Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:03:29.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

London's ‘Monster’ Petition of 1680*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Mark Knights
Mark Knights
Affiliation:
The History of Parliament
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The unrest in London during the ‘Exclusion Crisis’ filled Charles II with fear and foreboding of a new civil war. Yet although recent research has highlighted the important role played by the capital's inhabitants in the period, the evidence available for studying the groups of radicals involved has been sketchy and fragmentary. This article uses a new source, in the form of a mass petition, signed by almost 16,000 citizens, which was presented to the king in January 1680. It offers a unique opportunity to measure public opinion during one of the most turbulent periods of the Restoration, and to test assumptions about the character of the opposition to the king. After a discussion of the aims and conduct of the campaign, a prosopographical study of some of the most readily identifiable signatories provides the basis for a detailed examination of the political, religious, geographical, economic and social dimension of the petition. Finally, London's popular reaction to national politics is considered in terms of its effectiveness in altering royal policy, and its impact on the rest of the country.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 39 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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 Grey, A., Debates of the house of commons 1667–1694 (1769), VII, 387Google Scholar.

2 Haley, K., The first earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford, 1968), pp. 559–63Google Scholar. See also Jones, J.R., The first whigs (Oxford, 1961), pp. 115–21Google Scholar.

3 Harris, T., London crowds in the reign of Charles II (Cambridge, 1987), p. 218Google Scholar.

4 For example, the fact that one of the grounds on which the crown proceeded on its Quo Warranto against London's charter was the City's petition of 13 Jan. 1681 is often overlooked (Sharpe, R., London and the kingdom [1894], p. 495Google Scholar).

5 It is now in the H[untington] L[ibrary, San Marino, California], MS HM 68.

6 Sheet references will be given with the modern foliation first, with the contemporary number in brackets after it. Since the first sheet in the collection is marked 24 [25], the front sheets must have been lost some time after the more recent classification was made.

7 In addition to Harris, London crowds, see De Krey, G., ‘The London whigs and the Exclusion Crisis reconsidered’, in The first modern society, eds.Beier, L., Cannadine, D. and Rosenheim, J. (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 457–82Google Scholar; De Krey, , ‘London radicals and revolutionary politics’, in The politics of religion in Restoration England, eds. Harris, T., Seaward, P. and Goldie, M. (Oxford, 1990), pp. 133–62Google Scholar; Ashcraft, R., Revolutionary politics and Locke's Two treatises of government (Princeton, 1986)Google Scholar. See also Smith, A. G., ‘London and the crown 1681–1685’ (unpublished Ph.D thesis University of Wisconsin, 1967)Google Scholar.

8 See my ‘London petitions and parliamentary politics in 1679’, forthcoming in Parliamentary History.

9 All Souls, MS 171, fo. 85, newsletter, 5 Nov. 1679; H[istorical] M[anuscript] C[ommission] Ormonde, IV, 560; The domestick intelligence, nos. 36, 38, 39, 40; Memoirs of the Verney family, ed. Lady, F. and Verney, M. (1925, third edn), II, 329Google Scholar; HMC Verney (7th Report Part 1 Appendix), p. 477; Furley, O. W., ‘The pope-burning processions of the late seventeenth century’, History, XLIV (1959), 16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, S., ‘The pope-burning processions of 1679–81’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXI, no. 1 (1958), 104–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 HMC Ormonde, V, 238.

11 HMC Ormonde, IV, 557; Diary of the times of Charles II by Henry Sidney, ed. Blencowe, R. W. (1843), I, 181, 6 Nov.Google Scholar; All Souls, MS 171 fo. 85, newletter, 5 Nov.; F[olger] S[hakespeare] L[ibrary], Newdigate newsletter Lc. 859, 6 Nov., and Lc. 860, 8 Nov.; Allen, D. F., ‘The political function of Charles II's Chiffinch’, Huntington Library Quarterly, XXXIX (1976), 286Google Scholar; Feiling, K. and Needham, F. ‘The journal of Edmund Warcup’, English Historical Review, XL (1925), 245–7Google Scholar.

12 Diary of…Henry Sidney, I, 183, 10 November; HMC Ormonde, IV, 558; F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 866, II Nov.; B[ritish] L[ibrary], Add[itional] MS 18,730 fo. 62.

13 B.L. Add. MS 32,680 fos. 155–8; SirTemple, William, Memoirs, the third part, ed. Swift, J. (1720), pp. 344–5Google Scholar; HMC Ormonde, IV, 558–9; Original papers; containing the secret history of Great Britain, ed. MacPherson, J. (1776), I, 98Google Scholar; C[alendar] of S[tate] P[apers] D[omestic] 1679–80, p. 203; B[uckinghamshire] R[ecord] O[ffice], M 11/33, Cary Gardiner to Sir Ralph Verney, II Nov.

14 HMC Ormonde, IV, 558, 560; Correspondence of the Hatton Family, ed. Thompson, E. M. (Camden Soc., n.s. xxii), p. 206Google Scholar. For earlier pressure to organize petitioning see HMC Fitzherbert (13th Report Appendix iv), p. 21.

15 H.L. HA Parliament Box 4 [20]. The text of the peers' petition was printed in The domestick intelligence, no. 45, 9 Dec.

16 F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 872, 9 Dec., reported that the petitioning was due to begin the next day. One of the sheets of the petition can be shown to have been signed on 9 Dec. because Richard Tilden wrote the date in the loop of his signature (see sheet –[107] and on his will at P[ublic Record] O[ffice], Prob. 10/1287).

17 North, R., Examen (1740), p. 542Google Scholar.

18 F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 887, 17 Jan.

19 L'Estrange also claimed that the agitators were employed ‘to get Names at four shillings a hundred’ [Citt and Bumpkin (1680), p. 3].

20 H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 68[–]. This is the same text as a printed sheet without subscriptions in the Bod[leian Library] Nichols Newspapers IB, fos. 467, 468. For another copy, with a manuscript note that it was to be sent down into the country see P.R.O. SP29/442, fos. 53–4.

21 Laslett, P., ‘The English revolution and Locke's Two treatises of government’, Cambridge Historical Journal, XII, no. 1 (1956), 48Google Scholar.

22 Jenkes's motion in 1676 that a common council should be called to petition the king for a new parliament had been unsuccessful (Haley, , Shaftesbury, pp. 409–10Google Scholar).

23 One such measure was a bill to legislate for bi-annual parliaments (The bill for regulating abuses in elections [1679], p. 4). For a discussion of attitudes to frequent parliaments see Knights, , ‘Politics and opinion during the Exclusion Crisis 1678–1681’ (unpublished D.Phil thesis, University of Oxford, 1989), pp. 206–9Google Scholar.

24 The true news or Mercurius Anglicus, no. 20, p. 67; no. 16, p. 59.

25 Jones, , First whigs, p. 116Google Scholar, refers to the petition ‘re-emphasizing by implication the need for Exclusion’. Whilst the succession was an issue, there are no grounds for singling it out as the issue at stake.

26 The duke of York claimed that Monmouth's return was concerted with the petitioning lords (Original papers, p. 98). Although not a signatory of the peers' petition, rumours circulated that parliament would set him up as heir when it eventually sat (B.R.O. M 11/33, Cary Gardiner to Sir Ralph Verney, 7 Dec). There was also speculation that William of Orange might land in England to declare his bid for the succession.

27 Diaries of the popish plot, ed. Greene, D. G. (New York, 1977), p. 27Google Scholar. Scott also claimed that though at first the petition referred to the ‘Dambe Confounded Plot… he had found fault wth it as being too Rude for the King, & that therefore he had smothered it for him’. Claypole, Benjamin, the author of the Domestick intelligence, was also taken into custody for ‘being suspected to be concerned in drawing up the pretended petitions’ [C.S.P.D. 1679–1680, p. 307]Google Scholar.

28 C.S.P.D. 1679–80, p. 307; HMC Verney, p. 496; Mercurius Anglicus, no. 6, p. 27.

29 HMC Ormonde, IV, 561; The correspondence of the Hatton family, p. 206; F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 872, 9 Dec.

30 HMC Ormonde, IV, 563.

31 HMC Ormonde, IV, 566. By 13 Dec. Halifax was noted as being active on the Court's Committee of Intelligence which met to discuss ways of settling the nation (L[ibrary of] C[ongress] mf. 18, 124 London newsletter collection, 6/309, 13 Dec.; for Halifax's attendance at this time see B.L. Add. MS 15,643).

32 HMC Ormonde, IV, 566. Wharton's heart was with the petitioners ‘but neither hand nor foot’ (B.R.O, M 11/33, William Denton to Sir Ralph Verney, 8 Dec).

33 HMC Ormonde, IV, 576, 565. According to Southwell (ibid. p. 569) Sir William Jones, who had earlier resigned as attorney general, refused to sign, though a newsletter reported that he was one of the petition's chief promoters (L.C. newsletter 6/315, 30 Dec).

34 B.L. Add. MS 70081, unfoliated, Ashe to Harley, 23 Dec. 1679.

35 L.C. newsletter 6/313, 25 Dec.

36 Rumours that a proclamation would be issued had been circulating as early as 2 Dec. (F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 869). Lord Chief Justice North drew up the final version of it, apparently with the backing of Lord Chancellor Finch who tried to encourage its enforcement (HMC Finch [Series 71], II, 94; The domestick intelligence, no. 94); C.S.P.D 1679–80, p. 307; F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 874, 13 Dec.

37 Charles was reported to be ‘very much Incensed Ag' Proceedings in Relation to Petitions’ (F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 874, 13 Dec).

38 HMC Ormonde, IV, 567; All Souls, MS 171 fo. 161, newsletter 20 Dec.; The true domestick intelligence, no. 49, 23 Dec. For the success of the pamphlet see B.L. Add. MS 70081, Ashe to Harley, 23 Dec. 1679.

39 F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 875, 16 Dec.; U[niversity] C[ollege of] N[orth] W[ales], Bangor, Mostyn Papers MS 9089, fo. 203, newsletter, 16 Dec.

40 Bod., MS North b1, fos. 270–1, privy council minutes, 10 Dec. Jeffreys had wanted the severer version, but had been over-ruled (North, Examen, p. 544).

41 An answer to a letter written by a member of parliament…upon the occasion of his reading the Gazette of the 11th December 1679, pp. 3–4. Luttrell, Narcissus endorsed his copy of this tract ‘A Good Paper shewing the People's Right to Petition’ (Worcester College, Oxford, CHF. 1.7.15)Google Scholar.

42 Diaries of the popish plot, p. 27.

43 All Souls, MS 171, fo. 103, newsletter, 27 Dec.; U.C.N.W, Mostyn MS 9089, fo. 208, newsletter, 27 Dec.; B.L. Add. MS 29,557, fo. 136.

44 B.L. Add. MS 70081, Ashe to Harley, 23 Dec. 1679.

45 F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 881, 30 Dec.; The true domestick intelligence, no. 52, 2 Jan. 1680.

46 P.R.O. Baschet transcripts of French ambassador's despatches, 31/3/143, fo. 127, 11/21 Dec.; ibid. 31/3/144, fos. 2–3, 22 Dec/1 Jan.; ibid. fo. 17, 29 Dec/8 Jan.; Dalrymple, J., Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland (Edinburgh, 1771), II, 260Google Scholar. Lord Holles was probably the most important figure in these negotiations, and Shaftesbury only attended the discussions at a later stage (P.R.O, 31/3/144, fo. 31, 8/18 Jan.).

47 P.R.O, 31/3/144, fos. 25–7, 5/15 Jan.

48 Archives ou correspondence inédite de la maison D'Orange-Nassau, ed. Van Prinsterer, G. Groen (Utrecht, 1861), V, 377–9Google Scholar, Temple to William of Orange, 6 Jan.; P.R.O, 31/3/144, fo. 39, 8/18 Jan. These diplomatic efforts may explain the signature of Joseph Carreras, one of the Spanish Ambassador's servants, on the petition (H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 43[44]).

49 B.R.O, M 11/33, Cary Gardiner to Sir Ralph Verney, 20 Nov. 1679; ibid., same to same, 7 Dec.; HMC Verney, p. 478. For earlier reports that Charles had made an agreement with France see U.C.N.W. Mostyn MS 9089, fo. 191, newsletter, 13 Nov.; All Souls, MS 171, fo. 86, newsletter, 11 Nov.; B.L. microfilm of MSS at Longleat, M/863/7 vol. 11, fo. 443, newsletter, 15 Nov.

50 Texas University, newsletters to Sir Richard Bulstrode, newsletter 19 Dec. 1679.

51 C.S.P.D. 1679–80, p. 364, cf. All Souls, MS 171, fo. 104, newsletter 2 Jan.

52 Longleat, Muddiman newsbook, entry for 3 Jan., observed that ‘the Lists do not fill as they expected’; All Souls, MS 171, fo. 106, newsletter, 7 Jan.; cf. Bod., MS Carte 228, fo. 164, newsletter, 6 Jan.; F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 886, 10 Jan.

53 Haley, Shaftesbury, p. 563Google Scholar.

54 Longleat, Muddiman newsbook, entries for 17, 20 and 23 Jan.; cf. Citt and Bumpkin (1680), p. 3; C.S.P.D. 1679–80, p. 364.

55 The main sources used are: The Conventicle Courant, nos. 1–30, 1682–3; C.L.R.O, Conventicle Boxes, Alchin Box D2/19 (presentments for conventicling), Lord Mayor's Waiting Books, Sessions Files, Sessions Minute Books (some of this information is printed in London Sessions Records 1605–85, ed. Bowler, D. [Catholic Record Society, 1934]Google Scholar), and Southwark sessions papers; wills in P.R.O, Prob. 10, and information about conventiclers P.R.O SP29/421/160; G[uildhall] L[ibrary], MS 20,228/IB (Registers of Petty France congregation), MS 9060 (Archdeaconry of London, assignments for prosecutions of dissenters); G[reater] L[ondon] R[ecord] O[ffice], Conventicle convictions, Middlesex sessions books, Registers of indictments on sessions files (some of this information is printed in Middlesex county records, ed. Jeaffreson, J. [Middlesex County Record Society, 1892]Google Scholar; Dr Williams Library, Lyon Turner papers; Besse, J., A collection of the sufferings of the people called quakers (1753)Google Scholar; Wilson, W., The history and antiquities of dissenting churches and meeting houses in London, Westminster and Southwark (1808–1814)Google Scholar; Whitley, W., The baptists of London (1928)Google Scholar; Freedom after ejection, ed. Gordon, A. (1917)Google Scholar; Calamy revised, ed. Matthews, A. (Oxford, 1934)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Gary De Kxey for sharing some of his data about religious radicals.

56 A list of 78 dissenters living in the parish of St Botolph Aldersgate in 1682 is at P.R.O, SP29/421/160, but the Compton Census showed only 10 (The Compton census, ed. Whiteman, A., [1986], p. 58Google Scholar). At least 34 of those listed signed the petition.

57 It was quite usual for conventiclers to ask fellow dissenters to bail them. A number of such sureties were themselves prosecuted for non-conformity, though these have been counted as ‘definite’ dissenters.

58 A good example of a ‘probable dissenter’ is Josiah Ragdale. In 1681 he acted as a prosecution witness against one John Wyne who had said that Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, the JP to whom Oates had delivered his information, had been murdered by presbyterians, not papists; and the following year a complaint was made against him for neglect of his duty as a constable to suppress conventicles. In 1687/8 he acted as an assistant for the Court of the Tallow Chandler's company, having been restored to its livery.

59 6087 people signed these 65 sheets.

60 B.L. Add. MS 70081, Ashe to Harley, 23 Dec. 1679.

61 The signature of the independent preacher John Langston on H.L. MS HM 68, sheet –[42/43] matches the hand in which the fragment of wording of the petition on that sheet is written, suggesting that he was directly responsible for its promotion.

62 A further twenty petitioners may have been preachers, but their common names prevent a positive identification. At least another dozen petitioners were prosecuted for holding conventicles in their houses.

63 H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 92[–]. Cokayn's signature matches that on Bod., MS Rawl[inson] A3, fo. 249. See also Calamy revised, pp. 124, 153.

64 Lobb's brother Peter, who was also a preacher, signed too on H.L. MS HM 68, sheet –[142].

65 Prominent members of independent congregations include Joseph Caryl, Joshua Brooke, William Blennerhaysett, Roger Locke, Peter French, James St John and Richard Tims.

66 L.C. newsletter 6/315, 30 Dec.

67 They signed H.L. MS HM 68, sheet –[142]. Henry's signature matches Bod., MS Rawl. D. 398, fo. 7.

68 Cornish's daughter married Henry Ashhurst's son (Woodhead, J. R., The rulers of London (1965), p. 52Google Scholar.

69 Longleat, Muddiman newsbook, entry for 3 Jan.

70 P.R.O, SP29/425/180, Rich to Jenkins [1683]; Lacey, D., Dissent and parliamentary politics 1660–1689 (New Jersey, 1969), p. 324n. 65Google Scholar. Smith's baptist friend Ralph Alexander, whom he met at the Salutation Tavern, also signed (H.L. MS HM, 68 sheet IOI[–]; C.S.P.D. 1682, pp. 495, 358).

71 Correspondence of the Hatton family, p. 206. Manley's signature is H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 85[85]. Manley had been granted land in Shaftesbury's colony of Carolina in 1678 (The history of parliament: the house of commons 1660–1690 ed. Henning, B. D. (1983), III, 13Google Scholar).

72 Ashcraft, , Revolutionary politics p. 412n. 22Google Scholar; P.R.O, Prob. 10/1196, Ayloffe's will; The domestick intelligence, no. 51, 30 Dec. 1679. Harris signed H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 41[–]. Another promoter of the petition was Titus Oates, who may have been ‘a renegade baptist’ [Jones, , First whigs, p. 117Google Scholar; Harris, , London crowds, p. 120 n. 159Google Scholar]. Andrew Collett, who promoted the May 1679 petition, was also probably a baptist (see my forthcoming article ‘London petitions’).

73 De Krey, G., A fractured society (Oxford, 1985), p. 97Google Scholar, notes the quaker's refrain from involvement in the secular affairs of the City.

74 cf. ibid. pp. 148–9.

75 Ibid. pp. 94, 88–9, though he argues that independents and presbyterians shared more with each other than with baptists.

76 Thus in 1679 Walter Kidley buried a son at St Matthew Friday Street, and two years later had another son baptized ‘by a Dissenter as is supposed’ (Harl. Soc. LXIII, 28).

77 Humphrey Edy, who was prosecuted for non-conformity in 1683, had had his son christened at St Antholin Budge Row in 1679; and another dissenter, Owen Buckingham, had his daughter christened in 1677 at St Mildred Bread Street. During the persecution 1681–6 many more nonconformists can be identified as having made use of the local church. Peter Ducane was a presbyterian who in 1690 contributed £10 to the Common Fund, but in 1681 had his son christened at St Mary le Bow; Isaac Ashe was sufficiently sympathetic in 1685 to the plight of a conventicler to act as surety for him, and yet in the same year had his son christened at All Hallows Bread Street.

78 P.R.O, SP29/418/199; G.L.R.O, Calendar of Sessions Books Vol. VI 1679–82, Book 387, JP's petition to the king, July 1681; P.R.O, SP2g/419/138; Dalrymple, , Memoirs, II, 322–3Google Scholar, notes by Lord Keeper North; C.L.R.O, Court of Lieutenancy Minute Book 1684–7, fos. 24, 32, 37–43, 53, 55.

79 The true domestick intelligence, no. 48, 17 Dec.; Haarlem courant, no. 4, 6 Jan.; F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 876, 18 Dec.

80 Citt and Bumpkin (1680), p. 1. L'Estrange identified two clubs, one near the Guildhall and the other in the Strand, as the two main ones. A Horsley, William is known to have promoted the petition in the Strand (An account of the proceedings at the sessions for the City of Westminster [1680])Google Scholar.

81 Club membership can be derived from four main sources: Mr Thomas Dangerfield's particular narrative (1679), pp. 31–3; Samuel Pepys's transcript of the Green Ribbon club's journal (Magdalene College, Cambridge, Pepys MS 2895, fos. 489–491); Wade's, Nathanial list (printed in Sitwell, G., The first whig, [Scarborough, 1894], Appendix, p. 200)Google Scholar; and P.R.O, SP 29/417, fo. 277 (the right-hand column of the document is headed by Slingsby Bethel, and appears to be a list of his associates). For a discussion of clubs see Allen, D. F., ‘Political clubs in Restoration London’, Historical Journal, XIX, no. 3 (1976), 561–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, J. R., ‘The Green Ribbon club’, Durham University Journal, XLIX, no. 1 (12 1956), 17–20Google Scholar; and Harris, , London crowds, pp. 100–1Google Scholar.

82 H.L. MS HM 68, sheet –[149]. In addition to those listed in the text, Anthony Calcott, John Parsons, William Russell, Robert Leigh, Thomas Raynton and John Stratford signed.

83 Ferguson's signature matches that on P.R.O, SP29/417/53, letter to his wife, 24 Oct. 1679. At the beginning of December the government warned the mayor of Harwich to look out for ‘the pretended minister…concerned in some dangerous practices’ against the king (C.S.P.D. 1679–80, p. 293; B.L. Add. MS 15,643, fo. 41). For an account of his life see Ferguson, J., Robert Ferguson ‘the plotter’ (Edinburgh, 1887)Google Scholar. One of Ferguson's congregation, Zachary Bourne, participated in the Rye House discussions, and signed sheet –[147] (for his signature see P.R.O, SP29/427/111–12).

84 Smith's signature matches that on B.L. Add. MS 42,586, fo. 110. Ayloffe's signature matches that on his will, dated 15 Nov. 1679, (which is incorrectly filed as 1689) at P.R.O, Prob. 10/1196.

85 Poems on affairs of state, ed. Mengel, E. (New Haven, 1965–1996), II, 393–405Google Scholar; A true account of the proceedings against John Ayloffe (1985).

86 Ashcraft, , Revolutionary politics, p. 129 n. 3Google Scholar; Sprat, T., A true account and declaration of the horrid conspiracy against the late king (1685), p. 16Google Scholar.

87 Haley, , Shaftesbury, p. 664Google Scholar.

88 Starkey's signature matches that on P.R.O, 30/24/6A/349. Starkey was Shaftsbury's representative when the earl's papers were opened by the government in 1681 (Haley, , Shaftesbury, p. 656)Google Scholar.

89 Hooper's signature matches that on B.L. Add. MS 41,819, fo. 39. His brother Thomas, who stood with Ayloffe as parliamentary candidates for Christ Church in 1681, also signed here (C.S.P.D. 1680–1, p. 165). Both Hoopers were involved in Monmouth's, rebellion (The tryals of Henry Cornish [1683], p. 8)Google Scholar.

90 Everard's signature matches that on B.L. Add. 41,819, fo. 187. Everard, probably distributed copies of A Letter to a person of honour concerning the king's disavowing the having been married to the duke of Monmouth's mother (1680)Google Scholar, for which he was imprisoned (Haley, , Shaftesbury, p. 580 n. 1)Google Scholar. Everard, turned informer in 1681 (‘Journals of Edmund Warcup’, p. 254)Google Scholar.

91 Ward's signature matches that on B.L. Eg. 3354, fo. 67. The alarm, or an hue and cry after Sir P–t W–d (1683), verso, described him as the head and mouth of the dissenters and ‘at all times for preferring their rude and unmannerly petitions’.

92 Deacle was described as ‘hott headed’ (P.R.O, SP29/417/112).

93 See n. 81.

94 Sheet 107[–]. Bethel's signature matches that on B.L. Add. 41,819, fo. 95. For Bethel's club see Walker, J., ‘The Republican party in England from the Restoration to the revolution 1660–1688’ (Unpublished Ph.D.thesis, University of Manchester, 1930), p. 208Google Scholar.

95 C.S.P.D. Jan.–July 1683, p. 239.

96 C.S.P.D. July–Sept. 1683, p. 221, Thomas Saywell to Jenkins. Weekes's signature matches that on G.L, MS 8167/1 Freemen of the Dyers Company. Weekes tried to give evidence on Bethel's behalf in 1681 (The tryal of Slingsby Bethel [1681], p. 6). Weekes was prosecuted in 1681, but protected by an ‘ignoramus’ jury (London sessions records, p. 313).

97 Ibid. Others on the list in the state papers who signed here are Bartholomew Hunt, and John Fiennes.

98 See H.L. MS HM 68, sheet –[176].

99 HMC Ormonde, V, 29. Mansell's acquaintances included Felix Donlius, who signed the same sheet, and who frequented Newman's coffee house in Gracechurch Street where Mansell's friend Scott had revealed his copy of the petition to Pepys's spy (Bod., M S Rawl. A.175, fo. 214; Diaries of the popish plot, p. 27 of Joyne's journal).

100 Alsop's signature matches that on Bod., MS Rawl. Letters 51, fo. 156; P.R.O, SP29/415/190; Aubrey, J., Brief lives, ed. Clark, A. (Oxford, 1898), n, 60Google Scholar; B.L. Add. MS 29, 557, fo. 234.

101 Tily's signature matches that of B.L. Add. MS 41,819, fo. 123. Tily was ordered to be arrested on 21 Jan. 1680 for spreading false and seditious news (P.R.O, PC2/68, fo. 520, privy council minutes). Oliver St John, possibly the MP for Stockbridge, and James St John (see B.L. Add. MS 46,955B, fo. 122 for details about him) signed this sheet, as did another clubber, John Pratt.

102 H.L. MS HM, 68, sheet –[173].

103 C.S.P.D. July–Sept. 1683, p. 94.

104 The history of the whiggish plot (1684), p. 61.

105 His signature matches that on Bod., MS Locke C. 23, fo. 146.

106 H.L. MS HM 68, sheet –[158]. Gerard's signature matches that on P.R.O, 30/24/6B/420. The other MPs were Richard Duke, Yonge's kinsman (Bod., MS Locke C. 8, fo. 59); Edward Boscawen (B.L. Add. MS 28,053, fo. 24), and Somerset Fox (Bod., MS Rawl. A.14, fo. 562). The latter was an opponent of exclusion who was probably persuaded to sign by his cousin, Gerard, another indication that the petitioners cannot simply be called exclusionists. Another MP, Samuel Barnardiston, the promoter of the Suffolk petition, signed on H.L. MS HM 68, sheet –[150] (P.R.O, SP29/435/39), and Morgan Randyll, MP for Guildford, on H.L. MS HM 68, –[180]. Guilford's second Member, Richard Onslow, signed sheet –[149].

107 Sprat, , A true account, pp. 2, 7, 25Google Scholar; State trials, IX, 975. Hunt, Gibbs and Manley all signed H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 85[85]. Bateman signed the same sheet as George Cokayn.

108 C.S.P.D. July–Sept. 1683, p. 368.

109 Sprat, , A true account, p. 52Google Scholar. Grainge signed the same sheet as Mansell; C.L.R.O. Court of Lieutenancy, Minute book 1676–1684, fo. 181. Nelson signed the same sheet as Nelthorpe, Ferguson and other plotters.

110 Sprat, , A true account, p. 64Google Scholar; An account of the proceedings…in the Old Bayly, 12–14 December 1683, p. 4.

111 P.R.O, SP29/425/180 and 182.

112 Disney had published Monmouth's Declaration, and was John Wildman's cousin (Ashcraft, , Revolutionary politics, p. 449)Google Scholar. Hewling was the grand-son of the leading baptist William Kiffin, and Hewling senior signed the same sheet (–[180]) as his son. Bateman, was also executed (A true account of the…execution of Charles Bateman [1685])Google Scholar.

113 C.L.R.O. Court of Lieutenancy, Minute book 1684–7, fo. 55; Middlesex county records, IV, 287–8; The proceedings…in the Old Bayly 1–10 September 1686, p. 2.

114 C.L.R.O. lord mayor's Waiting Book, XIV, 228.

115 H.L. MS HM 68, sheet –[142]. His signature matches C.L.R.O. common council papers 1680, address of thanks to Lord Mayor Clayton.

116 Five more petitoners stood surety for some of them (C.L.R.O. Court of Lieutenancy, Minute book, 1684–7, fos. 24–55).

117 C.S.P.D. 1680–1, p.574. Sherman sat on Rouse's jury in 1681, and signed on the same sheet as three others of the panel (H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 145[–]; The two associations [1681], p. 8).

118 H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 92[–];.

119 P.R.O. SP29/417/112–13, list of, and notes on, the jurymen.

120 The two associations (1681), p. 8.

121 71 of them were definite or probable non-conformists. The total figure of petitioning jurymen includes those who sat on Middlesex juries, which attracted the same degree of government criticism as their City counterparts (G.L.R.O. Calendar of sessions books, VI, Session books 387, 391, 396, 397, 399).

122 13 car. II. Cap. V.

123 Knights, , ‘Politics and opinion’, pp. 296–8Google Scholar; Leeds Archive Office, Mexborough MSS, Reresby MS 15/38, newsletter, 24 June 1680. P.R.O. (Kew), Adm. 77/1/54, newsletter, 24 June 1680 gives the names of the jury, whom the duke of York referred to as disaffected (Archives, V, 408, letter to William of Orange, 24 June 1680). Five of them had signed the mass petition.

124 Dr Williams Library, MS 31P, Morrice's Ent'ring book, fo. 280, 30 Nov. 1680; Longleat, Muddiman newsbook, entry for 29 Nov. 1680; The humble petition of the grand jury of…Oswalston, (1680).

125 C.S.P.D. 1680–1, p. 283, P.R.O. SP29/415/190 lists the jury, ten of whom had signed the mass petition.

126 Haley, , Shaftesbury, pp. 699–704Google Scholar.

127 P.R.O. SP29/419/168, petition of 20 July 1682. A much smaller petition was presented on 18 July (P.R.O. SP29/419/165).

128 G.L. MS 507, Moore's papers, nos. 36 and 38, rioters, 1682; The proceedings and judgement against the rioters (1683).

129 Solomon Heath was charged with saying that he should wear the crown himself (Harris, London crowds, p. 162); Nathanial Powell was forced to beg pardon for having called the duke of York a pimp and the son of a whore (C.S.P.D. 1682, p. 18); and James Fitsall was prosecuted in 1683 for failing as a constable to stop a ‘riot’ at a bonfire on 5 Nov. 1683 (Middlesex county records, IV, 229).

130 Constraints over the press had expired in the summer, and the government's proclamation of 31 Oct. for the suppression of seditious books proved an almost total failure.

131 H.L. MS HM 68, sheet – [42].

132 Newman, who later became a preacher, acted as surety for a non–conformist, was one of those arrested in 1685, and lived next to Ben Godfrey who was like wise taken into custody. Samuel Lee, a publisher whose wife was prosecuted for non-conformity, signed next to Newman.

133 J. Dunton, The life and errors of John Dunton (1705, reprint New York, 1974), p. 281. Parkhurst's signature matches that on Bod., MS Rawl. D.730, fo. 121, signed copy of The interest of England (1689).

134 He was prosecuted in 1683 for writing seditious pamphlets (C.L.R.O. Sessions file 307/84).

135 Plomer, H. R., A dictionary of the printers and booksellers…1668–1725 (1968), p. 144Google Scholar.

136 Larkin's signature matches P.R.O. SP29/424/151. He published Shall I Shall I, No No (C.L.R.O. Session file 315 p. 4), as well as printing Richard Janeway's newsbooks (C.S.P.D. 1682, p. 199). He was a dissenter. Other petitioners prominent in the book trade were Thomas Cockerill, Samuel Sprint, Ralph Harbottle, Rowland Reynolds, Robert Boulter, Christopher Hussey, Obadiah Smith, Enoch Prosser and Ben Alsop.

137 C.S.P.D. 1679–80, p. 488.

138 Middlex county records, IV, 243–4.

139 Narcissus Luttre's popish plot catalogues, ed. Francis, F. (Oxford 1956), p. 7Google Scholar, re. 13 Jan. 1679–80. According to Luttrell, Nathanial Crouch wrote The domestick intelligence (ibid. p. 20), and he signed the petition (H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 123[124]).

140 Longleat, Muddiman newsbook, entry for 12 Dec. 1679; P.R.O. PC2/68, fo. 485, privy council minutes for 17 Dec.; Hancocke's signature H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 108[–] matches Bod., MS Rawl. A. 175, fo. 163, letter to Pepys, 17 Jan. 1680/1. For Oxenbridge see C.S.P.D. July-Sept. 1683, p. 17, Aaron Smith also wrote newsletters at this time(C.S.P.D. July-Sept. 1683, p. 91).

141 See my article, ‘Petitioning and the political theorists: John Locke, Algernon Sidney, and London's “Monster” petition of 1680’, forthcoming in Past and Present.

142 Leeds archive office, Mexborough MSS, Reresby 14/116, 27 Dec. Cf. The memoirs of Thomas Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, ed. Buckley, W. (1890), p. 45Google Scholar; A petition to the petitioners (1680), p. 3; North, Examen p. 542.

143 This does not include the small number of signatures written in the same hand (see above).

144 Stone, L., ‘Literacy and education in England 1640–90’, Past and Present, XLII (1969), p. 110, table ivGoogle Scholar; Cressy, D., Literacy and the social order (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 134–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, table 6.7. Of 114 names on the list of apprentices and freemen of the Poulterers (G.L. MS 3382), 106 were signatures; of the 193 entries for apprentices of the Ironmongers (G.L. MS 16981/1), only 7 were marks; of 458 entries in the freeman register of the Dyers (G.L. MS 8167/1) 57 were marks; and 70 percent of the weavers who contributed subscriptions to the rebuilding of their hall after the Fire could sign their name (Plummer, A., The London Weavers' Company 1660–1970 [1972], p. 216 n. 31Google Scholar).

145 Stephen College, the ‘Protestant Joiner’, appears to have been a member of the Skinners' company, of which Shaftesbury and Francis Goodenough were also members (records at Skinners' company).

146 I have followed the contemporary categorization of the twelve chief companies (Angliae Notitia [1679], II, 197), and De Krey's inclusion of the Dyers, Stationers, Pewterers and Apothecaries as ‘substantial’; the other companies have been labelled as ‘artisan’ (Fractured society, p. 168).

147 This only tabulates companies where ten or more members signed the petition: the remaining subscribers worked at a wide variety of trades, from mariner to schoolmaster.

148 Pens and ink were provided for subscribers of the winter petition at the Royal Exchange (The true domestick intelligence, no. 53, 6 Jan. 1680), and many of the merchants' signatures are to be found on sheets near the end of the petition.

149 Monteage's signature matches those in B.L. Add. MS 29,558, passim, letters to Lord Hatton. for whom he acted as agent. Monteage's participation in the campaign may be due to the duke of Buckingham, with whom he had financial dealings, or to his friendship with the radical Houblon family (G.L. MS 15,818; Dictionary of national biography).

150 Plummer, , The London weavers, p. 260Google Scholar. For his signature see G.L. MS 4648A/1.

151 For example, Moses Browne had been master of the Founders company 1667–8; Henry Fewtrell had served as master of the Ironmongers in 1667–8; Humphrey Kilby had been master of the Glass-Sellers in 1670–1; and Hercules Comander had been warden of the Scriveners in 1675.

152 Glass, D. V., London inhabitants within the walls, 1695 (1966)Google Scholar.

153 F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 884, 27 Dec.; All Souls, MS 171, fo. 106, newsletter, 7 Jan. 1680.

154 HMC Ormonde, IV, 574.

155 For the mixed social status of provincial petitioners see B.L. M/863/7, vol. XI, fo. 453; P.R.O. SP29/442/53–4; All Souls, MS 171, fo. 105.

156 One critical observer of the petition claimed that many of its signatories were ‘educated in the Art of button makers, Taggers and Points of Laces’ (An answer to the merchant's letter, [1680], p. 3), and a Rye House plotter claimed ‘there would be 5000 weavers’ ready to rebel (C.S.P.D. July–Sept. 1683, p. 5). For a discussion of the relationship between petitioning and the cloth trade see my article ‘London petitions and parliamentary politics in 1679’.

157 Harris, , London crowds, pp. 215–16Google Scholar.

158 Monier-Williams, R., The Tallow-Chandlers of London (1973), III, 89Google Scholar.

159 G.L. MS 7090/7, Company minute book, entry for 18 July 1678.

160 Bod., MS Carte 228, fo. 164, newsletter 6 Jan. 1680, and fo. 140, newsletter, 7 Jan.

161 F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 886, 10 Jan.

162 F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 887, 12 Jan. 1680; the wording of H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 68[–] was altered to read ‘in and about the City of London’.

163 The petitions in the provinces were promoted by parish (HMC Ormonde, IV, 565).

164 H.L. MS HM 68, sheet 41[–]. for the radicalism of this area see The proceedings at…the Old Bayly…24 November 1681, p. 23.

165 H.L. MS HM 68, sheet –[148]. Seven of Francis Smith's ‘ignoramus’ jury came from this ward (P.R.O. SP29/417/394). Seven more parishioners of St Stephen Walbrook signed sheet –[106].

166 H.L. MS HM 68, sheets 36[36] and –[150].

167 Ibid., sheets 61 [62], –[62/3], 64[64]. For the radicalism of this area see Sprat, , A true account, p. 8Google Scholar; The proceedings…at Hick's Hall, September 6 1684, p. 1.

168 H.L. MS HM 68, sheets–[139], –[140], and –[163], 164[–], –[177]. Harris, , London crowds, pp. 219–20Google Scholar, however, suggests a high proportion of ‘tories’ lived in Westminster.

169 H.L. MS HM 68, sheets 114[114], 115[–]and 116[–].

170 Other parishes can be associated with certain sheets, e.g. St Matthew Friday Street with –[146], St Michael Bassishaw with –[143] and –[151], the French church in Threadneedle Street with 24[25], 25[26], 26[27], 27[28], 29[30], St Paul's Covent Garden with –[168], All Hallows Bread Street with –[174], and St Stephen Coleman Street with 141 and –[151]. Harris, (London crowds, pp. 219–22)Google Scholar has stressed the existence of divided communities in the inner and middle city, although De Krey has concluded that neither ‘whigs’ nor ‘tories’ had taken firm root there by this time [A fractured society (Oxford, 1985), pp. 173–4]Google Scholar.

171 Bod., MS Carte 228, fo. 140, newsletter, 7Jan.; P.R.O. 31/3/144, fo. 46, 15/25Jan.; F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 887, 17 Jan.

172 Fletcher, A., The outbreak of the English civil war (1981), p. 91Google Scholar.

173 F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 883, 3 Jan.

174 P.R.O. 31/3/144, fo. 49, 19/29 Jan. The sanction of the City's government was also necessary to make the petition strictly legal (13 Car. II cap. V). The provincial campaign slowed down after Charles's, hostile reception of the London petition (HMC Ormonde, IV, 576Google Scholar; F.S.L. Newdigate newletter Lc. 890, 20 Jan.).

175 See Knights, ‘London and parliamentary politics in 1679’. At least 445 of the winter petitioners had signed the May petition.

176 A number of Common Councilmen were said to have signed (F.S.L. Newdigate newletter Lc. 884, 27 Dec), and according to C.L. newsletter 6/315, 30 Dec, had done so on a petition that would be presented separately to the king. At least 104 members of common council 1660–90 listed in Woodhead's Rulers of London appear to have signed the mass petition.

177 Correspondence of the Hatton family, p. 206.

178 F.S.L. Newdigate newletter Lc. 878, 23 Dec.; C.S.P.D. 1679–80 p. 369; Bod., MS Carte 228, fo. 164, newsletter, 6 Jan.

179 Haley, , Shaftesbury, p. 564Google Scholar n. 1. According to Sir Patience Ward, George Jeffreys' argument that petitioning might lead to the surrender of the charter deterred many (Grey, , Debates, VII, 436–8, 468Google Scholar), and another factor in the caution may have been the dispute with the king over water bailage which was decided at the end of January in the City's favour ‘in returne for theire dutifulnesse in rejecting ye petition’ (Bulstrode newletter, 30 Jan.; L.C. newsletter 7/13, 31 Jan.).

180 Diary of Henry Sidney, I, 248, countess Sunderland to Sidney, 23 Jan.; Cheshire Record Office, DCH/k/3/2, Edward Cholmondeley to Mr Adams, 20 Jan.

181 For details about these see Knights, , ‘Politics and opinion’, pp. 294–8Google Scholar.

182 Diary of Henry Sidney, I, 252.

183 The true news or Mercurius Anglicus, no. 67, 26 Jan.; F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 893, 27 Jan.

184 A further discovery (1680), p. 5.

185 Longleat, Muddiman newsbook, entry for 13 Jan.

186 Lancs. Record Office, Kenyon MS DDK/6/21, report on petitioning; HMC Ormonde, IV, 566. Francis Smith, who promoted the petition, was examined by the privy council for publishing a tract about the Elizabethen Association of Protestants (Domestick intelligence, no. 48, 19 12 1679)Google Scholar.

187 North, , Examen, p. 544Google Scholar.

188 U.C.N.W. Mostyn MS 9089, fo. 206, newsletter, 23 Dec.; The true news or Mercurius Anglicus, no. 11, 24–7 Dec; The true domestick intelligence, no. 45, 9 Dec; F.S.L. Newdigate newsletter Lc. 884, 27 Dec.

189 C.S.P.D. 1679–80, p. 376; The domestick intelligence, nos. 53, 55 and 57.

190 B.L. Add. MS 63,057A, Manuscript history, fo. 54.

191 Letters of Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis(Camden Society, n.s., XV, 1875), p. 75Google Scholar. cf. Longleat, Muddiman newsbook, entry for 12 Dec; Bod., MS Top. Oxon. e. 102, fo. 136, Anthony Wood to Fulman, 12 Dec; All Souls, MS 116, fo. 59, ‘A petition to the Presbiters’; HMC Ormonde, V, 259, 266; B.L. Eg. 3680, fo. 152, Coventry to Bulstrode, 29 Dec.

192 Citt and Bumpkin (1680), p. 28; A word concerning libels (1681), p. 11; Advice to the men of Shaftesbury (1681), p. 3; An apostrophe from the Loyal party (1681), p. 3; A letter to a friend reflecting on the present condition (n.d.), p. 3; Goodman country (1680), p.3; Longleat, Muddiman newsbook, entry for 17 Jan. Cromwellian veterans who signed include George Cokayn; Thomas Kelsey, a Cromwellian Major-General who had presented the army petition of May 1659; Edmund Chillenden and Richard Halford, former army agitators; Owen Meverell, and two of the petition's presenters, Thomas Johnson, and Thomas Smith, who had served in the parliamentary army; and William Malyn, Cromwell's secretary (I am grateful to Dr Blair Worden for pointing Malyn's signature out to me; it matches that on P.R.O. SP18/130/90II, letter to Cromwell, Nov. 1656). The petition did not, however, simply appeal to old radicals since men of all ages signed.