Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:55:18.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conscience and Context: the Popish Plot and the Politics of Ritual, 1678–1682*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Dan Beaver
Dan Beaver
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Popish Plot is the proper starting point for a reassessment of society and culture in late seventeenth-century England. The origins of the plot have become increasingly obscure, primarily because historians have made the erosion of Calvinist religious values and belief a defining characteristic of social and political change after the Restoration. John Kenyon has argued that the plot was an instance of mass hysteria, with its roots in the overcrowded, rumour-infested environment of London. Having identified post-Restoration nonconformity with cranks mentally ‘unhinged’ by the civil wars and the Great Fire, Kenyon interprets the plot as an obvious fabrication foisted on a paranoid and credulous nation by adventurers and religious extremists. Christopher Hill, in rare agreement with Kenyon, sees the decline of the religious approach to politics until ‘by the time of the Popish Plot it had degenerated into a stunt manipulated by cynical politicians’.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 297 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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 Kenyon, J. P., The Popish Plot (Harmondsworth, 1974 [1972]), pp. 272–3Google Scholar. For Kenyon's, views on ‘the collapse of puritanism’, see his Stuart England, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth, 1985), p. 196Google Scholar.

2 Hill, Christopher, The century of revolution, 2nd edn (Wokingham, 1980), p. 196Google Scholar.

3 The following interpretation has evolved from reading in sociology and anthropology. Thebest introductions to the rules and debates of these disciplines are Wolf, Eric, Anthropology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1964)Google Scholar; Berger, Peter L. and Berger, Brigitte, Sociology: a biographical approach, rev. edn (Harmondsworth, 1976)Google Scholar; Leach, Edmund, Social anthropology (Glasgow, 1982)Google Scholar; and Lewis, I. M., Social anthropology in perspective: the relevance of social anthropology, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar. My own perspective is based on Durkheim, Emile, The elementary forms of the religious life (London, 1976[1915])Google Scholar; Simmel, Georg, The sociology of religion (New York, 1959[1906])Google Scholar; Simmel, Georg, Conflict and the web of group affiliations (New York, 1955[1908])Google Scholar; and Schutz, Alfred, Collected papers, 3 vols. (The Hague, 1962, 1964)Google Scholar.

4 This egocentric definition of power focuses on the process whereby worlds are created inwhich to act. The ability to define relationships and create social worlds is a product of primary socialization and is possessed to some degree by every inhabitant of a society. The imparting of these skills and the rulesof their use to each new generation is the means by which a society reproduces itself. The created worlds of social actors thus constitute the intersection between a rule-bound, objective social environment and the subjective disposition of the actor. See Schutz, Alfred, ‘On multiple realities’ and ‘Symbol, reality, and society’ in Collected Papers, Vol. 1: The problem of social reality (The Hague, 1962), pp. 207–59, 287–356 (esp. 306–11)Google Scholar; Schutz, Alfred, ‘The Stranger: an essay in social psychology’ in Collected papers, Vol. 2: Studies in social theory (The Hague, 1964), pp. 91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 G[loucestershire] R[ecord] O[ffice]: G[loucester] D[iocesan] R[ecords] 211, Depositions, October 1662–November, 1669[n.p.]:Case of John Cooke v. Thomas Jeynes. One problem with using these sources is the performative aspect of the deposition itself. Witnesses examined in the church court might well have an interest in the misrepresentation of another's actions. Even in the extreme case of an outright lie, however, descriptions of a performance must conform to rules circumscribing the range of possible performances. Since the interest is in the nature of performance and not in whether any particular performance actually took place, it seems safe to proceed with an analysis of witnesses' accounts.

6 Jeynes's allegations were made in a complex environment, and the potential for miscommunication and a failed performance was correspondingly great. Thomas Kyrton's view of the incident in the church was obstructed, and he knew only that ‘many high words’ had passed between Jeynes and Cooke. Ibid. Deposition of Thomas Kyrton.

7 The procedure and personnel of the consistory courts are described in detail in Hockaday, F. S., ‘The consistory court of the diocese of Gloucester’, Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, XLVI (1924), 195–287Google Scholar; and Houlbrooke, Ralph, Church courts and the people during the English Reformation, 1520–1570 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 21–54Google Scholar.

8 Apparitors were essentially the messengers of the consistory court, carrying citations and making sure the orders of the court were actually implemented in parish churches. They were also empowered to inquire into the behaviour of the inhabitants of their deanery and were often approached with allegations ofmisdeeds. See Price, F. D., ‘Elizabethan apparitors in the diocese of Gloucester’, The Church Quarterly Review, CXXXIV (1942), 37–55Google Scholar. For earlier evidence of a man privately cajoling his neighbour before presenting information in court, see G.R.O., G.D.R., 79, Depositions, April 1592–November, 1597 [n.p.]: Case of Downbell v. Downbell, Deposition of Thomas Reynolds.

9 For local influence in the Elizabethan consistory court, see Price, F. D., ‘An Elizabethan church official – Thomas Powell, chancellor of Gloucester diocese’, The Church Quarterly Review, CXXVIN (1939), 100, 108Google Scholar; and Price, F. D., ‘Elizabethan apparitors’, 47–51Google Scholar. For evidence from the later seventeenth century, see below.

10 Tewkesbury was first incorporated in 1575. A more generous charter was acquired from James I in 1610 and provided the framework for local administration until 1686. This Jacobean charter allowed fora council consisting of two bailiffs, 24 burgesses and 24 assistant burgesses, the office of bailiff being served by the burgesses in annual turns. Corporation and council are used interchangeably throughout the text to refer to this governing body. See Bennett, James, The history of Tewkesbury (Tewkesbury, 1830), pp. 42–3, 382–3Google Scholar.

11 For the political vicissitudes of sixteenth-century Tredington and Walton Cardiff, see the parish histories in Ellington, C. R. (ed.), The Victoria County History of Gloucester, 8 (Oxford, 1968), 233–4, 241Google Scholar.

12 The dispersed fields comprising Gupshill Farm, part of Tewkesbury Park, in Southwick, are described in P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], E134/29 Chas. II/12 Feb./Easter 10. For relevant tithe disputes, see G.R.O., G.D.R., B4/3/1173; G.D.R. 79, Depositions, April, 1592 – November, 1597, [n.p.]: Case of Read v. Langston; G.D.R. 89, Depositions, June, 1601 – March, 1604, [n.p.]: Case of Read v. Langston; P.R.O., E134/1653/12 Feb., 1652/Easter 2.

13 The Tewkesbury yearly register, 2 (Tewkesbury, 1850), 325Google Scholar.

14 Ibid.

15 P.R.O., E134/29 Chas. 11/12 Feb./Easter 10, Depositions of William Tombe and Humphrey Jeyne, tenants of a previous impropriator.

16 For a copy of the grant, see G.R.O., T[ewkesbury] B[orough] R[ecords] B5/34. The original grant was made 24 May 1610. It clearly defines Tredington as a chapelry within the parish of Tewkesbury and describes the ‘chaplain’ of Tredington as the ‘secondary’ of the ‘parish priest’ of Tewkesbury. The stipend of this ‘secondary’, with allowances for ‘bread, wine, wax, frankincence,…oil and ointment’, was to be paid ‘yearly and every year out of the rectory of Tewkesbury’.

17 For Aubrey as owner of the rectory and Dobbins as his farmer, see P.R.O., E134/29 Chas. II/12 Feb./Easter 10. For Dobbins on the borough council, see G.R.O., T.B.R. A1/4, list of burgesses and assistants in 1680 inside front cover, and council attendance lists throughout 1670s. Dobbins also appears as a prominent member of the vestry and one of the churchwardens enjoined to extract rates from the inhabitants of Walton Cardiff in November, 1678. See G.R.O., P329 CW2/1, p. 435.

18 P.R.O., E134/29 Chas. II/12 Feb./Easter 10; G.R.O., P329 [uncatalogued] 2, ‘Reasons why Tredington Chapel should be granted to the Vicar of Tewkesbury’.

19 The advowson of the vicarage of Tewkesbury was held by the crown. In 1674, Wells had acquired letters patent under the Great Seal ‘out of his own inclination and solicitation’, but his expenses were borne by William Aubrey, the impropriator of the rectory of Tewkesbury. Sir Francis Russell, one of the town's parliamentary representatives, probably acted for Wells in London, but definitive evidence of such help is lacking. The reason for this three-year hiatus between Wells' acquisition of the letters patent and his formal induction to the living is unclear. The corporation may have been angling for a form of presentation that would include Tredington and Walton Cardiff within the parish of Tewkesbury. See P.R.O., E134/29 Chas. II/4 July/Mich. 11, Deposition of Thomas Jeynes. The induction was not, however, the decisive statement the corporation desired. The council had sought to have Wells presented as ‘vicar de Tewkesbury cum capellis de Tredington et Walton Cardiff infra parochiam de Tewkesbury’, but the phrase actually used was the inconclusive ‘cum omnibus capellis’. For the corporation's style of presentation, see G.R.O.: P329 [uncatalogued] 2; for the final form of induction, G.R.O., G.D.R. 224, Detection Causes, September, 1671 –July, 1673, with list of institutions and collations, 1673–1680, looselyinserted.

20 P.R.O., E134/29 Chas. II/4 July/Mich. 11, Depositions of Francis Wells and Thomas Jeynes.

21 Tredington's standing as a parish in its own right rested upon a set of customary practices. The annual perambulation of parish boundaries, separate attendance upon the bishop at visitations, the keeping of a register for births, marriages and deaths, the transcripts of these registers sent to the bishop's court, and the separate election of parish officers were all advanced as evidence of Tredington'sindependence of Tewkesbury, in custom if not in law. See P.R.O., E134/29 Chas. 11/12 Feb./Easter 10, Depositions of James Cartwright, Thomas Cartwright, John Wadley and Humphrey Jeynes.

22 P.R.O., E134/Chas.II/4 July/Mich, II. Jeynes acted as churchwarden with Dobbins in November 1678, when the corporation tried to force a rate on Walton Cardiff.

23 G.R.O., P329 [uncatalogued] 3.

24 P.R.O., E134/29 Chas. II/4 July/Mich. 11.

25 G.R.O., G.D.R. 234, Chancellor's visitation, 1678.

26 Robert Wriggan reappeared as curate of Tredington in the visitation of 1681 and may also have reclaimed the curacy of Walton Cardiff. The Tewkesbury vestry continued to assert the right to levy rates in Walton Cardiff, but the legal campaign was allowed to lapse for four years. In 1682, the legal case for rates in Walton was revived, to be finally laid to rest when the town lost its suit at Gloucester Lent Assizes in1683. G.R.O., G.D.R. 240, Winchcombe Deanery; P329 CW 2/1, pp. 435, 446, 450, 455, 461, 462. See also The Tewkesbury yearly register, 2 (Tewkesbury 1850), 315–6Google Scholar.

27 Wells took his M.A. at Gloucester Hall, Oxford, in 1629. His enemies claimed in 1680 that ‘he was formerly a preacher to a regiment of the late rebels’. Other sources indicate his radicalism stopped short of regicide, and he is said to have preached on the execution of St John the Baptist on the Sunday following the death of Charles I. See Foster, Joseph (ed.), Alumni oxonienses (Oxford, 1892), p. 1595Google Scholar; Matthews, A. G., Calamy revised (Oxford, 1934), p. 519Google Scholar; G.R.O., D747/1, Petition of Corporation to Bishop Elect of Gloucester.

28 Curates were licensed by the bishop and could be removed fairly easily when licences expired. A vicar held his benefice for life. He could be suspended indefinitely but could only be deprived of hisliving by an elaborate and costly legal process.

29 Bodl[eian Library], Tanner MS 147, fo. 148. I thank Sears McGee for the references to sources in the Bodleian and for many other kindnesses.

30 G.R.O., G.D.R. B4/1/2500; G.D.R. 232, Depositions, February, 1678–January, 1684 [n.p.]: Depositions of Thomas Nanfan, William Jennings, Mathias Maide, Phillip Hilly and Nicholas Staight; Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fos. 128, 130; G.R.O., D747/1.

31 G.R.O., G.D.R., B4/1/2500.

32 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 130.

33 G.R.O., G.D.R., B4/1/2500.

34 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 128.

35 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 130.

36 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 128.

37 G.R.O., D747/1, Simpson to bishop of Gloucester, March 1682.

38 Russell was a whig activist and was in London when Wells acquired letters patent under the Great Seal for presentation to the vicarage. Russell's subsequent failure to stand behind Wells was anearly indication of the distance between prominent landholding whigs and populist religious radicals. See Earle, Peter, Monmouth's rebels: the road to Sedgemoor, 1685 (New York, 1977), pp. 191–4Google Scholar. I have found no evidence to indicate Russell was informed of the corporation's fiscal motive for elevating Wells from the curacy to the vicarage.

39 G.R.O., G.D.R., B4/1/2500. My thanks to Mr Brian Frith for his expert help with a very difficult document and for sharing his unrivalled knowledge of local records on many other points.

40 Ibid.

41 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 190; G.R.O., D747/1.

42 G.R.O., G.D.R., 233, Winchcombe deanery. Parsons was then acting as surrogate for the chancellor, John Nicholson.

43 G.R.O., G.D.R., 230, Winchcombe deanery.

44 Matthews, , Calamy revised, p. 519Google Scholar; G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/4, 20 January 1678/9.

46 G.R.O., P329 CW 2/1, p. 435.

47 G.R.O., G.D.R., B4/1/2500.

47 G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/4, 17 December 1678.

48 G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/4, 4 November 1679; D747/1.

49 G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/4, 20 January 1678/9.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid. 6 February 1678/9.

52 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 136; G.R.O., D747/1.

53 G.R.O., D747/1.

54 Ibid.

55 L[ambeth] P[alace] L[ibrary]: Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3.

56 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/2; G.R.O., D747/1, Simpson to Thomas Haslewood, esq., with articles against Wells.

57 G.R.O., P329 CW 2/1, fo. 254.

58 My assumption throughout is that Wells knew precisely what he was doing when he alteredthe form of the service. Wells's opponents consistently presented him as a senile old man no longer in control of his actions, but his surviving letters indicate he was at least as sane as any of the other parties to the conflict. See Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fos. 130, 134; G.R.O., 0747/1, Wells to Sir Francis Russell.

59 G.R.O., P329 IN 1/4, fo. 35; G.D.R., 232, Deposition of Mathias Maide, 1679; LPL., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 488/6.

60 G.R.O., D747/1.

61 Ibid. L.P.L., Arches case 9780, D2229 and 2230, fiche no. 12066, fo. 59.

62 G.R.O., D747/1.

63 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 132a.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 G.R.O., G.D.R., 230, Detection causes, 1677–80.

67 G.R.O., D747/1; L.P.L., Arches case 9780, D2229 and 2230, fiche no. 12066, fos. 60– 60v.

68 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/4, Deposition of William Jennings.

69 G.R.O., G.D.R., 232, Deposition of William Jennings.

70 G.R.O., D747/1; L.P.L., Arches case 9780, D2229 and 2230, fiche no. 12066, fos. 6I–6IV.

71 G.R.O., D747/1.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3.

76 Ibid.

77 G.R.O., D747/1.

78 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fos. 134, 136.

79 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 136.

80 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 132a.

81 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3; P.R.O., Prob. 11/421/149 for Laight's occupation and wealth; for his connexions with nonconformists down to his death in 1691, see U[niversity] C[ollege] L[ibrary], Manuscripts Division: R[ecords of] F[our] T[ewkesbury] V[icars], vol. 13, Joseph Laight's funeral sermon.

82 U.C.L., R.F.T.V., vol. 13, sermon for Laight; Bodl: Rawlinson MS A39, fo. 528.

83 Bodl. Rawlinson MS A39, fo. 528.

84 G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/3.

85 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3, Deposition of Edward Baker.

86 G.R.O., G.D.R. 230, Detection causes, Winchcombe deanery.

87 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3, Deposition of Edward Baker.

88 G.R.O., Prob. 1628/39; p329 IN 1/4, 21 February 1640; P329 IN 1/2, fo. 105.

89 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 488/6.

90 G.R.O., Prob. 1665/99; position of houses indicated by hearth tax return, P.R.O., E179 247/14, or photostat in G.R.O., D383; for Maide as assistant burgess, G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/4, list inside front cover.

91 G.R.O., Prob. 1665/99; PRO., E179 247/14 or G.R.O., D383.

92 L.P.L., Arches case 9780, D2229 and 2230, fiche no. 12064, fo. 30V.

93 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 488/6.

94 P.R.O., E179 247/14, or G.R.O., D383.

95 Ibid.

96 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3, Deposition of Thomas Nanfan.

97 P.R.O., E179 247/14, or G.R.O., D383.

98 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 488/6; P.R.O., E179 247/14. or G.R.O., D383.

99 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/2, Deposition of Joseph Face.

100 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 132a.

101 G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/4, 20 January 1678. It could be argued that by fighting to restrict the number of paupers allowed to settle in the town, the council was increasing its power to assist those remaining in its care, thus indirectly satisfying the demands of charity. The bequest, however, was clearly intended to benefit the poor by direct disbursement among them.

102 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 136; P.R.O., E179 247/14, or G.R.O., D383.

103 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3.

104 P.R.O., E179 247/14, or G.R.O., D383.

105 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3 and Bbb. 488/6.

106 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3.

107 Fenwick, T. Fitz-Roy and Metcalfe, Walter (eds.), Visitation of the county of Gloucester, 1682–3 (Exeter, 1884), p. 125Google Scholar.

108 Ibid.

109 G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/3, fo. 19 and T.B.R., A1/4, passim.

110 For the Corporation Act, see Sacret, J. H., ‘The Restoration government and municipal corporations’, English Historical Review, XLV (1930), 232–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ogg, David, England in the reign of Charles II, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1956), pp. 198, 517–19Google Scholar; and Miller, John, ‘The crown and the borough charters in the reign of Charles II’, English Historical Review L (1985), 53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/3, and T.B.R., A1/4, passim.

112 G.R.O., T.B.R., A1/3, fo. 101.

113 Bennett, , History of Tewkesbury, p. 208Google Scholar; G.R.O., D2688, fo. 118v.

114 G.R.O., D747/1.

115 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 190; Eward, Suzanne, No fine but a glass of wine: cathedral life at Gloucester in Stuart times (Salisbury: Michael Russell Ltd., 1985), p. 208Google Scholar.

116 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 190.

117 G.R.O., D747/1, Parsons to Horner, 9 October 1680.

118 Ibid. Petition to the archbishop, October/November 1680.

119 Ibid. Petition to the archbishop as revised by Parsons, 13 October 1680; Parsons to Simpson, 13 October 1680.

120 Ibid. Parsons to Horner, 9 October 1680.

121 Ibid. Parsons to Simpson, no date [September 1680].

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid. Inhibition to Simpson from the Arches, 23 August 1680.

124 Ibid. Petition by burgesses to archbishop, October/November 1680.

125 Ibid. Parsons to Horner, 9 October 1680; Horner to Simpson, 25 April 1681.

126 Ibid. Nixon to Simpson, 21 April–11 October 1681; Horner to Simpson, 25 April 1681.

127 Ibid. Parsons to Simpson, no date [October 1681].

128 Ibid. Simpson's allegation against Wells in the Arches; Nixon to Simpson, 29 September 1681.

129 This statement has survived as L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/2.

130 G.R.O., D747/1, Nixon to Simpson, 11 October 1681.

131 Ibid. Petition to the archbishop, October/November 1680; Petition to the bishop elect of Gloucester, no date [1681].

132 Ibid. Articles against Wells in consistory court, 28 March 1679.

133 L.P.L., Arches case 9780, DQ229 and 2230, fiche no. 12064, fo. 30V; G.R.O., G.D.R., 228, fos. 116V.–117.

134 G.R.O., G.D.R., 228, fos. 116V.–117.

135 G.R.O., D747/1, Copy of bishop's definitive sentence, 2 August 1680.

136 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/3, Deposition of William Jennings.

137 L.P.L., Arches case 9783, Bbb. 502/2.

138 Bodl. Tanner MS 147, fo. 189.