Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:36:26.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law and Order in Seventeenth-Century England: The Organization of Local Administration during the Personal Rule of Charles I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2011

Henrik Langelüddecke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two of the most significant factors in the development of European nation states are the enforcement of the law and the political relationship between central government and the provinces. The establishment of powerful national institutions in the Middle Ages, the successful incorporation of its geographical fringes, and the involvement of local elites in implementing national law and policies have made England a challenging subject to test this interaction between the center and the localities. Although this relationship could never be free of tensions, reflection on the context of the English Civil War has suggested a new interpretation. Pursuing the inquiries initiated by the so-called “gentry controversy” in the 1950s and 1960s, a group of historians has studied individual counties and argued that, for local aristocrats and gentlemen, provincial values and issues took precedence over national policies. The Civil War, in their view, appeared to be a conflict between an increasingly interventionist and “nationalizing” central government and semiautonomous shires.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 49 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 1997

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. On the “gentry controversy,” see Zagorin, Perez, “The Social Interpretation of the English Revolution,” Journal of Economic History 19, no. 3 (1959): 376–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hugh Trevor-Roper, “The Gentry 1540–1640,” Economic History Review Supplement 1 (n.d.); Hexter, Jack, “Storm over the Gentry,” in Reappraisals in History, ed. Hexter, Jack (London 1961), 127–62Google Scholar; Stone, Lawrence, “The Social Origins of the English Revolution,” in The Causes of the English Revolution 1529–1642, ed. Stone, Lawrence (London, 1972), 26–41Google Scholar. For an exploration of the antagonism between Westminster and the counties, see Everitt, Alan, The Local Community and the Great Rebellion (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Everitt, Alan, Change in the Provinces (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Morrill, John, The Revolt of the Provinces (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Fletcher, Anthony, Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England (New Haven/London, 1986)Google Scholar.

2. The most prominent study of the Personal Rule is Sharpe, Kevin, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven/London, 1992)Google Scholar. For a more specific analysis of local government during the Personal Rule, see Langelüddecke, Henrik, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I: The Administrative Work of Parish Officers in the 1630s” (D.Phil, thesis, University of Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar.

3. Somers, Margaret, “Citizenship and the Place of the Public Sphere: Law, Community, and Political Culture in the Transition to Democracy,” American Sociological Review 58, no. 5 (1993): 587–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Herrup, Cynthia, “The Counties and the Country: Some Thoughts on Seventeenth-Century Historiography,” Social History 8, no. 2 (1983): 169–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Somers, “Citizenship,” 598.

5. See Webb, Sidney and Webb, Beatrice, English Local Government: The Parish and the County (London, 1906), 387–411Google Scholar.

6. See Moir, Esther, The Justice of the Peace (Hammonsworth/Baltimore/Victoria, 1969), 65, 89Google Scholar; Landau, Norma, The Justices of the Peace 1679–1760 (Los Angeles, 1984), 213, 221Google Scholar.

7. See Youngs, Frederic, “Towards petty sessions: Tudor JPs and Divisions of Counties,” in Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G.R. Elton from His American Friends, eds. Guth, Delloyd and McKenna, John (Cambridge, 1982), 201–16Google Scholar. Concerning preliminary sessions six weeks before quarter sessions, see 22 Henry VIII, ch.10 and 33 Henry VIII, ch.10. On the revocation in 1544 because of the trouble to call all Grand Juries of the hundreds, see Higgins, G. P., “County Government and Society in Cheshire c. 1590–1640” (M.A. thesis, University of Liverpool, 1973), 81Google Scholar; Quintrell, Brian, “The Government of the County of Essex 1603–1642” (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1965), 52Google Scholar; Davies, Margaret, The Enforcement of English Apprenticeship: A Study in Applied Mercantilism 1563–1642 (Cambridge, Mass., 1956), 214Google Scholar. Concerning Privy Sessions, see Davies, English Apprenticeship, 214, 217; Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 135; Hurstfield, Joel, “County Government c. 1530-c. 1660,” eds. Pugh, R. and Crittall, Elizabeth, Victoria County History, Wiltshire V (Oxford, 1957), 91Google Scholar; Quintrell, “Essex,” 52. Concerning meetings of overseers and churchwardens, see 39 Elizabeth I ch. 3. Concerning meetings of high and petty constables, see Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 130; Morrill, John, Cheshire 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), 8Google Scholar; Quintrell, “Essex,” 54, 58.

8. Youngs, “Petty Sessions,” 215–16.

9. Ibid., 201, quoting Barnes, Thomas, Somerset 1625–1640: A County under the Personal Rule (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), 200CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Book of Orders and Directions, 31 lanuary 1631 (new style), British Library: Add. MSS 12496, ff. 263–91. The best accessible versions are in Historical Collections, ed. Rushworth, John (London, 1656–1680), vol. 2, part 2, appendix, 82–89Google Scholar; Eden, Frederic, The State of the Poor, 2d ed. (London, 1965), 156–60Google Scholar.

11. Barnes, Somerset, 178, 181–82, 187; Moir, Justice of the Peace, 65.

12. Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 57–59, 123–34.

13. Landau, Justices of the Peace, 28–30, 211–13.

14. Youngs, “Petty Sessions,” 202.

15. All certificates are in the Public Record Office: State Papers Domestic [hereafter cited as SPD], Charles I; Great Britain, ser. 2, 1625–1702; SPD 16.

16. A few recent studies have focused on the involvement of subordinate officers in local administration and the various pressures they experienced. See Sharpe, James, “Enforcing the Law in the Seventeenth-Century English Village,” in Crime and the Law; The Social History of Crime in Western Europe since 1500, eds. Gatrell, V., Lenman, B., and Parker, G. (London, 1980), 97–119Google Scholar; Wrightson, Keith, “Two Concepts of Order: Justices, Constables, and Jurymen in Seventeenth-Century England,” in Ungovernable People: The English and Their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century, eds. Brewer, John and Styles, John (London, 1980), 21–46Google Scholar; Kent, Joan, The English Village Constable 1580–1642: A Social and Administrative Study (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar; Langelüddecke, “Secular Policy Enforcement.”

17. Hertfordshire 111, Shropshire 86, Somerset 81, Sussex 87; Bedfordshire 6, Warwickshire 9, Oxfordshire 13, Nottinghamshire 12. See also Table 1.

18. SPD 16/267–3, 314–131 and 347–50 compared with 177–52; and, e.g., 185–6 compared with 191—43, 250–70, 329–84.

19. SPD 16/424–112, 364–119, 393–99, 347–70.

20. SPD 16/351–108, 192–40, 177–31, 251–19, 316–81, 348–94.

21. See The Phillimore Atlas and Index of Parish Registers, ed. Humphery-Smith, Cecil (Chichester, 1984)Google Scholar. Concerning Lancashire, see, e.g., SPD 16/267–39, parishes of Warrington and Winwick, and 273–23, parishes of Bolton and Dean.

22. The continuity of the Cambridgeshire divisions is evident insofar as all of them were named after the hundreds they incorporated.

23. Compare, e.g., SPD 16/193–34, 220–18 (West) and 194–9, 220–17 (East) with 328–72, 301–47, 348–28, 348–17.

24. Compare, e.g., SPD 16/198–11, 247–47, 266–4 with 383–57 and 329–56, 427–3.

25. Compare SPD 16/190–20 and 192–79 with 272–44, 329–24 and 301–104, 364–27.

26. Compare SPD 16/244–38 and 190–70 with 329–48 and 426–67.

27. Unified in SPD 16/190–54 (May 1631), separated in 271–56 and 271–84 (July 1634).

28. SPD 16/184–60, 193–25, 203–67, 258–35, 377–182.

29. The hundreds of Staploe, Flendish, Cheveley, and Staine, SPD 16/189–81–II. Until 1636, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire had a joint sheriff, although their commissions of the peace were distinctively separated from each other.

30. SPD 16/189–9–VIII, 250–47; the three Yorkshire ridings had separate commissions of the peace.

31. The only surviving, albeit fragmentary, examples of petty sessions minutes are Dorset Record Office: petty sessions minutes for Purbeck, holden at Wareham, 1638, D/PLR D 320/X 4; The Case Book of Sir Francis Ashley, JP, Recorder of Dorchester 1614–1635, ed. Bettey, J. H. (Dorset Record Society 7, 1981)Google Scholar; Kent Archive Office (Maidstone): Dering MSS U 570/O 1, f. 133 (Edward Dering's Justice's Notebook).

32. Hundreds of Witheridge, South Molton, and North Tawton, SPD 16/252–23.

33. Wildish division of Bramber rape, SPD 16/348–43; hundreds of Bingham, Broxtow, Rushcliff, and part of Thurgarton a-Legh, 329–57 (because of the spreading of the plague by vagrants).

34. Hundreds of Chesterton, Papworth, and North Stow, SPD 16/270–12; hundreds of Bullington, Thame, and Dorchester, 293–10; similar in the Andover division/Hampshire, 400—57.

35. Dorchester division, SPD 16/262–64; hundreds of Clackclose, Freebridge Lynn, and Freebridge in Marshland, 329–13, 415–121 (confirmed by 349–47 and 395–32, where they referred to “monthly meetings"). Similar in two unnamed divisions of Norfolk, 265–63, 272–60.

36. West hundred, SPD 16/273–24; Toseland hundred, 237–72; Hurstingstone hundred, 237–70; Leightonstone hundred, 237–71.

37. Three little hundreds in Horncastle Session, SPD 16/189–58; hundreds of Pershore and Evesham, 215–27.

38. Simultaneous certificates in, e.g., Huntingdonshire, SPD 16/201–19, 201–20, 201–21; Northamptonshire, 220–17, 220–18. The importance of divisions rather than counties to JPs is acknowledged also by Sharpe, Personal Rule, 627; Hurstfield, “County Government,” 88.

39. E.g., Dorchester division/Dorset, SPD 16/233–44, 250–38, 262–64; hundreds of Ongar, Harlow, and Waltham/Essex, 246–91, 347–73, 393–60; Bramber rape/Sussex, 189–16, 216–76, 363–130.

40. Rawlinson MSS C 827, f. 40, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

41. Dunster hundred, SPD 16/262–70. “Several meetings” were also reported in Buckinghamshire, 269–40, 201–52, 281–85, 281–86; Cambridgeshire, 216–45, 285–99, 328–67, 364–26, 395–11 (the last four are from the hundreds of Staploe, Flendish, Cheveley, and Staine); Derbyshire, 316–23; Dorset, 250–38, 203–76, 260–111; Hampshire, 250–11—III, 188–19; Hertfordshire, 182–40, 185–27; Lincolnshire, 281–82, 220–58; Northamptonshire, 192–84–I; Somerset, 230–55, 273–5; Surrey, 272–22; Wiltshire, 220–29 (added: “from time to time"), 218–41, 247–25; Yorkshire, 293–129, 250–47, 317–11, 293–130, 189–8–X, 206–94; Glamorganshire, 193–64.

42. Berkshire, SPD 16/206–33, 314–131, 347–50; Hampshire, 250–11–I, 185–70, 188–101; Surrey, 268–15.

43. Monmouthshire, SPD 16/329–86, 270–17.

44. Berkshire, SPD 16/367–3; Cambridgeshire, 189–75, 269–64, 271–41, 273–4, 274–45, 275–53, 277–90 (the last six, again, from the hundreds of Cheveley, Staploe, Flendish, and Staine); Dorset, 233–44; Essex, 393–60; Hertfordshire, 211–26, 215–88, 257–97; Lincolnshire, 294–31; Norfolk, 329–12, 310–104; Northamptonshire, 194–9, 224–3, 271–26; Oxfordshire, 291–81; Rutlandshire, 186–69; Somerset, 193–35, 219–46, 176–18 (“met together”); Staffordshire, 342–104; Sussex, 363–130 (“met together”), 426–19; Flintshire, 185–75.

45. Berkshire, SPD 16/225–8, 267–37, 314–79; Hampshire, 248–69; Kent, 203–91; Wiltshire, 289–19 (“often assembled”).

46. Northamptonshire, SPD 16/220–18, 220–17; Wiltshire, 220–29; Yorkshire, 294–6.

47. Hertfordshire: hundreds of Hertford and Braughing, SPD 16/364–73; Leicestershire: West Goscote hundred, 201–27, East Goscote hundred, 201–26; Lincolnshire: wapentakes of Corringham and Well, and the Isle of Axholme, 220–58, Manley wapentake, 223–54; Sussex: Downish division of Pevensey rape, 351–106; Warwickshire: Hemlingford hundred, 200–40 (but here the JPs of the whole county met at a special session because of the plague).

48. Hundreds of Whittlesford, Chilford, and Radfield, SPD 16/271–85.

49. Toseland hundred, SPD 16/201–21; Hurstingstone hundred, 201–19; Leightonstone hundred, 201–20.

50. SPD 16/193–78 (county), 293–9. Yet two references at Nottinghamshire quarter sessions suggest that the notion of petty sessions existed in this county. See Nottinghamshire Record Office: QSM 1/75/2 (11 January 1636) and 1/76/1 (18 January 1638).

51. SPD 16/273–55.

52. SPD 16/288–94. There were similar gaps in the Salisbury division/Wiltshire in 1632: 13 December, 29 December, but then 17 March, 2 April, 9 June (221–17).

53. E.g., Berkshire: Newbury division, SPD 16/176–35; Buckinghamshire: Desborough hundred, 277–4; Essex: Becontree hundred, 244–38; Hampshire: New Forest division, 250–11-II; Yorkshire: wapentakes of Birdforth and Allertonshire, 188–26, Agbrigg wapentake, 189–55. During the first years of the Book of Orders, Shropshire particularly suffered from lack of JPs: Munslow hundred, 224–13; Overs hundred, 197–17; Oswestry hundred, 192–60. Quintrell, “Essex,” 42, 44, has blamed the purges during the 1620s as another cause of undermanned divisions.

54. Caroline proclamations: Royal Stuart Proclamations 2, ed. Larkin, John (Oxford, 1983), no. 56, 112–13Google Scholar (1626); no. 77, 170–72 (1627); no. 159, 350–53 (1632). Moir, Justice of the Peace, 55, claims that only a minority of the gentry lived in London. Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 368, denies the breakdown of local government as a result of the gentry's absence in London, although he admits (10–11) that many JPs were alone in their divisions and, consequently, overwhelmed by their work. See also the discussion in Heal, Felicity, “The Idea of Hospitality in Early Modern England,” Past and Present 102 (1984): 82–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55. Hundreds of Repton and Gresley, SPD 16/192–96.

56. SPD 16/188–94. Similar remarks from Overs hundred/Shropshire, 197–47, and New Forest division/Hampshire, 250—11—III.

57. Newbury division, SPD 16/176–35.

58. SPD 16/369–94; 336–37. Amounderness hundred reported in July 1638 that JP Banaster had been in London all Easter and Trinity term (395–105).

59. E.g., North hundred of Bradford/Shropshire, SPD 16/262–66 (two JPs usually, 260–62, 271–93). The effect on parish officers is unknown, and the constables of Nether Whitacre/ Warwickshire did not seem to question the legality of their actions when they repeatedly referred to only one JP who issued their orders. However, in 1636, the overseers of neighboring Fillongley did not refrain from remarking in their account that, at the fifth meeting, “some of the Justice did not come.” Warwickshire Record Office: DRB 27/9 (1632 and 1637); DR 404/87.

60. SPD, 16/284–61, 284–27, 351–107, 284–61. Quintrell, “Essex,” 56, measured a radius of action for most JPs between seven and eight miles but observed that diligent JPs (due to the negligence of their colleagues) soon found themselves in charge of more than one division. The Easter quarter session of the North riding for 1635 referred to occasional activities of JPs across divisional borders. See Quarter Sessions Records 4, ed. Atkinson, J. (North Riding Record Society, 1885), 32Google Scholar. Similar examples exist for other counties, e.g., Hertfordshire: JP Caesar in Broadwater hundred (SPD 383–57) and in the hundreds of Edwinstree and Odsey (e.g., 349–71, 351–114, 364–48); Northamptonshire: JP Gooday in the hundreds of Higham Ferrers and Hamfordshoe (328–72, 348–18) and in the hundreds of Huxloe and Orlingbury (348–16); Shropshire: JP Corbett in the North hundred of Bradford (315–26, 349–106) and in the Newport division of the South hundred of Bradford (342–110); Suffolk: JP Bacon in Wangford hundred (e.g., 329–43, 364–102) and in Harteswere hundred (e.g., 329–31, 349–12); Sussex: JPs Goringe and Leeds in Arundel rape (e.g., 314–115) and in the downish division of Bramber rape (e.g., 314—103).

61. Birdforth wapentake, SPD 16/188–26. Moir, Justice of the Peace, 64, assumes that JPs neglected remote parts due to the long distances and difficult communication.

62. SPD 16/330–96, 330–97; 193–53, 272–41. See also JP Lytton in Broadwater hundred (329–56, 349–70) and Hitchin halfhundred (351–113–1, 383–57), Hertfordshire hundreds, which until 1634 had formed one division. Wrightson, Keith, “The Puritan Reformation of Manners with Special Reference to the Counties of Lancashire and Essex, 1640–1660” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1973) 156Google Scholar, concluded from JPs' engagement in other divisions that they were understaffed.

63. E.g., SPD 16/349–15, 314–25, 386–110.

64. Regarding attendance patterns, see particularly Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 87.

65. The total number of JPs was subject to fluctuations. For instance, in Somerset there were between thirty-seven and fifty-seven (Barnes, Somerset, 41); in Hertfordshire the total declined from sixty-one to fifty-three between 1620 and 1630. See Calnan, Julie, “County Society and Local Government in the County of Hertford c.1580–c.1630 with special reference to the Commission of the Peace,” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1978)Google Scholar. In 1631, only a few sheriffs notified the Privy Council about the distribution of their JPs: Buckinghamshire, SPD 16/187–1; Hampshire, 191–27; Hertfordshire, 189–78; Leicestershire, 190–42; Middlesex, 181–21; Norfolk, 191–44–I; Wiltshire, 188–33. Libri Pacis listed all the JPs in England and Wales but did not refer to their divisions. For this period, Libri Pacis survived only for 1632 and 1638 (SPD 16/212 and 405). Yet a large number of the listed JPs were mere notabilities and prominent honorary members. The list of the 1630 Hertfordshire JPs reveals that this applied to twenty-one out of the fifty-three members of the commission of the peace. See Calnan, “County Society and Local Government,” appendix, xiv.

66. For a more detailed discussion about JPs' signatures, see Langelüddecke, Henrik, “Die Durchführung des Book of Orders Karls I. von 1631 bis 1639” (M.A. thesis, University of Heidelberg, 1990)Google Scholar, chapter 2.4.

67. Concerning the offices, see Lambard, William, The Duty and Office of High Constables of Hundreds, Petty Constables, Tythingmen and such inferior officers of the peace, ed. Brown, W. (13th ed., London, 1677)Google Scholar. The surveyors of the highways were obliged to attend according to Direction 12, although almost no certificate mentions their presence.

68. Moir, Justice of the Peace, 65; Barnes, Somerset, 200.

69. Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 125; Kent, The English Village Constable 1580–1642, 191–93.

70. SPD 16/188–102; 202–54.

71. SPD 16/185–94; 182–40, 185–27.

72. SPD 16/348–95; 189–80.

73. E.g., Berkshire: borough of Abingdon, SPD 16/192–14; Derbyshire: hundreds of Repton and Gresley, 185–94; Sussex: North of Hastings rape, 185–80.

74. E.g., Huntingdonshire: Norman Cross hundred, SPD 16/386–108; Leicestershire: West Goscote hundred, 193–90; Northamptonshire: West division, 290–18; Yorkshire: wapentakes of Agbrigg and Morley, 386–107.

75. E.g., Dorset: borough of Shaftesbury, SPD 16/188–67; Essex: hundreds of Chafford and Barstable, 190–70; Leicestershire: Goodlaxton hundred, 193–20; Lincolnshire: Loveden hundred, 272–99.

76. E.g., Lincolnshire: hundreds of Gartree, Wraggoe, and the Soke of Horncastle, SPD 16/342–105; Surrey: borough of Southwark and Brixton hundred, 259–28.

77. E.g., Lancashire: Leyland hundred, SPD 16/273–57, Blackburn hundred, 273–55; Sussex: Chichester rape, 243–18; Warwickshire: Hemlingford hundred, 293–65.

78. E.g., Somerset: an unnamed division, SPD 16/221–57; Staffordshire: Totmonslow hundred, 266–17.

79. E.g., Leicestershire: Goodlaxton hundred, SPD 16/200–24; Lincolnshire: hundreds of Corringham and Well, 271–99; Shropshire: South hundred of Bradford, 224–2; Sussex: Arundel rape, 220–41.

80. County, SPD 16/186–92–I; the JPs of Staincross wapentake in Yorkshire “called the country before us” (294–6).

81. SPD 16/314–79; 281–85.

82. Oxfordshire: county, SPD 16/258–31, hundreds of Lewknor, Pirton, and Ewelme halfhundred, 291–81; Leicestershire: Framland hundred 210–43, 221–65; 202–52, 216–102.

83. Hundreds of Morleston, Appletree, and Litchurch, SPD 16/218–6.

84. SPD 16/293–129.

85. Surrey: e.g., West division, SPD 16/248–61; Middle division, 190–65; borough of Southwark, 190–66, 259–28; hundreds of Copthorne and Effingham, 272–22. Shropshire: North of Bradford hundred, 188–68; South of Bradford hundred, 224–2; borough of Shrewsbury, 194–17£III; Condover hundred, 215–63, 224–1; hundreds of Clun and Purslow, 223–53, 246–39.

86. CW = Churchwardens, OV = Overseers, C = Constables. Cheshire Record Office: Marbury CW, MF 283/29 (1631?); Tilston CW, P 18/3608 (1631); Whitegate CW, MF 283/64 (1631, 1640). Derbyshire Record Office: Marston-on-Dove CW, xm 1/331 item 8 (1631); Morton CW, xm 1/45 item 13 (1634–36, 1639–40). East Devon Record Office/Exeter: Buckland in the Moor CW, 2150 A/PW 1 (all years); Lapford CW (Sidemen), 2021 A/PW 1 (1639); Zeal Monachorum CW, 1095 A/PW 1 (1636). North Devon Record Office/Barnstaple: Kings Nympton CW+OV, 3330 A/PO 1 (1636). Hertfordshire Record Office: Ashwell CW, Mf 1018 (1632).

87. Gloucestershire Record Office: Bisley OV, P 47 OV 2/21 (n.d.); Slimbridge OV, P 298 A OV 2/1 (1638). Somerset Record Office: St. Decumans OV, DD/WY Box 37/7 (1638, 1640). Warwickshire Record Office: Fillongley OV, DR 404/87 (all years).

88. Leicestershire Record Office: DE 1605/34, DE 1605/59, DE 1881/41. Staffordshire Record Office: D 113/A/PC/l. Warwickshire Record Office: DR 404/48+49, DR 404/87. Wiltshire Record Office: 1368/55.

89. Staffordshire Record Office: D 1528/4/1.

90. East Devon Record Office/Exeter: 2021 A/PW 1. Leicestershire Record Office: (All Saints) DE 384/36.

91. Cheshire Record Office: MF 283/29; P 18/3608. Shropshire Record Office: 3067/3/1; 3848/CW/1. Gloucestershire Record Office: P 63 CW 2/1.

92. North Devon Record Office/Barnstaple: 1677 A/PW 1. See also the churchwardens' accounts of Buckland in the Moor, East Devon Record Office/Exeter: 2150 A/PW 1.

93. Somerset Record Office: D/P/cam. 4/1/1 (1631); D/P/chl. 4/1/1 (1639). Staffordshire Record Office: D 689/PC/1/1 (1635). Worcestershire Record Office: b 850 Elmley Castle 8883/5(vii).

94. North Devon Record Office: 815 A/PW 1. Leicestershire Record Office: DE 720/30. Shropshire Record Office: 1374/294–298. Morrill, John, The Cheshire Grand Jury 1625–1659: A Social and Administrative Study, Department of English Local History Occasional Papers, 3d ser., vol. 1 (1976), 21Google Scholar, however, denied the constables' role as supervisors of churchwardens and overseers, which he rather attributed to the grand juries.

95. Leicestershire Record Office: DE 720/30; Northamptonshire Record Office: 206p/102; Shropshire Record Office: 3067/3/1. The average sum spent at petty sessions varied between Is and 1 s 6d.

96. See also Kent, Village Constable, 192.

97. Warwickshire Record Office: DR 404/85; Leicestershire Record Office: DE 625/60; Lincolnshire Archive: Croft 12/1; North Devon Record Office/Barnstaple: 815 A/PW 1; Northamptonshire Record Office: 89p/100; Staffordshire Record Office: D 3451/2/2.

98. Shropshire Record Office: 3793/Ch/l; Warwickshire Record Office: DRB 27/9.

99. Norfolk Record Office: Gissing, PD 50/36 (L) (once in 1633?); East Harling, PD 219/126 (once in 1631 and 1632?); Shelton, PD 358/33.

100. Fines: division of Bolton and Dean/Lancashire, SPD 16/334–16. Binding to the next quarter session: limit of Worcester, 386–108; Dorchester division, 194–63–III, 250–38–I. Comment by a Hertfordshire JP: SPD 16/347–67. Confession of negligence by the constable of Marston Trussell on 24 February 1638: Northamptonshire Record Office, 206p/102. Kent, Village Constable, 224, however, makes the important reservation that punishment of negligent constables, in any form, was counterproductive since all the JPs' work depended on their cooperation.

101. See also JPs' returns for Leicestershire: Framland hundred, SPD 16/202–52, 210–43, 216–102, 221–65, Goodlaxton hundred, e.g., 193–20, 196–5, 198–68, 203–52. Derbyshire: hundreds of Appletree, Morleston, and Litchurch, 218–6.

102. Worcestershire Record Office: 850 Salwarpe 1054/2 Bundle D; East Devon Record Office: 1095 A/PW 1.

103. Staffordshire Record Office: D 3539/2/1; Suffolk Record Office/Ipswich, FB.159/68.

104. Cornwall Record Office: Egloskerry C, DDP 53/9/2; St.Thomas by Launceston C, DDP 221/9/2. Lincolnshire Archive: Addlethorpe and Ingoldness C, Addlethorpe 12, Algarkirk C, Algarkirk 12. Somerset Record Office: Bicknoller TM (= Tithingmen), D/P/bic. 13/2/1–11, Charlton Musgrove TM, D/P/ch.mu. 12/2/1, Rode C, D/P/rode 12/2/1. Suffolk Record Office/Ipswich: Cratfield CW+C, FC 62 A6/158–174, Gislingham C, FB 130/12/3–9, Horham C, FC 85/12/8, 9, 13.

105. SPD 16/272–45, 314–87, 347–72; 281–86.

106. E.g., Derbyshire: hundreds of Morleston and Litchurch, SPD 16/199–30; Hampshire: Kingsclere division, 268–23; Leicestershire: Sparkenhoe hundred, 193–89.

107. E.g., Dorset: Bridport division, SPD 16/250–38–II; Oxfordshire: hundreds of Wootton and Ploughley, 291–42; Shropshire: Chirbury hundred, 269–16; Sussex: Bramber rape, 328–74.

108. E.g., Hertfordshire: Broadwater hundred and Hitchin hundred, SPD 16/351–113; Cambridgeshire: hundreds of Staploe, Flendish, Cheveley, and Staine, 275–53; Warwickshire: Knightlow hundred, 293–44.

109. E.g., Berkshire: Forest division, SPD 16/347–71; Cambridgeshire: hundreds of Whittlesford, Chilford, and Radfield, 364–20; Sussex: Wildish division of Bramber rape, 383–85.

110. E.g., Berkshire: Faringdon division, SPD 16/314–132; Northamptonshire: West division, 271–27; Shropshire: borough of Bridgewater, 316–43; Somerset: hundreds of Portbury, Hartcliffe, and Bedminster, 183–49; Sussex: Hastings rape, 188–34.

111. SPD 16/382–71.

112. SPD 16/197–52.

113. SPD 16/194–9; 198–51; also Finsbury division/Middlesex and Forest division/Berkshire: 268–14; 196–90. Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 135, and Davies, English Apprenticeship, 187, stressed the importance of high constables as coordinators between parish and county officers.

114. Leicesteshire Record Office: DE 720/30. It is not evident whether Abraham Bishop was the high constable.

115. Shropshire Record Office: 1374/294.

116. Leicestershire Record Office: Branston, DE 720/30 (e.g., 1637); Stathern, DE 1605/56 (e.g., 1632); Waltham, DE 625/60 (e.g.1637). Personal presence is likely when the constable of Horham/Suffolk, in 1640, laid out 18d “at Stradbrooke for the deliv in of the Pettie session bill & my Dynner” (Suffolk Record Office/Ipswich: FC 85/12/9 [my emphasis]).

117. Somerset Record Office: D/P/ilm.4/1/2(1638); Leicestershire Record Office: DE 1881/41 (1637). Many divisions met at one constant place. Berkshire: hundreds of Ock, Homer, and Moreton, SPD 16/347–49; Herefordshire: hundreds of Grimsworth and Huntingdon, 330–96; Hertfordshire: Cashio hundred and the liberty of St.Albans, 418–21; Lancashire: Leyland hundred, 291–128, 334–16, Blackburn hundred, 330–19, parishes of Bispham, Poulton, Kirkham, and Lytham, 330–64; Lincolnshire: hundreds of Candleshoe and Bolingbroke, 294–33; Northamptonshire: hundreds of Higham Ferres and Hamfordshoe, 318–72, 348–18, hundreds of Huxloe and Orlingbury 348—16; Surrey: hundreds of Copthorne and Effingham 349–13, Wallington hundred 268–43.

118. North Devon Record Office/Barnstaple: 1469 A/PC 6 (1631); Lincolnshire Archive: Croft 12/1 (1632, 1635, 1637); Northamptonshire Record Office: 206p/102 (1633–39). Jones, J. Gwynfor, “Caenarvonshire Administration: The Activities of the Justices of the Peace 1603–1660,” Welsh History Review 5, no. 2 (1970): 147Google Scholar, considers the enforcement of poor relief, for instance, next to impossible, solely on grounds of the vast distances JPs in North Wales had to cover.

119. SPD 16/198–33; 269–109. For average figures, see, for instance, Cornwall: Trigg hundred, 273–37 (12 parishes), North division of the East hundred, 238–45 (13), hundreds of Penwith and Kerrier, 230–47 (19); Devon: hundreds of Stanborough and Coleridge, 257–95 (19), hundreds of Crediton, West Budleigh, and Wonford West, 263–74 (16); Hampshire: hundreds of Fawley, Bountisborough, and Mainsborough, 189–9 (28); Hertfordshire: Edwinstree hundred, 190–44–V (34), Broadwater hundred and Hitchin halfhundred, 190–44–IV (30), Hertford hundred, 190–44–I (17). Yet, most likely, the certificates mentioned only those parishes whose officers were present: e.g., the Salisbury division/Wiltshire, 250–17 (14), 263–85 (11), 278–112 (13).

120. Barnes, Somerset, 77, wondered whether Westminster ever recognized the magnitude of work the Book of Orders required.

121. The coordinating role of high constables, though difficult to establish, deserves more research.

122. Yet, in a fascinating document, Hertfordshire constables highlighted the dubious circumstances under which they drafted reports on the collection of Coat and Conduct Money in 1640: SPD 16/457–56.