Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:41:05.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The County Community in Stuart Historiography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Clive Holmes
Clive Holmes*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 1635 ship money writ elicited a “common feeling of dissatisfaction” throughout England. It was the general belief that the tax contravened “fundamental law,” and that in its imposition Charles “had deliberately treated the nation as a stranger to his counsels, and that if his claim to levy money by his own authority were once admitted, the door would be open to other demands of which it was impossible to foresee the limits.” Contrast this account by S.R. Gardiner with a more recent analysis of the response to ship money provided by J.S. Morrill, a scholar who has acknowledged a substantial intellectual debt to Alan Everitt, the progenitor and leading exponent of the concept of the “county community” in seventeenth-century England. “The King's right to levy the rate was rarely questioned in the provinces. Ship money was hated for its costliness and its disruptive effects on the social and political calm of the communities … Above all,” the levy was detested because “it exemplified the government's insensitivity toward localist sentiment and belief.”

In these divergent accounts, a fundamental difference emerges between the traditional school of English historians and the county community school of local historians. For Gardiner, seventeenth-century Englishmen were fully aware of and vitally concerned about the actions of their national rulers, actions they evaluated against the touchstone of constitutional principle. Everitt and Morrill insist, by contrast, that even the gentry were “surprisingly ill informed” about “wider political issues”; they were “simply not concerned with affairs of state.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , Spring 1980 , pp. 54 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1980

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

This paper was originally presented at the Middle Atlantic regional meeting of the Conference on British Studies in November 1977. I am grateful to David Underdown, the commentator, and to J.H. Hexter, Derek Hirst, Linda Levy Peck, and Lawrence Stone for their criticisms.

1 Gardiner, S.R., History of England 1603-1642 (London, 1884), vol. 8, p. 85Google Scholar; Morrill, J.S., The Revolt of the Provinces (London, 1976), pp. 24–29Google Scholar.

2 The quotations are taken from Morrill, , Revolt, p. 22Google Scholar; Everitt, Alan, The Local Community and the Great Rebellion (London, 1969), p. 8Google Scholar; Everitt, , Change in the Provinces (Leicester, 1969), pp. 47,48Google Scholar. In fairness, it should be remarked that both Everitt and Morrill disclaim any intention of arguing that “provincialism excluded concern for general … political or constitutional issues” (Morrill's phrase). Yet Everitt believes that localism “was normally … more powerful” than any national consciousness, while in his narrative, Morrill consistently downgrades national concerns (Everitt, , Local Community, p. 5Google Scholar; Morrill, , Revolt, p. 14Google Scholar).

3 This account is distilled from Everitt, 's The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion (Leicester, 1966)Google Scholar.

4 See Holmes, Clive, The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 28–29Google Scholar; Cliffe, J.T., The Yorkshire Gentry (London, 1969), pp, 300–01Google Scholar.

5 Stone, Lawrence, “English Land Sales, 1540-1640: a reply to Mr. Russell” in Economic History Review, 2nd series, vol. 25 (1972), p. 121Google Scholar note 6, and the sources cited there. For Cheshire, see Morrill, J.S., Cheshire 1630-1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), pp. 2–4Google Scholar; for Lancashire Blackwood, B.G., “The Cavalier and Roundhead Gentry of Lancashire” in Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, vol. 77 (1967), p. 83Google Scholar; for Dorset, J.P. Ferris, “The Gentry of Dorset on the Eve of the Civil War” in Genealogists' Magazine, vol. 15, no. 3 (1965), pp. 104–08Google Scholar. In Lincolnshire I find that only 17 percent of the gentry could claim pre-Tudor lineage.

6 Everitt, , Local Community, pp. 21–22Google Scholar; Everitt, , Suffolk and the Great Rebellion (Ipswich, 1960), pp. 17–22Google Scholar.

7 For Kent, see Everitt, , Community of Kent, pp. 42-43, 328Google Scholar; for Lancashire, B.G. Blackwood, “The Marriages of the Lancashire Gentry on the Eve of the Civil War” in Genealogists' Magazine, vol. 16, no. 7 (1970), pp. 321–28Google Scholar; for Essex and Hertfordshire, Holmes, , Association, pp. 13, 229Google Scholar.

8 Fletcher, Anthony, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600-1660 (London, 1975), pp. 44–53Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., p. 53.

10 Public Record Office, State Papers (hereafter SP), 14/162/58; 16/514/29.

11 Lewis, T.T. (ed.), The Letters of Lady Brilliana Harley (London, 1854), pp. 9, 27, 30, 32, 59, 68, 81, 107, 130, 161Google Scholar.

12 Gleason, J.H., The Justices of the Peace in England 1558-1640 (Oxford, 1969), pp. 83–95Google Scholar; Jordan, W.K., Philanthropy in England, 1480-1660 (London, 1959), p. 361Google Scholar.

13 Everitt, , Local Community, p. 6Google Scholar; Morrill, , Revolt, pp. 23–24Google Scholar; Morgan, Victor, “Cambridge University and ‘the Country’, 1560-1640” in Stone, Lawrence (ed.), The University and Society (Princeton, 1974), vol. l, pp. 183–245Google Scholar; quotation from p. 185.

14 Porter, H.C., Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 45-46, 269–71Google Scholar.

15 Prest, W.R., The Inns of Court under Elizabeth I and the Early Stuarts (Totowa, 1972), pp. 32–40Google Scholar; for Egerton, see Knafla, L.A., Law and Politics in Jacobean England (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 48–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for Welby, Baildon, W.P. (ed.), Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata 1593-1609 (London, 1894), p. 315Google Scholar.

16 Aston, Thomas, A Remonstrance against Presbytery (London, 1641)Google Scholar, passim; for the local background to this work, see Morrill, , Cheshire, pp. 45–53Google Scholar.

17 Douglas, D.C., English Scholars 1660-1730 (London, 1951), pp. 30–37Google Scholar, analyzes the fruitful scholarly interaction of Spelman (Norfolk), Dugdale (Warwickshire), and Dodsworth (Yorkshire).

18 Scot, Reginald, The Discoverie of Witchcraft (Totowa, 1973), p. xviGoogle Scholar; Bohannon, Mary E., “A London Bookseller's Bill, 1635-1639” in The Library, 4th series, vol. 18 (1937–1938), pp. 417–46Google Scholar.

19 Quotations are from Stone, Lawrence, The Crisis of the Aristocracy (Oxford, 1964), p. 388Google Scholar and Everitt, , Local Community, p. 6Google Scholar; Stone (ibid., pp. 385-98) provides a general review of the evidence for the attraction of London. In English Provincial Society from the Reformation to the Revolution (London, 1977), pp. 209, 447Google Scholar, Peter Clark argues that the Kentish gentry had closer ties with London than Everitt supposes; for the Yorkshire gentry, see Cliffe, , Yorkshire Gentry, pp. 21–23Google Scholar.

20 Everitt, , Community of Kent, p. 44Google Scholar.

21 Scofield, B. (ed.), The Knyvett Letters, 1620-1644 (Norwich, 1949)Google Scholar, passim.

22 H.M.C. Buccleuch, vol. 3, pp. 307–14Google Scholar; Stone, Lawrence, The Causes of the English Civil War (London, 1972), p. 91Google Scholar; Green, M.A.E. (ed.), The Diary of John Rous (London, 1856)Google Scholar, passim.

23 Everitt, , Local Community, p. 6Google Scholar.

24 Stone, , Causes, p. 95Google Scholar.

25 For Essex, see Samaha, Joel, Law and Order in Historical Perspective (New York, 1974), pp. 81–83Google Scholar and App. IV; for Somerset, T.G. Barnes, Somerset 1625-1640 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 68–70Google Scholar; for Cheshire, Morrill, Cheshire, pp. 9, 16Google Scholar; for Sussex, Fletcher, County Community, pp. 134-36, 243Google Scholar.

26 SP 16/380/60. For similar local divisions within a county, see Clark, , English Provincial Society, pp. 256-57, 311Google Scholar (the paradigm county, Kent) and Foster, G.F.C., “The North Riding Justices and their Sessions, 1603-1625” in Northern History, vol. 10 (1975), pp. 110-11, 115, 118Google Scholar.

27 Everitt, , Kent, p. 95Google Scholar note 2. For Bacon's comment, see Cockburn, J.S., A History of the English Assizes, 1558-1714 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for examples of such presentments, see Hirst, Derek, “Court, Country and Politics before 1629” in Sharpe, Kevin (ed.), Faction and Parliament (Oxford, 1978), pp. 134–35Google Scholar.

28 Barnes, T.G. (ed.), Somerset Assize Orders, 1629-1640 (Frome, 1959), p. xxixGoogle Scholar. For the Gloucestershire and Worcestershire examples, see Willcox, W.B., Gloucestershire: A study in local government 1590-1640 (London, 1940), p. 43Google Scholar; Hunt, R.D. (ed.), “Henry Townshend's ‘Notes of the Office of a Justice of the Peace’ 1661-63” in Worcestershire Historical Miscellany, no. II (Leeds, 1967), p. 109Google Scholar.

29 For these examples, see Hunt, (ed.), “Townshend's Notes,” pp. 83, 85, 86-87, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95, 109, 117Google Scholar; The English Reports (Edinburgh, 1907), vol. 80 (2 Bulstrode), 345, 348-49, 349-50, 351-52, 355–56Google Scholar; vol. 123 (Hutton), 99.

30 Barnes, (ed.), Somerset Assize Orders, p. xxviiGoogle Scholar; Morrill, , Revolt, p. 22Google Scholar. See also Cockhurn, , English Assizes, pp. 168–72Google Scholar.

31 Rushworth, John, Historical Collections (London, 1680), vol. 2, pp. 294-98, 352–56Google Scholar; vol. 3, pp. 985-89; Oldys, William and Park, Thomas (eds.), The Harleian Miscellany (London, 1810), vol. 5, p. 568Google Scholar; Articles of Accusation exhibited by the Commons … against Sir John Bramston (1641), pp. 32–33Google Scholar.

32 Ibid., pp. 5-6; Barnes, , Somerset, p. 228Google Scholar note 48; Marcotte, Elaine, “Shrieval administration of ship money in Cheshire, 1637” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 58 (1975–1976), p. 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series (hereafter CSPD), 1637–1638, p. 443Google Scholar; Cliffe, , Yorkshire Gentry, p. 309Google Scholar; Jessup, F.W., Sir Roger Twysden, 1597-1672 (London, 1965), pp. 37–38Google Scholar.

33 Morrill, , Revolt, pp. 24–29Google Scholar. Ashton, Robert, The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution 1603-1649 (London, 1978), pp. 63–66Google Scholar, also emphasizes the localist aspect of the opposition to ship money.

34 See Hirst's, Derek recent articles, “The Privy Council and Problems of Enforement in the 1620s in Journal of British Studies, vol. 18 (1978), pp. 46–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Court, Country and Politics” in Sharpe, (ed.), Faction, pp. 105–37Google Scholar.

35 Barnes, , Somerset, pp. 216–17Google Scholar; SP 16/315/121; 331/26; 336/78.

36 Rowe, V.A., “Robert, Second Earl of Warwick, and the Payment of Ship Money in Essex” in Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, 3rd series, vol. 1, part 2 (1962), pp. 160–63Google Scholar; Halliwell, J.O. (ed.), The Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds D'Ewes (London, 1845), vol. 2, pp. 129–36Google Scholar.

37 Fletcher, , County Community, pp. 195-96, 212Google Scholar.

38 Hirst, , “Privy Council,” pp. 52–53Google Scholar.

39 Acts of the Privy Council (hereafter APC), 1613–1614, pp. 491-93, 557-58, 628-31, 649-50, 655–56Google Scholar; APC 1621-23, pp. 176-78; Spedding, James (ed.), The Works of Francis Bacon (London, 1869), vol. 5, pp. 81-83, 132–34Google Scholar; CSPD 1621-23, p. 393.

40 SP 16/31/30, 31.

41 SP 16/33/8; CSPD 1625-26, pp. 397, 398, 399, 404, 406, 407, 410, 413, 419, 424, 425, 428, 435.

42 SP 16/25/75, Instructions which his Majesty's commissioners for the loan of the money … are exactly and effectually to observe and follow (London, 1626)Google Scholar, passim.

43 APC 1627, pp. 23-24.

44 SP 16/54/82; Birch, Thomas (ed.), The Court and Times of Charles I (London, 1848), p. 202Google Scholar.

45 Everitt, , Kent, pp. 52-53, 117–18Google Scholar.

46 SP 16/71/50. Ashton, (English Civil War, p. 47)Google Scholar has also emphasized that “the Commission of the Peace was by no means monolithic in its attitude to royal centralising processes.”

47 SP 16/60/31; Johnson, Robert C., Keeler, Mary Frear, Cole, Maija Jansson, Bidwell, William B. (eds.), Commons Debates, 1628 (New Haven, 1977), vol. 2, p. 254Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., vol. 2, p. 69; Cooper, J.P. (ed.), Wentworth Papers 1597-1628 (London, 1973) pp. 5, 314Google Scholar; Cliffe, , Yorkshire Gentry, pp. 282–306Google Scholar; Barnes, , Somerset, pp. 281–98Google Scholar; Ashton, , English Civil War, p. 66Google Scholar.

49 Johnson, et al. (eds.), Commons Debates, 1628, vol. 2, p. 33Google Scholar. See also Hulme, Harold, The Life of Sir John Eliot (London, 1957), pp. 173–81Google Scholar.

50 See Hirst, Derek, The Representative of the People? (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 166–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The debates on March 19-20, 1624 concerning the subsidy provide the fullest example of this habit of thought (Houghton Library, Harvard, English Ms 980, pp. 123-39, 143-49: I am extremely grateful to the Yale Center for Parliamentary History for allowing me to use their transcripts of the manuscript diaries for the parliaments of 1624 and 1626).

51 Foster, E.R., “The Procedure of the House of Commons against Patents and Monopolies, 1621-1624” in Aiken, W.A. and Henning, B.D. (eds.), Conflict in Stuart England (New York, 1960), pp. 59–85Google Scholar, especially pp. 61-62.

52 Notestein, Wallace, Relf, Frances Helen, and Simpson, Hartley (eds.), Commons Debates, 1621 (New Haven, 1935), vol. 2, pp. 353–54Google Scholar; vol. 3, p. 30; Cambridge University Library, Ms Dd 12 22 f. 17v; Johnson, et al. (eds.), Commons Debates, 1628, vol. 2, p. 57Google Scholar.

53 Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 355, 356, 359, 360.

54 See Hirst, , Representative, pp. 164-66, 175Google Scholar; (SirNicholas, Edward), Proceedings and Debates in the House of Commons in 1620 (Oxford, 1766), pp. 296, 343, 352Google Scholar; Cooper, (ed.), Wentworth Papers, pp. 152–57Google Scholar.

55 Robinson, G.W. (ed.), The Winthrop Papers, vol. 1 (Boston, 1929), pp. 324–26Google Scholar. See also Hirst, , Representative, pp. 143, 175Google Scholar.

56 Bodleian Library, Tanner Ms 66 f. 65.

57 Everitt, , Kent, p. 83Google Scholar: see also pp. 48, 70, 98, 240-59.

58 Plumb, J.H., “The growth of the electorate in England from 1600 to 1715” in Past and Present, no. 45 (1969), pp. 105–06Google Scholar; Clark, , Provincial Society, pp. 385–86Google Scholar; Gruenfelder, J.K., “The elections to the Short Parliament, 1640” in Reinmuth, R.H. (ed.), Early Stuart Studies (Minneapolis, 1970), pp. 209-10, 223–24Google Scholar.

59 Underdown, David, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), pp. 38–41Google Scholar; Manning, Brian, The English People and the English Revolution (London, 1976), pp. 210–15Google Scholar.

60 Hirst, , Representative, pp. 144–47Google Scholar; see also the analysis of the 1620s elections in Kent by K.B. Sommers in her unpublished Yale University doctoral dissertation, “Court, Country and Parliament: Electoral Influence in Five English Counties, 1586-1640” (1978), pp. 239–47Google Scholar.

61 SP 16/350/54.

62 SP 16/56/39; 58/110; 73/45; 78/8; 357/96 VIII; CSPD 1637, p. 104.