., ‘The implications of royalist politics, 1642–6’, Historical Journal, XXVII (1984), 745–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 748.

¹³³ A Catalogue of the Names of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses that have served in the last four Parlaments (London, 1656), p. 20Google Scholar (Wing, C 1394; B.L., T.T., E 1602/6). His absence was noted at Westminster on 22 Jan. and 24 May 1644: L.J., VI, 388, 566.

¹³⁴ , H.M.C., Tenth report, Part IV (London, 1885), 64–5Google Scholar. For the significance of this letter which was engrossed on parchment – as an expression of Essex's claims to ‘vice-regal authority’, see , Adamson, ‘Baronial context’, pp. 108–9Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ Unfortunately, it is impossible to draw a firm conclusion because all the records of the Oxford Parliament were burnt before the city surrendered in June 1646: Dugdale's diary, ed. , Hamper, p. 87Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ , Roy, ‘Royalist army’, pp. 78–85Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ , Roy, ‘Royalist army’, pp. 86–96Google Scholar.

¹³⁸ Hutton, R., ‘The structure of the royalist party, 1642–6’, Historical Journal, XXIV (1981), 553–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 554–7, 562–3.

¹³⁹ , Hutton, ‘Structure’, pp. 562–3Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ , Daly, ‘Implications’, especially pp. 745–52Google Scholar.

¹⁴¹ , Daly, ‘Implications’, pp. 747Google Scholar, 751. For Hertford and Lindsey, see above, pp. 814–15. Daly's points about Digby are borne out by , Sumner, ‘Digby’, especially pp. 185–90Google Scholar.

¹⁴² , Sumner, ‘Digby’, pp. 390–3Google Scholar.

¹⁴³ See below, pp. 822–5.

¹⁴⁴ C[okayne], G. E., The complete peerage (New edn, ed. Gibbs, V. et al. , 14 vols., London, 1910–1959), x, 832–3Google Scholar. See also P.R.O., SP 16/244/53 (Nicholas to Sir John Pennington, 7 Aug. 1633); SP 16/483/34 (Thomas Smith to the earl of Northumberland, 10 Aug. 1641); SP 16/483/116 (books of fees to royal servants on creation of peers), fols. 246v–248r; SP 16/486/29 (Thomas Wiseman to Sir John Pennington, 9 Dec. 1641); SP 16/486/93 (Sir Francis Windebanke to Thomas Windebanke, 24 Dec. 1641).

¹⁴⁵ Complete peerage, VI, 507–8. See also Dugdale's diary, ed. , Hamper, p. 59Google Scholar; P.R.O., PC 2/53, p. 5; SP 16/481/33 (Elizabeth, queen of Bohemia to Sir Thomas Roe, 14/24 Jun. 1641); SP 16/483/116, fols. 239v–241v; SP 16/500/30 (John Jones to Lord Hopton, 1 Feb. 1643/4); K.A.O., Sackville MS, U 269/C283/1. It may also be relevant that Hertford's elder brother Edward Seymour had married Dorset's sister Anne Sackville: see Longleat House, Wiltshire, Seymour papers, box II (miscellaneous deeds and legal papers, 1553–1620), fols. 161r–192v. See also above, pp. 814–15.

¹⁴⁶ Complete peerage, XII, 131–3. See also P.R.O., PC 2/53, p. 207; SP 16/488/6 (minute of privy council, 3 Jan. 1641/2); SP 16/488/27 (Thomas Wiseman to Sir John Pennington, 6 Jan. 1641/2).

¹⁴⁷ Complete peerage, VIII, 19–20. See also P.R.O., PC 2/53, p. 223; SP 16/498/81 (Secretary Nicholas to Sir Thomas Roe, 27 Dec. 1643). See also above, pp. 808, 814–15.

¹⁴⁸ There might possibly be some difference between these peers in that Hertford and Lindsey saw military service whereas Richmond and Southampton (like Dorset) did not: see , Newman, Royalist officers; and above, pp. 814–15Google Scholar. Nevertheless they were united by an active desire to end the war, and their consistent promotion of talks clearly distinguishes them from more hard-line royalists such as Digby, Jermyn, Ashburnham and the queen.

¹⁴⁹ L.J., VII, 150; X, 484.

¹⁵⁰ See below, p. 827.

¹⁵¹ These factions are analysed at length in , Adamson, ‘Baronial context’, pp. 109–19Google Scholar; and , Adamson, The nobility and the English revolution (Oxford, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

¹⁵² C.J., III, 277. I am grateful to John Adamson for advice on this. For signs of other links between Dorset and Saye, see above, p. 808, and below, p. 826.

¹⁵³ Adamson, J. S. A., ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament’, in Oliver Cromwell and the English revolution, ed. Morrill, J. S. (Harlow, 1990), pp. 49–92Google Scholar, at p. 70. Parliament found few more consistent supporters among the nobility than Lord Howard of Escrick. He delivered parliament's answer concerning Hull to the king at York in May 1642: P.R.O., SP 16/490/34 (Lord Howard of Escrick to Lord Keeper Littleton, 9 May 1642). By 22 Jan. 1644, he was one of the hard core of twenty-two peers still at Westminster: L.J., VII, 387; , Clarendon, History, ed. , Macray, III, 297Google Scholar (book VII, § 375). On 5 May 1649 he was admitted to the Commons as M.P. for Carlisle: C.J., VII, 201.

¹⁵⁴ Bod. Lib., MS Dep. c. 154 (Nalson papers, vol. III), fol. 47r: Dorset to Lord Howard of Escrick, 10 Oct. 1643.

¹⁵⁵ Both were grandsons of Howard, Thomas, fourth duke of Norfolk: Complete peerage, VI, 423; VI, 586Google Scholar; , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 15–18Google Scholar.It is possible that this relationship explains the leniency with which the Committee for the Advance of Money (of which Lord Howard was chairman) treated Dorset: see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 402–6Google Scholar. This theory might also shed some light on the letter quoted here.

¹⁵⁶ For a discussion of Essex's ascendancy, see , Adamson, ‘Baronial context’, pp. 105–14Google Scholar; and Adamson, Nobility.

¹⁵⁷ L.J., VI, 577.

¹⁵⁸ L.J., VI, 577. Lord Conway had joined parliament the previous April: P.R.O., SP 16/501/71 (earl of Denbigh to the committee of both kingdoms, 13 Apr. 1644). See also H.L.R.O., MP, 17 May 1644 (petition of Lord Conway to the house of lords).

¹⁵⁹ L.J., VI, 578.

¹⁶⁰ L.J., VI, 592.

¹⁶¹ L.J., VI, 592.

¹⁶² H.L.R.O., MP, 10 Jun. 1644 (petition of Lord Chandos to the house of lords). The exact date of Chandos's departure from Oxford is difficult to establish. Sir Edward Walker wrote that ‘a little before’ 8 Jun., , Chandos, ‘carried away with some needless discontent had quitted his commands, and under the pretence of going to travel went unto the rebels’: Walker, E., Historical discourses (London, 1705), p. 22Google Scholar. See also , Clarendon, History, ed. , Macray, III, 356–8Google Scholar (book VIII, §§ 53–4).

¹⁶³ C.J., III, 710.

¹⁶⁴ C.J., III, 710.

¹⁶⁵ C.J., III, 712; L.J., VII, 82. See also H.L.R.O., MP, 3 Dec. 1644 (minute of the committee of both kingdoms).

¹⁶⁶ P.R.O., PRO 31/3/75, fol. 239v.

¹⁶⁷ L.J., VII, 103; C.J., III, 726. See also P.R.O., PRO 31/3/75, fol. 259r; H.L.R.O., MP, 17 Dec. 1644, fols. 73r–75r (Richmond's speech and the king's message).

¹⁶⁸ Parliament accepted this proposal on 20 Dec: C.J., III, 731.

¹⁶⁹ L.J., VII, 150. See also B.L., Egerton MS 2978, fol. I46r.

¹⁷⁰ P.R.O., SP 21/17 (committee of both kingdoms, entry book of letters received, Sept. 1644–Feb. 1645), pp. 215–16: Major-General Browne to the committee of both kingdoms, 12 Feb. 1644/5.

¹⁷¹ P.R.O., PRO 31/3/76, fol. 134v.

¹⁷² K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, 22 May 1645. In fact Dorset had been misinformed. The earl of Middlesex did not die until 5 Aug. 1645: see Prestwich, M., Cranfield: politics and profits under the early Stuarts (Oxford, 1966), p. 583Google Scholar.

¹⁷³ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, 22 May 1645. Parliamentarian forces had held Gloucester since 8 Sept. 1643: see , Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, I, 206Google Scholar. For Middlesex's sufferings during the Civil War, see , Prestwich, Cranfield, pp. 567–90Google Scholar. Middlesex was buried in Westminster Abbey: , Prestwich, Cranfield, p. 583Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁴ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, [?] June–July 1645. This letter is undated. Dorset's reference to the ‘happy delivery’ of Lady Buckhurst's child indicates that it was written in June or July 1645: see Phillips, C. J., A history of the Sackville family (2 vols., London, 1930)Google Scholar, I, facing 426.

¹⁷⁵ K.A.O., UCP: Dorset to the countess of Middlesex, [?] June–July 1645.

¹⁷⁶ B.L., Harl. MS 6852, fol. 263r.

¹⁷⁷ The diary and correspondence of John Evelyn, ed. Bray, W. (London, 1906), p. 801Google Scholar. For Dorset's appointment to the commission for the defence of Oxford, see above, p. 817.

¹⁷⁸ ‘The diplomatic correspondence of Jean de Montereul’, ed. Fotheringham, J. G., Publ. Scottish Record Society, XXIX–XXX (1898–1899), I, 57Google Scholar. See also The kingdomes weekly post [no. 3] (28 Oct. 1645), p. 17 (S.T.C. (newspapers), 216.03; B.L., T.T., E 307/13). I owe this last reference to Ian Atherton.

¹⁷⁹ B.L., Add. MS 18982 (Prince Rupert's correspondence, 1645–58), fol. 98r: Dorset to Prince Rupert, 25 Nov. 1645.

¹⁸⁰ ‘Correspondence of Montereul’, ed. , Fotheringham, I 70–1Google Scholar. See also A Diary, or an Exact Iournall, no. 79 (13–20 Nov. 1645), p. 3 (S.T.C. (newspapers), 144.179; B.L., T.T., E 309/26). I owe this last reference to Ian Atherton.

¹⁸¹ ‘Correspondence of Montereul’, ed. , Fotheringham, I, 70–1Google Scholar.

¹⁸² ‘Correspondence of Montereul’, ed. , Fotheringham, I, 70–1Google Scholar.

¹⁸³ ‘Correspondence of Montereul’, ed. , Fotheringham, I, 70–1Google Scholar. For the king's letter, see P.R.O., SP 16/511/87 (Charles I to the speaker of the house of lords, 5 Dec. 1645). See also L.J., VIII, 31.

¹⁸⁴ L.J., VIII, 36. See also H.L.R.O., MP, 10 Dec. 1645, fols. 46r–48v (drafts of parliament's answer to the king's letter).

¹⁸⁵ For the background to this, see , Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, III, 96–103Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁶ Dugdale's diary, ed. , Hamper, p. 87Google Scholar. The privy councillors were increasingly fearful that the garrison would rise against them: for Dorset's signature on an order of 28 May forbidding all violence on pain of death, see Bod. Lib., MS Add. D 114 (papers relating to the siege of Oxford), fol. 138r.

¹⁸⁷ For the Oxford articles of surrender, see P.R.O., SP 16/514/27. Also A full and true relation of the several actions and particulars of what was taken and done in Oxford (London, 1646)Google Scholar, Wing, F 2330; B.L., T.T., E 342/9.

¹⁸⁸ B.L., Add. MS 32093 (Malet collection of autograph letters, 1625–60), fol. 233r. Dorset apparently returned to his house in London, and never left England: see L.J., VIII, 615.

¹⁸⁹ From September 1646 until his death, much of Dorset's attention was focused on the payment of his composition fine and its attendant financial problems. For a detailed account of this, see , Smith, ‘Dorset’, ch. 7, especially pp. 421–51Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁰ For these events, see Adamson, J. S. A., ‘The English nobility and the projected settlement of 1647’, Historical Journal, XXX (1987), 567–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 567–70. Cf. Kishlansky, M. A., The rise of the new model army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 265–72Google Scholar; , Kishlansky, ‘Saye what?’, Historical Journal, XXXIII (1990), 917–37Google Scholar, especially 930–1. For the subsequent debate, see J. S. A. Adamson, ‘Politics and the nobility in Civil-War England’, ibid, XXXIV (1991), 231–55, especially 240–1; Kishlansky, M. A., ‘Saye no more’, Journal of British Studies, XXX (1991), 399–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹¹ K.A.O., Sackville MS, U 269/C248, unfol.: Dorset to the second earl of Middlesex, 30 July 1647.

¹⁹² See above, pp. 806–7.

¹⁹³ , Adamson, ‘Projected settlement’, pp. 569–70Google Scholar. Cf. , Kishlansky, New model, pp. 270–1Google Scholar; , Kishlansky, ‘Saye what?’, pp. 930–3Google Scholar; , Adamson, ‘Polities’, pp. 242–3Google Scholar; , Kishlansky, ‘Saye no more’, pp. 420–5Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁴ K.A.O., Sackville MS, U 269/C248, unfol.: Dorset to the second earl of Middlesex, 1 Aug. 1647.

¹⁹⁵ K.A.O., Sackville MS, U 269/C248, unfol.: Dorset to the second earl of Middlesex, 1 Aug. 1647.

¹⁹⁶ This would, perhaps, fit with the glimpses of earlier links between Dorset and Saye: see above, pp. 808, 820–1. It was also practical politics given that Dorset's other main contact at Westminster, Essex, had died in Sept. 1646 and that Saye's faction dominated parliament in the summer and autumn of 1647. See Adamson, ‘Projected settlement’, passim; and Adamson, Nobility.

¹⁹⁷ Perfect Occurrences of Every Dayes Iournall in Parliament, no. 41 (8–15 10 1647)Google Scholar, sig. RI (S.T.C. (newspapers), 465.5041; B.L., T.T., E 518/44). A Perfect Diurnall of some Passages in Parliament, no. 219(4–11 Oct. 1647), p. 1764 (S.T.C. (newspapers), 504.219; B.L., T.T., E 518/43).

¹⁹⁸ A Perfect Diurnall, no. 219, p. 1764.

¹⁹⁹ A Perfect Diurnall, no. 219, p. 1764.

²⁰⁰ Perfect Diurnall, no. 219, p. 1764. See also Whitelocke, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English affairs (New edn, London, 1732), p. 273Google Scholar.

²⁰¹ L.J., x, 484.

²⁰² Bod. Lib., MS Clarendon 34 (Clarendon state papers, Dec. 1648–Mar. 1649), fol. 74r: John Lawrans to Nicholas, 12 Jan. 1648/9. The ‘divers others of the King's party’ included Southampton and Lindsey: , H.M.C., Fifteenth report, Part II (London, 1897), 111Google Scholar.

²⁰³ P.R.O., PRO 31/3/89, fol. 77v.

²⁰⁴ P.R.O., PRO 31/3/89, fol. 77v. When Lord Craven heard of the failure of this initiative, he declared of Charles I ‘c'est fait pour luy’: , H.M.C., Fifteenth report, Part II, 111Google Scholar.

²⁰⁵ , Clarendon, History, ed. , Macray, IV, 492Google Scholar (book XI, § 244). This account is corroborated by P.R.O., PRO 31/3/89, fols. 128–30. See also Ward, Ian, ‘The English peerage, 1649–1660: government, authority and estates’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1989), p. 2Google Scholar.

²⁰⁶ This story apparently derives from Sir Edward Walker's ‘Behaviour of those Noblemen who were Knights of the Garter during the Civil War’: B.L., Stowe MS 580, fol. 30v.

²⁰⁷ See above, p. 823.

²⁰⁸ For Dorset's death, see K.A.O., De L'Isle and Dudley MS, U 1475/F24 (journal of the earl of Leicester, 1646–61), p. 85. I am most grateful to the late Viscount De L'Isle and Dudley, V.C., K.G., for permission to consult his family muniments.

²⁰⁹ See, in particular, Adamson, ‘Baronial context’ Adamson, ‘Parliamentary management’ Adamson, ‘Projected settlement’ and Adamson, Nobility. Also Christianson, P., ‘The peers, the people and parliamentary management in the first six months of the Long Parliament’, Journal of Modem History, XLIX (1977), 575–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lambert, S., ‘The opening of the Long Parliament’, Historical Journal, XXVII (1984), 265–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an early critique, see Hirst, D., ‘Unanimity in the Commons, aristocratic intrigues and the origins of the English Civil War’, Journal of Modern History, L (1978), 51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I reviewed the historiography on this subject down to September 1989 in , Smith, ‘Dorset’, pp. 2–4Google Scholar. By far the most important development since then has been the controversy between John Adamson an d Mark Kishlansky cited in note 190, above.

²¹⁰ I am currently preparing a monograph on the nature and significance of constitutional royalism before and during the English Civil Wars.

²¹¹ See above, p. 823.

²¹² For , Grenville, see Memoirs of Prince Rupert, ed. , Warburton, I, 120–1Google Scholar. For , Verney, see Memoirs of the Verney family, ed. Verney, F. M. and Verney, M. M. (4 vols., London, 1892–1899), II, 87–8Google Scholar. My understanding of Sir Edmund Verney has gained immensely from supervising Craig Woodgate's B.A. dissertation on his political career. For an examination of these motives for royalist allegiance, see Marston, J. G., ‘Gentry honour and royalism in early Stuart England’, Journal of British Studies, XIII (1973), 21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹³ See above, p. 811.

²¹⁴ For a discussion of ‘trimmers’ during the mid-seventeenth century, see Aylmer, G. E., ‘Collective mentalities in mid-seventeenth-century England: IV. Cross currents: neutrals, trimmers and others’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fifth series, XXXIX (1989), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 6–7.

²¹⁵ This statement is justified at length in , Smith, ‘Dorset’. I summarize my argument on pp. 452–66Google Scholar.

²¹⁶ See , Morrill, Revolt of the provinces, p. xiiGoogle Scholar.