ABSTRACT
The Parliament offers an opportunity to assess not only the orthodox and revisionist interpretations in detail but also the wider issues raised by the divergence between them. The regional connection between William Mallory, Sir Thomas Hoby, Sir Thomas Wentworth and Christopher Wandesford was evident: together, they threatened to raise not just the uncompleted business of 1624 but also to explore a number of unsettled parliamentary grievances of much longer standing. The obstructive nature of their tactics was noted by Sir John Eliot, the Vice-Admiral of Devon and client of Buckingham who was still in his confidence. The 1625 Parliament can therefore be fitted neatly into a long-term view of a constitutional and religious struggle between the early Stuarts and their subjects. Of course, the general argument and the particular grounds upon which this interpretation of proceedings in 1625 rest have been challenged.
