Acherley, Roger, 6, 122
amalgamation scheme, 55, 58, 60
Answer to the Nineteen Propositions. See Appendix I;
historical importance of the Answer, 5–6;
comparative neglect by modern historians, 6–7;
contents discussed, 5, 24–6;
prepared by constitutional Royalists, 26–8;
Sir John Colepeper’s debt to Polybius, 26;
receives wide publicity in the name of Charles I, 5, 32, 32 n43, 33;
the two Houses seek to prevent publicity, 33;
‘errors’ in the Answer, 27–8, 28 n34 27 n34, 31 n41, 41;
the two Houses allegedly abandon claim to control the royal councillors, 28–9, 28 n36;
too late to prevent war, 29;
may have fostered war, 30–1, 30 n39, 41;
encourages rise of the theory of mixed government, 23, 26;
source of the theory of mixed monarchy that appeared in 1642, 29–30, 31;
Charles I’s definition of the three estates, 30–1;
discussed in the House of Commons of the Long Parliament, 33;
a committee appointed to reply to the preamble, 33;
relatipnship to constitutional theory during the civil-war period, 34–43, 44–5, 51–3;
and the Political Catechism, 37–40, 41, 106, 112;
recalled during the Interregnum by Bulstrode White-locke, 63–4,
by Lord Saye and Sele, 65–6,
by Richard Baxter, 73–4,
by Sir Francis Nethersole, 32–3;
at the Restoration by Robert Sheringham, 82,
and by Sir Henry Vane, 83–5;
invoked by the Shaftesbury Whigs during the Danby impeachment and the Exclusion Crisis, 92–111;
and the Judgment and Decree of Oxford University, 111–13;
familiar to the authors of the Bill of Rights, 113–23;
current in the literature of the Glorious Revolution, 113–14, 115–16, 115 n52;
commented on in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, 121–2;
indirectly a basis for the elaborate theories of mixed government in the eighteenth century, 123;
and the use of ...
