Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:48:38.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anti-puritanism and urban politics: Charles I and Great Yarmouth*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2010

Richard Cust
Richard Cust
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is a study of political conflicts in Yarmouth during the 1620s and 1630s between a group of puritan aldermen and their anti-puritan opponents. These focused firstly on efforts initiated by Bishop Harsnet to remove the stipendiary lecturers supported by the puritans; and secondly on attempts by the anti-puritan aldermen to introduce a less ‘popular’ form of town government by revising Yarmouth's charter. Throughout these conflicts the anti-puritan side were able to secure considerable backing at court, particularly from Charles I, through employing a rhetoric which highlighted the threat to order and authority presented by a combination of puritanism and ‘popularity’. The article shows how strong fears of this threat were at the heart of the Caroline regime, and how the actions which resulted could cause deep local divisions. It also illustrates the ways in which local interest groups and their supporters manoeuvred around the king to achieve their ends.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Norfolk Record Office [hereafter N.R.O.], Great Yarmouth Entry Book Henry VIII to Charles I, YC 18/6, fo. 253r; Swinden, H., The history of Great Yarmouth (1772), p. 490; Public Record Office [hereafter P.R.O.], S.P. 16/148/88Google Scholar.

1 P.R.O., S.P. 16/89/4; Cust, Richard, ‘Charles I and a draft declaration for the 1628 parliament’, Historical Research [hereafter H.R.], LXIII (1990), 143–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 P.R.O., S.P. 16/148/88.

4 Acts of the Privy Council [hereafter A.P.C.] 1629–30, pp. 112–13; P.R.O., S.P. 16/148/74.

5 P.R.O., S.P. 16/148/74; see also S.P. 16/143/2.

6 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 505–6, 848–9Google Scholar.

7 Collinson, P., Godly people (1983), p. 489; \Google ScholarSeaver, P., The puritan lectureships 1360–1662 (Stanford, 1970), p. 115Google Scholar; Fincham, K., ‘Pastoral roles of the Jacobean episcopate in Canterbury province’ (University of London, Ph.D. dissertation, 1985), pp. 252–3Google Scholar.

8 , Seaver, Puritan lectureships, pp. 91–5. James's mandate to Harsnet fully reflects this view: Bodleian Library [hereafter Bodl. L.], Tanner 265, fo. 28Google Scholar.

9 , Collinson, Godly people, p. 489; Fincham, ‘Pastoral roles’, pp. 252–3Google Scholar.

10 , Seaver, Puritan lectureships, pp. 36, 74Google Scholar; P.R.O., C.2/CHAS I/Y1/58; Swinden, rarmouth, pp. 852–3. Harsnet had already challenged the town's choice of lecturer in 1620, even though he had been recommended by the bishop of Ely: N.R.O., Great Yarmouth Assembly Book 1598–1625, YC 19/5, fos. 215r, 216v. For the exhaustive tests imposed by the corporation to ensure the suitability of a new lecturer, see ibid., fo. 215 r.

11 N. R. N. , Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists (Oxford, 1987), pp. 164–5;Google Scholar, Collinson, Godly people, p. 489Google Scholar.

12 Quoted from Seaver, Puritan lectureships, p. 115.

13 N.R.O., YC 19/5, fos. 295r, 296V, 300 r, 302 r.

14 , Swinden, Tarmouth, pp. 829–32Google Scholar.

15 The corporation was responding to the dean and chapter's claim by October 1624, which suggests that die king had issued a verbal instruction, probably via Harsnet, long before his written mandate of 30 December 1624: N.R.O., YC 19/5, fo. 307^ P.R.O., C.2/CHAS I/Y1/58; Bodl. L., Tanner 134, fo. 189.

16 Swinden, rarmouth, p. 834; P.R.O., C.2/CHAS I/Y1/58; N.R.O., YC 19/5, fo. 314 r; 18/6, fo. 214 r.

17 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 835; P.R.O., C.2/CHAS I/Y1/58; N.R.O., YC 19/5, fos. 327V, 328 rGoogle Scholar.

18 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 835–7; N.R.O., YC 18/6, fo. 218r; 19/5, fo. 317rGoogle Scholar.

19 N.R.O., YC 19/5, fo. 319V; , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 836; Dictionary of National [hereafter D.N.B.], John BrinsleyGoogle Scholar.

20 P.R.O., C.2/CHAS I/Y1/58; Swinden, , Yarmouth, pp. 839–41Google Scholar; Fincham, K. C., ‘Archbishop Abbot and the defence of protestant orthodoxy’, H.R. LXI (1988), 36-64Google Scholar.

21 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 841–3; N.R.O., Great Yarmouth Assembly Book 1625–42, YC 19/6, fo. 90rGoogle Scholar.

22 P.R.O., S.P. 16/124/81.

23 P.R.O., E.179/153/536, 153/588, 153/607; Michdl, A. R., ‘The port and town of Great Yarmouth and its economic and social relationships with its neighbours on both sides of the seas, 1550–1714’ (University of Cambridge, Ph.D dissertation, 1978), pp. 240, 242Google Scholar; Palmer, C.J., Illustrations of domestic architecture in England in the reign of Qjuen Elizabeth (London, 1838)Google Scholar; Palmer, C.J., The history of Great Yarmouth designed as a continuation of Manship's history (Yarmouth, 1856), pp. 303–5. For details of Cooper's activities as a man of business see Richard Cust, ‘Parliamentary elections in the 1620s: the case of Great Yarmouth’, Parliamentary History (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

24 P.R.O., L.C. 5/132, p. 184; , Swindcn, Yarmouth, pp. 830–1Google Scholar.

25 The core of this group consisted of George Hardware and Leonard Holmes, aldermen; Charles Gooch and Roger Wisse, common councilmen; and John Dasset, a freeman and gentleman. All except Gooch identified themselves as friends of Brooks in their wills: P.R.O., PROB n/64 Sadler (Hardware, 1635); n/4 3 Harvey (Dasset, 1639); n/141 Harvey (Wisse, 1639); 11/81 Evelyn (Holmes, 1641). For further evidence of links between members of this group see N.R.O., YC 19/5, fo. 171 r; 19/6, fo. 218.

26 P.R.O., S.P. 16/148/40, 178/48, 295/48; , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 478Google Scholar; Bodl. L., Tanner 68, fos. 1 –13. Hassel was appointed dean in July 1628 on the recommendation of Laud: P.R.O., S.P. 16/297/33; Extractsfrom the two earliest minute books of the dean and chapter of Norwich Cathedral, 1566–1647, ed. Williams, J. F. and Cozens-Hardy, B. (Norfolk Record Soc., xxiv, 1953), P- 66Google Scholar.

27 Great Yarmouth Assembly Minutes, 1538–1545, ed. Rutledge, P. (Norfolk Record Soc., xxxix, 1970), pp. 6–8, 15; Michell, ‘Port and town of Great Yarmouth’, pp. 234–5Google Scholar.

28 Those who later came to blows were able to work together during the early 1620s on securing a grant for repairing the town's haven and administering a patent for the export of beer: N.R.O., YC 19/5, fos. 234 V, 263 V, 264 r, 269 V.

29 It is not clear how long the puritan assembly members had been working together as a coherent group. Johnson, Owner and Buttolph were collaborating over schemes to provide work for the poor in the early 1620s: N.R.O., YC 19/5. fos. 226V, 271 r; Michell, ‘Port and town of Great Yarmouth’ pp. 286–8. Puritans probably comprised the hard core of those who resisted Gammon in late 1624: P.R.O., C.2/CHAS I/Y1/58. However, it was probably the arrival of Brinsley in the town in early 1625 which did most to develop a sense of cohesion, both religiously and politically: see below pp. 9–10, 18–19.

30 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 458–64, 510; P.R.O., S.P. 16/147/57,58; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 26 v, 59 r, 64 r, 67 V, 81 v. Cooper was also closely associated with two of the more troublesome members of the merchant community in Yarmouth: Jeffrey Neve, who was in trouble with the corporation for indebtedness from 1624 onwards; and John Seaman, who was disciplined on several occasions for failing to pay dues and insulting the local magistrates:Google ScholarGruenfelder, J. K., ‘Jeffrey Neve, Charles I and Great Yarmouth’, Norfolk Archaeology, XL (1988), 155–6Google Scholar; Michell, ‘Port and town of Great Yarmouth’, p. 225; N.R.O., YC 19/5, fos. 172V, 174^ 213V, 226v; 19/6, fos. 7r, 42V-43V, 50r. In addition he and two of his allies, his brother Isaac and Leonard Holmes, had been members of the now defunct Spanish Company which had specialized in long-distance trade with the Iberian peninsula, as opposed to the short-distance trade with the Dutch practised by most Yarmouth merchants: The Spanish Company, ed. Croft, P. (London Record Society, ix, 1973), pp. 34, 41Google Scholar; Michell, ‘Port and town of Great Yarmouth’, pp. 38, 42–3, 104. ( I am grateful to Pauline Croft for advice on this.) In spite of these differences, there is little evidence that economic interests were involved in the clash between Cooper and his opponents. There is no trace of this in the several seu of charges which Cooper's opponents drew up against him: P.R.O., S.P. 16/147/57, 58; , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 509–13. The only sign of a substantial division over economic interests came in the 1630s, when the salt patent secured by Thomas Hoarth, an ally of the puritan aldermen, Thomas Johnson and John Lucas, was opposed by John Seaman: P.R.O., P.C. 2/47, p. 453Google Scholar; Hughes, E., Studies in administration andfinance1538–1625 (Manchester, 1934), pp. 102–15. In general, economic concerns probably served to unite rather than divide the local merchants. Leonard Holmes owned two boats in partnership with his political opponent, Henry Davy: Michell, ‘Port and town of Great Yarmouth’, p. 220. And Cooper himself temporarily made his peace with the puritan aldermen over opposing Neve's herring patent: see below p. 11Google Scholar.

31 N.R.O., YC 19/5, fo. 323. This election is discussed at greater length in Cust, ‘Parliamentary elections in the 1620s: Great Yarmouth’.

32 N.R.O., YC 19/5, fo. 292V.

33 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 59r.

34 N.R.O., YC 19/5 and 19/6, passim.

35 Henry Davy (elected 1625), William Buttolph and Thomas Greene (elected 1626), John Lucas (elected 1630) and John Robbins (elected 1631) can all be counted as members of this puritan group, and Titus Harward (elected 1625) generally voted with them. Of the new aldermen only Thomas Medowe (elected 1628) can be described as a Cooper supporter.

36 D.N.B., Miles Corbett; Shipps, K. W., ‘Lay patronage of East Anglian puritan clerics in preRevolutionary England’ (Yale University, Ph.D. dissertation, 1971), pp. 226–30; N.R.O., YC 19/5, fo. 336r; 18/6, fo. 219gr. This was Miles Corbett the regicideGoogle Scholar.

37 Cust, ‘Parliamentary elections in the 1620s: Great Yarmouth’; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. ior, 89V; 18/6, fos. 220r, 241 v, 242V.

38 The hard core of the puritan group consisted ofJohnson, Owner, Davy, Buttolph, Nicholas Cutting, Ezechiel Harris, Thomas Greene and John Lucas. Those who normally supported them amongst the aldermen were: Harward, Thomas Thompson and Godfrey Wilgres. Their most conspicuous supporters amongst the common councilmen were: Robbins, Anthony Speck, John Carter, Robert Gower, Ralph Owner and Robert Vivers. For the personal links and friendships which bound together leading members of the puritan group, see the following wills: P.R.O., PROB 11/56 Seagar (Ralph Owner, 1634); n/52 Coventry (Robbins, 1640); n/6 6 Coventry (Thompson, 1640); 11/64 Cambell (Davy, 1642); N.R.O., Norwich Consistory Court, 75 Barker (Greene, 1647).

39 PRO., C.2/CHAS I/Y1/58; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. isr, 19V. The animosity between the two ministers may have been due in part to the fact that Brinsley continued to preach when Reeve abandoned his post during the 1625 plague: , Swinden, Tarmouth, p. 838; N.R.O., YC 19/5, fo. 334 rGoogle Scholar.

40 P.R.O., S.P.16/19/31.

41 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. ior; 18/6, fo. aaor.

42 Laud, W., Theworks, 7vok.(Oxford, 1853), 1, 61–90; P.R.O., S.P. 16/19/31Google Scholar.

43 Cust, R. P., The forced loan and English politics 1626–1628 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 17 -23 48–51Google Scholar.

44 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 30r, 33 r. Cooper was sixty and Hardware was fifty-four. Cooper's brother Isaac had served as bailiff in 1600 and 1610, Cooper himself in 1609 and 1618, Hardware n i 1612 and 1621. The earliest any member of the puritan group had served as bailiff was Edward Owner in 1616.

45 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 3gr; , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 478–80, 510Google Scholar.

46 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 67V, 71 v, 72.

47 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 481; N.R.O., YC 18/6, fos. 236v-237rGoogle Scholar.

48 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 79r.

49 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 481; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 58V; P.R.O., S.P. 16/71/88, 78/9;Google Scholar, Cust, Forced loan, pp. 106, 249–51Google Scholar.

50 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 483, 510; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 74r, 79r, 81 v, 106rGoogle Scholar.

51 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 117V, 118v.

52 P.R.O., S.P. 16/178/48.

53 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 511; P.R.O., S.P. 16/147/57, 58Google Scholar.

54 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 106r, 120V, 128r, 309 r.

55 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 510, 512; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. ugv, 122r, 123V; P.R.O., S.P. 16/147/57Google Scholar.

56 P.R.O., S.P. 16/143/2; , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 488; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 126rGoogle Scholar.

57 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. i23r. The list of signatures has not survived, but they probably included Isaac Cooper, John Eachard, William Grey, Leonard Holmes and Thomas Medowe, all of whom were regular supporters and who were absent from the meeting of 18 March 1628/9 which ordered action against the certificate: N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 122r.

58 P.R.O., S.P. 16/143/2.

59 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 123V, 127r, 129r; P.R.O., S.P. 16/143/2.

60 Bond, S. and Evans, N., ‘The process of granting charters to English boroughs, 1547–1649’, English Historical Review [hereafter E.H.R.], XCI (1976), 103, 105; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 132r; PRO., S.P. 16/148/36, 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 P.R.O., S.P. 16/148/61, 295/48, 297/33.

62 Ibid. S.P. 16/148/40.

63 N.R.O., YC 18/6, fo. 250V.

64 Ibid. 19/6, fos. 133r, 134r; PRO., S.P. 16/148/60, 61.

65 PRO., S.P. 16/148/88.

66 Dorchester showed himself to be a good friend of the town in December 1629 when he spoke up in the privy council to secure a renewal of their herring export licence: N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 145 r.

67 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 1331r; P.R.O., S.P. 16/148/58.

68 N.R.O., YC 18/6, fo. 251 r; P.R.O., S.P. 16/147/56; A.P.C. 1629–30, pp. 92, 99, 112–13.

69 P.R.O., S.P. 16/147/56, 57; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 123r, 130r, 131 v.

70 P.R.O., S.P. 16/147/56; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 131.

71 A.P.C. 1629–30, pp. 112–13; P.R.O., S.P. 16/148/58; , Swindcn, Yarmouth, p. 490; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 132r, 1331rGoogle Scholar.

72 D.N.B., Sir John Suckling and James Ley, earl of Marlborough.

73 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 512; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 123r, 127r; 18/6, fo. 255rGoogle Scholar.

74 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 141v-142r.

75 Historical Manuscripts Commission (hereafter H.M.C.), MSS in various collections, VII (1914), 87 (I am grateful to David Smith for this reference); A.P.C. 1627–8, p. 129; N.R.O., YC 18/6, fo. 251 vGoogle Scholar.

76 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 486, 514–15Google Scholar.

77 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 503; P.R.O., S.P. 16/154/2, 166/49, 168/21; Bond and Evans, ‘The process of granting charters’, p. 107Google Scholar.

78 P.R.O., S.P. 16/166/49.

79 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 503Google Scholar.

80 P.R.O., S.P. 16/154/1,2, 166/49, 47/58; Minute Books of dean and chapter, p. 67.

81 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 503Google Scholar.

82 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 503–4Google Scholar.

83 Ibid. p., 503; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 153.

84 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 501–2, 505–7; P.R.O., S.P. 16/171/9Google Scholar.

85 P.R.O., L.C. 5/132, p. 184; A.P.C. 1629–30, p. vii; P.R.O., S.P. 16/189/26.

86 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 195v, 197r.

87 Ibid. fos. 141 r, 150r, 1791r, 182v, 193V.

88 Ibid. fo. 1621r; , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 509–3Google Scholar.

89 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 181 r.

90 A.P.C. 1630–1, p. 384; P.R.O., S.P. 16/194/29.

91 P.R.O., S.P. 16/195/16; P.C. 2/41, pp. 77, 84, 94; , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 514–15Google Scholar.

92 P.R.O., P.C. 2/41, pp. 308–9, 357, 365r.

93 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 309r, 317r, 333V; , Palmer, Illustrations of domestic architecture P. 13; P.R.O., PROB 11/59 Coventry (Cooper, 1640)Google Scholar.

94 Lake, P. G., ‘Serving God and the times; the Calvinist conformity of Robert Sanderson’, Journal of British Studies, XXVII (1988), 81-116Google Scholar; , Tyacke, Anti-Calmnists, p. 262. For an example of conformist-Laudian alliances in Buckinghamshire, see the letters of John Andrewes inGoogle ScholarSummers, W. H., ‘Some documents in the State Papers relating to Beaconsfield’, Records of Buckinghamshire, VII (1897), 97-114Google Scholar.

95 , Swinden, Tarmouth, p. 843; P.R.O., C.2/CHAS 1/N30/104; House of Lords Record Office (hereafter H.L.R.O.), Main papers, 9 June 1641, ‘Petition of Matthew Brooks’Google Scholar.

96 H.M.C., Report on the MSS of Earl Cowper, 4 vols. (1888–1889), I, 465; Bodl. L., Tanner 134, fo. 189; see footnote 25 above and also the following wills: P.R.O., PROB 11 /121 Goare (Gregory Goorse, 1637); 11/66 Coventry (Thomas Thompson, 1640); 11/167 Coventry (Thomas Tillson, jr, 1640) jr. 1640)Google Scholar.

97 Shipps, ‘Lay patronage’, pp. 221–36; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 126V, 153r; Brinsley, J., The preacher's charge and the people's duty (London, 1631), dedication; N.R.O., diocese of Norwich, 6/4. Davy and Greene left bequests to Brinsley in their wills: see footnote 38 aboveGoogle Scholar.

98 D.N.B., Francis White; , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 844–5Google Scholar.

99 PRO., S.P. 16/158/45; Bodl. L., Tanner 134, fo. 184.

100 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fo. 147V; , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 502–3Google Scholar.

101 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 847; N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos.223V, 225V; Bodl. L., Tanner 133, fo. 55Google Scholar.

102 Bodl. L., Tanner 134, fo. 189.

103 , Swinden, Yarmouth, p. 849Google Scholar.

104 Ibid. p. 515; P.R.O., PC. 2/41, pp. 364–5, 379.

105 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 848–9Google Scholar.

106 Ibid. p. 851; H.M.C., Cowper, 1, 32a, 340, 367, 468, 480; , Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, pp. 170, 176Google Scholar.

107 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 851–2; Shipps, ‘Lay patronage’, p. 236. Laud was probably unaware of Burdett's nonconformityGoogle Scholar.

108 P.R.O., P.C. 2/42, p. 428; , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 853–4Google Scholar.

109 P.R.O., S.P. 16/261/fos. 165–9; 533/25.

110 Yarmouth claims to have the largest parish church in England: Pevsner, N., The buildings of England: Norfolk (1962), p. 143. The 1619 history of the town, attributed to Henry Manship, states that in that year the church was able to seat 6,000 communicants, arranged hierarchically with the assembly members occupying pride of place in a gallery on the south side:Google ScholarManship, H., The history of Great Yarmouth, ed. Palmer, C. J. (1854), P. 36Google Scholar.

111 N.R.O., diocese of Norwich, vis. 6/4; P.R.O., S.P. 16/261, fos. 165–9.

112 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 275V, 277r; PRO., S.P. 16/261, fos. 165–9; 533/25.

113 N.R.O., diocese of Norwich, vis. 6/4; P.R.O., P.C. 2/43, pp. 405–6; C.a/CHAS I/N30/104.

114 N.R.O., YC 19/6, fos. 319V, 318r, 348r; Shipps, ‘Lay patronage’, p. 240.

115 , Swinden, Yarmouth, pp. 855–6; N.R.O., Churchwarden's accounts of St. Nicholas Yarmouth 1575–1636, YC 39/1; Calender ofstate papers domestic 1635, p. xxxi. The episcopal visitation of carried this work even further: H.M.C., Ninth report (1883–4), appendix, p. 311Google Scholar.

116 For examples of the scope for competing local interests to secure a favourable hearing at court in this period see Lake, P. G., ‘The collection of ship money in Cheshire during the 1630s: a case study in relations between local and central government’, Northern History, XVII (1981), 52–4 andGoogle ScholarQuintrell, B. W., ‘Lancashire's ills, the king's will and the troubling of Bishop Bridgeman’, Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Historical Society, CXXXII (1983), 67-102Google Scholar.

117 Hill, C., Society and puritanism in pre-Revolutionary England (1969 paperback edition), pp. 97–9;Google ScholarHowell, R., ‘The structure of urban politics in the English Civil War’, Albion, XI (1979), 111–12; Statutes of the Realm (1819), v, 575CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 , Hill, Society and puritanism, p. 111Google Scholar; , Collinson, Godly people, pp. 490–1; I. M. Calder (ed.),Google ScholarActivities of the puritan faction in the Church of England 1625–33 (1957). P. 100Google Scholar.

119 P.R.O., S.P. 16/160/52i; Calendar of state papers domestic 1629–31, P. 270.

120 P.R.O., S.P. 16/224/40.

121 Ibid. S.P. 16/361/24, 366/48. 381/12. For the background to this see Lake, P. G., ‘Puritanism, Arminianism and a Shropshire axe-murder’, Midland History, xv (1990), 37-64Google Scholar.

122 Langston, J. N., ‘John Workman, puritan lecturer in Gloucester’, Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, XLVI (1945), 219–32Google Scholar.

123 Slack, P., ‘Religious protest and urban authority: the case of Henry Sherfield, iconoclast, 1633’ in Baker, D. (ed.), Studies in church history, XI (Cambridge, 1972), 295–302Google Scholar. For Charles's hounding of Sherfield see Hampshire Record Office (hereafter H.R.O.), 44M69, Sherfield papers, L/25/6/1, memo book, unfoliated, entry for 15 Feb. 1632/3.

124 Cust, The forced loan; Reeve, L.J., Charles I and the road to personal rule (Cambridge, 1989); Cust, ‘Charles I and a draft declaration’CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125 Reeve, Charles I and the road to personal rule.

126 The puritan assembly members were not the Anabaptist sympathizers that their opponents liked to imply. They dealt severely enough with the few Anabaptists who were discovered in the town to allay any doubts on this score; and their own religious activities, with their ‘gadding’ to sermons and their meetings in the Dutch chapel, were characteristic of the ‘voluntary religion’ which Professor Collinson sees as part of the mainstream of English puritanism. Nor was there much evidence of popular disorder in the town. Sifting through the events of the period for evidence of this, Matthew Brooks was able to identify only one incident which resembled a riot, and that occurred in 1641: P.R.O., S.P. 16/171/9; Collinson, P., The religion ofprotestants (Oxford, 1982), ch. 6; H.L.R.O., Main papers, 9 June 1641Google Scholar.

127 This is based on my reading of the evidence presented in Smith, D. L., ‘The fourth earl of Dorset and the personal rule of Charles I’, J.B.S., XXX (1991), 257–87. See alsoCrossRefGoogle Scholar, Cust, Forced loan, pp. 29, 45, 55–6, 77Google Scholar; Smuts, R. M., ‘The puritan followers of Henrietta Maria in the 1630s’, E.H.R., XCII (1978), 26–45; H.R.O., 44M69, Sherfield papers, LXV/3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Complete collection of state trials, ed. Cobbett, W. W. and Howell, T. B., 33 vols. (1809–1826), III, 554–5 (I am grateful to David Smith for advice on the Sherfield case)Google Scholar.

128 , Reeve, Charles I and the nod to personal rule, chs. 4–8Google Scholar.

129 For evidence of collaboration between the Dorchester and Dorset factions in this period, see P.R.O., S.P. 16/194/29- For Dorset's success on another occasion in persuading the king to back down from a hasty decision, see , Smith, ‘Dorset and the personal rule’, p. 283Google Scholar.

130 , Lake, ‘Shropshire axe-murder’, p. 50Google Scholar; Welch, C. E., ‘The downfall of Bishop Williams’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological Society, XL (1964–1965). 42–58Google Scholar; Stater, V. L., ‘The lieutenancy on the eve of civil war: the impressment of George Plowright’, Historical Journal, XXIX (1986), 279–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

131 Corfield, P. (ed.), Language, history and class (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar.

132 Kishlansky, M., The rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar; idem, Parliamentary selection (Cambridge, 1986).