^{page 103 note 1} The narrowness of the term ‘Laudian’, which caused ProfessorJordan, W. K. to reject it in his Development of Religious Toleration in England, 1603–1640, (1936), p. 115, n. 1Google Scholar, induces me to use it in preference to other terms such as ‘High Church’, ‘Anglo-Catholic’, and ‘Arminian’ which are either in current use in another context or inaccurate. The more Catholic group in the Church, while it had come into existence before Laud's eminence, was peculiarly his instrument during the 1630's. ‘Preciser sort,’ in common use then, is taken to identify the extreme Puritan wing of the Church, often not clearly enough distinguished from the moderate Puritans. My thanks are due to my colleague, Professor R. E. Cogswell, for his stylistic criticism of this paper.

^{page 104 note 1} Jordan, , op. cit., p. 163Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 2} Prynne, William, Canterburies Doome (1646), between pp. 128 and 149Google Scholar, contains the Commons' case against Laud vis-à-vis churchales. When checked against manuscript sources, Prynne's transcriptions of documents are quite accurate, though his chronology is utterly confused. Typographical errors in pagination make reference difficult—page references as given should be taken to lie between pp. 128 and 149. Prynne's account is indispensable for certain incidents, though he over-colours them.

^{page 105 note 1} Som[erset] R[ecord] O[ffice], Sessions rolls, presentments of non-attenders, 1625–1640, and P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], E. 377/33 to 48 (recusant rolls, Pipe Office series) indicate the absence of any real problem of Roman Catholic recusancy.

^{page 105 note 2} The copious files of the late I. FitzRoy Jones which are now in the Som.R.O. provide invaluable information on Somerset incumbents. The Sessions rolls provide occasional glimpses of immoral clergy, such as ministers who fathered illegitimate children, Som.R.O., Sess. rolls, 63, ii, no. 144, and 63, i, no. 27.

^{page 106 note 1} There were exceptions, such as a Jacobean J.P., Sir Edward Hext, who bequeathed an endowment for a preacher in his church at Ham, Low, Som. Arch. & Nat. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, XL, i. 33Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 2} See Pierce's notice in Diet. Nat. Biog., xv (1917 ff.), pp. 1158–60Google Scholar. The diocese of Bath and Wells and the county of Somerset are virtually coterminous.

^{page 106 note 3} P.R.O., S.P. 16/375, no. 84, [1635] (State Papers Domestic, Charles I). The Beckington affair has been termed the ‘classical instance’ of the impact of visitation articles on parochial life and the altar controversy, Addleshaw, G. W. O. and Etchells, F., The Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship (1948), pp. 128–9Google Scholar. This was the only such incident in Somerset.

^{page 106 note 4} ‘Churchale’ was the generic term for any such celebration in the church-yard, though the peculiarly West Country ‘revel’ was the same. The ‘wake’ was the dedication day revel. A ‘bidale’ was given for the benefit of some villager, well-liked and impoverished. The ‘clerkale’provided funds for the parish clerk. Bishop Rennet's Parochial Antiquities (1685) deals with the history of churchales and their seventeenth-century aspect.

^{page 107 note 1} A professional bull-baiter received the comfortable sum of £3 12s. 4d. from five churchales in Somerset, Dorset, and Wiltshire during the summer of 1607, Som.R.O., Sess. rolls, 2, no. 64.

^{page 107 note 2} After consulting every information and examination involving crime sent to Somerset quarter sessions for trial, 1625–1640, I have found only one churchale disturbance among them; see p. 116, n. 1. These documents are complete for the period, preserved in Som.R.O., Sess. rolls. While almost all such disturbances would have gone to quarter sessions, murders and manslaughters committed there would go to assizes. The absence of criminal records for the Western Circuit before 1654 makes it impossible to determine with any accuracy how many churchales ended in violent death. The ‘riots, disorders, murders’ and similar in petitions against churchales were formulae, not always relevant or based on fact.

^{page 107 note 3} The net profit to the parish from a churchale had declined considerably, from £10-£20 to £4-£5, between the early sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Notestein, W., The English People on the Eve of Colonization (1954), pp. 244–5Google Scholar. The sale of ale provided the largest return.

^{page 108 note 1} S.P. 16/63, no 88; for the printed visitation articles of 1634 for Bath and Wells. Bishop Pierce noted in 1634 that East Coker church had been repaired by the proceeds of a churchale seven years before, S.P. 16/353, no 13

^{page 108 note 2} S.P. 16/250, no. 20, 5 Nov. 1633.

^{page 108 note 3} Churchale disturbers could have hoped for little leniency at the hands of John Harington of Kelston, chairman of quarter sessions and a devout Puritan rigidly opposed to all ungodliness, though not an extremist, Brit. Mus., Egerton MS. 2711, Harington's commonplace book. The dean of Wells and the city's recorder (both county J.P.s) made a bastardy order in which the parents were to be whipped to die playing of two fiddles to make known that they had begot the child on the ‘Sabbath’ while coming from dancing, Som.R.O., Quarter sessions order book, 1613–1620, midsummer Q.S. 1617, ord. no. 8.

^{page 109 note 1} Following are the Somerset assize (asz.) and quarter sessions (Q.S.) orders prohibiting churchales: 1594, Q.S., S.P. 16/96, no. 7; 1596, Q.S., Prynne, , Canterburies Doome, p. 152Google Scholar; 1608, Q.S., Som.R.O., Sess. rolls, 2, no. 77; 1624, Q.S., Som.R.O., Qtr. sess. ord. bk., 1620/1– 1627, Easter Q.S. 1624, ord. no. 4; 1628, asz., Som.R.O., Sess. rolls, 61, i, no. 74. Orders were made against churchales in Devon (by assizes and sessions) in 1599, 1606, 1615, 1627. The 1628 assize order was applied to Dorset.

^{page 110 note 1} S.P. 16/96, no. 7.

^{page 110 note 2} Som.R.O., Sess. rolls, 61, i, no. 74.

^{page 110 note 3} Prynne, , op. cit., p. 128Google Scholar. The order is in P.R.O., Asz. 24/20 (assize order book, Western Circuit, 1629–1640), fo. 49V. Prynne, Both and Heylyn, , Cyprianus Anglicanus (1668), p. 256Google Scholar, incorrectly state that Richardson made the order. Denham, B., at the Dorset assizes, autumn 1631, made an order prohibiting churchales, but expressly omitted the requirement of publication by the clergy, P.R.O., Asz. 24/20, fo. 35V.

^{page 111 note 1} Laud's apologist, Heylyn, (op. cit., pp. 256–7)Google Scholar, agrees substantially with Prynne that Laud's main exception to the order at this time was the matter of jurisdiction. As bishop of London, Laud had prevented the lord mayor from making like use of the clergy.

^{page 111 note 2} Som.R.O., Phelips MSS., Musters 1615–1667, fo. 137 [hereafter, Som.R.0., DD/PH].

^{page 111 note 3} Ibid., fo. 136. Richardson suspected Sir Robert Phelips had moved the constable to ask the question!

^{page 111 note 4} S.P. 16/238, no. 4; original in Som.R.O., DD/PH, fo. 120.

^{page 111 note 5} Gardiner, S.R., History of England 1603–1640 (1899), v. 432Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 1} Gardiner, S. R., History of England 1603–1640 (1899), vii. 319Google Scholar. This account is drawn largely from the valuable papers of Sir Robert Phelips contained principally in five large volumes of the Phelips MSS. in the Somerset Record Office.

^{page 113 note 1} states, Gardiner (op. cit., vii. 319)Google Scholar that Phelips informed Laud of the order at the outset, which is not impossible though I have found no proof of it. But see p. 111, n. 3, for Richardson's suspicion.

^{page 113 note 2} Phelips on Boyse: ‘So impudent, so proud, and so insufferable a piece of humanity dyd I never know in these or any other parts.’ Som.R.O., DD/PH, fos. 145 ff.

^{page 113 note 3} Ibid., fos. 145 ff.

^{page 113 note 4} Rigg's, J. M. notice of Richardson in Diet. Nat. Biog., xvi. 1133–4Google Scholar, provides good insight into his character.

^{page 114 note 1} See MissFarnham's, E. account of the 1614 election, drawn largely from the Phelips MSS., in Eng. Hist. Rev., xlvi. 579–99Google Scholar.

^{page 114 note 2} Som.R.O., DD/PH, fos. 124 ff., for the first and last drafts.

^{page 115 note 1} Ibid., fo. 131, Phelips to the King, 18 Aug. 1633.

^{page 115 note 2} Prynne, , Canterburies Doome, p. 152Google Scholar. Prynne erroneously states that Thomas Phillips was Sir Robert's father.

^{page 115 note 3} Ibid., p. 154. For the revocation order, see S.P. 16/255, no. 39. iv(copy). A condition to the revocation appeared in the order, vrz. ‘as much as in him [the judge] lyeth’ (in brackets). This was a mere quibble—the authority of a judge of assize to overrule all previous administrative (as distinct from judicial) orders of assizes or sessions was unquestionable. This revocation order and the 1632 prohibitive order are in Somerset Assize Orders, 1629–1640, ed. by Barnes, T. G., Somerset Record Society, lxv (1959), nos. 42 and 78Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 1} S.P. 16/255, no. 39. The petition apparently alluded to the serious churchale riot at Coleford on Holy Thursday (30 May) 1633. Eighteen rioters, all from neighbouring villages, were arrested. The area (a mining region on Mendip, given to boisterousness) had been emboldened by Richardson's revocation of the prohibitions at the Dorset assizes two months earlier, and a particularly rowdy churchale ensued. According to testimony, many were hurt, though there had merely been a rumour of someone having been killed, Som.R.O., Sess. rolls, 70, no. 121, informations and examinations before Sir Ralph Hopton, J.P., 20 July 1633. This was the only serious churchale disorder I have been able to find in Somerset between 1625 and 1640. It alone hardly amounted to a ‘crime wave’.

^{page 116 note 2} According to Phelips, Richardson said: ‘I durst not doe this [advance the petition] if Sir Robert Phelips were by … Sir Robert Phelips is a fyne gentleman, makes very fyne speeches in the Parliament house, yet Sir Thomas Richardson will notwithstanding be Lord cheife justice still.’ Som.R.O., DD/PH, fo. 137 ff.

^{page 117 note 1} Ibid., fo. 131, Phelips to the king, 18 Aug. 1633, endorsed by Windebank with a note of reference.

^{page 117 note 2} Ibid., loc. cit.

^{page 117 note 3} Ibid., fo. 133.

^{page 117 note 4} Ibid., fos. 137 ff.

^{page 118 note 1} Prynne, , Canterburies Doome, p. 148Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 2} P.R.O., Index 4212 (Crown Office docket book, 1629–1640) under date 23 Feb. 1634, docket of patent permitting Richardson, C.J., to take assizes on the Home Circuit though his seat was there. In 1587, the per diem allowance for the judges on the Home Circuit was £5 14s. od., or £1 3s. 4d. less than for the Western, and the least for all die circuits save the Northern, which was the same, Brit. Mus., Lansdowne MS. 53, fo. 198. These proportions remained the same. The amount of criminal business at assizes on the Home Circuit was disproportionately heavy because of the density of population in those counties.

^{page 119 note 1} S.P. 16/247, no. 24 Pierce replied on 5 Nov. 1633, S.P. 16/250, no. 20. The 72 hand-picked incumbents consulted were enthusiastic in advocacy of revels.

^{page 119 note 2} The Kings Maiesties Declaration to His Subjects concerning lawfull Sports to bee used (1618). The 1633 reissue, a copy of which is S.P. 16/248, no. 13, is reprinted in full in Gardiner's Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660 (1906), pp. 99–103.

^{page 119 note 3} (See Eng. Hist. Rev., xxxii. 561–8, for a note by J. Tait treating the Lancashire affair.

^{page 120 note 1} Prynne, , op. cit., p. 148Google Scholar.

^{page 120 note 2} Ibid., p. 149, cites a number of instances of clergy proceeded against. The incumbents of Claverton, Ubley, and Beer Crocombe in Somerset were punished for refusal to comply, and the vicar of Montacute (in the patronage of Sir Robert Phelips) was censured for preaching on a revel day from Joel ii — ‘Blow ye the trumpet in Zion … for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand’, Viet. Co. Hist., Somerset, ii (1911), p. 44Google Scholar.

^{page 120 note 3} S.P. 16/395, no 9. and /538 no 57.

^{page 122 note 1} Som.R.O., DD/PH, fos. 137 ff.