Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:00:39.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thwarted Victors: Civil and Criminal Prosecution against Parliament's Officials during the English Civil War and Commonwealth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2013

John A. Shedd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whereas both Houses of the Parliament of England have been necessitated to undertake a war in their just and lawful defense … all oaths, declarations, and proclamations against both or either of the Houses of Parliament … or their ordinances and proceedings, or any for adhering unto them, or for doing or executing any office, place or charge, by any authority derived from them; and all judgments, indictments, outlawries, attainders and inquisitions in any the said causes … be declared null, suppressed, and forbidden. (From the first of nineteen Newcastle Propositions, July 1646; expanded from the first of twenty-seven Propositions of Uxbridge, November 1644; repeated in the second of The Four Bills, December 1647)

Indemnity Committee cases from the 1647–55 manuscripts indicate a widespread volume of suits pressed against parliament's Civil War and Commonwealth officeholders. Invariably, the officials petitioning the Indemnity Committee were under prosecution. Often they had been fined and even jailed. Also revealed in these papers is a public knowledgeable in the law and ready to wield its power in punishing an array of officials in London and the shires. Four broad conclusions are asserted here. First, the Indemnity Committee records reflect a massive legal assault on state officials from the beginning of the Civil War to the mid-1650s, a factor in the political, administrative, and social history of the period that has heretofore been ignored. Second, suits were lodged mainly as the result of actions stemming from fiscal innovations put into place by a parliament that pushed toward victory and then struggled to pay its war debts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 139 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 2002

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 In excess of 850 cases at the Indemnity Committee were filed by parliament's officials, and 700 of those containing sufficient detail were used in this study. The committee heard many more cases of this type, but determining the exact number is made impossible by the loss of order book 9 (covering June–November 1651), the fact that cases occur in the petition boxes and not in the order books and vice versa, and the lack of clarity in some of the records regarding whether the action taken “for the use of the State” or “on behalf of the Parliament” was done by a military or civilian official, a distinction also obfuscated by the many who held both military and civilian posts. Nor is the number of cases equal to the number of parliamentary officials making petition, since cases often name two petitioners and sometimes several. It can be safely assumed that the suits against parliament's officials that were appealed to the Indemnity Committee represent only a fraction of the total heard in local and national courts, especially given the time, distance, and expense required to make such petitions. The manuscripts of the Indemnity Committee, 1647–55 (hereafter, SP24), are stored at the Public Record Office (PRO) and consist of seventeen order books, two indices, three minute books, and four miscellaneous books as well as petition boxes arranged alphabetically and numbered 30–87.

2 Sequestrators were officials primarily responsible for confiscating real estate and movable property from royalists and Catholics.

3 Kishlansky, Mark , in A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603–1714 (London, 1996)Google Scholar, reminds us that “the members of the Rump … feathered their own nests behind a smokescreen of debate and delay” (p. 188). Hirst, Derek, in Authority and Conflict, England 1603–58 (Cambridge, Mass., 1986)Google Scholar, writes of the “uneasy history” of the Commonwealth characterized by the “Rump's ideological lameness,” in a government that found “the sheer doing of business more urgent than the luxury of reform,” while putting pragmatism before idealism; as he argues, “pragmatism rarely shapes coherent policies” (pp. 291–92, 296, 307). Hirst's newest version, England in Conflict, 1603–1660 (London, 1999)Google Scholar, observes that the “history of the Rump must … be written around the problem of survival” (p. 258).

4 Worden, Blair, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1974)Google Scholar; Woolrych, Austin, Commonwealth to Protectorate (Oxford, 1982)Google Scholar; Kelsey, Sean, Inventing a Republic: The Political Culture of the English Commonwealth, 1649–1653 (Stanford, Calif., 1997)Google Scholar.

5 Kelsey, , Inventing a Republic, pp. 205, 208Google Scholar; Worden, , Rump Parliament, pp. 11, 57, 105Google Scholar; Woolrych, , Commonwealth to Protectorate, p. 6Google Scholar.

6 Morrill, John, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War, 1630–1648 (London, 1999)Google Scholar; Hill, Christopher, The World Turned Upside Down(London, 1972)Google Scholar.

7 Underdown, David, A Freeborn People: Politics and the Nation in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford, 1996), pp. 47, 115, 123, 128, 132Google Scholar; Herrup, Cynthia, The Common Peace, Participation, and Criminal Law in Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar.

8 Robert Ashton, e.g., begins his recent book on the second civil war with a tenpage discussion of the Newcastle Propositions, and although he cites several by number, Proposition 1 is not mentioned. See Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and its Origins, 1646–48 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 7–17Google Scholar.

9 Proposition 6 of the Heads of Proposals, Henry Ireton's plan for making peace with the king, submitted on behalf of the army in July 1647, echoed the call for an end to legal proceedings against M.P.s “or any that have acted by or under their authority in the late war,” and for Charles I to confirm the indemnity ordinance of 21 May 1647.

10 The New Model Army turned radical mainly because of practical concerns such as the payment of arrears in wages due, the discharge of debentures accrued by quartering with civilians, and indemnity for acts done during the fighting. See Gentles, Ian, The New Model Army in England, Ireland, and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992)Google Scholar; Kishlansky, Mark, “Ideology and Politics in the Parliamentary Armies, 1645–49,” in Reactions to the English Civil War, 1642–1649, ed. Morrill, John (London, 1986)Google Scholar, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar; Massarella, Derek, “The Politics of the Army and the Quest for Settlement,” in Into Another Mould: Aspects of the Interregnum, 1642–1660, ed. Roots, Ivan (Exeter, 1981)Google Scholar; Wookych, Austin, Soldiers and Statesmen: The General Council of the Army and Its Debates, 1647–48 (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar.

11 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, ed. Firth, Charles H. and Rait, Robert S., 3 vols. (London, 1911), 1:109Google Scholar; Scobell, Henry, A Collection of Acts and Ordinances of General Use Made in the Parliament, 1640–56 (London, 1658), pp. 4, 15Google Scholar.

12 Acts and Ordinances, 1:936, 953, 1119Google ScholarPubMed.

13 Ibid., 1:936–38.

14 Cases treating public servants under suit for having arrested people suspected of forging debentures and acts of parliament were set mainly in London. For examples, see Browne v. Browne, SP24/7, SP24/36; Littleton and Browne v. Boone, SP24/8, SP24/61; Cole and Smith v. Hanson, SP24/10, SP24/41; Thrayle (Warden of the Company of Stationers) et al. v. Field, SP24/12; Cole v. Bentley, SP24/12, SP24/13, and SP24/41; and Cox v. Stephens, SP24/10, SP24/12, SP24/13, and SP24/42.

15 Wrightson, Keith, “Two Concepts of Order: Justices, Constables, and Jurymen in Seventeenth-Century England,” in An Ungovernable People: The English and their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Brewer, John and Styles, John (New Brunswick, N.J., 1980), pp. 21, 26Google Scholar; Ashton, Robert, “The Problem of Indemnity,” in Politics and People in Revolutionary England, ed. Jones, Colin, Newitt, Malyn, and Roberts, Stephen (Oxford, 1986), p. 130Google Scholar.

16 Coward, Barry, Social Change and Continuity in Early Modern England, 1550–1750 (Harlow, Essex, 1988), pp. 38–39Google Scholar. See also Herrup, Cynthia, “The Counties and the Country: Some Thoughts on Seventeenth-Century Historiography,” Social History 8 (May 1983): 169–81Google Scholar.

17 Underdown, David, Revel, Riot, and Revolution: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1987), p. 220Google Scholar. See also Sharpe, J. A., “‘Such Disagreement betwyx Neighbors’: Litigation and Human Relations in Early Modern England,” in Disputes and Settlements: Law and Human Relations in the West, ed. Bossy, John (Cambridge, 1983), p. 169Google Scholar.

18 Patterson, Catherine, “Conflict Resolution and Patronage in Provincial Towns, 1590–1640,” Journal of British Studies 37 (January 1998): 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 For a discussion of the legalistic mind-set of the otherwise radical M.P.s who staffed the Indemnity Committee, see my “Legalism over Revolution: Property Confiscation Disputes and the English Parliamentary Committee for Indemnity, 1647–1655,” Historical Journal 43 (December 2000): 1093–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Acts and Ordinances, 1:85–100Google Scholar; Beckett, J. V., “Land or Excise: The Levying of Taxation in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England,” English Historical Review 100 (April 1985): 285–308Google Scholar.

21 Hirst, , Authority and Conflict, pp. 266–68Google Scholar.

22 Acts and Ordinances, 1:316–30, 680–81.

23 Trickett et al. v. Andrew, SP24/11.

24 Paine et al. v. Prestney, SP24/10, SP24/68.

25 Walker et al. v. Edwin, SP24/11, SP24/12.

26 Piggott and Spooner v. Stoakes, SP24/8, SP24/10, and SP24/69.

27 Oxton v. Aileward, SP24/3, SP24/6, and SP24/67. Oxton petitioned the Indemnity Committee in January 1649, and his case was dismissed in March 1650.

28 Wroth and Spurgeon v. Nunn, SP24/6, SP24/7, and SP24/8; Neave v. Crosse, SP24/5, SP24/6, SP24/7, SP24/12, and SP24/66; Dawes v. Neave, SP24/6, SP24/7, SP24/8, SP24/11, and SP24/43. Suffolk produced more Indemnity Committee assessment tax disputes cases than did any other county.

29 Norton v. Gaye, SP24/10, SP24/12, and SP24/66.

30 Keller, Mary F., ed., Members of the Long Parliament, (Philadelphia, 1954), p. 142Google Scholar. Ketton-Cremer, Robert W., in Norfolk in the Civil War (Hamden, Conn., 1970)Google Scholar, refers to Corbet as “a Puritan doctrinaire of the most fervid and vindictive type” (p. 46).

31 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1645–1647, p. 448; Underdown, David, Pride's Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971), p. 115Google Scholar.

32 Holmes, Clive, The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (London, 1974), pp. 49, 50, 84, 97, 160Google Scholar. According to Corbet's estimate, by 1644 war expenditures per month for the Eastern Association were £15,000 greater than revenues collected.

33 Gurdon and Corbet v. Thompson et al., SP24/7, SP24/10, SP24/11, and SP24/50.

34 Booth v. Bland, SP24/5, SP24/6, SP24/7, SP24/8, and SP24/34. The naming of women involved in various tax resistance episodes points to the possibility that they were encouraged to use physical resistance against tax collectors because they stood a lesser chance of coming to harm or being arrested than men; this point is much in the same vein as one in an article by Walter, John, “Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law: Maiden and the Crisis of 1629,” in Brewer, and Styles, , eds., Ungovernable People, pp. 53–64Google Scholar.

35 Barker v. Goldsmith, SP24/10, SP24/33.

36 Instances include those involving William Strode of Somerset, who sued his constable for distraining his cow; Richard Chambers, who sued the Lord Mayor of London for false arrest (the King's Bench judges would not hear the case); and Lord Saye and Sele, who filed a suit against a constable for distraining two oxen. See Sharpe, Kevin, Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, Conn., 1992), pp. 718–19Google Scholar.

37 Ship Money was “resisted only on technical grounds, the well-publicized constitutional challenge in Hampden's case representing the ideas of only a handful of peers and wealthy gentry” (Underdown, , Freeborn People, p. 4Google Scholar).

38 Lake, Peter, “The Collection of Ship Money in Cheshire during the 1630s: A Case Study of Relationships between Central and Local Government,” Northern History 17 (1981): 44–71Google Scholar; Hunt, William, The Puritan Movement: The Coming of Revolution in an English County (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), pp. 267–74Google Scholar.

39 Staffordshire and the Great Rebellion, ed. Johnson, Douglas A. and Vaisey, David G. (Stoke-on-Trent, 1964), pp. 48–49Google Scholar.

40 James, Margaret, Social Policy during the Puritan Revolution (London, 1930), p. 38Google Scholar.

41 Gentles, , New Model Army, p. 28Google Scholar.

42 Commons Journals, 5:58Google ScholarPubMed.

43 Jacob et al. v. Powers, SP24/2, SP24/3; Cartwright v. Cumber, SP24/1; Smallcorne v. Harris, SP24/3, SP24/4, and SP24/5; Lord v. Ingram, SP24/2; and Hall v. Partridge, SP24/12, SP24/13.

44 Acts and Ordinances, 1:202–7Google ScholarPubMed.

45 Ibid., 1:989.

46 Morrill, , Revolt in the Provinces, p. 119Google Scholar; Morrill, John and Walter, John, “Order and Disorder in the English Revolution,” in The English Civil War, ed. Cust, Richard and Hughes, Ann (London, 1997), p. 315Google Scholar. For an analysis of the interplay between antiexcise tax popular pressure and government action, see Braddick, Michael J., “Popular Politics and Public Policy: The Excise Riot at Smithfield in February 1647 and Its Aftermath,” Historical Journal 34 (September 1991): 597–626Google Scholar.

47 Wiltshire v. Carter, SP24/12; Careless v. Cale, SP24/2; and Prescott v. Dingley et al. (Worcestershire J.P.s), SP24/5, SP24/6, and SP24/70.

48 Calendar of State Papers, 1650, p. 12.

49 Braddick's “Popular Politics” downplays the threat of excise riots to civil order and notes that excise conflicts were restricted to “parts of the country” (p. 602). Indemnity Committee records, however, show that civil suits against excisemen were lodged throughout the nation.

50 Tuthill v. Barrett, SP24/11.

51 Lloyd v. Cossen, SP24/10, SP24/11; Tailor v. Davies, SP24/8, SP24/10, and SP24/79.

52 Fairecliffe v. Riley, SP24/7; Roake v. Partridge, SP24/8.

53 Jacob and Dytton v. Powers, SP24/2, SP24/3, and SP24/57.

54 Dance v. Pecke and Kirke, SP24/1, SP24/2, and SP24/43. For other examples of excise and customs officials, or constables working on their behalf, receiving indemnification, see Bradborne v. Clifford, SP24/4, SP24/5, SP24/10, and SP24/36; Coltman v. Slang, SP24/5, SP24/6, and SP24/7; Hall v. Partridge, SP24/12, SP24/13.

55 The Staffordshire county committee book, e.g., contains 1,489 orders, six hundred of which pertain to assessment and sequestration. See Mather, Jean, “The Parliamentary Committees and the Justices of the Peace, 1642–1661,” American Journal of Legal History 23 (1979): 120–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Aylmer, Gerald, The State's Servants: The Civil Service of the English Republic, 1649–1660 (London, 1973), p. 113Google Scholar.

57 Ibid., p. 321. Allocating sequestration moneys to cover specific expenditures, such as paying arrears of soldiers or for the cost of putting down the Kent rebellion, seemed like sensible expedients but seldom worked well. See Ashton, , Counter-Revolution, pp. 68–69Google Scholar.

58 Royalists usually sued their former tenants for confiscated rents being paid into the state's treasury instead of suing parliament's officials for the lost money, and I have studied those suits in “Legalism over Revolution.”

59 Crudd v. Staple (SP24/4 and SP24/42), in which Staple filed suit at Chancery, as well as Blith v. Kittermaster (SP24/1, SP24/7, SP24/8, SP24/10, and SP24/34), in which Kittermaster had won £283 at law from a Leicester county committeeman prior to being accused of delinquency, are examples.

60 Thornton v. Best et al., SP24/4, SP24/5, and SP24/6; Moore and Pike v. Bassett and Rashley, SP24/1, SP24/2, and SP24/64.

61 Beare v. Webb, SP24/2, SP24/4, SP24/5, and SP24/34.

62 Seaton and Flood v. Morgan, SP24/1, SP24/2, and SP24/4. Sir Anthony Morgan's father, Thomas, had been a “Papist and delinquent” whose sequestered lands were taken by parliament for the use of John Pym's heirs, especially to help them pay Pym's debts.

63 Robotham et al. v. Coningsby, SP24/4, SP24/72, and SP28/232 (also in the PRO collection); Calendar of the Committee for Compounding, 5 vols. (hereafter, CCC), 2:853–54Google Scholar. See also Swann v. Fox et al., SP24/7, for a similar case.

64 See, e.g., Oldfield et al. v. Sonds, SP24/10, SP24/67.

65 Franklin et al. v. Hardres, SP24/5, SP24/6, and SP24/7; “An Account Book of the Committee of Kent,” ed. Everitt, Alan, in A Seventeenth-Century Miscellany, ed. Records Publication Committee (Ashford, Kent, 1960), 17:49, 64–66, 116Google Scholar; Read et al. v. Bixon, SP24/1.

66 CCC, 2:1496, 1:221; Mintern v. Strode, SP24/12.

67 Trimmer v. Coleman, SP24/1, SP24/12, and SP24/81.

68 Cogan v. Pollin, SP24/2, SP24/41; Nichols v. Scotten, SP24/1, SP24/3; and Watson v. Atkinson and Atkinson, SP24/2, SP24/3. For similar disputes over grain and goods, see Tisdale v. Scotten, SP24/2, SP24/80; Wright v. Woolston, SP24/3, SP24/4.

69 Bennett et al. v. Gaines and Cole, SP24/1, SP24/2, SP24/3, and SP24/34; CCC, 5:3187.

70 Heveningham, Walton et al. v. Hill, SP24/13, SP24/53; Keeler, , ed., Members of the Long Parliament, pp. 213–14, 379Google Scholar; Greaves, Richard and Zaller, Robert, eds., Dictionary of British Radicals, 3 vols. (Brighton, 1983), 2:81–82, 3:285–86Google Scholar; Holmes, , Eastern Association, pp. 24, 120, 133, 176Google Scholar.

71 Acts and Ordinances, 1:1177–83, 1186–88Google ScholarPubMed.

72 French and Cox v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4; CCC, 1:145, 152, 559; Deverell v. Treasurers of Sequestration, Guildhall, SP24/5, SP24/44.

73 Careless et al. v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4, SP24/38; Baxter et al. v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4; Burropp v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4; Kettilby v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4, SP24/58; Hayward v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4, SP24/52; Raulins v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4, SP24/71.

74 Pettit v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4, SP24/69; Voyce, Cole, Ponsonby, and Dench v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4, SP24/5, and SP24/82; Scotten v. Treasurers of Sequestration, SP24/4, SP24/74; CCC, 1:277.

75 Morrill, John, Cheshire, 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (London, 1974), pp. 96, 101–2Google Scholar; Underdown, David, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), p. 46Google Scholar. The propositions ordinance contained a promise that voluntary contributions of any amount would be proof of “good affection” to parliament and that such loans would be repaid at 8 percent interest (Acts and Ordinances, 1:7–8Google Scholar).

76 Stoyle, Mark, Loyalty and Locality: Popular Allegiance in Devon during the English Civil War (Exeter, 1994), pp. 99, 144Google Scholar.

77 Clarke, White, and Sanders v. Evans, SP24/11, SP24/12, SP24/13, and SP24/40.

78 Clarke v. Paine, SP24/10, SP24/40; Clarke v. Anthony, SP24/7, SP24/8, SP24/12, SP24/13, and SP24/40.

79 Stoyle, , Loyalty and Locality, p. 179Google Scholar.

80 Commons Journals, 2:651, 803–4Google Scholar.

81 Strode et al. v. Heele, SP24/6, SP24/7, SP24/11, and SP24/78; Poole and Prideaux v. Putt, SP24/6, SP24/7, and SP24/8. See also Poole v. Goodyear, SP24/6. For cases from Plymouth, Barnstaple, and Dartmouth, see Ceely et al. v. Speckett, SP24/2, SP24/3, SP24/4, SP24/5, and SP24/39; Palmer et al. v. Fortescue, SP24/6, SP24/7; and Rous v. Voysey, SP24/12. The suit made at King's Bench by Mrs. Mary Amory of Barnstaple for recovery of provisions supplied by her late husband's ship is especially involved and interesting. See Mason v. Amory, SP24/1, SP24/2, and SP24/63.

82 Allen v. Stampier, SP24/10, SP24/13, and SP24/30; Francis v. Locke, SP24/2, SP24/3, and SP24/48.

83 Cremer v. Stileman, SP24/13, SP24/42; Stafford v. Edwards, SP24/7, SP24/10, SP24/11, SP24/12, and SP24/77. Stafford v. Edwards is also cited in Warmington, A. R., Civil War, Interregnum, and Restoration in Gloucestershire, 1640–1672 (Bury St. Edmunds, 1997), pp. 81, 91Google Scholar. Warmington refers to Stafford as “of Thornbury,” whereas SP24/77 refers to him as “of Cheston.”

84 Quoted in Frank, Joseph, The Levellers (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), p. 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Wollaston v. Lilburne, SP24/2, SP24/86; The Leveller Tracts, 1647–1653, ed. Haller, William and Davies, Godfrey (New York, 1944), pp. 400–401Google Scholar.

86 Aylmer, , State's Servants, pp. 305–6Google Scholar; Forster , G. C. F. “County Government in Yorkshire during the Interregnum,” Northern History 12 (1976): 84–104Google Scholar.

87 Read v. Carpenter, SP24/5, SP24/6. John Read was a Hertfordshire J.P.

88 Lister v. Frewin, SP24/1, SP24/61.

89 Barrell v. Smith, SP24/10, SP24/12, SP24/13, and SP24/33; Waterton v. Clay, SP24/7, SP24/83.

90 Waterton et al. v. Norris, SP24/6, SP24/7, and SP24/83. For another example of a Middlesex J.P. (and the headborough of Kensington) under suit, see Thorowgood and Jackson v. Osmond et al., SP24/1. See also a case from Surrey: Lidgold (also “Lithgold”) and Child v. Fields, SP24/6, SP24/7, and SP24/61; two cases from Suffolk (Sterne v. Crouch, SP24/10, SP24/78; Cooke v. Tailor, SP24/3, SP24/4); and a case from Yorkshire (Cooper v. Polleyn, SP24/2, SP24/3, SP24/5, SP24/7, and SP24/41) for other examples regarding religious offenses. In the Yorkshire case, an alderman of Ripon sued for battery while hindering a man from reading the Book of Common Prayer at his child's funeral, was indemnified of the suit in 1648, though his costs awarded of £45 remained unpaid in 1654.

91 Kelsey, , Inventing a Republic, p. 1Google Scholar.

92 Ibid., p. 205; Roots, Ivan, The Great Rebellion (London, 1966), p. 142Google Scholar.

93 Nenner, Howard, By Colour of Law (Chicago, 1977), pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

94 Patterson, , “Conflict Resolution,” p. 8Google Scholar. See also Sharpe, J.A., Early Modern England, A Social History, 1550–1760 (London, 1987), p. 117Google Scholar.

95 Herrup, , Common Peace, p. 7Google Scholar.

96 See Hill, Christopher, Liberty against the Law: Some Seventeenth-Century Controversies (London, 1996)Google Scholar.

97 Harris, Tim, “The People, the Law, and the Constitution in Scotland and England: A Comparative Approach to the Glorious Revolution,” Journal of British Studies 38 (January 1999): 28–58Google Scholar. For discussions of the limits of localism, see Hughes, Ann, “The King, the Parliament, and the Localities during the Civil War” in Cust, and Hughes, , eds., Civil War, pp. 261–70Google Scholar; Stoyle, Mark, From Deliverance to Destruction: Rebellion and Civil War in an English City (Exeter, 1996), pp. 1–3Google Scholar.