Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:58:31.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Militancy and Localism: Warwickshire Politics and Westminster Politics, 1643–1647 (The Alexander Prize Essay)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Ann Hughes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most discussions of political divisions in the counties controlled by parliament during the civil war have taken place within a very clear framework. Following the work of Professor Everitt on the ‘county community’, the main conflict is judged to have been between gentry who sought to defend the integrity of the local community and those who were prepared to sacrifice local autonomy to the needs of the national struggle. Within this polarity, moderate or neutralist gentry were the champions of localism while the more ‘extreme’ parliamentarians were nationally minded. Thus Mr. Pennington described how ‘Localism, compromiseand social conservatism opposed centralism, militancy and Revolutionary Puritanism’, while in The Revolt of the Provinces, Dr. Morrill coupled ‘conservatism and localism’. In one of the most recent formulations, Professor Underdown wrote of ‘the now familiar conflict between nationally minded militants and locally minded moderates [which] can be found in all the parliamentarian counties’. Only Professor Holmes has challenged this consensus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 31 , December 1981 , pp. 51 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1981

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 Everitt, A. M., The Local Community and the Great Rebellion (Historical AssociationPamphlet, G. 70, London, 1969)Google Scholar; Pennington, D. H., ‘The County Community at War’, The English Revolution 1600–1660, ed. Ives, E. W. (London, 1968), p. 73Google Scholar; Morrill, J. S., The Revolt of the Provinces: Conservatives and Radicals in the English Civil War 1630–1650 (London, 1976), e. g. p. 120Google Scholar; Underdown, D., ‘“Honest” Radicals in the Counties 1642–1649’, Puritans and Revolutionaries: Essays in Seventeenth Century History presented to Christopher Hill, ed. Pennington, D. and Thomas, K. (Oxford, 1978), p. 191Google Scholar. Holmes, C. (The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974)Google Scholar, and ‘Colonel King and Lincoln-shire Politics 1642–1646’, Historical Journal, 16 (1973), 451–84)Google Scholar emphasizes the interrelationships between local and national politics.

2 Ashton, R., The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution 1603–1640 (London, 1978), pp. 221–2, is one exampleGoogle Scholar.

3 'C.J., III, pp. 121, 127.

4 D.N.B., VI, pp. 1151–3. For doubts about Denbigh's loyalty, see below, and P.R.O., SP. 18/3/103–04, accusations of 1644 but presented again by William Purefoy in 1649; for 1647, see L.J., IX, pp. 351–74; for 1648–49, see Ashton, , English Civil War, pp. 344–5Google Scholar; for attendance at the Council of State, see Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1649–1650, p. lxxv; for nomination to local committees, see Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, ed. Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S. (3 volumes, London, 1911), IIGoogle Scholar, passim; for the petition to Charles II, see , H.M.C., Seventh Report, Appendix, pp. 223b–24bGoogle Scholar.

5 P.R.O., SP. 18/3/103; , H.M.C., Denbigh, pp. 78–9Google Scholar (Denbigh Civil War Letters (microfilm at Warwick County Record Office), vol. 1/96 (Conway)); B.L., Egerton MS. 785, fo. 58V; 787, fo. 80r (Denbigh to Sir Samuel Luke who farmed Leigh's Bedfordshire estates).

6 For Brooke's seizure of power in 1642, see Hughes, Ann, ‘Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire 1620–1650’ (Liverpool University Ph.D. thesis, 1980), pp. 250–87Google Scholar; for William Purefoy, see Mercurius Aulicus, 29 12 1643, and Quarter Sessions Order Book, Easter 1625 to Trinity 1637, ed. Ratcliff, S. C. and Johnson, H. C. (Warwick County Records, vol. I, Warwick, 1935), p. xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

7 Hughes, , ‘Politics, Society and Civil War’, pp. 298–306Google Scholar.

8 For the situation in spring 1643, see P.R.O., SP. 28/4/116 (notes of loans raisedby the committee to avert mutiny) and SP. 28/253B (examinations by the accounts subcommittees of soldiers who had served at Warwick).

9 P.R.O., SP. 28/121A (musters of the county forces, 1643–44).

10 Acts and Ordinances, I, pp. 88–100; P.R.O., SP. 28/136 (the accounts ofMajor James Castle (foot) and Captains Thomas Layfield and Richard Creed (horse), showing the system at work).

11 Based on an analysis of soldiers’ accounts in P.R.O., SP. 28, and on P.R.O., E. 121 (certificates for the sale of crown lands which include details of soldiers’ arrears).

12 Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 60, fos. 127 8.

13 This total is estimated from surviving parish accounts and assessment orders of the committee in P.R.O., SP. 28.

14 P.R.O., SP. 28/184 (parish accounts of Tysoe).

15 For the petition, with signatures, see House of Lords Record Office, Main Papers, 21 August 1644.

16 For the Recruiter election see The Scottish Dove, 7–12 11 1645, and The Life, Diary and Correspondence of Sir William Dugdale, ed. Hamper, W. (London, 1827), p. 83Google Scholar.

17 Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 62, fo. 201.

18 Denbigh Family Letters (microfilm at Warwick County Record Office), vol. 1/24, no date, but the most compromising of a series of reproachful letters, and very probably the one intercepted. For Denbigh's vindication, see C.J., III, p. 226. For his doubts about the Covenant, see ibid., p. 249. His stance was typical of ‘peace party’ adherents (Pearl, Valerie, ‘Oliver St John and the “Middle Group” in the Long Parliament, August 1643 ‘May 1644’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxxxi (1966), 497–8)Google Scholar.

19 Denbigh Civil War Letters, 1/33.

20 L.J., VI, pp. 3256; Denbigh Civil War Letters, 1/13, 2/133–4.

21 P.R.O., SP. 16/501/59 (Denbigh to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, 2 April 1644). See , H.M.C., Sixth Report, Appendix, p. 8aGoogle Scholar (Humphrey Mackworth to Denbigh, 13 March, explaining the committee's attitude).

22 P.R.O., SP. 16/501/75, 79 (Denbigh to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, 15 & 16 April).

23 P.R.O., SP. 16/501/98 (the same to the same, 28 April).

24 For examples see P.R.O., SP. 21/18, p. 103 (the Committee of Both Kingdoms to the Coventry committee, May 1644, urging it to allow its horse to stay with Massey); SP. 21/16, p. 94 (Waller to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, July 1644, complaining that Coventry wanted their troops ‘home againe’).

25 For examples see the parish accounts of Grendon (P.R.O., SP. 28/183/18), Wishaw (SP. 28/185, f° s- 390–401), Brailes and Priors Hardwick (SP. 28/184).

26 Holmes, , ‘Colonel King’, 483Google Scholar.

27 , H.M.C., Sixth Report, Appendix, pp. 27b–28aGoogle Scholar (the committee's Remonstrance to the parliament, 23 September 1644, in answer to the charges of the petitioners).

28 An example is Captain Waldive Wellington, Governor of Tamworth, who in the autumn of 1644 summarily ejected Denbigh's troops from his garrison (see P.R.O., E. 113/1/2 (Willington's account of his service, 1661), and B.L., Add. MS. 28,175, fo. 114r (Collections for a History of Tamworth)).

29 , H.M.C., Denbigh, p. 78Google Scholar.

30 P.R.O., SP. 16/501/59.

31 Denbigh's receipts (P.R.O., SP. 28/34/290); the committee's (SP. 28/247/2–3). The contrast is even greater when it is remembered that much of the money raised in Warwickshire did not go to the committee's treasurer but was received directly by the troops.

32 P.R.O., SP. 28/136 (Peyto's accounts).

33 B.L., Add. MS. 11,332, fo. 98r; 11,333, fo. 15r, (Brereton's letter books).

34 Morrill, , Revolt of the Provinces, p. 55Google Scholar; Holmes, , Eastern Association, p. 2Google Scholar.

35 P.R.O., SP. 21/8, pp. 171, 285, 289; SP. 21/20, p. 320.

36 Holmes, , Eastern Association, pp. 89–108Google Scholar.

37 See L.J., VI, p. 92, for Denbigh's ordinance which specifically confirmed existing officers in their posts—a clause which the county committee exploited to the full in December 1643. In the spring of 1644 the Committee of Both Kingdoms agreed with the Warwickshire committee that the relief of Gloucester took precedence over Denbigh's Shropshire expedition and often showed impatience with the earl's complaints (P.R.O., SP. 21/18, pp. 60–1: the Committee to Denbigh, 12 April 1644).

38 In May 1644 Denbigh complained to the Committee of Both Kingdoms that he could never be effective while the Warwickshire revenue was ‘wholly and only disposed of by the Committee of Coventry’ (P.R.O., SP. 16/501/125). In December 1643 he wrote to ‘Mr Moore’ (probably John Moore of Liverpool) asking him to consult with John Wilde of Worcestershire and Michael Noble of Staffordshire about the passing of a new ordinance (Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 62, fo. 402).

39 Hexter, J. H., The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1941), pp. 118–32Google Scholar; Ashton, , English Civil War, pp. 109–10Google Scholar; Pearl, , ‘Oliver St John and the “Middle Group”’, pp. 494–5Google Scholar.

40 Wentworth took Denbigh's ordinance for raising £6,000 to the Lords on 20 June1643 (C.J., III, p. 137). For Wilde see above, n. 38. Throughout this essay, information on the national political affiliations of M.P.s is taken from Underdown, D., Pride's Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971), AppendixGoogle Scholar; Glow, Lotte, ‘Political Affiliations in the House of Commons after Pym's Death’, B.I.H.R., xxxviii (1965), 48–70Google Scholar, and Mulligan, Lotte, ‘Property and Parliamentary Politics in the English Civil War’;, Historical Studies, 16 (1975), 341–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 ”L.J., VI, p. 321.

42 ”C.J., III, pp. 326–8; L.J., VI, pp. 320–1; B.L., Add. Ms. 31,116, fo. 98r (Laurence Whitaker's diary of proceedings in the House of Commons). The conflict of authority became bogged down in a committee that never reported (C.J., III, pp. 335, 337. 352; L.J., VI, pp. 324–6, 335–6, 354).

43 B.L., Add. MS. 31,116, fo. 8gr; C.J., III, p. 298.

44 Denbigh Civil War Letters, 2/20 (Thomas Leving to Denbigh, 23 July, on the organization of the petition).

45 House of Lords Record Office, Main Papers, 21 August 1644.

46 ”L.J., VI, pp. 651–4.

47 House of Lords Record Office, Main Papers, 3 August 1644; , H.M.C., Sixth Report, Appendix, pp. 27b–28aGoogle Scholar. The Warwickshire committee claimed it had not organized a counter petition because it would increase divisions, but its lack of popular support caused some derision in the Commons. D'Ewes described Purefoy's delivery of a counter petition to a Staffordshire petition with 3,000 signatures calling for Denbigh's return to the midlands, ‘pretending to be the petition of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Warwickshire but that proved false in the issue for it was a private petition made in Towne here, framed by some nine persons’ (C.J., III, p. 646; B.L., Harleian MS. 166, fo. 126V (D'Ewes'Journal of the House of Commons), 30 September).

48 Kishlansky, M., ‘The Creation of the New Model Army’, Past & Present, 81 (1978), p. 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 B.L., Harleian MS. 166, fo. 107r.

50 L.J., VII, p. 51.

51 B.L., Harleian MS. 166, fo. 153r.

52 C.J., 111, p. 700. The tellers were Strode, the younger Vane, Wentworth, Sir Henry Heyman, Sir Robert Pye and William Heveningham. Pye was a very moderate member and little is known about Heveningham's views at this time, although he was to sit in the Rump.

53 C.J., III, p. 700. The tellers were Stapleton, Potts, Strickland, Henry Darley, Simon Thelwall and Robert Reynolds.

54 B.L., Harleian MS. 166, fo. 107r. For the importance of regional considerations, see Mulligan, ‘Property and Parliamentary Polities’.

55 C.J., III, p. 700. There is a tradition that the first vote only passed because some of Denbigh's supporters were at dinner (Ashton, , English Civil War, p. 222)Google Scholar.

56 C.J., III, p. 700.

57 England's Remembrancer of London's Integrity or Newes from London (London, 1647), p. p17Google Scholar; cf. Colonel King's view of the Lincolnshire committee (Holmes, , ‘Colonel King' p. 467)Google Scholar. For a modern criticism of committee rule see Morrill, , Revolt of the Provinces, pp. 52–3, 64–6, 73–80Google Scholar.

58 Bryan, John, A Discovery of the Probable Sin (London, 1647), p. 3Google Scholar.

59 For a full discussion of the Committee for Taking the Accounts of the Whole Kingdom and its local sub-committees, particularly in Warwickshire, see Pennington, D. H., ‘The Accounts of the Kingdom’, Essays in the Economic and Social History of Tudor and Stuart England in Honour of R. H. Tawney, ed Fisher, F. J. (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 182–203Google Scholar; see also Hughes, , ‘Politics, Society and Civil War’, pp. 383–93Google Scholar.

60 Ashton, , English Civil War, pp. 276–7Google Scholar.

61 Lincolnshire and Somerset are examples (Holmes, , ‘Colonel King’, pp. 474–5Google Scholar; Morrill, , Revolt of the Provinces, pp. 69–70)Google Scholar.

62 For appeals from the sub-committees of accounts to London, see P.R.O., SP. 28/ 254/5, fos. 70r, 99V, 108v, 122r, 130r. Boughton often attended the Committee for Taking the Accounts of the Whole Kingdom when the misdeeds of the Warwickshire county committee were under discussion (SP. 28/252 (Order Book of the Accounts Committee), pp. 2, 195). Bosvile and Purefoy transmitted the county committee's objections to many of the newly nominated accounts committeemen in 1644 (ibid. (Warrant and Letter Book of the London Accounts Committee), fos. 10r–v).

63 Kishlansky, M., ‘The Emergence of Adversary Politics in the Long Parliament’, Journal of Modern History, 49 (1977), 617–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Divisions concerning Warwickshire support Professor Underdown's view that such issues were approached on party lines, rather than Dr. Morrill's argument that there was no clear correspondence between local and national issues (Underdown, , Pride's Purge, pp. 38–9Google Scholar; Morrill, , Revolt of the Provinces, pp. 122–4)Google Scholar. See, for example, the votes on whether there should be an addition to the county committee (November 1646) andon whether Coventry should be ‘disgarrisoned’ (March 1647) (C.J., IV, p. 722; V, p. 104; Holmes, ‘Colonel King’, 481–2)Google Scholar.

65 B.L., Add. MS. 31,116, fo. 305V, gives an example of Boughton's criticisms of the Warwickshire county committee (March 1647).

66 L.J., VIII, p. 474; C.J., V, p. 85.

67 The Warwickshire Recruiter election is one example. For the use of the press by rivals in Lincolnshire, see Holmes, , ‘Colonel King’, 455, n. 20, and 457Google Scholar.

68 Scottish Dove, 13–20 May 1646, 21–29 January ‘646. See also Weekly Account, 20–27 January 1647, and Perfect Occurrences of Everie Daie Journall in Parliament, 9–16 April 1647. There were also many specific satires on county committees like The Poore Committee-man's Accompt (London, 1647)Google Scholar or the play by Samuel Sheppard, The CommitteeMan Curried (London, 1647)Google Scholar.

69 The militia ordinance was repealed on 15 December 1648 (Acts and Ordinances, III, pp. lxv–lxvi).