Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T07:13:50.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conscription and English Society in the 1620s*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Stephen J. Stearns
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few habitual activities of government engender more dissatisfaction than conscription for military service. Complaints about taxation are, perhaps, more frequent but only because governments wage war more spasmodically than they collect revenues. From the perspective of the twentieth century, which has seen more men pressed into military service than any other period in the known past, the history of conscription and its impact on the political and social order ought to be of some interest.

The seventeenth century, like the twentieth, was wracked with continuous warfare, naked power struggles for international hegemony and fierce ideological combat. As a consequence, while at the beginning of the century no major European state had a standing army, at its end all had. In England, as in the rest of Europe, the century echoed to the banging of the recruiter's drum. Our view of the recruiting process under the Stuart monarchs is framed at each end of the century by two brilliant and brutally satirical portraits, Shakespeare's Falstaff and Farquahar's recruiting officer Captain Plume with his ever present Sergeant Kite. What they tell us is that the crown was horribly served, getting for soldiers the Feebles of mind and body, that providing men for military service (whether pressed or “recruited”) was a dirty, unfair and corrupt process and that the situation under good Queen Anne was the same as it had been under good Queen Bess. This “Falstaffian perspective” on the early Stuart period has never been challenged or examined in detail.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , May 1972 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1972

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.)

Footnotes

*

The research for the article was completed with the aid of a Fulbright grant, and its writing with the support of a grant from the Research Fund of the City University of New York.

References

1. G. N. Clark noted that Europe was at peace for only seven whole years during the century. Clark, G. N., The Seventeenth Century (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1947), p. 98Google Scholar.

2. Clark, , Seventeenth Century, p. 102Google Scholar.

3. Firth, C H., Cromwell's Army (3rd ed.; London, 1962), p. 3Google Scholar.

4. Boynton, Lindsay, The Elizabethan Militia (London, 1967), p. 5Google Scholar.

5. The best general account remains Gardiner, S. R., History of England 1603–1642 (London, 1883–1884), 10 VolsGoogle Scholar. For the expeditions see Vol. VI, 1-23 on Cadiz and VI, 167-199 on Re.

6. See Cruickshank, C. G., Elizabeth's Army (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1966), p. 12Google Scholar.

7. For examples of signet letters ordering a levy see Public Record Office [PRO], State Papers Domestic, James I [SP 14] Vol. 175, no. 52 [175/52] and State Papers Domestic, Charles I [SP 16] 5/62 for the Mansfeld and Cadiz expedition presses. Drafts of the letters for the Mansfeld press are in the state papers. SP 14/173/88 enclosure I and 173/89-91.

8. See Rich, Barnaby, A Right Excellent and Pleasant Dialogue between Mercury and an English Soldier (London, 1604)Google Scholar, as quoted in Wake, Joan (ed.), The Montagu Muster Book (Longden, 1935), p. xxxixGoogle Scholar. For the practice of sending instructions see the minute books of the deputy lieutenants of the East Division of Sussex printed in Sussex Archaeological Collections, XL (1896), 1–37Google Scholar.

9. While the “kings shilling” was often a shilling (PRO, SP 14/182/33, SP 16/3/92), sometimes it was only sixpence (SP 14/176/60, SP 16/1/56), and occasionally only fourpence (SP 16/4/160 f.38v and 66/41).

10. For examples of military indentures, of which there are a large number in the State Papers, see the two cases of indentures for the Mansfeld expedition. PRO, SP 14/178 and 179.

11. Acts of the Privy Council of England [A.P.C.] 1623-25, pp. 351-52; A.P.C. 1625-26, p. 42; A.P.C. 1627, p. 100; PRO, SP 16/63/94.

12. A.P.C. 1623-25, pp. 351-52, 371, 375-77, 434-35; A.P.C. 1625-26, pp. 55, 135-36, 172; A.P.C. 1627, pp. 216-17, 271, 455-57.

13. Cruickshank, , Elizabeth's Army, p. 290Google Scholar. For the Portugal expedition see Wernham, R. B., “Elizabeth and the Portugal Expedition of 1589,” English Historical Review, LXV (1951), 19Google Scholar.

14. A.P.C. 1623-25, pp. 351-52, 375-77, 434-35; A.P.C. 1625-26 pp. 55, 135-36, 172; A.P.C. 1627, pp. 216-17, 271, 455-57.

15. This is based on Rickman's estimate, that England had about five million people and Scotland and Ireland one million each. See Great Britain Parliament. Accounts and Papers, XXII (London, 1843)Google Scholar. (Reports from Commissioners XI, 37.)

16. A.P.C. 1623-25, pp. 249-50.

17. See, for example, Calendar to the Sessions Books and Sessions Minute Books … of the County of Hertford 1619–1657 (Hertford, 1928), pp. 44, 71, 104–05Google Scholar which shows a half dozen men held by the county until they could be shipped off to foreign service. The central records are just as scanty. For 1624 they show a dozen or so reprieves. See Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1619-23, p. 462; PRO, SP 14/168/19, 16, 170/17, 19, 29, 86, 172/53, 173/110 174/77, 176/53, 184/54, SP 16/3/30. Though not conclusive, the suggestion is reasonable that the scanty documents reflect a limited number of petty criminals being sent off to the service. None of the reprieves noted here was for a crime of violence. Most were petty thieves, sneak thieves, burglars and horse thieves, with an occasional coin clipper or highway robber for good measure.

18. PRO, SP 16/66/41.

19. PRO, SP 16/73/52, 74/29, 75/37, 82/86.

20. PRO, SP 16/74/29, 75/37.

21. PRO, SP 16/75/37.

22. PRO, SP 16/73/65. It was similarly proposed to the council that “clothiers,” the employers not the employees, should also be exempted, to protect their industry, though this does not appear to have won formal acceptance. SP 16/56/100.

23. The sample is based on indentures giving occupations for 1250 men pressed for the Mansfeld and Cadiz expeditions, PRO, SP 14/178/11, 179/1, 4, 18-21, 26, 31-32, SP 16/2/72, 101 and British Museum [BM], Additional MSS, 34, 217.

24. See , R. H. and Tawney's, A. J. analysis in “An Occupational Census of the 17th Century,” Economic History Review, V (1934), 38–43Google Scholar. The census was done in 1608, not the 1620s, but it is unlikely that the county had altered its occupational pattern dramatically in the intervening sixteen years. One factor not taken account of here, regarding the heavy burden of the levy on the rural landless, is that of age. It may be argued that the heavy pressing of the landless was a result of the fact that most of the community's young men were landless. If we could assume that the levy concentrated on younger men in roughly the same age bracket that modern conscription does this might explain some of the disparity. Unfortunately the range of evidence examined here is not very helpful about the age of levies, though the range of ages was far broader than twentieth-century drafts.

25. For the local administration of the levy see the deputy lieutenants books in Sussex Archaeological Collections, XL, 1–37Google Scholar and Historical Manuscripts Commission, 13th Report, Appendix IV (the Manuscripts of Rye and Hereford Corporations, Capt. Loder-Symonds, Mr. E. R. Woodhouse, M.P. and others) 1892, pp. 433-63 for a Suffolk deputy lieutenant book.

26. BM, Harleian MSS, 37, f. 112. Wake, , ed., Montagu Muster Book, p. xxxixGoogle Scholar.

27. BM, Harl. MSS, 37, f. 112.

28. PRO, SP 14/176/65, 177/33.

29. Herbert, Edward, [Cherbury, Lord], The Expedition to the Isle of Rhe (London, 1860), p. 46Google Scholar.

30. PRO, SP 16/4/160. Leigh's survey is not complete but roughly 200 men were described as “defective,” 26 more as “aged” (sixty was regarded as too old), and 24 others were noted as “sick” with no details given. As a crude approximation we can suggest that at least as many as ten per cent of the men pressed were immediately and obviously unfit for duty.

31. PRO, SP 16/4/160, f. 12. Leigh's report, Summarizing from the “book of particulars” taken in the field, notes examples of insufficient men not being listened to by commissioners from London, ff. 3, 11, deputy Its. from Berkshire f. 15, Staffordshire f. 17, Essex f. 21, Norfolk f. 21. Particular complaints of strangers pressed while passing through a county were noted for London ff. 3. 5, 7, 9 — seven cases for Staffordshire f. 17, Essex f. 21, Cambridge f. 29 and Kent f. 35. Complaints that particular constables released men for cash rewards were made for Berkshire f. 19, Warwickshire f. 19 — two cases, Essex f. 21, Norfolk f. 25 — three cases, Cambridge f. 29, Shropshire f. 31, Kent ffs. 33, 35 — five cases, and Lancashire f. 38—11 cases. These represent only particular complaints in which a named soldier complains of a named constable or the deputies in his county. The report refers throughout to additional complaints in the “book of particulars,” so that these depositions, not verified by investigation to be sure, represent the bare minimum of complaints.

32. PRO, SP 16/4/160 f. 23.

33. PRO, SP 16/4/160 f. 5.

34. Other charges of malicious pressing on this occasion were numerous. See PRO, SP 16/4/160 S. 31-35 for Kent, f. 17 Staffordshire, f. 15 three examples from Berkshire. One man accused Sir Robert Knowles of causing him to be pressed because he went fishing in a common pool. For other occasions cf. Barnes, T. G., Somerset 1625–1640 (London, 1961) p. 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar and for the Re press SP 16/77/31.

35. PRO, SP 16/4/160 f. 23.

36. PRO, SP 14/185/21 Encl. 1, item 2.

37. PRO, SP 16/61/98.

38. PRO, SP 16/64/38.

39. PRO, SP 16/61/98.

40. PRO, SP 14/185/21. Enclosure 1. Item “37” (misnumbered). The deputy lieutenant's servant thought 40 or 50 shillings was the average sum. Item ”9.” The depositions bear out his figure.

41. PRO, SP 14/185/21. Item 1.

42. Ibid. Item 9.

43. Ibid. Item 8.

44. PRO, SP 14/185/21.

45. Deputy lieutenants like Sadler had to threaten constables to overpress because the constables stood to lose the cost of victualling the extra men until they were released. Since the constable could not legally secure reimbursement for the men beyond his quota the deputy lieutenant was forcing him to absorb the cost of “overhead” in their corrupt enterprise. For the constable it was far simpler to act independently by threatening to press a man and taking a bribe from him before he had to be produced in front of the commissioners or deputies. From the pressed man's point or view it was also preferable to buy off the constable for five shillings rather than wait for “justice” with a fine country gentleman who would require a pound or two before he was satisfied. The dishonest deputy therefore needed to exercise some suasion over the constable to insure they didn't make all the profit at his expense. Evidence against constables for corruption is generally found in cases involving their superiors or where the country had gone beyond tolerable levels of corruption. See PRO, SP 14/185/21. Sadler was actually punished by the Privy Council and removed from the Commission of the Peace for malfeasance. A.P.C. 1625-26, p. 78.

46. Barnes, , Somerset, p. 255Google Scholar. Based on Harvard Law School MSS, 1128, no. 48. The case in question resulted in the conviction of a deputy lieutenant from Cambridge. It is reasonable to add to the corruption list the London Commissioners, and grave suspicion about the deputies in Berkshire is justifiable. See PRO, SP 16/4/160 ff. 2-12 (London) and f. 15 (Berkshire).

47. A.P.C. 1623-26, p. 42.

48. PRO, SP 16/4/162.

49. Ibid.

50. See PRO, SP 16/5/106 and 10/5 for Gloucester and 8/56 for Brecknock.

51. PRO, SP 16/73/44.

52. Ibid. The troops from Durham arrived at the rendezvous for Cadiz in 1625 without any indentures at all. See PRO SP 16/4/160 f. 40. So did troops from London for Re in 1627 (75/20). Leigh's report noted that four of the five indentures from London were altered illegally but that the other 12 indentures submitted to him were not altered. Only the Cornish troops arrived at full strength without a single man missing.

53. PRO, SP 16/4/162. Cf. 4/160.

54. PRO, SP 16/63/11.

55. PRO, SP 16/61/68 Enclosure 1 and 62/6.

56. PRO, SP 16/63/11. A.P.C. 1627, p. 271.

57. PRO, SP 16/73/66.

58. PRO, SP 16/73/73.

59. For the Council order see A.P.C. 1623-25, pp. 351-52. For the account which follows see PRO, SP 14/181/1,13.

60. PRO, SP 14/181/1.

61. Ibid.

62. This was regarded as a legitimate “overpress,” an open one not done just to extort money from the men. For another example of official overpressing see the Deputy Lieutenants Minute Book of Sussex. The Rape of Pevensy was ordered to produce 10 men but in their individual orders for each hundred the constables were directed to press sixteen. Sussex Archaeological Collections, XL, 27Google Scholar.

63. PRO, SP 14/174/31.

64. PRO, SP 14/173/81, 96. 174/43.

65. PRO, SP 14/174/43 and enclosure. 175/46,49.

66. PRO, SP 14/175/54.

67. PRO, SP 14/175/57.

68. A favorite source was the fund kept for the relief of maimed soldiers.

69. A.P.C. 1623-25, pp. 351-52. Cf. PRO, SP 14/176/70.

70. A.P.C. 1625-26, p. 65. In this particular case there may have been substantive grounds for the delay in payment. The county was trying to collect part of the money they had spent to keep newly pressed troops together in the time between their selection and the arrival of a military conductor. The Council of War refused to honor the county's claim for reimbursement of their per diem allowance because they had not been handed over to the military in this period and were still the county's responsibility. Eventually, the Privy Council overruled the Council of War. See A.P.C. 1623-25, p. 199.

71. A.P.C. 1627, p. 100.

72. Boynton, L. O. J. “Billetting: The Example of the Isle of Wight,” English Historical Review, LXXIV (1959), 39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73. PRO, SP 16/73/76.

74. PRO, SP 16/58/32.

75. PRO, SP 16/66/53.

76. Gardiner, , History of England, VI, 249Google Scholar.

77. For Coke's, statement see the Parliamentary History of England, IIGoogle Scholar, cols. 255,258. PRO, SP 16/75/70, 73/41 End. 1, Gardiner, , History of England, VI, 156–57Google Scholar.

78. Examples of the violation of this rule may be found however. For political purposes the levy was applied to “refractory” persons i.e. refusers of the forced loan. See PRO, SP 16/49/8, 57/1.