1. Russell, Parliaments and English Politics 1621–1628 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 349–59.
2. The idea that there was a ‘crisis of parliaments’ is, of course, associated with the work of Conrad Russell. See, for example, his Parliaments and English Politics index entries for ‘Parliaments, feared extinction of’; Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments: English History 1509–1660 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 40–1, 296–7, and generally
3. Russell, ‘Parliamentary History in Perspective 1604–1629’, History vol. 61 (1976), pp. 2–3. Also Kevin Sharpe, ‘Parliamentary History 1603–1629: In or Out of Perspective?’, introduction to Sharpe (ed.), Faction and Parliament: Essays on Early Stuart History (Oxford, 1978). For a substantial critique of this line of interpretation see Thomas Cogswell, ‘A Low Road to Extinction? Supply and Redress of Grievances in the Parliaments of the 1620s’, Historical Journal vol. 33 (1990), pp. 283–303.
4. Richard Cust, The Forced Loan and English Politics 1626–1628 (Oxford, 1987), p. 29; on ‘new counsels’ generally see pp. 5, 27ff.
5. L. J. Reeve, Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule (Cambridge, 1989), chpt. 2. N.B. also Reeve’s remark that he believes Cust to have exaggerated the speed with which a new pattern of politics was established after 1625 (p. 2, n. 3). Also, Richard Cust, ‘Charles I, the Privy Council, and the Forced Loan’, Journal of British Studies vol. 24 (1985), pp. 208–35.