Abbreviations

A&O

C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait (eds.), Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–60, 3 vols. (London, 1911)

AHR

American Historical Review

BL

British Library

Bod. L

Bodleian Library, Oxford

CJ

Journals of the House of Commons

Clarendon

W. Dunn Macray (ed.), The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England by Edward, Earl of Clarendon, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969 edn)

CSPD

Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series

Culpeper Letters

Michael J. Braddick and Mark Greengrass (eds.), ‘The Letters of Sir Cheney Culpeper, 1641–1657’, Camden Miscellany xxxiii: Seventeenth-Century Political and Financial Papers, Camden 5th series, 7, Royal Historical Society (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 105–402

EEBO

Early English Books Online (http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home)

EcHR

Economic History Review

EHR

English Historical Review

ESTC

English Short Title Catalogue (http://estc.bl.uk/)

Gardiner

S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, 4 vols. (Moreton-in-Marsh, 1991 edn)

Gardiner, CD

S. R. Gardiner (ed.), The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1906)

Gough, Myddle

David Hey (ed.), Richard Gough, The History of Myddle (Harmondsworth, 1981)

HEH

Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino

HJ

Historical Journal

HLQ

Huntington Library Quarterly

HR

Historical Research

JBS

Journal of British Studies

LJ

Journals of the House of Lords

ODNB

H. C. G. Matthews and B. Harrison (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 61 vols. (Oxford, 2004) (available online at http://www.oxforddnb.com/)

OED

The Oxford English Dictionary

PP

Past and Present

TNA

The National Archives

TRHS

Transactions of the Royal Historical Society

TT

Thomason Tracts

Note on Authorship and Dating of Pamphlets

Most pamphlets have a place and date (year) of publication. Using the bibliographical data of ESTC or EEBO, searchers can trace shifts in the numbers of titles each year with a narrow margin of error. Pamphlets from the largest individual collection, that assembled by George Thomason, can usually be dated much more precisely. Thomason often noted a precise date on the covers of pamphlets: this has been noted below as the ‘Thomason date’. Where no Thomason date exists, I have relied on the ‘Fortescue date’ derived from G. K. Fortescue (ed), Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers, and Manuscripts Relating to the Civil War, the Commonwealth and the Restoration, Collected by George Thomason, 1640–1661, 2 vols. (London, 1908). In general Thomason’s collection was bound in date order, although in several different series according to format. Thus, an undated pamphlet with no date appended by Thomason can be given an approximate date by reference to pamphlets bound with it that are dated. Fortescue catalogued the entire collection chronologically largely on this basis, although he did not follow Thomason’s binding precisely, often dating a pamphlet according to the events it describes. In neither case is the date absolutely precise, therefore – the Thomason date might indicate a date of publication, acquisition or cataloguing, for example; and Fortescue dates may relate to the events that they refer to, rather than publication date. Dates for individual pamphlets are not entirely reliable, therefore, although aggregate numbers of titles per month are likely to be broadly accurate. For the problems of dating pamphlets see Stephen J. Greenberg, ‘Dating Civil War Pamphlets, 1641–1644’, Albion, 20 (1988), 387–401; and Michael Mendle, ‘The Thomason Collection: A Reply to Stephen J. Greenberg’ and Greenberg, ‘The Thomason Collection: Rebuttal to Michael Mendle’, Albion, 22 (1990), 85–98.

I have in general followed the attribution of authorship in EEBO and ESTC.

Note on Dates and Quotations

Dates are given old style but with the New Year beginning on 1 January. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized where that aids comprehension.

Notes and References

Preface

1. For the Reformation and the problem of reliable knowledge see Richard Popkin, The History of Scepticism from Savonarola to Bayle, rev. edn (Oxford, 2003), esp. ch. 1. Benbrigge was a Sussex minister of no great fame or distinction. He may have been a relative of Joseph Benbrigge, the Puritan mayor of Rye in 1629: Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600-1660 (London, 1975), p.239. Sussex, too, had an unexceptional experience of warfare – neither spared nor ravaged. The pamphlet was dedicated to Captain Thomas Collines, another obscure figure, a relatively unknown member of Parliament’s county committee. Benbrigge’s pamphlet has attracted little, if any, attention from modern historians, although he is discussed by J. Sears McGee, The Godly Man in Stuart England: Anglicans, Puritans, and the Two Tables, 1620–1670 (Yale, 1976), esp. p. 22n. Benbrigge’s parliamentary sympathies are clear: he thought those labelled Puritan or Roundhead were ‘the flower of [god’s] people’, ‘howsoever the world despises them’. See also J. Sears McGee, ‘Conversion and the Imitation of Christ in Anglican and Puritan Writing’, JBS, 15:2 (1976), 21–39, at p. 25. Benbrigge had an unspectacular publishing career, which seems to have lasted less than a year. In October 1645 he had published a sermon, Christ above all exalted, as in justification so in sanctification. Wherein severall passages in Dr Crisps sermons are answered, a response to Tobias Crispe, Christ alone exalted (London, 1643, and subsequent editions). In September 1646 Benbrigge published a pamphlet about the regulation of usury, his third and final publication.

2. Speaking in Parliament in 1625: quoted in Jacqueline Eales, Puritans and Roundheads: The Harleys of Brampton Bryan and the Outbreak of the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1990), pp. xi–xii.

1. From the Bowels of the Whore of Babel

1. HEH, EL 7852, Castle to Bridgewater, 22 August 1640.

2. Quoted in Edward J. Cowan, Montrose: For Covenant and King (London, 1977), p. 41.

3. Jenny Wormald, Court, Kirk and Community: Scotland, 1470–1625 (Edinburgh, 1997), pp. 6–7.

4. For an overview of the government of the Borders, and further references, see Michael J. Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000), esp. pp. 344–6, 371–8.

5. David Cressy, England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640–1642 (Oxford, 2006), p. 94.

6. HEH, EL 7852, Castle to Bridgewater, 22 August 1640.

7. Conrad Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637–1642 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 68–70. It is likely that this letter refers to papers prepared following the decision, taken on 3 August, to cross the Tweed: David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637–44: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 2003), p. 206. The Covenanters had directed arguments to English audiences over the previous two years: Peter Donald, An Uncounselled King: Charles I and the Scottish Troubles, 1637–41 (Cambridge, 1990), esp. pp. 85–6, 128–32, 161, 178–9, 186–93, 223–5, 228–30; Russell, Fall, esp. pp. 61–2, 122–3. For the Covenanters” use of the press from 1637 onwards see Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 172–87, esp. pp. 177–81; Joseph Black, ‘“Pikes and Protestations”: Scottish Texts in England, 1639–40’, Publishing History, 42 (1997), 5–19; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 72, 286–7, 388–90.

8. The Venetian ambassador’s reports back home suggest that the picture at the English court was pretty bleak: Peter Razzell and Edward Razzell (eds.), The English Civil War: A Contemporary Account, vol. 2: 1640–42 (London, 1996), esp. pp. 21–30.

9. HEH, EL 7852, Castle to Bridgewater, 22 August 1640. For the proclamation see J. F. Larkin (ed.), Stuart Royal Proclamations (Oxford, 1983), vol. II, pp. 726–8. The Venetian ambassador thought it a ‘labour lost’ on an already pro-Scottish public: Razzell and Razzell (eds.), A Contemporary Account, vol. 2, p. 27. The Castle letter apparently summarizes it inaccurately, adding the claim that failure to support the war effort strenuously was treasonous. For another example of the inaccurate circulation of information in provincial copies see Walter Yonge’s copy of an inaccurate version of a Covenanters” petition in 1637: Donald, Uncounselled King, pp. 176–7.

10. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, p. 208.

11. HEH, EL 7859, Castle to Bridgewater, 8 September 1640. Other copies of this letter survive, see below, ch. 3, n. 98.

12. Donald, Uncounselled King, pp. 244–51; Peter Donald, ‘New Light on the Anglo-Scottish Contacts of 1640’, HR, 148 (1989), 121–9; Russell, Fall, pp. 151–3; Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 205–6; David Scott, ‘“Hannibal at our gates””: Loyalists and Fifth-Columnists during the Bishops” Wars – the Case of Yorkshire’, HR, 70 (1997), 269–93. For Castle’s suspicion about collusion see EL 7847, Castle to Bridgewater, 8 August 1640.

13. For the litmus test see Russell, Fall, pp. 154; See also Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, p. 214. For the politics of the label ‘rebel’ See also the Commons rebuke of a speaker for referring to them as rebels: CJ, ii, p. 25. There is also evidence of problems in publishing the proclamation: Larkin (ed.), Royal Proclamations, p. 727 n. 2. For collusion see John Adamson, The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I (London, 2007), esp. ch. 1.

14. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, p. 43.

15. For excellent introductions and overviews see Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490–1700 (London, 2003), pp. 106–27, 241–4; Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford, 1991), ch. 8. For precise summaries with a view to the political implications see Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 2: The Age of Reformation (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 3–12; Francis Oakley, ‘Christian Obedience and Authority, 1520–1550’, in J. H. Burns, with the assistance of Mark Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 159–92, esp. pp. 163–75.

16. MacCulloch, Reformation, pp. 126–32; Cameron, European Reformation, chs. 9–11.

17. For the role of the priesthood see Cameron, European Reformation, pp. 148–51. For Münster and the Peasants” War see ibid., pp. 202–9, 324–5; MacCulloch, Reformation, pp. 157–63, 204–7.

18. See especially Peter Lake, ‘Anti-Popery: The Structure of a Prejudice’, in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), Conflict in Early Stuart England (Harlow, 1989), pp. 72–106; Paul Christianson, Reformers and Babylon: English Apocalyptic Visions from the Reformation to the Eve of the Civil War (Toronto, 1978).

19. MacCulloch, Reformation, pp. 237–41; Cameron, European Reformation, pp. 151–5; Gordon Donaldson, ‘The Scottish Church, 1567–1625’, in A. G. R. Smith (ed.), The Reign of James VI and I (London, 1972), pp. 40–56, at pp. 44–5. For the wider political background see Oakley, ‘Christian Obedience’, and Robert M. Kingdom, ‘Calvinist Resistance Theory, 1550–1580’, in Burns with Goldie (eds.), History of Political Thought, pp. 193–218.

20. MacCulloch, Reformation, p. 238.

21. Cameron, European Reformation, pp. 145–8; Gordon Donaldson, The Scottish Reformation (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 76–80, 107–8.

22. The Book of Discipline that Knox produced for the kirk was almost certainly completed after the end of the parliamentary session, and the parliament had clearly worked with a draft version: Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, pp. 61–2. For the sceptical view of the heroic view of an irresistible and popular pressure for reformation, and the inevitability of its Presbyterian temper, see, in addition to Donaldson, Alec Ryrie, The Origins of the Scottish Reformation (Manchester, 2006); Alec Ryrie, ‘Congregations, Conventicles and the Nature of Early Scottish Protestantism’, PP, 191 (2006), 45–76.

23. Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, ch. 5.

24. Ibid., pp. 135–6, 139–44.

25. Ibid., ch. 4; Ryrie, ‘Congregations’; Margo Todd, The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland (New Haven, Conn., 2002), passim, esp. pp. 405–8; Walter Makey, The Church of the Covenant, 1637–1651: Revolution and Social Change in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979), pp. 6–12; Michael F. Graham, The Uses of Reform: ‘Godly discipline’ and Popular Behaviour in Scotland and Beyond (Leiden, 1996); Julian Goodare, State and Society in Early Modern Scotland (Oxford, 1999), ch. 6, esp. pp. 177–80, 205–11.

26. Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, pp. 204–8.

27. Ibid., pp. 67, 144–6.

28. Ibid., ch. 8.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid., pp. 208–9; Goodare, State and Society, pp. 193–4.

31. Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, ch. 9; Donaldson, ‘Scottish Church’ (which offers a convenient summary, and takes the story beyond 1592); Goodare, State and Society, pp. 194–6.

32. Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, ch. 9; Goodare, State and Society, pp. 195–200.

33. Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, ch. 9; for English views that Presbyters were simply popes in miniature see above, p. 344.

34. Donaldson, ‘Scottish Church’, pp. 51–3.

35. For discipline as a mark of the true church see Goodare, State and Society, p. 175; Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, pp. 78–9; Graham, Uses, p. 39; for kirk sessions see above, n. 25.

36. Gordon Donaldson, The Making of the Scottish Prayer Book (Edinburgh, 1954), pp. 3–40; Goodare, State and Society, pp. 197–8. Donaldson emphasizes the closeness of formal liturgical positions, but the situation in practice was more complicated: Todd, Culture of Protestantism, passim.

37. Goodare, State and Society, pp. 198–205, 211–13; for the abolition of Yule see MacCulloch, Reformation, pp. 379–80. The practice was more complicated: Todd, Culture of Protestantism, pp. 183–90; for self-determination and Scottish Protestant identity see ibid., passim.

38. MacCulloch, Reformation, ch. 11; Richard Bonney, The European Dynastic States 1494–1660 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 188–205.

39. Allan I. Macinnes, The British Revolution, 1629–1660 (Basingstoke, 2005), pp. 52–4.

40. MacCulloch, Reformation, pp. 373–8.

41. For the faltering nature of the official reformation and its sequels see Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993); for the subsequent Protestantization of England see Patrick Collinson, The Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religions and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Basingstoke, 1988); for an overview see Peter Marshall, Reformation England 1480–1642 (London, 2003).

42. Culpeper Letters, pp. 273–4.

43. The fundamental works are Nicholas Tyacke, ‘Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution’, reprinted in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c. 1530–1700 (Manchester, 2001), pp. 132–59 (See also chs. 6–9); and Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590–1640 (Oxford, 1987). Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge, 1992), gives a strong counter-case. For the debate see Kenneth Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church, 1603–1642 (Basingstoke, 1993); Marshall, Reformation England, pp. 126–35.

44. Marshall, Reformation England, p. 134; Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–1640 (Cambridge, 1994), chs. 2, 3, 9 and conclusion; Anthony Milton, ‘The Church of England, Rome and the True Church: The Demise of a Jacobean Consensus’, in Fincham (ed.), Early Stuart Church, pp. 187–210.

45. P. G. Lake, ‘Calvinism and the English Church, 1570–1635’, PP, 114 (1987), 32–76; Marshall, Reformation England, pp. 129–30; Patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559–1625 (Oxford, 1982), ch. 6.

46. Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967); Nicholas Tyacke, ‘The Fortunes of English Puritanism, 1603–40’, reprinted in Tyacke, Aspects, pp. 111–31. For a clear narrative see Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603 (Basingstoke, 1990), chs. 3–4; John Spurr, English Puritanism 1603–1689 (Basingstoke, 1998), chs. 4–6.

47. Tyacke, Aspects, chs. 5–9; Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists; Lake, ‘Calvinism’; Peter Lake, ‘The Laudian Style: Order Uniformity and the Pursuit of Holiness in the 1630s’, in Fincham (ed.), Early Stuart Church, pp. 161–85; Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, ‘The Ecclesiastical Policies of James I and Charles I’, in ibid., pp. 23–49. The debate is summarized in Marshall, Reformation England, pp. 194–205.

48. Lake, ‘Anti-Popery’, pp. 81–2, 87–92. This was indeed the analysis presented in the Grand Remonstrance: see above, pp. 169–70. For court Catholicism see above, p. 73. For conspiracy theories as a product of a system in which personal influence was crucial, and competing world views contended for influence, see Peter Lake, ‘The Monarchical Republic of Elizabeth I Revisited (by Its Victims) as a Conspiracy’, in Barry Coward and Julian Swann (eds.), Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Europe: From the Waldensians to the French Revolution (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 87–111; and Peter Lake, ‘Anti-Puritanism: The Structure of a Prejudice’, in Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake (eds.), Religious Politics in post-Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 80–97.

49. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 43–6; John Morrill, ‘The National Covenant in Its British Context’, in John Morrill (ed.), The Scottish National Covenant in Its British Context 1638-51 (Edinburgh, 1990), pp. 1–30, esp. pp. 7–11. These conflicts may have been anticipated well in advance by those planning the ceremonies: Dougal Shaw, ‘St Giles’ Church and Charles I’s Coronation Visit to Scotland’, HR, 77 (2004), 481–502.

50. Russell, Fall, pp. 37–42. For the importance of religious unity see Patrick Collinson, ‘William Shakespeare’s Religious Inheritance and Environment’, reprinted in Patrick Collinson, Elizabethan Essays (London, 1994), pp. 219–52; Conrad Russell, ‘Arguments for Religious Unity in England, 1530–1650’, reprinted in Conrad Russell, Unrevolutionary England 1603–1642 (London, 1990), pp. 179–204; and the summary in Braddick, State Formation, pp. 56–60.

51. For the dissemination of this image see Christopher Brown and Hans Vlieghe (eds.), Van Dyke, 1599-1641 (London, 1999), p. 304.

52. For influential views of Charles I see Conrad Russell, The Causes of the English Civil War (Oxford, 1990), ch. 8; Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005); Richard Cust, ‘Charles I and Popularity’, in Thomas Cogswell, Richard Cust and Peter Lake (eds.), Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain: Essays in Honour of Conrad Russell (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 235-58; Richard Cust, ‘Charles I and Providence’, in Fincham and Lake (eds.), Religious Politics, pp. 193–208. An elegant statement of the standard view is Alan Cromartie, The Constitutionalist Revolution: An Essay on the History of England, 1450–1642 (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 234–5. Charles now has a powerful advocate in Mark Kishlansky, ‘Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity?’, PP, 189 (2005), 41–80.

53. Allan I. Macinnes, Charles I and the Making of the Covenanting Movement, 1625–1641 (Edinburgh, 1991), chs. 3–4; Maurice Lee, Jr, The Road to Revolution: Scotland under Charles I, 1625–37 (Urbana, Ill., 1985), ch. 2. For crisp summaries see Macinnes, British Revolution, pp. 86–93; Keith M. Brown, Kingdom or Province? Scotland and the Regal Union, 1603–1715 (Basingstoke, 1992), pp. 101–3; Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, p. 235. For a defence of Charles’s position see Kishlansky, ‘Charles I’, 71–2; Lee suggests, contrary to much conventional wisdom, that some of the heat had in fact gone out of the conflict quite quickly: Lee, Road to Revolution, pp. 66–71.

54. See, especially, David Stevenson, ‘The English Devil of Keeping State: élite Manners and the Downfall of Charles I in Scotland’, in Roger Mason and Nicholas Macdougall (eds.), People and Power in Scotland: Essays in Honour of T. C. Smout (Edinburgh, 1992), pp. 126–44; Keith M. Brown, ‘Aristocratic Finances and the Origins of the Scottish Revolution’, EHR, 104 (1989), 46–87. For a summary and further references see Braddick, State Formation, at pp. 367–8.

55. Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, Conn., 1992), pp. 778–83; for Charles’s lack of empathy with Scottish sensibilities see Morrill, ‘National Covenant’, pp. 6–9. For Kishlansky’s defence see ‘Charles I’, p. 70.

56. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 43–4.

57. For the drawing up of the book and the variations introduced in deference to Scottish opinion see Donaldson, Making of the Scottish Prayer Book, esp. pp. 41–71; Donald, Uncounselled King, pp. 34–7. Kishlansky’s defence of Charles’s role in drawing up the book is contested: Kishlansky, ‘Charles I’, pp. 72–3; Julian Goodare, ‘Charles I: Comment’, PP (forthcoming).

58. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 46–7: ‘The fact that many of those who protested at the prayer book had never read or even seen it is thus no evidence that their opposition concealed non-religious and less worthy motives than they pretended’, p. 47.

59. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 58–61.

60. Ibid., pp. 61–2; Sharpe, Personal Rule, p. 788. For the claim about the bishop’s accident. see ‘the Bishop was redacted… to such a point of backside necessity, that (as may be supposed) he never in his life got such a laxative purgation… [I]t was constantly affirmed, that when he come out of the coach, he apprehended such danger (notwithstanding of the guards that was about him) that no man could endure the flewre nor stinking smell of his fat carcage’: ‘A breefe and true Relatione of the Broyle’, in John Leslie, A relation of the proceedings concerning the kirk of Scotland… by John Earl of Rothes, Bannatyne Club (Edinburgh, 1830), pp. 198–200, at p. 200.

61. HEH, EL 7809, Castle to Bridgewater, 24 October 1639.

62. J. R. M. Sizer, ‘stewart, John, First Earl of Traquair (c. 1599–1659)’, ODNB, 52, pp. 718–20. For tensions with bishops see Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, esp. pp. 53, 54–5 and the index entry on his ‘duplicity’, p. 415, sn Stewart, James, 1st Earl of Traquair. See also Donald, Uncounselled King, chs. 1–2 passim.

63. Donald, Uncounselled King, pp. 45–8; Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 64–6.

64. Donald, Uncounselled King, pp. 48–58; Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 66–79. For the October protests see Makey, Church of the Covenant, p. 21.

65. Donald, Uncounselled King, chs. 1–2. For Traquair’s permission to travel see pp. 61–2; for the anti-episcopal tone of the petitions see pp. 53–7. See also Stevenson’s verdict: ‘on the eve of the troubles in Scotland the administration was in no condition to meet the crisis thrust upon it by a king who refused to recognise the difficulties involved in imposing his policies’: Scottish Revolution, p. 55.

66. Makey, Church of the Covenant, pp. 1–6.

67. For a full discussion of the material grievances which may have lain behind the alienation of the political nation see Macinnes, Charles I, ch. 5.

68. Ibid., chs. 2–4, Lee, Road to Revolution, ch. 7.

69. Todd, Culture of Protestantism, conclusion.

70. For early signs of awareness in Scotland of the possibility of a common cause with the godly in England see Donald, Uncounselled King, p. 37; Russell, Fall, pp. 60–61.

71. Macinnes, British Revolution, p. 114; Macinnes, Charles I, pp. 163–73; Makey, Church of the Covenant, identifies the social significance of this organization slightly differently: pp. 22–5. For Henderson see John Coffey, ‘Henderson, Alexander (c. 1583–1646)’, ODNB, 26, pp. 288–93; and for Johnston see John Coffey, ‘Johnston, Sir Archibald, Lord Wariston (bap. 1611, d. 1663)’, ODNB, 30, pp. 338–46.

72. ‘The Scottish National Covenant’, reprinted in Gardiner, CD, pp. 124–34, quotations at pp. 125, 131.

73. Ibid., p. 132.

74. Ibid.

75. Skinner, Foundations, ch. 7.

76. Macinnes, Charles I, esp. p. 177; Macinnes, British Revolution, pp. 114–16. See also Edward J. Cowan, ‘The Making of the National Covenant’, in Morrill, Scottish National Covenant, pp. 68–89.

77. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 83–7, 97.

78. For this reading of the text see ibid., pp. 84–6; Morrill also finds it an ambivalent document: ‘National Covenant’, pp. 11–12, reflecting a genuine failure to realize the full implications of their position. Stevenson’s view of its practical significance is similar to that of Macinnes.

79. Macinnes, British Revolution, p. 116.

80. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, p. 87.

81. John J. Scally, ‘Hamilton, James, First Duke of Hamilton (1606–1649)’, ODNB, 24, pp. 839–46; See also Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, p. 94.

82. For the limits on Hamilton’s powers see Donald, Scottish Revolution, pp. 72–5, 78–9; Makey, Church of the Covenant, pp. 32–4.

83. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 88–95; Donald, Uncounselled King, pp. 79–87.

84. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, p. 96.

85. Ibid., pp. 18, 24; population estimate Laura Stewart, personal communication.

86. Quoted in Scally, ‘Hamilton’.

87. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 100–101.

88. Ibid., pp. 104–9.

89. Ibid., pp. 109–12; Donald, Uncounselled King, ch. 3, narrates Hamilton’s mission in greater detail and with more attention to the possibilities for settlement.

90. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 116–26; Donald, Uncounselled King, pp. 109–12.

2. Self-Government at the King’s Command

1. The most detailed account of the murder is contained in the letter from Dudley Carlton to the Queen, reprinted in Henry Ellis (ed.), Original Letters Illustrative of English History, 3 vols. (London, 1824), III, pp. 254–60. For some additional material see Frederick W. Fairholt (ed.), Poems and Songs Relating to George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham: and his assassination by John Felton, August 23, 1628, Percy Society, Vol. 29, No. 40 (London, 1850), pp. i-xxxi. Much of this material is also gathered in Isaac D’Israeli, Curiosities of Literature, 12th edn (London, 1841), pp. 307–10. It is discussed in James Holstun, Ehud’s Dagger: Class Struggle in the English Revolution (London, 2000); Alastair Bellany, ‘“Rayling Rymes and Vaunting Verse”: Libellous Politics in Early Stuart England, 1603–1628’, in Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (Basingstoke, 1994), pp. 285–310, esp. pp. 304–9. For a brief description of the assassination in the context of problematic military mobilization see Thomas G. Barnes, ‘Deputies not Principals, Lieutenants not Captains: The Institutional Failure of Lieutenancy in the 1620s’, in Mark Charles Fissel (ed.), War and Government in Britain, 1598–1650 (Manchester, 1991), pp. 58–86, esp. pp. 82–3.

2. Fairholt, Poems and Songs, p. xxi. For other versions see Ellis, Original Letters, pp. 259–60.

3. Ellis, Original Letters, pp. 257–8. See also CSPD, 1628–9, pp. 268, 271.

4. Ellis, Original Letters, p. 258; for the grievances about pay and place see CSPD, 1628–9, pp. 274, 277–8. For the relationship between Felton’s personal frustrations and the broader hostility to Buckingham see Thomas Cogswell, ‘John Felton, Popular Political Culture, and the Assassination of the Duke of Buckingham’, HJ, 49 (2006), 357–83.

5. Fairholt, Poems and Songs, p. xxviii.

6. John Rushworth, Historical Collections of Private Passages of State…, 8 vols. (London, 1721 edn), vol. I, p. 641; Fairholt, Poems and Songs, p. xxvii.

7. Rushworth, Historical Collections, I, p. 638; CSPD, 1628–9, p. 321.

8. For the preparations before his examination see CSPD, 1628–9, pp. 321, 340. Once, having ‘received an injury from a gentleman, he cut off a piece of his little finger, and sent it with a challenge to the gentleman to fight with him, thereby to let him know that he valued not the exposing of his whole body to hazard so he might but have an opportunity to be revenged’: Rushworth, Historical Collections, I, p. 638. A number of those examined afterwards commented that he was a melancholy and angry man, and his family seem to have been pained and bewildered by his actions: CSPD, 1628–9, pp. 274, 277–8, 343, 349.

9. Rushworth, Historical Collections, I, p. 638. According to one account it was Dorset who had threatened him with the rack, and it was to him that Felton made the threat in return: Fairholt, Poems and Songs, p. xxvin. Suspicion that leading parliamentarians were connected with the murder was not confined to the council: Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, Conn., 1992), p. 48. For Laud and the Puritan plot see Jason Peacey, ‘The Paranoid Prelate: Archbishop Laud and the Puritan Plot’, in Barry Coward and Julian Swann (eds.), Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Europe: From the Waldensians to the French Revolution (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 113–34.

10. Rushworth, Historical Collections, I, pp. 638–9. Fairholt, Poems and Songs, also suggests that legal niceties did not always prevent the use of the rack: p. xxvin.

11. Rushworth, Historical Collections, I, pp. 640–41. See also Ellis, Original Letters, pp. 279–81.

12. James A. Sharpe, ‘“Last dying speeches”: Religion, Ideology and Public Execution in Seventeenth-Century England’, PP, 107 (1985), 144–67.

13. Anon., The Prayer and Confession of Mr Felton, word for word as hee it spake immediatly before his Execution, Novem 29 1628, ESTC 19762. It was published anonymously and bears no place and date of publication, or the publisher, as if it had been published clandestinely. Although this was a publication likely to play well with the crown, the subject matter was rather sensitive, of course. As a matter of general policy Charles and his advisers had turned their backs on propaganda in 1627, reversing a policy which Charles and Buckingham had pursued in 1623: Thomas Cogswell, ‘The Politics of Propaganda: Charles I and the People in the 1620s’, JBS, 29:3 (1990), 187–215; See also Richard Cust, ‘Charles I and Popularity’, in Thomas Cogswell, Richard Cust and Peter Lake (eds.), Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain: Essays in Honour of Conrad Russell (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 235–58.

14. Sir Thomas Barrington reported that Felton ‘condemned and bewailed his fate, died penitently and disavowed all justification of the deed, desired all the people to pray for him and so ended his days’, Arthur Searle (ed.), Barrington Family Letters 1628–1632, Royal Historical Society, Camden Society, 4th ser., 28 (London, 1983), p. 39. See also Ellis, Original Letters, pp. 281–2.

15. Thomas Laqueur, ‘Crowds, Carnival and the State in English Executions, 1604–1868’, in A. L. Beier, David Cannadine and James M. Rosenheim (eds.), The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 305–55; Peter Lake and Michael C. Questier, ‘Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric under the Gallows: Puritans, Romanists and the State in Early Modern England’, PP, 153 (1996), 64–107.

16. Anon., Prayer and Confession.

17. CSPD, 1628–9, p. 277; Ellis, Original Letters, pp. 260–61.

18. Ibid., pp. 278–9. For an example of an execution rearranged in order to ‘avoid a crowd of people’ see Donald Woodward, ‘“Here comes a chopper to chop off his head”: The Execution of Three Priests at Newcastle and Gateshead, 1592–1594’, Recusant History, 22 (1994), 1–6, at p. 1.

19. Ellis, Original Letters, p. 281.

20. Fairholt, Poems and Songs, pp. xxix-xxx. See also Holstun, Ehud’s Dagger, pp. 186–91; Christopher Hill, Milton and the English Revolution (New York, 1977), p. 28.

21. Fairholt, Poems and Songs, passim. Some of this material is discussed in David Nor-brook, Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics, 1627–1660 (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 53–8; David Norbrook, Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance, rev. edn (Oxford, 2002), pp. 211, 312–12; Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 48–9; Bellany, ‘“Rayling Rymes and Vaunting Verse”’, esp. pp. 304–9.

22. Christopher Hill, A Turbulent, Seditious and Factious People: John Bunyan and His Church 1628–1688 (Oxford, 1988), p. 4 and n.

23. For a clear overview of the order of events see Roger Lockyer, The Early Stuarts: A Political History 1603–1642 (London, 1989). Conrad Russell, Parliaments and English Politics 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), offers a detailed outline of the parliamentary politics, but is now criticized for underplaying the importance of ideological conflict and its resonances in the localities. For important studies which re-emphasize these things see Richard Cust, The Forced Loan and English Politics 1626–1628 (Oxford, 1987); Thomas Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution: English Politics and the Coming of War, 1621–1624 (Cambridge, 1989); Thomas Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish Match’, in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics 1603–1642 (Harlow, 1989), pp. 107–33; Thomas Cogswell, ‘Phaeton’s Chariot: The Parliament Men and the Continental Crisis in 1621’, in J. F. Merritt (ed.), The Political World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, 1621–1641(Cambridge, 1996), pp. 24–46; Richard Cust, ‘Politics and the Electorate in the 1620s’, in ibid., pp. 134–67; Johann Sommerville, ‘Ideology, Property and the Constitution’, in ibid., pp. 47–71. For Russell’s response on foreign policy see Conrad Russell, ‘Sir Thomas Wentworth and anti-Spanish Sentiment, 1621–1624’, in Merritt (ed.), Political World, pp. 47–62. For the interconnection of threats to civil and religious liberties see Alan Cromartie, The Constitutionalist Revolution: An Essay on the History of England, 1450–1642 (Cambridge, 2006), esp. intr. and ch. 8. Thomas Cogswell, ‘A Low Road to Extinction? Supply and Redress of Grievances in the Parliaments of the 1620s’, HJ, 33 (1990), 283–303, argues that Parliament was effective both in securing redress and in granting supplies during the 1620s; for the royal perception that parliaments would not grant enough money see Cust, Forced Loan, pp. 30–31. For Arminianism see above, ch. 1, n. 43.

24. Richard W. Stewart, ‘Arms and Expeditions: The Ordnance Office and the Assaults on Cadiz (1625) and the Isle of Rhé (1627)’, in Fissel (ed.), War and Government, pp. 112–32; Cogswell, ‘John Felton’, pp. 362–4; Cust, Forced Loan, esp. pp. 58–62; Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, pp. 334–76; John Guy, ‘The Origins of the Petition of Right Reconsidered’, HJ, 25 (1982), 289–312, esp. pp. 294–9. The reliability of the accusations on which Guy’s article is based is contested by Mark Kishlansky, ‘Tyranny Denied: Charles I, Attorney General Heath, and the Five Knights’ Case’, HJ, 42 (1999), 53–83. The point here is that they were made, and what that indicates about the political atmosphere of the late 1620s.

25. Stewart, ‘Arms and Expeditions’.

26. Barnes, ‘Deputies not Principals’; Thomas Cogswell, ‘War and the Liberties of the Subject’, in J. H. Hexter (ed.), Parliament and Liberty from the Reign of Elizabeth to the English Civil War (Stanford, Calif., 1992), pp. 225–51.

27. Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, ch. 8, esp. pp. 377–84, and for the subsequent dispute over publication, pp. 401–2. For the printing and legal status see L. J. Reeve, Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule (Cambridge, 1989), esp. pp. 90–91; L. J. Reeve, ‘The Legal Status of the Petition of Right’, HJ, 29 (1986), 257–77, esp. pp. 261–3; E. R. Foster, ‘Printing the Petition of Right’, HLQ, 38 (1974–5), 81–3. The totemic significance of the Petition of Right for those anxious about English liberties is clear in Reeve, Charles I, esp. ch. 5.

28. Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, pp. 391–2; Alastair Bellany, ‘Basting the Lambe: Witchcraft, Court Scandal and the Lynching of the Duke’s Devil, June 1628’, PP (forthcoming).

29. Glenn Burgess, The Politics of the Ancient Constitution: An Introduction to English Political Thought, 1603–1642 (Basingstoke, 1992); Clive Holmes, ‘Parliament, Liberty, Taxation, and Property’, in Hexter (ed.), Parliament and Liberty, pp. 122–54.

30. For fundamental disagreements in Stuart political thought see Johann Sommerville, Royalists and Patriots: Politics and Ideology in England 1603–1640 (rev. edn London, 1999); Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution. For the articulation of a fundamental view of political liberty in the debates about the Petition of Right see Quentin Skinner, ‘Rethinking Political Liberty’, History Workshop Journal, 61:1 (2006), 156–70, esp. pp. 156, 158; Guy, ‘Origins of the Petition of Right’; Cogswell, ‘War and the Liberties of the Subject’.

31. For the rise of Arminianism see above, ch. 1, n. 43; and for a summary see Peter Marshall, Reformation England, 1480–1642 (London, 2003), esp. pp. 195–7. For Maynwaring and Sibthorpe see, Cust, Forced Loan, esp. pp. 62–5; Sommerville, Royalists and Patriots, esp. pp. 119–24; Vivienne Larminie, ‘Maynwaring, Roger (1589/90?-1653)’, ODNB, 37, pp. 612–4. For Sibthorpe See also John Fielding, ‘Sibthorpe, Robert (d. 1662)’, ODNB, 50, pp. 500–501; Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, esp. pp. 244–5.

32. Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, pp. 404–12.

33. Marshall, Reformation England, pp. 135, 196; Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, pp. 172–4.

34. The classic discussion is Patrick Collinson, The Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religious and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Basingstoke, 1988), ch. 1.

35. Cogswell, Blessed Revolution; Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish Match’.

36. The literature on this is very large. See, especially, Peter Lake, ‘Defining Puritanism – Again?’, in Francis J. Bremer (ed.), Puritanism: Transatlantic Perspectives on a Seventeenth-Century Anglo-American Faith (Boston, Mass., 1993), pp. 3–29. For the construction of Puritanism in public debate see, in particular, Peter Lake with Michael Questier, The Antichrist’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in post-Reformation England (New Haven, Conn., 2002); Peter Lake, ‘Anti-Puritanism: The Structure of a Prejudice’, in Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake (eds.), Religious Politics in post-Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 80–97; Patrick Collinson, ‘The Theatre Constructs Puritanism’, in David L. Smith, Richard Strier and David Bevington (eds.), The Theatrical City: Culture, Theatre and Politics in London, 1576–1649 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 157–69. Marshall, Reformation England, offers an excellent overview and further references: pp. 135–41.

37. Esther S. Cope and Willson H. Coates (eds.), Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640, Camden 4th ser., 19 (London, 1977), p. 147.

38. Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, pp. 144–5; Marshall, Reformation England, pp. 194–5.

39. Tessa Watt, Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550–1640 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 11. The figure for literacy is derived from David Cressy, Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1980), although most authorities agree that this is a minimum figure, and possibly much lower than the real size of the reading population. For a judicious review see Adam Fox, Oral and Literate Culture in England 1500–1700 (Oxford, 2000), pp. 16–19.

40. Watt, Cheap Print, ch. 2; Angela McShane Jones, ‘“Rime and Reason”: The Political World of the English Broadside Ballad, 1640–1689’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Warwick (2004), esp. ch. 6.

41. Ian M. Green, ‘“For children in yeeres and children in understanding”: The Emergence of the English Catechism under Elizabeth and the Early Stuarts’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 37 (1986), 397–425, at p. 425; See also Ian Green, The Christian’s ABC: Catechisms and Catechizing in England c. 1530–1740 (Oxford, 1996); Ian Green, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2000). For instructional material See also Tessa Watt, ‘Piety in the Pedlar’s Pack: Continuity and Change, 1578–1630’, in Margaret Spufford (ed.), The World of Rural Dissenters, 1520–1725 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 235–72.

42. Watt, Cheap Print, chs. 4–8; work on chapbooks is much indebted to Margaret Spufford, Small Books and Pleasant Histories: Popular Fiction and Its Readership in Seventeenth-Century England (Athens, Ga., 1981).

43. Matthias Adam Shaaber, Some Forerunners of the Newspaper in England, 1476–1622 (Philadelphia, Penn., 1929), esp. chs. 1, 4.

44. Alexandra Walsham, Providence in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2001 edn); Lake with Questier, Antichrist’s Lewd Hat, chs. 1-5; Peter Lake, ‘Popular Form, Puritan Content’: Two Puritan Appropriations of the Murder Pamphlet from mid-Seventeenth-Century London’, in Anthony Fletcher and Peter Roberts (eds.), Religion, Culture and Society in Early Modern Britain: Essays in Honour of Patrick Collinson (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 313–34.

45. For public awareness of politics more generally see Richard Cust, ‘News and Politics in Early Seventeenth-Century England’, reprinted in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), The English Civil War (London, 1997), pp. 233–60; Cogswell, ‘Politics of Propaganda’; Thomas Cogswell, ‘Underground Verse and the Transformation of Early Stuart Political Culture’, in Susan D. Amussen and Mark A. Kishlansky (eds.), Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown (Manchester, 1995), pp. 277–300; Thomas Cogswell, ‘“Published by Authoritie”: Newsbooks and the Duke of Buckingham’s Expedition to the Île de Ré’, HLQ, 67:1 (2004), 1–25; Bellany, ‘“Rayling Rymes and Vaunting Verse”’; Alastair Bellany, ‘Libels in Action: Ritual, Subversion and the English Literary Underground, 1603–42’, in Tim Harris (ed.), The Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500–1850 (Basingstoke, 2001), pp. 99–124; Fox, Oral and Literate, esp. chs. 6–7 and the works cited there.

46. Fox, Oral and Literate, esp. chs. 6–7 and the works cited there.

47. For an overview of court politics see Kevin Sharpe, ‘The Image of Virtue: The Court and Household of Charles I 1625–1642’, in David Starkey and D. A. L. Morgan, John Murphy, Pam Wright, Neil Cuddy and Kevin Sharpe (eds.), The English Court: From the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War (London, 1987), pp. 226–60. For the politics of Buckingham’s bridging of two reigns see Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, esp. pp. 107–8, 145–8, 202–3; Cust, Forced Loan, esp. pp. 27–35. For the rumours about the poisoning of James I, which persisted into the 1640s, see Cogswell, ‘John Felton’, pp. 366–8; Alastair Bellany, ‘The Murder of James I: Mutations and Meanings of a Political Myth, c. 1625–1660’ (unpublished paper).

48. Peter Lake and Steve Pincus, ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England’, JBS, 45 (2006), 270–92; Peter Lake, ‘Anti-Puritanism’; Peter Lake, ‘“The monarchical republic of Elizabeth I” Revisited (by Its Victims) as a Conspiracy’, in Coward and Swann (eds.), Conspiracies, pp. 87–111. For a similar analysis see Richard Cust, ‘“Patriots” and “popular spirits”: Narratives of Conflict in Early Stuart Politics’, in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), The English Revolution c. 1590-1720 (Manchester, 2007/8).

49. CSPD, 1628–9, pp. 343, 363.

50. Ibid., p. 274. See also ibid., p. 359.

51. Cogswell, ‘Politics of Propaganda’.

52. Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, pp. 1–3, ch. 8.

53. See, in particular, Blair Worden, ‘Classical Republicanism and the Puritan Revolution’, in Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Valerie Pearl and Blair Worden (eds.), History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H. R. Trevor-Roper (London, 1981), pp. 182–200; Markku Peltonen, Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought, 1570–1640 (Cambridge, 1995); Markku Peltonen, ‘Citizenship and Republicanism in Elizabethan England’, in Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner (eds.), Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, vol. 1: Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 85–106. For the practical importance of these ideas see Mark Goldie, ‘The Unacknowledged Republic: Officeholding in Early Modern England’, in Harris (ed.), Politics of the Excluded, pp. 153–94; Richard Cust, ‘The “public man” in Late Tudor and Early Stuart England’, in Peter Lake and Steven Pincus (eds.), The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Manchester, forthcoming); Richard Cust and Peter G. Lake, ‘Sir Richard Grosvenor and the Rhetoric of Magistracy’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 54 (1981), 40–53; Philip Withington, The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2005), esp. chs. 3, 7, 8.

54. Quentin Skinner, ‘Classical Liberty and the Coming of the English Civil War’, in Van Gelderen and Skinner (eds.), Republicanism, vol. 2: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe, pp. 9–28.

55. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, ch. 1; See also David Norbrook, ‘Lucan, Thomas May, and the Creation of a Republican Literary Culture’, in Sharpe and Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics, pp. 45–66. Republican values were not necessarily anti-monarchical: ‘In general English republicanism defined itself in relation not to constitutional structures but moral principles’: Jonathan Scott, England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-Century English Political Stability in European Context (Cambridge, 2000), ch. 14, quotation at p. 317. See also Jonathan Scott, Commonwealth Principles: Republican Writing of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 2004). Significantly, perhaps, there was a strong imperial theme in representations of Charles during the Personal Rule: John Peacock, ‘The Image of Charles I as a Roman Emperor’, in Ian Atherton and Julie Sanders (eds.), The 1630s: Interdisciplinary Essays on Culture and Politics in the Caroline Era (Manchester, 2006), pp. 50–73.

56. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, esp. pp. 54–5.

57. Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, ch. 7.

58. Quoted in Kevin Sharpe, ‘The King’s Writ: Royal Authors and Royal Authority in Early Modern England’, in Sharpe and Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics, pp. 117–38, at p. 133.

59. The classic cutting-down-to-size of Stuart parliaments is Conrad Russell, ‘Parliamentary History in Perspective, 1604–1629’, reprinted in Conrad Russell, Unrevolutionary England, 1603–1642 (London, 1990), pp. 31–57. See also Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, ch. 1. For the frequency of meetings see Michael A. R. Graves, Tudor Parliaments: Crown, Lords and Commons, 1485–1603 (Harlow, 1985), p. 7; Cogswell, ‘Low Road’, p. 285. For a crisp overview see David L. Smith, The Stuart Parliaments 1603–1689 (London, 1999), pt 1.

60. Much of the literature relating to this and the next paragraph is cited and summarized in Michael J. Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 48–56, 104–7. For a fuller survey see Keith Wrightson, Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain (New Haven, Conn., 2000), chs. 5–9; and for the lives of the poor, Steve Hindle, On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c. 1550–1750 (Oxford, 2004). For 1623 see Andrew B. Appleby, Famine in Tudor and Stuart England (Liverpool, 1978), chs. 8–9. For famine and the social practices which limited the effects of harvest failure see John Walter and Roger Schofield, ‘Famine, Disease and Crisis Mortality in Early Modern Society’, in John Walter and Roger Schofield (eds.), Famine, Disease and the Social Order in Early Modern Society (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 1–73; and John Walter, ‘The Social Economy of Dearth in Early Modern England’, reprinted in John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 124–80.

61. The classic account is Keith Wrightson, ‘Aspects of Social Differentiation in Rural England, c.1580–1660’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 5:1 (1977), 33–47; See also Keith Wrightson, English Society 1580–1680 (London, 1982), ch. 5.

62. Braddick, State Formation, ch. 3. Essential reading includes: Paul Slack, Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1988); Paul Slack, From Reformation to Improvement: Public Welfare in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1998), chs. 1–2; Hindle, On the Parish?.

63. Michael J. Braddick, ‘State Formation and Social Change: A Problem Stated and Approaches Suggested’, Social History, 16:1 (1991), 1–17; Braddick, State Formation, pp. 27–38, 68–85, 101–35; Steve Hindle, The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1640 (Basingstoke, 2000), esp. chs. 2, 6.

64. Paul Slack, ‘Books of Orders: The Making of English Social Policy, 1577–1631’, TRHS, 5th ser., 30 (1980), 1–22; B. W. Quintrell, ‘The Making of Charles I’s Book of Orders’, EHR, 95 (1980), 553–72; Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 456–87; Thomas G. Barnes, Somerset 1625–1640: A County’s Government during the ‘Personal Rule’ (Chicago, 1961), ch. 7. In Kent there was no conflict, but compliance was not complete: Peter Clark, English Provincial Society from the Reformation to the Revolution: Religion, Politics and Society in Kent, 1500–1640 (Hassocks, 1977), pp. 350–53; Henrik Langelüddecke, ‘Law and Order in Seventeenth-Century England: The Organization of Local Administration during the Personal Rule of Charles I’, Law and History Review, 15 (1997), 49–76; Henrik Langelüddecke, ‘“Patchy and spasmodic”?: The Response of Justices of the Peace to Charles I’s Book of Orders’, EHR, 113 (1998), 1231–48. For Manchester see Conrad Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637–1642 (Oxford, 1991), p. 6. For the 1640s see Anthony Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England (New Haven, Conn., 1986), esp. p. 187; Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 51–8. Steve Hindle argues that the extent of rates has been overstated and that magistrates intervening in the grain market during the 1640s were not so much self-activating as prompted from below: Hindle, On the Parish?, pp. 253–4; Steve Hindle, ‘Dearth and the English Revolution: The Harvest Crisis of 1647–50 Revisited’, EcHR (forthcoming).

65. Mark Brayshay, Philip Harrison and Brian Chalkley, ‘Knowledge, Nationhood and Governance: The Speed of the Royal Post in Early-Modern England’, Journal of Historical Geography, 24 (1998), 265–88.

66. David Cressy, England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640–1642 (Oxford, 2006), p. 311; Jacqueline Eales, Puritans and Roundheads: The Harleys of Brampton Bryan and the Outbreak of the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 116–18; for the density of communication see Michael Frearson, ‘Communications and the Continuity of Dissent in the Chiltern Hundreds during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Spufford (ed.), World of Rural Dissenters, pp. 273–87.

67. Figures for population and age profile derived from E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, The Population History of England 1541–1871: A Reconstruction (Cambridge, 1981), table A3.1.

68. For studies of the officeholding population of particular villages see Joan R. Kent, The English Village Constable, 1580–1642 (Oxford, 1986), ch. 4; Jan Pitman, ‘Tradition and Exclusion: Parochial Officeholding in Early Modern England, a Case Study from North Norfolk, 1580–1640’, Rural History, 15 (2004), 27–45. The point about influence over government is also made by Goldie, ‘Unacknowledged’.

69. Withington, Politics of Commonwealth, for numbers see table 2.1; Goldie, ‘Unacknowledged’; Pitman, ‘Tradition and Exclusion’, esp. pp. 38–40.

70. This was particularly true in the mid sixteenth century: Anthony Fletcher and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, 5th edn (Harlow, 2004), pp. 12–13; Andrew McRae, God Speed the Plough: The Representation of Agrarian England, 1500–1660(Cambridge, 1996), esp. ch. 1. But the language persisted into the seventeenth century: John Walter, ‘Public Transcripts, Popular Agency and the Politics of Subsistence in Early Modern England’, reprinted in Walter, Crowds, pp. 196–222, esp. pp. 198–9.

71. For this approach see Quentin Skinner, ‘Language and Social Action’, reprinted in James Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics (Princeton, NJ, 1988), pp. 119–32.

72. John Walter and Keith Wrightson, ‘Dearth and the Social Order in Early Modern England’, reprinted in Paul Slack (ed.), Rebellion, Popular Protest and the Social Order in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 108–28; Walter, ‘Public Transcripts’; John Walter, ‘A “rising of the people”?: The Oxfordshire Rising of 1596’, in Walter, Crowds, pp. 73–123; Walter, ‘Social Economy of Dearth’, in ibid., pp. 124–80; Steve Hindle, ‘Exhortation and Entitlement: Negotiating Inequality in English Rural Communities, 1550–1650’, in Michael J. Braddick and John Walter (eds.), Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society: Order, Hierarchy and Subordination in Britain and Ireland (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 102–22.

73. Hindle, ‘Dearth and the English Revolution’.

74. For a summary and further references see Braddick, State Formation, pp. 30–41, 137–40.

75. For a summary and further references see ibid. For some influential studies see Keith Wrightson, ‘Two Concepts of Order: Justices, Constables and Jurymen in Seventeenth-Century England’, in John Brewer and John Styles (eds.), An Ungovernable People?: The English and Their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London, 1980), pp. 21–46; Cynthia Herrup, The Common Peace: Participation and the Criminal Law in Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1987); Hindle, State and Social Change, ch. 5.

76. Clive Holmes, ‘The County Community in Stuart Historiography’, JBS, 19:2 (1980), 54–73.

77. Patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559–1625 (Oxford, 1982), ch. 4.

78. Keith Wrightson and David Levine, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling 1525–1700, rev. edn (Oxford, 1995); David Underdown, Fire from Heaven: Life in an English Town in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1992); Cust and Lake, ‘Sir Richard Grosvenor’.

79. For more indulgent paternalism see David Underdown, Revel, Riot, and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1985), ch. 3. For social control without Puritanism see Margaret Spufford, ‘Puritanism and Social Control’, in Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson (eds.), Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 41–57; Martin Ingram, ‘Reformation of Manners in Early Modern England’, in Paul Griffiths, Adam Fox and Steve Hindle (eds.), The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 47–88.

80. Sharpe, ‘Image of Virtue’.

81. Braddick, State Formation, pp. 181–96.

82. Ibid., esp. pp. 181–4.

83. For summaries and further references see Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 487–505; Braddick, State Formation, pp. 187–8, 192–5.

84. For a full account see Michael J. Braddick, ‘Administrative Performance: The Representation of Political Authority in Early Modern England’, in Braddick and Walter (eds.), Negotiating Power, pp. 166–87. See also Esther Cope, ‘Politics without Parliament: The Dispute about Muster Masters’ Fees in Shropshire in the 1630s’, HLQ, 45 (1982), 271–84; Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 495, 496–7.

85. The sense of occasion is evoked by A. H. Smith, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558–1603 (Oxford, 1974), pp. 87–8.

86. Braddick, ‘Administrative Performance’, p. 168. For Burton’s attitude in the 1620s see ibid., p. 182; Sharpe, Personal Rule, p. 497.

87. For the abuse of tax collectors and the intersection with local reputation see Michael J. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England: Local Administration and Response (Woodbridge, 1994), esp. pp. 39–54, 117–24, 154–6; Michael J. Braddick, The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714 (Manchester, 1996), esp. pp. 196–7.

88. Braddick, ‘Administrative Performance’, quotations at pp. 170, 174.

89. Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 494–5.

90. Thomas Cogswell, Home Divisions: Aristocracy, the State and Provincial Conflict (Manchester, 1998), esp. ch. 11; See also Sharpe, Personal Rule, p. 499.

91. For the most sympathetic account of these fiscal policies see Sharpe, Personal Rule, ch. 3; and, for a longer-term perspective on their logic and politics, Braddick, Nerves of State, ch. 4, which also contains a guide to further reading. For the longer-term perspective see Holmes, ‘Parliament, Liberty, Taxation, and Property’. For the burdens of these various devices in Leicestershire see Cogswell, Home Divisions, pp. 194–200, 230–36, 245–50, 255–60. For knighthood fines See also Derek Hirst, England in Conflict 1603–1660: Kingdom Community, Commonwealth (London, 1999), pp. 140, 142.

92. Hirst, England in Conflict, quotation at p. 142.

93. For an overview see Sharpe, Personal Rule, ch. 9; A. A. M. Gill, ‘Ship Money during the Personal Rule of Charles I: Politics, Ideology and Law 1634 to 1640’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Sheffield (1990).

94. Kenneth Fincham, ‘The Judges’ Decision on Ship Money in February 1637: The Reaction of Kent’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 57:136 (1984), 230–37.

95. Sharpe, Personal Rule, p. 721.

96. For a clear account see ibid., pp. 721–5.

97. Ibid. For Bramston and Davenport see Conrad Russell, ‘The Ship-Money Judgments of Bramston and Davenport’, reprinted in Russell, Unrevolutionary England, pp. 137–44; Clarendon quoted in R. W. Ketton-Cremer, Norfolk in the Civil War: A Portrait of a Society in Conflict (London, 1969), p. 91.

98. Clarendon, I, p. 86. Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 727–9, points to the slight improvement over the summer of 1638, as those waiting for the verdict paid up; for places where receipts held up see C. A. Clifford, ‘Ship Money in Hampshire: Collection and Collapse’, Southern History, 4 (1982), 91–106, at p. 102; Clark, Kent, pp. 358–61; John T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 80–84. For those with worsening records of payment or difficulties in getting officials to serve from 1637 onwards see Barnes, Somerset, ch. 8, esp. pp. 228–33; M. A. Faraday, ‘Shipmoney in Herefordshire’, in Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club, 41 (1974), 219–29, esp. pp. 226–7; Clive Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), p. 131; Ketton-Cremer, Norfolk, p. 94; Mark Stoyle, Loyalty and Locality: Popular Allegiance in Devon during the English Civil War (Exeter, 1994), pp. 172–6.

99. For the politics of Star Chamber see Sharpe, Personal Rule, esp. pp. 665–82; for its wider history see Hindle, State and Social Change, ch. 3 and the references therein.

100. Quoted in Marshall, Reformation England, p. 197.

101. For religious policies in the 1630s see ibid., ch. 8; Kenneth Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church, 1603–1642 (Basingstoke, 1993). Sharpe, Personal Rule, ch. 6, is, as always, full and informative and sympathetic to the views and aims of the regime.

102. Peter Lake, ‘The Laudian Style: Order, Uniformity and the Pursuit of Holiness in the 1630s’, in Fincham (ed.), Early Stuart Church, pp. 161–85, quotation at p. 167; Andrew Foster, ‘The Clerical Estate Revitalised’, in ibid., pp. 93–113; Holmes, Lincolnshire, pp. 112–21. For the argument that fears for the doctrine of predestination were not at the heart of the controversies, at least outside the universities, and that there had been other periods when it had been more threatened, see Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge, 1992). For a good overview and further references see Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 133–41.

103. For the local appeal of Laudianism among Catholics and anti- or non-Puritans see Michael Questier, ‘Arminianism, Catholicism and Puritanism in England during the 1630s’, HJ, 49 (2006), 53–28; Alexandra Walsham, ‘The Parochial Roots of Laudianism Revisited: Catholics, Anti-Calvinists and “Parish Anglicans” in Early Stuart England’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 49 (1988), 620–51; and for the ‘multiple realities’ of parish life see Christopher Haigh, ‘The Troubles of Thomas Pestell: Parish Squabbles and Ecclesiastical Politics in Caroline England’, JBS, 41 (2002), 403–28. For a judicious overview of the academic debate about the origins and appeal of ‘Laudianism’ see Marshall, Reformation England, pp. 199–205, which contains the key references. For examples of local enforcement see Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), ch. 4; Holmes, Lincolnshire, pp. 112–21; Evans, Norwich, pp. 84–104; Eales, Puritans and Roundheads, pp. 84–8; Hughes, Warwickshire, pp. 104-11; J. F. Merritt, The Social World of Early Modern Westminster: Abbey, Court and Community, 1525–1640 (Manchester, 2005), pp. 343–51.

104. For the complexities see Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–1640 (Cambridge, 1994), ch. 8, esp. pp. 187–209.

105. Caroline Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, NC, 1983), esp. chs. 2–3, quotation at p. 71; Caroline Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria (1609–1669)’, ODNB, 26, pp. 392–406. For a rounded view of the cultural and political role of Henrietta Maria’s court see Caroline Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria in the 1630s: Perspectives on the Role of Consort Queens in Ancien Régime Courts’, in Atherton and Sanders (eds.), The 1630s, pp. 92–110.

106. For a summary and further references see Braddick, State Formation, esp. pp. 294–8, 309–10.

107. Ibid., pp. 298–301.

108. Quoted in Cogswell, Home Divisions, pp. 189–90 (the sermon was published in 1635).

109. See, for example, Claire S. Schen, ‘Constructing the Poor in Early Seventeenth-Century London’, Albion, 32:3 (2000), 450–63; Claire S. Schen, Charity and Lay Piety in Reformation London 1500–1620 (Aldershot, 2002), p. 235. For Scots in the European wars see Allan I. Macinnes, The British Revolution, 1629–1660 (Basingstoke, 2005), esp. pp. 50–54; for the English see David Trim, ‘Calvinist Internationalism and the English Officer Corps, 1562–1642’, History Compass, 4/6 (2006), 1024–48. Cromwell may have been one of them, although probably not: Barry Coward, Oliver Cromwell (Harlow, 1991), p. 8.

110. The best account of the ritual construction of community is Daniel C. Beaver, Parish Communities and Religious Conflict in the Vale of Gloucester 1590–1690 (Cambridge, Mass., 1998), esp. intro., chs. 1–3. See also David Cressy, Birth, Marriage and Death: Ritual, Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford, 1997); for churching see esp. ch. 9. For an account of pewing emphasizing community against a general stress on hierarchy, and with full references to the literature it is attacking, see Christopher W. Marsh, ‘“Common Prayer” in England 1560–1640: The View from the Pew’, PP, 171 (2001), 66–94.

111. Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 751–7; for John Pym’s flirtation with migration see Anthony Fletcher, The Outbreak of the English Civil War (London, 1981), p. xxi; for Lord Say and Sele and Lord Brooke see Russell, Fall, p. 1; for Cromwell’s possible flirtation see Coward, Cromwell, p. 8. Eighty thousand left for the New World during the 1630s (Macinnes, British Revolution, p. 64), but only a fraction of this movement can be accounted for by religious exiles. Twenty thousand left England for New England: John Spurr, English Puritanism 1603–1689 (Basingstoke, 1998), p. 91. For an excellent overview see Alison Games, ‘Migration’, in David Armitage and Michael J. Braddick (eds.), The British Atlantic World, 1500–1800 (Basingstoke, 2002), pp. 31–50.

112. For the general problem see Spurr, Puritanism, pp. 90–93. For Puritan acquiescence, or silence, during the 1630s and the role of networks in sustaining the godly in their faith see Eales, Puritans and Roundheads, pp. 10–13 and ch. 3; Fletcher, Sussex, ch. 3; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 141–6; Barnes, Somerset, pp. 21–3. Of course, this solidarity and mutual support might also serve to divide the godly from their neighbours.

113. For the complexities of Puritan attitudes in the 1630s see Peter Lake, ‘“A Charitable Christian Hatred”: The Godly and Their Enemies in the 1630s’, in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales (eds.), The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560–1700(Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 145–83; and for a case study see John Fielding, ‘Opposition to the Personal Rule of Charles I: The Diary of Robert Woodford, 1637–1641’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 104–27.

114. Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 758–65, quotation at p. 763.

115. This case is eloquently stated by Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, esp. pp. 254–6.

3. Drawing Swords in the King’s Service

1. Andy Wood, Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 2002), p. 127. Wood reads this incident differently. For impressment in 1639 see M. C. Fissel, The Bishops” Wars: Charles I’s Campaigns against Scotland 1638–1640(Cambridge, 1994), pp. 224–41; for Cheshire and the war effort see map 1, and pp. 12–18.

2. All examples from Conrad Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637–1642 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 85–7. For the circulation of Covenanter propaganda see Joseph Black, ‘“Pikes and Protestations”: Scottish Texts in England, 1639–40’, Publishing History, 42 (1997), 5–19; Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 181–7; Jacqueline Eales, Puritans and Roundheads: The Harleys of Brampton Bryan and the Outbreak of the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 91–5.

3. Russell, Fall, pp. 85–6: they had refused to remove their hats during the reading of the royal proclamation against the Scots. Two of them claimed that they had done so initially but then put them back on because the church was cold.

4. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 18–22; Russell, Fall, pp. 84–5. For Brooke see Ann Hughes, ‘Greville, Robert, Second Baron Brooke of Beauchamps Court (1607-1643)’, ODNB, 23, pp. 792–5; Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), esp. pp. 120–26. For the Providence Island Company see Karen Ordahl Kupperman, Providence Island 1630–1641: The Other Puritan Colony (Cambridge, 1993).

5. Russell, Fall, pp. 82–3, 87–8.

6. Peter Donald, An Uncounselled King: Charles I and the Scottish Troubles, 1637–1641 (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 81–2.

7. Ibid., p. 71; Russell, Fall, pp. 79–80.

8. Ronald G. Asch, ‘Wentworth, Thomas, First Earl of Strafford (1593–1641)’, ODNB, 58, pp. 142–57. See also J. F. Merritt (ed.), The Political World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, 1621–1641 (Cambridge, 1996); G. C. F. Forster, ‘Faction and County Government in Early Stuart Yorkshire’, Northern History, 11 (1976 for 1975), 70–86.

9. Russell, Fall, p. 80.

10. 1639: Fissel, Bishops” Wars, p. 24 – this was roughly the same size as the army of the Covenanters; 1640: Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), p. 145; See also Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 45–53.

11. Northumberland to Wentworth, 23 July 1638: William Knowler, The Earl of Strafford’s Letters and Dispatches, 2 vols. (London, 1739), II, p. 186. Russell reports similar views from Northumberland in 1640: Fall, p. 131. See also David Cressy, England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640–1642 (Oxford, 2006), p. 80.

12. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 246–9.

13. For impressment in general see Michael J. Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550-1700 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 196–9 and the references therein.

14. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, p. 237. A sidesman was a minor official in the church, responsible for greeting the congregation and seating them.

15. Ibid., pp. 232–6; Victor L. Stater, ‘The Lord Lieutenancy on the Eve of the Civil Wars: The Impressment of George Plowright’, HJ, 29 (1986), 279–96. For Sibthorpe, see above, p. 48. He was vocal too about divisions later in 1639: Russell, Fall, p. 85.

16. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 226–32.

17. For financial questions see ibid., pp. 124–37; for reluctant nobles and the officer corps see ibid., pp. 18–22, 78–80, 152–62. For the problems of arms supply see ibid., pp. 90–110; Richard Winship Stewart, The English Ordnance Office 1585–1625: A Case Study in Bureaucracy (Woodbridge, 1996).

18. For the weakness of the arms market see Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 98–106. Some of the difficulties in the case of the officer corps were political, however: ibid., pp. 86–7.

19. Edward M. Furgol, ‘Scotland Turned Sweden: The Scottish Covenanters and the Military Revolution’, in John Morrill (ed.), The Scottish National Covenant in Its British Context 1638–1651 (Edinburgh, 1990), pp. 134–54. Fissel argues that the Covenanters enjoyed considerable superiority in committee and command structure, officer corps and infantry, but that they might not have been able to sustain a campaign for very long: Bishops” Wars, pp. 38, 73–7, 81–2, 244–6; for the weaknesses of the Covenanters” army, which he sees as bluffing the King, see David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637–44: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 2003), esp. pp. 127–31, 141–51.

20. For doubts on the Covenanter side see Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, esp. pp. 145–6, 151, 154–5. For an evaluation of the relative strengths see Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 31–2.

21. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 24–9; for Leslie’s trick see pp. 28–9.

22. Russell, Fall, pp. 71–90.

23. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 155–6; Russell, Fall, pp. 63–8.

24. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 156–61.

25. Hamilton declined the offer, saying to the King that he would not be trusted in Scotland and would be required to give concessions that would make him unpopular with Charles: Stevenson, ibid., p. 160. Russell suggests that this was because Hamilton thought Charles was willing to see the abolition of episcopacy, and that in the light of Hamilton’s posture on this question the previous year, this would leave him no personal credibility with the Covenanters: Russell, Fall, p. 67.

26. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 162–76.

27. For the letter see ibid., pp. 180–81.

28. Russell, Fall, pp. 92–3; for the financial position see Fissel, Bishops” Wars, ch. 3.

29. HEH, EL 7830, Castle to Bridgewater, 9 April 1640; HEH EL 7831, Castle to Bridgewater, 11 April 1640. A window that would accommodate five or six people would cost no less than £5, another that would accommodate only three or four would cost £3 10s. Only a fiscal historian or a curmudgeon would point out that this was a large sum by comparison, for example, with a ship money assessment. For other examples of anticipation see David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), p. 24; Eales, Puritans and Roundheads, pp. 94–5; Cressy, England on Edge, p. 111 (where the promise of an election was a reason to postpone emigration); Hughes, Warwickshire, pp. 116–17; A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 24–6, 27–8.

30. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 130–31. For the elections see Derek Hirst, The Representative of the People: Voters and Voting in England under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 147–53 and appendix 4; Richard Cust, ‘“Patriots” and “Popular Spirits”: Narratives of Conflict in Early Stuart Politics’, in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), The English Revolution c. 1590–1720 (forthcoming, Manchester). Conrad Russell suggested that these elections represented a significant departure as organized godly lobbying overcame the more general reluctance to see elections contested: Russell, Fall, pp. 94–8. See also Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 243–8.

31. Esther S. Cope and Willson H. Coates (eds.), Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640, Camden 4th ser., 19 (London, 1977), pp. 115–18, 122–3. For the text of the letter and its translation see LJ, iv, p. 48.

32. Russell finds this reading unconvincing (Russell, Fall, p. 103) and Woolrych’s verdict is that it was ‘absurd, and probably struck his hearers so’: Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 133.

33. Cope and Coates (eds.), Proceedings, p. 134; Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 183–4.

34. Cope and Coates (eds.), Proceedings, pp. 135–8. The image of a biblical plague was often deployed by those critical of revenue officers: Michael J. Braddick, The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714 (Manchester, 1996), pp. 170, 206–9, 220–22.

35. Cope and Coates (eds.), Proceedings, pp. 138–43.

36. The precise extent of the co-operation is not clear: Russell, Fall, pp. 122–3. For Charles’s suspicions See also Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, p. 188. For a general account of the balance of opinion in the Short Parliament see Russell, Fall, pp. 90–123.

37. Russell, Fall, pp. 97–9.

38. Cope and Coates (eds.), Proceedings, pp. 148–57, quotations at pp. 149, 155; Russell, Fall, pp. 106–7. For Pym: Conrad Russell, ‘Pym, John (1584–1643)’, ODNB, 45, pp. 623–40.

39. The comparison is Russell’s, Fall, p. 108.

40. Ibid., p. 110.

41. Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 4–6; HEH, EL 7833, Castle to Bridgewater, 12 May 1640. Castle saw this as the direct result of the ‘two pasquils that were affixed to the pillars of the old Exchange the last week, [which] have brought forth this sour fruit’. The crowd is generally estimated to have comprised between 500 and 800 people, although the Venetian ambassador put the number at 2,000: Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 4n; Peter Razzell and Edward Razzell (eds.), The English Civil War: A Contemporary Account, vol. 2: 1640–1642 (London, 1996), p. 14. Laud thought it 500: Keith Lindley (ed.), The English Civil War and Revolution: A Source Book (London, 1998), p. 43. See also Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 118–22.

42. HEH, EL 7836, Castle to Bridgewater, 27 May 1640. The letter reports his anxious black humour about when to return.

43. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 4–6.

44. Ibid., pp. 26–35.

45. Ibid., pp. 5–6; HEH EL 7835, Castle to Bridgewater, 18 May 1640; EL 7837, Castle to Bridgewater, 9 June 1640. See also EL 7834, Castle to Bridgewater, 15 May 1640: the rioters aimed at ‘the Fox [Laud], and the little bird [Matthew Wren, Bishop of Norwich]’ as well as some at St James and ‘the swarms of the French’. For Marie de Medici see Caroline Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, NC, 1983), esp. pp. 87–8, 151–2, 198–9.

46. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 7–8. For Charles’s reaction, and the torture of Archer, See also Russell, Fall, p. 129. This may reflect the extent to which Charles was unnerved by the disturbances: Castle reported that precedents were being sought for recalling a parliament without new elections (‘I hear they have not as yet found any’), HEH, EL 7834, Castle to Bridgewater, 15 May 1640.

47. For the text of the canons see the extract in J. P. Kenyon (ed.), The Stuart Constitution: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 166–8; Julian Davies, The Caroline Captivity of the English Church (Oxford, 1992), ch. 7. For Convocation and the Royal Supremacy for Charles’s role and intentions see Russell, Fall, pp. 15–16, 136–9.

48. Russell’s verdict is that it would have been plausible to argue that the campaign should go without a parliament, or that Charles should hold a parliament in order to secure support and supply; what was not plausible policy was to hold a parliament after eleven years without being willing to consult, discuss, secure consent and redress grievances: Russell, Fall, pp. 92–4.

49. Ibid., pp. 126–8; for an overview see Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 39–44.

50. See Fissel, Bishops” Wars, esp. pp. 119–20, 162–6, 172–3; for the expedition of the King to Hamburg See also HEH, EL 7841, Castle to Bridgewater, 1 July 1640; for hopes of Spanish help See also Russell, Fall, p. 129.

51. Quoted in ibid., p. 123.

52. HEH, EL 7836, Castle to Bridgewater, 27 May 1640. These rumours were bad for credit, among other things: Fissel, Bishops” Wars, p. 123.

53. Russell, Fall, pp. 106 and 107n.

54. HEH, EL 7817, Castle to Bridgewater, 17 January 1640; EL 7819, Castle to Bridgewater, 28 January 1640; EL 7822, Castle to Bridgewater, 12 February 1640; EL 7845, Castle to Bridgewater, 1 August 1640; EL 7846, Castle to Bridgewater, 4 August 1640; EL 7848, Bridgewater to Castle, 10 August 1640.

55. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 8–10.

56. Ibid., p. 7.

57. Ibid., pp. 44–5; for provincial echoes of the riots See also Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 122–4.

58. Russell, Fall, pp. 93–4, 132–6; John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War 1630–1648, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1999), pp. 44–5; Hughes, Warwickshire, pp. 114–18. As Hughes points out, it was only in relation to some controversial policies that government collapsed.

59. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 119–23. For the suggestion that the scheme was a bluff intended to lever money from the Corporation of London see HEH, EL 7844, Castle to Bridgewater, 25 July 1640. The proposal certainly did coincide with an approach to the City for money: Fissel, Bishops” Wars, p. 122.

60. Fissell, Bishops” Wars, chs. 5–6; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 73–90.

61. HEH, EL 7835, Castle to Bridgewater, 18 May 1640.

62. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 272–3; Russell, Fall, p. 131; HEH, EL 7837, Castle to Bridgewater, 9 June 1640.

63. HEH, EL 7842, Castle to Bridgewater, 6 July 1640; EL 7838, Castle to Bridgewater, 23 June 1640.

64. Russell, Fall, pp. 130–31.

65. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, esp. pp. 270–72.

66. Ibid., pp. 285–6.

67. Ibid., p. 271.

68. Ibid., pp. 278–83. HEH, EL 7838, Castle to Bridgewater, 23 June 1640. The soldiers, like Castle, referred to him as Moon. See also Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 87, 88–9, 91–2; Mark Stoyle, Loyalty and Locality: Popular Allegiance in Devon during the English Civil War (Exeter, 1994), pp. 168–9, 178.

69. HEH EL 7765, Mr Roger Wilford minister his certificate, 16 August 1640. Nehemiah Wallington collected examples of these actions, which he clearly regarded as religious acts, albeit ones about which he felt ambivalent: BL Sloane MS 1457, fos. 60r–66v; BL Add MS 21935, fos. 88r–91r; R. Webb (ed.), Historical Notices of Events Occurring Chiefly in the Reign of Charles I by Nehemiah Wallington, 2 vols. (London, 1869), pp. 122–6.

70. John Walter, ‘“Abolishing superstition with sedition”?: The Politics of Popular Iconoclasm in England, 1640–1642’, PP, 183 (2004), 79–123; John Walter, ‘Popular Iconoclasm and the Politics of the Parish in Eastern England, 1640–1642’, HJ, 47 (2004), 261–90.

71. Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 90–91.

72. John Walter, ‘“Affronts & insolencies”: The Voices of Radwinter and Popular Opposition to Laudianism’, EHR, 122 (2007), 35–60.

73. John Walter, ‘Anti-Popery and the Stour Valley Riots of 1642’, in David Chadd (ed.), History of Religious Dissent in East Anglia, III (Norwich, 1996), pp. 121–40, at pp. 121–2. For the fear of fire see Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Belief in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century England (Harmondsworth, 1991 edn), pp. 17–20.

74. HEH, EL 7860, Castle to Bridgewater, 24 September 1640. See also EL 7863, Castle to Bridgewater, 29 September 1640; Hibbard, Popish Plot, pp. 166–7.

75. The examples are from Russell, Fall, pp. 139, 142. Russell’s judgement that ‘It would seem that soldiers were capable of turning against anyone they could blame for their predicament’ (p. 142) seems no more true of ‘soldiers’ than of, say, ‘the aristocracy’.

76. HEH, EL 7847, Castle to Bridgewater, 8 August 1640.

77. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 192–202.

78. Ibid., pp. 205–7; Russell, Fall, pp. 143–4; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 93–4.

79. For the Covenanters” difficulties see Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 208–10. Russell emphasizes the fact that the English took the wrong ground: Russell, Fall, pp. 144–5. The battle is described in Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 53–9..

80. Russell, Fall, pp. 149–64; Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 210–12.

81. John Adamson, The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I (London, 2007). Adamson’s important study was published as this book went to press, and I have been unable to take full account of its findings. For the peerage See also Brian Manning, ‘The Aristocracy and the Downfall of Charles I’, in Brian Manning (ed.), Politics, Religion and the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp. 37–80.

82. Eales, Puritans and Roundheads, pp. 98–9; for London see above, pp. 116–17.

83. ‘Russell, Fall, pp. 157–64.

84. Holmes, Lincolnshire, p. 137.

85. Pauline Croft, ‘Trading with the Enemy, 1585–1604’, HJ, 32 (1989), 281–302; Michael J. Braddick, ‘“Upon this instant extraordinarie occasion”: Military Mobilisation in Yorkshire in the Armada Year and Thereafter’, HLQ, 61 (2000 for 1998), 429–55.

86. The exchange is reported in Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 2: The Age of Reformation (Cambridge, 1978), p. 189.

87. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 133–7.

88. Russell, Fall, p. 86; CSPD, 1638–9, p. 167; 1639–40, p. 585.

89. See also David Smith: ‘In many ways it makes sense to see the Short Parliament as a continuation, indeed a finale, of the Parliaments of the 1620s’: The Stuart Parliaments 1603–1689 (London, 1999), p. 120.

90. For the following see David Como, ‘Secret Printing, the Crisis of 1640 and the Origins of Civil War Radicalism’, PP, 196 (forthcoming).

91. Ibid. See Jonathan I. Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750 (Oxford, 2001).

92. Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 33.

93. BL, Add MS 21,935, fos. 12r-12v. This does not seem to have been reproduced in Webb (ed.), Historical Notices. For Wallington see Paul Seaver, Wallington’s World: A Puritan Artisan in 17th Century London (London, 1985).

94. HEH, EL 7859, A letter from a gentleman of Newcastle to a friend in London, 8 September 1640. This letter circulated in manuscript copy: see below, n. 98. For the power of prophecy see Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, ch. 13, esp. pp. 469–93. For influential studies see Ottavia Niccoli, Prophecy and People in Renaissance Italy (Princeton, NJ, 1990); Sharon Jansen, Political Protest and Prophecy under Henry VIII (Woodbridge, 1991); Ethan Howard Shagan, ‘Rumours and Popular Politics in the Reign of Henry VIII’, in Tim Harris (ed.), The Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500–1850 (Basingstoke, 2001), pp. 30–66; Bertrand Taithe and Tim Thornton (eds.), Prophecy: The Power of Inspired Language in History 1300–2000 (Stroud, 1997). Prophecy is placed in the broader context of the radical potential within popular politics by Krista J. Kesselring, ‘Deference and Dissent in Tudor England: Reflections on Sixteenth-Century Protest’, History Compass, 3:1 (2005).

95. HEH, EL 7831, Castle to Bridgewater, 11 April 1640; EL 7832, Castle to Bridgewater, 11 May 1640; EL 7842, Castle to Bridgewater, 6 July 1640; EL 7838, Castle to Bridgewater, 23 June 1640. For other examples see Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 30–36.

96. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 25–6. According to Robert Woodford’s diary, the eclipse was observed in Northamptonshire between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, ibid., n. 82.

97. The phrase ‘oligarchic centralism’ is from Allan I. Macinnes, ‘The Scottish Constitution, 1638–1651: The Rise and Fall of Oligarchic Centralism’, in Morrill (ed.), Scottish National Covenant, pp. 106–33.

98. HEH, EL 7859, A letter from a gentleman of Newcastle to a friend in London, 8 September 1640. Howell notes four existing manuscript copies of this letter: Roger Howell, ‘Newcastle and the Nation: The Seventeenth-Century Experience’, in R. C. Richardson (ed.), The English Civil Wars: Local Aspects (Stroud, 1997), pp. 309–29, p. 326n. For sympathy with the Covenanters in Newcastle prior to their occupation, and diminishing sympathy thereafter, see Roger Howell, Newcastle upon Tyne and the Puritan Revolution: A Study of Civil War in North England (Oxford, 1967), esp. pp. 122–41. Following defeat, anxious measures were taken for defence against the Scots, particularly in the north: Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 39, 96. For the economic dislocation arising from the disruption of the coal trade and for the unpopularity of the royal army see ibid., pp. 57–9, 97–103; for the latter point See also Ronan Bennett, ‘War and Disorder: Policing the Soldiery in Civil War Yorkshire’, in Mark Charles Fissel (ed.), War and Government in Britain, 1598–1650 (Manchester, 1991), pp. 248–73, at pp. 251–3.

4. We Dream Now of a Golden Age

1. I am using the term loosely to embrace not just the City of London, but Westminster and suburbs too. There is a huge literature on early modern London. For an overview and bibliography see Jeremy Boulton, ‘London 1540–1700’, in Peter Clark (ed.), The Cambridge Urban History of Britain, vol. 2: 1540–1840 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 315–46; and the important essays collected in A. L. Beier and Roger Finlay (eds.), London 1500–1700: The Making of the Metropolis (London, 1986), and Paul Griffiths and Mark S. R. Jenner (eds.), Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London (Manchester, 2000). For its overseas trade See also Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993), and Ben Coates, The Impact of the English Civil War on the Economy of London, 1642–50 (Aldershot, 2004). For the increase in litigation see Christopher W. Brooks, Pettyfoggers and Vipers of the Commonwealth: The ‘Lower Branch’ of the Legal Profession in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1986); Christopher Brooks, ‘Interpersonal Conflict and Social Tension: Civil Litigation in England, 1640–1870’, in A. L. Beier, David Cannadine and James M. Rosenheim (eds.), The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 357–99. For Westminster see J. F. Merritt, The Social World of Early Modern Westminster: Abbey, Court and Community, 1525–1640 (Manchester, 2005). For the national growth of consumption see Linda Levy Peck, Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge, 2005).

2. For an overview and further reference see C. G. A. Clay, Economic Expansion and Social Change. England 1500–1700, 2 vols. 1: People, Land and Towns (Cambridge, 1984), esp. pp. 187–91; E. A. Wrigley, ‘A Simple Model of London’s Importance in Changing English Society and Economy, 1650–1750’, reprinted in E. A. Wrigley, People, Cities and Wealth: The Transformation of Traditional Society (Oxford, 1987), pp. 133–56.

3. Valerie Pearl, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution: City Government and National Politics 1625–1643 (Oxford, 1961), chs. 1–2; for the earlier period see Ian W. Archer, The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London(Cambridge, 1991); for the religious diversity and the ‘Puritan underground’ see Peter Lake, The Boxmaker’s Revenge: ‘Orthodoxy’ and ‘Heterodoxy’ and the Politics of the Parish in Early Stuart London (Manchester, 2001); David R. Como, Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in pre-Civil-War England (Stanford, 2004); David R. Como, ‘Predestination and Political Conflict in Laud’s London’, HJ, 46 (2003), 263–94; David R. Como and Peter Lake, ‘Puritans, Antinomians and Laudians in Caroline London: The Strange Case of Peter Shaw and its Contexts’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 50 (1999), 684–715; Peter Lake and David R. Como, ‘“Orthodoxy” and Its Discontents: Dispute Settlement and the Production of “Consensus” in the London (Puritan) “Underground”’, JBS, 39 (2000), 34–70.

4. Roger Finlay and Beatrice Shearer, ‘Population Growth and Suburban Expansion’, in Beier and Finlay (eds.), London, pp. 37–59; Jeremy Boulton, Neighbourhood and Society: A London Suburb in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 1987).

5. For important overviews see Ian Archer, ‘Popular Politics in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries’, in Griffiths and Jenner (eds.), Londinopolis, pp. 26–46; and Keith Lindley, ‘Riot Prevention and Control in Early Stuart London’, TRHS, 5th ser., 33 (1983), 109–26. For the Protestant calendar see David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (London, 1989); for 1623 see Thomas Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish Match’, in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics 1603–1642 (London, 1989), pp. 107–33.

6. Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), p. 6. For evocations of talk on the streets of revolutionary London see Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004), ch. 3; Malcolm Gaskill, Witchfinders: A Seventeenth-Century English Tragedy (London, 2005), pp. 135–6.

7. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 8–9; See also David Cressy, England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640–1642 (Oxford, 2006), pp. 114–16.

8. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 10, 33; Pearl, London and the Outbreak, pp. 174–5.

9. Anthony Fletcher, The Outbreak of the English Civil War (London, 1981), pp. 1–2; David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), p. 25; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 40–41.

10. Hugh Trevor-Roper, ‘Three Foreigners: The Philosophers of the Puritan Revolution’, reprinted in Hugh Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation, and Social Change, and Other Essays (London, 1984), pp. 237–93; J. H. Elliott, ‘The Year of the Three Ambassadors’, in Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Valerie Pearl and Blair Worden (eds.), History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H. R. Trevor-Roper (London, 1981), pp. 165–81.

11. Following the summary in Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), pp. 157–8. For the debate about the extent of popular participation in parliamentary elections prior to 1640 see Derek Hirst, The Representative of the People: Voters and Voting in England under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge, 1975); Mark A. Kishlansky, Parliamentary Selection: Social and Political Choice in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1986); Richard Cust, ‘Politics and the Electorate in the 1620s’, in Cust and Hughes, Conflict in Early Stuart England, pp. 134–67. For some examples see Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 248–51; Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 119–30; A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 26–8. Counties further from London may have had fewer ideological contests: Anthony Fletcher, ‘National and Local Awareness in the County Communities’, in Howard Tomlinson (ed.), Before the English Civil War: Essays on Early Stuart Politics and Government (London, 1983), pp. 151–74, at p. 173. For the petitions See also Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. xxv–xxvii.

12. John Rushworth, Historical Collections: The Second Part (London, 1686 edition), p. 1338. For another full transcript see Sheffield University Library, Hartlib Papers, 55/5/1a-4b. The denunciation of monopolists is quoted at greater length in Michael J. Braddick, The Nerves of State: Taxation and Financing of the English State, 1558–1714 (Manchester, 1996), pp. 208–9. It is possible that Colepeper did not actually deliver the speech, merely depositing a script with Rushworth, but this seems unlikely: Conrad Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637–1642 (Oxford, 1991), p. 219n.

13. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 158.

14. Russell, Fall, pp. 214–21.

15. Ibid., pp. 221–2.

16. Brian Manning, The English People and the English Revolution (Harmondsworth, 1978), p. 14; See also EL 66705, Richard Kinge to Edward Parker, 12 December 1640. For the orchestration of this ‘pageant of power’, see John Adamson, The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I (London, 2007), pp. 128–30.

17. Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 14.

18. Quoted in Manning, English People, p. 15; and Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 14. See also Russell, Fall, pp. 221–2.

19. Manning, English People, pp. 14–16. For Wallington see above, p. 109.

20. David L. Smith, The Stuart Parliaments 1603–1689 (London, 1999), pp. 71–5; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 37–8; for the list of surviving select committees after the first purge see J. P. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution 1603–1688: Documents and Commentary(Cambridge, 1966), pp. 216–17. For parliamentary procedure, and its predication on the importance of achieving consensus rather than decisions, see Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 11–15, and on the Committee of the Whole House as a means to achieve that, Conrad Russell, Parliaments and English Politics 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 38–42.

21. James S. Hart, Justice upon Petition: The House of Lords and the Reformation of Justice 1621–1675 (London, 1991), pp. 3–4.

22. Russell, Fall, ch. 6, esp. pp. 164–205; David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution 1637–44: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 2003), pp. 214–23.

23. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 92–4; Russell, Fall, pp. 174–5. See, in general, Hugh Trevor-Roper, ‘The Fast Sermons of the Long Parliament’, reprinted in Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation, and Social Change, pp. 297–344; and John Frederick Wilson, Pulpit in Parliament: Puritanism during the English Civil Wars, 1640–8 (Princeton, NJ, 1969).

24. Russell, Fall, esp. pp. 164–7.

25. For their domination of the committees, and the influence that gave them over the flow and pace of business, see Adamson, Noble Revolt, esp. ch. 4.

26. For this and the following paragraphs see Conrad Russell, ‘Pym, John (1584–1643)’, ODNB, 45, pp. 624–40; Russell, Fall, chs. 5–6. Russell’s position is challenged in Adamson, Noble Revolt, esp. ch. 5. Unfortunately this work appeared as the current book was going to press and I have been unable to take full account of its arguments.

27. See above, p. 92.

28. For the speech see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. xix–xxv; Russell, Fall, pp. 216–17, quotation at p. 216.

29. For King Pym, see Jack H. Hexter, The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941). For more measured accounts of his role see Russell, ‘Pym’; Russell, Fall; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 164–7; John Morrill, ‘The Unweariableness of Mr Pym: Influence and Eloquence in the Long Parliament’, in Susan Dwyer Amussen and Mark A. Kishlansky (eds.), Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown (Manchester, 1995), pp. 19–54.

30. Conrad Russell, ‘Russell, Francis, Fourth Earl of Bedford (bap. 1587, d. 1641)’, ODNB, 48, pp. 241–50.

31. Russell, Fall, esp. pp. 238–58.

32. Ibid., ch. 6.

33. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 37–8, 51. Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 158–65, takes the most alarmed contemporary comment at face value; for the hopes of the godly see ibid., ch. 8.

34. Extracts reprinted in Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, pp. 171–5.

35. See above, pp. 5–6.

36. Lindley, pp. Popular Politics, pp. 14–16.

37. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 92.

38. Ibid., p. 96; Hirst agrees that Dering was responding to constituency pressure, but feels that despite the moderation of the language Dering was probably seen as an advocate of the abolition of episcopacy: Derek Hirst, “The Defection of Sir Edward Dering, 1640–1641”’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 207–25, esp. pp. 216–17.

39. For the mobilization of other petitions see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 192–8; Anthony Fletcher, ‘Petitioning and the Outbreak of the Civil War in Derbyshire’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 113 (1973), 34–8; David Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England (Princeton, NJ, 2000), ch. 8. For detailed discussions of the local politics of petitions from the following autumn see John Walter, ‘Confessional Politics in pre-Civil War Essex: Prayer Books, Profanations, and Petitions’, HJ, 44 (2001), 677–701; Peter Lake, ‘Puritans, Popularity and Petitions: Local Politics in National Context, Cheshire, 1641’, in Thomas Cogswell, Richard Cust and Peter Lake (eds.), Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain: Essays in Honour of Conrad Russell (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 259–89.

40. Compare the dates of delivery with the timings of important parliamentary debates: Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 92, 98–103. For the development of the debates See also A. J. Fletcher, ‘Concern for Renewal in the Root and Branch Debates of 1641’, in Derek Baker (ed.), Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History: Papers Read at the Fifteenth Summer Meeting and Sixteenth Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society (Studies in Church History, 14) (Oxford, 1977), pp. 279–86.

41. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 98–9.

42. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 17–18, quotation at p. 17. Such debates had a prehistory in early Stuart unease about ‘popularity’, and the ambivalent attitude towards the ‘public sphere’. See above, pp. 48–53, 56 and the works cited there.

43. George Digby, The third speech of the Lord George Digby (London, 1641); Nathaniel Fiennes, A speech of the honorable Nathanael Fiennes, (second son to the right honourable the Lord Say) in answere to the third speech of the Lord George Digby (London, 1641).

44. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 99–107, quotations at pp. 99, 100.

45. Russell, Fall, pp. 223–4; for the text of the Act see Gardiner, CD, pp. 144–55, quotation at p. 144.

46. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 22–3.

47. Michael J. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England: Local Administration and Response (Woodbridge, 1994), ch. 2; for Henry Best see pp. 74–5.

48. Russell, Fall, pp. 234, 242.

49. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 81–3.

50. As a result of the financial difficulties of the Tudor and Stuart monarchies, this vision of the crown finances was increasingly unrealistic, but it remained widely held.

51. Braddick, Nerves of State, pp. 49–55, and, for the praetermitted custom, ibid., p. 133.

52. Ibid., pp. 52–3.

53. Russell, Fall, pp. 256–8, 346–50, 357–64, 436–7, and, for the 1641 Book of Rates, ibid., p. 256.

54. Ibid., p. 258.

55. Michael J. Braddick, ‘Administrative Performance: The Representation of Political Authority in Early Modern England’, in Michael J. Braddick and John Walter (eds.), Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society: Order, Hierarchy and Subordination in Britain and Ireland (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 166–87; Thomas Cogswell, Home Divisions: Aristocracy, the State and Provincial Conflict (Manchester, 1998); see above, pp. 65–7.

56. See above, p. 96. For a convincing reading of this crucial speech see Russell, Fall, pp. 125–9. For the impeachment see ibid., p. 211; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 3–4.

57. Russell, Fall, pp. 274–94;See also his important essays on ‘The Theory of Treason in the Trial of Strafford’ and ‘The First Army Plot of 1641’, reprinted in Russell, Unrevolutionary England, 1603–1642 (London, 1990), pp. 89–109 and 281–302; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 7–14, quotation at p. 14; Manning, English People, pp. 20–23. The account given here should be read in the light of John Adamson’s important revision: Adamson, Noble Revolt, chs. 8–9.

58. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 21–2; HEH, EL 66707, John Blackburne to John Braddill, 4 May 1641; Manning, English People, pp. 23–5; Andrew Sharp, ‘Lilburne, John (1615”–1657)’, ODNB, 33, pp. 773–83.

59. Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 23; Manning, English People, p. 26; Tai Liu, ‘Burges, Cornelius (d. 1665)’, ODNB, 8, pp. 751–5.

60. Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 24; Manning, English People, pp. 26–8.

61. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 26–35; Pearl, London and the Outbreak, pp. 228–36.

62. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 25–6; Manning, English People, pp. 30–31; Terence Kilburn and Anthony Milton, ‘The Public Context of the Trial and Execution of Strafford’, in J. F. Merritt (ed.), The Political World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, 1621–1641 (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 230–51, esp. pp. 242–51.

63. Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 26.

64. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 27–8; Russell, Fall, pp. 333, 340 (gelding); See also Manning, English People, p. 27; Cressy, England on Edge, p. 43.

65. There is a clear summary in Russell, ‘Fall’, pp. 248–9.

66. Smith, Stuart Parliaments, p. 124.

67. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 167.

68. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 234–5. See also Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 49–50.

69. For the negotiations see Russell, Fall, pp. 346–50, 357–64, 436–7. For the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 159–62, quotations at pp. 160, 162.

70. For this calculation see Braddick, Nerves of State, pp. 9–12, and fig. 1.3.

71. David Stevenson, ‘Graham, James, First Marquess of Montrose (1612–1650)’, ODNB, 23, pp. 189–95.

72. For the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 163–6. For the politics of this period see Fletcher, Outbreak, ch. 2; Russell, Fall, ch. 9.

73. Gardiner, CD, pp. 155–6. For a concise discussion of the introduction and contents of the Protestation see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 14–16; David Cressy, ‘The Protestation Protested, 1641 and 1642’, HJ, 45 (2002), 251–79, at pp. 253–6.

74. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 113; for Baillie see Russell, Fall, pp. 294–5.

75. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 15–16; Edward Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant: State Oaths, Protestantism and the Political Nation, 1553–1682 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 52–3; David Martin Jones, Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth Century England: The Political Significance of Oaths and Engagements (Wood-bridge, 1999), esp. pp. 116–19, 273–4.

76. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 77–9; Russell, Fall, pp. 294–5.

77. Cressy, ‘Protestation’, p. 254.

78. Ibid., pp. 257–9.

79. John Walter, Understanding Popular Violence in the English Revolution: The Colchester Plunderers (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 292–4; Cressy, ‘Protestation’, pp. 267–8; Russell, Fall, p. 295.

80. Walter, Understanding, pp. 292–3; Cressy, ‘Protestation’, pp. 259–62.

81. Walter, Understanding, pp. 295–6.

82. John Morrill, Cheshire 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), pp. 36–7.

83. John Walter, ‘“Affronts & insolencies”: The Voices of Radwinter and Popular Opposition to Laudianism’, EHR, 122 (2007), 35–60, esp. p. 37; for other examples see Cressy, England on Edge, ch. 9.

84. Julie Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm during the English Civil War (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 138–40, 221, 231.

85. CJ, ii, p. 72. Sir Edward Dering was among the members added to this committee; Russell, Fall, pp. 367–72.

86. David Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat: Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford, 2000), pp. 234–43; for the longer history of the cross see Nicola Smith, The Royal Image and the English People (Aldershot, 2001), ch. 2.

87. See above, pp. 262–4, for its eventual fate.

88. LJ, iv, p. 134.

89. Hirst, ‘Defection of Sir Edward Dering’. There were others too: Smith, Stuart Parliaments, p. 126; See also David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), ch. 4. Aston’s attachment to religious decency thus defined had deep roots: Lake, ‘Puritans, Popularity and Petitions’, pp. 259–89.

90. See especially Margaret Aston, England’s Iconoclasts, vol 1: Laws against Images (Oxford, 1988); Margaret Aston, ‘Puritans and Iconoclasm, 1560–1660’, in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales (eds.), The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560–1700(Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 92–121; Margaret Aston, ‘Iconoclasm in England: Official and Clandestine’, reprinted in Peter Marshall (ed.), The Impact of the English Reformation 1500–1640 (London, 1997), pp. 167–92.

91. Anon., A Discovery of 29 Sects here in London (1641); Anon., A Nest of Serpents Discovered (1641); Fortescue dates.

92. Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat, ch. 15, esp. pp. 259–61.

93. Nest of Serpents, p. 6.

94. Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat, p. 271.

95. Keith Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 79–91; for the history of the sects in London see Murray Tolmie, The Triumph of the Saints: The Separate Churches of London, 1616–1649 (Cambridge, 1977); and the works by Como and Lake cited above at n. 3.

96. Russell, Fall, pp. 368–70. See also Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 180–82.

97. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 284; Walter, ‘Confessional Politics’, p. 699, quoting Judith Maltby, Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Cambridge, 1998), appendix 1, pp. 238–47.

98. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 284–9. For Aston’s published collection see Sir Thomas Aston, A collection of sundry petitions (1642).

99. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 290.

100. Ibid., pp. 289–91.

101. Walter, ‘Confessional Politics’.

102. Lake, ‘Puritans, Popularity and Petitions’.

103. Calculated from G. K. Fortescue (ed.), Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers, and Manuscripts Relating to the Civil War, the Commonwealth and the Restoration, Collected by George Thomason, 1640–1661, 2 vols. (London, 1908). This assumes, of course, that these patterns reflect the market, rather than Thomason’s collecting. For discussions of the explosion of print in these years see Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 2003), chs. 5–6; Cressy, England on Edge, ch. 12. Estimates of press output based on searches of the ESTC or EEBO include collections other than Thomason’s (although his is the largest component) but do not allow for monthly (or weekly) calculations. There are difficulties with dating the Thomason Tracts, however (see above, pp. 600–601, note on dating).

104. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 287.

5. Barbarous Catholics and Puritan Populists

1. [Gabriel Plattes], A description of the famous kingdome of Macaria (London, 1641), quotations at sig. A2r, pp. 2, 3. For background see Charles Webster, Utopian Planning and the Puritan Revolution: Gabriel Plattes, Samuel Hartlib and ‘Macaria’ (Oxford, 1979); Charles Webster, ‘The Authorship and Significance of Macaria’, PP, 56 (1972), 34–48; J. C. Davis, Utopia and the Ideal State: A Study of English Utopian Writing, 1516–1700 (Cambridge, 1981).

2. Hugh Trevor-Roper, ‘Three Foreigners: The Philosophers of the Puritan Revolution’, reprinted in Hugh Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation, and Social Change, and Other Essays (London, 1984), pp. 237–93; G. H. Turnbull, Samuel Hartlib: A Sketch of His Life and His Relations to J. A. Comenius (London, 1920); G. H. Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury and Comenius: Gleanings from Hartlib’s Papers (Liverpool, 1947); Charles Webster, The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform, 1626–1660, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2002); Mark Greengrass, ‘Samuel Hartlib and International Calvinism’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, 25 (1993), 464–75.

3. See in general Webster, Great Instauration; the essays collected in Mark Greengrass, Michael Leslie and Timothy Raylor (eds.), Samuel Hartlib and the Universal Reformation: Studies in Intellectual Communication (Cambridge, 1994), esp. Anthony Milton, ‘“The unchanged peacemaker”?: John Dury and the Politics of Irenicism in England, 1628–1643’, pp. 95–117. For the Hartlib circle see above, pp. 453–8.

4. Webster, ‘Authorship and Significance of Macaria’, p. 38.

5. Ibid., p. 39.

6. David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637–44: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 2003), pp. 233–4.

7. For a good brief account, see Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), pp. 182–3, 189–92.

8. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 238–9; John J. Scally, ‘Hamilton, James, First Duke of Hamilton (1606–1649)’, ODNB, 24, pp. 839–46.

9. A damnable treason by a Contagious Plaster of a plague sore ([London], 1641), quotations at sig A2r. See Paul Slack, The Impact of the Plague in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford, 1985), p. 293; William G. Naphy, ‘Plague-Spreading and Magisterially Controlled Fear’, in William G. Naphy and Penny Roberts (eds.), Fear in Early Modern Society (Manchester, 1997), pp. 28–43. The pamphlet is discussed further above, pp. 174–5. For the plague in these months See also David Cressy, England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640–1642 (Oxford, 2006), pp. 60–67; John Adamson, The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I (London, 2007), pp. 406–7.

10. Politicians, Pym included, were not above fostering Catholic panics for political purposes: Robin Clifton, ‘The Popular Fear of Catholics during the English Revolution’, PP, 52 (1971), 23–55, at pp. 39–40. There is, though, independent evidence that this incident actually occurred. D’Ewes records the incident: W. H. Coates (ed.), The Journal of Sir Simonds D’Ewes from the First Recess of the Long Parliament (New Haven, Conn., 1942), p. 37. Nehemiah Wallington recorded that it was verified – even he was at least a little suspicious of this particular example of popish plotting: ‘There was a letter brought to Mr Pym with an odious plaster taken from a plague sore, saying if this will not doe, then a dagger shall and as I did hear very credibly one standing by him looking over his shoulder upon it took a conceit [look] at it and sickened and died presently’, BL, Add MS 21,935, fo. 188v. George Mordant was examined the next day on suspicion of having delivered the letter but dismissed: CJ, ii, p. 295.

11. CJ, ii, p. 300.

12. The key recent work is Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British 1580–1650 (Oxford, 2001). For a summary and further references see Michael J. Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England c. 1500–1700 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 379–97.

13. Aidan Clarke, ‘Selling Royal Favours, 1624–32’, in T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin and F. J. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early Modern Ireland 1534–1691 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 233–42; Canny, Making Ireland British, esp. pp. 258–75.

14. Aidan Clarke with R. Dudley Edwards, ‘Pacification, plantation and the Catholic Question’, in Moody, Martin and Byrne, New History of Ireland, vol. 3, pp. 187–232; Clarke, ‘Selling Royal Favours’; Canny, Making Ireland British, pp. 265–9; Conrad Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637–1642 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 380–82; John Reeve, ‘Secret Alliances and Protestant Agitation in Two Kingdoms: The Early Caroline Background to the Irish Rebellion’, in Ian Gentles, John Morrill and Blair Worden (eds.), Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 19–35.

15. For an overview of Wentworth’s policies in Ireland see Canny, Making Ireland British, pp. 275–98. See also Aidan Clarke, ‘The Government of Wentworth, 1632–40’, in Moody, Martin and Byrne (eds.), New History of Ireland, vol. 3, pp. 243–69.

16. Canny, Making Ireland British, pp. 275–98; Clarke, ‘Government of Wentworth’.

17. Russell, Fall, pp. 382–8; for a concise discussion of the constitutional question see David Scott, Politics and War in the Three Stuart Kingdoms, 1637–49 (Basingstoke, 2004), p. 30.

18. Russell, Fall, pp. 388–92; Aidan Clarke, ‘The Breakdown of Authority, 1640–41’, in Moody, Martin and Byrne (eds.), New History of Ireland, vol. 3, pp. 270–88.

19. Patrick J. Corish, ‘The Rising of 1641 and the Catholic Confederacy, 1641–5’, in Moody, Martin and Byrne (eds.), New History of Ireland, vol. 3, pp. 289–316, esp. pp. 289–93; Michael Perceval-Maxwell, The Outbreak of the Irish Rebellion of 1641 (Dublin, 1994); Canny, Making Ireland British, ch. 8, emphasizes the extent to which this high political approach to the rebellion conceals the roots of the rebellion in Irish society at large; See also Micheàl Ó Siochrú, Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis (Dublin, 1999), esp. pp. 23–4. Jane H. Ohlmeyer, ‘Introduction: A Failed Revolution?’, in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), Ireland from Independence to Occupation 1641–1660 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 1–23, places the rebellion in a comparative perspective. For aristocratic rebellions in Tudor England see Anthony Fletcher and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, 5th edn (Harlow, 2004), esp. pp. 122–7; Mervyn James, Society, Politics and Culture: Studies in Early Modern England(Cambridge, 1986), esp. chs. 8, 9.

20. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 194–6. For the offer to try to call it off see Russell, Fall, pp. 396–8.

21. Canny, Making Ireland British, ch. 8.

22. Ibid. See also Nicholas Canny, ‘What Really Happened in Ireland in 1641?’, in Ohlmeyer (ed.), Ireland from Independence to Occupation, pp. 24–42. For the rapid formation of the Catholic Confederacy see Ó Siochrú, Confederate Ireland.

23. Thomas Partington, VVorse and worse nevves from Ireland (London, 1641), printed for Nathaniel Butter. Quoted from Keith Lindley, The English Civil War and Revolution: A Source Book (London, 1998), pp. 81–3. For an overview of this literature and its impact see Keith Lindley, ‘The Impact of the 1641 Rebellion upon England and Wales, 1641–5’, Irish Historical Studies, 18 (1972), 143–76. The most convincing reconstruction of events on the ground is Canny, Making Ireland British, ch. 8.

24. Reprinted in Lindley, English Civil War and Revolution, pp. 80–81.

25. Gardiner, CD, pp. 199–201, quotations at pp. 199, 200, 201; for the Ten Propositions see ibid., pp. 163–6, quotation at p. 164.

26. J. P. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1966), p. 216; Anthony Fletcher, The Outbreak of the English Civil War (London, 1981), pp. 81–8.

27. Gardiner, CD, pp. 202–32, quotations at pp. 206–8.

28. See, for example, measures against English Catholics in Ireland, to control movement, discussion with the Lords about the Capuchins, and close scrutiny of household priests of Henrietta Maria and ambassadors: CJ, ii, 300–301.

29. Gardiner, CD, p. 204.

30. For a reading of the remonstrance as an attempt to find consensus see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 145–6.

31. Quoted from Joad Raymond, The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks 1641–1649 (Oxford, 1996), p. 121.

32. Russell, Fall, pp. 424–9, 433; Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 94–5; Brian Manning, The English People and the English Revolution (Harmondsworth, 1976), p. 86; CJ, p. 344. Dering quoted from Russell, Fall, p. 427. For partisanship see Fletcher, Outbreak, ch. 4.

33. Clifton, ‘Popular Fear of Catholics’, pp. 30–31, 49; for the chronology of such panics see Robin Clifton, ‘Fear of Popery’, in Conrad Russell (ed.), The Origins of the English Civil War (Basingstoke, 1973), pp. 144–67 at pp. 158–61; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 203–6; for an example see John Morrill, Cheshire 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), p. 37.

34. See Lindley, ‘Impact of the 1641 Rebellion’; for the general influence of pamphlet representations of Catholicism see Clifton, ‘Popular Fear of Catholics’, pp. 37–8.

35. Raymond, Invention, chs. 1–2, esp. pp. 20–21, 101, 104–5; for the manuscript circulation of news see Ian Atherton, ‘“The itch grown a disease”: Manuscript Transmission of News in the Seventeenth Century’, in Joad Raymond (ed.), News, Newspapers and Society in Early Modern Britain (London, 1999), pp. 39–65.

36. Raymond, Invention, ch. 2; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 298–302. Numbers of titles calculated from G. K. Fortescue (ed.), Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers, and Manuscripts Relating to the Civil War, the Commonwealth and the Restoration, Collected by George Thomason, 1640–1661, 2 vols. (London, 1908).

37. Raymond, Invention, pp. 20–36, 108–25. The pamphlet is The discovery Of a late and Bloody conspiracie At Edenburg, in Scotland (London, 1641).

38. Title evidence derived from Fortescue, Catalogue. Newsbooks included material of this kind: Joad Raymond (ed.), Making the News: An Anthology of the Newsbooks of Revolutionary England 1641–1660 (Moreton-in-Marsh, 1993), ch. 4.

39. Fees varied, as did the services offered or requested, but £20 is the annual charge made by John Pory to Viscount Scudamore: Atherton, ‘“The itch grown a disease”’, p. 41. See also figures in Raymond, Invention. Bridgewater paid £20 to Castle, although it is not clear what period of service this ‘token’ was intended to cover: see HEH, EL 7808, Bridgewater to Castle, 13 January 1640; EL 7816, Castle to Bridgewater, 14 January 1640. For a concise discussion of the growing literature on the widening market for news see Ian Atherton, ‘The Press and Popular Political Opinion’, in Barry Coward (ed.), A Companion to Stuart Britain (Oxford, 2003), pp. 88–110. For the cultural and political significance of the birth of the newsbook see Raymond, Invention; Adam Fox, Oral and Literate Culture in England, 1500–1700 (Oxford, 2000), ch. 7; Richard Cust, ‘News and Politics in Early-Seventeenth-Century England’, reprinted in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), The English Civil War (London, 1997), pp. 233–60.

40. EL 7848, Bridgewater to Castle, 10 August 1640; see above p. 97. See also Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 297–8.

41. I am grateful to Marcus Nevitt and Jason Peacey for discussing this material with me.

42. The English Short Title Catalogue database covers the period 1475–1700. One twentieth of all titles containing the word ‘Plot’ come from 1641 and 1642 (91 out of 1,733), i.e. in two out of 225 years. For ‘conspiracy’ the figure is nearly 4 per cent (21 out of 578) and for the more time-dependent spelling ‘conspiracie’ the figure is 32 per cent (32 out of 100). It was a fairly precisely defined peak, too: taking the three terms together there are five pamphlets advertised in this way from 1640, rising to 75 in 1641, and 69 in 1642, falling back to 31 in 1643, 14 in 1644 and 3 in 1645. All figures calculated on simple searches on 15 December 2005. These are, of course, limited indicators of the market, and it should be noted that even in 1641 and 1642 these pamphlets are a small part of the total.

43. Calculated from Fortescue, Catalogue.

44. Jane Ohlmeyer, ‘The Civil Wars in Ireland’, in John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1638–1660 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 73–102, at p. 74.

45. Derek Hirst, England in Conflict, 1603–1660: Kingdom, Community, Commonwealth (London, 1999), p. 183.

46. R. M. Smuts, ‘Public Ceremony and Royal Charisma: The English Royal Entry in London, 1485–1642’, in A. L. Beier, David Cannadine and James M. Rosenheim (eds.),The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone(Cambridge, 1989), pp. 65–93, at pp. 89–93; Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 95–6; Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 313–14.

47. Howell quoted in Raymond, Invention, pp. 121–2.

48. For the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 233–6. The answer was published in several editions: much as he deplored it, the King had to engage with the world of print.

49. Russell, Fall, p. 437; Gardiner, CD, pp. 232–3.

50. Austin Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate (Oxford, 1982), p. 224.

51. Clifton, ‘Popular Fear of Catholics’, p. 33.

52. Raymond, Invention, p. 114; See also Elizabeth Skerpan, The Rhetoric of Politics in the English Revolution, 1642–1660 (London, 1992), pp. 60–80.

53. Quoted in Manning, English People, p. 42.

54. Lindley, Popular Politics, ch. 4; Valerie Pearl, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution: City Government and National Politics 1625–1643 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 131–9; Manning, English People, pp. 86–7. Robert Brenner identifies a group with distinct social and economic interests at the heart of this City revolution: Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993), esp. pp. 396–400.

55. Clarendon also dates the emergence of these terms to this period: Raymond, Invention, p. 114. These tumultuous weeks are fully described and evoked by Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 98–117; and Manning, English People, ch. 4. For their relationship to parliamentary politics see Russell, Fall, pp. 439–46.

56. Russell, Fall, pp. 445–53.

57. Gardiner, CD, pp. 236–7.

58. BL, Add MS 21,935, fos. 159v–160r. These running heads do not appear at the relevant pages in R. Webb (ed.), Historical Notices of Events Occurring Chiefly in the Reign of Charles I by Nehemiah Wallington, 2 vols. (London, 1869), I, pp. 278–9. I am grateful to Peter Lake, who first pointed this juxtaposition out to me.

59. See Russell, Fall, p. 448. For the ways in which Parliament men could ‘mould and guide’ opinion in the City see Pearl, London and the Outbreak, pp. 228–35. Russell’s verdict is measured: Russell, Fall, pp. 432–3. The authoritative account is Lindley, Popular Politics, which supplies little evidence of manipulation or orchestration from within Parliament. Crowds were helpful to Pym and others though, and that made the accusations plausible: they were made from within Parliament too: Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 97.

60. Gardiner, CD, pp. 237–41, at p. 239. D’Ewes put the figure at 400 in his journal, correcting an initial estimate of 200, and made no mention of papists. The evocative passage is reprinted in Lindley, Civil War and Revolution, pp. 76–7. The whole episode is narrated from complementary perspectives by Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 117–20; and Russell, Fall, pp. 445–53; See also Manning, English People, pp. 109–13.

61. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 120–21, 123–5.

62. Ibid., pp. 122, 125–6; Russell, Fall, p. 452; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 184–5.

63. Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 127.

6. Paper Combats

1. Many localities produced petitions for accommodation between King and Parliament, and the return of the King to Parliament was a common element of these petitions: Anthony Fletcher, The Outbreak of the English Civil War (London, 1981), ch. 8. It was a repeated demand during the war, both by the King himself and ‘peace party’ lobbyists. The City petition of January 1643, for example, caused controversy with this demand: The humble petition of the major, aldermen, and commons of the City of London to His Majesty (London, 1643); Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Alder-shot, 1997), pp. 345–7.

2. Samuel R. Gardiner, History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War 1603–1642, 10 vols. (London, 1884), X, pp. 152–7. See also Conrad Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637–1642 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 457–8, 466; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 185–6.

3. Russell, Fall, p. 464. For the resultant promotion of the Protestation see above, pp. 200–201.

4. Michael Mendle, ‘The Great Council of Parliament and the First Ordinances: The Constitutional Theory of the civil war’, JBS, 31:2 (1992), 133–62, esp. pp. 139–50; See also Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 76–7. For the longer history of the idea of the Great Council see David L. Smith, The Stuart Parliaments 1603–1689 (London, 1999), pp. 43–8.

5. Mendle, ‘Great Council’, p. 140. For the change represented by the Ten Propositions see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 42–76.

6. Russell, Fall, pp. 464, 467–8.

7. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 130–37; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 188–9, 223–4; John Walter, Understanding Popular Violence in the English Revolution: The Colchester Plunderers (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 256–9; Robin Clifton, ‘The Popular Fear of Catholics during the English Revolution’, PP, 52 (1971), 23–55, at pp. 41–2; David Cressy, England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640–1642 (Oxford, 2006), pp. 56–9. For Pym’s use of the petitions see Russell, Fall, pp. 468–9.

8. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 134–6; Patricia Higgins, ‘The Reactions of Women, with Special Reference to Women Petitioners’, in Brian Manning (ed.), Politics, Religion and the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp. 179–222, at pp. 184–5. For women in food riots see John Walter, ‘Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law: Maldon and the Crisis of 1629’, reprinted in John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 27–66, esp. pp. 40–41. The image of a parliament of women was a common one in contemporary satire.

9. Russell, Fall, pp. 457–8; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 228–9.

10. LJ, iv, pp. 523–4.

11. Russell, Fall, pp. 458–9, 464–7.

12. John Adamson, The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I (London, 2007), esp. ch. 16.

13. For the exodus see Russell, Fall, pp. 470–71. Average numbers voting in Commons divisions fell from 276 in January to 159 in April: Smith, Stuart Parliaments, p. 128.

14. Russell, Fall, pp. 470–76, 479. For the Militia Ordinance See also Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 244–6.

15. Mendle, ‘Great Council’, pp. 155–6; Russell, Fall, pp. 476–7.

16. Russell, Fall, pp. 478–87, for the metaphor of the matrimonial quarrel pp. 477–8; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 230–31.

17. Lewes quoted in William Cliftlands, ‘The “Well-Affected”: and the “Country”: Politics and Religion in English Provincial Society, c. 1640–1654’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Essex (1987), pp. 15–16. See Cressy, England on Edge, chs. 14–15 and pp. 405–8. For ballads see Angela McShane Jones, ‘“Rime and Reason”: The Political World of the English Broadside Ballad, 1640–1689’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Warwick (2004).

18. Mendle, ‘Great Council’, pp. 152–9.

19. For this gloss, see Russell, Fall, esp. p. 487.

20. For this view of Pym’s importance in this period see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 234–44.

21. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 231–2. For Hyde’s role as the King’s draughtsman see David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 88–91; Russell, Fall, pp. 480–85; Paul Seaward, ‘Hyde, Edward, First Earl of Clarendon (1609–1674)’, ODNB, 29, pp. 120–38. Hyde was knighted in February 1643 and was created Earl of Clarendon in April 1661. For Henrietta Maria’s influence over policy from early 1642 See also Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 327–58; Michelle Anne White, Henrietta Maria and the English Civil Wars (Aldershot, 2006), esp. ch. 3.

22. Gardiner, History of England, X, pp. 191–3; Russell, Fall, pp. 503–4.

23. Russell, Fall, pp. 505–6.

24. See above, p. 182; Gardiner, History of England, X, pp. 154–6; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 185–6.

25. Bernard Capp, ‘Naval Operations’, in John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1638–1660 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 156–91, at pp. 157–8. Malcolm Wanklyn and Frank Jones are more sceptical about the significance of parliamentary control of the navy to the overall course of the war: A Military History of the English Civil War 1642–1646: Strategy and Tactics (Harlow, 2005), pp. 12–13.

26. Russell, Fall, p. 505.

27. Cited in Smith, Stuart Parliaments, pp. 46–7.

28. Gardiner, CD, pp. 249–54. For an introduction to the controversy see David Wootton (ed.), Divine Right and Democracy: An Anthology of Political Writing in Stuart England (Harmondsworth, 1986), intr. and ch. 3; M. J. Mendle, ‘Politics and Political Thought 1640–1642’, in Conrad Russell (ed.), The Origins of the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp. 219-45. The key work is Michael Mendle, Dangerous Positions: Mixed Government, the Estates of the Realm, and the Making of the Answer to the 19 Propositions (Tuscaloosa, 1985).

29. Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 90–91. See also Wootton, Divine Right, ch. 3.

30. Following the summary in Mendle, ‘Great Council’, p. 160. See also Mendle, Dangerous Positions; Michael Mendle, Henry Parker and the English Civil War: The Political Thought of the Public’s ‘Privado’ (Cambridge, 1995); Michael Mendle, ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Very English Absolutism’, in Nicholas T. Phillipson and Quentin Skinner (eds.), Political Discourse in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 97–119; Michael Mendle, ‘Henry Parker: The Public’s Privado’, in Gordon J. Schochet, P. E. Tatspaugh and Carol Brobeck (eds.), Religion, Resistance and Civil War: Papers Presented at the Folger Institute Seminar ‘Political Thought in Early Modern England, 1600–1660’ (Washington, DC, 1990), pp. 151–77; Michael Mendle, ‘The Ship Money Case, The case of shipmony, and the Development of Henry Parker’s Parliamentary Absolutism’, HJ, 32 (1989), 513–36; Richard Tuck, Philosophy and Government 1572–1651 (Cambridge, 1993), esp. pp. 221–33.

31. Quentin Skinner, ‘Rethinking Political Liberty’, History Workshop Journal, 61:1 (2006), 156–70; see, more generally, Quentin Skinner, ‘Classical Liberty and the Coming of the English Civil War’, in Martin Van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner (eds.), Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, vol. 2: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 9–28, esp. pp. 17–28.

32. For the declarations see Skinner, ‘Rethinking Political Liberty’, pp. 165–8; for Parker and the Committee of Safety see Jason Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 53–4.

33. For Reasons, see Skinner, ‘Rethinking Political Liberty’, pp. 167–8. For the output of Bishop and White see Jason Peacey, ‘“Fiery Spirits” and Political Propaganda: Uncovering a Radical Press Campaign of 1642’, Publishing History, 55 (2004), pp. 5–36. I am grateful to John Morrill for discussing this material with me.

34. For this general phenomenon see Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers.

35. See above, p. 172.

36. A. D. T. Cromartie, ‘The Printing of Parliamentary Speeches November 1640–July 1642’, HJ, 33 (1990), 23–44; John Morrill, ‘The Unweariableness of Mr Pym: Influence and Eloquence in the Long Parliament’, in Susan D. Amussen and Mark A. Kishlansky (eds.), Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown (Manchester, 1995), pp. 19–54, esp. pp. 36–43.

37. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 255–6. His comment on the Grand Remonstrance is quoted from Russell, Fall, p. 427. For his defection see above, p. 147. See also Derek Hirst, ‘The Defection of Sir Edward Dering, 1640–1641’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 207–25; S. P. Salt, ‘Dering, Sir Edward, First Baronet (1598–1644)’, ODNB, 15, pp. 874–80. Book-burning was as much a statement of anathema as of censorship, and it was frequently an expression of revulsion at the tone as much as the content of a publication: see above, pp. 277–81.

38. A Seasonable Lecture, or A most learned Oration: Disburthened from Henry VValker, a most judicious Quondam Iron-monger, a late Pamphleteere and now (too late or too soone) a double diligent Preacher. As it might be delivered in Hatcham Barne the thirtieth day of March last, Stylo Novo. Taken in short writing by Thorny Ailo; and now printed in words at length, and not in figures (London, 1642). Taylor used this pseudonym on a number of occasions. For Taylor’s remarkable career see Bernard Capp, The World of John Taylor the Water-Poet 1578–1653 (Oxford, 1994).

39. According to Fortescue, the lowest monthly total during 1642 was 117. Across the whole period 1640–1651 there were only twenty-seven months in which the total exceeded 100 titles. Sixteen of them were in a continuous run from January 1642 to April 1643: G. K. Fortescue (ed.), Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers, and Manuscripts Relating to the Civil War, the Commonwealth and the Restoration, Collected by George Thomason, 1640–1661, 2 vols. (London, 1908).

40. For characterizations of the motives of activists in these terms see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 405–6; John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of war 1630–1648, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1999), pp. 68–9, and the reservations expressed at pp. 185–90.

41. Figures quoted or calculated from Keith J. Lindley, ‘The Impact of the 1641 Rebellion upon England and Wales, 1641–5’, Irish Historical Studies, 18:70 (1972), 143–76, at p. 144; Anon., No pamphlet but a detestation Against all such pamphlets As are Printed, Concerning the Irish Rebellion, Plainely demonstrating the falshood of them (London, 1642), quoted in Lindley, ‘Impact’, at p. 146. For the influence of the Foxean tradition, and its rival, see Ethan Howard Shagan, ‘Constructing Discord: Ideology, Propaganda, and English Responses to the Irish Rebellion of 1641’, JBS 36:1 (1997), 4–34.

42. Lindley, ‘Impact’, pp. 154–9. For the extent to which this fear of local Catholics was exaggerated see William Sheils, ‘English Catholics at War and Peace’, in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby (eds.), Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 137–57, at pp. 138–42. After the Restoration Catholics made up about 1 or 1.5 per cent of the population, with estimates for particular places varying from 0.4 to 2 per cent or more. Most studies emphasize their political loyalty: Michael J. Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 324–30; for numbers see p. 325, n. 132.

43. Anon., A bloody plot, Practised by some Papists in Darbyshire (London, 1642): the date of the plot is 18 January, but there is no Thomason date. The pamphlet is bound with others dealing with events in late January.

44. This was a recurring feature of the Catholic scares of these months: Clifton, ‘Popular Fear of Catholics’, pp. 29–31, 45; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 204–6; [John Davis], A great discovery of a damnable plot at Rugland castle in Monmoth-shire in Wales related to the High Court of Parliament, by Iohn Davis, November the 12, 1641 (London, 1641); Anon., Gods late mercy to England in discovering of three damnable plots by the treacherous Papists and Iesuits in England and Wales, and many other places, & c. (London, 1641).

45. See above, p. 183.

46. Anon., A bloody plot, sig. A2r.

47. Braddick, State Formation, pp. 304–6, 324–30.

48. See above, pp. 171–2. Clifton, ‘Popular Fear of Catholics’, pp. 30–31; Robin Clifton, ‘Fear of Popery’, in Conrad Russell (ed.), The Origins of the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp. 144–167, at pp. 158–61; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 46–9; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 203–6.

49. Fletcher, Outbreak, esp. p. 206. For the disturbances in Essex see above, pp. 230–31; Lindley, ‘Impact’, pp. 157–9.

50. Caroline Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, NC, 1983), pp. 219–20; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 59–60; Diane Purkiss, The English Civil War: Papists, Gentlemen, Soldiers, and Witchfinders in the Birth of Modern Britain (New York, 2006), pp. 137–9; Anon., Arthur Browne, A Seminary Priest, His Confession (London, 1642). For another cause célèbre see the revelations of John Browne: The confession of John Brovvne a Iesuite (London, 1641). For the King’s attempt to save the lives of Catholic priests see Russell, Fall, pp. 258–62.

51. Fletcher, Outbreak, ch. 6. For the complex connections between these campaigns and national political developments See also John Walter, ‘Confessional Politics in pre-Civil War Essex: Prayer Books, Profanations, and Petitions’, HJ, 44 (2001), pp. 677–701, esp. pp. 699–701. The Somerset petition from these months, for example, called for the preservation of the Prayer Book and the liberties of Parliament, which was hardly a non-partisan set of priorities: David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), pp. 26–9

52. David Zaret, ‘Petitions and the “Invention” of Public Opinion in the English Revolution’, American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497–1555; David Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England (Princeton, NJ, 2000).

53. David Cressy, ‘The Protestation Protested, 1641 and 1642’, HJ, 45 (2002), pp. 251–79, esp. pp. 266–77. For the politics of the Protestation in Essex see Walter, ‘Confessional Politics’, and Walter, Understanding Popular Violence, ch. 8. For mental reservation see Edward Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant: State Oaths, Protestantism and the Political Nation, 1553–1682 (Woodbridge, 2005), esp. pp. 103–7; David Martin Jones, Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth Century England: The Political Significance of Oaths and Engagements (Woodbridge, 1999). For the administration and importance of the returns as population listings see Anne Whiteman, ‘The Protestation Returns of 1641–1642. Pt. 1: The General Organisation’, Local Population Studies, 55 (1995), 14–26; Anne Whiteman and Vivian Russell, ‘The Protestation Returns, 1641–1642. Pt. 2: Partial Census or Snapshot? – Some Evidence from Penwith Hundred, Cornwall’, Local Population Studies, 56 (1996), 17–29; J. S. W. Gibson and A. Dell (eds.), The Protestation Returns 1641–2 and Other Contemporary Listings (Birmingham, 1995); David Cressy, Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1980), passim.

54. Shagan, ‘Constructing Discord’, esp. pp. 17–23.

55. For the vote see above, pp. 185–6; and for its significance see Margaret Aston, ‘Puritans and Iconoclasm, 1560–1660’, in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales (eds.), The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560–1700 (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 92–121, at pp. 114–17.

56. Anon., Wonderfull Nevves: Or, a True Relation of a Churchwarden in the Towne of Tosceter (London, 1642), quotations at sig. A2r, A2v, A3r. For the Lords order see above, pp. 146, 176. Wallington also noted judgements on those who destroyed good books, although his sense of what was a good book clearly differed: hence the importance and inscrutability of God’s judgements: BL, Sloane MS, fo. 73r.

57. See, in this context, Edward Bowles as discussed in Philip Withington, The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 234–7.

58. John Locke, A strange And Lamentable accident that happened lately at Mears Ashby (London, 1642). Thomason date August [?] 1642. This pamphlet is also discussed in David Cressy, ‘Lamentable, Strange, and Wonderful: Headless Monsters in the English Revolution’, in Laura Lunger Knoppers and Joan B. Landes (eds.), Monstrous Bodies/Political Monstrosities in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, 2004), pp. 40–63.

59. Walter, Understanding Popular Violence, pp. 295–6.

60. Locke, Strange And Lamentable accident, quotations at sig. A3r.

61. Ibid., quotations at sig. A3r, A2v, A4r.

62. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 370–71. For divisions in Northamptonshire see John Fielding, ‘Arminianism in the Localities: Peterborough Diocese 1603–1642’, in Kenneth Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church, 1603–1642 (Basingstoke, 1993), pp. 93–113.

63. John Taylor was a prominent exponent of these lines of polemic: Capp, John Taylor, esp. chs. 6, 8; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 229–30.

64. The new name was given ‘to those that strive to walk in the ways of God’: BL, Sloane MS 1457, fos. 67–72v.

65. Ronald Hutton, The Royalist War Effort 1642–1646, 2nd edn (London, 1999), p. 4 for Croft and Hereford; Ronald Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1994), p. 205 for Ludlow; Jacqueline Eales, Puritans and Roundheads: The Harleys of Brampton Bryan and the Outbreak of the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1990), p. 143–5.

66. Adamson, Noble Revolt, p. 387.

67. CJ, ii, p. 478. For hostility to the methods of Pym and his allies see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 127–30, 293–7; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 338–46.

68. Walter, ‘Confessional Politics’, p. 699n; Peter Lake, ‘Puritans, Popularity and Petitions: Local Politics in National Context, Cheshire, 1641’, in Thomas Cogswell, Richard Cust and Peter Lake (eds.), Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain: Essays in Honour of Conrad Russell (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 259–89. For a general account of these campaigns See also Fletcher, Outbreak, ch. 9; and, for a list of extant petitions, Judith Maltby, Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England(Cambridge, 1998), appendix 1, pp. 238–47. See also Cressy, England on Edge, ch. 11 (although it is not clear that this was necessarily Laudians fighting back).

69. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 307–10; Gardiner, X, pp. 179–82; Russell, Fall, pp. 498–500, quotation at p. 499; Alan Everitt, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640–60 (Leicester, 1966), pp. 95–107.

70. Joad Raymond, The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks 1641–1649 (Oxford, 1996), p. 122.

71. Anon., A Relation of a terrible Monster (London, 1642), quotations at p. 3. For the reporting of wonders in newsbooks see Joad Raymond (ed.), Making the News: An Anthology of the Newsbooks of Revolutionary England, 1641–1660 (Moreton-in-Marsh, 1993), ch. 4.

72. John Hare, The Marine Mercury ([London], 1642). The sailors are: Nicholas Treadcrow, Josias Otter, Humfrey Hearnshaw, Alexander Waterrat, Sim. Seamaule and Tim. Bywater. The ESTC identifies Hare as the author of later tracts critical of the lingering effects of the Norman conquest on the rights and liberties of Englishmen, which might suggest broadly parliamentarian sympathies.

73. Alexandra Walsham, Providence in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2001), p. 41.

74. HEH, EL 7846, Castle to Bridgewater, 4 August 1640.

75. Russell, Fall, p. 419.

76. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 170.

77. Reprinted in John Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces: Conservatives and Radicals in the English Civil War, 1630–1650, 1st edn (Harlow, 1980), at p. 137 (these documents are not included in their entirety in the second edition).

7. Raising Forces

1. Bulstrode Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1853), I, p. 176.

2. John Morrill, ‘Devereux, Robert, Third Earl of Essex (1591–1646)’, ODNB, 15, pp. 960–69. See also John Adamson, The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I (London, 2007).

3. Samuel R. Gardiner, History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War 1603–1642, 10 vols. (London, 1884), X, pp. 196–20; for Parliament’s order see Gardiner, CD, p. 261. For the navy see Bernard Capp, ‘Naval Operations’, in John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland (Oxford, 1998), pp. 156–91.

4. Gardiner, History of England, X, pp. 199–202. Actually, the King’s reception at Heyworth Moor was a little discouraging: Joyce Malcolm, ‘A King in Search of Soldiers: Charles I in 1642’, HJ, 21 (1978), 251–73, at pp. 257–8. For the Commission of Array see Ronald Hutton, The Royalist War Effort 1642–1646, 2nd edn (London, 1999), pp. 5–6.

5. John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War 1630–1648, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1999), pp. 60–61.

6. For the Kentish petition see above, p. 205; for the role of assizes and quarter sessions see Anthony Fletcher, The Outbreak of the English Civil War (London, 1981), esp. p. 194. It was frustration at the conduct of a Grand Jury which seems to have prompted the Essex Prayer Book petition: John Walter, ‘Confessional Politics in pre-Civil War Essex: Prayer Books, Profanations, and Petitions’, HJ, 44 (2001), 677–701, at pp. 691–9.

7. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 298–300; for the correlations with subsequent success of the rival militia authorities compare maps 6, 7, 8.

8. Ibid., p. 300.

9. The Declaration and Protestation agreed upon by the Grand Jury at the Assizes held for the County of Worcester (York, 1642); this was the outcome of successful political manoeuvring: Hutton, Royalist War Effort, pp. 10–11; Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 358; Ian Roy, ‘The Royalist Army in the First Civil War’, unpublished D.Phil. thesis, Oxford (1963), pp. 18–22.

10. The Declaration and Protestation of divers the Knights, Gentry and Freeholders (London, 1642); Declaration and Protestation agreed upon by the Grand Jury. As elsewhere, the unanimity of this Lincolnshire declaration was the result of successful mobilization by one party, rather than representing the authentic ‘voice of the county’: see Clive Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), ch. 9, esp. pp. 145–8.

11. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 300, 356, 359, and for other examples pp. 306, 362–3, 389, 395; Hutton, Royalist War Effort, pp. 10–11; John Walter, Understanding Popular Violence in the English Revolution: The Colchester Plunderers (Cambridge 1999), pp. 129–34; for Worcester See also Roy, ‘Royalist Army’, pp. 18–22; for the City of Worcester see Philip Styles, ‘The City of Worcester during the Civil Wars, 1640–60’, reprinted in R. C. Richardson (ed.), The English Civil Wars: Local Aspects (Stroud, 1997), pp. 187–238, at pp. 192–3.

12. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 347–56.

13. Ibid., p. 350.

14. Ibid., pp. 356–68; Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 136–42.

15. Bernard Capp, ‘Naval Operations’, pp. 160–62.

16. Alan Everitt, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion (Leicester, 1966), pp. 111–16.

17. Peter Young and Richard Holmes, The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars 1642–1651 (Ware, 2000), pp. 84–8; David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), pp. 31–8.

18. Malcolm Wanklyn and Frank Jones, A Military History of the English Civil War, 1642–1646: Strategy and Tactics (Harlow, 2005), pp. 42–3. For Portsmouth see John Webb, ‘The Siege of Portsmouth in the Civil War’, reprinted in Richardson (ed.), Local Aspects, pp. 63–90.

19. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 88–91. Cornwall was later a stronghold of royalism but the gentry were apparently united in their opposition to Laudianism and the abuse of the prerogative until the trial of Strafford, and were deeply divided by the Militia Ordinance and the Commission of Array: Mary Coate, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum 1642–1660: A Social and Political Study (Oxford, 1933), ch. 4.

20. HEH, EL 7762, Relation of some passages at Manchester 15 July 1642. For the pre-history, and rival versions, of these events see Ernest Broxap, The Great Civil War in Lancashire (1642–51), 2nd edn (Manchester, 1973), pp. 12–19; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 360–61, 392–3.

21. HEH, EL 7762.

22. Ibid.

23. Quoted in Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 52–3.

24. Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the English Civil Wars 1638–1651 (London, 1992), pp. 64–5.

25. For the importance of a unified public front see Michael J. Braddick, ‘Administrative Performance: The Representation of Political Authority in Early Modern England’, in Michael J. Braddick and John Walter (eds.), Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society: Order, Hierarchy and Subordination in Britain and Ireland (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 166–87.

26. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 374–5; Hughes, Warwickshire, p. 130; Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 53–5 (1640–41).

27. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 370–71.

28. Ibid., pp. 381–5; D. H. Pennington and I. A. Roots (eds.), The Committee at Stafford, 1643–1645: The Order Book of the Staffordshire County Committee, Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 4th ser., 1 (Manchester, 1957), pp. xx, 341.

29. Ibid., p. xx.

30. Fletcher, Outbreak, p. 380.

31. The classic statements of the importance of neutralism were Alan Everitt, ‘The Local Community and the Great Rebellion’, reprinted in Richardson (ed.), Local Aspects, pp. 15–36; and John Morrill’s. Both were more nuanced than is often claimed, although the hostage to fortune given by Everitt at p. 33 has been gleefully seized upon by critics. For Morrill’s original position and his later thoughts about the problems of analysing ‘neutralism’ see Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 54–8, 185–90, 197–204. For influential revisions of Morrill’s view see Fletcher, Outbreak, ch. 12; Ann Hughes, ‘Local History and the Origins of the Civil War’, in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics 1603–1642 (Harlow, 1989), pp. 224–53; Hughes, Warwickshire, esp. pp. 144–5, 158–67; Anthony Fletcher, ‘National and Local Awareness in the County Communities’, in Howard Tomlinson (ed.), Before the English Civil War: Essays on Early Stuart Politics and Government (London, 1983), pp. 151–74; and, for the war years, Ann Hughes, ‘The King, the Parliament and the Localities during the English Civil War’, JBS, 24 (1985), 236–63; Mark Stoyle, Loyalty and Locality: Popular Allegiance in Devon during the English Civil War (Exeter, 1994), ch. 6.

32. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 385–7; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 55–6. Fletcher corrects the account of Cheshire’s ‘third force’ given in J. S. Morrill, Cheshire 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), pp. 57–8.

33. Holmes, Lincolnshire, ch. 9, quotation at p. 156.

34. For the mingling of national awareness and local ambition in Worcestershire see Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 389–90. For the role of partisans in overriding these qualms see ibid., pp. 400–405. For Gloucestershire see A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), ch. 2.

35. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 390–91; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, p. 56; Andrew Hopper, ‘Black Tom’: Sir Thomas Fairfax and the English Revolution (Manchester, 2007), pp. 12–20, 26–8.

36. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 99–100.

37. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 391–3.

38. Patrick McGrath, ‘Bristol and the Civil War’, reprinted in Richardson (ed.), Local Aspects, pp. 91–128, esp. pp. 91–101; See also David Harris Sacks, ‘Bristol’s “Wars of religion”’, in R. C. Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside in the English Revolution(Manchester, 1992), pp. 100–129; Styles, ‘City of Worcester’, pp. 192–6; David Scott, ‘Politics and Government in York 1640–1662’, in Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside, pp. 46–68, esp. pp. 49–50; Ian Roy, ‘The City of Oxford 1640–1660’, in Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside, pp. 130–68, esp. p. 140.

39. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 393–400; for Coventry see Ann Hughes, ‘Coventry and the English Revolution’, in Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside, pp. 69–99, esp. pp. 77–80. For the earlier emphasis on neutralism in the towns see Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 57–8; Roger Howell, ‘Newcastle and the Nation: The Seventeenth-Century Experience’, reprinted in Richardson (ed.), Local Aspects, pp. 309–29; Roger Howell, ‘Neutralism, Conservatism and Political Alignment in the English Revolution: The Case of the Towns, 1642–9’, in John Morrill (ed.), Reactions to the English Civil War 1642–1649 (Basingstoke, 1982), pp. 67–87. For a persuasive case that the political culture of incorporated towns sat most easily with the emerging parliamentarian programme see Philip Withington, The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2005), esp. pp. 41–4.

40. See Robert M. Bliss, Revolution and Empire: English Politics and the American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century (Manchester, 1990), esp. pp. 74–92; in many ways the conditions of the 1640s fostered the development of a more autonomous Atlantic community: Carla G. Pestana, The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution, 1640–1661 (Cambridge, Mass., 2004).

41. Clive Holmes, The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 33–62. For Norfolk See also R. W. Ketton-Cremer, Norfolk in the Civil War: A Portrait of a Society in Conflict (London, 1969), ch. 8.

42. Hutton, Royalist War Effort, esp. pp. 3–4. In Herefordshire partisanship erupted from January 1642, prompted by the departure of the King from Parliament and the use of ordinances in his absence, producing a battle between commitment to godly reformation and to constitutional royalism: Jacqueline Eales, Puritans and Roundheads: The Harleys of Brampton Bryan and the Outbreak of the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1990), ch. 6.

43. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 324–9.

44. Malcolm, ‘A King in Search of Soldiers’, pp. 259–71; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 329–33; Andrew Hopper, ‘“The popish army of the north”: Anti-Catholicism and Parliamentarian Allegiance in Civil War Yorkshire, 1642–46’, Recusant History, 25:1 (2000), 12–28. For a judicious overview of the involvement of Catholics see William Sheils, ‘English Catholics at War and Peace’, in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby (eds.), Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 137–57. For the disarming of the Trained Bands See also C. H. Firth, Cromwell’s Army: A History of the English Soldier during the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and the Protectorate (London, 1967 edn), pp. 16–17.

45. Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 334–40.

46. Malcolm, ‘A King in Search of Soldiers’, p. 263; Astley quoted in Wanklyn and Jones, English Civil War, p. 43.

47. Roy, ‘Royalist Army’, ch. 1.

48. See, for example, Coleby’s discussion of the Hampshire Grand Jury petition for accommodation in the summer of 1642: Andrew Coleby, Central Government and the Localities: Hampshire 1649–1689 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 6–7.

49. Barbara Donagan, ‘Troubled Consciences: Choice and Allegiance in the English Civil War’ (unpublished paper), pp. 22–6; See also Barbara Donagan, ‘Casuistry and Allegiance in the English Civil War’, in Derek Hirst and Richard Strier (eds.), Writing and Political Engagement in Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 89–111. For background on godly choice, and other examples, see Barbara Donagan, ‘Godly Choice: Puritan Decision-Making in Seventeenth-Century England’, Harvard Theological Review, 76 (1983), 307–34; Barbara Donagan, ‘Understanding Providence: The Difficulties of Sir William and Lady Waller’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 39:3 (1988), 433–44; Barbara Donagan, ‘Providence, Chance and Explanation’, Journal of Religious History, 11 (1981), 385–403.

50. Donagan, ‘Troubled Consciences’, p. 27.

51. Gardiner, I, p. 168.

52. Ibid., pp. 15–16.

53. David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), chs. 3–4. For Colepeper’s speech see above, p. 119; for the Kentish petition see above, p. 205.

54. Roy, ‘Royalist Army’, pp. 80–83; Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 327–31, 360–26. On Digby see Ian Roy, ‘George Digby, Royalist Intrigue and the Collapse of the Cause’, in Ian Gentles, John Morrill and Blair Worden (eds.), Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 68–90; Adamson, Noble Revolt, esp. p. 312. For overviews of the range of royalist opinion See also Ronald Hutton, ‘The Structure of the Royalist Party, 1642–1646’, HJ, 24 (1981), 553–69; James Daly, ‘The Implications of Royalist Politics 1642–1646’, HJ, 27 (1984), 745–55.

55. Ian Roy, ‘Rupert, Prince and Count Palatine of the Rhine and Duke of Cumberland (1619–1682)’, ODNB, 48, pp. 141–54.

56. Sheils, ‘English Catholics’, p. 141.

57. John Morrill (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (Harlow, 1990); Barry Coward, Oliver Cromwell (Harlow, 1991), intr. and ch. 1; Blair Worden, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the Sin of Achan’, in Derek Beales and Geoffrey Best (eds.), History, Society and the Churches: Essays in Honour of Owen Chadwick (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 125–45.

58. Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 54–5.

59. Walter, Understanding Popular Violence.

60. For Somerset see above, pp. 215–16; Stoyle, Loyalty and Locality, pp. 39–40.

61. Stoyle, Loyalty and Locality, p. 143.

62. Morrill, Cheshire, pp. 78–9. Brian Manning, The English People and the English Revolution (Harmondsworth, 1976), chs. 7–8, argues for an independent middling sort parliamentarianism lined up against an aristocratic loyalism supported by deferential tenants. While valuable in emphasizing the potential of political commitments below the level of the gentry he is surely too dismissive of the possibility of a genuine popular royalism: see his position in Aristocrats, Plebeians and Revolution in England, 1640–1660 (London, 1996), esp. pp. 56–8. This line is also detected by many commentators in Underdown, Somerset, and David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1985). For a review and rebuttal see Buchanan Sharp, ‘Rural Discontents and the English Revolution’, in Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside, pp. 251–72. On deference and independence more generally, see C. B. Phillips, ‘Landlord-Tenant Relationships 1642–1660’, in Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside, esp. pp. 226–33; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 185–9.

63. Hughes, Warwickshire, pp. 142–65; Warmington, Gloucestershire, pp. 33–7.

64. Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion is the pioneering work of this kind, followed by Stoyle, Loyalty and Locality, see esp. here, ch. 7. For some searching but respectful criticism of Underdown see John Morrill, ‘The Ecology of Allegiance’, reprinted in John Morrill, The Nature of the English Revolution (Harlow, 1993), pp. 224–41. See also David Underdown, ‘A Reply to John Morrill’, JBS, 26 (1987), 468–79 and Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 186–7.

65. A case made very powerfully by Holmes, Eastern Association, ch. 3.

66. See David Underdown, ‘The Problem of Popular Allegiance in the English Civil War’, TRHS, 5th ser., 31 (1981), 69–94, at pp. 92–3 for some suggestive comments along these lines.

67. Andy Wood, ‘Beyond Post-Revisionism?: The Civil War Allegiances of the Miners of the Derbyshire “Peak Country”’, HJ, 40 (1997), 23–40.

68. An argument put most pungently by Manning, Aristocrats, Plebeians and Revolution, ch. 8.

69. Keith Lindley, Fenland Riots and the English Revolution (London, 1982); Clive Holmes, ‘Drainers and Fenmen: The Problem of Popular Political Consciousness in the Seventeenth Century’, in Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson (eds.), Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 166–95, esp. pp. 168–9.

70. See above, p. 123.

71. Daniel C. Beaver, ‘Sacrifice, Venison and the Social Order in Waltham Forest, 1608–1642’ (unpublished paper). These disputes are discussed more fully in ch. 15.

72. Daniel C. Beaver, ‘The Great Deer Massacre: Animals, Honor, and Communication in Early Modern England’, JBS, 38 (1999), 187–216; See also Daniel C. Beaver, ‘“Bragging and daring words”: Honour, Property and the Symbolism of the Hunt in Stowe, 1590–1642’, in Braddick and Walter (eds.), Negotiating Power, pp. 149–65. Purkiss surely misrepresents these events in assimilating them to the effects of hunger (the animals were for the most part not eaten) on soldiers enduring long, hard service (they were not soldiers and there was as yet no war): Diane Purkiss, The English Civil War: Papists, Gentlemen, Soldiers, and Witchfinders in the Birth of Modern Britain (New York, 2006), ch. 18.

73. For the dispute see Heather Falvey, ‘Crown Policy and Local Economic Context in the Berkhamsted Common Enclosure Dispute, 1618–42’, Rural History, 12 (2001), 123–58. For Edlyn’s contribution see TNA, E. 179/248/19; Andrew Hopper, ‘The Wortley Park Poachers and the Outbreak of the English Civil War’ (forthcoming).

74. See above, pp. 184–5. For a sensitive discussion of the issues see John Walter, ‘The English People and the English Revolution Revisited’, History Workshop Journal, 61 (2006), 171–182. For the ability of merchant networks to take advantage of the times see Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993), esp. pt 3. This is my gloss on his argument; he emphasizes the potential of this analysis to support a broader interpretation of the conflict as grounded in class interests.

75. Walter, Understanding Popular Violence: John Morrill and John Walter, ‘Order and Disorder in the English Revolution’, in Fletcher and Stevenson (ed.), Order and Disorder, pp. 137–65; Fletcher, Outbreak, ch. 12. Manning put this fear of disorder at the heart of royalism: English People, chs. 3, 7, 8. See also Lady Sydenham above, pp. 227–8. For an overview of theories of allegiance see Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, ch. 1.

76. Ann Hughes, The Causes of the English Civil War, 2nd edn (Basingstoke, 1998), p. 168.

8. Armed Negotiation

1. Details of this and all military encounters are hard to agree and are much written about. For a general account of the difficulties see Malcolm Wanklyn, Decisive Battles of the English Civil War: Myth and Reality (Barnsley, 2006), chs. 1–2. Here and elsewhere I have relied upon Peter Young and Richard Holmes, The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars, 1642–1651 (Ware, 2000 edn), pp. 69–71; Malcolm Wanklyn and Frank Jones, A Military History of the English Civil War, 1642–1646: Strategy and Tactics (Harlow, 2005), pp. 44–5. Austin Woolrych’s fine political narrative Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002) is also informative about military matters: Woolrych wrote a number of important military histories. For the battle and subsequent desecration of the cathedral see Gardiner, I, pp. 30, 66.

2. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 46–8; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 71–3. The King’s infantry complement at Edgehill was probably larger than at any point later in the war, but was not at all well armed: Ian Roy, ‘The Royalist Army in the First Civil War’, unpublished D.Phil. thesis, Oxford (1963), pp. 50, 160–63.

3. M. C. Fissel, English Warfare, 1511–1642 (London, 2001), offers a very good overview.

4. For the role of Scottish ‘soldiers of fortune’ see Mark Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers: An Ethnic History of the English Civil War (New Haven, Conn., 2005), esp. pp. 77–9: being in pay is not always the same as being a mercenary in the more general sense, of course: see his index entry for ‘mercenary’ for the conflation.

5. David Trim, ‘Calvinist Internationalism and the English Officer Corps, 1562–1642’, History Compass, 4/6 (2006), 1024–48, at pp. 1024–5.

6. Barbara Donagan, ‘Halcyon Days and the Literature of War: England’s Military Education before 1642’, PP, 147 (1995), 65–100. For the muster masters See also Lindsey O. Boynton, The Elizabethan Militia, 1558-1638 (London, 1967), esp. pp. 224–7, 287–91; Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, Conn., 1992), pp. 28–30, 487–500.

7. Donagan, ‘Halcyon Days’. For the importance of the Trained Bands, and their stores of arms, see above, p. 223.

8. For this and the following two paragraphs I have relied on Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 73–81, updated in the light of the account in Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 50–55. For a detailed account of the sources and the ambiguities of any narrative based on them see Wanklyn, Decisive Battles, chs. 4–5.

9. Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the English Civil Wars, 1638–1651 (London, 1992), pp. 134, 137–9.

10. Richard Wiseman, Severall Chirurgicall Treatises (London, 1676), pp. 348–9.

11. Oliver Lawson Dick (ed.), Aubrey’s Brief Lives (Harmondsworth, 1972 edn) p. 287. For the stripping of corpses, see Carlton, Going to the Wars, p. 146.

12. Dick, Aubrey’s Brief Lives, pp. 286–7.

13. Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 146–7, 227.

14. John Kenyon, The Civil Wars of England (London, 1989 edn), p. 57. Kenyon’s is another political narrative firmly grounded in a knowledge of military affairs.

15. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, p. 56; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 80.

16. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 79; Carlton, Going to the Wars, p. 50. For Verney’s commitment to the royalist cause see above, p. 226.

17. Wanklyn and Jones suggest that Essex withdrew northwards expecting the King, who had suffered heavy losses of infantry, to retreat towards Wales. They also argue that the suggestion of a rapid advance on London by the royalists was probably not made until four days after the battle, when it had more chance of success, rather than the morning after, as is often maintained. In any case, they suggest, it probably had less hope of success than is often argued: Military History, pp. 56–60. For the likely strategic effect of the taking of London see Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 242.

18. Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 230–31; See also Wanklyn, Decisive Battles, chs. 1–2.

19. Gardiner, I, pp. 53–7. For Brentford see The humble petition of the inhabitants of the town of Old Braintford (London, 27 November 1642). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘the word was much used in Germany during the Thirty Years War, in reference to which it was current in England from c. 1630; here word and thing became familiar on the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642, being especially associated with the proceedings of the forces under Prince Rupert’ (accessed online 7 March 2006: http://dictionary.oed.com/). This may be to accept parliamentarian propaganda at face value. The word was also used prior to active hostilities in relation to parliamentarian crowds or mustering soldiers: it was applied retrospectively to the Stour Valley rioters by Bruno Ryves (writing in 1643), but also appears in a document describing the fears of Lady Goring: EL 7795. The document is undated, but clearly comes from mid-August 1642.

20. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 82–3. Wanklyn and Jones cast doubt on the usual claim that Skippon, a man of military experience, added to the parliamentarian advantage by taking better advantage of the ground: Military History, pp. 60–61.

21. For good examples see A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 43–50; John T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 119–28. In Lincolnshire, as in many other counties, a ‘snarling modus vivendi’ had survived up until the eve of Edgehill: Clive Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), p. 159. The Staffordshire neutrality pact was agreed after Edgehill, and parties crystallized slowly thereafter: D. H. Pennington and I. A. Roots (eds.), The Committee at Stafford, 1643–1645: The Order Book of the Staffordshire County Committee, Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 4th ser., 1 (Manchester, 1957), pp. xx-xxi.

22. Gardiner, I, pp. 13–14; David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 109–10.

23. Gardiner, I, pp. 15–18.

24. Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 110–11. For a general account of royalist politics see Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), ch. 6. Ronald Hutton’s brief account has been very influential: ‘The Structure of the Royalist Party, 1642–1646’, HJ, 24 (1981), 553–69. For some revision see James Daly, ‘The Implications of Royalist Politics, 1642–1646’, HJ, 27 (1984), 745–55.

25. Gardiner, I, p. 18.

26. Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 111–12.

27. For the proposal see Gardiner, I, p. 39.

28. Gardiner, I, p. 20. He took this issue seriously. For example, having accepted that he did not have this combination of powers, he refused to negotiate without parliamentary authority at Lostwithiel in 1644: Gardiner, II, p. 11. Essex’s powers may have been recognized by contemporaries to have been more extensive: J. S. A. Adamson, ‘The Baronial Context of the English Civil War’, TRHS, 5th ser., 40 (1990), 93–120, esp. pp. 105–19. This is based on a closer analysis of protocol and ceremonial than of the practice of politics.

29. Gardiner, I, pp. 19, 37, 39, 64, 71–2.

30. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 89–90.

31. Ibid., pp. 100–102.

32. Ibid., pp. 83, 115; Gardiner, I, pp. 71–2.

33. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 243–5.

34. Gardiner, I, p. 73.

35. John Morrill, ‘Holles, Denzil, First Baron Holles (1598–1680)’, ODNB, 27, pp. 708–14. See also Patricia Crawford, Denzil Holles, 1598–1680: A Study of His Political Career (London, 1979).

36. Conrad Russell, ‘Pym, John (1584–1643)’, ODNB, 45, pp. 624–40; Gardiner, I, p. 62.

37. Michael J. Braddick, The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714 (Manchester, 1996), pp. 95–9.

38. CJ, ii, p. 865, 26 Nov. 1642: ‘Mr. Pym, Sir H. Vane senior, Mr. Pierrepointe, Sir H. Vane junior, Mr Holles, Mr Rous, Mr Whitlock, are appointed to consider of some propositions to be presented to this House, for the entering into a strict league with the States of the United Provinces: And are to meet when and where they please’.

39. Gardiner, I, p. 77. For the history of the Eastern Association see Clive Holmes, The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974).

40. Gardiner, I, p. 63.

41. Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 236–55, 337–48; Gardiner, I, pp. 74–5; for the Committee of Both Houses for the Advance of Money see Gerald Aylmer, The State’s Servants: The Civil Service of the English Republic 1649–1660 (London, 1973), esp. p. 13.

42. For the measures see Gardiner, I, pp. 14–15, 75. Anon., The actors remonstrance (London, 24 January 1643), complained that the theatres had been closed but that bear-baiting continued.

43. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 344–5.

44. The New Yeares wonder being a most cernaine [sic] and true Relation of the disturbed inhabitants of Kenton: And other neighbouring villages neere unto Edge-Hil (London, 1643), printed for Robert Ellit, Thomason date 27 January 1643, quotations from title page, pp. 6, 7–8; A great vvonder in Heaven: shewing the late Apparitions and prodigious noyses of War and Battels, seen on Edge-Hill neere Keinton in Northamptonshire (London, 1643), printed for Thomas Jackson, pub. date 23 January 1643.

45. For special providences see Alexandra Walsham, Providence in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1999). For some other examples of sky battles and similar atmospheric phenomena see Irelands Amazement, or the Heavens armado (London, 1641); A Signe From Heaven (London, 12 August 1642); Severall apparitions Seene in the Ayre (London, 1646), Thomason date 18 June; Wallington collected examples too: BL, Sloane MS 1457, fos. 5r, 56r–58r; and, more generally, Vladimir Jankovic, ‘The Politics of Sky Battles in Early Hanoverian Britain’, JBS, 41 (2002), 429–459, esp. pp. 432, 438, 452. Title searches are a crude measure, of course, but they do reflect the means by which a pamphlet was sold. The whole database of titles in Early English Books Online contains forty items with ‘wonder’ prominent in the title. They date mainly from before 1644, and fall particularly heavily in 1641 and 1642. For the ambiguous place of ghosts in reformed religion see Peter Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England (Oxford, 2002).

46. The New Yeares wonder, p. 8. For the complexity of attitudes towards these phenomena see Jankovic, ‘Sky Battles’, and more generally Walsham, Providence.

47. A great vvonder, p. 4. For an example from Austria during the Thirty Years War see Jankovic, ‘Sky battles’, p. 432.

48. A great vvonder, p. 4; The New Yeares wonder, p. 4.

49. A great vvonder, p. 4.

50. Ibid., p. 7.

51. Richard Williams, Peace, and No Peace (London, 1643), Thomason date 5 January 1643.

52. David Wootton, ‘From Rebellion to Revolution: The Crisis of the Winter of 1642/3 and the Origins of Civil War Radicalism’, reprinted in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), The English Civil War (London, 1997), pp. 340–56. For Baxter’s views see pp. 341–3, 347–8. For Baxter’s career see N. H. Keeble, ‘Baxter, Richard (1615–1691)’, ODNB, 4, pp. 418–33.

53. Wootton, ‘Rebellion to Revolution’, pp. 345–6.

54. Ibid., p. 346.

55. Ibid., pp. 347–9.

56. Ibid., p. 351.

57. Quentin Skinner, ‘Rethinking Political Liberty’, History Workshop Journal, 61 (2006), 156–70; and more generally, Quentin Skinner, ‘Classical Liberty and the Coming of the English Civil War’, in Martin Van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner (eds.), Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, vol. 2: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 9–28.

58. Quoted in Patricia Crawford, ‘Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 303–23, at p. 310.

59. Gardiner, I, ch. 4; Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 112–13. For the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 262–7.

60. Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 113–15.

61. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 177–9, 345–8; See also Gardiner, I, pp. 82–3.

62. Gardiner, I, pp. 98–103.

63. Wootton, ‘Rebellion to Revolution’, p. 353 n. 9, citing the distinction made by Skinner, between motives and intentions: Quentin Skinner, ‘Motives, Intentions and the Interpretation of Texts’, reprinted in James Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics (Princeton, NJ, 1988), pp. 68–78.

9. Military Escalation, Loyalty and Honour

1. David Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat: Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford, 2000), ch. 14, quotations at pp. 247, 248. See also Julie Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm in the English Civil War (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 42–6; Nicola Smith, The Royal Image and the English People (Aldershot, 2001), ch. 2; Margaret Aston, ‘Iconoclasm in England: Official and Clandestine’, reprinted in Peter Marshall (ed.), The Impact of the English Reformation 1500–1640 (London, 1997), pp. 167–92, esp. pp. 183–5.

2. Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat, quotations at pp. 238, 239. For the social geography of Cheapside and the politics of its physical appearance See also Paul Griffiths, ‘Politics Made Visible: Order, Residence and Uniformity in Cheapside, 1600–45’, in Paul Griffiths and Mark S. R. Jenner (eds.), Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London (Manchester, 2000), pp. 176–96

3. Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat, quotation at p. 246. For the controversy in 1641 see above, p. 145.

4. Peter Young and Richard Holmes, The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars 1642–1651 (Ware, 2000), pp. 91–4.

5. Quoted in ibid., p. 102.

6. Ibid., pp. 102–11, 122.

7. Ibid., pp. 113–14.

8. Ibid., pp. 115–22.

9. Gardiner, I, p. 67; Young and Holmes accepted the case: English Civil War, p. 98, and for the royalist command see pp. 54–7. For scepticism about royal strategy, and a more positive view of parliamentary strategy, see Ian Roy, ‘The Royalist Army in the First Civil War’, unpublished D.Phil. thesis, Oxford (1963), ch. 2, esp. p. 74; Malcolm Wanklyn and Frank Jones, A Military History of the English Civil War, 1642–1646: Strategy and Tactics (Harlow, 2005), pp. 23, 43, 82, 92–4.

10. Nigel Smith, Literature and Revolution in England 1640–1660 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), p. 64. Bruno Ryves noted, apparently neutrally, that Brooke was shot in the eye on St Chad’s Day. The cathedral is named for St Chad, the first holder of the see: [Bruno Ryves], Micro-chronicon (London, 1647), unpaginated, under the heading 21 April 1643.

11. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 103.

12. See above, pp. 253–4.

13. Clive Holmes, The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 62–3; A&O, I, pp. 49–80, passim. See also Clive Holmes (ed.), The Suffolk Committees for Scandalous Ministers 1644–1646, Suffolk Records Society, XIII (Ipswich, 1970), pp. 20–21.

14. Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 62–7, quotations at p. 63. See also J. H. Hexter, The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), esp. pp. 28–9, and, for the measures discussed in this chapter more generally, ch. 1.

15. John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War 1630–1648, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1999), pp. 102–4; Holmes, Eastern Association, esp. pp. 67–8.

16. A&O, I, pp. 73–4, 76–7, 104–5, 123–4.

17. See above, pp. 392–3.

18. For these forms of taxation in general see Michael J. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England: Local Administration and Response (Woodbridge, 1994), chs. 3, 4; Michael J. Braddick, The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714 (Manchester, 1996), ch. 5. For the Assessment Ordinance see A&O, I, pp. 85–100. For the excise proposal see Gardiner, I, pp. 101–2. For Hunstanton and Hanworth see Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 139. For influential studies of the escalating local burden of taxation see Alan Everitt, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640–60 (Leicester, 1966), esp. pp. 155–72; Holmes, Eastern Association, esp. ch. 7; Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), esp. pp. 336–9; Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), esp. pp. 255–71; J. S. Morrill, Cheshire 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), ch. 3.

19. A&O, I, pp. 106–117.

20. Ibid., pp. 145–55 (7 May 1643).

21. For the development of this strand of opinion see Robert Ashton, ‘From Cavalier to Roundhead Tyranny, 1642–9’, in John Morrill (ed.), Reactions to the English Civil War 1642–1649 (Basingstoke, 1982), pp. 185–207; Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–1648 (New Haven, Conn., 1994).

22. Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 79–80. For a general account see Gerald Aylmer, The State’s Servants: The Civil Service of the English Republic 1649–1660 (London, 1973), esp. pp. 9–24.

23. Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 83–4; Lotte Glow, ‘The Committee of Safety’, EHR, 80 (1965), 289–313; Wallace Notestein, ‘The Establishment of the Committee of Both Kingdoms’, AHR, 17 (1912), 477–95; John Adamson, ‘The Triumph of Oligarchy: The Management of War and the Committee of Both Kingdoms, 1644–1645’, in Chris R. Kyle and Jason Peacey (eds.), Parliament at Work: Parliamentary Committees, Political Power and Public Access in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 101–27.

24. Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 79–89. For the civilian committees See also Aylmer, State’s Servants, pp. 8–29.

25. Edward Husbands, An exact collection of all Remonstrances… (London, 1643). On 5 August 1644 the Commons ordered Husbands to print ‘all the Ordinances and Declarations that have passed since the Setting-forth the last Volume of Ordinances and Declarations, set forth by him: And, that he do take care diligently to compare his Copies with the Originals’. This latter provision suggests that he had met some criticism. He was once again given copyright: CJ, iii, p. 580. For the original order see CJ, iii, p. 16 (reproduced in Husbands, Exact collection, p. 956). Husbands also published as Husband – I have followed the spelling on this publication since it is the one which I have discussed in detail. I am grateful to Jason Peacey, on whose knowledge much of this paragraph is based, for discussing Husbands with me.

26. Quoted from Husbands, Exact collection, p. 932. See A&O, I, p. 85.

27. See above, p. 414.

28. Gardiner, I, pp. 100–102.

29. CJ, iii, p. 57; Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm, pp. 71–3.

30. Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm, pp. 73–5, 83–98; Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), esp. pp. 256–60; Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat, ch. 14; Gardiner, I, p. 132.

31. Certaine informations (24 April-1 May 1643), p. 119; Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm, pp. 83–5; for Harley see Jacqueline Eales, Puritans and Roundheads: The Harleys of Brampton Bryan and the Outbreak of the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1990), esp. pp. 56–60, 108–16.

32. For the administrative history see Holmes, Suffolk Committees, pp. 9–12. See also Ian Green, ‘The Persecution of “Scandalous” and “Malignant” Parish Clergy during the English Civil War’, EHR, 94 (1979), 507–31, esp. pp. 512–15.

33. Holmes, Suffolk Committees, pp. 9–12; Green, ‘Persecution of “Scandalous” and “Malignant” Parish Clergy’, esp. pp. 512–16; for an earlier example see David Cressy, England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640–1642 (Oxford, 2006), pp. 259–60.

34. Holmes, Suffolk Committees, pp. 9–10; CJ, ii, p. 54.

35. Holmes, Suffolk Committees, pp. 9–10, 115–19, quotation at p. 118.

36. Certaine informations (24 April-1 May 1643), p. 118.

37. David Cressy, ‘Book Burning in Tudor and Stuart England’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 36 (2005), 359–74, esp. pp. 361–8; Cyndia Clegg, ‘Burning Books as Propaganda in Jacobean England’, in Andrew Hadfield (ed.), Literature and Censorship in Renaissance England (Basingstoke, 2001), pp. 165–86.

38. Cressy, ‘Book Burning’, pp. 369–70; for Prynne and Histrio-Mastix see William Lamont, ‘Prynne, William (1600–1669)’, ODNB, 45, pp. 489–94.

39. Quoted in Cressy, ‘Book Burning’, pp. 370–71.I am also very grateful to Ariel Hessayon for allowing me to see his forthcoming paper ‘Incendiary Texts: Radicalism and Book Burning in England, c. 1640–c. 1660’.

40. Cressy, ‘Book Burning’, p. 373. For Dering, the press and the wider public See also Jason Peacey, ‘Popularity and the Politician: An MP and His Public, 1640–1644’ (forthcoming).

41. Certaine informations (24 April-1 May 1643), p. 118.

42. For the Somerset controversy see Thomas G. Barnes, ‘County Politics and a Puritan Cause Célèbre: Somerset Church Ales, 1633’, TRHS, 5th ser., 9 (1959), 103–22. For the Book of Sports and its local reception see Ronald Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 196–8; Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, Conn., 1992), pp. 353–9; Julian Davies, The Caroline Captivity of the English Church (Oxford, 1992), ch. 5.

43. Hutton, Merry England, pp. 200–201, 205–6; A&O, I, pp. 81–3, quotations at pp. 81, 82.

44. Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat, p. 249. For examples of maypoles and anti-Puritanism see David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1985), esp. pp. 177, 269, 274–5; and see above, p. 204.

45. For this range of responses see Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat, p. 247. For concern about iconoclasm and disorder see John Walter, ‘“Abolishing superstition with sedition”? The Politics of Popular Iconoclasm in England 1640–1642’, PP, 183 (2004), 79–123.

46. See above, pp. 312–13.

47. William Cliftlands, ‘The “Well-Affected” and the “Country”: Politics and Religion in English Provincial Society, c. 1640–1654’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Essex (1987), esp. chs. 2, 4.

48. Joad Raymond, The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks 1641–1649 (Oxford, 1996), pp. 26–7.

49. The text has a relatively complicated history. Thomason collected several numbers as a serial up to December 1643. The ninth edition in Thomason’s collection is numbered 18, suggesting a continuous weekly production, although it was interrupted in the autumn. These separate issues were included in an omnibus published in 1646, along with other material. This was largely reprinted in 1685 as a warning to a new generation. The 1685 edition is reset, with a new pagination, and seems to have introduced some errors. Another edition published as Angliae Ruina in 1648 has a completely new preface and includes some material not in the 1646 and 1685 editions, excluding some of the component parts. I have used and cited the 1685 edition, which is easily accessible, checking it where possible with the 1646 edition. For the publishing history See also Margaret Aston, England’s Iconoclasts, vol. 1: Laws Against Images (Oxford, 1988), p. 71 n. 26.

50. Mercurius Rusticus (1685 edn), p. 70. Early orders had protected funerary monuments, but from August 1643 onwards they were included in the remit of the legislation: Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm, pp. 75–7. The legislation had sought to protect monuments, including coats of arms, of all those not ‘commonly reputed or taken for’ a saint. Wallington’s notes record a kind of mirror-image version of a grossly transgressive Cavalierism: BL, Sloane MS 1457, esp. 27v ff., and Add MS 21935.

51. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 54–6; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, p. 41; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 77–9; Roy, ‘Royalist Army’, ch. 2, esp. pp. 51–85. For the conflict between military men and moderates See also Ronald Hutton, ‘The Structure of the Royalist Party, 1642–1646’, HJ, 24 (1981), 553–69.

52. Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 116–18; Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 384–5; Martyn Bennett, ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis: The Creation of Rival Administrations at the Beginning of the English Civil War’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 167–83.

53. Roy, ‘Royalist Army’, pp. 220–47; Jens Engberg, ‘Royalist Finances during the English Civil War, 1642–6’, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 14:2 (1966), 73–96; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 111–15, 116. For the Earl of Pembroke see Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 116.

54. Gardiner, I, pp. 132–3.

55. Ibid., pp. 57, 66, 107: at Birmingham the destruction occurred despite an order from Rupert. The general point is also made by Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, pp. 152–3.

56. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 113–14.

57. Barbara Donagan, ‘Codes and Conduct in the English Civil War’, PP, 118 (1988), pp. 65–95, esp. pp. 73–80.

58. Andrew Hopper, ‘“Fitted for desperation”: Honour and Treachery in Parliament’s Yorkshire Command, 1642–1643’, History, 86 (2001), 138–54, at pp. 140–41.

59. Certaine informations (24 April-1 May 1643), pp. 117–18. For the accepted view of royalist severity in dealing with civilians see Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 117–18.

60. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 122.

61. Ibid., pp. 94–7, 122–4; Gardiner, I, pp. 155–6. For the Vow and Covenant see above, pp. 293–4. Hampden may have lost a hand when his pistol burst. Hampden’s death is lyrically treated in Gardiner, I, pp. 152–5.

62. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, ch. 8, quotation at p. 137, and See also p. 142; Patrick McGrath, ‘Bristol and the Civil War’, reprinted in R. C. Richardson (ed.), The English Civil Wars: Local Aspects (Stroud, 1997), pp. 91–128, at pp. 101–11.

63. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 111–13.

64. Ibid., pp. 142–3, 151–4.

65. Gardiner, I, pp. 194–6, quotation at p. 195; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, chs. 9–10. See also Cust, Charles I, pp. 378–81.

66. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 142–3; Gardiner, I, p. 207.

67. Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), pp. 257–8, quotation at p. 258; Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 348–51; Gardiner, I, pp. 144–9.

68. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 304–19; Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 443–59; Valerie Pearl, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution: City Government and National Politics 1625–1643 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 257–73.

69. Gardiner, I, pp. 183–8; Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 351–2.

70. LJ, vi, pp. 86–7; Edward Vallance, ‘Protestation, Vow, Covenant and Engagement: Swearing Allegiance in the English Civil War’, Historical Research, 75 (2002), 408–424, esp. pp. 415–17. See also Edward Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant: State Oaths, Protestantism and the Political Nation, 1553–1682 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 56–7, 69–70; David Martin Jones, Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth Century England: The Political Significance of Oaths and Engagements(Woodbridge, 1999), esp. pp. 119–25, 274–5.

71. Culpeper Letters, at pp. 176–7. The Scottish alliance is considered in detail above in ch. 10.

72. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 348–9.

73. Michael Mendle, ‘De Facto Freedom, De Facto Authority: Press and Parliament, 1460–1643’, HJ, 38 (1995), 307–332; A&O, I, pp. 184–6, quotation at p. 184.

74. Gardiner, I, p. 155. For the proclamation see LJ, vi, pp. 108–9.

75. Gardiner, I, pp. 199–202; Cust, Charles I, pp. 380–81; Hutton, ‘Royalist Party’, p. 558.

76. Hutton, ‘Royalist Party’, pp. 558–9. Hutton’s analysis is criticized as too schematic by James Daly, ‘The Implications of Royalist Politics, 1642–1646’, HJ, 27 (1984), 745–55. See, in general, Cust, Charles I, pp. 358–419.

77. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, ch. 4; Braddick, Nerves of State, chs. 1, 2, 5; John Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783 (London, 1989); for a full study of innovations in public finance in the 1640s and 1650s and their long-term significance see James Scott Wheeler, The Making of a World Power: War and the Military Revolution in Seventeenth-Century England (Stroud, 1999).

78. Saltmarsh was already on a journey which took him from an orthodox, perhaps relatively High Church, sensibility during the 1630s to the advocacy of free grace by the mid-1640s. Free grace built on the Reformation prioritization of grace over adherence to the law as the key to salvation, but did not limit grace to the elect. Saltmarsh later became chaplain to Sir Thomas Fairfax and was identified as a major threat to religious order. For Saltmarsh see Roger Pooley, ‘Saltmarsh, John (d. 1647)’, ODNB, 48, pp. 770–71; Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004). For Henry Marten see Sarah Barber, ‘Marten, Henry (1601/2–1680)’, ODNB, 36, pp. 908–12.

79. Jack Binns, ‘Cholmley, Sir Hugh, First Baronet (1600–1657)’, ODNB, 11, pp. 504–5. Discussed alongside the Hothams and other Yorkshire side-changers in Hopper, ‘“Fitted for desperation”’.

80. Hopper, ‘“Fitted for desperation”’. See also Vallance, Revolutionary England, p. 68.

81. Gardiner, I, pp. 142, 159–61, II, pp. 103–4; David Scott, ‘Hotham, Sir John, First Baronet (1589–1645)’, ODNB, 28, pp. 257–9; David Scott, ‘Hotham, John (1610–1645)’, ODNB, 28, pp. 259–61.

82. Scott, ‘Hotham, Sir John’; Scott, ‘Hotham, John’.

83. History of Parliament Trust, London, unpublished article on Sir Matthew Boynton, Bart, for 1604–29 section by Simon Healey. I am grateful to the History of Parliament Trust for allowing me to see this article in draft. History, Topography, and Directory of East Yorkshire (with Hull) (Preston: T. Bulmer and sons, 1892), p. 152; Bulstrode Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1853), I, pp. 194, 206, 487.

84. Ashton, Counter-Revolution, p. 403.

85. Hopper suggests that, had these defections been co-ordinated, it might have changed the course of the entire war: ‘“Fitted for desperation”’.

86. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 141; for the pressure to surrender to avoid unnecessary loss of life see Donagan, ‘Codes and Conduct’, pp. 79–80.

87. For the Chudleighs, see Gardiner, I, p. 139; Mary Wolffe, ‘Chudleigh, Sir George, Baronet (1582–1658)’, ODNB, 11, pp. 570–71; Mary Wolffe, ‘Chudleigh, James (1617–1643)’, ODNB, 11, pp. 571–2. For Massey see Gardiner, I, pp. 198–9; Andrew Warmington, ‘Massey, Sir Edward (d. 1674)’, ODNB, 37, pp. 208–11. For Carew see Gardiner, I, pp. 207–8; Stephen Wright, ‘Carew, Sir Alexander, Second Baronet (1609–1644)’, ODNB, 10, pp. 40–41, quotation at p. 40.

88. Gardiner, I, 162–3; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 113; Fletcher, Sussex, p. 289. For the intellectual and social context see Barbara Donagan, ‘The Web of Honour: Soldiers, Christians, and Gentlemen in the English Civil War’, HJ, 44 (2001), 363–89, esp. pp. 384–7.

89. Gardiner, I, pp. 164–5, 199.

90. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 142; See also Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the English Civil Wars, 1638–1651 (London, 1992), pp. 218–19.

10. The War of the Three Kingdoms

1. The standard account of Confederate politics is Micheàl Ó Siochrú, Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis (Dublin, 1999): see here esp. pp. 17–20. For a concise narrative see Patrick J. Corish, ‘The Rising of 1641 and the Catholic Confederacy’, in T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin and F. J. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early Modern Ireland 1534–1691 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 289–316, quotation at p. 302. There is a useful summary in Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), pp. 268–73, and a fluent overview in Roy Foster, Modern Ireland 1600–1972 (London, 1988), ch. 4. For analysis of the implications for Ireland’s relationship with British authority, see Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British 1580–1650 (Oxford, 2001), ch. 9. For the armies in Ireland see James Scott Wheeler, ‘Four Armies in Ireland’, in Jane H. Ohlmeyer (ed.), Ireland from Independence to Occupation 1641–1660 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 43–65. This collection contains a number of other important essays on this period in Irish history. For Plunkett See also Tadhg Ó hAnnrach´in, ‘Plunkett, Sir Nicholas (1602–1680)’, ODNB, 44, pp. 645–6.

2. For Ormond see Toby Barnard, ‘Butler, James, first Duke of Ormond (1610–1688)’, ODNB, 9, pp. 153–63. He was created First Duke of Ormond in 1661.

3. David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637–1644 (Newton Abbot, 1973), pp. 243–6; David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 1–2; David Stevenson, ‘Monro, Sir George, of Culrain and Newmore (d. 1694)’, ODNB, 38, pp. 649–50. See also Wheeler, ‘Four Armies’. For the Irish adventurers See also Canny, Making Ireland British, pp. 553–6 and the references therein.

4. Ó Siochrú, Confederate Ireland, pp. 63–8; Corish, ‘Rising of 1641’, pp. 303–9; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 272–3. For the impact of the Cessation on the political and military cause of the Confederates see Wheeler, ‘Four Armies’. Gardiner, I, ch. 9 also contains interesting material.

5. Bulstrode Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1853), I, p. 238.

6. Corish, ‘Rising of 1641’, pp. 303–9; Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 265–75.

7. For the failure of moderate Scottish royalism see Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, ch. 8.

8. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 4–5.

9. Quoted in Gardiner, I, pp. 177–8.

10. For Charles’s diplomacy See also Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), esp. pp. 373–4.

11. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, ch. 9.

12. W. A. Shaw, A History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth, 2 vols. (London, 1900), vol. 1, ch. 2; Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 279–80, 285, 288–9.

13. Gardiner, I, p. 229; Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 283–4.

14. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 284–9. For the text of the final version see Gardiner, CD, pp. 267–71.

15. David Martin Jones, Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth Century England: The Political Significance of Oaths and Engagements (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 125–46; Edward Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant: State Oaths, Protestantism and the Political Nation, 1553–1682 (Woodbridge, 2005), chs. 6–7.

16. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 284–7.

17. Ibid., pp. 287–9.

18. Shaw, History of the English Church, I, pp. 145–7, quotation at p. 147.

19. Quoted in ibid., pp. 149–50.

20. Ibid., pp. 149–52.

21. Gardiner, CD, pp. 268–9.

22. Julie Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm during the English Civil War (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 75–7; Margaret Aston, England’s Iconoclasts, vol. 1: Laws Against Images (Oxford, 1988), chs. 1–2; Margaret Aston, ‘Puritans and Iconoclasm, 1560–1660’, in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales (eds.), The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560–1700 (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 92–121, at pp. 117–19. The September order and the ordinance are reprinted in ibid., pp. 257–8, 259–60, but the latter appears to be misdated to 28 August: see A&O, I, pp. 265–6; LJ, vi, pp. 200–201. For Herring See also Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), esp. pp. 45–6. For the relationship between the purging of Norwich Cathedral and crystallization of parties see John T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), ch. 4, esp. pp. 128–9.

23. Trevor Cooper (ed.), The Journal of William Dowsing: Iconoclasm in East Anglia during the English Civil War (Woodbridge, 2001), pp. 156–301.

24. John Morrill, ‘William Dowsing and the Administration of Iconoclasm in the Puritan Revolution’, in Cooper (ed.), Journal of William Dowsing, pp. 1–28; John Morrill, ‘Dowsing, William (bap. 1596, d. 1668)’, ODNB, 16, pp. 817–19.

25. Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm, pp. 120–28, 225–31. Two commissions to Dowsing from Manchester are reprinted in ibid., pp. 264–5, and, with much other useful material, in Cooper (ed.), Journal of William Dowsing. The essays collected there are invaluable. See also Aston, England’s Iconoclasts, vol. 1, pp. 74–84.

26. Morrill, ‘William Dowsing’, pp. 8–9. Manchester took a personal interest in the visitation of Cambridge University over the winter 1643–4: J. D. Twigg, ‘The Parliamentary Visitation of the University of Cambridge 1644–1645’, EHR, 98 (1983), 513–28.

27. For the longer-term history see Aston, England’s Iconoclasts, vol. 1; Aston, ‘Puritans and Iconoclasm’; Patrick Collinson, ‘From Iconoclasm to Iconophobia: The Cultural Impact of the Second English Reformation’, reprinted in Peter Marshall (ed.), The Impact of the English Reformation 1500–1640 (London, 1997), pp. 278–308.

28. Cust, Charles I, pp. 381–5. For attendance See also Gardiner, I, p. 300, who puts the figures higher, at 82 and 175 (including those who would have liked to attend but could not). For the Westminster figures see David L. Smith, The Stuart Parliaments, 1603–1689 (London, 1999), p. 129.

29. Cust, Charles I, pp. 381–2.

30. Ibid., pp. 373–88; Gardiner, I, pp. 268–73. The Ogle plot is placed in the context of contacts between moderates on both sides by David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 116–17.

31. Cust, Charles I, esp. ch. 6.

32. Joyce Lee Malcolm, ‘All the King’s Men: The Impact of the Crown’s Irish Soldiers on the English Civil War’, Irish Historical Studies, 21 (1979), 239–64, at pp. 251–5 (she puts the total at 21,000 at p. 263); Mark Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers: An Ethnic History of the English Civil War (New Haven, Conn., 2005), pp. 56–61 and table at pp. 209–10. This agrees with John Barratt, Cavaliers: The Royalist Army at War, 1642–1646 (Stroud, 2000), pp. 138–9; Malcolm Wanklyn and Frank Jones, A Military History of the English Civil War, 1642–1646: Strategy and Tactics (Harlow, 2005), p. 15. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 273, suggests only 5,000, mainly Protestants.

33. Malcolm, ‘All the King’s Men’, argued for a very significant impact, esp. pp. 255–63. These claims are strongly criticized by Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, pp. 61–5; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 15–16.

34. Gardiner, I, pp. 294–7. For Barthomley, See also Barbara Donagan, ‘Atrocity, War Crime, and Treason in the English Civil War’, AHR, 99 (1994), 1137–66, at pp. 1152–4.

35. Quoted in Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, p. 66.

36. Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, pp. 59–60. This may perhaps have been influenced by the suggestion made about the Irish women captured at Nantwich in January: ibid., pp. 67–8.

37. Ibid., pp. 68–9. For Bolton, ‘the Geneva of the north’, See also Ernest Broxap, The Great Civil War in Lancashire (1642–51), 2nd edn (Manchester, 1973), pp. 3, 120–25.

38. A&O, I, pp. 554–5.

39. Gardiner, III, p. 26.

40. Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, p. 69; Donagan, ‘Atrocity’, pp. 1148–9. There seem to have been two other hangings at Wem: Richard Gough, The History of Myddle, ed. David Hey (Harmondsworth, 1981), pp. 74–5.

41. Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, chs. 1–4; Lloyd Bowen, ‘Representations of Wales and the Welsh during the Civil Wars and Interregnum’, Historical Research, 77 (2004), 358–76; Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 220–22.

42. A&O, I, pp. 554–5.

43. A point also made by Bowen, ‘Representations of Wales’, p. 365; See also Barbara Donagan, ‘Codes and Conduct in the English Civil War’, PP, 118 (1988), 65–96, at pp. 93–4.

44. Peter Young and Richard Holmes, The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars 1642–1651 (Ware, 2000), pp. 146–9; Malcolm Wanklyn, Decisive Battles of the English Civil War: Myth and Reality (Barnsley, 2006), chs. 6–7; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, ch. 11.

45. Gardiner, I, p. 237.

46. For royalist strategy in this period see Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, ch. 12. For the fighting See also Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 151–64; for Hopton’s injury see ibid., pp. 130–31.

47. A&O, I, pp. 333–9; Gardiner, I, pp. 250–52.

48. Clive Holmes, The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974), esp. chs. 5–8.

49. Gardiner, I, pp. 238, 253, 294; and see above, p. 316.

11. Marston Moor

1. For the speeches, see above, pp. 92, 125–6.

2. Gardiner, I, p. 250; D. E. Kennedy, The English Revolution 1642–1649 (Basingstoke, 2000), p. 37.

3. Wallace Notestein, ‘The Establishment of the Committee of Both Kingdoms’, AHR, 17 (1912), 477–95; Lotte Glow, ‘The Committee of Safety’, EHR, 80 (1965), 289–313; John Adamson, ‘The Triumph of Oligarchy: The Management of War and the Committee of Both Kingdoms, 1644–1645’, in Chris R. Kyle and Jason Peacey (eds.), Parliament at Work: Parliamentary Committees, Political Power and Public Access in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 101–27.

4. Gardiner, I, pp. 301–2; Edward Vallance, ‘Protestation, Vow, Covenant and Engagement: Swearing Allegiance in the English Civil War’, Historical Research, 75 (2002), 408–24, at pp. 417–22.

5. Gardiner, I, pp. 246–7; Anthony Milton, ‘Laud, William (1573–1645)’, ODNB, 32, pp. 655–70.

6. Gardiner, I, pp. 273–4. For the Brooke plot see above, p. 316.

7. Peter Young and Richard Holmes, The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars, 1642–1651 (Ware, 2000), pp. 167–71; Malcolm Wanklyn and Frank Jones, A Military History of the English Civil War, 1642–1646: Strategy and Tactics (Harlow, 2005), ch. 13; Malcolm Wanklyn, Decisive Battles of the English Civil War: Myth and Reality (Barnsley, 2006), chs. 8–9.

8. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, ch. 13 and pp. 157–62.

9. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 181.

10. Ibid., pp. 175–80.

11. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 162–5; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 181–4; Gardiner, I, pp. 331, 352–3; for the Oxford parliament and its place in royalist politics see Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 381–4.

12. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 165–6; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 184–5; Gardiner, I, pp. 358–62.

13. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 166–9; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 185–9.

14. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, ch. 15; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 190–91; Gardiner, I, p. 370.

15. Gardiner, I, p. 371, emphasis added.

16. Ibid., emphasis added.

17. Ibid.; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 178–80.

18. For the following three paragraphs see Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 193–203; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, ch. 16; Wanklyn, Decisive Battles, chs. 10–11; Gardiner, I, pp. 374–82. For an account emphasizing the importance of Cromwell’s actions, see Frank Kitson, Old Ironsides: The Military Biography of Oliver Cromwell (London, 2004), pp. 380–90. Wanklyn is sceptical about the influence on the course of the battle of the rabbit holes which marked parts of the field: Decisive Battles, p. 111 (see Kitson, Old Ironsides, p. 87).

19. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 204; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 190–91; Gardiner, II, pp. 6–8.

20. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 204–5; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 190–96; Gardiner, II, pp. 8–11.

21. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 207–12; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 196–7; Gardiner, II, pp. 12–19.

22. Gardiner, II, p. 18.

23. Barbara Donagan, ‘Codes and Conduct in the English Civil War’, PP, 118 (1988), pp. 65–95, at pp. 87–91.

24. Gardiner, II, p. 19.

25. Clive Holmes, The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 197–8. See also Gardiner, II, p. 3.

26. Gardiner, II, pp. 31–45; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 213–16; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 197–202; for a downward revision of the customary estimate of the disparity in numerical strength see Wanklyn, Decisive Battles, p. 145.

27. Wanklyn, Decisive Battles, chs. 12–13; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 216–21; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, ch. 18; Gardiner, II, pp. 44–53.

28. Gardiner, II, pp. 52–63, quotations at pp. 58–9; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 221–3; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, p. 201; Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), quotation at p. 291.

29. Ian Roy, ‘The Royalist Army in the First Civil War’, unpublished D.Phil. thesis, Oxford (1963), pp. 115–16, 134–8, 185–99.

30. David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 4–9.

31. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 293.

32. Gardiner, II, ch. 26; Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 19–29. Casualty figures quoted from Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638–1651 (London, 1992), p. 212. Large numbers of Scots were killed in England, Wales and Ireland, of course, just as English troops died in Scotland. Similarly, the death toll for England and Wales cited above includes Irish troops.

33. Cromwell’s reported views tended in this direction: Gardiner, II, p. 24. In fact this does not appear to have been a significant factor in Cromwell’s hostility to Manchester’s command: Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 199–205.

34. Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004), pp. 34–7; for the accord and larger context See also Elliot Curt Vernon, ‘The Sion College Conclave and London Presbyterianism during the English Revolution’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge (1999), esp. pp. 48–68.

35. Quoted in M. R. Watts, The Dissenters, vol. 1: From the Reformation to the French Revolution (Oxford, 1978), p. 83.

36. For these debates and the longer context see John Coffey, ‘The Toleration Controversy during the English Revolution’, in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby (eds.), Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 42–68; John Spurr, English Puritanism 1603–1689 (Basingstoke, 1998), ch. 12; Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700 (Manchester, 2006).

37. Hughes, Gangraena, pp. 42–9; Vernon, ‘Sion College’, ch. 2; See also P. R. S. Baker, ‘Edwards, Thomas (c.1599–1648)’, ODNB, 17, pp. 965–8.

38. Reprinted in William Haller (ed.), Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution, 1638–1647, 3 vols. (New York, 1934), II, pp. 305–39; for Herle see p. 305.

39. Ibid., p. 306.

40. Watts, Dissenters, pp. 99–100.

41. Hughes, Gangraena, pp. 30, 42–54, 131–7; Baker, ‘Edwards’.

42. Watts, Dissenters, pp. 103–5, quotation at p. 104; See also Francis J. Bremer, ‘Williams, Roger (c. 1606–1683)’, ODNB, 59, pp. 293–7.

43. Ann Hughes, ‘The Meanings of Religious Polemic’, in Francis J. Bremer (ed.), Puritanism: Transatlantic Perspectives on a Seventeenth-Century Anglo-American Faith (Boston, Mass., 1993), pp. 201–29.

44. For Williams and Milton’s publisher, see Bremer, ‘Williams’, p. 295.

45. The literature on Milton is vast. For the broad outline given here see Gardiner, II, pp. 69–72; Gordon Campbell, ‘Milton, John (1608–1674)’, ODNB, 38, pp. 333–49; David Norbrook, Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics, 1627–1660 (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 109–18; Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 263–75.

46. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, pp. 118–39; Campbell, ‘Milton’, p. 339.

47. Gardiner, II, pp. 108–9.

48. For his characterization of Milton on divorce see Gardiner, II, p. 72. William Prynne, Truth triumphing over falshood, antiquity over novelty. Or, The first part of a just and seasonable vindication of the undoubted ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, right, legislative, coercive power of Christian emperors, kings, magistrates, parliaments, in all matters of religion, church-government, discipline, ceremonies, manners: summoning of, presiding, moderating in councells, synods; and ratifying their canons, determinations, decrees: as likewise of lay-mens right both to sit and vote in councells;… In refutation of Mr. Iohn Goodwins Innocencies Triumph: my deare brother Burtons Vindication of churches, commonly called Independent: and of all anti-monarchicall, anti-Parliamentall, anti-synodicall, and anarchicall paradoxes of papists, prelates, Anabaptists, Arminians, Socinians, Brownists, or Independents: whose old and new objections to the contrary, are here fully answered (London, 1645); John Lilburne, A copie of a letter, written by John Lilburne Leut. Collonell. To Mr. William Prinne Esq. (Upon the coming out of his last booke, intituled Truth triumphing over falshood, antiquity over novelty) in which he laies down five propositions, which he desires to discusse with the said Mr. Prinne (London, 1645).

49. Culpeper Letters, pp. 137–50, quotations at pp. 144–5.

50. See above, pp. 10–12.

51. The standard work on these congregations is Murray Tolmie, The Triumph of the Saints: The Separate Churches of London 1616–1649 (Cambridge, 1977). There is much useful additional material in Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 281–303. The classic evocation of the atmosphere of religious experimentation in this period is Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution (Harmondsworth, 1975).

52. Tolmie, Triumph, pp. 111–16.

53. Ibid., p. 71.

54. Clive Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), pp. 41–6, 198–9; Mary Coate, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum 1642–1660: A Social and Political Study (Oxford, 1933), ch. 15; David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1985), p. 247 (Baptists in the West Country from 1645 onwards); for Baptists see Mark Bell, ‘Freedom to Form: The Development of Baptist Movements during the English Revolution’, in Durston and Maltby (eds.), Religion, pp. 181–201; for a county study see Jacqueline Eales, ‘“So many sects and schisms”: Religious Diversity in Revolutionary Kent, 1640–60’, in ibid., pp. 226–48.

55. For transgressions of baptismal rites See also David Cressy, Agnes Bowker’s Cat: Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford, 2000), ch. 11; for soldiers in cathedrals see Julie Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm during the English Civil War (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 203–12.

56. John T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 131, 151–5; Holmes, Eastern Association, p. 204, for Baillie and Cromwell; Hughes, Gangraena, pp. 42–3, for Edwards and Baillie.

57. Holmes, Eastern Association, p. 195; Gardiner, II, pp. 25–6, 35–41.

58. Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 195–205. See also Gardiner, II, ch. 20.

59. David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 117–20, quotation at p. 120.

60. Quoted from Gardiner, II, pp. 114–15.

61. For Glamorgan and Henrietta Maria see ibid., pp. 164–73.

62. Cust, Charles I, pp. 393–6; James Daly, ‘The Implications of Royalist Politics 1642–1646’, HJ, 27 (1984), 745–55, at p. 749. Hutton argued that this was a key period in the achievement of dominance by hardliners: Ronald Hutton, ‘The Structure of the Royalist Party, 1642–1646’, HJ, 24 (1981), 553–69, esp. pp. 563–4.

63. Summarized in Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 120–21. For the proposals see Gardiner, CD, pp. 275–86. For the Scots and these proposals See also Lotte Glow, ‘Peace Negotiations, Politics and the Committee of Both Kingdoms, 1644–1646’, HJ, 12 (1969), 3–22, at pp. 9–13.

64. For the intersection of plans of reform with religious politics see Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 206–10. See also Gardiner, II, p. 83; Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 28–9; Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 4–5.

65. Gentles, New Model Army, p. 5; Gardiner, II, pp. 86–7.

66. Gentles, New Model Army, p. 5; Gardiner, II, p. 88.

67. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 28–9, quotation at p. 29; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 6–7, quotations at p. 6; Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 210–12.

68. Gardiner, II, p. 5.

69. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 35–6.

70. Ibid., pp. 26–7.

71. For Essex, see J. S. A. Adamson, ‘The Baronial Context of the English Civil War’, TRHS, 5th ser., 40 (1990), 93–120, esp. p. 113; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 4–5, 8–9, 23–4; Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 40–41.

72. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 10–25; Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 35–48.

73. Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 121–4.

74. Quoted in Gardiner, II, p. 125.

75. Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 123–4; Gardiner, II, p. 132.

76. Cust, Charles I, pp. 393–4, 396–7; Hutton, ‘Structure of the Royalist Party’, pp. 563–4.

77. A&O, I, pp. 614–26, 664–5.

12. A Man Not Famous But Notorious

1. Mercurius Aulicus, [week ending] 9 December 1643, p. 703; OED, ‘Herodian disease’. For the death of Lord Brooke see above, pp. 265-6, and for Hampden, pp. 287–8.

2. See above, p. 207.

3. See above, pp. 201–3.

4. Remarkeable Passages, 8–15 December 1643, A2v; The Parliament Scout, 8–15 December 1643, p. 214; The Weekly Account, 13 December 1643, pp. 5–6; An Answer to Mercurius Aulicus, week ending 9 December 1643, p. 7.

5. A narrative of the disease and Death Of that Noble Gentleman John Pym (London, 1643), quotations at pp. 2–3. For Mayerne, see Hugh Trevor-Roper, Europe’s Physician: The Various Life of Sir Theodore de Mayerne (New Haven, Conn., 2006).

6. An Answer to Mercurius Aulicus, week ending 9 December 1643, p. 7; Mercurius Britanicus, 7–14 December 1643, pp. 126, 127, 128; Remarkeable Passages, 8–15 December 1643, sig. A2v; Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 5–13 December 1643, pp. 273–4. Three elegies were published separately and acquired by Thomason on 10, 15 and 18 December (TT: 669.f.8[40, 42, 43]); See also John Hammond, A Short View of the life and actions of John Pim (London, 1643).

7. Bruno Ryves, Mercurius Rusticus (London, 1685 edn), pp. 155–6; Conrad Russell, ‘Pym, John (1584–1643)’, ODNB, 45, pp. 624–40, at pp. 639–40, for the burial and disinterment.

8. A Perfect Diurnall, 11–18 December 1643, p. 161. He had also stopped publishing for a while, given the flood of news available, but had been persuaded to resume ‘at the instigation of some friends’.

9. Following the judgements of Anthony Milton, ‘Laud, William (1573–1645)’, ODNB, 32, pp. 655–70.

10. Gardiner, II, pp. 99–106; Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 323–4.

11. J. A. Sharpe, ‘“Last dying speeches”: Religion, Ideology and Public Execution in Seventeenth-Century England’, PP, 107 (1985), 144–67; Peter Lake and Michael C. Questier, ‘Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric under the Gallows: Puritans, Romanists and the State in Early Modern England’, PP, 153 (1996), 64–107; Andrea McKenzie, ‘Martyrs in Low Life? Dying “Game” in Augustan England’, JBS, 42:2 (2003), 167–205; for Strafford see above, p. 138.

12. John Hinde, The Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech (London, 1644), quotations at pp. 6, 10; Peter Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 527, quoted in Gardiner, II, p. 107.

13. Hinde, Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech, quotations at pp. 11, 14; Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 527, quoted in Gardiner, II, p. 107. A ‘Corrected’ version of the speech was published in Oxford, claiming that Hinde’s text had been doctored to please the censors in the City: A briefe relation of the death and sufferings of the most Reverend and renowned prelate the L. Archbishop of Canterbury (Oxford, 1644), p. 23. It included a history of Laud’s life. The passage quoted here about the popular clamour for Laud’s execution contains an additional phrase: ‘the Magistrates standing still and suffering them openly to proceed from Parish to Parish without check’.

14. For a flavour see William Starbuck, A Briefe exposition, paraphrase or interpretation upon the Lord of Canterburies sermon (London, 1645); Anon., A Full and Satisfactorie ansvvere to the ArchBishop of Canterbvries speeh [sic] (London, 1645); Anon., The Life and Death of William Lawd, late Archbishop of Canterburie (London, 1645). The last offers a history of the betrayal of the Reformation. J.B., A Relation Of the Troubles Of the three forraign Churches in Kent (London, 1645), does the same on the basis of the history of a particular policy.

15. David Scott, ‘Hotham, Sir John, First Baronet (1589–1645)’, ODNB, 28, pp. 257–9; David Scott, ‘Hotham, John (1610–1645)’, ODNB, 28, pp. 259–61; Stephen Wright, ‘Carew, Sir Alexander, Second Baronet (1609–1644)’, ODNB, 10, pp. 40–41.

16. Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), p. 288. The dubious honour of the largest battle on English soil is also claimed for the battle of Towton in 1461, on the basis of the claims in contemporary chronicles about numbers engaged.

17. Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the English Civil Wars, 1638–1651 (London, 1992), p. 204.

18. Gardiner, II, p. 113.

19. Mercurius Cambro-Britannicus, 27 November-5 December 1643, pp. 3–4.

20. Bod. L, Ashmolean MS 184, fo. 3r. For Lilly See also Patrick Curry, ‘Lilly, William (1602–1681)’, ODNB, 33, pp. 794–8. For astrology more generally see Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England (Harmondsworth, 1991 edn), chs. 10–12; Patrick Curry, Prophecy and Power: Astrology in Early Modern England (Princeton, NJ, 1989), esp. chs. 1–2; Bernard Capp, Astrology and the Popular Press: English Almanacs 1500–1800 (London, 1979). For a close understanding of Lilly and his art see Ann Geneva, Astrology and the Seventeenth-Century Mind: William Lilly and the Language of the Stars (Manchester, 1995).

21. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 364.

22. Bod. L, Ashmolean MS 184, fos. 1r-2v, ‘Quando Essex eius iterus ad Oxonium’. For other examples see fos. 83v, 102v, 160r; Ashmolean MS 178, fo. 63v.

23. Ashmolean MS 184, fos. 46v, 69v–70v; Ashmolean MS 178, fo. 174r.

24. Ashmolean MS 184, fo. 62v.

25. Ibid., fo. 36r (See also fos. 64r, 67r, 67v, 98v); Ashmolean MS 178, fo. 24r; Ashmolean MS 184, fo. 44r (See also Ashmolean MS 178, fos 16r, 63r).

26. Geneva, Astrology and the Seventeenth-Century Mind, pp. 81–3.

27. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 337–8.

28. Ibid., pp. 338-9; John Booker, Mercurius Coelicus (London, 1645), quotation at p. 33.

29. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 340.

30. Booker, Mercurius Coelicus, p. 34.

31. Capp, Astrology, pp. 57–9; Curry, ‘Lilly, William’.

32. Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 138.

33. William Lilly, The starry messenger (London, 1645): ‘George, a stickling prophet,… pipes out nothing but victory for his Majesty: be it granted, that the storming of Leicester hath in part verified some part of his prediction, (and a little treason besides) yet I deny it was signified by this posture, or that the rest of this mans words shall have like success; Nay, by position of Mars, Lord of the fourth, in the twelve, his Majesty shall not keep that Town long, or any else that he may take in this prophetic march, without infinite loss on his party: Venus in her house, doth assuredly tell us we shall keep Evesham taken by plain valour, and were it not for that accursed Cauda in Aquarius we should seldom be losers, but be gainers, but Division and Treason have got an habit and live with us, and are your friends, yea your only friends. The figure doth at the beginning promise success, but the end of this march will be unlucky, and foreshow some wilful obstinate Commanders on his Majesty’s side will afford us an absolute victory over you’. ‘Keep Leicester if you can, July may give it to us again’: postscript (unpaginated). Lilly reported this success with pride: A collection of prophecies (London, 1645), p. 55.

34. John Booker, Mercurius Coelicus (London, 1646), unpaginated, ‘Of Harvest’.

35. Curry, Prophecy and Power, pp. 5–8, ch. 2.

36. Figures for sales and prices from Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, ch. 10; for Lilly’s sales see p. 348; for the price, p. 349; and for the income of leading astrologers, pp. 380–82. Curry, ‘Lilly, William’; Curry, Prophecy and Power, ch. 2.

37. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 364.

38. William Lilly, Merlinus Anglicus Junior (London, 1644), sig. A2v. Curry characterizes Lilly’s astrology as ‘democratic’: Prophecy and Power, pp. 28–31. For the relationship with Christian orthodoxy see Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, ch. 12. See also C. Scott Dixon, ‘Popular Astrology and Lutheran Propaganda in Reformation Germany’, History (1999), 403–18.

39. See above, p. 110; Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 465 and n, 487. There is some useful material in Harry Rusche, ‘Merlini Anglici: Astrology and Propaganda from 1644 to 1651’, EHR, 80 (1965), 322–33; and Harry Rusche, ‘Prophecies and Propaganda, 1641 to 1651’, EHR, 84 (1969), 752–70.

40. Lilly, Merlinus Anglicus Junior, p. 4.

13. Naseby and the End of the War

1. Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), ch. 2; Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), ch. 1; J. S. A. Adamson, ‘The Baronial Context of the English Civil War’, TRHS, 5th ser., 40 (1990), 93–120, esp. pp. 112–16.

2. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 42–6; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 10–16; Adamson, ‘Baronial Context’, pp. 113–19. I have followed Gentles, who differs from Kishlansky over the extent of political partisanship he discerns in the arguments over the officer list, but not over the revision of the view that it was an army of Independents, or that its origin was marked by political compromise.

3. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 37–8; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 11–12. Fairfax was not simply a cipher in these manoeuvres: Andrew Hopper, ‘Black Tom’: Sir Thomas Fairfax and the English Revolution (Manchester, 2007), pp. 54–66.

4. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 46–8; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 21–4; Adamson, ‘Baronial Context’, pp. 117–18. For the Vow and Covenant, see above, p. 293.

5. For Lilburne and the Covenant see Edward Vallance, Revolutionary England and the National Covenant: State Oaths, Protestantism and the Political Nation, 1553–1682 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 154–5; David Martin Jones, Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth Century England: The Political Significance of Oaths and Engagements (Woodbridge, 1999), esp. pp. 140–41.

6. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 24–7; Gardiner, II, p. 195.

7. Gentles, New Model Army, ch. 2.

8. Ian Gentles, ‘The Iconography of Revolution: England 1642–1649’, in Ian Gentles, John Morrill and Blair Worden (eds.), Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 91–132.

9. Ian Gentles, ‘The Civil Wars in England’, in John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1638–1660 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 103–55, at p. 114. Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the English Civil Wars (London, 1992), pp. 86–7 (catechisms); for plunder see ibid., ch. 11, and the effects of royalist support, pp. 187–9, 268–9.

10. The Kingdomes VVeekly Intelligencer, no. 111, 29 July–6 August 1645, p. 887: it was condemned as a ‘libellous, and scandalous pamphlet’, suggesting once again that book-burning was as much about civility of discourse as the contents: it was hardly unusual to suggest that Parliament’s cause was not in fact a godly one. For book-burnings see above, pp. 277–9. In this case the burning was associated with a concerted attempt to suppress the publication and dissemination of the pamphlet.

11. Gentles, New Model Army, ch. 4.

12. Anne Laurence, Parliamentary Army Chaplains, 1642–1651 (Woodbridge, 1990), pp. 49–57.

13. Kishlansky, Rise, chs. 2–3; Gentles, ‘Civil Wars in England’, pp. 140–41.

14. Malcolm Wanklyn and Frank Jones, A Military History of the English Civil War, 1642–1646: Strategy and Tactics (Harlow, 2005), pp. 229–33; Peter Young and Richard Holmes, The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars 1642–1651(Ware, 2000), pp. 233-4. For the politics of the Committee of Both Kingdoms see John Adamson, ‘The Triumph of Oligarchy: The Management of War and the Committee of Both Kingdoms, 1644–1645’, in Chris R. Kyle and Jason Peacey (eds.), Parliament at Work: Parliamentary Committees, Political Power and Public Access in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 101–27.

15. Wanklyn and Jones argue persuasively that it was not in and of itself a disastrous decision: Military History, pp. 233–5. See also Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 234–5.

16. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 235–6; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 236–7. For Montrose see Gardiner, II, pp. 215–20; David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 28–9.

17. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 236–40; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 236–8, quotation at p. 237; for the sack of Leicester See also Carlton, Going to the Wars, p. 177.

18. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 240–43, which revises the conventional wisdom about Goring’s behaviour.

19. For the best brief account of the battle see Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 55–60. See also Malcolm Wanklyn, Decisive Battles of the English Civil War: Myth and Reality (Barnsley, 2006), chs. 14–15; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, ch. 21; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 239–250.

20. For this atrocity see Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 249–50; C. V. Wedgwood, The King’s War 1641–1647 (London, 1958), p. 445. Mercurius Belgicus noted that ‘Above all the rebels’ cruelty was remarkable in killing upon cold blood at least 100 women, whereof some of quality, being commanders’ wives, and this done under the pretence they were Irish women’: Mercurius Belgicus (London, 1646), sig. E2v.

21. Figures vary in some degree for the army sizes, casualties and numbers of prisoners; I have followed Gentles’s estimates here: New Model Army, p. 60.

22. Gardiner, II, pp. 256–7.

23. Thomas Edwards, The Second Part of Gangraena (London, 1646), p. 127.

24. David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1985), p. 258.

25. Gardiner, II, pp. 252–3.

26. For Baillie’s mixed feelings about the victory see Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004), p. 323.

27. Derek Hirst, ‘Reading the Royal Romance: Or, Intimacy in a King’s Cabinet’, Seventeenth Century, 18 (2003), 211–29, at pp. 212–13; R. E. Maddison, ‘“The King’s Cabinet opened”: A Case Study in Pamphlet History’, Notes and Queries, 211 (1966), 2–9; Joad Raymond, ‘Popular Representations of Charles I’, in Thomas N. Corns (ed.), The Royal Image: Representations of Charles I (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 47–73, at pp. 56–60.

28. The Kings Cabinet opened (London, 1645), sig. A3r. Mercurius Britanicus was less restrained, while taking essentially the same line: see Joad Raymond (ed.), Making the News: An Anthology of the Newsbooks of Revolutionary England 1641–1660 (Moreton-in-Marsh, 1993), pp. 339–49.

29. The Kings Cabinet opened, sig. A3v. This is apparently the first use of the term in England: ‘Cajole’, OED, accessed online, 2 April 2007.

30. Philip Withington, The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2005), p. 155.

31. See, for example, Jason Peacey, ‘The Exploitation of Captured Correspondence and Anglo-Scottish Relations in the British Civil Wars’, Scottish Historical Review, 79 (2000), 213–32; Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain(Cambridge, 2003), p. 215. For the general phenomenon of unreliable news, and deliberate manipulation, see Jason Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Revolution (Aldershot, 2004), esp. ch. 7.

32. The Kings Cabinet opened, p. 17.

33. Quoted in Gardiner, II, p. 258. For opposition of this kind to the Uxbridge treaty see [John Vicars], The danger of treaties with popish-spirits (London, 1645), Thomason date 4 January 1645, authorship attributed by Thomason.

34. The Kings Cabinet opened, pp. 43–4.

35. Ibid., p. 44.

36. Ibid., pp. 46–7.

37. Ibid., sig. A3v; Anon., Some observations upon occasion of the publishing their majesties letters (Oxford, 1645), pp. 1–2.

38. Anon., A Key To the Kings cabinet (Oxford, 1645), pp. 3–4.

39. Ibid., pp. 11–13.

40. Ibid., p. 3.

41. See, for example, Bruno Ryves, Mercurius Rusticus (London, 1685 edn), pp. 3, 10, 11, 14, 16, 66, 74, 78, 79–80, 105–6, 136–7, 181. In some of these cases the purpose was to destroy legal evidences – not just a breach of privacy but a threat to property rights.

42. Raymond, ‘Popular Representations’, pp. 58–9.

43. Gardiner, II, pp. 257–8.

44. Carlton, Going to the Wars, p. 146.

45. Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, pp. 255–6; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 251–2; Gardiner, II, pp. 254–5, 259–67.

46. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 61–3; Gardiner, II, pp. 185–6, 264–5. For the clubmen see above, pp. 286–7.

47. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 67–9.

48. Ibid., pp. 69–70; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 254–8; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, p. 259.

49. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, p. 257.

50. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 61–4, 70–72.

51. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 259–60; Gardiner, II, pp. 274–5.

52. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 251, 259–60; Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 29–35.

53. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 72–6; Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 260–61; Gardiner, II, pp. 311–17. For the politics of the royalist command in these crucial months see Ian Roy, ‘George Digby, Royalist Intrigue and the Collapse of the Cause’, in Gentles, Morrill and Worden (eds.), Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen, pp. 68–90.

54. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 261–2; Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 35–42; Gardiner, II, pp. 346–7, 356.

55. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 263–4; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 76–8.

56. Quoted in Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 263–4.

57. Young and Holmes, English Civil War, pp. 264–7.

14. Winners and Losers

1. Richard Gough, The History of Myddle, ed. David Hey (Harmondsworth, 1981), pp. 71–5; Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the English Civil Wars, 1638–1651 (London, 1992), p. 202. The population in 1563 was around 340 rising to 612 in 1676. There is no sign of rapid population growth before the 1630s, so that the population may well have been much less than 600: David Hey, An English Rural Community: Myddle under the Tudors and Stuarts (Leicester, 1974), pp. 41, 42, 48. It has been authoritatively estimated that during the 1640s around 18 per cent of the population was between 15 and 24 and 42 per cent between 25 and 59: E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, The Population History of England 1541–1871: A Reconstruction(Cambridge, 1989), p. 528. I have assumed a 1:1 sex ratio. Since the population of the village was growing during this period it may have been younger than average, but the total population is likely to be lower than the quoted figure.

2. Derived from the figures in Carlton, Going to the Wars, p. 204. These estimates are to be treated with caution of course, since contemporary estimates were inconsistent and often inaccurate, sometimes intentionally so: ibid., p. 203; Barbara Donagan, ‘The Casualties of War: Treatment of the Dead and Wounded in the English Civil War’, in Ian Gentles, John Morrill and Blair Worden (eds.), Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 114–32, at pp. 128–9. Carlton’s estimates for population loss in England (3.7 per cent), Scotland (6 per cent) and Ireland (41 per cent) from battle and war-related disease suggest that the overall loss of life as a proportion of total population was greater than in the First World War (2.6 per cent, including deaths from Spanish influenza): Going to the Wars, p. 214. For the costs of Montrose’s campaigns See also David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 41–2. In 1670 the combined population of Norwich, Bristol, York and Newcastle was about 64,000: E. A. Wrigley, People, Cities and Wealth: The Transformation of Traditional Society (Oxford, 1987), table 7.1.

3. Gough, Myddle, pp. 73–4. See also p. 134. Stories of such minor skirmishes abound in the papers in the Indemnity Committee (TNA, SP24).

4. Carlton, Going to the Wars, p. 207.

5. Peter Young and Richard Holmes, The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars 1642–1651 (Ware, 2000), pp. 130–31; for a similar story, with a similar moral, see BL Sloane MS 1457, fo. 45r-45v.

6. Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 207–9.

7. Richard Wiseman, Severall Chirurgicall Treatises (London, 1676 edn), p. 441.

8. Ibid. For treatment more generally see Eric Gruber von Arni, Justice to the Maimed Soldier: Nursing, Medical Care and Welfare for Sick and Wounded Soldiers and Their Families during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum, 1642–1660 (Aldershot, 2001) (for Wiseman see esp. pp. 185–8, 251-3); Donagan, ‘Casualties’, pp. 115–27; See also Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 221–4.

9. Donagan, ‘Casualties’, pp. 127–32, quotation at p. 129. For a gloomier view of the maintenance of decent treatment of the physical remains of the fallen see Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 218–21.

10. Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 150, 206–7.

11. Ronald Hutton and Wylie Reeves, ‘Sieges and Fortifications’, in John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland (Oxford, 1998), pp. 195–233, at pp. 195–201.

12. Stephen Porter, Destruction in the English Civil Wars (Gloucester, 1994), ch. 2.

13. Victor Smith and Peter Kelsey, ‘The Lines of Communication: The Civil War Defences of London’, in Stephen Porter (ed.), London and the Civil War (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 117–48. See also Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 238, 409; Valerie Pearl, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution: City Government and National Politics 1625–1643 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 263–5; A&O, I, pp. 103–4. For Oxford’s fortifications, which seem to have been a less popular enterprise, see Ian Roy, ‘The City of Oxford 1640–1660’, in R. C. Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside in the English Revolution (Manchester, 1992), pp. 130–68, at pp. 145–6.

14. Martyn Bennett, The Civil Wars Experienced: Britain and Ireland, 1638–1661 (London, 2000), p. 103; Hutton and Reeves, ‘Sieges and Fortifications’, pp. 212–19. For Exeter see Mark Stoyle, ‘Whole Streets Converted to Ashes: Property Destruction in Exeter during the English Civil War’, reprinted in R. C. Richardson (ed.), The English Civil Wars: Local Aspects (Stroud, 1997), pp. 129–44; Mark Stoyle, From Deliverance to Destruction: Rebellion and Civil War in an English City (Exeter, 1996).

15. Hutton and Reeves, ‘Sieges and Fortifications’, pp. 228–31.

16. For these (cautious) estimates, see Porter, Destruction, pp. 65–6; the combined population of Norwich, Bristol and York in 1670 was around 52,000: Wrigley, People, table 7.1.

17. Porter, Destruction, p. 77; M. D. Gordon, ‘The Collection of Ship Money in the Reign of Charles I’, TRHS, 3rd ser., IV (1910), 141–62, at p. 158.

18. Porter, Destruction, pp. 77–8.

19. Ibid., p. 79.

20. Ibid., chs. 5–6.

21. Stoyle, Deliverance to Destruction, pp. 90, 111–12. For Oxford see Roy, ‘Oxford’; for Plymouth see Carlton, Going to the Wars, p. 211. For epidemics in general, including the plague, during the civil war see Paul Slack, The Impact of Plague in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford, 1985), esp. ch. 3; for crisis mortality see Wrigley and Schofield, Population History, appendix 10, tables A10.1 and A10.2, figure A10.11. For plague at Newark see Bennett, Civil Wars Experienced, p. 117. See also Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), p. 258.

22. Carlton, Going to the Wars, p. 211.

23. Joan Dils, ‘Epidemics, Mortality and the Civil War in Berkshire, 1642–6’, in Richardson (ed.), Local Aspects, pp. 145–55. For the figure of 100,000 see Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 210–11. Ian Gentles thinks it may be too low: ‘The Civil Wars in England’, in Kenyon and Ohlmeyer (eds.), Civil Wars, pp. 103–55, at pp. 106–7. For the national picture see Wrigley and Schofield, Population History, esp. table A10.2.

24. See above, pp. 317–18, 332, 378. For Hopton Castle see Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 168–9, 225, 258; Barbara Donagan, ‘Atrocity, War Crime, and Treason in the English Civil War’, AHR, 99 (1994), 1137–66, at p. 1152. See also Gardiner’s florid pen portrait of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, a man of honour in command at Abbotsbury, Dorset, where quarter was refused to a garrison that had refused to surrender: Gardiner, II, pp. 94–8; Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 172–3. For the fear of ‘turning Germany’ see Ian Roy, ‘England Turned Germany? The Aftermath of the Civil War in its European Context’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 249–67.

25. For the incidence of rape see Charles Carlton, ‘Civilians’, in Kenyon and Ohlmeyer (eds.), Civil Wars, pp. 272–305, at pp. 292–5; Bruno Ryves reported no rapes, and only one attempted rape, despite his consistent concern to emphasize women’s vulnerability to outrages: Mercurius Rusticus (London, 1685 edn), pp. 78–9 (See also pp. 97–8). For other examples see Ronan Bennett, ‘War and Disorder: Policing the Soldiery in Civil War Yorkshire’, in Mark Charles Fissel (ed.), War and Government in Britain, 1598–1650 (Manchester, 1991), pp. 248–73, at p. 255; and, for the Bishops” Wars, David Cressy, England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution 1640–1642 (Oxford, 2006), p. 85 (where it is associated with fornication and crime committed by men in arms rather than a means of fighting the war). For the resilience of codes of conduct see Donagan, ‘Atrocity’; Barbara Donagan, ‘Codes and Conduct in the English Civil War’, PP, 118 (1988), 65–95; Barbara Donagan, ‘The Web of Honour: Soldiers, Christians, and Gentlemen in the English Civil War’, HJ, 44 (2001), 363–89.

26. For the scale of change see Michael J. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England: Local Administration and Response (Woodbridge, 1994), esp. intr., pp. 271–6; Michael J. Braddick, The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714 (Manchester, 1996), chs. 1, 9. The structure of public finance makes all these comparisons very difficult, particularly since the 1640s saw the collapse of one system and the birth of another: for a brief discussion see Michael J. Braddick, ‘The Rise of the Fiscal State’, in Barry Coward, (ed.), A Companion to Stuart Britain (Oxford, 2003), pp. 69–87.

27. Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 336–8; Hughes, Warwickshire, pp. 260, 263–9. For other local studies of the financial impact see Ben Coates, The Impact of the English Civil War on the Economy of London, 1642–50 (Aldershot, 2004), chs. 2, 5; Simon Osborne, ‘The War, the People and the Absence of the Clubmen in the Midlands, 1642–1646’, reprinted in Gaunt (ed.), English Civil War, pp. 226–48. For an overview see Bennett, Civil Wars Experienced; John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War 1630–1648, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1999), pp. 84–5.

28. Donald Pennington, ‘The War and the People’, in John Morrill (ed.), Reactions to the English Civil War 1642–1649 (Basingstoke, 1982), pp. 115–35, esp. pp. 127–30; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 120–21.

29. John Morrill, Cheshire 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), pp. 107–11; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 120–21; See also Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 281–2; Peter Edwards, Dealing in Death: The Arms Trade and the British Civil Wars, 1638-52 (Stroud, 2000), pp. 63–4; A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 71–4; Bennett, Civil Wars Experienced. Quarter was not unregulated, even if it was unpaid – it was distinct from plunder. For evidence of local agreements see TNA, SP24/47 petition of farmers of Surrey; SP24/57 petition of Joane Johnson. The costs of quarter outlasted the war: Mary Coate, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum 1642–1660: A Social and Political Study (Oxford, 1933), pp. 223–4.

30. Hughes, Warwickshire, p. 256. See also Martyn Bennett, ‘Contribution and Assessment: Financial Exactions and the English Civil War, 1642–1646’, War and Society, 4 (1986), I–II.

31. Philip Tennant, ‘Parish and People: South Warwickshire in the Civil War’, reprinted in Richardson (ed.), Local Aspects, pp. 157–86.

32. TNA, SP24/47 petition of John Fettiplace. For these disputes and their implications see Ann Hughes, ‘Parliamentary Tyranny? Indemnity Proceedings and the Impact of the Civil War: A Case Study from Warwickshire’, Midland History, 11 (1986), 49–78.

33. Ian Roy, ‘The Royalist Army in the First Civil War’, unpublished D.Phil. thesis, Oxford (1963), pp. 138–9, 247–62; Carlton, Going to the Wars, pp. 188–9. For resentment of Goring see David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), chs. 4–5.

34. Edwards, Dealing in Death, ch. 4; for the supply of the New Model See also Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–53 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 40–47. For the royalists see Roy, ‘Royalist Army’; Ian Roy (ed.), The Royalist Ordnance Papers, 1642–1646, 2 vols., Oxfordshire Record Society, 43, 49 (Oxford, 1964, 1975).

35. Edwards, Dealing in Death, pp. 69, 71, 75.

36. Donald Woodward, ‘Wage Rates and Living Standards in pre-Industrial England’, PP, 91 (1981), 28–46; Woodward, Men at Work: Labourers and Building Craftsmen in the Towns of Northern England, 1450–1750 (Cambridge, 1995).

37. Edwards, Dealing in Death, ch. 5.

38. Ibid., p. 136. For the following paragraph See also Pennington, ‘War and the People’, pp. 125–7.

39. Edwards, Dealing in Death, ch. 7.

40. Ibid., ch. 9; for Bateman and carriers’ pay see ibid., pp. 228–9. In 1642 half of the Yorkshire gentry (relatively poor by national standards) had an income below £250 p.a.; in East Anglia in the 1630s the owner of 1,000 sheep (a pretty substantial operation) might make an annual profit of £140: Christopher Clay (ed.), Chapters from the Agrarian History of England and Wales (general editor Joan Thirsk), vol. 2; Rural Society: Land owners, Peasants and Labourers 1500–1750 (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 56, 60. Cromwell was worth around £100 p.a. at the beginning of the 1630s, £300 by the end. The latter represented a respectable income for a Justice of the Peace: John Morrill, ‘The Making of Oliver Cromwell’, in John Morrill (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (Harlow, 1990), pp. 19–48, at pp. 21–2.

41. John Morrill, ‘Introduction’, in Morrill (ed.), The Impact of the English Civil War (London, 1991), pp. 8–19, at p. 9.

42. Gentles, New Model Army, p. 40 and table 2.1; for the size of the royalist army at this point see above, p. 391.

43. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 47–8.

44. For the reluctance of the royalists to use conscription, and the disappointing results when they did, see Roy, ‘Royalist Army’, pp. 185–9. There was little need for either side to resort to conscription in the Midland counties other than Worcester: Osborne, ‘Clubmen in the Midlands’, in Gaunt (ed.), English Civil War, p. 245. Gentles emphasizes conscription in maintaining infantry numbers, but it is clear from his account that many served voluntarily: New Model Army, pp. 34–8. In any case, volunteer and conscript were both paid, with the potential effects being outlined here.

45. Gentles, New Model Army, p. 29; Paul Slack, Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1988), p. 171. We would need, though, a very detailed study to test the hypothesis: the geographical distribution of soldiers and of shortage and so on. There is, clearly, room for a systematic study of the effects of the war on the labour market, as on other aspects of the domestic economy. Coates, London, provides a model. For some suggestive comments see Hughes, Warwickshire, pp. 270–71; for the dearth see Steve Hindle, ‘Dearth and the English Revolution: The Harvest Crisis of 1647–50 Revisited’, EcHR (forthcoming).

46. Gentles, New Model Army, table 2.1; population estimate derived from Wrigley and Schofield, Population History: 17 per cent of population between 15 and 24, 42 per cent between 25 and 59 (table A3.1, p. 528); total population 1646: 5,176,571 (table 7.8, p. 208). Assuming even sex ratios, the male population was 2,588,285, of whom 440,008 were 15–24 and 1,087,079 were 25–59.

47. Gentles, New Model Army, table 2.1. For the royalist figure see above, p. 391.

48. Gentles, New Model Army, table 2.1; Wrigley and Schofield, Population History, table A3.1, p. 528.

49. Gough, History of Myddle, p. 116.

50. John Walter and Roger Schofield, ‘Famine, Disease and Crisis Mortality in Early Modern Society’, in John Walter and Roger Schofield (eds.), Famine, Disease and the Social Order in Early Modern Society (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 1–73; John Walter, ‘The Social Economy of Dearth in Early Modern England’, reprinted in John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 124–180.

51. Bennett, Civil Wars Experienced, pp. 113, 117.

52. TNA, SP24/38 petition of Thomas Catrowe (and associated papers); SP24/57 petition of Joane Johnson.

53. Donagan, ‘Casualties’, pp. 124–5; Arni, Justice to the Maimed Soldier, esp. pp. 11-12, 56–7, 148–51, 153–4.

54. Braddick, Nerves of State, esp. pp. 34–9; James Scott Wheeler, The Making of a World Power: War and the Military Revolution in Seventeenth-Century England (Stroud, 1999).

55. Philip Styles, ‘The City of Worcester during the Civil Wars, 1640–60’, reprinted in Richardson (ed.), Local Aspects, pp. 187–238, at pp. 197–202; See also Roy, ‘Oxford’, pp. 147–9.

56. In Cheshire, in fact, the net flow of money was into the county: Morrill, Cheshire, pp. 94–100; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 40–47; Edwards, Dealing in Death, p. 137. The related question of corruption and peculation in the armies has received little attention: for some examples see TNA SP24/57 petition of George Key (forged debentures), SP24/76 petition of John Smith (extortion).

57. TNA SP24/47 petition of farmers of Surrey; Hughes, Warwickshire, pp. 270–71, 281–2; Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 151–4; Pennington, ‘War and the People’, pp. 130–31; Colin Phillips, ‘Landlord-Tenant Relationships 1642–1660’, reprinted in R. C. Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside in the English Revolution (Manchester, 1992), pp. 224–50, at pp. 238–9.

58. Culpeper Letters, pp. 118–19.

59. Barry Coward, Oliver Cromwell (Harlow, 1991), pp. 11, 12, 48.

60. Phillips, ‘Landlord-Tenant Relationships’, pp. 239–47; P. G. Holiday, ‘Land Sales and Repurchases in Yorkshire after the Civil Wars, 1650–1670’, reprinted in Richardson, Local Aspects, pp. 287–308; H.J. Habakkuk, ‘Landowners and the Civil War’, EcHR, 2nd ser., 18 (1965), 130–51; Joan Thirsk, ‘The Sales of Royalist Land during the Interregnum’, EcHR, 2nd ser., 5 (1952), 188–207; Coate, Cornwall, pp. 225–37. For other local examples see Underdown, Somerset, pp. 126–7; Morrill, Cheshire, pp. 111–17; Fletcher, Sussex, pp. 328–33. Set in a wider context by Christopher O’Riordan, ‘Popular Exploitation of Enemy Estates in the English Revolution’, History, 78 (1993), 183–200.

61. Ian Gentles, ‘The Sales of Crown Lands during the English Revolution’, EcHR, 2nd ser., 26 (1973), 614–35.

62. Anthony Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England (New Haven, Conn., 1986), pp. 12–14, 32.

63. Morrill, Cheshire, pp. 223–41; Hughes, Warwickshire, pp. 277–90. See Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 160–62.

64. Underdown, Somerset, ch. 7: these men were attacked as low-born, but it was truer to say that they were of lesser eminence than of no eminence. For other examples see Fletcher, Sussex, pp. 325–8; Coate, Cornwall, p. 221; Hughes, Warwickshire, ch. 9.

65. Underdown, Somerset, pp. 123–56; see, for example, Fletcher, Sussex, ch. 16, and, for the disruption of assizes, pp. 340-41; Bennett, ‘War and Disorder’, pp. 256–7 (Yorkshire); Hughes, Warwickshire, p. 170. This may have been less true of the towns; see, for example, John T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 131–8 (and, after 1649, 182–97). In Cheshire much effective action depended on the personal authority of William Brereton: Morrill, Cheshire, ch. 3, as with John Pyne in Somerset: Underdown, Somerset, ch. 7. Both men were of gentry backgrounds, however.

66. For Dowsing see pp. 313–14; for excisemen see Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, ch. 4.

67. Gough, History, pp. 71–2, 133–4.

68. Bod. L, Ashmolean MS 184, fos 76v, 128r, 142r.

69. TNA SP24/38 petition of Matthew Ingelesbye; SP24/76 petition of Thomas Sheppard; SP24/57 petition of William Jennifer. For other examples see SP24/76 petition of Abraham Slack; SP24/47 petition of James Flood (who left service to go to the siege of Colchester). Apprenticeship disputes do not figure in the Gloucestershire indemnity cases, but they do appear in Warwickshire: Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 89; Hughes, ‘Parliamentary Tyranny?’, p. 58. This may be another context for the decline in numbers entering service in the 1640s: Roy, ‘England Turned Germany?’, pp. 265–6.

70. For Marsworth see above pp. 100–101. For dependency see Paul Griffiths, Youth and Authority: Formative Experiences in England 1560–1640 (Oxford, 1996), ch. 3, esp. pp. 147–69. See also Ilana Krausman Ben-Amos, Adolescence and Youth in Early Modern England (London, 1994); S. R. Smith, ‘The London Apprentices as 17th Century Adolescents’, reprinted in Paul Slack (ed.), Rebellion, Popular Protest and the Social Order in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 219–31.

71. Gough, History, p. 71; see above, pp. 389, 406.

72. Gough, History, pp. 133–5.

73. For a good overview see Sara Mendelson and Patricia Crawford, Women in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1998), pp. 394–418. For petitioners see above, pp. 184–5, and Patricia Higgins, ‘The Reactions of Women, with Special Reference to Women Petitioners’, in Brian Manning (ed.), Politics, Religion and the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp. 179–222. For Alkin see Marcus Nevitt, Women and the Pamphlet Culture of Revolutionary England, 1640–1660 (Aldershot, 2006), ch. 3. For the Kings Cabinet opened see above, pp. 379–83. For Hutchinson see Derek Hirst, ‘Remembering a Hero: Lucy Hutchinson’s Memoirs of Her Husband’, EHR, 119 (2004), 682–92.

74. Gardiner, 1, p. 296.

75. Sharon Achinstein, ‘Introduction: Gender, Literature and the English Revolution’, Women’s Studies, 24:1–2 (1994), 1–13; Sharon Achinstein, ‘Women on Top in the Pamphlet Literature of the English Revolution’, Women’s Studies, 24:1–2 (1994), 131–63; Rachel Trubowitz, ‘Female Preachers and Male Wives: Gender and Authority in Civil War England’, reprinted in James Holstun (ed.), Pamphlet Wars: Prose in the English Revolution (London, 1992), pp. 112–33; Susan Wiseman, ‘“Adam, the Father of all Flesh”: Porno-Political Rhetoric and Political Theory in and after the English Civil War’, reprinted in ibid., pp. 134–57; Dagmar Freist, ‘The King’s Crown is the Whore of Babylon: Politics, Gender and Communication in Mid-Seventeenth-Century England’, Gender and History, 7 (1995), 457–81; Dagmar Freist, Governed by Opinion: Politics, Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637–1645 (London, 1997). For newsbook representations see Joad Raymond (ed.), Making the News: An Anthology of the Newsbooks of Revolutionary England, 1641–1660 (Moreton-in-Marsh, 1993), ch. 3.

76. Anon., A discoverie of Six women preachers (London, 1641), title page.

77. See, among many others, Anon., A description of the Sect called the Familie of Love (London, 1641); Anon., The Adamites Sermon (London, 1641); Clive Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), p. 199. For other examples of this connection see Cressy, England on Edge, pp. 241–5.

78. Anon., Calvers royall vision (London, 1648), Thomason date 28 October 1648; Anon., Thirteen strange prophecies (London, 1648), Thomason date 10 August 1648; Fourteene strange prophecies (London, 1648), Thomason date 10 August 1648; Fourteene strange prophecies (London, 1649), Thomason date 15 January 1649. For the maid of Worsop see Anon., The Wonderfull works of God (London, 1641), Fortescue date 21 November 1641.

79. Barbara Ritter Dailey, ‘The Visitation of Sarah Wight: Holy Carnival and the Revolution of the Saints in Civil War London’, Church History, 55 (1986), 438–55.

80. Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century England (Harmondsworth, 1991 edn), esp. pp. 151–66.

81. Keith Thomas, ‘Women and the Civil War Sects’, PP, 13 (1958), 42–62; Phyllis Mack, Visionary Women: Ecstatic Prophecy in Seventeenth-Century England (Berkeley, Calif., 1992); Elizabeth Clarke, ‘The Legacy of Mothers and Others: Women’s Theological Writing, 1640–60’, in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby (eds.), Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 69–90.

82. See the special edition of Women’s Studies edited and introduced by Sharon Achinstein, Women’s Studies, 24:1-2 (1994); Trubowitz, ‘Female Preachers’; Wiseman, ‘“Adam, the Father of all Flesh”’. For petitioning see Higgins, ‘Reactions of Women’, in Manning (ed.), Politics, pp. 179–222, esp. pp. 209–12; Ann Hughes, ‘Gender and Politics in Leveller Literature’, in Susan D. Amussen and Mark A. Kishlansky (eds.), Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern Europe: Essays Presented to David Underdown (Manchester, 1995), pp. 162–88; Ann Marie McEntee, ‘“The [un]civill-sisterhood of Oranges and Lemons”: Female Petitioners and Demonstrators, 1642–53’, reprinted in Holstun (ed.), Pamphlet Wars, pp. 92–111; Nevitt, Women, quotation at p. 5. The achievements of many of the women mentioned here are celebrated in Stevie Davies, Unbridled Spirits: Women of the English Revolution: 1640–1660 (London, 1998).

83. Ian Gentles, ‘The New Model Officer Corps in 1647: A Collective Portrait’, Social History, 22 (1997), 127–44.

15. Remaking the Local Community

1. Cromwell had argued that ‘if the army be not put into another method, and the war more vigorously prosecuted, the people can bear the war no longer, and will enforce you to a dishonourable peace’: quoted in Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), p. 6. See above, pp. 350–51.

2. Ronald Hutton, The Royalist War Effort 1642-1646, 2nd edn (London, 1999), p. 160.

3. Ibid., pp. 163–5; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 61–6.

4. John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War, 2nd edition (Harlow, 1999), p. 133; for the distinction between earlier and later movements see David Underdown, ‘The Chalk and the Cheese: Contrasts among the English Clubmen’, PP, 85 (1979), 25–48, at p. 28.

5. Hutton, Royalist War Effort, esp. pp. 160, 163–4; David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), esp. pp. 87–92, 98–100.

6. Hutton, Royalist War Effort, p. 161; Simon Osborne, ‘The War, the People and the Absence of the Clubmen in the Midlands, 1642–1646’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 226–48, esp. pp. 227–39. Nowhere was unaffected by the war of course, and the clubman areas of Worcester certainly felt the burdens of war. On this point See also C. D. Gilbert, ‘The Worcestershire Clubmen of 1645’, Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society, 3rd ser., 15 (1996), 211–18, at p. 212.

7. Hutton, Royalist War Effort, pp. 160–61.

8. Underdown, Somerset, pp. 98–9.

9. Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), p. 272.

10. Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 133–4.

11. Underdown, Somerset, esp. pp. 105–10, 115–16; Underdown, ‘Chalk and the Cheese’, esp. pp. 32–40; Hutton, Royalist War Effort, pp. 162–3. For other examples see Mark Stoyle, Loyalty and Locality: Popular Allegiance in Devon during the English Civil War (Exeter, 1994), ch. 6; Andrew Coleby, Central Government and the Localities: Hampshire 1649–1689 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 7–9.

12. Underdown, Somerset, pp. 106–8; C. D. Gilbert, ‘Clubmen in South West Shropshire, 1644-5’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society, 68 (1993), 93–8, at pp. 95–6; Hutton, Royalist War Effort, pp. 163–4.

13. Underdown, Somerset, pp. 98–9; Underdown, ‘Chalk and the Cheese’, p. 29.

14. For this suggestion see Hutton, Royalist War Effort, p. 165.

15. Underdown, Somerset, p. 107; Hutton, Royalist War Effort, pp. 164–5, 171.

16. These manifestos reprinted in John Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces: Conservatives and Radicals in the English Civil War, 1630–1650, 1st edn (Harlow, 1980), pp. 196–7. Extracts are incorporated into the text of the second edition, but I have here referred readers to the fuller texts in the first edition.

17. Osborne, ‘Clubmen in the Midlands’.

18. They are substantially reprinted in Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces, 1st edn, pp. 197–200.

19. Gilbert, ‘Worcestershire Clubmen’, p. 211.

20. Hutton, Royalist War Effort, pp. 162–3. For the royalist desire to use Grand Juries and quarter sessions, where possible, see Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, p. 78.

21. See Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces, 1st edn, pp. 199, 200.

22. Ibid., p. 197.

23. Gilbert, ‘Clubmen in South West Shropshire’, p. 94; See also Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 141, 148.

24. David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 158–9; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, p. 143; Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces, 1st edn, pp. 197, 200; Gilbert, ‘Worcestershire Clubmen’, p. 212; Hutton, Royalist War Effort, pp. 162–3. Gilbert places less emphasis on anti-Catholicism, suggesting that this was more anti-unruly soldier than anti-Catholic in nature: ‘Worcestershire Clubmen’, p. 213.

25. Reprinted in Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces, 1st edn, p. 198; See also Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, p. 141.

26. The demands of the Dorset and Wiltshire clubmen were published by order: The Desires and Resolutions of the club-men of the counties of Dorset and Wilts (London, 1645), Thomason date 12 July 1645. The Shropshire and Worcestershire manifestos were published in parliamentary newsbooks: Hutton, Royalist War Effort, p. 160; and the Wiltshire clubmen’s petition of July 1645 survives in LJ: reprinted in Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces, 1st edn, pp. 196–7. Humphrey Willis, the Somerset leader, took his campaign against the county committee the following year into print: Underdown, Somerset, pp. 133–5. The published version of a sermon preached at the siege of Basing House by William Beech included ‘a word of advice, full of love and affection’ to the clubmen of Hampshire: William Beech, More sulphure for Basing (London, 1645). For a remarkably forthright denunciation see A True relation of The Rising of the club-men in Sussex (London, 23 September 1645).

27. Buchanan Sharp, In Contempt of All Authority: Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586–1660 (Berkeley, Calif., 1980), pp. 224–5, 240; Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, pp. 160–62.

28. Quoted in Sharp, In Contempt, p. 248.

29. Hutton, Royalist War Effort, p. 170.

30. Sharp, In Contempt, pp. 226–37.

31. Ibid., p. 250; See also Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, pp. 159–60. For Waltham and Windsor, see above, pp. 234–5.

32. Keith Lindley, Fenland Riots and the English Revolution (London, 1982), pp. 148–60, quotation at p. 149; See also Clive Holmes, ‘Drainers and Fenmen: The Problem of Popular Political Consciousness in the Seventeenth Century’, in Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson (eds.), Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 166–95.

33. Quoted in Sharp, In Contempt, p. 249.

34. The title page noted that the manifesto had been read by a lawyer to a crowd of 4,000 ‘armed with clubs, swords, bills, pitchforks and other several weapons’: The Desires and Resolutions, title page.

35. Sharp, In Contempt, p. 226.

36. Sharp’s brief catalogue of violence makes surprisingly frequent reference to the presence of firearms: ibid., p. 226. This may have been true in any number of local communities. In April 1644 a nameless ‘stout fellow’ arrived in the Suffolk village of Walberswick to keep commoners’ cattle off the marshland claimed by his employer, Sir Robert Brooke. He started a fight in which he received mortal wounds and indirectly gave a name to ‘Bloody Marsh’. It reopened a particularly violent round of dispute in a long-running contest over access to the lands, reflecting the dislocation of the legal system which had previously regulated and decided the issue: Peter Warner, Bloody Marsh: A Seventeenth-Century Village in Crisis (Bollington, 2000), esp. ch. 9.

37. Quoted in Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces, 1st edn, p. 196.

38. Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, p. 157.

39. Quoted in Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces, 1st edn, p. 196.

40. For the New Model see Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 61–6; for the fate of the Herefordshire movement see Hutton, Royalist War Effort, pp. 170–71; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 148–51.

41. Michael J. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England: Local Administration and Response (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 177–92, 285–6; Michael J. Braddick, The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714 (Manchester, 1996), pp. 168–9, 170–74.

42. Peter Edwards, Dealing in Death: The Arms Trade and the British Civil Wars, 1638-52 (Stroud, 2000), p. 63.

43. There was a second disturbance on 4 July, another market day, which prompted the collector to make the complaint on which this account is based: reprinted in Braddick, Nerves of State, pp. 222–4. The second disturbance arose from a renewed attempt to collect the excise, prompted by a visit from the London commissioners: there is little doubt that the riots were connected with consideration of the problems through the formal channels.

44. Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 5–6; see above, p. 418.

45. For Haverford West see Morrill, Revolt of the Provinces, 1st edn, pp. 182–3; for women and grain riots see John Walter, ‘Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law: Malden and the Crisis of 1629’, reprinted in John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 27–66, at pp. 40–41.

46. Braddick, Nerves of State, pp. 223–4.

47. Ibid.

48. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, esp. p. 182. It was also true in the 1660s: ibid., pp. 211–20, 252–66; See also Braddick, Nerves of State, pp. 169–74, 221–6.

49. For the uneasy relationship between Leveller and army politics with regard to the excise see Michael J. Braddick, ‘Popular Politics and Public Policy: The Excise Riot at Smithfield in February 1647 and Its Aftermath’, HJ, 34 (1991), 597–626, at pp. 618–21. For a sensitive consideration of the possibilities for developing local connections between soldiers and civilians see Daniel C. Beaver, Parish Communities and Religious Conflict in the Vale of Gloucester 1590–1690 (Cambridge, Mass., 1998), pp. 204–11.

50. Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 160–61, 164–6.

51. Ibid., pp. 166–9.

52. For Willis, see Underdown, Somerset, pp. 118, 133–7; Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 251–2 for the use of print. For the interaction of local and national politics in disputes like this see Clive Holmes, ‘Colonel King and Lincolnshire Politics, 1642–6’, HJ, 16 (1973), 451–84.

53. Hughes, Warwickshire, ch. 6, esp. pp. 238–54, John Bryan quoted at p. 219.

54. William Cliftlands, ‘The “Well-Affected” and the “Country”: Politics and Religion in English Provincial Society, c. 1640–1654’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Essex (1987), p. 261. For other examples see Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 152–4.

55. A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), esp. pp. 71–4; Fletcher, Sussex, pp. 333–6. For an overview of the histories of these committees, which emphasizes ‘private battles’ and bureaucratic and jurisdictional rivalries, see D. H. Pennington, ‘The Accounts of the Kingdom, 1642-49’, in F. J. Fisher (ed.), Essays in the Economic and Social History of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 182–203; for the politics of accounts at Westminster see Jason Peacey, ‘Politics, Accounts and Propaganda in the Long Parliament’, in Chris R. Kyle and Jason Peacey (eds.), Parliament at Work: Parliamentary Committees, Political Power, and Public Access in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 59–78.

56. There is a huge literature on these issues. I have made this argument at greater length in Michael J. Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England c.1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000), esp. pts 2–3. For a complementary account see Steve Hindle, The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, c.1550–1640 (Basingstoke, 2000). Keith Wrightson, English Society 1580-1680 (London, 1982) is of seminal importance. See also Keith Wrightson and David Levine, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling 1525–1700, rev. edn (Oxford, 1995); Keith Wrightson, ‘The Politics of the Parish in Early Modern England’, in Paul Griffiths, Adam Fox and Steve Hindle (eds.), The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 10–46, and many of the other essays in that collection. An unusually clear statement of the values of village governors is reprinted in Steve Hindle, ‘Hierarchy and Community in the Elizabethan Parish: The Swallowfield Articles of 1596’, HJ, 42 (1999), 835–51. The treatment of the poor reveals these calculations with particular clarity. On that see, in particular, Steve Hindle, On the Parish?: The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c.1550–1750 (Oxford, 2004). For an important collection dealing with questions of community see Alexandra Shepard and Phil Withington (eds.), Communities in Early Modern England: Networks, Place, Rhetoric (Manchester, 2000): for urban communities see Phil Withington, The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2005), esp. pt 3. For Puritan fellowship see John Spurr, English Puritanism 1603–1689 (Basingstoke, 1998), ch. 12. Beaver, Parish Communities, is particularly important in its emphasis on the role of ritual in the formation of parish communities, and offers a methodological complement to the works cited here.

57. TNA SP24/57 petition of Thomas Jenkins. Many of these disputes revolved around rights to tithe income: Ann Hughes, ‘Parliamentary Tyranny? Indemnity Proceedings and the Impact of the Civil War: A Case Study from Warwickshire’, Midland History, 11 (1986), 49–78, at pp. 61–2.

58. Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 156–9. See also Judith Maltby, ‘Suffering and Surviving: The Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and the Formation of “Anglicanism”, 1642–60’, in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby (eds.), Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 158–80, and the works cited there.

59. Martin Ingram, ‘Puritans and the Church Courts’, in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales (eds.), The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560–1700 (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 58–91.

60. Alan Everitt’s position in, Suffolk and the Great Rebellion, 1640–60, Suffolk Records Society, 3 (1960), is more subtle than is usually suggested. For Suffolk See also Clive Holmes (ed.), The Suffolk Committee for Scandalous Ministers 1644–1646, Suffolk Records Society, 13 (1970); Trevor Cooper (ed.), The Journal of William Dowsing: Iconoclasm in East Anglia during the English Civil War (Woodbridge, 2001). For Dowsing, see above, pp. 313–14.

61. James Sharpe, Instruments of Darkness: Witchcraft in England 1550–1750 (London, 1996), pp. 128–9; the Essex trials are discussed in Alan Macfarlane, Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: A Regional and Comparative Study (London, 1970), ch. 9; the fullest treatment is Malcolm Gaskill, Witchfinders: A Seventeenth-Century English Tragedy (London, 2005).

62. Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the English Civil Wars, 1638–1651 (London, 1992), p. 385.

63. The classic statements are Macfarlane, Witchcraft, chs. 10–16; Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England (Harmondsworth, 1991 edn), ch. 17. For subsequent revision see Sharpe, Instruments, chs. 6-7; Malcolm Gaskill, Crime and Mentalities in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2000), esp. ch. 2; Diane Purkiss, The Witch in History: Early Modern and Twentieth-Century Representations (London, 1996), esp. ch. 4; Clive Holmes, ‘Women: Witnesses and Witches’, PP, 140 (1993), 45–78; Peter Rushton, ‘Women, Witchcraft and Slander in Early Modern England: Cases from the Church Courts in Durham, 1560–1675’, Northern History, 18 (1982), 116–32. For the general view outlined here, and further references, see Braddick, State Formation, esp. pp. 146–50.

64. Sharpe, Instruments, pp. 131–4.

65. Ibid., pp. 140–44.

66. Ibid., pp. 142–4; Macfarlane, Witchcraft, pp. 135–7.

67. Sharpe, Instruments, pp. 144–6; Macfarlane, Witchcraft, pp. 135–7.

68. Malcolm Gaskill, ‘Witches and Witchcraft Prosecutions, 1560–1660’, in M. Zell (ed.), Early Modern Kent 1540–1640 (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 245–77, at pp. 263–5.

69. Sharpe, Instruments, pp. 146–7.

70. Ibid., pp. 144–5.

71. Diane Purkiss, ‘Desire and Its Deformities: Fantasies of Witchcraft in the English Civil War’, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies (1997), 103–32, at pp. 103–4.

72. Signes and wonders from Heaven (London, 1645), Thomason date 4 August 1645, pp. 54–5. For Pharsalia see above, pp. 54–5.

73. Sharpe, Instruments, pp. 134–7. He differs on this point from Macfarlane, Witchcraft, p. 139.

74. James Sharpe, ‘Scandalous and Malignant Priests in Essex: The Impact of Grassroots Puritanism’, in Colin Jones, Malyn Newitt and Stephen K. Roberts (eds.), Politics and People in Revolutionary England: Essays in Honour of Ivan Roots (Oxford, 1986), pp. 253–73; John Walter, ‘Confessional Politics in pre-Civil War Essex: Prayer Books, Profanations, and Petitions’, HJ, 44 (2001), 677–701; John Walter, ‘“Abolishing superstition with sedition”?: The Politics of Popular Iconoclasm in England 1640–1642’, PP, 183 (2004), 79–123; John Walter, ‘Popular Iconoclasm and the Politics of the Parish in Eastern England, 1640–1642’, HJ, 47 (2004), 261–90; John Walter, ‘“Affronts & insolencies”: The Voices of Radwinter and Popular Opposition to Laudianism’, EHR, 122 (2007), 35–60; Cooper (ed.), Journal of William Dowsing.

75. Signes and wonders, p. 4. Two witches, in different locations, were said to have used witchcraft against parish officials who had tried to conscript their sons: Sharpe, Instruments, p. 133.

76. Gaskill, Witchfinders, p. 149; Carlton, Going to the Wars, p. 189; Purkiss, ‘Desire and Its Deformities’, p. 108; for Rupert as an incubus or devil see Anon., The interpreter (Oxford, 1643). There is a manuscript copy in HEH, EL 7801. For Rupert and responsibility for the war see above, p. 347.

77. Strafford’s words as reported in William Lilly, A collection of ancient and moderne prophesies (1645), Thomason date 20 November 1645, p. 50; Perkins quoted in Genevieve Guenther, ‘Why Devils Came When Faustus Called Them’ (unpublished paper); Nathan Johnstone, The Devil and Demonism in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2006), ch. 7. Wallington collected numerous stories of Cavaliers drinking to the health of the Devil, or reports of their being in league with the Devil: BL Sloane MS 1457, fos. 21r-29r.

78. Purkiss, ‘Desire and Its Deformities’, pp. 106–9, quotation at p. 109.

79. Quoted in Purkiss, ‘Desire and Its Deformities’, pp. 111–12, quotation at p. 112; for martial language see p. 115.

80. For the atrocity at Naseby see above, p. 378.

81. This explains, perhaps, the dramatic peak in witchcraft prosecutions in Devon during the 1650s: thirty-five of the known formal accusations (51 per cent of the total) came in that decade: Janet A. Thompson, Wives, Widows, Witches and Bitches: Women in Seventeenth-Century Devon (New York, 1993), ch. 4, esp. pp. 101–4. Other western counties also saw a peak in accusations after the war. Thompson suggests that this reflects the ‘homogenising’ effect of the war, drawing the peripheries closer to the political and cultural concerns of the centre: p. 107.

82. Johnstone, Devil, esp. pp. 253–65.

83. For the relationship between witchcraft and anxieties about patriarchal order see Purkiss, Witch in History; Sharpe, Instruments, ch. 7.

84. For a study paying close attention to the role of ritual in the formation of community and resolution of conflict see Beaver, Parish Communities. See also the other works cited in n. 56 above.

85. For the survival of local administration see Anthony Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England (New Haven, Conn., 1986), esp. pp. 11–14, 96–7, 186–7, 243–5, 250–51, 257–60, 357; implementation of the Poor Law may have required more prompting from below than in previous years, in the absence of Privy Council oversight: Hindle, On the Parish?, pp. 253–6; Steve Hindle, ‘Dearth and the English Revolution: The Harvest Crisis of 1647–50 Revisited’, EcHR (forthcoming).

16. Post-War Politics

1. Harrison quoted from Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), p. 68; Cromwell quoted from Barry Coward, Oliver Cromwell (Harlow, 1991), pp. 34, 40.

2. Barbara Taft, ‘Walwyn, William (bap. 1600, d. 1681)’, ODNB, 33, pp. 773–83; Joseph Frank, The Levellers: A History of the Writings of Three Seventeenth-Century Social Democrats: John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), pp. 29–39; H. N. Brailsford, The Levellers and the English Revolution (London, 1961), ch. 5. For a selection of his writings see J. R. McMichael and Barbara Taft (eds.), The Writings of William Walwyn (Athens, Ga, 1989).

3. Sharp, ‘Lilburne’; Brailsford, Levellers, ch. 6; Frank, Levellers, ch. 2.

4. Taft, ‘Walwyn’; Sharp, ‘Lilburne, p. 776; B. J. Gibbons, ‘Overton, Richard (fl. 1640–1663)’, ODNB, 42, pp. 166–71; Brailsford, Levellers, ch. 4; Frank, Levellers, pp. 39–44. For Overton and illegal printing in the early 1640s See also David Como, ‘Secret printing, the Crisis of 1640, and the Origins of Civil War Radicalism’, PP, 196 (forthcoming).

5. Frank, Levellers, pp. 45–55; Pauline Gregg, Free-Born John: The Biography of John Lilburne (London, 1961), ch. 9. A Helpe and The Araignement are reprinted in William Haller (ed.), Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution 1638–1647, 3 vols. (New York, 1934), III, pp. 189–256; A Helpe is also reprinted in McMichael and Taft, Writings of Walwyn, pp. 131–42. For ‘functional radicalization’ see G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Levellers and the English Revolution (London, 1975), pp. 13–14; the introduction contains a good brief outline of the history of the Leveller movement. See also Brailsford, Levellers; Frank, Levellers. For their political throught see Andrew Sharp, The English Levellers (Cambridge, 1998); David Wootton, ‘Leveller Democracy and the Puritan Revolution’, in J. H. Burns, with Mark Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 412–42.

6. Frank, Levellers, pp. 54–5.

7. Frank, Levellers, pp. 55–65; Gregg, Free-Born John, chs. 10–11. These pamphlets are reprinted in Aylmer, Levellers, pp. 56–67, and Haller, Tracts, III, pp. 257–307; England’s Lamentable Slaverie is reprinted in McMichael and Taft, Writings of Walwyn, pp. 143–53.

8. J. C. Davis, ‘The Levellers and Christianity’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 279–302; Rachel Foxley, ‘Citizenship and the English Nation in Leveller Thought, 1642–1653’, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge (2001), ch. 2; Rachel Foxley, ‘John Lilburne and the Citizenship of “free-born Englishmen”’, HJ, 47 (2004), 849–74.

9. Brailsford, Levellers, p. xi; Frank, Levellers, pp. 51–2.

10. Brailsford, Levellers, p. xi. It is presumed in Gregg, Free-Born John, chs. 13–21.

11. Frank, Levellers, pp. 53–4; Brailsford, Levellers, pp. 53–4.

12. For a more cautious account of their relationship with democratic ideas see Wootton, ‘Leveller Democracy’. For their relationship with the New Model Army see above, pp. 486–90, 508–9.

13. Frank, Levellers, p. 55.

14. Frank, Levellers, pp. 57–60; See also Andrew Sharp, ‘John Liburne and the Long Parliament’s Book of Declarations: A Radical’s Exploitation of the Words of Authorities’, History of Political Thought, 9 (1988), 19–44; Andrew Sharp, ‘John Lilburne’s Discourse of Law’, Political Science, 40:1 (1988), 18–33. For the Exact collection see above, pp. 272–3.

15. Frank, a believer in the usefulness of the term ‘movement’, thinks that the birth of the Leveller party was still two years away at this point: Levellers, p. 52.

16. Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004), esp. pp. 22–49; P. R. S. Baker, ‘Edwards, Thomas (c. 1599–1648)’, ODNB, 17, pp. 965–8. See above, pp. 337–40.

17. Hughes, Gangraena, pp. 42–9, 131–7; Baker, ‘Edwards’.

18. Hughes, Gangraena, esp. pp. 223–41, 333–67; Baker, ‘Edwards’. For London politics and the remonstrance see Ian Gentles, ‘The Struggle for London in the Second Civil War’, HJ, 26 (1983), 277–305, esp. p. 280.

19. Hughes, Gangraena, pp. 151–69, 241–76, 305–8, 432–5.

20. Ibid., pp. 2–4; Baker, ‘Edwards’. For the exchanges between Edwards and Walwyn, and Edwards’s portrayal of Walwyn, Overton and Lilburne, see Frank, Levellers, pp. 69–76; Brailsford, Levellers, pp. 36–42.

21. The classic study is Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution (Harmondsworth, 1972): ‘Now that the Protestant ethic itself, the greatest achievement of European bourgeois society in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is at last being questioned after a rule of three or four centuries, we can study with a new sympathy the Diggers, the Ranters, and the many other daring thinkers who in the seventeenth century refused to bow down and worship it’, p. 15.

22. For these arguments See also Michael J. Braddick, ‘The English Revolution and Its Legacies’, in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), The English Revolution c. 1590–1720 (forthcoming, Manchester). In addition to the works cited there, they are particularly informed by the approach of Hughes, Gangraena; Ann Hughes, ‘The Meanings of Religious Polemic’, in Francis J. Bremer (ed.), Puritanism: Transatlantic Perspectives on a Seventeenth-Century Anglo-American Faith (Boston, Mass., 1993), pp. 201–29; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, 1994).

23. A point made by Glenn Burgess, ‘The Impact on Political Thought: Rhetorics for Troubled Times’, in John Morrill (ed.), The Impact of the English Civil War (London, 1991), pp. 67–83, esp. pp. 67–8. For rhetorical creativity in radical religious writing see Nigel Smith, Perfection Proclaimed: Language and Literature in English Radical Religion, 1640–1660 (Oxford, 1989); more generally, Nigel Smith, Literature and Revolution in England, 1640–1660 (New Haven, Conn., 1994); Elizabeth Skerpan, The Rhetoric of Politics in the English Revolution, 1642–1660 (Columbia, Mo., 1992).

24. See above, pp. 197–9, 207.

25. The manuscript copy, dated June 1646, is in HEH, HM 30303; for the published version see Josiah Ricraft, A survey of England’s Champions and Truth’s Faithful patriots (1647). The judgement on Newbury appears at p. 20 in both versions. The account of Marston Moor credits Manchester and Fairfax: Ricraft, A survey, p. 98.

26. For Ryves and Mercurius Rusticus, see above, pp. 282–4; [George Wharton], Englands Iliads in a nut-shell (London, 1645), Thomason date 24 July 1645; [Bruno Ryves], Micro-chronicon (London, 1647). Ryves’s text is much fuller, but shares the basic outline and principal landmarks with Wharton’s.

27. For an example of the genre see Anon., The Apprentices VVarning-piece (London, 1641); for examples of its political re-invention see, among many others, Thomas Morton, Englands warning-piece (London, 5 August 1642); [James Cranford], The teares of Ireland… As a warning piece to her Sister Nations (London, 1642); Anon., A warning-piece To all His maiesties subjects of England (reprinted in London, 1643), Thomason date 20 February 1643; Anon., An Alarme to England: or A Warning-Piece (London, 1647), Thomason date 8 April 1647; Alexander Mingzeis, Englands Caveat: or Warning-piece (London, 1647).

28. Sharon Achinstein, Milton and the Revolutionary Reader (Princeton, 1994); Hughes, ‘Meanings of Religious Polemic’, pp. 228–9.

29. Quoted in Paul Christianson, ‘From Expectation to Militance: Reformers and Babylon in the First Two Years of the Long Parliament’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 34 (1973), 225–44, at p. 243. It was not published until 1644. For the European Reformation context see Richard Popkin, The History of Scepticism from Savonarola to Bayle, rev. edn (Oxford, 2003), ch. 1.

30. William Prynne, A vindication of psalme 105.15 (London, 1642).

31. John Milton, Paradise Lost, book ii, lines 559–61, quoted from Stephen Orgel and Jonathan Goldberg (eds.), John Milton (Oxford, 1991), pp. 355–618, at p. 389.

32. See, among many examples, John Taylor, A Cluster of coxcombes (London, 13 July 1642); Anon., The Divisions Of the Church of England (London, 1642); Anon., A Discovery of 29. Sects (London, 1641); [Alexander Ross], Religions Lotterie or the Churches Amazement (London, 1642). The second is attributed to Taylor by Wing and EEBO, but Bernard Capp discounts Taylor’s authorship in his authoritative list of Taylor’s publications: The World of John Taylor the Water-Poet 1578–1653 (Oxford, 1994), p. 203.

33. Ephraim Pagitt, Heresiography (London, 1645). See, for comparison, the subtitle of Thomas Edwards, The First and Second Part of Gangraena: A Catologue and Discovery of many of the Errors, Heresies and Blasphemies and pernicious Practices of the Sectaries of this time (London, 1646).

34. For Benbrigge see above, pp. xxii-xxiii.

35. Clifford Geertz, ‘Common Sense as a Cultural System’, in Clifford Geertz, Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (New York, 2000 edn), pp. 73–93, at p. 75.

36. Angela McShane Jones, ‘“Rime and Reason”: The Political World of the English Broadside Ballad, 1640–1689’, unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Warwick (2004), esp. intr., ch. 4.

37. Josiah Ricraft, The peculier characters Of the orientall languages (London, [1645]). On programmes of language reform both as a means of reducing public discussion to order and, more positively, to increase knowledge see Sharon Achinstein, ‘The Politics of Babel in the English Revolution’, reprinted in James Holstun (ed.), Pamphlet Wars: Prose in the English Revolution (London, 1992), pp. 14–44.

38. For Macaria, see above, pp. 156–8, and Of Education, pp. 341–3 above.

39. The best introduction to his career is Charles Webster, ‘Introduction’, in Charles Webster (ed.), Samuel Hartlib and the Advancement of Learning (Cambridge, 1970), which also reprints a number of crucial texts. For the wider intellectual context the standard work is Charles Webster, The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2002); See also Charles Webster, Utopian Planning and the Puritan Revolution: Gabriel Plattes, Samuel Hartlib and ‘Macaria’ (Oxford, 1979); G. H. Turnbull, Samuel Hartlib: A Sketch of His Life and His Relations to J. A. Comenius (London, 1920); G. H. Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury and Comenius: Gleanings from Hartlib’s Papers (London, 1947); Mark Greengrass, ‘Samuel Hartlib and International Calvinism’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, 25 (1993), 464–75; Mark Greengrass, Michael Leslie and Timothy Raylor (eds.), Samuel Hartlib and Universal Reformation: Studies in Intellectual Communication (Cambridge, 1994).

40. For the Society of Astrologers see Patrick Curry, Prophecy and Power: Astrology in Early Modern England (Princeton, 1989), pp. 40–44; Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England (Harmondsworth, 1991 edn), quotation at p. 340.

41. In addition to Webster, Advancement, and Webster, Great Instauration, see, for the woollen tank, Timothy Raylor, ‘Providence and Technology in the English Civil War: Edmund Felton and his Engine’, Renaissance Studies, 7:4 (1993), 398–413, and for the saltpetre project Thomas Leng, Benjamin Worsley (1618–1677): Commerce, Colonisation and the Fate of Universal Reform (Woodbridge, forthcoming). The torpedo was tested in 1655: John T. Young, Faith, Medical Alchemy, and Natural Philosophy: Johann Moriaen, Reformed Intelligencer and the Hartlib Circle (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 55–7. I am grateful to Tom Leng for this reference. For the failure of policies of agricultural improvement in this period see Joan Thirsk, ‘Agrarian Problems and the English Revolution’, in R. C. Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside in the English Revolution (Manchester, 1992), pp. 169–97.

42. [Samuel Hartlib], The Parliaments Reformation (London, 1646), Thomason date 6 August 1646, quotations at pp. 1, 6. The pamphlet is reprinted in Webster, Advancement, pp. 111–18.

43. Ibid., p. 5. For the grant see Webster, Advancement, p. 49. The pamphlet is sub-titled Or a Worke for Presbyters, Elders, and Deacons, to Engage themselves, for the Education of all poore Children, and imployment of all sorts of poore, that no poore body young nor old may be enforced to beg within their Classes in City nor Country. See also Samuel Hartlib, Londons Charitie Stilling The Poore Orphans Cry (London, 1649); Hartlib, Londons Charity inlarged (London, 1650). This later scheme is discussed in Paul Slack, From Reformation to Improvement: Public Welfare in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1998), pp. 85–7.

44. Webster, Advancement, p. 49; Turnbull, Hartlib, pp. 48–51; for the Navigation Act and Down survey see Leng, Worsley.

45. Webster, Advancement, pp. 25–6. For Culpeper’s politics see Culpeper Letters, pp. 105–402.

46. For Puritanism and science see Webster, Great Instauration, pp. xxi-xl, and the many works cited there. For Richard Wiseman see Severall Chirurgicall Treatises (London, 1676 edn); for dissection see Lisa Jardine, On a Grander Scale: The Outstanding Career of Sir Christopher Wren (London, 2002), pp. 55–7; for problems in the supply of corpses during the seventeenth century see Jonathan Sawday, The Body Emblazoned: Dissection and the Human Body in Renaissance Culture (London, 1996 edn), pp. 54–9; for Hobbes see Timothy Raylor, ‘Thomas Hobbes and “The Mathematical Demonstration of the Sword”’ Seventeenth Century, 15 (2000), 175–98; for developments in nursing see Eric Gruber von Arni, Justice to the Maimed Soldier: Nursing, Medical Care and Welfare for the Sick and Wounded Soldiers and Their Families during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum, 1642–1660 (Aldershot, 2001).

47. Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993), esp. chs. 8–13; for the Council of Trade and the Navigation Act see Leng, Worsley. This is discussed above, pp. 587–8.

48. For a brief introduction see Noel Malcolm, ‘Hobbes, Thomas (1588–1679)’, ODNB, 27, pp. 385–95; Noel Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes (Oxford, 2002), ch. 1.

49. For the censorship ordinance see above, pp. 294–5; Debora Shuger, Censorship and Cultural Sensibility: The Regulation of Language in Tudor-Stuart England (Philadelphia, 2006), addresses the whole question of censorship in terms of civility rather than the nature of the views expressed; See also David Cressy, ‘Book Burning in Tudor and Stuart England’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 36 (2005), 359–74. For secrecy at the lower levels of government see Paul Griffiths, ‘Secrecy and Authority in Late Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century London’, HJ, 40 (1997), 925–51; See also the Swallowfield articles, reprinted in Steve Hindle, ‘Hierarchy and Community in the Elizabethan Parish: The Swallowfield Articles of 1596’, HJ, 42 (1999), 835–51, at p. 851 (article 26). For the ritual of burning see above, pp. 278–9.

50. For Dering see above, pp. 195–6, 278; for the Book of Sports see above, pp. 277–81; for Williams see above, p. 341; for the catechism see above, p. 373; for the Scots’ declarations see above, p. 471. For fuller discussion see Ariel Hessayon, ‘Incendiary Texts: Radicalism and Book Burning in England, c. 1640-c. 1660’, unpublished paper. I am grateful to Ariel Hessayon for allowing me to see this paper, and to Brian Cummings and Jason Peacey for discussing this issue with me.

51. Compare the texts of the R. Ram, The souldiers catechisme, 7th edn (1645) and R. Ram, The soldiers catechisme, 8th edition (1645); the title pages are otherwise indistinguishable. For the order for the burning of the soldiers’ catechism published in Oxford ‘counterfeiting that at London’, see The Kingdomes VVeekly Intelligencer, no. 111, 29 July-6 August 1645, p. 887. It is also reported in The Weekly Account, 31 July-6 August 1645, pp. [5–6].

52. John Milton, Areopagitica (London, 1644), see above, pp. 341–3.

53. Ann Hughes, ‘Parliamentary Tyranny? Indemnity Proceedings and the Impact of the Civil War: A Case Study from Warwickshire’, Midland History, 11 (1986), 49–78.

54. TNA SP24/76 petition of Anne Smith. We might perhaps detect in the latter argument the hand of a lawyer or advocate.

55. TNA SP24/38 petition of William Caswall; SP24/57 petition of Thomas Johnson; SP24/57 petition of Thomas Jones. See also Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 203–8, 289–90; David Underdown, ‘“Honest” Radicals in the Counties, 1642–1649’, in Donald Pennington and Keith Thomas (eds.), Puritans and Revolutionaries: Essays in Seventeenth-Century History Presented to Christopher Hill (Oxford, 1978), pp. 186–205; David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 217–20; Michael J. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England: Local Administration and Response (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 152–6; David Scott, ‘Politics and Government in York 1640–1662’, in Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside, pp. 46–68, esp. pp. 56–7; for the self-conscious adoption of this identity among those active for Parliament see William Cliftlands, ‘The “Well-Affected” and the “Country”: Politics and Religion in English Provincial Society, c. 1640–1654’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Essex (1987).

56. TNA SP24/47 petition of William Flacke.

57. TNA SP24/76 petition of Francis Smith. Smith was being sued by a bookseller in Bury who had ordered the prayer book.

58. TNA SP24/57 petition of William Jackson; SP24/38 petition of Richard Carr (seven to eight years and for costs); SP24/76 Thomas Smallwood and Elizabeth Kent (three years); Hughes, ‘Parliamentary Tyranny?’, pp. 58–9, 64, 68. For the persistence of these partisan conflicts See also Ian Roy, ‘The City of Oxford 1640–1660’, in Richardson (ed.), Town and Countryside, pp. 130–68, at pp. 156–60.

59. TNA SP24/57 petition of the ‘well-affected inhabitants’ of St Ives. See also, for example, SP24/76 petition of John Smith; SP24/47 petition of the inhabitants of Farringdon Without (including Praisegod Barebon). Such cases are discussed by Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–1648 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 215–23; Hughes, ‘Parliamentary Tyranny?’, p. 62; A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), p. 89.

60. For some of the conventions of these exchanges see Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 2003), esp. pp. 206–14.

61. For the term bum-fodder: Margaret Spufford, Small Books and Pleasant Histories: Popular Fiction and Its Readership in Seventeenth-Century England (Athens, Ga, 1981), pp. 48–9; Alexandra Walsham, Providence in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1999), pp. 33–4. It was more usually, but not exclusively, associated with single-sheet ballads.

17. Military Defeat and Political Survival

1. Gardiner, III, pp. 103–4, 127. For the full text of the propositions see Gardiner, CD, pp. 290–306. There is a useful summary in David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 128-9; and a useful narrative in Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–1648 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 7–17.

2. Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 128–9.

3. Quoted in Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), p. 343; Gardiner, III, p. 127.

4. For a good summary of the position see David Underdown, Pride’s Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971), ch. 3, esp. pp. 73–5; Austin Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen: The General Council of the Army and Its Debates, 1647–8 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 5–10. For the ordinances see Gardiner, III, pp. 137–8, 145. For anti-Scottish pamphlets see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 302–3.

5. Gardiner, III, pp. 79–80.

6. For Charles’s views in this period see Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 423–9; Gardiner, III, pp. 131–2.

7. Quoted in Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 129–30.

8. Gardiner, III, pp. 165–6; Cust, Charles I, pp. 426–7. For Culpeper and Presbyterian popery see Culpeper Letters, esp. pp. 144–5; for an earlier example see John Morrill, Cheshire 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution(Oxford, 1974), p. 50. This alliance of royalism and anti-Presbyterianism was evident in other circles during 1647: the royalist judge David Jenkins struck up an unlikely friendship with John Lilburne while they were both in the Tower: Pauline Gregg, Free-Born John: The Biography of John Lilburne (London, 1961), ch. 17. See above, p. 490.

9. John Morrill, ‘The Church in England, 1642–1649’, reprinted in John Morrill, The Nature of the English Revolution (Harlow, 1993), pp. 89–114, esp. pp. 103–8.

10. Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 129–32, quotation at p. 130; Cust, Charles I, pp. 424–6.

11. Ibid., esp. pp. 420–22, 438–9, 469–70.

12. For Ormond’s position in Confederate politics see Miche´l Ó Siochrú, Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis (Dublin, 1999), esp. pp. 68–83.

13. Ibid., pp. 86–96; Gardiner, III, ch. 39; Patrick J. Corish, ‘Ormond, Rinuccini, and the Confederates, 1645–9’, in T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin and F. J. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early Modern Ireland 1534–1691 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 317–35.

14. Ó Siochrú, Confederate Ireland, pp. 96–117; Gardiner, III, pp. 52–7, 151–3; Corish, ‘Ormond’, pp. 319–20.

15. Gardiner, III, ch. 44; Corish, ‘Ormond’, pp. 320–21.

16. David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 54–64.

17. Ibid., pp. 64–72. For the ambiguous relationship between royalism and Presbyterianism see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, ch. 8.

18. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 57–60, 64–6, 68; Gardiner, III, pp. 126–32; Cust. Charles 1, pp. 412, 423.

19. Gardiner, III, pp. 151–3, 175–7, 178.

20. Gardiner, CD, pp. 306–8, quotations at pp. 306, 307.

21. Quoted in Cust, Charles 1, p. 420.

22. Gardiner, CD, pp. 308–9, 311–16. For the circumstances of his answer in May see above, p. 492.

23. Gardiner, III, pp. 138, 144–5, 178–80, 182–5, 188–9; Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 69, 72–81; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 349–50.

24. Gardiner, III, pp. 130, 173, 182; Cust, Charles 1, pp. 420–21.

25. Gardiner, III, p. 212.

26. Richard Wiseman, Several Chirurgicall Treatises (London, 1676 edn), p. 245.

27. Stuart Clark, Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (Oxford, 1997), ch. 44.

28. Wiseman, Chirurgicall Treatises, p. 247. For the effectiveness of the royal touch, see Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century England (Harmondsworth, 1991 edn), pp. 242–4.

29. N. Woolf, ‘The Sovereign Remedy: Touch-Pieces and the King’s Evil’, British Numismatic Journal, 49 (1980 for 1979), 99–121; N. Woolf, ‘The Sovereign Remedy: Touch-Pieces and the King’s Evil, part 2’, British Numismatic Journal, 50 (1981 for 1980), 91–116.

30. Richards and Bloch read the many proclamations regulating the ceremony during the 1630s as evidence of Charles’s withdrawal: Judith Richards, ‘“His nowe Majestie” and the English Monarchy: The Kingship of Charles I before 1640’, PP, 113 (1986), 70–96, esp. pp. 88–93; Marc Bloch, The Royal Touch: Monarchy and Miracles in France and England, trans. J. E. Anderson (New York, 1989), pp. 207–8. Sharpe argues convincingly that this was evidence of his commitment to the practice: Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles 1 (New Haven, Conn., 1992), pp. 217–18, 630–31.

31. It did not, though, incorporate the ceremony into the Book of Common Prayer, as is sometimes suggested: George MacDonald Ross, ‘The Royal Touch and the Book of Common Prayer’, Notes and Queries, 30:5 (1983), 433–5.

32. Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 642–3, 782. Charles had also wanted, on his visit to Scotland in 1641, to touch Scottish legislation with his sceptre to symbolize his consent. This was resisted: David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637–44: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 2003), pp. 233–4.

33. For other references see A Perfect Diurnall (19–26 April 1647), p. 1564 (Holmby); Perfect Occurrences (8–15 October 1647), p. 281; and, possibly, A continuation of certain speciall and Remarkable Passages (28 August-3 September 1647), Saturday, 29 August; A Perfect Diurnall (16–23 August 1647), p. 1702. He also touched at Windsor on the eve of his trial but the practice was halted by his captors: Perfect Occurrences (22–30 December 1648), p. 778. I am grateful to Keith Lindley for these references.

34. Bloch, Royal Touch, pp. 207–10, for a brief narrative. For the origins of the English rite see Frank Barlow, ‘The King’s Evil’, EHR, 95 (1980), 3–27, which corrects most writing subsequent to Bloch. See, in general, Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 227–35. Much later work is indebted to the labours of Raymond Crawfurd, The King’s Evil (Oxford, 1911). Wiseman traced the power back to Edward the Confessor, as did the petition cited in n. 36 below.

35. J. C. D. Clark, English Society 1688–1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice during the Ancien Regime (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 160–67, 171; Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 228.

36. To the Kings most Excellent Majesty. The Humble petition Of divers hundreds of the kings poore Subjects Afflicted with that grievous infirmitie called The Kings Evil (London, 20 February 1643). In fact this petition was making a case for a peace party position: p. 8. Lilly had a number of enquiries about the King’s Evil during the war: e.g. Bod. L, Ashmolean MS 184, fo. 7v, 16r. For post-regicide versions of a similar point, with obvious political implications, see A Miracle of Miracles Wrought by the Blood of King Charles 1 (London, 1649).

37. Gardiner, III, pp. 212–13. For popular royalism see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 205–15.

38. Gardiner, III, p. 242; CJ, v, 151.

39. Gardiner, III, pp. 139, 145, 147; Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 143–4. For the February ordinance see A&O, I, pp. 913–14. For the case against physical coercion of conscience see, for example, the Leveller argument: ‘that no man for preaching or publishing his opinion in Religion, in a peaceable way, may be punished or persecuted as heretical, by Judges that are not infallible, but may be mistaken as well as other men in their judgments, lest upon pretence of suppressing errors, Sects, or Schisms, the most necessary truths, and sincere professions thereof may be suppressed, as upon like pretence it hath been in all ages’: the Large Petition, reprinted in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Levellers in the English Revolution (London, 1975), pp. 75–81, quotation at p. 79.

40. Ian Gentles, ‘Political Funerals during the English Revolution’, in Stephen Porter (ed.), London and the Civil War (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 205–24, at pp. 210–17. See also V. F. Snow, Essex the Rebel: The Life of Robert Devereux, the Third Earl of Essex 1591–1646 (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1970), pp. 489–94; Gardiner, III, pp. 147–9; J. S. A. Adamson, ‘Chivalry and Political Culture in Caroline England’, in Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (Basingstoke, 1994), pp. 161–97, esp. pp. 191–3.

41. Snow, Essex, p. 494; Gardiner, III, pp. 149–50; for the political complexion of the mourners see Gentles, New Model Army, p. 143.

42. John Morrill, ‘The Army Revolt of 1647’, reprinted in John Morrill, The Nature of the English Revolution (Harlow, 1993), pp. 307–31; John Morrill, ‘Mutiny and Discontent in English Provincial Armies, 1645–1647’, reprinted in ibid., pp. 332–58; Ashton, Counter-Revolution, ch. 2; for the post-war desire to establish control over the soldiery see Ronan Bennett, ‘War and Disorder: Policing the Soldiery in Civil War Yorkshire’, in Mark Charles Fissel (ed.), War and Government in Britain, 1598–1650 (Manchester, 1991), pp. 248–73.

43. For this campaign see Valerie Pearl, ‘London’s Counter-Revolution’, in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646–1660 (London, 1972), pp. 29–56; Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), esp. ch. 6; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, esp. pp. 76–90; Gentles, New Model Army, ch. 6; Michael Mahony, ‘Presbyterianism in the City of London, 1645–7’, HJ, 22 (1979), 93–114; Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004), ch. 5; Elliot Curt Vernon, ‘The Sion College Conclave and London Presbyterianism during the English Revolution’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge (1999), chs. 2–3. Posterity has generally credited Holles with leadership, perhaps because of the survival of his published memoirs. Juxon referred to this parliamentary interest as the Stapletonian party: Keith Lindley and David Scott (eds.), The Journal of Thomas Juxon, 1644–1647, Camden, 5th ser., 13 (London, 1999), esp. p. 34; Kishlansky notes this too, Rise, pp. 15–16, although his account emphasizes the role of Holles. The New Model was not the only problem – the regional armies were also agitating for arrears: Morrill, ‘Mutiny and Discontent’; Morrill, ‘Army Revolt of 1647’.

44. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 145–7. For the wider context see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, esp. chs. 2, 3, 7.

45. Ibid. For the offer of these terms to the King, and his insincere consideration of them, see Gardiner, III, pp. 213–15.

46. Ronald Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1994), esp. pp. 203–12. See also Morrill, ‘The Church in England’; Christopher Durston, ‘Puritan Rule and the Failure of Cultural Revolution’, in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales (eds.), The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560–1700 (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 210–33; Christopher Durston, ‘“Preaching and sitting still on Sundays”: The Lord’s Day during the English Revolution’, in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby (eds.), Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 205–25.

47. For the post-Reformation Protestant calendar, and its politics, see David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (London, 1989).

48. Michael J. Braddick, ‘Popular Politics and Public Policy: The Excise Riot at Smithfield in February 1647 and Its Aftermath’, HJ, 34 (1991), 597–626, at p. 615. See also Hutton, Merry England, pp. 211–12, and, for the ritual year, ch. 1. For Shrove Tuesday and disorder see Keith Lindley, ‘Riot Prevention and Control in Early Stuart London’, TRHS, 5th ser., 33 (1983), 109–26, esp. pp. 109–10.

49. W. G. Hoskins, ‘Harvest Fluctuations and English Economic History 1620-1759’, Agricultural History Review, 16 (1968), 15–31; Steve Hindle, ‘Dearth and the English Revolution: The Harvest Crisis of 1647–50 Revisited’, EcHR (forthcoming).

50. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, p. 611. For grain riots, popular politics and the response of the magistracy see John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), intr., chs. 1–5; John Walter and Keith Wrightson, ‘Dearth and the Social Order in Early Modern England’, reprinted in Paul Slack (ed.), Rebellion, Popular Protest and the Social Order in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 108–28.

51. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, p. 611.

52. Michael J. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England: Local Administration and Response (Woordbridge, 1994), pp. 183–4. For the riot at Derby see above, pp. 422–3.

53. For the desire to return to normality see Gardiner, III, ch. 46; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 76–8; Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, pp. 610–11. Attacks on committee government were also a dimension of ideological battles: Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), ch. 6.

54. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, p. 612.

55. Ibid., p. 597.

56. Ibid., pp. 612–14, quotation at p. 614.

57. Gardiner, III, p. 218.

58. Bod. L, Ashmolean MS 185, fo. 211r.

59. Gardiner, III, pp. 216–18; Corish, ‘Ormond’, pp. 322–3.

60. Bennett, ‘War and Disorder’, esp. pp. 260–66; Ann Hughes, ‘Parliamentary Tyranny? Indemnity Proceedings and the Impact of the Civil War: A Case Study from Warwickshire’, Midland History, 11 (1986), 49–78, at p. 58; Gregg, Free-Born John, p. 161. For local studies of tensions between soldier and civilian see A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 81–91; Morrill, ‘Army Revolt of 1647’; Morrill, ‘Mutiny and Discontent’. A committee was established with powers to grant indemnity. Two thirds of its business in Gloucestershire was heard prior to 1650: Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 89. For the committee See also John A. Shedd, ‘Thwarted Victors: Civil and Criminal Prosecution against Parliament’s Officials during the English Civil War and Commonwealth’, JBS, 41 (2002), 139–69.

61. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 140–48.

62. For a more detailed narrative see Joseph Frank, The Levellers: A History of the Writings of Three Seventeenth-Century Social Democrats: John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), pp. 77–124, although many of Frank’s judgements now seem anachronistic; Aylmer, The Levellers, pp. 16–22; Andrew Sharp (ed.), The English Levellers (Cambridge, 1998), intr. The Remonstrance is reprinted in ibid., pp. 33–53; the Large Petition is reprinted in Aylmer, The Levellers, pp. 75–81, quotations at pp. 76, 79. For Lilburne’s political thought see Rachel Foxley, ‘Citizenship and the English Nation in Leveller Thought, 1642–1653’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge (2001); Rachel Foxley, ‘John Lilburne and the Citizenship of “free-born Englishmen”’, HJ, 47 (2004), 849–74. For the resonance of the denial to the Lords of a negative voice See also Culpeper Letters, p. 145.

63. For the Levellers and petitioning See also Nigel Smith, Literature and Revolution in England, 1640–1660 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 138–40. This line of argument is developed interestingly in David Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England (Princeton, NJ, 2000), esp. ch. 8.

64. Gardiner, III, pp. 254–7.

65. Aylmer, Levellers, p. 75.

66. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 148–9; Morrill, ‘Army Revolt of 1647’; Morrill, ‘Mutiny and Discontent’; Mark Kishlansky, ‘Ideology and Politics in the Parliamentary Armies, 1645–9’, in John Morrill (ed.), Reactions to the English Civil War 1642–1649(Basing-stoke, 1982), pp. 163–83. Army activism was potentially in alliance with the Levellers and other London radicals, however, even if it was not a product of these outside agencies.

67. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 31–5; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 150–51. These events are placed in the context of the increasing polarization of politics at Westminster and in the City by Kishlansky, Rise, chs. 5–6. See, here, pp. 157–60.

68. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 35–40; Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 159–60; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 151–2; Gardiner, III, p. 231.

69. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 43–4.

70. The evidence and debate are summarized judiciously in Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 55–65, with full references. See also Gentles: ‘At the time the word “agitator” had none of its modern pejorative ring, and meant simply one who had been empowered to act on behalf of others’, New Model Army, p. 159. A re-reading of key texts has suggested that Edward Sexby was not the central figure that he has subsequently claimed to be, and that the texts may reflect the role of some officers in channelling the army’s grievances into a partisan political campaign, of sponsoring the emergence of the agitators: Michael Norris, ‘Edward Sexby, John Reynolds and Edmund Chillenden: Agitators, “sectarian grandees” and the Relations of the New Model Army with London in the Spring of 1647’, Historical Research, 76 (2003), 30–53.

71. Gentles, New Model Army, p. 152; for a detailed account of these events as a response to the triumph of the Holles-Stapleton group at Westminster, see Kishlansky, Rise, ch. 7, esp., here, pp. 206–9.

72. Gregg, Free-Born John, ch. 17. Lilburne was also close to Sir Lewis Dyve, another incarcerated royalist, and may have had a role in fostering approaches to the King in October. See also Gardiner, III, pp. 309–12.

73. Gardiner, III, pp. 239–40; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 153–4.

74. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 151, 154–7 and, for the comparison with the treatment of the Scots, p. 149.

75. Pearl, ‘London’s Counter-Revolution’, pp. 45–6; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 157–9. For the Presbyterian mobilization in London see Hughes, Gangraena, ch. 5; Vernon, ‘Sion College’, chs. 2–3.

76. For the Book of Declarations see above, pp. 510–11; for Husbands see above, pp. 272–3.

77. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 82–90.

78. Gardiner, CD, pp. 311–16.

79. Gardiner, III, pp. 251–3.

80. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 71–96; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 161–4; Gardiner, III, pp. 247–9.

81. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 165–7; Gardiner, III, pp. 254, 256–61, 262.

82. Pearl, ‘London’s Counter-Revolution’, pp. 45–6.

83. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 106–12; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 169–70.

84. Gentles, New Model Army, p. 170.

85. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 112.

86. For a brilliant reading of this exchange see James Holstun, Ehud’s Dagger: Class Struggle in the English Revolution (London, 2000), ch. 1. For the view that Joyce was appealing to the shared purpose and interests of the soldiery, not naked force, see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 107–10, 112.

87. Gardiner, III, p. 277. For his strategy more generally see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, p. 20.

88. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 100–105, 116–20.

89. Gardiner, III, pp. 279–85; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 113–15, 116–20.

90. Gardiner, III, pp. 278, 285–6; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 122–3, 125–6.

91. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, p. 615. Gardiner appears to misdate the ordinance to 8 July, although his interpretation of its motivation is the same: III, pp. 324–5. See A&O, I, p. 954; Hutton, Merry England, pp. 211–12.

92. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot?’, pp. 615–16; A&O, III, p. lii.

93. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 125.

94. Gardiner, III, p. 325.

95. Reprinted in part in J. P. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution, 1603–1688: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 295–301, quotations at pp. 296, 297; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 126–8.

96. Kishlansky estimated that one third of the senior officers left: Rise, p. 219. Woolrych thought this an over-estimate (Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 133–6), a view confirmed by Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 167–8, 487 n. 218. In general, however, Kishlansky is right to point to a large exodus of officers in June 1647, many of them of relatively high status. For the continuing influence of officers of high status, however, See also Ian Gentles, ‘The New Model Officer Corps in 1647: A Collective Portrait’, Social History, 22 (1997), 127–44.

97. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 137–44; Gardiner, III, pp. 305–6. The other eight names were: Sir William Lewis, Sir John Clotworthy, Sir William Waller, Sir John Maynard, John Glyn, Colonel Edward Harley, Walter Long and Anthony Nicholl. For the charges see Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 250–55; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 81–2.

98. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 148–50.

99. Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 250–55.

100. Gardiner, III, pp. 324–7; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 165–6.

101. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 153–67; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 373–4. For the controversy over the authorship of the Heads-of Proposals see J. S. A. Adamson, ‘The English Nobility and the Projected Settlement of 1647’, HJ, 30 (1987), 567–602; Mark A. Kishlansky, ‘Saye what?’, HJ, 33 (1990), 917–37; J. S. A. Adamson, ‘Politics and the Nobility in Civil War England’, HJ, 34 (1991), 231–55; Mark A. Kishlansky, ‘Saye no more’, JBS, 30 (1991), 399–448. See also John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War 1630–1648, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1999), pp. 199–200; Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 132–3.

102. Summarized in Smith, Constitutional Royalism, pp. 135–6. For the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 316–26.

103. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 374.

104. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 169–74; Gardiner, III, pp. 327–8, 335–6.

105. Gardiner, III, pp. 336–40; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 172–4.

106. Gardiner, III, pp. 343–5; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 190–91; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 181–2.

107. Gardiner, III, pp. 345–6, quotation at p. 345; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 192–4; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 182–3.

108. Gardiner, III, pp. 347–52; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 194–6.

109. Hughes, Gangraena, pp. 416–17; for the view that Edward’s campaign, the Presbyterian mobilization for a national church and against Independency, and the resulting cleavage among the godly were not inevitable products of irreconcilable aspiration see ibid., esp. pp. 326–33; for the fortunes of Presbyterians after its failure as a model for the national church in 1647 see Vernon, ‘Sion College’, chs. 4–7. The central arguments are set out in Elliot Vernon, ‘A Ministry of the Gospel: The Presbyterians during the English Revolution’, in Durston and Maltby (eds.), Religion, pp. 115–36.

110. Gardiner, II, p. 59.

111. An example each: The Kings Maiesties letter intercepted (London, 1647) revealed the King’s negotiations with the French; An answer to a letter concerning the kings going from Holdenby to the army (London, 1647); The declaration of the commissioners for the kingdom of Scotland (London, 1647); Vox militaris (11 August 1647); His Majesties declaration to all his subjects (London, 20 December 1647).

112. For Norwich see John T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 155–72; Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 368–75. For some important studies of local politics in these months see David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), pp. 140–46; Clive Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), pp. 187–99; Mary Coate, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum 1642–1660: A Social and Political Study (Oxford, 1933), pp. 237–42, 338–40; Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 269–89. For an overview see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 139–57. For the failure of the Presbyterian church organization see Morrill, ‘The Church in England’, pp. 155–8.

113. Anon., Strange Newes from Scotland ([London], 1647), Thomason date 24 September 1647, p. 3.

114. Ibid., pp. 4–5.

115. John Taylor, The World turn’d upside down (London, 1647), Thomason date 28 January, was a reissue of his Mad Fashions: Bernard Capp, The World of John Taylor the Water-Poet 1578–1653 (Oxford, 1994), p. 202.

116. Anon., A great fight in the church at Thaxted (London, 1647), Thomason date 25 September 1647.

18. The Army, the People and the Scots

1. For the appointment of the new agents see Austin Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen: The General Council of the Army and Its Debates 1647–1648 (Oxford, 1987), ch. 8; Austin Woolrych, ‘The Debates from the Perspective of the Army’, in Michael Mendle (ed.), The Putney Debates of 1647, The Army, the Levellers and the English State (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 53–78, at pp. 65–6; for the term ‘Leveller’, see Blair Worden, ‘The Levellers in History and Memory’, in ibid., pp. 256–82, appendix. Morrill and Baker question the closeness of the political alliance between Walwyn and the others prior to this date: John Morrill and Philip Baker, ‘The Case of the Armie Truly Restated’, in ibid., pp. 103–24, at pp. 119–20. This challenges the conventional view in most previous studies of the Levellers.

2. For the latter view see Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’. For a measured overview see Rachel Foxley, ‘Citizenship and the English Nation in Leveller Thought, 1642–1653’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge (2001), ch. 5. Foxley argues that the army and the Levellers employed similar metaphors and tropes: that they were literally speaking the same language.

3. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 160–65, 174–8.

4. Ibid., pp. 174–8, quotation at p. 177; Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 431–3; David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 132–6. For Scottish politics in these months see David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 88–93.

5. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 195–6; Gardiner, CD, pp. 326–7, quotation at p. 327.

6. Gardiner, III, pp. 366–9; Cust, Charles I, pp. 433–5.

7. For the reprinting of the Heads of Proposals see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 197–8. One edition of the Book of Declarations, acquired by Thomason on 2 October, reprints a Lords order of 27 September (LJ, ix, 450) giving sole benefit to the publishers. Another, presumably earlier, edition exists without this order on the title page. For an example of editing see Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), p. 480 n. 67.

8. Gardiner, III, p. 365; LJ, ix, 452; A&O, I, pp. 1021–2 (30 Sept. 1647), quotation at p. 1021. The Large Petition had also called for an end to name-calling as a necessary prelude to settlement: G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Levellers in the English Revolution (London, 1975), p. 78.

9. For the porousness of early modern parliaments see Chris R. Kyle and Jason Peacey (eds.), Parliament at Work: Parliamentary Committees, Political Power, and Public Access in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2002).

10. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 195 and n. 17; White was present at the Putney debates on 29 October: C.H. Firth, The Clarke Papers, with a preface by Austin Woolrych (London, 1992 edn), p. 280.

11. For the attribution of authorship or co-ordination to Sexby see Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’. Woolrych expressed support for the view in ‘The Debates’, at p. 66; he was more convinced of Wildman’s claims by the time he wrote Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), p. 383.

12. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 191–3, 203–6; Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’, pp. 108–10.

13. Reprinted in Don M. Wolfe (ed.), Leveller Manifestoes of the Puritan Revolution (New York, 1944), pp. 196–222, quotations at pp. 199, 212, 218, 220.

14. Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’.

15. Reprinted in Gardiner, CD, pp. 335–5, quotation at p. 334.

16. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 215–16 and n. 7.

17. Gardiner, III, pp. 367, 381.

18. Michael Mendle, ‘Introduction’, in Mendle (ed.), Putney Debates, p. 1: the blackout may have been, partially at least, officially imposed: Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 226 and n. 44. For Clarke see Woolrych, ‘The Debates’, p. 68.

19. For a detailed narrative of the debates see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, ch. 9. I have followed his summaries in Britain in Revolution, pp. 385–92 and ‘The Debates’, pp. 71–8. For the fullest published text see Firth (ed.), Clarke Papers, pp. 226–406; A. S. P. Woodhouse (ed.), Puritanism and Liberty: Being the Army Debates (1647–9) from the Clarke Manuscripts with Supplementary Documents, 2nd edn (London, 1974), pp. 1–123, contains very full extracts.

20. Woodhouse (ed.), Puritanism and Liberty, p. 11.

21. Ibid., p. 46.

22. Ibid., pp. 53–4.

23. For influential views of the controversy over the franchise see C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962), pt III; Keith Thomas, ‘The Levellers and the Franchise’, in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646–60 (London, 1972), pp. 57–78; David Wootton, ‘Leveller Democracy and the Puritan Revolution’, in J. H. Burns, with Mark Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 412–42, esp. pp. 429–30; Patricia Crawford, ‘“The poorest she”: Women and Citizenship in Early Modern England’, in Mendle (ed.), Putney Debates, pp. 197–218, esp. pp. 199–203; Morrill and Baker, ‘Case of the Armie’, pp. 117–19; Quentin Skinner, ‘Rethinking Political Liberty’, History Workshop Journal, 61:1 (2006), 156–70, esp. pp. 160–65.

24. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 390–91.

25. Quoted in Gardiner, IV, pp. 5, 7; See also Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 391. For blood guilt see Patricia Crawford, ‘Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 303–23, Ludlow quoted at p. 312; for blood guilt and the dangers of a weak peace in 1643 see above, p. 259.

26. Gardiner, IV, p. 9 for this vote.

27. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 393–4, 395–8; this revises the case made by Mark A. Kishlansky, ‘What Happened at Ware?’ HJ, 25 (1982), 827–39.

28. Reprinted in W. C. Abbott, Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1937), I, pp. 557–60, quotations at pp. 558, 559.

29. Cust, Charles I, pp. 434–5; Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 88–94; Gardiner, IV, pp. 1, 9–10, 12–13, 15–16.

30. For incisive accounts of the politics see Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 92–5; Cust, Charles 1, pp. 434–5. See also Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–1648 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 20–42.

31. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 308; a similar suggestion was made at the General Council by Harrison: Gardiner, IV, p. 16.

32. Gardiner, IV, pp. 14–19.

33. For Taylor see above, p. 490. Some of the responses to the Kings Cabinet opened made a similar case: for example, Anon., Some observations upon occasion of the publishing of their majesties letters (Oxford, 1645), p. 4; Anon., A Key To the Kings cabinet (Oxford, 1645), pp. 10–11.

34. Gardiner, CD, pp. 328–32; for the politics of these crucial days see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 304–10.

35. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, p. 95; for this (relatively) sympathetic view of Charles’s honesty see Cust, Charles 1, esp. pp. 408–10, 438–9.

36. Cust, Charles 1, p. 436; for the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 335–47.

37. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 307–9; Gardiner, IV, pp. 33–4.

38. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 95–7. Developing hostility to the Covenanters” ‘extra-national’ interpretation of the Solemn League and Covenant can be traced in Culpeper Letters.

39. For the origins of the Engagement see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 316–26.

40. Gardiner, CD, pp. 347–52, quotation at pp. 349–50.

41. Gardiner, IV, p. 41.

42. Ibid.; for the text of Charles’s rejection see Gardiner, CD, pp. 353–6, quotation at p. 355.

43. Gardiner, CD, p. 356; for the previous proposal see above, p. 510.

44. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 319–23, quotations at pp. 320, 321 (italics in the original). The regicide was to make clear, however, that a willingness to kill the King, or see him killed, could co-exist with a commitment to the preservation of the House of Lords: Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1974), esp. pp. 49–50.

45. Gardiner, IV, pp. 52–6; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 320–23; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 237–8: see the Commons order, CJ, v, 416, interpreted here as reviving the powers of the Committee of Both Kingdoms, with a reformed (all-English) membership and a new title. The Committee of Both Kingdoms was defunct after the Scots handed over the King at Newcastle and returned north: Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 160–62, 164–7; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 352. It may not have been formally dissolved, however, and it is not clear from the order if it is being revived, or reconfigured. I am grateful to Ann Hughes and Mark Kishlansky for discussing this with me

46. Gardiner, CD, pp. 348–9.

47. Gardiner, IV, pp. 60–61; A declaration of the Commons of England In Parliament assembled [11 February 1648] (London, 1648), TT, E.427[9]; Alastair Bellany, ‘The Murder of James I: Mutations and Meanings of a Political Myth, c. 1625–1660’ (unpublished paper).

48. Charles Carlton, Charles 1: The Personal Monarch (London, 1983), p. 328.

49. Gardiner, III, p. 309–10. For other indications of his apparent willingness to die rather than compromise his principles see Gardiner, III, pp. 134–7; and Cust, Charles I, esp. pp. 410, 421.

50. The authoritative study is M. D. Whinney, ‘John Webb’s Drawings for the Whitehall Palace’, Walpole Society, 31 (1946 for 1942-3), 45-107, esp. pp. 45, 81–8. There is documentary evidence that Webb visited the King in Hampton Court and Carisbrooke. A surviving scheme, marked ‘taken’ by Charles I, belongs stylistically with the work of Webb rather than Jones, and obviously predates 1649. It is therefore supposed to be the one that arose from these visits of Webb. For fuller context see Simon Thurley, The Lost Palace of Whitehall (London, 1998), pp. 17–28; for the comparison with the Escorial see P. W. Thomas, ‘Charles I of England: The Tragedy of Absolutism’, in A. G. Dickens (ed.), The Courts of Europe: Politics, Patronage and Royalty 1400–1800 (London, 1977), pp. 191–211, at p. 193. For earlier attributions of these designs See also J. Alfred Gotch, ‘The Original Drawings of the Palace of Whitehall Attributed to Inigo Jones’, Architectural Review, 31 (1912), 333–64; E. S. De Beer, ‘Whitehall Palace: Inigo Jones and Wren’, Notes and Queries, 177 (1939), 471–3. For Jones and Webb see John Newman, ‘Jones, Inigo (1573–1652)’, ODNB, 30, pp. 527–38; John Bold, ‘Webb, John (1611–1672)’, ODNB, 57, pp. 837–40.

19. To Preserve That Which God Hath Manifestly Declared Against

1. David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 98–105; Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–8 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 326–35.

2. Micheal Ó Siochrú, Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis (Dublin, 1999), ch. 5; Patrick J. Corish, ‘Ormond, Rinuccini, and the Confederates, 1645–9’, in T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin and E. J. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early Modern Ireland 1534–1691 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 317–35, at pp. 323–30; summary in Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), p. 405; Gardiner, IV, pp. 102–10.

3. David Underdown, Pride’s Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971), p. 90.

4. Alan Everitt, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640–1660 (Leicester, 1966), pp. 231–3.

5. Ibid., p. 233.

6. Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 241–2.

7. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 91–2. For Norwich see John T. Evans, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 172–82.

8. Gardiner, IV, pp. 68–9, 94, 97–8; Ian Gentles, ‘The Struggle for London in the Second Civil War’, HJ, 26 (1983), 277–305, esp. pp. 287–9. There were many different versions of tip-cat.

9. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 93–4. For anti-war sentiment and post-war religious disruption in Cornwall see Mary Coate, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum 1642–1660: A Social and Political Study (Oxford, 1933), pp. 330–38.

10. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 94–5, 99–100; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 241; for Essex see William Cliftlands, ‘The “Well-Affected” and the “Country”: Politics and Religion in English Provincial Society, c. 1640–1654’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Essex (1987), pp. 77–9, ch. 4.

11. [William Davenant?], London, King Charles his Augusta or City Royal (London, 1648), Thomason date 7 March; Anon., Coleman-Street Conclave Visited (London, 1648), Thomason date 21 March; Anon., Calendar-Reformation (London, 1648), Fortescue date 27 March; Anon., A true and perfect picture of our present reformation (London, 1648), Fortescue date March; Anon., Mistris Parliament Brought to Bed of a Monstrous Childe of Reformation (London, 1648), Thomason date 29 April. The birth was assisted by the midwife Mrs London, the nurse Mrs Synod, and the gossips Mrs Schism, Mrs Privilege, Mrs Ordinance, Mrs Universall Toleration and Mrs Leveller; Anon., Last will and testament (London, 1648).

12. Vindiciae, contra Tyrannos: a defence of Liberty against Tyrants (London, 1648), Thomason date 1 March; Queen Elizabeth’s speech to her last parliament (London, 1648), Thomason date 16 March. For the Vindiciae see Anne McLaren, ‘Rethinking Republicanism: Vindiciae, Contra Tyrannos in Context’, HJ, 49 (2006), 23–52; and the convincing riposte by George Garnett, ‘Law in the Vindiciae, Contra Tyrannos: A Vindication’, HJ, 49 (2006), 877–91. It was probably the product of a collaboration between Hubert Languet and Philippe Mornay, written in France between 1574 and 1577, and widely circulated in the rest of Europe thereafter. For the text and its history see George Garnett (ed.), Brutus: Vindiciae, contra tyrannos or, Concerning the Legitimate Power of a Prince over the People, and of the People over a Prince (Cambridge, 1994), esp., for the translations, pp. lxxiv-lxxxviii. For Walker see David Wootton, ‘From Rebellion to Revolution: The Crisis of the Winter of 1642/3 and the Origins of Civil War Radicalism’, in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), The English Civil War (London, 1997), pp. 340–56, at p. 352.

13. Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 455–68.

14. Andrew Coleby, Central Government and the Localities: Hampshire 1649–1689 (Cambridge, 1987), p. 13. See, in general, Ashton’s account of the insurgents’ aims: Counter-Revolution, pp. 12–13.

15. Gardiner, IV, p. 123.

16. For these militias see Sarah Barber, ‘“A bastard kind of militia”, Localism, and Tactics in the Second Civil War’, in Ian Gentles, John Morrill and Blair Worden (eds.), Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 133–50.

17. For the paralysis these considerations might cause see Gentles, ‘Struggle for London’. For other examples see Clive Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), pp. 200–203; Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 291–2; Evans, Norwich, pp. 172–82. Numerous local studies demonstrate the presence of these grievances without support for Charles as a necessary corollary, and not always as a source of anti-army feeling. See, for example, John Morrill, Cheshire 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), ch. 5; Stephen K. Roberts, Recovery and Restoration in an English County: Devon Local Administration 1646–70 (Exeter, 1985), pp. 5–13; A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 146–55.

18. Gardiner, IV, pp. 83–6, 99–101; Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 103–5.

19. Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 422–38.

20. John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The English People and the Tragedies of War 1630–1648, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1999), pp. 174–6, 205–8.

21. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 407; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, p. 176; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 242–3.

22. Gardiner, IV, pp. 125–6; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 407–8, quotation at p. 407; Austin Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen: The General Council of the Army and Its Debates, 1647–1648 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 330–35; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 257–8.

23. Gardiner, IV, pp. 132, 145, 154–5, 167.

24. Ibid., pp. 125, 127–8; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 97–8.

25. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 330–35; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 96–7.

26. Everitt, Kent, pp. 235–40.

27. Ibid., pp. 240–59. For the naval revolt see Bernard Capp, Cromwell’s Navy: The Fleet and the English Revolution, 1648–1660 (Oxford, 1989), ch. 2; Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 438–48.

28. Everitt, Kent, pp. 259–60; Capp, Cromwell’s Navy, pp. 20–22.

29. Everitt, Kent, esp. pp. 251–4.

30. Ibid., pp. 258–65; Gardiner, IV, pp. 133–42; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 247–9.

31. Gardiner, IV, pp. 146–9; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 249, 251–3.

32. Gardiner, IV, pp. 149–54; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 253–5.

33. Gardiner, IV, p. 145; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 242; Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd edn, pp. 171–3. See, in general, Ashton, Counter-Revolution, chs. 10, 12.

34. Gardiner, IV, pp. 156–62.

35. Ibid., pp. 145–6, 173–4.

36. Ibid., pp. 145–6.

37. Ibid., pp. 164–6, 170–73, 194–5, 210–11.

38. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 258–60; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 415. For the difficulties of recruitment in Scotland see Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 105–11.

39. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 415–16; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 260. For the following See also Malcolm Wanklyn, Decisive Battles of the English Civil War: Myth and Reality (Barnsley, 2006), chs. 16–17.

40. For varying estimates of the size of the armies see Gentles, New Model Army, p. 261; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 416–17; Wanklyn, Decisive Battles, p. 191.

41. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 416–18; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 261–4; Wanklyn, Decisive Battles, pp. 194–9.

42. CJ, vi, 5.

43. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 417–18; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 261–4; Gardiner, IV, pp. 210–11.

44. Barbara Donagan, ‘Myth, Memory and Martyrdom: Colchester 1648’, Essex Archaeology and History, 34 (2004), 172–80, quotations at p. 173. For accounts of the siege See also Gardiner, IV, pp. 197–208; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 256–7; Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 473–5.

45. When Magdeburg was stormed on 20 May 1631 there was slaughter among the civilian population and the city was torched. As with the Irish risings of 1641, estimates of the extent of the devastation vary, partly because the events were immediately interpreted in the light of the larger confessional battle. For the memorialization and propaganda impact of this catastrophe see Hans Medick, ‘Historical Event and Contemporary Experience: The Capture and Destruction of Magdeburg in 1631’, trans. Pamela Selwyn, History Workshop Journal, 52 (2001), 23–48. Commonly cited estimates of population loss vary from two thirds of its population of 30,000 (Thomas Munck, Seventeenth-Century Europe, 2nd edn (Basingstoke, 2005), p. 18) to 96 per cent (Richard Bonney, The European Dynastic States 1494–1660 (Oxford, 1991), p. 203).

46. Donagan, ‘Myth’, pp. 173–4. For the laws of war See also Barbara Donagan, ‘Codes and Conduct in the English Civil War’, PP, 118 (1988), 65–95; Barbara Donagan, ‘Atrocity, War Crime, and Treason in the English Civil War’, AHR, 99 (1994), 1137–66.

47. Donagan, ‘Myth’, p. 174.

48. Ibid., pp. 174–5.

49. Ibid., pp. 175–6; Fairfax quoted from Gardiner, IV, p. 205.

50. Donagan, ‘Myth’, pp. 176–9.

51. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 270–72. This account is to be preferred to that of Gardiner, IV, p. 232, and those that followed it. For the initial reporting of the incident as an atrocity, and as direct revenge for the deaths of Lucas and Lisle, see A full and exact relation of the Horrid murder committed on the body of Col Rainsborough (London, 1648), Thomason date 3 November 1648, esp. pp. 2–3, 4. Details varied: The Moderate (31 October-7 November 1648), pp. [7-8]; Packets of letters from Scotland, and the North parts of England (London, 1648), Thomason date 8 November 1648, p. 1. See also Ian Gentles, ‘Political Funerals during the English Revolution’, in Stephen Porter (ed.), London and the Civil War (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 205–24, at pp. 217–18.

52. Gardiner, IV, pp. 125–6; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 407–9; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 330–35, quotation at p. 334.

53. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 325–8.

20. The Occasioner, Author, and Continuer…

1. David Underdown, Pride’s Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971), p. 97; Gardiner, IV, pp. 116, 122–4; CJ, v, pp. 551–2, quotation at p. 552; LJ, x, 247.

2. Gardiner, IV, pp. 168–9, 172.

3. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 100–105.

4. Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–1648 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 139–57; David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 229–32; David Underdown,’ “Honest” Radicals in the Counties, 1642–1649’, in Donald Pennington and Keith Thomas (eds.), Puritans and Revolutionaries: Essays in Seventeenth-Century History Presented to Christopher Hill (Oxford, 1978), pp. 186–205, esp. pp. 199–203.

5. For a sympathetic view see Richard Cust, Charles 1: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 437–42.

6. Gardiner, IV, pp. 209–10; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 100–105.

7. David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 115–22.

8. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, p. 109; Gardiner, IV, p. 213.

9. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, p. 108. The source for this story is Ludlow’s memoirs, which may not be reliable – they were later recollections and subject also to some massaging for publication in rather different times: Blair Worden, Roundhead Reputations: The English Civil Wars and the Passions of Posterity (Harmondsworth, 2001), esp. ch. 2. I am grateful to Ann Hughes for pointing this out to me.

10. Gardiner, IV, pp. 212–13; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, p. 110. For the local political context of the Somerset petition see Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), ch. 8, esp. p. 151.

11. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, p. 112.

12. Gardiner, IV, pp. 214–22; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 111–15; David L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c. 1640–1649 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 138–40; Cust, Charles I, pp. 442–8.

13. Gardiner, IV, pp. 222–6; Cust, Charles I, pp. 444–5.

14. David Scott, Politics and War in the Three Stuart Kingdoms, 1637–49 (Basingstoke, 2004), p. 185.

15. For the importance of fears about a renewal of war in England on the basis of a peace in Ireland, and their impact on English politics, see J. S. A. Adamson, ‘The Frighted Junto: Perceptions of Ireland, and the Last Attempts at Settlement with Charles I’, in Jason Peacey (ed.), The Regicides and the Execution of Charles I (Basingstoke, 2001), pp. 36–70.

16. For discussions of the text see Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 274–6; Gardiner, IV, pp. 233–6; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 115–17, 123–7; Austin Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 2002), pp. 423–4, quotation at p. 424. Extracts are reprinted in A. S. P. Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty: Being the Army Debates (1647–9) from the Clarke Manuscripts with Supplementary Documents, 2nd edn (London, 1974), pp. 456–65. In general, calls for justice did not necessarily imply the killing of the King: Sean Kelsey, ‘The Death of Charles I’, HJ, 45 (2002), 727–54, esp. pp. 729–33. Kelsey also suggests that the passage quoted from the Remonstrance might be ambiguous: ‘The Ordinance for the Trial of Charles I’, Historical Research, 76 (2003), 310–31, at p. 313.

17. A remonstrance of his excellency Thomas Lord Fairfax, Lord Generall of the Parliaments forces and of the Generall Councell of officers (London, 1648), p. 24.

18. For the importance of this argument see Patricia Crawford, ‘Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood’, reprinted in Peter Gaunt (ed.), The English Civil War (Oxford, 2000), pp. 303–23.

19. Quoted from Gentles, New Model Army, p. 275.

20. A remonstrance of his excellency, p. 16. This clause follows directly from that quoted by Gentles, who sees a clearer intent behind the calls for justice to be exacted from the King.

21. Ibid., pp. 47–51, quotation at p. 47.

22. This may relate to the classical republican view that popular sovereignty was equivalent to reason, which should restrain interest (the equivalent of passion or will): Blair Worden, ‘Classical Republicanism and the Puritan Revolution’, in Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Valerie Pearl and Blair Worden (eds.), History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H. R. Trevor-Roper (London, 1981), pp. 182–200, esp. pp. 193–4.

23. A remonstrance of his excellency, p. 36.

24. A remonstrance or declaration of the army (London, 1648).

25. A remonstrance of his excellency, p. 64.

26. For example, John Vernon, The Swords Abuse Asserted (1648); [Clement Walker], Animadversions upon the armies remonstrance (Huntington Library copy dated 4 January 1648, authorship attribution EEBO), refutes the historical account, makes a good case against the lawfulness of regicide (p. 15) and makes Gentles’s point about who ‘the people’ defended by the army are (p. 22) (see Gentles, New Model Army, p. 276); The recoyle of ill-cast and ill-charged ordinances (1648); [Nedham], A plea for the king, and kingdome (1648), engages with the detail but highlights the principle – his defence of the King was not intended to save Charles’s life, but was a defence against the threat to government posed by this version of salus populi. On the other side of the argument, The humble ansvver of the general councel of the Officers of the army (1648) justified the purge of Parliament, not in terms of justice on the King, but of a purging of interests in order to secure a settlement which defended the public good.

27. Gardiner, IV, pp. 236–45; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 118–23, 129.

28. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 126–7; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 274.

29. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 130–32.

30. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 276–8, 280; Charles Carlton, Charles I: The Personal Monarch (London, 1983), pp. 339–42.

31. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 131, 133–40.

32. Ibid., pp. 140–42; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 281.

33. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 143–8, 152, 208–20; Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 23, 387–92.

34. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 283–5.

35. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 150–63; Gardiner, IV, p. 275. For the mixed political profile of the purged parliament see Worden, Rump, ch. 2. For the triumph of radicals in London see Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 533–47.

36. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 178–82; Underdown, Somerset, pp. 146–50; Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 292–3.

37. Adamson, ‘Frighted Junto’, pp. 43–5. In fact the Confederate alliance was by this time unravelling under the weight of its own contradictions: Micheàl Ó Siochrú’, Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis (Dublin, 1999), ch. 6.

38. Adamson, ‘Frighted Junto’, esp. pp. 40–52; Sean Kelsey, ‘The Trial of Charles I’, EHR, 118, 477 (2003), 583–616, esp. pp. 587–8. For the navy see Bernard Capp, Cromwell’s Navy: The Fleet and the English Revolution, 1648–1660 (Oxford, 1989), esp. pp. 43–6.

39. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, p. 168; Adamson, ‘Frighted Junto’, pp. 46–7, 58, 60, 61.

40. Kelsey, ‘Trial’, p. 593; Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 740–42.

41. Gardiner, IV, pp. 281–5; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 285–94. Extracts are reprinted in Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty.

42. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 166–72; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 294–300.

43. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 292–3, 300; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 164–5.

44. Phyllis Mack, Visionary Women: Ecstatic Prophecy in Seventeenth-Century England (Berkeley, Calif., 1992), esp. pp. 78–9; Manfred Brod, ‘Politics and Prophecy in Seventeenth Century England: The Case of Elizabeth Poole’, Albion, 31 (1999), 395–413; Manfred Brod, ‘Poole, Elizabeth (bap. 1622?, d. in or after 1668)’, ODNB, 44, p. 837. For women and prophecy see above, pp. 409–11.

45. Brod, ‘Politics and Prophecy’, esp. pp. 411–12.

46. Clarke Papers, II, pp. 150–54, quotations at pp. 150, 151, 152, 154. The vision was later published: Elizabeth Poole, A vision (London, 1648).

47. Clarke Papers, II, pp. 163–70, quotations at pp. 164, 165; Poole, A vision, p. 6.

48. Crawford, ‘Charles Stuart’.

49. For the diversity of opinion on these issues see Underdown, Pride’s Purge, ch. 7; Worden, Rump, esp. chs. 1–3; David Scott, ‘Motives for King-Killing’, in Peacey (ed.), Regicides, pp. 138–60; John Morrill and Philip Baker, ‘Oliver Cromwell, the Regicide and the Sons of Zeruiah’, in ibid., pp. 14–35.

50. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 300–302, quotation at p. 302.

51. Gardiner, IV, pp. 288–91, quotation at p. 290; CJ, vi, 110–11.

52. Gardiner, CD, pp. 357–8; Kelsey, ‘Trial’, pp. 588–94; Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 743–4. For a full discussion of the tensions over the purpose and meaning of the enabling legislation see Kelsey, ‘Ordinance’.

53. Kelsey, ‘Trial’, pp. 595–8; Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 733–4; C. V. Wedgwood, The Trial of Charles I (London, 1964), esp. pp. 123–7. For the full range of motives in allowing reporting of the trial see Jason Peacey, ‘Reporting a Revolution: A Failed Propaganda Campaign’, in Peacey (ed.), Regicides, pp. 161–80. For a sample of reports see Joad Raymond (ed.), Making the News: An Anthology of the Newsbooks of Revolutionary England, 1641–1660 (Moreton-in-Marsh, 1993), ch. 5.

54. The charges are reprinted in Kelsey, ‘Trial’, pp. 598–601; Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 734–5; Gardiner, CD, pp. 371–4, quotation at pp. 373–4.

55. ‘he has been the author and continuer of a most unjust war, and is consequently guilty of all the treason it contains and of all the innocent blood, rapine, spoil, and mischief to the kingdom acted or occasioned thereby’: A remonstrance of his excellency, p. 24; for the phrase quoted in the text see p. 23.

56. Kelsey, ‘Trial’, pp. 598–602; Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 734–5. For detailed accounts of the proceedings See also Wedgwood, Trial, chs. 6–8 and Gardiner, IV, chs. 70–71.

57. Kelsey, ‘Trial’, p. 616.

58. Ibid., pp. 602–10; Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 743–5.

59. Kelsey, ‘Trial’, pp. 607–10; for the text of the King’s reasons see Gardiner, CD, pp. 374–6.

60. Kelsey, ‘Trial’, pp. 610–12; Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 745–9.

61. Kelsey, ‘Trial’, p. 614; Gardiner, IV, pp. 311–13.

62. Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 749–51.

63. Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 750–51; Gardiner, IV, pp. 316–18; for the element of negotiation in court, including the possibility of pardon, see Cynthia Herrup, The Common Peace: Participation and the Criminal Law in Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1987), ch. 6; for the exercise of discretion as an aspect of power in legal contexts see Krista J. Kesselring, Mercy and Authority in the Tudor State (Cambridge, 2003): in this case to pardon Charles would have been further to subject him to a higher authority.

64. Gardiner, IV, pp. 278–80; Ian Gentles, ‘Harrison, Thomas (bap. 1616, d. 1690)’, ODNB, 25, pp. 529–33.

65. Perfect Occurrences (22–30 December 1648), p. 778 (I am grateful to Keith Lindley for this reference); Kelsey, ‘Death’, pp. 731–2; Clarendon, IV, pp. 479, 483, 485.

66. Gardiner, IV, pp. 299–300, quoting the State Trials. Clarendon has it as ‘No, nor the hundredth part of them’, IV, p. 486.

67. Gardiner, IV, p. 301.

68. Clarendon, IV, p. 487; Gardiner, IV, p. 300.

69. Clarendon, IV, p. 488.

70. Wedgwood, Trial, ch. 8; Kelsey, ‘Trial’, pp. 614–15; Gardiner, IV, pp. 319–23.

71. Gardiner, IV, p. 323; Wedgwood, Trial, p. 193.

72. Wedgwood, Trial, p. 196.

73. TNA, SP24/71 petition of Darcy Roades; SP24/75 petition of Thomas Sharpe. For Warwickshire politics following the regicide see Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), ch. 8. In Lincolnshire, for example, it was accepted with ‘sullen resentment’, and there was no evidence of opposition in formerly royalist Cornwall: Clive Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), pp. 203–5; Mary Coate, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum 1642–1660: A Social and Political Study (Oxford, 1933), p. 250.

74. Diary entries 16 August 1648, 4 February 1649: Alan Macfarlane, The Diary of Ralph Josselin 1616–1683, British Academy Records of Social and Economic History, new series, III (Oxford, 1976), pp. 130, 155. A transcript is online at http://linux02.lib.cam.ac.uk/earlscolne/documents/diary.htm

75. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, p. 190.

76. But he noted this in embarrassment, having met an old schoolfellow who he feared might have remembered this: Robert Latham and William Matthews (eds.), The Diary of Samuel Pepys: A New and Complete Transcription, vol. I: 1660 (London, 1970), p. 280.

77. Wedgwood, Trial, pp. 184–5; CSPD, 1660–61, p. 67, and See also pp. 65, 109, 124, 184; for William Walker See also David Wootton, ‘From Rebellion to Revolution: The Crisis of the Winter of 1642/3 and the Origins of Civil War Radicalism’, reprinted in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), The English Civil War (London, 1997), pp. 340–56, at p. 352.

78. Wedgwood, Trial, pp. 204–5.

79. Elizabeth Skerpan Wheeler, ‘Eikon Basilike and the Rhetoric of Self-Representation’, in Thomas N. Corns (ed.), The Royal Image: Representations of Charles I (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 122–40; Cust, Charles I, pp. 446–7; Kevin Sharpe, ‘The King’s Writ: Royal Authors and Royal Authority in Early Modern England’, in Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (Basingstoke, 1994), pp. 117–38, at pp. 136–8; Kevin Sharpe, ‘“So hard a text”?: Images of Charles I, 1612–1700’, HJ, 43 (2000), 383–406; Andrew Lacey, ‘Elegies and Commemorative Verses in Honour of Charles the Martyr, 1649–60’, in Peacey (ed.), Regicides, pp. 225–46, and the references in his n. 2. For a convenient modern edition see P. A. Knachel (ed.), Eikon Basilike: The Portraiture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitudes and Sufferings (Ithaca, NY, 1966). For the cult of King Charles more generally see Andrew Lacey, The Cult of King Charles the Martyr (Woodbridge, 2003). For the healing power of his blood see A Miracle of Miracles Wrought by the Blood of King Charles I (London, 1649).

Epilogue

1. Thomas May, The history of the parliament Of England, which began November the third, MDCXL (London 1647), title page, sig. A3r.

2. Ibid., sig. A3v-A4r.

3. Ibid., sig. B1r.

4. Ibid., sig. A3r-v.

5. Lois Spencer, ‘The Politics of George Thomason’, The Library, 5th ser., 14 (1959), 11–27; Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 161–2, 192–6.

6. For modern views of May’s history see J. G. A. Pocock, ‘Thomas May and the Narrative of Civil War’, in Derek Hirst and Richard Strier (eds.), Writing and Political Engagement in Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 112–44; Nigel Smith, The Poems of Andrew Marvell (Harlow, 2003) esp. pp. 116–18.

7. May, History, sig. B2v.

8. See above, p. 580.

9. Based on a search of ESTC, 14 April 2007.

10. ‘Exit tyrannus Regum ultimus, anno primo restitutae libertatis Angliae 1648’: Nicola Smith, The Royal Image and the English People (Aldershot, 2001), ch. 3, esp. p. 68 (my translation). For the legislation and other examples see Julie Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm during the English Civil War (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 81, 209–10, 238–9, 262–3; C. V. Wedgwood, The Trial of Charles I (London, 1964), pp. 209–10. For the sale of the crown jewels see Anna Keay, ‘Toyes and trifles’, History Today (July 2002).

11. Margaret Aston, ‘Puritans and Iconoclasm, 1560–1660’, in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales (eds.), The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560–1700 (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 92–121; Keith Thomas, ‘Art and Iconoclasm in Early Modern England’, in Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake (eds.), Religious Politics in post-Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 16–40; Jerry Brotton, The Sale of the Late King’s Goods: Charles I and His Art Collection (Basingstoke, 2006), pp. 234–8.

12. Smith, Royal Image, pp. 69–70, 73–5, 79, and for Cromwell, ch. 8. This memorialization of Cromwell goes to the heart of subsequent attempts to make sense of the wars: Blair Worden, Roundhead Reputations: The English Civil Wars and the Passions of Posterity (Harmondsworth, 2001), ch. 11. For the Act of Oblivion and the erasure of memories of the wars see David Norbrook, Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics, 1627–1660 (Cambridge, 1999), esp. pp. 1–22; Jonathan Scott, England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-Century English Political Stability in European Context (Cambridge, 2000), esp. intr., ch. 1.

13. This is a large subject, of course. For important recent studies emphasizing the intellectual and cultural creativity of the 1650s see Sean Kelsey, Inventing a Republic: The Political Culture of the English Commonwealth, 1649–1653 (Manchester, 1997); Scott, England’s Troubles, esp. chs. 10–16; Jonathan Scott, Commonwealth Principles: Republican Writing of the English Revolution (Cambridge, 2004); Norbrook, Writing the English Republic.

14. John Pocock, quoted in J. C. Davis, ‘Political Thought during the English Revolution’, in Barry Coward (ed.), A Companion to Stuart Britain (Oxford, 2003), pp. 374–96, at p. 374.

15. A true and strange relation of fire (London, 1639), p. 8. Butter was a news pioneer, a key figure in the heroic accounts of the rise of the news industry. His output of news pamphlets included a number of stories of natural wonders, some of which made direct connections with current affairs. Prior to 1640, they were mainly foreign events (e.g. Good Newes to Christendome [London, 1620]), but it was not impossible to make a connection between earthquake and fire in the Terceiras (Azores) in 1638 and Charles’s troubles. In 1659 Butter published a pamphlet relating a strange atmospheric phenomenon above London, which coincided with Charles’s departure after the attempt on the Five Members: A Letter with a Narrative, written to the right Hon:ble Thomas Allen (London, 1659).

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!