1603 -1604 55

tional in form, at times strongly suggests that the traditional
interpretation will not do. Thus Judson's study of the ideas that
allegedly underlay conflict arrives at the conclusion that it
would be quite wrong to think in terms of a constitutional or
legal dispute since everybody agreed on all points of essence.323
\Vhat Hinton can discover of Eliot's political ideas supports
this view.324 Mosse, however, dissenting from Mcllwain's long-
established ruling, does find a conscious struggle for sovereignty
in the debates of the half-century before the civil war.325 The
pointless parliament of 1614 receives the most pointful study
yet given to an early-Stuart parliament.326 The revisionary
enterprise is potentially supported by a careful discussion of
monarchic claims in this period which are shown to have de-
veloped from Tudor traditions rather than from a doctrine
imported by James I (contra Mcllwain).8217 Particular political
issues have been looked at. Thus Rabb analyses the position of
the Stuart's first parliamentary opponent; his views on Edwin
Sandys's economic tenets have evoked the justified wrath of
Ashton.328 Elton demonstrates (successfully, despite some
doubts) that the Apology of 1604 was never accepted by the

823 Margaret A. Judson, The Crisis of the Constitution. New Brunswick
N.J.: Rutgers UP: 1949. Pp. xi, 444. Rev: AHR 55, 887f.

824 p^ \y. j£. Hinton, 'Government and liberty under James I*,
CHJ ii (1957), 48-64.

826 George L. Mosse, The Struggle for Sovereignty in England from the
Reign of Queen Elizabeth to the Petition of Right. East Lansing:
Michigan State College Press: 1950. Pp. vii, 191. Rev: AHR 56,
868f,

3S* T. L. Moir, The Addled Parliament 0/1614. O: Clarendon: 1958.
Pp. x5 212. Rev: EHR 74, 529^-On the other hand: William
Mitchell, The Rise of the Revolutionary Party in the English House of
Commons. New York: Columbia UP: 1957. Pp. xvi, 209. The
methodological weaknesses and misplaced notions of this book
make use of it depend on careful scrutiny of every detail.

827 Gerhard A. Ritter, 'Divine Right und Prarogative der englischen
Konige 1603 - 1640% Historische Zjtitschnft 196 (1963), 584-625.

828 Theodore K. Rabb, 'Sir Edwyn Sandys and the Parliament of
1604', AHR 69 (1694), 646-70. - Robert Ashton, 'The parliamen-
tary agitation for free trade in the opening years of the reign of
James 1% PP 38 (1967), 40-55. Rabb's rejoinder is in PP 40

(1968), 165-73-