1. The phrase is from Walker, Clement, A History of Independency (1648)Google Scholar, listed in Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers, and Manuscripts … collected by George Thomason, 1640-1661 (London, 1908), I, 626Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Thomason Catalogue.

2. Hexter, J. H., “The Problem of the Presbyterian Independents,” Reappraisals in History (London, 1961), pp. 163 ff.Google Scholar

3. Trevor-Roper, H. R., “The Gentry 1540-1640,” Econ. Hist. Rev., Supplement 1 (1953)Google Scholar.

4. Yule, George, The Independents in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1958)Google Scholar.

5. Underdown, David, “The Independents Reconsidered,” J.B.S., III (1964), 57–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Yule, The Independents. Some of the errors he has pointed out were due to the fact that two major works on the subject, Keeler, M. F., The Long Parliament, 1640-1641 (Philadelphia, 1954)Google Scholar, and Brunton, D. and Pennington, D. H., Members of the Long Parliament (London, 1954)Google Scholar, appeared after my manuscript was with the printer. Instead of reviewing the whole, I rashly, and not very successfully, attempted some patching.

7. Yule, , The Independents, p. 129Google Scholar. I agree with Underdown that to include a number of those who were not members of the Long Parliament (other than Regicides) was pointless and misleading. But the table on p. 129 enabled this to be discounted entirely for statistical purposes. The social and religious affiliations of any of the groups, Rumpers, Regicides, etc., can be read off in isolation from any other group, and the few nonmembers are automatically excluded. Consequently, Underdown's contention that he cannot compare the percentages of his “Revolutionaries’ with my list of “Rumpers” in certain social categories is incorrect for the reason he gives. See Underdown, “Independents Reconsidered,” J.B.S., III (1964), 81Google Scholar. His other criticism, that I do not differentiate the types of lawyers, is important and well taken, as is his criticism of my partial account of the Independent peers. I may have lapsed statistically in one place in the text. On p. 38 I included Regicides and Rumpers together in a statistical comparison with Hexter's Presbyterian Independents, but Hexter also included the Regicides. Hexter, , “Presbyterian Independents,” Reappraisals in History, p. 165Google Scholar. In any case I think my point would still be valid even if the Regicides were excluded. A much bigger percentage of Rumpers than of Presbyterian Independents had a connection with the King's trial. Pearl, Valerie, “Oliver St. John and the Middle Group in the Long Parliament,” E.H.R., LXXI (1966), 490CrossRefGoogle Scholar, questions my equation of Hexter's Presbyterian Independents with the less radical members of the group, but this hinges on the meaning of the term “radical,” and I was using it in this context in much the same way that Underdown uses the word revolutionary — that is, one connected with the specific events of Pride's Purge and the King's trial.

8. Siranniho, (Harris, John), The Royal Quarrel (1648)Google Scholar, listed in Thomason Catalogue, I, 590Google Scholar; A Letter really written by a Moderate Cavalier to an Intelligent and Moderate Independent (1647), listed in ibid., I, 521.

9. W[ither], G[eorge], Respublica Anglicana (1650), p. 13Google Scholar, listed in ibid., I, 815.

10. Yule, , The Independents, App. B, p. 131Google Scholar.

11. Ibid., pp. 84-128. This is why I included those who either were careerists or gave perhaps only temporary support to the Independents. I agree that the line between moderate Independent and noncommitted will be very hard to draw, and Underdown has done a real service by emphasizing this distinction. In any one case there may be differences of opinion. For example, Underdown queries my inclusion of William Gibbs as a possible Independent on the grounds that he had only “a short-lived flirtation” with the Independents “to protect his own interests.” But this was part of the intention of my exercise to see whether even careerists had certain attitudes in common with the others. Contemporary usage certainly places Gibbs with the radicals in 1647 and 1648. The Honest Citizen (1648), p. 8Google Scholar, listed in Thomason Catalogue, I, 616Google Scholar; The Parliament Kite (Aug. 1648); Walker, , History of Independency, I, 116;Google ScholarMemoirs of Denzil, Lord Holies, in Select Tracts Relating to the Civil Wars in England, ed. Maseres, Francis (London, 1815), I, 282Google Scholar. Incidentally I did not, as Underdown alleges, claim Gibbs as an Independent because he spoke for a “godly ministry.” This merely shows a Puritan inclination, though in his speech in the Parliament of 1658 he specifically said, “I shall not bind that form [Presbyterianism] upon you.” Rutt, J. T. (ed.), Diary of Thomas Burton (London, 1828), II, 334Google Scholar.

12. Whitelocke, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs (Oxford, 1853), II, 187Google Scholar.

13. BM, B. Whitelocke, Annals, Add. MSS, 37,344, fol. 88G. The Memorials are obscure at this point, but the Annals make Whitelocke's change quite clear. I owe this reference to Patricia Crawford.

14. In A Letter really written by a Moderate Cavalier, pp. 6, 7, the author notes that the Independents will “restore religion and law” and “re-enthrone the King and the Parliament's liberties.” See also A Letter of an Independent to his friend, Mr. Glyn (1645), pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar, listed in Thomason Catalogue, I, 409Google Scholar: “We Independents seek only reformation, not an alteration. We must have a King who should rule and subjects who should obey.”

15. Journals of the House of Commons, V, 312, 314Google Scholar. The radicals could muster only thirty-four votes whereas in Dec. 1648 they had eighty-four.

16. Gardiner, S. R. (ed.), The Hamilton Papers [Camden Society; new series, XXVII] (London, 1880), p. 124Google Scholar.

17. Ibid., p. 191.

18. Underdown, “Independents Reconsidered,” J.B.S., III (1964), 81Google Scholar.

19. Yule, , The Independents, pp. 128–29Google Scholar.

20. Underdown, “Independents Reconsidered,” J.B.S., III (1964), 83–84Google Scholar.

21. For a further breakdown and a listing of these members, see Appendix at the end of this article.

22. Fuller, Thomas, The Church History of Britain (London, 1868), III, 204Google Scholar.

23. This theme has been developed by Crawford, Patricia, “Study of the Attitudes of the Parliamentary Opposition to the Crown, 1642-49” (M.A. thesis, University of Western Australia, 1965)Google Scholar. See also Henry Ireton's speech at Whitehall in 1648 where he used the Old Testament as a model for his political outlook and warned that God would punish a nation that tolerated evildoers. Woodhouse, A. S. P., Puritanism and Liberty (London, 1938), pp. 154–55Google Scholar.

24. Abbott, W. C. (ed.), The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell (Cambridge, Mass., 1937–1947), II, 189-90, 453Google Scholar. For Peters, Hugh, see Stearns, R. P., The Strenuous Puritan (Urbana, 1954), p. 334Google Scholar. For Scot, Thomas, see Howell, T. B. (ed.), A Complete Collection of State Trials (London, 1816), V, 1273 ffGoogle Scholar. Ludlow stated that the republicans urged that monarchy was not desirable because of I Samuel 8:8, “where the rejecting of the judges and the choice of the King was charged upon the Israelites by God Himself.” Firth, C. H. (ed.), The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow (Oxford, 1894), I, 185Google Scholar.

25. Holkham Hall, papers of William Heveningham, MSS 684-85, fols. 125-27. This letter from “J. G.” is transcribed in a copybook of miscellaneous items and is dated Jan. 1649. To overcome Heveningham's doubts, John Goodwin wrote that Christ had said, “‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's’ in respect of the government of Augustus which He knew had come to power by great bloodshed and a weak title.” The Rump, Goodwin argued, had much better credentials than that.

26. Abbott, , Writings and Speeches of Cromwell, II, 189-90, 453.Google Scholar

27. Underdown, “Independents Reconsidered,” J.B.S., III (1964), 81Google Scholar.

28. Wedgwood, C. V., The Trial of Charles I (London, 1964), pp. 98, 99, 156–57Google Scholar.

29. Underdown, “Independents Reconsidered,” J.B.S., III (1964), 83Google Scholar.

30. Ibid., III (1964), 72.

31. Ibid., III (1964), 80.

32. The term “Independent,” however, was still used occasionally: “As for England,” said Colonel Price, “the Independents possessed of all the forts towns Navy and treasure, the Presbyterians yet hold a silent power by means of the divines and the interest of some gentry and nobility, especially in London and the great towns.” C.S.P.D. Commonwealth, II, 69–70 (Mar. 1650)Google Scholar.

33. Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed. Macray, W. D. (Oxford, 1888), III, 506–07Google Scholar, §259; see also III, 453-56, §§186, 190, where he was even more explicit and stated that the Independents wanted to prevent Presbyterianism from becoming established.

34. Whitelocke, , Memorials, I, 457.Google Scholar

35. Tibbutt, H. G. (ed.), The Letter Books of Sir Samuel Luke (London, 1963)Google Scholar, letters 1041, 266, also letters 1053, 726.

36. Letter of Anthony Langston to George Digby, Sep. 24, 1645, in C.S.P.D., 1645, pp. 157-58.

37. A Letter of an Independent, p. 3.

38. Baillie, Robert, Letters and Journals, ed. Laing, David (Edinburgh, 1841–1842), II, 244–45Google Scholar; C.S.P. Venetian, 1643-47, pp. 161-62. There are a number of other pieces of evidence which suggest that contemporaries used the term Independent party prior to 1646; e.g., a casual reference by the pro-Royalist Sir Thomas Knyvett in Mar. 1643/4 is very revealing. Schofield, Bertram (ed.), The Knyvett Letters (London, 1949), p. 129Google Scholar. Sometimes it is hard to be sure whether the references have a religious or political orientation, but this in itself is significant.

39. Rutt, , Diary of Burton, III, 206–07Google Scholar.

40. Hexter, J. H., The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), p. 99.Google Scholar

41. Trevor-Roper, H. R., “Scotland and the Puritan Revolution,” Historical Essays, 1600-1750, Presented to David Ogg, ed. Bell, H. E. and Ollard, R. L. (London, 1963), pp. 82–89Google Scholar.

42. Symonds, E. M., “The Diary of John Greene (1635-57),” E.H.R., XLIV (1929), 108–09CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. “Say and Brook in the Higher House, and these alone, and some leading men in the Lower, were suspected, by their inclination to the Separatists, would divide from the Presbyterians, and so weaken the party opposed to bishops.” Baillie, , Letters and Journals, I, 275.Google Scholar

44. It is difficult to get to the truth of this plot, but contemporaries saw it as linking Philip Nye and John Goodwin, the Independent ministers, with Sir Henry Vane the younger, “who was known to have a strong party in the House and to be the chief of it.” BM, Whitacre's Dairy, Add. MSS, 31,116, fol. 108b. It was aimed at exploiting the possibility of a religious cleavage in the parliamentary ranks. This is the earliest reference (Dec. 1643) which I have come across to something like a political-religious link. Gardiner, B. M., “A Secret Negociation with Charles the First,” The Camden Miscellany [Camden Society; new series, XXXI] (London, 1883), VIII, 3-5, 26, 30Google Scholar. See also Whitelocke, , Memorials, I, 235–36Google Scholar.

45. BM, Sir Simonds D'Ewes, Harleian MSS, 165, fols. 157 ff. The fact that this section was inserted by D'Ewes possibly nine months after the date of Aug. 1643 does not affect this particular argument.

46. Walker, , History of Independency, II, 13Google Scholar. See also Mercurius Pragmaticus (Oct. 5, 1648).

47. Vicars, John, Dagon Demolished (1660)Google Scholar, listed in Thomason Catalogue, II, 302.Google Scholar

48. A great fight at Market Harborough (1647), p. 2Google Scholar, listed in ibid., I, 541.

49. H.M.C., Portland MSS, I, 433–34Google Scholar.

50. Tawney, R. H., Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (New York, 1947), p. 20.Google Scholar

51. Hexter, , “Presbyterian Independents,” Reappraisals in HistoryGoogle Scholar.

52. As suggested by Pearl, , “Oliver St. John,” E.H.R., LXXI, 490.Google Scholar

53. Lightfoot, John, Works (London, 1824), XIII, 170Google Scholar. See also Vox Populi (Norwich, 1646), p. 27.Google Scholar

54. Yule, George, “Some Problems in the History of the Presbyterians in the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society of England, XIII (1965), 4–13Google Scholar.

55. Yule, , The Independents, p. 41.Google Scholar

56. An anti-Scots attitude is frequently seen in the Independents, but it is hard to separate this from an anti-Scots Presbyterianism and an edginess about having been forced to take the Covenant. Manchester reported that Cromwell's animosity against the Scots was such “as he told me that in the way they carried themselves pressing for their discipline he could as soon draw his sword against them as against any in the King's army.” Gardiner, S. R. (ed.), “A Letter from the Earl of Manchester to the House of Lords,” Camden Miscellany, VIIIGoogle Scholar. See also Baillie, , Letters and Journals, II, 245.Google Scholar

57. Rushworth, John, Historical Collections (London, 1721–1722), VI, 2Google Scholar. See also A Letter of an Independent, p. 2: “Though neither of us know what we would have, we both know what we would not.”

58. May, Thomas, A Breviary of the History of the Parliament of England, in Select Tracts, I, 97.Google Scholar

59. Underdown, “Independents Reconsidered,” J.B.S., III (1964), 79.Google Scholar

60. May, , History of Parliament, in Select Tracts, I, 97.Google Scholar See also Hutchinson, Lucy, Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson (New York, 1908), p. 261.Google Scholar

61. May, , History of Parliament, in Select Tracts, I, 89.Google Scholar

62. Gardiner, B. M., “A Secret Negotiation with Charles the First,” Camden Miscellany, VIII, 3–4Google Scholar.

63. Hexter, King Pym; Pearl, , “Oliver St. John,” E.H.R., LXXIGoogle Scholar.

64. D.N.B., Stephen Marshall and Joseph Caryll. For Caryll's Presbyterianism and activities see “The Register Book of the Fourth Classis in the Province of London 1646-59,” Harleian Society Publications, LXXXII–LXXXIII, ed. Surman, Charles E. (London, 1952–1953), 138.Google Scholar

65. Lightfoot, , Works, XIII, 170.Google Scholar

66. Whitelocke, , Memorials, I, 327, 470 ff.Google Scholar, 527, 533; II, 88, 146.

67. D.N.B., George Cockayn; Calamy, Edmund, A Continuation of the Account (London, 1727), p. 51.Google Scholar

68. Hexter, , “Presbyterian Independents,” Reappraisals in History, p. 173.Google Scholar

69. Vindication of the Character and Conduct of Sir William Waller (London, 1793), pp. 228, 229Google Scholar, 227, 9, 25, also 147.

70. Winthrop Papers, 1645-1649 [Massachusetts Historical Society], V (Boston, 1947), 144–45Google Scholar. As well as these examples, A Letter of an Independent shows a similar sharply negative, but indefinite positive, attitude of an Independent towards Presbyterianism.

71. See, for example, John Owen's account of his “conversion” to Independency as the right form of church government. Russell, T. (ed.), The Works of John Owen (London, 1826), XIII, 222–24Google Scholar.

72. See Lamont, W. M., Marginal Prynne (London, 1964)Google Scholar, for an excellent discussion of this point.

73. See, for example, Marshall, Stephen, Reformation and Desolation (1641)Google Scholar, listed in Thomason Catalogue, I, 49Google Scholar, a sermon preached before the House of Commons.

74. LordSay, and Sele, , A speed concerning Liturgy and Separation (1641)Google Scholar, listed in ibid., I, 12.

75. “A Letter from Lord Saye and Sele to Lord Wharton, 29 Dec. 1657,” reprinted in E.H.R., X (1895), 106–07CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76. A Speech of Nathaniel Fiennes (1641), p. 7Google Scholar, listed in Thomason Catalogue, I, 7.Google Scholar

77. See Wharton, Lord in Index, Matthews, A. G., Calamy Revised (Oxford, 1934)Google Scholar.

78. Quoted in Nightingale, Benjamin, The Ejected of 1662 in Cumberland and Westmorland (Manchester, 1911), II, 891.Google Scholar

79. The Independents Loyalty (1648), p. 5Google Scholar, listed in Thomason Catalogue, I, 648.Google Scholar

80. See above, n. 24, Cromwell's letters to Wharton which suggest that Wharton in some sense agreed with the radicals but was unconvinced on religious grounds for that political action.

81. D.N.B., Lord Wharton; Jones, G. F. T., “The Composition and Leadership of the Presbyterian Party in the Convention,” E.H.R., LXXIX (1964), 307 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, to which I am much indebted. The suggestion of Underdown that Wharton merely wanted to get on the bandwagon is clearly wrong. His “unseemly eagerness for a special pardon” was because his action in concealing his knowledge of Major Rolfe's plot against the King made him liable to a charge of treason. I owe this observation to Jones. See Underdown, “Independents Reconsidered,” J.B.S., III (1964), 78.Google Scholar

82. Hexter, , “Presbyterian Independents,” Reappraisals in History, pp. 182–83Google Scholar.

83. The evidence for the Appendix comes from Yule, , The Independents, pp. 84–128Google Scholar, except where otherwise stated. I should be grateful for additional information on this subject.

84. Pearl, V. I., London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution (London, 1961), pp. 311–13Google Scholar.

85. Oldsworth admired the works of William Twisse. See Jeans, Henry (ed.), The Works of William Twisse (Oxford, 1653)Google Scholar, Preface.