Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:33:00.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Militia and the Army in the Reign of James II*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

John Miller
John Miller
Affiliation:
Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two of the most basic functions of any government are the maintenance of order and defence against rebellion or invasion. In the England of Charles II these functions, one police, the other military, were performed by the small standing army and the militia. James II enlarged the army and so was able to use it to maintain order to a greater extent than Charles had done. At the same time he deliberately neglected the militia (except in London) and made sweeping and highly unpopular changes among the lords lieutenant and deputy lieutenants who commanded it. As a result, when William of Orange invaded late in 1688 and James tried to raise the militia, he found it both disorganized and disaffected. Many lieutenancies failed to perform the auxiliary military functions which James expected, and some sections of the militia joined, or were raised by, insurgents against the king. However, the police function of the militia, unlike the military function, did not fail; both properly-appointed lieutenants and insurgents used the forces at their disposal to maintain order, having no desire to encourage or condone violence and looting.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 1973 , pp. 659 - 679
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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 13 Car. II, stat. I, cap. 6; 14 Car. II, cap. 3; 15 Car. II, cap. 4.

2 For the mutinous behaviour of the militia in 1640, see Barnes, T. G., Somerset 1625–1640 (London, 1961), pp. 273–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Barnes, ch. ii, especially pp. 119–21Google Scholar; Boynton, L., The Elizabethan Militia (London, 1967), pp. 267–9 suggests that musters were not quite as futile as Barnes made out.Google Scholar

4 Barnes, , pp. 105–7 and cn. ix.Google Scholar

5 Western, J. R., The English Militia in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1965), pp. 8–9, 11–15.Google Scholar

6 In 1679 the J.P.s of Westmoreland raised the trained bands, by-passing the lieutenancy: Jarvis, R. C., Collected Papers on the Jacobite Risings (Manchester, 1971), I, 141, citing H[istorical] M[anuscripts] C[ommission Reports], le Fleming [MSS], p. 159.Google Scholar

7 Western, pp. 27–9; Barnes, pp. 262–71; Boynton, pp. 270–91.

8 Western, pp. 68–70; Norfolk Lieutenancy Journal 1676–1701, ed. Cozens-Hardy, B. (Norfolk Record Soc., xxx, 1961), pp. 24–5, 41–6Google Scholar; Allen, D., ‘The Role of the London Trained Bands in the Exclusion Crisis, 1678–1681’, Eng. Hist. Rev., LXXXVII (1972), pp. 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Beloff, M., Public Order and Popular Disturbances 1660–1714 (Oxford, 1938), pp. 145–6.Google Scholar I am unconvinced by Professor Western's claim that the militia decayed because of a growing distaste for its use as an instrument of repression (English Militia, pp. 48–50, 63, 73). This cannot be proved by showing that the pretence that it could be an alternative army became increasingly unreal. Its police function became much less necessary after 1689 simply because there was a much larger standing army. (Professor Western did not try to make this point when talking of the militia in his last book, and may well have abandoned it: Monarchy and Revolution (London, 1972), pp. 145–6.)Google Scholar

10 Autobiography of Sir John Bramston, ed. Braybrooke, Lord (Camden Soc., 1845), pp. 184–5Google Scholar; Davies, G., ‘The Militia in 1685’, Eng. Hist. Rev., XLIII (1928), pp. 604–5; tne militia was not all bad however: B[ritish] M[useum], Add. MS 41803, fo. 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Western, , English Militia, pp. 54–7Google Scholar; C[alendar of] S[tate] P[apers] D[omestic], 1685, no. 957; B.M. Add. MS 41804, fos. 1, 20; [Dr Williams's Library], Morrice MS P, p. 471.

12 C.S.P.D. 1685, no. 992; it was on foot for just under a month: ibid., nos. 852, 884, 1188–9.

13 Fox, C. J., History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II (London, 1808)Google Scholar, appendix, p. cxiii; Sir Dalrymple, J., Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, II (1773), appendix 1, pp. 169–70Google Scholar

14 Bodleian Library, Carte MS 130, to. 23; the duke of Albemarle told Bramston much the same thing: Autobiography of Sir John Bramston, p. 205.Google Scholar

15 C.S.P.D. 1685, no. 1368; the same question was asked of the City of London lieutenancy: Corporation of London Record Office, Lieutenancy Minute Book (hereafter L.M.B.) 1684–7, P. 66.

16 Grey, A., Debates in the House of Commons 1667–94 (1763), VIII, 353–71Google Scholar; Clarke, J. S., Life of James II (1816), II, 47–8.Google Scholar

17 C.S.P.D. 1686–7, no. 1212; H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 203; B.M. Add. MS 34510, fo. 10.

18 Norfolk Lieutenancy Journal, pp. 78–88Google Scholar; C.S.P.D. 1686–7, nos. 1807–8; below, pp. 667–9.

19 See my Ph.D. thesis, ‘The Catholic Factor in English Politics, 1660–1688’ (Cambridge, 1971), p. 308 and appendix 3. (This will be published by Cambridge University Press in 1973 under the title Popery and Politics in England, 1660–1688.)Google Scholar

20 See Barnes, , pp. 11–12, 43–5, 102–4.Google Scholar

21 H.M.C. le Strange, p. 107; Luttrell, N., A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, 1678–1714 (Oxford, 1857), I. 431, 435Google Scholar; P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], SP 31/4, fo. 81A; Bruce, T., earl of Ailesbury, Memoirs, ed. Buckley, W. E. (Cambridge, 1890), I, 166–7. Ailesbury thought his new deputies quite unsuitable, none of them having ever been to his house. The duke of Newcasde was another lord lieutenant not consulted about his new deputies: Morrice MS Q, p. 246.Google Scholar

22 Ailesbury, 1, 177–8; P.R.O., SP 31/4, fos. 81A, 100, SP 44/56, pp. 408, 422.

23 H.M.C. Hastings, II, 186; H.M.C. 7th Report, Appendix, p. 412.

24 Charles II's small army was sometimes used for police purposes (e.g., breaking up conventicles): Longleat, Coventry MS, XI, fo. 107; for the size of the army, see my article ‘Catholic Officers in the Later Stuart Army’, Eng. Hist. Rev., LXXXVIII (1973), pp. 42, 46.Google Scholar

25 B.M. Add. MS 34508, fos. 116–8, 41804, fo. 160; H.M.C. Portland, III, 396; P.R.O., PRO/ 31/3/166 (Barillon au Roi, 30 May 1686 N[ew] S[tyle]).

26 H.M.C. Portland, III, 395; B.M. Add. MS 34508, fo. 109; A. à Wood, Life and Times, ed. Clark, A., in (Oxford Hist. Soc., 1894), p. 196Google Scholar; Macaulay, T. B., History of England (2nd ed., London, 1849–1961), II, 285, 300Google Scholar; Morrice, MS Q, p. 183.Google Scholar

27 Wood, , Life and Times, III, 202, 241–5Google Scholar; Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, ed. Browning, A. (Glasgow, 1936), pp. 487–8.Google Scholar

23 H.M.C. leFleming, pp. 213–15, 218Google Scholar; Ellis, Corr [espondence], ed. Ellis, G. J. W. Agar (London, 1829), II, 255–6Google Scholar; H.M.C. 2nd Report, Appendix, p. IIGoogle Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 38695, fo. 19.

29 The duke of Beaufort sided with the town against the soldiers: Morrice MS P, p. 639.

30 Jones, J. R., ‘James IPs Whig Collaborators’, H.J., III (1960), pp. 71–2; B.M. Add. MS 34510, fo. 122, 34512, fos. 77–9; [Nottingham University Library], Portland MSS, PwA 2161.Google Scholar

31 Atkinson, C. T., History of the Royal Dragoons (Glasgow, 1934), pp. 52–3.Google Scholar

32 Cavelli, E. Campana di, Les Derniers Stuarts à Saint Germain-en-Laye (London, 1871), II, 108, 140, 145Google Scholar; Barillon au Roi, 8 July and 23 Sept. 1686 N.S., P.R.O., PRO/31/3/166, 167; A Supplement to Burnet's History of My Own Time, ed. Foxcroft, H. C. (Oxford, 1902), p. 226Google Scholar; Miller, , art. cit., Eng. Hist. Rev. (1973), pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

33 Morrice, MS P, p. 517Google Scholar; Revolution Politicks (1733), pt. III, 29–30Google Scholar; Portledge Papers, ed. Kerr, R. J. and Duncan, I. C. (London, 1928), p. 39.Google Scholar

34 Morrice, MS Q, p. 182Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 34510, fo. 114; Clarke, , Life of James II, II, 163Google Scholar; Portland MSS, PwA 2171; Campana, , Derniers Stuarts, II, 201, 235.Google Scholar

35 See, for instance, The Diurnal of Thomas Rugg, ed. Sachse, W. L. (Camden Soc., 1961), pp. 78–9Google Scholar; Beloff, , Public Order, pp. 30–1, 137Google Scholar; Kenyon, J. P., The Popish Plot (London, 1972), pp. 237–40Google Scholar; Holmes, G., The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell (London, 1973)Google Scholar, ch. 7. There was a typically violent incident in 1683 when there was an attempt to introduce bullfighting in London. The bull failed to fight and the angry crowd pulled down the arena and carried off the bull: Newdigate-Newdegate, E., Cavalier and Puritan in the Days of the Stuarts (London, 1901), pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

36 Allen, , art. cit., Eng. Hist. Rev. (1972), pp. 288–94; the City trained bands had shown their military prowess when they relieved Gloucester in 1643.Google Scholar

37 L.M.B. 1684–7, P. III; see above, p. 662.

38 L.M.B. 1684–7, p. II0b ff.; L.M.B. 1685–8 (unpaginated), 3 Nov. 1687.

39 Moreover there was no order to levy the annual month's tax after Feb. 1687 (L.M.B. 1684–7, p. 108); there is also no record of any provision for extra guards during the Seven Bishops' trial, although the Lord Mayor could order extra guards without convening the lieutenancy (L.M.B. 1685–8, 3 Nov. 1687).

40 Morrice MS Q, pp. 109–10; in May 1688 some Southwark butchers beat soldiers who refused to pay for their meat; the magistrates allowed the tumult to take its course, fearing that an attempt to use force might make matters worse: ibid., pp. 264–5.

41 See Allen, , Eng. Hist. Rev. (1972), p. 290, n. 7.Google Scholar

42 Barillon au Roi, 2 July 1685 N.S., Ministère des Affaires Etrangeres, Paris, Archives Diplomatiques, Correspondance Politique Angleterre, vol. 155; B.M. Add. MS 34508, fos. 103–4; Morrice MS P, p. 517.

43 Macdonald, G., ‘The Lime Street Chapel’ (pt. I), Dublin Review, CLXXX (1927), pp. 263–4Google Scholar; (pt. 2), ibid., CLXXXI, 2–6; Ranke, L. von, History of England (Oxford, 1875), iv, 295.Google Scholar

44 B.M. Add. MS 34508, fos. 110–11; Ellis Coir., 1, 83–4.

45 L.M.B. 1684–7, PP. 86–7; Luttrell, , I, 375Google Scholar; Ellis, Corr., I, 111–12, 118–19Google Scholar; Barillon, 29 Apr. 1686 N.S., P.R.O., PRO/31/3/165; Morrice MS P, pp. 530–2; B.M. Add. MS 25372, fos. 28, 40, 46–7, 69; Macdonald, , Dublin Rev., CLXXX, 265.Google Scholar

48 B.M. Add. MS 34512, fo. 34, 25372, fo. 117; Macdonald, , Dublin Rev., CLXXXI, IIGoogle Scholar; Morrice, MS P, p. 570Google Scholar; early in June the guard was cut to one company of the trained bands, L.M.B. 1684–7, p. 88.Google Scholar

47 H.M.C. Portland, III, 397Google Scholar; P.R.O., SP 8/4, no. 9; B.M. Add. MS 25372, fos. 244–5, 252–3; the ambassador lived outside the City, towards Westminster.

48 B.M. Add. MS 34508, fo. 135, 29561, fo. 546, 25373, fo. 46; Morrice MS P, p. 658; the lieutenancy had in fact sent out two companies: L.M.B. 1684–7, P. 105d.

49 B.M. Add. MS 25374, fos. 210–11, 226–7, 34510, fo. 58; the evidence does not make it clear whether these incidents occurred in the City or in Westminster.

50 B.M. Add. MS 34510, fos. 126–7, 134–5, 139, 25376 fos. 172, 176–7, 34487, fo 9; Portland MSS, PwA 2175.

51 Macaulay, , II, 466Google Scholar; Steele, R., Tudor and Stuart Proclamations (Bibliotheca Lindesiana, Oxford, 1910), I, no. 3876; P.R.O., SP 44/56, pp. 441, 444; London Gazette, 24–27 Sept.Google Scholar

52 P.R.O., SP 44/56, p. 448.

53 P.R.O., SP 31/4, fos. 41–2.

54 ibid., fos. 79, 8IA; Reresby, pp. 511–12.

55 P.R.O., SP 31/4, fo. 82; H.M.C. 7th Report, Appendix, p. 412.

56 The Catholics Molyneux and Teynham were put out on 17–18 October: London Gazette, 15–18, 18–22 Oct.; P.R.O., SP 44/56, p. 497, SP 44/97, p. 1; but the Catholic lords lieutenant of Somerset and Hampshire (Lord Waldegrave and the duke of Berwick) were not replaced until 6 November, the day after William landed: P.R.O., SP 44/97, p. 11; Bodleian, Carte MS 130, fo. 24.

57 P.R.O., SP 31/4, fo. 114; Reresby, p. 517; Sir Lowther, J., Viscount Lonsdale, Memoir of the Reign of fames II (York, 1808), pp. 49–50Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 34512, fo. 112. On 16 Oct. Newcasde was told not to give commissions to Papists, P.R.O., SP 44/56, p. 455.

58 Norfolk Lieutenancy Jnl., p. 89.Google Scholar

59 P.R.O., SP31/4, fo. 131.

60 Ibid., fos. 101–3; Vellacott, P. C., ‘The Diary of a Country Gentleman in 1688‘, Camb. H.J., II (1926), p. 56; B.M. Add. MS 34173, fo. 39.Google Scholar

61 Bramston, , pp. 325–6.Google Scholar

62 H.M.C. Kenyon, pp. 198–202, 205–6Google Scholar; H.M.C. le Fleming, pp. 221–2Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 41805, fos. 91, 136. According to H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 213, Derby had met most of his old deputies on 8 October.Google Scholar

63 B.M. Add. MS 41805, fos. 261, 266, 275. I am not entirely convinced of the reliability of the diary of Derby's movements printed in H.M.C. Kenyon, pp. 198–202, especially with regard to his motives. It was written some time later, when Derby was concerned to exaggerate and antedate his commitment to William, especially as his influence in Cheshire was threatened by Delamere, whose commitment had obviously been complete. See H.M.C. Kenyon, pp. 205–7.Google Scholar (Delamere became lord lieutenant of Cheshire in 1689: Western, , Monarchy and Revolution, p. 275.Google Scholar Presumably this was a reward for his services rather than a recognition of his interest.) There is some independent evidence that Derby was unwilling to do an7thing to stop Delamere: H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 222.Google Scholar

64 H.M.C. ph Report, Appendix, p. 412; B.M. Add. MS 41805, fos. 245–7.Google Scholar

65 B.M. Add. MS 41805, fos. 234, 238. He referred especially to Warwickshire whose lord lieutenant, Sunderland, was in a state of psychological collapse: Kenyon, J. P., Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland (London, 1958), pp. 217–26.Google Scholar

66 P.R.O., SP31/4, fos. 135B, 181; B.M. Add. MS 41805, fos. 85, 96, 109–10; Ailesbury, 1, 181–2.

67 Ellis Corr., II, 299, 306; the fact that Lovelace allowed himself to be taken by the militia led some to question his courage (when sober), Bodleian, Carte MS 130, fo. 303.

68 P.R.O., SP 44/97, p. 8; B.M. Add. MS 41805, fo. 142; H.M.C. 7th Report, Appendix, p. 348; Langdale tried hard to strengthen the garrison, Victoria County Hist., East Riding, I, 115Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 41805, fos. 74, 89, 133; P.R.O., SP 44/97, p. II.

69 Reresby, pp. 527–33; H.M.C. Leeds, p. 26; B.M. Add. MS 34517, fos. 46–7, 41805, fos. 241–4, 264; H.M.C. 7th Report, Appendix, p. 420.

70 Reresby, p. 536; Bodleian, Ballard MS 45, fo. 20; The History of the Late Revolution in England (1689), pp. 164–6.Google Scholar

71 B.M. Add. MS 29563, fos. 342–3, 359; Great News from Nottingham (5 Dec.); Universal Intelligence, no. 4 (18–22 Dec.); Morrice MS Q, pp. 337, 370–1.

72 Norfolk Lieutenancy Jnl., pp. 93–7Google Scholar; Bodleian, Ballard MS 45, fo. 20; Bohun, E., History of the Desertion (2nd ed., 1689), p. 87.Google Scholar

73 Kenyon, J. P., The Nobility in the Revolution of 1688 (Hull, 1963), pp. 12–14Google Scholar, and Pinkham, L., William III and the Respectable Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), pp. 136–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, both argue that William deliberately chose to land in the West rather than in the North because he did not want too much English support. However it seems more likely that his landing there was primarily a matter of chance, dictated mainly by the wind: Western, , Monarchy and Revolution, pp. 265–6Google Scholar; Jones, J. R., The Revolution of 1688 in England (London, 1972), pp. 281, 288–90.Google Scholar

74 P.R.O., SP3I/4, fos. 81A, 100, 158; B.M. Add. MS 41805, fo. 72.

75 B.M. Add. MS 41805, fo. 120; Kenyon, , Nobility, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

76 His son, the earl of Worcester, had been deprived of his regiment in the army in 1687: Morrice MS Q, p. 122.

77 P.R.O., SP 31/4, fo. 138; B.M. Add. MS 41805, fos. 156–7.

78 P.R.O., SP 44/97, p. 18; B.M. Add. MS 41805, fos. 178, 196, 293, 34487, fo. 44.

79 B.M. Add. MS 41805, fo. 129; Kenyon, , Nobility, pp. 15–17Google Scholar; Clarke, , II, 230Google Scholar; Morrice, MS Q, pp. 322, 332Google Scholar; Bath's defection to William doubtless owed much to a desire to protect his interest in the South-West, as his great local rival, Edward Seymour, had already joined William: Jones, , Revolution of 1688, pp. 161–3, 296.Google Scholar

80 B.M. Add. MS 34487, fo. 17; Macpherson, J., Original Papers Containing the Secret History of Great Britain (1775), I, 288–9.Google Scholar

81 The London Gazette (5–8 Nov.) put William's army at 14,352 but a Dutch list put it at only 11,212: marquess of Cambridge, ‘The March of William of Orange from Torbay to London - 1688’, jnl. of the Soc. for Army Historical Research, XLIV (1966), 152–3.Google Scholar For James's, army, see Miller, Eng. Hist. Rev. (1973), pp. 45–7Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 34510, fo. 160, 34517, fos. 68–9; Morrice thought that James had about 25,000 men when he confronted William: Morrice, MS Q, p. 322.Google Scholar

82 H.M.C. Kenyon, p. 202Google Scholar; P.R.O., SP 31/4, fo. 83, SP 44/97, p. 14; Clarke, , II, 237Google Scholar; Campana, , II, 374.Google Scholar

83 Campana, , II, 265, 307; above, n. 28.Google Scholar

81 Reresby, pp. 509–10; B.M. Add. MS 34510, fo. 151.

85 A Diary of Several Reports (1704), pp. 6, 9–15, 28Google Scholar; H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 228Google Scholar; Revolution Politicks, pt VI, 74–8Google Scholar, pt vii, 79; Diary of Abraham Delapryme (Surtees Soc., 1870), pp. 10, 13–16.Google Scholar

86 Macaulay, , II, 501–18Google Scholar; Clarke, , II, 215–26;Google ScholarMacpherson, , I, 289–95.Google Scholar

87 B.M. Add. MS 34487, to. 38, 34510, fos. 177–8, 34517, fos. 38, 41; Clarke, , II, 217–18Google Scholar; Macpherson, , I, 293–5.Google Scholar Morrice thought James had brought back at least 20,000 men (out of 25,000): Morrice MS Q, pp. 333–4. In the north, some regular soldiers deserted to Delamere: B.M. Add. MS 41805, fo. 232.

88 Luttrell, , I, 465Google Scholar; Campana, , II, 282, 290.Google Scholar

89 L.M.B. 1685–8, Oct.-Dec. 1688; Ellis Coir., II, 230–1Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 34510, fos. 151–2, 34512, fo. 109, 15397, fos. 342–3; Luttrell, , I, 467Google Scholar; H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 214.Google Scholar

90 B.M. Add. MSS 34487, fo. 29, 34510, fos. 158, 161, 34512, fos. III, 118; H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 216; Dalton, C., English Army Lists and Commissions Registers 1661–1714 (London, 1892–1904), II, 210. The City lieutenancy does not seem to have been particularly anxious at this stage; only one company of the trained bands was on guard at night during October: L.M.B. 1685–8, 8–31 Oct. 1688.Google Scholar

91 B.M. Add. MS 25377, fo. 58.

92 Luttrell, , I, 472Google Scholar; Ellis Corr., II, 269; B.M. Add. MS 15397, fos 382–3, 25377, fo. 93, 29563, fo. 312, 34510, fos. 160–1, 164–5.

93 B.M. Add. MSS 25377, fos. 100, III, 15397, fos. 399–400, 34510, fo. 169; H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 218.Google Scholar Soon after the riots of 3 and 4 Nov., James ordered the Franciscans to leave their chapel in Lincoln's Inn Fields, which they did, under guard, on 16 Nov. (the day before Queen Elizabeth's accession day): Thaddeus, Fr, The Franciscans in England (London, 1898), pp. 163–4.Google Scholar

94 Morrice, MS Q, p. 317Google Scholar; Luttrell, , I, 474Google Scholar; H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 219Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MSS 15397, fos. 428–30, 25377, fos. 135–6 According to a near-contemporary pamphlet, the rumours of gridirons and ‘Protestant bridles’ were started by one Honeywood and ‘Justice Payn’ respectively: A Diary of Several Reports, pp. 22, 36. Various figures were given for the number killed: Terriesi put it at seven or eight (B.M. Add. MS 25377, fo. 136), the coroner's jury at ‘four or more’ and a correspondent of the duke of Beaufort at only one (Bodleian, Carte MS 130, fo. 313). Four, the figure given by Morrice (MS Q, p. 317), was probably about right.

95 Morrice, MS Q, pp. 323, 337Google Scholar; Luttrell, , I, 477 gives a different, rather garbled version, which refers to the crowd as ‘loyal persons’.Google Scholar

96 Hatton Corr., ed. Thompson, E. M. (Camden Soc., 1878), II, 100Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 34510, fos. 173, 177, 179–80; Luttrell, , I, 475Google Scholar; householders were again told to keep their children and apprentices indoors: A Diary of Several Reports, p. 25; six companies of the trained bands were on duty in the City on 5 Nov. and seven on the 17th: L.M.B. 1685–8, 4 and 16 Nov. 1688.Google Scholar

97 B.M. Add. MS 25377, fos. 145–6, 151; H.M.C. 7th Report, Appendix, p. 349Google Scholar; L.M.B. 1685–8, 26 Nov. 1688. (In Dec. 1686 the trained bands consisted of six regiments of between 1,587 and 1,910 men; there were eight companies in each regiment: L.M.B. 1684–7, p. 106b.)

98 B.M. Add. MS 34510, fos. 189, 191; H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 222Google Scholar; H.M.C. 2nd Report, Appendix, p. IIGoogle Scholar; Ellis Corr., II, 325–6Google Scholar; H.M.C. 7th Report, Appendix, pp. 349–50, 417Google Scholar; P.R.O., SP 44/97, p. 20, SP 44/339, p. 32; on 24 Nov. it was again rumoured that James intended to quarter troops in the City itself: Morrice, MS Q, p. 326.Google Scholar

99 B.M. Add. MS 25377, fos. 170–1.

100 Revolution Politicks, pt. VIII, 11–14Google Scholar; A Diary of Several Reports, pp. 14–15, 35, 37–9Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 25377, fos. 174–5. On 27 Nov. a German boy of about fourteen was found with ‘fireballs’ which he said had been given to him by a Frenchman. It transpired that they were left over from a recent firework display and he was released: An Impartial Account of the Late Discovery of the Persons Ta\en with Fireballs in Southward (1688).Google Scholar On 28 Nov. there was a rumour that Titus Oates had been poisoned; there seemed to be a serious danger of disorder until a prudent citizen sent to the gaol and ascertained that he was alive and well: Morrice, MS Q, p. 337. My emphasis on rumour may seem excessive, but in a crisis what is believed to be true often has a far greater influence on events than what is actually true.Google Scholar

101 A Diary of Several Reports, p. 38Google Scholar; Luttrell, , I, 484Google Scholar; H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 228Google Scholar; Bodleian, , Ballard MS 45, fo. 20; The Portledge Papers, p. 51Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MS 25377, fos. 200–1; Universal Intelligence, no. 1 (II Dec.); Morrice, MS Q, p. 345.Google Scholar

102 For text and comments, see Bohun, , History of the Desertion, pp. 88–91Google Scholar; it was dated 28 Nov. and had appeared in London by 8 Dec.: Luttrell, , I, 485Google Scholar; Bodleian, Ballard MS 45, fo. 20. (It seems also to be mentioned in a letter dated 4 Dec.: Ballard MS 45, fo. 19). It was read at Nottingham on 7 Dec.: Univ. Intelligence, no. 2 (11–15 Dec.); English Currant, no. 2 (12–14 Dec.). The papal nuncio's dispatch of 17 Dec. N.S. mentions a paper, perhaps this, being scattered in the streets: B.M. Add. MS 15397, fos. 493–4. See also Speke, H., Some Memoirs of the Late Happy Revolution (Dublin, 1709), pp. 37–9, 59–61Google Scholar; idem., Secret History of the Happy Revolution (1715), pp. 32–44.Google Scholar Speke is highly unreliable, even claiming that James asked him whether he should flee to France: Secret History, pp. 60–3. It is clear that Speke alone was not responsible for ‘Irish night’; his Declaration (if he wrote it) appeared in most parts of the country on 7 or 8 Dec, while most of the ‘Irish’ panics started on or after the 12th. The Declaration did probably serve to intensify considerably the prevailing fears of Papists and Irish. See the judicious discussion in Sir Mackintosh, J., History of the Revolution of 1688 (London, 1834), pp. 531–2.Google Scholar

103 Morrice, MS Q, p. 351.Google Scholar

104 B.M. Add. MS 25377, fos. 202–4; a captain of the trained bands was shot by one of his men outside Terriesi's house, but reports differ as to whether it was accidental or because he ordered the trained bands to fire on the crowd: Eng. Currant, no. 2 (12–14 Dec); London Mercury, no. 1 (n.d.).

105 B.M. Add. MS 25377, fos. 204–8; Luttrell, , I, 486Google Scholar; Eng. Currant, no. 2 (12–14 Dec.); London Mercury, no. 1.Google Scholar Both Morrice and the Dutch ambassador wrote that Barillon's house escaped sacking because he paid his debts whereas the Spanish ambassador did not. This (as Morrice remarked) seems surprising, especially in view of the panic fears of the French at this time. It seems more likely that the Spanish embassy was simply attacked first, while Barillon had more time to arrange for the defence of his embassy: Morrice MS Q, p. 352; B.M. Add. MS 34510, fos. 198–9. The Carmelites claimed rhat the trained bands were very negligent and reluctant to protect Catholic chapels, and that some of the soldiers joined the rioters at Wild House (the Spanish embassy); Zimmerman, B., Carmel in England (London, 1899), pp. 324–5.Google Scholar

106 Western, , Monarchy and Revolution, p. 293Google Scholar; Portledge Papers, p. 52Google Scholar; Universal Intelligence, no. 1 (11 Dec); Morrice, MS Q, pp. 352, 354Google Scholar; Ellis Corr., II, 352Google Scholar; B.M. Add. MSS 22183, fo. 144, 25377, fos. 216–17. For ‘Irish night’, see Mackintosh, , pp. 531–2Google Scholar; Luttrell, , 1, 487Google Scholar; H.M.C. Portland, III, 420–1.Google Scholar On 13 Dec. the City lieutenancy set up 29 field pieces in various parts of the City: L.M.B. 1685–8, 13 Dec. 1688.

107 Morrice, MS Q, p. 361Google Scholar; L.M.B. 1685–8, 17, 19 and 24 Dec. 1688.

108 B.M. Add. MS 25376, fos. 188–9, 209.

109 Eng. Currant, no. 4 (19–21 Dec); Orange Gazette, no. 4 (7–10 Jan. 1689); Univ. Intelligence, no. 2 (11–15 Dec); Eng. Currant, nos. 7 and 3 (28 Dec-2 Jan., 14–19 Dec). There is a fine collection of Gazettes, broadsides and newspapers from late 1688 and early 1689 in Cambridge University Library, ref. Sel.3.235.

110 Luttrell, , I, 487Google Scholar; Univ. Intelligence, no. 3 (15–18 Dec); H.M.C. 2nd Report, Appendix, p. IIGoogle Scholar; Morrice, MS Q, pp. 359, 361.Google Scholar

111 H.M.C. le Fleming, p. 229; Eng. Currant, no. 4 (19–21 Dec.); London Mercury, nos. 3 and 8 (18–22 Dec, 3–7 Jan.).Google Scholar

112 Reresby, pp. 531, 542–3; Norfolk Lieutenancy Jnl., pp. 95–6.Google Scholar The earl of Salisbury's house at Hatfield was saved from attack because the militia happened to be there: Univ. Intelligence, no. 3 (15–18 Dec.).

113 Univ. Intelligence, no. 3 (15–18 Dec); cf. two rather sketchy accounts in Beloff, pp. 40–3, and Sachse, W. L., ‘The Mob in the Revolution of 1688’, Jnl. of British Studies, iv (1964), pp. 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

114 Luttrell, , I, 468Google Scholar; London Courant, no. 4 (18–22 Dec); Univ. Intelligence, no. 6 (26–29 Dec).

115 London Mercury, no. 7 (31 Dec-3 Jan.); Eng. Currant, no. 7 (28 Dec-2 Jan.). On 30 Nov. a rumour (apparently started by an anonymous letter) had swept Bury St Edmund's, to the effect that the Papists planned to blow up the town: Bodleian, Tanner MS 28, fo. 273, Ballard MS 45, fo. 20. Some regarded the pretence of searching for Papists as merely an excuse for breaking into houses: Diary of Samuel Newton, ed. Foster, J. E. (Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., 1890), p. 96.Google Scholar A letter to the duke of Beaufort (dated 27 Nov.) refers to a proclamation by William ‘to forbid any of the king's collectors to receive any of the revenue of the crown’ (Bodleian, Carte MS 130, fo. 309). I can find no evidence of such a proclamation, although William was seizing money already collected by the king's revenue collectors: B.M. Add. MS 41805, fo. 168; London Gazette, 8–12 Nov. 1688. However, belief that William had issued such a proclamation might seem to legitimate refusal to pay taxes.

116 London Mercury, nos. 5 and 7 (24–27 Dec, 31 Dec-3 Jan.).

117 Morrice, MS Q, pp. 324, 326, 338, 358Google Scholar; Ailesbury, I, 204–6Google Scholar; Vellacott, , Camb. H.J., II, 57Google Scholar; London Mercury, no. 5 (24–27 Dec); Eng. Currant, nos. 2 and 5 (12–14 and 21–26 Dec).

118 Irish panics at Boroughbridge on 28 Dec. and in Pembrokeshire early in Jan. seem to have been the last: London Mercury, no. 8 (3–7 Jan.); Univ. Intelligence, no. 10 (5–8 Jan.).

119 Eng. Currant, no. 7 (28 Dec.-2 Jan.); William's order was not issued until 31 Dec.: Steele, 1, no. 3941.

120 Eng. Currant, no. 4 (19–21 Dec.); H.M.C. Cowper, II, 345.Google Scholar

121 Pinkham, , pp. 192–4Google Scholar; Clarke, , II, 240–2.Google Scholar